Merlyn_LeRoy

dsteele writes: In essence, if the chartered organization does not want to agree to uphold the policies of the Boy Scouts of America, as was done in this case, the charter will not be approved by the local council. So why are there still BSA charters to government agencies, which, BY LAW, cannot discriminate on the basis of religion, which the BSA requires?

CubsRgr8 writes Merlyn, BSA does not require belief in a monotheistic God, just belief in God. Why would you conclude that polytheists should be kicked out? You just said it; belief in "gods" is not the same as belief in "god". Also, the BSA has attempted to define "acceptable" religious views in terms of A supreme power of the universe; if someone believes in two gods of equal power, neither is supreme. The BSA's religious requirements seem to require monotheism specifically, which would exclude polytheists.

So, CubsRgr8, do you think polytheists should be kicked out of Boy Scouts? Believing in multiple gods isn't compatible with monotheism.

You guys can slap each other on the back all you want, I'll just have to be content with court decisions like Torcaso v. Watkins, Everson v. board of education, and the one that voided the Boy Scout lease in Balboa Park. And if you want to know what the first amendment means, you might want to read what the AUTHOR of the first amendment, James Madison, wrote in his detached memoranda: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions64.html

ed mori, if you aren't going to bother to tell me what question you're referring to, I'm not going to bother trying to figure it out. You have no idea what the first amendment means, which you make clear by your postings. You think the first amendment doesn't protect atheists (which it does, and several court rulings explicitly state), and you think that not giving the BSA a special land deal not available to the general public somehow constitutes a violation of the BSA's freedom of speech.

overtrained writes: This case did not establish a religion The first amendment refers to "establishment of religion", not "establishment of a religion", and I've referenced Torcaso v. Watkins earlier. The first amendment means a lot more than you think. Ed mori, the city would presumably decide how much is "too much", but they don't seem to have any restrictions; that, too, could be the basis for a lawsuit, since the city is effectively signing over all access to public land to a discriminatory organization.

It's beyond reasonable because the public isn't allowed to use its own park; there's no reason for the city to want to do this. It's taking public property and giving the use of it over to a private, discriminatory group. And yes, discriminating against atheists constitutes "religious discrimination".

And if the swim league excluded Jews, I bet you'd get a court fight. Besides, 100% of summer use is beyond reasonable. Can I lease public land for $1/year and use it all the time for my own use?

ed mori writes: And the lease of the park to the Scouts violates this how? It's a special deal for a religiously discriminatory organization; it would be just as legal for the city to exclusively lease parkland for $1/year to an organization that excludes Jews. OGE writes: Not sure if this should be claimed a victory by the ACLU. As I understand it, the property is open to be used by anyone. According to this article from Feb 2002, the BSA uses the land about 80% of the time, and they have it booked solid in the summer, so only BSA members get to use this public parkland i

ed mori writes: Where in the Constitution does it say anything about what this thread is about? It's that part about "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The 14th amendment applies this restriction to the states, so it no longer only applies to the federal government, but also the state governments. Many supreme court rulings, such as Torcaso v. Watkins, have found that the first amendment prohibits the government from discriminating against atheists by favoring theism. The judge found that the ci

dsteele writes: Merlyn, I'm tired of your vapors. We're not going anywhere, and it seems you're not either. Why you're not more bothered by fencing around Indpendance Hall (the cradle of the freedom you use to try to end government support of the BSA) and seem to be centered on ending any kind of taxpayer support of helping instill values in America's youth, I don't understand. Part of the "values" you're instilling includes denegration of atheists, and you're using MY tax money and MY government to further this, and you still don't understand? The judge in the lease case was quoted as

The opinion doesn't seem to be posted yet, but leasing land (or selling it, for that matter) for less than market rates is tantamount to a subsidy, and the city can't subsidize the Boy Scouts because of their discrimination.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20030731-1429-aclu_scouts.html The Boy Scouts' lease of public land in San Diego's Balboa Park is unconstitutional, a federal judge decided in a ruling released Thursday. District Judge Napoleon Jones Jr. said the Scouts' lease of the 18-acre Camp Balboa in Balboa Park violates provisions in the U.S. and state constitutions governing the separation of church and state. Jones said the Boy Scouts are a religious organization because the Scouts require members to profess a belief in God. ...

