Merlyn_LeRoy

...

"Merlyn, I assume this is directed to me."

You assume WHAT is directed at you? I try to quote what I'm responding to; if I quoted YOU, I'm generally responding to YOU. If I didn't, I'm not.

...

"I've already stated that school sponsorship should be avoided, so quit trying to make an issue where there isn't one."

Now what are you referring to? The last few articles of yours that I've responded to have been about equal access, not school sponsorship.

...

"But since you brought up the issue of Explorers and Learning for Life, let me tell you of our experience here in Portland. The issue of police sponsorship of an Explorer post came up recently, as it has in many communities. Our police chief decided to cut the ties totally, even though Learning for Life does not have the membership restrictions the rest of Boy Scouts has. He felt that the "discrimination" of the other parts of Scouting required this split."

Yes, I know; I knew about this back when it was announced. And you don't need scare quotes around "discrimination" to suggest it isn't really discrimination; it is.

...

"I found a Bureau run program called WomenStrength. This program, run by the Bureau, with a paid staff member, offers a program only for women and taught by volunteers, who must be women. Now this program is well known, yet I have never heard of the ACLU objecting to this state-run discriminatory program. I guess the ACLU must have missed the articles and television stories on this program, as I am sure that they would have quickly objected to this blatant discrimination by our police bureau."

And what did the ACLU say when you informed them about it?

Oh, that's right, you don't believe in people fighting for their civil rights, so I guess you don't really care, you just want to gripe.

...

"if we ignore the Merlyns of the

world they will subvert and change

policy while we sit on our hands."

I'm not interested in changing your

policy; I'm interested in removing

government support from the BSA's

practice of religious discrimination.

...

"I'm going to invite some real

constitutionalists who would be

more than willing to debate the

BSA's right to free association

and membership requirements."

That isn't what I've been talking

about; I've been talking about

government support of the BSA's

religious discrimination.

...

"That said, I disagree that the concept of disruptive speech or communications will equate the Boy Scouts and the Klan."

Both are speech; both have the same degree of protection.

...

"This is like comparing the Nazis to our attorney general, or the Taliban to local groups, each of which some have done. The stretch is insulting, and the majority of Americans will likely be offended by such analogies."

Hey, too bad. The BSA's official position is that atheists can't be "the best kinds of citizens", according to the Declaration of Religious Principle.

Until the Explorer program got moved into Learning for Life (fallout from a successful ACLU lawsuit), the BSA actually saw nothing wrong with a police department running a police Explorer program that excluded atheists. When Rick Sherman tried to join the police Explorers in Buffalo Grove, Illinois, the BSA rejected him as a member. This was a youth program run by the municipal police department, and the BSA insisted that atheists be excluded from that program!

Now, you may see nothing wrong with a police department running a youth group that excludes atheists, and where the leadership is required to subscribe to the idea that only believers in god can be the best kinds of citizens, but I certainly see a lot wrong with the situation, especially when police Explorer groups are used as a police cadet program.

But the BSA saw nothing wrong with that. The ACLU had to sue, and they're suing to remove all government charters now. The BSA could voluntarily drop them, but they aren't ethical enough to do that.

...

"Nice try, but I could care less."

The phrase is "I couldn't care less".

...

"Number one, BSA is Boy Scouts of America not the Nederlands."

So? Again, you seem to be assuming that only Scouts, and only US scouts at that, should post here.

...

"Number two, Nederlands Scouts dont usually quote citations from Westlaw and Lexis within minutes of a post, who are you kidding?"

What? This is ridiculous; the links I gave were from google.com searches, and not surprisingly, the first few links were from oft-used legal web sites.

...

"Now go away you troll."

Sorry, you don't even know what "troll" means.

...

"How completely irrelevant, you know better than that. You just spent how long debating atheism and now youre playing the homosexuality card, how telling."

