The DRP debate club, Round WHAT??

[packsaddle]

Gonzo1, that's why the Sons of the American Revolution exist. Join away!

[Lisabob]

Gonzo there is no Constitutional guarantee of equal rights regardless of gender. If you want that, then I recommend you contact your members of Congress and make clear your staunch support for the ERA.

 

In comparison, there is that pesky first amendment protection against government-supported religious discrimination. You may or may not agree with the Supreme Court's past interpretations of the 1st amendment (for many decades now) and who knows, with the current make up of the Court this might even change. But until then, the bar for gender discrimination is not in the same place as the bar for religious discrimination.

 

And there is no bar for age discrimination in most matters at all; the Constitution is virtually silent on that matter.

[Gonzo1]

LisaBob,

You oblviously missed the point. I couldn't care less about joining the DAR. My point is to raise the hackles of Merlyn. If's he's such an "advocate", I'd like him to advocate for me. Perhaps you'd like to join the Sons of Confederate Veterans. But, you see, you can't either. My comment about my civils rights being "trampled" was COMPLETELY "tongue in cheek". Nobody has a "right" to join a private club or organization.

 

Lisa, I wish tone and inflection could come through the keyboard, but it can't. I'm not arguing with you, but that each of these groups is private, has their own membership rules.

 

I don't know how many times we're quoted the

First Ammendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." but there is no "separation of church and state" in there. Just like there is no "constitutional guarantee" to have an abortion, but that's another matter. We also have the right to peacably assemble. We also have the right to free speech, so if i want to pray or proclaim something I can - I also know that freedom of speech does not guarantee a right to be heard.

 

I suppose it's really OK that a bar for sex discrimination is at a different level than say for national origin, race, "orientation" or religion. My point here is that the bar should be same, shouldn't it? Or is it OK to discriminate against a discrimination factor?

 

Merlyn, I'd like to join American Atheists. I'll send in my $25, when I'm turned down, will you get your ACLU goons to represent ME? How much do you think I can sue for?

[GernBlansten]

Gonzo, I doubt your membership to American Athiests would be rejected. And even if it were, its not a civil rights violation. Just like the rejection of athiests in BSA is not a civil rights violation. But it is one if the chartering organization is the government and they use creed as a limiter to provide service. Merlyn isn't saying its a civil rights violation for BSA to reject atheists. Historically it has been, but that has been corrected. He is just making sure they don't cross the line again where it does become one.

[vol_scouter]

Obviously, the ACLU will not be representing Gonzo1 because he his cause does not further their agenda. As a private organization, the ACLU can have any agenda that it wishes but it does not represent everyone's rights (i. Second amendment rights is a glaring example). Merlyn is not telling the entire truth on the ACLU's sources of funds however. As he said, the ACLU can sue and collect if it wins just as any law firm. However, because of a law designed to make sure that the poor can sue the government, they will be paid irregardless of winning or losing if they represent the 'right' people. Thus, they have no risk in suing the BSA. I do not appreciate my tax dollars going to the ACLU just as Merlyn does not appreciate his tax dollars going to schools that charter scouting units.

 

As to the crucifix being photographed in urine (by the way - I am offended by the title that Merlyn uses for this piece of garbage), the case is worse that the tax dollars were given through an award. If the NEA hard paid the artist in advance for artwork and had not known the intended content, I could understand how that happened. Rather, the NEA knowing insulted the majority of tax payers in this country by giving our tax dollars to a worthless, non-imaginative piece that was designed only to shock and to insult. That is a more egregious attack on religion by the government than chartering a group designed to provide values to youth.

 

Finally, I realize that the current rulings are the law. As Beevah points out, the law is always changing. So although I accept the current laws, I do not agree with the interpretation. That is my right. As Merlyn agitates for his point of view, I will agitate for mine. I do not agrue that currently Merlyn is correct but that may change. Once again, only on the religion clause of the First amendment do you not have to show harm. His example of harm is no more compelling than mine with the crucifix in urine.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Gonzo1, like I said before, I've been replying to your remarks back from page 4 where you didn't see any problem back when public schools chartered units. American Atheists would accept your membership if you're willing to sign a statement that you are an atheist; if not, you can't join, since it's an organization of atheists. Since AA is a *genuine* private club that does not attempt to defraud the government by having government entities run regional AA units or apply for HUD grants to increase their membership, there is no civil rights violation and the ACLU will tell you as much.

 

vol_scouter, if you don't like the title of "Piss Christ," complain to Serrano, the guy who made it, because that's the title he gave it. And I doubt he did it to shock people, as he's Catholic and has done a lot of religious imagery with other human body fluid like blood and milk.

