As the debate rages on with parties on both sides staking out their positions it appears to me that once again intellectual honesty and analysis is lost solely based upon the use of a metaphor in a letter written over two centuries ago.
The metaphor which has become almost zenlike and in fact constitutionally accepted by some as if it were written in the Bill of Rights is...the wall of seperation.
What confounds me about this all is how we have elevated this metaphor to it's constitutional level when the author, Thomas Jefferson wasn't even in the USA during the entire debate and ratification of the First Amendment. Thus had no direct input on it's meaning nor the actual authors intent. Jefferson's only input to the First Amendment at best would be indirect, as some of what he authored in the Virginia Declaration of Rights formed the basis of the US Bill of Rights but nowhere within the VDR did Jefferson mention a wall, line, or other barrier of seperation but did endorse the free exercise/right of individuals to choose a religion. In fact the "wall of seperation" metaphor was only used by Jefferson in a letter written 14 years after the ratification of the First Amendment to a group of his voting constiuents with Jefferson's full knowledge the letter would find it's way into to the newspapers for publication. The infamous letter can and should be viewed for what it was. A poltically motivated fluff letter of thanks and nothing more, which contained a guarantee the Federal government wouldn't establish a national religion as had been done in England.
As to the claims by some the BSA discriminates and should be denied rights to the public's lands is specious and in some ways put forth by those who are nothing short of being hypocritical.
One needs to first ask does the BSA really discriminate or does it merely ask that one leave their sexuality at the door for the sake of the children and profess a belief in a power geater that that of a mere human which could in essence be that of a tree. Again discrimination or seeking to join those in fellowship with very basic yet diverse beliefs?
I then ask those individuals to use honest self intellect to find one group that doesn't in one form or another set themselves apart by having rules, doctines, and/or theological beliefs which could disallow/deny some individuals membership yet all the while they still recieve a form of public benefit.
Would any religious group allow within it's membership an indvidual who shows utter disdain for the basic core beliefs of that particular group? On the other hand would a non religious group who also enjoys tax free status allow an individual to be a vocal member and leader when that individual shows utter contempt for the groups stated purpose?
The intellectually honest answers can only be found if one is to imagine a religous conservative group requesting permission to have a float in the annual gay pride parade. The answer as has been evidenced in the past would be a resounding NO, yet the parade takes place on publicly built/maintained streets, denying some the right of passage, with additional public assets used to guarantee safety and compliance with much of the costs absorbed by the general public. I'm also positive the organizers in no way directly provide millions of dollars in improvements to the public streets or buildings. Tax income may be generated but flows into a general fund which lacks specificity in purpose for roads etc. To take this a step further imagine an anti-semite asking to be a member of a synagogue or anti-catholic to become a parish priest. The ultimate hypocrisy however lies within the ACLU itself, the purported defender of the Bill of Rights and most notably the First amendment. Historically speaking it has denied the guaranteed First Amendment right of speech to some with whom their leadership disagrees thus also discriminated against based upon belief. Proof of this was never more evident than when the Hawaiian Chapter of the ACLU denied Clarence Thomas the right to speak at the 2003 Davis Levin First Amendment Conference and discriminated against him based solely on the conflict of the leaderships beliefs v. Justice Thomas' beliefs. Think about the irony of a First Amendment forum denying a Supreme Court Justice the right to speak. My point in either the illustrations or examples is every religious and social group all of whom are either directly subsidized by government, use the public assets at reduced costs or indirectly subsidized through tax exempt status in one form or another are selective in their membership, ergo, practice some form of discrimination.
To take even further the courts have recently ruled discrimination in some instances is acceptable within a society if the greater good of a society is served, for example through affirmative action set asides in business and college admissions. Are these court sanctified actions walls, vague lines of acceptance or simple hypocrisy to suit political/social beliefs? I then ask, is the greater good of society not served by allowing the BSA use of public lands when factually speaking an extremely small number of people may, by their choice, be prevented from joining the BSA when an entire class of caucasians or asians are denied equal access to publicly funded institutions based not on a choice but an accident of birth?
Having said all of this for all I leave you with several quotes to ponder and a summation:
On the "Wall of Seperation":
Justice Thurgood Marshall: "the metaphor of a "wall" or impassable barrier between church and state(as offered by Justice Hugo Black), taken too literally, may mislead constitutional analysis.
Justice Warren Burger: "Judicial caveats against entanglement must recognize that the line of seperation, far from being a "wall", is blurred, indistinct and variable barrier depending on ALL the circumstances of a particular relationship."
**Here it would be important to note Justice's Burger's reference to a "line" is that which was presented, unlike Jeferson, by an actual attendee to the debate on and ratificaion of the First Amendment, President James Madison.
As to Metaphors in Law:
Justice Felix Franfurter: "A phrase begins life as a literary expression: it's felicity leads to it's lazy repetition: and repetition soon establishes it as a legal formula, undiscriminately used to express different and sometimes contradictary ideas"
Lastly though the following quote was written on the grievances of Black Americans, it's applicability to any group with an agenda gay, straight, athiest, religious, etc., is undeniable:
Booker T. Washington 1911: "Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs. There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well." --
This all leads me to ask. Are some really concerned about rights of others or simply seeking noteriety? Does the athiest who denies belief in a greater power than man, or the individual whose inability to show personal restraint from professing his sexuality, either of whom really want to be scout leaders or are they simply seeking a brand of perceived justice through petty grievance?
Mr. Washington has it right on one hand and those who believe the repetitive useage of a political metaphor as constitutional fact have it wrong. The First Amendment's intent and purpose dealt with "establishment of religion" not total disengagement from religion. Further also consider when anyone utilizes a right in return intellectual honesty shows someone directly or indirectly losses an equal right.
Face it, an all perfect utopian society will never exist except on paper and petty grievances sadly will.
I'm an Eagle scout.
Still ranks in my top 5 greatest moments (baptism, father(& single parent), college grad, vet, Eagle scout).
A private org can impose these requirements, tho the loony left would strip the constitutional right to private association...well, 'cept 4 NARAL, NOW, NAACP, moveon, etc.
Just the latest in the liberal's ridiculous and never ending attacks on America's traditions and morals.
Liberals claim they support and fight for religious freedom. That is absolutely false.
Liberals want to destroy any one, any organization, and anything which does not condone and support their liberal agenda, views, philosophy, lifestyle, and morals.
And no, liberals, I'm not saying you aren't free to live your own lifestyle and morals (whatever they may be), but stop trying to justify your views by forcing your lifestyle and values on the rest of America!!!
Americans have had religious freedom since our Constitution was signed. People have been free to worship as they please. How many people have been forced to believe in God? How many people have been forced to join a church? How many people have been forced to worship, pray, or believe in God? ...None! If that were not so, why would we have so many liberal atheists with the numbers growing daily. Their desire is not for religious freedom, but for more people to support the liberal's chosen lifestyle. Wake up America!
I have stopped making contributions to any organization that does not support the Boy Scouts like some chapters of the United Way... because the Boy Scouts do not condone or support the liberal homosexual's and atheist's lifestyle. Google the Internet to see which ones they are.
If the Boy Scouts are willing to stand up for their values and not allow their morals to be "bought" by those who have given them contributions in the past, then Americans can make an extra effort to help the Boy Scouts make up for the loss of funds from liberal organizations. I do not believe most Americans are even aware of what's happening.
If I were the Boy Scouts, I would mount a national campaign to educate the American public and ask them to withdraw their funding from these organizations on a national level. If their local chapters can't support the Boy Scouts, perhaps the national level organization would drop them from their rolls if they started to suffer in reduced contributions. Money talks!. Stop the inflow of money at a nationwide level, and something would be done to the local chapters who don't support the Boy Scouts.
I would encourage Americans who support the Boy Scouts to make extra contributions to the Boy Scouts and withdraw them from any organizations which openly do not support the Boy Scouts. Further, they should encourage their friends and relatives to do the same.
Hopefully the majority of Americans will finally get fed up with the liberal agenda for America, their lifestyle, their views and their values and do something to stop it while we still can.
Yes... I have had it with the liberal agenda!
AAR
God and country, as long as the organization is private and gets no tax money. Who's God: Christian God, Muslim God, Jewish God? And if it's the one God, then you must junk the military element of the Boy Scout organization. Peace
I will never accept that there is a wall of separation between church and State - Then why did the founders of this country explicitly put a wall between church and state? In my opinion, not for fear of decent Christians, but because a political figure might misuse the word of God for their own selfish goals...be careful what you wish for
Hi Mark,
While I respect your opinion and agree with you on several points, I have to politely "agree to disagree" with you on one.
