Question for Disparagers, etc.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Segregation "worked" for a long time too, but that's not a sufficient reason to justify governmental support.

[Stosh]

Hmmm, Group A gets to rent the park pavillion for $1 after they clean up the park. Group B gets to rent the park pavillion for $2 for their own use. No rights are denied. Both have a right to the pavillion. One often confuses entitlement with rights. No one is stepping on the rights of Group B by charging them $2 to use the pavillion. It's probably a good thing to rent to Group A because it's going to cost the government

$1 in lost revenue to get the park cleaned, whereas it would have normally cost them $3 for the government workers to do it.

 

Cherry-picking facts to support an agenda is usually evidence of intentional argumentation. Unfortunately for those who like to play such games, not everyone wants to join in.

 

Stosh

[Beavah]

Segregation "worked" for a long time too, but that's not a sufficient reason to justify governmental support.

 

???

 

Nah, it didn't. Didn't serve those families or kids well at all, eh? Left us with a long term tragic legacy that's hard to overcome.

 

Run out of straw yet?

 

Beavah

 

[packsaddle]

Beavah, I think the point is that the same words that you just wrote to promote a pragmatic approach were also used to promote something that "Left us with a long term tragic legacy that's hard to overcome."

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

Didn't serve those families or kids well at all, eh?

 

You mean by how "well" the BSA serves gay and atheist kids and their families?

[Beavah]

Yah, packsaddle, but it's a silly straw man, eh? Just like his next message. If he keeps twistin' da words and facts and circumstances around to fit into his neat little preconceived argument while ignorin' everything else, I don't reckon there's much to say, eh?

 

B

 

 

 

[skeptic]

Merlyn: Where is it written that BSA has to serve Gay and Atheist kids, especially the Atheist. Since the BSA has beliefs that are not in conjunction with them, why would they need to serve them.

 

Secondly,there is no restriction on the kids of Gays, only on allowing their adult guardians to be leaders. As long as the kids will adhere to the ideals of BSA, they can be members. If guardians or parents choose to keep their kids from the program, that is their choice. They can and do find other alternatives.

[packsaddle]

"...but it's a silly straw man, eh?" Yep, heard that one back then too. Blast from the past.

[vol_scouter]

It is interesting to me that the left wishes to quote the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment but never mentions the next clause that guarantees the free exercise of religion. They are more than happy to prevent the free exercise of religion in order to make sure that the government can not be construed as aiding religious organizations in any way even thought that was not the intent of the clause.

 

The Boy Scouts are not violating anyone's civil rights by having membership standards. The right to associate with whom we please is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights as well. If that right is lost, then having membership standards for any organization would not be legal. Doctors could join the ABA and attorneys the AMA. Atheists would have to allow Christians and Muslims would have to accept Jews. Obviously, this is absurd. The Boy Scouts do not violate anyone the civil rights of anyone else by using public facilities unless no groups are allowed to use them including families - you have to be related to be in a family thus keeping all non-family out.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

skeptic writes:

Merlyn: Where is it written that BSA has to serve Gay and Atheist kids, especially the Atheist.

 

Nowhere that I know of.

 

But if government money is involved, I and a lot of other atheists aren't going to let that pass.

 

vol_scouter writes:

It is interesting to me that the left wishes to quote the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment but never mentions the next clause that guarantees the free exercise of religion. They are more than happy to prevent the free exercise of religion in order to make sure that the government can not be construed as aiding religious organizations in any way even thought that was not the intent of the clause.

 

"Free exercise" does not mean government support.

 

The Boy Scouts are not violating anyone's civil rights by having membership standards.

 

True, as long as they really are a private organization.

 

The Boy Scouts do not violate anyone the civil rights of anyone else by using public facilities unless no groups are allowed to use them including families

 

The BSA can use the building for $200,000/year, same as anyone else.

 

 

[evmori]

keptic writes:

Merlyn: Where is it written that BSA has to serve Gay and Atheist kids, especially the Atheist.

 

Nowhere that I know of.

 

But if government money is involved, I and a lot of other atheists aren't going to let that pass.

 

What about all those taxpayer dollars that help support houses of worship? There is a lot more cash heading that way than the BSA's way. Are the atheists gonna let that pass?

[vol_scouter]

Free exercise of religion means non-interference. The Amendment was written to assure that the states could have state supported religion but the federal government could not infringe upon the choices of the states. It was never intended to penalize religious groups as it has been twisted.

 

The BSA has a contract with the city of Philadelphia for the long term rental. The city should live up to the agreement or deed the land back to the BSA for $1.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

vol_scouter, the city followed the contract; it could be ended at any time by giving one year's notice, and the city gave a year's notice. The BSA lawsuit doesn't mention any breach of contract. And the city can't deed the land "back" to the BSA because the BSA never owned it.

[Beavah]

Beavah, I think the point is that the same words that you just wrote to promote a pragmatic approach were also used to promote something that "Left us with a long term tragic legacy that's hard to overcome.

 

Yah, and da same words Merlyn writes were used to promote Stalinist communism. People can believe what they want, but state support will be withdrawn from all alternative viewpoints.

 

If da state is very small and limited, then that doesn't matter much.

 

If da state controls all da means of production, then that amounts to complete repression of alternate viewpoints.

 

In our case, where the state controls around 40% of da means of production (and more every day), it amounts to substantial repression of any viewpoint contrary to those of white suburban secularists.

 

Merlyn doesn't mind repressing views other than his own. Like all zealots, he tries to turn it into a Holy Cause based on his personal view of Scripture (in this case, da Constitution, not the Bible).

 

I just disagree is all. I think it's best if government is kept small, so that it can't effectively change viewpoints usin' economic access as a lever. But if government is large, then it should offer jobs and discounts and access to people regardless of their beliefs or associations, based solely on serving a governmental purpose.

 

Anything else is dangerous.

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Yes, of course, NOT giving special deals to a no-atheist, no-gays private organization is Stalinism. Why couldn't I see that? Here, let me help you up on that cross, Beavah.