If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Boy Scouts want to have their cake and eat it too -- continues to discriminate, but demands free stuff other private organizations are required to pay for   (mercurynews.com) divider line 680
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

15680 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Jul 2006 at 3:13 AM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



680 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-07-12 11:28:11 AM
Gays have the official genetic Darwin award.
Why do so many want so badly to let them integrate?
 
2006-07-12 11:28:51 AM
PeopleFirst: It isn't a scare tactic to hate minorities. It is actually happening in Western Europe and Canada. It is starting to happen here:

There is a large difference between hate crimes (which I don't agree with), and banning hate speech...Just for kicks:

Amendment I

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.


An "Anti-Hate Speech" law would require, literally, nothing short of a Constitutional Amendment, a constitutional amendment that negates a part of the *FIRST* amendment.

There is no reason for any rational human being to think that hate speech in this country could *ever* be banned.
 
2006-07-12 11:32:03 AM
shamus414: please cite to where I said those things - I think you'll be looking for a long time.

actually that isn't my decision, but has been the decision of the entirety of American history until very recently. What "should" be is not the same as what the rights currently exist in this country. I was commenting on the definition of discrimination diven - and therefore no discrimination in teh realm of marriage currently exists.
 
2006-07-12 11:32:03 AM
PeopleFirst: ACLU:

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/21179pub20051031.html



Also, your ACLU link directly contradicts your point. The Liberal Boogeyman ACLU protects all speech, including Hate speech.

FREE SPEECH FOR HATEMONGERS?

The ACLU has often been at the center of controversy for defending the free speech rights of groups that spew hate, such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis. But if only popular ideas were protected, we wouldn't need a First Amendment. History teaches that the first target of government repression is never the last. If we do not come to the defense of the free speech rights of the most unpopular among us, even if their views are antithetical to the very freedom the First Amendment stands for, then no one's liberty will be secure. In that sense, all First Amendment rights are "indivisible."

Censoring so-called hate speech also runs counter to the long-term interests of the most frequent victims of hate: racial, ethnic, religious and sexual minorities. We should not give the government the power to decide which opinions are hateful, for history has taught us that government is more apt to use this power to prosecute minorities than to protect them. As one federal judge has put it, tolerating hateful speech is "the best protection we have against any Nazi-type regime in this country."

At the same time, freedom of speech does not prevent punishing conduct that intimidates, harasses, or threatens another person, even if words are used. Threatening phone calls, for example, are not constitutionally protected.
 
2006-07-12 11:33:50 AM
Persnickety: Except that Hercules was granted divinity by the gods upon his death because he had earned it.

No, he was part-divine because his father was Zeus, the Sky God, who seduced a mortal human female. Say, that sounds kinda familiar...
 
2006-07-12 11:35:16 AM
saynomore:

Gays have the official genetic Darwin award.
Why do so many want so badly to let them integrate?


Aparently they are human too. Who'dathunkit?
 
2006-07-12 11:35:50 AM
saynomore: Gays have the official genetic Darwin award.
Why do so many want so badly to let them integrate?


Because they're human beings and American citizens no less than you, you hateful person.
 
2006-07-12 11:36:16 AM
The Homer Tax

The ACLU thinks it could be, and with all due respect, throughout the history of the world all cultures including our own have done it so there is no reason to think it couldn't happen.

From this page: http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/21179pub20051031.html

History teaches that the first target of government repression is never the last. If we do not come to the defense of the free speech rights of the most unpopular among us, even if their views are antithetical to the very freedom the First Amendment stands for, then no one's liberty will be secure. In that sense, all First Amendment rights are "indivisible."

McCarthyism didn't need an amendment to get away with what it did. Instead of the right doing it this time, it will be the left.
 
2006-07-12 11:37:39 AM
Saynomore,

That's not entirely true.
Studies have shown that siblings of gays and lesbians have a higher fertility rate than those with all straight siblings.

The genes are getting passed on, and at a higher rate. Sounds like a Darwin Win to me.
 
2006-07-12 11:38:54 AM
shamus414 =

img453.imageshack.us
 
2006-07-12 11:39:49 AM
The Homer Tax

LOL. We are both posting from the same page. Both the far right and far left want to limit free speech for different reasons. McCarthyism is the far right, hate speech legislation is the far left. The both have the same goal.

Do you think because I'm a Christian I hate "libruls" and the ACLU? We aren't all members of the Christian Coalition.
 
2006-07-12 11:40:17 AM
Public money shouldn't be used to descriminate.
Since the Boy Scouts have decided to descriminate, the should be uneligable for public funding.

How simple is that?

Don't like it? Don't blame the Marina, blame the Church of Latter Day Saints for pushing the dogmatic envelope.
 
2006-07-12 11:41:43 AM
shamus414

firefly212 - what do you mean by "superior"? If one believes his convictions are the "right" ones or the ones his god(s)/religon proffers as the "right" ones then, by definition, others are holding "wrong" ones if they disagree. Rightness and wrongness is often interpreted as superiority


Being right does not mean all others are wrong. A being right does not make B wrong, simply by virtue of B's difference with A. Read up on pluralism, it's good for your brain. Rightness ought not be interpreted as superiority, especially in any Judaic variant, to include Christianity and Islam, given that the 'right' moral code, would preclude you from judging other moral codes.
 
2006-07-12 11:41:44 AM
PeopleFirst: McCarthyism didn't need an amendment to get away with what it did. Instead of the right doing it this time, it will be the left.

Was there ever a law passed saying that you couldn't speak out in favor of communism? Or did they get people under the Alien and Sedition Acts? I'm admittedly not well-educated on McCarthyism, but I was always under the impression that it was alot more shunning and sabre-rattling than actual legislation and punishment on a Federal (or any) level.

Do you *really* think that in the next 20 years we are going to see a law banning hate speech? Seriously?
 
2006-07-12 11:43:54 AM
PeopleFirst: Do you think because I'm a Christian I hate "libruls" and the ACLU? We aren't all members of the Christian Coalition.


I didn't even know you were a Christian. I honeslty didn't think it mattered. Do you have any links of Politicans who are actually in favor of banning hate speech? I'd love to read up on that.
 
2006-07-12 11:45:00 AM
Sloth_DC: you said: "you stated that you hated the American concept of freedom of religion, and felt that *your* religious views should be the law of the land."

Then you quoted me saying the following to prove this assertion: "actually that isn't my decision, but has been the decision of the entirety of American history until very recently. What "should" be is not the same as what the rights currently exist in this country. I was commenting on the definition of discrimination diven - and therefore no discrimination in teh realm of marriage currently exists."

Where in that post do I say I hate the American concept of freedom of religon considering that have never once stated that a religionist cannot practice his religon.
 
2006-07-12 11:46:05 AM
I think that we will see legislation. If it sticks or not, well that is another story. I don't have much faith in the SCOTUS. They okayed campaign finance laws that limited free speech and they supported imminent domain based upon commercial interests. Not a good track record over the last few years.

So IMO it is very possible.
 
2006-07-12 11:47:41 AM
Though I support the Scouts, in this case they are out of luck.
If you want to teach what you feel is right, then do it.
If you want special rights, forget it.
 
2006-07-12 11:49:08 AM
Unavailable for comment?

www.officialvillagepeople.com
 
2006-07-12 11:49:46 AM
hooorray for SCOTUS
 
2006-07-12 11:50:18 AM
firefly212: "Being right does not mean all others are wrong. A being right does not make B wrong, simply by virtue of B's difference with A. Read up on pluralism, it's good for your brain. Rightness ought not be interpreted as superiority, especially in any Judaic variant, to include Christianity and Islam, given that the 'right' moral code, would preclude you from judging other moral codes."

No offense, this is typical illogical liberal sophistry. If premise A is "x is morally wrong" and takes that as a moral absolute then, by definition, a variance with premise A is incorrect. Pluralism is mostly nonsense created in order to allow people to do and act as they please with no moral certitudes to evoke something like "guilt" or provide a standard by which one does not want/feel like living up to. One cannot, by definition, believe in contradictory concepts.

Side note: there is no prohibition of "judging" other moral codes in the Christian religon.
 
2006-07-12 11:55:28 AM
PeopleFirst: Back it up. Show me a historical, orthodox, Christian Church that upholds the common creeds, that has homosexuality as not being a sin. You can't because there isn't one. Also, thanks for making assumptions about my thinking. I can conceive of one, but there isn't one historically.

Ahem: to the Christian church, the prohibitions of Leviticus were broken when Jesus took the sins of man upon himself and allowed his body to be broken and killed for an angry and unbelieving public. The Levitican precepts were created as a way of fulfilling every minor wish of the Lord God, as there was no forgiveness from the sins of man... but just as we might now eat of those creatures of the sea that have legs or shells, and can shave our beards, and can plow a field on the Sabbath day, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ has reforged the covenant with man such that acceptance of his sacrifice for your immortal soul is the only true test of salvation.