NJCubScouter writes: I would just add: If he does join, and it doesn't work out, it's not the end of the world. Many, many boys quit Scouting after a year, or half a year, or two years, for a wide variety of reasons. There's a huge difference between dropping out vs. being thrown out for having "unacceptable" religious views. The BSA actively teaches that atheists are second-class citizens.

eisely writes: I think everybody agrees that this boy should be encouraged to stay in scouting. I certainly don't; the Boy Scouts are a dishonest organization that encourages bigotry against atheists.

Oh Boy! Ed Mori with more vacuous comments.

SagerScout, I agree with your opinion that if this boy joins the BSA, it's quite likely that the BSA will end up kicking him out for having "unacceptable" religious views. There are plenty of possibilities outside the BSA; almost no other youth group kicks out atheists. I don't know what other groups are in your area, but Campfire or Boys & Girls Clubs are similar to Scouts. Even within the Scouts there are a couple of possibilities; Explorers no longer exclude atheists, and most are coed 14-and-up. Another possibility would be for him to join a BSA unit chartered by a governme

I would summarize it as: 1) the state can have restrictions on who they allow into the program, if they have a good reason and apply it equally. The state has a good reason to promote nondiscrimination, and they require all applicants to meet them. 2) this does not infringe on the BSA's first amendment right of association, since this does not create a situation where the BSA would have to admit gays; if they had lost the Dale decision, they would have had to admit gays as a direct result.

littlebillie writes: IF the "state workers" in question are pressured in any way to participate in contributions, then this is a questionable decision at best. I'd say it would be questionable if the court decided any other way than how they did; why should the state be required to raise funds for a private, discriminatory group? Remember, the BSA is demanding that they be included. The state has set up nondiscrimination requirements to participate in its campaign, and these requirements are imposed on all groups wanting to join. These requirements do not infringe on the BSA's f

packsaddle writes: Merlyn, anyone, something in that last URL raised a question in my mind. I hesitate to ask but does anyone know how many boys and adults have been expelled on the basis of religion? Cozza says that he gets hundreds of messages each year from Scouts who have been expelled, 60% gay, 40% atheist. Is this true? I have no idea. I suppose it would be too much to hope that BSA would make such statistics public but I bet someone there knows. They might, but I'd guess that a lot of exclusions are done locally and not reported to National, so they wouldn't have a tota

bob white writes: Sorry Merlyn i did miss that. evidently we both missed the part where "Paul reiterated that though he is willing to speak of "God,"...." I didn't. Did you also miss the parts that said "Paul responded that he did not have any belief in a Supreme Being, but rather had complete belief in self and self-reliance. ", or "Pauls mother, Anita Trout, told the Washington Post that her family was delighted that theyve taken this position. Pauls beliefs definitely have not changed." ? And, as I had also pointed out earlier, the BSA has changed on whether belief in a "supre

bob white writes: Paul, had his membership revoked in 1985, he would have it revoked today. Nothing has changed. Did the BSA need to claify wording to be more understandable? It seems so. Did they change their membership policy? No. Paul did not meet the requirements then, he does not meet them now. No Change. You didn't seem to read the entire history of Paul Trout; he was REINSTATED and became a Life Scout, even though his religious views (or lack of same) didn't change. Nowadays, he would not be reinstated. Sorry, that's a change.

Bob White writes: Were known atheists or homosexuals ever allowed membership by the BSA? Never. Did you already forget my example of Paul Trout? http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/God-Top/Paul_Trout-Top/paul_trout-top.html (This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Ah, more insults. You're a real good representative of the BSA, you know that? --- Merlyn LeRoy

Bob white writes: Merlyn, If I told you that the BSA wrote a letter to every person in the USA telling them the rules you would say "sure but they didn'tuse the good stationary". Now I see you're reduced to ad hominem fallacies, and baseless claims that I "don't know" the BSA. Let me know if you ever want to actually debate the issues, instead of whitewashing how "honest" the BSA has been in its treatment of gays.