Merlyn_LeRoy

whitewater writes: It is only irrelevant because the judge made it so in his twisted logic. It should be very relevant in order to show that the City leases parkland out in a religion-neutral manner. But they clearly didn't. There was no competitive bidding for the BSA lease. And I've said before how the BSA dishonestly says it's a religious organization when it's convenient, and NOT a religious organization when it's inconvenient.

Ed, you've never even tried to justify your statements about what kinds of leases other organizations get; all you do is throw out wild accusations. And we'll see if the Balboa case gets overturned; the main parts of the ruling are that 1) the BSA is a religious organization, and 2) the city didn't follow its own bidding rules and instead made a special deal. I don't see either of those being overruled.

The BSA's 2004 annual report quoted a total of 4,825,853 youth served as of the end of 2004. The recent BSA press release on ethics says "Serving nearly 4.1 million youth...", so do the math. It would have to be pretty widespread for the overall total to go down 15%. This TV report mentions the FBI is investigating scout execs in 6 six states (but doesn't list the states): http://www.kbcitv.com/x5154.xml?ParentPageID=x5157&ContentID=x62587&Layout=KBCI.xsl&AdGroupID=x5154

Ed writes: OK. No I don't have the information. Of course you don't have the information. But it doesn't seem to prevent you from shooting your mouth off. Apparently neither do you nor do you care. Just proves my point you have no interest in anyones civil rights. Just destroy the BSA at all cost. It's hardly MY responsibility to check up on your senseless ravings, Ed. If you aren't going to back up what you say, I'm not going to bother. Because the BSA has reserved the park in the summer isn't the same as denying people use In this case, yes it is. The BSA preferentially books its own members during the most popular months, so nobody else can use it but them, because they simply book it 100% with their members.

Ed writes: According to your previous post you didn't know if they had a "special no-bid lease"! Did you do some research or are you just guessing? You've shown nothing, and I'm not going to bother. If you're going to assert that they DO, show some evidence. and they don't exclude people from public parkland on the basis of religion. And neither does the BSA. Yes, they do. They admitted in court that they book the parkland 100% with their own members during the summer. Anyone not in their private, discriminatory club can't use that public parkland during the peak summer months.

Ed writes: If you & the ACLU were really defending the Constitution, you & the ACLU would be attacking those other organizations with the same viciousness you are attacking the BSA. But you aren't. Why? Because they didn't get special, no-bid leases, and they don't exclude people from public parkland on the basis of religion.

TheScout writes: I don't think I have ever heard a more anti-democratic sentiment. I think the people should make the decisions through their elected representatives. Including abridging civil rights, it seems. Under US law, some things are not subject to popular vote. Ed writes: What are the circumstances surrounding these leases? Makes no difference. Religious organizations have the same type of lease the BSA has & yet you seem to be able to justify them! I haven't justified them at all, Ed - in fact, if those leases were also awarded without competitive bidding, they would be struck down as void on the same basis as the BSA lease. But you never have any useful information to contribute.

whitewater writes: The $1/year lease that was not open to bidding was the same deal granted to quite a few other groups. That's not relevant - some or all of those leases may not be legal, either. That doesn't change the fact that the city didn't follow its own open bidding process for the BSA lease. The City also leases part of the park to true religious groups: the San Diego Calvary Korean Church, the Point Loma Community Presbyterian Church, the Jewish Community Center and the Salvation Army. Why aren't you and the ACLU attacking them as well? What are the circumstances surrounding these leases? Do these organizations get exclusive use of public parkland the way the BSA does? The BSA admitted that they book the property 100% with Scouts in the summer months, so only members of their discriminatory organization can use this public parkland during the most popular time. TheScout writes: So basically what you are saying is that you DO support the ability of the federal judiciary to stick its nose into local matters when decisions should be made by the elected representatives of the people. No, I support the ability of the federal judiciary to stick its nose into local matters when decisions should NOT be made by the elected representatives of the people, specifically when the elected representatives decide to cut special deals for an organization that discriminates against atheists. I fear you must cower behind a few judges because they are the only ones you can convince of your crazy ideas. Yes, atheists having equal rights is certainly a "crazy" idea.

TheScout writes: One could contend that the 14th Amendment does not apply to the states. One could contend that the first amendment only applies to white landowning males. I prefer to deal with reality, whether I like it or not. The main point is the only thing that you use to back up your ideas is the federal judiciary. Meanwhile I believe such decisions should be up to the American people to decide through through their elected representatives. For many years, blacks in certain areas only had the federal judiciary backing up their ideas of voting rights, civil rights, and so on. Local governments often actively opposed these, with local popular support.

whitewater writes: Where is the special deal? The $1/year lease that was not open to bidding. The Scouts spent more money developing and maintaining the property than it was worth. Are you saying acres of land just off Seaworld is worth only a couple of million? There was a public comment period where no one complained and no one else came forward to offer to run the property. This is simply not true. Over 1000 people attended the meeting where the city council voted on renewing the lease (it had to be held in Charles Dail Concourse Plaza Hall). It took over 10 hours. The early lease renewal was opposed by a number of groups, including the ACLU which filed the lawsuit.

