ACLU to BSA: Heads We Win - Tails You Lose

[evmori]

The big losers are the City of San Diego and the people of San Diego They lose a tenant who maintained a section of the park at no cost to the taxpayers. And the loss cost them a ton of cash not to mention how much the upkeep will cost in the future.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[tortdog]

>BSA scuttled the city's own defense by their own admission that they WERE a religious organization.

 

If the BSA did that, why is it fighting in circuit court?

 

Do you have any evidence of your assertion? I have yet to see ANYTHING where the BSA claims to be a religious organization. Private, yes, but not religious.

 

We have a saying in Texas. If you can't walk the walk...

[tortdog]

BSA's claim as to the type of organization that it falls under:

 

>Boy Scouts of America is a nonprofit youth camping organization whose youth members and adult leaders subscribe to the Scout Oath and Law.

 

9th Circuit Brief of the BSA

(This message has been edited by tortdog)

[Pint]

this ACLU seem to cause a bit of trouble, what exactly is the ACLU, and why are they a threat to scouting?

[tortdog]

Merlyn says:

 

>the BSA scuttled the city's own defense by their own admission that they WERE a religious organization

 

The Court that ruled AGAINST the BSA says:

 

>The BSA-DPC contends that as a nonsectarian organization, it is beyond the reach of the establishment clause.

 

Merlyn?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

tortdog writes:

The Court that ruled AGAINST the BSA says:

 

>The BSA-DPC contends that as a nonsectarian organization, it is beyond the reach of the establishment clause.

 

Merlyn?

 

Yes? So the DPC contended that - the judge didn't agree, did he?

He ruled the BSA a "religious organization".

 

Here's the San Diego DA:

 

http://genesis.sannet.gov/infospc/templates/attorney/caseys_column.jsp

...

The primary issue addressed in the Court's summary judgment ruling was whether the lease extension gave a preference or a special benefit to a "religious organization." The City's defense of the case rested on the position that, while the Boy Scouts may follow certain religious principles, it was not a "religious organization" subject to the restrictions in the state and federal constitutions. During the course of the case, however, and without forewarning the City as to its position, the Boy Scouts admitted in court documents that it was in fact a "religious organization." Based upon that admission, Federal Judge Napoleon Jones determined that the Boy Scouts are a religious organization and that the lease was invalid because the process by which it was extended violated both the state and federal constitutions in providing special preference and benefits to a religious organization.

...

 

Here's the judge's decision:

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

...

the Boy Scouts is a religious organization with a "religious purpose" and a "faith-based mission to serve young people and their families."

[page 11 - Judge Jones quoting from documents submitted by the BSA-Desert Pacific Council]

...

 

in 1995, when the BSA kicked out Buzz Grambo in Maryland for being an atheist, BSA national spokesman Richard W. Walker was quoted in the Washington Post:

"It's no secret we have a duty to God," said Walker, from Boy Scouts of America headquarters in Irving, Tex. "We're not a religion, but we are a religious organization."

 

Here's where Bill O'Reilly found out:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108666,00.html

...

O'REILLY: All right. Now we researched this for the past 24 hours, and here's how it goes down.

 

On October 21, 2003, Greg Shields, a national spokesman for the Boy Scouts of America, said this to Fox News: "The Boy Scouts are not a religious organization. We cannot be described as a religious organization or a religion."

 

However, in several legal briefs, including one in a 1992 case in Kansas and another in 1998, lawyers for the Boy Scouts put in writing that the Scouts are a religious organization. Here's the quote in '98:

 

"Although Boy Scouts of America is not a religious sect, it is religious, and, while the local council is not a house of worship like a church or a synagogue, it is a religious organization."

 

Confused? So am I. Because if the Scouts say they are a religious organization, then the ACLU and the judges who dislike them can boot them off city properties all over the USA.

...

[tortdog]

Well, Merlyn. You said that the BSA had itself to blame for the withdrawal of San Diego (paying almost $1,000,000 to the ACLU) because the BSA ITSELF said it was a religious organization.

 

But it didn't. You showed that in the San Diego case, the COURT found the BSA was a religious organization. But that very same COURT recognized that the BSA had told IT, the COURT, that the BSA was NOT a religious organization.

 

So you are incorrect in stating that the BSA was to blame for San Diego paying $1,000,000 to the ACLU (wonder how much of that went to children) by the BSA admitting it was a religious organization.

 

Now, you go to a quote from a brief in 1998 where the BSA said it was religious...and then said a council was a religious organization. Are you arguing that this statement was the one San Diego relied on? If so, then why did San Diego not terminate the lease (and settle) after this 1998 so-called admission? If the BSA at one time did argue it was a religious organization, it certainly has denied that in the San Diego case.

 

You err.

 

Now, THIS one federal district court that claimed the BSA was in California found the BSA to be a religious organization. The BSA disagrees. Who else disagrees?

 

3rd Circuit: 386 F.3d 514

 

4th Circuit: 17 F.3d 703

 

Fed Dist of Connecticut

 

By the way, even the court you cite states that the BSA is a "religious, albeit nonsectarian, and discriminatory organization". Maybe that's what the BSA means. Sure, it has religious character to it, but it's nonsectarian in that it doesn't pick one religion and favor it. It just believes that God exists.

 

Do you?

[evmori]

tordog,

You are my new hero!

[OneHour]

Dog! ... Tort! ... you've gotten my vote as Mayor of Houston at the next go around!

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

tortdog writes:

Well, Merlyn. You said that the BSA had itself to blame for the withdrawal of San Diego (paying almost $1,000,000 to the ACLU) because the BSA ITSELF said it was a religious organization.

 

But it didn't. You showed that in the San Diego case, the COURT found the BSA was a religious organization. But that very same COURT recognized that the BSA had told IT, the COURT, that the BSA was NOT a religious organization.

 

The BSA claimed it was "non-sectarian". That's not the same as saying it isn't a religious organization.

 

And by the documents submitted to the court, the BSA admitted it WAS actually a religious organization, as the San Diego DA explained.

 

Now, you go to a quote from a brief in 1998 where the BSA said it was religious...and then said a council was a religious organization. Are you arguing that this statement was the one San Diego relied on?

 

No, it's an instance of when the BSA claimed to be a religious organization.

 

If so, then why did San Diego not terminate the lease (and settle) after this 1998 so-called admission?

 

They certainly should have; the ACLU was already warning the city council about renewing a $1/year lease with a discriminatory organization.

 

If the BSA at one time did argue it was a religious organization, it certainly has denied that in the San Diego case.

 

The BSA seems to claim it is a religious organization, or not a religious organization, depending on what it wants. When it wants to kick out atheists, it's a religious organization. When it wants to recruit kids in public schools during school hours, it isn't a religious organization.

 

You err.

 

How so? My opinion agrees with the San Diego DA, who probably knows more about this case than either one of us.

 

Now, THIS one federal district court that claimed the BSA was in California found the BSA to be a religious organization. The BSA disagrees. Who else disagrees?

 

3rd Circuit: 386 F.3d 514

 

Child Evangelism Fellowship of New Jersey v. Stafford Township School District

 

This hardly helps your case; the court uses the Boy Scouts as an example of an organization with strong religious tenets and gives examples of the BSA's religious requirements to show that Stafford is discriminating against the Evangelism Fellowship. Saying the BSA is "nonsectarian" is not the same as saying it isn't a religious organization, especially in the court's context:

 

And though the Boy Scouts of America is a nonsectarian group, it still maintains that no child can develop to his or her fullest potential without a spiritual element in his or her life.

 

Yep, that's a religious organization. It's got religious requirements for members.

 

4th Circuit: 17 F.3d 703

 

Fed Dist of Connecticut

 

 

Could you quote where they state that the BSA is not a religious organization?

 

By the way, even the court you cite states that the BSA is a "religious, albeit nonsectarian, and discriminatory organization".

 

So it says it's a religious organization, right?

