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

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

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 b

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 Americ

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 c

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

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 f

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 t

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 tha

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

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 "al

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 t

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.