ACLU attempt to Block Jamboo from Military Base

[GernBlansten]

What I do personally and how I choose live my life does not dictate how others should be forced to live theirs. I should respect their views as I would have them respect mine.

 

That line is in direct conflict with your premise that states should be allowed to impose views on how to live your life.

 

Take for example your Amish situation. No law requires that the Amish open their business for the sabbath. However, if I lived in that area and wanted to keep my business open during the sabbath, they should have no right to impose their views on me. I wouldn't expect to be patronized by them. Nor would I expect a law that demanded their patronage or that they remain open for the sabbath.

 

Also, just how local do you think this should go? Should it be constrained at a state level or flow down to local governments? Could a home owners association be able to exclude blacks from their neighborhood? A county that accepts only Mormons as residents. A city that requires regular church attendance to serve on the council.

 

 

BTW, you might just get your utopia. Have you heard of this?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11434439/site/newsweek/

[wyomingi]

LongHaul,

 

Your post makes no sense. You want to tell people where they can live, what religion to practice, what they can wear and when they can open their business and then you say you should respect others views. Which is it?

 

[LongHaul]

Read what I wrote not what you want to see.

I'm not in favor of telling anyone how to live I'm in favor of people being able to decide for them selves and form communities of similarly minded people. The state of Illinois is not telling me how to live my life it is telling me if I want to live my life in the state of Illinois I must comply with certain regulations. You don't like it here MOVE or get a majority of the citizens to change the law not an EXTREMELY small group to interpret existing law to your liking. Moving into an established community and telling everyone there that they need to respect your rights while you ingnore there's is wrong. Allowing the Community of South Holland to require businesses to remain closed on Sunday IMO is not failing to respect the views of those who want to have businesses open, it is a reflection of the majority of the citizens of the community. I respect your views I just don't agree with them and I am in the majority. Allowing one person to dictate community policy because that one person is supported by 5 out of 9 other people who don't even live here is not what the Constitution was supposed to guarantee.

Lets talk for a minute about the community featured in the link GernBlansten posted. Would I want to live there No and Im Catholic. Do I think a person should be allowed to choose to live there in order to disrupt Tom Monaghans vison again No. Dont tell me I have to live by your ideals if you are not ready to live by mine. People who choose to move to Monaghans town know what they are getting up front. People who moved into South Holland knew what the law was when they moved there.

Also, just how local do you think this should go? Should it be constrained at a state level or flow down to local governments? Could a home owners association be able to exclude blacks from their neighborhood? A county that accepts only Mormons as residents. A city that requires regular church attendance to serve on the council.

To the extent that it already does now. The City of Chicago is a Smoke free zone, the State of Illinois is not nor is the USA. The city of Evanston is a handgun free zone, the State of Illinois is not nor is the USA. Every municipality in the state has a different set of rules concerning housing regulations, how tall, how wide, do you need a permit to paint. The city of Evergreen park requires a permit to replace your hot water heater. If you get caught without one you can be fined, though if you ask politely you can get one for free. Its a way to protect the elderly from disreputable workmen. The city of Wilmette just passed a law that says not only cant you talk on a cell phone while driving, you cant eat or drink anything, or engage in any activity which may impair your concentration while driving. Do I believe Wilmette should not be allowed to adopt such laws No what I do believe is that the people of Wilmette should find out who drafted this law and who voted for it and impeach them for being to stupid to govern. I dont believe the law is a violation of some persons right to have a car full of screaming kids while driving down a street filled with kids getting out of school. I do think it is poorly concieved and places too much autority in the arresting officers hands.

LongHaul

(This message has been edited by LongHaul)

[GernBlansten]

LH, I'm trying real hard to follow you. On one hand your libertarian viewpoints of "Leave me alone to live my life as I see fit" on the other hand you want to give local authorities rule over your liberties and everyone else. Its a dichotomy that I find puzzling.

 

Now one thing that I might agree with you on (I think) is that if Monaghan wants to build his own town from the ground up and only invite those like minded people to come live, then I would be OK with that. Like buying a home near an airport, you got to expect to hear the planes. My problem is in existing communities where the majority decide they want to change the rules and expel all those who are already there.

