Philadelphia Says BSA's Land Use in Jeopardy

[packsaddle]

Ed, you asked a great question. Every time that we have been able to study the phenomenon, an animal's display (color, behavior, etc.) has been done at some energetic or other cost. Most investigators assume there is a result from the display that has outweighed that cost, otherwise (we're talking economics here) there's reason for it not to occur (the cost of doing it). Are we really that different? Do we apply makeup merely because we can? Do we carefully choose our clothes to match the occasion merely because we can? (OK, I tend to wear whatever is on top but that doesn't count) I think we do all these things to achieve a result, however subtle that may be. If I were to put a cross in my front yard (which I did as a child) it isn't a random act. It is a message to everyone who sees it, sometimes different messages to different people.

[evmori]

pack,

Good post. I have an American flag flying in my yard. Why? Because I can.

 

Every piece of US currency has the words "In God We Trust" on it. Why? Because it can. I am not establishing that I am an American by flying an American flag in my yard. If I wanted to fly a Nazi flag(which I never would) I could because I can! And if a branch of government wants to display a menorah or picture of Allah they can!

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[cjmiam]

Packsaddle, you sound like a reasonable person. I bet I would enjoy sitting in on one of your courses. My main issue with the public education system is rooted in what I feel is an overall leftward bias. Theres no doubt that there are probably some right wingers trying to indoctrinate youngsters as well, but like the media, I think the liberals have won the majority in education. They select what they want people to hear depending on whether it fits their political agenda. I remember my social studies teacher in 10th grade cutting the American flag into pieces, throwing it on the floor, and then stepping on it to prove that our freedom of speech was greater than the symbol that represents that freedom. Ya know what, that was a lot of years ago, and it sickens me even more today. It sickens me that some have attempted to get the flag removed from the classroom because it might offend someone. It sickens me that condoms, yes I said condoms are getting passed out in 9th grade teen living skills class. It sickens me that when I went through that class, abstinence wasnt even mentioned as an option. It sickens me that they think they are better at teaching about sex and responsibility than parents. How do they know a familys beliefs? Some presume that its okay to teach kids about safe sex, because they just dont know any better? They pass along an attitude that if it feels good do it. Hogwash! Thats not the purpose of the educational system. If theyd spend more time on science, math, reading and physical education, maybe we wouldnt be ending up with all kinds of fat kids that cant read expecting hand-outs from the government, because they are the victim of a failing educational system. More and more people are getting outraged and thats why more and more are turning to home schooling and want school vouchers.

 

Merlyn, so if I spell out the theory of evolution letter for letter, but add that I believe God created man, does that mean that I dont understand the topic? I somehow just dont get it right? Or is it the fact that the teacher is upset that she failed to fully indoctrinate me into only her view? And once again, I want to reiterate that the establishment clause was not added to remove religion from our lives in public places such as the classroom. It was meant to protect the people from a government ran or sponsored religion. There is a big difference. Some liberals seem to think that the intent of the Congress was to remove religion from our lives. Well, if that were true wouldnt they have done it immediately? Wouldnt it all be settled by now 200 plus years later? Heck, we wouldnt even know what praying before a football game sounds like. Respecting other peoples beliefs doesnt mean giving up our own or crawling into a cave with our tail between our legs. Creating a level playing field is one thing, but silencing a group certainly abridges their freedom to speak and exercise thereof. I get a real kick out of school districts mandating policy based on the fact that someone might be offended. Madison would probably gotten away with their little ban of the Pledge and National Anthem had it not been for the public outrage. Whether or not the ACLU defended someone doesnt take away the fact of what school districts are attempting to do remove religion from our lives.

 

The public square is indeed just that the public square. The public owns it. Each and every building is owned by the American taxpayers. We are a representative republic, which makes us the government. We just elect people to represent us. That means those buildings and schools are ours, not the mayors, not the teachers, not the judges, not the congresss. I also get a kick out of those that scream for tolerance from the mountaintops, yet are so offended when someone wants to display the Ten Commandments. Hmmm tolerance is a one-way street I see. I certainly am not offended by other religious symbols. Why are some so offended by mine? Is it the fact that they are abnormal and want to be normal, thus change societys view of what normalcy is? How `bout this Im offended by the teaching of Greek Mythology. It must be removed from all classes in the public educational system. It offends me and because it offends me, it must be removed. I also want all Greek god or goddess statues removed from all public buildings. They represent a belief system different from my own and certainly dont keep the playing field level. I just cant practice being a good Christian with all these Greek goddesses running around nude. Get rid of them now. In fact, no symbols of any sort should be in any public building. I want white walls inside and gray walls outside. No scales of justice, because that represents that someone is gonna be a loser and no one should be a loser. Get rid of all the pictures of the past presidents. All they represent is their own corrupt political administration. Get rid of any pictures of flowers. I have allergies and just looking at them can make me sneeze. How dare them try to harm my health! No pictures of mountains or water either. Im afraid of heights and cant swim.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

cjmiam writes:

Merlyn, so if I spell out the theory of evolution letter for letter, but add that I believe God created man, does that mean that I dont understand the topic? I somehow just dont get it right? Or is it the fact that the teacher is upset that she failed to fully indoctrinate me into only her view?

