Scouts' $1/year Balboa Park lease ruled unconstitutional

[CubsRgr8]

Merlyn, BSA uses the singular noun, God, because it is the word most commonly used word in American culture to identify the divine. This usage and understanding is derived from America's strong Judeo-Christian heritage. You cannot logically conclude that BSA therefore excludes polytheists from membership.

 

Twocubdad, I would never apply the same standards to a 12 year old youth that I would apply to a 22 year old adult. I would apply those standards only to a 16 or 17 year old youth who was emotionally and intellectually mature enough to be considered an adult.

[evmori]

Rooster7,

The short answer is yes!

 

If Scouting was coed, we would probably have an unwed mother merit badge!

 

I completely agree with your point about homosexuals. It is basically the same if the BSA was coed.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[OldGreyEagle]

The Venturing program IS COED and has its own set of YP principles and I assure you it does not involve placing 17 year old boys in tents with 14 year old girls, thats as imbecilic as any suggestion I have run across here. The Venturing program has been operating for moer than a few years and if we were producing unwed mothers I am sure the media would have grabbed onto that as fast as any sandal they have ever come across.

 

And to even hint about an unwed mother merit badge shows sexism in its most ugly form, why recognize only the mother, I think the father had something to do with it, why not recognize him as well? Its as crude attempt at humor as I would expect from a 12 year old. How does any of this tent mate discussion fulfill the mission of the Boy Scouts:

 

The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law.

 

To see such things posted is very dissappointing

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

In discussing his belief that gay men pose a danger of improper advances toward boys, Rooster says:

 

There is nothing special about homosexual men other than their perversion.

 

I find that to be an interesting statement. It means that if one does not not think that a gay person necessarilty has a "perversion," then there is nothing "special" about gay people at all. The idea that being gay is a "perversion" is something that is shared by fewer and fewer people as time goes on. There is no longer a consensus in our society that it is a "perversion," or immoral. The idea that it is a "perversion" is merely a belief held by some religions, and it has no business being used as the basis for a policy in an organization that welcomes all religions. My religion no longer teaches that it is a perversion.

 

And, as your comment implicitly recognizes, someone who does not believe it is a "perversion" would have no reason to support the current, temporary, National Executive Committee misinterpretation of the Scout Oath and Law.

 

Additionally, the BSA itself disclaims any link between homosexuality and child abuse. You are allowed to disagree with the BSA, of course, but I don't see anybody asking you to go form your own organization because you disagree with the BSA. Also, Rooster, it became clear to me awhile back that your support for what the BSA says is rather selective -- not only on the non-relationship between homosexualtiy and child abuse, but also in your non-acceptance of the statement in the Scout Handbook that being "reverent" means that you "respect" the beliefs of others.

[evmori]

Respecting the belief of others doesn't mean accepting the belief of others. We are all free to believe what we want, but when it comes to God, the BSA is specific that a member must believe in a supreme being. And we are also free to believe that homosexualth is OK but the BSA says if you are an "avowed" (I hate that word) homosexual, you can't be a member.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Rooster7]

OGE,

 

The Venturing program IS COED and has its own set of YP principles and I assure you it does not involve placing 17 year old boys in tents with 14 year old girls, thats as imbecilic as any suggestion I have run across here. The Venturing program has been operating for more than a few years and if we were producing unwed mothers I am sure the media would have grabbed onto that as fast as any sandal they have ever come across.

 

The comparison was not made to insinuate anything about the Venture program. I used the comparison (of boys and girls sharing tents) to get folks to think about the potential adverse affects if homosexual boys were allowed in the BSA. If homosexual boys are allowed in the BSA, do think these boys will be made to sleep alone in separate tents? Not likely. Do you think there would be no consequences if these boys shared tents with others? Again, not likely.

 

And to even hint about an unwed mother merit badge shows sexism in its most ugly form, why recognize only the mother, I think the father had something to do with it, why not recognize him as well? Its as crude attempt at humor as I would expect from a 12 year old.

 

Honestly, OGE - I think youre losing your sense of humor here. Of course, both the boy and girl share in the responsibility. I think Ed was simply using a little levity to show his agreement with my point. I, for one, do not see any ugliness or crudeness in his remark. Would it have made a tremendous difference if he called it an unmarried parent merit badge?

