Charter pulled

[evmori 11]

Ditto slont!

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Merlyn, you are right in your statement Christmas and Easter had their dates set to coincide with pagan holidays, but the origin of the celebrations are completely different from each other so I dont follow the statement these two holidays were orginally pagan. But while on the subject of holidays, how does the city of New Orleans get to spend all the money it does on the promotion, celebration of and clean-up of Mardi-Gras. New Orleans reroutes traffic, cleans up after parades etc all at the taxpayers expense for a notably christian holiday and I havent heard any group say that such an outlay is unconstitutional. What are you views on the city of New Orleans supporting a religious holiday? There may be lawsuits pending that I am unaware of

[evmori 11]

OGE,

There are probably lawsuits pending for everything!

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

The dates of christmas and easter have nothing to do with their supposed christian events, and the goddess oester/ishtar fertility symbols of rabbits and eggs are still used. Mardi Gras parades are like parades anywhere else, organizations pay a parade permit (to cover the city's costs for security and cleanup). Anyone can have a parade, the ACLU made sure of that in the Skokie case.

[dan 10]

Merlyn_LeRoy

Do you believe that the 16 members of Venture Crew 848 are better off now, now that they are no longer a part of the BSA?

 

If this has been asked before sorry, but I do not feel that reading through the 6 pages of posts was the best use of my time.

[Fat Old Guy 11]

Merlyn, you're doing a great job of avoiding the issue. Face it, you and all your comrades are hipocrites.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

dan writes:

Do you believe that the 16 members of Venture Crew 848 are better off now, now that they are no longer a part of the BSA?

 

You'd have to ask them; I wouldn't belong to a dishonest organization like the BSA, certainly. As for their no longer being part of the BSA, that's apparently what the BSA wanted.

[evmori 11]

Merlyn,

I really hope you are a better comedian than you are a legal eagle cause you aren't very god at the legal eagle part!

 

Ed

[OldGreyEagle 5]

While the symbols of eggs and rabbits are used in the commercialization of Easter, in the church I attend I can assure you there are no eggs or rabbits or facsimiles thereof. I see the Easter Bunny just as Sants Claus, a commercial symbol, but by no means any part of the religious signifiance of the events.

 

I had fotgotten about parade permits and associated fees, that does explain that and I remember the ACLU helping the American Nazi Party goose step through Skokie. I also understand the ACLU helped the Nazi's because it was an issue of constitutional rights which is the ACLU's mission.

 

For those who werent in the Chicago area when this occurred, mid 70's I think, or are too young to remember, here is what I remember:

 

Skokie is a predominantly Jewish suburb northwest of Chicago. I remember in the late 50's and during the 60's riding the bus to Grandma's house. The route took us through Skokie. The first time I can remember I made the trip was mid summer, and most of the people, men and women and even some older teens were wearing shorts and short sleeved shirts/blouses. Almost all of the people had a series of numbers tattooed on either their arms or legs. I started to point at a lady sitting across from us who had a tattoo prominently displayed, just a series of numbers, before I could ask "Mommy what's that?" a hand covered my mouth and my finger pointing hand was jerked down with a force I had never before felt from my mother. I was in such shock I didnt say a word until I we got off the bus and started to cry.

When we got to Grandma's, my mother and grandma tried to explain the Holocaust to me. All I got from it was it was bad, and these people had gone through it. And it was through this village in the mid 70's that the American Nazi party wanted to March. Skokie refused, but the Nazi's sued and the ACLU were on the Nazi's side. The Nazi's won, as it is their consitutional right of freedom of assembly.

 

So these survivors of the Holocaust, people whose families and lives had been destroyed were treated to the sight of black SS stormtrooper uniforms and tan shirts as well protected by law marching in their community.

 

As a side note, and Merlyn help me out if I am wrong, I remember in the aftermath of the march, the head of the Illinois Nazi party resigned, seems the ACLU lawyer who helped them get their parade permit was Jewish, the leader resigned in shame that a jewish person helped him

[dan 10]

Merlyn_LeRoy

Why would I ask them if YOU thought they where better off?

 

ED

cause you aren't very god at the legal eagle part!

That was quite a Freudian slip, on the keyboard.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

 

I find it unlikely the Illinois nazi (Frank Collin) would resign because of that; his own father was Jewish. The ACLU had a Jewish lawyer defend the nazis just like they had a black lawyer defend the KKK; they do that to show that they don't agree with the views of their clients (and probably because they have a very droll sense of humor).

