TheScout

Many interesting comments. OGE: Constitutional amendment is tempting. However, it shouldn't be needed. We have had prayers in schools throughout our whole history until 1962. Why should we need an amendment to authorize it? An amendment should be required to ban it. Accepting the negative on school prayer (among other issues) concedes to the SCOTUS the ultimate right to decide on constitutionality). Merlyn, I just found the Gallup poll from that forum. I do not participate. Glad you find their commentary interesting. I also do not understand why it is wrong to ask a student his/her nationality? I also don't see why Merlyn is so willing to disregard a public referendum on the issue? Or the 10th Amendment for that matter, apparently one can use the 1st Amendment to disregard the first? I guess so in his fantasy world. So Merlyn, in your world what does the 10th Amendment mean? If anything? LOL Cause I know you hate it.

Merlyn, Prayer in schools isn't government imposed religion. You can say that as much as you want, its just not true. You have a my way or the highway mentality because you won't tolerate different opinions. Not a Christian prayer. Not a Muslim prayer, no prayer. Your argument is facetious again about the Muslims. You don't care whether they can pray once, or twice or how many times they wish. You won't let them pray at all. And again the problem isn't with bureaucrats, is it? Again what if a local school board had a referendum and a HUGE majority of the local citizens vote for prayer in schools. What say you then?

If a local school board wanted to have Muslim prayers I have no objection. In a democracy we have to respect decisions we don't like that much. Something Merlyn does not seem to see. Its either his way or the highway. Constitutional history be damned . . .

Meryln writes: Catholics think there should be prayers in schools, thats why they are in their schools. The problem is the Protestant nature of the prayers (and even worst at that time readings from the King James version of the Bible). I am quite sure they would have accepted public schools if it was not for the Protestant slant. That school prayer is unconstitutional is not so clear cut. I don't accept your logic that it was always unconstitutional and this was just recognied in 1962. For the whole prior history of the country school prayer was accepted and deemeded constitutional. Judges changed that fabric of American soceity in 1962. Most Americans support prayer in school - 70% in fact according to a Gallup Poll. http://christianparty.net/gallupschoolprayer.htm I would say the Sedition Act was unconstitutional - probably for a different reason that you. You will probably quote the 1st Amendment (though it applies only to Congress, clearly in this era as it was before Incorporation). I would say it violates the 10th Amendment (which you seem to forget exists) as well as oversteps the delegated powers of Article I Section 8. The fact that courts have ruled or not on a subject has no effect on the constitutionality of a measure. I think even you should be able to see that. You write: "I don't think public schools have the power to instruct students in religion." I don't know how a prayer can be construed as that . . . And plus please consult the 10th Amendment, if you believe it exists as to the powers of schools. I find it funny how you have a problem with "local, unelected bureaucrats" making a simple prayer, but would let distant unelected judges make rules for peoples thousands of miles away, that is not the dream of America. Plus your unelected bureaucrats argument is facetious. You don't care who makes what rules at a local level. The people vote in a referendum by a large majority to have a prayer in their local school and you would deny them that right, wouldn't you?

National Camping School. Instructors were top notch. All participants wanted to learn and gave a great deal about scouting. All around great atmosphere.

You are warping the argument. We were talking about when Catholics first broke off to form their own schools. Clearly they did not have a problem with the prayers. They included prayer in their schools. That school prayer is unconstitutional is not so clear cut. It was constitutional until 1962. I don't think the constitution changed. Anyway Congress could always strip the courts of its jurisdiction to here such cases, putting such matters back to local schools where they belong. The biggest problem with you is that you don't share the dream of America. America was built on the idea that the people could govern themselves far better than any distant small group of officials (or judges). I really don't care if a school decides to have a prayer or not. I think that they should, but it is not up for me to decide, or you, or the SCOTUS.

You're wrong. Catholics didn't have a problem with prayer in schools, only the Protestant nature of it. Thats why Catholic schools pray every day . . . The prayer in question can hardly be considered Christian. It was very open: Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen.

So the problem wasn't the prayers, it was the Protestant nature of it. Hence the need for a non-denominational Christian prayer like the one used in New York.

So Merlyn the majority of Americans throughout American history that believed that school prayer was constitutional, were wrong unitl 1962?

So you really believe that before 1962 the First Amendment was "gutted." That is quite funny. Almost comedic. School prayer has historically been an important part of our country. I still don't see the coercien. Nobody was forced to say the prayer. The New York Board of Regents in the casedid not even force districts to adopt it. It was left to local school districts, led by elected representatives of the people to decide or not whether to do so. That decision-making at the local level is the dream of the American republic! Pat Buchanan wrote an interesting piece once on how the SCOTUS usurped the will of the people and started imposing its will on the United States instead: May 17, 1954 the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its 9-0 decision in Brown vs. Board of Education. In the name of equal rights, the Warren Court had effected a historic coup detat. It had usurped power over state schools never granted to courts either in federal law or in the constitution. That the 14th Amendment did not outlaw segregation was obvious. The amendment was approved by a Congress that presided over the segregated schools of Washington, D.C. But the Warren Court, fed up with the torpor of the democratic process, decided to desegregate America-by court order. The coup succeeded. Though Eisenhower was stunned by Brown, he and the Republican Congress accepted the court ruling as federal law to be enforced by federal troops, as it would be at Central High School in Little Rock in 1957. And because we agreed with the goal-an end to segregation-we accepted, without questioning the implications, the means adopted: judicial dictate. Having written its views of segregation into the Constitution and imposed its will on the nation, a confident Warren Court now began to impose a social, cultural, and moral revolution upon America. Patrick Buchanan And then came Engel v. Vital . . .

Funny you despise decison making by unelected bureaucrats, but are so willing to give it to unelected judges. It's quite a jump to say prayer it schools "guts" the 1st Amendment. Does this mean it was gutted for our whole history before Engel v. Vitale in 1962? I don't see who a simple non-denominational prayer with no compulsion to participate is an "establishment of religion." It also doesn't seem to interfere with anyones "free exercise of" it. The prayer struck down was very modest: Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen.

Well I never said we should have a state religion. It was asked what ours would be. I suppose "Christianity" could exist as a state religion here if we wished. (With the appropriate amendments to the federal constitution of course). Presumably such a declaration would have little practical effect as it would be a "state religion" not a "state church". State religions entail almost no government "supervision" which would allieviate the problem of so many Christian denominations. Presumably such a declaration would also allow religious monuments to remain on public land and bring back prayers in schools. So I doubt you need to determine a "top dog."

And thats why you are so out of touch with Middle America!

Eh, I meant can we as citizens write it off in our hearts and minds? LOL

What is Summum? LOL. Can we write if off as a cult?

It seems quite clear that if you were to have a state religion it would be Christianity . . .

So what is the appropriate way for a Scout to find out about the uniform in a boy led troop? Is it for his mother to ask on an online forum?

So between the PLC and the PL nobody can consult an Insignia Guide? Great leaders the BSA is developing.

Good point, he is a patrol leader. You would think he would be able to consult the combined expertise of the PLC, or at least be able to check out the Insignia Guide.

A scout should direct any uniform questions to his patrol leader.

Right decision. Wrong reason. The federal courts shound have declined to even hear this case. The 10th Amendment does say: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Obviously this includes the right to put up any monument one wishes. The federal government has better things to do.