While I'm all for the Boy Scouts of America running their organization the way they want and see fit, I'm *not* for the amount of Federal dollars they receive. The fiscal conservative in me wants to trim ALL pork from the budget and, well...to me...that's some definite pork. Seven MILLION dollars (in money AND resources) and rent-free use of the land for the National Jamboree---and that's just the ONE venue. They use government property all over the country either rent-free or for $1. That side of me also says if the Boy Scouts can spend $17 million in the area during their Jamboree, then why can't they foot the $7 million to put the thing on to begin with.
I'm honestly not on a vendetta against the BSA. Like many, I'm also a former Scout and I thoroughly enjoyed my time in my troop while I was growing up. I learned a lot of good things from Scouting, many of which I've taken into being an adult.
I honestly just don't like how many tax dollars they get every year. Sorry...
Regards,
William
As the debate rages on with parties on both sides staking out their positions it appears to me that once again intellectual honesty and analysis is lost solely based upon the use of a metaphor in a letter written over two centuries ago.
The metaphor which has become almost zenlike and in fact constitutionally accepted by some as if it were written in the Bill of Rights is...the wall of seperation.
What confounds me about this all is how we have elevated this metaphor to it's constitutional level when the author, Thomas Jefferson wasn't even in the USA during the entire debate and ratification of the First Amendment. Thus had no direct input on it's meaning nor the actual authors intent. Jefferson's only input to the First Amendment at best would be indirect, as some of what he authored in the Virginia Declaration of Rights formed the basis of the US Bill of Rights but nowhere within the VDR did Jefferson mention a wall, line, or other barrier of seperation but did endorse the free exercise/right of individuals to choose a religion. In fact the "wall of seperation" metaphor was only used by Jefferson in a letter written 14 years after the ratification of the First Amendment to a group of his voting constiuents with Jefferson's full knowledge the letter would find it's way into to the newspapers for publication. The infamous letter can and should be viewed for what it was. A poltically motivated fluff letter of thanks and nothing more, which contained a guarantee the Federal government wouldn't establish a national religion as had been done in England.
As to the claims by some the BSA discriminates and should be denied rights to the public's lands is specious and in some ways put forth by those who are nothing short of being hypocritical.
One needs to first ask does the BSA really discriminate or does it merely ask that one leave their sexuality at the door for the sake of the children and profess a belief in a power geater that that of a mere human which could in essence be that of a tree. Again discrimination or seeking to join those in fellowship with very basic yet diverse beliefs?
I then ask those individuals to use honest self intellect to find one group that doesn't in one form or another set themselves apart by having rules, doctines, and/or theological beliefs which could disallow/deny some individuals membership yet all the while they still recieve a form of public benefit.
Would any religious group allow within it's membership an indvidual who shows utter disdain for the basic core beliefs of that particular group? On the other hand would a non religious group who also enjoys tax free status allow an individual to be a vocal member and leader when that individual shows utter contempt for the groups stated purpose?
The intellectually honest answers can only be found if one is to imagine a religous conservative group requesting permission to have a float in the annual gay pride parade. The answer as has been evidenced in the past would be a resounding NO, yet the parade takes place on publicly built/maintained streets, denying some the right of passage, with additional public assets used to guarantee safety and compliance with much of the costs absorbed by the general public. I'm also positive the organizers in no way directly provide millions of dollars in improvements to the public streets or buildings. Tax income may be generated but flows into a general fund which lacks specificity in purpose for roads etc. To take this a step further imagine an anti-semite asking to be a member of a synagogue or anti-catholic to become a parish priest. The ultimate hypocrisy however lies within the ACLU itself, the purported defender of the Bill of Rights and most notably the First amendment. Historically speaking it has denied the guaranteed First Amendment right of speech to some with whom their leadership disagrees thus also discriminated against based upon belief. Proof of this was never more evident than when the Hawaiian Chapter of the ACLU denied Clarence Thomas the right to speak at the 2003 Davis Levin First Amendment Conference and discriminated against him based solely on the conflict of the leaderships beliefs v. Justice Thomas' beliefs. Think about the irony of a First Amendment forum denying a Supreme Court Justice the right to speak. My point in either the illustrations or examples is every religious and social group all of whom are either directly subsidized by government, use the public assets at reduced costs or indirectly subsidized through tax exempt status in one form or another are selective in their membership, ergo, practice some form of discrimination.
To take even further the courts have recently ruled discrimination in some instances is acceptable within a society if the greater good of a society is served, for example through affirmative action set asides in business and college admissions. Are these court sanctified actions walls, vague lines of acceptance or simple hypocrisy to suit political/social beliefs? I then ask, is the greater good of society not served by allowing the BSA use of public lands when factually speaking an extremely small number of people may, by their choice, be prevented from joining the BSA when an entire class of caucasians or asians are denied equal access to publicly funded institutions based not on a choice but an accident of birth?
Having said all of this for all I leave you with several quotes to ponder and a summation:
On the "Wall of Seperation":
Justice Thurgood Marshall: "the metaphor of a "wall" or impassable barrier between church and state(as offered by Justice Hugo Black), taken too literally, may mislead constitutional analysis.
Justice Warren Burger: "Judicial caveats against entanglement must recognize that the line of seperation, far from being a "wall", is blurred, indistinct and variable barrier depending on ALL the circumstances of a particular relationship."
**Here it would be important to note Justice's Burger's reference to a "line" is that which was presented, unlike Jeferson, by an actual attendee to the debate on and ratificaion of the First Amendment, President James Madison.
As to Metaphors in Law:
Justice Felix Franfurter: "A phrase begins life as a literary expression: it's felicity leads to it's lazy repetition: and repetition soon establishes it as a legal formula, undiscriminately used to express different and sometimes contradictary ideas"
Lastly though the following quote was written on the grievances of Black Americans, it's applicability to any group with an agenda gay, straight, athiest, religious, etc., is undeniable:
Booker T. Washington 1911: "Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs. There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well." --
This all leads me to ask. Are some really concerned about rights of others or simply seeking noteriety? Does the athiest who denies belief in a greater power than man, or the individual whose inability to show personal restraint from professing his sexuality, either of whom really want to be scout leaders or are they simply seeking a brand of perceived justice through petty grievance?
Mr. Washington has it right on one hand and those who believe the repetitive useage of a political metaphor as constitutional fact have it wrong. The First Amendment's intent and purpose dealt with "establishment of religion" not total disengagement from religion. Further also consider when anyone utilizes a right in return intellectual honesty shows someone directly or indirectly losses an equal right.
Face it, an all perfect utopian society will never exist except on paper and petty grievances sadly will.
aric...
the founding fathers never erected a wall of seperation as I've pointed out in the above. It took on a life of it's own in 1948 in a USSC ruling wherein a former klansman who sat on the USSC used the metaphor in a ruling against the church.
In fact if you'd take the time to read Madison's writings you'd find he spoke of a line-no wall and Madison is considered the father of the constitution.
You see, the Scouts have this strange, inexplicable idea that a homosexual man might not be the best person to be in charge of a group of boys out in the woods.
Nice implication that a gay man out in the woods with Boy Scouts will rape or otherwise sexually assault his underlings. No, not homophobic in the slightest--it can't be, because you actually know some gay people, therefore you can't be homophobic!
William Smith says: "While I'm all for the Boy Scouts of America running their organization the way they want and see fit, I'm *not* for the amount of Federal dollars they receive."
Honestly William, I agree with your premise in a vaccuum re: tax dollars, but if we are going to start trimming the fat, aren't there better places to start? The state of Wisconsin recently recevied a $1 million federal grant to study the uses of wood. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty clear on the uses of wood. I'd be happy to write a report, keep 10% of the grant and refund the rest to the taxpayers.
Cutting back on federal, state, county and municipal material and hard-dollar assistance for the BSA in the name of fiscal conservatism is not the place to start. This is akin to going to the emergency room because you are bleeding from both eyes, and taking care of the hangnail you have on your left pinkie toe before even throwing some gauze over the blood spouting from your eyes.
Mark's point is that these attacks on the BSA have nothing to do with budget concerns and everything to do with the constant, multifront, multi-faceted, ubiquitous culture war being waged by the left against the majority of Americans. I say "majority of Americans" not because i am conservative and overestimate the numbers of those who agree with me. It is simple logic. The extreme left ... the Michael Moores and George Soros of the world ... make up a small percentage of the population. By definition, extremists are always smaller groups. Thus everyone to the reight of them ... from moderately liberal to David Duke ... are the targets of their culture war.
I agree with Mark that we need to stop it and beat it back wherever we see it ... the barbarian is not just at the gate, he has entered the city.
One of his best weapons in this particular battle is the "Constitutional separation of church and state." This concept shares something with the easter Bunny and Santa Clause ... none of them exist. The constuitution merely aserts in the establishment clause that there will be no state-mandated religion ... they wanted to prevent something like "the Church of England" popping up here.
But this ultra-liberal canard re: "the constitutional separation of church and state" gets repeated over and over. Teachers say it, reporters write this very sentence clause in every article on the topic. Their editors never blink. Clearly none of them has ever read the constitution, becuse there is no reference in the document that evene remotely resembles this concept. Just like Jimmy Stewart didn't really shoot Liberty Valance, our founders never intended this crap. But if you make up a story and repoeat it enough, more folks will start to repeat it. And when it eventually becomes perceived as fact, it becomes a great building block for fallacious argument.
I get sick and tired of people making sweeping generalizations about entire groups of individuals that happen to have a contrasting point of view.
The idea that the Boy Scouts not allowing gay men to become scoutmasters simply because they feel that they would not be a suitable roll model is such a travesty.
I was an Eagle Scout and I am now a father and a grand father. I am also a conservative republican and I am also gay.
It infuriates me when someone tells me that, because I am gay, I am unsuitable to be a parent or youth leader. The very idea that being gay equates with being a child molester is simply asinine. It is just a testament to the closed minded, bigoted people that live in this country.
If anyone did the research, including you, they would find that 90% of all same sex molestations are perpetrated by heterosexual men. And that since instituting the “No Homosexual leader” policy, the incidents of molestations have not decline and in fact risen. So please, stop with the bigoted opinions and lets simply discus the facts.
I applaud organizations such as the United Way that have taken a stand against stupid policies such as the one the Boy Scouts have instituted. It is about time the government did the same.
DFLAN -
I agree with you...there are plenty of places that we could trim back on spending. I'm not saying that we should start with the BSA. I'm saying that it's just one more thing to add to the list, that's all.
Again, I don't have a problem with the BSA at all, nor am I throwing the yellow flag on the separation doctrine.
I'm just not a big fan of private groups that get significant Federal funding via my tax dollars, that's all.
Take care,
William
aric,
Go back and read your American history, the history of this nation -- the real history, the kind you won't likely get in today's schools, colleges, universities, and other institutions of liberal indoctrination. Don't pick some books that have been sanitized and made "politically correct" to suit the liberal version of history that has been rewritten to suit their goals, objectives, and agenda for America. If you can still find one, talk to a teacher or professor who knows real American history and not the liberal skewed version. There are still some around, but you may have to look hard, probably in a "red" state!
The founders of this nation and those who wrote the Constitution did not mean or intend freedom FROM religion, they meant freedom OF religion. That is, you cannot be forced to become Methodist, Baptist, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, or any other religion. You are even free to be an agnostic or atheist if that is your choice without being forced to believe in any god, or chose whichever and whatever god suits your purpose and lifestyle.
The founders of this nation did not intend freedom of religion to mean there could be no public prayer, no public mention of God, no reference to religion in public buildings or ceremonies, etc. They would have been appalled to see the Ten Commandments -- the very basis of our many of our laws -- being removed from our parks, buildings, and other public areas because it offends atheists who are more than welcome to practice atheism if they chose. Freedom of religion means you don't have to believe or even read the Ten Commandments. Freedom of religion does not mean the Ten Commandment must be hidden from your view in order that you might not accidentally see them. Our founders would be appalled to think that "under God" was to be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, because a father or someone else didn't want to even hear the mention of "God", even though those persons don't have to believe in any god if that's their choice!
Have you seen anyone forced to believe in God? Have you seen any atheist forced to believe in God? Have you seen anyone force to say a public prayer? Have you seen anyone forced to join a church? NO!
Read and understand real American history... NOT the liberal version taught in today's schools!
steve,
Any God or god you choose... or no god at all!
In the meantime, I believe the BSA should start a campaign to encourage their relatives and friends to stop giving to any organization that refuses to support them over an organization that supports homosexuals or atheists. They can start the campaign by word of mouth and encourage their relative and friends to ask their relatives and friends to do the same.
