Question for Disparagers, etc.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Why do non-whites want to join all-white country clubs? Why do women want to join men-only Jaycees (when they were men-only)?

[OldGreyEagle]

Bulldog, thats not the point.

 

if there was a Atheist youth organization and it was renting a building in Philly for a dollar a year, would you have a problem with it when the going rent for such space is $200,000 a year?

 

Its not the BSA's position on Atheists that rile Merlyn, its the BSA saying they are a private organization and then acting as if they are a public accomodation and expect preferential treatment from the government when we know we have rules that can't be bent,

 

Well, maybe BSA's membership do rile Merlyn, but he has repeatedly said we can have our private membership, private organization rules all we want, just don't expect use of public facilities at a discount no one else can get.

 

Anyway, I think I have it down, I am sure if wrong, Merlyn will correct me

[BulldogBlitz]

"Why do non-whites want to join all-white country clubs? Why do women want to join men-only Jaycees (when they were men-only)? "

 

 

 

why is there a need to move a black family into an all-white area, when there is no need to move a white family into an all-black area?

 

forcing a minority opinion on a group isn't the right thing to do.... and a lawsuit won't make it "right" either.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

why is there a need to move a black family into an all-white area, when there is no need to move a white family into an all-black area? forcing a minority opinion on a group isn't the right thing to do....

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at with that statement. I think people have what's called "freedom of movement" in the US, which means they can buy a house and move into it, even if their neighbors don't like their skin color.

 

Maybe you could clarify what point you were making.

 

and a lawsuit won't make it "right" either.

 

The only lawsuit still active in the Cradle of Liberty situation that I know of is the BSA's lawsuit against the city, demanding that they get the building for $1/year. If you're against that lawsuit, I agree with you.

 

PS: right, OGE.

[packsaddle]

flames(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[CalicoPenn]

It's the same old merry-go-round once again.

 

I get Merlin's point, and I agree with it.

 

If Religious Organization A (we'll call them the BSA) goes to a public park district and asks to rent the parks pavilion and is given a rental rate of Ten Dollars and Non-religious Organization B (we'll call them Athiests of America) goes to the same public park district and asks to rent the same pavilion and is given a rental rate of Fifty Dollars, this is not fair and equal access - and is likely to be a violation of the establishment clause (remember, there is no "A" in the establihment clause, so it is a proscription against establishing any and all religions, not just a so-called "state" religion).

 

Now it comes down to someone gets it or someone doesn't. It seems to me that the benefit of the doubt position when there is disagreement on the concept is that the person doesn't get it.

 

But - if they do get it and still disagree, then there will never be a meeting of the minds on it. It means that the person disagreeing doesn't care if it is fair and equitable, as long as his/her favored organization is the beneficiary and when the favored beneficiary is told they will now be treated the same as any other organization when it comes to access, the person who doesn't care about equitability towards other organizations will howl the most in outrage.

 

 

[evmori]

The reason I ask the questions I ask, Merlyn, isn't because I don't understand. I understand very well. I don't agree with your examples as they are not comparing the same things. Your examples of race discrimination don't equate to the discrimination you perceive atheists endure. Not all discrimination is equal! You should know that!

 

And, Calico, if a public park gives the BSA a discounted rate over another group, the issue is with the park, not the BSA.

[packsaddle]

I think Calico has it right. When one group has enjoyed a privilege for a long time, and when circumstances change to cause them to lose that privilege, they will probably cry, "unfair!"

But in this case, BSA sought to establish their status as a private religious organization, knowing that this status would jeopardize many of the things BSA has taken for granted in the past. BSA did it anyway. Whining about the results won't change things.

[Beavah]

Yah, this old claptrap again?

 

OK, well, then, I'll insert my usual bits.

 

Sometimes da grant of special rates to one group is because that group provides a public service that merits the special rate, regardless of what da religious nature of the group is. School vouchers for parochial schools in various cities, government grants to Catholic universities, and on and on. Has nuthin' to do with establishment of religion. Has to do with good management of public resources to get a public job done.

 

On the flipside is an issue of fairness. If the government controls a huge chunk of GDP (what are we averagin' now, 30% combined tax rate, local/state/federal plus excise and property and other taxes?), then excludin' religious groups from government funds is just a form of oppression or suppression of viewpoint. "You can have your viewpoint, but we're goin' to deprive it of access to half the available money out there." Good way to make whoever is controllin' da government's voice louder, I suppose. If we increase taxes and fees enough, eventually we get to da Soviet state where you can completely repress religion by defunding it. People can believe what they want, but da government controls all the means of production and it's not goin' to any religious purpose.

 

I think we want to fund any religious group that serves a public/secular purpose in an economical way. That's what almost every other country in da free world does.

 

And I think we want to be very, very reluctant to deny government funding categorically to a group because of their philosophy or belief. That way lies monsters.

 

Beavah

 

[evmori]

If Ed understood the concept, he wouldn't need to ask why the first two examples required being identified as an atheist. The VERY THING he was claiming, that floor sinks was an example of discrimination due to religious views, REQUIRES that the user's religious views be KNOWN in order to TEST whether particular religious views are required.

 

But he couldn't even see that. And he stated himself that anyone can walk in and use the sinks without needing to identify their religious views. So HOW COULD IT POSSIBLY BE AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING RESTRICTED BY ONE'S RELIGIOUS VIEWS?

 

Yet he claimed it was exactly THAT.

 

Taxpayer funding for religious use, Merlyn. You seem to be losing focus here.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed, I specifically asked for taxpayer-funded programs that excluded people on their religious views. JoeBob's examples are not examples of that.

[packsaddle]

I was once informed by the Voter Registrar at the county courthouse that in North Carolina, a person could not vote if they didn't believe in God. Does that count? (let's see, as I remember that was in 1975)

[evmori]

Let's see, those foot baths for Muslims were installed with taxpayer money.

 

No one said the pool was "rented" for a time for Muslims only, just that a time was set aside for them.

 

Do you know where every penny of your taxes goes, Merlyn? I doubt it.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed, you agreed that the sinks are usable by anyone, not just Muslims, so it isn't an example.

 

And you obviously didn't bother to read the article about renting the pool. It's pointless to argue with you when you keep yourself deliberately ignorant.

 

PS: packsaddle, yes, that would be another (illegal) example.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah, sounds like you'd agree with the ACLU, and insist that the government not finance programs that discriminate on the basis of religion. But somehow, your platitudes keep whitewashing the BSA's discrimination and you think it's unfair if the government refuses to fund their "private" discriminatory program. You just aren't consistent.