No, just using an appropriate analogy. The BSA has "secret" membership requirements that it refuses to spell out; scouter.com has NO requirements listed to join, so your implication that only scouts can join would be another "secret" membership requirement. That analogy wouldn't work with the BSA's religious requirement, as they actually state that members have to promise to do their 'duty to god'.

...

"Private organizations dont need to state membership requirements and those who practice perversion dont meet the morally straight clause of its tenets, if you werent pretending to be a Scouter youd know that."

Sorry, you're pretending everyone's religion agrees with your definition of homosexuals as not "morally straight", which is manifestly false. James Dale really DIDN'T know the BSA didn't allow gays, because the BSA didn't HAVE any rule against it (and they STILL don't).

Of course, you MIGHT want to question the honesty of an organization that has "secret" membership requirements. But I doubt it.

...

"Now go crawl back down your pro-perversion/anti-religion hole and leave a private organization to have its freedom of association. Sorry you have a problem with that but its constitutional."

Hey, you started this thread specifically to whine about an atheist winning a case involving the BSA's bigotry; sorry if you have a problem with atheists actually having civil rights, but it's constitutional, and the BSA has a long road of losing public perks in its future. I know you think the Powells should have just ignored their own civil rights and not filed a lawsuit, but that's too bad for your side, eh?

...

"I guess that makes you not a Scouter, ergo that would make you a subversive disrupter troll here to demagogue the issue and promote an anti-Scout agenda, am I right? And if you are a Scouter, you should resign immediately because obviously youre not able to live by the oath and law."

How do you know I'm not a member of the Scouts Nederlands, which accepts atheists?

...

"PS, Please can save your first amendment rebuttal diatribe for somewhere else, this is a private forum."

Nothing in the scouter.com membership about needing to be a scout to join; it's a "private forum" that's open to anyone, unless it's like the BSA, which has membership requirements that aren't listed anywhere (such as their "no homosexuals" rule that STILL isn't listed in ANY of their membership materials).

...

"Merlyn, I do not omit any groups, as I state that ALL groups should have equal access. ALL does mean ALL, and I do not need to name each group. If a jr. Klan group wants access, we may be forced to accept that."

THIS is why I keep bringing it up; you keep hedging. "May" should be "will", if ALL means ALL.

...

"I do believe that schools have the right to restrict disruptive groups and expressions, and depending on the facts, the jr. Klan may qualify."

And again, you are trying to hedge your bets and say the KKK might NOT be allowed. I thought you just said ALL means ALL.

Of course, any group that IS disruptive can be kicked out, whether they are Boy Scouts or KKK members; and if (as you say) the KKK might be excluded because it's judged to be a "disruptive group or expression", the BSA can be excluded for the same reason.

...

"But the dogma is subjective by parish."

It doesn't make sense to use Catholic terminology for very non-Catholic religions. Your statement doesn't even make sense for UUs, Jews, or Buddhists; they don't have dogma or parishes.

...

"Then why do you believe in God?"

I don't. Where'd you get the idea I did?

...

"Where exactly is their belief in God if there is no standard of believing anything if you dont feel like it?"

They don't require a belief in god; not all religions do. You can be Jewish (including being accepted as a Jew by other Jews) and be an atheist; you can be a Buddhist and be an atheist, etc.

...

"Im curious Merlin, where does your religious orientation

lie, UU, Wiccan, agnostic, Atheist, Buddhist, Hindu?"

I don't have a religion.

...

"No one has still given me a reason why atheists can believe something is absolutely right or wrong, like honesty. It may sound like a good idea, but without some being outside of our frame of reference who we are responsible to, it can also be a nuisance, and even counterproductive."

What does some "being" have to do with it? You're assuming a connection between absolutes and some being, with no justification. You still haven't given a reason why theists can believe something is absolutely right or wrong, either.

If morals are based on a god, anything that god tells you becomes moral, like flying a plane into a building.

...

