San Diego att'y explains why city settled with ACLU

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

 

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/thu/opinion/news_mz1e22gwinn.html

 

...

In 2001, the City Council voted to extend the Boy Scouts' lease at Balboa Park for an additional 25 years. The ACLU challenged the lease extension in federal court on a variety of grounds.

 

The primary issue addressed in the court's summary judgment ruling was whether the lease extension gave a preference or a special benefit to a "religious organization." 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." Based upon that admission, Judge Jones determined that the Boy Scouts is a religious organization and that the lease was invalid because the process by which it was extended violated both the state and federal constitutions in providing special preference and benefits to a religious organization.

 

The Boy Scouts' position that it is a religious organization makes Judge Jones' ruling understandable. Under current case law, no public entity can provide special preference or benefit to a religious organization whether it be a church, a mosque, a synagogue or a youth group.

...

The Boy Scouts repeatedly and pointedly refused to support the city in helping to pay any of the potential attorney fees involved in this case. The Scouts want San Diego taxpayers to continue to argue the case even though it has acknowledged that it is a religious organization and even though it refuses to share in the potentially enormous attorney fees award that ultimately will be awarded to plaintiffs who have already prevailed in Jones' ruling noted above.

...

[evmori 11]

And per the article, the BSA is not responsible for the legal fees incurred. And since San Diego will be charging the BSA more for use of the park, that should help cover the cost of the lawsuit. Sounds like the only ones complaining is the ACLU!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10(This message has been edited by evmori)

[Bob White 20]

"The Scouts want San Diego taxpayers to continue to argue the case"

 

Lets keep in mind that the scouters and parents of those scouts are San Diego taxpayers. The City has a responsibility to defend the local BSA council in this matter as they would any other entity. The fact that they cannot be treated better because they are a religious organization does not mean that you can treat them worse.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

 

Let's keep in mind the plaintiffs are also San Diego taxpayers, and the city can't decide to treat THEM any worse, either.

 

It looks like the Boy Scouts' duplicity in claiming it's a religious organization when it wants to discriminate and claiming it ISN'T a religious organization when it wants freebies from the government isn't working anymore.

[evmori 11]

"It looks like the Boy Scouts' duplicity in claiming it's a religious organization when it wants to discriminate and claiming it ISN'T a religious organization when it wants freebies from the government isn't working anymore."

 

 

Ahh but the BSA did, at least according to the article, admit to being a religious organization! No duplicity here!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Only when dragged into court; they didn't tell the San Diego city council that they were a religious organization when the city renewed their lease and voted to spend money to defend it on the grounds the BSA wasn't a religious organization.

 

And does the BSA inform all those thousands of public schools that charter BSA units that the BSA is a religious organization, and they are agreeing to "own and operate" a youth group that has religious requirements for membership?

[molscouter 10]

"Let's keep in mind the plaintiffs are also San Diego taxpayers, and the city can't decide to treat THEM any worse, either."

 

From what I read, the only plaintiff was the ACLU (yes, I know they were probably filing on behalf of somebody who actually lives in San Diego).

 

I have great doubts that $2 million dollars in fees was actually accrued (let's see, at $500/hour, that's 4000 hours). The very fact that the agreement capped the fees at under a million tells me that the original claim wouldn't stand up to a decent audit. Yep, right up there on the honesty scale with mass tort lawyers.

 

"And does the BSA inform all those thousands of public schools that charter BSA units that the BSA is a religious organization, and they are agreeing to "own and operate" a youth group that has religious requirements for membership?"

 

Do class action attorneys tell their clients that they'll get virtually nothing for their participation while the attorneys rake off a ridiculous portion?

 

Don't get me wrong, most attorneys are decent people. However, in my opinion, the ACLU as an entity is basically an extortionist organization that preys on small towns and school districts who haven't the resources to fight,

 

[evmori 11]

"Only when dragged into court; they didn't tell the San Diego city council that they were a religious organization when the city renewed their lease and voted to spend money to defend it on the grounds the BSA wasn't a religious organization."

 

And you know this for a fact?

