OT - Separstion of Church and State
J. Hugh Sullivan
two DEVOUT MUSLIMS to Homeland Security.
I gues we will need a program now to determine "devout what" of
appointees.
OTOH if the two are not devout terrorists, we can use their devout in
the political arena. A few in Congress might get rid of Barney Queer.
You think you have it bad - somewhere there is a Mr. Pelosi.
Hugh
Brian Westley
>In the interest of such separation B.O. announced the appointment of
>two DEVOUT MUSLIMS to Homeland Security.
So Hugh, in reference to your obvious paranoia, is the president
supposed to only nominate people who don't belong to a religion?
By the way, did you hear the rumor that the president's
father was black? If that's true, WHOA!!!
---
Merlyn LeRoy
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
>Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) writes:
>>In the interest of such separation B.O. announced the appointment of
>>two DEVOUT MUSLIMS to Homeland Security.
>
>So Hugh, in reference to your obvious paranoia, is the president
>supposed to only nominate people who don't belong to a religion?
No, it's just that I don't recall the religion of previous appointees
being announced. Seems like appointed devout anything would complicate
your existence.
>By the way, did you hear the rumor that the president's
>father was black? If that's true, WHOA!!!
Being half-black ain't his problem - being a traitorous socialist is.
>---
>Merlyn LeRoy
I think it's laughable that Obamoron is half white but called an
African-American. Unlike most A-As, he has been to Africa.
It's interesting that we all descend from one mother in Africa,
according to scientific articles I have read, yet only one race has
adopted the term.
It's almost as bad as calling queers gay thinking they deceive
somebody.
Hugh
Brian Westley
>On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 09:27:14 -0500, Brian Westley <wes...@visi.com>
>wrote:
>>Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) writes:
>>>In the interest of such separation B.O. announced the appointment of
>>>two DEVOUT MUSLIMS to Homeland Security.
>>
>>So Hugh, in reference to your obvious paranoia, is the president
>>supposed to only nominate people who don't belong to a religion?
>No, it's just that I don't recall the religion of previous appointees
>being announced.
Announced by whom? Just because some paranoid xenophobic wingnut
sites trumpet "Hey!! He's a MOOOSLIM!!!!" doesn't mean that the
government announced the religions of appointees.
Where was this information "announced?"
>Seems like appointed devout anything would complicate
>your existence.
Only if they're idiots like yourself.
>>By the way, did you hear the rumor that the president's
>>father was black? If that's true, WHOA!!!
>Being half-black ain't his problem - being a traitorous socialist is.
I see you drink from the kool-aid often.
>I think it's laughable that Obamoron is half white but called an
>African-American. Unlike most A-As, he has been to Africa.
I think it's laughable that you call yourself a Christian.
>It's interesting that we all descend from one mother in Africa,
>according to scientific articles I have read,
You read it, but you didn't comprehend it.
Yes, all living humans are descendents of Mitochondrial Eve,
as we all are of Y-chromosomal Adam, even though they lived
centuries apart.
>yet only one race has
>adopted the term.
Wrong again, Hugh.
>It's almost as bad as calling queers gay thinking they deceive
>somebody.
Have fun in your ignorant paranoia.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
I will - but just a sec while I flush you and get rid of the stink.
Hugh
Stan
> >So Hugh, in reference to your obvious paranoia, is the president
> >supposed to only nominate people who don't belong to a religion?
>
> No, it's just that I don't recall the religion of previous appointees
> being announced. Seems like appointed devout anything would complicate
> your existence.
An appointee's religion is usually disclosed as part of the person's
overall biography. In fact, one joke I heard was whether Obama was
putting together a cabinet or a minyan (the quorum of 10 Jews required
for complete religious services to be held).
> >By the way, did you hear the rumor that the president's
> >father was black? If that's true, WHOA!!!
>
> Being half-black ain't his problem - being a traitorous socialist is.