"I may disagree with others on what the absolutes are, but I have a firm basis that there are absolutes. Without some god, nothing is absolute."

WITH some god, nothing is absolute, either. Is polygamy moral or not? Gods disagree, so your god-given "absolutes" don't help produce a real answer for human beings.

...

"So we are not saying the same thing. I say that they get the same access as all outside groups. You know, EQUALITY. You limit to groups you define as discriminatory. If you agree that ALL outside groups, scouts, soccer leagues, little league, etc., are treated the same, then we agree."

If you agree that ALL outside groups, like the Klan Youth Corps are treated the same, then we agree.

You keep OMITTING other discriminatory groups from YOUR list.

...

"Merlyn, you keep twisting my response."

No, I'm telling you my position, which you keep getting wrong.

...

"I said: "If other groups are allowed to recruit in schools, and they often do, then to ban scout groups from doing the same type of recruiting is discrimination on account of religion."

You then respond by stating: ". . . the Scouts got special access that other groups didn't get.

First you say special access that other groups don't get, then you say they can have the same access as other discriminatory groups get. This is not the same."

Both statements are true:

1) the BSA gets special access other groups don't get.

2) the BSA *should* get the same access as other discriminatory groups.

...

"I have agreed that if outside groups do not get access, neither do the scouts. But if any outside groups get access (regular, not special) the scouts should get the same regular, not special access as these groups. ...The same access, not special. (Please don't ignore this point as you continue to do.)"

I HAVEN'T ignored it.

Since the BSA is a discriminatory group, ANY similar group gets the same access as the BSA, like the KKK's youth group, the Klan Youth Corps.

And I will continue to call the BSA dishonest for their actions.

...

"As to your problem with in-school recruiting, we disagree here. If other groups are allowed to recruit in schools, and they often do, then to ban scout groups from doing the same type of recruiting is discrimination on account of religion."

But that wasn't the case in Portland; there, the Scouts got special access that other groups didn't get.

The BSA should get the same access as other discriminatory groups.

...

"If all groups are banned, then there is no discrimination. But you are not arguing nondiscrimination here, you are demanding a total ban on activities upon public property, solely on account of religious belief."

No, I'm not; stop misrepresenting my position. The BSA has the same rights as a youth group that excludes Jews. Both groups can e.g. use public facilities (on an equal basis; no freebies for the BSA if others have to pay). As I've said before, the BSA is in the process of losing SPECIAL access.

...

"You seem to be under the impression that it's BSA's duty to interpret Constitutional law and enact polices that would constrain it as an organization based upon those interpretations."

It's the BSA's duty to KNOW the laws, and considering that a judge in Michigan found that both the school and the BSA violated the civil rights of an atheist student, they'd better start learning fast.

...

"Screaming religious discrimination does not make it so. By your definition, all organizations that want God to be a part of their program are discriminatory."

All organizations that exclude people based on whether they are theists or not are practicing religious discrimination.

...

"My guess is; you will not be happy until all references to God are banned from public forums."

Your guess is worth about what your uninformed opinion is worth. Typically, someone like yourself who wants government agencies to promote your pet god has to paint his opponents as wanting ALL god references removed, instead of what they're advocating: removing god references from government agencies. You can promote your god all you want with your own time & money.

...

"In fact, your claim that BSA is dishonest seems dishonest and self-serving to me."

Gee, too bad for you, huh?

...

"You have yet to show to me the Constitutional grounds for a Supreme Court ruling that would prohibit public agencies from declaring that God exists."

I have; either you didn't read them, or you didn't understand them.

...

"If you want a Scouting organization that does not include God in their program, you should start your own."

It's impossible for anyone in the US to start another official WOSM organization or use the word "scouts", as the BSA has a monopoly on it. An atheist Scout in Switzerland, were he to move to the US, would be unable to join, due solely to the BSA's religious discrimination.

...

"Getting back on point with Merlyn, I think he and many others on this board are missing the point of BSA's religious requirement."

