New Study Reveals Youth Unprepared to Make Challenging Ethical Choices

[evmori]

Because they didn't get special, no-bid leases,

According to your previous post you didn't know if they had a "special no-bid lease"! Did you do some research or are you just guessing?

and they don't exclude people from public parkland on the basis of religion.

And neither does the BSA. Anyone can use the land they helped improve & hold a lease on.

 

ehcalum,

I can't stand to see someone selectively attack the BSA (or any group for that fact) and claim they are defending Americans against a discriminatory organization when all they are trying to do is destroy the BSA. I will not relent!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed writes:

According to your previous post you didn't know if they had a "special no-bid lease"! Did you do some research or are you just guessing?

 

You've shown nothing, and I'm not going to bother. If you're going to assert that they DO, show some evidence.

 

and they don't exclude people from public parkland on the basis of religion.

And neither does the BSA.

 

Yes, they do. They admitted in court that they book the parkland 100% with their own members during the summer. Anyone not in their private, discriminatory club can't use that public parkland during the peak summer months.

[evmori]

OK. No I don't have the information. Apparently neither do you nor do you care. Just proves my point you have no interest in anyones civil rights. Just destroy the BSA at all cost.

 

Because the BSA has reserved the park in the summer isn't the same as denying people use! They are using it! They are allowed to reserve it for as long as they want! So can anyone else! No no one else can use it when it is reserved by the BSA! And the BSA can't use it when it is reserved for someone else! Sort of like renting a car. You rent it. You use it. I can't rent the same car because you already have! I have to wait till you are finished THEN I can rent it!

 

I hope you spin a top better than you are trying to spin this!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed writes:

OK. No I don't have the information.

 

Of course you don't have the information. But it doesn't seem to prevent you from shooting your mouth off.

 

Apparently neither do you nor do you care. Just proves my point you have no interest in anyones civil rights. Just destroy the BSA at all cost.

 

It's hardly MY responsibility to check up on your senseless ravings, Ed. If you aren't going to back up what you say, I'm not going to bother.

 

Because the BSA has reserved the park in the summer isn't the same as denying people use

 

In this case, yes it is. The BSA preferentially books its own members during the most popular months, so nobody else can use it but them, because they simply book it 100% with their members.

[evmori]

I'm not the one who is persecuting the BSA because they got a sweet deal! Other groups apparently have the same sweet deal & you don't seem to care. Why? Because your only interest is in the destruction of the BSA. It ain't gonna happen. The Balboa Park ruling will be overturned & then you will have to focus on another way to attack the BSA!

 

An no it's not the same! If the city of San Diego wants to let the BSA reserve the area for the entire summer then that is their prerogative! I'm sure if Firesign Theater wants to rent the area for the months of October, November and December, I'm sure the city of San Diego would be willing to reserve it for them!

 

Keep spinning! Eventually you will get dizzy & fall down!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed, you've never even tried to justify your statements about what kinds of leases other organizations get; all you do is throw out wild accusations.

 

And we'll see if the Balboa case gets overturned; the main parts of the ruling are that 1) the BSA is a religious organization, and 2) the city didn't follow its own bidding rules and instead made a special deal. I don't see either of those being overruled.

[evmori]

Merlyn,

No I never tried to justify them. whitewater was the one who posted other groups got the same deal the BSA did not me. You are the one who is attacking the BSA because they apparently got the same deal the same way as other groups yet you will not do anything about those other groups leases! Sounds like selective persecution to me!

 

It will be overturned. It's only a matter of time. Then you will have to find another inane reason to attack the BSA.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10(This message has been edited by evmori)

[whitewater]

Merlyn,

 

You stated that (regarding the BSA lease):

 

"That's not relevant - some or all of those leases may not be legal, either. That doesn't change the fact that the city didn't follow its own open bidding process for the BSA lease."

 

It is only irrelevant because the judge made it so in his twisted logic. It should be very relevant in order to show that the City leases parkland out in a religion-neutral manner. Now it can be argued that the BSA is being discriminated against because of their viewpoint, and not given the same deal as other groups. Viewpoint discrimination is illegal too.

 

If I understand the ruling in this case correctly, the judge invalidated the BSA lease because he felt they were a religious organization and exclusively negotiating the lease with them violated the Federal Establishment Clause and the California No-Aid Clause. Personally I don't think they qualify as a religious organization in this context. The primary purpose of the BSA is secular. Applying the 3 prong test from the Lemon-Kurtzman case doesn't raise any concerns: (1) The primary purpose is secular, (2) There is no advancement or inhibiting of religion and (3) There is no government entanglement of religion.

 

Merlyn also argued that the City didn't follow their own open-bid process with the BSA lease. I don't believe they are required to. There are no statutes or policies requiring them to and at least 8 of the current leases to other groups were negotiated exclusively. In fact, the Girl Scout lease was exclusively negotiated and it was approved at the same meeting as the BSA lease.

