The legendary thread of separation of church and state: yes or no? (and reasons)

[BFD_Zayl]

if separation of church and state did not exist, i would not be able to go to school, court,public places, etc. when you live in a christian dominated town and have gotten into physical scuffles before WITH the separation of church and state, without it people might take up arms against me and my brethren

 

[Scuba Pete]

It's the same legal interpretation and precedent as set in the Supreme Court's disallowing religious monuments

That's a stretch. Please show your work. Where is this printed. You can keep YOUR mantra up all day long, but we would like you to offer some evidence. C'mon man, this is the internet. You should be able to find something on this mythical law of yours.

 

[PureX]

That's a stretch. Please show your work. Where is this printed. You can keep YOUR mantra up all day long, but we would like you to offer some evidence. C'mon man, this is the internet. You should be able to find something on this mythical law of yours.

Are you not aware that the Supreme Court has ruled against placing religious monuments in public buildings? And you do understand, don't you, that their ruling will stand as a precedent, so that in the future, when such attempts continue to occur, they will be decided in a similar way.

Supreme Court Rules On Ten Commandments
Monday, June 27, 2005

High Court Rejects Religious Right Demands To Scuttle Church-State Safeguards

Americans United for Separation of Church and State says today's Supreme Court decisions on display of religious symbols by government reaffirms the important principle that the state may not promote religion.

"This is a mixed verdict, but on balance it's a win for separation of religion and government," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. "The court rejected calls by Religious Right legal groups to give government an unfettered right to display religious symbols. The justices wisely refused to jettison long-standing church-state safeguards."

Added Lynn, "Public buildings belong to everyone. America is a diverse country and our government should not send the message that some faiths are preferred over others. Public buildings should display the Bill of Rights, not the Ten Commandments."

The high court by 5-4 struck down the display of the Ten Commandments by officials in McCreary County, Ky., noting the religious intent behind the display. But the court, also on a 5-4 vote, upheld a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas state capitol, calling it historical and educational in nature. (The Texas monument is displayed among other monuments.)

The decisions, Lynn said, should end efforts by politicians to post the Commandments in public schools and block new courthouse displays.

"The rulings make it clear that government may not display the Ten Commandments for religious purposes," Lynn said. "Politicians like former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore will find it legally impossible to put up divisive Commandments displays in public buildings. That's very important in a country as diverse as ours. Promoting religious codes and symbols is a job for our churches, synagogues, temples and mosques."

Note that in the Texas case the display of the Ten Commandments were not disallowed because they were displayed along with other images, the overall intent of which was historical, and not religious. So clearly, the high court based their decision on the intent/agenda of the monuments, and on the purpose of the building in which it was displayed. They found that a monument about the history of law was appropriate for a court building, while a monument promoting a set of religious laws was not.

It's no great stretch, then, to extrapolate this same reasoning for a public school building, the purpose of which is to teach children.

 

[Scuba Pete]

It's no great stretch, then, to extrapolate this same reasoning for a public school building, the purpose of which is to teach children.

Streetch? It appears that you are using this as Silly Putty.

Let's try THIS precedent: http://library.findlaw.com/1998/Nov/1/128933.html

In discussing the neutrality requirements, the Fourth Circuit first looked at whether the policy and guidelines had been adopted for some purpose other than advancing religion. The court concluded that the policy and guidelines were promulgated for the purpose of providing an open forum in the schools and to avoid discrimination against religious speech. In effect, the guidelines affirmed the right of religious speakers to use the school forum in the same way that non-religious groups are allowed to use the forum. Additionally, the court noted that the guidelines adequately provided for the district to disassociate itself from the religious speech by placing the disclaimer on the table where the Bibles were to be displayed and by taking additional steps to ensure that students were not encouraged or coerced to take the Bibles. The court compared the policy to the federal law known as the Equal Access Act, which allows student groups of a religious nature to meet on school grounds, if other non-curriculum related student groups are allowed to meet. The Equal Access Act only applies to secondary students, as does the Bible distribution in this case, and the court reasoned that secondary students are capable of distinguishing between equal access and actual sponsorship or endorsement.

