Philadelphia Says BSA's Land Use in Jeopardy

[MarkNoel 10]

Interesting article in the Philadelphia Inquirer today:

 

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/6788642.htm

 

Apparently the City Solicitor has handed down a decision that Philadelphia's grant of free land use to the Cradle of Liberty Council violates the city's fair practices ordinance.

 

The article also quotes members of the COL board clarifying their intent to break from the national discriminatory policy with their move earlier this year (which may be of interest to some of the posters here who still buy National's statement that their policy always and only applied to Learning for Life):

 

" David H. Lipson Jr., board chairman of the local council, said, "My

hope is they want to work with us. Our council has said we want to end

discrimination of all types. It's been a difficult road. But we're

committed to change. To punish us makes absolutely no sense," he said."

 

YiS,

-Mark

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

 

There's also this recent article in the Boston Globe (watch the wrap, it'll probably break):

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2003/09/14/embattled_scouts_struggle_to_maintain_funding_ideology/

...

The negative fallout from scouting's policy against gays, and a separate ban on atheists as members or leaders, is beginning to spread to the courts. When confronted with disputes surrounding scouting, lower courts in recent months have tended to shift away from protecting local councils when their policies get them into trouble with government agencies. Courts still will not disturb the Scouts' constitutional right to follow those policies; the Supreme Court settled that in 2000. But courts seem less willing to spare the Scouts the consequences.

 

In July, a federal appeals court upheld a decision of the Connecticut state employees' committee to exclude a local Scout council from an annual charitable giving campaign. The same month, a federal judge in California nullified an exclusive lease the Scouts had to use a part of the city of San Diego's Balboa Park; the judge ruled the contract was a form of unconstitutional favoritism for a religious organization. Lower state courts in California have upheld Berkeley's decision to deny marina access to Sea Scouts, a case now pending in the state's Supreme Court.

...

 

Also note that, once again, Learning for Life numbers are included in the total numbers, as if the atheists and gays in Learning for Life programs show that they "support" the BSA's discrimination against them.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

I hope this does not come as a surprise to anyone. I would have been surprised if the result were anything else.

 

I would also say that the BSA has no room to complain, as it has brought this problem on itself...

 

...well, I would say that, if the only issue involved were the ban on avowed gays. But I see that this time, the ban on avowed atheists is part of the city's reasoning as well, which sort of puts me into a quandary. While (as I have said many times) I believe the anti-gay policy goes against the true principles of Scouting, it would be difficult to ignore "duty to God" and "A Scout is Reverent," which have been part of Scouting from the beginning.

 

The way I resolve this, at least for myself, is that I suspect that if the BSA had made the "gay thing" a non-issue by dropping the ban or permitting local option, then many government entities might have "looked the other way" when it came to the "atheism thing." What the federal courts would have done, I can't say. And I imagine that my "solution" won't sit well with many on either side of these issues.

 

It's also pretty ironic that the Cradle of Liberty Council does not support the gay ban, but is losing its free offices because National isn't giving it a choice. Hey, here's an idea. Maybe all the councils that do support the gay ban should kick in some money so that the Cradle of Liberty council can rent some office space. Same goes for any of the other "urban" councils who lose office or camp space on public land because of this. At least then the supporters of this ridiculous policy would be putting their money where their mouths are.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

njscouter writes:

The way I resolve this, at least for myself, is that I suspect that if the BSA had made the "gay thing" a non-issue by dropping the ban or permitting local option, then many government entities might have "looked the other way" when it came to the "atheism thing." What the federal courts would have done, I can't say.

 

Well, atheists sure wouldn't "look the other way" when government agencies practice discrimination against them, and the federal courts have been pretty good about protecting atheists' rights.

 

And the BSA brought this problem on itself in any case; whether you think atheists are or are not compatible with the BSA program has nothing to do with whether the city of Philadelphia can give free office space to a religiously discriminatory organization.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Well Merlyn, I didn't figure you would agree with me. In fact, the next sentence of mine after what you quoted was: "And I imagine that my "solution" won't sit well with many on either side of these issues." You were the main person on one side of the "issues" who I had in mind.

