ACLU attempt to Block Jamboo from Military Base

[evmori]

Gern,

Yes that is my interpretation. But by ruling that chartering a BSA unit or funding a BSA unit is establishing a religion is legislating from the bench. Why, because chartering a BSA unit or funding a BSA unit isn't establishing anything let alone a religion! The BSA isn't a religion!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[wyomingi]

What? Christmas displays are illegal? I seem to recall some just a few months ago. Its great that we are all allowed to practice what ever religion (or none) that we want and openly celebrate the holidays. Its also great that we dont have to pay taxes to support others religions.

 

If we lived in the society that LongHaul advocates it wouldnt be long before some demagogue, wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross, would whip up 51% of a community and get them to declare a native born, white, fundamentalist Christian, republican only area. Democracy must be more than simply majority vote. The rights of the minority must be protected. Striking down laws does not limit freedom, passing laws does.

 

[Kaji]

So let me get this straight - In Glen's opinon, if 5% of the country disagrees with something that the other 95% approve of, it's our duty to bend to the will of that 5%?

[Trevorum]

Kaji,

Yes and no, depending on the specific issue. So lets talk specifics. Lets say that 95% of a county wants to paint all the public schools blue. But a 5% minority believes that blue is an obscene color, for religious reasons. If the schools were painted blue, they could not morally send their kids to public schools and would be forced to pay for private education. So who is right? I believe the majority has an obligation to oblige the minority, either by keeping the schoolsa neutral color, or by otherwise funding the education of the minority children.

 

Now this is different from the 5% minority wanting the schools to be painted green, again for religious reasons. The majority thinks that green is an obnoxious color and doesn't see the need to paint the schools in any case. Here, the majority has no obligation to oblige the minority.

 

 

[LongHaul]

Trevorum,

      How does your blue school analogy address my South Holland example? Everything was closed because of religious beliefs. They were opened not because having them closed offended someones religion but because someone could make a buck. The vast majority of the community was offended and had to live with that offense. Why not the few rather than the many?

 wyomingi,

If we lived in the society that LongHaul advocates it wouldnt be long before some demagogue, wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross, would whip up 51% of a community and get them to declare a native born, white, fundamentalist Christian, republican only area.

       Yes!  Yes!  Yes!  How many times must I say it?  You wouldn't have to come within a thousand miles of the place if you didn't want to and they could live happily in their own little bigoted world. So What? The first answer I hear coming is because then someone would be forced to move or submit. To which I answer GUN CONTROL you want one? move out of Evanston cause we will arrest you! Want to carry one around with you? Move out of Illinois cause we will arrest you! Want to smoke in public move out of Chicago cause we will arrest you! It happens all the time and we call it democracy. Why do you have such a problem with the concept that some where in this country there would be a place where people could live in peace and not agree with your sense of freedom? You could live in your town and not pay taxes for what you don't want and I could live in my town and not be told what I can spend my taxes on. LongHaul

[wyomingi]

Trevorum, Kaji

 

Interesting discussion. In this county we make accommodations for the minority all the time. The Americans with Disabilities act requires reasonable accommodation in the workplace. In some parts of the country government documents are available in languages other than English. School cafeterias serve fish on Fridays during Lent for those who prefer not to eat meat. We dont however close government offices on every religious holiday. As Trevorum has said it depends on the specific issue. Exactly when and were the line is drawn will take someone wiser than me to decide.

 

What about the other way around? If 95% disapprove and 5% approve of something should the 95% make it illegal? For example, since most people are against animal sacrifice should it be illegal even for religious reasons? Lets assume that the animals are killed humanely and disposed of properly. Should Nazis be allowed freedom of speech? When does free speech cross the line and become incitement to violence?

 

My personal opinion is that unless any action can be shown to be harmful to others or society that it should be legal. By being harmful I dont mean offending someone. We are guaranteed many rights by the Constitution, including some such as privacy that are not explicitly written down. I dont believe there is a right not to be offended.

 

[GernBlansten]

Ed,

 

I do some of my best thinking while commuting to the office.