You might want to check and see where your money is actually going when you give to organizations like the United Way, the Combined Federal Campaign, and others. You might be surprised or even shocked to find out where some of your money is being spent and some the organizations it supports. You may want to contribute directly to the organizations you would like your money to support.
Cut the money to these organizations and they may see the light and reconsider their position. If not, at least you aren't providing support for organizations that do not support your beliefs and values.
AAR
DJ...
If I'm not mistaken the BSA requires ONLY... that one keep their sexual orientation to one's self..
If you as an individual wish to be a Scout Master you can... and I agree with the BSA... why do the kids need to know you are gay, straight, bi or transgender for that matter.............
The answer is they don't, they are kids...
Now what's so damn difficult about that...
ps... as an employer I feel the same way.. I don't need to know nor do I want to know.. about one's orientation, their activities etc.. because that's a PRIVATE issue..........
Mark, I was a Boy Scout who reached the rank of Life Scout and would have made Eagle Scout if my troop had not disbanded. It was one of my best memories of childhood. I loved the Scouts and I have ALWAYS lived by and large by most of the doctrines listed in the Scout rule.
However, not letting a gay person be a Scoutmaster is nothing but homophobia. This asinine notion that homosexuals are also child predators is ridiculuos. I'm sorry, but it has been PROVEN that Catholic priests cause more damage than gay Scoutmasters.
Gay people ARE NOT PEDOPHILES!!!!!!!
To say so is ridiculuos, and to assume that Scouts will be molested by the Scoutmasters is ridiculous!!!
If a man, ANY man, gay or straight, has been convicted of child abuse of any form, then they should not be allowed to be a Scoutmaster.
If Conservatives spent more time looking at ALL who break the law, and not their own ridiculuos religious predispositions of right and wrong, then maybe we would have a world where ALL bad people get punished. Just because someone is gay DOES NOT, let me repeat - DOES NOT, DOES NOT, DOES NOT, make them a child molestor. There are many more child molestors who are straight!
If you don't believe this, then ask at least two girls I have met who have been raped by their STRAIGHT fathers who were PREACHERS!
Conservatives need to cast aside their bigotry and look at the WHOLE picture, instead of judging others. The Boy Scouts stand for TRUTH and HONESTY, not twisting things for political power. Get with the program, people!
Just a short note. I couldn't find the link for everyone but I did see an article the other day saying the ACLU is allowing a muslim camp complete with mosk on federal land in California I beleive. (Not sure on the spelling of mosk)
I am an Eagle Scout and abhor the ACLU's inane and insane opposition of the BSA. Also the BSA is a private organization and its rules are its own and are publicly known. If someone doesn't like it, then better to move on rather than try to destroy it as the ACLU and other radical liberal groups have been trying to do. Calling the BSA homophobic (an ad hominem) is erroneous and merely shows how desperate opposition to the BSA actually is.
I support the BSA and its morals. Those who joined the BSA in the past hiding their lifestyles which are in opposition to the BSA's have to live with the fact that they were dishonest which is in direct opposition to the honesty the BSA calls for.
robert... you too miss the point...
A gay person can be a Scout Master... they ask only the gay, straight, transgender person keep his orientation to one's self..
I ask again..what is so difficult about that?
It has zip to do with being a homophobe......
"Gay people ARE NOT PEDOPHILES!!!!!!!"
You'd be hard pressed to prove it by the numbers. By definition any sexual activity between a male adult and a male child is homosexual, sorry. There may be sexual activity between female scoutmasters and boy scouts but on a point scale most parents rank that as far less disturbing - though disturbing it may be - than having their children anally raped so they take greater precautions against the former than the latter.
More to the point the US Supreme Court has ruled, REPEATEDLY, that the BSA's policies are CONSTITUTIONAL. There's a strong argument that discriminating against the BSA because of said policies is itself unconstitutional but that doesn't stop the ACLU from filing one frivolous lawsuit after another against them. Eventually they find some loony-tune lower court judge who'll go along with them and intimidate the losing party not to appeal to a higher court, where eventually the decision would be tossed out.
This is one of those situations where "Loser Pays" would go a long way toward stopping the nonsense. The BSA has had to spend tens of millions of dollars to assert its constitutional right of association out of its membership dues, and the ACLU gets a check from the loony left to cover its costs. They can sue the BSA into bankrupcy if they feel like it and it doesn't cost them a dime, no matter how many times they lose.
DJ
I think you make the most important point of all:
"The very idea that being gay equates with being a child molester is simply asinine. It is just a testament to the closed minded, bigoted people that live in this country."
I concur
can I ask you a question? What could possibly motivate you to remain loyal to the party that is driving the 'gays are evil' campaign? When I heard about the Log Cabin Republicans, I was fascinated with the idea that gay men support the party that publicly attacks them as substandard human beings!
They don't think you deserve to get married, have children, or work in any child related field. They don't want you to have your God-given rights, but they will take your vote.
Please don't think I am being insincere or disingenuous. and I am not trying to recruit you to the Democratic party (I am a registered Libertarian). I am just curious why people vote against their own best interest.
dav- Boy Scout, First Class, Troup 111
So I guess the "Don't ask...Don't tell policy is growing.
As long as I hide my sexual preferences, the boy scouts will allow me to be a leader. However, if someone sees me out with my partner, then I would be promply asked to resign. Where is the equality in that? Why should I have to hide anything that has no bearing on my ability to be a leader?
Dav
I consider myself to be centrist; leaning slightly left socially and very right fiscally. I look at supporting the political parties as a two edge sword and both sides cut us on a day to day basis.
I do not like the democrat’s philosophy concerning business and personal responsibility. I have to pick my poison and I will die slower drinking the republican tonic then the liberal one.
DJ,
I believe you miss the point - and likely miss it because you work from a presumption that anything which is not strictly in favor of gay rights (as defined by the gay rights movement) is automatically "homophobic":
The girl scouts also have a strange, inexeplicable prohibition against a heterosexual man taking a troop of 12 and 13 year old girls into the woods.
It is a matter of propriety - "lead us not in to temptation", and all that.
Orion,
this statement makes no sense:
you quoted Robert as having said "Gay people ARE NOT PEDOPHILES!!!!!!!" and added. . .
"You'd be hard pressed to prove it by the numbers. By definition any sexual activity between a male adult and a male child is homosexual. sorry"
what data do you have that indicates that gay pedophilia is any more common than straight pedophilia? Would you share your data with all of us? Besides, neither of those statistics has any bearing on the percentage of gays who are pedophiles, now does it? Got any numbers that show that gays are more likely to be a pedophile, than straights?
Maybe Brian Doyle, or Frank Figueroa could post their opinion on gay vs. straight pedophilia since they've been busted for messing with little girls?
Thanks DJ
good answer. We are not so different. Sounds like you vote "against" democrats as much as "for" republicans. I have basically the same position, but in reverse, as I can't support any party with the will to push social wedge issues, as a way of wining elections.
I am a fiscal conservative, so I have been known to vote republican, but lately republicans aren't fiscal conservatives! So if they are going to spend us into the poor house, AND attack people like you for having an alternative lifestyle, I have no reason to vote republican.
thank you for a sincere answer. good luck reforming your party!
For those of you who are still think that gay=child molester, read the following article. It actually backs up its facts with references.
http://www.robincmiller.com/gayles4.htm
Dav and DJ,
You seem to miss the point when you assualt conservatives as homophobic biggots in reference to the BSA policy.
DJ, I think you are too emotionally close to this issue for logical evaluation. Perhaps by applying the same principles the ACLU asserts against the BSA to another group in different circumstances will help. To wit:
A Temple uses a nearby public park for photo-ops after Bar Mitzvahs ... just before going to the rented hall for the reception. The local chapter of the ACLU decides that it is offended by the fact that no bacon will be served at the reception, and sues the city to have the temple barred from the park (unreported by the media in all this is the fact that the ACLU chapter president owns the local swine slaughterhouse). The ACLU will be happy to withdraw the suit so long as the temple members agree to have bacon at every meal.
DJ, you mention that Christians' position on homosexuality is ridiculous ... you may be right. It may be just as ridiculous as the Orthodox Jewish idea that eating pork is a sin. I love bacon. If I end up in hell, I don't think it will be the bacon that puts me there. But neither Jews' position on pork, nor Christian's position on homosexuality is the issue here. The issue is freedom of association, and respecting others rights to choose their own standards: While I personally think the Orthodox Jewish Kosher rules are silly, I stop way short of demanding that they serve me bacon on their dairy plates at their party.
