The Song of the Strange Ascetic

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

If the BSA is denied HUD funding for not following the nondiscrimination requirements, they are being denied for not following the nondiscrimination requirements, not for being a religious organization. ALL applicants have to follow the HUD requirements, whether they are religious organizations or not.

 

If you don't meet the requirements, you aren't eligible. Sound familiar?(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[RobK]

I admit the NEA comparison is far from perfect; the point was to show that the government spends our money on things each of us don't like. In your case, the BSA, in mine, artists like Maplethorpe.

 

The beliefs of the BSA (as the BSA currently interprets them) require them to disallow homosexuals and atheists. To refuse to fund the BSA based on this is to discriminate against them because of their religous and moral beliefs. This is the problem with government leaving the narrowly defined powers given in the Constitution: If they refuse to fund based on religion they're discrimnating against religion, if they fund religous based things, they're promoting it. Ergo, the government should stop funding stuff not expressly required by the Constitution.

 

As to HUD being allowed to require a Nondiscrimnation agreement... It was legal for Selma to require blacks to ride at the back of the bus. Not everything that's legal is moral, not everything that's moral is legal.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

To refuse to fund the BSA based on this is to discriminate against them because of their religous and moral beliefs.

 

So do you think the government should be required to fund other discriminatory groups that apply, like the KKK?

 

And isn't Selma, by requiring integrated bus service, discriminating against someone who wants segregated bus service? Makes as much sense as the complaint that the government is discriminating against the BSA for not funding programs that discriminate.

[firstpusk]

From the majority opinion of Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

 

"First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster 'an excessive government entanglement with religion.'"

[firstpusk]

Adrianvs, science does not speak to the personal beliefs of a scientist. I have known scientists that were Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Budhist and atheist. It does not matter what they believe. It only matters that they are willing to assume that the world can be observed and something can be reasoned from those observations. It seems to me that you would probably have more than a few theorhetical physicist that would be comfortable as idealists. If you don't believe me, talk to one.

[Adrianvs]

"Adrianvs, science does not speak to the personal beliefs of a scientist."

 

Sure it does. All scientists believe in science. They believe in scientific empiricism. They believe in reason. All of the theoretical physicists that I have know about were mathematicians, not empirical scientists. I agree that a mathematician may also be an idealist. In fact, many of the historical idealists have been mathematicians or placed a high value in mathematics. That has never been the issue.

 

"It only matters that they are willing to assume that the world can be observed and something can be reasoned from those observations."

 

That is correct. Just as some religions state that God exists and some state that He does not, so do some religions state that the physical world exists and some that it does not. Empirical science, just like the BSA, takes a religous stance whether its adherents realize it or not.

 

Merlyn says that the government cannot fund organizations which require a belief in X. He happens to take the case where X is God. He refuses to take the case where X is the physical world. Both are religous issues for some people. There are a lot more government grants going to groups which discriminate on the latter issue than on the former.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Merlyn says that the government cannot fund organizations which require a belief in X.

 

No, I haven't.

[firstpusk]

"Empirical science, just like the BSA, takes a religous stance whether its adherents realize it or not."

 

You are absolutely wrong on this. Empirical science takes no stand on religion. It is outside of the purview of science. Just as my view on the designated hitter rule does not impact my ability and opportunity as an internal auditor, the personal religious beliefs of a scientist are not germane to them being a scientist.

[RobK]

No Merlyn, you've missed it completely. I think the federal government should follow the Constitution which forbids it from funding anything except the narrowly defined things outlined in it. HUD shouldn't be funding the BSA, the KKK, the ACLU, the NAACP or any other group. HUD should not exist! Private groups do a better job, and no one's toes get stepped on.

 

BUT, if they are going to fund groups, then they should not discriminate against the BSA based on its religous/moral beliefs.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

robk writes:

BUT, if they [HUD] are going to fund groups, then they should not discriminate against the BSA based on its religous/moral beliefs.

 

They don't. They require everyone to follow their nondiscrimination requirements.

 

And HUD seems to fall within "promote the general welfare"

[packsaddle]

Adrianvs, I must have missed something during your statements about 'idealists'. I have been called this many times (usually in the pejorative). But since I walk the walk, I have to side with firstpusk in that I think I am and that many of my colleagues are idealists. Some of them also hold a variety of religious beliefs (and yes, some are atheists). However, science is not a religion in spite of scientists' occasional fervent approach to ideas. To me the difference is exemplified by the experiment. The experiment is designed, more than anything else, to attempt to discredit an idea that otherwise seems plausible. The success of the experiment, in fact, is measured by how critically it performs that test. In this sense we strengthen our ideas by attempting to disprove them, and we (usually) accept opposing evidence especially if we can reproduce the evidence through repetitive experiments. I have tried to think of a religion that subjects its creeds and beliefs to such tests, willing to admit their falsehood if they fail. And I have been unable to name one. If anyone else can, I'd be interested to learn.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[RobK]

Merlyn says regarding my assertion that HUDs nondiscrimination requirements violate BSA's religous freedom: They don't. They require everyone to follow their nondiscrimination requirements.

 

But HUD's nondiscrimination requirements violate BSA's beliefs! You might just as well say "You need not believe in Athena, but you must attend her temple if you want to get government funds!"

 

And HUD seems to fall within "promote the general welfare"

 

Wow! You want it both ways, don't you? I'm simply going to quote the man who wrote the Constitution, James Madison, from Federalist 41. Pardon the length, emphasis added...

 

It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and

collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the

debts, and provide for the common defense and general

welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited

commission to exercise every power which may be alleged

to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.

No stronger proof could be given of the distress under

which these writers labor for objections, than their

stooping to such a misconstruction.

 

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the

Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general

expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might

have had some color for it; though it would have been

difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of

describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases.

A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury,

or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of

conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms

"to raise money for the general welfare."

 

But what color can the objection have, when a specification

of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately

follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a

semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument

ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part

which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be

excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall

the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their

full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied

any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the

enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and

all others were meant to be included in the preceding general

power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use

a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a

recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of

particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general

meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and

mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the

dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection

or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the

liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

 

Full text of Federalist 41 may be found here:

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

robk writes:

Merlyn says regarding my assertion that HUDs nondiscrimination requirements violate BSA's religous freedom: They don't. They require everyone to follow their nondiscrimination requirements.

 

But HUD's nondiscrimination requirements violate BSA's beliefs!

 

HUD isn't infringing on the BSA's beliefs any more than HUD is infringing on the rights of whites-only country clubs by requiring racial nondiscrimination. If you don't meet their nondiscrimination requirements, too bad for you. You might want to review the Wyman lawsuit, where the BSA was legally excluded from the Connecticut State Employee Charitable Campaign for not meeting their nondiscrimination requirements:

http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/untitled196.html

 

And if you think HUD is outside the authority of the consitution, file a lawsuit. I assume you're a federal taxpayer, which ought to give you standing.