School SafeRides program stalls due to religion

[DanKroh]

"However, not being able to be a provider of those services, does not constitute discrimination as the student made the conscious choice to not believe in God."

 

Tell me, funscout, did you make a "conscious choice" to be a Christian, or was it a "calling" that you felt down in your soul? Most people of religion that I know feel that their "choice" of religion was not so much a conscious decision as a calling that they could not deny. Of the atheists I've spoken to, most of them describe their "decision" to be an atheist in a similar fashion, a moment of ephiphany marked by the absence of such a calling, and a knowing that there was no mysterious force called "God" at work in the universe. Is that a conscious choice?

 

"I wonder why an atheist would want to join an organization which believes in something so completely against his own beliefs. As a Christian, I would not want to join an organization that insisted that I denounce my belief in God. I wouldn't cry "discrimination!", I just wouldn't join."

 

You know, I think it is awfully easy when one belongs to the majority to sit back and say "I just wouldn't join". Because realistically, when you are in the majority, if that majority is excluded, they are going to go off and form their own organization to do the same thing. And they will probably have enough people to do that because they are, well, the *majority*. But if a minority says "I just won't join", then they are probably going to miss out on the only game in town. Is it really so hard to walk in another person's shoes to understand what discrimination feels like?

 

As far as the importance of the service; if it was so important (and I think it is), then wouldn't it have been important enough to put aside petty differences to continue the work? It seem to me the only people demeaning the imporance of the service are the ones who would rather shut it down than allow an atheist to help out.

 

[Beavah]

Yah, sad to say, Merlyn has a point and is at least correct on the law, eh? Law ain't the same as ethics, but in general we wouldn't want to be routinely excluding some kids from school sponsored activities.

 

I have two issues. One there's no sense of proportion on either side. Is making a fuss over paperwork (that we all know is nothing more than token in terms of what really goes on in SafeRides) worthwhile for either side? Seems like blowin' up a good service over an issue of paperwork fails the ethics test. Society crumbles if every individual and group insists on havin' their way on every little thing.

 

Da second issue is this. Government school funding continues to rise, and is slowly pricing out private and parochial schools. Effectively, this means that the alternate viewpoint - that there's merit in offering an educational environment that is values-based - is being suppressed. The government, by subsidizing "public" education and then by requiring it to be religion-free and all-inclusive, is trampling on the rights of those of us who don't believe that religion-free environments are good for kids or character. That those are the majority of Americans makes it even more tyrannical.

 

Don't yeh see that, Merlyn? All your arguments apply equally to the other side. Government endorsement and subsidy of excluding religion has the same effect you'd claim for government subsidy of a particular religion. "Sure, you religious people can have schools, you just have to pay $10K per year." Imagine if we said to you, "sure, you atheists can have schools free of religion, you just have to pay $10K per year."

 

Da larger government gets, the greater the societal effect of government social funding and subsidy. It was one thing for Tom Jefferson to talk about a "wall of separation" back when there were only 7 full-time employees of the federal government; it's quite a different thing when government jobs and funding amount to 40% of the Gross Domestic Product. If we insist as you suggest that all government social funding must be religion-free, that's a very large subsidy toward creatin' a religion-free nation, and tramplin' on the rights of those of faith.

 

I think that's da push-back you're hearin', Merlyn. Da irony is that the religious folk would have been content if we all just didn't raise a ruckus about token things. But if you're really makin' a fairness argument, then we have to move to religious neutrality, which means government funding of schools and school programs of all kinds, regardless whether they have a religious component... much like we do with colleges, eh, where we have a system that's the envy of the world. And much like da rest of the Free World does with K-12 education and youth activities.

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah, the religious folks would have been content if people hadn't raised a ruckus over official prayers in school, but some people thought that public schools shouldn't tell kids what, how, when, or if to pray.

 

Funny how religious neutrality looks like excluding religion to some people.

[evmori]

The student's first amendment right; public schools can't discriminate against students because they happen to be atheists.

 

The student didn't meet the membership requirements of the private club he wanted to join. So?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

It isn't a private club, it's a school program. When it has a private chartering partner, it'll be a private club, but not until then.

[evmori]

It's a private club. The Venture Club was running the program, not the school. The school supplied a meeting place & was paying two teachers as advisors.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Well you'd better email the school superintendent and tell him to ignore his lawyers' advice, and that everything is hunky-dory. They're still under the delusion that there's a problem.

[Beavah]

So yeh didn't answer my question, Merlyn.

 

Is it OK for the government, which controls 40% of the GDP, to give subsidies only to areligious groups? To provide a captive audience of young people only with areligious messages? Isn't that the identical choice to sanction particular speech and quash rights that you're complainin' about?

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

Is it OK for the government, which controls 40% of the GDP, to give subsidies only to areligious groups?

 

Of course. Why wouldn't it be?

 

To provide a captive audience of young people only with areligious messages?

 

Like reading, writing, and arithmetic? Sure.

 

Isn't that the identical choice to sanction particular speech and quash rights that you're complainin' about?

 

Whose rights are being quashed when public schools teach kids how to add?

