The Evil Boy Scouts

[WriterDom]

Does anyone know the names of the Democrat senators who voted to allow the boy scouts after-hours access to schools?

 

[unusuallyconfused]

no, do you?

 

[WriterDom]

Cleland voted against the evil boy scouts. That's all I really wanted to know. He's been so "right wing" lately.

 

[morninggirl5]

What about dear old Zig Zag Zell???

 

[WriterDom]

What about dear old Zig Zag Zell???

Zell votes his convictions. Pretty rare these days.

 

[Laurel]

Hey WD! How's your kitty?

Zell votes his convictions. Pretty rare these days.

Unlike that "traitor" Jim Jeffords. Funny how a Dem that votes cross-party has convictions, but a Repub that votes cross-party is a traitor.

Does anyone know the names of the Democrat senators who voted to allow the boy scouts after-hours access to schools?

I sure do.

Breaux, of Louisiana
Carnahan of Missouri
Byrd of West Virginia
Dorgan of North Dakota
Zell Miller of Georgia
Hollings of South Carolina
Conrad of North Dakota
Johnson of South Dakota

The Boy Scouts aren't evil. I was a Brownie, and I really enjoyed the Scouts. They just took the wrong stance on this issue.

They may have to answer to voters, but they also have to answer to what is objectively right (Slavery was wrong, regardless of what voters thought, correct?) and they also have to answer to the greater good of the Democratic Party and all that it stands for. If they undermine the overall credibility and strength of the party on a National level to appease several 1000 voters, then they are not helping anyone - especially not the people they represent - in the long run.

Here is what you need to consider - they were not trying to pass a new law to give gays more rights - they were trying to BLOCK a new law that is discriminatory. All they needed to do was say "NO!" to the bigoted thugs and say no to discrimination - instead, they said "Sure, GO AHEAD! DISCRIMINATE!"

They aren't just saying the Boy Scouts can disallow gays. They are saying that public schools MUST SANCTION this stance by allowing the Scouts - NOT any other group, just the Scouts - to use public property FOR FREE when other groups have to pay for that same access.

Statistically, the vast majority of pedophiles ARE HETEROSEXUALS. So the "protecting the kids" argument, once again, is hogwash.

There's evidence that sexual orientation may have a biological cause - that we are all born straight or gay just like we are born Black or white or Hispanic or Asian... Supposing that this is true - and it very well could be - how can you judge someone to be immoral based on a characteristic over which they have no control? That's like saying Blacks are immoral because of the color of their skin. Of course, there are those who would make that argument. I'm not arguing that one. Prejudice is wrong. Bigotry and hatred are wrong. If you disagree with me on that, then there's nothing I do for ya.

If you agree with this, then you also agree that Black Muslims, the KK, Scientologists, and every other group has the right to free access to our nation's public schools. As we speak...er, type...these groups and others are preparing to fight for THEIR free piece. And they'll get it.

 

[Unclebill]

Re: Re: The Evil Boy Scouts

Originally posted by Laurel
Unlike that "traitor" Jim Jeffords. Funny how a Dem that votes cross-party has convictions, but a Repub that votes cross-party is a traitor.

Interesting how Jeffords convictions were for sale for a committee chairmanship, huh? That's Democrat conviction for you. Like when Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado switched parties a few years back and Tom Daschle told him the honorable thing to do was resign and run under the new party affiliation.

I'm waiting for him to tell Jeffords the same thing but instead, he'll rely on his Democrat convictions since that puts more political power in his hands and that's what's really important to the Democrats.

Originally posted by Laurel
Here is what you need to consider - they were not trying to pass a new law to give gays more rights - they were trying to BLOCK a new law that is discriminatory. All they needed to do was say "NO!" to the bigoted thugs and say no to discrimination - instead, they said "Sure, GO AHEAD! DISCRIMINATE!"

Let's ignore the fact that all this stuff they are doing in Congress is beyond their authority.