Luke 6:22 - "Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake."

Such are the words of the Christian Lord. He opened his arms and offers his salvation to any who would believe in him. His companions in the living world were prostitutes, lepers, taxmen and dockworkers. He forgave them all their sins and tresspasses, with only the request that they believe in him. That you would deem to speak for God Almighty in now denying one group simply because you cannot remember a church which has speaks volumes of your unfamiliarity with the works of the Saviour. Jesus sought to save those who were already condemned by all first, because he sought to take upon himself the sins of all people so that they might find the life everlasting.

Churches seldom listen to, learn from, or follow the teachings of Christ for all they read of him. They prefer to concern themselves with the Old Testament, with sins long forgiven, so that they might declare themselves holier than the world around them.

Matthew 6:2 - "Therefore when you do merciful deeds, don't sound a trumpet before yourself, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may get glory from men. Most certainly I tell you, they have received their reward."

Luke 6:46 - "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?"

The Lord Christ calls for acceptance and love to all mankind. He calls for you to love those who hate you, accept those who would turn you away, and give to those who would take from you. It is no test of faith to sit in an ivory tower and cast judgement down upon the heads of others - it is pride of the highest order, the mortal sin of presumption to know the innermost thoughts of God. The true test of faith is to go out into the world and seek the brotherhood of man, for a church is not a building or an accepted creed. It is a fellowship of believers. And there have always been those believers who understood that salvation was not intended for them alone.

/Not a Christian
//So why do I know your book better than you do?
 
2006-07-12 12:00:35 PM
Obvious question.. Seascouts are coed. Do the girl scouts get anything since they openly discriminate agaisnt boys? Boys scouts have 2 programs that not only accept but recruit girls. I know our district offers a Mom and me campout for the cub scouts. Girl scouts deny any male of any age, but they ignore lesbian issues, so they're perfectly angelic.
 
2006-07-12 12:01:16 PM
Public universities use race as a factor in admissions criteria. If you are white then you are discriminated against as a matter of specific written policy.

Do away with all affirmative action policies and then the anti-discrimination stance against Boy Scouts makes more sense. Until then it is a double standard.

The ACLU actively supports discrimination every time the issue comes to a federal court. I would take the ACLU seriously if they actually promoted equality and color blindness instead of working against it.
 
2006-07-12 12:01:45 PM
The phrase "....to have your cake and eat it too" is the dumbest farking quote of all time.

/What good is a cake if you can't eat it?
//What's next? "So you want to have your car and drive it too?"
///Former Cub Scout
 
2006-07-12 12:07:20 PM
How in the year 2000 do people still reach the age of 21 hating people of other religions / races / sexual orientations?

Are we as a human race that stupid?
 
2006-07-12 12:07:36 PM
I'm going to work now. Busy day, so I won't be able to respond. Good luck with the flame war.
 
2006-07-12 12:07:53 PM
Drakkenmaw: Not a Christian


Wow. Sometimes it takes a non-Christian to show Christians the true meaning of Christ's message of love, forgiveness and inclusiveness. Good job.
 
2006-07-12 12:10:11 PM
Actually Jesus never taught "inclusiveness" as it is used in modern parlance.
 
2006-07-12 12:11:24 PM
ThrobblefootSpectre: Public universities use race as a factor in admissions criteria. If you are white then you are discriminated against as a matter of specific written policy.

This has been struck down. Please join us in the 21st century...
 
2006-07-12 12:12:07 PM
shamus414: Actually Jesus never taught "inclusiveness" as it is used in modern parlance.

Why do you notice the speck in your brother's eye, but ignore the plank in your own?
 
2006-07-12 12:14:23 PM
shamus414: Side note: there is no prohibition of "judging" other moral codes in the Christian religon.

Judge not that ye be not judged.
 
2006-07-12 12:15:48 PM
More importantly, shamus, why the hell are you arguing what's right or wrong in Christian theology? That's completely irrelevant to what's right or wrong under the law. Under the law, it's wrong to discriminate on the basis of religion or sexual orientation. Therefore, the City would be remiss in supporting an organization which does these things.
 
2006-07-12 12:15:54 PM
2006-07-12 02:47:50 AM FarkmeBlind [TotalFark]

RocketRod: Okay, who pays for the extra cops during Pride Week?

The Pride Committee. BTW, WTF is Pride a farking WEEK? I live in the Bay Area, and it's three days. Post random hyperbole without knowledge, much?


