SeattlePioneer Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 > In 1999 militant left wingers trashed much of downtown Seattle in their efforts to disrupt the right of World Trade Organization representatives to peaceably assemble and discuss their business. Much the same thing happened again May 1, 2012 as anarchists celebrated Mayday by trashing downtown Seattle. There are extremist hot heads around many political, social and cultural movements. Nothing new about any of that. Seattle Pioneer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BSA24 Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 > the current political policies of the > Supreme Court are biased, obnoxious and > offensive, in my view. They provide a definite > bias towards atheism and therefore create > an atmosphere of hostility towards religion. Can you cite the rulings from the cases you disagree with? I am unable to find any significant supreme court rulings on the establishment clause since 1997. The things that annoy you I rather appreciate: http://www.politicsplus.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/30Iran.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZMike Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 "Can you cite the rulings from the cases you disagree with? I am unable to find any significant supreme court rulings on the establishment clause since 1997." Really? Pretty much any SCOTUS ruling is significant. Some of the post 1997 SCOTUS rulings re freedom of religion: Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) - Re school vouchers - issuance of vouchers to religious schools does not violate the estabishment clause. Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004) - "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance - SCOTUS held that the atheist non-custodial dad lacked standing to challenge on behalf of his daughter and didn't address the constitutionality due to the procedural issue, but worth reading the arguments and decisions to see where the individual justices' heads are at on this. Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe (2000) - SCOTUS held allowing student-led prayer at a school football game violated the establishment clause. Mitchell v. Helms (2000) - Government loans to religious schools do not violate establishment clause. Agostini v. Felton (1997) - Not violation of clause for state to pay for public school teachers to provide secular instruction in religious schools. Van Orden v. Perry (2005) - Okay for state to display 10 commandments in monuments at state capital in Austin, as they have both historical and religious tradition... McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005) - but it is not okay to display it in Kentucky. This was actually issued the dame day as the above decision, you will have to read their reasoning for yourself. I'm not the person to whom you are responding, but some I agree with, some I do not. The CHS contraception insurance policy mandate case which will work its way down the pike (assuming the ObamaCare tax isn't reconciled out of existence in January, 2013) will be huge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeattlePioneer Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 > As I mentioned before, I recommend "The Naked Public Square" for a discussion of this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted July 3, 2012 Author Share Posted July 3, 2012 So you have no specific complaints, SeattlePioneer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeattlePioneer Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 I believe I've related a good many specific complaints. If you are interested in my complaints, my recent posts on this thread contain several. If you want a more or less academic treatment of the issue of religion and the first amendment by the courts, I recommend "The Naked Public Square. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted July 3, 2012 Author Share Posted July 3, 2012 I believe you haven't been specific at all, SeattlePioneer. A lot of thud and blunder about how atheists/liberals/monsters are removing religion, and your odd belief that anyone and everyone should get to pray and make speeches at graduations, but no e.g. court decisions that you disagree with. Just bombast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeattlePioneer Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 I recommend "The Naked Public Square" which does a pretty sophisticate job of exploring the political and religious importance of these issues. It's really not a legal issue. It's a political and cultural issue, and one that should be dealt with differently in different communities. Of course the Supreme Court only has one size fits all solutions, which is why the courts shouldn't be dealing with this issues except around the gross margin, drawing the outer margin of what is acceptable. Unfortunately Supreme Court judges have wildly exaggerated ideas of their own wisdom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJCubScouter Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 But it has tremendously advantaged the militant atheists who are are still looking for the opportunity to strangle the last king with the guts of the last priest. Gee, I think someone could use a nap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moosetracker Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 (to MikeAZ & NJ's discussion about dividing up the BSA assets into two different groups. seems you guys have been busy bickering about other things as I was authoring my masterpiece..) I prefer James Turleys method (the national board member) who stated that he "will work from within to seek a change" At least we should hold out until May 2013, when a committee will make a report, about making it the right of the CO to determine if for themselves about homosexuals in leadership roles. But, if AZMike (an others on his side of the arguement) want to not spend the time to work things out though we certainly are trying and trying to do so... Well, then NJCubScouter idea of a divorce may be necessary.. But, really NJ! 30% !!! You are selling all our years of sweat and tears and love and devotion too short.. After all we are the party trying to work things out.. And... SOB!!! They just wont try to work things out.. SOB !!! It isn't