TheScout

Fair enough, but that is not what did Virginia in. It was like I said the lack of what the court deemed a legislative purpose in the statute. As proved in Korematsu, the State can make use of racial classifications, it just depends on the purpose. And just because the SCOTUS says a law is discriminatory does not make it so. If it said the sky was green tomorrow, it would still be blue.

Merlyn, the Supreme Court did not say that people were not being treated equally. It said that the way the state used racial classifications did not fit a valid legislative purpose. Gern, Correct. But I think the Constitution as written includes at least equally strong protections of States Rights. Who are you to decide that the rights of Individals trump the rights of States or vice versa? And remember, one mans mob rule is another mans democracy. It is very hard to tell the difference. You know under a dictatorship, one never has to worry about mob rule.

The slippery slope argument can work the other way. The Soviet Union started out promoting equality. They kept promoting it and kept promoting it. Soon everyone was equally miserable. I find it a shame when people want to use governmental power to fix so many things and when they can not find any constitutional power to do so, the simply ignore constitional law and rely on vague phrases such as "equal justice for all" from sources like the Pledge. Merlyn, Thats not what the SCOTUS said in Loving. It struck down the Virginia statute based on the what it considere not a valid legislative purpose in making a racial classification and an interference on and individual rights to marry.

I agree with Mr. Burke. But I surely don't think the government should make people stop evil. Fair point ASM. Though I would continue to say there is an absolute right or wrong, I would say it is possible to respect a belief without believing it. Though I do not believe in Judaism, I respect it due to its long presence in the hearts and minds of men through the ages. Scientology on the other hand, respect level is about zero. Hubbard just made it up out of the blue like 50 years ago. That said, even old ideas can be wrong. Thinking again of the Aztec human sacrafice. The time thing is just one component of evaluating beliefs to me. Burke's quote is also much better at evaluating political and social ideas than political ones, but that is a different story of a different day.

The passports are going to be required in January 2008. However there is a movement to postpone that. If I had to bet it will not go into effect in January.

I respect beliefs that have been around longer than those which are recently made up. I can not state it any better than this, so I won't try to, "Tradition draws on the wisdom of many generations and the tests of time, while "reason" may be a mask for the preferences of one man, and at best represents only the untested wisdom of one generation. Any existing value or institution has undergone the correcting influence of past experience and ought to be respected." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

"No, I don't want to tell others how to run their lives, up to the point where they start impacting my ability to make a living and find a place to live." Unfortunatly, it is not my problem if nobody wants to give you a job or sell or rent you a home. I don't appreciate having my rights infringed because of you. Also it is unfortunate that there is no "If anyone feels demonized anytime anywhere the government shall have the power to fix" it in the Constitution. I do feel sorry for you if you ever feel demonized, but again I emphasize that it is not my problem. I guess if it got to the point that nobody wanted to sell or do business with a person, maybe they should take the hint.

Merlyn, I never said individual laws are contracts. But the federal constitution is. Its a contract between the several states giving the federal government certain powers and limitations. The Virginia law Loving vs. Virginia was in perfect accordance with the federal constitution. Remember, if you read the 14th Amendment, it only says the races must be treated equally, the not have to be integrated. The VA law applied equally to both whites and blacks. Also please reference the 10th Amendment. In your hurry to make up rights for everybody, you seem to forget the State of Virginia's rights as well. Dan, "Well, while I respect the beliefs of other religions and the right of others to let those beliefs guide their lives, I don't want them to use their beliefs to tell how I should live my life." You don't want other people to use their beliefs to tell you how to run your life. What about you telling others how to run their life? You want to tell people who they can hire and fire? You want the government to tell people who they can and who they can not sell their house to. Doesn't seem to libretarian to me. You asked me what persecution was. That's when I mentioned physical harm. Your theft analogy is silly. No one denies the governments right to protect citizens from theft. Trevorum, You are correct, rules change. Thats what our elected legislatures are for. What frustrates me is when people who can not carry their cause through the ballot box attempt to circumvate it through the courts to have judges pass edicts on how we should run our life. For example, with Brown vs. Board of Education, which it has now become heresy to question in American politic. Based on constitutional grounds the decision was a legal absurdity. But because we liked the short term result, we accepted a dangerous long term implication, judicial dictates. As Chief Justice Roberts once said, "The constitutional limitation doesnt turn on whether its a good idea. There is not a good idea clause in the Constitution. It can be a bad idea, but certainly still satisfy the constitutional requirements." It seems that some forget that the unique protection Americans enjoy from tyranny is that Constitution. If we make it a blank piece of paper by the way we interpret it. We will all soon suffer.