From what I have heard, this amendment merely disallows schools from discriminating against the Boy Scouts. If they're going to deny the Boy Scouts use of facilities, then they lose Federal funding. And the sentiments widely expressed are that activist groups will attempt to instigate discrimination against the Boy Scouts for exercising their right to freedom of association in a free(?) society.

The Boy Scouts are the victims of the activist thugs whose attitude is my way or the highway. Very admirable for those whining tolerance at every turn, don't you think? But as I've noted before those crying for tolerance are some of the most intolerant bigots I've ever seen.

And back to the idea of discrimination; why do you presume it's bad? Merely because the Fascist Left extremists have co-opted that meaning as the only one doesn't make it so. Discrimination is simply the act of choosing and this nation was founded on the principles of freedom. Among those freedoms is the freedom to choose with whom we wish to associate. It is the Left who spends egregious amounts of time and effort to coerce association of their current political crusade with someone ignoring their right to freedom of association.

The Boy Scouts are not trying to fore anything on anyone. They merely wish to be left alone to exercise their freedom. It is the militant left who wishes to violate the freedom of others, not the Boy Scouts. To put it objectively, if I choose not to associate with someone for whatever reason, I am not violating their rights in any fashion whatever. However, if I attempt to force myself upon someone despite their desire to be free of that association, then I am violating their rights.

To put it another way, desire is NOT sacrosanct. Your want does not grant you entitlement.

Originally posted by Laurel
They aren't just saying the Boy Scouts can disallow gays. They are saying that public schools MUST SANCTION this stance by allowing the Scouts - NOT any other group, just the Scouts - to use public property FOR FREE when other groups have to pay for that same access.

They are not requiring that schools sanction anything. Only that they not treat the Boy Scouts differently from anyone else. And many other politically correct groups get to use the facilities as well. I have yet to hear of any other groups paying for access to use basic facilities.

Originally posted by Laurel
Statistically, the vast majority of pedophiles ARE HETEROSEXUALS. So the "protecting the kids" argument, once again, is hogwash.

So? Your point is? The issue is freedom to choose those with whom one associates. Is that no longer permissible in a free society? As an example, a local Conservative Christian requested that he and his group of associates be permitted to enter a float in last year's Gay Pride Parade in San Diego. They were denied permission. Their rights were just as violated. Do I hear your righteous indignation over that as well? Where is the tolerance of the Left?

Originally posted by Laurel
There's evidence that sexual orientation may have a biological cause - that we are all born straight or gay just like we are born Black or white or Hispanic or Asian... Supposing that this is true - and it very well could be - how can you judge someone to be immoral based on a characteristic over which they have no control? That's like saying Blacks are immoral because of the color of their skin. Of course, there are those who would make that argument. I'm not arguing that one. Prejudice is wrong. Bigotry and hatred are wrong. If you disagree with me on that, then there's nothing I do for ya.

The evidence that it is genetic I believe has proven invalid, i. e., no homosexual gene could be identified. The best theory currently available is that the sexual orientation is likely the result of a biochemical error in the development from zygote to fetus which results in an abnormal sexual response other humans.

But people always have and always will in some portion judge others immoral or inferior or (?) because of skin color and other such stupid criteria. You can't breed stupidity out of the human race, unfortunately. Just can't get enough chlorine in the gene pool to clear up that malady.

I will agree that bigotry and prejudice are stupid. Hatred is another story is it's applied discriminately. Hatred of a group for genetic or other characteristics, however, is stupid and IMNTBHO, attests to the likely inadequacy of the one who practices it.

But surely, Laurel, there must be something you can do for me!

 

[lavender]

Re: Re: Re: The Evil Boy Scouts

 

[Laurel]

Re: Re: Re: The Evil Boy Scouts

Let's ignore the fact that all this stuff they are doing in Congress is beyond their authority.

Agreed. That's a whole nuther thread...

From what I have heard, this amendment merely disallows schools from discriminating against the Boy Scouts. If they're going to deny the Boy Scouts use of facilities, then they lose Federal funding. And the sentiments widely expressed are that activist groups will attempt to instigate discrimination against the Boy Scouts for exercising their right to freedom of association in a free(?) society.