 

NJCubScouter,

 

Additionally, the BSA itself disclaims any link between homosexuality and child abuse. You are allowed to disagree with the BSA, of course, but I don't see anybody asking you to go form your own organization because you disagree with the BSA. Also, Rooster, it became clear to me awhile back that your support for what the BSA says is rather selective -- not only on the non-relationship between homosexualtiy and child abuse, but also in your non-acceptance of the statement in the Scout Handbook that being "reverent" means that you "respect" the beliefs of others.

 

The fact that the BSA may have disclaimed a link to pedophilia (and Im not convinced that they have) does not mean anything in and of itself. I dont agree with my pastor 100% of the time, but I still think hes a great man. Likewise, I may or may not agree with a BSA statement or position, but I still think its a great organization that puts values first (until they prove otherwise). And, as Ive noted in previous threads, I respect the right of others to believe as they chose I do not necessarily respect the actual belief. NJ, since you seem to be implying that Scouts and Scouters should respect ALL beliefs, let me ask you a question If I claimed George Bush was God, would you respect that beliefNot my right to say it and believe it, but the actual belief itself?

 

--- I didn't think so. So, allow me to disrespect beliefs that worship the creation and not the creator (among other false beliefs) - And, I allow you to disrespect beliefs that view George W. as more than a man.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

The judge's decision (in Adobe Acrobat format) is up on the ACLU of San Diego's website at:

http://aclusandiego.org/pdf/MSJorder.pdf

 

[Overtrained]

I have read this post only twice. I am not articulate enough to respond the way my heart tells me to.

 

So, I shall not read the post again, but pray for the lost souls I've seen here.

 

The only truth I know is that God is the only judge that matters and so I side with him

to be judged on judgement day.

[SM406]

I agree with Overtrained. The embers from this campfire have long grown cold. I will take my marshmallow stick, head for the sack and pray...

 

SM406

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

San Diego decided to bow out of the legal dispute and pay the ACLU's legal fees; the Boy Scouts can continue the lawsuit if they like, but they'll have to foot the bill:

 

http://www.kfmb.com/topstory21345.html

 

San Diego and the American Civil Liberties Union settled a lawsuit over two leases between the city and the Boy Scouts, both sides announced Thursday.

 

The ACLU suit, filed in 2000, challenged the city's subsidy of the Desert Pacific Boy Scout Council through leases for public land in Balboa Park and Fiesta Island Aquatic Park.

 

In July 2003, a federal judge ruled the Balboa Park lease violates First Amendment guarantees of separation of church and state. The judge also put over for trial the matter of the Fiesta Island lease.

 

Under its settlement with the ACLU, the city will take no position on the validity of the leases in future legal proceedings, and the city will pay the ACLU's attorneys $790,000 for legal fees incurred during the three years of litigation and $160,000 in court costs.

 

"The Boy Scouts cannot have it both ways," said ACLU volunteer attorney M.E. Stephens. "Having gone to great lengths to establish that discrimination against gays and (athiests) is essential to their mission, and, therefore, protected by the First Amendment, they cannot now turn around and ask the people of San Diego to foot the bill for that discrimination."

 

The settlement also relieves the city of any liability to pay future ACLU legal costs.

 

"While it may be legally acceptable for the Scouts to privately discriminate against so many boys and their families, it has never been acceptable for the city to bar those families from a public park," said ACLU co-counsel Mark Danis. "Government has a constitutional duty to treat

everyone equally and fairly."

 

The Boy Scouts of America, which is not a party to the settlement, has the right to continue to present defenses to ACLU legal claims.

 

The national organization, based in Irving, Texas, also retains possession of the leased properties during the pending litigation, including all appeals, according to Deputy City Attorney John Mullen.

 

The BSA says the mission of the organization is to "prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law."

 

The Scout Oath reads: "On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law, to help other people at all times, to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight."

(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[Bob White]

So as of today, the scouts in San Diego still meet on their regular nights, at the regular time, and learn the same values that they learned yesterday. They still do the same activities, lead by the same leaders who all agreed to the same values.

 

They can even still use the same land. Only now they use it under the same conditions as any other citizen of San Diego. So what's wrong with this picture? Nothing that I can see.

 

I do think that it will be intersting to see the condition of the land a few years down the road now that the caretakers have changed.