evmori Posted May 15, 2004 Share Posted May 15, 2004 pack, I think you are correct. But what was their motivation to pick on the BSA's lease & not another or all "special" leases? Were these people denied use of the area? I don't think so. Did the ACLU "talk them into it"? Probably. What else could be their motivation? Merlyn will tell you they felt slighted by the BSA policies regarding membership. I doubt it. What about the policies of other groups who have "special" leases with the city? This suit by the ACLU is aimed at the BSA. Why? Merlyn will tell you because the BSA discriminates. The BSA has membership guidelines that require belief in God. If you don't believe in God you can't join. The Supreme Court ruled the BSA could do this so no laws are being broken! I propose the ACLU is targeting the BSA because the BSA has been kicking their butts in court! And if this goes to the Supreme Court the BSA will kick the ACLU's butt again! And Merlyn, your excuse for ignoring the remainder of my post was not valid! Once again you toss out the "you don't understand" line. You are the one who doesn't understand the 1st Amendment! Free exercise OF religion not FROM religion like your version! "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." Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OldGreyEagle Posted May 16, 2004 Share Posted May 16, 2004 I think I have the theme song to this thread I've got a song that ain't got no melody.I'm gonna sing it to my friends.I've got a song that ain't got no melody.I'm gonna sing it to my friends.Will it go around in circles?Will it fly hight like a bird up in the sky?Will it go around in circles?Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky?I've got a story, ain't got no moral.let the bad guy win, every once in a while.I've got a story, ain't got no moral.Let the bad guy win, every once in a while.Will it go around in circles?Will it fly hight like a bird up in the sky?Will it go around in circles?Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky?I've got a dance that ain't got no steps, no.Gonna let the music move me around.I've got a dance that ain't got no steps, no.Gonna let the music move me around.Will it go around in circles?Will it fly hight like a bird up in the sky?Will it go around in circles?Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deloe Posted May 17, 2004 Author Share Posted May 17, 2004 Something I was wondering about: some articles have said that the boys in question were not allowed into the BSA, one because his parents were atheists, and the other because they were of the same sex. Does the BSA really restrict membership on the basis of the boys' parents? NJCubScouter: but the fact that supporters of the BSA are acting dishonestly IS one of my main points. If someone were writing articles libeling the Scouts, theyd be up in arms about it. But as far as I know, the Scouts have not complained about this article, and have in fact promoted it. So apparently, the Scouts dont care about dishonesty if it doesnt hurt them. If I were a member a group that was being represented by a liar, I would be angry. I would want the organization to do everything it could to disown that person. Yet I havent seen anything like that from Scouts. FOG: What I dont get is why you keep insisting that no locals have complained, when I have already explained that you are in error. Did you not bother reading my post, or do you just not feel the truth should get in the way of an argument? Also, your use of the term outsider had a connotation of more than merely holding local elections. But I think that your last line sums your type up pretty well: you just dont like dealing with opposing viewpoints, and want anyone who bothers you to go away. Packsaddle: trustworthy is pretty much the same thing as honest. Also, the families first sued the city, the BSA was added as a party to the suit, and then city settled with the families. Although the ACLU is providing legal counsel to the families, they are no more an official party to the lawsuit than was Cochran a defendant in OJs murder trial. Evmori: I really don't see the ACLU as a defender of the Constitution unless it is their version of the Constitution. What do you expect? Should the ACLU say Gee, we think that this is violation of the Constitution, but Ed doesnt, so well let it go? Do YOU defend the ACLUs version of the Constitution, or do you defend your own? Prayer is not prohibited in public schools. That is yet another lie promulgated by the right wing. Also, I think you might be a child molester. I dont have any specific examples of you being a child molester, all I have is my theories. But can you prove that youre not a child molester? This is called an argument from ignorance, and is no more valid than your argument that the ACLU coerces people. Making wild accusations and then demanding that the other side disprove them is not a legitimate debating tactic. Bob White: this article will not help anyone understand the BSAs side of the story, because Pulliam doesnt discuss BSAs side or anyone elses side of the story; he discusses a completely different story. The virtue of bravery lies not merely in facing adversity, but in facing adversity for the sake of a good cause. And I dont believe that lying is fulfilling his duty to God. The rest of your post makes even less sense. In fact, its the very sort of dishonest personal attack that I found so objectionable in the original article. Rather than respond to my argument, you simply made up a strawman, then attacked it. Anyone who doesnt unthinkingly support the Scouts must hate them and want them destroyed. I dont have a problem with you defending yourself, as long as you do so honestly. Something that you seem to have a deep antipathy towards. And BTW, its atheist. Uncleguinea: There are no atheists in foxholes. What a lovely saying. Sort of like the only good injun is a dead injun. Or the only thing a nigger is good for is shining my shoes. Odd how some incredibly offensive sayings eventually become socially unacceptable, while others dont. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deloe Posted May 17, 2004 Author Share Posted May 17, 2004 I have another question: those that think that this will be reversed on appeal: what reversible errors do you see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Old Guy Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 "What I dont get is why you keep insisting that no locals have complained, when I have already explained that you are in error." The problem is that your explanation is in error. " But I think that your last line sums your type up pretty well: you just dont like dealing with opposing viewpoints, and want anyone who bothers you to go away." Seems that's what you want too. You are the unwanted link, bye-bye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted May 17, 2004 Share Posted May 17, 2004 Deloe, The version of the Constitution the ACLU should defend is the one that was written. Yes I did make accusations without proof. These accusations are my opinion which I am entitled to! And I still haven't seen anyone disprove my opinion! Reversible errors? What part of the Constitution does the lease violate? None I can see. Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deloe Posted May 21, 2004 Author Share Posted May 21, 2004 FOG: And your explanation for how my explanation is in error is absent completely. You claimed "no one is complaining except outsiders like themselves." But the ACLU are not outsiders (they have a SD branch), and there people who filed this suit are San Diegans. You are in error. What is wrong with my explanation? And I see you are now employing the "I know you are, but what am I?" defense. evmori: The ACLU's version of the Constitution is based on their interpretation of what was actually written. Chanting over and over again "Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion" is not a valid legal argument. If you are so concerned with what was written, you might notice that the phrase "free exercise of religion" DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE CONSTITUTION. That is implied, just as freedom from religion is implied. And frankly, your slogan is incredibly insulting. It's the equivalent of insisting that the fourteenth amendment protects white people from being discriminated against, but not black people. You're basically saying "Rights for us, not for you, now &8%# off". You did not state your accusations as opinions, you stated them as facts. "I'm entitled to my opinions" is not a valid defense of libelous statements. And asking for proof that your "opinion is false shows that you still dont understand the concept of burden of proof. Its your obligation to show that you are correct, not mine to show that you are incorrect. We have the principle of presumed innocent until proven guilty because it is impossible to prove innocence, as your failure to prove that you are not a child molester demonstrates. To anyone who understands the rules of debate, you look quite foolish. Finally evmori does not understand how the lease violates the Constitution is not a reversible error. Can you point to anything in the actual ruling that constitutes a reversible error? If the lawyers handling the appeal are anything like you, they will be laughed out of court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Old Guy Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 "What is wrong with my explanation?" It has nothing to do with anything that I said. "To anyone who understands the rules of debate, you look quite foolish." "Rules" for debating are for weenies who can't get dates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OldGreyEagle Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 "Once more into the breech my friend..." Anyway, Deloe, what is being expressed, that the ACLU butts in where its not warranted has at least some germ of truth in it. And yes, you will be wanting proof. Well, I think I can provide that to you by using no less a forum member than Merlyn Leroy. Awhile back, like 2-3 years the forum was discussing the concept of Public Schools chartering Scout Units. Merlyn commented that he knew of a High School that was using the Venturing Program as its extracurricular activities program, or something like that, I am sure Merlyn can give the details. Now, at that time I was new to the Venturing program and asked him how the school did this, and where the school was, and quesitons along those lines. Now, as I remember it, and I could be quite wrong, Merlyn responded he didnt want to comment on the location as litigants against the school system for chartering a unit full of religious discriminatories were being sought. That the ACLU was seeking litigants for a lawsuit implies to me that the local populace was not up in arms over this issue. If the ACLU has to search for litigants for whom they will file a lawsuit, then I think it could be argued that the ACLU is butting in. Now, If I am wrong about the High School Venturing thing, I apologize upfront. I do beleive however the ACLU has enaged in searching for local residents for whom they can file lawsuits when they (the ACLU) sees what they perceive to be an issue. Its this looking for litigants that some people don't understand. And I would have to count myself in that number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitewater Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 It's interesting how polarizing these topics on homosexuals and religion can be. They touch on individual core beliefs and those are not easily swayed. It's also interesting how a