That's not what I've read. If that is indeed the case, then I'll side with you. However, if the case is as I've read - that the Boy Scouts are seeking special treatment above and beyond what other groups are receiving - then you have to agree that it is improper for the government to give preferential treatment to any group.

And back to the idea of discrimination; why do you presume it's bad? Merely because the Fascist Left extremists have co-opted that meaning as the only one doesn't make it so. Discrimination is simply the act of choosing and this nation was founded on the principles of freedom. Among those freedoms is the freedom to choose with whom we wish to associate. It is the Left who spends egregious amounts of time and effort to coerce association of their current political crusade with someone ignoring their right to freedom of association.

Ah Mr. Bill, gotta call you on your use of "the Fascist Left". Fascists were RIGHT wing. Call 'em commies instead.

Also, I must say that the Left is not the unified movement you make them out to be. Quite the opposite, and that's why they are less effective in many ways that the Right. There are Lefty environmentalists who could give a crap about race or sex issues. There are Lefty racial activists who aren't overly concerned about the environment. And there are those "Lefties" like myself who firmly believe in racial equality, and think that the government should stay OUT of the morality business either way. They should not advocate one race over another, one religion over another, one lifestyle over another. They should staty the heck OUR of our private lives.

To claim some wide-reaching Leftist conspiracy to force the good & righteous people of this fine country to sleep among gays & Blacks and other miscreants is a teensy bit paranoid. Yes, there are far lefties. There are far righties. Do you want to be painted with the same brush as the extreme right? Generalizations are always wrong. heh heh.

Here's my point: the Boy Scouts have the right to do anything they wish, but not with Public Money. They are, to an extent, funded by tax dollars. I don't care what the KKK or the Scientologists or the Church of Satan do - they do it with private monies. THAT'S the issue here.

Should the government give out funding & privileges to any group that asks? I think we can both agree that the answer to that is "no". Is it proper for the government to fund gay rights groups but not anti-gay groups? Of course not. As a Libertarian, I think you'll agree that government should stay the hell out of the morality business. By giving an anti-gay group preferential treatment - IF this is indeed what took place, as I've suggested - they are moralizing. That, IMHO, is not government's place.

As an example, a local Conservative Christian requested that he and his group of associates be permitted to enter a float in last year's Gay Pride Parade in San Diego. They were denied permission. Their rights were just as violated. Do I hear your righteous indignation over that as well? Where is the tolerance of the Left?

Like I said, it all comes down to public versus private. If it's a privately orchestrated event, I think they can include and exclude anyone they see fit.

Even if it's publicly or partially publicly funded event, there's a certain question of taste and tact involved. Fiesta Del Sol - a fun family block party city thing - took place last weekend in Solana Beach. I seriously doubt that they would allow me a Literotica booth where I could sell dildos and erotic novels. Is that discrimination? Suppose a troupe of flamingly gay drag queens wearing huge pink dildos wanted to march in an Easter Parade put on by a local branch of the Catholic Church. Would you defend their right to do so as well? If you say "yes", then I will understand your outrage. Otherwise...

The evidence that it is genetic I believe has proven invalid, i. e., no homosexual gene could be identified. The best theory currently available is that the sexual orientation is likely the result of a biochemical error in the development from zygote to fetus which results in an abnormal sexual response other humans.

I wasn't referring necessarily to a genetic component. Every year, more research points to much of our personality - including our sexuality - resulting from our biochemistry. Schizophrenia - once considered a result of demonic possession - is now known to be a brain chemical imbalance. If a girl's a lesbian because she got more of one chemical and less of another while in the womb, is it fair and just for the government to treat her as inferior? To deny her the same rights as her heterosexual counterpart?

