Philly raises scouts rent $199,999/year

[OldGreyEagle]

From one of the greatest movies of all time

 

"I think we can handle this responsibly, just like the mature adults we are, cant we Mr. POOPY PANTS ?"

 

So. c'mon, if you have a point to make, make it without reference to familial ties or personal tastes.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Hunt writes:

It may have been within its rights under the terms of the lease to do so, but it's obviously contrary to the idea of the lease.

 

I disagree. "In perpetuity" in a lease simply means it doesn't lapse and need to be renewed every year. Such leases have other ways to end since they never expire otherwise. If they didn't "intend" for the lease to be terminated by the city deciding to end it, they could have written the lease so it couldn't be terminated that way. But they did, so they obviously intended that the lease could end if the city decided to end the lease.

 

But it takes a very narrow viewpoint to think that BSA suddenly went from being a beneficial service organization that helped the city so much that it deserved a no-rent lease to being no different from any commercial entity that might want to lease city property.

 

I think all it takes is a clear viewpoint. The BSA went to a lot of trouble to define itself as a private, discriminatory, religious organization, instead of what many people assumed it to be - a public accommodation. The city found itself suddenly subsidising a private, religious organization that discriminated. And the lease gives them a year's notice, plus this issue goes back about 4 years, so the CoL council has had plenty of warning.

[evmori]

The BSA went to a lot of trouble to define itself as a private, discriminatory, religious organization, instead of what many people assumed it to be - a public accommodation.

 

Ya know what happens when you assume. The BSA went through a lot of trouble to ensure the membership criteria that has been in place was adhered to. You might not like that criteria but it is what it is.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[packsaddle]

OGE, you and Trevorum may have met your match here, heh, heh. Me, I'm still stuck on that image of 400 pounds of naked adipose tissue. And man it's HOT!

I think I can up the ante on that one, though. Think of that mass with a full beard, farmer's tan, long scraggly unwashed hair bunched into a late-middle-age ponytail, cigar in corner of mouth, and a beer in one hand. Now....add a thong. Muhhahahahaha!

 

Gern, I hope you realize you're also trashing one of my few remaining dreams in life. Sad, sad. It really hurts.

 

 

[erickelly65]

Okoff come the gloves.

 

First lets get some facts straight

 

Merlyn responded to my post that If youre an atheist and want a secular scouting experience, go create it. (The US scouting program is in the minority in having only one Boy Scouting program in our country)

 

With

 

No, that's actually a WOSM requirement. Other countries have all their scouting orgs as part of one umbrella organization to satisfy WOSM.

 

To be blunt, you dont know what youre talking about. One simple example, Germany has over 150 scouting associations and federations of all flavors most belonging to the world scouting movement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scouting_in_Germany

 

 

Further Merlyn wrote:

erickelly65 writes:

I wrote If people want the government to yank funding for our program because of that stance, fine. I dont agree with it but perhaps that is as fair and balanced an arrangement as we can arrive upon.

 

Merlyn responded

How nice you begrudgingly agree that fair and equal treatment is fair & equal, even though you don't agree with it. That's mighty white of you.

 

Once again you seek to defame my view as the oppressor because I think group of particular belief systems should be given fair access and support from public organizations. I think they should. Regardless if they are like Scouting with its view on faith or an atheistic youth development program, or a wiccan program. My only test would be that these groups arent promoting hate or violence against others. You want fair and equal, fine lets have it and let all have access and support regardless of faith (or lack there off) but thats not what you really want. You want a state whos religion IS atheism and all the rest of us have to hide our beliefs, with your ilk there is no place for faith in the public square.

 

As for your comment That's mighty white of you., in short its hugely inappropriate in this forum. You are a sad pathetic little man.

 

Finally Merlyn responded to my statement that

I have no problem with people who are atheists. At the same time, I do want my child to participate in a BSA program that does espouse ones responsibility to God and a belief in a higher power. If someone that is an atheist wants to join and is willing to say the oath and pledge and follow the program as is and not interfere with my ability to teach (within the existing BSA program) my children the belief system I want them to follow, then more power to them and welcome to Scouting.

 

Merlyn Stated

So you don't mind admitting atheists as long as they're willing to lie and pretend to believe in a god. Well, I think that's as good an illustration why public schools have no business chartering packs.

 

First off, I dont subscribe to your Litmus Test that a group with ANY religious belief shouldnt be chartered by a public school. I think it would be fine if there was REAL fair and equal treatment, access and support provided by the school/government regardless of religious or other belief.

