Oregon high court rules for Scouts, against atheist mother

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Ed, how is "any boy may join" NOT a lie? BSA officials testified in court that Remington could not join because he was an atheist, so the statement "any boy may join" is not true.

[evmori 11]

It's not a lie. Any boy (and how come the parents of a girl didn't pitch a fit) can join providing he meets the requirements for membership.

 

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

Never Forget 9-11

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Ed, the court ruling says the BSA rep said "any boy" may join, NOT "any boy who meets the requirements". This also came out during court testimony; the BSA rep said that any boy could join, with no suggestion that there was any sort of religious belief requirement.

 

I suppose you'd consider a KKK rep who said "any boy" can join isn't lying, when it's later revealed that "any boy" who meets the white & Protestant requirements can join.

 

According to the court, the BSA rep said "any boy" can join, without qualifying it the way you keep doing. Yes, saying "any boy may join who meets the requirements" is true, but that ISN'T WHAT THE BSA REP SAID.

 

Got that, Ed? Yes, if the BSA rep had said something different, he wouldn't have lied. But he lied.

[evmori 11]

Yeah every boy can join. If they meet the requirements of membership. No one lied. A statement was made. If you can't do better than stooping to name calling, Merlyn, then you are a very sad individual.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

Never Forget 9-11

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Ed, you keep pretending the BSA rep said "any boy who meets the membership requirements can join"; what he said was "any boy" may join.

[evmori 11]

And any boy may join.

 

When the BSA loses a court case they are liars. When they win they are liars. When they tie they are liars. Merlyn, is it possible that maybe just maybe you are the one that has a problem recognizing the truth? You seem so bent on destroying the BSA you throw all logic out the window.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

Never Forget 9-11

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Ed, atheist boys can't join, so "any boy may join" is not true.

[Hunt 11]

If the BSA representative actually said that any boy may join, that simply isn't true, as we all well know. It's not so clear to me what they actually did say, however. The dissent--which thought there was discrimination--simply says that the reps "did not say" that there was a religious requirement. So I don't think it's clearly established that the reps "lied." Furthermore, the rep may have been a well-maining but not well-informed parent (remember, this is Cubs) who didn't really understand the requirement in the first place. Since he was addressing first-graders, I doubt if anybody asked him about qualifications to join, and he probably just said something like, "Cub Scouts is fun, and I hope you'll all join." I strongly doubt if there was an intent to deceive anybody, which is what "lying" is. But it's certainly the case, if we accept the facts as stated in the case, that the reps didn't explain that membership in Scouts is not, in fact, open to everyone. While I think addressing this through "discrimination" is kind of goofy, I think the dissent has the better argument--that if in fact, the group has discriminatory membership policies, the fact that they aren't mentioned during recruiting doesn't mean that the discrimination is somehow separate from the recruiting. (Note: I suppose it was made clear that it was only open to boys?)

[CalicoPenn 729]

The issue isn't if the rep from the Scout's lied or not, or even if the Scout's can discriminate - the issue is was the school a party of the discrimination and the court said no. The court correctly separated the issue of the mandatory recruiting session from the membership requirements of the Scouts.

 

I'm much more interested in the press-reported footnote of the case. The court seems to be suggesting that if another, less savory, group decided to make a play for claiming equal access under the equal access statutes, that the school would have no legal means of preventing it - if the BSA can have a mandatory recruiting session during school hours, then the Junior KKK can do the same if it so demands. It appears the court is suggesting to the schools that though they can't be held at fault for outside groups recruiting practices, they should carefully consider if they really want to continue to allow these sessions since it could open them up to demands on school time by other groups.

 

At least that's what I hope that footnote means. It could be interpreted by some to suggest that the BSA is itself a hate group because why would the court a) use that term and b) even research that area. I don't agree with that interpretation, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who looks at that and wonders.

 

CalicoPenn

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

CalicoPenn writes:

 

The issue isn't if the rep from the Scout's lied or not, or even if the Scout's can discriminate - the issue is was the school a party of the discrimination and the court said no.

 

But the decision also seems to say that the school wasn't a party of the discrimination because the BSA rep said it was for all boys, instead of saying that only boys who believe in god can join.

 

...The court seems to be suggesting that if another, less savory, group decided to make a play for claiming equal access under the equal access statutes, that the school would have no legal means of preventing it - if the BSA can have a mandatory recruiting session during school hours, then the Junior KKK can do the same if it so demands. It appears the court is suggesting to the schools that though they can't be held at fault for outside groups recruiting practices, they should carefully consider if they really want to continue to allow these sessions since it could open them up to demands on school time by other groups.

