Merlyn_LeRoy

No, it's just that considering women to be actual human beings is rather modern for some people.

People disagreed what it meant back then, too.

More handwaving than a Rose Bowl parade, TheScout. All three branches of the currently-Republican heavy federal government seem to think federal programs like Medicaid are constitutional.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States I can't find any rulings saying medicare is unconstitutional.

Christianity contributed to the political, economic, and cultural accomplishments of Europe. The Asiatics then borrowed the results of this European success. It's that first sentence that's the problem. You're merely asserting its truth. I would argue that Disraeli and his counterparts brought much light to dark areas of the world. And since relative morality is wrong, it is still OK for, say, the US to decide to conquer a country and subjugate the races that live there? Or what are you saying? So are you saying that our Western Culture is not superior? I'm saying Christianity is not superior.

TheScout writes: Though states like China and Japan have not adopted Christianity, they adopted the Christian influenced Western civilization. What I said . . . But it undercuts your basic claim. If Christianity is so responsible for western civilization, how could non-Christian nations successfully adopt it? You're assuming your conclusion. I do recall what Disraeli was talking about - and then he led the British Empire to achieve its greatest days, subjugating many other races. Moral relativism is a great error. Well, that's an interesting juxtaposition - it sounds like you approve of subjugating races. After all, if that was part of the greatest days of the British Empire, and moral relativism is a great error, then what was good then (racial subjugation to expand an empire) is good now. As the current day British politician Robert Kilroy-Silk once said, "all cultures are not equal - they are not. There are some that are reprehensible are not entitled to respect and we should say so." I am unashamed to say that our culture is superior. I'm unashamed to say my morals are superior to yours

TheScout writes: Nobody can deny the predominence of Western Christian civilization in our world. Oh, I sure can. The bible supports slavery; western civilization doesn't (of course, we used to, but the bible is no reason to continue an immoral stance). The first amendment is incompatible with the first commandment. And so on. All successfull states have adopted the Western model. Look at China or Japan. But they haven't adopted Christianity, which shows that your linking of Christianity to western civilization is spurious. I could just as well say it was the overwhelming presence of right-handed people that lead to western civilization because this is a right-handed nation. I'm even in a better position to assert this, given that western-style civilization has been adopted by non-Christian nations, but I don't know of any countries which have adopted it that are made up mostly of southpaws. My right-handed argument is more consistent. Recall, Benjamin Disraeli, the 19th Century Prime Minister of the United Kingdom said, "difference implies superiority." Recall he said that about race.

People who say "this is a Christian nation" or "this is a white nation" are both trying to promote the political or societal supremacy of those groups (which, by the wildest of coincidences, are nearly always groups to which the speaker belongs). It's the same old tyranny of the majority/might-makes-right kind of statement.

TheScout writes: I would say America is a Christian nation because throughout the whole of its history the vast majority of its population have been Christian. In the same sense that America is a white nation, sure. But I highly suspect the motives of people who say either. As to consitutinal law. The Constitution as originally interpretted allowed states to maintain established religions. And disallowed the federal government to do so. I think we all know the Pilgrims and Puritans of New England certainly did not believe in religious freedom. They actively persecuted other beliefs in the early years of settlement. So I don't know how far we can go to say America was founded on religious freedom. They didn't found America, they preceded it; some of their less-than-admirable acts based on religious differences helped convince the actual founders like Madison that mixing religion & government isn't such a hot idea.

Last I checked, the framers wanted religious freedom, and for the government to not dictate theology.

Roster7 writes: So please stow the 60s Civil Rights comparisons. It doesn't hold up. I say it does. First, "choice" is not the linchpin of nondiscrimination legislation; being married is certainly a choice, yet there are laws covering discrimination on the basis of marital status. You can't merely say one is a choice and one isn't, you need to point out why "choice" is pertinent to discrimination. Second, all sexual orientation nondiscrimination legislation that I know about is about that: "sexual orientation", not sexual acts. A virgin can be gay or straight. You can try to claim that sexual orientation is a choice, but I'd disagree with that assertion. The BSA's discrimination is not over sexual acts, it's over orientation. If you say it is, tell me who James Dale had sex with to be thrown out of the BSA.