C'mon packsaddle! You seem to be a reasonable person. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is absurd. Some things are just self-evident. Maybe I got the wrong implication from your last post. However, you didn't seem to take into account that people can have great confidence that their faith is wrong and not be ignorant at all.

Government enforced liberty and justice for all. That will work real well. All we need is even more laws telling us what we can and can not do. Maybe the real questions is do you believe people have a right to believe in racism? Or be a bigot? Or a dislike gays? I say yes. That is freedom. Should freedom only apply to those ideas that we like? This is now putting us (or the government) in the place of judging other peoples ideas (which you seem to dislike so much, but only when someone judges yours). I think it is a persons right to be a bigot. They should have the right to speak their mind so and dispose of property in accordance with their convictions. As long as they do not physically harm anyone else, it is not the governments job to get involved. The Supereme Court once wrote, in West Virginia v. Barnette, "But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order." So if Wicca seek the freedom to differ. Why can't bigots as well? However unfortunate, they should be able to. (And for the record, I disagree with the decision of WV v. Barnette due to its infringement on West Virginia's 10th Amendment rights. However I like the quote from the majority opinion. Just a clarification) (This message has been edited by TheScout)

The Flying Spaghetti Emblem would be a joke because we all know it is not a religion. It is common sense. It does not deseve to rank with emblems of actual religions. It seems a shame that anyone with strong convictions is considered ignorant. There are many people with quite extreme convictions that are very well learned, and make a choose to believe how they do.

Dan, it seems you have a vastly different conception of freedom than I do. It seems you want the iron hand of government to force equality down the throats of Americans. I don't think that is the dream of America. I am a great believer of personal freedom and would consider myself a liberetarian and that the government should not bother people in their everyday lives. For that reason I do not think the governmetn should take away Wicca children. I do think an employer should be able to hire or fire whoever they want. I think I, or you, should be able to sell our home to whoever we want. I think religous leaders should be able to speak their faith, no matter how bigoted you think it is. I think even the President can speak of his own beliefs while in office. So if individuals exercising their own individual freedoms is just a "load of rationalizations" to you, I think that is a shame. It is easy to be a supporter of liberty when everyone acts in your favor. It is much harder when they don't. As a conservative libretarian, I also see it as a shame, that you think we should use the iron hand of government to enforce equality. Equality can never be brought about that way. It can only be brought about in the hearts and minds of Americans. Do you really think it was consistent with the original ideas the Founding Fathers to have the EEOC telling private citizens who they can hire or fire. Or who they have to sell their homes to? What about the Civil Rights Act. What would the framers have thought about agents of the federal government going from state to state inspecting election practices and making sure they are consistent with some artificial federal standard of "equality." I think not. And as a strict constructionist I would argue EEOC and the Civil Rights Act overstep federal powers and our unconstitutional. But that is a different argument for a different day. (If you can't wait, read the 10th Amendment) I would consider persecution being imprisoned, physically assaulted, or killed for ones beliefs. Merlyn, Yes, on interracial marriage the SCOTUS should have deferred to the states. Loving vs. Virginia was a joke. The Virginia law was the definition of equality. Whites could not marry blacks the same as blacks could not marry whites. The law was also DEMOCRATICALLY passed by a legislature elected by the people of Virginia. It is easy to believe in democracy as long as decisions go your way I guess. Same for Brown vs. Board of Education. The 14th Amendment says all must be treated equal. So why can't a district decide to have identical black schools and white schools. Constitionally, Plessy vs. Ferguson was more consistent with the intent of the 14th Amendment. Remember the Congress that passed it approved segregated schools for DC and most of the states that ratified also had segregated schools. People, especially judges in these times like to look at the "good idea clause" (which doesn't exist) to write into the Constitution whatever they wish it says if they can't get it by the ballot box. Very sad. There is an amendment process to change the Constitution. If you and I made a contract I hope it can't just change without my consent. Happy Easter!