As I said about Gov McGreevey when he pushed through a millionaire's
tax in NJ (specifically, increasing the state income tax rate on
income above $500K), something is very wrong, as in "tyranny of the
majority", when 98% of the people can decide that 2% (the percentage
of taxpayers making $500K+ the previous year) aren't paying enough.
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
>On Sep 8, 11:08 am, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 09:27:14 -0500, Brian Westley <west...@visi.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >So Hugh, in reference to your obvious paranoia, is the president
>> >supposed to only nominate people who don't belong to a religion?
>>
>> No, it's just that I don't recall the religion of previous appointees
>> being announced. Seems like appointed devout anything would complicate
>> your existence.
>
>An appointee's religion is usually disclosed as part of the person's
>overall biography. In fact, one joke I heard was whether Obama was
>putting together a cabinet or a minyan (the quorum of 10 Jews required
>for complete religious services to be held).
I understand that. The announcement in the media doesn't usually
include "Devout Whatever" in the headlines. I'm surprised atheists and
the ACLU aren't whining all over the place.
>
>> >By the way, did you hear the rumor that the president's
>> >father was black? If that's true, WHOA!!!
>>
>> Being half-black ain't his problem - being a traitorous socialist is.
>
>As I said about Gov McGreevey when he pushed through a millionaire's
>tax in NJ (specifically, increasing the state income tax rate on
>income above $500K), something is very wrong, as in "tyranny of the
>majority", when 98% of the people can decide that 2% (the percentage
>of taxpayers making $500K+ the previous year) aren't paying enough.
I don't agree that any percentage should vote socialism in the USA.
This is a competitive world and I don't want to support some two-bit
shoe clerk who sits on his butt and waits for a government handout.
Hugh
Brian Westley
As usual, you're full of crap.
No cites where this was "announced", because it's only from
your favorite wingnut sites.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Brian Westley
>On Sep 8, 11:08 am, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 09:27:14 -0500, Brian Westley <west...@visi.com>
>> wrote:
>> >So Hugh, in reference to your obvious paranoia, is the president
>> >supposed to only nominate people who don't belong to a religion?
>>
>> No, it's just that I don't recall the religion of previous appointees
>> being announced. Seems like appointed devout anything would complicate
>> your existence.
>An appointee's religion is usually disclosed as part of the person's
>overall biography.
Ah, lyin' Stan is back.
I noticed you clipped what I was replying to:
Hugh said:
>>In the interest of such separation B.O. announced the appointment of
>>two DEVOUT MUSLIMS to Homeland Security.
I'd like to know when Obama "announced" this.
>In fact, one joke I heard was whether Obama was
>putting together a cabinet or a minyan (the quorum of 10 Jews required
>for complete religious services to be held).
>> >By the way, did you hear the rumor that the president's
>> >father was black? If that's true, WHOA!!!
>>
>> Being half-black ain't his problem - being a traitorous socialist is.
>As I said about Gov McGreevey when he pushed through a millionaire's
>tax in NJ (specifically, increasing the state income tax rate on
>income above $500K), something is very wrong, as in "tyranny of the
>majority", when 98% of the people can decide that 2% (the percentage
>of taxpayers making $500K+ the previous year) aren't paying enough.
What's wrong with tax brackets, Stan?
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Brian Westley
>wrote:
>>On Sep 8, 11:08 am, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>>> On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 09:27:14 -0500, Brian Westley <west...@visi.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> >So Hugh, in reference to your obvious paranoia, is the president
>>> >supposed to only nominate people who don't belong to a religion?
>>>
>>> No, it's just that I don't recall the religion of previous appointees
>>> being announced. Seems like appointed devout anything would complicate
>>> your existence.
>>
>>An appointee's religion is usually disclosed as part of the person's
>>overall biography. In fact, one joke I heard was whether Obama was
>>putting together a cabinet or a minyan (the quorum of 10 Jews required
>>for complete religious services to be held).
>I understand that. The announcement in the media
WHO, Hugh?
WHO announced it? You, as usual, ran away instead of answering.
>doesn't usually
>include "Devout Whatever" in the headlines.