Here in Hamilton it's often refered to as Pride Week but the actual big celebrations are usually only for two or three days with smaller events at local clubs and galleries and what-not during the rest of the week.

My band has performed at a few Pride events here in Hamilton. Even though we're all heterosexuals it's one of my favorite events to play because everyone is there to enjoy themselves. It's a great show and I've never seen any discrimination against gay-friendly breeders that want to come and party with them.


As for the Sea Scouts.

I used to be a Sea Scout in my youth. It was fun. We never talked about Jesus or homosexuals. Then again I grew up in a very small town so you didn't need to talk about Jesus or homosexuals. Jesus was just a given. You just assumed everyone either worshipped Jesus or was one of those crazy people who were tricked by Satan into worshipping one of those crazy imaginary gods, or were Jews who simply hadn't got with the programme (yet). We had a jewish family in our town, they ran the shoe store. We even had an honest to goodness asian family in town that ran the chinese food restraunt. Never knew a black person until I was in highschool. Now adays, of course, everything is different and everyone in Simcoe knows what black people look like because of all the Jamacans who come up to harvest the crops in the late summer and fall. In my day the migrant workers were all french Canadians.

As for the homosexuals, as far as I knew there were none in my town. Once again small town upbringing had left me with the impression that all homosexuals were the stereotypical swishy, limp-wristed, lisping sissies who fluttered around in pink taffeta. It didn't help matters too much that my first trip to Toronto (the BIG city) afforded me the opportunity to see two very unattractive men who fit that stereotype, drunk off their asses making out on the subway. It was at once frighteningly repulsive and yet also oddly thrilling for this small town boy to have actually seen the wild homosexual in its natural environment. Upon returning home I had the elevated status of one of those great white hunters who had just returned from safari to regale my peers at the club with tales of the dark continent so fantastic as to seem unbelievable. "I say Winslow, have I ever told you the story of the time I encountered a mating pair of wild homosexuals on the TTC?".

Having been an eyewitness to this stereotype in action simply reinforned my belief that there were no homosexuals in my small town.

Mostly in Sea Scouts we played ball hockey (no that's not a gay euphamism, I swear), and this really cool naval battle strategy game with these model ships. Our troop was sponsored by a church and our meetings were held in the church's community centre. It was fun, I learned a lot of camping skills, and despite what erotic fiction on the internet has to say I was never once buggered by my fellow scouts nor the scout leader. The only unpleasent thing about it was the damned portsmouth hats we had to wear. Boyscouts got to wear berets, we had to wear these stupid vinyl plastic white hats that never fit properly, had headbands that kept falling off, and were dirt magnets requiring constant scrubbing and cleaning. God I loathed those hats.

I will say though that being raised on stereotypes was not a good thing. My naivite left me rather vulnerable for the unwanted attentions of a gym teacher who didn't fit the stereotype. Fortunately I managed to get out of that situation without a penis having entered my body.

Fortunately too I also learned very quickly when I moved to the BIG city to go to college that homosexuals, blacks, asians, and people of different faiths are not all like my small town upbringing had lead me to believe they were.

As for the issue in the article. If the Sea Scouts are going to discriminate against people based on faith and sexual orientation as a private organization they're more than welcome to do so. They have the same rights and protections afforded to the Klu Klux Klan. But like the Klan, I don't want them using PUBLIC money to discriminate.
 
2006-07-12 12:16:46 PM
Sloth_DC - nice use of a set of scriptures which you do not believe. But, in response: (1) I am not ignoring my own planks, they just happen to not be the topic of discission; (2) idenifying sinful conduct and labeling it as such is not addressed by this line; (3) this phrase is in reference to one judging others for sins without looking appropriately at his own (which is not the case here) and, (4) relative to (3) it also is in reference to people feeling like they are more righteous than others when teh reality is that all are sinful in some respect.
 
2006-07-12 12:17:40 PM
Sloth_DC: This has been struck down.

No it wasn't. I suspect you are referring to Gratz and Hamacher / Grutter v.
The Regents of the University of Michigan. Recently decided by the SCOTUS.

The decision was that universities are still allowed to use race as a factor.


>>Please join us in the 21st century...

I am right here right now, beleive it or not.
 
2006-07-12 12:18:43 PM
Sloth_DC - I am arguing Xian theology because that is where the thread led - this seemed to develop seperately from the actual topic of the artice to which we are all commenting and, therefore, I admit that it is technically off topic.
 
2006-07-12 12:19:54 PM
"Judge not that ye be not judged." - identification of what is or is not sinful behavior is not the same as judging others with the feeling that one is more personally righteous than another.
 
