The atheists thing again

[SSScout]

It occurs to me that Jesus was not a white caucasoid european. Presumably neither was the Sanhedron.

 

But Pilate was.

 

TS: WWJD?

[Lisabob]

Whatsoever you do to the least of my people,

that you do unto me. (Matthew 25:40)

 

I can't answer the WWJD question in the affirmative but I'm pretty sure the answer wouldn't be "not my problem."

 

 

 

 

[TheScout]

The slippery slope argument can work the other way.

 

The Soviet Union started out promoting equality. They kept promoting it and kept promoting it. Soon everyone was equally miserable.

 

I find it a shame when people want to use governmental power to fix so many things and when they can not find any constitutional power to do so, the simply ignore constitional law and rely on vague phrases such as "equal justice for all" from sources like the Pledge.

 

 

Merlyn,

 

Thats not what the SCOTUS said in Loving. It struck down the Virginia statute based on the what it considere not a valid legislative purpose in making a racial classification and an interference on and individual rights to marry.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

TheScout writes:

Thats not what the SCOTUS said in Loving. It struck down the Virginia statute based on the what it considere not a valid legislative purpose in making a racial classification and an interference on and individual rights to marry.

 

How is that different from what I wrote?

[GernBlansten]

I certainly hope that as TheScout ripens as an adult, he will see that the US Constitution was designed to protect the minority from the rule of the majority.

This type of mentality comes from those who have never held, (or don't realize they hold) a minority position.

Mob rule is not good.

[TheScout]

Merlyn, the Supreme Court did not say that people were not being treated equally. It said that the way the state used racial classifications did not fit a valid legislative purpose.

 

Gern,

 

Correct. But I think the Constitution as written includes at least equally strong protections of States Rights.

 

Who are you to decide that the rights of Individals trump the rights of States or vice versa?

 

And remember, one mans mob rule is another mans democracy. It is very hard to tell the difference. You know under a dictatorship, one never has to worry about mob rule.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

TheScout writes:

Merlyn, the Supreme Court did not say that people were not being treated equally

 

Yes, they did. They said it violated the equal protection clause. They termed it "invidious discrimination":

 

Virginia's statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

...

Instead, the State argues that the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, as illuminated by the statements of the Framers, is only that state penal laws containing an interracial element [388 U.S. 1, 8] as part of the definition of the offense must apply equally to whites and Negroes in the sense that members of each race are punished to the same degree. Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race.

...

We have rejected the proposition that the debates in the Thirty-ninth Congress or in the state legislatures which ratified the Fourteenth Amendment supported the theory advanced by the State, that the requirement of equal protection of the laws is satisfied by penal laws defining offenses based on racial classifications so long as white and Negro participants in the offense were similarly punished.

...

There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races. Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated "[d]istinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry" as being "odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality."

...

Indeed, two members of this Court have already stated that they "cannot conceive of a valid legislative purpose . . . which makes the color of a person's skin the test of whether his conduct is a criminal offense."

...

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. 11 We have consistently denied [388 U.S. 1, 12] the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.

 

[TheScout]

Fair enough, but that is not what did Virginia in. It was like I said the lack of what the court deemed a legislative purpose in the statute. As proved in Korematsu, the State can make use of racial classifications, it just depends on the purpose.

 

And just because the SCOTUS says a law is discriminatory does not make it so. If it said the sky was green tomorrow, it would still be blue.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Like the supreme court said, it violated the equal protection clause and was "invidious discrimination", and one of the concurring opinions said that no law that made an act legal or illegal simply on the basis of the race of the actor could be constitutional. And you seem to have missed the part that pointed out the law wasn't even racially equal, since it only prohibited interracial marriage if one of the two people involved were white -- it didn't outlaw marriage between two people of different (but both non-white) races. It was crafted to promote just white supremacy, not racial "purity".

 

And as for this remark of yours:

Who are you to decide that the rights of Individals trump the rights of States or vice versa?

 

Under US law, states don't have rights, only individuals have rights. Individuals have e.g. freedom of religious expression, but states sure don't, and sure shouldn't.

[TheScout]

States don't have rights! Are you kidding me?

 

Ever read the 4th Article, or the 10th Amendment. Or the rest of the constitution which is laced with the rights of the states.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Neither article IV or the 10th amendment talk about states having rights. The 10th amendment refers to "powers" -- the federal and state governments have POWERS, not rights. When the constitution refers to "rights", they are always rights held by the people, not states. Compare the 9th and 10th amendments; the 9th refers to rights, the 10th to powers.

 

That's why individual rights cannot conflict with states' rights. States don't have rights. There may be some conflict between a person's rights and a state's powers, but it won't be "my rights vs. my state's rights". They are apples and oranges.

[TheScout]

And a state doesn't have the rights to use the powers it has?

 

[dave.424]

After reading through this whole thread (not in one sitting, thankfully), I feel I should weigh in, but not sure where to start so I'll just say this for now...

 

I think faith is a large part of scouting and would not support doing away with the DRP or changing the Oath or Law. The BSA is a private organization is entitled to make their own membership requirements. That said, I think it's a matter of personal conviction. If someone feels confortable affirming them, I won't go out of my way to question them. I've been my son's den leader for all five years of his scouting carreer and have always left the religious requirements to be completed at home and trusted the parents to report that their son successfully completed them. It's on them if they choose to fake it. I'm not really sure how an atheist could, in good conscience, legitimately complete the various religious requirements.

 

SSScout wrote, "It occurs to me that Jesus was not a white caucasoid european. Presumably neither was the Sanhedron. But Pilate was." Maybe I'm missing something, but what has that got to do with anything?

[SSScout]

David.self: Welcome to the forum! ( or is it the colliseum? Hard to tell sometimes)

 

Let's see now, Jesus was not european, but Pilate was. Jesus had no power, but Pilate had the power of life and death in the land, speaking for Caesar. Pilate "washed his hands" of the affair, and let the "locals" deal with their "problem". I perceive that the previous thread was (in part) dealing with how one treats people who are of a different color/heritage/religion/language than oneself. Some folks perceive themselves as superior to others by virtue of their place of birth or type of parents or professed religious faith and hence suppose that it is appropriate to deal with those "others" by excluding them from those areas that the self declared superior folks have control over: Schooling, housing, employment. The British attempted it in India.("White man's burden") . Mahatma Gandhi led a successful non- violent rebellion there. It was VERY non-violent, but people still died.

So is Jesus' example appropriate here? What does THAT have to do with THIS? I think Lisabob spoke to part of it.

Many primitive tribes have names for themselves that translate into english as "the people". If WE are "the people", that makes every one else NOT the people, and it is therefore correct to NOT deal with THOSE as EQUALS. It really did take an act of Congress (and the SCOTUS) to declare that someone with dark skin IS "a man". And not an "other".

 

Why did the Constitutional convention come to "The Great Compromise" when dealing with the "negroes" of the southern states? I do not belive that the "war of northern aggression" was fought over purely "States Rights". Unless it was the "right" to keep the "others" in their place.

 

Hope that helped.

 

YiS

[TheScout]

SSScout,

 

You simplify that matter. It is not about how to treat people different than you?

 

It is about what are the rights of other groups to treat people within their communities.

 

And are the ways we treat people consistent with our principles of constitutional government.

 

 

 

For the record, te Great Compromise was about who to balance the interests of large and small states, which determined how we have representation in the House and the Senate.

 

The slavery quarrel was also not about keeping people in their place. It was about the right of many people to keep CONSTITUTIONALLY sanctioned articles of property. Just cause one owns a type of property you do not like does not mean they don't have rights.