The atheists thing again

[DanKroh]

" 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."

 

No, I just want to government to ensure "liberty and justice for all". Hmmm. Where have I heard that before?

 

As an independent with libertarian leanings, I also believe that the government has too much of a hand in our lives. But until those laws are repealed, I expect the government to follow as well as enforce them. What I see as truly a shame is that there is a need for these laws at all because we, as a society, can't seem to treat each other decently without them.

 

Longhaul, received your PM. Interesting points, and I am pondering them. Thanks.

[TheScout]

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)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

TheScout, laws aren't the same as contracts, because people enter into contracts, while laws are applied to everyone, even people who fought and voted against those laws. However, to use your contract analogy, the constitution would be a master contract under which all subcontracts must follow, and any contract that contradicts it is invalid. As one of the justices pointed out in Loving v. Virginia, laws against interracial marriage made an act legal or illegal solely based on the race of the actor, and in his opinion no valid law could do so.

[DanKroh]

"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)."

 

Excuse me? I don't know how you get from my thinking that everyone should be treated equally to me disliking other people's ideas or wanting to judge other people's ideas. Their ideas are their own. It's their actions I'm concerned with, at least when they affect me and mine. Judge my ideas all you want. However, I think "respecting others" and having obvious disdain for and being dismissive of their beliefs are mutually exclusive.

 

"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."

 

Absolutely, everyone has a right to believe the most horrific, bigoted things that they want. But when they act on those beliefs to the detriment of others, that's when I have a problem with them. You say that you don't want the government to force ideas like equality down your throat. 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. I have my own set of beliefs that are my guiding principles, thanks.

 

So what exactly constitutes physical harm? Does it not cause someone physical harm if they have to live in the street because they are denied housing due to their religion? Isn't it physical harm if someone loses all that they have because they are turned away from employment because of their religion? I guess we should get rid of all those pesky laws about theft, because after all, taking someone's possessions doesn't cause physical harm, right? And all those laws about who can marry who, why do we have those if marrying whoever you want doesn't cause any physical harm (assuming it is consentual)? The government gets involved for more than just physical harm.

[Gonzo1]

Alright alright.

 

It seems this is where this discussion is. Someone arguing about what court ruling said what. Who said what and what government can and can't do.

 

Well, here's the real deal:

BSA has rules, some of us don't like some of them. Some of us want to drop the DRP, some don't, in other threads, some want girls, gays, etc. to join Boy Scouts. These rules are in place, that's it. Let me be silly for a minute. Let's say I don't like the G2SS rule about scouts ridin' in the backs of pick up trucks. Then, I decide to just let 'em ride back there anywhay, it's easy to pack a bunch of boys in there, just hop in. Forget seat belts, pack in 5 skinny kids in the back seat, afterall, what could happen? I'm taking Johnny to the "latrine" wink wink alone, don't tell anybody, just mind your own business.

 

If we pick and choose the rules we want to keep and follow, what good are they? We can't pick and choose, it's not the way it's done. When we signed up, we agreed to follow the rules.

 

In other words:

N O A T H E I S T S!

N O G A Y S

N O G I R L S (except Venturing)

 

Next!

 

(This message has been edited by Gonzo1)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Where exactly in "the rules" is that part about N O G A Y S ?

[Trevorum]

At one time, the Law of the Land said: NO COLOREDS.

 

At one time in this country, women were not allowed to vote.

 

At one time, people were allowed to own other people.

 

At one time, it was considered right and proper to murder Natives.

 

 

 

Thank God the country came to it's senses with regards to these issues. The point is that not all rules are equally just. Some rules are injust and are plain wrong. The point is that as our culture continues, we tend to develop a higher sense of moral responsibility. The point is that in our country, rules can change because people realize they need to be changed and then they do something to change them.

(This message has been edited by Trevorum)

[Gonzo1]

Sweet Mother of Moses, you gotta be kidding!

 

The National website says: WHEREAS the national officers further agree that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the traditional values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law and that an avowed homosexual can not serve as a role model for the values of the Oath and Law ; and...

 

http://www.scouting.org/media/press/2002/020206/re solution.html

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

That's a press release -- where is it in "the rules"? You know, the membership form that you sign, and presumably read to make sure you meet the membership requirements?

 

This press release is from 2002 -- where was it in "the rules" from 1978 (when it was a nonpublic internal memo) up to 2002?

[TheScout]

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.

[LongHaul]

The rule is that LEADERS can not be avowed Homosexuals, there is not mention of youth one way or another so NO GAYS seems beyond the scope of the position of National.

 

Speaking Of Moses by the way remember that shortly after giving Moses that rule about "Thou shalt not Kill (Murder)" God told Moses to head for the land of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, kill everyone he found there and take the survivors as slaves. Rules change, how we read the rules changes, largely it depends on the needs of those in power at the time. Remember the people can be the ones with the power also, it's called revolution. It happens when those in power fail to hear the cries of the masses.

LongHaul

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

TheScout, the supreme court rejected Virginia's argument that the law treated people equally on the basis of race; if white man A can marry white woman B, but black man C can't marry the same white woman B, the law isn't treating A and C equally, and C is treated differently only due to his race.

[DanKroh]

"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."

 

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. In any case, *I* don't do that, the government does. (Oh, and fair housing only applies to landlords, not to homeowners selling a property.) If you don't like those laws, then petition to change them.

 

"Doesn't seem to libretarian to me."

 

I said libertarian leanings. Not all my positions are libertarian, but some of them are. I don't believe in blindly following any ideology.

 

"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."

 

Actually, what you said was "As long as they [bigots] do not physically harm anyone else, it is not the governments job to get involved.". I said theft doesn't cause physical harm, yet the government protects us from it. Evidently, then, you now agree that the government has a right to protect its citizens even from things that do not cause physical harm (like theft). I happen to think discrimination and injustice are also some of those things that the government has a duty to protect its citizens from. I wish the government didn't have to exercise that duty, but as long as there are groups out there who wish to demonize those who are different and in the minority, it seems the government must do so.

[TheScout]

"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.

 

 

[DanKroh]

"I do feel sorry for you if you ever feel demonized, but again I emphasize that it is not my problem."

 

Nope, don't cry for me, TheScout, I'm doing just fine. However, I will give you my stock answer to the "not my problem" attitude:

 

"First they came for the communists,

I did not speak out

because I was not a communist.

 

When they came for the social democrats,

I did not speak out

because I was not a social democrat.

 

When they came for the trade unionists

I did not speak out

because I was not a trade unionist.

 

When they came for the Jews

I did not speak out

because I was not a Jew;

 

And when they came for me,

there was no one left to speak out."

 

Good luck if you are ever in a position of being in the minority.

 

Other than that, I'm afraid that we are so lacking in common ethical ground that this conversation will never be productive. Good day to you.

 

Think I'll join Merlyn in teaching porcine musicianship.