RobK

le Voyageur, It's a safe bet to infer that since ChoicePoint is a for profit company that it will be use[d] in some manner to generate income and profit without consent. Why else bother to compile data if you don't plan to make a buck with it.... Yes, by performing background checks! How else might their databases be used? To generate lists of addresses? That cow's out of the barn! If they use the data collected to generate more narrowly targeted lists, for instance of people actually interested in camping gear, that can only be considered an improvement. Maybe then I'll stop getting so much spam for toner refills and cheap perscription drugs (two things I never buy). Heaven forbid that you get an ad for something you actually want!

I went to the hunting forum where this was originally posted (huntingnet.com) and read the thread. This was no accident. They were bear hunting, as well as deer. A truly awesome beast... -Rob

twin_wasp, Now before folks go too far denouncing liberalism, this bill had bipartisan support... Just being Republicans doesn't make them conservatives. There are many Republicans In Name Only (RINO), especially in the northeast. Mayor Bloomberg of New York is one glaring example. -Rob

scoutldr, It's not bizarre, it's realistic. Planning council and district activities to serve the group which is by far in the majority only makes sense. Why plan a camporee such that 85% of the troops and staff won't be there? I speak as someone who keeps Saturday as the Sabbath, so I know what it's like to be "on the receiving end" of planning for the majority. It's simply realistic to plan things to accomodate the most people. I understand bmchugh's point that it's inconvenient for him for the council to accomodate the religous beliefs of the majority of its membership, but no one is asking him to compromise his religous beliefs. I didn't see any complaining from him that he was excluded from participation because he keeps Thursday as the Sabbath. Are you suggesting that the vast majority of the council membership compromise their religous beliefs for his convenience, simply because he doesn't see anything wrong with having events on Sunday? That's how it seems. Is that what you call tolerance and inclusion? Should Orthodox Jews all open their shops on Saturdays too? -Rob

I have read Tim Jeal's book and I certainly don't find the evidence strong enough to conclude that B-P was a repressed homosexual. It's seems much more likely to me, from the evidence Jeal presented, that B-P was a run-of-the-mill sexually repressed Victorian/Edwardian British Army Officer with a very strong mother.

If you think about how the electoral college system in this country works, the popular vote totals become meaningless. For instance, here in Indiana there was no question that George Bush was going to win the state. How many Democrats here didn't vote feeling their vote was worthless? How many Republicans didn't vote feeling their vote was superflous? There's no way to know. But knowing that the majority of voters in the majority of states picked George Bush is good enough for me.

OGE, just because Jesus loves everyone doesn't mean everyone should be allowed to teach your children. Look at I Corinthians 5. Just because you love your son, doesn't mean it's alright with you for him to not clean his room or stay out all night and you'll accept it. You don't make up rules just to spoil his fun and neither does God. We are told to hate the sin but love the sinner. While loving the sinner, let's not forget to hate the sin. acco40 and NJ, being openly homosexual is in itself teaching that homosexuality is acceptable. You cannot seperate your personal life from your "scouting life". You cannot seperate what you do from what you teach. Everything you do is implicitly a lesson to those around you, a statement of your true beliefs. You are what you do. For two adult leaders to make smalltalk in the presence of scouts about what one is doing for his wedding anniversary is an implicit endorsement of marriage. For two adult leaders to make smalltalk in the presence of scouts about how one is going away for the weekend with his male lover is an implict endorsement of a homosexual lifestyle. How can one be openly homosexual and not teach that homosexuality is not sinful? BTW I would have alot of trouble with a leader who was "shacking up" too. NJ you amuse me: Meanwhile, you would be letting ME be in a unit that does not ram anybody's religious beliefs down anybody else's throat. No one forced you to be a part of the BSA and no one will stop you from leaving the BSA and joining an organization that has rules that you like. You joined the BSA of your own free will and you knew what the rules were when you joined. If anyone's religous beliefs are being rammed down your throat, you are doing the ramming. If you can't swallow the rules, put down the ramrod and walk out the door. Like it or lump it, I think you have to admit that the majority of the BSA membership and supporters are happy with the rules as they are and are not ammenable to the changes you seek. For the BSA to change its rules would be a tacit endorsement of the homosexual lifestyle as not sinful. That would be very helpful and friendly of you. Yes, in the same way as holding open the door for a guy who's robbing the bank would be. I do not want to be helpful and friendly to sin.

Regarding spanking, God approves of it in no uncertain terms, as He inspired Solomon, the wisest man ever, to write: He who spares his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him promptly. Proverbs 13:24 (New King James) OGE writes: All spanking does is teach children that physical violence is Ok when you are bigger and stronger than your victim. If so, then why does God so clearly approve of it? Only when a child is spanked unjustly, or without a clear understanding of why he is being spanked will he learn that "violence is OK". Punishment must be consistent and swiftly administered to be effective.

Homosexuality is by definition deviancy, and God quite clearly declares it an abomination in the Bible. My concern in allowing openly homosexual leaders is less that my boy would be in danger of molestation, though that is a concern. The real issue is this: how can I teach my kids that homosexual acts are sinful, then let them be in an organization that allows openly homosexual leaders? And I will certainly have trouble with any leader who ever teaches my children that homosexual acts are not sinful. Regarding men taking advantage of girls, it is improper for any man to have unsupervised one-on-one time with girls.

Ancient symbols persist across many faiths, because how else can we approach God? Perhaps in the ways that He explicitly instructs us to use?

The group that BSA sued was first called the American Boy Scouts, then changed their name to United States Boy Scouts. You can read about them here: http://www.boyscoutstuff.com/Galleries/Other/other.html

Ed Mori asks: Isn't the City of Berkeley discriminating by revoking the Sea Scout free docking privledges? If Berkeley is allowing other private organizations free docking, then they are discriminating. If they don't allow anyone else free docking, then they aren't. One way or the other, the city has no buisness making free docking conditional on BSA's membership policies.

Rob, let me throw something back at you. If an orthodox Jewish child goes to the school cafeteria... Considering that the Constitution doesn't grant the government the authority to run a school in the first place, your question is moot. By the way, the hotdogs are quite unlikely to be kosher, so the Jewish boy has nothing to eat. I'd be willing to bet that most people fighting for giving creationism equal time to evolution in school would laugh at the Jews or Muslims who would think of the food and clothing as religious issues. If another does wrong, are you then also allowed to do wrong? Just to make where I stand absolutely clear, I am not for teaching creationism in public schools. I am for the elimination of public schools.

kwc57, Since you think it's a science issue, and not a religous issue, it's alright for the government to force your beliefs on others who do think it is a religous issue? littlebillie, While you did not write that my religous beliefs were contradicted by the theory of evolution, firstpusk did, and my reply was addressed to you both. Pardon me for confusing you. Forgive me also for expecting a reasonable level of reading comprehension on the part of my audience. firstpusk, Okay, according to your reasoning, we need to shut down publicly funded... No, actually those things need to be eliminated because the Constitution gives the government no authority to do any of them. Why do you keep refering to my theology? My personal theology has no problem with an old Earth or change over time. Is it so incomprehensible to you that someone might believe one way, but argue for the rights of others who disagree? I'm simply saying that the government doesn't have the right to force the teaching of evolution on anyone. Are you arguing that it is fine for the government to coerce others to learn about evolution because you have the word of scientists to back you against their religion? Why do you think it is alright to force others to learn this against their will? This is the very reason that the Constitution was written to give the government only very limited and narrowly defined powers. If the government wasn't running schools there would be no debate. Those who want their children to learn about evolution would teach it and those who do not want their children to learn about evolution would not teach it. Your way forces things on people. My way forces nothing on anyone.

