[Kazan]

redmenace: the seperation of church and state is established by the 1st ammendment

people who whine "judicial activism" are only demonstrating one thing: They don't know what the **** they're talking about

oh yes.. the ACLU has such alterior motives... promoting civil liberties is such an alterior motive

the constitution is not written in "plain english" -- it's written in legalese

the establishment clause would not prohibit the military from providing chaplins - as long as they provide chaplins for any and all religions requested

[Bobboau]

ok we have a law that sais the government can't make any law that will have an effect on any religon. later we have some part of the government that does something that has an effect on religion. sence the congress it the part that makes laws and the first amendment is still in play if some part of the government does something that is specificly forbiden from being made into law then the only conclusion is that that part of the government was in error with the law.

[Kazan]

yeah

[redmenace]

I don't see how it is possible to get from A all the way to Z.
You only choose to see it as legelese. Secondly, those who want to rely on a damn letter written by Jefferson as proof need to realize he had nothing to do with the drafting of the 1st admendment. Additionally early drafts of the document suggest that it was refering to individual sects. The !st admendment specifically singles out the Congress. If it were meant for the entire Gov't it would have said so.

Do you really thing the ACLU has no other agenda present? I mean it is the BOY SCOUTS. They got on their cases before about gay scout leaders and tried to have them kicked off public lands. Now they are trying to do it again. It is really obvious.

[Liberator]

Originally posted by Kazan
people who whine "judicial activism" are only demonstrating one thing: They don't know what the **** they're talking about

Oh, I don't know about that.

Originally posted by Kazan
oh yes.. the ACLU has such alterior motives... promoting civil liberties is such an alterior motive

Actually, in recent years anyway, they have done little to support civil rights unless it somehow attacks a religion, specifically a branch of Christianity.  That would make it seem that they have a beef against Christianity and religion in general.

[aldo_14]

I'd imagine that, as it is by far the dominant religion, Christianity is going to be 'attacked' more often in order to curb the negative influence its size may have upon the minority religions.  And, of course, given that Christianity is the primary religion, it's more than a bit more likely it'll come up in controversial laws than, say, Sikhism in the Us, isn't it?

[Bobboau]

yeah, they have become much more centered around atacking christianity than defending anything lately, I recall specificly an event there there were christmass decorations in a town along side an asortment of other holodays (like Chanukah and a bunch of others) and the christmass display was specificly singled out. they should have either gone after all of them, or preferably left them the hell alone, as all this sort of thing acomplishes is pissing of a majority of people.

[Kazan]

Liberator: riight... i guess "supporting Rush Limbaugh's right to privacy" and "Supporting a republicans right to have a political sign in their yard" (it violated some building ordinance somehow) are

They're "after Christianity" because right now christianity is the only group trying to push themselves into government to dictate laws, policy, etc.

If someone actually passed a law that said "A child cannot pray in school" the ACLU would defend that child.  

PS: A child can pray in school all they want - so long as it doesn't disrupt other individuals (being loud, etc).   A teacher cannot lead students in prayer - because while at school they're a representative of the government: and do you want the government telling your children how to pray? [Hint: HELL NO, that's your job]

redmenace: you don't need jefferson's letter as proof - it only provides a succint term

they are going at the BSA from two sides - since they were getting government funding they went after the BSA, and then they went after the government funding - basically it's "Conform to government rules, or loose your funding!" and they made sure it's enforced

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Liberator


Oh, I don't know about that.

PS: That doesn't constitute a refutation

[ionia23]

A few little snippets from the Boy Scouts, for anyone who has any doubts about it's spiritual requirements.  These are from memory so, please, be merciful.  I only had to say them about 10 thousand times.

The Scout Oath
--------------------
On my honor I will do my best
to do my duty to God and my country
To obey the Scout Law
To help other people at all times
To keep myself physically strong
mentally awake
and morally straight

The Scout Law
----------------------------
A Scout Is..

Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent

Now, Scouting does not say that you must be Christian.  It doesn't 'specifically' say you cannot be an Atheist, but the implication is there nonetheless.  

*Is Eagle Scout*

[Liberator]

Originally posted by Kazan


PS: That doesn't constitute a refutation

.

It's better than some of the BS you shovel sometimes.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Bobboau
yeah, they have become much more centered around atacking christianity than defending anything lately, I recall specificly an event there there were christmass decorations in a town along side an asortment of other holodays (like Chanukah and a bunch of others) and the christmass display was specificly singled out. they should have either gone after all of them, or preferably left them the hell alone, as all this sort of thing acomplishes is pissing of a majority of people.

I do think that this sort of thing - banning Christmas displays, Hot Cross buns (UK thing) is excessive.  Should encourage people to display their diversity, not suppress it.  

