Why does bsalegal.org condone gross violations of the Scout Law?

[evmori]

What part is coercive? The promise of the chance of $$$$$$ from a settlement, the promise of fame, etc. Creating unreal fear that "if you let them get away with this then ......."

 

If the ACLU was really about the defending if the Constitution then they would fight for the freedom OF religion not the freedom FROM religion.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[NJCubScouter]

Ed says:

 

What part is coercive? The promise of the chance of $$$$$$ from a settlement, the promise of fame, etc. Creating unreal fear that "if you let them get away with this then ......."

 

Ed, I think you're off-base here for several reasons.

 

First, offering someone money to do something is not "coercion." (Not counting a situation where you owe them the money in the first place but are withholding it, but that's not what we're talking about.) It may be one or more of a number of other things, some legal and some illegal, some proper and some improper, depending on what the "something" is, and sometimes depending on who is making the offer and who is receiving it. But it isn't coercion.

 

Second, although I am not an expert on this type of lawsuit, it is probably rare for a plaintiff in one of them to see all those dollar signs, or even any money at all. Usually these cases result in injunctions (or not) against the enforcement of a particular law or some other government action. If the plaintiff wins, their attorney's fees will usually be paid by the government entity in question (as well they should be; and yes, if the ACLU is involved, that means some of the money will go to the ACLU, as well it should.) But I think it would be unusual, in a case where one has to "go out and find a plaintiff," for the plaintiff to be able to prove any actual damages. Maybe I'm wrong, and Merlyn probably knows this better than I do; but I think I'm right.

 

Third, "fame," Ed? Do you really think that most people who are persuaded to be plaintiffs in a suit against the government are motivated by "fame?" What fame? I suppose your name might be in the paper a couple times, and if your case becomes a "landmark," textbook writers and law students for years to come might connect your name with a particular principle of law. I don't know of too many people outside the legal profession who would be impressed at all with that sort of "fame."

 

And besides, being motivated by "fame" isn't coercion either. "Be a plaintiff in my case or you won't be famous?" Ooh, I'm so scared.

 

The "fear" thing doesn't ring true either. Assuming that the plaintiff actually cares about the cause in which they have been enlisted (probably true in most of the cases against the BSA), sure they are probably concerned about what the government is doing. Isn't that motivation enough? But it isn't coercion.

 

If the ACLU was really about the defending if the Constitution then they would fight for the freedom OF religion not the freedom FROM religion.

 

Actually, the ACLU does get involved in some cases involving Free Exercise of religion, I've read it on their web site. Ed, you may view the "Establishment Clause" as "freedom from religion," but it's in the Constitution whether you like it or not, and whether you like the way the courts have interpreted it or not.

[NJCubScouter]

Bob says:

 

The Web site merely reprinted a newpaper column that appeared in support of scouting. I do not see that they made any other assertions regarding the column.

 

"Support of Scouting" is one thing. Ridiculing a group of people and calling them names is something else. That is exactly what the BSA is engaging in by reposting this article on their web site, which obviously implies an endorsement of the views expressed therein. Not just the views that support the BSA, but the nasty name-calling. What part of the Scout Law says you should mock and ridicule those who disagree with you?

 

You are right about one thing, there are no other assertions about the column, such as "The views expressed in this article do not reflect the view of the BSA." That is why the reposting of the article implies that the BSA shares the views expressed by the writer.

[evmori]

Where in the Constitution is the "Establishment Clause"? I know where the freedom of religion part is!

 

People do different things for fame. To some, being associated with a lawsuit could be their "15 minutes of fame".

 

I never said anyone offered anyone else money. My point was they could be enticed by the promise of a monetary settlement.

 

I really don't see the ACLU as a defender of the Constitution unless it is their version of the Constitution.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Uncleguinea, go to www.maaf.info if you'd like to find real atheists in real foxholes, though some of them may have a hard time getting back to you, since they're deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan. Feel free to email them and tell them they aren't real atheists or something.

 

Ed, you still haven't cited any actual instances of coercion; the stuff you make up out of your own head doesn't count.

[NJCubScouter]

Where in the Constitution is the "Establishment Clause"?

 

Ed, you and I have discussed this about ten times, but ok.

 

The Establishment Clause is in the Constitution right before the "free exercise" clause.