The opposite argument: suppose that homosexuality is a 100% voluntary and conscious decision. In this country, we are allowed the right to choose our method of worship (or non-worship). The choice of a religion is 100% voluntary, correct? Do I have the right to use Federal monies to discriminate against Catholics? Against Jews? We fled from a system in Britain in which the government advocated one religion and punished those who wished to worship otherwise. As much as some talk about the U.S. being a "Christian Nation", in the spirit of our forefathers we must allow our citizens to be free of the same oppression we left behind 200-odd years ago.

But people always have and always will in some portion judge others immoral or inferior or (?) because of skin color and other such stupid criteria. You can't breed stupidity out of the human race, unfortunately. Just can't get enough chlorine in the gene pool to clear up that malady.

I will agree that bigotry and prejudice are stupid. Hatred is another story is it's applied discriminately. Hatred of a group for genetic or other characteristics, however, is stupid and IMNTBHO, attests to the likely inadequacy of the one who practices it.

Agreed. I don't advocate forcing tolerance on anyone. However, I strongly believe that your freedom ends where mine begins. If your bigotry (hypothetically, of course ) interferes with my ability to function in society, then you are wrong. If you harass me in the workplace, if you call me hateful names, if you leave burning crosses on the sidewalk in front of my house, you are in the wrong. Just as it would be wrong for a gay man to harass a devout Christian with anti-gay sentiments, it is equally wrong for a Christian to harass, harm, or unduly interfere with a gay man's rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

But surely, Laurel, there must be something you can do for me! [/B]

The question is, what wouldn't I do for Uncle_Bill...

BTW, we're due for another lunch sometime soon, eh?

 

[Laurel]

You know what I hate?

When I type out a long-asss misspelled post, hit submit, and discover that someone else has already posted a much more eloquent response. Durn it.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

Laurel, welcome to the club.

Whatever happened to the Boy Scouts of the 60's where you met in the basement of the church and how did they get to be government funded?

 

[Todd]

Re: Re: The Evil Boy Scouts

Statistically, the vast majority of pedophiles ARE HETEROSEXUALS. So the "protecting the kids" argument, once again, is hogwash.

Quick question or thought or pondry or whatever about this thought.

if a male is fucking a male regardless of age doesn't that mkae him Homosexual or at least bisexual?

 

[Andra_Jenny]

Love the virus download!

 

[Todd]

Love the virus download!

Thanks. but that doesn't answer my question

 

[Andra_Jenny]

Well, it depends entirely on what he does next? Now, If he goes to a woman and prefers to bugger her in the butt too, what does that make him? Still a homosexual, just abusing a woman?

 

[Todd]

Well, it depends entirely on what he does next? Now, If he goes to a woman and prefers to bugger her in the butt too, what does that make him? Still a homosexual, just abusing a woman?

Well thats what I am trying to find out, if the boy molester is doing women on the side then wouldn't that lead to being a bi

 

[Andra_Jenny]

But in Laurel's point, it is not same sex, which is a point.
So, the answer to your question in the narrow light proposed, that of the Boy Scouts, may well be yes, but in the arena of molestation, no.

And that is the best I can do being as dumn as a stump!

 

[WriterDom]

Jeffords is no traitor. There has been a shift in the direction of both parties over the last 20 years. We've seen a dozen or so democrats, including my congressman, shift to the other side. It's not surprising to see Jeffords go especially if you look at his voting record. I'm sure there will be a few others.

I think the liberals lost the common man when they took a stand against anyone with religious faith unless one happened to be a "cool" religion like Judaism. Perhaps that was a natural response to the overzealous political mischief of the Christian fundamentalists and the battle over abortion. You see examples of it everyday in the liberal controlled entertainment industry. It's perfectly acceptable to mock anyone with Christian beliefs (well, Jesse is off limits). You even see it here with posting like "Dress Jesus on the cross" or Baby Jesus buttplugs, but I doubt that "Throw Jews in the oven" or "burn a witch" or "put tacks in the Muslim prayer rug" would be considered as funny.