 

The nazis never did march in Skokie, they marched in Chicago (Skokie's a suburb). Chicago had earlier denied them a permit, but after their court win, they granted it, and apparently that's where they wanted to demonstrate in the first place.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Merlyn, as I recall, a number of prominent Jewish supporters of the ACLU didn't get the joke either, because they withdrew their financial support over the ACLU's position in the Skokie case. I also happened to have known some members of the Jewish Defense League at the time, who were making travel plans to go to Skokie and "greet" the Nazis if they marched there. (Ideology, like politics, makes strange bedfellows.)

 

Although I generally agree with the ACLU's positions, I had some trouble with this one as well. A group of Nazis marching through a community where most of the residents had to witness people being murdered by people wearing the same uniform and symbols, and barely missed being killed themselves, strikes me as going beyond "speech." I thought that under those unique circumstances, it could have been argued that the residents would perceive the "parade" as being an imminent threat of physical violence and therefore outside the First Amendment. I don't recall whether the city's attorney tried that approach or not.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I checked the web for stories on the whole Skokie thing. I guess the years do play tricks on you, it wasnt a Nazi who quit after the the whole thing was over, it was Aryeh Neier, head of the ACLU at the time and David Hamlin, head of the Illinois ACLU at the time. Both men said that defending the Nazi's had nothing to do with their resignations.

 

And you are right, the Nazi's never marched in Skokie, as I read the recap, I think it was because it was very likley no Nazi would emerge from Skokie alive. Again though, that may be an old mind adding color to an awful situation

[acco40 95]

One of the best lines in the original Blues Brother movie, "I hate Illinois Nazis." I believe Henry Gibson played the head Nazi and John Belushi ran him off the road with his converted cop car.

 

Maybe that should have been posted in the favorite comedys link.

[Twocubdad 665]

Merlyn;

 

There seems to be a fine distinction here you are overlooking. It may take me a minute to explain my point, but here goes:

 

The government is prohibited by statute from discriminating based on race, creed, color, national origin, sexual preference, etc. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment further prohibits discrimination based on religious beliefs or lack thereof (unlike some on this board, I agree with you in that regard. So when I speak of religious freedom here, I include in that the freedom to be an atheist.)

 

A governmental body, and the community of people it represents, decides it is in the best interest of that community to allow various community groups use its common facilities. We the People have spent millions building a particular facility, and it's silly to let it sit vacant for weeks at a time, therefore we're going to open it to public use. After all, the First Amendment also gives us the right to peaceably assembly, it only seems right that we are allowed to assemble on public property. Consistent with the government's anti-discrimination policy, all groups are allowed equal access to the facility.

 

Now here's where we diverge. While the government must follow its anti-discrimination policies in making the facilities available, just because a private organization chooses or is allowed access to public facilities doesn't mean those organizations are required to adopt the government's policy.

 

While I don't have all the case law under my fingers the way you seem to, what I know of it supports this. Skokie, which you mentioned, is on point. If any group is permitted to have a parade, then everyone is. BSA v. Dale is on point. The doctrine of Unconstitutional Conditions says the government cannot require you to forfeit constitutional rights in order to receive a benefit from the government. If BSA has a constitutional right to expressive association, how can the government deny it access to facilities for exercising that right?

 

In broad terms -- VERY, VERY broad terms -- I tend to agree with much of your position regarding First Amendment rights. Frankly, I think the Balboa Park case is correct -- if BSA is a private organization, we needs to stand on our own two feet without preferential taxpayer subsidies. But you take your argument to an illogical conclusion. If enforcement of the Establishment Clause was the singular, paramount purpose of government, then you would be absolutely right. But that's not the purpose of government (and before anyone asks, allow me to refer you to the Preamble to the Constitution).

 

I think the bottom line is this: if the government treats all groups -- secular and non-secular -- the same, then it has met its burden under the Establishment Clause. I don't see any support for the idea that government has to be completely sterile of all religions, only that it be neutral among them. If the school gym is used by a fundamentalist Christian church on Sunday mornings, a Jewish congregation on Friday nights, and the local chapter of American Atheists during the week, how is anyone damaged? How is the First Amendment harmed?