Posted on 10/20/2005 8:23:42 AM PDT by FerdieMurphy
Oh you'll pay for that! So what if it's true, you're sure to have already offended hundreds of them by the time I read this.
:-)
As the Constitution is and has been interpreted, it is a violation because state funding implies state approval for an organization's practices. The BSA favors Christians over non-Christians, therefore by providing state facilites and funding to the BSA, the state condones this favoritism.
I am not religious but I recognize constitutional violations when I see them and this ain't it!
I'll add you to my list of Constitutional scholars, 5-star generals, and professional scientists and historians that I've come into contact with here on FR.
You sound much like a Dem or any other socialist, marxist, communist, liberal, progressive(I hope I got the name you prefer, else you might feel offended, like I give a crap). Have a nice day.
Ad hominem attacks: The last first bastion of the ignorant.
Well said.
If you own a country club, you have every right to make rules regarding who can attend. This is not violating any constitutional clause, establishment or otherwise. If you lose your shirt in court you either drew a very liberal judge or your lawyer sucks, and to elaborate, just because a judge, especially a liberal judge, rules it doens't make it true or reflect the real meaning of the constitution.
Any ruling that prohibits private property owners from espressing there views or making rules to run their establishments is unconstitutional, as long as the rules don't embrace physical violence etc.
Discriminating is fine if you are a private individual, not so if you are a government institution. This is where you liberals and other whiners get lost. The only real seperation in this country isn't between church and state but between people and the government.
So that means that YOUR interpretation of this symbol should prevail to the determent of someone else's??
I as a believing Christian could never be a landlord in this society because I would not rent to unmarried cohabitating couples of any sexual orientation. Why should I have to put my religious beliefs aside and forfiet my 1st Ammendment rights to order to own rental property in these United States?
"As the Constitution is and has been interpreted,..."
Can you explain to me why a document written in english needs to be interpreted by people that speak english?
"So from your point of view it should be perfectly possible for me to ban Jews and Catholics from my country club if that's what the majority of my "community" wanted.'
If it is a private club you can exclude anyone for any reason.
"He often lamented that when he wore a swastika necklace around, people thought that he was some kind of Nazi."
The eastern version is reversed and not at an angle. It is seen in feudal Japanese and Chinese culture as well. Most, however, see it as a swastika. There was more to the Confederacy than slavery. Slavery was wrong, but many are now coming around to the idea of state's rights. (which was what it was all about anyway)
Having a hate against other peoples religions or saying private organizations, whether they are partially funded by tht state or not, have no right to set up rules as they see fit is very un-conservative, and unamerican as the original term applies, type thinking. This is exactly what the article was talking about and the fact that you can't see it is even more proof you, and people like you, are the subject of this article. Thanks again for listening and have a good day.
Point of parliamentary procedure. The BSA does not prefer Christians over non-Christians. The BSA merely states a belief in God is necessary. If you are Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, or whatever, that is good enough for the BSA, plain and simple.
Further, like other posters have stated, the 1st Amendment stipulates equal opportunity. It is not favoritism (nor against the 1st Amendment) if the state provides facilities to the BSA so long as the same opportunity is available to Atheist groups. Freedom of religion=equal opportunity. However, equal opportunity does not mean equal results.
Definition of a liberal: Someone who knows his/her rights, but doesn't respect anyone else's.
Did someone actually do that? And the attendant audience didn't break out in hilarious laughter? Wish I'd been there.
I think that our ideas of where the courts do and don't have the right to intervene are too different for us to find common ground on this one. I guess that we'll just have to amicably disagree. Thanks for the discussion
Again, your comments about the Confederate flag demonstrate your, and others, complete misunderstanding of history. Your dislike and misunderstanding of the Confederate flag should not prevent others from displaying it. Protests about it are just busybodies trying to impose their will on others.
I've read quite a bit about the Civil War, and that includes the Articles of Confederacy. I'm not a professional historian by any means, but I feel like I'm well informed enough to have an opinion.
I'm curious, what is your opinion of those who protest the American flag as either offensive or a symbol of hate?
Haven't met any myself, so they're tough for me to gauge. Unless you could prove that it's causing tangible harm or is otherwise a threat to good public order, it would be difficult for anyone to get much of anywhere in court.
ping
Because the law is a vast and sticky thing that covers millions of people and millions of situations. Since the Constitution is the basis for the laws of the US, it requires experts to interpret how (or if) it applies on a case-by-case basis.
That's very true, and good reasoning.
*sarcasm on*
Yeah I'm offended. Since you're obviously insensitive and unwilling to look at another person's point of view, I demand that this thread be banned.
*sarcasm off*
"Because the law is a vast and sticky thing that covers millions of people and millions of situations. Since the Constitution is the basis for the laws of the US, it requires experts to interpret how (or if) it applies on a case-by-case basis."
In other words, you believe that the constitution is a living document.
Not really. These things are policies of the elite, they are engineered, they didn't just happen to happen. The grievance industry is a weapon in the culture war. People who pretend that it's just a matter of individuals straightening up are seeking to avoid reality, to avoid confronting the cultural establishment, avoid putting forward a vision of their own, and in most cases avoid the issues of race and multiculturalism. Ethnic politics are the inevitable result of multi-ethnicity, but authors like this don't want to deal with that fact, they'd rather pretend that it is just a matter of individuals "getting a life" because chiding individuals won't get you crucified by the establishment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.