I never thought in my lifetime that the republicans would gain control of the House. But when you appease every hard-line liberal view that works in New York and the west coast, you risk alienating the rest of the country. One only has to look at the last electoral map to see the solid sea of Bush states with the bookend of more populated Gore victories. And I'm sure that most liberals feel that the heartland is the worst of America, out of step with "civilized" Europe, narrow in our views, intolerant of others, eager to protect growing cells within a woman, while salivating at the idea of executing another minority.

All the amendment does, as far as I know, is stop schools from banning the scouts from school property for after school events. Every scout group here has their own meeting places, but I guess that's too costly in larger cities. There was also another amendment passed that allows any group access.

I don't know much about the history of molestation within the scouts. But as a private organization, I think they have every right to screen their leaders in the way they chose. If that means banning atheists and homosexuals, I don't think the government has a role in punishing them, nor do I feel that homosexual groups should be banned.

 

[WriterDom]

Re: Re: The Evil Boy Scouts

Hey WD! How's your kitty?

Caspian is fine, thanks for asking He sleeps at night when I do, and gets his 12-8pm afternoon nap every day.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

I agree with what you are saying pretty well, but I differ on Jeffords only in that had he switched prior to or after leaving office, fine, but the people who back a party must have an implied contract with the politition. Right? Doesn't the system otherwise start to break down?

 

[teresafannin]

People can debate this all they want, but it will ultimately be up to the Scout Groups & the individual school districts to work it out. Many churches, especially Southern Baptist churches do not support the Scouting Programs. They have their own versions called Royal Rangers & things like that. As a former Cub Scout leader, my group met in my home once a week for their meetings. Our Cub Scout Pack met once a month in the elementary school & we paid the custodian who kept the building open for us. The Boy Scout Troop that my son was in, had a small building that was given to them by the church to use for their meetings & to store their gear. The building is located on the church property. As far as I can remember, The Fort Worth ISD charges everyone to use the buildings after hours, whether it be a church group, scout group, PTA or any other organization & I think that is a fair policy. The public high my son attended for 3 years had many different groups use the buildings after hours & made no distinctions between the groups. At one time, there was a Baptist prayer group, a Hebrew study club & Fellowship of Christian Athletes all using the building at the same time with no difficulties. Does anyone ever ask an actual Scout leader how they handle these kind of problems? Like any other large organization, not all Councils intrepret the rules the same way. The resolution of these issues is best left to the people who are actually involved.

 

[Laurel]

But in Laurel's point, it is not same sex, which is a point.
So, the answer to your question in the narrow light proposed, that of the Boy Scouts, may well be yes, but in the arena of molestation, no.

And that is the best I can do being as dumn as a stump!

LOL! Pretty damn good for a stump... Generally, from what little I've read about pedophiles, it's the sexlessness of the child that's attractive, NOT the fact that it's a boy or a girl. Pedophiles are often married or in long-term heterosexual relationships. Male pedophiles will often target young boys, but I think that's mainly because those are the children they have access to. Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation - it's something else entirely. It's a sickness, IMHO.

In contrast, gays generally are people who have the same feelings and desires as heterosexuals, only they have them for the same sex as opposed to the opposite sex.

Most have never been with an adult of the same sex, nor do they have the desire to do so. There are probably gay pedophiles and straight pedophiles, but the pedophilia is a separate issue from the orientation.

Does that make sense?

I think the liberals lost the common man when they took a stand against anyone with religious faith unless one happened to be a "cool" religion like Judaism. Perhaps that was a natural response to the overzealous political mischief of the Christian fundamentalists and the battle over abortion. You see examples of it everyday in the liberal controlled entertainment industry. It's perfectly acceptable to mock anyone with Christian beliefs (well, Jesse is off limits). You even see it here with posting like "Dress Jesus on the cross" or Baby Jesus buttplugs, but I doubt that "Throw Jews in the oven" or "burn a witch" or "put tacks in the Muslim prayer rug" would be considered as funny.

I'm not sure that's true. I definitely agree that the entertainment industry has always been liberal. The aim of entertainment is to shock, to astound, to amaze. Entertainment aimed at kids usually tries to appeal to them by shocking their parents to some degree.

