Supreme Court won't test constitutionality of Ten Commandments monument on statehouse grounds

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

 

Well, I'll just have to point out that the courts don't agree with your arguments; not posting your religious tenets on government property doesn't infringe on your first amendement rights, because it isn't a public forum. You're free to post them on your own property, or carry a sign all day if you like.

 

And you still haven't reconciled the first commandment with the first amendment; the government has no business telling its citizens what gods to follow.

[Dedicated Dad 10]

Dedicated Dad, could you point me to more information about the U.S. laws being based on the Ten Commandments? Are there specific books or authors that you know of that address this subject? I am very interested in reading more about this. Mom, I dont know where to begin other than Im excited for your interest. I would use Google and start with a search for each amendment that youre interested in. No, start with the Constitution, its not light reading but not too long to get through. If you read John Adams you should have no problem with the Constitution, it would be cake for you! Then do your search on each amendment or parts of the articles youre interested in. Read the Citizenship in the Nation merit badge book and become a councilor so you can put your newfound knowledge to work. Good Luck and God Bless. PS. READ THE Federalist Papers!

 

 

 

 

[Dedicated Dad 10]

Bump to that BOB!

[Dedicated Dad 10]

Well, I'll just have to point out that the courts don't agree with your arguments; Not in every Circuit. And like I said, cert. denied is not a precedent. not posting your religious tenets on government property doesn't infringe on your first amendement rights, because it isn't a public forum. You're free to post them on your own property, or carry a sign all day if you like. Back to this again? Where is the governmental endorsement of religion, its not in there! It being used as a basis of inspiration not an endorsement. Apples and oranges. And you still haven't reconciled the first commandment with the first amendment; the government has no business telling its citizens what gods to follow. How can it if there is no endorsement. If there is no endorsement there is no ESTABLISHMENT?

 

 

 

 

 

[slontwovvy 10]

Merlyn

 

First of all, your response to OGE was simply rude. Didnt help your cause either. If this callousness is one of the other things the ACLU is for, the world will be in a heap of trouble should ultra-liberalism ever triumph over what is right.

 

Secondly, I have heard of people who put the Magna Carta in their courthousesindeed, my own county courthouse has a framed replica on its walls. Yet there would be no problem if one did want to put the English Bill of Rights or the Magna Carta up. It doesnt make the news because the ACLU hasnt yet found a way to kick those documents out, hence they keep quiet (a rare but welcome occurrence) and the citizens dont hear about it when it happens.

 

Thirdly, its ludicrous to assume that US law came from only one source. It comes from a multitude of sources put together. One of them is, like it or not, the Ten Commandments. However, we did not adopt all of the ten into our system, much like we did not do to the Code of Hammurabi. (Somehow, an eye for an eye, killing builders who make faulty homes, and cutting off the hands those who steal havent stayed unto modern times, except maybe in Afghanistan.) You claim that the commandments barring lying, stealing, and murder were not new. This may be true, but the Ten Commandments brought them to the forefront of the debate; Im sure Hammurabi didnt come up with them either. However, they are best known from the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments revolutionized morality, and our laws, again, like it or not, are partially based upon them.

 

Next, we have the issue of the monument itself. Its privately funded, from my understanding. Secondly, it has been there for a whileit could go the way of In God We Trust or With God all Things are Possible, being declared traditional. (It must gall you that you cant completely obliterate all mention of the word and reality of God.) There really are no reasons why the monument cannot be there in the first place. You seem to think that freedom of religion is freedom from religion. If its public property, you cannot stop private citizens from expressing their religion on public grounds if the proper decorum, ambiance, and approval are maintained and obtained. Im sure if you and all your little friends want to petition to get a sign that says gods are myths on the Capitol wall you can do that if you have the necessary support and the sign doesnt conflict with the atmosphere of the place. Yet somehow I doubt youll get it. Why? Because the silent majority is with us! Merlynit may come as a shock to realize that most (of at least those that I know) do not support you. You just want it that way so you and your ACLU friends can destroy everything that America stands for.

 

Ill take a page from cjmiams book and askif you are so upset with the Boy Scouts and the United States, why dont you (a) form your own youth organization, (b) renounce your US citizenship (presuming you have it) and go to a country that better represents your beliefs, such as the Netherlands or Denmark, © both (a) and (b), or (d) realize that you might not be right and be quiet?

 

ScouterPaul, I hate to say it, but if you dont like what the BSA stands for, why are you in it? Somehow it doesnt seem to me, if Merlyn is a typical ACLU member, that there is 95% in common between the two organizations.

 

Merlyn et al, you liberals are trying to rewrite history. Now, in some states, the Revolutionary War is the Revolutionary Conflict, because conflict involved less strong emotion. Ill pause here to let George Washington and others roll over in their graves. Additionally, in the new statue honoring those firefighters and policemen who gave their lives in the WTC attacks (the subject is the now famous photo of the firefighters raising the flag), there is talk that the people portrayed not as all whites (which, by coincidence, they happened to be), but a Latino, a black, and (I believe) a woman. Somehow this doesnt seem like a good memory of the recent past.