 

What can I say. Being a moderate in this world is becoming increasiningly difficult...

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Hey, why is everything so w i d e for this thread?

[lasteagle83 10]

Operational test for your left and right arrow keys, I suppose...

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

njcubscouter writes:

What can I say. Being a moderate in this world is becoming increasiningly difficult...

 

What can I say, government-supported religious discrimination is NOT moderate, it's unconstitutional.

 

If a city was giving free office space to a group that excluded Jews, I suppose your "moderate" view would be that it's OK, a lot of city governments would look the other way if it's only Jews who are being left out.

 

Of course, if that isn't your view, it's even worse, because now your advocating that governments ought to give free office space to groups that discriminate against people you don't like, and ought NOT discriminate against people you DO like. And now you've got the government enforcing your religious prejudices.

 

And I bet you can't even see this, and you still think you're being "moderate", since you only advocate that the government screw over atheists and not Jews. That's mighty white of you.

[Bob58 10]

Hey, why is everything so w i d e for this thread?

 

 

My heart says it reflects the w i d e diversity of opinion in the forum; my head says someeone found a new (divers) formatting option.

 

Lets' mind our manners.

[evmori 11]

So it's OK for the city of Philadelphia to discriminate but not OK for the BSA? I'm confused! MAybe it's a w i d t h thing.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[littlebillie 10]

"So it's OK for the city of Philadelphia to discriminate but not OK for the BSA? I'm confused! MAybe it's a w i d t h thing."

 

You know, I keep seeing this kind of comparison - that a response to discrimination (say, the refusal to fund or otherwise support a discriminatory group) is itself discriminatory. That's rather like saying that if the NEA wants to be non-discriminatory (or perhaps non-censorial?), they need to give a grant to EVERYONE who applies for arts funding.

 

Ed, would your immediate response be to call it discrimination if the city were to deny access to the KKK or NAMBLA? Or would you approve?

 

it really seems apples and oranges to me. is capital punishment justice or murder? eye for an eye, and all that - but vengeance is mine, saith the Lord. If you believe something is unjust, well, too bad? Ya gotta support it anyway, or you yourself are unjust?

 

I dunno, it seems specious to me...

[CubsRgr8 10]

Members of the thread, let's stick to the facts here. According to the newspaper article:

 

In 1928, City Council passed a resolution allowing the Boy Scouts free use of land at 22d and Winter Streets near the Benjamin Franklin Parkway. The Boy Scouts was allowed to build a headquarters there at its own expense, with the proviso that the building would immediately become the property of the city and must be turned over to the city with a year's notice, should the city want it.

 

So, the issue is not access to public facilties nor the council getting free use of city office space. The issue is the free use of city owned land by the council. Maybe the best thing would be for the council to purchase the property outright, but I don't know Philadelphia. From the council website, it looks like it might be a pricey location. NJ, can you comment on the location and probable value of the property in question?

(This message has been edited by CubsRgr8)

[packsaddle 753]

If those were the terms of the agreement, then the city isn't necessarily bound to give a reason, just a year's notice. Sound familiar? NJ's right, we reap what we sow. BSA should get over it.

 

I agree with littlebillie on the discrimination comment. The circularity of rejection of discrimination being discrimination reminds me of time travel. Maybe that should be 'SPACEious'.

 

Merlyn, you and NJ really ought to spend more time on the things about which you agree. That's the place to start in order to resolve your differences. Y'all play nice, now.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

CubsR, sorry, I'm not sure exactly where that is. I looked at Mapquest and it does not seem to be right in the downtown "office building area" so it might not be the most expensive area in the city, but it may still be a valuable property. I am sure that regardless of the area, it's going to be fairly expensive, because remember the council would have to pay for the not only the land, but the building it already paid to build.