 

You haven't revealed what the questions were and what your answers were, so I can't possibly tell. But judging from how you describe government neutrality as somehow "promoting atheism", I probably wouldn't call it "indoctrination".

 

And once again, I want to reiterate that the establishment clause was not added to remove religion from our lives in public places such as the classroom. It was meant to protect the people from a government ran or sponsored religion.

 

Things like morning prayers in school, where the students would recite a prayer written by a bunch of bureacrats on the school board. Yes, the first admendment forbids such things.

 

There is a big difference. Some liberals seem to think that the intent of the Congress was to remove religion from our lives.

 

I don't know ANY liberal advocating that, but given your slanted view, you probably see government neutrality as "removing religion from your life". I see it as removing government interference from my life.

 

Creating a level playing field is one thing, but silencing a group certainly abridges their freedom to speak and exercise thereof.

...

The public square is indeed just that the public square. The public owns it. Each and every building is owned by the American taxpayers. We are a representative republic, which makes us the government. We just elect people to represent us. That means those buildings and schools are ours, not the mayors, not the teachers, not the judges, not the congresss.

 

So, I assume you agree with me that judge Moore was wrong in erecting his ten commandments monument in the Alabama supreme court building and denying an atheist group from erecting their own monument? After all, only allowing Moore's monument and denying the atheists' monument isn't a level playing field, and it looks like one of those cases you complain about above where the building belongs to the citizens, not the judges.

 

[NJCubScouter]

Ed says:

 

Every piece of US currency has the words "In God We Trust" on it. Why? Because it can.

 

Actually, it is not completely clear that it can. I don't think the U.S. Supreme Court has ever decided the issue. However, it probably can. "Ceremonial" or incidental mentions of religion or God have sometimes been considered to have insufficient religious content to constitute an establishment of religion. Such things as In God We Trust, or the fact that Congress opens its sessions with a prayer, do not make prayer in schools or religious displays on public property constitutional.

 

And if a branch of government wants to display a menorah or picture of Allah they can!

 

Actually, I don't think Muslims (Moslems? Islamic persons? I'm not sure about that) make pictures of Allah, just as Jews do not make pictures of the similarly-named Elohim. (God, that is.) As for menorahs, actually the government can't, at least not by itself. Out of curiosity, I went into my firm's law library and actually read (part of) the Supreme Court decision you have been talking about. It is called Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU. I can't get into a whole dissertation about it now. Here is a link to it:

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=492&page=573

 

Uh oh, now I'm the one posting a long URL.

 

Anyway, the reason the menorah was ok in that case is partly that it was part of a group of symbols including a Christmas tree and a mayoral proclamation along the lines of these lights being the lights of liberty. The Supreme Court decided that overall the collection of items had a secular purpose of symbolizing the winter holiday scene, while the nativity scene had a religious purpose. Interestingly, though, only 2 of the 9 justices thought there was a constitutional difference between the nativity scene and the collection of symbols (including the Christmas tree and menorah.) Four (Kennedy, Rehnquist, White, Scalia) thought BOTH were constitutional. Three (Brennan, Marshall, Stevens) thought both we UNconstitutional. The difference was that O'Connor and Blackmun voted that the nativity scene was unconstitutional (making a 5-4 vote for unconstitutional) while the collection of symbols was not (making a 6-3 vote for constitutional.)

 

So you can keep saying if you want that nobody tries to have a menorah declared unconstitutional, but it isn't true. The ACLU did try and it went all the way to the Supreme Court. And if the Christmas tree and mayoral proclamation had not been alongside the menorah, the menorah would have been declared unconstitutional.

[cjmiam]

Judge Moore solemnly swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Alabama. The later specifically calls for his favor to God. The first establishes every humans unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness endowed by their creator, which is the very foundation upon which our laws were established. He is simply upholding his Oath of Office. I see nowhere, where he has demanded others to follow his specific belief system. At no time were my rights discounted. Its illogical to call for a duty to God, but disallow it as soon as an individual says who that God is. Thats just plain silly and again surly not the intensions of our founders. Grave stones are tumbling all over the place because of some very disgruntled dead Founders rolling over in their graves.