our fault.. It really isn't.. They are just hard hearted and uncaring.. SOB !!! sniffle, sniffle.. I think we have a case to take BSA to the cleaners! And if I dont get a fair share, I will just have to stay around and continue to harp on BSA until they change.. About public prayer.. I am fine with someone doing a sunrise service in the park, or a ceremony of Hope and prayer at a public playground where a child went missing.. You announce the reason for the meeting will be religious and people can attend or not.. But, public prayer at a graduation or a town meeting I can see as being different.. People were told the gathering was for something else, and you will have a mix of people coming for the overall purpose of gathering, some who are fine with the prayer, some who are religious but not comfortable with YOUR type of prayer, some who are uncomfortable with any type of prayer.. If I went to a course on photography, I would not like the teacher spending class time about her feeling on Obamacare.. If I went with my child to a book signing of my childs favorite author, I would not be happy that while promoting her new book BoBo the Clown they do a speech about animal cruelty and go into things that make my child squirm.. Free speech does not mean you get to talk about what you want to talk about with a group of people your gathered by promoting it is for a different event. (This message has been edited by moosetracker) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 AZMike and Moosetracker, I guess I read NJ's post differently. I read it as using a somewhat complicated (perhaps ridiculous) alternative to make the point that a much simpler path to a solution is simply, the local option. OTOH, I could be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJCubScouter Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 On the other hand, Packsaddle, you could be right. I don't think AZ or Moosetracker took my "suggestion" in quite the same spirit in which I made it. It actually is not the first time I have made that "suggestion" in this forum, though the last time may have been 7 or 8 years ago. But it is not entirely a non-serious suggestion. I suppose it is made with tongue about three-quarters in cheek. I know it will never happen. I do think it would be fair, IF the BSA were unable to resolve the issue within itself. But I want the BSA to resolve it within itself, so we truly CAN be one organization again. I'd like the BSA to have the same united spirit that it did when I was a Scout -- red berets optional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZMike Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 "About public prayer.. I am fine with someone doing a sunrise service in the park, or a ceremony of Hope and prayer at a public playground where a child went missing.. You announce the reason for the meeting will be religious and people can attend or not.. But, public prayer at a graduation or a town meeting I can see as being different.. People were told the gathering was for something else, and you will have a mix of people coming for the overall purpose of gathering, some who are fine with the prayer, some who are religious but not comfortable with YOUR type of prayer, some who are uncomfortable with any type of prayer.. ... Free speech does not mean you get to talk about what you want to talk about with a group of people your gathered by promoting it is for a different event. " I'd agree with you on that point. But it is the nature of public civic events that some sort of invocation is usually offered. It's hardly unexpected by the crowd. It is why each session of Congress opens with a prayer. As long as it is non-denominational OR different religions have a chance to offer the prayer, I see no harm or constitutional problem in public prayer. I've sat through invocations by Buddhists, Native American shamans, Mormons, Evangelicals, Jews, Catholics, Unitarians, Hindus, Muslims, even a Rosicrucian. I don't agree with the tenets of some of those faiths, but it was kind of them to care enough about the group to offer a prayer on their behalf. And, it can be interesting to hear what other people believe. Diversity, yes? Although I am a Christian, I would agree also that in the scouts, it's not appropriate to include Christocentric ideas in public prayer unless you know the group is solely Christian. As that is common to the way many boys are raised in America, I don't think anyone should have a meltdown if a 12 year old boy slips and includes a reference to "My Lord" or "Jesus" when saying grace or closing a meeting with a prayer. People should lighten up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeattlePioneer Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 > Somehow the Supreme Court and the atheist left seems to be struck dumb on the subject of diversity when it comes to religion in the public square. > Exactly! Public officials are almost always capable of making smarter decisions about what will work best in their jurisdictions than the Supreme Court in Washington DC. The idea of the Federal courts patrolling public meetings, ever on the lookout for someone praying so they can swoop in and save the day is ridiculous. Decades ago the Court got out of the business of viewing dirty movies to ban, because it made them look ridiculous. The same is true for their fetish about public prayer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted July 3, 2012 Author Share Posted July 3, 2012 SeattlePioneer writes: Somehow the Supreme Court and the atheist left seems to be struck dumb on the subject of diversity when it comes to religion in the public square. Somehow SeattlePioneer manages to immediately forget the Mormon and Catholic families that filed the lawsuit in the Santa Fe case, and the evangelical who wrote a column opposing prayers at school football games; only atheists can be demonized. And "religion in the public square" usually means the majority religion is expressed, and nobody else's. Yeah, great "diversity" there. The idea of the Federal courts patrolling public meetings, ever on the lookout for someone praying so they can swoop in and save the day is ridiculous. They don't; citizens bring lawsuits. Why do you make up crap and present it as truth? Trying to start a new religion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now