 

I encourage everyone out there to speak out against Merlyn and his followers. As Orwell pointed out in 1984 (Im paraphrasing) Those who control the present control the past. Lets hope that the ACLU never gets any more control over the present.

 

Whoa, that turned out to be a lot more than two cents.

 

SlontWovvy

 

[ScouterPaul 11]

Mr. SlontWowy

If you had taken the time your would have noticed that I have stayed out of this debate and the debate on home schooling. I've done this because I fail to see how they pertain to Scouting.

 

I stand for 100% of what Boy Scouts Stand for. I am however against the few who choose to make their personal predjudices those of the BSA. I feel that I have a right to work within the system to change the system. Contrary to serveral posts in other threads I believe that a healthy debate between Scouters is working within the system.

 

I didn't know that is was a requirement to agree 100% with everything that an organization or country for that matter stands for. It does my heart good to know that you unfailing agree with and follow every law on the books of our great country and the state that you reside. Because should you disagree perhaps "I'll take a page from cjmiam's book and ask - if your are so upset with the Boy Scouts and the United States, why don't you (a) form your own youth organization,(b) renounce your US citizenship (presuming you have it) and go to a country that better represents your beliefs, such as the Netherlands or Denmark, © both (a) and (b), or (d) realize that you might not be right and be quiet"

[sctmom 11]

The ACLU is not all bad. Most of what you hear about are the extreme cases they are involved in. There are many, many cases they are involved with that most of us never hear on the news. When you have a little time you may want to check out their website. You might just find something you agree with.

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

ScouterPaul, I believe that slontwovvy drew you into this in error; the statement he seems to attribute to you (95 percent agreement with the BSA, as well as the ACLU) was actually made by me. So I'll take the heat for it.

 

I do, however, fully agree with your post, ScouterPaul, although it may appear otherwise. You say:

 

I stand for 100% of what Boy Scouts Stand for. I am however against the few who choose to make their personal predjudices those of the BSA.

 

And I say I agree with the BSA about 95 percent -- the 5 percent being those 1 or 2 issues on which the BSA has adopted the positions of "the few who choose to make their personal predjudices those of the BSA." So I think we are basically saying the same thing.

 

And as for slontwovvy, who seems to think that my 5 percent disagreement means that I "don't like what the BSA stands for", I have to say that 95 percent is more than I agree with anybody else about anything. I probably don't agree with my wife anywhere near 95 percent of the time, but I have no intention of quitting my family to find a new one. Nor do I have any intention of quitting the BSA to find a different youth organization for my son, because I know that none of them would have a combination of program and policy that is anywhere near 95 percent to my liking. And the reason that I am not just a parent but a leader is that my son's den needed a new leader, and then the Cubmaster needed an Assistant, and I felt I could contribute something to fill the need. If I continue on after my son finishes Webelos, it will be because a troop needs something that they and I feel I can contribute. I don't do or not do things for ideological or political reasons where my children are concerned, I do what I think is best for them considering all factors. I hope everybody can agree with that.

 

As for ScouterPaul's statement:

 

I feel that I have a right to work within the system to change the system. Contrary to serveral posts in other threads I believe that a healthy debate between Scouters is working within the system.

 

Since I come from the 70s and we didn't have "bumps" or "dittos", all I can say is "right on."

 

[Dedicated Dad 10]

North says he supports posting Ten Commandments

 

Retired Lt. Col. Oliver North signs autographs for Boy Scouts Daniel Tucker, 10, left, Jacob Schilz, 10, and Johnquez Waggoner, 14, at a patrons' luncheon for the Boy Scouts at the Renaissance Hotel.

By JIM EAST

Staff Writer

 

 

Wilson County commissioners made sense Monday night when they unanimously voted to support posting the Ten Commandments in public buildings, conservative radio talk show host Oliver North said yesterday.

 

North, in Nashville as the keynote speaker for the annual patron luncheon of the Middle Tennessee Council-Boy Scouts of America, said that while he did not like to get too involved with local politics, ''if it happened in my home of Clarke County, Virginia, I would be for it.

 

''I've got the sense that if 'In God We Trust' is good enough for us to put on our coins, the Ten Commandments ought to be good enough for public buildings,'' North said.

 

North, a former national security adviser to President Reagan, was convicted of a quintet of charges that included conspiracy, making false statements to Congress and obstructing congressional inquiries into the Iran-Contra affair. He and his boss, Adm. John Poindexter, arranged the sale of arms to Iran and used the proceeds to support the Contra rebels in Nicaragua.

 

The five 1990 felony convictions against North were overturned when an appellate court ruled that he had been granted prosecution immunity because of his forced testimony before Congress.

 

Yesterday, North noted that the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a claim by Indiana state officials who sought to erect a 7-foot monument with the Ten Commandments on state property. Appellate judges had barred the Indiana display as an unconstitutional ''establishment of religion.''

