Atheist leader to be expelled from BSA

[SR540Beaver 116]

Merlyn>>>Unlawful clauses of contracts aren't enforcable; the military could sign an agreement with an organization to run a "no Jews" youth group, and that wouldn't make it legal, either.

 

You are still confused. The BSA position is clear and well known by the government. They are not being dishonest in signing the contract. The government created the contract with the so-called "unlawful clause". As Bob White said, your beef is with the government, not with the BSA. The BSA position is clear and the contract says the government expects them to adhere to the BSA policies and standards. Why wouldn't the BSA sign an agreement calling for them to run their program following their policies. There is nothing devious there. You need to persue getting this changed thru government channels if you think the government contract is in error. The BSA didn't design it, just read it and agreed to it since it agreed with BSA policy. I ask the same thing Bob does.....what do you hope to accomplish here in this forum? We are not part of the government and didn't create the contract. We are not part of the BSA national office. As volunteers, we share info and discuss scout related issues. You're barking up the wrong tree. If you can actually get the government to stop sponsoring BSA troops, more power to you. It won't change anything except who the charter belongs to and as has been stated, 99.9% of the charters will be sucked up by other concerned groups and the program will never skip a beat. But if you are looking for us to jump on the bandwagon and beat the drum to stop government sponsored BSA units, you won't get much satisfaction.

 

[acco40 95]

Scouting is like McDonald's or Burger King. The BSA essentially franchises scouting units to chartering organizations. As long as they follow the BSA "franchise rules" they COs are allowed to run the unit (Troop, Pack, Crew) as they see fit.(This message has been edited by acco40)

[RobK 10]

Merlyn_LeRoy writes (quoting me):

 

>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.

 

The other things the First Amendment protects aren't relevant to this discussion (eg free assembly, redress of grievances). 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. Lawful or not, the Constitution does not prohibit the government from sponsoring groups that limit membership based on religion as long as membership is in no way required, and other groups can be sponsored. In fact, any laws Congress may have passed prohibiting it may be in violation of the Constitution if they inhibit anyone from freely exercising his religion.

 

"[A]llowed" organizations are not the same as organizations run by the military itself. I've been talking about BSA units sponsored by the military.

 

Your implication is absurd. The military makes available facilities, possibly some supplies, and a Charter Organization Representative. That is what they would supply to any youth group that wanted to organize on the base to serve the children of military personnel. It's not as though the troop is part of the military. As has been pointed out, the troop is run by volunteers on their own time. The commanding officer of the base cannot force a serviceman to be Scoutmaster of the troop, nor force any of the youth to join the troop.

 

>If you wanted to start up Atheist Scouts of the World, with atheism as a requirement,

 

...which is impossible, since WOSM will only allow one Scout organization per country...

 

So? What does WOSM have to do with it? If you want to start Atheist Scouts of the World, start it. This sort of attitude really gets me.

 

It would also be unlawful for the military to sponsor a youth group that only allowed atheists.

 

Why? Quote me the law. I've already shown that the First Amendment does not prohibit it.

 

>Further, to disallow an organization with religous requirements from operating under the auspices of the military base would be in violation of the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" part of the First Amendment.

 

Only if the military welcomes all outside organizations onto their bases, which they don't. Military bases aren't public forums.

That's irrelevant. The issue at hand is youth groups serving the families of military service people. If you were a member of the armed forces and wanted to start an Atheist Scouts of the World troop on your base to serve atheist children of military personnel which had atheism as one of its membership requirements, there would be no Constitutional inhibition.

 

Essentially what you want to do is deny the families of military personnel their rights, recognized by the Constitution, to freely exercise their religous principles, whether they be theist or atheist. Is this correct? If an atheist youth group were operating under the auspices of a military base, serving only atheist youth, would you honestly support a lawsuit to force them to stop?

 

 

[SR540Beaver 116]

To all concerned, here is what I found thru the US Army's website. It is a 20 page document.

 

http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/r210_22.pdf

 

Army Regulation 21022

 

Private Organizations on Department of the Army Installations

 

37. Membership practices

a. Organizations will not unlawfully deny membership, unlawfully exclude from participation, or otherwise subject to unlawful discrimination, any person because of race, color, creed, sex, disability, or national origin. (When unlawful discrimination by a PO is suspected, information about procedures for individuals to follow will be publicly disseminated.)

b. The above paragraph does not preclude the following:

(1) The existence of religious, cultural or ethnic POs when

(a) Membership is not restricted or discriminatory; and

(b) Similar religious, cultural, or ethnic POs are approved without preference.

(2) Approval by the installation commander for the operation of certain POs that restrict membership to one sex,

when one or more of subparagraphs (a) through © below apply. (Examples include womens/mens sport clubs,

womens/mens civic associations, and boy/girl scouting organizations.)

(a) The POs purpose is philanthropic and, by tradition, its membership has been of one sex.

(b) The POs purpose is to benefit one sex and its membership is composed of that sex.

© The PO has a specific purpose and function that restricts membership of one sex, but also has a counterpart organization with the same purpose and function.

c. PO membership campaigns and recruitment practices neither involve nor give the appearance of involving

compulsion, coercion, reprisal, or influence.

d. DOD 5500.7R governs membership drives.

[SR540Beaver 116]

Here is another website regarding logistical support to scouting organizations by the US military.

