Official Church and State Discussion

Isn't this the same question? Cos the answer's the same.

Actually, there was a subtle difference between the two questions. You are an intelligent person, so I'm sure that if you reread them both, you will see it.

They deserve equal access to public property, as the ACLU maintains in its lawsuits against BSA. They don't deserve special treatment, such as school sponsorship or BSA programs used in the school, unless they decide to stop discriminating.

That's funny. I've lived in quite a few different school systems (10 different schools before I graduated high school), and everywhere that I've seen the Boy Scouts run in a school-related setting, it was not done by the school, but by the PTA (or similar organization). The PTA is a private organization. They are allowed to support whomever they want. I have never seen a scout troop directly funded by or sponsored by a school. Would you care to provide any evidence that there are troops that are directly sponsored by public schools (and not by private, school-related organizations). (I am aware of some private schools that do sponsor troops, but not public schools.)

And it's funny that you say that the ACLU maintains that they should have equal access to public property, because they have actually led the efforts in some areas to get them excluded from public property (including schools, parks, and military bases).

Kimball Kinnison

 

The only subtle difference is that you frame it as though BSA can't help but be subject to Pentagon funding. 'Why should they suffer because the Pentagon gives them lots of money because they're useful for recruiting purposes?'

The issue is whether the government should give them money, and the answer is 'no', because they're a discriminatory group.

Care of WND

I'd have to do a bunch of Googling, I guess. What specific efforts have they led to keep the BSA from having access to say, parks?

 

The only sort of money or support that the government gives to the Boy Scouts is a part of the military's recruiting efforts. Are you saying that the military should not be allowed to use what has been a very effective recruiiting mechanism because of a private organization's policies?

Yes. The military [as an extention of the US government] should not be using taxpayer dollars to fund a religious organization of any type. Just as I do not believe the government should not fund the construction of a Buddhist temple. Benefits of supporting an organization do not grant the government the right to do use tax dollars to support an organization that descrimintaes based on religious affiliation.

 

After some preliminary Googling, I see that the ACLU sued over a case where BSA had their local headquarters in a city park.

Surely, that's not equal access, Kimball.

 

Remember that Google, though (like Wikipedia, CNN, Reuters, BBC, CBC, NPR, AP, PBS, etc etc etc) seems to now be considered an unreliable source for providing evidence. Really, unless it's corroborated by FoxNews, it didn't happen... or at least, you can't prove it happened.

 

By the same token, should the military not be allowed to operate a ROTC program at a private, religiously-funded university? How about sending recruiters to private religious schools?

Even the Lemon Test (as flawed and as inconsistently used as it is) doesn't prohibit government support of a religious organization when there is a valid secular purpose. Wouldn't recruitment count as such a purpose?

Kimball Kinnison

 

Then send recruiters to Boy Scout meetings, don't give them TWO MILLION DOLLARS.

Are you being serious?

 

Then send recruiters to Boy Scout meetings, don't give them TWO MILLION DOLLARS.

Are you being serious?

In light of the strong recruitment efforts at the National Jamboree, on what basis does the support given to the Jamboree (the $2 million, which consists almost entirely of support operations for the event) violate the Lemon Test that Cheveyo is fond of bringing up in this thread?

1) Does the government involvement have a legitimate secular purpose? Yes. As I said before, reecruiting is a legitimate secular intrest of the military.

2) Is the primary purpose of that support to promote or restrict religion? No. The primary purpose is to improve public image of the military as a part of recruiting efforts (much like air shows or similar events).

3) Does it result in "excessive entanglement" between government and religion? No. How does support for a single large event held every 4 years constitute "excessive" entanglement? Even the amount of money that you mention cannot be called "excessive", considering that it makes up an extremely minute portion of the budget for both the BSA and the military. Ar eyou saying that any support whatsoever (even in furthering a legitimate secular purpose) is excessive?

That's the Lemon Test in a nutshell. From what I can see, the military support of Scouting passes it with flying colors.

Kimball Kinnison

 

By the same token, should the military not be allowed to operate a ROTC program at a private, religiously-funded university?

If said religiously funded university selects enrollment or employment because of one's religious affiliations, then no, it should not.

How about sending recruiters to private religious schools?

Sending recruiters does not equate to public funding.

Even the Lemon Test (as flawed and as inconsistently used as it is) doesn't prohibit government support of a religious organization when there is a valid secular purpose. Wouldn't recruitment count as such a purpose?

No.

