Rooster7

To the chagrin of some, the SCOTUS got one right. The Ten Commandments can remain on public properties. They do not inhibit anyone from worshipping as they please. Nor do they comprise a special privilege for those who embrace Christianity. These monuments and plaques simply provide a record of this countrys legislative history. Unfortunately, they are becoming more and more quaint to some. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

In more than one post within this thread, someone has indicated that we are not tripping over flag burners. The frequency of a wrongdoing has no barring on its offensiveness. Either flag burning is an offense we should ban, or it is not.

I saw another one on the web that said 76 percent favored it, but then again, another poll said 63 percent were against. So, in the end, I think the polls are probably meaningless...It all depends on who conducts the study and how they word the question.

The poll I saw on TV indicated 80 percent of Americans favor the amendment.

OGE, I understand your point about murder being murder, but I have to comment on one aspect of your example. I view the murder of a 9-year-old to be more heinous for this reason innocence. A child is so nave to the world, so unsuspecting, so trusting, and so vulnerable. When I think of a child victim, I am enraged because I see a horror-shocked child whos being confronted by a monster. While I mourn for adult victims as well, these individuals - by virtue of a long life and the experience that it brings are not confronting monsters but simply evil men. Hendrickms24, That just means more people will be arrested and put in jail and prison are overflowing as it is! Im always amused when someone uses this kind of logic as a basis to counter a law that they dont like. Heres an idea lets not make any more laws. Better yet, lets repeal all laws. If we do, there will be no more crimes, we can empty our prisons, and reap the monetary benefits of their closures. Wow, pure genus

Hate crimes are not like other crimes because of their terror aspect. They are crimes which diminish whole groups of people. The problem with hate crimes is that they hinge on what someone believes or said as opposed to what they did. Furthermore, these laws devalue the victims of the same crime which apparently were not motivated by ethnic hatred (or hate for some special group e.g. homosexuals). If your brother was dragged to death by some idiot with a pickup truck, would you deem his suffering less worthy of punishment then that of James Byrd? As to me having it both ways I am, perhaps, guilty as charged. Occasionally, I loose my focus. So Ill give you your due. However, I do not believe its fair to describe the politicians who support this amendment as posturing. It is insulting to those who support such politicians. The inference being not only is our logic flawed, but we are deceived by the people we support. You know - it's quite possible that these politicians are just as passionate about the issue as their supporters. Don't assume its all about garnering votes.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

While burning the flag to voice my opinion is an option, I can never imagine myself doing it. But I have the right to do it and I don't want the government infringing even further on my rights by telling me I can't. My protest would be against the government, not the people of the US. Fine. Go out and protest against the current administration. But the flag does not represent Republicans, Democrats, or whoever happens to be calling the shots. It represents our form of government and the people who support it. No one is saying you cant burn an effigy of your favorite politician. But burning the flag goes beyond protest. I see it as spitting in the collective eye of every American and especially those who have made sacrifices for this country. Some of your country men have died carrying that flag into battle. Thats not a clich. Its a reality that we need to recognize, remember, and respect. Again, this is for political posturing. It is a PR opportunity. How often do you see US flags ablaze in your community? Here in Oklahoma I see illegal aliens every single day. I want my representatives taking care of the important pressing problems of the day. Things like national security. Not photo ops. Spoken like a true liberal. Speaking of posturing, I like how you turned a debate on flag burning into an opportunity to slander conservative politicians. If some representatives want an amendment to protect the U.S. flag, does that mean they are incapable of working other issues? Try this word: Multi-tasking.

Lets make a big assumption. Those of us, who support this amendment on its merits, are also big advocates of free speech. If so, why do we think flag burning is different from other forms of speech? Why is this kind of political statement unacceptable? I have a thought or two on this. If one burns a flag from another country, then one is obviously condemning that foreign government and/or its people. If one burns a flag that represents an organization (foreign or domestic), then one is condemning that particular organization. When one burns the U.S. flag, he is condemning the American government and her people. The very same government and people that the Constitution was written to sustain and protect. Burning the U.S. flag in America is tantamount to taking a ship to sea and setting it ablaze. That ship was built for a purpose. She safely carries not only you, but many other passengers, across a treacherous ocean. So when you mess with that ship, it inflames the ire of many. This is no ordinary form of protest. It is one that should not be tolerated. Many Americans, who love this country and its Constitution, do not see flag burning as free speech, but mutiny.

