Merlyn_LeRoy

robk: >Once more, from the beginning -- Silverman won his case because the state established a religous test for public office, which while expressly prohibited by Article 6, also fails the First Amendment prohibition on state establishment of religion, since it requires the citizen to follow a religion to receive the full benefit of citizenship. No, it didn't require "following a religion", it only required belief in god. These are two different things (of course, the first amendment prohibits the government from requiring either one for public office). ... >My main purp

bob white: >The links provided by you and OGe refer to a case that was settled on Oct. 24, 2001. it in volved only the Chicago School System and its affiliates and provides for Learning for life, carrier scouting and scouting for the handicapped to continue to be sponsored by the Chigacgo governement and afiliates and allows tradional scouting use of school property after school just as other private organizations and allows the BSA to recruit membership during school hours as other organizations do. >This case did not include as plaintifs the federal government or the FECBSA. S

robk: ... >How does that prevent you from creating your own scouting style organization? It doesn't; I've explained before. >>Partly yes" means that the first amendment covers more than what you claimed earlier. >No, it does not. In this instance, the law struck down clearly violated the First Amendment prohibition on government requiring religion to qualify for the full benefit of citizenship. You admitted that the Silverman case was partly decided on first amendment grounds, and since the Silverman case didn't involve congress establishing a religion, th

>WOSM cannot prevent you from founding Atheist Scouts of the World. The BSA can (and will) prevent you from using the word 'scout' in the US. But, like I said before, this isn't relevant to government religious discrimination. >>Silverman was struck down on first amendment grounds... >Partly yes, but mostly on the clear injunction in Article 6 of the US Constitution against religous tests for public office. "Partly yes" means that the first amendment covers more than what you claimed earlier. >Again, I'd like to see the actual opinion for Welsh v. US, b

bob white: >I have been trying to find the pending ACLU suit that Merlyn has talked about. the original complaint is here: http://xxx.infidels.org/~nap/bsa_IL_District.html It's been amended since the original filing to add things like HUD block grants, but I don't think the amended version is online.

compass: >Not going to address what I said. Out of your comfort zone, sir? No, just not relevant; when people try to dismiss discrimination against atheists by telling them to start their own atheist scouts, I point out it's not possible due to WOSM rules. But that doesn't really have anything to do with stopping government support of religious discrimination. robk: >>Well, the supreme court disagrees with you. The Silverman & Welsh cases easily show that. >Silverman is about a religous test for public office. That's not what we're discussing. Silverm

RobK: > I have completely covered the religion aspect of the First Amendment. It forbids congress from forcing a religion on anyone, or prohibiting anyone from his chosen religion. No more, no less. Well, the supreme court disagrees with you. The Silverman & Welsh cases easily show that. ... >>"[A]llowed" organizations are not the same as organizations run by the military itself. I've been talking about BSA units ponsored by the military. >Your implication is absurd. The military makes available facilities, possibly some supplies, and a Charter Organization

kwc57: >The military base does not RUN the scouting program. They are the charter organization that sponsors it. According to the BSA, the chartering organization selects the leadership of the unit, and can replace them any time. I'd call that running the unit; they're completely in charge of who runs it (except they can't choose an atheist, of course). >You never responed to my post pointing out that the agreement you are so taken with also states that the military entity expects the FECBSA to operate the scouting program based on the BSA policies and procedures which inclu

RobK: >How does a military base chartering a Boy Scout troop require anyone to follow a religion? It isn't; but your previous paragraph didn't outline everything that the first amendment forbids. For example, if the military tried to create a youth group that excluded Jews, that wouldn't violate anything in your opening paragraph, either. But it wouldn't be lawful. ... >Moreover, the troop is not the only youth organization allowed. Please note that now you're talking about something else entirely; "allowed" organizations are not the same as organizations run by

Rooster writes: >>Sorry, you just don't understand what "religious discrimination" means. Read some actual court decisions. >kwc57, if I was you, I'm wouldn't waste the time. Yes, by all means, when addressing a dispute that concerns the US legal system, the best possible route is to purposely keep yourself ignorant of actual court decisions on the topic in question. "Be unprepared" would be a good motto to keep in mind.

OK bob, I'm willing to wait for the outcome of the ACLU lawsuit; if you knew any constitutional law, you'd know that the military WILL be kicking out all BSA units.