It should be noted that a school district would be free to adopt a policy which prohibits any outside individual or group from distributing materials, or making them available, to students on school grounds. If a district does adopt such a policy, the district in effect is deciding not to create an open forum. However, if an open forum is created, then any group who wishes to distribute materials, or make them available, must be allowed to do so, as long as the guidelines are followed. For example, if an unconventional religious group wanted to make information about the group available to students, the group would have to be given the same privilege provided to a group wishing to make Bibles available.

So Mantra Boy... this is REAL research to support my contention, that allowing ANY group means you have to allow ALL groups.

 

[PureX]

Streetch? It appears that you are using this as Silly Putty.

Let's try THIS precedent: http://library.findlaw.com/1998/Nov/1/128933.html

In discussing the neutrality requirements, the Fourth Circuit first looked at whether the policy and guidelines had been adopted for some purpose other than advancing religion. The court concluded that the policy and guidelines were promulgated for the purpose of providing an open forum in the schools and to avoid discrimination against religious speech. In effect, the guidelines affirmed the right of religious speakers to use the school forum in the same way that non-religious groups are allowed to use the forum. Additionally, the court noted that the guidelines adequately provided for the district to disassociate itself from the religious speech by placing the disclaimer on the table where the Bibles were to be displayed and by taking additional steps to ensure that students were not encouraged or coerced to take the Bibles. The court compared the policy to the federal law known as the Equal Access Act, which allows student groups of a religious nature to meet on school grounds, if other non-curriculum related student groups are allowed to meet. The Equal Access Act only applies to secondary students, as does the Bible distribution in this case, and the court reasoned that secondary students are capable of distinguishing between equal access and actual sponsorship or endorsement.

It should be noted that a school district would be free to adopt a policy which prohibits any outside individual or group from distributing materials, or making them available, to students on school grounds. If a district does adopt such a policy, the district in effect is deciding not to create an open forum. However, if an open forum is created, then any group who wishes to distribute materials, or make them available, must be allowed to do so, as long as the guidelines are followed. For example, if an unconventional religious group wanted to make information about the group available to students, the group would have to be given the same privilege provided to a group wishing to make Bibles available.

So Mantra Boy... this is REAL research to support my contention, that allowing ANY group means you have to allow ALL groups.

You can stop with the name-calling, now. Thanks.

Well, I agree that when students become young adults, their place of learning can become more of an "open forum". But as long as students are not adults, I don't believe their place of learning is or should be considered an "open forum", though the complexity and variety of ideas that they are exposed to can steadily increase as they get older.

Also, there is a big difference between placing a bible or koran in a school library and allowing students access to it, and placing posters around a school inviting students to religious prayer meetings. And the difference is that the first is based on "attraction" while the second is based on "promotion".

Lastly, regarding the finding you posted above, when someone takes this "Equal Access Act" or the above finding to the Supreme Court, then we'll know what it's final disposition will be. It would be quite easy to gain a court ruling in places like Kansas or Tennessee that support the promotion of religious ideology in public schools, because in these places this is a very popular cause. But often, when these rulings are taken to task in the higher courts, where the light and vision is less parochial, they are struck down.

 

[Scuba Pete]

That was a Federal Appeals Court located in Va. The local court denied it and it was reversed on the next level and the reversal upheld in the Fourth District Court of Appeals. The next step would have been the Supreme Court but they refused to hear the case. Ergo, by not listening to it, they have upheld the lower court. But surely, I would like to see you produce some substantive laws to bolster your premise.

Now please... reread what I have emboldened. This is in light of the "Endorsement Test", which has probably passed it's prime now that Judge O'Conners is off the Bench. Justice Alita favors the "Coercive Test" when it comes to 1st amendment neutrality. The "Coercive Test" will favor those who want to see religious expression in the government.