WHICH headlines, Hugh?
>I'm surprised atheists and
>the ACLU aren't whining all over the place.
Because you don't understand when and why atheists and the
ACLU complain about religion and government.
>>
>>> >By the way, did you hear the rumor that the president's
>>> >father was black? If that's true, WHOA!!!
>>>
>>> Being half-black ain't his problem - being a traitorous socialist is.
>>
>>As I said about Gov McGreevey when he pushed through a millionaire's
>>tax in NJ (specifically, increasing the state income tax rate on
>>income above $500K), something is very wrong, as in "tyranny of the
>>majority", when 98% of the people can decide that 2% (the percentage
>>of taxpayers making $500K+ the previous year) aren't paying enough.
>I don't agree that any percentage should vote socialism in the USA.
>This is a competitive world and I don't want to support some two-bit
>shoe clerk who sits on his butt and waits for a government handout.
So Hugh, I assume you refuse VA and Medicare benefits?
---
Merlyn LeRoy
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
>Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) writes:
I spent 33 years in the Reserve, part on AcDu in WWII. I earned my way
- except I use no VA services.
Our company had hospital insurance for retirees that was at least as
good as Medicare. When the socialist LBJ created Medicare our plan was
dropped. Now I'm using Medicare as fast as I can hoping that enough of
us will do that to ruin socialist programs forever.
As for Social Security, It give me about 1/3 of what I could have
earned with rivate investment and leaves me with no estat to pass as
private investment does.
Hugh
Brian Westley
>On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 09:49:38 -0500, Brian Westley <wes...@visi.com>
>wrote:
>>Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) writes:
>>>On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 18:30:37 -0700 (PDT), Stan <stan...@hotmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>On Sep 8, 11:08 am, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 09:27:14 -0500, Brian Westley <west...@visi.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> >So Hugh, in reference to your obvious paranoia, is the president
>>>>> >supposed to only nominate people who don't belong to a religion?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it's just that I don't recall the religion of previous appointees
>>>>> being announced. Seems like appointed devout anything would complicate
>>>>> your existence.
>>>>
>>>>An appointee's religion is usually disclosed as part of the person's
>>>>overall biography. In fact, one joke I heard was whether Obama was
>>>>putting together a cabinet or a minyan (the quorum of 10 Jews required
>>>>for complete religious services to be held).
>>
>>>I understand that. The announcement in the media
>>
>>WHO, Hugh?
>>
>>WHO announced it? You, as usual, ran away instead of answering.
>>
>>>doesn't usually
>>>include "Devout Whatever" in the headlines.
>>
>>WHICH headlines, Hugh?
I see you still have no spine.
No answers, eh?
>>
>>>I'm surprised atheists and
>>>the ACLU aren't whining all over the place.
>>
>>Because you don't understand when and why atheists and the
>>ACLU complain about religion and government.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> >By the way, did you hear the rumor that the president's
>>>>> >father was black? If that's true, WHOA!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Being half-black ain't his problem - being a traitorous socialist is.
>>>>
>>>>As I said about Gov McGreevey when he pushed through a millionaire's
>>>>tax in NJ (specifically, increasing the state income tax rate on
>>>>income above $500K), something is very wrong, as in "tyranny of the
>>>>majority", when 98% of the people can decide that 2% (the percentage
>>>>of taxpayers making $500K+ the previous year) aren't paying enough.
>>
>>>I don't agree that any percentage should vote socialism in the USA.
>>>This is a competitive world and I don't want to support some two-bit
>>>shoe clerk who sits on his butt and waits for a government handout.
>>
>>So Hugh, I assume you refuse VA and Medicare benefits?
>I spent 33 years in the Reserve, part on AcDu in WWII. I earned my way
>- except I use no VA services.
>Our company had hospital insurance for retirees that was at least as
>good as Medicare. When the socialist LBJ created Medicare our plan was
>dropped. Now I'm using Medicare as fast as I can hoping that enough of
>us will do that to ruin socialist programs forever.