Dan, The only right to be "treated equally" would stem from the Fourteenth Amendment stating in part "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Notice it applies only to the states and not the federal government. Also, keep in mind the intent of the Amendment. Even you must admit its intent was not to allow Wicca or any other religious sect the right to have its holidays recognized or remove such rights from Christians in any way. I am not familiar with all the cases of "persecution" you bring up. I would say that it is wrong for courts to consider taking away children. I would say an employer should have the right to fire someone for wearing religious symbols they deem inappropriate. Maybe some would not be a large fan of doing business with someone of an unorthodox religion. It is not my decision. It doesn't affect my pocketbook. Thats free market capitalism. I think if I don't want to sell my house to someone or rent an apartment to them for any reason, I should be able to. It is my property. I hope prominent religious leaders speak out against those who they believe are in sin. What else are our religous leaders for? I suppose the President can say Wicca is not a valid religion. The President is allowed to make personal statements as well. Maybe they shouldn't be in the military. I don't know. Maybe a Don't Ask Don't Tell type of policy is in order. The government does not allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military due to their life of sin and impact on combat effectiveness. I suppose if those in the military think Wicca is wrong as well, they should not let those who practice it in. It seems only right. So I do not consider individuals exercising their own economic rights is persecution. Nor public or religious figures speaking on their personal beliefs. I do not consider the military making decisions on who to allow in based on morality and combat effectiveness persecution. The military is not a place for social experimentation.

Thanks

Gern, Well yeah, unless you believe other religons are right. Also just a note. I quoted ASM's reference about Star Trek etc. in my last post and forgot to remark on it. Just can't figure out for the life of me how to edit a post.

ASM, But who are you to say that the memebers of a particular Christian denomination are "twisting" doctrine. Maybe they are right? What about those who believe their denomination is the only correct path. If we are to respect all beleifs, shouldn't we respect that beleif as well. All religions can not be created equal. Some must be right some must be wrong. Many make contradicting statements and claim to be the true faith. Christianity and Islam for example. Both claim to be the only true way, but they contradict on many issues. So not everyone can be right! There are wrong religions. That said I do not think that much of myself to claim to know for sure what is the right way. I have my beleif and hope it is right, and will see when the time comes. Same thing for Christian denominations. Though I too would like to see them go away, it is a naive beleif. They claim opposite things in some aspects. Both can not be right. I do own a copy of the Gospel of the Redmen. Must admit I have never done more than just browsed through it. It seems our society seems to glorify the Indian ways, especially in the last several decades. I am from Upstate New York. The Iroqouis were the dominate tribe around here. People are taught myths like the Iroqous Confederacy was a model for the US Constitution, which it was surely not. Meanwhile people are not taught the less savory aspects of their society. The Iroqouis practiced cannibalism. The scope of their warfare was brutal as they would raid white settlements and kill with no regard to age, sex, or condition. The Westernmost tribe of the Iroqouis League, the Seneca currently live in the area where I do. However they did not always. They actually did not live there until the 1700s. At that time they destroyed another tribe, called the Neutrals so they could exploit more land for beaver pelts. They weren't even kind enough to give the Neutrals a reservation. I think on the scorecard of history Western Civilization has brought us much more than any other. As for the western ways, a lot of advances, yes, but also a lot of destruction. Assimulation is not the way. Look at STAR TREK and The BORG. Find and sit with some brothers, possibly talk with some of the Elders about how it was precontact. You might be surprised Two books to read, Seton's "GOSPEL OF THE REDMAN". You can order it through your Councils store, and 1422. Civilizations rise, on occasion destroy the previous one (records and all), future civilizations have no idea what really happen, and thaen think they made things better for everyone, when sometimes they didn't.

I would greatly recomend Haliburton. It is a great difference from most of the BSA camps that I have been to which are all the dining hall cooking advancement factory style. The troop is very much on its own to plan its own program. Though they do teach classes, they are not actually focused towards advancement. For example at the rifle range they offer a one hour class and thats it. You can then go and shoot whenever. Its not like most BSA camps when you go at a specified time every day. There is plenty to do, it just must be coordinated on your own. Another thing they do which is really cool is their wilderness survival program. You take a lesson during the day, and then the staff comes in the evening and leaves you on an island for the night and your group is only allowed to bring I think 5 items with them. When we we several years ago it was much cheaper than any camps here, even with providing our own food. However the Canadian dollar has spiked since then. If you want to go you must plan really early. The sites fill up really quick and you should reserve as soon as they allow you to do so for the upcoming year. Especially if you want one of the plum sites on one of the islands. Nothing beats having you summer camp site on an island. Anything else let me know.