As for "Mantra Boy", that was gentle ribbing since you alluded to me having a mantra when it appears that you have one as well. But if it offends you, I won't make any more references to it and I also apologise for any slight inherent within it.

 

[PureX]

According to the information that you highlighted, it all depends on whether or not a school is an "open forum" or not. And I believe that it is not. Not in K through 12. Although, I also believe that as the students get older, it can and should become more of an open forum, but still not fully open. Until the students are adults, and legally expected to take full responsibility for their own ideas and actions, their schools are not "open forums". They are forums governed by their parents, and by the school boards that are charged with deciding what information they should be exposed to and what information they should not be exposed to.

I don't really disagree with the court ruling that you posted, except that I think it's too lenient regarding external coercion. I don't want Nike, or MTV, or Jerry Falwell or anyone else promoting their crap to our children. I want them all kept away from the schools, because I'm certain that they all have toxic agendas in wanting access to our children. In fact, the more intently they want access to children, the more convinced I am that their intentions are harmful, and the more stridently I believe they should be kept away.

Once the children reach young adulthood, and they have presumably been taught how to recognize such "advertising" for what it really is, then they can and should have access to it, as anyone else does. Then they can partake of the "open forum" of ideas. But as long as they are still the responsibility of their parents, and of society as a whole, it's our responsibility to protect them from such manipulative and dishonest forms of coercion.

 

[Scuba Pete]

According to the information that you highlighted, it all depends on whether or not a school is an "open forum" or not. And I believe that it is not.

You are getting there. A school (or any government land or edifice) is an "open forum" if ANY group has access to it. It's an either or situation. If they let in one group, then they have to let them all in. There is latitude for appropriateness but that is about it. This is First Amendment Neutrality towards religion.

Unfortunately, many people share your misconception. They think that the Constitution mandates a separation of church and state which it does not. In fact a separation to the point of excluding any group based on their religion would be unconstitutional.

BTW, in addition to the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment also guarantees that the government can't be used to exclude any group based solely on religion. But the First Amendment is the clearest and the strongest protector of our right to believe or not believe.

 

[Scuba Pete]

A wind of change...

As I alluded to earlier, with the replacement of Justice O'Conner with Justice Alita, there is bound to be changes in how the court applies the First Amendment. There are no cases pending that will expose the difference, but that is just a matter of time I believe.

O'Conner was the main proponent of the "Endorsement Test" which tried to determine if the Government was in anyway endorsing a way of thought. This was designed to avoid any "guilt by association" effect that comes from a person assuming that the government supports a group that uses public property. The infamous Ten Commandments case AVOIDED the use of this since it makes the court far less friendly towards religious groups and their subsequent expression. Instead, they dwelled on the Freedom of Speech which is also part of the First Amendment.

Alita is thought to favor the "Exclusion Test", which seeks to determine if a group is being excluded due to religious beliefs. Since it does not dwell on whether there is any inadvertent endorsement that comes from association with a group. This will mark a return to method most used by the Supreme Court over the years. This is also a far easier test for any religious group to overcome in a court of law. If this were in force during the 10 Commandments hearings, then the outcome might have well been different.

Whenever I read the Constitution or any of it's amendments, one word consistently comes to mind: equality. All beliefs are granted EQUAL protection and EQUAL opportunities under the law. They can not be excluded or promoted merely because they are religious in nature. To this end, the court has done a remarkable job, though more work needs to be done. They are still soft when it comes to protecting niche beliefs.

 

[PureX]

You are getting there. A school (or any government land or edifice) is an "open forum" if ANY group has access to it. It's an either or situation. If they let in one group, then they have to let them all in. There is latitude for appropriateness but that is about it. This is First Amendment Neutrality towards religion.

The government cannot always be neutral toward religion, especially when religionists become "politically active" or aggressively "evangelical".

