Merlyn_LeRoy

It doesn't matter if the BSA approached the city with a plan first; the city still needed to solicit bids instead of setting up a special deal. And the full judge's decision does state the facts correctly - you can't go by the judge's use of the phrase "the city selected the BSA-DPC" to assume the judge got the facts wrong. The DPC approached the city, and the city (surprise, surprise) selected the DPC as the lessee of the property. They can't do it that way.

Well Ed, it appears you've given up on trying to put forth any sort of reasonable argument. Hunt, as to the Fiesta Island lease, the judge ruled that the city couldn't arbitrarily decide to arrange a special deal with the BSA; you can't say that no other organization lost any opportunities due to this deal, because the city didn't bother to open it up to competitive bidding to find out. From the judge's decision:The City selected the BSA-DPC (Desert Pacific Council) to receive the benefit of the lease without inviting bids from any other organizations. Similar to the Balboa Park lease, "[t]his preferential treatment has at least the appearance, if not the actual effect, of government advancement of religion generally and government endorsement of an organization whose religiosity is fundamental to its provision of youth services in violation of the state constitution's No Preference Clause."

No, you really hadn't commented on the actual situation, you commented on a nonexistent situation where churches weren't subjected to the same laws as mosques. You gave me your opinion on a nonexistent problem. Now, as to this question: What is the difference between this town allowing an Islamic call to prayer and any town displaying a Nativity scene at Christmas? You're comparing apples and oranges; the town is allowing ALL religious institutions to make whatever announcements they wish to, all subject to the same noise laws. When a town displays a nativity scene, the TOWN is erecting a particular religious display, which it can't do. Of course, a CHURCH can erect a nativity scene on its own property, just as any church or mosque can make public announcements. However, a town can't erect nativity scenes, nor can a town broadcast a call to prayer each day for the mayor's favorite religion. A town can also create a public forum open to all, which would allow churches to erect nativity scenes, and mosques to put up a display if they wanted to, and atheists to put up a display if they wanted to, etc. But you don't understand freedom of speech. Allowing all people the same rights is freedom; showing favoritism (whether it's a town erecting a religious display or a town renting land for $1/year to a religious organization) is not freedom, it's using government largess to promote one organization at the expense of all the rest.

It ISN'T different. Both a church and a mosque are subject to the same noise laws, and they can make whatever announcements (or noise) that are within the law. For some reason, you assume there are laws that restrict churches that don't restrict mosques. Now Ed, what is YOUR opinion on this? I've now answered four of your questions, and you have yet to answer my one question.

No and no, Ed. And you didn't answer my question: what's your opinion?

They have the same rights as anyone else; if you've been following the issue, you'll notice that most objections have been from Christians who don't want to hear the Islamic call to prayer. Using that kind of reasoning, church bells should be silenced, too, if people object. I have this odd idea that churches and mosques should be subject to the same noise laws as any other establishments; one of the good things to come out of this is that an exception for religious institutions was apparently removed from the local noise ordinances. So Ed, what's your opinion?(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Its trail day writes: I was just wondering; If I understand this ruling there can be no public private partnership if the private side is religious. How would that affect communities with city owned cemeteries? Many cities have agreements with the members of the various religious groups that use the cemetery. I am sure some have discriminatory rules that dont allow atheists gays or members of other religions. I doubt you can come up with any examples of a city-owned cemetery that excludes people based on religion. A privately owned cemetery can do that, but not one owned by the city; they'd get sued and lose. Here's a city reg from http://www.jeffcity.com/cityclerk/data/chap10.pdf Sec. 10-12. Religious discrimination in sale, etc., of grave space. No religious test shall be made, and no one shall be denied ownership in the city cemetery because of the religious affiliation of the deceased or the purchaser.

Apparently you missed the part where Proud Eagle said that politicians wouldn't publically come out against organizations like the BSA or the DAR; I posted a very well-known example of the first lady coming out very publically against the DAR for their discrimination.

You DID read where I quoted Proud Eagle, didn't you?

Proud Eagle writes: ...However, opposing the BSA would be like opposing the Army, or opposing the Daughters of the American Revolution, or opposing the Catholic Church. In 1939, the Daughters of the American Revolution refused to allow Marian Anderson to sing at D.A.R. Constitution Hall because she was black; first lady Elanor Roosevelt publically resigned from the DAR and arranged for Marian Anderson to sing at the Lincoln Memorial instead. Of course, being a private, discriminatory organization, the DAR was within its rights; but their discrimination lost them a lot of public support. Here's her resignation letter: http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/american_originals/eleanor.html

PatBB writes: Merlyn, the only org.s which would have any logical reason to have such a no-Jewish-adults rule would be the Future Gentiles of (insert name of State or Country) or the Moderate Nazi Youth ( disagreeing with Hitler's Auschwitz Policy /believing that Jews should be re-educated, not killed.) The message to Jewish children would be, "You don't really want to grow up to be Jews, do you?" There used to be a lot of organizations in the US that refused to admit Jews; the typical euphemism was that it was a "restricted club." It would certainly be possible for one such club to "broaden" its rules only partially, resulting in Jewish kids being admitted but not adults. In fact, that appears to be what has happened in Scouting in Australia (and the UK, and probably some other places); instead of excluding atheist kids, they are admitted, only to be kicked out if they try to become adult leaders once they grow up. Such a schizophrenic discrimination policy shows how ridiculous it is.

