A Different Twist?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

rooster7 writes:

The value that's being embraced by the federal government is - freedom - not atheism. The BSA embraces the same value when they chose not to associate with folks who chose to ignore God.

 

Freedom of association is why the KKK can exclude e.g. Jews, but that doesn't mean the government could financially support it, and I would disagree that the government and the KKK "share" the value of freedom of association.

 

Likewise, the government can't FUND an organization that discriminates on the basis of religion. If you'll look at the start of this thread, the question raised was about BSA funding.

[evmori 11]

Merlyn,

You really are clueless sometimes. Read what Rooster posted, not what you think he posted. The BSA doesn't discriminated based on religion. Atheism isn't a religion! So by not allowing atheists to join the BSA, the BSA isn't discriminating based on religion.

 

And I use to like Firesign Theater, too.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

evmori writes:

Merlyn,

You really are clueless sometimes. Read what Rooster posted, not what you think he posted. The BSA doesn't discriminated based on religion. Atheism isn't a religion! So by not allowing atheists to join the BSA, the BSA isn't discriminating based on religion.

 

"Religious discrimination" means a lot more than you think it means.

 

If an organization excluded polytheists, that would be religious discrimination, even though polytheism isn't a religion.

 

The BSA practices religious discrimination; since it's a private organization, it can do that. However, no branches of the government can do this, nor can they fund it.

[evmori 11]

Merlyn,

If it isn't a religion how can it be considered religious discrimination?

 

Got that in writting where it says the government can't fund a group that discriminates based on religion?

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

evmori writes:

If it isn't a religion how can it be considered religious discrimination?

 

From the US General Services Admin. office of civil rights, Equal Employment Opportunity page, which has a definition of "religious discrimination":

 

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

 

Religious discrimination occurs when an employment rule or policy requires a person to either violate a fundamental precept of his or her religion or lose an employment opportunity. The definition of "religion" is not restricted to the orthodox denominations. Since the provisions under religion include a lack, of belief, atheists are also covered. The coverage under religion includes all aspects of religious observances and practices as well as belief.

...

 

Now, can you point to a definition of "religious discrimination" used by the US government that does NOT include atheists?

 

Got that in writting where it says the government can't fund a group that discriminates based on religion?

 

Yes; it's called the constitution.

 

You might also want to read up on Brown v. Board of Education, Torcaso v. Watkins, Lemon v. Kurtzman, Welsh v. United States, etc.

 

If you claim the government CAN fund groups that discriminate based on religion, that would mean the US government could run youth groups that only allow Christians to join; do you think this would really be constitutional?

[evmori 11]

Merlyn,

There is nothing in the Constitution regarding funding. The 1st Ammsndement does guarantee the freedom of religion & the government not establishing a religion. Funding different denominations is in no way establishing a religion. I really don't think the founding fathers of this great country would approve of what you are doing. It's really too bad I won't get to spend eternity with you.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Evmori writes:

There is nothing in the Constitution regarding funding.

 

There is nothing in the constitution regarding "freedom of association", either, but that doesn't stop the BSA from using that in its Dale defense.

 

What is "in" the constitution is interpreted by the court system, which is where "freedom of association" comes from, and where the meaning of the first amendment comes from.

 

Funding different denominations is in no way establishing a religion.

 

Here you're flatly wrong.

 

From Everson v. Board of education:

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another.

[evmori 11]

I agree with the part about the government not setting up a religion. That is one of the reasons many of our founding fathers left their home countries. But funding and passing laws to aid different religions are two different things! I have no problem with the not passing laws part but how does that get interpreted into funding?

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

evmori writes:

I agree with the part about the government not setting up a religion. That is one of the reasons many of our founding fathers left their home countries. But funding and passing laws to aid different religions are two different things!

 

ALL funding from a government agency can be traced back to a law passed by a branch of the government; that's how the government "does" things.

 

And funding a group that excludes atheists is clearly "aiding" theists at the expense of atheists.

[evmori 11]

OK. So a branch of the government at any level passes a law that states they will provide funding to non profit groups who will help assist unwed mothers finding employment. Now the local Presbyterian church has a program tailored to just this need and applies to the government for the funding. And the KKK has a similar program. Based on what you are saying neither should get the funding because they discriminate. So the result is two organizations that have an existing proven progam to assist unwed mothers find employment would be left out and there would be unwed mothers who wouldn't be able to find work because the government couldn't help fund them. Now that's what I call the gonvernment working for the people who elect them!

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

evmori writes:

OK. So a branch of the government at any level passes a law that states they will provide funding to non profit groups who will help assist unwed mothers finding employment.

 

ALL unwed mothers; any groups assisting unwed mothers cannot refuse to help e.g. atheists.

 

Notice that the BSA refuses to allow atheist youth to join its program.

 

Now the local Presbyterian church has a program tailored to just this need and applies to the government for the funding. And the KKK has a similar program. Based on what you are saying neither should get the funding because they discriminate.

 

If either of these programs refuses to assist unwed mothers because they're not Christians, or not theists, or not white, etc., then yes, they will not get funding, and shouldn't. Do you think it would be legal if the only government-funded assistance for unwed mothers went to Protestants?

 

So the result is two organizations that have an existing proven progam to assist unwed mothers find employment would be left out and there would be unwed mothers who wouldn't be able to find work because the government couldn't help fund them.

 

No, what would happen is that organizations that DO serve the ENTIRE community would get funded, and discriminatory organizations would NOT get funded. If no such organizations are found, the government would have to address the problem of unwed mothers directly.

 

Now that's what I call the gonvernment working for the people who elect them!

 

Now think carefully; suppose all of the unwed mother agencies only help Protestants. Do you think that would be legal? Do you think the government is addressing the problem by only assisting Protestants? Now change "Protestants" to "theists" and think some more.

 

Let's see what happens with the Old Baldy council lawsuit. The ACLU is suing them for defrauding HUD, by getting a $15,000 community development grant for its Scoutreach program. HUD grants require a nondiscrimination agreement, which the Old Baldy council signed, that prohibits religious discrimination; however, atheists can't join their Scoutreach program, which puts them in violation of their HUD grant.

[evmori 11]

Merlyn,

Once again you fail to see the point. If you would get your head out of the lawa books & look at reality you would see all you are doing is trying to destroy the moral fabric of this great country. I sure hope your comedy routine is good cause you're gonna need a better way to make a living than this!

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

evmori writes:

Once again you fail to see the point. If you would get your head out of the lawa books & look at reality you would see all you are doing is trying to destroy the moral fabric of this great country.

 

I thought your original point was that discriminating against atheists wasn't "religious discrimination"; I showed that it IS religious discrimination.

 

I consider government supported religious discrimination to be destroying the fabric of this country, which is why I fight it. You seem to think the government can and ought to favor some religious views over others; I think it's a disaster.

[evmori 11]

No Merlyn, I don't favor the government funding certain religions over another. I favor the gonvernment funding projects based on their merit, not who is sponsoring them.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[littlebillie 10]

" I favor the gonvernment funding projects based on their merit, not who is sponsoring them. " ...and wouldn't part of that merit be whether or not they discriminate in the service provided?

 

 

"The difference is, the federal governments charter is for all people within the domain of the United States, while the BSAs charter is simply for it members...". just wonder wher in the BSA charter it says "certain boys" or "select boys"? I thought I'd read the original text, but I guess I skimmed by that...