I'm a young scouter, just 21. Former Eagle Scout, going to graduate college in two months and join the real world (oh boy!). I'm of the age when video games have always been around. They are great fun! Still enjoy them at times, even I get caught up for hours from time to time when there is nothing else to do. I must just say that I found this threat a bit funny. The games are like everything else - they can be fine moderation. I think we are overlooking a greater problem - and the video game "addiction" as you call it is just a symptom of that. It seems to me that our society is loosing what I guess I would call discipline. In these times it seems like parents spoil their children more than ever, kids get whatever they want, and nobody ever tells them no. If a kid enjoys games, so what? A kid could be "addicted" to any other activity - like playing football or whatever. The great question is if the kid as enough discipline to stop whatever they enjoy and do what has to be done.

Chances are you would tell that Scotsman he's been Anglicized in English. If you told him in Scottish, he wouldn't understand.

I do not see your enthusiasm for the feoderati system, basically a policy of subsidizing whole barbarian tribes- as you call them potential enemies. The granting of large areas of territory to them only hurt the economy of the empire more, taking even more areas off the tax roles. And in the end, we know where the real loyalty of these people lay, to their individual tribes, not the Roman state. The granting of these territories to them was the exact opposite of an assimilation policy. Though as you point out, some of the Germanized armies the Romans field fought well. The larger question is why did Western Rome need to field such armies in the first place. The real problem was the lack of a professional citizen army as existed in the East - a large reason why Byzantium far outlived Rome. You correctly point out the Goths were "mistreated" before Adrianople. Again however, this is only a symptom of a larger policy. Buying off immigrants to win their support with entitlements . . . this sounds a bit familar. Sometimes governments can not meet their obligations. Loyal citizens then don't make war. Look at the most famous Gothic leader, Alaric. A general in Roman service, he sought promotions at the change of emperors and was frustrated with the use of his forces in battle, so he marched on Rome, sacking the city for the first time in centuries. Often these tribes waged open war against one another within the Roman state. Your vision of a Roman empire more effectively integrated the barbarians is flawed and comes from and individualistic 21st century perspective. In that time loyalty to the tribal nation was much more important and the individual common barbarian was not seeking to be Roman. I think building walls could be an answer. Nobody is suggesting stopping immigration, just controlling it. I would suggest the Emergency Quota Act of 1924 as a model, but we will never see it with the current political climate. Cultural assimilation and acceptance. But imposed cultural uniformity is another. Look at England which successfully anglicized the rest of Britain making Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, Northern Ireland all basically- English for all intensive purposes (I guess the Irish successfully resisted). Or the French which consolidated the Alsations, Bretons, Normans, etc. all into the French state. Spain did the same thing. Remember it even expelled its Muslims and Jews. All those states have lasted a long time . . . And as far as cultural assimilation and acceptance, the Romans were able to borrow from the Greeks and others and still be Roman and continue on their path of greatness. One might say that it is when the dominant power refuses to accept and enfranchise its subject peoples that problems arise. I suppose we should be thankful for Britains careless attitude towards its American colonies.

I think your analysis of Rome is flawed. The early Roman Republican extensions of citizenship were greatly different than the mass grantings to the Germanic barbarians in the later period. The Latins of Italy and the classical Greeks assimilated quite well as their established cultures fit the Romans quite well. The same can not be said of the Germans. Though many wanted to be part of the Roman greatness they did not have the same civic loyalty to Rome as existed in the old days. This is Gibbons main argument in his famous, Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire. Far from barbarian immigration staving off defeat I would say it probably contributed. German components of the Roman armies were often of dubious loyalty. Civic virtue again decayed as Romans paid the Germans to serve in their armies for them. The final Western emperor, was toppled by his own German army led by German officers. Though your economic points have validity and can not be thrown out. You too easily throw out barbarian incursions as a cause of increasing Roman weakness. I can not see this later Empire period immigration policy as a model for ours? I do not understand why Jefferson's relations are important. They are a footnote of history. They do not matter. They are about as important as his favorite dinner meal to the story of the American republic unless one is trying to paint a picture of hypocrisy. I also don't see your vision of America in a thousand years. I guess America would exist under your model of increasing immigration and multiculturalism, but that is not the America that was the dream of the Founding Fathers.