Uncleguinea writes: Merlyn Leroy said: "And PatBB, what would you think of an organization that allowed kids of all religions to join, but specifically said no Jews could be adult leaders (though anyone else was allowed); what do you think such an organization is telling the Jewish kids who belong to it?" I think that is a very offensive statement. It's beneath what I've read of Merlyn Leroy's posts so far in this thread. I think it's entirely appropriate; PatBB saw nothing wrong with presenting the identical situation to atheist Scouts in Australia. Atheists have no faith and there is no comparison worthy of note. This is simply an attempt to compare an exclusionary membership policy to historical atrocities commited against a faithful community. No, it's comparing an exclusionary membership policy to a hypothetical but similar policy, to see if people who fail to see the mistreatment of atheists might see it if Jews are the target instead. You simply refuse to see atheists being treated badly.

For a long time, the VFW membership application had this: I attest that I am a citizen of the United States, that my US Military Service was honorable, that I have never subsequently been discharged under other than honorable conditions, and that I believe in God. I also certify that (1) I am entitled to a campaign ribbon or medal authorized by the US Government based on my overseas service or; (2) I have served overseas in Korea. I further give authority to the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States to verify honorable overseas service entitling me to membership. As recently as mid-2003, it had the "I believe in god" requirement on the membership form on its web page (you can use www.archive.org to see what past web pages looked like). The most recent one does not: https://www.vfw.org/mbrship/MailMemberApp.pdf This is such a recent change that the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers has an announcement about it: http://www.maaf.info Yes, there are atheists in foxholes. And PatBB, what would you think of an organization that allowed kids of all religions to join, but specifically said no Jews could be adult leaders (though anyone else was allowed); what do you think such an organization is telling the Jewish kids who belong to it?

Nope, it's just easier all around if the BSA doesn't dishonestly try to use government money to support its discriminatory private club. And fighting government support of religious discrimination IS fighting the good fight; the BSA is on the wrong side.

Gutenbergers.

Do you think pointing out that the Old Baldy council is being sued for fraud by receiving a Community Development Block Grant for its Scoutreach program (which violates the CDBG nondiscrimination requirements by refusing to admit atheists) might refrain some Scouters here from doing the same thing? Some people here are under the delusion that excluding atheists isn't religious discrimination, so their Scoutreach program that excludes atheists can safely use CDBG funding that prohibits religious discrimination; disabusing people of that delusion may actually reduce the number of BSA councils that get sued.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

I'll stop when the BSA stops using government funding to fund its "no atheists" private clubs, and no government agencies charter discriminatory BSA units.

[duplicate message deleted](This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Bob White writes: The Balboa case is irrelevant to this conversation. The BSA is being challenged because it refuses to abandon its support and use of faith and moral conviction. Not because it discriminates against atheists. Sorry Bob, the BSA's religious discrimination is all over the case, if you'll bother to read it. If you do not hold a religious belief then you have no religious creed, in which case you cannot be discriminated against for holding a different one. Discriminating against someone for NOT being married is still discrimination on the basis of marital status; discriminating against someone for not holding a religious creed is discrimination based on creed. Sorry, you're completely wrong. For example, just look at the EEOC, whose job it is to clarify what discrimination means: http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/threshold.html ... c. Religion ... Religious discrimination also includes discrimination against someone because s/he is an atheist.(26)

Bob Whites writes: If you are using the definition of creed as 'an authoritative formula or religious belief' then no, the BSA does not discriminate based on creed. Of course it does; if you don't hold the creed "god exists", you can't join. The BSA discriminates on the basis of religion, creed, age, and sex. The BSA is currently losing the Balboa park lease because of its religious discrimination. I don't know of any court decision that has said the BSA does NOT discriminate on the basis of religion.

Oh, ED understands the law, but the judge doesn't?! And "subsidizing" includes leasing land for less-than-market rates, which can happen when leases are granted instead of bid on the open market. However, the judge didn't even need to address that part, since he found method used to lease the land to be unconstitutional.

It appears you haven't read the opinion; the judge didn't say tax dollars were going to support religion, the judge said that the city made a special lease deal with a religious organization, instead of opening the lease to public bidding.

No, though I might criticize individual units that still excluded gays. By the way, you don't seem to have noticed that nearly all of my criticism of the BSA is tied to its religious discrimination.

I agree; I suppose you have something specific in mind?

Everything, obviously.