It's the "appropriateness" that makes all the difference. It's "Inappropriate" to allow a public school to be used as an open forum for outside ideas and activities unless there is a strict buffer between the students and the various outside groups practicing and promoting their agendas. You keep trying to claim that if the school board allows one outside group to present their ideas or activities to students then the school board must allow every groups who wishes to do so to present their ideas and activities to the students. And this is not only untrue, it's irrational. The "appropriateness" of the information or activity being offered has EVERYTHING to do with whether or not it should be allowed to happen in the school, and how, and the way we decide what is "appropriate" or not is to ask if it's in keeping with the intent and function of public education. And the promotion of a religious ideology, or of religious rituals, like praying, is NOT part of the intent and function of public education. Therefor, it is NOT an appropriate use of a public school building, unless there is a sufficient buffer between the groups promoting such religious activity and ideology and the students who use the school as it was intended.

Unfortunately, many people share your misconception. They think that the Constitution mandates a separation of church and state which it does not. In fact a separation to the point of excluding any group based on their religion would be unconstitutional.

In practice, however, it must separate church from state in many instances, because neutrality is not possible. As I posted before, the more aggressively the proponents of religion try to force their ideology into public affairs, the more actively the government will have to become in keeping it separate. The issue of religious monuments in court buildings and prayer in public schools are examples of this. The government will and should remain neutral where it can. But the ideologues never rest, and our freedom from them has to be carefully guarded.

BTW, in addition to the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment also guarantees that the government can't be used to exclude any group based solely on religion. But the First Amendment is the clearest and the strongest protector of our right to believe or not believe.

But we aren't really talking about people's beliefs, here, we're talking about a deliberate attempt at proselytizing other people's kids.

 

[Kcnorwood]

If this country were based on just one faith, my next question would be what is next?

Would we all be forced to watch the same TV show dress the same drive the same car?

Freedom of religion is one thing that makes this country great why screw it up by forcing people to believe in just one religion?

Second question is what branch of Christianly would we follow?

YES! There always be separation of church & state!

 

[Scuba Pete]

It's the "appropriateness" that makes all the difference. It's "Inappropriate" to allow a public school to be used as an open forum for outside ideas and activities unless there is a strict buffer between the students and the various outside groups practicing and promoting their agendas.

With talk like this, I am THANKFUL that the First Amendment exists and that rational people fully understand the implications. People substitute their dislike for something as the moral reason to banish it. Thank God the Constitution prevents this.

The "appropriate" issue is one of sex, violence, anarchy and the like. You can NOT exclude a religion merely on religious grounds. You can exclude a nude dance club. You can exclude anything that is "immoral" or illegal in nature like a gambling club. But not religion. Go study some case law and get a better understanding of how neutral we can be. Evangelism is NOT against the law. In fact the law is unable to pass ANY laws that restrict it.

 

[PureX]

With talk like this, I am THANKFUL that the First Amendment exists and that rational people fully understand the implications. People substitute their dislike for something as the moral reason to banish it. Thank God the Constitution prevents this.

It has nothing to do with "dislike". It has to do with parental and social responsibility. We're talking about kids, here, not adults. And more importantly, we're talking about OTHER PEOPLE'S KIDS. You're trying to use freedom of speech as a shoehorn to allow for the religious proseletyzing of other people's children, and that just ain't gonna fly. I agree that if we have to 'oversee' what our children are exposed to in school (and I believe that we have to do this) then we'll need to be very careful of becoming our children's oppressors, as you suggest. But it's no more sensible to go to the extreme in the other direction, either, and open them up to all sorts of coercion by any group that wants access to our kid's minds.

The "appropriate" issue is one of sex, violence, anarchy and the like. You can NOT exclude a religion merely on religious grounds.