person's perspective is influenced by those core beliefs. Both sides can look at the exact same thing and come to totally opposite conclusions. It appears to me that the Boy Scouts were singled out in this case. It seems pretty clear that this is just one step in a coordinated effort to force the BSA into changing policies. Both sides of the issue probably agree on that. The Supreme Court upheld the right of the Boy Scouts to set their own membership requirements- just as any other private organization can. Is that discrimination? No, it is the freedom of association, which is implicit in the First Ammendment. Here is why I think the judge's ruling will be overturned. The Boy Scouts are a religious organization. They are not A religion. By allowing them the use of public facilities, the government is in no way endorsing a religion. Aren't there other religious organizations that are allowed to use public land? What is unconstitutional about the lease deal? Where does it say anywhere that othe goups must be allowed to make an offer? When the lease extension was discussed, was it not in a public forum where others could come forward? The original posting in this thread claims that the article in question was full of lies. I don't see them as lies. They are just the BSA's perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Deloe, Huh? What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" don't you understand? I see the words "free exercise" where they refer to religion. And I'll chant "Freedom OF religion not FROM religion" all I want because that is what the Constitution states! You are way off base! Are you related to Merlyn? And how DOES the lease violate the Constitution? Haven't seen you post any proof it does. Possible that's because it doesn't? This whole conversation is interesting but when this issue get to the Supreme Court & they overturn the decision, maybe the ACLU will shut up and actually fight for something that needs fighting for. Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJCubScouter Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 whitewater says: The Supreme Court upheld the right of the Boy Scouts to set their own membership requirements- just as any other private organization can. Is that discrimination? No, it is the freedom of association, which is implicit in the First Ammendment. Well, it's both, actually. The Supreme Court didn't decide that the policy in question was not discrimination -- just that the law making it illegal was in conflict with the BSA's rights under the First Amendment. Now, you can believe that it is the kind of discrimination that is justified, or you can believe that it is the kind of discrimination that is unjustified, but it is discrimination either way. The Supreme Court didn't even decide the issue of justified vs. unjustified, they only decided the constitutional issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitewater Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 By discrimination, I meant unjustifiable discrimination. In my opinion, it is 'justifiable' discrimination because of the BSA's right to set its own membership requirements. Discrimination, by definition, is impossible to eliminate. Everyone discriminates. You and I discriminate by who we allow to be our friends. The restaurant next door discriminates by giving discounts to those over 65. The Girl Scouts discriminate because they run a program taylored for young girls. The question is does it do more harm than good? Senior citizens benefit from the discount since many are on fixed incomes and there is no noticable harm to the rest of society. Many young girls benefit from the Girl Scouts and even though they can't join, boys aren't harmed by the policy. In fact society as a whole benefits because of the positive effects of their program on young girls. Why should it be any different with the Boy Scouts? I doubt any other organization in history has had as a profound impact on youth. I don't think the real issue behind the attacks on the Boy Scouts has anything to do with whether they practice justifiable discrimination. The real issue has to do with a few segments of society wanting to validate and seek acceptance of their definition of morality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJCubScouter Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 whitewater says: The real issue has to do with a few segments of society wanting to validate and seek acceptance of their definition of morality. I suppose you could say that everybody on both sides of the "gay issue" wants to "validate and seek acceptance of their definition of morality." You have your view of what is moral, and I have mine. Some people (including me) think it is wrong (or if you will, "immoral") to exclude someone from a leadership position simply because they are gay. However, I realize that many people have the opposite moral view. That is why the BSA should give everybody at least a chance of being in a unit that reflects their moral viewpoint, by being able to choose on a unit basis whether to have a policy that excludes everyone who is openly gay. Since I know this will probably get some responses, the fact that I don't answer the responses for a few days (if at all) does not mean that I suddenly changed my mind, or anything. It means that I am about to leave for a weekend camping trip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitewater Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Have a good weekend. I hope you have good weather. I suppose you are correct about everyone wanting validation for their moral views. However, in this case it is the minority group seeking acceptance from the majority. There are still many people who do don't think a gay lifestyle is acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts