Obscure topic possibly impinging on BSA

[eisely]

In keeping with Merlyn's admonition to relate topics to scouting, I offer the following. The story is reported by Fox News. I have no reason to doubt the basic accuracy of the facts reported.

 

Since Merlyn among others would say that BSA is a religious organization, does that mean BSA would get the boot from all public schools affected by this legislation?

 

This idea has come up before and resulted in legislation initiated by Jesse Helms to ensure that BSA was treated no differently than any other organization using public school facilities. Wonder where this might take us. Article follows:

 

______________________________________

 

 

Democrats in Congress have declared war on prayer, say conservative groups who object to a provision in the stimulus bill that was passed by the House of Representatives last week.

 

The provision bans money designated for school renovation from being spent on facilities that allow "religious worship." It has ignited a fury among critics who say it violates the First Amendment and is an attempt to prevent religious practice in schools.

 

According to the bill, which the Democratic-controlled House passed despite unanimous Republican opposition, funds are prohibited from being used for the "modernization, renovation, or repair" of facilities that allow "sectarian instruction, religious worship or a school or department of divinity."

 

Critics say that could include public schools that permit religious groups to meet on campus. The House provided $20 billion for the infrastructure improvements, of which $6 billion would go to higher education facilities where the limitations would be applied.

 

"What the government is doing is discriminating against religious viewpoints," said Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a Washington-based nonprofit organization that works to advance religious freedom.

 

"President Obama's version of faith-based initiatives is to remove the faith from initiative," said Staver, who believes Obama has "a completely different view on faith" from what he said during his presidential campaign.

 

"He is not the infallible messiah that some thought he would be," Staver said.

 

Civil liberty groups like the Americans United for Separation of Church and State vehemently defend the stimulus bill's provision, arguing that it in no way violates the Constitution.

 

"This provision upholds constitutional standards established by the U.S. Supreme Court and in no way affects student groups that meet on public school campuses," said the Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

 

The American Civil Liberties Union also defends the constitutionality of the restriction, which they say has been the law since 1972.

 

"It's almost a restatement of what the Constitution requires so there's nothing novel in what the House did in its restriction," said Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel to the ACLU. "For 37 years, the law of the land is that the government can't pay for buildings that are used for religious purposes."

 

Not so, says the Traditional Values Coalition, which issued a statement Wednesday charging that Obama is using his stimulus plan to restrict the exercise of religion in public facilities -- a provision it says violates the right to free speech.

 

"The economic crisis is being used as a pretext to curb religious liberty at institutions of higher learning," said Executive Director Andrea Lafferty.

 

"We are not asking that federal funding be used to construct a church, but if a campus ministry wants to hold a Bible study or Mass in the student activity building, we should be encouraging that -- not punishing a college for permitting it," she said.

 

According to some constitutional law experts, any complaint filed against the provision will gain little ground in court.

 

"Certainly the provision is treating the act of religious organizations differently from the activities of the school itself," Harvard University constitutional law professor Mark Tushnet told FOXNews.com.

 

"It's not frivolous to say there's a constitutional problem with excluding religious facilities from these grants, but I think the way of the law is in the other direction," he said.

 

Tushnet cited a 2004 Supreme Court case in which a Washington student lost a college scholarship awarded by the state after it was revealed that he planned to pursue a degree in pastoral ministries. Though the student argued that rescinding the money discriminated on the basis of religion, the court ruled in the state's favor -- declaring that the taxpayer-funded scholarship's restriction is constitutional.

 

The White House said Wednesday that it plans to keep in place the basic structure of the faith-based initiative office established by former President George W. Bush.

 

Administration officials said the office is a substantial programming and policy arm of the federal government, which allows federal agencies to connect with local neighborhood and faith-based groups to deliver social services.

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

I thought a scout unit could meet, (not be sponsored by a public school you understand) in a public school as long as it follwed the procedures set forth that all groups had to follow. Therefore the Fellowship of Christian Atheletes could be in one room while the Muslim Students Group was in another and Pack XXX in yet another. Would this preclude these three groups from being in the school?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

My rule of thumb is, Fox news will get any story involving religion and law wrong. This is another example.

 

This is apparently the language of that section:

(funds may not be used for the) "modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities-(i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission."

