School SafeRides program stalls due to religion

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

TheScout writes:

Notice I never stated I KNEW the policy, like you always claim you know what is right.

 

But earlier you stated:

Merlyn, local councils were not told to do so!

 

Here, you're making a definite statement, even though nobody has produced the text of the actual letter that National sent out to the councils.

 

And I don't always claim to know what is right, but I sure know more about the first amendment than you do.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

fgoodwin writes:

As best as I can tell, the SafeRide program didn't discriminate in the service it provided; but it did have membership requirements for its drivers, and apparently that was too much for one atheist family to live with.

 

Yes Fred, it's too bad that damn atheist didn't just roll over and ignore his or her own public school violating their first amendment rights in order to avoid inconveniencing an organization that denegrates atheists.

 

Why, I'm sure if a safe ride program that excluded Catholics was started, no Catholic would ever think of telling a public school to stop discriminating against Catholics.

 

This strikes me as just another example of an atheist with a chip on his shoulder, actively seeking cases where they can complain about discrimination, and creating problems for others whenever he can.

 

Yes, it's the ATHEIST'S fault for having civil rights! You got that right!

 

How impossibly arrogant of this cowardly, anonymous atheist to complain about a public school excluding atheists!

 

Why, it's almost as bad as when your own cub scout pack had to recharter because it was chartered by a public school, and you even admitted in this forum that you wouldn't allow atheists into your pack, even though it was the school's youth group.

 

So, instead of finding something else to volunteer for (a more constructive approach), this family threatens a lawsuit and basically kills a service of benefit to the greater school community.

 

Yes, instead of ignoring civil rights violations, they should have just taken it, right? Just like blacks should have stayed in their place.

 

Yes, they proved their point, and the rest of the school is worse off for it. Typical "if I can't join, then no one can" attitude.

 

No Fred, the school superintendent specifically requested that the BSA allow the student to join while being an atheist, and THE BSA SAID NO. *THAT'S* what killed the arrangement.

 

The BSA's insistence on excluding atheists while dishonestly continuing to issue charters to public schools will keep on creating situations like this. And I'll keep making sure that public schools don't discriminate against atheists.

 

It's the BSA's fault. They're a private organization that doesn't act like one.

[John-in-KC 311]

Here's my take:

 

This is a lose/lose/lose situation.

 

The SCHOOL and the COMMUNITY lose the most. They, however the charter is/was/will be, lost young adults and their leaders. Those folk helped when their peers were illegally drunk/stoned, and unsafe to drive themselves. The school lost access to secondary insurance while these young folk were doing their missions of mercy.

 

The young people in the Crew lose an opportunity to serve their peers while having their actions backed up with additional insurance.

 

The young people who were illegally drinking and doing drugs lose a safety net. Anyone care to bet there will be a funeral as the consequence of all this, because access to a stone sober driver isn't available any longer?

 

The local Council lost a unit. Of all the above, that is the least important of all.

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The objecting parents, imo, should have been told "If you can underwrite the insurance at the same level BSA is, we'll be glad to make you the new sponsors of this program. If not, well, I guess you have a problem." As the principal, I think I'd have next called a local church and ask if they were willing to pick up the charter.

 

Merlyn, do you even care about the service rendered by these young people that is now gone?(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

John-in-KC writes:

The objecting parents, imo, should have been told "If you can underwrite the insurance at the same level BSA is, we'll be glad to make you the new sponsors of this program. If not, well, I guess you have a problem."

 

Ah, the school should have told the atheist family that their civil rights don't count, and it's their fault.

 

Boy, you must really want this school to lose a lawsuit.

 

As the principal, I think I'd have next called a local church and ask if they were willing to pick up the charter.

 

You'd still have a lawsuit for your hypothetical earlier remark.

 

Merlyn, do you even care about the service rendered by these young people that is now gone?

 

As someone who has a brother who's been paralyzed for 20 years by a drunk driver, probably more than you.

 

You, on the other hand, obviously do not care at all for the civil rights of atheists. They have none.

[TheScout 10]

Your claim that we think atheists have no civil rights is absurd and you no that.

 

Just because we all don't subscribe to your warped court-imposed view of the constitution, does not mean we do not care about civil rights.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

I judge people by what they say here. A number have said that the civil rights of atheists can or ought to be ignored by having a public school exclude them from a public school program.

[TheScout 10]

You miss a subtle difference. The school is not excluding them. They are excluding themselves from the theistic activities by choice.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Now if only one court in the US agreed with your reasoning, you might have something. But since every public school could use the same bizarre reasoning to exclude students of any religion, I won't hold my breath.

[TheScout 10]

Were they excluded by the school, or did they excuse themselves?

 

The difference remains.

 

A court may not agree, but the vast majority of Americans do. What should be more important? Don't bother answering. I know what you will say.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Just like the way Jews excluded themselves from Restricted clubs. Doesn't wash.

[TheScout 10]

If a prayer is said in school, and a child chooses to go stand outside in the hallway. He/she is excluding oneself.

[evmori 11]

Yes Fred, it's too bad that damn atheist didn't just roll over and ignore his or her own public school violating their first amendment rights in order to avoid inconveniencing an organization that denegrates atheists.

 

What right was violated? The BSA has the right to decide who is a member. SCOTUS said so! Nice language BTW.

 

It's interesting that the complaint is "you won't let us volunteer because we don't believe in God" and not "why are you assisting underage drinkers". I know this program helps other kids, too. Seems if the complainers focused on illegal underage drinking instead of the wonderful legal service provided that would be a better use of their resources.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

evmori writes:

What right was violated?

 

The student's first amendment right; public schools can't discriminate against students because they happen to be atheists. At least the school suprintendent knows this; I know you'll never be able to learn it.

[funscout 11]

I agree with fgoodwin and John-in-KC. Thanks for pointing out what is important here.

 

In Merlyn's defense, I would agree with him if this were a group that arbitrarily decided, "hey, let's exclude atheists." However, this is not the case. Venturers, being part of BSA, already had the clause that members must have a belief in a God.

 

The atheist student was denied membership to the Crew, since he doesn't believe in God. This same student could still benefit from the services of Safe Ride, he just couldn't provide those services to others. Since the Crew (BSA) was providing insurance, they certainly couldn't cover a non-member.

 

If this student would be denied the right of using Safe Ride's services, then that would be discrimination and would be wrong. 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.

 

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.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Fortunately, the school administrators realize that this IS a problem, since they've asked real lawyers about it.