Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge Rules Scouts 'Religous' Group
WorldNetDaily ^ | August 6, 2003 | Unknown

Posted on 08/06/2003 6:52:49 AM PDT by joesnuffy

LAW OF THE LAND Judge rules Scouts 'religious' group Long-standing lease of park considered 1st Amendment violation Posted: August 6, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com The city of San Diego is contemplating an appeal of a federal court decision that sided with the ACLU and a lesbian couple seeking to nullify its long-standing lease of a public park to the Boy Scouts. A U.S. District Court judge ruled last Thursday the Boy Scouts is a religious organization, and the agreement to use Balboa Park violates the First Amendment's ban on state-sponsored religion. In a closed session last night, the city council was scheduled to discuss whether it would advise the city attorney to file an appeal. Judge Napoleon Jones, Jr., said in his ruling the case was brought by a lesbian and agnostic couple, Lori and Lynn Barnes-Wallace, and their "Boy Scout-aged sons." They were supported by the American Civil Liberties Union. Jones determined the Boy Scouts are a religious organization with a "religious purpose" because adult leaders and youth members are required to believe in a "formal deity" and to swear duty to God. Gary Kreep, executive director of the San Diego-based United States Justice Foundation, said he is unaware of any other rulings that regard the Boy Scouts as a religious organization. While the group promotes belief in God, it represents no particular denomination, he argued. "If you look at the makeup of the Boy Scouts, they're supported by the [Latter Day Saints], Protestant churches, Catholics – you name it, you got it," he said. "I don't think many of those people think the Boy Scouts are religious." Kreep said his group will file a brief in support of the city if it appeals the decision. 'Discriminatory beliefs' The judge noted the June 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, which ruled the youth organization had a constitutionally based right to discriminate on the basis of "sexual orientation." James Dale was an Eagle Scout whose adult membership in the Boy Scouts was revoked when the organization learned that he was an avowed homosexual and homosexual-rights activist. Jones said in his ruling, "After Dale, it is clear that the Boy Scouts of America's strongly held private, discriminatory beliefs are at odds with values requiring tolerance and inclusion in the public realm, and lawsuits like this are the predictable fallout from the Boy Scouts' victory before the Supreme Court." The local Desert Pacific Council of the Boy Scouts has used the northwest corner of Balboa Park, near the San Diego Zoo, since 1940. It has leased the land for $1 a year since 1957, and the city council approved a 25-year lease agreement at the end of 2001. The judge noted the lease includes a non-discrimination clause prohibiting, among other things, discrimination based on religion and sexual orientation. However, the city points out the non-discrimination clause applies only to the Boy Scouts regulation of access to the property by non-Scouting individuals and entities. The Desert Pacific Council also has a lease agreement on Fiesta Island in Mission Bay, but the judge did not rule on that lease because none of the parties provided evidence of the process by which it was obtained. The Scouts have free use of a half-acre for an aquatic center on the island through a lease that expires in 2012. The city and the Boy Scouts argued the agreements are just two out of 100 leases of public land by the city to non-profit groups to "advance the educational, cultural and recreational interests of the city" without regard to whether the lessees are religious. The court, however, agreed with the plaintiffs that the city's leases with other groups are irrelevant because there is no evidence they were negotiated as part of any leasing "program." The Boy Scouts engaged in exclusive negotiations on the Balboa land, the court said, as other groups did not have the opportunity to compete. Jordan Budd, legal director for the ACLU's San Diego office, said there are only two solutions, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported. Either the city council must cancel its lease or the Scouts must change its policy barring homosexuals and requiring belief in God. "We believe it is long past time for the city council to end its affiliation with this discriminatory organization and to keep open this public park land for the use of all citizens of San Diego on a fair and equal basis and not just those citizens preferred by the Boy Scouts," he said, according to the paper. The city lost another dispute with the ACLU this year. In April, the ACLU successfully argued San Diego gave an unfair advantage in its sale of city-owned Mt. Soledad Park to a veterans group that sought to maintain a cross on the land. The Scouts noted in a statement the lease requires them to spend $1.7 million over the next seven years to upgrade Camp Balboa. The group also must pay the city an annual administrative fee initially set at $2,500. The Desert Pacific Council said it spent $2 million to build an aquatic center on an unused landfill on Fiesta Island. The group also has significantly improved Balboa Park with trees, water and power lines, campsites, a swimming pool and other facilities. The ACLU's Budd argued the Scouts investment in these facilities could be worked out in a final court order, the San Diego paper said. "The fact that they've invested a substantial amount of money in the park is not a justification for them to occupy park land for free," Budd told the Union-Tribune. Budd said if the Scouts want a public subsidy and free access to public park land, they must do what virtually every other youth organization has done. "The Girl Scouts, the Campfire Girls, the YMCA, the YWCA – every other youth organization has abandoned exclusive membership policies," he said. In a statement, the local council, representing Scouts in San Diego and Imperial counties, called the ruling a disappointment. Spokeswoman Thyme Osborne told WorldNetDaily she could not comment further. The news release said: "We are weighing our legal options and we expect that the order will ultimately be reversed." San Diego Mayor Dick Murphy issued a statement through his deputy press secretary. "Having been a Boy Scout as a child, I've always supported the Boy Scouts here in San Diego," he said, according to the Union-Tribune. "However, because this is pending litigation, all questions should be referred to the city attorney."