Are you talking about gays today or blacks in the 1950s? I can't tell without some context.

What are you talking about, Ed? If some chartering organizations are dishonest, that still doesn't negate the BSA's dishonesty.

Ed, I said the BSA is dishonest, and gave a few examples. I didn't say other organizations are or are not dishonest, only that the BSA is dishonest.

No Ed, I call the BSA dishonest, because it IS dishonest. Your bizarre relative morality where it's OK for a BSA council to lie and sign a HUD nondiscrimination agreement (because it's the TOWN'S fault for NOT CATCHING the BSA'S deliberate LYING) is not only dishonest, but immoral.

Ed, the BSA still issues charters to a few government agencies, like a Venture Crew chartered to the Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources, even though they stated back in 2005 that they would stop doing so. Plus, every BSA flyer that says scouting is for "all boys" is dishonest. There are other examples, such as coucils attempting to convince people that they don't discriminate by signing statements that they will not engage in "illegal discrimination," in order to get United Way funding or $1/year leases from cities. And I've posted before how BSA councils have actually signed HUD grants that require nondiscrimination on the basis of religion, then used that grant money for a scoutreach program that excludes atheists, in violation of the signed HUD agreement.

Ed, as a former member of the BSA, why shouldn't I care? The BSA as it is today is a dishonest, discriminatory organization; if Mazzuca can change either aspect, it would be an improvement.

I don't see any ethical difference between parents enrolling their kids in Restricted clubs vs. the BSA. And I too would like to know what Mazzuca means by "diversity" and "all kids" in his statement (but I won't get my hopes up, considering earlier statements by him).

vol_scouter, there are organizations that will defend small towns "against" the ACLU; the main problem seems to be that the ACLU has a pretty good win/lose record. Did you have any specific ACLU lawsuits in mind?

Well, that's about as clear as mud...

skeptic, I KNOW people have wildly different definitions of gods; I'm not asking about that. I'm asking about Beavah's remark about "a duty to somethin' outside ourselves and our particular nation/tribe" and whether, TO HIM, such a duty REQUIRES a deity.

Beavah writes: I think the meanin' of the DRP is best interpreted by the BSA, eh? But that isn't what I was asking about. I was asking about this statement of yours: Yah, I agree with da DRP, eh? I don't think the best kind of citizenship is possible in the absence of a duty to somethin' outside ourselves and our particular nation/tribe. Now, there you're saying you agree with the DRP, but your second sentence only refers to "a duty to somethin' outside ourselves and our particular nation/tribe", which does not necessarily require a deity. So I was inquiring on whether, by that second sentence of yours, you meant that "a duty to somethin' outside ourselves and our particular nation/tribe" actually requires a deity, or not.

Beavah writes: Yah, I agree with da DRP, eh? I don't think the best kind of citizenship is possible in the absence of a duty to somethin' outside ourselves and our particular nation/tribe. But the DRP specifies that belief in a deity is required, while a "duty to somethin' outside ourselves and our particular nation/tribe" does not require a deity. So do you agree with the DRP that this duty must come from a deity?

So the best answer is to ignore moral issues (e.g. slavery, homosexuality) where many religions have radically changed through time, and just assert that they haven't changed?

Eagledad writes: You've taken slavery out of context again. I know that has been explained to you before, so we can leave it at that. "out of context"? There's a context where slavery is moral? And I can't seem to find when this has been explained to me before, so please give a thumbnail summary. As for homosexuality, I think most of the religions have stayed pretty consistent over time. Do most religions still advocate the death penalty for homosexuality? Maybe some branches of Islam and Christianity, but I'd say a lot of changing has been going on with a lot of religions on that point. In fact, way back when, one of my history teachers gave an example of how history repeats itself by showing that the decline of nations is preceded with inclusion of homosexuality. And the Roman Empire fell soon after it became official Christian. But getting back to consistency in religion, are you in favor of capital punishment for homosexual acts, as prescribe in Leviticus (and some earlier US laws)?