[Lisabob]

No Gonzo, I don't think I did miss your point, thank you. In fact I'd say it is pretty obvious that you were merely trying to raise Merlyn's hackles. (Whether you succeed in that goal or not is, of course, entirely up to the two of you.)

 

Thing is, you were using a pretty weak argument to do so! There are large differences between gov't-sponsored discrimination based on something that is fairly clearly prohibited in the Constitution, and private clubs discriminating based on something that isn't clearly prohibited in the Constitution. So I'm sorry but no, the ACLU probably would not ride to your rescue in the cases you outline, because the ACLU exists to protect our CONSTITUTIONAL rights, not some made-up claims that people decide to get upset about or use as red herrings, with no basis in constitutional law.

 

Sorry, but I get real tired of people saying "rabble rabble! The ACLU didn't protect my RIGHTS!" when in fact there are no "rights" at stake. As for people's animosity to the ACLU, I'm always amazed at how unpopular protecting our actual rights - the ones in the Bill of Rights - seems to be in some circles.

 

 

[evmori]

Right on the money vol_scouter! I was offended by the picture as well and am just as offended that my tax dollars were used for this. But, apparently, the ACLU doesn't care! But they care about the BSA because the BSA whooped up on them in the Dale case! If the NEA does the same, watch the lawsuits fly!

[hops_scout]

Is this NEA you guys are talking about the National Educators Association?

[Lisabob]

nope, another NEA - the national endowment for the arts

[FScouter]

This country would be better off if we spent more money on things like the National Endowment for the Arts, public works, education, and less on non-productive activities like war. Anybody know what percentage of our GDP goes towards "defense"?

[Bob White]

The world would no doubt be a better place if someday nations who disagreed could just hurl actors at each other.

 

 

About .19 of each tax dollar goes to defence. Only Social Security gets more than that. When I think about how little that is out of my pocket to protect the freedoms we enjoy and the life we have in this country it seems cheap at twice the price.

[Gonzo1]

Merlyn, I didn't see a probably with public schools chartering units before, I wouldn't see a probable today. It's a right to peacably assemble. But, we CAN still meet at schools, just not be chartered by them. Done. Units can be chartered to the Friends of the school, the PTO or PTA or some other group and still meet at the school.

 

Lisa,

I don't really want to join the DAR, but my point is like what vol_scouter said, my defense wouldn't further their agenda. It's all about the agenda.

 

Merlyn, if AA doesn't accept my application, isn't THAT discrimination based on religion? I would be discriminated against because I am religious.

 

Fscouter, War, today, may be unpopular in a liberal viewpoint, BUT, war has been necessary and is necessary today. Where would we be without war? How about the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812? The Mexican American War, The Civil War, WW-I, WW-II, Korean War and the ever popular Vietnam War. We must have the Global War on Terror to keep the %^*&% over there. Our nation is not ready to have car bombs going off at the mall, your local coffee shop and the ball parks. In our country's short memory, please remember that President Bush made many, many warnings to Saddam before taking the troops to the Gulf. But, since Saddam thumbed his nose at us AND THE MIGHTY UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL and our Congress who all voted for the use of force, well, you get the idea, we're at war with an enemy who does not wear a uniform. How would the country feel if Great Britain had been attacked and we sent troops somewhere? (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Gonzo1 writes:

Merlyn, I didn't see a probably with public schools chartering units before, I wouldn't see a probable today. It's a right to peacably assemble.

 

Assuming you meant to type "problem," I agree that you don't see a problem. But the ACLU and even the BSA did.

 

But, we CAN still meet at schools, just not be chartered by them.

 

Yes -- because there IS a problem in having public schools charter them. Public schools can't discriminate on the basis of religion.

 

Merlyn, if AA doesn't accept my application, isn't THAT discrimination based on religion?

 

Of course it is; got a problem with that?

[RememberSchiff]

I have read that our military budget (not counting Dept of Homeland Security or Veterans services) is larger than the budget of the next 15 nations combined. Unlike other nations, we have a military presence on foreign soils outside of UN actions.

 

But maybe we spend more than all nations combined

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp#InContextUSMilitarySpendingVersusRestoftheWorld

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

 

Compare us to those with a higher standard of living than US and how much they spend on defense.

 

But back to the topic...we need to get back in the public school otherwise our memberships number will continue the downward spiral. We need to recruit and hold activities in the public school, particularly "after school". Other youth organizations (4-H, Boys & Girls) without the DRP disadvantage are growing. They are where the boys are and we are not.