[Twocubdad]

CJ, I won't try to parse and respond to every point of you post, but a few high points:

 

If your test answers demonstrated an adequate understand of evolution but was graded as wrong because you added your opinion that you believed differently (and assuming it you weren't asked by the teacher not to include your opinions on the exam) then you were wronged. You should have appealed the grade to the school administration. That would have been your right. One over zealous teacher doesn't invalidate the First Amendment. There are zealots on both sides.

 

If you truly believe that Greek Mythology constitutes the establishment of religion, then file suit. That, too, is your right. You may even approach the ACLU about representing you. Who knows, NJCubScouter may take the case for you.

 

I don't disagree with you that much of the media and education "establishment" is dominated by liberals. The values, attitudes and world views of people who are drawn to those professions by their nature tend to be more progressive. By the same turn, most of the military and business "establishement", among others, tends to be dominated by conservatives for the same reason. So what? I can make the argument that the world should be thus -- that journalists and teachers should have a progressive outlook and seek change, while those who have the responsibilities to protect our economic and security interests should be more conservative and interested in maintaining the status quo. (But of course that's painting everyone in those professions with much too broad of a brush.)

 

You don't really believe that because the courthouse square is "public property" you have the right to do what you wish with your share, do you? If you do believe that, go for it. Go camp on your portion of the square or maybe plant tomatoes. Note: take bail money with you.

 

Of course I'm being facetious, but there is a serious point there, too. Under our representative system of government, We the People/the government/the majority (whatever you want to call us) are given certain powers over the individual. Those powers are expressed in the body of the Constitution. The government can draft us into military service, they can tax us, and they can pass laws and imprison us if we violate them. But the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to limit those powers and to protect the rights of the individual against the rule of the majority. The majority may not impose its religious beliefs on individuals. The majority may not take the life, liberty or property of an individual without due process of law. The majority may not impose cruel and unusual punishment on an individual. It is not that one or two will tell 10 million what to do, rather that when it comes to our protected freedom, 10 million cannot tell one or two what to do. Democratic government without a guarantee of individual rights is mob rule.

 

Last thing, you said the school systems are trying to take religion from our lives. How's that working out? Did your experience in the public schools diminish your faith? Was anyone ever successful at preventing you from bowing your head and offering thanks before a meal or asking for guidance before an exam? How would they have done that even if they wanted to?

[evmori]

The menorah is one of the many symbols of the Jewish faith. Therefore if the law requires the removal of a symbol of any faith then the menorah should be removed regardless if the group has any ties to a secular symbol. What is good for one is good for all! By the way, I live in Allegheny County & remember the case well.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Twocubdad]

Doesn't it feel good to know that your opinion is shared by the Supreme Court of the United States, Ed?

[packsaddle]

Ed, I don't know the thought process that led to the Supreme Court decision. In the case you and NJ cite, I agree it does seem to be an inequity. I'm still struggling, however, to understand your meaning when you say that if you can, you should be able to do something. I just am not following it. To continue with your flag example, some of my neighbors fly the Confederate flag on a pole in a position just above the American Flag. They can and they do. But I think they are trying to say something, don't you? My guess is that the message I get when I see those flags is different from the message others of my neighbors get, who fly similar flag configurations. I also suspect that if the local Post Office did this, yet other neighbors (and I) would correct that, posthaste.

 

Edited part: Oops, Ed, I forgot to add that many of those confederate guys have menorahs in their windows at Christmas. So do many others down here. A Jewish friend of mine was visiting and he commented on the large Jewish community. I laughed and explained that those people had no idea what a menorah was...they thought they were displaying candelabras - they even refer to them that way. Sometimes the message is wasted.

 

CJ, I agree with TwoCub regarding your test questions. If a teacher in my region had destroyed the flag as you describe, tenure likely would have ended the same day. I don't deny that there are bad public school teachers. I have also found them in private schools. However, I have interacted with a large number of teachers across the country and I have found many fair and highly-trained ones as well. In my experience, a school that has a large number of incompetent teachers often has an incompetent principal.

 

My solution for the variation in teacher quality in middle - high school is for education to be offered only as a minor and prospective teachers for those grades be required to earn their actual degree in the subject to be taught. This doesn't sound liberal does it? It also might not work for kindergarten through lower elementary school.

 

I teach my students that applying terms or labels to something should not make them confident that they have thereby explained or understood that something. I try to look beyond the label (in this case, 'liberal'). Nevertheless, I consider myself to be socially liberal (in the sense of 'individual liberty'), but fiscally conservative (in the sense of actually conserving - resources, energy, or even paying one's bills and living within one's means).