[Hunt]

See, Merlyn, this is just another example of how you don't get it. This is a sad story, not a victory for fairness and justice. These kids were volunteering to provide safe rides--that's a good thing. Don't you agree? It's too bad that the particular arrangement created a problem for the school and the Crew, and a reasonable person would hope they can work it out. But it delights you that the evil Scouts were dealt another blow--and you came here to gloat about it. That's just sad, honestly.

 

By the way, the school system's lawyers may be right that the school district shouldn't actually charter the Crew, but if they advise the school that there's a problem with providing the phone line and even the stipend for the faculty advisors, they're overly cautious, because that would probably be approved by the courts as permissible expenditures given the secular purpose. But they probably don't want the aggravation of dealing with litigious atheists, even if they have a reasonable argument.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Hunt writes:

See, Merlyn, this is just another example of how you don't get it. This is a sad story, not a victory for fairness and justice. These kids were volunteering to provide safe rides--that's a good thing. Don't you agree?

 

Sure.

 

It's too bad that the particular arrangement created a problem for the school and the Crew, and a reasonable person would hope they can work it out

 

They can. The BSA could stop discriminating in their Venture program, for just one way.

 

But it delights you that the evil Scouts were dealt another blow--and you came here to gloat about it. That's just sad, honestly.

 

And to show how the BSA's stupidity and discrimination still continue to create problems.

 

By the way, the school system's lawyers may be right that the school district shouldn't actually charter the Crew, but if they advise the school that there's a problem with providing the phone line and even the stipend for the faculty advisors, they're overly cautious, because that would probably be approved by the courts as permissible expenditures given the secular purpose.

 

I disagree. If you're offering to fund a test lawsuit, go ahead.

 

It's also possible that the school wouldn't want to deal with the BSA any more, given that the school was needlessly exposed to a discrimination lawsuit because the local council acted against BSA policy.

 

But they probably don't want the aggravation of dealing with litigious atheists, even if they have a reasonable argument.

 

Your "reasonable arguments" always seem to come out with atheists being discriminated against. And if you want to see litigious atheists, keep trying to get public schools to run discriminatory BSA programs.

[Beavah]

Is it OK for the government, which controls 40% of the GDP, to give subsidies only to areligious groups?...Of course. Why wouldn't it be?

 

Is it OK for the government to give subsidies only to religious groups?

Would it still be OK if the government controlled 100% of the GDP for it to only give money to areligious groups... eliminating institutional religion entirely?

 

To provide a captive audience of young people only with areligious messages? Like reading, writing, and arithmetic? Sure.

 

And like History sanitized of religious viewpoints, literature selected to exclude religious expression, philosophy courses that only presented areligious or anti-religious worldviews, school assemblies that belittle, critique, or simply censor religious perspectives.

 

Is it OK to provide a captive audience of young people in government-supported school with only religious messages?

 

Yah, perhaps that atheist perspective doesn't include "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," eh? Your argument would have more merit if you supported equal access everywhere - includin' to government resources and government sponsored environments. As it is, it seems to me you are just tryin' to be more exclusive and discriminatory than you claim da BSA is.

 

B(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

Is it OK for the government to give subsidies only to religious groups?

 

No, not at least since Everson

 

Would it still be OK if the government controlled 100% of the GDP for it to only give money to areligious groups... eliminating institutional religion entirely?

 

How would that be possible? For that, the government would either have to have a 100% tax rate, or those not subject to 100% tax earn no money.

 

And like History sanitized of religious viewpoints, literature selected to exclude religious expression, philosophy courses that only presented areligious or anti-religious worldviews, school assemblies that belittle, critique, or simply censor religious perspectives.

 

Well, it might look that way to someone who's paranoid.

 

Is it OK to provide a captive audience of young people in government-supported school with only religious messages?

 

Of course not. We have religious freedom in this country, not government indoctrination of religion.

 

Yah, perhaps that atheist perspective doesn't include "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," eh?

 

Why not? That's a very old intuitive ethical stance that predates Christianity, by the way.

 

Your argument would have more merit if you supported equal access everywhere - includin' to government resources and government sponsored environments. As it is, it seems to me you are just tryin' to be more exclusive and discriminatory than you claim da BSA is.

 

Only from your warped perspective.

[PeteM]

CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

 

The First Amendment doesn't say public schools or people who work for the government or groups that are run by the government, groups that own government property, but the CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

 

Why can't people simply READ the Constitution in the plain language that it was written in instead of looking for hidden meanings?

[Beavah]

Yah, Merlyn, yeh know I jumped in on this thread against my better judgment, in part to defend you on matters of law and in part to bring in a balanced perspective.

 

But I surrender. I think you're caught up in solipsistic arguments, and like many with entrenched positions you aren't at this point capable of empathy with the other side. So rather than law being an arbiter of civil polity, law is a battlefield on which you can attack the other tribe.

 

Easiest way out is for the district to contract with the PTO (or another organization) for Saferide services, and the PTO in turn to charter a Venturing Crew. No change to the reality for the kids.

 

B