Aclu Strikes Back

[crazyfingers]

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



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

Dude, get of the homosexuial thing. That isn't the point. The point is NOT that they discriminate against homosexuals. The point is that they discriminate against atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, non-theist Huddhists and anyone else who can not claim to believe in a supreme being.

They have the right to discriminate but if they do the Governmant can't give them special assistence.

Are we finally agreed that this is the point?

 

[SirKenin]

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?

Let's take the right paragraph from that article you linked.

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. There is no clear rule for deciding when a classification is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has dictated the application of different tests depending on the type of classification and it's effect on fundamental rights. Traditionally, the Court finds a state classification constitutional if it has "a rational basis" to a "legitimate state purpose." The Supreme Court, however, has applied more stringent analysis in certain cases. It will "strictly scrutinize" a distinction when it embodies a "suspect classification." In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate.

What this is saying is exactly the same thing my link said. To paraphrase "Just because you're a homosexual doesn't give you the right to force your way into the Boy Scouts"

When we look at the case of BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA AND MONMOUTH COUNCIL, et al., PETITIONERS v. JAMES DALE, we can easily see how the 14th would be upheld (and of course would have to be)

Not only does the Boy Scouts not set out to discriminate against homosexuals, their policy is exceedingly clear. Always has been, always will be, as evidenced in that quote I provided from 1978. We can see, then, how this interpretation of the Constitution coincides with my previous article.

 

[crazyfingers]

Let's take the right paragraph from that article you linked.



What this is saying is exactly the same thing my link said. To paraphrase "Just because you're a homosexual doesn't give you the right to force your way into the Boy Scouts"

When we look at the case of BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA AND MONMOUTH COUNCIL, et al., PETITIONERS v. JAMES DALE, we can easily see how the 14th would be upheld (and of course would have to be)

Not only does the Boy Scouts not set out to discriminate against homosexuals, their policy is exceedingly clear. Always has been, always will be, as evidenced in that quote I provided from 1978. We can see, then, how this interpretation of the Constitution coincides with my previous article.

That is NOT THE POINT.

The point is that because of equal protection, the Government can't give special treatment and assistence to groups that discriminate on the basis of religion.

The whole homosexual thing is irrelevent. Can you please get with the program?

 

[SirKenin]

Dude, get of the homosexuial thing. That isn't the point. The point is NOT that they discriminate against homosexuals. The point is that they discriminate against atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, non-theist Huddhists and anyone else who can not claim to believe in a supreme being.

They have the right to discriminate but if they do the Governmant can't give them special assistence.

Are we finally agreed that this is the point?

The point is that is merely one of my points proving that the Boy Scouts is not a religious organization, along with all my links and quotes.

No, we're not agreed on this point. As of yet I can see no reason why the Government can't give them assistance based on the claims you make. I'm not agreeing with it, I'm just saying I see no reason why they can't.

 

[crazyfingers]

The point is that is merely one of my points proving that the Boy Scouts is not a religious organization, along with all my links and quotes.

No, we're not agreed on this point. As of yet I can see no reason why the Government can't give them assistance based on the claims you make. I'm not agreeing with it, I'm just saying I see no reason why they can't.

Are we at least agreed that the issues are:

1: Do the BSA discriminate on the basis of religion and,

2: Is it lawful for the government to give special aid, assistence, preference to an organization that discriminates on the basis of religion.

Can we agree that this is what we are talking about?

 

[SirKenin]

That is NOT THE POINT.

The point is that because of equal protection, the Government can't give special treatment and assistence to groups that discriminate on the basis of religion.

The whole homosexual thing is irrelevent. Can you please get with the program?

The point here is that neither one of your Amendments covers it. You see, the United States Supreme Court established that what the Boy Scouts does is Constitutional.

It's you that doesn't seem to get it. The Fourteenth angle that you are advocating is covered, as is the First. Homosexuals have equal protection under the Law (that being the Constitution). You're right. So do the Boy Scouts, and the Law says the Boy Scouts are acting within their rights as provided by the First Amendment (Right of Association).

"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." - Chief Justice Rehnquist

I love the last paragraphs of that transcript. I really do.

 

[crazyfingers]

The point here is that neither one of your Amendments covers it. You see, the United States Supreme Court established that what the Boy Scouts does is Constitutional.

It's you that doesn't seem to get it. The Fourteenth angle that you are advocating is covered, as is the First. Homosexuals have equal protection under the Law (that being the Constitution). You're right. So do the Boy Scouts, and the Law says the Boy Scouts are acting within their rights as provided by the First Amendment (Right of Association).

"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." - Chief Justice Rehnquist

I love the last paragraphs of that transcript. I really do.

That is not the point. I have always agreed that they have the right to discriminate on the basis of the religion.

The point is that if they do the government can't give them special assistence.

That is what I'm talking about.

