Why does bsalegal.org condone gross violations of the Scout Law?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Hey OGE, I can finally tell you what high school that was that chartered a Venturing Crew, as that issue was settled (the school decided to drop the Crew in favor of an intermural program that would allow all students to join, instead of excluding gay and atheist students, which violated the law).

 

It was Cambridge-Isanti High School in MN. Here's a story about it from 2003:

http://www.isanticountynews.com/2003/february/4venturing.html

 

By the way, the principal of the school also is (or used to be) chair of the Three Rivers District:

http://www.scoutingbsa.org/Districts/ThreeRivers/Leadership.html

Notice his email address is his school email.

 

Now, I talked to him many times on the phone, and he seemed to think atheists COULD join his school's Venturing Crew; but I called David Park at the national BSA legal department, who was the only person at BSA national who would give me a straight answer on whether atheists really could join this Venturing Crew (the answer was "no").

 

If the school had been sued to stop this program, it would have cost the school a lot of money (and I would've urged the litigant to also sue the BSA for knowingly chartering its discriminatory program to a public school, as it's illegal in Minnesota to coerce or attempt to coerce a public school into practicing unlawful discrimination under MN statute 363.03). As it was, the school decided to drop the program before any litigant was found.

 

I'm currently working on a situation in St. Louis that's similar; a school program paid for with public money where the government says atheists and gays CAN and MUST be able to join under its nondiscrimination laws, but the BSA district running the program can't tell me how atheists and gays can join, since national BSA requires that they be excluded.

[LovetoCamp 9]

You're one sick twisted puppy!!!

[Deloe 10]

FOG

"It has nothing to do with anything that I said."

You claimed that no local people were complaining. How does the fact that local people were complaining have nothing to do with the claim that no local people were complaining? This is just bizarre.

 

" 'Rules' for debating are for weenies who can't get dates. "

Hmm, that sounds like a rule to me. Here's another rule: people who post personal insults in lieu of actual arguments generally do so because they dont have any valid point to make.

 

whitewater:

The real issue has to do with a few segments of society wanting to validate and seek acceptance of their definition of morality.

Seeing as how the BSA wants to promote their morality using public funds, that must be who youre talking about.

The government can't make an end-run around the First Amendment by establishing religious organizations instead of a religion. It's unconstitutional for the government to sponsor the Methodist Church. It also is unconstitutional for the government to support the Mormon Church. It does not suddenly become constitutional if the Methodist Church and the Mormon Church get together and form a common organization that then takes government support. The Supreme has held that the government is prohibited from supported religion, not merely A religion. Also, what is at issue is not whether religious organizations can use public land, but whether they can have preferential treatment. Finally, even if these lies are BSAs perspective, theyre still lies. How can you not see them as lies? They are deliberate falsehoods.

 

evmori :

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say Freedom OF religion not FROM religion", and I dont see how you can still insist that it does. Yes, it says freedom, it says of, and it says religion, but it doesnt say freedom of religion. It also says ed is a criminal.

Here is my point once again, since you seem to still not have gotten it yet:

The exact phrase "freedom of religion" does not appear in the constitution. You are arguing for that on the basis that it is IMPLIED. Well, "freedom from religion" is just as implied as "freedom of religion".

I have asked you several times to explain how the decision is in error, and you simply keep asking for an explanation for why the lease is unconstitutional. The decision explains why it is unconstitutional. How about you actually read the decision and tell me whats wrong with it?

[Fat Old Guy 11]

"You claimed that no local people were complaining"

 

Try this, go get a dictionary and then go back and re-read the entire thread, looking up each word as you go along.

 

"Hmm, that sounds like a rule to me."

 

That's no more of a rule than to say, "the Sun rises in the Southeast," it is simply a statement of fact.

 

"people who post personal insults in lieu of actual arguments generally do so because they dont have any valid point to make."

 

I don't want to argue, I'd rather just make fun of you. Come on, admit it, you had to pay your sister to go to the prom with you.

 

 

 

[Fat Old Guy 11]

I found something really amusing at Moi-lin's web site . . . he claims that he has a wife.(This message has been edited by Fat Old Guy)

[Deloe 10]

" "You claimed that no local people were complaining"

 

Try this, go get a dictionary and then go back and re-read the entire thread, looking up each word as you go along. "

Are you now claiming that you didn't say that? You said: "The ACLU is mean spirited and Grinch like. They invade towns and launch suits where no one is complaining except outsiders like themselves."

 

You clearly stated that no one except outsiders were complaining. Were you using "outsider" in sonething other than a geographical sense? Perhaps people who disagree with you are outsiders, regardless of where they live? Or are you just a troll?

[Fat Old Guy 11]

Okay, you went back and read it. Did you get a dictionary?

 

"Or are you just a troll?"

 

Interesting concept, a troll calling me a troll. I've made over 2,000 postings over the past year and you show up to start a rhubarb and call me a troll. If you were a man I'd be offended.

 

 

[whitewater 10]

Deloe,

 

The difference, as I see it, is that the BSA morals also reflect those of the majority of society. The BSA also teaches its members to be respectful of other people's views. That is not the case with those attacking the BSA. They believe the BSA is wrong and must be changed. They are intolerant of the BSA's right to believe what they want.

 

This is the true attack on the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has also determined that it is unconstitutional and violates the First Amendment to discriminate against a group or individual on the basis of their viewpoint. In other words, to deny access to public facilities because a group believes or doesn't believe in God, or because a group believes homosexuality is immoral or isn't immoral, is unconstitutional.

 

Aren't there other groups that the City of San Diego leases land to, or otherwise supports, such as the Salvation Army, church groups and Girl Scouts. Last I heard, boys could still not join the Girl Scouts. Why are the Boy Scouts being singled out?

 

I don't see a problem for government support of a non-profit organization as long as other groups receive equal treatment. I would see a problem if the government said the Boy Scouts were the only youth program that they would support.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Whitewater, have you actually read the judge's decision?

http://ACLUSanDiego.org/pdf/MSJorder.pdf

[Guest OldGreyEagle]

Deloe,

 

In his second to latest posting Merlyn makes mention of a High School that was using Venturering as its extracurricular activity. If you read it, you will see the unit is no more, in merlyns words:

 

"...As it was, the school decided to drop the program before any litigant was found."

 

Merlyn mentions he talked to the high school principal many times. Now, if the school dropped the program BEFORE a litigant was found, and after Merlyn talked to him, and I know Merlyn doesnt live in Minnesota, then doesnt that imply that an outsider changed the face of the community? I understand the need of the ACLU, but in this case, a High School had a working program, no one in the community complained and yet a single phone caller from out of state disbanded the unit. NO LITIGANT HAD BEEN FOUND, meaning no local resident had yet allowed the ACLU to file a suit in their name. Now, I always thought the ACLU stood by to safeguard constitutional rights when contacted by citizens, which again I support. I didn't know they actively sought out perceived violations and then searched for people to claim they were an injured party. I am not quite sure I can feel the pain of an injured person who doesnt claim to be injured until AFTER they have talked to a lawyer. The rancor expressed here is the reaction of people who live in communities who resent "outsiders", and by that I mean people who do not live in the community, who try to change long standing cultural and traditional heritages in that community in the name of the consitution. Then they fold up their brief cases and take the next plane home.

 

If I am wrong, I will apologize, but do I understand things correctly?(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Uh, OGE, I DO live in Minnesota.

 

However, you seem to think it's OK for a public school to own & operate a discriminatory youth program as long as it doesn't "get caught" or something. That hardly seems honest to me.

 

As I pointed out before, if the school had waited until a litigant was found, it would have cost the school (and possibly the BSA) much more money, because they would have already violated the student's civil rights, and they would likely be sued for damages and legal fees.

 

And I think the phrase you're looking for is "outside agitators"; that's what civil rights advocates were called when they went into towns where they didn't live to change a governmental system that unlawfully discriminated against a segment of their society.

[Fat Old Guy 11]

"However, you seem to think it's OK for a public school to own & operate a discriminatory youth program as long as it doesn't "get caught" or something."

 

Schools discriminate on a regular basis. Honor rolls, letterman clubs, varsity teams. Oddly, I was never offended that I couldn't join the French club.

[Guest OldGreyEagle]

Ok Merlyn, I thought you were in Illinois, I was in error. And no, I don't think the school should have operated a scouting unit because you are right, governmental units shouldnt sponsor scouting units. I was just laying out for Deloe why SOME people think the ACLU comes in where they are not wanted or at the very least had not been asked. Now, the example of the civil rights workers is very powerful. I remember the 60's. If you are saying the gays and atheists in that school were treated as badly by the scouting program as Jim Crow had treated black people then you are right, that association had to end.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Hey FOG, can you find any public school in the US that "owns and operates" a youth group that excludes Jews or Catholics or Hindus or Muslims for their beliefs? Because I can find hundreds that exclude atheists for their beliefs.

 

Schools can discriminate in many areas, but religious beliefs are not one of them. Period.

[Deloe 10]

FOG:

"Interesting concept, a troll calling me a troll. I've made over 2,000 postings over the past year and you show up to start a rhubarb and call me a troll. If you were a man I'd be offended."

I don't see any basis for you to call me a troll, now do I see how 2,000 posts gives you license to engage in the sort of dishonesty you have exhibited in this thread. You claimed that only outsiders were complaining, and you continued to do so even after I had explained that you were in error. You now say that there is something wrong with my explanation, but refuse to say what. Now if I in error, I am open to you explaining how. But you have refused to do so. You just keep saying "You're wrong, you're wrong, read a dictionary" over and over again. This, to me, is the behavior of a troll. Start acting like a mature adult or get out of my thread.

 

Schools discriminate on a regular basis. Honor rolls, letterman clubs, varsity teams. Oddly, I was never offended that I couldn't join the French club.

You dont seriously think thats comparable, do you? The discrimination is in activities, not types of people, and it is with regard to areas which the school has a legitimate interest. And why couldnt you join the French club?

 

whitwater:

"The BSA also teaches its members to be respectful of other people's views."

That's why I started this thread; the BSA *claims* to be respectful of other people's views, but the article in question paints quite a different view. And if the BSA is so respectful of other people's views, why are they fighting for their "right" to force these other people to financially support the BSA?

 

"They believe the BSA is wrong and must be changed. They are intolerant of the BSA's right to believe what they want."

That's quite a generalization. There is a broad range of people opposing the BSA, and certainly some of them who do not believe that the BSA has the right to promote discrimination. But not all of them hold that position; some of them just don't think that they should do with public support. Should also recognize that this intolerance is prompted by the BSA's own intolerance. It's not like are trying to stop something that is none of their business. BSA's position has a substantial effect on homosexuals.

 

"I don't see a problem for government support of a non-profit organization as long as other groups receive equal treatment."

But thats the whole point, other groups *aren't* receiving equal treatment. This was a special deal specifically made to the BSA. Have you ever heard of an ATHEIST group being offered a rent-free lease?

 

OGE:

I dont know if your interpretation of the events is correct; it does seem to suffer from the post hoc fallacy. Theres also a big difference between no litigants and no complaints. But Im not going to defend everything the ACLU does. I myself have some complaints about their activities. What I dont like is the faulty reasoning:

This lawsuit is supported [NOT filed] by the ACLU.

The ACLU engaged in questionable activities in a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT case.

Therefore this lawsuit is unjustified.

 

Perhaps the ACLU has, in other cases, gone where no one was complaining. But what does this have to do with this case? In this case, people clearly are complaining. Its also odd that many of the people who complain about the ACLU going where theyre not wanted and imposing their own values dont have a problem with the military doing the same in Iraq. Are there universal principles which everyone is obligated to follow, even if it means discarding local tradition, or does each community have the right to form their own values? Its one or the other; you cant have it both ways.