 

At the luncheon, North said that he was the son of a Boy Scout, had been a Scout himself, was the father of a Scout and that he hoped his new grandson, born yesterday morning, would become a Boy Scout.

 

Eagle Scout Robert Baird, of Woodmont Christian Church's Troop 92, and Life Scout Johnquez Waggoner, of the Morgan Park Community Center's Troop 35, were introduced at yesterday's luncheon, which drew more than 1,200 business and community leaders and is one of the scouting nation's most successful fund-raising events. The luncheon, at the Renaissance Hotel in downtown Nashville, raised more than $1,469,000, Scout spokeswoman Deborah Varallo said.

 

''It's pretty intimidating,'' Baird said of shaking hands with North. ''I'm trying to get into a military academy, so I think I will ask for his help.''

 

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Re: the news article about Ollie North: Someone stated earlier that this subject (the constitutionality of placing the 10 commandments on public land) is of questionable relevance to Scouting, and it seems to me that the discussion is getting further and further afield. If the article about North is relevant to Scouting because he spoke at a Boy Scout luncheon, that would seem to be appropriate to a folder on Events In The Councils or something like that, if there is one, and this presumably would be outside the Issue and Politics area. But I am not the folder police, and would not want to be accused of trying to stifle free expression.

 

As for Ollie North, I sit here attempting unsuccessfully to identify his credentials as an expert on the Establishment Clause, or any other aspect of the First Amendment for that matter, which would justify a news article reporting what he thinks. Perhaps he could claim some perspective on the Fifth Amendment, because that is the amendment by which he escaped punishment for his crimes. I can't help thinking that Ollie North and his supporters would ccomplain that someone whose conviction was overturned on the same grounds had gotten out on a "technicality" -- if the beneficiary were someone other than Ollie North or one of his ideological ilk.

 

Which now makes me realize why Ollie North is relevant to Scouting -- to show that Boy Scout councils need to be more careful about who they choose as role models.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I may be old and grey and dont always remember things as I should, but wasnt Oliver North the guy who LIED to congress about Iran-Contra ? And later he admitted he LIED to Congress based on his belief he was right?

Didnt he shred documents that were subpoenoed and snuck others out the door in Fawn Hall's boots and other articles of clothing?

 

If I am wrong, I have no doubt I will be suitably rebuked, and will deserve it for spreading more urban legends but I am not sure Oliver North is a guy I want to have anyone model, much less a scout

[NJCubScouter 1389]

OldGreyEagle, perhaps not so old and grey, says:

 

I may be old and grey and dont always remember things as I should, but wasnt Oliver North the guy who LIED to congress about Iran-Contra ? And later he admitted he LIED to Congress based on his belief he was right?

 

Yes, you remember correctly; in fact, the article you were responding to says:

 

North, a former national security adviser to President Reagan, was convicted of a quintet of charges that included conspiracy, making false statements to Congress and obstructing congressional inquiries into the Iran-Contra affair.

 

As the story also mentions, his conviction was overturned because Congress foolishly (the article doesn't say foolishly, I do) gave him immunity in order to testify at the hearings, when in fact they should have let him take the Fifth if he wanted and let the prosecutors prosecute him. You may notice that the Congressional investigators into the Enron matter have learned that lesson and are not throwing around immunity to the key players. I also recall, though I am not positive, that he still could have been tried on some of the charges, such as lying to Congress, but by that time the limitations placed on the case in the various appeals (I think it went up and back 2 or 3 times) made it more trouble than it was worth, and the prosecutors decided to just forget the whole thing.

 

Didnt he shred documents that were subpoenoed and snuck others out the door in Fawn Hall's boots and other articles of clothing?

 

Indeed he did. Actually the part about the boots I don't specifically recall, but who could forget then-Senator Howell Heflin, one-time Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, drawling, "So it seems Miz Hawl stuffed all them doc-yaments in her unda-gahments, heh heh." Ah, the good old days.

 

If I am wrong, I have no doubt I will be suitably rebuked, and will deserve it for spreading more urban legends but I am not sure Oliver North is a guy I want to have anyone model, much less a scout

 

Actually, I would not be surprised if you find yourself being rebuked for being right.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

 

...

"As the story also mentions, his [North's] conviction was overturned because Congress foolishly (the article doesn't say foolishly, I do) gave him immunity in order to testify at the hearings, when in fact they should have let him take the Fifth if he wanted and let the prosecutors prosecute him."

 

And who fought to have North's conviction overturned?

 

The ACLU. Not because they liked his politics or the way he broke the laws, but because prosecuting someone using statements they are compelled to make when given immunity destroys any meaning of the fifth amendment.

 

Just as allowing local governments to put up just the religious tenets they happen to like destroys any meaning of the first.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Hey NJCubScouter, just where in New Jersey are you? Are you from Jersey? I am NOT from jersey

[Bob Russell 10]

And Merlyn, just like allowing the government to penalize the Boy Scouts of America destroys any meaning of the right of association contained in the first. Oh, where is that ACLU now?