TheScout writes: There is no constitutional bar to government discriminating against any religion or lack thereof. Fortunately, the supreme court disagrees with you. Did Congress make any law in San Diego, of course not, this is a local government issue. And the city of San Diego is constrained by the first amendment via the 14th amendment (which applies it to the states). Did any body establish a religion, of course not. No. But the first amendment covers much more than that; it doesn't prohibit "establishment of A religion" but "establishment of religion". A literal reading of the Constitution, the intent of the people who wrote it, and the history of the United States is defied by your argument. Madison wrote the first amendment, and in his opinion it even prohibits congress hiring a chaplain. Americans should not be slaves of the federal judiciary. It is only one of three branches of our federal government. Its jobs is to protect the rights of the American people, not to shove its opinions down their throats as they did in this case. Prohibiting cities from making special deals with discriminatory organizations IS protecting the rights of the American people.

TheScout writes: The point I would like to make is that no where in the Constitution can you find a clause saying that the BSA should not get preferential use of state facilities. Sure there is; the BSA discriminates on the basis of religion. I imagine such an argument is derived from the clause "Congress shall make no law providing for the establishment of a religon, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I hope you can see the tangental relationship at best between this clause and the decision of the judge in San Diego to stike down the BSAs lease. It's right in line with longstanding court precident. Hunt writes: The facts are that BSA approached the city with a proposal and with private money to develop the properties involved--and the whole thing was aired before the public. There were no other groups that came forward with proposals (or money) to set up facilities. It simply was not a situation of a city proposal which was given to a single bidder in a sweetheart deal. That's exactly what it was. The city didn't call for proposals from anyone else, so nobody came forward with proposals (imagine that). The city typically gets proposals from about 70 different organizations for a single property when it has open bidding. There wasn't any for the Balboa Park property.

Yes Ed, I AM concerned with accuracy, which is why my list of public schools has always been clearly marked as not 100% correct nor complete, as it is largely computer generated. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

TheScout writes: The futility of your argument is marked by the fact that you must engage in a linguistical arguement. Uh, no. I prefer using accurate terms, and not falsely claiming that the BSA is "banned" from public facilities when it is NOT, in fact, banned from public facilities.

That certainly isn't a court decision to "ban the BSA from public facilities", it's a court decision that struck down a lease between the BSA and San Diego. I'll ask again - can you cite ANY judge's decision to "ban the BSA from public facilities" as you've claimed?

TheScout writes: Lastly, I am sure millions of Americans would dispute the decisions of a few judges to ban the BSA from public facilities. Speaking of examples, do you have any examples of these decisions you're referring to?

Eamonn writes: I will bow to your knowledge but it would seem that if we were a religious organization that we would fall under a different heading. I'm not sure what you're getting at - Judge Jones did rule that the BSA was a religious organization. That's one reason why a neutral leasing process is required to avoid first amendment problems. I only saw a bit of the live broadcast near the end, there's supposed to be a transcript at some point and I'd rather look at that.

Ed writes: Your motives are only fact to you. No, my motives are a FACT. They are unknowable to you, but that does not make them "not-a-fact". And why are your motives hidden? EVERYONE'S motives are "hidden" in the sense I used the term - people can't read each others' minds.

Of course, the whole idea is absurd, since the BSA is an unethical organization. For example, why did it take an ACLU threat to get them to stop issuing charters to government organizations? How can their "nondiscriminatory" branch teach ethics to gay and atheist students in their Learning for Life program, when they're a wholly-owned subsidiary of an organization that discriminates against them? It's like a nondiscriminatory branch of the KKK teaching racial tolerance.

CA_scouter writes: From Meryln's post: "You have no interest in anything but the destruction of the BSA! Why? Because it's popular! " "That's a lie. " No, Meryln, that's an 'opinion'. No, Ed made a false statement about my motives. What my motives ARE is a fact, even though I'm the only one who knows for sure what they actually ARE. Information hidden to other people don't become "opinions", they are simply unknown. And falsely abscribing to ME what MY opinions are is ridiculously arrogant, and I will call people liars when they do this (as I did Hunt in an earlier thread). If you want to KNOW what my opinion is, you need to see what I write, or ask me what my opinion is. If you simply make up false crap and tell me that's my opinion, I'll just call you what you are - a liar. "And if I recollect from my grade school history, our founding fathers left their native lands for America because of people like you! People who wanted to take away their religious freedom! " "And that's a lie. " That is also an 'opinion'. Same as above - what I "want" to do is a fact, even though it's a fact only I know.

It's OK for religious organizations to hold these leases, but they can't be awarded by fiat, they have to go through a neutral competetive bidding process - otherwise, the city could dole out valuable leases to whatever religious groups they like, and deny them to groups they don't like. The BSA lease renewal didn't go through the city's usual competetive bidding process, which was one of the main reasons judge Jones struck it down.

Ed writes: I don't lie Merlyn. Sure you do, Ed. Here's what you said just before: You have no interest in anything but the destruction of the BSA! Why? Because it's popular! That's a lie. And if I recollect from my grade school history, our founding fathers left their native lands for America because of people like you! People who wanted to take away their religious freedom! And that's a lie. Stop lying, Ed. Discuss the issues if you can, but when you deliberately lie about my positions on the issues, I'll simply call you a liar and SHOW you where you lied.

Stop lying, Ed.

Ed writes: And your situation became hypothetical when you were at a loss for words? No Ed, the situation was hypothetical from the very start. But instead of answering, you pointed out the situation didn't actually exist - which complete misses the point.

Your reply made no sense, as it was a hypothetical situation. Objecting to a hypothetical question on the grounds that the described situation doesn't exist completely misses the point of what HYPOTHETICAL questions are, and why they are discussed.