Many, if not most, liberals are very religious. I think I read that 90% of the US population believes in a God - that would mean that there are a heck of a lot of religious Leftists out there. Progressives believe that religion should be a personal choice, and that the government should not endorse any particular belief but allow us as citizens to choose our own path. Progressives believe that a person has the right to choose to be a Catholic, a Jew, a Protestant, a Scientologist, or even an atheist - and these choices are equally valid. I think many on the right may see this is advocation of non-Christian views, and that offends them. However, it's not an advocation of non-Christian views. It's an advocation of personal choice.

There are varying degrees of Liberalism within the Democratic party, just as there are varying shades of Conservatism with the GOP. Liberal and Conservative are terms that cross party lines.

Yes, there are crazy extremists at both ends. However, judging a view by its extreme is too simplistic. I don't think that every Conservative abhors interracial dating. Not every conservative is pro-death penalty or anti-choice. People are more complicated than that, on both ends of the spectrum.

You mentioned the Dems who moved to the GOP. I think that Jeffords and those Dems mentioned were smart enough not to be "team players". They were issue-oriented politicians, and once the party that they supported moved away from the issues they championed, they switched. I think we should all be more aware of why what our parties are supporting or not supporting, and be ready to switch if our views are not attending to our needs.

As for the websites mentioned, I'm pretty sure that the "Dress Jesus" website was not officially sanctioned by the Democratic party, anymore than the "God Hates Fags" website is endorsed by the GOP. Like I said, there are extremes at both ends. When I posted the "Dress Jesus" link so long ago, it was not meant to offend anyone's beliefs nor was it indicative of my views on religion. I've laughed at race-related jokes before, but I am not a racist. The very foundation of humor is making fun of something or someone. I found the link funny because it was such a bizarre idea. That the webmaster not only thought of it but also took the time to code such a thing cracked me up. However, I will be more careful in the future to not post such material, as I don't want to unduly alienate you or anyone else who found it offensive.

Caspian is fine, thanks for asking He sleeps at night when I do, and gets his 12-8pm afternoon nap every day.

Lucky! I sleep from 3am-11am, and Aiko naps off & on from 12-8pm. Countless times I've woken up with her mouth around my big toe. What is it with cats & feet? When Colby (*sniff*) was here, he'd spend all night crawling over my neck to see Manu, then back over my neck to rub his purring face all over mine, then back to Manu...I miss it already. Anyhow....

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by Laurel
Ah Mr. Bill, gotta call you on your use of "the Fascist Left". Fascists were RIGHT wing. Call 'em commies instead.

fas·cism (f²sh"¹z"…m) n. 1. Often Fascism. a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

The above definition from my on-line dictionary and the following from http://www.m-w.com

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

You say Fascists are Right (vice Left). I will not argue that point with you as that is the conventional wisdom. However, let's look at a few points and see where the facts take us today:

1. Centralized authority - which party is working for ever more federal government agencies to increase the government's reach into our daily lives? Which party demonizes the other when the idea of reducing the Federal government's size and scope is mentioned? Who opposes returning educational decisions to the local community? Who opposes school vouchers which give parents the choice of schooling for their children (yet are frequently the one's who send their own children to private schools)? Which party gave us Medicare? Which party endeavored to have government take over, effectively nationalize, the health care system of America? Democrats (Left) or Republicans (Right)?

2. Stringent economic controls - which party is working for ever greater taxes and for ever increasing controls over what the marketplace can offer for sale? Who advocates a new government department to oversee more and more of the choices we make from day to day in the investment, expenditure and use of our earnings and is seeking to confiscate more of that in taxes with every breath? Which party always advocate spending more money to solve a perceived problem while ignoring that the same behavior in the past has not solved the same problem? D or R?