(Excerpt) Read more at nynewsday.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: 1stammendment; acluofcourse; balboapark; boyscoutsofamerica; bsa; churchandstate; discrimination; purge; scouts; sodomiteagenda
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

1 posted on 08/06/2003 6:52:49 AM PDT by joesnuffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy



LAW OF THE LAND
Judge rules Scouts
'religious' group
Long-standing lease of park considered 1st
Amendment violation

Posted: August 6, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

The city of San Diego is contemplating an appeal of a
federal court decision that sided with the ACLU and
a lesbian couple seeking to nullify its long-standing
lease of a public park to the Boy Scouts.

A U.S. District Court judge ruled last Thursday the
Boy Scouts is a religious organization, and the
agreement to use Balboa Park violates the First
Amendment's ban on state-sponsored religion.

In a closed session last night, the city council was
scheduled to discuss whether it would advise the city
attorney to file an appeal.

Judge Napoleon Jones, Jr., said in his ruling the case
was brought by a lesbian and agnostic couple, Lori
and Lynn Barnes-Wallace, and their "Boy Scout-aged
sons."

They were supported by the American Civil Liberties
Union.

Jones determined the Boy Scouts are a religious
organization with a "religious purpose" because adult
leaders and youth members are required to believe in
a "formal deity" and to swear duty to God.

Gary Kreep, executive director of the San
Diego-based United States Justice Foundation, said he
is unaware of any other rulings that regard the Boy
Scouts as a religious organization.

While the group promotes belief in God, it represents
no particular denomination, he argued.

"If you look at the makeup of the Boy Scouts, they're
supported by the [Latter Day Saints], Protestant
churches, Catholics – you name it, you got it," he said.
"I don't think many of those people think the Boy
Scouts are religious."

Kreep said his group will file a brief in support of the
city if it appeals the decision.

'Discriminatory beliefs'

The judge noted the June 2000 U.S. Supreme Court
decision, Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, which ruled
the youth organization had a constitutionally based
right to discriminate on the basis of "sexual
orientation." James Dale was an Eagle Scout whose
adult membership in the Boy Scouts was revoked
when the organization learned that he was an
avowed homosexual and homosexual-rights activist.

Jones said in his ruling,
"After Dale, it is clear
that the Boy Scouts of
America's strongly held
private, discriminatory
beliefs are at odds with
values requiring
tolerance and inclusion
in the public realm, and
lawsuits like this are the
predictable fallout from
the Boy Scouts' victory before the Supreme Court."

The local Desert Pacific Council of the Boy Scouts has
used the northwest corner of Balboa Park, near the
San Diego Zoo, since 1940. It has leased the land for
$1 a year since 1957, and the city council approved a
25-year lease agreement at the end of 2001.

The judge noted the lease includes a
non-discrimination clause prohibiting, among other
things, discrimination based on religion and sexual
orientation.

However, the city points out the non-discrimination
clause applies only to the Boy Scouts regulation of
access to the property by non-Scouting individuals
and entities.

The Desert Pacific Council also has a lease agreement
on Fiesta Island in Mission Bay, but the judge did not
rule on that lease because none of the parties
provided evidence of the process by which it was
obtained. The Scouts have free use of a half-acre for
an aquatic center on the island through a lease that
expires in 2012.

The city and the Boy Scouts argued the agreements
are just two out of 100 leases of public land by the
city to non-profit groups to "advance the educational,
cultural and recreational interests of the city" without
regard to whether the lessees are religious.

The court, however, agreed with the plaintiffs that
the city's leases with other groups are irrelevant
because there is no evidence they were negotiated as
part of any leasing "program."

The Boy Scouts engaged in exclusive negotiations on
the Balboa land, the court said, as other groups did
not have the opportunity to compete.

Jordan Budd, legal director for the ACLU's San
Diego office, said there are only two solutions, the
San Diego Union-Tribune reported. Either the city
council must cancel its lease or the Scouts must change
its policy barring homosexuals and requiring belief in
God.

