The DRP debate club, Round WHAT??

[Beavah 205]

But the DRP specifies that belief in a deity is required, while a "duty to somethin' outside ourselves and our particular nation/tribe" does not require a deity. So do you agree with the DRP that this duty must come from a deity?

 

I think the meanin' of the DRP is best interpreted by the BSA, eh? The words we use are "duty to God," but we freely welcome Hindus (gods) and members of Buddhist sects that are ambivalent about deity.

 

In any case, a Scout is Reverent.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Beavah writes:

I think the meanin' of the DRP is best interpreted by the BSA, eh?

 

But that isn't what I was asking about. I was asking about this statement of yours:

Yah, I agree with da DRP, eh? I don't think the best kind of citizenship is possible in the absence of a duty to somethin' outside ourselves and our particular nation/tribe.

 

Now, there you're saying you agree with the DRP, but your second sentence only refers to "a duty to somethin' outside ourselves and our particular nation/tribe", which does not necessarily require a deity. So I was inquiring on whether, by that second sentence of yours, you meant that "a duty to somethin' outside ourselves and our particular nation/tribe" actually requires a deity, or not.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

vol_scouter said:

 

>However, because of a law designed to make

>sure that the poor can sue the government,

>they will be paid irregardless of winning or

>losing if they represent the 'right' people.

>Thus, they have no risk in suing the BSA.

 

That is incorrect. The statute in question (Title 42, section 1988, United States Code) provides for an award of attorneys fees only to a "prevailing" (i.e. winning) party. If an ACLU attorney (or any other attorney) sues the government (or other government-related defendant) and loses (after all appeals), there is no right to attorney's fees from the defendant.

 

Collecting attorney's fees under this statute from the BSA would be difficult anyway, because the BSA is not the government, but that's a different subject. You don't collect from anybody if you lose.

[skeptic 993]

Merlyn:

 

I cannot fathom how a seemingly "educated and knowledgeable" man can be so unwilling to allow for variations in definition. God(s) mean different things to different people. The term is subjective and flexible. Ultimately, the DRP is, as Beavah notes, belief in something greater or outside of our own egocentric world. Your obdurate insistence that it "must be" black or white seems to me to simply weaken all of your many well-reasoned comments.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

skeptic, I KNOW people have wildly different definitions of gods; I'm not asking about that.

 

I'm asking about Beavah's remark about "a duty to somethin' outside ourselves and our particular nation/tribe" and whether, TO HIM, such a duty REQUIRES a deity.

[acco40 95]

Maybe I'm too American but I am leery of organizations that have more emphasis on what you think than on how you act. And yes, I'm fully aware that that includes most Christian religions and the BSA.

[Beavah 205]

I'm asking about Beavah's remark about "a duty to somethin' outside ourselves and our particular nation/tribe" and whether, TO HIM, such a duty REQUIRES a deity.

 

My belief is pretty consonant with da BSA's,eh? It requires a legitimate object of / system of reverence, which calls the individual to personal effort/change/sacrifice/enlightenment/advancement/holiness.

 

Of course, I believe that an honest and true seeker who pursues such a course will inevitably be led, in this life or the next, to that which I name God.

 

So, "yes" in da most general, but "no" in (what I suspect is) the narrower way yeh mean the question.

 

B

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Well, that's about as clear as mud...

[vol_scouter 365]

My apologies to the list and thanks to NJCubScouter. I was wrong that the ACLU gets paid even if it loses. Hopefully, anyone who read that is still reading this thread. The ACLU still has a distinct advantage in suing a small community, a church, or whoever else because they know that if they win they will get paid. I wonder how many of these suits they would file without a federal guarantee of payment? A question for the attorneys, does this mean that the ACLU can out spend the defendants (for legitimate charges) because they will be assured to be paid if they prevail? If so, that gives them an advantage over almost any defendant! One way or the other, it seems that many of the lawsuits that I see the ACLU filing are on issues where I do not agree in whole or part with the ACLU. I understand the need for the law and I am not saying that it should necessarily be repealed but perhaps the spending on each side should be equalized in some way. This goes back to the idea that as tax payers we all see tax dollars spent on things that we do not individually agree. So that is not a reason for the government not to spend money in a certain way.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

vol_scouter, there are organizations that will defend small towns "against" the ACLU; the main problem seems to be that the ACLU has a pretty good win/lose record. Did you have any specific ACLU lawsuits in mind?

[Beavah 205]

does this mean that the ACLU can out spend the defendants (for legitimate charges) because they will be assured to be paid if they prevail?

 

Practically speakin'? Usually.

 

If you're a city/town/school board/private entity tryin' to defend yourself, you're lookin' at quite a bill (especially if things go to appeal). That's money that yeh lose even if you're proven right. Money that you can't use to pay your police officers or teachers.

 

ACLU or other special interest legal firms don't have to pay police officers and teachers, eh? Litigation is their business, not a side show. And unlike the defendant, if they win, it's free - and they get to use that case to raise more money. If they lose, they can still use da case to raise money.

 

So for an advocacy firm, there's little downside to pursuin' a case of interest. To da public entity, there's almost nothin' but downside. That's why most don't fight, eh? Hard to tell your voters yeh had to cut half the fire department in order to defend the Christmas Tree, even if you prevailed.

 

Now, when they're actually suin' da federal government (and to a lesser extent, some state governments), it's a bit different, eh? The feds can pick our pockets for the defense. Budget/staffing can still determine what the government chooses to fight, but the playin' field is a lot more even and can often be skewed greatly in favor of the government. What's a few million dollars out of da federal budget? These are the "underdog" cases which merit reimbursement, IMO, not the others.

 

B

 

[Pack212Scouter 10]

"the main problem seems to be that the ACLU has a pretty good win/lose record."

 

Hmmm....of the 736 cases before the US Supreme Court, in which the ACLU was directly involved (from 1920-1999), the court ruled in favor of the ACLU's supported position 418 times. That amounts to 57% of the cases in the ACLU's favor. Not exactly a terrific win/loss record.

[packsaddle 753]

"So for an advocacy firm, there's little downside to pursuin' a case of interest. To da public entity, there's almost nothin' but downside. That's why most don't fight, eh? Hard to tell your voters yeh had to cut half the fire department in order to defend the Christmas Tree, even if you prevailed."

And this is so easily avoided. Governments merely need to stop breaking the law.

[Pack212Scouter 10]

"And this is so easily avoided. Governments merely need to stop breaking the law."

 

Ahh...so easy...not. The government hasn't broken the law. In these cases, the government has violated the current INTERPRETATION of the laws. What is considered legal and correct now, was not considered that 50 years ago, what was legal and correct 50 years ago was not 100 years ago, and what is legal and correct today most likely will not be considered that 50 years from now. Everyone is convinced that their interpretaion of the Constitution is the right one, including myself. There are only three possible "right" interpretations.

1) The original intent of the writers. Which can be infered from their writings and the beliefs in America at the time. "original intent"

2) The interpretation based on what is "in vogue" at the time. "finger to the wind"

3) The interpretation based on what is best for the "greater good". Two sub-interpretations of this here...Greater Good= significant majority, or Greater Good= widest benefit to all.

[vol_scouter 365]

Beevah,

 

Thanks! That confirms my suspicions that the ACLU forces entities to settle or is able to outspend them. In the first case, it is a form of coercion and in the second it is an unfair advantage for the ACLU. A 57% winning percentage given those advantages does not overly impress me either. Beevah, your idea that the feds should only guarantee fees in cases against the federal government does seem like a good solution. IMHO, the ACLU too often picks on smaller entities and bullies them issues without real harm.

 

Getting back onto topic. I agree that the BSA is allowing a lot of latitude on the interpretation of the DRP. This allows dealing with youth who are unsure of their faith and those of faiths less well represented in the population. However, it does open up issues whenever the DRP is enforced. Personally, I think that if we enforce Duty to God, then all of the Scout Oath and Law should be enforced as well (such as physically strong). It does not seem reasonable to me to allow an obese unfit youth to become an Eagle but to prevent a confused youth who declares that he is an 'atheist' from becoming an Eagle. I agree that the 12th Scout Law is the most important, but the other 11 points and the Oath should be considered as well.