 

Our constitution is designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Anyone who disagrees with that notion is in my mind UnAmerican.

[LongHaul]

What about the guy who moves next to the airport and then wants the air port shut down because it is too noisy? What about the guy who moves into South Holland and then files suit to be allowed to open a store on Sunday? What you see as giving my liberties over to local government is what I see as you wanting me to give my liberties over to the Federal Government. I'd rather keep it local where I have more of a voice. My problem is in existing communities where the majority decide they want to change the rules and expel all those who are already there. Sounds like Chicago circa 1965, they were called "Blockbuster" usually Black police officers, who could somewhat protect themselves, moving in to established all white communities. When scared whites ran more would come and the originals would leave. They had no intention of staying or becoming part of the community they only wanted to force their views on the majority. We stayed, my parents finally moved when a home became available on the block my mom was born on across the alley from three of her sisters. That area is 90% black today, only one sister left, shes 98. The point I want to make is that it should be up to the community. Eventually like minded people will group together and live in peace. Some people just can't stand it if others are doing something they don't like even if it's three thousand miles away. LongHaul

[GernBlansten]

LH,

I'm not understanding your position. However, I don't blame you, I'm sure its just my denseness.

 

You call for the ability of the majority to impose their values on the minority and if the minority doesn't like it, they can leave. I just can't understand how that follows American values, or the freedoms we enjoy. Just seems to me to be the antithesis of America.

[LongHaul]

Maybe it is I who is dense, are you saying that it is an American value that the minority should dictate to the majority? No wonder the election process fails sometimes too many people voted!

[Kaji]

I think you're confusing libertarian with anarchist, Glen. He's not demanding that everyone have the right to do as they see fit, he's saying that people should be entitled to put their freedom of assembly to use, and organize into towns according to their beliefs if they so choose. If someone doesn't like the rules in one place, he can seek out another where they're agreeable.

 

As I said in the other thread on the matter, I personally don't see where it violates the first amendment. The BSA doesn't support a specific religion, just religious practice in general, and so federal aid and endorsement hardly constitutes the endorsement of a single religion as the state religion for the US. If the BSA were strictly Christian, it might be a different story (though even that's questionable, as there is a vast chasm between Orthodox Roman Catholics and Evangelical Southern Baptists). The very fact that the BSA allows diversity and freedom to choose a religion keeps it out of trouble with the amendment, in my opinion.

[GernBlansten]

What you view as the minority dictating to the majority, I view as the majority frustrated that they cannot dictate to the minority. When has the minority forced their values? The only references you have made are when the majority are thwarted in their plans to force their views on the minority. That does not constitute the minority view being forced on the majority. It should be viewed as a celebration in the freedoms so many brave men and women have sacrificed their lives for.

[LongHaul]

GernBlansten,

Do you honestly believe that 51% of Americans would actually vote to stop religious displays at Christmas if they were asked? If we had a popular vote do you think 51% would vote to stop prayer in school? If they were allowed to vote do think 51% would vote to stop the military from supporting the Jamboree? How is it a freedom that a Christian community can't celebrate Christmas in the buildings their tax dollars built.

Why the need to catagorize me? Why must I be Libertarian or Anarchist, or what ever? Does that make it easier to discount my views? If the religious right were to gain political control and the SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution did not forbid state religon would you feel that it was an example of the majority dictating to the minority?

LongHaul

[evmori]

Longhaul asks some very good questions! I don't think 51% of Americans would vote the remove all religious displays at Christmas or to stop school prayer or prevent the DOD from handling the BSA Jamboree. SCOTUS & other judges are to interpret the law, not legislate from the bench. That's where the problem is coming from.

 

Longhaul, I would categorize you as a good question asker!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[GernBlansten]

Perceptions gentleman. Its all perceptions.

LH, the majority wanted to place religion in the schools (or in many cases, already did it), forcing it on the minority. The minority fought back and successfully won. You perceive that as the minority forcing its views, I see it as the majority twarted in forcing its views. Now if you had an example of say a minority group like the Muslims, passing a law in Pittburgh to require the reading of the Koran at high noon, you might have a point.

 

Ed,

If the SCOTUS rules in favor of your arguments, you call that interpreting the law. If they rule against your arguments, you call that legistlating from the bench. I can understand that. Because in our minds, our positions are well reasoned and based on our own understanding of the law. If someone, a judge, comes to a different conclusion, they aren't following the law, they are making new law. At least in our minds.

[evmori]

Gern,

Nope. Ya got it wrong.

 

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the government for chartering or aid in funding of the BSA. And when a judge rules there is a violation of the Constitution like this, it is legislating from the bench. Now, if there was something in the Constitution that did prevent this, then it would be interpreting the law. What I believe doesn't come into play.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[GernBlansten]

Ed,

When you state that "There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the government for chartering or aid in funding of the BSA." you (and many others) are interpreting the constitution to say that. On the other side of the argument, there are those who say the Constitution directly says the government cannot charter or aid a private discriminatory organization like the BSA.

Its up the the courts to decide who is right. Just be cause the judge comes down on against your argument, doesn't mean they are legislating from the bench. In fact, its really a silly statement to make. If that were true, new laws would be put on the books as a direct result of these courts. Can you name one law or statute that was originated from the bench? Legislating from the bench makes good talking points, but in reality cannot happen. I beg you to show me an example.

[LongHaul]

Perceptions gentleman. Its all perceptions.

You perceive that as the minority forcing its views, I see it as the majority thwarted in forcing its views.

Oh! You mean like the 2000 Presidential elections.

 If the SCOTUS rules in favor of your arguments, you call that interpreting the law. If they rule against your arguments, you call that legistlating from the bench. I can understand that. Because in our minds, our positions are well reasoned and based on our own understanding of the law. If someone, a judge, comes to a different conclusion, they aren't following the law, they are making new law. At least in our minds.

Oh! You mean like the 2000 Presidential elections.

            Lets use the example I have presented about the community of South Holland. A group of similarly minded people built a community. They established laws which reflected the views of the community. In a republic we elect representatives to make our laws and do not rely on a popular vote for normal legislation so not everyone was able to express a view on every law enacted. One of the laws said that all businesses would remain closed on Sunday. There was no mass out cry, no call for repeal, no impeachment of elected officials; this was a very religious and commonly minded community. It was a immigrant by that I mean someone who did not share the views common to the community who moved into the community well after its establishment, that sought to have this law repealed. This is the minority dictating to the majority.

             The writer of the Constitution wanted to guarantee that the Federal Government could not take certain rights away from the people; these are the first 8 amendments. The 9th goes to what we call past practice which means we dont lose rights just because we didnt list them here as being rights. The 10th says anything not specifically granted the Federal Government or specifically denied the States are reserved to the States respectively, or the people. They set up checks and balances to see that small groups could not seize control. They set up avenues to change the document or amend it which they did in 1794 and in 1803. Its a very effective document IMO. Not until the end of the Civil War (#13 in 1865, #14 in 1866, #15 in 1869) did the original document come under fire (IMO). The original framers sought to insure that the rights granted under the first 8 amendments were not taken away by the Federal Government. As I have said before, the State of Connecticut had a State religion until 1818 which should indicate that the original intent was to allow that freedom to the States. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Its when we get to the second amendment that the problem starts, those in power, after the Civil War, needed a way to disarm specific groups. So now 9 men, the SCOTUS were asked to interpret the document to make that possible, which they did. Now instead of being protected by the first 8 amendments we only get 4 ; 2, 3, & 7 being gone and we only get half of 8.

         The point Im trying to make is that this country was founded as a democracy, the definition of which includes majority rule. Its when a powerful minority group is able to manipulate the system that it falls down. Again I say that ours is the oldest established government on the planet. It has stood this long because of what it is based on, when we mess with the foundation things crumble. Allowing similarly minded people to group into States and communities of similarly minded people to be formed within those States is what the writers of the Constitution intended. Preventing the Federal Government from micro managing is what the 10th amendment was supposed to address. Problem is the founders never envisioned professional politicians or a political system where retaining office was paramount to establishing sound government. The question today isnt freedom or the rights of the people its what is the Politically Correct course and which view will keep me in office.  It's power not service.

 LongHaul