BSA wins one in Michigan

[eisely 13]

Does anybody know any more details about this case?

_______________________________

 

Appeals court rejects religious discrimination suit against Boy Scouts

 

LANSING, Mich. An appeals has ruled against an atheist who sued after a Michigan school let the Boy Scouts recruit during school hours.

 

The state Court of Appeals says the Boy Scouts and the Mount Pleasant Public Schools did NOT violate the constitutional ban on religious discrimination.

 

John Scalise (ska-LEEZ') wanted to become a troop leader when his son joined the Cub Scouts. But the father refused to sign the Scouts' declaration of religious principle.

 

The Boy Scouts then revoked the father's membership, and he pulled his son from the group.

 

Scalise sued the school district, saying the Scouts are a religious group that can't pass out flyers during in a public school.

 

But the appeals court denied his arguments.

[fgoodwin 23]

This appears to be your article?

 

http://www.wilx.com/news/headlines/1200347.html

http://www.woodtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2840380

 

Here's another:

 

http://www.detnews.com/2005/politics/0501/21/politics-66652.htm

http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw110441_20050121.htm

 

Michigan appeals court rejects religious discrimination suit against Boy Scouts

 

January 21, 2005, 12:52 PM

 

LANSING, Mich. (AP) -- An atheist who sued a school district for letting the Boy Scouts recruit in his son's school lost an appeal Friday when a court ruled there was no religious discrimination.

 

The Michigan Court of Appeals let stand a judge's ruling that the Mount Pleasant Public Schools' ties with the Boy Scouts of America did not violate the state constitution.

 

John Scalise volunteered to become a troop leader when his son, Benjamin, joined the Cub Scouts. But he declined to sign the Scouts' declaration of religious principle, which is required of leaders. The declaration recognizes an "obligation to God."

 

The Boy Scouts revoked Scalise's membership, and he pulled his son from the group.

 

Scalise then sued the school district, arguing the Boy Scouts should not be allowed to pass out flyers during school hours.

 

In a unanimous opinion, however, a three-judge panel said the district's policy was neutral.

 

"It had a secular purpose and did not advance religion over non-religion," Judge Bill Schuette wrote. "Simply because the Boy Scouts utilized the system does not itself create an Establishment Clause violation."

 

------

 

The case is Scalise v. Boy Scouts of America and Mount Pleasant Public Schools

 

------

 

On the Net:

 

Michigan Court of Appeals: http://courtofappeals.mijud.net

[dancinfox 10]

This happened in my district. I live about 20 miles south of Mt. Pleasant. My opinion of Mr. Scalise who is an attorney, I think he is an ambulance chaser. Our local council stayed out of the schools for 3 or 4 years, letting him rant and rave. Do he win, no, but he did his damage to scouts in the Mt. Pleasant area. The packs and troops in that area are down in numbers.

[Eamonn 61]

dancinfox,

I'm saddened to hear that numbers are down, but it is nice to hear that you have some Judges that can think and see things for what they are.

Eamonn.

 

[fgoodwin 23]

Here's a link to the actual opinion:

 

http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/documents/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20050120_C244883_45_244883.OPN.PDF

 

http://tinyurl.com/6h644

[acco40 95]

I'm confused. If Mr. Scalise refused to abide the declaration of religious principle on his BSA application he should not have become a member. How can membership be "pulled" from someone who is not a member? If he was a member, who at the council office or at the national office screwed up by allowing membership to this man?

[fgoodwin 23]

acco40 writes:I'm confused. If Mr. Scalise refused to abide the declaration of religious principle on his BSA application he should not have become a member. How can membership be "pulled" from someone who is not a member? If he was a member, who at the council office or at the national office screwed up by allowing membership to this man?Does it really make any difference? Either Mr. Scalise signed the document without fully reading it and understanding its implications, then later changed his mind, or he sent in an unsigned application that was processed by the Council.Either way, the result is the same: he was not eligible for membership after he sent the Council his letter requesting an exemption.