Stones Cry Out

940k to the ACLU? That has to be a typo, doesn't it? It continues to amaze me when I see defendants fold in the face of the ACLU because of "legal expenses". These are often the same entities that will fight tooth and nail on almost any other legal issues, expenses be damned. Makes you wonder.

The judge did not state that the Boy Scouts are a "religion", he said they were a "religious organization", something the Boy Scouts themselves say.

And yes, requiring a belief in a god is a religious requirement. If a city decided to lease acres of a public park for $1/year to an organization that allowed everyone except Catholics, that would be just as legal as the Balboa park lease.

If the Boy Scouts are a religious institution, then so is the state of California.

Here’s the state of the law in California following Judge Jones’ decision: The Boy Scouts of America is a religion. But as of last year, March, the California Supreme Court decision, Catholic Charities is not.

The California no-aide clause in the California constitution prohibits aide to any sectarian purpose. But Judge Jones found that the Boy Scouts is non-sectarian, yet that was nevertheless immaterial because it is religious.

The Boy Scouts requires its members to acknowledge a duty to God. It requires that they take an oath. It includes as one of its elements of Scout law that they be reverent. The California constitution’s preamble likewise acknowledges our duty to God. It begins, “We the people of California, grateful to almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this constitution.”

Again, I don't think the Founding Fathers ever meant the First Amendment to mean that the government cannot have any dealings whatsoever with a group solely on the basis of religion, whether specific or, in this case, quite generic.

Anyone interested in this issue and the ACLU's legal assault on the Boy Scouts should check out the Scouts Legal Affairs website, bsalegal.org

It would help if you read the judge's actual decision; he didn't say the city couldn't have any dealings with the Boy Scouts, he said San Diego couldn't lease land at well under market rates to a religious organization while ignoring the city's own competitive bidding requirements on leasing public land. That's tantamount to supporting a religious organization using property that belongs to the general public.

According to the Scout site I noted, it sounds like it's not a case of being "religious" that puts you under the competitive bid process, but being sectarian. And as I linked, the BSA is far from being sectarian.

It's sounding a little as though the BSA is being held to a different standard by those who disagree with its stances.

And please realize that this is part of a much bigger picture, with the ACLU standing at the ready to strike down any dealings between the BSA and any governmental entity.

According to the judge, the BSA's religious requirements (as well as their own briefs describing themselves as a religious organization) makes the BSA a religious organization.

And as far as "dealings between the BSA and any governmental entity", the BSA didn't stop chartering units to public schools until the ACLU threatened to sue public schools that practiced religious discrimination by excluding atheists. The BSA itself says that the chartering organization "owns and operates" the pack or troop, and public schools can't own & operate a private club that excludes atheists. The ACLU got involved because the BSA isn't an honest organization.

I went in to reading this comment on Doug's "side," thinking it did, indeed sound like the state was unfairly picking on the BSA. But then, Brian has - 1, 2, 3, - taken what was said and pointed out that the story was being misrepresented (unintentionally, I'm sure).

It helps your side to present the case as factually as possible, without putting in twists to help your case - a tendency that we all have but should watch out for nonetheless.

Indeed, the way the original article presented it, as though the BSA was being called some sort of official religion, is misleading. However, the BSA's point that other organizations that are religious in nature or are outright arms of churches aren't being held to some of the same standards does indeed make it sound like the BSA is being dealt with as though it was a religion. That list of religions that the BSA has a emblems for includes Catholics, Hindus, Jews, Baha'i, Buddhists, Zoroastrians... They are "religious" only in that they seek to affirm just about whatever your religion is.

And since AA talks about a higher power, are they a religious organization? I gotta wonder how that would play in the press.

And since AA talks about a higher power, are they a religious organization? I gotta wonder how that would play in the press.

Yes, they are. Courts in several states have ruled that AA attendance can't be mandatory precisely because they are a religious organization, because of that bit about a "higher power" (AA isn't the only game in town, and their success rate isn't very good anyway). Courts can mandate alcohol treatment, but they can't mandate theistic alcohol treatment.

The BSA has refused to recognize a Wiccan religious award (the Hart and Crescent) apparently because they don't like that religion.

Here are large PDF files of the judge's rulings in the Balboa Park and Fiesta Island cases:

Balboa Park

Fiesta Island

Let me try that without using HTML:

http://www.aclusandiego.org/pdf/MSJorder.pdf

http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/Fiesta_Park_Order-0404.pdf

"I trust in God, I love my country, and will respect its laws..."

Name the organization whose pledge starts with these words and then look up their "leases" (free actually) with public parkland throughout the country.

Let's get rid of THAT terribly religious organization and all the evil they do to our nations youth!

Absurd... Can't wait for the 9th Circuit ruling and the coming appeal to the SCOTUS. Let's settle this in case law once and for all.

The problem that made the city roll over is proof that the BSA had claimed to be a 'private religious organization' in a number instances including their appearance before the SCOTUS. As the city attorney stated:

The City's defense of the case rested on the position that, while the Boy Scouts may follow certain religious principles, it was not a "religious organization" subject to the restrictions in the state and federal constitutions. During the course of the case, however, and without forewarning the City as to its position, the Boy Scouts admitted in court documents that it was in fact a "religious organization."

And another difference between the BSA and those other organizations is answered by the question "can a self-avowed atheist join?" The answer for all the others is 'yes', for "no" for the BSA. Just mentioning God doesn't qualify you as a religious organization but having a religious 'litmus test' does. And the city is proscribed by California law from giving religious organizations limited bid access to leasing of public property.

Their only real hope is trying to show that the 2 churches that are being given bid free leasing, the Point Loma Community Presbyterian Church and the San Diego Calvary Korean Church, means they should be able to also though it more likely would just lead the the revoking of the bids if they aren't special cases.

Unfortunately, though I can find no hard info, the scuttlebutt is that they are special in that they actually own their land and the leasing for $0 is some legal mumbo-jumbo because of the location, e.g. it might be technically by survey be city land but they have a deed and to get it the city would have to buy it back from them.

Why does a private religious organization want to be on the public dole anyway?

public dole? The BSA has pumped millions of dollars into maintenance of Balboa Park per their agreement with the City. And they always let other groups who apply to use the park through the City use it - irrespective of the religious convictions of the groups who apply. The City of San Diego had one heckuva deal. Getting rid of the Boy Scouts will end up costing the taxpayers and weakening programs for our City's youth. Only in America - Common sense goes down the toilet. Yippee!

Hey, the Boy Scouts USED to be a public accommodation until they got taken over by theists. Shoot I got my Religion merit badge with a project that basically said the only viable religion was Deism signed off by a Baptist minister.

What happened is the BSA went before the highest court of the land and claimed they had become a private religious organization and by doing so they voluntarily closed a number doors that are open to public accommodations. A federal agency CAN'T sponsor a private discriminatory religious youth group anymore than they could a chapter of DeMoley or the KKK Youth. Civil municipalities operate under the same rules usually. The BSA tossed all these options away because THEY changed and they became something they hadn't been in the past.

Any price they pay is the result of their own actions and of their own choice. Private religious organizations shouldn't expect to get special deals from civic governments.

The main issue here, I believe, is the incorrect view of the Constitution that suggests that government cannot make accomodations for religion or groups that have some sort of religious connection. Folks who believe that then go on to pass local laws to implement that, like this one, don't allow the city to make any sort of deals with the Scouts. The First Amendment proscribes creating a special governmental arrangement with a single religion such that they become the established religion, which has a very specific meaning. Recall that the same Congress that passed the First Amendment also instituted congressional chaplains with public money.

The First Amendment is likely the reasoning behind the city statute, and is a misapplication of it. What is being noticed here is that the ACLU is all for this misapplication, and the current result is that of inappropriately forcing governments to cut their ties with them. The First Amendment does not take away the ability of local representative bodies of the people to choose how they can spend their money.

The BSA ruling is a symptom. The ACLU's misreading of the Constitution is the disease, and their treatment of the Scouts as a de facto religion is incorrect.

The main issue here, I believe, is the incorrect view of the Constitution that suggests that government cannot make accomodations for religion or groups that have some sort of religious connection.

Sorry that's not the issue at all - California and federal law makes it clear the government CAN do those things. What it CAN'T do is favor one such religious organization over another. e.g. they can't just hand over the lease to a particular religious organization but it must be up for bid for ALL organizations. That is what invalidates the BSA lease of the San Diego properties - it wasn't put up for bid when it involves a religious organization which is wrong since they can't show favoritism of one religion over another.

They aren't being 'kicked off' they are having an illegal lease invalidated The bid in such situations must be a open bid, and once the lease is officially invalidated then the BSA will be able to bid on the lease the same as any other organization can, secular or religious. Maybe some generous patron will make them the high bidder, but ONLY the high bidder should get the lease.