Hypocrite.
>As for Social Security,
I didn't ask about Social Security.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
>
>>Our company had hospital insurance for retirees that was at least as
>>good as Medicare. When the socialist LBJ created Medicare our plan was
>>dropped. Now I'm using Medicare as fast as I can hoping that enough of
>>us will do that to ruin socialist programs forever.
>
>Hypocrite.
How many years did you serve in the military you cowardly two-bit
ribbon clerk? Or were you too stupid to pass the mental exam?
>
>>As for Social Security,
>
>I didn't ask about Social Security.
You were too dumb to think of the other socialistic program.
Hugh
Brian Westley
>wrote:
>>>Our company had hospital insurance for retirees that was at least as
>>>good as Medicare. When the socialist LBJ created Medicare our plan was
>>>dropped. Now I'm using Medicare as fast as I can hoping that enough of
>>>us will do that to ruin socialist programs forever.
>>Hypocrite.
>How many years did you serve in the military you cowardly two-bit
>ribbon clerk? Or were you too stupid to pass the mental exam?
Hey Hugh, you're still running away from answering where the
religious affiliations of these "devout Muslims" were
"announced." Anywhere apart from your favorite paranoid sites?
Hypocrite.
>>>As for Social Security,
>>
>>I didn't ask about Social Security.
>You were too dumb to think of the other socialistic program.
No, but you'll just keep making up crap, that's all you ever do.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Stan
> Ah, lyin' Stan is back.
As long as I know that my actions in supporting BSA's Duty to God
requirement has never resulted in any boy being denied the benefits of
the Scouting program, my conscience is clear.
As the Season of Repentance will soon come to a close with the
observance of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, there are obviously things
for which I'll need to ask God's forgiveness, but denying a boy access
to Scouting because of his personal relationship with God will not be
one of them.
Can you say the same thing about yourself?
> >> Being half-black ain't his problem - being a traitorous socialist is.
> >As I said about Gov McGreevey when he pushed through a millionaire's
> >tax in NJ (specifically, increasing the state income tax rate on
> >income above $500K), something is very wrong, as in "tyranny of the
> >majority", when 98% of the people can decide that 2% (the percentage
> >of taxpayers making $500K+ the previous year) aren't paying enough.
>
> What's wrong with tax brackets, Stan?
I'll ask you; what's wrong with everybody paying the same percentage
of their income? I mean, if Joe makes three times as much as John,
isn't Joe's paying 3 times the tax John pays fair? I can even accept
a zero-bracket, so that everybody earns the same tax-free amount, and
then pays the same percentage on the amount of the excess above that,
so if Joe's taxable is income is 4x John's, he pays 4x the tax.
What's wrong with that?
But what I cannot accept is when an income tax increase is targeted at
only a very small percentage of the population, like only 2% of all
taxpayers, or years ago, when NJ added a $50K+ bracket, thus raising
the income tax for only 20% of all taxpayers. How about raising the
rates for at least 65% of taxpayers, and thus answer to everybody, or
doesn't our Senate, General Assembly, and Governor have the courage to
do that?
Brian Westley
>> Ah, lyin' Stan is back.
>As long as I know that my actions in supporting BSA's Duty to God
>requirement has never resulted in any boy being denied the benefits of
>the Scouting program, my conscience is clear.
That's got nothing to do with your lying. But it does point
out your bigotry and how something must be bothering your
conscience, because you constantly bring up how it isn't
bothering you. You protest too much.
>As the Season of Repentance will soon come to a close with the
>observance of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, there are obviously things
>for which I'll need to ask God's forgiveness, but denying a boy access
>to Scouting because of his personal relationship with God will not be
>one of them.
>Can you say the same thing about yourself?
I don't believe in gods, idiot.
>> >> Being half-black ain't his problem - being a traitorous socialist is.
