Boy Scouts' use of Balboa Park land ruled unconstitutional

San Diego Union-Tribune ^ | 7/31/03 | Ray Huard

[ImphClinton]

Well I really do not accept their authority over my church.

The fact is we are christian. The Catholics do not accept baptism from any other church. We do not accept baptism from any other church either. That does not make us un-christian.

I gurantee you that LDS act as christians and are more christ like that people of most other religions. That is what really counts is ones actions.

The LDS church provides more aid per member to non-members than any other major religion. We are generally first or close to first on the scene helping. Much of this help is done in corrdination with other religious groups. Catholics, Methodist and Southern Baptist included.

Obviously our believes differ. So do the Catholic believes. We both teach that man can not be with God in, the next life, unless they are baptized in our respective churches. The difference is we teach that nearly all will go to a far better place after this life. Heaven. Varying upon their belief in Christ and Christ like actions that prove this belief they will go to four different places. We also believe there will be time for repentance after this life and all who accept the Gospel there will also return to God. Thus we believe all men can return to their father. It is not even required. That you join our church during this lifetime (although eaiser if you do). It is required that you join in the next life to live with God The Father (Celestial Kingdom)

Our belief of life in the next world would be that all will go to heaven. All will be in a far better place and far closer to Jesus Christ. All that live good lifes will live in a place where Jesus Christ our God is often with them, the Terestial Kingdom. They will all have mansions. Even the bad people will have mansions. They will spend 1,000 years in fire and brimstone. They will then go to the Telestial Kingdom where the spirit of God to be with them. They may hear his voice but will not see him.

Only a very small number of the truly most evil men will actually be cast forever into hell with the devil, Outer Darkness. Cain being the most common example (although even he could repent in the next life.

[RonF]

I've been told the basic tenets of the LDS before. If you're active in the BSA, where 12% of the membership is LDS, it'd be hard for any curious adult not to have. My point was not to establish on my own arguments whether or not the LDS is a Christian denomination, but simply (in the context of showing that the BSA accepts all faiths, not simply Christian ones) to state that the LDS is not regarded as Christian by other Christian denominations. And that's true as far as my research has been able to determine. Obviously the LDS disagrees, as it's free to do. That's fine, and I really don't care. The whole question of "Who's competent to determine who's Christian and who's not" isn't something I want to get in to. I pointed out a true fact. People who are interested can decide what it means for themselves.

[VOA]

bump

[ChewedGum]

HERE is my blogged response to this (reprinted below):

---

This isn't recent news, but it is as irritating as a fire ant bite between your toes and the itch lasts just as long. About two weeks ago, U.S. District Judge Napoleon Jones Jr. made a decision that the Boy Scout's use of Balboa Park land is unconstitutional. From a July 31, 2003 article in the San Diego Union-Tribune:

U.S. District Judge Napoleon Jones Jr. said the Scouts' lease of the 18-acre Camp Balboa in Balboa Park violates provisions in the U.S. and state constitutions governing the separation of church and state.

Jones said the Boy Scouts are a religious organization because the Scouts require members to profess a belief in God.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued over the lease in August 2000 on behalf of a lesbian couple and an agnostic couple and their son.

This decision is a travesty of justice for several different reasons. First, consider the fact that the park was built and financed by the scouts and is open to the public. (Read this article for a brief history of the land in question and its use by the Boy Scouts since 1915.) But more importantly is the precidence that a case like this brings to the judiciary. A precidence which seeks to continue to redefine the constitution.

The honorable Judge Jones feels that the lease violates provisions in both the U.S. and California State constitutions. Here are those provisions:

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - Amendment I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION - ARTICLE 1: DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 4. Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State. The Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. A person is not incompetent to be a witness or juror because of his or her opinions on religious beliefs.

In essense, both constitutions say exactly the same thing: The government will make no law respecting an establishment of religion, and that free exercise of religion is protected. It is important to note that the clause "separation of church and state" does not appear in any form in either constitution. A law which respects an establishment of religion would be a law which elevates a specific religion in the eyes of the government. The primary motivation behind this provision was to insure that the state would not crown a specific religious group or sect as the "state religion". This was critical to many of the colonists who had fled Europe because they did not have freedom of religion there. Although the founding fathers were religious men, they understood that their freedom to practice their religion was dependent upon the freedom of others to practice their own as well.

It is apparent, to me at least, that the intent of both constitutions is to guarantee the right to freely practice religion and for the state not to interfere with that practice. There are two ways for the state to avoid "respecting" a specific religious establishment. They can either avoid all religious contact or they can provide equal access to all religious groups.

The Balboa Park decision is an attempt of the former. However, if government tries to separate church and state by divorcing itself from any contact at all, then the following scenarios must be also be considered (and then outlawed):

• Religious groups providing training or visitation at state or federal prisions
• Religious weddings performed in public parks or in rented public facilities
• Religious crusades using civic auditoriums
• Religiously motivated demonstrations on government facilities

Unfortunately, going down this road leads to another crisis. A non-religious group may rent a public facility but a religious group may not. A non-religious group may demonstrate in a park or in front of the state legislature but a religious group may not. The state (or Federal Government) is now violating the constitutional right of free exercise of religion. The constitution does not guarantee that religious groups cannot discriminate but it does guarantee that it will not discriminate against religious groups.

I think that the Judge's decision is wrong for several reasons but the key one is because it discriminates against the Boy Scouts primarly because he classifies them as a religious organization. Last time I checked, that was unconstitutional.

---

Gum