And that's what is so disheartening about this whole thing is the BSA supporters are systematically being deceptive about the entire situation. What is happening is exactly what the BSA should have realized what would happen when they changed officially from being a public accommodation to a private religious organization. Governments CAN give special considerations to public accommodations, they CAN'T to private religious organizations. The BSA knew that all these perks they got in the past would go away but they are acting like they are being attacked when they are just being adjusted to get what all such religious organizations are entitled to and should expect.

Yes a city could have a policy that gave EVERY religious organization choice parkland on the cheap but they can't favor some such organizations over any others. So unless the city is prepared to give the San Diego Wiccan High Coven the same deal, they can't offer that special deal to any private religious organization.

So in answer to "The Boy Scouts Are A Religion?" the answer is 'Yes, by their own statements and choice", and to whine because they are being treated like one is not very in keeping with the BSA Oath and Law in itself.

Governments CAN give special considerations to public accommodations, they CAN'T to private religious organizations.

Again, I think this is a misreading of the First Amendment. The ACLU and liberal interpreters of the Constitution are wrong when they pass laws or try to enforce a reading of those laws in accordance with this misreading. And therefore...

So in answer to "The Boy Scouts Are A Religion?" the answer is 'Yes, by their own statements and choice."

...this statement is meaningless. They are not a religion as they cater to dozens of disparate ones. Additionally, local representative governments should be allowed to make choices regading organizations that accomodates religion as well as those that don't have a religious component. The First Amendment does not prohibit this in the least.

If the statute reads that the lease should be subject to competitive bid when the organization in question uses the "G" word in its materials, then this application of that law in this case should indicate to folks in power how poorly that law is written, or that it should simply not exist. The alleged "whinning" you're upset about is merely informing the public that this organization, that has had acknowledgement of God in since its inception almost 100 years ago, has become subject to this misreading of the Constitution. Hopefully, it will wake some people up as to the consequences of bad law.

If the statute reads that the lease should be subject to competitive bid when the organization in question uses the "G" word in its materials, then this application of that law in this case should indicate to folks in power how poorly that law is written,

See here is where the continual deceit come in. As the court records state and I have pointed out it doesn't have to do with the 'G' word, it has to do with a 'G' litmus test for participation yet you knowingly and willingly misrepresent the situation to suit your purposes.

As long as the BSA has a religious test for participation they ARE a religious organization be definition! This isn't about an 'acknowledgement' of God', the YMCA has that - but they REQUIRE a belief in God for participation -that they clearly confirmed this by their own statements before the Supreme Court of the United States is just icing on the cake.

Additionally, local representative governments should be allowed to make choices regading organizations that accomodates religion as well as those that don't have a religious component. The First Amendment does not prohibit this in the least.

Oh yes it does. You realize what you just said would mean a town could decide to pay all the bills of the local Baptist church out of city coffers because they voted it to be so? You are really advocating the civic support of particular religious organizations over others?

If the answer to that question is 'yes' then we see the real problem - current citizens have no concept of basic american principles.

Yeah, like that President Jefferson guy who spent public money to bring the Bible to the American Indians. Folks in those days had no idea about basic American principles. I did mention the whole chaplain thing as well. There are loads of other examples of government aiding groups with a litmus test far more stringent than the BSA's, and by guys who were closer to the writing (and in some cases were part of the writing) of the Constitution.

Again, just bad law based on the misapplication of the First Amendment. Note that I'm not calling for civic government to give money to a particular religion, only noting that they can and not create a state relgion (which, as I noted, has a specific meaning). That misreding is a relatively recent development. I'm not surprised that pointing this out shocks you.

Oh so you are saying you think it would be appropriate for a civic government to give a specific church city money? (your answers seem to indicate a 'yes'.)

If that is the case there is the problem - you are advocating government support of one religion over another and since I think that is totally un-American there is our difference.

Oh would love hear these 'loads' of other examples. My favorite was when Benjamin Franklin suggested that they open the Continental Congress session with a prayer to help get the participants all 'argued out' so they could make progress on other issues. Yes they did argue and their decision - it would be inappropriate to do so. And yes Jefferson thought Christianity was an excellent doctrine once you removed all the 'God' stuff.

Please a couple examples where an organization with a religious litmus test was given government support over others.

This demanding for special rights and treatment for the BSA is so much a 'point and laugh' situation at the hypocrisy of its supporters.

I said:

Note that I'm not calling for civic government to give money to a particular religion, only noting that they can...