"We believe it is long past time for the city council to
end its affiliation with this discriminatory organization
and to keep open this public park land for the use of
all citizens of San Diego on a fair and equal basis and
not just those citizens preferred by the Boy Scouts,"
he said, according to the paper.

The city lost another dispute with the ACLU this
year.

In April, the ACLU successfully argued San Diego
gave an unfair advantage in its sale of city-owned Mt.
Soledad Park to a veterans group that sought to
maintain a cross on the land.

The Scouts noted in a statement the lease requires
them to spend $1.7 million over the next seven years
to upgrade Camp Balboa. The group also must pay
the city an annual administrative fee initially set at
$2,500.

The Desert Pacific Council said it spent $2 million to
build an aquatic center on an unused landfill on Fiesta
Island. The group also has significantly improved
Balboa Park with trees, water and power lines,
campsites, a swimming pool and other facilities.

The ACLU's Budd argued the Scouts investment in
these facilities could be worked out in a final court
order, the San Diego paper said.

"The fact that they've invested a substantial amount
of money in the park is not a justification for them to
occupy park land for free," Budd told the
Union-Tribune.

Budd said if the Scouts want a public subsidy and
free access to public park land, they must do what
virtually every other youth organization has done.

"The Girl Scouts, the Campfire Girls, the YMCA, the
YWCA – every other youth organization has
abandoned exclusive membership policies," he said.

In a statement, the local council, representing Scouts
in San Diego and Imperial counties, called the ruling a
disappointment. Spokeswoman Thyme Osborne told
WorldNetDaily she could not comment further.

The news release said: "We are weighing our legal
options and we expect that the order will ultimately
be reversed."

San Diego Mayor Dick Murphy issued a statement
through his deputy press secretary.

"Having been a Boy Scout as a child, I've always
supported the Boy Scouts here in San Diego," he said,
according to the Union-Tribune. "However, because
this is pending litigation, all questions should be
referred to the city attorney."
2 posted on 08/06/2003 6:54:53 AM PDT by joesnuffy (Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
Would the court care to clarify which religion?
3 posted on 08/06/2003 6:57:04 AM PDT by Lil'freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
Revolution is becoming necessary. Two lesbians can pretend offense and a judge declares a religion where non exists. We are very stupid to allow this blatant hypocrisy to rule over us, treating the offended like little Mullahs whose feelings must be cherisheed and obeyed despite the feeeeeeeelings of Christians, thats just bias and bigotry.
4 posted on 08/06/2003 7:00:12 AM PDT by Evil Inc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Evil Inc
Ummm, if the Scouts require you to be a theist and belong to a religion and affirm that fact before you are allowed to join, what else would you call them?

The fact that they don't require you to belong to one specific religion is beside the point. You must be religious to join.
5 posted on 08/06/2003 7:18:45 AM PDT by Kingasaurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
"We believe it is long past time for the city council to end its affiliation with this discriminatory organization and to keep open this public park land for the use of all citizens of San Diego on a fair and equal basis and not just those citizens preferred by the Boy Scouts," he said, according to the paper."

ANother piece of this issue related that the Scouts allowed some queer festival to be held on the property just the other weekend.
6 posted on 08/06/2003 7:21:10 AM PDT by Texas_Jarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kingasaurus
And what part of paying a lease to a government agency makes this establishment of religion?
That's like saying that because a church pays their water bill the city is establishing a religion.
Now if they gave them permenent access for free I could understand it.
7 posted on 08/06/2003 7:24:44 AM PDT by Politically Correct
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kingasaurus
And a religious organization is not allowed to lease property from the city unless it abandons its relgious principles? A whole lot of issues are being jumbled together here. Does the judge have a problem with the process by which the lease was negotiated, or with the fact that the Boy Scouts have a rule against gays? Or with the fact that the scouts express belief in God? Since when are religious organizations not allowed to lease or rent public facilities?
8 posted on 08/06/2003 7:35:04 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle (uo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
Judge rules Scouts 'religious' group

Fine by me, but I'd like to see the judge rule that some 'religious' groups are actually political.

9 posted on 08/06/2003 7:53:45 AM PDT by Living Free in NH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Howlin; Ed_NYC; MonroeDNA; widgysoft; Springman; Timesink; dubyaismypresident; Grani; coug97; ...
Religious group?!? Huh?

How's that work!?

Just damn.

If you want on the new list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...

10 posted on 08/06/2003 7:55:52 AM PDT by mhking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
This ruling is pissing all over the 1st Amendment. Government persecution of religion is exactly what freedom of religion is supposed to stop.
11 posted on 08/06/2003 8:11:42 AM PDT by Sofa King (-I am Sofa King- tired of liberal BS! http://www.angelfire.com/art2/sofaking/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mhking; joesnuffy
Jones determined the Boy Scouts are a religious organization with a "religious purpose" because adult leaders and youth members are required to believe in a "formal deity" and to swear duty to God.