I don't CARE what the BSA's reasons are; I care that the BSA continues to dishonestly charter units to government agencies that obviously can't enforce the BSA's religious requirements, and that the BSA continues to push for in-school recruiting. Did you realize that, in the Portland case, the BSA actually paid for the public school's legal bills? The judge cited that as being prejudicial to Remington's case, as the school is supposed to be neutral.

You seem to miss the point of how the government has to avoid religious discrimination.

[KoreaScouter writes]

...

"I had the opportunity (although I didn't necessarily see it that way at the time) to visit the Dachau concentration camp outside Munich and the Catechombs in Rome within a couple of weeks of each other. Those two places were a stark reminder of what a terrible and real thing persecution can be. And, it wasn't just Jews who were imprisoned, although they were of course the overwhelming majority. It was just about anybody who didn't "fit the mold". Look in BSA literature and see how many different denominations can earn a religious medal. Beyond "duty to God" and "A Scout is Reverent", what's the mold?"

You should check into what denominations' religious awards *aren't* recognized by the BSA:

Unitarian-Universalists:

http://www.uua.org/news/scouts/

Wiccans:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=31618A88.2626%40cog.org

The BSA isn't just prejudiced against atheists.

...

"Name several things that are stable in your (apparantly atheistic) view of life. And why are they that way and not some other. You cannot do that, and that is my point. For wherever you draw the line, there is no reason it couldn't be drawn in a different place."

The same is true of a theistic view of life, as I've already shown. Some theists say polygamy is immoral, some say it's moral.

...

"It doesn't require your belief at all. God's existence is not subject to the whims of someone's belief."

True; gods don't exist no matter how many people believe in them.

...

"Whether you believe in gravity or not will not keep you from slamming into the ground if you walk off a tall building."

Yep. I can see the effects of gravity. Can't say the same for gods.

...

"In spite of all your verbal handwaving, I have yet to see an explanation of how an atheist can have a firm foundation for any belief. For if there is no transcendent reality, then nothing is stable."

I don't agree with that last statement. Do you have any evidence that your statement is true?

...

"And yes, polygamy is immoral. (In the beginning, God made one man and one woman, not a man and three wives.)"

So you're saying Judaism is immoral? If a man dies without male heirs, his brother is supposed to marry his widow (even if he's already married) so his brother's line will carry on.

And, of course, this illustrates the problems I've mentioned with god-based morals. You say god prohibits polygamy; a Muslim would say god permits it. It doesn't look like god-belief settles the question at all.

...

"The ACLU was informed of my aforementioned cases, Mr. LeRoy. I know because one of my relatives did it. Still, though, have to pick your fights, right?"

And what did they say? It's possible they didn't consider it a rights violation (you haven't given much in the way of details), it's possible they talked to the school and the school stopped doing it (the ACLU always tries talking before lawsuits, because it's faster and cheaper), it's possible they wanted to file a lawsuit but didn't have enough money, or couldn't find someone with standing.

I must have missed the laws or court cases YOU cited to support your claim that "When you say that a school is required to let the Klan or the whites only club in if it lets the Boy Scouts in, you dont know what youre talking about" or your claim that "To say that the government cannot judge the content of the message is wrong as well".

As for a student group, the Boy Scouts is an outside group, since they require a charter organization, but the KKK is decentralized (has been since they've been losing expensive lawsuits over their members committing crimes; independent Klans aren't liable for judgements against other Klans), so a KKK group (or some other whites-only group) could very well be a student group.

Also, you've never supported your "same topic" claim, whatever that's supposed to mean, and I hope by now you acknowledge that the first amendment protects atheism.

To try to get this back on topic, maybe you could point out which of these statements, if any, with which you disagree:

1) some Scout units (Packs, Troops, etc) are chartered by public schools.

2) the BSA says the charter partner is responsible for selecting the leadership for the unit.

3) applicants for leadership have to sign a statement that they agree with the BSA's Declaration of Religious Principle; applicants also must believe in at least one god.

4) potential scouts have to promise to do their 'duty to god' to join.

5) 3 & 4 are religious requirements to participate in this youth group run by the public school.

6) public schools can't legally do this.

A Trinitarian is someone who believes in the holy trinity. Some Christians subscribe to this creed, some don't. Some consider it polytheism.

...

"Last year, the Supreme Court in Good News Good Sports Club v. School District of the City of Ladue stated that allowing the club to meet on school grounds would ensure, rather than threaten, neutrality toward religion because it merely sought to be treated neutrally and given the same access to facilities as the other groups that dealt with the same topic. Do you understand the distinction?"

No, since that isn't what the court decided. "same TOPIC"?

...

"The school opened its facilities to groups dealing with the same subjectsthe same types of groups."

The school ATTEMPTED to keep out all religious groups, but the court ruled AGAINST that. Using your interpretation, the school ought to have won the right to keep out a particular "topic".

And where's your cite for this "topic" based ruling?

...

"(a) Restriction of limited open forum on basis of religious, political, philosophical, or other speech content prohibited"

Did you happen to read the above? If restrictions based on these criteria are prohibited, schools CAN'T keep the KKK (or any other group) out based on their political views.

And you didn't quote a critical part of the Mergens text; he was talking about how, if a SCHOOL ran a French club related to the school's curriculum, this does not create a public forum that would require that the school admit all OUTSIDE groups.

Here's a lengthier quote:

----------

Accordingly, as I would construe the Act, a high school could properly sponsor a French club, a

chess club, or a scuba diving club simply because their activities are fully consistent with the

school's curricular mission. It would not matter whether formal courses in any of those subjects --

or in directly related subjects -- were being offered as long as faculty encouragement of student

participation in such groups would be consistent with both the school's obligation of neutrality

and its legitimate pedagogical concerns. Nothing in Widmar implies that the existence of a French club, for example, would create constitutional obligation to allow student members of the Ku Klux Klan or the Communist Party to have access to school facilities. More importantly, nothing in that case suggests that the constitutional issue should turn on whether French is being taught in a formal course while the club is functioning.

----------

If the school admitted an outside group like the Boy Scouts, they would have to allow outside groups like the Klan Youth Corps.

You seem to be saying that public schools CAN deny "equal access" if they really, really, don't like the group, such as the KKK. The above says they can't.

This part says they can't either:

----------

Under the Equal Access Act, a public secondary school with a "limited open forum" is prohibited from discriminating against students who wish to conduct a meeting within that forum on the basis of

the "religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech at such meetings." 20

U.S.C. 4071(a) and (b). Specifically, the Act provides:

"It shall be unlawful for any public secondary school which receives Federal financial assistance

and which has a limited open forum to deny equal access or a fair opportunity to, or discriminate

against, any students who wish to conduct a meeting within that limited open forum on the basis

of the religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech at such meetings."

----------

Now, I can't understand how you can read that and conclude that, somehow, a school can allow the Boy Scouts to meet but prohibit an "undesirable" group from meeting.

No offense, but you don't know what you're talking about.

...

"To say that a public school is a semi-public forum (such as an airport) in that it would be required to open its doors to all if it opens it to some is just wrong."

Oh yeah? How about this from the Texas Association of school boards, explaining the Federal Equal Access Act (since it's federal legislation, it covers all US schools):

http://www.tasb.org/policy/sp/sp_equal_access.shtml

What is "equal access"?

Under the Act, "meeting" includes "those activities of student groups which are permitted under a school's limited open forum and are not directly related to the school curriculum." Hence a school that has established a limited open forum for noncurriculum-related student groups must allow all such groups to use school facilities to the same extent. If some groups have access to the school's public address system, the school newspaper, or bulletin boards, all groups are entitled to that same access.

...

