quasi govt sponsors of BSA units

[NJCubScouter]

Ed says:

 

One of the reasons the Framers left their homeland and came here was to have religious freedom. They didn't want the state dictating their religious beliefs and visa versa.

 

Which is exactly why they created a "wall of separation between church and state."

 

How is the government practicing religion by sponsoring a BSA unit?

 

I didn't say it is. When I mentioned the government practicing religion I was talking about the meaning of the First Amendment religion clause in general. I wasn't talking about the BSA. I think I've explained pretty clearly above why it is unconstitutional for the government to own (not just "sponsor") a unit that excludes atheists, and why in some states a government entity cannot legally own a unit that excludes gay people. As for the exclusion of atheists, it's really more of a problem of denying equal protection of the laws, rather than the government practicing religion, in my opinion.

 

And since the government employs priests and ministers, is that practicing religion?

 

I don't know. Maybe it is. I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to. If you are talking about chaplains in the military, I would say probably not, the government is not practicing religion, it is providing for the spiritual needs of those in the military. If it was doing so on an even-handed basis (which I guess would include providing a chaplain to lead a Winter Solstice service for atheists, if that's what they want), that should be ok.

[evmori]

If you are talking about chaplains in the military, I would say probably not, the government is not practicing religion, it is providing for the spiritual needs of those in the military.

 

If I'm not mistaken, the House or Senate or both employ a chaplain. And even if there are only military chaplains, our tax dollars are funding them.

[vol_scouter]

Remember that the Bill of Rights were added to satisfy the anti-federalists who were concerned that the federal government would become dominant. The two clauses dealing with religious freedom were included for much different reasons than most assume now. The majority (11, I believe) of the original states (under the articles of confederation) had state supported religions. The first amendment provisions were to assure those original thirteen would be able to continue to have state supported religions. It was written to prevent the federal government from dictating religious standards to the states. Under this original interpretation, only federal parks, buildings, etc. would be precluded from supporting a religious viewpoint. The phrase about separation of church and state was written by Jefferson (during his term as president I believe) telling a congregation that he was powerless to intervene because it was a states' rights issue. The interpretation of these and many parts of the constitution changed after the civil war when the country was essentially federalized. Thus, the founding fathers would have not had a problem with the Boy Scouts being sponsored by the states (as opposed to the federal government). So to go back to the founding fathers is to reach different conclusions than subsequent court cases have determined.

 

Atheist groups only believe in preventing religious expression in public, they do not support the free exercise of religion which is given the same importance as the non-establishment clause. In my view, totally preventing the expression of faith in public is condoning atheism. That is the government favoring a particular religious view, the belief that all religions are wrong, and should not be allowed as the sole viewpoint either.

[NJCubScouter]

Ed: So what? As has been pointed out to you many times, two wrongs don't make a right. And it's not the same thing anyway. The government employing a chaplain, and the government excluding someone from one of its programs because that person doesn't believe in God are two completely different things.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

vol_scouter writes:

Atheist groups only believe in preventing religious expression in public, they do not support the free exercise of religion which is given the same importance as the non-establishment clause.

 

Wrong; I notice you give no examples.

 

In my view, totally preventing the expression of faith in public is condoning atheism.

 

I know of no atheist group that advocates the above, and I'm familiar with a great many of them.

[Scoutfish]

 

 

 

 

AMERICAN ATHIESTS INC.

 

Murray v. Curlett (1963) Challenged Bible reading and prayer recitation in Maryland public schools.

Murray v. United States (1964) To force the Federal Communications Commission to extend the Fairness Doctrine so that Atheists could have equal time with religion on radio and television.

Murray v. Nixon (1970) Challenged weekly religious services in the White House.

O'Hair v. Paine (1971) Challenged NASA's religious use of the space program to require astronauts to read the Bible during a space flight.

O'Hair v. Cooke (1977) Challenged the opening prayer at city council meetings in Austin, Texas.

O'Hair v. Blumenthal (1978) Challenged the inclusion of the phrase "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency.

O'Hair v. Hill (1978) To have removed from the Texas constitution a provision requiring a belief in god of persons holding offices of public trust.

O'Hair v. Andrus (1979) Challenged the use of National Park facilities for the pope to hold a Roman Catholic mass on the Mall in Washington, D.C..

O'Hair v. Clements (1980) This case tried to remove the nativity scene displayed in the rotunda of the capitol building in Austin, Texas.

Steel Crosses on Utah Highways (2005) [1]

Society of Separationists vs. Pleasant Grove (2004)

American Atheists vs. Starke, Florida.(2005)[2]

American Atheists, Inc., and Steve Walker vs. City of Detroit, City of Detroit Downtown Development Authority, and Detroit Economic Growth Corporation.

Clyde Baxley, Grace Brown, Edward Byford, Bill Jager, Al Sundquist, James Woolever, Arlen Acharias, and Dorothy Anne Zappa Vs. State of Alaska.

