1985 Boy Scout commercial with a (now) non-supporter

[Peregrinator]

BSA like catholic hospitals have blurred the lines of if it is public or private, By taking government assistance, and so is open to similar scrutiny.

 

Rather than passing laws and regulations, then, the government could simply withdraw its assistance. But that isn't what is happening.

[moosetracker]

Actually if you read the article they are starting to do just that. Along with other government and public agencies.. Though these have inner wars all their own.

 

But, the point is my state will not take money from the government, in order to not follow government strings attached. BSA takes the money, therefore.. BSA is subject to public outcry and public interference in attempting to reform it.. Maybe the Supreme court says it is private, but as long as it takes government money, and tries to have other public organizations support it, it is subject to public opinion..

 

Long story short, BSA should not take public funds, or ask for public assistance from schools and what not..

 

Then all BSA would have to deal with is the increasing number of their own members pushing for reform, because they feel it is against the Scout oath and law.

 

I don't see much of the public trying to change the Masonic Lodges.. Although some will say they are a satanic cult or have other conspiracy theories against it. They are anti-women, anti-atheist, and most likely anti-homosexual.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

By your logic, someone who holds to a "progressive" ideology could argue that we should delete other sections of the Pledge to better conform to his or her beliefs.

 

One could argue that one should not pledge allegiance to a flag, as it is "only" a piece of cloth.

 

One could argue that "one nation" is inaccurate, as America holds both rich and poor communities.

 

One could argue that "with liberty and justice for all" is inaccurate, as liberty and justice are denied to many.

 

But since these aren't religious beliefs, they wouldn't have a first-amendment-based argument. The supreme court DID rule that nobody can be compelled to say the pledge (after getting it wrong in Minersville School District v. Gobitis).

 

By contrast, "under god" in the pledge IS a first-amendment issue.

[Eagledad]

>> Well, you lost me there, Barry. I don't see what the two have to do with each other.

[Peregrinator]

Actually if you read the article they are starting to do just that.

 

It is true that they are doing that, but it is also true that they aren't stopping there.

[moosetracker]

Peregrinator - are you hinting that now that they have started to win in some of the battles to remove government funding and public org. support from BSA, they should now stop protesting against BSA policy?

 

Problem is, BSA is not totally weened off the milk.. BSA fights hard to stay on the milk, and in some places where aide was removed by one politician, it was put back by another politician.. The tail end of that paragraph was.. Though these have inner wars all their own.

 

BSA is absolutely not severed from depending on government and public orgs. As long as they are using it, and as long as THEY feel they have a right to it.. Then, they will be subject to public opinion to get them to change.

 

The court may say they are a private org.. But as long as they are using tax dollars, in the court of public opinion, they are not.. So the public has a right to voice their opinion about them.

[Peregrinator]

Peregrinator - are you hinting that now that they have started to win in some of the battles to remove government funding and public org. support from BSA, they should now stop protesting against BSA policy?

 

My apologies - I assumed by "they" you meant government officials, not people protesting policy. I was only saying that the government is not stopping by simply removing funding but is also trying to regulate. And I did not have the BSA in mind but rather Catholic hospitals etc. For example, the HHS mandate does not say that Catholic organizations have to carry insurance that will pay for their employees' contraception or risk losing funding. It simply says that -- if they offer insurance to their employees -- their insurance must cover contraception.

[moosetracker]

No, but the same pricipal applies. Catholic hospitals & schools take government funding, and their employees are not just little old nuns, but the normal taxpaying working class.. They are running businesses..

 

And, Catholics buisnesses don't have to put it on their health insurance, just their employees can get an add-on for it through the insurance company.. So they don't have to sully their hands.. I know, I know they would prefer regimenting their employees lives be they Catholic or jewish or atheist, like the women they fired because she went for a medical procedure they disapproved of..

[Peregrinator]

Catholics buisnesses don't have to put it on their health insurance, just their employees can get an add-on for it through the insurance company.

 

The insurance company must provide it. It is not an add-on. So the Catholic business is still paying for it through premiums.

