Okay…
Like I said at the beginning…
I’m glad for the “checks and balances” in this Country…including the ACLU…
But does anyone have any theory on the almost “obsession” with the BSA?
(It borders on “underlying agenda” sort of stuff…)
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
But does anyone have any theory on the almost “obsession” with the BSA?
Mufasa[/quote]
It seems pretty clear, even from the discussion given above, that a clear and visible link between religion and government pops up when the BSA deals with government agencies… ?
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Oaky…
Like I said at the beginning…
I’m glad for the “checks and balances” in this Country…including the ACLU…
But does anyone have any theory on the almost “obsession” with the BSA?
(It borders on “underlying agenda” sort of stuff…)
Mufasa[/quote]
Basically, government taxes the people and then hands out these funds through various projects. Additionally, it holds land that it may lease. Think of these as cookies. So, even though the BSA’s right to associate is guaranteed constitutionally, the ACLU attempts to use the Courts to take these cookies out of the hands of the BSA.
Why? For the simple fact that within it’s own organization the BSA practices a set of generalized religious beliefs.
Now, why the hell that should matter when the Boy Scouts aren’t using said land and funds to endorse religion? I have no clue. Take Balboa park. Even though they maintained it, everyone used it. There’s a annual Gay/transgender rally held there.
If the funds and land aren’t being used to advance religious beliefs, then it’s clearly discriminatory against the BSA.
So, if one gets with Government approved thinking, you get a cookie. At least, that’s what the ACLU is hoping the courts do.
Honestly, government shouldn’t have funds to hand out as rewards for “proper thinking” in the first place.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Why? For the simple fact that within it’s own organization the BSA practices a set of generalized religious beliefs.
Now, why the hell that should matter when the Boy Scouts aren’t using said land and funds to endorse religion? I have no clue. Take Balboa park. Even though they maintained it, everyone used it. There’s a annual Gay/transgender rally held there.
If the funds and land aren’t being used to advance religious beliefs, then it’s clearly discriminatory against the BSA.
[/quote]
I’m not sure that “how” it was administered by the BSA is the issue as much as the fact that it is or was being administered in some capacity by them.
Legally, having “control” is an important issue, not just how that control is then executed.
I don’t think you should be so quick to assume the issue is simply a politically spun “right thinking” type of thing.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Why? For the simple fact that within it’s own organization the BSA practices a set of generalized religious beliefs.
Now, why the hell that should matter when the Boy Scouts aren’t using said land and funds to endorse religion? I have no clue. Take Balboa park. Even though they maintained it, everyone used it. There’s a annual Gay/transgender rally held there.
If the funds and land aren’t being used to advance religious beliefs, then it’s clearly discriminatory against the BSA.
I’m not sure that “how” it was administered by the BSA is the issue as much as the fact [b]that it is or was being administered in some capacity by them.
Legally, having “control” is an important issue, not just how that control is then executed.
I don’t think you should be so quick to assume the issue is simply a politically spun “right thinking” type of thing.[/quote][/b]
But that’s exactly what you’re saying. Just the fact that they held the lease, not how they used the lease, is an issue. That’s what you’re saying, right?
So, it doesn’t matter how they execute control of the lease, it comes down to what they believe (i.e. what they think.)
If not, what is the issue with them simply controlling it?
It can be nothing else, but their religious beliefs. So regardless of how neutral they execute control, their beliefs alone are grounds to withholding the government cookie? And, if they change their beliefs, they should be patted on the head and given their cookie? That’s what it would boil down to.
Let’s see the bigger picture here- The ACLU reliably only uses their seperation of church and state when Christianity is involved. Schools around the country are considering seperate prayer time for muslims. A prayer time for Christians is completly out of the question, and if they do grant them prayer time I bet you my a** that the ACLU will not challenge it.
The fact is whether I sound like a televangelist or not, Christianity is under attack from the far left in this country.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Sloth wrote:
There are Gays married under the umbrella of Christianity.
I’m implying that if they founded a religion then it would be very difficult for the country to try to interfere with their right to practice that religion.
After all, we have the mormons, the scientologists and so forth, which of course have to be tolerated. All they have to do is write up a new book and follow its teachings…
It would be pretty easy to load up an electronic version of the Bible and edit out all the portions that can be interpreted as saying bad things about gays and lesbians.
Publishing it on the Internet would probably allow the X% of the population that is gay to convert instantaneously simply by continuing to live as Christians… [/quote]
Well, they can. There are gay couples married in churches. And, I believe such bibles exist.
Now, if you’re talking about federal government recognizing their marriage, for the purposes of benefits, that’s another thing.
But, I don’t believe government should recognize any marriages. Not even Christian marriages.
It’s a common argument…but…
http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/
However; something seems to really rile them when it comes to the Scouts.
Mufasa
[quote]Sloth wrote:
But that’s exactly what you’re saying. Just the fact that they held the lease, not how they used the lease, is an issue. That’s what you’re saying, right?
So, it doesn’t matter how they execute control of the lease, it comes down to what they believe (i.e. what they think.)
If not, what is the issue with them simply controlling it?
[/quote]
I think you miss the issue I’m trying to highlight.
Under your reasoning, there would be no reason not to have all public lands administered by the church, as long as it, the church, was acting in a fair manner.
If there is to be a separation, then that separation is required, not just when a lack of separation presents a problem.
So, which is it?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Sloth wrote:
But that’s exactly what you’re saying. Just the fact that they held the lease, not how they used the lease, is an issue. That’s what you’re saying, right?
So, it doesn’t matter how they execute control of the lease, it comes down to what they believe (i.e. what they think.)
If not, what is the issue with them simply controlling it?
I think you miss the issue I’m trying to highlight.
Under your reasoning, there would be no reason not to have all public lands administered by the church, as long as it, the church, was acting in a fair manner.
If there is to be a separation, then that separation is required, not just when a lack of separation presents a problem.
So, which is it?[/quote]
Huh? The government can’t establish a religion. What kind of separation are you talking about? The BSA holding that lease, did nothing, zero, nothing, zilch, to establish any kind of religion. The BSA are basically punished for improper thought. Not any action they took.
Again, there wasn’t a ‘lack of separation.’ The council didn’t reward the BSA because of their religious beliefs. I point, once again, to the Boy Scout’s war efforts and upkeep as to why they were seen as such great stewards by the council.
Nor, did the council expect BSA to run the park in a religious manner. And, there’s no indication the BSA did.
Where is the lack of separation? Unless, again, it comes back down to thought. And then, of course, rewarding and punishing thought with the government cookie.
Because, on the flip side, if they got rid of their religious beliefs within their own organization, they’d then qualify for the government cookie.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
It’s a common argument…but…
http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/
However; something seems to really rile them when it comes to the Scouts.
Mufasa[/quote]
I think it’s a cultural thing. To a lot of folks – particularly in the generation older than mine – the Scouts were part of mom, apple pie and baseball as a definition of an American youth. “Scout’s honor” and all.
So, the Scouts are quite a symbolic target.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I think it’s a cultural thing. To a lot of folks – particularly in the generation older than mine – the Scouts were part of mom, apple pie and baseball as a definition of an American youth. “Scout’s honor” and all.
So, the Scouts are quite a symbolic target.[/quote]
Good point, and, not so long ago, the Scouts won a case that allowed them to exclude gay scoutleaders as part of their freedom of association - and the ACLU has never forgiven them for that trespass.
[quote]vroom wrote:
(text)[/quote]
Then in short form, answer each of these and then I can know where you are coming from:
- You say new scientific/social issues come up - what is an example? What is an example of one that requires a shift from the status quo to something else?
You have repeated this generically. I am curious as to a specific example.
- You clearly advocate use of foreign opinion in some context - now you say that you don’t want judges using foreign opinions in deciding what a law means. So when should foreign opinion be used and who should use it?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
…
The idea that the Constitution is “progressive” or an agent of change, of course, is the opposite of why you write a constitution down and call it a constitution.
…[/quote]
I think this is the key point in the side discussion.
To understand why, I think you have to examine why it is that we hold the Constitution above the regular laws passed by the Congress and signed by the President.
It’s essentially because of the supermajority approval requirements - philosophically, if the two political branches, a supermajority of the governed people along with a supermajority of the state governments (yes, federalism is important) voted to approve some law and enshrine it in the Constitution as the Supreme law of the land, then it’s not OK for a majority of the unelected branch to come in and change its essential meaning because those judges believe society has changed.
For example, the death penalty didn’t suddenly become “cruel and unusual” in the 70s, and certainly wasn’t understood as such during the 1790s. When the Warren Court made that ruling, it was essentially usurping the Constitution-writing authority of the governed people.
If society has changed so much, let them go through the amendment process again to change the Constitution. If that’s not feasible, it obviously hasn’t changed enough yet.
This is different than applying existing law to new situations - but even in exercising that authority the judges should be attempting to apply the principles of the law according to how it was understood when it was passed to the original question presented.
It won’t be a perfect process w/r/t applying existing law to questions of first impression, and judgment will enter into it, but the judges should attempt to remain faithful to the law as written, and not try to craft it to fit their own personal mores - or even those they think society does have at the moment.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I think this is the key point in the side discussion.
To understand why, I think you have to examine why it is that we hold the Constitution above the regular laws passed by the Congress and signed by the President.
It’s essentially because of the supermajority approval requirements - philosophically, if the two political branches, a supermajority of the governed people along with a supermajority of the state governments (yes, federalism is important) voted to approve some law and enshrine it in the Constitution as the Supreme law of the land, then it’s not OK for a majority of the unelected branch to come in and change its essential meaning because those judges believe society has changed.
For example, the death penalty didn’t suddenly become “cruel and unusual” in the 70s, and certainly wasn’t understood as such during the 1790s. When the Warren Court made that ruling, it was essentially usurping the Constitution-writing authority of the governed people.
If society has changed so much, let them go through the amendment process again to change the Constitution. If that’s not feasible, it obviously hasn’t changed enough yet.
This is different than applying existing law to new situations - but even in exercising that authority the judges should be attempting to apply the principles of the law according to how it was understood when it was passed to the original question presented.
It won’t be a perfect process w/r/t applying existing law to questions of first impression, and judgment will enter into it, but the judges should attempt to remain faithful to the law as written, and not try to craft it to fit their own personal mores - or even those they think society does have at the moment.[/quote]
Well stated.
thunderbolt23 and vroom…
You did realize that there is a private messaging function here, didn’t you?
Religion shouldn’t be forced on anybody. In fact, forcing Christianity on people disregards it’s own teachings.
Seperation of Church and State embodies free will and makes it a real life practice.
I think that would make baby jesus smile.