School SafeRides program stalls due to religion

[TheScout]

Merlyn, you and the school lawyers have all fell victim to the imperial judiciary that is trying to run this country from the bench.

 

You all follow warped constitutional doctrines.

[Beavah]

Yah, Merlyn, I agree with you, eh? I think that a suit against a public school district that charters BSA units has a very good chance of ultimately prevailing. That's not a done deal, of course, but likely enough as to not be worth the cost to defend (especially when yeh can keep the practice in place with only trivial paperwork changes).

 

But in my mind you keep missin' the bigger picture. Constitutional law is a product of society, it cannot determine society. In the end, its just powers all depend on "the consent of the governed." In a nation where 55% or so of the population believe in biblical creation and 98% believe in a Higher Power, I think it's worthwhile to be listenin' carefully to TheScout and others when they complain of Imperial Judiciary and such. That's a deeply felt sentiment, which if riled will ultimately prevail. Constitutional change, selection of judges and justices, jurisdictional restrictions under Article III, section 2, direction of funding, other legislation, vouchers or per-pupil based school funding, etc. can all be employed when the mechanisms of law run too far afield of the People's view of justice.

 

Dat's why I posted the "Atheist Fundamentalist" thread, eh? I think in your zeal you do your cause considerable harm. The more you use constitutional law to stick your finger in the eye of the majority over issues that are perceived to be relatively trivial or in ways that are perceived to be picking on good causes, the more you generate a backlash that undermines your position. One need only look at America's willingness to re-elect an incompetent but religiously faithful executive, eh? Imagine where you'd be if the conservative side had nominated someone truly capable.

 

If yeh really want to protect the civil rights of non-believers, I think you have to take Greg Epstein's advice, eh? You have to build something, not (just) tear things down. That's how you earn da respect of the society that ultimately gives its consent to be governed.

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah, I don't consider atheists who are defending their civil rights to be "sticking their fingers in the eyes of the majority"; at best, it's sticking their fingers in the eyes of bigots who don't think atheists should have the same rights as anyone else.

[evmori]

Beavah, I don't consider atheists who are defending their civil rights to be "sticking their fingers in the eyes of the majority"; at best, it's sticking their fingers in the eyes of bigots who don't think atheists should have the same rights as anyone else.

 

What atheists right are being violated?

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed. You can't learn things.

 

 

(OGE, The words deleted don't take away from the context of the message) (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[Guest OldGreyEagle]

OK, I am going to try to move things along here. The question is how are atheist rights violated by a public school sponsoring a BSA unit. This has been answered a multiple of times, but what the heck, we are nothing if not repetitious.

 

The public School is sponsoring the BSA unit. The Public School is supported by all taxpayers living in the school system. The public School owns and operates an organization that does not allow all students to join. By refusing atheist membership, the Public School violates one of its operating principles, and that is to not discriminate by Creed/Belief, or in this case lack there-off.

 

Now, it will be argued that nowhere in the COnstitution does it say that this can't be done, but I know from experience that when these types of cases come to court, the BSA unit is dropped. It may not seem fair, others may say its a bad ruling and needs to be overturned, but in these situations I for one do not want my FOS money paying off some Lawyer who started off a doomed path.

 

The Public school owns an organization that is not open to all students. OK, some will say what about football? Gymnastics? Any sporting team or even that Debate Team or "Knowledge Bowl" teams.

 

Well, when you look at the rules under which public schools operate, they CAN discriminate based on physical talent, or mental ability, these arent in the protected classes, Belief systems are. Many schools in my area have an open policy on the athletic team Anyone can show up for practice and be on the team. Now, whether or not the coach will dress a particular member for a game is up to the coach, or take him on a road game trip, but he is a member of the team. No Public School can say no Jews on the baseball team because ethnicity is a protected class, as is Beliefs.

 

Now, I am not by any means a Constitutional scholar. It scares me to think the National Jamboree site for right now is safe because of the make-up of the Supreme Court. TImes change and what happens when the Court changes, we lose Fort AP Hill? We spend thousands in legal fees because we know we are right only to have 5 or more people tell us "not so much?" Are we better off spending our money on facilities that cannot be threatended?

 

How much harder would it have been for the SADD or MADD chapter to sponsor the unit and avoid all this? Why go into a situation knowing if you are challenged in court you will likely lose. I dont mind tilting at windmills, we all need to at times, but this costs big bucks that are better spent in other venues

[Beavah]

Why go into a situation knowing if you are challenged in court you will likely lose.

 

Yah, OGE, I agree. Or rather, I agree that anyone should go into such situations with open eyes, eh?