firstpusk and littlebillie, I would suggest that you improve your reading comprehension skills. You are obviously incapable of understanding what I have written. Where did I ever write that my religous beliefs are contradicted by the theory of evolution? In fact, I expressly stated the opposite! Nor did I say that evolution is "de facto religion", nor that the theory of evolution is atheistic. Little wonder that you misinterpret and misconstrue what is clearly written in the Constitution. It becomes increasingly obvious that your beliefs are simply reactionary against those who disagree with forcing the teaching of evolution on others. I think your understanding of evolution comes from creationist sources and not scientific ones. No, in fact I have never read from any creationist sources. My understanding of evolution comes from the public schools I attended and the writings of Isaac Asimov. Let me try to restate my point for you in a simple way using simple words: Some church teaches that God created the Earth and everything else in six days of twenty four hours, and if you don't believe it, you're going to hell. The public school teaches that man evolved over millions of years. These teachings conflict. The public school is teaching something that contradicts what that church is teaching. Can you agree that what the school teaches contradicts what the church teaches?

kwc57, You mistake me. I never said that evolution or scientific study is religion. I have never even said that I don't believe in evolution. While I am a Christian, and therefore precluded from believing in atheistic evolution (eg man, animals, plants, etc just happened randomly without the input of a higher power), I do not believe that God-guided evolution is necessarily precluded by the Genesis account of creation. While I have pondered the issue in the past, it has never been one that has preoccupied me. I am amazed at your inablity to see that evolution, while not a teaching of any religion, because it directly contradicts the teachings of certain religions, is de facto a religous teaching. Indeed, the very nature of a theory is that it is an explanation which seems to best fit the available facts. To posit the theory of evolution one must believe that it fits the available facts better than, say, the theory of a literal six day creation. How can one theory of the origns of man and the universe be a religous belief, yet another mutually exclusive theory of those origins not be a religous belief? If you switch from believing in the Hindu creation story to a belief in some form of the theory of evolution, have not your religous beliefs changed? By the way kwc57, our posts have been a perfect contrast of the scientific method and simple emotional argument unbacked by evidence or reason.(This message has been edited by RobK)

While the Government has no Constitutionally-specific authority, where is it written, therein, that Congress is PRECLUDED from the creation of law addressing this... As sctmom so convienently provided: Article X of the Bill of Rights The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. George Mason and the Anti-Federalists strongly objected to the inclusion of the "general welfare" language in the constitution because they feared it would be misconstrued in exactly the way littlebillie is doing. In response to these fears of the Anti-Federalists, James Madison, widely regarded as the father of the Constitution, in Federalist 41 writes: Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the 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," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defence or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury; or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare." But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied by signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. Madison made the mistake of believing that men in the future would be honorable, honest, and willingly bound by what the Constitution actually says. See also: http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm and a simple Google search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=madison+%22general+welfare%22 Sctmom, I will readily admit that the federal Constitution does not prohibit the several states from instituting state sponsored education, but it does prohibit the federal government from creating a department of education which controls the states educational establishments by doling out tax money only if the states meet the federal government's wishes. Read the Constitution. Read the Federalist Papers. Read your state's constitution. You'll be surprised.

kwc57, you completely missed my overarching point that the government has no buisness educating anyone about anything. Government sponsored education is unconditionally, fundamentally unconstitutional. The evolution v. creation debate simply highlights this. [Y]ou guys are dealing straight from your emotions and not from reason. No, it would seem to be you who are dealing in emotion. I took a premise, and using logic, followed it to its rational conclusion. You assert that evolution is not a religous belief. I will demonstrate that you are incorrect. Evolution is a religous belief, just as the belief that there is no god is a religous belief. Evolution is expressly contradictory of and mutually exclusive to the teachings of many religions. We'll express this as: IF evolution THEN NOT (6 day creation OR Hindu creation). IF (6 day creation OR Hindu creation) THEN NOT evolution. To believe in evolution, you must not believe in a literal 6 day creation, or in the Hindu creation story. Evolution, therefore, is a religous belief. Evolution, your assertions not withstanding, is often taught as fact. If the government teaches evolution as fact, the government is implictly teaching that these other religous beliefs are not fact. Hence, the government is promoting a religous belief. Trust me, children put two and two together, even on this issue. I did when I was a child. And even if the government does truly teach evolution as theory only, if they do not accompany that teaching with a wide variety of other beliefs, they are promoting one belief above others. But again, I want to reiterate, the government has no constitutional authority to educate anyone.

If only the government were run the way the Founders intended, we wouldn't have this debate. The Founding Fathers certainly never intended for the federal government to be involved in education. If the government didn't run schools, there would be no debate over what religous beliefs were taught in the government's schools. There would be no debate over teaching creation v. evolution. If a government school is teaching as fact anything that directly contradicts what a church teaches as part of their religion, then they are violating the First Amendment. Teaching either Creationism or Evolution as fact violates the First Amendment. The government, state and federal, has no Constitutional authority for almost everything it does today.

As someone who has stricter dietary requirements than most, I think you're putting a little too much of the onus on the whole patrol. I don't eat pork or most seafood. I have never expected others to go out of their way to accomodate me on this and I would certainly never expect someone not to eat something in front of me because I won't eat it. I would suggest to them that they have multiple dishes, including some that meet the vegeterians' requirements, as well as find dishes that all the boys in the patrol like. Also you might suggest to the vegetarian boys that they volunteer to do alot of the menu planning and cooking as a way to "grease the skids" with the other boys on vegetarian dishes. I want to stress though that it's the patrol's job to work this out, not the adult leaders'. Otherwise, it's not really boy-led, is it?

littlebillie writes: But even so, consider "However, because of His sacrifice on the cross, all of our sins (past, present, and future) are forgiven" - if He forgives this 'sin', why then, why do others not? Romans says, "Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound" (5:20) I'm surprised Rooster7 didn't include this in his reply: Romans 6:1-2 (NIV) 1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Sin is not forgiven until repentence, and repentence includes not just being sorry, but a sincere intent to change and cease from sin.

ince the Silverman case didn't involve congress establishing a religion, that amendment covers more than what you claimed it did. Once more, from the beginning -- Silverman won his case because the state established a religous test for public office, which while expressly prohibited by Article 6, also fails the First Amendment prohibition on state establishment of religion, since it requires the citizen to follow a religion to receive the full benefit of citizenship. It is irrelevant in the present case because no one is required to follow a religion or lack thereof to receive the full benefits of citizenship, nor is anyone required to not follow his own religion or lack thereof to receive the full benefits of citizenship. If the military had a requirement that any group it sponsors must require religous belief for membership, that would violate the First Amendment. If the military restricted the number of groups it sponsors to one which required a religous belief for membership, that also would violate the First Amendment. If the military banned all groups that require a religous belief for membership, that also would violate the First Amendment. There is no federal law that requires the US Military to charter BSA troops, nor is there a federal law which requires the US Military to provide any leadership to any troop that it might charter. The US Military may not force any of its members to become members of the BSA. Start reading what I write; I haven't said otherwise. I was pointing out that atheists can't create a scout group in the US because of the BSA. [...] I'm talking about units CHARTERED by the military, not just private organizations that meet on bases. He did read what you wrote and accurately replied. We also are speaking of units chartered by the military. Atheists can create a scout group in the US, for atheists only, without regard to the BSA, and have military units charter them under the exact same terms and condition as BSA troops. Whether or not you can use the word scout in the name is irrelevant. Merlyn, I'll be honest with you. I've not engaged in this discussion in any real attempt to convert you to my view point. I was fully aware from the start that it was very unlikely that you would change your mind. My main purpose has been to expose and highlight to those on my side of the issue the underlying truth of what the First Amendment really says, to ensure they fully understand the truth of the matter. I believe that I have successfully done so now. You have simply been my Devil's Advocate, for who better to be the Devil's Advocate than the Devil himself. I hope you don't think that I think I'm better than you. I don't, "for all have sinned and are deserving unto death." By the way, I'm also aware that you'll reply to this message with some further irrelevant or obviously incorrect point or misinterpretation of what I've said simply to get the last word.