American Atheists Inc., Mark W. Butler v. The City of Jacksonville, Florida (2006) (Sued for the city's tax-funded "Faith Day")[39]

Chester Smalkowski, Nadia Smalkowski, American Atheists v. Hardesty Public School District, The County Of Texas County, Oklahoma, The Town Of Hardesty, Oklahoma. (Filed August 2006)[3]

American Atheists Inc., Lon Bevill, v. City Of Stark, Florida. (2007) [4]

American Atheists Inc., Edwin Kagin, v. Kentucky Office of Homeland Security (2009) [5]

 

 

From Wikipedia

Now, some of thoise lawsuits were actually good, Requiring prayer or bible study in school is not good at all. You might not be of that religion.

 

 

But most of the lawsuits prevent anybody from willining ly saying a persona prayer too. And that's just wrong. Personally, i don't care because I do not have to have people hear me pray in order for my prayers to be real. I can pray just as good inside my head.

 

 

[GernBlansten]

Seems you first need freedom from religion before you can exercise freedom of religion.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Scoutfish writes:

But most of the lawsuits prevent anybody from willining ly saying a persona prayer too. And that's just wrong.

 

Point out one of your laundry list that prevents anyone from willingly saying a personal prayer.

[evmori]

Ya keep moving the target Merlyn. You state

In my view, totally preventing the expression of faith in public is condoning atheism.

I know of no atheist group that advocates the above, and I'm familiar with a great many of them. and when presented with a rather large list that disprove your statement hear nothing and you move on to something else.

 

You are correct NJ, but why isn't their such a big stink from Merlyn and his ilk about his tax dollars paying a preacher as their are about the government chartering a BSA unit? Sound like selective prosecution to me!

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I'm not moving the goalposts at all, Ed. I'm asking which examples in his copied & pasted list are supposed examples.

[vol_scouter]

There have been attempts to remove the chaplains (and to limit what they can say regarding religion outside of an actual religious service) from the US military and from the congress (suit by Newdow). So the atheists steadfastly wish to read only one clause of the first amendment and deny the free exercise of religion. The attempt to remove the cross (a WWI memorial) in the Mojave desert could be the first step in attempting to remove all religious insignia from military cemeteries. Atheists appear to wish never to be exposed to any religious expression. Certainly, such comments have been made to me before. Like everyone, I do not wish to see the federal government establish a state religion but I do not believe purging all religion from government and public functions is correct either. The courts have sent somewhat mixed messages and I suspect that the cross in the Mojave desert that is going to the SCOTUS will define the line differently again.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

vol_scouter writes:

There have been attempts to remove the chaplains (and to limit what they can say regarding religion outside of an actual religious service) from the US military and from the congress (suit by Newdow). So the atheists steadfastly wish to read only one clause of the first amendment and deny the free exercise of religion.

 

Why does the free exercise of religion require government-paid chaplains? Most people don't HAVE government-paid chaplains, so are their rights being limited now? Does the government need to pay for chaplains for everyone?

 

The attempt to remove the cross (a WWI memorial) in the Mojave desert could be the first step in attempting to remove all religious insignia from military cemeteries.

 

Sorry, your wild speculation on what "might" happen don't count when you accuse atheists of actually trying to limit people's religious freedom today. You need to come up with REAL examples, not ones you make up out of whole cloth.

 

Atheists appear to wish never to be exposed to any religious expression.

 

Well, more speculation on your part, with no actual examples.

 

Certainly, such comments have been made to me before.

 

So what? That doesn't constitute atheists attempting to limit people's right to free exercise of religion.

 

Like everyone, I do not wish to see the federal government establish a state religion but I do not believe purging all religion from government and public functions is correct either.

 

Well, you're still coming up short on actual examples.

 

The courts have sent somewhat mixed messages and I suspect that the cross in the Mojave desert that is going to the SCOTUS will define the line differently again.

 

Still waiting for examples from you to support this statement you've made about atheists: "Atheist groups only believe in preventing religious expression in public, they do not support the free exercise of religion"

[boomerscout]

Why does the free exercise of religion require government-paid chaplains? Most people don't HAVE government-paid chaplains, so are their rights being limited now? Does the government need to pay for chaplains for everyone?

Probably because in the military there exists a greater need for Last Rites than in the population at large.

 

[evmori]

I'm not moving the goalposts at all, Ed. I'm asking which examples in his copied & pasted list are supposed examples.

 

Yeah you are Merlyn. Scoutfish's list was a direct answer to your I know of no atheist group that advocates the above, and I'm familiar with a great many of them and you only addressed the comment at the end of his post.

 

And why aren't you going after the government chaplains your tax dollars are directly paying for with the same intensity you are going after the BSA, Merlyn?

 

 

[boomerscout]

I went down to the fire dept and talked with some of the guys. Volunteer Fire Fighters are NOT government employees. They are formed into a non-profit, and are not a government entity or department. The community "gave" them the firehouse for their sole use because the community thought it would be nice to have trained firefighters in the area. Firetrucks are also purchased with taxpayer funds because all agree it enhances community safety & wellbeing. The VFD still holds fundraisers to buy their personal equipment, and to make small improvements in the site. They have contracted with the community to answer fire calls, and do get a small fee for each run they make.

Several have expressed interest in becoming mb counselors, but have no room in the firehouse to hold troop meetings--especially if the fire alarm rings. On the other hand, there is nothing stopping them from being the CO of a troop