2006-07-12 12:23:07 PM
ThrobblefootSpectre: The decision was that universities are still allowed to use race as a factor.

Sort of...It was a bit of a pussy decision, really, where they said race could be *a* factor but not *the* factor.
 
2006-07-12 12:24:01 PM
shamus414: "Judge not that ye be not judged." - identification of what is or is not sinful behavior is not the same as judging others with the feeling that one is more personally righteous than another.

Like hell it isn't. By the teachings of your own Rabbi, you are in *no* position to morally judge another.
 
2006-07-12 12:29:37 PM
Sloth_DC: Sort of...It was a bit of a pussy decision, really, where they said race could be *a* factor but not *the* factor.


Yes. And, I firmly will not back down from the truth that that discrimination is actively promoted in public institutions, but not tolerated from unpopular organizations such as the Boy Scouts.

It is a double standard.
 
2006-07-12 12:29:56 PM
Actually no you are incorrect on this. The Rabbi's words have to be read in the context of the entirety of his treaching - which include approaching one another to reprove sinful behavior - not to mention regular confession.

And again, it is one thing to judge a person and quite another to judge a person's conduct.
 
2006-07-12 12:34:03 PM
shamus414: And again, it is one thing to judge a person and quite another to judge a person's conduct.

So, Rabbi Yeshua would have been perfectly ok with the State, say, stoning an adulteress because she broke a commandment?
 
2006-07-12 12:38:29 PM
What does the relationship of the state with Good Rabbi's teaching have to do with whether conduct can be judged, let alone whether the penalty is appropriate?

In reference to the incident you are citing, the Good Rabbi specifically judged her conduct to be sinful and ordered to "go and sin no more" while maintaining her dignity and forgiving her - your citation to this incident precisely proves my point.
 
2006-07-12 12:39:23 PM
Sloth_DC: Like hell it isn't. By the teachings of your own Rabbi, you are in *no* position to morally judge another.

More specifically, here is the rest of the statement in Matthew 7:1-5:
"Don't judge, so that you won't be judged. For with whatever judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with whatever measure you measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but don't consider the beam that is in your own eye? Or how will you tell your brother,'Let me remove the speck from your eye;' and behold, the beam is in your own eye? You hypocrite! First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye."

Those who would judge harshly the mortal sins of another must face harsh judgement for their own sins. And as only Christ was free on sin of those who dwell upon this earth, all must consider their own sins and work to be more like the Lord rather than spending their days on condemnations and accusations. The Lord God is the only true judge of the soul, and it is the greatest form of pride to believe that you can stand and judge in His place. Instead of openly playing a game of holier-than-thou, it is the message of Christ that you should simply try to be more Christ-like without making a show of it; for "thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly." (Matthew 6:6)

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist one more response. But I really need to go now.
 
2006-07-12 12:42:25 PM
shamus414: In reference to the incident you are citing, the Good Rabbi specifically judged her conduct to be sinful and ordered to "go and sin no more" while maintaining her dignity and forgiving her - your citation to this incident precisely proves my point.

Which point? It precisely refutes your point that the State should enforce your religion.
 
2006-07-12 12:43:02 PM
shamus414: In reference to the incident you are citing, the Good Rabbi specifically judged her conduct to be sinful and ordered to "go and sin no more" while maintaining her dignity and forgiving her - your citation to this incident precisely proves my point.

Jesus was free of sin, and thus was free to judge. Do you declare yourself free of sin, or as capable of judgement as Christ?
 
2006-07-12 12:45:31 PM
My point that it is appropriate to judge conduct but not persons as sinful.

The mandate of the Xian scriptures relative to the Church's relation to the State are inconclusive at best, but assume that human beings will be too sinful to consistently govern within Christian moral guidelines.
 
2006-07-12 12:47:47 PM
"Jesus was free of sin, and thus was free to judge. Do you declare yourself free of sin, or as capable of judgement as Christ?"

No, I do not declare myself empowered to judge persons, however, by Jesus' mandate as recorded in the scriptures, I am empowered to judge conduct as being consistent or inconsistent with His teaching.
 
2006-07-12 12:49:56 PM
shamus414: No, I do not declare myself empowered to judge persons, however, by Jesus' mandate as recorded in the scriptures, I am empowered to judge conduct as being consistent or inconsistent with His teaching.

And excluding people who you perceive to be sinners from your midst because the sin offends you... is this consistent of inconsistent with His teaching?
 
Displayed 50 of 680 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report