Merlyn_LeRoy

"So, because the Scouts discriminate based on religion, that is we require each member to have one, then this means any organization that uses public buildings cant discriminate based on religion."

Wrong. Read the court decision. The school was allowing the Boy Scouts to recruit during school hours to a captive audience.

This decision was not about public access to school facilities.

...

"If I remember correctly you were a storehouse of information on this topic. And so I have to ask, it is rumored, and again I just mention rumored, that in either New York or New York City, I cant trace down exactly, that Muslims want a prayer room in the public schools, have you heard this?"

Sounds like you have a badly mangled version of events. Chancellor Levy issued a press release about this back in November:

http://www.nycenet.edu/news/press/n6902.htm

..."Oh, and by the way, in the US military there is a position, role, or something called a Chaplin."

No, it would be called a chaplain, unless you're talking about a dead comedian.

...

"Is it illegal for the government to employ religious priests, ministers, rabbi's, mullahs? How can these chaplin's hold religious cermonies on US military bases/goverment land and not be in violation of the religious discrimination laws?"

Because they are required to offer religious and moral support to troops, and they can't discriminate on the basis of religion. If the only chaplain is christian, he is required to conduct non-christian ceremonies for non-christian soldiers, too. There's even a section in the manual for Satanists!

...

"If they were "caught" trying to convert "non-believers" to their own cause, would they be in violation of the rules?"

Oh, yes. You see, the government can't solicit for or against religion; that's why the judge ruled the way she did.

---

Merlyn LeRoy

"I live in an area where many newly formed churches who do not have a building use the public schools for services on Sunday. Isn't this discrimination?"

No. The school can offer its space on an equal basis to any public organization; it doesn't have to, but if it does, it has to take on all comers. Your school, for example, would also be require to allow an atheist group (or other discriminatory groups, such as a "whites only" club) to use space on the same terms.

"How can that be allowed? Yet BSA is not able to even meet on some school property."

Some schools don't allow ANY outside groups to meet, and only allow groups run by the school. This is legal, too.

Now, if the BSA can't meet on school property, but other similar groups can, I'd say the school isn't following the law. Welcome to the club; by the BSA's own figures, about 10,000 scout units are chartered by public schools, and public schools can't do this legally, either (again, because of the BSA's religious discrimination). There's currently an ACLU lawsuit to stop such charters, but it would be easier if the BSA would act honestly and drop them on its own.

---

Merlyn LeRoy

>What if the school set aside time for some one to recruit >students to Atheism? Would the scouts be allowed to recruit >then?

No. Read the ruling. Allowing a religiously discriminatory organization (such as the Boy Scouts) to recruit during school hours is illegal. This can't be "balanced out" in some way.

And yes, atheism is not a religion, but it's still "religious discrimination". Specifically, it's a credal requirement, much like excluding trinitarians (even though "trinitarianism" isn't a religion, it's a creed of some religions).

There was a similar decision in Michigan at about the same time (Dec. 10), where the school *and* the BSA were found to have violated the civil rights of an atheist student and both are liable for damages.

Like I said months ago, the BSA's religious discrimination is going to result in the loss of government support; the US government is *required* to treat all its citizens equally on the basis of religion, and supporting the BSA is incompatible with that. If the BSA wants to continue to exclude atheists, get used to more stories like this.

---

Merlyn LeRoy

To cjmiam: "ownership" means exactly that. Read up on what the BSA describes as a chartering partner. And yes, public schools can't follow the BSA's requirement to reject people based on religious views.

To OldGreyEagle: Yes, the Venturer oath is also unlawful for government agencies to enforce.

According to the BSA, the chartering partner owns the unit. According to yourself, the chartering partner approves the leaders.

And public schools can't reject atheist leaders.

Your reply implies that you think a whites-only school run group would be legal, just not popular. Do you know ANY history?

I *do* understand your point; your method would allow public schools to run youth groups that only whites could join, or football teams that excludes Jews.

Sorry, public schools can't do this.

Again, you Just Don't Get It.

Religious freedom ALSO means that public schools can't run youth groups that exclude kids who have the "wrong" religious views.

THAT'S why all BSA charters to public schools will be removed (by court order if neccessary).

Since the BSA insists it's a private, discriminatory group, it will have to ACT like one.

As I've said before, there's an ACLU lawsuit in Illinois making its way through the courts that will remove all federal and Illinois state charters (and presumably all other state charters will follow soon after). Anyone who seriously believes that public schools can run a youth group that excludes members based solely on their religious views hasn't the vaguest idea what religious freedom means.

It isn't a local issue. Government charters will be removed by lawsuits, because the government can't enforce the BSA's discriminatory membership requirements; the government can't run a group that excludes atheists any more than it can run a group that excludes Jews.

I think your reply (and attitude) is a good example why civils rights CAN'T be voted away by a simple majority vote, and why the BSA's discrimination will result in the removal of all charters from government entities.

I *did* say so, in my very first message.

I think we finally agree on something, though you still seem to be claiming that the BSA and/or its chartering partners aren't discriminating.

What I hope to gain is to point out that public schools that charter scout units are practicing religious discrimination, and that it's unlawful for public schools to do this.

Apparently, you and many others have trouble reading, since I never said boy scouts had to stop using public buildings.

LAST TIME...I PROMISE!

