Aclu Strikes Back

[crazyfingers]

I think it's very important that we know WHY Chief Justice Rehnquist and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the BSA. I will address that quickly in this post. It has nothing to do with the ridiculous assertions in this forum.

Anyways, to summate:







For the Boy Scouts to include "God" in their Pledge in no way defines them as a religion or a religious organization. Certainly not monotheistic. Rather, as Justice Stewart said in regards to a strikingly similar Pledge, an indication that we as a society "presuppose a Supreme Being".

Although in 1962 (Engel v Vitale) the Court ruled that "government . . . should stay out of the business of writing or sanctioning official prayers and leave that purely religious function to the people themselves," the Court explained,

The Establishment Clause, then, viewed through the eyes of Court precedents, is to keep the government out of religion and leave religion to the people. They aren't to sponsor it, in other words, financially or otherwise. Justice O'Connor established the Endorsement Test.

http://www.fac.org/rel_liberty/establishment/index.aspx



On June 28, 2000, Chief Justice Rehnquist of the Supreme Court ruled that the BSA was a private, not-for-profit organization [where membership is a privilege, not a right] with the Constitutional Right of Expressive Association. Just because they deny admission based on sexual orientation does not make them a religion. Just because they require a pledge like this:



does not make them a religion. As a matter of fact, that pledge sounds strikingly like the Pledge of Allegiance that the Supreme Court consistently upholds.

Therefore, it is in my opinion that based upon these quotes provided, the Supreme Court will be placed in a difficult position. A veritable can of worms. If they declare the BSA to be accountable under the Establishment Clause as suggested here, thus not eligible for government handouts, they have to a) establish that BSA is a religion, even though the precedent has already been set; and b) measure all instances that use the word "God" in like manner with the same measure, or Endorsement Test.

In 1989, Justice Kennedy provided many examples of official acknowledgements of religion that would be unconstitutional under the endorsement test (proposed by Justice O'Connor) including Congress' decision to add "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance.

If you want to argue this broad an interpretation of separation of Church and State, then you must include the Pledge of Allegiance. However, the Court has time and time again stood in defence of the Pledge, even when it has struck prayers down that have stood by it's side in ceremony, such as the Graduation Prayer. The only time the Pledge was successfully argued against, it was ordered out of schools in the 9th District by the 9th District United States Appeals Courts. The Pledge is currently before the Supreme Court, but the Senators are in the midst of passing a bill to prevent lower courts from hearing such cases as being violations of the First Amendment.

My guess is the ruling gets overturned.

Dude, you forget the fact that the BSA denies membership to anyone who does not believe in a supreme being.

That's a fact and it wipes out your entire argument.

 

[SirKenin]

They require belief in a supreme being for membership. They even have a form that one is required to sign. You appear to be unaware of that fact.

I'm perfectly aware of that fact

Define the "supreme being". You seem to be convinced that it is the God that Christians know, but not even secular documents will concur, either conclusively or exclusively

God
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
A very handsome man.
A powerful ruler or despot.

Look up God at http://www.britannica.com/ See what it tells you.

So, first, we can safely establish that you can not prove monotheism.

Second, Chief Justice Rehnquist and the Supreme Court recognize the BSA merely as private, not-for-profit organization [where membership is a privilege, not a right] with the Constitutional Right of Expressive Association. Just because someone is denied admission for being an atheist does not establish an organization as a religion. As a matter of fact, you will generally find that religions have an open door policy. Merely that said applicant does not adhere to the organizations policies.

Third, the BSA has been found to desire to instill certain core values. This in no way establishes them as a religion, anymore than wanting to make good burgers establishes Burger King as a religion.

Fourth, the use of God in a pledge has been ruled by the Supreme Court to not necessarily indicate adherance to or endorcement of religion, rather that we "presuppose a Supreme Being". Please note there is no definition of whom that Supreme Being might be.

Fifth, the Boy Scouts of America do not fall under the definition of Religion, as already presented in this thread.

So, you've demanded proof. Now I ask you. Where is your evidence?

 

[SirKenin]

Dude, you forget the fact that the BSA denies membership to anyone who does not believe in a supreme being.

That's a fact and it wipes out your entire argument.

That doesn't even factor into the Endorsement Test, Expressive Association or anything else addressed in that post.

I don't think we're even riding the same rails.

 

[crazyfingers]

I'm perfectly aware of that fact

Define the "supreme being". You seem to be convinced that it is the God that Christians know, but not even secular documents will concur, either conclusively or exclusively

Where have I said that they require Christianity? I have not.

They require belief in a supreme being - any supreme being but it must be a supernatural being.

They require a religious belief on the part of members. They have a religion requirement. They discriminate against people who do not have belief in a supreme being. They discriminate on the basis of religion in that they require that you have one.

Look up God at http://www.britannica.com/ See what it tells you.

So, first, we can safely establish that you can not prove monotheism.

Second, Chief Justice Rehnquist and the Supreme Court recognize the BSA merely as private, not-for-profit organization [where membership is a privilege, not a right] with the Constitutional Right of Expressive Association. Just because someone is denied admission for being an atheist does not establish an organization as a religion. As a matter of fact, you will generally find that religions have an open door policy. Merely that said applicant does not adhere to the organizations policies.

Third, the BSA has been found to desire to instill certain core values. This in no way establishes them as a religion, anymore than wanting to make good burgers establishes Burger King as a religion.

Fourth, the use of God in a pledge has been ruled by the Supreme Court to not necessarily indicate adherance to or endorcement of religion, rather that we "presuppose a Supreme Being". Please note there is no definition of whom that Supreme Being might be.

Fifth, the Boy Scouts of America do not fall under the definition of Religion, as already presented in this thread.

So, you've demanded proof. Now I ask you. Where is your evidence?

They discriminate on the basis of religion. I have not denied their right to do that. However if thay want to discriminate they will have to give up their claim to special access to government resources. The government can not give special treatment to organizations that discriminate on the basis of religion. That violates the first and 14th amendment.

This is my point.

 

[SirKenin]

They require belief in a supreme being - any supreme being but it must be a supernatural being.

Not exactly. Again, your famous twist on words. To be exact,

On my honor I will do my best To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.

This does not establish them as a religion. You can not prove that they are a religion. They aren't. Not even by definition. There is a duty to God, but definition requires

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

Your argument that BSA is a religion has already been used, tried and found untrue by the courts.

See http://www.familydefensecouncil.com/liberty_legal_institute.htm for more information.

Not the courts, not secular definitions, not even the BSA themselves, will provide evidence of your assertions. None the less, I'll wait.

They discriminate on the basis of religion. I have not denied their right to do that. However if thay want to discriminate they will have to give up their claim to special access to government resources. The government can not give special treatment to organizations that discriminate on the basis of religion. That violates the first and 14th amendment.

It does not violate the First Amendment at all. I don't think you are reading anything I'm typing. The majority of the Supreme Court ruled in FAVOR of the BSA.

First, let's deal with the First Amendment

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

First, we've established beyond a reasonable doubt, certainly in the glaring absence of your evidence, that the BSA is not a religion. Similar, yes. The same, no.

Second, even assuming it was a religion... All this says is that the government can't make a law about religion. It can not say whether the Boy Scouts would have to change their policy to allow for homosexual inclusion, or make any other ruling. Public funding is not a factor in this Amendment.

Second, let's take a look at the Fourteenth Amendment.

1) All US citizens are entitled to due process.
2) Representatives will be apportioned according to the number of people in their jurisdictions
3) No person shall represent the country if they have been involved in a crime such as insurrection or rebellion after they had taken oath
4) The debt will not be questioned, nor will the USA give any money to fund anyones war efforts against the USA.
5) The Senate has the power to enforce these articles.

What does that have anything to do with funding a private, not for profit agency?

 

[SirKenin]

They discriminate on the basis of religion. I have not denied their right to do that. However if thay want to discriminate they will have to give up their claim to special access to government resources. The government can not give special treatment to organizations that discriminate on the basis of religion. That violates the first and 14th amendment.

Seeing as how you seem to be running into difficulties, please allow me to help set you on the right track.

I'm suggesting that the only way that this latest ruling against the BSA will be upheld, to remove government handouts, is to prove that they are a religion. That way the ACLU can pursue the Establishment Clause.

I am also suggesting that the only way of doing it is by the BSA usage of the word "God". However, according to all the reading I have done, the Courts seem to look either favorably or neutrally on "presupposing a Supreme Being" as we have religious roots, according to Justice Stewart. The Scout Pledge is strikingly similar to the Pledge of Allegiance. I suggest that neither establish the respective party as a religion.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to show documented proof that BSA is a religion, and therefore would qualify under the Establishment Clause. This doesn't include your opinions. This means facts. Websites of distinguished variety and educated authors. Not homepages.