Here's why. Is the BSA an organization founded to create a recruitment pool for the military? Or is the BSA an organization founded to instill moral values in young boys? Is the BSA's purpose to create a pool of young, recruitable men? Or is the BSA's purpose to shape boys into young men with with strong moral values and ethics?

And lastly, Is the BSA as an organization discriminatory in hiring and enrolling based on religious beliefs?

You see, our government cannot "support" an organization which discriminates based on religious affiliation. The First Amendment protects us from such support. Why then can the government support and fund a university which discriminates based on GPA, extracurricular volunteer work, or even monetary status? Because our system of laws does not grant/protect total economic and experiential equality as a basic human right or freedom. We have the right and freedom to strive for and achieve these on our own, but they, themselves, are not rights.

You have the right to be wealthy, for example, but you do not have the right to demand wealth as a basic human freedom.

By contrast, you have the right to worship whatever religion you chose, AND you have the right to have equal access to public (ie government-funded) groups, regardless of your religious affiliation. Lacking this quality, a group cannot be funded by the government.

 

Here's why. Is the BSA an organization founded to create a recruitment pool for the military? Or is the BSA an organization founded to instill moral values in young boys? Is the BSA's purpose to create a pool of young, recruitable men? Or is the BSA's purpose to shape boys into young men with with strong moral values and ethics?

But the military's involvement has nothing to do with the BSA's purpose, and everything to do with achieving the military's goals.

Under the Lemon Test, it has long been considered Constitutional for government aid to go to private, religious schools in order to further secular purposes (such as bussing students, buying secular textbooks, and so forth). Those religious schools have similar purposes to the Boy Scouts, and yet have been allowed to receive government support under the Lemon Test.

Under the Lemon Test, the question is not "are the purposes of the organization religious in nature", but "are the purposes of the government religious in nature".

By the standards that you, yourself, have used in this thread several times (the Lemon Test), there is nothing that prohibits the military from supporting the BSA for secular purposes.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Is the BSA as an organization discriminatory in hiring and enrolling based on religious beliefs?

 

Is the BSA as an organization discriminatory in hiring and enrolling based on religious beliefs?

Does it violate the Lemon Test if it is? No. Therefore, your question is irrelevant.

Remember, virtually all of the support that is provided is not in terms of funding, but in terms of operations relating to the Jamboree. That is no different than the sort of support offered to any other activity that happens on a military base.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Does it violate the Lemon Test if it is?

Yes, it does. The government, as I said, cannot support a group or organization that actively discriminates against rights outlined in the Constitution. Such support is considered to be a violation of the First Amendment, because it uses public tax dollars to fund a group that descriminates in hiring and enrolling based on religious beliefs.

I'm not sure why you are arguing against this; the Pentagon has agreed with this:
The Pentagon has agreed to warn military bases worldwide that they should not directly sponsor Boy Scout troops.
Mike Robinson, "Pentagon to warn bases on Scouts," Associated Press, 2004-NOV-16

If you'd care to read the rest of the report, it goes on to describe the level of compromise that was found to appease the dilemma of separating government funding from recruitment support.
"The Pentagon said it long has had a rule against sponsorship of nonfederal organizations and denied that the rule had been violated. But it agreed to send a message to posts worldwide warning them not to sponsor Boy Scout troops or other such groups.

The rule does not prevent service members from leading Scout troops on their own time, and the Scouts still will be able to have meetings on areas of military bases where civilian organizations are allowed to hold events."

 

The Pentagon has agreed to warn military bases worldwide that they should not directly sponsor Boy Scout troops.

There is a difference between sponsoring (i.e. chartering) a troop and providing support to the Boy Scouts as a whole (in the form of hosting the Jamboree). I have been speaking about the latter, not the former.

Also, notice that the Pentagon rule to which your quote refers is "against sponsorship of nonfederal organizations", not against sponsorship of nonfederal organizations that participate in discriminatory behavior.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Also, notice that the Pentagon rule to which your quote refers is "against sponsorship of nonfederal organizations", not against sponsorship of nonfederal organizations that participate in discriminatory behavior.

Certainly, I notice the rule. The former indicates a department policy against nonfed orgs. The latter indicates the department's recognition of the unconstitutionality of any department sponsoring nonfed orgs who discriminate in violation of the first amendment.

 

Where do you get that "latter" part? I've read through that article that you linked to several times, and it doesn't say anything about the military not being allowed to sponsor organizations on the basis of discrimination, one way or the other.

The rule is blanket against all nonfederal organizations, whether they discriminate or not. The second quote you provided onlly says that they are supposed to give Scouting the same level of access that they give to other civilian organizations.

Kimball Kinnison

 

A petition for scientists to show support for keeping ID out of schools.

 

Where do you get that "latter" part? I've read through that article that you linked to several times, and it doesn't say anything about the military not being allowed to sponsor organizations on the basis of discrimination, one way or the other.

It's a no-brainer, actually... Unless of course you're of the opinion that the military acts outside the laws of the US Constitution. If you're arguing that, then I can see why you think they have the ability to support organizations that discriminate based on religious affiliation.

 

Nice way to avoid answering the question. The test for whether it is allowable under the Constitution is the Lemon Test. You haven't even tried to rebut my analysis of the relationship between the BSA and the military (as relating to the National Jamboree) under the Lemon Test. Would you care to try? Or are you simply admiting that the relationship passes the Lemon Test, and therefore is within the restrictions of the First Amendment?

There is no blanket constitutional limitation on providing support to such an organization. To use an example, school voucher programs are not allowed to discriminate against specific organizations on the basis of their religious beliefs, even if those organizations are only available to members of that religion. At the same time, such voucher programs have been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court (see Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 2002).

Kimball Kinnison

 

Nice way to avoid answering the question. The test for whether it is allowable under the Constitution is the Lemon Test. You haven't even tried to rebut my analysis of the relationship between the BSA and the military (as relating to the National Jamboree) under the Lemon Test. Would you care to try? Or are you simply admiting that the relationship passes the Lemon Test, and therefore is within the restrictions of the First Amendment

Actually, the Northern Illinois U.S. District Court discussed the Lemon Test directly in its ruling of 2005 WL 627966 (N.D.Ill.) (a copy of the court opinion can read here)
The court's opinion is thus:

1. Jamboree statute
The Jamboree Statute is neither neutral nor is the aid it provides the result of the "genuinely independent and private choices of individuals." First, it is not offered to a broad range of groups; rather it is specifically targeted toward the Boy Scouts, which, as this court has already concluded, is a religious organization from which agnostics and atheists are excluded. Second, the aid is not based on the "independent and private choices of individuals." Rather the aid is provided directly to the Boy Scouts pursuant to the singluar choice of Congress to provide a significant amount of aid (almost $8 million in 2005) to the BSA Jamboree to the exclusion of other possible recipients. Given the Supreme Court's focus neutrality in approving government aid to religious organizations and the Jamboree statute's complete lack of neutrality in allocating aid, the court finds that a reasonable observer would conclude that the Jamboree statute conveys a message of endorsement of religion. As such, the court finds that the aid provided by the Jamboree statute violates the Establishment Clause. Barnes-Wallace, 275 F.Supp.2d at 1276 (finding that lease provided to Boy Scouts for city park was not result of religion-neutral process and thus violated Establishment Clause).

There is no blanket constitutional limitation on providing support to such an organization. To use an example, school voucher programs are not allowed to discriminate against specific organizations on the basis of their religious beliefs, even if those organizations are only available to members of that religion. At the same time, such voucher programs have been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court (see Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 2002).

See above for the constitutionality of providing support as noted. As for school vouchers, I refer you back to Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 2002 for clarification of the identification of the voucher program.
What are the facts of the case? Well...

• The Ohio Legislature adopts the Ohio Pilot Scholarship Program, a school voucher program. The program provides scholarships to children in grades K-12 with preference to children from low-income families. The program allows parents to pay reduced tuition to send their children to participating schools, which are private schools. The vast majority of the private schools are religious in nature. Currently, 56 private schools participate in the program. Forty-six of those are religious.

So, the voucher program includes religious private schools, but not to the exclusion of all other private schools.

As Rhenquist opined, "That the program was one of true private choice, with no evidence that the State deliberately skewed incentives toward religious schools, was sufficient for the program to survive scrutiny under the Establishment Clause."

 

I have never seen a scout troop directly funded by or sponsored by a school. Would you care to provide any evidence that there are troops that are directly sponsored by public schools (and not by private, school-related organizations). (I am aware of some private schools that do sponsor troops, but not public schools.)

Well, it's not a school, but the city of San Diego subsidizes the local BSA chapter. The ACLU press release on the issue is here.

------

On another note, a recent study finds that religious belief is strongly correlated with social dysfunction:

"...Christians and believers of other faiths hold that religious belief is socially beneficial, believing that it helps to lower rates of violent crime, murder, suicide, sexual promiscuity and abortion. The benefits of religious belief to a society have been described as its ?spiritual capital?. But the study claims that the devotion of many in the US may actually contribute to its ills....

?In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies." (emphasis mine)

Story here.