The BSA is a Christian organization. It has the right to restrict membership and participation in its own private organization based on the Christian tradition. In short, you can eat all the bacon you want ... you just can't insist that jews eat bacon, because it might make you feel bad if they don't.
Mark,
This is why I can't stand you Christian Republican nutjobs. You speak of being tolerant and practicing moral values from one side of your mouth, but speak of hating homosexuals and everyone else who doesnt agree with the Karl Rove way to practice Christianity with the other mouth. Bill Maher said it best, "If you guys are going to be paranoid all the time, why don't you just get high?"
Teenaged Liberal,
Please advise how I have shown any hatred towards homosexuals.
This is an exercise you'll need to learn if you're ever to be cured of liberalism...
DFLAN,
Ah, but they'll agree with that - they'll just say that any Christian organization has no right to be anywhere near public property...a weird, ACLU world wherein 70% of the population cannot practice their beliefs anywhere near the government their taxes support...
Teenage
It seems that YOU are the one who is hateful here.Maybe you should read that both sides are leaving some open and sharing posts and the only name calling seems to be coming from you. Showing your age? Read the posts before you write your hate scripts.
Mark,
Why should atheists be forced to support an organization through their tax dollars that won’t allow them to join? Would you want your tax dollars being used to benefit an organization that does not allow Catholics to join?
The Constitution forbids government establishment of religion and guarantees the free exercise of religion. That’s pretty much a wall between church and state. If you choose to be a servant of God and country, that is your right, but others have just as much right to not be a servant of God or country. Our citizens and soldiers are not considered servants to God or country. Our soldiers do not take an oath to defend either God or country. They take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States.
Mark said:
“Ah, but they'll agree with that - they'll just say that any Christian organization has no right to be anywhere near public property...a weird, ACLU world wherein 70% of the population cannot practice their beliefs anywhere near the government their taxes support...”
That is not true. The ACLU is not opposed to Christian organizations being near or on public property. The ACLU is only opposed to government supporting a particular religion or imposing a particular religion on others. The ACLU has defended the right of Christian organizations to use public property. Below is a case where the ACLU supported the rights of a Christian Church group to perform baptisms in a public park.
http://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/16229prs20040527.html
The ones that are most opposed to the ACLU are the ones who want the government to support their religion or help impose their religious beliefs on others. They are unwilling to accept that the Constitution does not allow this.
The ACLU is working to destroy everything that is America and that made America. We see the ACLU in action and in the news almost daily... demanding rights for terrorists, demanding rights for criminals, attacking Christian values, attacking religion, attacking the traditional American family, attacking the Boy Scouts, supporting the rights of atheists and those who want to destroy America's traditional values and beliefs, and defending or supporting almost every liberal cause around.
I can't think of anything the ACLU has done that I believe was not ultimately bad for America. I just wish we could get a good strong group of lawyers and judges to defeat the ACLU's efforts... permanently!
The ACLU's values are not my values nor those of the majority of Americans!
AAR
The girl scouts also have a strange, inexeplicable prohibition against a heterosexual man taking a troop of 12 and 13 year old girls into the woods.
So, Mark, you're saying that all heterosexual men would rape adolescent girls if given half a chance? Are you "tempted" yourself? And if not, why do you assume gay people must be?
Mark
The ananolgy of a man taking girl scouts on a camping trip doesn't work. The girls scouts allow women to take the girls into the woods. Boy scouts allow men to take the scouts. That is unless you are openly gay. Then you are discriminated against.
DFLAN:
I do not think I am to emotionally lose to this topic. I am emotionally closed to the fact that the christian right and the political right are trying to take aways any and all rights that I have as a gay man. We do not ask for special privledges. We only ask for the same benifits that everyone else gets.
I support the BSA's right to chose how they run their organization. However, they can't have it both ways. They can't solicit public funding with one breath and discriminate in the name of personal freedam in another.
Norah and DJ,
It is, once again, just a matter of propriety and not putting people into inappropriate settings...
I don't know where you get the idea of rape from, Norah...in a day when 48 year old school teachers are having consensual (although statutory rape) sex ith 13 year old boys, I think you should be able to see where I'm coming from...sending a group of boys into the woods with a gay man is a TEMPTATION that should not happen...better to just err on the side of safety for all concerned. Similarly for the prospect of a heterosexual man taking a troop of girls in the woods...