I'm standing by.

 

[Inspired]

It's not hard to prove they are a Christian organization, all you have to do is go to their site

www.scouting.org

A letter they posted commending their values
http://www.scouting.org/nav/enter.jsp?c=xds&terms=christian
"My purpose in writing is to commend the Boy Scouts for their long history of Judeo-Christian values and ethics, and to encourage you in what must be a difficult time for you and your organization.

As we see a cultural war raging between traditional values and the secular worldview, I believe the "heat in the kitchen" will get hotter. Any of us who stand for moral absolutes will be the target of extremist groups and those who want only toleration."




A scout is reverant
Offertory Prayers
Bless us O God, and these gifts which we bring. Use them to further the Scouting ministry. Amen.
May these gifts which we bring be merely an extension of our daily duty to you, O God. Amen.
May the gifts that we now offer up to God be a sign of our trust in God's promise of a new tomorrow, a better day, a sign that love and forgiveness have indeed found a way.

http://www.scouting.org/nav/enter.jsp?
c=xds&terms=Reverent+&x=20&y=11


A Scout is reverent. He is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties and respects the convictions of others in matters of custom and religion.
http://www.scouting.org/nav/enter.jsp?c=xds&terms=Reverent+&x=20&y=11

 

[SirKenin]

"My purpose in writing is to commend the Boy Scouts for their long history of Judeo-Christian values and ethics,

I'll stop there. Having values and ethics (particularly in the eyes of a parent) doesn't denote you as a religion, or even a religious organization.

I appreciate those links.

This is what I was looking for. Although the Supreme Court does not seem to agree that they are a religious organization, I can't debunk them yet. If that remains the case, I would think that would be the merits of the ACLU case if it went to the Supreme Court then, I guess, as opposed to what I said earlier.

Again, having the principles does not make you a religious organization..

HOWEVER... This is definitely worth a read. One can't help but laugh at the way it's presented. Follow the links, though, for more arguments.

http://www.ravingatheist.com/archiv..._boy_scouts_are_a_religious_organization.html

Sparkman added that if a ducks in a Balboa Park walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it should not be called a duck by insane federal judges.

bwahahaha.

 

[crazyfingers]

Not exactly. Again, your famous twist on words. To be exact,

I suggest that you call the BSA and ask them to read their form to you. I did. They told me that they require belief in a supreme being. That's what their form says. That's a fact. I have twisted nothing.

This does not establish them as a religion. You can not prove that they are a religion. They aren't. Not even by definition. There is a duty to God, but definition requires

Hello? Please show me where I have said that they are a religion. I said on post #49 "They have declaired themselves to be a private membership organization in which religion is a key part of their mandate. They went to the US Supreme Court and argued for their right to discriminate against gays on the basis of religious belief. They won. That makes them, by definition, a religious organization."
They have defined themselves as a religious organization the same way that the Knights of Columbus are a religious organization. The Knights of Columbus are not a religion. They are a religious organization. Do you understand the distinction?

Your argument that BSA is a religion has already been used, tried and found untrue by the courts.
See http://www.familydefensecouncil.com/liberty_legal_institute.htm for more information.

Dude, I have not said that the BSA is a religion. I have said that they are a religious organization. Do you get the distinction?

Not the courts, not secular definitions, not even the BSA themselves, will provide evidence of your assertions. None the less, I'll wait.

I have said that they are a religious organization. I have not said that they are a religion.

It does not violate the First Amendment at all. I don't think you are reading anything I'm typing. The majority of the Supreme Court ruled in FAVOR of the BSA.
First, let's deal with the First Amendment

Dude, the SC rules that as a private organization the BSA has the right to discriminate against gays. Part of the BSA's argument was that as a private organization they have the right to apply their religious values to it's membership rules. That is what the court agreed with.
The supreme Court did not address whether the BSA can receive government special treatment and subsidy. That is a different issue than the one that they decided.

First, we've established beyond a reasonable doubt, certainly in the glaring absence of your evidence, that the BSA is not a religion. Similar, yes. The same, no.

Hello? I never said that they are a religion.

Second, even assuming it was a religion... All this says is that the government can't make a law about religion. It can not say whether the Boy Scouts would have to change their policy to allow for homosexual inclusion, or make any other ruling. Public funding is not a factor in this Amendment.