Or do you somehow think the term "nonsectarian" means you can ignore the term "religious" in the court's description?

 

Maybe that's what the BSA means.

 

If so, it's still a religious organization.

 

Sure, it has religious character to it, but it's nonsectarian in that it doesn't pick one religion and favor it.

 

Yeah, so?

 

An organization that requires monotheism is a religious organization, even though many (though not all) religions would qualify.

 

An organization that requires belief in an Abrahamic religion isn't specific to Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, but it's still a religious organization.

 

And yes, an organization that requires theism is a religious organization.

 

It just believes that God exists.

 

Do you?

 

No.

[evmori]

And therein lies the problem - Merlyn's lack of belief in God.

 

Once again, the minority is trying to regulate the majority.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

No Ed, just trying to make sure the government treats everyone equally, instead of giving special favors to a discriminatory religious organization.

[tortdog]

Merlyn. It's this simple. You have brought one citation by a reporter that the BSA admitted that it had a religious character (I think that's a no-brainer) and that a council was a religious organization (because a council is an organization and it has a religious character to it).

 

That's it. You can't even bring the brief to the table (other than people quoting from it). Not extremely persuasive.

 

How about a detailed explanation of how the BSA sees itself? First, the BSA looks to the law. According to that law, the BSA has argued it is a religious organization because the law used by the court defined it that way:

 

>Boy Scouts of America is a religious organization, association or society, or nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with religious organizations, associations or societies within the meaning of the Kansas Act Against Discrimination, expressly permitted by the Act to limit the occupancy of its real property, which it owns or operates for other than a commercial purpose, to persons who believe in God or to give preference to persons who believe in God.

 

The BSA in this instance is saying that the reason it is a religious organization is because it is "an organization" that is "operated" in "conjunction with religious organizations". There is no doubt on this point. The reason the BSA argues for protection from attempts from the left to slap it down for discriminating against self-admitted atheists and gay leaders is because the law that prohibits this discrimination permits it. If a law is passed that says any organization that starts with the letter "B" is a religious organization, guess what...it is. Since the law in question defined religious organization in a way that included the BSA (and ONLY because that is the definition in the relevant law), the BSA gets to rely on it.

 

If you don't like the definition, then get rid of the statute. Of course, if you get rid of the statute that the BSA was relying on, you also get rid of the statute that protected atheists/gays from discrimination...oops?!

 

Summarizing:

 

I have shown you documentation written by the BSA during the course of the San Diego controversy where the BSA denies that it is a religious organization. Your so-called "proof" that the BSA made an admission is where the SD DA states the BSA is a religious organization.

 

Is the SD DA the same as the BSA? No.

 

You then show that the lower court in the SD controversy states that the BSA is a religious (albeit nonsectarian) organization. However, that same court that YOU cite points out that the BSA denies that.

 

Is the court the same as the BSA? No.

 

Was the court lying, Merlyn, when it stated that the BSA denied it was a religious organization?

 

Why doesn't the ACLU seek to terminate San Diego leases with self-admitted religious organizations (as opposed to the only lease terminated with an organization DENYING that it is a religious organization, i.e., the BSA)?

 

Why? Because it's about money. The ACLU knows it can get more money from people of its ilk and cities via threats, via extortion, against a widely popular BSA. That's where the money is. It's all about money. If the ACLU really cared that religious organizations not receive "favorable" leases from governments, it would attack the self-admitted religious organizations like:

 

* Jewish Community Center

* The San Diego Calvary Korean Church

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Where has the BSA stated, in court, that it is not a religious organization?

 

You've only shown where the BSA has said it is "nonsectarian", but that's not the same, as the description of the BSA as both nonsectarian and religious has shown.

 

And if you'll read the judge's decision, you'll see that the BSA lease was struck down because the city didn't have any sort of competitive bidding, which it can't do when dealing with a religious organization. How were those other leases granted?

[evmori]

Ummm the government treating everyone equally? Isn't that the same theory communism used?

 

tortdog,

You really know your stuff. Thanks for your posts.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10