To the "FREEDOM OF SPEECH" fear mongers on this forum, How consistent are you? How do you feel about hate crime laws? Do they infringe on freedom of speech? If the penalty for a crime is greater for an individual that holds certain viewpoints than someone who does not, doesn't that infringe on one's right to freedom of speech - heck, it's an infringement on freedom of thought. Yet, I'd be willing to bet most of you don't cry foul when a hate crime law is passed. I don't advocate bigotry, but I can't see giving someone 10 more years of prison time because the jury was convinced by a clever prosecutor that the defendant use to tell off color jokes or has a few buddies that haven't joined the rest of the civilized world. The point being, a crime - say murder, should carry the same penalty for a hateful bigot as it does for an amoral moron who just doesnt care about anyone else.

Did our founders really make a boo-boo about how we run our country? Hmmm. Are you inferring that the Constitution was perfect as written? What is your opinion of other admendments? I don't think your approach to this debate is going to garner much support, especially among women (just to name a few).

To me, concerning this issue, there is no reason to be conflicted. 1) The law is not being created to outlaw people who hate the United States and/or folks who want to make a political statement. These people are free to be as hateful as they want to be. 2) I dont see it as being a slippery slope. Those who champion free speech, no matter the form or message, would have you believe that this is just the beginning. Im not buying it. 3) For many in this country, the law will provide satisfaction for those who have seen sons and fathers die to preserve that flag and the way of life it represents. For others, perhaps its just common sense to protect the flag that we pledge our allegiance to. 4) The people who will fight this law the most, are those politically spiteful ideologues who love to inflict anguish and distress on those who truly love this country. Great law- I hope it passes.

Before I become the poster boy for the "local option" (i.e. local troops having the option to allow gay membership or to allow atheist membership, etc.) - I just want to point out that when I made my argument it was with a disclaimer: "That does not mean that such efforts can or should be to the exclusion of BSA values and goals." In other words, if a CO is going to adopt a policy - it shouldn't contradict the values and goals of the BSA. Reserving a day of the week for worship (i.e. banning it as a Scouting activity day), does not contradict the values or goals of the BSA. In fact, one could argue that such a policy is complementary to that of the BSA. Likewise, encouraging Scouts to participate in patriotic activities is not contradictory to the BSAs values and goalsNor is encouraging Scouts to study American history. However, homosexuality and atheism conflicts with the BSA's values and goals. This is obvious - at least it is obvious to most.

but if we choose to accept a leadership role, we are in fact an extension of that organization's youth program. However once we accept the role our job is the delivery of the BSA program. Maybe I'm still mixed up but I fail to see anything political about it? I dont know what most charters expect of their adult leaders. However, the BSA is one of two partners overseeing the troop. That is to say, it is reasonable for a church to expect the troop leadership to emphasize their values and to make accommodations for their youth goals. That does not mean that such efforts can or should be to the exclusion of BSA values and goals. For example, is it not perfectly reasonable for an LDS chartered troop to adopt a policy, which prohibits camping trips on Sunday? Or, for a VFW chartered troop to expect its adult leaders to promote participation in patriotic events such as Memorial Day ceremonies or July 4th parades? In short, one can deliver the program and still remain faithful to the chartering organization. Sometimes, membership in a troop is restricted to a particular group, as is the case for LDS troops. In these cases, delivering the program and meeting the goals of the CO are even easier to accommodate. That is to say, by having the membership restricted to a targeted group, one does not have to worry about hindering someone else with the goals or restrictions of that CO. Again, using the LDS troop as example - a ban on Sunday camping would not bother non-Mormons, because only Mormons are allowed to join that troop. Likewise, Jewish troops could ban camping on Saturdays or if they so choose, could make special accommodation for worship for Saturday events. Or, a troop chartered by the PTA, if they so desired could direct their leaders to emphasize and encourage American history. While I believe in and enjoy the diversity that other troops offer I think the aforementioned troops make good sense. They meet the goals of the BSA, but at the same time they accommodate their own goals and values.

I'm surprised that you chose to edit/delete the entire letter. I found the letter to be very well composed. It reflected the thoughts of a very intelligent and seemingly sincere boy. In short, I was impressed. eaglescout2004 - I encourage and applaud your efforts to persuade the adults overseeing your troop. You appear to have done a good job of analyzing the troop's failures and are presenting your concerns in a thoughtful way. Regardless of the outcome, don't become frustrated and disenchanted. Changing the mindset of those empowered to oversee a troop or any organization for that matter, can be a bit like fighting city hall. How this ends for the troop is anybodys guess. No matter, Im betting that you will have a very bright future.

NJ, I just wish you and people who think like you would just run your own lives and stop running mine. Thats an interesting statement. Has it ever occurred to you that the hierarchy of the BSA feels the same way! Regardless of what a significant minority may desire (if in fact such a minority exists) or even what the major may desire - the BSA is not managed, controlled, or administered by the latest poll. They are run by those empowered to do so. As has been said before, time and time again, they are a private organization. That being the case, you should take your own advice. Stop telling folks (the BSA hierarchy) who dont think like you, how to run their lives (or rather, the private organization that they oversee). What you really resent is this My opinion is the prevailing opinion in the BSA (or at least, its more representative then yours), and contradicts your personal desires for the organization. No ones telling you how to run your life. You're trying to tell the BSA how they should run their organization, and thus far, they are not conforming to your demands. I suggest that you learn to live with the current reality or at a minimum, stop stomping the ground like a pre-schooler thats not getting his way.

Diversity is a fine thing, but its given way too much emphasis - to the exclusion of more important things. For many, the concept of diversity has become their God. For others, its individual freedom. Both are great ideas, but neither should be the ultimate goal for humanity. Lastly, I dont see all differences as being something to celebrate. For example, when a man takes another man into his bed (to put it in the most benign and inoffensive wording), I see no reason to rejoice and/or to seek their inclusion. Perversity does not equate to diversity.

NJ, Just out of curiousity...Do you feel the same sense of outrage when a Democratic congressman compliments Senator Byrd?(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

OGE, Just to clarify...my previous questions were in response to johndaigler's post (i.e. the scorpion stinging the frog). As to your question - It's simply a double-standard that the media (yes, the liberal media) has been employing since the early seventies. They've made it their job to portray Republicans in the worst possible light. And more recently, they seem to turn a blind eye to even the most inane comments and actions made by liberals. No offense, but are you just now realizing this?

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

So what are you saying? It's in Howard Dean's nature to act like an idiot? He can't help himself?

I like to think that BSA has used the "don't ask/don't tell" policy because they realize that singling out a single group as somehow being "bad" is wrong, and this is their way to save face while providing a mechanism for allowing gays in Scouting. I would think that if BSA really thought gays were an undesirable element, they'd be trying very hard to root them out, yet they don't appear to be doing that. That's different, of course, than openly welcoming gays, but that's probably too much to expect at this point. I hope that at some point BSA will come to the realization that gays are not "all bad" any more than straights are "all good", and get to the point where I think we should be, and that is welcoming everyone of good intent into Scouting, regardless of sexual orientation, gender, race, etc. The world is made up of shades of grey and explosions of color. Seeing everything as simply black or white just doesn't work, regardless of how much our present government would like us to think so. Yes, its pure genus. Interestingly, the BSA seems to have the same policy pertaining to liars and adulterers. To my knowledge, they are not actively encouraging its members to expose these folks either. If we dont ask, Are you an adulterer or a liar? They are not forced to reveal that they are such, and thus another persecuted group is spared the embarrassment of being singled out. This is just yet another example of the BSA being ahead of its time. After all, not all adulterers or liars are all bad, and not all faithfully married people and truth tellers are all good, and to get to the point where we should be, that is, welcoming everyone of good intent (interesting choice of words, but meaningless when there are no standards to measure good intent) into Scouting, regardless of ones self-serving conduct, deceitfulness, and desires to abolish any standards of moral behavior. The world is made up of shades of grey (its amazing how depressing that can be) and explosions of color (ah yes, diversity is a fine thing). See everything as simply black or white just doesnt work, regardless of how much our present government would like us to think so. Yes, its quite a shame that a majority of voters put those rascals back in office. How do you think that happen? My guess isthose color blind fools thought they were pulling the blue lever? (This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Interesting scenario...sounds like the gay version of Pleasantville. Do you really think the typical male homosexual thinks to himself - "Gee, before I have sex, I want to find that special man to marry." Sorry - but I can't believe that, not even for a second. A boy allowing himself to drift so far away from what is natural, if not by instinct then by common sense...so outside the social norms - is not going to worry about breaking "tradition" (i.e. marriage) to engage in a sexual relationship.

NJ, You're a piece of work. Enough said.

Homosexuality - it is what it is. Men do not belong with other men. We all know this...just as we understand other perversities to be what they are. When each of us come before God, I wonder how many will stake claim to such lofty and progressive ideas? How many of us will stand before God and act as if he's blind to the notion that homosexuality is a complete perversion of His plan. I dare say - none. The mere glint of this idea will be promptly and vigorously rejected. When that day arrives, such thoughts will cause us to fall on our knees before a holy and righteous God. But today, we boldly debate the merits of same sex love.

D By the way, pornography doesn't need to be defined in any detail. Men, and boys for that matter, know it when they see it. Furthermore - there's no doubt in my mind, every man and boy knows that it's wrong. And YES - I consider Maxim and other magazines like it to be pornographic. They cater to our base humanistic desires.