I got to thinking about your argument on judicial legislation or if you want/activism.

Take this simple test. I'm sure you have a long laundry list of cases that you think qualify as judicial activism.

Get two hats and some stones representing all those cases.

Now, put the number of stones in one hat that represent the number of cases of judicial activism that were decided against your opinion.

In the other hat, put all the stones that represent the cases decided in favor of your opinion.

How many stones are in each hat?

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Wyomingi writes:

If we lived in the society that LongHaul advocates it wouldnt be long before some demagogue, wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross, would whip up 51% of a community and get them to declare a native born, white, fundamentalist Christian, republican only area.

 

LongHaul writes:

Yes! Yes! Yes! How many times must I say it? You wouldn't have to come within a thousand miles of the place if you didn't want to and they could live happily in their own little bigoted world. So What?

 

What happens to the other 49%, LongHaul? They already live there. Do they now have to move?

[evmori]

Gern,

Without actually doing your little test, I would guess there would be the same number of stones in each hat.

 

Merlyn,

The other 49% would have to drum up support for the next election.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[GernBlansten]

Really Ed!

Of all the cases that you think were decided not on interpreting the law but creating it, you agree with half of those cases. Would you be so kind as to expand on one of those cases where judicial activism was in agreement with your point of view?

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed, if, as Wyomingi's hypothetical question stated, that it was declared a "native born, white, fundamentalist Christian, republican only area", what happens before the next election? Do all the citizens who don't meet this description have to move? Then they won't be able to vote in the next election, right?

[Region 7 Voyageur]

I am not understanding something here and I mean no disrespect to anyone but; what does the BSA using a U.S. Army base have anything to do with state's rights?(This message has been edited by Region 7 Voyageur)

[Kaji]

Merlyn: The constitution guarantees them the right to vote, so even if such a law were hypothetically passed, it would get struck down by the Supreme Court.

[LongHaul]

Region 7 Voyageur,

My original post has been kidnapped but lives on in another thread as they say(-:

 

Merlyn,

What happens to the 49%? The same thing that happened when we had to get BSA out of schools, your favorite food, the same thing that happen when religious displays had to be taken down from public buildings, the same thing that happened to the handguns people owned when handguns were out outlawed. The same thing that happens to the people who own homes on land that someone wants to build a strip mall on and the city condemns it. You sound like this is some kind of radical thinking yet you support the very notion of forcing established precedent to be changed. Why the difficulty in making the comparison?

Wyomingi brought up an excellent example of the majority being required to respect the rights of the minority. Disability act, thousands of dollars was spent creating access to buildings for a very small percentage of the population. New buildings must address the problem or they can't be built. The minority is forcing the majority to do something the majority would otherwise not do. Do I think it is right? YES! The handicap access does not prevent me from using the building and even though my tax dollars are being spent for something I have no use for, or need of, I think it is the proper thing to do. Having a manger in the lobby of a government building does not stop anyone from using it. The use of tax dollars for the Jamboree is no different than the use of tax dollars for handicap elevators, I can't use them but I have to pay for them. I can't park in certain spaces on government land because I am not handicapped but I have to pay for those spaces and the sign that tells me I can't park there. I don't get an extra break on my income tax. Why no marches for equal rights for the totally able? I keep quoting the Constitution but some just dont want to accept that the document does not say what they think it says, never did. Read the SCOTUS decisions on the fourteenth amendment which started all this and then you tell me that no school prayer, no religious displays on public property, is what the SCOTUS had in mind when they made that ruling. Christmas became a State holiday in Alabama in 1836 and in the District of Columbia in 1870 right around the time of the decision we are discussing. Does anyone actually think the SCOTUS was saying that government celebrating religious holidays was unconstitutional?

LongHaul

 

[evmori]

Gern,

You asked if the decisions were different from my opinion. I answered. Now you are changing the criteria.

 

The Skokie case comes to mind! Do I want to hear Nazi's spewing hate? No. But they have the right to say what ever they want. If I don't want to hear them, I don't have to listen.

 

Merlyn,

If those people moved I doubt if there would it would be an issue at the next election.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10