>> >As I said about Gov McGreevey when he pushed through a millionaire's
>> >tax in NJ (specifically, increasing the state income tax rate on
>> >income above $500K), something is very wrong, as in "tyranny of the
>> >majority", when 98% of the people can decide that 2% (the percentage
>> >of taxpayers making $500K+ the previous year) aren't paying enough.
>>
>> What's wrong with tax brackets, Stan?
>I'll ask you; what's wrong with everybody paying the same percentage
>of their income? I mean, if Joe makes three times as much as John,
>isn't Joe's paying 3 times the tax John pays fair? I can even accept
>a zero-bracket, so that everybody earns the same tax-free amount, and
>then pays the same percentage on the amount of the excess above that,
>so if Joe's taxable is income is 4x John's, he pays 4x the tax.
>What's wrong with that?
Nothing. What's wrong with tax brackets, Stan?
>But what I cannot accept is when an income tax increase is targeted at
>only a very small percentage of the population, like only 2% of all
>taxpayers, or years ago, when NJ added a $50K+ bracket, thus raising
>the income tax for only 20% of all taxpayers. How about raising the
>rates for at least 65% of taxpayers, and thus answer to everybody, or
>doesn't our Senate, General Assembly, and Governor have the courage to
>do that?
Why is that wrong? Do you know the federal top tax
rate used to be 90%, and was for years? Was it wrong
to reduce that?
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Stan
> Stan <stanle...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >On Sep 9, 10:28 am, Brian Westley <west...@visi.com> wrote:
> >> Ah, lyin' Stan is back.
> >As long as I know that my actions in supporting BSA's Duty to God
> >requirement has never resulted in any boy being denied the benefits of
> >the Scouting program, my conscience is clear.
>
> That's got nothing to do with your lying. But it does point
> out your bigotry and how something must be bothering your
> conscience, because you constantly bring up how it isn't
> bothering you. You protest too much.
What I bring up is that I have never denied a boy the benefits of
Scouting because of his religion or lack thereof, which is the exact
opposite of the bigotry you accuse me of.
> >As the Season of Repentance will soon come to a close with the
> >observance of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, there are obviously things
> >for which I'll need to ask God's forgiveness, but denying a boy access
> >to Scouting because of his personal relationship with God will not be
> >one of them.
> >Can you say the same thing about yourself?
>
> I don't believe in gods, idiot.
You still have to answer to yourself and your conscience, and in doing
so, can you honestly say, as I do, that you've never denied, blocked,
or impeded a boy's access to the BSA program?
> >> What's wrong with tax brackets, Stan?
> >I'll ask you; what's wrong with everybody paying the same percentage
> >of their income? I mean, if Joe makes three times as much as John,
> >isn't Joe's paying 3 times the tax John pays fair? I can even accept
> >a zero-bracket, so that everybody earns the same tax-free amount, and
> >then pays the same percentage on the amount of the excess above that,
> >so if Joe's taxable is income is 4x John's, he pays 4x the tax.
> >What's wrong with that?
>
> Nothing. What's wrong with tax brackets, Stan?
Already answered. Do you have a problem with EVERYBODY paying the
same rate on ALL their income?
> >But what I cannot accept is when an income tax increase is targeted at
> >only a very small percentage of the population, like only 2% of all
> >taxpayers, or years ago, when NJ added a $50K+ bracket, thus raising
> >the income tax for only 20% of all taxpayers. How about raising the
> >rates for at least 65% of taxpayers, and thus answer to everybody, or
> >doesn't our Senate, General Assembly, and Governor have the courage to
> >do that?
>
> Why is that wrong?
It's "Tyranny of the Majority" when an income tax increase is targeted
to a very small percentage of all tax payers. Do you feel that 80% or
98% of the population have the right to tax only 20% or worse 2% of
the population?
> Do you know the federal top tax
> rate used to be 90%, and was for years? Was it wrong
> to reduce that?
Giving back what was essentially stolen (a 91% tax bracket, with an
overall ceiling of 87% of taxable income) is not wrong; in fact, it
was the right thing to do. What was wrong was the confiscatory rate
in the first place.