 

[SirKenin]

Are we at least agreed that the issues are:

1: Do the BSA discriminate on the basis of religion and,

2: Is it lawful for the government to give special aid, assistence, preference to an organization that discriminates on the basis of religion.

Can we agree that this is what we are talking about?

I'll quote what I said earlier, and just change a couple of words. The meaning, as you will soon see, remains the same.

Secondly, yes, it is lawful for the government to give assistance to the Boy Scouts unless you can provide me actual evidence of something different.

The point here is that neither one of your Amendments covers it. You see, the United States Supreme Court established that what the Boy Scouts does is Constitutional.

It's you that doesn't seem to get it. The Fourteenth angle that you are advocating is covered, as is the First. Atheists, agnostics, secular humanists and non-theist Huddhists have equal protection under the Law (that being the Constitution). You're right. So do the Boy Scouts, and the Law says the Boy Scouts are acting within their rights as provided by the First Amendment (Right of Association).

"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." - Chief Justice Rehnquist

I love the last paragraphs of that transcript. I really do.

 

[SirKenin]

That is not the point. I have always agreed that they have the right to discriminate on the basis of the religion.

The point is that if they do the government can't give them special assistence.

That is what I'm talking about.

I know. You used the First and the Fourteenth to back up your point. Especially the Fourteenth. You cited "equal protection under the law". You claim the government would not be giving those groups equal protection if they funded the Boy Scouts.

However, I just showed you that your logic and reasoning is flawed. Based upon your submissions, there is no reason the government can't fund them.

 

[crazyfingers]

I know. You used the First and the Fourteenth to back up your point. However, I just showed you that your logic is flawed. Based upon your logic, there is no reason the government can't fund them.

Except that the government would be participating in religious discrimination. That is the crux of the issue. The government can't discriminate on the basis of religion.

 

[SirKenin]

Except that the government would be participating in religious discrimination. That is the crux of the issue. The government can't discriminate on the basis of religion.

Problem is, whether you think so or not, it's a completely Constitutional and Equal Opportunity Discrimination, so-to-speak (tongue in cheek. lol). As it's Constitutional, there is no reason the Government can't fund it.

What I see is people throwing buzz words around and getting caught up in them. However, the key issue here as I see it is that the Boy Scouts are playing by the Rules. The Court has established that it is not discrimination, it is an expression of Constitutional Rights. Therefore, the Government funding the Boy Scouts would not be violating the Constitution. I shouldn't have to repeat my previous arguments again. The First and the Fourteenth have been upheld.

Let's look at it from another angle.

Should the Government, on a State level, decide to fund the Boy Scouts. Let's say they make a law.

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.

Simply put, there's nothing stopping the Non-theists from creating their own Boy Scouts and getting funding in this scenario. This is where this Amendment truly applies. Therefore, until any State denies similar groups (such as Atheist Boy Scouts) similar rights, the Fourteenth has been satisfied, and individual States can fund the Boy Scouts. I predict that latest decision will be overturned.

Should the Federal Government decide to make a law to fund the Boy Scouts, the 14th amendment is not applicable by it's terms.

 

[crazyfingers]

Problem is, whether you think so or not, it's a completely Constitutional and Equal Opportunity Discrimination, so-to-speak (tongue in cheek. lol). As it's Constitutional, there is no reason the Government can't fund it.

What I see is people throwing buzz words around and getting caught up in them. However, the key issue here as I see it is that the Boy Scouts are playing by the Rules. The Court has established that it is not discrimination, it is an expression of Constitutional Rights. Therefore, the Government funding the Boy Scouts would not be violating the Constitution. I shouldn't have to repeat my previous arguments again. The First and the Fourteenth have been upheld.

Let's look at it from another angle.

Should the Government, on a State level, decide to fund the Boy Scouts. Let's say they make a law.

Simply put, there's nothing stopping the Non-theists from creating their own Boy Scouts and getting funding in this scenario. This is where this Amendment truly applies. Therefore, until any State denies similar groups (such as Atheist Boy Scouts) similar rights, the Fourteenth has been satisfied, and individual States can fund the Boy Scouts. I predict that latest decision will be overturned.

Should the Federal Government decide to make a law to fund the Boy Scouts, the 14th amendment is not applicable by it's terms.

At least we are finally agreed on what we are arguing about.

I'll post again later.

 

[Inspired]

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

Religion and prayer is all over their site, the pass out prayer books, but it's a small part of their organization, yea ok.

 

[Megachihuahua]

Yadda yadda yadda, how could you have missed the first word of the establishment clause:
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

It seems that this seperation applies only to congress, and only for establishing a national religon, or for preventing free practice
(The supreme court banned cross-burning, I don't like the KKK, but this is seriously against freedom of speech. Their reason: it is offensive to black people. So Christianity could be banned on the grounds that it is offensive to other religons)

 

[SirKenin]

Speaking of the government "sponsoring" the Boy Scouts, I should point to this landmark case in 1999. Here, I'll let you read it for yourself.