 

Notice that the language of the act only prohibits using the money for facilities that are only or chiefly used for religous instruction/religious worship and the like. If a church rents the local school gym every Sunday to hold services because they don't have a church built, that still wouldn't be a substantial use of the facilities, and the school could use these funds to fix up the gym. If, for some reason, the school has a room set aside only for religious use, they would not be able to use these funds to renovate that room, or to build such a room.

 

This is just more typical rightwing religious paranoid lunacy.

 

(fix typos)(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[eisely]

So ordinary use by BSA units of public schools would not be affected by this proposed legislation - is that correct?

[OldGreyEagle]

This may be more paranoid right wing lunacy, its hard to tell these days, but if a Public School were to outfit a room specific to a particular religions worship requirements, that would be wrong, correct? I make reference to the school that was said to be putting in a Muslim Prayer room. Now, I know there was disagreement if that was actualy happening, but this would eliminate that sort of thing completely. correct

[eisely]

OGE,

 

I too have read occasional pieces about various community colleges, and other public schools below the college level, modifying their facilities to accommodate Muslims. I am not sure how I feel about that, since minor modifications may be reasonable, but it does raise the question of government subsidizing a particular religion. Where is the ACLU when you need it?

[Lisabob]

I work at a public university. In the last 5 years we have made physical changes like installing foot baths in some public restrooms, which was aimed primarily at a couple of religious groups. However, it isn't the case that only members of those groups are allowed to use them (and in practice, they've become somewhat popular). We also have reflection areas. These too are open to any group. The university also frequently allows scouts and other groups with ties to organized religion to use its facilities.

 

This is very simple. Don't designate rooms or buildings for exclusively religious use. The local church that rents the elementary school cafeteria once a week for service is in no danger from this proposal, and neither are scout groups.

 

But it sure makes a good story and stokes the fires, don't it?

[sheldonsmom]

This is just more typical rightwing religious paranoid lunacy.

 

 

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you!

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

eisely, the ACLU has made numerous statements about such cases. Why haven't you looked for them and read them?

[CalicoPenn]

The Boy Scouts will still be able to meet in a public school (all else being equal). This provision doesn't change things.

 

It simply prevents taxpayer dollars from being spent to build, renovate or ugrade religious facilities in schools and funding religious studies departments.

 

In Illinois, a number of colleges have installed foot baths in some rest rooms. At first, it was challenged because it was for a religious purpose - and yes, originally it did have a religious purpose. BUT (and here's a rare case of common sense that neither side disagreed with so all is copacetic - at least in Illinois) - Muslim students weren't going to stop taking foot baths if the foot baths weren't installed - they would just continue using the sinks to wash their feet. From a health standpoint, it was much better to install footbaths (which are open to anyone to use) then to use sinks. The schools couldn't ban students from using the sinks to wash their feet (that would be religious discrimination not allowed under the 1st Amendment) so the made a sensible accomodation. The biggest problems in a couple of schools was keeping the janitors from using them as slop sinks after mopping the restroom floors.

 

As has been pointed out, the story is coming from "What the Fox?" news - all the news that they can twist to sell products to the brain dead.

 

Calico

[scoutldr]

At first glance, it was clear to me that the intent is to prevent funding from going to churches who operate schools on their property. I'm not a liberal Democrat, but I agree with this.

[Nike]

What about Universties that have historically significant churches or chapels on grounds available to all faiths? And how about the chapels at the military academies? UC Berkeley has a respected divinity school as do many of the Ivies. In trying not to say what you mean, you often say what you really don't.

[evmori]

This provision upholds constitutional standards established by the U.S. Supreme Court

 

I always thought constitutional standards were established with the actual document.

 

For 37 years, the law of the land is that the government can't pay for buildings that are used for religious purposes.

 

Technically the government is paying. House of worship are tax exempt! The taxpayers are footing the bill!

[sheldonsmom]

I am confused. Houses of worship are tax exempt. They do not pay taxes, they do not receive tax money. In what way are the taxpayers footing the bill?

[GernBlansten]

Churches get a free ride. They don't pay for their fire department, police, and other government services provided by tax payer money? So in effect, we pay their way through our tax dollars.