mjmjr25 wrote:^lulz. You compare a group of 100 people on a beach or 30 mixed gender people in a classroom to ONE male in a cabin with 4 or 5 young girls. Come correct.
Also - we're now pretending that God was just introduced to our nation's foundation as part of cold war ear warmongering?
Declaration: "nature's God", "Creator"
Constitution: "year of our Lord"
Everyone is so quick to point out "God" is not mentioned here or here or here. It is implied and is not mentioned ad nauseum by these vast majority CHRISTIAN men as they had tolerance beyond what some of us are even capable of, and recognize themselves and their forefathers escaped religious prosecution, so purposely did not douse these documents with religious text. However, let us not pretend these were not men of God.
mjmjr25 wrote:Everyone is so quick to point out "God" is not mentioned here or here or here. It is implied and is not mentioned ad nauseum by these vast majority CHRISTIAN men as they had tolerance beyond what some of us are even capable of, and recognize themselves and their forefathers escaped religious prosecution, so purposely did not douse these documents with religious text. However, let us not pretend these were not men of God.
John Adams was a prominent atheist; Benjamin Franklin was a deist; and while Thomas Jefferson adhered to some principles of Christianity, I think it would be a stretch to call him a Christian in the conventional sense.
I point this out to correct the misconception that the United States was founded on religious principles or that it is a "Christian" nation. Surely, many of the people in the United States at the time it was founded were Christians and many of the founding fathers were also Christians. Part of the founders' genius, however, was crafting a government based on secular principles, and I think that their genius is diminished whenever people refer to this great country as a "Christian" nation or imply that it was founded on Christian principles.
Last edited by prfsnl_gmr on Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
prfsnl_gmr wrote:
The constitutionality of government funding for "faith based organizations" is an interesting question, and I do not believe it has been answered by the courts. Moreover, I suspect that finding someone with standing to contest the funding would be practically impossible; so, we may never get an answer. Accordingly, I think that funding for "faith based organizations", like the Boy Scouts, will probably end up being a political question.
Yeah, the law around this is curious. I know that there's protection for "hiring practices" of Faith Based orgs (http://www.justice.gov/archive/fbci/effect-rfra.pdf) but that DOJ document also explains that eligibility usually rests on:
1) The FBO will offer all federally-funded services to all qualified beneficiaries without regard for the religious or non-religious beliefs of those individuals; and
2) Any activities of the FBO that contain inherently religious content will be kept separate in time or location from any services supported by direct federal funding, and, if provided under such conditions, will be offered only on a voluntary basis; and
3) The FBO is a religious organization that sincerely believes that providing the services in question is an expression of its religious beliefs; that employing individuals of particular religious belief is important to its religious exercise; and that having to abandon its religious hiring practice in order to receive the federal funding would substantially burden its religious exercise.
I don't think BSA meets these criteria, and think it should just go "full on religious" and stop purporting equality or drop it. I also think that sexual orientation discrimination as a legal problem for BSA is more clear cut (no?).
dsheinem wrote:Yeah, the law around this is curious. I know that there's protection for "hiring practices" of Faith Based orgs (http://www.justice.gov/archive/fbci/effect-rfra.pdf) but that DOJ document also explains that eligibility usually rests on:
1) The FBO will offer all federally-funded services to all qualified beneficiaries without regard for the religious or non-religious beliefs of those individuals; and
2) Any activities of the FBO that contain inherently religious content will be kept separate in time or location from any services supported by direct federal funding, and, if provided under such conditions, will be offered only on a voluntary basis; and
3) The FBO is a religious organization that sincerely believes that providing the services in question is an expression of its religious beliefs; that employing individuals of particular religious belief is important to its religious exercise; and that having to abandon its religious hiring practice in order to receive the federal funding would substantially burden its religious exercise.