You heard:

Oh so you are saying you think it would be appropriate for a civic government to give a specific church city money? (your answers seem to indicate a 'yes'.)

Jefferson's personal religious beliefs notwithstanding, he did pay for Bibles (rather specific to a religion) for the Indians.

Obviously what we have here is a failure to communicate.

Yes, you can't realize your saying they they can and implying that they should for the BSA religious organization is 'calling for it' regardless of your protests otherwise.

And yes he gave out bibles, just as he could have the iliad or any other historical work. It is just a book of mythology after all especially if given away by a Deist. :)

"I trust in God, I love my country, and will respect its laws..."

Name the organization whose pledge starts with these words and then look up their "leases" (free actually) with public parkland throughout the country.

It's Little League Baseball. I played in a park district league back in the day. I don't recall there being any sort of pledge. I reckon it wasn't Little League, as such. Which goes to show: there are plenty of alternatives for the perpetually offended.

Name the organization whose pledge starts with these words and then look up their "leases" (free actually) with public parkland throughout the country.

As long as the BSA only gets what a private discriminatory religious youth organization is entitled to by law then I say let them do what they want. (which might sound harsh but 'Noah's Ark, 'Acquire the Fire', 'Baptist Youth' are all; such organizations) But what they can't have is the perks reserved for a public accommodations and get away without acting like one. An ethical organization wouldn't want to anyway.

They aren't being kicked out of Balboa Park, they are just having their illegally-issued lease revoked. If they are the high bidder for the property when its subsequently put up for bid they can continue using it. All these readjustments are necessary because the BSA went before the highest court in the land and changed their status of being a civic community service that mentioned God but let any boy in to that of a private religious youth organization with an official policy of discrimination.

It really is that simple.

Also, Little League WAS ruled to be a public accommodation when girls sued to get in. They won, and, since LL is a public accommodcation, it's also unlawful for them to exclude atheists.

People who think the US constitution only prohibits establishment of "a religion" should read:
1) the constitution ("establishment of religion")
2) Torcaso v. Watkins
3) Texas Monthly Inc. v. Bullock

Contrary to what you claim to understand, BobVB, the Scouts don't *require* a religious affiliation to join. Nowhere on a Scout application for membership is a boy asked to name his religious affiliation, and at no time is he subject to such a test as a requirement for membership. Not in any way, shape, or form.

Yes, the oath says "...to do my duty to God and my country...", but it's stated as "I will do my best to do my duty..." BSA believes in God and in the importance and value of religion in one's life, but to the best of my knowledge, no Scout has ever been expelled from Scouting for lack of religious convictions. And more to the point, nobody is told what to believe. My son’s Troop, chartered by a Catholic church, includes boys of other faiths, and quite possibly boys with no religious faith whatsoever. The previous Scoutmaster (and his Eagle Scout son) are Jewish. And no, I can’t tell you what religions are represented among the boys because NONE OF US EVER ASKS, or needs to, or wants to!

This inane attack on the religious aspects Scouting is yet another example of people's lack of knowledge of Scouting, inexplicable fear of religion, and especially the complete misinterpretation of the First Amendment. So many of your ilk hit on the "...no law respecting the establishment of a religion..." and conveniently overlook "...or the free expression thereof." You claim to be fighting for the Constitution, but only to the extent that it supports your slanted view of it.

And don't tell me you're afraid of what religious zealots might do to you if not kept in check. This whole ridiculous attack on Scouting, hiding behind the guise of freedom of religion, is just exactly proof of how the First Amendment provides ample protection. That's the whole point. It's not intended to wipe out religion in our public lives, it’s intended to protect and preserve it.

Instead of forcing BSA to waste millions of dollars on legal battles, groups like the ACLU would do well to realize the value in supporting Scouting as a means to steer young men away from gangs and violence. This organization run amok forces BSA to spend countless resources fighting one pointless battle after another.

Interesting to note that nobody has ever actually demonstrated *real* damages inflicted by public support of Scouting. And that’s why the ACLU and its cohorts, like you, can never point out the value of these lawsuits, because there is none.

The BSA's still-current policy is to exclude ANYONE who does not believe in (at least one) god. They've kicked out Darrell Lambert. They refused admission to Rick Sherman. They tried to kick out the Randall twins (and couldn't only because the court wouldn't let them until the case was settled). They testified that Remington Powell, a six-year-old, couldn't join.

Sorry, the BSA, as it is now, discriminates on the basis of religion. It can't be part of any government program because the government can't discriminate on the basis of religion.