I would love to have students in my classes who feel no reluctance to debate points, time permitting. If they were good at it, I might even recruit them for graduate school. But that's another topic.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Twocubdad]

Just as a point of historical accuracy, CJ, the Constitution does not mention the rights of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. That would be found in the Declaration of Independence.

 

I also found an interesting web site containing the text of all six Constitutions of the State of Alabama. http://www.legislature.state.al.us/misc/history/constitutions/constitutions.html The preamble reads, "We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama:" I'm not sure what 'invoking the favor of God' really means in this sense, but I suspect it is more a ceremonial flourish that a real statement of faith. However it is quite a stretch to construe that to mean all constitutional officers must seek the favor of God.

 

Quite to the contrary, Section III "Religious Freedoms" specifically says "that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state; and that the civil rights, privileges, and capacities of any citizen shall not be in any manner affected by his religious principles." That section also says, in part, "...no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship..."

 

Interesting.

 

 

[cjmiam]

Im well aware of the fact that there are many good teachers out there. Im also aware of the fact that many teachers are involved in Scouting. If you are a professional licensed teacher doing your job without a political agenda, I thank and applaud you and apologize if it seems I cast you all into the same lot. Unfortunately thats how I feel sometimes when I hear the absurd things going on in the schools today.

 

Being from a mid-size town, we had a choice in education. The private Catholic school was well established, but my parents strongly believed in public education and I wasnt going to argue, because thats where many of my friends were. However, as I look back on my middle school, high school, and college education I cant help but notice things that I should have stood up for or against. Granted it may be a public educational system, but that should not have meant that I had to leave my faith at the curb. I mention curb, because I assume that where the school grounds start considering that where the smokers could go and not get in trouble. I certainly did not expect to have a bible verse at the beginning of each class, nor did I expect a cross to be hanging on the wall. What I did expect was tolerance for different viewpoints. In fact I thought thinking on our own was one of the primary goals in education. Instead, after looking back, I see very few times where my ideas and viewpoints mattered. Rather it was a higher than thou teacher or professor that told me what to think. Very few influenced me to excel through developing my own opinions and thought.

 

My main argument is that no questions are asked when it comes to teachers, professors, school boards, etc. spewing their political opinions, propaganda and policies on children in a very public place that supposedly is unbiased in its methods of teaching. These people also are paid for with public dollars and endorsed by the local and state government. In many cases some of the stunts being pulled or attempted across this country could even be considered illegal / unconstitutional. Yet, because someone gave them a piece of paper in exchange for 6, 8 or 10 years of payments, they have a right to call it education. And they somehow have a right to preach their views, while others with different views cannot even use the gymnasium for a blue and gold banquet?

 

There is a definite double standard when it comes to the publics buildings. The media is all over it when Christians try to assert their rights, yet somehow ignore the antichristian antics going on every day in our public school system. If schoolteachers can distribute safe sex materials, then Christians certainly have a right to pass out abstinence materials. If universities can require students to take sexual orientation acceptance programs, Christians certainly have a right to erect the Ten Commandments in the commons. But thats not the way it works. As soon as Christians attempt to assert any of their values they are considered discriminatory, bigoted, closed-minded, a right-winger (insert your own word here). Then, when Scouting uses just the buildings the liberals are outraged.

 

And theres outrage for what the Scouting program teaches in a world where our educational system includes:

Some states that cant get their students ready for a graduation exam after four years.

Some educators proposing that only black people are competent enough to teach black history.

A poll by Quinnipiac University that shows 75% of the population thinks that the supreme court should base their decisions on public opinion versus the law of the land.

A university where you can get a masters degree in activism.

A superintendent that failed a basic elementary English test three times.

A country that spends more money on education that any of the top 25 industrialized nations (OECD), but scores lower than most of those countries in test scores.

Where in Lawrence, Mass., a school district put 21 teachers on unpaid leave because they could not test well enough in English to be understood in that language in a classroom.

 

What a fantastic quality educational system we have. And just imagine all you taxpayers out thereYOU are paying for it. And you are paying for these same individuals to assert their political agendas in place of the education that they should be focusing on. The simple liberal agenda is to get control over the most people possible and discredit anyone that gets in their way.

 

[cjmiam]

twocubdad, I apologize for the historically misleading statement. I meant that the law of our land is founded in the fundamental God given rights recognized when our forefathers established this great nation.

[evmori]

pack,

By saying "I can" I mean that as long as I am not violating any laws, I can.

 

twocub,

Yes it is nice. Now since the government isn't allowed to promote religion, what about "In God We Trust" on our currency? Or when someone is sworn in during a court case the words "so help me God" are used??

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[packsaddle]

Good morning folks. I hope everyone is doing well. CJ, I am not trying to offer a rebuke, just a personal view. Have a nice day.