Sorry, you just don't understand what "religious discrimination" means. Read some actual court decisions.

bob white: >>"Uh, no. That particular clause was strictly about nondiscrimination," >No it's not. Here read it again.. >4.5.4.1. that the FECBSA and the USAGSO-WP will not: permit unlawful discrimination in their membership based on race, color, religion, or national origin. >It does not say that the BSA will not discriminate. It says very specifically that it will not unlawfully discriminate. And the courts agree that the BSA in not unlawfull in its actions. But then the clause is totally meaningless; the BSA can lawfully discriminate in ALL the ways that

bob white: >My guess is to let anyone reading the document or questioning if the scouting program is doing any unlawfull activity on military bases know that the military will not allow any group to practice unlawfull activities with its member families. Uh, no. That particular clause was strictly about nondiscrimination, and I think we both agree that the BSA, as a private organization, can choose to discriminate on the basis of religion, race, national origin, etc. So the clause is meaningless given your interpretation. Which is why I went to the trouble of actually asking the

bob white: >You keep misrepresenting the contents of the CNFJ 5720.11F. It says the BSA cannot take part in unlawfull discrimination, and the courts say that the BSA DOES NOT discriminate unlawfully. Did you mention that to the PA officer? Yes, I just got through *telling you* that. The first thing I did was point out that the BSA can legally discriminate on the basis of religion, race, national origin, etc. so the clause appears to be meaningless. The Public Affairs office said it means that FECBSA has agreed to not practice religious discrimination. Tell me, why does the cla

doug: >I am anxious to know your opinion of the origin of the laws that you you think are being broken. Where do these morals come from. Humans, of course.

bob white: >That document recognizes the BSA as a Private Organization serving youth members of DOD families. as well as non-DOD members. It does not require the BSA to change any of its values. It does say in section 4.5.4.1. that the FECBSA and the USAGSO-WP Will not: Permit unlawful discrimination in their membership based on race, color, religion, or national origin. >So they see the BSA as a private organization and they cannot permit unlawful discrimination. which takes us directly back to the supreme court ruling which says that the BSA as a private organization does not d

bob white: >My point that Merlyn continues to avoid is that his disagreement is with the governemrnt agencies that willing use the scouting program. The point you continue to avoid is the BSA's lying to continue these disagreements; as I've already said, FECBSA agreed to the Navy's nondiscrimination requirements in CNFJ 5720.11F. If the FECBSA was honest, they would NOT have agreed, because FECBSA is promising to not discriminate on the basis of religion. If the military requires the BSA to not discriminate, yet the BSA does by falsely entering into nondiscrimination agreement

bob white: >>"Yes, and the BSA signed an agreement not to discriminate on the basis of religion; yet it does just that." >No it doesn't! Which religion do we discriminate against? Yes, it does; when dealing with the government and discrimination, you need to use legal definitions, and the courts have always ruled that excluding atheists is religious discrimination. As way of an example, if the BSA excluded polytheists, that would also be religious discrimination, even though "polytheism" itself isn't a religion, it's a tenet of some religions such as Hinduism. It wo

bob white: >1st, I would appreciate an answer to the question I have posed. What are you trying to accomplish here? I'm fighting discrimination against atheists. >Second, there are a lot of people in the navy, I don't know who you spoke with or their relationship to a scout unit. But if a navy base is the chartering organization for a scouting unit then someone had to ask to use the Scouting program. Yes, and the BSA signed an agreement not to discriminate on the basis of religion; yet it does just that. That's dishonest. ... >The BSA didn't force them to be

bob white replied to me: >>"Why isn't the BSA honest enough to not issue charters to government agencies, which the BSA knows can't enforce its religious requirements?" >But that's not the case at all Merlyn. Every Charter organization is aware of the scouting membership requirements This is false, and I know it firsthand; I asked Navy Public Affairs office at COMNAVFORJAPAN about the Far East Council of the BSA, and units that are chartered by the military, because FECBSA is operating under DoD administration instruction CNFJ 5720.11F, which prohibits discrimination on t

kwc57: >The best atheists or gays will probably ever be able to do is stop government entities from chartering BSA units. If that happens, 99.9% of those units will have someone step in almost immediately to start a new charter and they will go on without ever skipping a beat. Why isn't the BSA honest enough to not issue charters to government agencies, which the BSA knows can't enforce its religious requirements? If the BSA can do so easily without them, why weren't they dropped years ago? And I don't understand those of you who say you don't understand my motives; if the gove

sctmom: >>"The government isn't a private group; using your logic, the government could run a "no Jews" or "whites only" group using the same technique. " >Then the govt. shouldn't sponsor the units. I think most units will find a sponsor. That's what I've been saying for years, yet the BSA continues to issue charters to goverment agencies that it knows can't practice their religious discrimination. Not terribly honest of them.

doug: >I guess you are just going to avoid my direct questions from 10-31. You seemed to think this forum is only for scouts or ex-scouts, so why should I bother answering you?

ed mori: >>"But when a government agency charters a BSA unit, they're running a "no atheists" youth group, which is unlawful." >And it says this is unlawful where? The constitution. The government can't run a "no atheists" group any more than it can run a "no Jews" group. >Since the BSA is a private organization their members must meet the requirements of the organization. Atheists don't so they can't join. The Supreme Court even agreed.! The government isn't a private group; using your logic, the government could run a "no Jews" or "whites only" group using