Here we go again...

[SR540Beaver 116]

pack,

 

No, no, no.......we don't want FOG back. Since being banned here, he has settled in at another scouting board and is playing the same old games there.

[mk9750 11]

Merlyn,

 

Sorry, I guess I'll disappoint you.

 

As wrong as I think it is for someone to hate black people, I think it is their right to be wrong. If someone wants to despise homosexuals as people, rather than just their actions, I can't commend that, but I respect the right they have to hold that belief. If someone stands behind the ideals that Scouting represents, that is their perrogative, too.

 

Now if any of those people want to form a group and espouse their beliefs together, that is their right too, as long as they do not infringe on the rights and freedoms of others. Thus, individual members of the Ku Klux Klan and the Boys Scouts of America have the right to exist and flourish in American society, both individually and collectively.

 

The government provides special treatment to lots of groups. Some (maybe many) of these, discriminate. And some even discriminate on the basis of the list of things the government says we can't. But to say the Ku Klux Klan doesn't get special treatment in the vast dollars local governments are forced to spend to allow their rallies is niave. To say the the governement itself doesn't discriminate itself is just as niave.

 

If any group gets special treatment because they were able to negotiate it, they deserve it. If being a group that represents the type of character most of America prefers (like the BSA) gets them an advantage in negotiations, terrific. But you get what you deserve, most of the time. If the BSA got a great deal in Balboa Park, or other cases, they deserved it.

 

IF the contract came up again and they couldn't negotiate the same deal (FOR WHATEVER REASON), then you'd never hear a peep from me. But to take away a right they earned (by negotiation), IS DISCRIMATION!

 

Sorry to diappoint.

 

Mark

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I don't know why anyone would be surprised at merlyn's position. He has been steadfast ever since I started reading his responses. He does not want any governmental unit using any of his tax money to support any organization that discriminates against atheists pure and simple. He also doesnt want a govermental unit discriminating against a private organization because if that governmental unit can prohibit Boy Scouts from using public property based on its beliefs, than it could also prohibit any group from using public property based on other beliefs (or non-beliefs).

 

He only wants Boy Scouts to use public property at the same access level other organizations have.

 

So, merlyn, do I have it right?

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

OGE has it right, mk9750. But you didn't answer my question about GOVERNMENT AGENCIES chartering scout troops. Do you think a public school can own & operate a youth group that excludes students based on their religious views?

 

And you didn't read the Balboa park decision; one of the main reasons the judge struck down the lease extension is that it HADN'T been negotiated or open to bidding by other groups.

[evmori 11]

Merlyn,

Why can't a government agency charter a Scout unit? Because the BSA discriminates? Government agencies give money to tons of organizations that discriminate! Why should supporting the BSA be an different?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[mk9750 11]

Merlyn,

 

2nd thing first. You are right, I did not read the decision. I can't even say I know all of the details. After consideration, I don't really know enough about the specifics to carry on a legitimate conversation about it. I will disqualify myself from further conversation about Balboa Park.

 

As to whethter the Government should sponsor / charter / recognize organizations that discriminate, they do all the time! Do they recognize labor unions? And don't labor unions discriminate against business owners? Does it charter the American Red Cross (charter might not accurately reflect the relationship - I'm not sure)? Would the Red Cross hand me money like they do victims of natural disasters? I'm not suggesting they should, but the fact that they treat one class of people differently (non - victims) than another class is discrimination. We all discriminate. You discriminate against those of us who support the BSA's position. I discriminate against those who thing atheists and homosexuals belong in the BSA. I also discriminate against surloin steak. I prefer strip steaks. We probably both discriminate against murderers.

 

So why does discrimination by one group preclude them from consideration by the government? It's easy to say racial discrimination is wrong, as are many of the other discriminations ennumerated by the government. I don't think it's so easy for other types. My point is that your answer to my question above is probably that discrimination against any group as listed by the government is wrong. It just isn't that simple. I say either the government should treat all discrimination equally (No more fat jokes! I like it!!!), or allow everyone to go back to what worked for years and years ~ We all knew what we thought was right and wrong, and acted according to our oun standards.