 

Yep. From a legal standpoint, there isn't much difference. Both are private groups that discriminate in ways public schools can't.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Hunt writes:

If the BSA representative actually said that any boy may join, that simply isn't true, as we all well know. It's not so clear to me what they actually did say, however. The dissent--which thought there was discrimination--simply says that the reps "did not say" that there was a religious requirement.

 

The Oregon supreme court decision here:

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S52657.htm#N_1_

...has a link to Powell v. Bunn near the top, which is here:

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A117310.htm

 

Powell v. Bunn has a little more detail:

...

The record includes videotapes of four presentations that a Boy Scouts representative made at district schools in fall 2001, after the adoption of the guidelines. In all but one videotape, a district principal, teacher, or administrator first quieted the students and told them to listen to the representative, who then made a short presentation to everyone and invited interested boys to talk with him further, either in the lunch room or outside on the school grounds. In the remaining videotape, the district employee mentioned the representative's presence and availability. In all of the videotapes, the representative spent 15 or more minutes with those boys who came up to talk with him, handing out brochures, answering their questions, and encouraging them to join; at least once the representative told the boys that anyone could join.

 

Keep in mind that Nancy Powell objected to BSA recruiters saying anyone could join back in 1996, and she complained every year, and the above is from 2001, where a BSA rep is still saying anyone could join, five years later.

 

And this:

http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A108090.htm

 

Plaintiff's son received one of the flyers from his teacher. The flyers consisted primarily of illustrations of boys involved in recreational activities (e.g., playing sports, planting trees, camping, birdwatching, practicing archery, flying kites, and making crafts). In large lettering, they stated "Get in on the Fun" and "You can join now!" In smaller lettering, they read "Tiger Cubs for First Graders," "Cub Scouts for 2nd & 3rd Graders," and "Webelos for 4th & 5th Graders."(12)

 

The next month, two Boy Scouts representatives obtained permission from the Harvey Scott Elementary School principal to provide information to students during the lunch hour about joining Cub Scouts. A school staff member supervising the students in the cafeteria introduced the representatives, after which the representatives spoke briefly. They announced that they were there to provide information about a Boy Scouts membership meeting and that interested boys could raise their hands to receive that information. The representatives described the general kinds of activities involved in scouting but did not touch on anything having to do with religious beliefs or religious activities. The representatives did not hand out any flyers at that time. Rather, the only information they distributed was in the form of wristbands that read:

 

"COME JOIN CUB SCOUT PACK 16! ROUND-UP FOR NEW CUB SCOUTS FOR BOYS IN GRADES 1-5[.] TODAY from 7-8 pm (10-15-96)[.] Scott Elementary School[.] Questions? Call Chrissy Smith @ * * *."

[evmori 11]

Merlyn,

Face it. The BSA can recruit in public schools. So can the KKK & the Young Atheists & The Fellowship of Christian Athletes & PETA. Key word recruit. Pass out fliers with joining information. Have recruiting sessions with joining information. No laws broken. No one discriminated against. Everyone can attend the recruiting sessions but no one has to join. Each person can chose which, if any, organization they wish to join providing they meet the membership requirements of the organization.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Hunt 11]

I think it's clear that the materials and the representatives didn't explain the membership limitation. The facts as stated suggest that "at least once" a representative said that any boy may join--I think that's far from being proof that the representatives were "lying." Again, who were these reps? If it was Den Leader Joe from the local Pack, that's very different from a BSA professional or a long-term leader. But again, it's all a moot point because the case should really turn on whether the school is opening the forum to all groups, and I'm sure it isn't, since this was a mandatory recruiting session. By that standard, this was improper, and the whole issue of what the boys were told is irrelevant.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, I think gents with personal agendas are gettin' just a bit silly.

 

I've heard plenty of coaches encourage "all boys" to join the team at initial recruitment sessions. That works until the first round of cuts, eh?

 

Community members are payin' for the heat, light, salaries, books, and walls of the school. They should be allowed to recruit for their extracurricular programs.

 

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Beavah, this may be a slight rephrasing of your post, but as a Community member I pay for the education of school age children and I expect the time in class be spent on educational program, not on non-school related activities. Recruiting Fairs/Scout Nights, off school hours, its open, during class time, no