Er, anyways. $7.3 million isnt actually that much of an investment compared to the money that gets blown in the military. I think in view of the PR and keeping a solid relationship with the scouts it is a minute amount in fact.
Providing for the common defense isn't about endorsing particular religious beliefs.
What other religions have huge groups like the boy scouts? However, if they do in fact have a sizeable number then it doesn't offend me at all if the government allows the stuff like the boy scout jamboree. Of course, I do know that there are Christian kids clubs with millions of members that aren't afforded that opportunity. Its hardly a "christian" thing. The boy scouts are a historical part of our country. It offends me that people want to try and cut them off at every turn because of certain beliefs that they hold. We as Americans dont have much respect for our history I think, especially if there is any sort of Christianity involved. If the members were Wiccans though perhaps everyone would think it more tolerable.
The Boy Scouts are a private organization that claims it isn't aligned with any particular religious denomination. Yet it uses someone's contrived religious doctrine interpretation specifically to exclude certain groups of people. Merely claiming "christian" because of the mention of "God" doesn't make it automatically a religious group -requiring allegiance based on that doctrine, and especially excluding people because their existence is automatically interpreted as not being "christian' is where it becomes a problem. As for a "historical" part of our country, this isn't a club established by the government back in 1783 and the only issue with their beliefs involves the contradictory interpretations and practices of their oath. Americans don't have respect for lots of aspects of our history, including learning how not to repeat past mistakes - it's hardly limited to random claims of christianity used as an excuse to persecute. By the way, if the members were Wiccans, they'd never get onto the base - a federal court in Virginia wouldn't allow a Wiccan to give a prayer opening a city board meeting recently because she wasn't considered of the proper religious persuasion. Christians open the meetings up all the time with a prayer-as guests, of course. This fits into good patriotic Pat Robertson's contention that members of unacceptable religious groups should be prohibited from holding public office. Who decides what is unacceptable? Well good ole Pat, of course.
Yep, the Supreme Court did say that didnt they. Most of what taxpayers do is support ideals. I for instance hate getting taxed to pay someone that cant or is too lazy to get a job. However, because someone else thinks it is "right" I have to be tigher on my own budget to pay for their sorry ass. So, being that I'm paying out the ass for every other little stupid thing people want the government to do, I might as well throw a few pennies towards a boy scouts jamboree
What the Supreme Court doesn't do is spend taxpayer's money supporting private organizations that may be considered indoctrinating people in particular religious beliefs. It's called the establishment clause.
As to the last part, once again you're attacking the scouts. You dont give up an opportunity to slam them when the chance presents itself.
Nonsense. The Scouts slammed themselves. It's called responsibility for actions.
Not irrelevant at all. You said he was a minister, and I merely pointed out that being a minister does not mean that one believes in anything Christian at all. I could as a matter of fact go get a degree in Theology or whatever and become a pastor. Would that mean that I believe in what I'm doing? Or that my motives would be true to Christianity?
Since we don't establish an official religion in this country, it reserves the right of individuals to worship according to their own consciences. Your approval is irrelevant.
As to gays and what not... well, I do think its difficult to present oneself as both a Christian and a gay, so no I'm not sure if you can be a Christian and gay. On the other hand, we can believe something and do stuff that doesnt click with that. So anyways, I'm going to refrain from saying whether gays can be Christian. Thats their business.
Exactly. It would be rather difficult for you, who is neither christian or gay, to have much basis for making a decision about their religious status. And I wager they feel the same about the leaders of the Boy Scouts, too.
As to atheists having spiritual beliefs, well hrmmm. Could you perhaps explain that more? Like if I was an atheist could I believe in the Hindu gods? Or being pagan and believes in natures power of godhood? Well, according to the dictionary, an atheist is: "One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods." I think its rather funny that a person would go so far as to say there are not Gods, and yet still believe in a spiritual essence in life. I wouldnt mind exploring this further in fact though, to you, how would you remedy the gulf that exists between atheism and the spiritual?
I don't believe that anyone is required to believe in a god, or a set of gods, in order to be spiritual. The only "gulf" that exists is the one created by those who demand there must be an associated relationship between a defined object in order to hold spiritual beliefs.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here? Please explain further. What entire group am I labeling for the wrong doings of one? I'm certainly saying the boy scouts should have a free pass. But I'm also saying that any decent group should be given the same right if they are a serious entity in our country. Especially if they have a historical significance to us.
Well gee. . .the KKK has some historical significance to us as well. . .so we can overlook and not report such mundane historical reenactments like church and cross burnings and a lynching or two if it's all because it's a "decent" group of good "christians" who historically were just practicing their particular religious beliefs. The Boy Scouts didn't single out some gay scoutmaster who was a bad leader or wouldn't start a campfire without holding hands with the forest ranger - they singled out the entire group of people for no other reason than their existence. When such a policy is enacted, where did they earn the free pass from responsibility for their own hypocrisies simply because they do something nice for evangelical kids? It's interesting to note here that neither the YMCA nor the YWCA, despite the presence of "christian" in their names, requires a loyalty oath and openly excludes members for characteristics completely unrelated to the activities of the organization.
In fact, if the ACLU spent some of that time and put together a group that took kids and tried to have a positive impact on their lives, I wouldnt be opposed to them throwing a party on some military base. If it was a significant group of course, way too many small ones to start that up with, might as well turn the military into a day care right?