 

Another point: Even though the BSA has 100% usage of parts of their parcels at various times, they still attempt to provide access to others. As I understand it, they even make some campsites available during their Cub Day Camp. I think it is ironic that the plantiffs in the case, Barnes and Wallace, admit to never actually trying to use the property. In fact, one of them admitted never even going near the Scout camp because they objected to a chapel being there (sounds pretty hypersensitive to me!) I wonder how they feel about the Jewish Community center being on park property and hosting Sabath services, or the Presbyterian Church leasing park land and hosting Church Day Camp on it. Oh that's right, they aren't evil discrimatory organizations like the Boy Scouts (sarcasm).

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

whitewater writes:

It is only irrelevant because the judge made it so in his twisted logic. It should be very relevant in order to show that the City leases parkland out in a religion-neutral manner.

 

But they clearly didn't. There was no competitive bidding for the BSA lease.

 

And I've said before how the BSA dishonestly says it's a religious organization when it's convenient, and NOT a religious organization when it's inconvenient.

[evmori]

But they clearly didn't. There was no competitive bidding for the BSA lease.

 

And there was competitive bidding for the GSUSA & other similar leases that whitewater posted about?

 

And I've said before how the BSA dishonestly says it's a religious organization when it's convenient, and NOT a religious organization when it's inconvenient.

 

You rip on the BSA for doing the exact same thing you endorse the ACLU for doing! You are a poor misguided soul. I will continue to pray for you!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[whitewater]

So Merlyn, you are saying that the BSA should be held to a different standard than other groups? There were at least 8 other groups that were allowed exclusive negotiations for leases. If the BSA is not allowed to do the same because of their views, then that is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

 

Whether or not the BSA calls itself a religious organization is irrelevant- what matters is the legal definition. I can call myself a religious organization but the IRS isn't going to give me a tax break.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

whitewater writes:

So Merlyn, you are saying that the BSA should be held to a different standard than other groups? There were at least 8 other groups that were allowed exclusive negotiations for leases.

 

As I've already said, any religious organizations granted non-bid leases ought to be struck down on the same grounds as the BSA lease. But nobody seems to have any real information on these other leases.

 

Whether or not the BSA calls itself a religious organization is irrelevant- what matters is the legal definition.

 

And the court ruled that they are a religious organization.

[whitewater]

Merlyn,

 

I already mentioned that the Girl Scouts' lease was excusively negotiated and was approved at the same meeting as the BSA lease. I believe the Campfire Girls and YMCA leases were also exclusively negotiated.

 

There is nothing illegal or wrong with an exclusive negotiation. The City received value in the deal. The point I'm trying to make is NOT that the other deals might be illegal (they aren't). My point is if you are going to make it more difficult for a religious organization to lease public land then you are being hostile toward religion which is illegal viewpoint discrimination.

 

That point is moot however since the court erred when it considered the BSA to be a religious organization. In doing so, it ignored Supreme Court precident that stated that the BSA was not a religious organization for purposes of the Establishment Clause. In fact, if the BSA were a religious organization in this context, the entire Dale case would not have been necessary since it has been well established that religious groups can choose their own leadership.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

whitewater writes:

already mentioned that the Girl Scouts' lease was excusively negotiated and was approved at the same meeting as the BSA lease.

 

As far as I know, the GSUSA hasn't claimed to be a religious organization, nor has it been ruled to be a religious organization.

 

I believe the Campfire Girls and YMCA leases were also exclusively negotiated.

 

Lemme know if you ever get any details.

 

There is nothing illegal or wrong with an exclusive negotiation.

 

According to the court, when dealing with a religious organization, there is.

 

The City received value in the deal.

 

That doesn't change the matter.

 

My point is if you are going to make it more difficult for a religious organization to lease public land then you are being hostile toward religion which is illegal viewpoint discrimination.

 

It isn't more "difficult", it's to insure that the state doesn't discriminate on the basis of religion. City governments can't arbitrarily decide what religious groups get special deals.

 

That point is moot however since the court erred when it considered the BSA to be a religious organization. In doing so, it ignored Supreme Court precident that stated that the BSA was not a religious organization for purposes of the Establishment Clause. In fact, if the BSA were a religious organization in this context, the entire Dale case would not have been necessary since it has been well established that religious groups can choose their own leadership.

 

I don't think the supreme court addressed whether the BSA was a religious organization or not. Can you quote from the opinion (which doesn't include any dicta) where it says that?

[NJCubScouter]

Hey, TheScout: Where did you go? You never answered my questions. (They are buried back about a page and a half, you have to dig through the Merlyn, Ed and Whitewater Show to get through it.)