Judge rules Fiesta Island lease unconstitutional, too

[fboisseau]

Merlyn_LeRoy

My point is this. From what I understand is that the city has entered into similar sweetheart deals with other organizations both religious and non-religious. If that is the case then the lease agreement with the BSA should stand. The city should be required to either enter into these types of agreements with all legal organization or none at all. If the problem is that the BSA was hogging the facilities during key months then the groups that also wish to use the facilities and were denied should work with the BSA and the city to resolve that problem.

 

What this seems to others and me is not a disagreement on how BSA is handling the scheduling of use of the facilities, but an attempt to punish and discriminate against the BSA for its beliefs. If BSA refused to agree to a reasonable plan then the city would have had the right not to renew the lease.

 

[Fat Old Guy]

"Oh, ED understands the law, but the judge doesn't?!

 

Oh, ye with eyes closed. You are blind and cannot see.

 

Judges run with public opinion. Judges do what's good for their career. Judges have their own agendas.

 

"However, the judge didn't even need to address that part, since he found method used to lease the land to be unconstitutional."

 

I just re-read the entire Constitution and I found not a word regarding the lease of public lands. Strange, isn't it?

[Hunt]

The judge ruled the leasing process to be unconstitutional because he thought it favored a religious organization as opposed to other organizations. However, a cursory review of the facts--again, as the judge recites them--shows that this just isn't true. The city and the BSA entered into a mutually beneficial deal that was made through a public process. I predict that this is what the Supreme Court will say if it gets this case. Again, it appears to me that Merlyn's real objection with this deal is the city doing business with BSA at all, not its failure to seek competitive bids. (I mean really--BSA was offering to pay for and maintain the facility, and let other groups use it--all it got was use of the land--you really think another group would have offered the city a better deal?)

[evmori]

Oh, ED understands the law, but the judge doesn't?!

 

Let's see. This judge has an agenda. I don't. This judge's judgment (hmm) is clouded by his agenda. Mine isn't because I have no agenda. I just applied common sense.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[evmori]

Here's another opinion from San Diego:

 

Boy Scout ruling a triumph of intolerance

 

By Mark Pulliam

Monday, April 26, 2004

 

Like the Grinch who stole Christmas, the American Civil Liberties Union is seeking to prevent San Diego youth from enjoying outdoor activities at Camp Balboa and the Youth Aquatic Center, facilities run by the Boy Scouts of America on land leased from the city of San Diego.

 

 

In June 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the ACLU in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, after a decade of harassing litigation, to uphold the Boy Scouts' right to hold and enforce beliefs as an organization.

 

Just two months later, the ACLU launched a mean-spirited lawsuit here in San Diego to remove the Boy Scouts from its long-term leases in Balboa Park and Fiesta Island. The ACLU's newest argument is that, because the Boy Scouts profess a belief in God, they discriminate and therefore must be evicted.

 

In July 2003, and again in April of this year, the ACLU has convinced a federal district judge to accept its extremist position. Judge Napoleon Jones has become the first jurist in America to rule that a city must discriminate against a nonprofit organization for professing a belief in God. What would the Founding Fathers think?

 

Judge Jones' ruling will undoubtedly be reversed on appeal, but at great expense to the Boy Scouts -- and to the taxpayers of San Diego who, through the weak-willed City Council, agreed last December to pay the ACLU nearly a million dollars in costs and fees. The Boy Scouts will have to sell a lot of popcorn to overcome the ACLU's San Diego taxpayer-funded war chest. Only Mayor Dick Murphy and Councilman Jim Madaffer courageously voted against this bizarre settlement.

 

I must confess to a personal interest in this, as I'm an active Scouting volunteer with my two sons. I've stayed overnight at Camp Balboa, and last summer my son and I enjoyed a week at the Youth Aquatic Center, which was financed and built by the Scouts at no cost to the city. Using boats, instructors and equipment provided by the Scouts, the boys learned to sail, canoe, kayak and safely operate a motorboat. They swam, earned merit badges and sang songs around a campfire. They enjoyed each other and the outdoors, without television, PlayStations, MTV or Discmans.

Other than a nondenominational grace before meals, a ritual as inoffensive as the reference to God on our currency, I witnessed nothing that week that any "reasonable observer" would characterize as "religious."

 

Judge Jones' ruling rests on the premise that the Boy Scouts -- solely because of their belief in God -- is a "religious organization," and that by allowing the Scouts to lease city-owned land it is therefore "advancing religion" and "religious indoctrination." On this basis, Judge Jones concluded that the lease is invalid and the Scouts must be evicted, despite the fact that the Boy Scouts invested millions of dollars in capital improvements.

 

This position clearly amounts to intolerance of and discrimination against religious belief, an affront to the First Amendment unsupported by Supreme Court precedent. As the U.S. Department of Justice succinctly stated, "the Boy Scouts of America is not a church, and canoeing, kayaking and swimming are not religious activities."

 

According to the ACLU, only groups who profess "acceptable" beliefs have civil rights; those who don't (such as the Boy Scouts) must be ostracized. For reasons that I cannot fathom, the ACLU, which zealously defends the free speech rights of reprehensible groups such as the KKK, the Nazis and the North American Man/Boy Love Association, is on a crusade against the Boy Scouts, solely because it professes a belief in God.

 

What is so important about preventing kids from enjoying what the Boy Scouts have to offer? Is the ACLU so hostile to religious belief that they would prefer to have children hanging out at the shopping mall, exposed to the influence of gangs and drugs, rather than camping, swimming and canoeing at facilities operated by the Boy Scouts? And unfortunately, inner city youth will probably suffer the most from the ACLU's actions.

 

This litigation must be seen for what it really is -- an attempt by a vocal minority to impose its religion-free beliefs on a predominantly religious majority of Americans.

 

 

In an Orwellian slip, Jordan Budd, the ACLU's legal director in San Diego, reportedly said that the Boy Scouts "could resolve the issue and stay on Fiesta Island and in Balboa Park if they changed their policy," i.e., if they abandoned their belief in God and opposition to homosexuality. The ACLU is attempting to stifle all forms of religious expression and to drive dissenters from the public square. The Boy Scouts are in the ACLU's crosshairs today; tomorrow will it be the Salvation Army, religious charities, or your local church or synagogue? Not just the Boy Scouts, but all Americans who cherish freedom have a big stake in this fight.

 

 

Pulliam is a local attorney.

 

 

 

 

[berkshirescouter]

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. What would happen if these agreements are ruled unconstitutional? Do they have to dig up the bodies?

I am no Lawyer does anyone know if this would be true.

The point I am making is that the ruling could open up a big can of worms for not just the BSA.

 

[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.

[evmori]

Hey Merlyn,

What's your position on the Islam Call to Prayer being allowed in a town that has recently made the news?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

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)

[Fat Old Guy]

Found this at http://www.religionnewsblog.com/6754-.html

 

"It is not my God. My God is Jesus Christ. I don't want this noise invading my home at 10 p.m.," she said.

 

Interesting, this person doesn't even understand her own religion.

 

I'm as intolerant as the next right wing white guy but I don't think that a call to prayer would bother me. I'm wondering about the amplified nature of the call. Bells aren't amplified. Perhaps there could be a decibel limit.

 

Hey! If they ban the call to prayer maybe the government will do something about the school near me that has its clocks screwed up so the bells ring at 9 PM, 1 AM and other obnoxious times.

[evmori]

Merlyn,

By the town letting them do this, aren't they endorsing a religion? And doesn't that violate your version of the 1st Amendment?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

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

[evmori]

I think it the same as if a Christian church wanted to broadcast the Lords Prayer over a loudspeaker. If Christians can't do it then Muslims can't do it.

 

Merlyn,

Please explain why it's different?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

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.

[evmori]

Merlyn,

You asked

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. I

 

Now if you would have read my post prior to your you would have read

 think it the same as if a Christian church wanted to broadcast the Lords Prayer over a loudspeaker. If Christians can't do it then Muslims can't do it.

 

Sorta proves you only see what you want to see. And you stated in another post that the town by allowing this call to prayer isn't endorsing a religion? I really don't care about the noise laws. What is the difference between this town allowing an Islamic call to prayer and any town displaying a Nativity scene at Christmas?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10