My particular concerns regard the government & law rather than peoples expressions of their beliefs et al.  So, in this particular example (scouts), funding the scouts is fine as they don't promote a particular belief*, however funding - for example - a travelling baptist group using God to promote abstinance would be wrong (as it is based on a specific religion and thus would discriminate against different religions or moral codes.... so you'd have to pull the funding or provide a variety of alternatives, such as travelling roadshows to educate on safe sex et al)

 'God' may be implied as Christian, but it can be interpreted in a number of ways. IMO, it is used in a sufficiently vague way (specifically, 'my God'), that I don't think it is discriminatory in such a way as to require the removal of funding.  Also; based on my UK experiences (which may be invalid), it;s not really an indoctrination organisation.

[Kazan]

aldo_14: they do promot religion though, so the government cannot support them - or they violate MY RIGHTS

asshole  

-------------

Liberator: until you are capable of refuting A SINGLE THING i say you cannot call anything I say "bull****"

your debating skills are so bad that they're nonexistant

please spew some more counterfactuals so i can own you - i really liked it when you misquoted the 1st ammendment

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kazan
aldo_14: they do promot religion though, so the government cannot support them - or they violate MY RIGHTS

asshole
 

Well, I was going to agree with your arguement in light of certain things I've read, but if you're going to act like a 12-year old, I don't see how i can.  What i will say, is that I have checked up on certain things and would agree that there is a religious element in the America Boy Scouts that I didn't experience when I was (briefly) in the British equivalent.

But I don't want to be associated with your general attitude towards this whole area, because I'd prefer to give a more considered and concilatory view.

Of course, are there not aethistic / non-religious youth groups funded by the government?  And if not, maybe you should have those rather than this particular course of action, because it's not going to achieve much (maybe the BS - nice initials BTW - will get funding from the church instead.....).

[Kazan]

aldo_14: i should have tagged that "asshole" with a smilie.. i was being facetious... sorry

Of course, are there not aethistic / non-religious youth groups funded by the government?

not as far as i know

any group that promotes one religious position - whether it be christianity, islam, buddhism, atheism, etc should not receive government money

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kazan
aldo_14: i should have tagged that "asshole" with a smilie.. i was being facetious... sorry

ok, no worries.

Originally posted by Kazan
not as far as i know

any group that promotes one religious position - whether it be christianity, islam, buddhism, atheism, etc should not receive government money

Well, my preference is for an alternative rather than a removal.  This part of the spcut code thingy, I disagree with;

[q]Religious Principle, Declaration of, (BSA)
The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no person can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God and, therefore, acknowledges the religious element in development of youth members, but it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious development. Its policy is that the organization or institution with which youth members are connected shall give definite attention to their religious life. Only adults willing to subscribe to this declaration of principle and the Bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitled to certificates of leadership.[/q]

This appears to be an american thing, so I wasn;t aware of it.  My brief experience of the (uk cub) scouts had absouletely no impact in religious terms... I don't even remember if there was any religious aspect of it.

If that above thing is strictly adhered to in the US scouts, then I think it is unfair and discriminatory.  I'd encourage a revision or alternative to be provided if possible.... simply due to tradition, I guess there is a certain hesitance at 'cutting off' funding to such an old institution.  On the other hand, there is the principle of it to regard.

(oh, and what the hell happened to my other reply, which was a lot less rushed?  Damn thing just upped and left......)

EDIT; yep, definately think they should be either co-erced to be fair and undiscriminatory, or have funding cut.  Certain principles to be upheld, after all
http://www.scouting.org/media/press/020206/index.html

[karajorma]

The way I see it everyone is getting down on the ACLU for this saying that they are making mountains out of molehills etc.

Lets spin this around.

If the God thing is such a non issue why don't the Boy scouts simply drop the word God from there pledge? The whole thing would be over with the loss of a single line. On one hand they have the loss of millions in government support. On the other hand they have removing one line from their pledge. If this is really such a non issue why wasn't the word dropped? Surely lossing one sentence is worth avoiding all this trouble.

....Unless of course the God thing means more than the people who have called this trivial realise.

[Liberator]

Originally posted by karajorma
If the God thing is such a non issue why don't the Boy scouts simply drop the word God from there pledge?

Tradition.

Also, the Boy Scouts are a private organization.  They don't have to let anybody in if they don't want to.  Like the Augusta Golf Club.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator


Tradition.

Also, the Boy Scouts are a private organization.  They don't have to let anybody in if they don't want to.  Like the Augusta Golf Club.

So why should they be government funded?  Otherwise the government would be condoning exclusivity on the basis of religion, etc (in this case against aetheism and also on the basis of sexual orientation).

[redmenace]

Why don't they change. Mainly because they see what the constitution says and don't see legalese bull ****.