 

You know, both this response and my last have even me thinking I ramble. I suspect maybe I should just retreat from the battle completely.

 

Mark

[Twocubdad 665]

In the future it may be beneficial if we distinguish between discrimination and illegal discrimination. True, it is perfectly legal for airlines to discriminate against those without a valid pilot's license. It is also legal for Presbyterians to discrimate against Baptist when hiring a minister. Neither do we care if you can discriminate between a Tampa Nugget and a Partagas #10.

 

There are, however, traits proscribed by law on which it is illegal to discriminate. In most settings it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, sexual preference, age and a whole host of other things with varying exceptions.

 

I think it is a safe assumption that in most of Merlyn's posts he means illegal discrimination.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

mk9750 writes:

As to whethter the Government should sponsor / charter / recognize organizations that discriminate, they do all the time!

 

I'm talking about being a "charter partner" for a BSA unit; the BSA website says that the charter partner "owns and operates" its BSA unit. That is, a public school chartering a cub scout pack is owning and operating a youth group that discriminates on the basis of religious belief, which public schools can't do.

 

...

Would the Red Cross hand me money like they do victims of natural disasters? I'm not suggesting they should, but the fact that they treat one class of people differently (non - victims) than another class is discrimination. We all discriminate.

 

And you're doing what's called "equivocating", calling all discrimination the same, which isn't true. Would you use your argument to argue that it's OK for public schools to run "whites only" youth groups? How about youth groups that Catholics can't join?

 

The government CAN discriminate on all kinds of criteria; however, public schools can't run youth groups that exclude students on the basis of their religious beliefs, and any public school sponsoring a BSA troop is doing exactly that.

 

...

It's easy to say racial discrimination is wrong, as are many of the other discriminations ennumerated by the government. I don't think it's so easy for other types.

 

It's also easy to say religious discrimination by the government is wrong; racial discrimination is covered by legislation, while religious discrimination is covered by both the same legislation AND the first amendment, so religious discrimination is even harder to get away with.

 

I see that while you're glad I recognize discrimination against the BSA, you apparently see nothing wrong with a public school owning & operating a BSA unit that excludes atheist students. Would you see nothing wrong with a public school running a youth group that excludes Jews?

[Adrianvs 10]

Public universities and high schools sponsor religiously exclusive organizations all the time. But that is not really the issue is it?

 

The issue is whether theists have the right to public facilites as atheists do. Merlyn has no problem with public school teachers being paid with public funds to preach pragmatic atheism, but when civic theist groups meet on PUBLIC school property after hours without undo fee, he cries foul.

 

Don't bother, Merlyn. It's not going to change in your lifetime and after that, what really matters, my egoist friend?

(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

adrianvs writes:

Public universities and high schools sponsor religiously exclusive organizations all the time.

 

They don't "own and operate" youth groups that exclude people on the basis of their religious views. Feel free to give actual examples of what you're talking about.

 

Remember, the charter partner of a BSA unit "owns and operates" it, according to the BSA's website. The charter partner approves all leadership for the unit.

 

Tell me of a public school or university that owns and operates a religious discriminatory organization (that is, if the school officials decided to end the group, the group would no longer exist), excludes potential members who don't meet certain religious criteria, and approve the leaders for the group. I don't think you can.

 

Remember, a school that allows STUDENTS to create their own student groups isn't an example of the above.

 

The issue is whether theists have the right to public facilites as atheists do.

 

And vice-versa. A public school that sponsors a scout unit is closed to atheists, and as a public school, they can't do that.

 

Merlyn has no problem with public school teachers being paid with public funds to preach pragmatic atheism,

 

Well, now you're just lying about my opinion. I'm against public schoolteachers promoting atheism OR theism. However, I suspect your "pragmatic atheism" refers to teachers teaching science without mentioning your particular god, which isn't the same thing as teaching atheism.

 

but when civic theist groups meet on PUBLIC school property after hours without undo fee, he cries foul.

 

Again, you're lying about my opinion. If schools have their facilities open to the public and don't charge fees, anyone can use them on an equal basis.