A suit based on hiring practices or violation of the FBO's guidelines would not get to the constitutionality of the funding itself, however. (Moreover, it would have to be prosecuted by the DOJ...) There are certainly lawyers more creative than me, but I simply cannot think of how you can craft a court case that would get to the funding itself. The result is that - basically - the government can spend its money however it sees fit and the only remedy for distasteful spending is at the ballot box.
dsheinem wrote:Yeah, the law around this is curious. I know that there's protection for "hiring practices" of Faith Based orgs (http://www.justice.gov/archive/fbci/effect-rfra.pdf) but that DOJ document also explains that eligibility usually rests on:
1) The FBO will offer all federally-funded services to all qualified beneficiaries without regard for the religious or non-religious beliefs of those individuals; and
2) Any activities of the FBO that contain inherently religious content will be kept separate in time or location from any services supported by direct federal funding, and, if provided under such conditions, will be offered only on a voluntary basis; and
3) The FBO is a religious organization that sincerely believes that providing the services in question is an expression of its religious beliefs; that employing individuals of particular religious belief is important to its religious exercise; and that having to abandon its religious hiring practice in order to receive the federal funding would substantially burden its religious exercise.
A suit based on hiring practices or violation of the FBO's guidelines would not get to the constitutionality of the funding itself, however. (Moreover, it would have to be prosecuted by the DOJ...) There are certainly lawyers more creative than me, but I simply cannot think of how you can craft a court case that would get to the funding itself. The result is that - basically - the government can spend its money however it sees fit and the only remedy for distasteful spending is at the ballot box.
But wouldn't the hiring or not hiring of homosexual Scout leaders fall under the hiring practices definitions outlined above?
Blizzard Entertainment Software Developer - All comments and views are my own and not representative of the company.
mjmjr25 wrote:I think you made the point that some of us are suggesting. No one suggests that homosexuals are more prone to rape, rather, why put people in a position where they may be sexually attracted to someone they are mentoring.
Some offensive things have been said in this thread, but this ... this is stunningly offensive. As a lesbian person, I'm floored. To suggest that merely because I am lesbian that I am more predisposed to be attracted to young females than anyone else and therefore shouldn't be put into a situation where I would be in an authoritative position just makes my blood boil. I'm going to cut myself off here, because I could completely lose my shit over this.
I'm fine with the civil chat-a-thon, but I will bet the farm that this becomes a circular discussion.
This thread should be a long complaint about why there wasn't a NES Eagle Scout game by Konami where you could play as a Bobcat, Tiger, Wolf, Bear, (I'd skip the Webelo stage) and an American Eagle. Like a patriotic Altered Beast from kid to young man.
MrPopo wrote:
But wouldn't the hiring or not hiring of homosexual Scout leaders fall under the hiring practices definitions outlined above?
But are they employees, or volunteers with benefits?
Good question. When you sign up to be a Scout leader, do you get any form of compensation? And more of a lawyer question, do the hiring practice rules also extend to volunteers? From a layman's perspective saying "if they want to pay you then they have to accept you, but if they don't pay you then they can discriminate against you" seems pretty backwards. Then again, you can have sex for free legally, can't for money, but can again if it's filmed.
Luke wrote:"I'm an Eagle Scout too!" turned into this.
I'm fine with the civil chat-a-thon, but I will bet the farm that this becomes a circular discussion.
This thread should be a long complaint about why there wasn't a NES Eagle Scout game by Konami where you could play as a Bobcat, Tiger, Wolf, Bear, (I'd skip the Webelo stage) and an American Eagle. Like a patriotic Altered Beast from kid to young man.
"Morals Up!"
Skipping all the intermediate Scout ranks? For shame.
Blizzard Entertainment Software Developer - All comments and views are my own and not representative of the company.
Luke wrote:"I'm an Eagle Scout too!" turned into this.
I'm fine with the civil chat-a-thon, but I will bet the farm that this becomes a circular discussion.
This thread should be a long complaint about why there wasn't a NES Eagle Scout game by Konami where you could play as a Bobcat, Tiger, Wolf, Bear, (I'd skip the Webelo stage) and an American Eagle. Like a patriotic Altered Beast from kid to young man.
"Morals Up!"
Id back that. Especially if it was released on a cart. Heck Id even take an Altered Beast hack.