 

I know, I know they would prefer regimenting their employees lives

 

It's not a matter of regimenting lives. How does an employer not paying for something mean that the employee can't do it? My employer doesn't pay for me to get my hair cut, yet I'm still free to get one (or not). Nor does he pay for my car, but I am still free to travel.

 

be they Catholic or jewish or atheist, like the women they fired because she went for a medical procedure they disapproved of.

 

You'll have to be more specific.

[moosetracker]

You missed the other part of that piece. They fired a women due to her personal decision (between herself, her husband, her doctor) to try an insemination process the catholics disapproved of.. None of their buisness what she choose to do..

 

If catholics fear some of that add on insurance is somehow effecting them in a trickle down effect.. Raise the co-pay to meet it.. Then the employee is still paying for it. But, I would imagine the insurance company would have to show some sort of proof that they are paying $20 less per person (or whatever they figure the insurance for that part is) then the employer who is paying for the insurance.. There would need to be some proof of good faith.. Problem is, they don't want to sit down and discuss and work out what would be the proof of good faith that would be acceptable to them.. They would rather moan and groan and talk about being persecuted..

[Peregrinator]

You missed the other part of that piece. They fired a women due to her personal decision (between herself, her husband, her doctor) to try an insemination process the catholics disapproved of.. None of their buisness what she choose to do..

 

It's their business if her employment contract had a morality clause ... it's their business if she told students how she conceived ... etc. If she didn't want to uphold Church teaching, she shouldn't have sought employment from a Catholic school. Was she confused about the terms of her employment contract? or did she just not like them?

 

And if you're talking about the latest case, it was the teacher who chose to make it the Church's business ... she told the school when she took sick days in order to undergo IVF.

[moosetracker]

She never told students anything.. She was asked about it by co-worker, who was a nun, who for years supported and wish her well as a friend.. The nun brought it up to another adult who took offense..

 

It is not my employeers buisness what I choose to do in my personal life, if it is descreet and not public, nor is it her employeers business.. It only became public knowledge AFTER she was fired..

 

She also has a right to use sick days, for health care treatment, whether elective of necessary.. I can use sick time for a normal scheduled Dr. apptments, or elective surgery, even if I choose to get cosmetic surgery for a face lift, or a boob job. Not my employers buisness.

[Peregrinator]

It is not my employeers buisness what I choose to do in my personal life

 

It is if you accept employment knowing that your contract makes your personal life your employer's business. A typical contract states that a teacher's employment can be terminated for "gross immorality" or "behavior not consistent with the moral teachings of the Roman Catholic Church" (IVF would probably fall into the latter category). If she didn't want to make her personal life her employer's business, then she should not have accepted employment there. If she could not live up to the standards of the employment contract, she should have sought employment elsewhere. If she got bad advice (from a nun who ought to know better), then that is tragic -- perhaps she should bring suit against her nun friend instead.

[Fehler]

Did she sign such a contract, or was it "assumed" she was bound by those terms as an employee? And were such terms applied fairly, to all employees who signed similar contracts? i.e. is a remarried divorcee allowed to teach? How about gambling, drinking, and other vices? You can't selectively enforce contract terms.

[moosetracker]

Peregrinator

It's not a matter of regimenting lives. How does an employer not paying for something mean that the employee can't do it? My employer doesn't pay for me to get my hair cut, yet I'm still free to get one (or not). Nor does he pay for my car, but I am still free to travel.

 

Will your employer fire you for getting a hair cut, or buying a car? Will the Catholics have the right to fire anyone who walks into the insurance company to sign up for the add-on insurance?. After all, they wouldn't do that without having the intent to sin.

 

So stop belly aching, the Catholics can now just make all their employees sign an agreement, they will not get the add-on insurance.

 

SP.. I am not a fan of the immigration changes either. It means if the kid stays, the parents stay.. Cross the boarder 8 mths pregnat and drop the kid, instance citizenship.. But, face it, we just aren't hard on immegration with or without the changes.. They all get to stay, unless they commit a crime. But, as to the Catholics and Obamacare, they are just assuming the worse. Until they sit down, hash it out and get to a point neither side will budge, they don't know how the add-on insurance will work.. Then who cares, they can simply fire any employee who gets the extra insurance anyway.