 

What religion do you belong to that presumably allows you to lie about atheists, anyway? I find it very obnoxious when people deliberately lie about what my opinion actually is. If you don't know, ASK. If you just make something up that agrees with your own prejudices instead of finding out what my opinion actually is, I will call you a liar. Got that?

[packsaddle 753]

OK, now let's see if we can venture from the world of black and white to the world of gray tones, a real-life situation.

A government agency is responsible for managing public lands. Because funding is limited, in order to provide greater access by the public, it leases parcels to private organizations (churches, etc.) for $1 per year. In return the organizations agree not to have exclusive access but to allow access to the general public.

So far, so good.

The churches (for example) build facilities and infrastructure and lease these properties for many years, allowing public access. However, over the years as funding becomes available, the agency and the state(s) build public facilities, parks, access areas, etc.

During annual reviews of the management plans, the agency determines that public access through the private organizations is diminished because use has shifted toward the public parks, etc.

The review concludes that because of this change, the use of public lands by private organizations has become more exclusive. In this case there is no fault, merely a change in use.

How does this agency proceed? Do they continue the sweetheart deal? Or not?

The agency is mandated to ensure that public lands are publicly accessible. Any lease agreement with a private organization, whether church or corporation, must either provide for the public or it must pay a fair price to the public for use of the property.

The answer, at least for one situation I know, is that the agency meets with the private organizations individually and informs them that an economic assessment has determined a fair market value for the current use of the property and that the cost of the lease will reflect the changes, if any.

How do the private organizations respond? It depends.

Some argue, some compromise, some bargain, and some leave the property.

I offer this to indicate how complex this can be in some real-life situations. Sometimes all we get to see is the very end of what has been a much longer, much more complex process.

However, the agency decision is made easier if the private organization with the sweetheart deal excludes the public from that property. In that case they either pay the full commercial rate, or they are shown the curb (to use BW's terminology).

I would be interested in hearing some views on this.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Hunt 11]

In this kind of discussion, we often get different concepts mixed up.

 

In the case of Norwalk, it is clear (as Merlyn recognizes) that if you let all groups use a public area, you can't exclude one with a message or policy you don't like. The same is true of public schools--if they let all groups use the school facilities, they can't exclude the Boy Scouts. It's different, however, when the government entity is actually sponsoring the activity. I predict that the courts would rule that schools can't sponsor Scouting organizations--just as the school couldn't sponsor a Baptist organization. The possibility that a majority of people in the school might wish otherwise is irrelevant when a Constitutional question is involved. Many schools avoid this problem by having the units sponsored by the PTA, a private organization.

 

In the case of Balboa, I have read the decision, and related material, and continue to believe that the Boy Scouts didn't receive a sweetheart deal, and that the judge ignored the actual facts of the case. As I've said repeatedly when this comes up, the judge's (and Merlyn's) argument that the leases should have been put out for competitive bidding is just silly, considering that the Scouts approached the city with the money for the project in hand. I guess we'll see what happens on appeal, if it ever gets decided. But the fact that Merlyn keeps bringing it up over and over suggests that there aren't all that many cases of government goodies to the Boy Scouts for him to criticize.

[packsaddle 753]

Hunt, I see your points and agree. The last one about how many 'goodies' there are is speculative. I can easily think of 5 such situations in our local area, probably more if I devote some effort. But because no one complains, no one else in this forum will know about them. That's partly why I included a reality check. My speculation: there are many other situations where compromises or other agreements are attained without going to court, in which cases we have no further discussion here.

[Hunt 11]

If I were BSA, I would be quietly suggesting that units chartered by schools and other public entities be switched over to PTAs, FOS groups, and the like. They might have to start paying the schools the going rate for using the space, but they could avoid a lot of potential problems. Maybe this is happening?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

In some places this seems to be happening, but the BSA should, just to be honest, not issue any charters to government agencies. Every such charter is a potential lawsuit; I would certainly sue both the government agency AND the BSA if I was kicked out of a government-sponsored youth group because I didn't have the "right" religious views. I don't think PTAs would be an acceptable charter partner, as most public schools seem to have a single, recognized PTA with a special relationship with the school, and it wouldn't be any more acceptable to have a PTA sponsor a BSA unit than for the PTA to run a youth group that excludes Catholics.