 

I was at least half-serious, though I said it sort of jokingly, when I said other councils should chip in and pay for the rent (either at this building or elsewhere) if it would be too much of a financial burden on an urban council such as Cradle of Liberty to do so. It seems to me that there is an inequity here, because there are many parts of this country where the local government will still allow the BSA to stay rent-free, and even if Merlyn is correct that the federal courts will say otherwise, it may be years before that is uniformly the case nationwide. And given the fact that the Supreme Court's "establishment clause" decisions have not been completely uniform or predictable, it may never happen. In the meantime, why should a council in a more "progressive" area have to be any more of a "poor stepchild" than it (often) already is?

 

Or to put it another way: Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with a particular national membership policy, it is (as BobWhite so often points out) a national policy. If the burden of lost funding, having to suddenly pay rent, etc. etc. falls disproportionately on some councils, don't we all have a collective responsibility to make sure that the council is still able to deliver Scouting to the boys in that community? I would hate to see a council have to take thousands of dollars a month from program and put it into rent. How exactly this would work, I'm not sure. Increased registration fees and sharing of FOS contributions are two ways that spring immediately to mind. Not necessarily a pleasant prospect, but it is a way of protecting boys in particular parts of the country from having to bear an unfair burden for controversial nationwide policies.

 

Any objections? Any additional ideas on how this could be made to work?

 

Merlyn, at this point I'm not sure I even want to respond to you. You peronslly attack me, make up what you think I am advocating, and make up what you think I think. I suspect that some of the people that I usually debate with on here are having a good chuckle over this. (Including your use of your usual example, "Jews," which in my particular case would mean that I would be part of the excluded group.)

 

I cannot change the fact that the basic principles of the BSA include belief in God, nor is it reasonable for me to ask the BSA to change that fact. I have agreed with your constitutional analysis that the result of this probably is that the BSA no longer gets special financial favors from governments and governmental entities. If that is the case, so be it. I would like to see some sort of middle ground so that does not become the case, because I don't like seeing boys deprived of a program for no good reason. In order to avoid this, I'd like to see the BSA change the policy that I believe is contrary to the true principles of Scouting, but I can't see Scouting changing its long-standing, clear, published principles to admit avowed atheists who refuse to say the Scout Oath.

 

And by the way, I do not dislike atheists, though I am willing to make exceptions in individual cases.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

njscouter writes:

Merlyn, at this point I'm not sure I even want to respond to you. You peronslly attack me, make up what you think I am advocating, and make up what you think I think. I suspect that some of the people that I usually debate with on here are having a good chuckle over this. (Including your use of your usual example, "Jews," which in my particular case would mean that I would be part of the excluded group.)

 

Exactly. You indicated that if local governments ignored the rights of atheists in various cities around the country, that would be OK with you, and you consider yourself "moderate". You aren't. You are just as "moderate" as someone who would consider it OK if various local cities ignored the rights of Jews (which presumably would NOT be OK with you).

 

You're just saying that it's OK when the government violates the rights of some people based on their religion, but not if it affects YOUR particular group. That's not how it works; you need to defend ALL groups to expect your own rights to be respected.

 

I cannot change the fact that the basic principles of the BSA include belief in God, nor is it reasonable for me to ask the BSA to change that fact. I have agreed with your constitutional analysis that the result of this probably is that the BSA no longer gets special financial favors from governments and governmental entities.

 

But you went on to opine that it would be OK with you if various local governments discriminated against atheists, anyway.

 

If that is the case, so be it. I would like to see some sort of middle ground so that does not become the case, because I don't like seeing boys deprived of a program for no good reason.

 

Your "middle ground" consists of ignoring the rights of atheist kids, just as government support of a "no Jews" youth group would be ignoring the rights of Jews; if you don't want cities to give financial support to "no Jews" youth groups, you can't arbitrarily decide that supporting "no atheists" youth groups is some kind of reasonable "compromise".

 

In order to avoid this, I'd like to see the BSA change the policy that I believe is contrary to the true principles of Scouting, but I can't see Scouting changing its long-standing, clear, published principles to admit avowed atheists who refuse to say the Scout Oath.

 

You seem to think that, if the BSA changes its policies to agree with what you consider to be the "true principles of scouting", that such government support should be allowed, even if your "true principles" still result in atheists being excluded.

 

Guess what? That's entirely irrelevant to the legal issues involved.