Jump to content

tortdog

Members
  • Content Count

    150
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tortdog

  1. >The ACLU's position (not mine, their's) is that you're not supposed to have religious displays on public property. Where does the Constution prohibit religious displays on public property? Why has the ACLU not filed suit against the U.S. Supreme Court for having the image of Moses in its chambers? Why has the ACLU not filed suit to prohibit Congress from opening its sessions with prayer? >So, are you saying that it's impossible to be brilliant and unbiased in their legal views at the same time? Bias brings in prejudice and "unreasoned judgment". I do not believ
  2. Well, I took Bob White's advice regarding looking in the manual and here is what it requires: All boys are to be in uniform. The Varsity uniform consists of: BSA shirt* BSA shorts/pants BSA socks *Regarding the shirt, the handbook allows a scout designed T-shirt. Now, the manual also states that the activity uniform can be substituted for the field uniform where it is appropriate (hence a T-shirt, including custom shirts, during activities). Here is the conflict. If you follow the handbook, the Varsity scouts must always be in uniform and you therefore must we
  3. >We are not suppose to judge others. That's God's job. Well, I completely disagree with that. Jesus Christ: "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment." I disagree that foreknowledge = predestination. Predestination robs man of his freedom (in my view). Foreordination does not. Yet, regardless of that belief, the mere knowledge by one being of what another will do does not rob that other being of its free agency. Just because a Sam CAN choose another path but Joe knows that Sam will not does not mean that Sam is not free to choose. It does explain,
  4. Dug. >If God knows what your daughter will do, eat or not eat, and she doesnt do exactly what he forsaw, was he 100% right? He is 100% wrong on that one thing. But since God has perfect knowledge, He will make the right "forecast". In my view, the reason that God knows all things is becaues time for Him is not linear as it is with us. For him, all things are present, both past, present and future. Thus He is able to see what we have done before we have done it. That sight does not make my choice anymore less "free" than were He to have closed His eyes and ignored what He can see b
  5. I don't think you are getting my argument on robbing the best minds. By refusing to allow votes on nominees who hold established points of view (which results when you require a supermajority vote), we limit ourselves to nominees that can get through both parties. That means you get middle-of-the-road candidates, or dark-horse candidates that hide their opinion. You don't get honesty. You don't get stellar candidates who are well written (because the other "viewpoint" will stop that candidate from getting a vote). Not brining religion in this, solely as the analogy, you get luke warm wate
  6. >If God knows that your daughter will eat the ice cream, is she NOT going to eat the ice cream, was God right? I don't understand that question. >In what way can someone be wrong but still be 100% right? Wrong right so if someone is wrong they cannot be 1% right, let alone 100%.
  7. Am I the only one who is laughing because "pint" informed us how U.K. scouts can drink a pint?
  8. >If your daughter will always take the ice cream then she will never not take the ice cream. 100% of the time she will take the ice cream. No. Based on the circumstances at hand she either will or will not take the ice cream. She may have just eaten a banana split when the cone is offered. At that point, she would not take the ice cream from me and my knowledge of that choice would not deprive her of her freedom. >Choice depends on the existance of alternatives. If 100% of the time she will take the ice cream then there is no other laternative then to take it. Thus, there is no
  9. Well, I disagree. I believe that God is literally our father. But that might get us into a whole area that we don't want to go...i.e., who is God? I think what almost anyone will agree is that God is perfect and all-knowing.
  10. >Indeed, if God created beings with true free will, arguably God can't fully know the future. I disagree. I, with my imperfect knowledge, know that if I offer a chocolate ice cream cone to my daughter that she will accept the offer and eat it. Knowing that my daughter will do this does not rob her of her free agency. God's knowledge that I will fail in a certain test (or succeed) does not rob me of my free agency. It just means that God has perfect knowledge of who I am and how I will respond to life's challenges. I think you are confusing God ability with law. While God can
  11. I disagree that it's just politics. It's the heart and soul of our Constitution. I believe strongly that the President has the right to nominate judges, and that Senate's sole right is to advise and consent on those nominations, and that since the Constitution does not require a supermajority, the vote requirement is a simple majority. By allowing a minority of senators to rule the majority, and for the first time in Senate history block judicial nominations with majority support is to trample on our Constitution. It robs us of the best minds, and shifts power unconstitutionally from the
  12. Yeah, but to be fair the LDS BSA leaders generally don't get the training. We have some good ones, but far too many who are "called" to a scouting position and then either (i) don't follow through with the leadership calling or (ii) act as a leader but don't get BSA training. For example, we have about 40 LDS BSA units in our district. Of all those units, we will have about 5-7 LDS leaders show up at roundtable. I bet only about 20% of them have been trained. We have 10 Varsity units and only one unit is actually doing the program. We have a lot of work to do (but we can do the progr
  13. DEMOCRAT SENATORS OPPOSED TO FILIBUSTERS OF JUDICIAL NOMINEES Senator Lieberman: Argued in 1995 that a supermajority requirement for cloture has "no constitutional basis Senator Tom Harkin: "[T]he filibuster rules are unconstitutional" because "the Constitution sets out...when you need majority or supermajority votes in the Senate." "I urge the Republican leadership to take the steps necessary to allow the full Senate to vote up or down on these important nominations." Former Senator Daschle: "I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial
  14. BTW...I am incorrectly stating it takes 61 votes to break a filibuster. I think it's 60 votes. NJCub. >The U.S. Constitution does not, indeed, say how many votes are needed to confirm a judicial (or other) appointee. All it says is that these appointments are to be made by the president "with the advice and consent of the Senate." Right...and that rule is a majority. The Constitution provides that certain items need supermajority status, while others have always been assumed to be a majority. >Somewhere else in the constitution it says that the Senate and House make
  15. Pack. I think you are mostly right. The one thing I wouldn't mind seeing is that if the BSA is attacked by the ACLU and the BSA wins, that it gets to recover all its attorney fees from the ACLU, i.e., put up or shut up. What I disagree with is "The simple and honest approach would be for governments to obey the law thus leaving no need for action by the ACLU." If the ACLU were always right, you would be accurate. But, as we all know, people file lawsuits based on their private interpretations of the law (even the ACLU) and sometimes those interpretations are wrong, e.g. Dale. Prarie.
  16. I considered putting my boys into a non-LDS BSA unit, warning the Bishop that unless the program got its act together I was going to make sure my boys found a good BSA unit. I also know a 17-year young LDS lady who has joined a non-LDS BSA crew. She can't join the LDS BSA crew, since we do not intermix our genders thus the solution was the non-LDS crew. So...I'm sure LDS youth find their way into non-LDS units. >But what about the requirement to rank advance by birthday (is this for Cubs only?) That's only a rule for the LDS units, not for all LDS youth. The LDS Church would
  17. I think it's important to understand that LDS units do not do recreational Scouting on Sundays. That means, as units, we don't travel. That means we don't canoe. That means we don't rock climb, etc. In the past, we could hold church services at the campsite, but no longer (except where there is special approval and adequate facilities for worship...e.g., Philmont church services). However, we will hold courts of honor and other Scouting recognition events. Thus, the way to accomodate LDS units is to allow them to break camp early during a camporee (or arrive late). We pack and go ri
  18. The no-camping on Sunday restriction would hold for the LDS scout regardless of the sponsoring unit. The LDS Church believes that the youth and adults need to attend church and renew their baptisimal covenants via the sacrament, and it does not approve sacrament "on location" unless under special circumstances. Of course, the individual members make their own choices. Steve Young played football on Sundays. Eli Herring (drafted by the Raiders), refused to play in the NFL because of the req't to play on Sunday. Usually, I personally refuse to do any recreation on Sundays (including c
  19. Pack. I guess if you cave into whatever the ACLU's view of the Constitution is on any given day (sans the right to bear arms, of course), then we would have no litigation. Prarie. >I would say, rather, that the ACLU tries to maintain the separation of church and state as required by law. I can't seem to find anywhere in the Constitution that requires church and state to be separated. Can you help me on that? >In regards to your feelings about judges, you might be targeting the wrong people. Judges only act on cases brought before them; they don't get to just make up t
  20. >Law is society's statement on "order" - not morality. We lock up bad guys, not because they're immoral, but because they gum up the works, cost money, and make "good" people feel uncomfortable, thus interrupting their day and the blissful "order" of our communities. I disagree. When society says that it is illegal to drink and drive, it passed a moral judgment. Society decided wrong and right, and the individual is now able to choose whether to follow or not. Society passes moral judgments all the time. This thought to not "legislate morality" is a new game played by those who want no
  21. >Once a young man hits 12 years of age, he camps any time he'd like for as long as he'd like, except because of his priesthood commitments, he really should be home on Sunday. Local leadership interprets this guideline differently, BUT the direction is that they should be encouraged to attend church on a weekly basis. I have yet to be in one that allows Sunday camping (except 20 years ago when I was in scouts as a youth). I've tried to convince the local authorities that because in Jewish tradition the Sabbath ends at sundown (Christ was a Jew), that we could thus travel as soon as the
  22. >Sorry, I just don't see how the ACLU is "removing God" from society. They have raised issues in court over groups who have allegedly overstepped Constitutional grounds in their displays or use of public facilities. Those are issues of law, not morality. Law is society's statement of morality. The ACLU has fought to build a wall between God and society. I disagree with that view. Society can include God without discriminating on the basis of religion. I bet you didn't know that our founding fathers, the ones who wrote the 1st Amendment, also provided government funding for religi
  23. You might think of moving him to a unit that meets on another night. For example, we have three Varsity teams in our immediate area (all go to the same high school). Each meets on a different night. During the summer, our Varsity team has picked an activity that is conducive to part-timers and summer. We will often be meeting at a lake or the Gulf on a day other than Tuesday (our regular meeting night). That way, people who are busy during the week can still make our Saturday training.
  24. >On what basis do you think that the ACLU is "tearing down morality"? I'd say in removing God from society. Can't do much worse than that. The ACLU "tells" a court just as any private party can "tell" a court in filing "friend of the court" briefs. They hold a lot of sway because certain prominent members of the legal community strongly support (or are part of) the ACLU. Also, many judges agree with the ACLU views, with some having worked with the ACLU. Justice [holds my nose] Ginsburg was counsel for the ACLU...so basically the ACLU has a seat on the Supreme Court. Just as
  25. >Maybe God just is just a really great practical joker? Obviously so. He made vegetarians and also made animals out of meat.
×
×
  • Create New...