 

As far as my comment on admitting atheist, let me spell it out for you in small, simple words so you can understand. I dont care WHO is admitted to the program as long as I dont have to change one IOTA of how I pursue this program for my son. I am trying to practice my faith and use the scouting program to advance within my child a line of reason, beliefs and morals to which I subscribe. I dont hold any ill will to others of other beliefs and preferences as can be seen in my relationships with friends, neighbors and professional colleagues. They can live their life as they best see fit and well they should. All I demand is that I be given the same. There are, however, many that think My views arent supportable in the public forum and if I want to have them I have to have them on my own and in private. All I am saying is I disagree and view any interference by outside groups (governmental or other) as an invasion of my freedom of religion and association.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

erickelly65 writes:

To be blunt, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

Here's what WOSM says, argue with them:

http://www.scout.org/en/our_organisation/governance/world_conference

National Scout Organizations must gain recognition from the World Scout Conference to become members of WOSM- and there can only be one NSO per country. In the case of a country having more than one Scout Association, a federation is formed for the purposes of national coordination and world membership.

 

Atheists (or any other group) could form a similar organization, but in order to join WOSM, they'd have to be in an umbrella organization that includes the BSA.

 

...

My only test would be that these groups aren't promoting hate or violence against others.

 

That's one of the problems of using subjective criteria like that. The BSA is on record in court as says gays aren't "clean" and "morally straight", and that atheists can't be the best kinds of citizens. I'd say that qualifies as promoting hate.

 

You want a state who's religion IS atheism and all the rest of us have to hide our beliefs, with your ilk there is no place for faith in the public square.

 

Well, now you're lying.

 

Got that? You're lying. You aren't voicing your opinion, you are lying by misrepresenting my opinion and pretending that you can read my mind, instead of what I have plainly written in this forum. I've gone through this before with people deliberately misrepresenting my views and resorting to lying about my position.

 

If you don't know my opinion on a subject (and you clearly don't), you need to ask me, and I'll tell you, and even explain my position. But right now, you're just making up a position and telling me I hold it, which is false.

 

In short, you're lying.

 

As for your comment "That's mighty white of you.", in short its hugely inappropriate in this forum.

 

I think it's entirely appropriate.

 

I don't subscribe to your "Litmus Test" that a group with ANY religious belief shouldn't be chartered by a public school.

 

Fortunately, the courts agree with me. Public schools can't apply religious tests to participate in any service offered by that public school.

 

All I am saying is I disagree and view any interference by outside groups (governmental or other) as an invasion of my freedom of religion and association.

 

So, you agree with Philadelphia's actions? They USED to interfere by giving the BSA a public subsidy; now they're treating them the same as any other private organization. End of interference.

[evmori]

You aren't voicing your opinion, you are lying by misrepresenting my opinion and pretending that you can read my mind, instead of what I have plainly written in this forum.

 

And these posts aren't doing the same thing?

 

How nice you begrudgingly agree that fair and equal treatment is fair & equal, even though you don't agree with it. That's mighty white of you.

 

So you don't mind admitting atheists as long as they're willing to lie and pretend to believe in a god. Well, I think that's as good an illustration why public schools have no business chartering packs.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

No they aren't, Ed. They're based on what erickelly65 wrote. His statements on what I "think" are based on nothing I've written, and contradict some of what I HAVE written.

 

Now, it's possible I've misinterpreted what erickelly65 has written, but his assertions that I "want a state who's religion IS atheism" is based on nothing I've written, it's just complete crap he's made up and falsely ascribed to me. I written numerous times that the government needs to be neutral on religious matters.

[packsaddle]

"I (have) written numerous times that the government needs to be neutral on religious matters."

And so you have. And so the government should be. The problem is that a particular religious tradition has dominated society for so long that any change toward "neutrality" seems to them to be a move toward atheism. In that mindset, anyone who disagrees can be viewed as evil, or an enemy. Onward Christian Soldiers!

OK, it could also be that they understand this quite well and are just using that argument for effect to promote their own political agenda.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Hunt]

"The city found itself suddenly subsidising a private, religious organization that discriminated."

 

Suddenly? I don't think so. BSA has always been a private organization. It was the novel theory promoted in the Dale case that it was a public accomodation--a theory which failed in the Supreme Court. Rather, what happened in Philly was that the political winds changed, and it became politically more advantageous to terminate the lease than to continue it. As I haven't seen the lease, I can only speculate, but it seems that the city probably has the power to do this. However, I feel quite certain that the city leaders who negotiated the lease in the first place would be stupefied and outraged by the present turn of events. You're right that this issue has been percolating for several years...perhaps there have been behind the scenes efforts to slow it down to give BSA time to find other space or to come up with the rent.

I'd also like to comment on the idea that the city was "subsidizing" BSA by charging $1 rent. Note that BSA built the building and paid for all upkeep. It seems to me that the question of who is subsidizing who depends on how the overall benefits are flowing. If this were a hospital run by a charity that was treating poor people for free, but paying only a dollar in rent, it would be nonsensical to say that the city was "subsidizing" it. It's my belief that the city leaders who entered into the original lease with BSA thought the city was getting more than it was giving. Perhaps the new leaders see the benefits to the city differently.