I would object to a parade of groups using the military base for camps, particularly because of the taxpayer expense. The Constitution provides for a military for a specific reason. And there's a difference in doing good community service work by providing space for a club meeting and providing $7.3 million dollars to subsidize an annual event for a private organization. [/B]
Actually, since you mentioned it, some do
Religious people are all a bit strange in my book though. Regardless, I can still show them respect and not try to dick them over every time I get a chance. Haha, to a true atheist the supreme being is numero uno. Which I guess is me.
There's nothing wrong with respecting religions, unless they subscribe to such an absolutist doctrine that believes in the overthrow of representative govenrment and the establishment of a theocracy.
Thats the funny part, they do. Just like gay/atheist organizations expect to get not for profit status and not pay taxes, or for atheists to get money to academically support their beliefs via research, or whatever else. As stated before, I really dont have a problem with those grops getting the same rights. IMO the ACLUs time would be better spent trying to get those rights for everyone, instead of taking them away from everyone. That is the case with much of what the ACLU does isnt it? To take those rights away from specific groups rather than ensure that all groups have the same access?
The ACLU's contention in this case was that the taxpayer support and exclusive sponsorship of the Boy Scouts was in fact discriminatory and an endorsement of a particular religious belief. The military had no such arrangement, nor such extensive financial contributions to any other national youth group, including the Girl Scouts. The military isn't a private corporate entity.
Of course last I checked the left wing had their own share of vices. That isnt limited to any group.
Absolutely, but when one side pretends to hold the high ground on moralizing about the behaviors of others, it's always a good idea to make sure one's own yard is clean and they aren't covering up the same thing.
Basically which one could call digging up. The fact of the matter is that you've tried repeatedly to throw mud on the boy scouts, and have not in any way pointed out any positives. Which, believe it or not, there have been many.
It isn't really digging when reporting on a case that is still in progress or on a pending morals conviction involving the group in question.
See, I am throwing mud on the ACLU, which was my whole goal of posting this. I can freely admit to that.
Without providing any information about the case.
The ACLU has done some good stuff (less and less it seems unfortunately), and that I admit. In the same way, you have definitely overlooked the good in the boy scouts and have only brought up the negatives about them. Lets both realize what we are doing though.
I think you were already singing the Scout's praises - you didn't need me to harmonize.
So whats the problem then? Regardless, as stated previously, considering the size I dont think it is an extravagant amount to spend on PR. Look at who it filters down to and the sheer numbers involved.
These aren't the Junior Military Scouts. It's a private organization with a stated religious belief system that is in contradiction to stated military policy. For example, some soldiers decided to name one of the barrels of their tank in Iraq - and chose a biblical reference of "New Testament". Now, that might get some cheers in a Hollywood war movie, but in a nation full of Muslims that are already splintered and suspicious over religious differences (including christian), it's not a good idea for U.S. Marines to name the barrel of their tank after one of the books of the Bible. The USMC, along with the Navy Department, happens to agree and asserts this isn't policy.
The Boy Scouts are not restricted in use of the military base. What the Senate did today in response to the court decision was to make it clear that other national youth groups should be allowed the same access, precisely the core of the ACLU lawsuit. Of course, I'm sure if some Wiccan group, or some gay youth group, decides to have a national campout at some base, conservatives will suddenly start singing a different tune.
There shouldnt be, but my statement was in regards to you saying that its not right for the government to be pushing any specific religion. You're right, it shouldnt be. Any religious or non-religious entity should be afforded the same rights. Of course with given size limits as said before. It could easily get rediculous if any size groups were allowed that. The government isnt, and shouldnt be in the business of establishing religion. That said, it also shouldn't be in the business of discriminating against it.
The discrimination is in providing special financial support and access to facilities to one group, with a particular religious belief, not afforded other civilian groups. It isn't discriminating to pull money not given to anyone else from one special interest group.
Nobody said it should be taken away. What the case was about is the extended use of military bases off limits to other parts of the public and the taxpayer cost for the events, particularly when the military does not accommodate any other youth group in a similar manner and is not supposed to be endorsing a particular religious viewpoint.
But thats what this is about, taking it away. I'd much rather it was opened up more frequently than taken away from all. Whether or not the boy scouts have aspects to them that are anti-gay or atheist... they do more right than wrong, and this is an opportunity for the American people and the government in particular to sponsor something that has a positive and fun impact on these kids lives. I wish it were afforded to more kids really, and in time perhaps it will. Lets not take it away because the kids say the pledge of allegiance.
It's not about taking it away - it was about special rights. Yes, if the government says the military is ONLY going to provide the BOY SCOUTS special access and several million dollars a year, then it should be taken away. At no point were the Scouts restricted from use of any facility that other private and public citizen groups can use on a military base.
Both of us push our opinions, thats the way of things. As to providing information, that can easily be subjective, if we only provide information that backs our own point of view. Which we undoubtedly do. In reality, we both presented information that was one sided. I presented that which pointed out only the negatives of the ACLU, and you with information that is negative about the boy scouts. Anyways, I still stand with my original statement that shutting down the jamboree is the wrong way to handle this matter.
Transcripts of legal proceedings are only subjected to what is ordered to be stricken from the record of the proceedings. You blamed the ACLU in this case without any information about the case.