whitewater

Merlyn said: ...I think the bigotry expressed by FOG illustrates how the Boy Scouts encourage hatred against atheists.

That's a ridiculous argument and I hope you know it.  If that is valid, then it would also be reasonable to assume that if the BSA allowed homosexual leaders, that Scouts would be in danger of being sexually abused by them just because there might be a few cases of such a thing happening.

I agree with the others. 17 boys out 80? That's not just a red flag, it's a red billboard.

From the slim information, it sounds like the boys might not feel "empowered"- like the program isn't theirs. It's important not to get into a rut and do things just because "that's what we've always done". And the boys should decide what they want to do- adults should have very little input.

The fact that the BSA is singled out, when there examples of similar lease arrangements, supports my contention of viewpoint bias. Can you name such a lease?

The City of San Diego leases real property to 123 non-profit organizations.  Of these, 96 either pay no rent or less than the $2500 annual administrative fee that the Boy Scouts pay for Camp Balboa.  Fifty of these leases are for 25 years or longer. Other exclusively negotiated leases were made to the Girl Scouts, several YMCA's, Hillel of San Diego, the Black Police Officer's Association, the San Diego Hebrew Day School, the Sherman Heights Community Center, the Neighborhood House Association, the Japanese Friendship Garden Society, and others.The City also leases property to religious organizations: San Diego Calvary Korean Church, the Point Loma Comm. Presbyterian Church, the Jewish Community Center.

Do you disagree with the contention that the BSA holds the promotion of religion, and religious values, to be a major goal?

I believe the BSA  promotes religious values as only one part of a broader program to promote positive character development in our youth.

The BSA is 'fighting' for their right because they are under attack. Under attack is a rather biased way of looking at it. And they are not fighting merely because they are under attack. Surely you arent saying that the BSA, when sued, automatically will oppose the suit, regardless of the issue?

? Are you suggesting that it's not proper to fight a suit?  The BSA believes they are right, I believe they are right.  Why wouldn't they fight back?  Look at the litigation against the Scouts in the last 20 years- I think 'under attack' is appropriate.

The agreement with the city was a value-for-value arrangement. That claim is belied by their continued resistance to the ruling. If it truly were the citys best use of the land, they would not need to appeal the ruling. They could simply apply for a renewal of the lease on an equal basis with everyone else.

If the City didn't feel the agreement was the best use of the land, why did they originally extend the lease? And what does their resistance to the ruling have to do with it?  The Boy Scouts built a $4 million aquatic center which is available to the public, they've spent millions on other improvements, they pay utilities, insurance, etc. and the City has to pay nothing.  The intention has never been to open up the bidding to non-religious groups, the intention has been to kick the Scouts out.  And the lease extension is no longer the issue, the City has yielded to pressure from the ACLU and others and terminated the existing lease as well leaving the Scouts and their monetary obligations for the remainder of the lease term in limbo.

That is only relevant if they were turned down Huh? You mean you dont think any atheist group has ever been turned down?

Do you have an example of one?

 The majority of the leases by San Diego to non-profit groups are low-rent or rent-free. But they dont promote religion.

The Point Loma Community Presbyterian Church doesn't promote religion? And they don't even have to pay a yearly administrative fee.

I don't agree that it is a 'special deal' without knowing what deals were given to other groups. Unless the same deal were offered to EVERY SINGLE other group, its a special deal.

Well, by that definition you may be right.  However, there are other groups that apparently got 'better' deals.

Even on its own merits, I'm not so convinced the lease is such a 'special deal' since the City received substantial value in return. Either they received market value, or they didnt. One or the other. If they received market value, then putting this lease on the open market will not result in any change. If they didnt receive market value, then it was a special deal.

Do you honestly believe that if the lease were offered on the open market and the Boy Scouts still were able to retain the lease, that the issue would be over? The Scouts spent millions on the property and the City had to spend nothing and the community got access to the facilities.  That sounds like a pretty good value to me.

 If these schools are deemed secular for legal puposes then how can the BSA be called religious? Do you have a link to the text of that decision?

I'm sorry, I don't.  The FindLaw site that I was referencing only archives cases back to 1996 and the EEOC v. Kamehameha Schools case was 1993.  The Justice Department's Amicus Curiae brief references the case at http://www.bsalegal.org/downloads/DOJ_Amicus.pdf

Even in the BSA v. Dale case, the BSA was not considered a religious organization or it would have been able to use the Free Exercise Clause. Can you cite what part of the decision to which you are referring?

I'm not referring to a part of the decision.  Religous organizations are exempted from state and federal laws which would affect their ability to choose their leaders or exercise their beliefs.

It's been said that the Boy Scouts are trying to have it both ways, but it sounds to me like the Judge in California is the one trying to have it both ways. Is the judge both claiming that the BSA is a religious organization, and claiming that it isnt?

I will concede this point- I mispoke.  The judge is not claiming that they are NOT a religious organization. I strongly disagree with his contention that they are, however, and their are quite a few court cases that agree with me.

Bob's right. The BSA's policies haven't changed signiicantly.

What I think has changed is the level of attacks on it by liberal groups, and the coverage those groups receive from the media. Since when is it a bad thing to believe in traditional values?

Besides, everyone discriminates. If I'm not a college student, I can't join APO.

I'm very sorry. A loss like this helps us realize how special and short life is. You, your Troop and the boys family will be in my prayers.

I just think that whatever the BSA considers itself to be may not correspond to what their legal status should be in this case. There is legal precidence to NOT classify them as a religious organization here.

My beef with the judge is not that he AGREED with the Boy Scouts' self-definition. My beef is that he apparently didn't consider some valid court cases in making that determination.

I do think that the BSA declaring themselves a religious organization in a such a case may not have been a wise move from a legal standpoint.

I didn't miss anything, I was simply responding to your comment.

The Judge apparently missed several other precidents for determining whether or not the BSA should be considered a religious organization.

In EEOC v. Kamehameda Schools/Bishop Estate, the Ninth Circuit Court held that a group of private schools with a religious charter, daily class prayers, prayer before meals, required Christian religious intruction, and required attendance at worship services were not religious institutions because the curriculum was predominately secular. If these schools are deemed secular for legal puposes then how can the BSA be called religious?

Even in the BSA v. Dale case, the BSA was not considered a religious organization or it would have been able to use the Free Exercise Clause.

It's been said that the Boy Scouts are trying to have it both ways, but it sounds to me like the Judge in California is the one trying to have it both ways.

"Well, you keep talking about the USE of public facilities, as if the judge ruled that the BSA can't use or rent public property, which isn't at all the issue. The city gave the BSA a special deal."

I don't agree that it is a 'special deal' without knowing what deals were given to other groups. Therefor, the other leases aren't irrelevant. Even on its own merits, I'm not so convinced the lease is such a 'special deal' since the City received substantial value in return.

Why would what the BSA considers itself, be relevant to the Judge. Shouldn't the definition of what the BSA, is be determined by facts, not the BSA's opinion?

Merlyn,

I have read the decision- I just don't agree with it. My impression was that the judge was against the Scouts from the beginning.

The fact that he sided with the plaintiffs on their contention that the City's leases with other non-profit organizations was irrelevant, supports my feelings that he was biased. I think the other lease arrangements are very relevant. The fact that the BSA is singled out, when there examples of similar lease arrangements, supports my contention of viewpoint bias.

I also don't follow his reasoning that the lease violates the establishment clause. It sounded like the judge quoted every available resource that mentioned religion in order to support his belief that the Scouts were a primarily religious organization. He mentioned very little of the secular nature of the majority of Scout activities.

Deloe,

The BSA is 'fighting' for their right because they are under attack. I don't agree that everyone is 'supporting' the Boy Scouts because they lease land from the city. The agreement with the city was a value-for-value arrangement. The BSA was required to spend millions on development of the property, in addition to maintainance, utilities, etc. as a condition of the lease. In return the City gets facilities, without cost to the city, that are available to other groups besides the Scouts.

'Have you ever heard of an ATHEIST group being offered a rent-free lease?' That is only relevant if they were turned down. The majority of the leases by San Diego to non-profit groups are low-rent or rent-free. And it should be noted that some of them were also exclusive negotiations.

Deloe,

The difference, as I see it, is that the BSA morals also reflect those of the majority of society. The BSA also teaches its members to be respectful of other people's views. That is not the case with those attacking the BSA. They believe the BSA is wrong and must be changed. They are intolerant of the BSA's right to believe what they want.

This is the true attack on the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has also determined that it is unconstitutional and violates the First Amendment to discriminate against a group or individual on the basis of their viewpoint. In other words, to deny access to public facilities because a group believes or doesn't believe in God, or because a group believes homosexuality is immoral or isn't immoral, is unconstitutional.

Aren't there other groups that the City of San Diego leases land to, or otherwise supports, such as the Salvation Army, church groups and Girl Scouts. Last I heard, boys could still not join the Girl Scouts. Why are the Boy Scouts being singled out?

I don't see a problem for government support of a non-profit organization as long as other groups receive equal treatment. I would see a problem if the government said the Boy Scouts were the only youth program that they would support.

Have a good weekend. I hope you have good weather.

I suppose you are correct about everyone wanting validation for their moral views. However, in this case it is the minority group seeking acceptance from the majority. There are still many people who do don't think a gay lifestyle is acceptable.

By discrimination, I meant unjustifiable discrimination. In my opinion, it is 'justifiable' discrimination because of the BSA's right to set its own membership requirements.

Discrimination, by definition, is impossible to eliminate. Everyone discriminates. You and I discriminate by who we allow to be our friends. The restaurant next door discriminates by giving discounts to those over 65. The Girl Scouts discriminate because they run a program taylored for young girls.

The question is does it do more harm than good? Senior citizens benefit from the discount since many are on fixed incomes and there is no noticable harm to the rest of society. Many young girls benefit from the Girl Scouts and even though they can't join, boys aren't harmed by the policy. In fact society as a whole benefits because of the positive effects of their program on young girls.

Why should it be any different with the Boy Scouts? I doubt any other organization in history has had as a profound impact on youth.

I don't think the real issue behind the attacks on the Boy Scouts has anything to do with whether they practice justifiable discrimination. The real issue has to do with a few segments of society wanting to validate and seek acceptance of their definition of morality.

Bob,

I agree with you that the SM is wrong based on what I've heard so far. The point of the question 'How long do you intend to hold him back?' is only to further understand the SM's motivation. Perhaps it was not a good question.

I do think though, that questions and a discussion should be the first step and not a confrontation. Perhaps the whole story isn't coming out.

My mixed feelings on 13 year old Eagles is only that I've seen a few that didn't seem worthy. I strongly support the program and agree that if they have completed the requirements they should receive it. I just worry that some of them come from a merit badge factory type troop.

I personally have mixed feelings about 13 year old Eagles. I think sometimes they have been lead by the hand by a well-intending parent that does a little too much for them along the way. Often these boys are products of Troops that are merit-badge factories as well.

That said, it appears that your son doesn't fit into that category. He sounds like an outstanding young man.

I'd start with the Scoutmaster. If the requirements have all been fullfilled, then he has no grounds to deny the rank. But try to understand his point of view and discuss things with him. Why does he think your boy is not ready? Numerical age is really kind of arbitrary. How long does he plan on holding him back and why? What impact does he think this roadblock will have on your son's motivation? After you are sure you understand the SM's motivation, then decide how to proceed. The next step would be to talk to the Unit Commissioner if you still feel the SM is out of line.

It's interesting how polarizing these topics on homosexuals and religion can be. They touch on individual core beliefs and those are not easily swayed.

It's also interesting how a person's perspective is influenced by those core beliefs. Both sides can look at the exact same thing and come to totally opposite conclusions.

It appears to me that the Boy Scouts were singled out in this case. It seems pretty clear that this is just one step in a coordinated effort to force the BSA into changing policies. Both sides of the issue probably agree on that.

The Supreme Court upheld the right of the Boy Scouts to set their own membership requirements- just as any other private organization can. Is that discrimination? No, it is the freedom of association, which is implicit in the First Ammendment.

Here is why I think the judge's ruling will be overturned. The Boy Scouts are a religious organization. They are not A religion. By allowing them the use of public facilities, the government is in no way endorsing a religion. Aren't there other religious organizations that are allowed to use public land?

What is unconstitutional about the lease deal? Where does it say anywhere that othe goups must be allowed to make an offer? When the lease extension was discussed, was it not in a public forum where others could come forward?

The original posting in this thread claims that the article in question was full of lies. I don't see them as lies. They are just the BSA's perspective.