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

 

The Establishment Clause is the reason why there can't be organized prayer in public schools... and why the government cannot engage in a display of religious symbols... and why (when the cases finally get decided) government bodies or subdivisions probably cannot own Boy Scout troops. I know that there is a mistaken belief floating around out there that the courts have decided all these things because of a comment (by Thomas Jefferson) that there should be a "wall of separation between Church and State," but they really haven't been. All of these decisions are based on the Establishment Clause. The "separation of church and state" is an interpretation of the Establishment Clause. The fact is, however, that recent cases have developed a more sophisticated way (or actually ways) of determining whether a particular action violates the Establishment Clause, and some Supreme Court cases I have seen don't even quote the "separation" language.

[Bob White]

merlyn, Nice try changing the topic But I'm not biting. if you want to discuss something else start a new thread. it would be nice if gave an actual reference so that your comment was relevant and accurate.

 

 

NJ, You disagree with his position and instead of debating his point you want to criticize his approach. I can understand that. The course of action of those attacking the BSA has been similar in their approach. Many of the posts opposing the BSA on this forum have been filled with half truths or outright falshoods using invectives toward the entire membership. Just read some of Merlyn's attacks as an easy example.

 

So why the sudden astonishment when one person turns the tables. Is it because you expect something more of a BSA member? and why is that? Because you expect them to have a higher value base? That's why they restrict the membership. Will everyone live up to the tenets of the program? I think more do than don't.

[Achilleez]

Forgive me if I overlooked something, but where exactly did Deloe say that he was an atheist? Have we become so spiritually polarized that anyone who has something to say that doesn't coincide with popular opinion is automatically a member of an opposing religion?

 

Furthermore, I haven't read anything by Deloe that implies he is doing anything other than trying to defend Scout Law, which I beleive is quite important to him.

 

Why have we decided to group him with the atheists and BSA-haters? I for one am glad he picked up on a possible infraction of BSA morals and brought it to attention.(This message has been edited by Achilleez)

[NJCubScouter]

NJ, You disagree with his position and instead of debating his point you want to criticize his approach.

 

OK Bob, this thread has gotten a little complicated, but I think the "his" in this sentence is Mark Pulliam, the writer of the article. That being the case, you miss my point. The writer says what he says, and if he wants to be nasty, that's his right. What I am really questioning is not what the writer says, but (given the approach taken by the writer) why the BSA posted the article on its web site. And yes, I do expect the BSA to live up to its own standards, which they clearly have not done by implicitly (if not explicitly) endorsing this opinion-article, essentially accepting the writer's un-Scoutlike words as their own. In fact, my whole argument against the "gay ban" has been based on the idea that the BSA is not living up to its own standards.

[NJCubScouter]

Let me address this part more directly:

 

So why the sudden astonishment when one person turns the tables. Is it because you expect something more of a BSA member? and why is that? Because you expect them to have a higher value base? That's why they restrict the membership.

 

Bob, I'm right with you until the last sentence. In fact, I'm with you for 99 percent of that sentence, too. I like the values of the BSA, no less than you do. Those values do dictate that certain people not be members of the BSA. But those values do not dictate that all openly gay people be banned, in fact, they dictate the opposite, because exclusion of gays is not a "value," it is a religious doctrine. It may have been a "value" when the BSA was founded, but I need to remind you that racial discrimination was ok with the BSA then, too. Some values have changed.

[evmori]

So the Establishment Clause is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" but what about the next line "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? Isn't prohibiting prayer in public schools a violation of this? And by allowing prayer in public schools, how is that establishing a religion?

 

Meryln,

Why would two families who have nothing to do with Scouting decide to sue the BSA regarding it's lease if they weren't coerced into doing so? Why not sue another organization who has a similar lease with the city? Why pick on the BSA? And by saying "the BSA discriminates" doesn't cut it anymore. The Supreme Court ruled the BSA could set it's own membership guidelines and one of those guidelines is you must believe in God.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed, just come up with actual examples of coercion; I've told you that stuff you make up out of your own head doesn't count.

[evmori]

Merlyn,

Since I am not a member of the ACLU and have had nothing to do with any of their lawsuits, I have no specific examples. All I have are theories. Do you have any evidence to disprove my theories? Or will you ignore this part of the post like you ignored the question part of my last post? You're really good at that!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed, YOU'RE the one who said the ACLU "coerced" people, but now you admit you don't have any evidence of coercion. And I ignored the rest of your statement because it concerned the first amendment, and you don't understand the first amendment.

[packsaddle]

Ed,

Since Merlyn didn't address the rest of your post, I still need a little clarification. I thought that the families and the ACLU sued the city, not BSA. Have I missed something here? If my assertion is correct then I think the answer to your question is easy, they sued because they WEREN'T associated with BSA and were therefore denied access. Or am I mistaken? Anyone want to clarify further?