Brian Westley
>On Sep 10, 9:17 am, Brian Westley <west...@visi.com> wrote:
>> Stan <stanle...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> >On Sep 9, 10:28 am, Brian Westley <west...@visi.com> wrote:
>> >> Ah, lyin' Stan is back.
>> >As long as I know that my actions in supporting BSA's Duty to God
>> >requirement has never resulted in any boy being denied the benefits of
>> >the Scouting program, my conscience is clear.
>>
>> That's got nothing to do with your lying. But it does point
>> out your bigotry and how something must be bothering your
>> conscience, because you constantly bring up how it isn't
>> bothering you. You protest too much.
>What I bring up is that I have never denied a boy the benefits of
>Scouting because of his religion or lack thereof, which is the exact
>opposite of the bigotry you accuse me of.
Stan, I'm asking why you constantly harp on yourself having
"clean hands"; you're like Lady MacBeth, except instead of
scrubbing your hands, you keep repeating the mantra that your
hands are clean. Psychologically, your hands are NOT clean.
You know yourself that you advocate and approve of kicking
atheist kids out and keeping them out. You're a religious
bigot.
>> >As the Season of Repentance will soon come to a close with the
>> >observance of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, there are obviously things
>> >for which I'll need to ask God's forgiveness, but denying a boy access
>> >to Scouting because of his personal relationship with God will not be
>> >one of them.
>> >Can you say the same thing about yourself?
>>
>> I don't believe in gods, idiot.
>You still have to answer to yourself and your conscience,
Yes, but not gods.
>and in doing
>so, can you honestly say, as I do, that you've never denied, blocked,
>or impeded a boy's access to the BSA program?
I've never blocked them to a legally-run BSA program, no.
I've stopped quite a few illegally chartered BSA units, but
that's the fault of the BSA for illegally chartering them
in the first place.
>> >> What's wrong with tax brackets, Stan?
>> >I'll ask you; what's wrong with everybody paying the same percentage
>> >of their income? I mean, if Joe makes three times as much as John,
>> >isn't Joe's paying 3 times the tax John pays fair? I can even accept
>> >a zero-bracket, so that everybody earns the same tax-free amount, and
>> >then pays the same percentage on the amount of the excess above that,
>> >so if Joe's taxable is income is 4x John's, he pays 4x the tax.
>> >What's wrong with that?
>>
>> Nothing. What's wrong with tax brackets, Stan?
>Already answered. Do you have a problem with EVERYBODY paying the
>same rate on ALL their income?
I already answered, idiot. See that "Nothing"?
>> >But what I cannot accept is when an income tax increase is targeted at
>> >only a very small percentage of the population, like only 2% of all
>> >taxpayers, or years ago, when NJ added a $50K+ bracket, thus raising
>> >the income tax for only 20% of all taxpayers. How about raising the
>> >rates for at least 65% of taxpayers, and thus answer to everybody, or
>> >doesn't our Senate, General Assembly, and Governor have the courage to
>> >do that?
>>
>> Why is that wrong?
>It's "Tyranny of the Majority" when an income tax increase is targeted
>to a very small percentage of all tax payers.
So religious tyranny of the majority is OK, but not for taxes.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Stan
> >What I bring up is that I have never denied a boy the benefits of
> >Scouting because of his religion or lack thereof, which is the exact
> >opposite of the bigotry you accuse me of.
> Stan, I'm asking why you constantly harp on yourself having
> "clean hands"; you're like Lady MacBeth, except instead of
> scrubbing your hands, you keep repeating the mantra that your
> hands are clean. Psychologically, your hands are NOT clean.
> You know yourself that you advocate and approve of kicking
> atheist kids out and keeping them out. You're a religious
> bigot.
I do not want to know what a boy's religion is or isn't, so with me,
this problem should never come up. Unlike you, I don't label boys by
their religion affiliation or lack thereof, because I fully believe in
the First Amendment and religious freedom, and this includes the right
to not have to define, explain, rationalize, or justify one's
religious beliefs.
