Scouts' $1/year Balboa Park lease ruled unconstitutional

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

It's beyond reasonable because the public isn't allowed to use its own park; there's no reason for the city to want to do this. It's taking public property and giving the use of it over to a private, discriminatory group.

 

And yes, discriminating against atheists constitutes "religious discrimination".

[Fat Old Guy]

"And most people (aside from twocubdad) will not understand that, even on a $1 a year evergreen lease, leasehold improvements revert to the leasor."

 

I know that in the case of the organization that I mentioned before, the improvements only reverted ot the leasor at the terimination of the lease. If that's the case with BSA, they could dismantle all of their improvements.

 

" the ACLU would still consider the BSA discriminatory since it does not accept girls in all aspects of the program. Sometimes, you just can't win. "

 

Oddly, the Girl Scouts are not considered discriminatory even though they have no programs for boys.

[evmori]

merlyn,

You forgot to answer the other question I had.

 

Ed

[Overtrained]

Hey Brian "Merlyn" Westley,

 

The constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

You also state that law has extended that to the states.

 

This case did not establish a religion nor did it prohibit the free exercise thereof. The courts have long legislated from the bench, and this is but another case.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

overtrained writes:

This case did not establish a religion

 

The first amendment refers to "establishment of religion", not "establishment of a religion", and I've referenced Torcaso v. Watkins earlier. The first amendment means a lot more than you think.

 

Ed mori, the city would presumably decide how much is "too much", but they don't seem to have any restrictions; that, too, could be the basis for a lawsuit, since the city is effectively signing over all access to public land to a discriminatory organization.

[evmori]

merlyn,

Wrong question. Re-read my post again.

 

Overtrained,

Excellent point! Sounds like the BSA's free speech right is being infringed upon!

 

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Fat Old Guy]

" Sounds like the BSA's free speech right is being infringed upon! "

 

Don't you know that heterosexuals have no rights?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

ed mori, if you aren't going to bother to tell me what question you're referring to, I'm not going to bother trying to figure it out.

 

You have no idea what the first amendment means, which you make clear by your postings. You think the first amendment doesn't protect atheists (which it does, and several court rulings explicitly state), and you think that not giving the BSA a special land deal not available to the general public somehow constitutes a violation of the BSA's freedom of speech.

[evmori]

merlyn,

I know more about the Constitution than you think. Nowhere does it state the church & state must be separate. That comes from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. It does state we are guaranteed the freedom of religion. Not beliefs - religion. And since athiesism isn't a religion it isn't protected under this ammendment.

 

Do you spend the same effort attacking the Girls Scouts? They don't admit boys. How about the KKK? They don't admit blacks. What about the Notre Dame Club? If you didn't graduate from the universtity, you can't get in!

 

I doubt it.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Lythops]

littlebillie wrote:

 

"You know, all Merlyn is doing is trying to make sure that everybody plays by the rules of the game - i.e., the Constitution. And even some of his loudest detractors have, over time, gudgingly granted that he is on firm legal ground - even though they resent it, and question his real motives."

 

The Constitution? NOT!

 

The arguments collectively championed under the "wall of separation between Church and State" rallying cry is certainly not rooted in the Constitution. In fact, that phrase is not found in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence or the even Bill of Rights. Neither is the modern interpretation of the concept found in writings of that era. Those documents establish a very different principle.

 

The idea that government must be blinded and mute with respect to religion is ridiculous. That was never the intention of the founding fathers. Want an example? Many of these same men engeged in long and hard debate in order to determine whether or not to use public funds for a University that was NOT including the Bible in its requirted reading! At the time, all the other schools did and the failure to do so was greatly troubling to them. My how times have changed.

 

The simple fact of the matter is that President Bushs intentions to build closer ties between religious organizations and government to deliver services is much, much closer to the initial concepts than the wall.

 

While not the first to use the term, soon after he was elected President in the early 1800's Thomas Jefferson was the first to employ the phrase wall of separation in the context of religion and government. He was responding to concerns expressed to him about his religious views by leaders of the Baptist Church. He was defending himself, not asserting a doctrine. His actions as President re-inforce this.

 

While footnoted frequently as the foundation for the concept, an appreciation of the situation and reading the actual text of the letters will reveal anything but the ideal it has been painted to represent. He did not promote the ideas now embedded in the law. The modern concept of a wall between Church and State is a very modern invention (1947, Thank you Mr. Black). It snuck in through the back door by means of the judicial system, not legislative.

 

Terribly ironically, The words written to protect religious freedom and independence are now used to suppress it. The principle of religious freedom listed in the first amendment is a worthy one. Its original intention was to bar the Federal government from developing a state sponsored religion. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, This isnt too hard to understand. Given reason many of the Europeans that immigrated to this country came in the first place, the founding fathers would have been very sensitive to that issue.

 

Through the process of debate, a second idea was added. or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Why a stronger challenge can't be given on the basis of this phrase I don't uinderstand. Constitutionally speaking, the laws banning prayer in school, the public display of the Ten Commandments and nativity scenes amaze me. The Balboa Park silliness is yet another. The In God We Trust motto, One nation under God phrase and prayer in legislative bodies will continue to be challenged on Constitutional grounds. It's (I'll use a polite term) poppycock.

 

I know, I know, Ive now attacked Merlyns favorite hobbyhorse. I maintain that despite what was written in plain English, the original meaning has been corrupted and lost. They now have now a different one. Littlebillies comments stand in support of the assertion. The center of the fight has shifted.

 

Special interests groups have hijacked the original intent, adding ideas and taking a phrase out of context. They neither reflect the will of the majority nor the nature of the society that existed when this country was founded.

 

I'm not asserting that the laws of the land should never be changed as society demands. They have been. For good or ill, one of the beauties of the system is that they do. However, I find it to be offensive when someone distorts history to strengthen their argument suggesting that the ideals were something opposite of what they truly were.

 

Don't be snookered by a belief that the only thing desired is that "everybody plays by the rules of the game". While I do not dispute the legal standing of Merlyn's position, I question the position itself. I could not presume to guess his motives, but I can certainly discern the intents of others and see the undesirable resultant affects.

 

One nation under God" is not offensive, not unconstitutional, and not unnecessary, but essential for believers and unbelievers alike. Numerous principles of Constitutional law rest on the foundation belief that in America, God presides - here are three:

1. Our rejection of kings.

2. Our belief in the preeminence of Higher Law, and thus, inalienable rights and a republican form of government to protect those rights.

3. Our belief in equality before the law.

 

Jefferson declared:

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty [especially Religious Liberty], and the Pursuit of Happiness [Private Property]."

 

I ask you, what basis under the law do we have for proclaiming our rights if we do not believe in the Creator who endows us with them?

 

Washingtons Farewell Address was required reading to any schoolboy for over a century. It has fallen from notice in recent years. Is it any wonder why? The majority of his warnings are not being heeded. If you haven't read it earnestly, you should. In part, he said this:

 

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men & citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man ought to respect & to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private & public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the Oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure--reason & experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

 

[evmori]

Lythops,

I know you can't see me but I am giving you a standing ovation for your post!

 

Atta boy!

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

You guys can slap each other on the back all you want, I'll just have to be content with court decisions like Torcaso v. Watkins, Everson v. board of education, and the one that voided the Boy Scout lease in Balboa Park. And if you want to know what the first amendment means, you might want to read what the AUTHOR of the first amendment, James Madison, wrote in his detached memoranda:

 

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions64.html

[evmori]

The detached memo has no bearing on what is IN the Constitution! The courts have ruled that church & state must be separate because attorneys with nothing better to do decided that's what the founding fathers meant. Well, they are wrong. Just because a bunch of attorneys (don't forget judges are attorneys) said so doesn't make it right!

 

And merlyn, do you spend as much time attacking other groups as you do attacking the BSA?

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[mk9750]

And if you add me to Ed, and we alternated, you'd have the start of The Wave. Please understand it is difficult to clap while typing.

 

How I have hoped for someone who could make this arguement using reality, real examples, quotes and history. I have known this to be true for ever, but have never put the effort into gathering everything together into one cohesive post.

 

One point that I'd like to add, to make the connection: The "protection against discrimination" of which Merlyn speaks only exists because courts have legislated from the bench. I don't believe elected officials have ever succesfully attempted to create the "protection" Merlyn and others claim they have.

 

THANK YOU!!!

 

Mark

[NJCubScouter]

Lythops and Ed Mori:

 

Although I disagree with your interpretation of the First Amendment establishment clause, I have to say I do have some sympathy for you guys. Isn't it rough when the body (or bodies) with authority to interpret a governing document adopts an interpretation that you just don't agree with? In your case, it is the U.S. Supreme Court and the lower federal courts interpreting the establishment clause to prohibit government endorsement and financial support for religion, and to prohibit government discrimination against atheists. In my case, it is the BSA National Executive Committee adopting a ridiculous interpretation of the Scout Oath and Law to justify their exclusion of gay leaders. It's tough to fight City Hall, ain't it? That's why I haven't posted that much on the gay issue lately. It sort of gets tiresome after awhile, but I do admire you Ed because you never seem to get tired of posting that the Constitution does not require a separation of church and state. I doubt that the courts that have interpreted the First Amendment to mean otherwise are going to change just for you, but you just keep going. Maybe I'll find a renewal of energy to start posting about the gay issue 5 times a day like I used to, so I can rejoin you as you tilt at the great evil windmills of life. Hey, that was almost poetic.

 

Cynically yours,

 

NJ-now-just-a-Scouter