on 8/9/05 7:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I really feel icky responding to this. Like I've been dragged in the mud. But > this is really sad. > > I think this is a red herring, and perhaps even a bit of a canard. > > I was there. Patrick Scully only asked about an abortion rights rally. He > never mentioned any sort of GLBT event or concerns. > > Brother Michael in turn asked him how often there are pro-choice rallys on > athletic fields. > > Nikki Carlson, Linden Hills > Pro-choice, DeLaSalle parent, and GLBT parent
In order to address your post, Nikki, I think we need to work on our basic definitions. A CANARD is an unfounded or false, deliberately misleading story. Some examples would be: 1 - the false assertion that Island residents do not pay property tax. (The only "resident" on Nicollet Island not paying property tax is DeLaSalle High School with property currently valued at over $11 million. DeLaSalle is tax exempt as a religious institution.) * 2 - the false assertion that Island residents "have a little gated community." (Nicollet Island is regional parkland to which the public has unlimited access. The public uses the park in great numbers. And, unlike some parks, there are no closing hours.) * 3 - the deliberately misleading statement that Island residents live on public property (Roughly half of the Island residents live on land that they privately own with the same rights and obligations as any other private property owner. The other half live in houses they own on land leased from the Park Board. As noted above, whether they own or lease the land, they ALL pay property taxes.) * A RED HERRING is a diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue. The example which you label a red herring in reality sails right to the heart of the reason this project calls for separation of church and state. With an agreement between public and parochial entities, difficulty can arise when guarantees of basic rights afforded to the public by law conflict with church doctrine. The need to separate public entities from the possibility of any such conflict is one basis for the separation of church and state. Your signature seems to indicate that you part ways with the Catholic Church on many issues. That you have been able to reconcile those differences as a DeLaSalle parent does not negate the possibilities of conflicts within the DeLaSalle/Park Board shared use agreement. The controversy that arose in the last election over denial of sacraments to political candidates in conflict with Catholic teachings was one indication of the troubles that can surface due to those differences of public policy and church doctrine. It's not anti-Catholicism to recognize that many of the Church's policies conflict with many public laws. This may also be the case with other religions, but with DeLaSalle, we are addressing the known conflicts with the teachings of the Catholic Church. DeLaSalle is owned by the Diocese of St. Paul, and, as such, is subject to the laws and rulings of that church. To acknowlege this and the potential for conflict is dealing with reality, not being anti-Catholic. The existence of the conflict sets up many possible scenereos where shared use would call those conflicts into play. The hypotheticals that Mr. Scully broached should have been addressed directly, not deflected with questions that are not really pertinent to the core issue raised. No matter what the facts of the specific encounter between Mr. Scully and Brother Collins, Nikki, the fact remains that the reciprical use agreement leads a public body into an association with a religious body whose teachings are in conflict with established public law. Cries of "anti-Catholicism," racism, elitism, selfishness, do not change that one iota. A red flag indicator for trouble ahead is the fact that the reciprocal agreement contains absolutely NO clauses to protect against discrimination and no guarantees of equal rights. Please note, a red flag is decidedly different from a red herring. The first is one to which you direct your attention; the red herring is the one you need to brush aside as a distraction from the real issue. Someone's recent post said that the Island resident's arguments against DeLaSalle's expansion keep shifting. I'd suggest that the attacks against the Island resident's personal character, and the canards like those identified above, have often kept them on the defensive, as was certainly the intent. They spent time trying to correct false and misleading personal information, which overshadowed their attempts to address the problems with the project itself. That means, in their case, the canards functioned also as red herrings that served to distract the public from the central issues of DeLaSalle's expansion plans. None of this negates the fact that one of the very troubling aspects of this particular public/private associations is the intermingling of a religious entity with a public entity. Church/state separation is one thing that sets it miles apart from the collaborative efforts of the Walker/Park Board at the Sculpture Garden -- that and the fact that the public doesn't have to stand in line to wait until the Walker members are through with the Sculpture Garden before they're allowed in to use it. The latter is the case with the public sharing use of facilities with DeLaSalle. Commissioner Fine, who used the Walker as an example of a successful precedent for public/private collaboration, should factor in these differences before setting it out as a shining example. I choose not to explore the reasons for your "icky" feelings. Again I ask you to address the issues and the facts, not your reactions or any of the canards and red herrings that have disgraced this inappropriate process from its beginning. Christine Viken *** The source of the above canards was Nick Coleman's Mar. 20, 2005, column in the Star Tribune, which went on to offer a platform for John Derus and Park Board President Jon Olson to significantly misrepresent and mischaracterize the Nicollet Island residents, their situation, and their arguments against the establishment of the DeLaSalle Stadium. Mr. Coleman went on to utilize the same tactics on his radio broadcast, leaving a lot of the public with very erroneous ideas of the real issues in the DeLaSalle Stadium controversy. > > > "Phyllis Kahn wrote: Let me add a few comments on the separation of Church > and State issue. This is from a conversation that Patrick Scully (An Island > resident and the force behind Patrick's Cabaret) had with Brother Michael > Collins (principal of DeLaSalle). Remember this is supposed to be a public > space, under the ultimate control of a public entity as MN state bonding $$ > were used to purchase the park land involved. Patrick asked what would happen > if a group wanted to use this space for an Abortion Rights or a GLBT event. > Brother Michael said that permission would have to come from the Archdiocese. > It is true he was just answering off the top of his head, but it doesn't sound > like appropriate park board policy to me." > REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