Oh, you bet we can. We can and do exclude religious proseletyzing in public schools just like we can and do exclude organized prayer. They are in fact "inappropriate" for public school.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Oh, you bet we can. We can and do exclude religious proseletyzing in public schools just like we can and do exclude organized prayer. They are in fact "inappropriate" for public school.

You might be able to pull this off in fantasy land, but not in America.

There are prayer groups in school today. They meet before and after school and during lunch. You can not legally prevent them no matter how much you hate them.

From your government: http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/religionandschools/prayer_guidance.html
and
http://www.ed.gov/Speeches/04-1995/prayer.html#1

No need to fantasize what is allowed: there you have it in black and white. Enjoy.

Now,

in the same vein schools can not SPONSOR prayer, whether it is at a football game, morning devotional, etc etc.

The government can not sponsor religion and neither can it exclude it. They can make NO LAW REGARDING RELIGION. I am not sure why you keep hypothesizing when reality is so easy to find.

Please, if you have EXAMPLES of this anti-American stance, then trot them out. I have shown you several examples of how and why religion can not be excluded just because it is religion. I challenge you to find the converse. Go for it.

 

[PureX]

Do you believe it's right for religious groups to proselytize to other people's children in a school environment without their parent's express consent? And if religious groups can do this, why not a group that promotes sexual experimentation or hedonism? How about groups that promote racial hatred and superiority? Or how about corporations using the schools to advertise directly to children in a captive environment. After all, you're the one who keeps insisting that equality of access trumps common sense.

As to students expressing their religion through prayer and other various gatherings in schools, I do think accommodations should be made where such gatherings are not coercive or disruptive, and are kept clearly apart from normal daily school function. And it's crucial that these are not sponsored by any internal or external adult organizations. Unfortunately, they almost always are.

Also, you keep referring to my "hatred" of these religious groups. Please stop doing this. I don't hate religion nor religionists. I simply believe it's wrong for people to target children to promote their ideological agendas. And It's just as wrong for Nike and Pepsi to do it as it is for some evangelical religious group.

I read those ESEA guidelines, and as I've posted before, I agree with most of them. However, I believe that they are being far too lenient, and will result in aggressive religious groups taking advantage of their leniency until it finally becomes obvious that their agendas are antithetical to the whole function and purpose of public education, and then the government will be forced to take action against them.

With freedom comes responsibility. And as some religious groups disregard that responsibility by seeking to proselytize to other people's children through any and all kinds of sneaky and underhanded means and legal loopholes in governmental policies, they will eventually cause a loss of freedom for all religious organizations. It's sad and unfortunate that it's in the nature of some ideologies to abuse the very freedom that allows them to flourish in the first place. But it is a fact, and in the end we all will suffer a loss of some freedom because of them. And I suppose it will continue to happen this way until the American people finally learn to shun such selfish and irresponsible ideologies BEFORE more laws have to be written to contain them.

 

[mostly harmless]

There are prayer groups BUT the school staff is not allowed to participate, and the students must do their prayers quietly and respectfully of the other students.

The staff is not allowed to participate or run the groups as that would be seen as a school endorsement of that religion by some folks.

edited to add: These prayer groups are NOT allowed to preach at the other kids in anyway...which is one of the reasons for them having to do their prayers quietly and respectfully of the other students.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Gone are the days when a church could hold an assembly for all students and talk about their ministry, and rightly so. That was an abuse!

However, their children are often willing and able to evangelize the school and there is NOTHING the school can do legally to stop it. These students can hand out brochures, invite people to their churches or synagogues and discuss religion as long as they are not disrupting class. So can the Wiccans. So can the Gay and Lesbian groups. So can all groups who do not violate any codes of ethics. That's not just the law, that's the constitution. That's what America is all about: you can't tell me how to live my life! That's why we are called the "Land of the Free!"

You can't exclude religion without excluding EVERYONE else. It's all or nothing.