 

http://www.afmc.wpafb.af.mil/HQ-AFMC/JA/lo/lojaf/ethics/updates/990226.htm

[Compass 10]

Merlyn_LeRoy writes (the first part is a quote from RobK):

 

>If you wanted to start up Atheist Scouts of the World, with atheism as a requirement,

 

...which is impossible, since WOSM will only allow one Scout organization per country...

 

So, call them 'Atheist Flower Children from Mars.'

 

Which, of course, is part of the real point, isn't it? Why does it have to be Boy Scouts? When people suggest that Atheists start their own organization, it doesn't have to be called Scouts at all. Except, that isn't good enough, is it? Because there's a lot more to it than that.

 

Plain simple truth is that Boy Scouts-- the name, the uniform, the values-- are almost universally recognized. Boy Scouts have built up a tremendous amount of goodwill through the decades of its existance. And, it has an effective distribution system. It would be a desirable takeover target in the for-profit world.

 

Or, maybe its still a takeover target. By people who don't want to start their own organization and have to build-up that brand name recognition, goodwill, etc. from the ground up. Hmmmm...

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

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 Representative.

 

The BSA itself says the chartering org. is in charge of selecting leadership; yet the BSA requires that the military practice unlawful religious discrimination in carrying this out.

 

And again, you seem incapable of distinguishing between a group sponsored by the military, and a group sponsored by a private organization that meets on military bases. These are two different things, but you use them interchangably.

 

Do you have any idea why Chicago stopped chartering 28 BSA units when the ACLU sued them?

[Compass 10]

Not going to address what I said. Out of your comfort zone, sir?

 

[RobK 10]

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. I found two cases that could be the Welsh case you reference, one about warrantless searches, and the other from 1861, whose text I could not find, so we will discard it from consideration also (unless you can provide a link).

 

As an aside, I have learned not to take references to Supreme court cases lightly. I don't believe what anyone says about them until I read the text myself. US v Miller is the reason. Everyone says that in Miller, the Supreme Court ruled there was no individual right to own a firearm recognized by the Second Amendment. This is a blatant lie, obvious to anyone who cares to read the text of the Miller decision (http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/miller.txt).

 

Moreover the Supreme Court has held that it's legal for a woman to kill her child if it hasn't been born, yet fifteen minutes later, when it is born, the same act is a felony.

 

Further, the Supreme Court has reversed itself in the past.

 

...yet the BSA requires that the military practice unlawful religious discrimination in carrying this out.

 

I've already shown that it is not unlawful under the First Amendment. I don't think anyone would argue that scoutmaster or charter organization representative are public offices. They are volunteer positions in a private organization. You cannot be required to hold the position. The position holds no sway outside of the BSA organization.

 

And again, you seem incapable of distinguishing between a group sponsored by the military, and a group sponsored by a private organization...

 

The distinction is irrelevant as I've shown that neither would be a violation of the Constitution.

 

Do you have any idea why Chicago stopped chartering 28 BSA units when the ACLU sued them?

 

Perhaps because Chicago city government is full of corrupt cowards who are more concerned with lining their own pockets than fighting for the right? Just a guess...

(This message has been edited by RobK)

[ASM7 10]

Merlyn

 

I only speak for myself, but I think that most posters on this forum will agree with me. You will not change anyone's mind. You are wasting your time. If you have anything to say for the good of Scouting, please do. If you have anything constructive to add, I would be interested. If you think the BSA discriminates against Athiests. You are dead on track. Because to be discriminating is a good thing. But it does not discriminate against any r-e-l-i-g-i-o-n. Too many people think of discrimination as the same as prejudice. They are totally different. To discriminate is a human right. Part of our free will to choose. You obviously discriminate against the BSA and people who believe in God. That's your right. It only means that your eternity will be much different from mine, unless you someday beleive the way I do. I pray that it happens soon for you. God loves you Merlyn.

 

Doug

 

 

 

 

[SR540Beaver 116]

Merlyn,

 

You never addressed the website I listed. It is obvious from what I have found that the government and the military have engaged their substantial legal staff to design documents that spell out their relationship with private organizations. Boy Scouts included. Their legal people seem to have no problem with and seem to even encourage these relationships. Whether courts will agree with their stance is the question. So far, there has not seemed to be a problem. Considering the vast legal resources of the government and the military used in drafting these documents, I imagine they would hold up pretty well in court. The government is well aware of the programs, policies and procedures of these organizations and continue to support them. As has been stated before, the BSA membership requirements have been well known for 90 years. It has never given the governemnt pause in endorsing the BSA program. If you think it is unconstitutional, then search the web, print the documents, take them to a laywer and file a suit against the government. Your beef is with them and not the BSA. They have been above board as has been the government in designing their policies and agreements. Whatever a PR person told you is rahter besdie the point. I doubt he had any idea the number of legal and policy documents the goverment has in support of providing scouting.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

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.

 

Silverman was struck down on first amendment grounds, and you claimed that the first amendment didn't cover such things. The Silverman case shows you're wrong.

 

Welsh v. US was about consciencious objector status, and the law had only religious provisions for gaining CO status; Welsh was agnostic and sued to get it, and won on first amendment grounds.

[Bob White 20]

I have been trying to find the pending ACLU suit that Merlyn has talked about. I find no case listed through the ACLU regarding this matter and no current or pending trail with the ACLU and the Federal Governement, the Military, or the FECBSA regarding this agreement. Does anyone know the name of the actual suit or has any else managed to find it?

Thanks for the help,

Bob White

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

 

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.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

this is what I found on the ACLU site

 

http://archive.aclu.org/news/1999/n041499d.html(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)