"When you say that a school is required to let the Klan or the whites only club in if it lets the Boy Scouts in, you dont know what youre talking about. The states interest often wins out when dealing with our children. I think that if the issue where whether the Klan should be able to recruit in our public schools, you would find that the states interest would out weight that of the Klans."

Sorry, you've just violated the Federal Equal Access Act if the Klan Youth Corps can't get the same access as the Boy Scouts.

...

" To say that the government cannot judge the content of the message is wrong as well."

Oh, I'm absolutely saying that. If the government can allow some groups access to public facilities (and a public school that opens its doors is just that) and not others, the government is deciding who can use them based on whether they like the group's viewpoint. That's a first amendment violation.

...

"All that will be at issue is the scrutiny under which the states action is reviewed. If the states interest were significant enough, it certainly would withstand any courts review."

Certainly? You're certain the government could arbitrarily exclude some groups based on whether those in power dislike them? I think you're dead wrong.

...

"The fact that I have to make this second point is truly unfortunate. That is, when making your argument, you continuallyconfuse Constitutional law, federal statutory law, and state law."

You seem to have NO confusion, as you ignore ALL of them equally.

...

"You make these broad statements regarding how all schools throughout the US are acting unlawfully by allowing Boy Scouts to recruit in their schools. However, you use an Oregon statute to support this argument."

No, I'm also using a Michigan court decision. I'm also arguing against the 10,000 or so scout units chartered to public schools; can I assume you agree that public schools can't charter scout units?

...

"One more thing you do that bothers me. Although you appear to be discussing Constitutional law, you refer to religious discrimination. From where are you getting this?"

Everson v. Board of Education, Torcaso v. Watkins, Welsh v. United States, the Silverman case, and things like the EEOC guidelines at

http://gsa.gov/eeo/newpage110.htm

...

"Are you referring to the First Amendment of our US Constitution? If you are then I would like you to cite a case in which atheism was found to be a religion due protection under our First Amendment."

Atheism isn't a religion, but the first amendment protects more than just "religions". For example, if your boss disliked trinitarians, he can't fire you for being a trinitarian, even though trinitarianism isn't a religion, either.

Both "belief in god" and "belief in trinitarianism" are creeds, and discriminating against people because they believe or don't believe a particular creed falls under "religious discrimination", even though neither one is a religion.

...

"You may of course argue whatever point you feel is valid, however, for the sake of your own credibility, I suggest that any argument you make in which you lecture people and claim that their conduct is illegal should be based on specific statutes or case precedent."

Well, you should take your own advice. The first amendment protects atheists; that's well established law.

So you're saying that Islam is wrong?

...

"The fact that religions disagree on what fundemental truth is doesn't negate my point that an atheist cannot have fundemental truth."

Only if I agree with your premises, which I don't. You seem to be defining "fundamental truth" in such a way that god-belief is a requirement; I don't consider that to be a requirement.

...

"For it nothing is "real" beyond the atheist, then nothing has an operating claim on what is true. Simple logic."

So simple, it doesn't even make logical sense. From my point of view, you're saying you must believe in a magical, invisible being to know truth. That's nonsense.

...

"Figuring out which religion is closest to the truth I will leave as an exercise for the reader."

What is the difference between not having "fundamental truth", and having it somewhere among thousands of religions but not knowing which one is the "fundamental truth"?

By the way, is polygamy moral or immoral? If you have a line on "fundamental truth", you should be able to answer this, right? If you can't even answer such a basic societal issue like this, how useful is your "fundamental truth"?

...

"Run by or allowed to meet in the school - same thing"

No, entirely different. A public school can't run a group that excludes Jews, but if it has facilities open to the public, they must allow all groups access on the same basis - including groups that exclude Jews.

It's similar to the difference between a school-sponsored prayer (which is forbidden), and individual students praying if they want to (which must be allowed, even if the school principal thinks it's the "wrong" religion).