Now, going by your predeliction to exclude religion, where would YOU draw the line? Would you ban all crosses or religious jewelery? Perhaps there would be no Bibles allowed? Just where would you stop in trying to protect these kids? Heck, you can't even keep them from becoming sexually promiscuous and getting pregnant or even AIDs. Do you really think it right to allow kids to promote sexual activity and not be able to promote their religion? It certainly doesn't sound reasonable to me.

BTW, every year I go into quite a few Jr High Schools to promote (shudder the thought) Boy Scouts! I set up a display in the lunch room of all the fun stuff we do and make a presentation during the kids' lunch. It's a BLAST! So far I have yet to be arrested. The District Executive goes to EVERY Elementary School and walks around DURING CLASS and makes a presentation to each and every class about Cub Scouts! But hey, so do the Girl Scouts, the Camp Fire Girls, the YMCA and the list can go on. The Schools love it when we come in and corrupt your kids! So do the kids!

 

[Quiddity]

Relativism has little bearing on this particular point. Applying religious ideology to civil law is like applying religious ideology to auto-mechanics. It's a waste of time, and only serves to confuse what would otherwise be a pretty simple and obvious endeavor when viewed through a mechanic's eye. There is no particular moral dilemma to be resolved in an internal combustion engine. It's just a complex mechanical process that either works or it doesn't.

And the same goes for the mechanics of civil law, as I see it. This has nothing to do with dogma, or relativism, or my hating religion in any way. It's just a simple, practical assessment of the function of civil law.

Not at all. Civil law has a moral component to it, does it not? Religion has a moral component to it, does it not? Your analogy is faulty in my opinion.

My conclusion, now, is that I don't know enough to conclude anything, honestly. So I simply let it go before I begin. Things either work or they don't work. Whether or not they're right or wrong or good or evil is beyond my capacity to determine.

You sound rather convinced that religiosity should be out of the civil arena? Hiding it under the guise of “it will work” or “it won’t work” so you won’t call it right or wrong isn’t going to change that your being just as dogmatic as the guy next to you. Right and wrong do have a “work or doesn’t work” component to it as well. Call it what you will, the reactions and behavior are no different.

I don't know what you mean by this at all. You'll have to explain it better.

I explained it above. But in case you need further clarification just imagine our American system like a relationship. Relationships are conditional. You can’t do whatever you want. Even if you do, you choose not to, for the sake of the relationship (system). To make it work…

 

[Green Gaia]

It all comes down to trust.

Non-religious people don't trust religious people to not push their religion and beliefs on them in the form of law. Religious people don't trust non-religoius people to not outlaw the practice of religion however they see fit. Religious people of differing beliefs don't trust other religious people because they don't believe the way they do.

Until we can start trusting one another and see that the laws of our country must reflect what is fair and just for everyone, this debate is never going to be settled.

 

[PureX]

Gone are the days when a church could hold an assembly for all students and talk about their ministry, and rightly so. That was an abuse!

However, their children are often willing and able to evangelize the school and there is NOTHING the school can do legally to stop it. These students can hand out brochures, invite people to their churches or synagogues and discuss religion as long as they are not disrupting class. So can the Wiccans. So can the Gay and Lesbian groups. So can all groups who do not violate any codes of ethics. That's not just the law, that's the constitution. That's what America is all about: you can't tell me how to live my life! That's why we are called the "Land of the Free!"

What's going to happen, is that the religious zealots who are trying to get access to other people's children will use their own children to do it, as they are being cut off from doing it any other way. And in the end, to put a stop to this, no child will be able to bring or pass out any kind of information about any outside groups or activities. Everyone will lose some freedom because of the abuse of a few. But that's the way it is, these days.

You can't exclude religion without excluding EVERYONE else. It's all or nothing.

Which is, of course, foolish.

Now, going by your predilection to exclude religion, where would YOU draw the line?