 

"And does the BSA inform all those thousands of public schools that charter BSA units that the BSA is a religious organization, and they are agreeing to "own and operate" a youth group that has religious requirements for membership?"

 

Does it really matter? The interpretation of the 1st Ammendment is skewed. There is no reference to church & state being separate. If there were, would we have "In God We Trust" on our currency? Would the President be sworn in on a bible?

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Uh, Ed, at least one president wasnt sworn in on a bible

[evmori 11]

OK, OGE, but the majority are. And all witnesses in a civil or criminal trial are sworn in on a bible, so help me God!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

No Ed, nobody is ever required to swear (on a bible or not) in a US court of law; such a requirement would be unconstitutional anyway. But you've shown before that you aren't capable of understanding what religious freedom means; it certainly doesn't mean you're "free" to believe only what the majority believes.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Ed, let me ask you a question. Forget for a minute about "separation of church and state." Forget about swearing on Bibles and opening prayers in Congress and words on coins and things like that. And forget for a minute about the Boy Scouts. Just please answer this question:

 

Do you think it is acceptable, under our Constitution, for one religious organization to be given exclusive use of a substantial piece of publicly-owned property, rent free, for 50 years, while other religious organizations are not?

 

As I said, put the Boy Scouts out of your mind for purposes of this question. Let's say the relgious organization in question is, say, a Jewish congregation; or a Methodist church; or a Hindu temple; or any other religious organization you choose. Is it ok for Temple Beth El to get to use the local park for 50 years, rent free, while the First Baptist Church does not, if that is what the government chooses to do?

[evmori 11]

NJ,

If that's what the city of San Diego decided to do, its' OK with me!

 

Merlyn,

Religious freedom means one is free to believe & practice whatever religion they want wherever they want! 1st Ammendment guarantees that. Nowhere does it state the church & state must be separate.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[NJCubScouter 1389]

OK Ed, let's try a different aspect of the same issue. Please answer each question:

 

1. The people of the state of, say, California (it could be any state, if you want to make it Alabama or Vermont or wherever), through their elected legislative representatives or by referendum, pass a law that says that all public school teachers, at the beginning of every school day, must lead their students in a prayer -- any prayer chosen by the teacher. Is that ok under the U.S. Constitution?

 

2. Same people pass a law that says that each day, each public school teacher (or principal, over the school intercom), must lead the students in a specific, state prescribed prayer, which does not mention any specific Higher Power or specific belief, just a "generic" prayer. Is that ok?

 

3. Same as 2, but the prayer expresses thanks to "Allah" and requests His blessing on the students and the school. Ok?

 

4. Same as 3, replace "Allah" with "Jesus Christ." Ok?

 

5. Same as 3, replace "Allah" with "Lord, Our God, King of the Universe." How about that?

 

[fboisseau 10]

I know that you post this question for Ed, but I could not refuse to answer the question.

 

1) I would say yes if the law included two additional parts 1) no student was required to recite the prayer along with the teacher and 2) a student who (or their parents) had strong abjection to the prayer the teacher was going the recite could standout in the hall for a few minutes.

2) Yes as long as the two condition above were meet.

3) Yes as long as the two condition above were meet. I am assuming that the community is probable mostly Arab in nature (Allah though associated with Muslims is actually Arab for God and is used also by Christians of Arab descent).

4) Yes with the same two conditions. Again I am assuming that the community is probable mostly Christian in nature.

5) Yes with the same two conditions.

6) Since you did not ask the question, but it is implied. If I was a Christian in a predominately Wiccan (I think I got the spelling right) I would not have a problem with a Wiccan pray at the start of class.

 

The problem we have in todays society with religion is not with people being persecuted because of the religion for the most part. But with people of different religions being afraid of exposure to other religions, because they are weak in their own beliefs. If I am strong in my beliefs and am willing to learn about others in a basic manner then I have nothing to fear from other religions. And I should be able to bring my children up in my faith even if surrounded by other of another faith if they will respect my beliefs. It is when we are afraid of anothers belief because we are weak in our own that persecution of religion starts.