01/20/2004: 
Criminally Absurd
Boy Scouts under siege
from Manchester Union Leader
THE CITY of San Diego recently announced a whopping gift of taxpayer dollars to the American Civil Liberties Union. With budgets tight up and down California, San Diego citizens might have been surprised to learn there was so much extra cash lying around city hall. The payoff is part of the city council's shameful cave-in to the ACLU's lawsuit that aims to kick the Boy Scouts off of public parkland in San Diego.
As part of a nationwide anti-Boy Scout crusade by activists who can't stomach Scouting's traditional values, the ACLU filed suit in 2000 to end the Scouts' $1 per year lease of 18 acres at San Diego's beautiful Balboa Park. The lawsuit charged that the Scouts are a religious group, and "discriminatory" to boot, so San Diego shouldn't be giving them no-bid access to public property.
San Diego stood with the Scouts for the past three years, but then the city council buckled and bought its way out of the case. The city handed the ACLU $950,000 for "attorneys fees" and "court costs." So now the Scouts must go forward alone to defend the legality of their lease.
They're seeking reversal of a clunker of a ruling last summer by San Diego federal judge Napoleon Jones. He declared that the lease violates separation of church and state. Say what? Scouting isn't a church, temple or synagogue. It doesn't have a theology, just a broad acknowledgment of a common-denominator deity.
This one hits close to home for some of us here in the athenaeum. It is hard to go to meetings and trips when you know that Scouting has spent millions of dollars to defend their right not to admit atheists and homosexuals. See more for the whole text.
More
Commentary:Boy Scouts under siege
in culture wars
By HAROLD JOHNSON
Guest Commentary
THE CITY of San Diego recently announced a whopping gift of taxpayer dollars to the American Civil Liberties Union. With budgets tight up and down California, San Diego citizens might have been surprised to learn there was so much extra cash lying around city hall. The payoff is part of the city council's shameful cave-in to the ACLU's lawsuit that aims to kick the Boy Scouts off of public parkland in San Diego.
As part of a nationwide anti-Boy Scout crusade by activists who can't stomach Scouting's traditional values, the ACLU filed suit in 2000 to end the Scouts' $1 per year lease of 18 acres at San Diego's beautiful Balboa Park. The lawsuit charged that the Scouts are a religious group, and "discriminatory" to boot, so San Diego shouldn't be giving them no-bid access to public property.
San Diego stood with the Scouts for the past three years, but then the city council buckled and bought its way out of the case. The city handed the ACLU $950,000 for "attorneys fees" and "court costs." So now the Scouts must go forward alone to defend the legality of their lease.
They're seeking reversal of a clunker of a ruling last summer by San Diego federal judge Napoleon Jones. He declared that the lease violates separation of church and state. Say what? Scouting isn't a church, temple or synagogue. It doesn't have a theology, just a broad acknowledgment of a common-denominator deity.
But even if you accept the court's curious claim that the Scouts are a religion, San Diego hasn't been unconstitutionally "endorsing" religion by leasing land to them. Not when the city also has similar leases with scores of other nonprofits. Some of these groups are religious, but many more are indisputably secular; they range from the Girl Scouts to a Jewish community center; from the Boys and Girls clubs to the YMCA.
Taken as a whole, the city's constellation of leases "endorses" pluralism and diversity, not religion.
By waving a white flag to the ACLU, the city is deserting more than just the Boy Scouts as an organization. It's copping out on the kids they serve. Generations of boys have enjoyed friendship and outdoor activities at the 18-acre Camp Balboa. The Scouts have been at the site since just after World War II; they've invested millions of dollars in building camp facilities and keeping the grounds in shape. They pay taxes on the property, cover insurance costs and make the camp available to the public.
There's a larger context to the San Diego skirmish. It's part of a broad-front war being waged by cultural imperialists of the left to punish the Scouts for their principles. In the 2000 case of Boy Scouts v. Dale, the U.S. Supreme Court said government can't order the Scouts to abandon their convictions, such as their belief that being "morally straight" means foreswearing sex outside of marriage, including homosexual activity. So the anti-Scout activists and bureaucrats have adopted an indirect approach: They're trying to arm-twist the Scouts by penalizing them (with loss of park leases, for instance) if they don't fall in line.
The general approach can also be seen in San Francisco, where local judges are barred from participating in Scouting. In Connecticut, the Scouts have been dropped from the list of charities that state employees can support through payroll deduction (the Scouts recently petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to take up this case). In Berkeley, California, the city bars the Sea Scouts (a Boy Scouts affiliate) from the free use of the Berkeley marina that other nonprofits enjoy (the California Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to this policy).
By fighting back, the Scouts are battling for more than their own rights. At issue is the freedom of all private organizations, all across the philosophical spectrum, to follow their own beliefs without facing discrimination, censorship or punishment by the state (or the ACLU).
What a dishonorable day it was when San Diego officials decided to cut and run from that fight - and to lavish taxpayers' hard-earned money on the opposition.
Harold Johnson (hej@pacificlegal.org) is an attorney for Pacific Legal Foundation, a California-based public interest legal organization that litigates for individual rights and limited government. He has participated in the Scouts' case.
3 Annotations Submitted
Tuesday the 20th of January, awiggins noted:
Scouts are a religious group? WTF?
Tuesday the 20th of January, rafuzo noted:
"By fighting back, the Scouts are battling for more than their own rights. At issue is the freedom of all private organizations, all across the philosophical spectrum, to follow their own beliefs without facing discrimination, censorship or punishment by the state (or the ACLU)."
This is the unfortunate result of people using the "separation of church and state" clause too zealously. Speaking as an atheist and someone none too fond of religious rhetoric (and as a civil libertarian defending a private organization's right to organize itself however it pleases), I think it's downright retarded how the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" can have teased out of it the legal result that an organization that adheres to the belief in god should be banned from ever assembling peaceably (did we forget this part too?) on public land.
Wednesday the 21st of January, santo26 noted:
in many ways, the supreme court decision on this issue was a mixed blessing. the scouts got to uphold their right, as a private organization, to admit who they want. the downside is that, as we have seen for ourselves, anyone who considers themselves even slightly to the left of center does not want anything to do with scouting. as a result, a whole generation of kids are being bred as veal and have no way to learn outdoor survival skills.
someone had to do uphold the right to free association in court, though. can i try and join the lesbian avengers or the nation of islam and sue if they reject me? people would say shut up and stop making trouble. if the gay and atheist communities were willing to put their money where their mouth is and start the co-ed atheist and gay- friendly scouts of the north american landmass i would be less peeved, but i don't see them doing anything to help young at- risk youth unlike the bsa.
funny how the same people who are whining about the erosion of civil liberties under asskkkross and the USAPATRIOT act are fully in support of the erosion of other constitutional rights they find noxious.