I agree with the courts intent to try and draw the line between religious proselytizing, and religious expression. The problem is that because of the deliberate and irresponsible intentions of some religious groups, who will train their own children to proselytize to other people's children, this will be quite difficult, and even impossible to some degree. We're going to have to begin training our children in how to guard against ideological predators like we have to train them to guard against sexual predators. One wants to steal their minds while the other wants to steal their bodies.

Would you ban all crosses or religious jewelry?

Not unless the kids begin fighting over them. I personally think all our students in all our schools should wear uniforms. I think that would eliminate a lot of hardship on parents, a lot of stigmatizing of the kids, and a lot of violence over gang nonsense. They could wear their crosses or whatever UNDER their uniforms.

Perhaps there would be no Bibles allowed?

I think kids should have access to religious information in their libraries, and I have no problem with classes in religious history or the history of religions as related to geography, sociology, history, etc. The problem comes when zealous religious organizations use their own children to try and push their religious materials onto other people's kids. And once again, it becomes difficult to stop when we want a child to be free to carry his/her own bible with them to school, yet we don't want them pushing their religious ideas onto other students. I guess it'll have to be taken on a case-by-case basis. When the school gets a complain that a child is proselytizing religion to other students, then they'll be warned to stop. And if they don't stop, they'll have to leave the school. The problem isn't the bible, or the information in it. It's the proselytizing.

Same goes with prayer. A student can pray to themselves at any time, and in groups at specific times as long as they aren't disrupting their own studies or those of the other kids. The problem isn't their praying, it's their using prayer as a means or excuse to push their religion into the consciousness of the other students.

Just where would you stop in trying to protect these kids?

I wouldn't stop trying to protect them. No matter what trick the proselytizers come up with, I'd find a way to deny them access. Since they have no shame, whatever, and nor respect for either their own children of the parental rights of others, and are willing to train their own kids to be shills for their religious ideologies, it may come to a point where their children will have to be denied access to public schools. I suppose if the situation got bad enough, the state would have to take their kids away from them.

Heck, you can't even keep them from becoming sexually promiscuous and getting pregnant or even AIDs. Do you really think it right to allow kids to promote sexual activity and not be able to promote their religion? It certainly doesn't sound reasonable to me.

Not to me either. Which is why we wouldn't allow anyone to be promoting sexual activity or participation among children. But that isn't the threat at the current time.

BTW, every year I go into quite a few Jr High Schools to promote (shudder the thought) Boy Scouts! I set up a display in the lunch room of all the fun stuff we do and make a presentation during the kids' lunch. It's a BLAST! So far I have yet to be arrested. The District Executive goes to EVERY Elementary School and walks around DURING CLASS and makes a presentation to each and every class about Cub Scouts! But hey, so do the Girl Scouts, the Camp Fire Girls, the YMCA and the list can go on. The Schools love it when we come in and corrupt your kids! So do the kids!

I bet if you went to the same places and gave the kids some beer, or some candy, they'd love it even more. This is why we can't let people proselytize to children, they aren't mature enough to understand what coercion is, and how grown-ups use it to manipulate them, and to try and train them to emulate their own beliefs.

You should be promoting the Boy Scouts to their parents, not to the kids. But of course it's so much easier to 'wow' a bunch of kids into thinking what you represent is so great, isn't it? And the kids won't ask questions about why your organization practices prejudice against homosexuals. In fact, I'm sure that once you get them in your groups, you can easily teach them to hate homos, too. I remember that I hated queers when I was a kid. We all did. That's what we were taught to do. Any boy that didn't claim to hate queers was considered a queer, and treated accordingly by all the other boys. I had to grow up and become an adult to realize that I had just been spewing out the hatred I'd been taught; that in fact I didn't hate homosexuals at all, and that I wasn't one, either. I'd just been coerced into thinking that I hated them by a bunch of irresponsible adults.

This is why you shouldn't be allowed to give your pitch for the Boy Scouts to the kids. And it's why we have to keep religious evangelicals away from out children, too. Only the parents have the right to poison a child's mind. Now THAT'S the American way!