3. Suppression of the opposition through terrorism and censorship - who advocates and practices demagoguery, slander, character assassination, lies and distortion for their political gain as a matter of routine with never an apology no matter how egregious the lies? Who, when called on their egregious actions, evade the issue of truth and attack the person who calls them on their tactics? Who is it that practices the art of attacking the messenger rather than the message when they disagree on an issue? Who stirs racial discord for their own benefit by blatantly declaring that the opposition party supports the murder of blacks or (?) and wants to return to the days when blacks (slaves) were considered 3/5 of a man for census purposes? Who advocates political correctness (censorship)? Who advocates hate crime laws, i. e., punish the criminal not for a heinous act, but rather for his thoughts during or leading up to the act? D or R [correction above IRT lavender's response]

4. Severe economic and social regimentation - which party is it that is obsessed with the ethnicity, skin color, etc., of the people it seeks to attract as it's support base? Which party is attuned to the slightest thing that might be interpreted as insensitive and is instantly set to make a major political issue of it for their gain? Which party is most egregious in the practice of trying to put the political class above the fray by making themselves exempt from laws they pass which are imposed on the ordinary citizen? Which side is it that wishes to ignore the reality that life is not fair and tries to subvert reality by fiat saying the they can achieve equality by legislation? D or R?

If you watch the political stage for awhile, and objectively observe some of the above activities and accurately identify the professed political affiliation of those most publicly and consistently practicing what I've delineated here, I look forward to your answer.

My shortcoming is that I don't use the convenient political labels and definitions as most people do. I look at what the words mean and judge the practitioners to conform to the definition or not. And from my observation, Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle, Richard Gephardt, Al Gore, Bill & Hillary Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Charles Wrangle, Maxine Waters, James Carville et al are the ones who routinely practice these particular behaviors. These people are all aligned with the Democratic Party and hence, the Left unless I've missed something.

Originally posted by lavender
Discrimination is NOT simply the act of choosing that this nation was founded upon. This nation was also founded upon the idea of equal opportunity. Discrimination can be a direct barrier to the attainment of one of the basic goals of our founding fathers. Moreover, as times have changed, the Constitution itself has evolved to note that various forms of discrimination are simply wrong. That is why the Supreme Court places different levels of scrutiny when analyzing laws for various groups.

I don't recall saying or implying that discrimination was anything upon which this nation was founded. Please point that out if I did because it was a seriously erroneous statement.

Discrimination is the act of discerning, differentiating which is part of a recognition and selection process.

dis·crim·i·nate (d¹-skr¹m"…-n³t") v. dis·crim·i·nat·ed, dis·crim·i·nat·ing, dis·crim·i·nates. --intr. 1.a. To make a clear distinction; distinguish: discriminate among the options available. b. To make sensible decisions; judge wisely. 2. To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice: was accused of discriminating against women; discriminated in favor of his cronies. --tr. 1. To perceive the distinguishing features of; recognize as distinct: discriminate right from wrong. 2. To distinguish by noting differences; differentiate: unable to discriminate colors. [Latin discrºmin³re, discrºmin³t-, from discrºmen, discrºmin-, distinction.

Definition 2 is the only one accepted by the politically correct, thus it has become the commonly accepted however erroneous that acceptance and the vicious assumption associated therewith might be. I stand by my original statement.

Originally posted by lavender
Yes, there is a freedom to associate, that is not inherent in the Constitution. Many people though who are in favor of these Boy Scout initiatives are also those who say we can't read anything into the Constitution. It is ironic that they are willing to read the freedom of association and not the other rights.

I did not say the right to associate freely was defined in the Constitution and I'm NOT reading anything into it. The idea was put forth in the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution does not enumerate the rights of the American citizen, it defines the constituents of the Federal government, the organization of powers (authority) and the extent of those powers.

The Bill of Rights enumerates some aspects of the rights subsumed by the concept of innate individual rights expressed in the Declaration of independence but note that even there the list is nor presumed to be complete or delimiting (see amendment 10).

In the Declaration of Independence, the concept of rights is succinctly addressed in the phrase:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…

The idea of Liberty herein expressed is the basis for my statement. As stated in Amendment 10, those powers not specifically assigned to the Federal Government were left to the states and the individual citizen.

The Founders also recognized the tendency of any government to become oppressive. They went to significant lengths to construct a system to minimize that likelihood for the United States of America. It is last century's abdication of Constitutional principles by politicians that we have arrived at the monolithic government of today which becomes more oppressive and pervasive with each new law and regulation.

Liberty, i. e., freedom is innate as are rights. Freedom and rights is a term only legitimately applicable to an individual when a government is constrained to see all as "equal under the law". Once we are no longer equal under the law, then we have deteriorated to tyranny. When the government can seize my property and give it to another who has not earned it nor demonstrated a legitimate claim to it, that is tyranny and the government has deteriorated to the status of criminal.

Freedom in the most fundamental sense is freedom from coercion. That means you are free to act in any independent course you choose in pursuit of your happiness. Freedom does not guarantee success nor happiness, only your right to seek them. Freedom does not impose on anyone else the obligation to satisfy your needs or desires nor you to satisfy theirs.

Your right to act independently in your own behalf subsumes all the aspects of freedom I've mentioned (including the right of free association) and countless other specifics not enumerated or addressed anywhere by anyone.

If you do some further reading into the construction for the Constitutional Federal government, you will find that about 80-90% of what is practiced there today is clearly outside the authority of the Federal government.

As an example, legislative authority is specifically assigned to Congress. Yet we have something like 60,000 pages of regulations with the force of law in the Federal Register alone. Regulations which were created by unelected officials without legislative authority and which are enforced as the government see fit. This is not a legitimate Constitutional government function but no one in office is apparently concerned about it or opposed to it.

Originally posted by lavender
The Boy Scout issue is not one of coerced association, the issue simply says there cannot be discrimination. It sets a very dangerous precedent. I don't want to get into slippery slope arguments with you. However, this type of rhetoric can be applied to discrimination in all sorts of areas, including employment, education, housing, etc. It's not the type of idea upon which this country was founded.

I beg to differ. You are trying to use the discrimination ploy to legitimize the coercive association which you seem to support. If the Boy Scouts are free to choose their associations, they are free to discriminate and that is not a crime nor even necessarily a moral wrong. If they are not allowed to choose those with whom they associate, then they are suffering coercive association.

And the Boy Scouts (like any other organization) have no rights as a group. It is the right of the individual members which is of legitimate concern and must be protected. If the right of a boy scout is subject to abrogation by the government, then so is your right to freely express political or other opinions in this or any other forum.

And let me iterate, this nation was founded on the principle of individual freedom. Freedom entails the right of choice, i. e., discrimination. And while I agree that some means of discrimination (choice), e. g., bigotry, prejudice, etc., are stupid, vicious and abhorrent, they are the necessary byproduct of freedom. And those who are intolerant of freedom are the ones who genuinely frighten me!

"If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all." -- Jacob Hornberger, 1995

Originally posted by lavender
No, the Boy Scouts are the victims of paranoid individuals. They have become the victims of people who try to legislate morality. You as a libertarian should despise this type of activity.

Perhaps you are correct that it is paranoid individuals. However, these people are acting in concert with corrupt and dishonest politicians to curry political favor and have coercive methods turned to their disposal to FORCE the Boy Scouts to conform to their perceptions of political correctness. And you are correct that I absolutely abhor this behavior, the people who practice it and the politicians who use it for their political benefit. These are people who are not deserving to call themselves Americans because their beliefs and practices are anything but. They do not respect the principles of rights and freedom if it in any way interferes with their narrow perceptions.

 

[LordMagicMan]

I'm an eagle scout... And I'm pretty sure I'm not evil

 

[Andra_Jenny]

I skipped you this one time UncleBill but sorry, I am very drunk...


I was an eagle scout.

Damn fine organization. Damn proud to have been in it. Damn proud they drew lines. When I was that Fawking age the only thing I cared about was



The woods
Knot-tying
Bee-keeping
bookkeeping
woodworking
trees
nature,
etc,.

The things I was really curious about.

The education we give our young kids today!

I never once thought about what the scoutmaster's orientation was...