I'm not talking about their discrimination against gays. I'm talking about their discrimination against people who do not believe in a supreme being.
The first amendment and the 14th amendment prohibit the Government from supporting discrimination on the basis of religion.
I have not said that the BSA can't discriminate on the basis of religion. But I have said that if they do, the government can't give them special treatment.
Please get your arguments straight.

Second, let's take a look at the Fourteenth Amendment.
1) All US citizens are entitled to due process.
2) Representatives will be apportioned according to the number of people in their jurisdictions
3) No person shall represent the country if they have been involved in a crime such as insurrection or rebellion after they had taken oath
4) The debt will not be questioned, nor will the USA give any money to fund anyones war efforts against the USA.
5) The Senate has the power to enforce these articles.
What does that have anything to do with funding a private, not for profit agency?

You missed a part.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The part in bold is called the equal protection clause. It prohibits the government from supporting discrimination on the basis of religion.

 

[SirKenin]

Hmmm. Ok. Originally, the scouts was not founded as a religious organization. As I mentioned earlier, religion was not a part of Scouts at all.

This is BSA rules and policies:

The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God. The Boy Scouts of America recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training.
Where a Scouting unit is connected with a distinctly religious organization, no members of other denominations or faith shall be required, because of their membership in the unit, to take part in or observe a religious ceremony distinctly peculiar to that organization.

However, http://www.umcscouting.org/bsa/BSA_Relationsip_Religious_Groups.htm

There was Scouting in America before there was a "Boy Scouts of America:' Many religious groups were using the Scouting program as a part of their ministry to the youth and families in their neighborhoods. Scouting developed as a movement and became a part of religious groups' youth ministry.

Today, many churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples and their leaders, with other community organizations, use the Boy Scouts of America program. The BSA exists to give unity to the program and to provide support services for groups desiring to use the program.

Thus, confusion is arising.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/scout9704.htm

Multnomah County Circuit Judge Joseph F. Ceniceros ruled that the Boy Scouts have a right to recruit in public schools, during class time, because it is not primarily a religious organization -- even though members are required to affirm a belief in "God."

According to the site I linked, you aren't a religious organization "just because the Scouts describe religious belief and practice as fundamental to the services they provide, require all members to profess a belief in God, compel all scouts to vow to do their duty to God, and expel members who do not believe in God."

Certainly the most latest ruling from the Supreme Court doesn't set them up to be a religious organization.

Therefore, in and of itself, the BSA appears to not be a religious organization or a religion. They connect themselves with religious organizations. Therefore they merely have religious values that are manifested differently, certainly not surprising considering about 70% of Boy Scout Troups are housed by churches, IIRC.

 

[crazyfingers]

Seeing as how you seem to be running into difficulties, please allow me to help set you on the right track.

I'm suggesting that the only way that this latest ruling against the BSA will be upheld, to remove government handouts, is to prove that they are a religion. That way the ACLU can pursue the Establishment Clause.

No. It's an issue for the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause.

The government can't support organizations that discriminate on the basis of religion. To do so would run up against No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I am also suggesting that the only way of doing it is by the BSA usage of the word "God". However, according to all the reading I have done, the Courts seem to look either favorably or neutrally on "presupposing a Supreme Being" as we have religious roots, according to Justice Stewart. The Scout Pledge is strikingly similar to the Pledge of Allegiance. I suggest that neither establish the respective party as a religion.

They require all members to believe in a supreme being. Those who will not sign a form that says that they do are kicked out. Prospective members who will not swear to believing in a supreme being are denied membership.

That is very different from the pledge of allegiance. No citizen is denied citizenship for refusing to say the pledge. But the BSA denies membership to people who do not swear to believe in a supreme being.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to show documented proof that BSA is a religion, and therefore would qualify under the Establishment Clause. This doesn't include your opinions. This means facts. Websites of distinguished variety and educated authors. Not homepages.

I'm standing by.

Why should I do that? That is NOT what I am arguing.

 

[SirKenin]

I'm not talking about their discrimination against gays. I'm talking about their discrimination against people who do not believe in a supreme being.
The first amendment and the 14th amendment prohibit the Government from supporting discrimination on the basis of religion.
I have not said that the BSA can't discriminate on the basis of religion. But I have said that if they do, the government can't give them special treatment.
Please get your arguments straight.

I have mine straight. I don't know about you. There is nothing in the first amendment that prevents the government from funding ANY organization that might discriminate. That's merely your errant interpretation of the facts. Again, your facts please.

 

[crazyfingers]

Hmmm. Ok. Originally, the scouts was not founded as a religious organization. As I mentioned earlier, religion was not a part of Scouts at all.

This is BSA rules and policies:



However, http://www.umcscouting.org/bsa/BSA_Relationsip_Religious_Groups.htm

Thus, confusion is arising.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/scout9704.htm



According to the site I linked, you aren't a religious organization "just because the Scouts describe religious belief and practice as fundamental to the services they provide, require all members to profess a belief in God, compel all scouts to vow to do their duty to God, and expel members who do not believe in God."

Certainly the most latest ruling from the Supreme Court doesn't set them up to be a religious organization.

Therefore, in and of itself, the BSA appears to not be a religious organization or a religion. They connect themselves with religious organizations. Therefore they merely have religious values that are manifested differently, certainly not surprising considering about 70% of Boy Scout Troups are housed by churches, IIRC.

They discriminate on the basis of religion. I regard that as making them a religious organization. But what we may define as a religious organization does not matter.

What matters is that they discriminate on the basis of religion and if they choose to do that the government is prohibited from giving them special treatment because to do so would violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the constitution.

 

[crazyfingers]

I have mine straight. I don't know about you. There is nothing in the first amendment that prevents the government from funding ANY organization that might discriminate. That's merely your errant interpretation of the facts. Again, your facts please.

Check out the equal protection clause to the 14th amendment.

 

[SirKenin]

No. It's an issue for the 14th amendment and the equal protection clause.

The government can't support organizations that discriminate on the basis of religion. To do so would run up against No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

No, again, your interpretation of the law seems to be inaccurate.

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/410/410lect05.htm

once properly classified, groups may be treated differently between themselves, but
within themselves, each member of a classified group must be treated alike

These last two statements are the principle of equal protection. In actuality, it's a principle of equal discrimination. It allows groups to be discriminated against as long as, with respect to the group receiving less, the discrimination is spread equally among all members of the affected group. For example, if a law makes a distinction among a group of people called XY, then not only does the dividing line, or classification, between X/Y have to be constitutionally valid, but the equal protection clause requires that all members of group X receive similar treatment and all members of group Y receive similar treatment.

Again, please provide some facts to back up your claims.

 

[SirKenin]

I suggest that you call the BSA and ask them to read their form to you. I did. They told me that they require belief in a supreme being. That's what their form says. That's a fact. I have twisted nothing.

That doesn't constitute evidence, friend. I know they require belief in some kind of supreme being, but then again, take a look at your Pledge of Allegiance. Same thing.

Hello? Please show me where I have said that they are a religion. I said on post #49 "They have declaired themselves to be a private membership organization in which religion is a key part of their mandate. They went to the US Supreme Court and argued for their right to discriminate against gays on the basis of religious belief. They won. That makes them, by definition, a religious organization."
They have defined themselves as a religious organization the same way that the Knights of Columbus are a religious organization. The Knights of Columbus are not a religion. They are a religious organization. Do you understand the distinction?

Calling yourself an orange, does not necessarily make you an orange, although you stand a pretty good chance of being a fruit. As I have already presented, with plenty of factual evidence and links, the BSA has not been found to be a religious organization in and of themselves, on many levels

Dude, the SC rules that as a private organization the BSA has the right to discriminate against gays. Part of the BSA's argument was that as a private organization they have the right to apply their religious values to it's membership rules. That is what the court agreed with.
The supreme Court did not address whether the BSA can receive government special treatment and subsidy. That is a different issue than the one that they decided.

Let's word this properly and go from there. First, I'm not a "Dude". So...

The Supreme Court ruled that as a private organization, the BSA has the right to refuse admission to homosexuals.

The end. Trim the fluff. Get to the point. That's exactly what they ruled. I have the entire BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA AND MONMOUTH COUNCIL, et al., PETITIONERS v.
JAMES DALE
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF
NEW JERSEY
[June 28, 2000]

transcript, where Chief Justice Rehnquist delivers the opinion of the Court. It's sitting right here on my desktop. There's no need to tell me what they agreed on. Here, let me tell YOU.

1) The Boy Scouts is a private, not-for-profit organization engaged in instilling its system of values in young people.
2) This case presents the question whether applying New Jersey’s public accommodations law in this way violates the Boy Scouts’ First Amendment right of expressive association. We hold that it does.
3) The values the Boy Scouts seeks to instill are “based on” those listed in the Scout Oath and Law. App. 184. The Boy Scouts explains that the Scout Oath and Law provide “a positive moral code for living; they are a list of ‘do’s’ rather than ‘don’ts.’ ”
4) We must then determine whether Dale’s presence as an assistant scoutmaster would significantly burden the Boy Scouts’ desire to not “promote homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior.” Dale’s presence in the Boy Scouts would, at the very least, force the organization to send a message, both to the youth members and the world, that the Boy Scouts accepts homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior.
5) “Boy Scout members do not associate for the purpose of disseminating the belief that homosexuality is immoral; Boy Scouts discourages its leaders from disseminating any views on sexual issues; and Boy Scouts includes sponsors and members who subscribe to different views in respect of homosexuality.” 160 N. J., at 612, 734 A. 2d, at 1223. We disagree with the New Jersey Supreme Court’s conclusion drawn from these findings.
6) Third, the First Amendment simply does not require that every member of a group agree on every issue in order for the group’s policy to be “expressive association.” The Boy Scouts takes an official position with respect to homosexual conduct, and that is sufficient for First Amendment purposes.
7) Having determined that the Boy Scouts is an expressive association and that the forced inclusion of Dale would significantly affect its expression, we inquire whether the application of New Jersey’s public accommodations law to require that the Boy Scouts accept Dale as an assistant scoutmaster runs afoul of the Scouts’ freedom of expressive association. We conclude that it does.

Here comes my favorite part. I love this. Ready?

We are not, as we must not be, guided by our views of whether the Boy Scouts’ teachings with respect to homosexual conduct are right or wrong; public or judicial disapproval of a tenet of an organization’s expression does not justify the State’s effort to compel the organization to accept members where such acceptance would derogate from the organization’s expressive message. “While the law is free to promote all sorts of conduct in place of harmful behavior, it is not free to interfere with speech for no better reason than promoting an approved message or discouraging a disfavored one, however enlightened either purpose may strike the government.” Hurley, 515 U.S., at 579.

The judgment of the New Jersey Supreme Court is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Please note that there is not one single mention of religion or religious anywhere in the Courts findings.

A 1978 position statement to the Boy Scouts’ Executive Committee, signed by Downing B. Jenks, the President of the Boy Scouts, and Harvey L. Price, the Chief Scout Executive, expresses the Boy Scouts’ “official position” with regard to “homosexuality and Scouting”:

“Q. May an individual who openly declares himself to be a homosexual be a volunteer Scout leader?

“A. No. The Boy Scouts of America is a private, membership organization and leadership therein is a privilege and not a right. We do not believe that homosexuality and leadership in Scouting are appropriate. We will continue to select only those who in our judgment meet our standards and qualifications for leadership.” App. 453—454.

Therefore, homosexuals are equally treated by the Boy Scouts, within the guidelines of the Constitution. As such, compliance with the 14th Amendment has been assured, and public funding is a non-issue.

 

[SirKenin]

Let me highlight something for you from the transcript that you might find interesting.

Boy Scout members do not associate for the purpose of disseminating the belief that homosexuality is immoral; Boy Scouts discourages its leaders from disseminating any views on sexual issues

This is almost the exact opposite of any religious (Christian has been mentioned in this thread) organization that I'm aware of.

 

[SirKenin]

It's not hard to prove they are a Christian organization, all you have to do is go to their site

www.scouting.org

I found another ruling for you from another Judge, this time Judge Ceniceros. It's a rather old article though.

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/bsa4.htm

Judge Ceniceros, however, opined that the BSA was not primarily a religious group. "I conclude that the religious aspect of scouting is a very small part of its programs," he wrote in his decision. "I also conclude that under any criteria or test that I am aware of the Boy Scouts are not a religious organization."

 

[crazyfingers]

No, again, your interpretation of the law seems to be inaccurate.

once properly classified, groups may be treated differently between themselves, but
within themselves, each member of a classified group must be treated alike

These last two statements are the principle of equal protection. In actuality, it's a principle of equal discrimination. It allows groups to be discriminated against as long as, with respect to the group receiving less, the discrimination is spread equally among all members of the affected group. For example, if a law makes a distinction among a group of people called XY, then not only does the dividing line, or classification, between X/Y have to be constitutionally valid, but the equal protection clause requires that all members of group X receive similar treatment and all members of group Y receive similar treatment.

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/410/410lect05.htm



Again, please provide some facts to back up your claims.

According to your source at Wesleyan college, it would be perfectly OK for for states to give certain rights to Christians and deny them to Jews so long as all Christians had the same rights and all Jews had the same rights. Sorry. That's not how it works.

Generally, the question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in activity yet denies other individuals the same right.


Cornell Law School


Your source is wrong.

Combine the equal protection clause with the requirement that states do nothing that tends to "establish" religion, and you have that states can't fund groups that discriminate on the basis of religion.

Are you seriously saying that you think that it's OK for governments to fund groups that discriminate on the basis of religion?

 

[crazyfingers]

That doesn't constitute evidence, friend. I know they require belief in some kind of supreme being, but then again, take a look at your Pledge of Allegiance. Same thing.



Calling yourself an orange, does not necessarily make you an orange, although you stand a pretty good chance of being a fruit. As I have already presented, with plenty of factual evidence and links, the BSA has not been found to be a religious organization in and of themselves, on many levels



Let's word this properly and go from there. First, I'm not a "Dude". So...



The end. Trim the fluff. Get to the point. That's exactly what they ruled. I have the entire BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA AND MONMOUTH COUNCIL, et al., PETITIONERS v.
JAMES DALE
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF
NEW JERSEY
[June 28, 2000]

transcript, where Chief Justice Rehnquist delivers the opinion of the Court. It's sitting right here on my desktop. There's no need to tell me what they agreed on. Here, let me tell YOU.

1) The Boy Scouts is a private, not-for-profit organization engaged in instilling its system of values in young people.
2) This case presents the question whether applying New Jersey’s public accommodations law in this way violates the Boy Scouts’ First Amendment right of expressive association. We hold that it does.
3) The values the Boy Scouts seeks to instill are “based on” those listed in the Scout Oath and Law. App. 184. The Boy Scouts explains that the Scout Oath and Law provide “a positive moral code for living; they are a list of ‘do’s’ rather than ‘don’ts.’ ”
4) We must then determine whether Dale’s presence as an assistant scoutmaster would significantly burden the Boy Scouts’ desire to not “promote homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior.” Dale’s presence in the Boy Scouts would, at the very least, force the organization to send a message, both to the youth members and the world, that the Boy Scouts accepts homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior.
5) “Boy Scout members do not associate for the purpose of disseminating the belief that homosexuality is immoral; Boy Scouts discourages its leaders from disseminating any views on sexual issues; and Boy Scouts includes sponsors and members who subscribe to different views in respect of homosexuality.” 160 N. J., at 612, 734 A. 2d, at 1223. We disagree with the New Jersey Supreme Court’s conclusion drawn from these findings.
6) Third, the First Amendment simply does not require that every member of a group agree on every issue in order for the group’s policy to be “expressive association.” The Boy Scouts takes an official position with respect to homosexual conduct, and that is sufficient for First Amendment purposes.
7) Having determined that the Boy Scouts is an expressive association and that the forced inclusion of Dale would significantly affect its expression, we inquire whether the application of New Jersey’s public accommodations law to require that the Boy Scouts accept Dale as an assistant scoutmaster runs afoul of the Scouts’ freedom of expressive association. We conclude that it does.

Here comes my favorite part. I love this. Ready?

We are not, as we must not be, guided by our views of whether the Boy Scouts’ teachings with respect to homosexual conduct are right or wrong; public or judicial disapproval of a tenet of an organization’s expression does not justify the State’s effort to compel the organization to accept members where such acceptance would derogate from the organization’s expressive message. “While the law is free to promote all sorts of conduct in place of harmful behavior, it is not free to interfere with speech for no better reason than promoting an approved message or discouraging a disfavored one, however enlightened either purpose may strike the government.” Hurley, 515 U.S., at 579.

The judgment of the New Jersey Supreme Court is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Please note that there is not one single mention of religion or religious anywhere in the Courts findings.



Therefore, homosexuals are equally treated by the Boy Scouts, within the guidelines of the Constitution. As such, compliance with the 14th Amendment has been assured, and public funding is a non-issue.

Dude, you continue to drift off point.

It is a fact that the BSA discriminates on the basis of religion. It does not allow atheists to become members. That's the fact. You can deny it if you want but thems the facts.

They have the constitutional right to discriminate on the basis of religion. BUT, government can't give them special treatment.

All your stuff above is irrelevant as it does not focus on the issue of government funded religious discrimination.

Do you get it?