 

Remember that FOS and Scouting $$ aren't at issue. The cost of defending a suit would be borne by the school district (aka taxpayer).

 

The reasons a school would go into such a situation are two:

 

1) Da local community agrees with the program, and doesn't expect anyone to mount a real challenge, eh? It's worth it to proceed with what they feel will work for kids at least until there's a challenge, and then take a closer look at the cost/benefits of fighting the challenge.

 

or

 

2) Da local community is invitin' a challenge with every intention of making a test case of it, because they believe that's the right thing to do.

 

Both are legitimate exercises by local government. It's OK for our elected officials & school boards to spend tax money, eh? Sometimes #1 turns into #2, as was the case for the Michigan school district that defended its policy of allowing the BSA full access to campus for recruiting purposes (and won, a bit to my surprise - appealed all da way to US Supreme Court, cert denied).

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

OGE, the supreme court hasn't had a chance to do anything with the jamboree lawsuit; the 7th circuit said the lawsuit lacked standing.

 

And it wouldn't make any sense for SADD to sponsor a discriminatory Venture Crew, since they are opposed to discrimination on the basis of religion & sexual orientation. MADD says they don't discriminate on the basis of religion, so a similar argument there.

[TheScout]

It is time some politician pulls an Andrew Jackson again. When he felt the court errored in Worcester v. Georgia he supposedly said, "John Marshall (the Chief Justice) has made his decision, now let him enforce it." And proceeded to let Georgia run its own affairs without interference from Marshall. If a politician did this today with some of the wacky court decisions, I am sure he would be greatly applauded.

[Guest OldGreyEagle]

So, in keeping with Beavah's recent thread on dismantling a Civil Society, what we see advocated is a complete ignoring of the rule of law. If the Supreme Court rules someway and then the Executive Branch says "Screw You" to the Courts and then how long before the Executive Branch says to the Legislature I dont care how many votes you have this is the way it will be? And what if the Republicans lose the White House in 2008? What till 2012 to right the agregious wrongs that have been perpetrated and then in 2016 the other side does the same thing? When do we qualify for Banana Republic status? The whole system of Checks and Balances was built based on each group respecting each other. If that respect is gone, then we are sunk as a society.

 

 

[TheScout]

Jackson is mostly regarded as one of the finest presidents. His face dots the $20 bill to this day.

 

Resistance to illegal government actions has a long history in the United States. From the 1765 Tea Party, to the Patriots of 1775, Shay's Rebellion of 1786, the 1798 Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, the 1814 Hartford Convention, 1832's South Carolina Nullification, the 1861 War Between the States, the 1960's "Massive Resistance." Sometimes such things work, sometimes they do not.

 

We all know that the federal constitution does not give the Supreme Court the exclusive power to say what is constitutional and what is not. Instead of the executive ignoring the Supreme Court, it is the executive also using his power to interpret the constitution. All three branches of our government have the duty to reject actions contray to the constitution.

 

If Congress passes a illegal bill, the President has the duty to veto it. If the President undertakes an illegal action, it is the Congress' duty to impeach him or deprive him of funds or use the other tools at its disposal. The voters will then judge them all.

 

The problem is that people think the Supreme Court must be obeyed, however warped, and contrary to the original intent of the constitution they are. People do not think there is any check. Now that is dangerous.

 

A court using arbitrary authority to rule on whatever social and political questions it desires in any way that it desires can make a country a Banana Republic as easily as any President can.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

OGE writes:

how long before the Executive Branch says to the Legislature I dont care how many votes you have this is the way it will be?

 

Bush has already done this.

 

Here's a report from yesterday about the US General Accounting Office:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070618/D8PRGG0G0.html

...

The limited GAO study examined signing statements concerning 19 provisions in fiscal year 2006 spending bills. It found that in six of those cases the provisions were not executed as written.

 

In one case the Pentagon did not include separate budget justification documents explaining how the Iraq War funding was to be spent in its 2007 budget request. In another, the Federal Emergency Management Agency did not submit a proposal and spending plan for housing, as Congress directed.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

TheScout writes:

Jackson is mostly regarded as one of the finest presidents.

 

Certainly not by the Cherokee.

 

And I find it very illuminating that you would applaud Jackson's aopcryphal remark that the state of Georgia could ignore the sovereignty of the Cherokee nation. I guess you only care about some people's rights to govern themselves.

[TheScout]

The people of the State of Georgia have the right to make rules for any local government in their land.

 

At the time tribal sovereignty was not widely accepted. (It was just imposed by the Supreme Court in another judicial overstretch). Indians were considered wards of the government and not part of the political community.

[evmori]

So I'll take it from the response posted there are no atheist rights that were violated.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10