Many points made in a single post, but I'll take a stab. I do find it unfortunate that you consider Christians that are "inflexible" in their beliefs bigots. I would use the term decvout and admire them. In our society there are very few who stick to beliefs in the wake of so much criticism. It is much easier to accept everyone's beliefs, whether you believe in your heart if they are right or wrong. You say the BSA should not recognize all the groups which I threw out there. All groups which have some form of ostensible higher power. So it seems you believe the BSA should not recognize all religions. We only differ I where to draw the line. I do object to the contention that being a moral absolutist necesarily will lead to war. I do not know anyone more convinced of the moral failings of the Soviet Union than President Reagan, and he never brought us to war with them. There is a great difference between not accepting wrong and using violence to crush it. I think the Western Ways were better. Look at what they brought to the New World. Roads, schools, libraries, literature, scientific agriculture, metalurgy, medicine, theatre. The list could go on and on. I appreciate you playing devils advocate. Maybe I even play one at times too.

Packsaddle, I was not judging any religion on its merits. I was judging whether my organization, the BSA should accept the award. On that premise I think I have the right to at least make my opinion known. And I think it does affect our whole organization. If we allow the Flying Spaghetti Monster Emblem, the BSA becomes a joke. I do not think any of us want that. Dan, I must admit I can't answer your question. I only know the basics of Scientology, Zorosrianism, and of the Wiccans and do not have the slightest clue who Meher Baba is (until a moment ago when curiosity forced me to look real quick) I also must confess that though I have always down the idea behind the DRP I have not read them in a long time and hence do not recall them. I do find it interesting though as it states in part, The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God. . . . The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members." I know it also goes on to say that the BSA is "absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training." But that first quote seems the BSA is pretty set on a monotheistic type of faith.

Merlyn, "Suing in court is certainly part of the democratic process; all that does is trigger judicial review to decide if the law was properly followed." I suppose I am just a believer in judical restraint. That controversial issues should be decided be elected legislatures, not judges. Judges can trample rights as easily as a legislature. It seems judges can read into the constitution whatever they wish in the name of equal rights. That is not democracy. Dan, There is a large difference between respected religions, and making the government respect them. The people, through their elected government, should not have to respect every minority religious group and it does not. We all know Christianity gets special privleges due to its majority status and the heritage of this country. This does not stop individual citizens from respecting minority beliefs. "Hmm, I don't recall anything in the DoI about those rights being inalienable only for those in the majority. Can you show me the part in the Constitution that says that rights don't apply to any minority?" Please point out the 'right' which someone is being denied. Nobody has a right to have schools close on any day they deem is a religous holiday for their faith. "Having the moral high ground means taking care of those without power (i.e. in the minority) because you think it's the right thing to do." And it is not morally correct to respect the beliefs of the majority of Americans and two hundred years of tradition in this country? It is not a question about not taking care of anybody. Wiccan are not being persecuted. It is simple about not making the government respect every single religion.

The real question is: Is the Flying Spaghetti Monster a higher power consistent with the DRP. If the Pastafarian Movement applied for an emblem should we grant it? They do have a deity? I say no.

I can explain the discrepancy. It is called democracy. These rules are not made in a vacuum. They are made by school boards and elected legislatures which were elected by the people. The majority of people in the majority of places in this country are Christian, which is why those beliefs are respected. If the Wiccan (or any religion) are a majority in any town and wish to elect a school board which would give off for those holidays and not Christian ones, I believe it is their right. I would not sue in court to overturn the democratic process of the majority of my fellow citizens. It is easy to believe in the democratic process when the decisions suit you. It is much harder when they don't.

ASM915, Does the US government clearly recognize the Wicca? I know there is currently a large dispute over a soldier who they are not allowing to put a Wicca symbol on his tombstone in a federal cemetary. I also wouldn't say they have had the same privileges. When was the last time there was a Wicca Senate or House chaplain as an example? Lastly, I do no think the BSA should take its values for the US government. The Feds have been responsible for some pretty not so moral things over the years, I am sure we can all think of a few. The moral policies of our government tend to change with elections over time. I am an absolutist and believe that values can not change over time. Things are either right or wrong and don't change. "Why does the BSA take a euro-centric religious veiwpoint" Because we are a society based on European civlization! And thank God for that. What other culture has brought such a great influence on our great country. It is not an accident that in the last century or so the rest of the world has been scrambling to adopt Western ways. Dan, A agree with your view on the hypocracy of the BSA in this regard which is wrong. I think it is evident from their actions that the BSA does not want a Wicca religious award and they should just come out and say so.

Dan I was of the understanding (I could be wrong) that any child with a religious observance can be excused from school on that day.

Merlyn, your belief that the citizens of the municipality which owns and runs the school have seeming no rights to determine the extent of religion in your school is as well extremely bizare.