[evmori]

So saying "begrudgingly agree" without knowing that to be a fact and "as long as they're willing to lie and pretend" without knowing that's what the poster meant is different? Let's define is!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I don't agree that the BSA was always a private organization; not with public schools running them. And the NJ supreme court had no problem judging the BSA to be a public accommodation. And from what I understand, the BSA built the building and deeded it to the city as part of the original agreement that allowed them to build it on public land. From that point on it was the city's property, so $1/year is a subsidy.

[erickelly65]

"I (have) written numerous times that the government needs to be neutral on religious matters."

 

Packsaddle the issue lies in my belief of what "neutral" means in the above statement. It seems you and Merlyn believe (much taking the risk of being called a liar again...woe is me) that to be neutral means there is no place for religion in the public forum. I believe that neutral means there is room for ALL in the public forum (religions, belief systems, political and social groups, etc) and that the government becomes non-neutral when it givers greater access to one group to the detriment of others.

 

I have no issue with it being within the rights of Philly or any public school to not support Scouting. I don't feel they did anything outside of their legal rights. I am not crying fowl on either stance. Having said that doing what is within the law isnt necessarily the same as doing what is right or best (Knowing that that is a subjective term measured differently by each individual - its how I feel...feel free to think differently if you like and act accordingly. thats how democracy works)

 

Merlyn, think what you will, I am not a liar. I find you to be openly hostile to religion (my opinion and sorry if thats not the case) and your interpretation of what is government neutrality I find oppressive to people of faith (all faiths). I have made gestures that keeping governments role in scouting distant, as you would like, might be the best alternative we can arrive at in today's society only to be sarcastically dismissed by you with a few pejorative phrases thrown in for good measure. You have no interest in having an open, interactive and intelligent discussion on the views and perceptions of various people on this topic. Anything short of complete capitulation to your line of thinking gets attacked and vilified.

 

[evmori]

I don't agree that the BSA was always a private organization; not with public schools running them.

 

Public schools never ran the BSA. They have had BSA units chartered to public schools but public schools never ran the BSA. This is not a factual statement.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

erickelly65 writes:

It seems you and Merlyn believe (much taking the risk of being called a liar again...woe is me) that to be neutral means there is no place for religion in the public forum.

 

Well, no (and since you said "It seems," you aren't lying, you're merely mistaken, and you haven't bothered to read what packsaddle and/or I have written elsewhere on this forum).

 

To me (I won't speak for packsaddle, though I'd bet his views are similar), neutral means treating everyone equally, regardless of their religious views.

 

I believe that neutral means there is room for ALL in the public forum (religions, belief systems, political and social groups, etc) and that the government becomes non-neutral when it givers greater access to one group to the detriment of others.

 

Exactly. Like $1/year rent for a building (unless the city has enough buildings to rent to all comers at that rate. I'll take 10, by the way, and pay in advance for a decade. Cash).

 

...

Merlyn, think what you will, I am not a liar.

 

Yes, you are. Instead of asking my views, you stated what you thought were my views, and you got them wrong. You are factually wrong about what my views are, and you didn't make any attempt to ask me what they were beforehand.

 

I find you to be openly hostile to religion (my opinion and sorry if thats not the case) and your interpretation of what is government neutrality I find oppressive to people of faith (all faiths).

 

Well, here's where you can actually contribute by quoting something I've written that you consider "oppressive". I've written a fair amount, so I would hope you can quote something I've written to support your opinion.

 

I have made gestures that keeping governments role in scouting distant, as you would like, might be the best alternative we can arrive at in today's society only to be sarcastically dismissed by you with a few pejorative phrases thrown in for good measure.

 

Because I don't consider your gestures to be terribly magnanimous. Atheists can join, as long as they lie and pretend to believe. Oh, how nice. It's like a Restricted club member saying it's OK with him if Jews join the club, as long as they pretend to be Christians and don't to anything to indicate they're Jewish, like refuse to eat cheeseburgers at the club's Cheeseburger Thursday cookouts.

 

You have no interest in having an open, interactive and intelligent discussion on the views and perceptions of various people on this topic.

 

Yes, I do. I argue my position very forcefully, and I'm not afraid to call people liars if I consider them to be lying.

 

Anything short of complete capitulation to your line of thinking gets attacked and vilified.

 

You're the one who said "the gloves are off". Projection much?

 

Look, I'll argue based on my opinion, and you argue based on your opinion. You just don't seem to like my style. Oh well.

 

By the way, as far as complete capitulation, do you agree I was right in what I said about WOSM membership?