This couple is probably afraid that, through the Souts' undue influence, their two boys will run away, join the Masons, and become Shriners. ;-)

12 posted on 08/06/2003 8:29:46 AM PDT by uglybiker (I think I drink more beer than anything. Ever try to drink a case of Cokes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kingasaurus
"Ummm, if the Scouts require you to be a theist and belong to a religion and affirm that fact before you are allowed to join, what else would you call them?

The fact that they don't require you to belong to one specific religion is beside the point. You must be religious to join."

What nonsense. Its a club, with rules about membership. A club you are free to join or not. If a club requires you to be female, is the club a female? Or is it still a club? Is the scouts about a religion or about a "lifestyle" choice? Sorry I dont buy your silliness.


13 posted on 08/06/2003 9:06:08 AM PDT by Evil Inc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Evil Inc
"- A club you are free to join or not."

No kidding. that has nothing to do with what I said.

Apparently you can't read. If a club requires you to be female to be a member, then it is a club for females. If a club requires you to be religious to join, the club has a religious component or test for membership. It's a club for religious people only. The fact that these religious people also like to go camping and fishing as a component of being in the club is beside the point for the moment.

I made absolutely no statements at all about whether the Scouts could lease gov't property, or whether the goals of the scouts are noble or not.

The bottom line is the Scouts are a private organization for religious people only. They are not a church, but they are a religious organization. Any private club that restricts membership based on religion has to qualify as that.

More power to them, but that's what they are.




14 posted on 08/06/2003 9:37:49 AM PDT by Kingasaurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kingasaurus
Does Alcoholics Anonymous qualify as a religious club by that litmus test? I think it must, one only need read the serenity prayer or the 12 steps. Funny how their rent is subsidized by local governments all the time.

How exactly does this violate the first anyhow? the first words of the first are "Congress shall make no law..." So now the SD city council counts as congress of the US?

Just looking for some clarification on this to set my mind straight. I must be crazy.

15 posted on 08/06/2003 10:14:01 AM PDT by libertarian guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
"Judge Napoleon Jones, Jr."

Any relation to Cleopatra Jones??? Napoleon does have ties to Egypt, you know...
16 posted on 08/06/2003 12:18:32 PM PDT by Buck W.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kingasaurus
>>“Ummm, if the Scouts require you to be a theist and belong to a religion and affirm that fact before you are allowed to join, what else would you call them?”<<

You are dead wrong on this. The Scouts do not require that you belong to, or even subscribe to the beliefs of any particular religion. Period.

All that is required is that you profess a belief in God and promise to do your duty (as you see it) to God. Any god will do. Even “Mother Nature” is sufficient as long as you acknowledge that there is a “Higher Power”.

So I guess you’ll have to find another angle to help you justify this blatant attack on the BSA for daring to stand firm and disagree with the current PC policies of the left.
17 posted on 08/06/2003 2:29:17 PM PDT by Jotmo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kingasaurus
"The bottom line is the Scouts are a private organization for religious people only. They are not a church, but they are a religious organization. Any private club that restricts membership based on religion has to qualify as that.:
Well, membership is not based on religion. You are required to believe in God, which excludes only a tiny group of people that feel they have to declare they are atheists. By your standard absolutely any group could be excluded from federal land use. The prohibition of which is not against people that believe in God but Organized, expressly specified religious based groups. This is a stretch of the definition that seems to me based in animosity to the beliefs of a particular group, which they have every legitimate right to define their membership.
18 posted on 08/07/2003 4:45:58 AM PDT by Evil Inc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Kingasaurus
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,…”
Declaration of Independence, 1776


I suppose you think the Declaration of Independence is a religious document? It dose mention the “Creator”. The people who signed it certainly all believed in the “Creator”.

Indeed the very concept of "Rights" as enumerated in the Constitution depends on the existence of God. How can ones rights be granted to them by something that does not exist? Without God, there can be no “unalienable rights”.

This concept is so simple it shocks me that people go around screaming about constitutional rights (Many of which aren’t even in the Constitution) yet claim there is no God. If you don’t believe in God, you CAN’T believe that the Declaration/Constitution are legitimate documents since the entire premise on which they’re based is flawed.

Looks like we need to cut of funding to the federal government since you MUST believe in a “Creator” to accept the validity of its FOUNDING DOCUMENTS!!!

Sounds like you need to reassess you position.
19 posted on 08/07/2003 8:31:14 AM PDT by Jotmo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: All
Wow. Looks like I got the last word for once.
20 posted on 08/08/2003 1:06:12 PM PDT by Jotmo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson