[icespeed]

Originally posted by Kazan


demanding that our rights are respected is a "huge childish fuss" apparently

it is. because if you were more mature about it, you wouldn't feel that your rights come from someone else's actions. you'd make your own rights.

[Kazan]

*rolleyes*

obviously you don't understand what RIGHTS are -- go take some political science classes


government gives money to religious organization = violation of the establishment clause, violation of the rights of everyone not of the same sect of religion of the organization

[icespeed]

insulting me isn't going to change the situation, you know. what needs distinguishing is the trivial and the important. boy scouts swearing to God? trivial. people being martyred for believing in God? important. as far as i know, american hasn't reached the second stage yet.

[kode]

how about people being martyred/discriminated for _NOT_ believing in "God"? trivial, I guess?

and how much as it scares me to say, but I'm beginning to feel as if Kazan is actually one of the few people here with the right ideas (i.e. viewpoints I can agree on).

[Grey Wolf]

Am I in the minority for thinking that if something either doesn't directly affect you or affect you in any significant way, you shouldn't really pay much attention to it? People tend to get overly worked up about things that are in truth of little consequence.

[icespeed]

okay, maybe i used the wrong words or something, so forgive me for not having a degree in diplomacy. but what i meant was what grey wolf just said.

[Mongoose]

Answer me this:  Do the Boy Scouts support any one religion?  No.  By giving money, is the government supporting any one religion?  No.  I see absolutely no Establisment Clause violation here.  (And yes, Kazan, I have taken an American Government course with a teacher who knew his stuff.)  All I see is the ACLU pursuing yet another wacko lawsuit and further discrediting themselves.

[Bobboau]

generaly when I see ACLU and boyscouts in the same sentnece I know I'm going to probly see the ACLU going to far, but in this instance, it's a bit more grey, and I think they were in the right.

[Ford Prefect]

The argument is always that it doesn't support any one religion, but the assertion of "God" is, in and of itself, supporting a certain kind of belief.

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by icespeed
look this is just getting stupid, if you don't believe in God why can't you just hold a superior attitude towards those superstitious primitives who do instead of making a huge childish fuss about it?

That's an interesting argument...

If one believes in a God and believes they are morally superior to those "sinning" non-theists, then what reason is there to make a huge fuss about silly earthly issues? What reason is there to introduce homophobic legislation? Why is it necessary for science textbooks to put disclaimers about evolution?

[Grey Wolf]

Those would be we know as "retarded".  Contrary to the beliefs of those who consider crazy all who believe that there is some sort of higher power, whether defined or no, that single belief doesn't make you do those stupid things.  Those people would most likely be stupid no matter what they believed in.

[redmenace]

Originally posted by Kazan


false dilemma

It wasn't so much a argument as an observation I have made about the ACLU being concerned with things that are of little or no consequence.

[übermetroid]

Originally posted by Shrike
Can I swear allegiance to the Blind Watchmaker or the Invisible Hand?

Go for it!

When asked what my faith was said "god of rolling rocks down really big hills."

Because that is what I like to do.  And I try to hit stuff.

*Is an Eagle Scout*

[Grey Wolf]

*Should turn in the paperwork for Eagle within 6 months*

[Kazan]

gray wolf: yes you're in the minority - because that is foolish

icespeed: there is no such thing as a trivial violation of rights - a violation of rights is a violation of rights -- period

[Kazan]

Mongoose: it doesn't have to be supporting any _ONE_ religion - it is supporting religion - which means government support to that organization is the government supporting religion

furthermore the god is understood to be the christian god anyway


remember: freedom of religion includes freedom from religion

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. or the free exercise thereof"

[redmenace]

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
-         The First Amendment to the Constitution of the Unites States of America
In its entirty.
However, the congress has not made a law here have they. This is what bothers me about the judicial system. They read the constitution and say 1+3=7 due to some "legalese" jargon. Regaurdless if IT IS WRITTEN IN PLAIN ENGLISH. And yes the Supreme Court are "experts in the law," but guess what, experts can be wrong. In this situation, the boyscouts, congress has made NO LAW "respecting an establishment of religion. Or the free exercise thereof." The military, has provided a service for its service men and women and their families, that in some cases they would not be able to have otherwise such as in foreign coutries.

The people feared one sect might obtain a preeminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform. --James Madison Commenting on the First Admendment

[Bobboau]

if the amendment was followed corectly then the funding should not have been alowed in the first place, what the courts have done is looked at the situation and realised this, funding for a religon centered organisation is not something the government sould be dealing out.

now on the other hand, much of the rest of the ACLU's atacks (the thing were they sued to get a gay scout leader in or the atheist egle scout thingy) have been crossing the line, the scouts have a right to set the rules of there private organiseation, but in so doing they must accept the consequences of being a religiously centered organiseation.

[redmenace]

Why. So you are admiting that they practiced judicial activism? The constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Congress has not been involved in this situation. If there should be a seperation of church and state, then it shouldn't be added to the constitution of written in by 9 old geezers on the bench. Congress should put forth an admendment establishing it.

now on the other hand, much of the rest of the ACLU's atacks (the thing were they sued to get a gay scout leader in or the atheist egle scout thingy) have been crossing the line, the scouts have a right to set the rules of there private organiseation, but in so doing they must accept the consequences of being a religiously centered organiseation.

Some people think that the ACLU has alterior motives. And this action in conjunction with the previous lawsuits are setting a pattern of behavior by them[the ACLU].

[aldo_14]

I was in the (UK) Boy Scouts as a young-un (Cubs, actually), and I don't remember having to do any religious-type-stuff such as swear an oath to God et al.  So if it's indoctrination, it's not very effective....

I don't see any harm by funding what is basically a kids group.   So long as people can choose what to swear to, and insert an aetheistic alternative if they wish, then I think it's fine.  Someone asks me to swear to God, and I wouldn't.  someone asks me to swear to something, then I'll slot in a nice arbitrary (and humourous) thing and be perfectly happy with it.