Judge rules for boy in Boy Scouts case

[andrews 10]

The fact that religions disagree on what fundemental truth is doesn't negate my point that an atheist cannot have fundemental truth. For it nothing is "real" beyond the atheist, then nothing has an operating claim on what is true. Simple logic.

 

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

 

Brad

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

 

...

"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"?

[Rooster7 11]

Immoral

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

 

So you're saying that Islam is wrong?

[Rooster7 11]

Yes

[Dedicated Dad 10]

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. No offense, but you have misstated the argument in so many different ways it is difficult to know where to begin. 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. A school is not an airport. While a school (the state) cannot act arbitrarily, it certainly limits access to the public. The state discriminates all the time when it comes to protecting children. As I hope you understand, individual rights are always balanced against the states interest. That is, the states interest may trump the individuals rights.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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? 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.

 

I dont mean to say that intertwined in your convoluted, overlapping, and inaccurate argument you make no point. If I were you, I would concentrate on your captive audience argument. It is the argument the Supreme Court has bought into on more than one occasion, and I think its your best. I think the Supreme Court was wrong, and I am sure the issue will be revised.

 

When you say that certain conduct is illegal, I think that is too simplistic of a view. 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. Otherwise, it is specious, irresponsible, and unsupportable diatribe not worthy of debate.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

 

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.

[Dedicated Dad 10]

No offense, but you don't know what you're talking about. Well see, huh?

 

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

Again, you overstate your position. The cite you give is not authoritative. 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? The school opened its facilities to groups dealing with the same subjectsthe same types of groups.

 

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.

 

Just because the Texas association of school boards says it doesnt make it so....

 

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.

 

Sorry, again. Here is what the statute says. 1.) It deals with student initiated activities; 2.) the activity occurs after school hours; and 3.) it only addresses secondary schools.

 

20 U.S.C.A. 4071 UNITED STATES CODE ANNOTATED TITLE 20. EDUCATION CHAPTER 52--EDUCATION FOR ECONOMIC SECURITY SUBCHAPTER VIII--EQUAL ACCESS 4071.

 

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

 

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.

 

(b) "Limited open forum" defined

 

A public secondary school has a limited open forum whenever such school grants an offering to or opportunity for one or more noncurriculum related student groups to meet on school premises during noninstructional time.

 

Moreover, as Stevens stated in his concurrance in Mergens, [n]othing in Widmar [an earlier decision] implies that the existence of a French club, for example, would create a 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.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

 

...

"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.

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Whats a trinitarian?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

 

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

[sctmom 11]

The trinity being Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The Methodist have this as part of their creed.

 

DD -- the state does not have the right to say we aren't going to let in a certain group because we don't agree with them. If that were so, then the KKK would HAVE access in some Southern States while other groups would not.

Many people may think intergration happened in the 50's or mid-60's, Think Again! Georgia, 1969, still had seperate schools, supposedly seperate but equal. More than 10 years after the Brown vs Board of Eduation case. In 1969, there were 2 black students in each elementary classroom at our school -- one girl and one boy. Was the state right? The rest of the United States didn't think so.

 

Freedom of religion principle includes freedom to not participate. If we say atheism is not a religion, then someone say Wicca is not a religion, and then someone decides Islam is not a religion, then Judaism, and then Baptist, etc., etc., etc......See what happens?

 

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Geez,

 

I thought Trinitarian had to do with the Holy Trinity but I had never in my twelve years as a Roman Catholic Altar Boy, 3 more years in a Roman Catholic Seminary, and 2 years teaching religion classes ever come across the term Trinitarian.

 

Thank you all, I can shut my brain off for the day, I have learned my one thing for the day and I dont want to over do it

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Interesting story sctmom posted, reading it jarred soemthing loose in my head.

 

I seem to remember a state, and I cant remember which, had the KKK approach it about "adopting" a stretch of highway. You know, they would keep it clean and all that. The payoff for the Klan would be the sign that would be posted, paid for by state dollars stating that the Klan was responsible for the roadway. Various govermental units turend down the Klan's request and I dont remember if it went to the Supreme court of the state or the US, but the final ruling was if the state was going to accept and make signs for one group, it had to for all the groups. As I recall, that state dropped the adopt a highway program rather than make a sign with the Klu Klux Klan on it.

 

I may be wrong, but I am sure I heard this, or is it Urban Legend? I am sure we have the talent here to verify or deny this.

 

My conclusion is if your troop is chartered by a govermental unit of any kind, depending on your area and political environment, it may be time to start looking for another sponsor.

 

I dont agree with my heart that this is right, but my brain says governmental chartering of boy scout troops

may cause problems. We can vow to fight, but I think in the end we will mostly lose and such a fight costs way to much for us to be able to say we did it in the boys interest. Better to find a willing private sponsor now.

[Dedicated Dad 10]

 

 

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. Again, you make no point. You just ignore for instance the fact that the equal access act has nothing to do with outside groups, i.e., The Boy Scouts. It has to do with student groups. Nothing in the equal access act advances your argument. We are talking about outside groups--not student groups. The entire statute is irrelevant to the argument--it doesn't apply. Ill let you have the last word, try to stay on point. If that were so, then the KKK would HAVE access in some Southern States while other groups would not. God love ya Mom, but youre watching the parade a couple blocks behind.