The BSA can (and will) prevent you from using the word 'scout' in the US. While I know BSA does have exclusive right to the term "boy scout" in the USA, I'm not sure they have the exclusive right to the word scout. Whether they do or not, what has that to do with WOSM, or the actual structure or intent of your hypothetical independent group? How does that prevent you from creating your own scouting style organization? "Partly yes" means that the first amendment covers more than what you claimed earlier. No, it does not. In this instance, the law struck down clearly violated the First Amendment prohibition on government requiring religion to qualify for the full benefit of citizenship. Membership in the BSA can in no way be construed as a right or benefit of citizenship. >Moreover the US government gives no preference to the BSA over other organizations in this regard. Yes it does; the US military is chartering some BSA units. The US military charters other similar organizations, which prima facie disproves your contention. Any organization may be freely sponsored in the same manner that the BSA troops are sponsored. Sponsorship of BSA troops is not given preference over sponsorship of any other organization.

[W]hen people try to dismiss discrimination against atheists by telling them to start their own atheist scouts, I point out it's not possible due to WOSM rules. But that doesn't really have anything to do with stopping government support of religious discrimination. In fact it does pertain. I ask again, what does WOSM have to do with it? So WOSM only allows one member organization from each country. How does that prevent you from starting your own scouting organization? WOSM cannot prevent you from founding Atheist Scouts of the World. There are non-WOSM affliated scouting organization in existance. Why is affiliation with WOSM required? What does WOSM have to do with the US Government allowing your non-WOSM affiliated scouting organization from serving youth on US military bases? WOSM has no jurisdiction over the matter. You are simply insisting that others do, unwillingly, what you yourself refuse to do. Silverman was struck down on first amendment grounds... Partly yes, but mostly on the clear injunction in Article 6 of the US Constitution against religous tests for public office. It's still irrelevant to the discussion at hand since membership in the BSA is not a public office. And by the way, Silverman was a South Carolina Supreme Court case, not a US Supreme Court case. Welsh v. US was about consciencious objector status, and the law had only religious provisions for gaining CO status... Again, I'd like to see the actual opinion for Welsh v. US, but as you've described it, it has no relevance to the case at hand. How is conscientious objector status similar to membership in a private youth organization? The ability to obtain one has definite consequences regarding one's relationship and legal status with the US government. The other does not. There are no governmental benefits to membership nor consequences for non-membership in the BSA. It is entirely voluntary. Moreover the US government gives no preference to the BSA over other organizations in this regard. Any private organization is welcome to serve the membership they desire. These are the sort of points the Supreme Court would consider. (This message has been edited by RobK)

Well, the supreme court disagrees with you. The Silverman & Welsh cases easily show that. Silverman is about a religous test for public office. That's not what we're discussing. I found two cases that could be the Welsh case you reference, one about warrantless searches, and the other from 1861, whose text I could not find, so we will discard it from consideration also (unless you can provide a link). As an aside, I have learned not to take references to Supreme court cases lightly. I don't believe what anyone says about them until I read the text myself. US v Miller is the reason. Everyone says that in Miller, the Supreme Court ruled there was no individual right to own a firearm recognized by the Second Amendment. This is a blatant lie, obvious to anyone who cares to read the text of the Miller decision (http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/miller.txt). Moreover the Supreme Court has held that it's legal for a woman to kill her child if it hasn't been born, yet fifteen minutes later, when it is born, the same act is a felony. Further, the Supreme Court has reversed itself in the past. ...yet the BSA requires that the military practice unlawful religious discrimination in carrying this out. I've already shown that it is not unlawful under the First Amendment. I don't think anyone would argue that scoutmaster or charter organization representative are public offices. They are volunteer positions in a private organization. You cannot be required to hold the position. The position holds no sway outside of the BSA organization. And again, you seem incapable of distinguishing between a group sponsored by the military, and a group sponsored by a private organization... The distinction is irrelevant as I've shown that neither would be a violation of the Constitution. Do you have any idea why Chicago stopped chartering 28 BSA units when the ACLU sued them? Perhaps because Chicago city government is full of corrupt cowards who are more concerned with lining their own pockets than fighting for the right? Just a guess... (This message has been edited by RobK)