Sorry, my account is not working. I'm waiting for Scouter.com to straighten things out. I'd rather not post my email address...But I see that Scouter.com has managed to provide you with it. If you know how to fix my account, I'd appreciate your help...But please remove my email address from the posting. Thanks. For the last time, Mike NOT Merlyn

Mike, it would help if you posted from your own login. Is your email mtkohout@juno.com?

Okay, sorry again...I have to break my promise.

Mr. Long, I hate to burst your bubble, but somehow it did happen. I'm sure Scouter.com can and will back me up when they read their email and correct the problem. As for Mr. LeRoy, I think he fights a little too hard to prove a point that most people probably understand. I'm sure he's a nice guy, but I really don't want his posts to be confused with mine and I'm sure he feels the same way. In fact, I doubt if he agrees with my post, which is probably why he was so quick to point out, it was not his.

Mr. Long, you may want to reconsider your accusation... Perhaps, even apologize to Mr. LeRoy. Otherwise, I tend to believe this will be an embarrassment to you. Mike Not Merlyn

Mr. LeRoy,

I apologize for posting a message with your account. It was a little experiment. Scouter.com sent me your account information by mistake. Currently I am receiving emails from Scouter.com for your postings. I have sent them an e-mail asking them to correct this situation. Sorry...It won't happen again. Mike

I didn't write the above.

I'm happy to read most of these posts. I agree with almost every point made. I do have two comments though... First, in regard to Mr. Eisely's comments "...I don't know if homosexuals are born or made, perhaps both. Lacking clear and convincing evidence that all homosexuals are born that way I continue to support the BSA policy". Genetics is no excuse for vice. If it were revealed that a particular gene made one predisposed to murder, rape, pedophilia, etc., certainly you would not want to legitimize those individuals behavior. Alcoholism is a perfect example. Many studies state that the alcoholic is predisposed genetically. Nevertheless, they are not excused from resolving their condition.

Second, while I agree we should not seek to put this issue in the forefront, we should not be shy about our reasons for excluding homosexuals from BSA membership. Simply put, the organization finds the behavior to be immoral. Furthermore, it's our right as a private organization to exclude people who do not meet the established membership criteria. I'm proud to be associated with an organization that refuses to change its values with the "changing times".

Why should I not editorialize? Isn't that what everyone else here is doing? I guess I can voice my opinion only if it agrees with yours, then.

If the BSA wants to be a private organization, they'll have to BE a private organization, which means no government charters of scout units.

You still don't get it; it isn't a question of whether public schools "want" scouts, it's whether public schools can charter troops; they can't, because chartering a unit requires that the school discriminate in ways it can't.

If you don't understand this, you won't understand why government agencies are cutting ties to the BSA; you'll be making emotional arguments that the scouts ought to be supported, and your opponents will make legal arguments that government agencies can't legally support them. The legal arguments will win.

As I said, "get a life" isn't an argument.

I've read your agnostic thread; it shows an ignorance of agnosticism as well as atheism.

As I stated when I started, this thread is about PUBLIC SCHOOLS chartering scout troops. Your last reply contained nothing about that. If you'd like to agree that public schools can't charter troops, fine; there are still other people who don't seem to understand this.

As I said, "get a life" isn't an argument.

I've read your agnostic thread; it shows an ignorance of agnosticism as well as atheism.

As I stated when I started, this thread is about PUBLIC SCHOOLS chartering scout troops. Your last reply contained nothing about that. If you'd like to agree that public schools can't charter troops, fine; there are still other people who don't seem to understand this.

Ah, the last refuge of those without an answer: "Get a life"

I guess stopping religious discrimination is unimportant to you; that explains your view of the ACLU.

And, if you would look into army regulations, thay can't discriminate on the basis of religion, either. The chaplains have to serve all soldiers, regardless of religion; there is even a regs page on how to serve satanists. But the military can't discriminate against atheists, they can't make soldiers take a god oath, and atheists can get consciencious objector status (even though the original legislation only allowed for religious objections, the court ruled that nonbelievers had to be covered).

Perhaps you're angry because I've shown how ugly the BSA's discrimination really is? Do you support the BSA throwing out two nine-year-olds because they had "unacceptable" religious views? Does it make any difference if "unacceptable" is atheist, agnostic, Jew, polytheist, Catholic, trinitarian, non-trinitarian, Protestant, Baptist, monotheist?

Now, would you like to address the very real problem of the BSA losing 400,000 members because of a lawsuit, and the BSA doing nothing to prepare those units to get new charters?

I'm not comparing apples to oranges as far as how public schools must act with respect to religion.

Public schools can't run a "no Jews" youth group.

Public schools can't run a "no trinitarians" youth group.

Public schools can't run a "no polytheists" youth group.

And yes, public schools can't run a "no athiests" youth group, either.

ALL of the above are examples of religious discrimination. NONE can be practiced by public schools.

You equivocate on the meaning of "discrimination", by claiming that the absence of discrimination means we have to let child molesters in.

Has anyone READ the Chicago ACLU case? Do you know why the city didn't even bother to TRY to defend religious discrimination?

Schools CAN'T impose ANY kind of religious requirements at all; this *includes* mouthing a "duty to god" promise. Schools CAN'T reject students based solely on their religious views.

Well, I guess you'd have no problem with public schools running "no Jews" youth groups either.