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

In a setback for civil rights, a County Circuit Judge has ruled that the Boy Scouts of American may continue to recruit students in Oregon public schools despite the fact that the group discriminates against atheists, gays and others.

Portland Atheist Nancy Powell sued the school district and the Oregon Department of Education in May, 1998, arguing that officials should not allow a discriminatory group to use the public schools for membership recruiting purposes and promoting religion. Multnomah County Circuit Judge Joseph F. Ceniceros, however, ruled that BSA was not primarily a religious group despite the requirement that prospective scouts swear an oath affirming belief in a god. Associated Press noted, "The case is being watch nationally because it threatens the close ties between the Scouts and public schools."

read the entire article

 

[crazyfingers]

Yadda yadda yadda, how could you have missed the first word of the establishment clause:
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

It seems that this seperation applies only to congress, and only for establishing a national religon, or for preventing free practice
(The supreme court banned cross-burning, I don't like the KKK, but this is seriously against freedom of speech. Their reason: it is offensive to black people. So Christianity could be banned on the grounds that it is offensive to other religons)

Please look at the 14th Amendment. That is how the first amendment applies to the states.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.

 

[crazyfingers]

Speaking of the government "sponsoring" the Boy Scouts, I should point to this landmark case in 1999. Here, I'll let you read it for yourself.

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



read the entire article

Yes I found that also. It's a very low court ruling by a judge who appears to ruled without delving deeply into the issues. More importantly though, that ruling was made prior to the SC ruling that in June 2000.

I have been unable to find a higher court ruling that directly addresses the issue of state sponsorship of religious discrimination. It seems very plain to me that the 14th amendment would bar states from supporting religious discrimination based on the equal protection clause. It also seems clear to me that the first amendment would also bar a state from supporting a group that practices religious discrimination.

These are both key arguments that the ACLU used in the San Diego lease case. However, I have been unable to find the judge's ruling where he would site prior relevent cases.

But there is not a lot of legal analysis yet. This is the best that I have been able to find. It would be very useful to see the actual ruling as prior cases would be sited.

In any case, I'll keep looking for relevent cases but I have no doubt that it is unconstitutional for the state to give preferences to organizations that discriminate on the basis of religion. It would violate the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment and it would violate the equal protection cause of the 14th.

 

[SirKenin]

Please look at the 14th Amendment. That is how the first amendment applies to the states.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.

Stop trying to mash the two. We have already proven your arguments false. You can repeat yourself adinfinitum, but your evidence isn't stacking up.

Yadda yadda yadda, how could you have missed the first word of the establishment clause:
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

This gentleman is talking about the Establishment Clause, which is actually part of the First Ammendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

The clause is absolute.

The Establishment Clause was written for the following:

“The establishment of religion clause means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government may set up a church. Neither can pass laws that aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion... . Neither a state or the federal government may, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'"

The First Ammendment, in whole, reads as follows:

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 problem is, as I've shown consistently, the Courts don't view the Boy Scouts as a religious organization. Therefore, the applicable part of the First Ammendment is Right of Association.

I have repeated the rest of my arguments of how I think ACLU would win an Appeal already in this thread. I really don't feel up to it again, no offence. Do dig back though and check it out.

 

[SirKenin]

Yes I found that also. It's a very low court ruling by a judge who appears to ruled without delving deeply into the issues. More importantly though, that ruling was made prior to the SC ruling that in June 2000.

Doesn't matter. Neither Court found the Boy Scouts to be a religious organization. Neither Court found the Boy Scouts to be violating the Constitution, rather operating by the Rules. Once more, both clauses of the Amendment have been satisfied.

It would violate the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment and it would violate the equal protection cause of the 14th.

We've already gone through this. Your evidence didn't stack up to the facts. Sorry. Repetition won't change an apple into an orange.

However, you say you are looking for facts. That's good. I will stand by.

 

[crazyfingers]

Stop trying to mash the two. We have already proven your argument false.

This gentleman is talking about the Establishment Clause, which is actually part of the First Ammendment.


The clause is absolute.

The Establishment Clause was written for the following:



The First Ammendment, in whole, reads as follows:

Heloooooooo?? Are you listening? The guy tried to make a point that the 1st amendment only applies to the fedral congress. I correctly pointed out that when the 14th Amendment was added to the constituion it "incorprotated" the prior amendments and made the first amendment and all of the other amendments apply to state government als. Through the 14th amendment the 1st amendment applies to states and all government agents.

Try to pay attention!

The problem is, as I've shown consistently, the Courts don't view the Boy Scouts as a religious organization. Therefore, the applicable part of the First Ammendment is Right of Association.

Hello!?!?!?!? I have never denied the BSA's right to discriminate on the basis of religion. I THOUGHT that we had finally cleared you up on that. But It appears that you have forgotten.

BUT, the same first amendment that allows the BSA to discriminate also bars the government from giving them preference. The 1st amendment is a dubble-edged sward in this regard.