.
> >> >Can you say the same thing about yourself?
>
> >> I don't believe in gods, idiot.
> >You still have to answer to yourself and your conscience,
>
> Yes, but not gods.
>
> >and in doing
> >so, can you honestly say, as I do, that you've never denied, blocked,
> >or impeded a boy's access to the BSA program?
>
> I've never blocked them to a legally-run BSA program, no.
>
> I've stopped quite a few illegally chartered BSA units, but
> that's the fault of the BSA for illegally chartering them
> in the first place.
I have never used the legal system, nor ever took any other action, to
block 6-17 year old boys from having access to Scouting, and I never
will. This confirms my assertion that I, while supporting the BSA
policy, have nevertheless managed to block infinitely fewer boys than
you have from access to BSA.
> >> Why is that wrong?
> >It's "Tyranny of the Majority" when an income tax increase is targeted
> >to a very small percentage of all tax payers.
>
> So religious tyranny of the majority is OK, but not for taxes.
I don't consider the BSA policy to be one of religious coercion or
tyranny; rather; I feel it's a reasonable expection given that our
Nation is Under God, that In God We Trust, whose Unknowns are Known
But to God, and during the January, 2009 swearing-in ceremonies, the
One that ALL of our officials, whose swearing in was televised, asked
help from in carrying out their duties.
I do consider an income tax targeted at only 2% of the population to
be the Poster Boy for Tyranny of the Majority.
Brian Westley
>> >> >Can you say the same thing about yourself?
>>
>> >> I don't believe in gods, idiot.
>> >You still have to answer to yourself and your conscience,
>>
>> Yes, but not gods.
>>
>> >and in doing
>> >so, can you honestly say, as I do, that you've never denied, blocked,
>> >or impeded a boy's access to the BSA program?
>>
>> I've never blocked them to a legally-run BSA program, no.
>>
>> I've stopped quite a few illegally chartered BSA units, but
>> that's the fault of the BSA for illegally chartering them
>> in the first place.
>I have never used the legal system, nor ever took any other action, to
>block 6-17 year old boys from having access to Scouting, and I never
>will.
Would you ever use the legal system to prevent public schools from
violating the civil rights of students?
>This confirms my assertion that I, while supporting the BSA
>policy, have nevertheless managed to block infinitely fewer boys than
>you have from access to BSA.
Like I said, it's the BSA's fault for issuing illegal charters.
Stop breaking the law.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Stan
There's nothing that the BSA expects from the boys that constitutes
illegal discrimination, because there's nothing that BSA expects
that's inconsistent with our nations values, heritage, and public
policy, as I have listed numerous times.
Marc
> On Sep 12, 2:11 am, Brian Westley <west...@visi.com> wrote:
> > Like I said, it's the BSA's fault for issuing illegal charters.
> > Stop breaking the law.
I'd say it's at least as much the fault of the governmental
organizations for doing the chartering, since they're the
ones who are bound by rules like "you can't run a club
that has a religious test for membership."
> There's nothing that the BSA expects from the boys that constitutes
> illegal discrimination, because there's nothing that BSA expects
> that's inconsistent with our nations values, heritage, and public
> policy, as I have listed numerous times.
None of this is legally meaningful, as you've been told many times.
The Constitution doesn't say that interpreting the law is up to you
and your sense of our "national values" (which is really just another
way of saying "tyranny of the majority.") It's up to the courts and
they don't seem to agree with you. If they did, the efforts of people
like Brian would not have been successful.
Why do you hate our Constitution?
Brian Westley
Wrong. The ACLU threatened to sue, and the BSA folded, because
they knew they would lose. They even admitted in 1998 that
Exploring had to become non-discriminatory to avoid losing
police, fire, etc. charters because the government can't
sponsor discrimination.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Stan
> On Sep 12, 12:58 pm, Stan <stanle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 12, 2:11 am, Brian Westley <west...@visi.com> wrote:
> > > Like I said, it's the BSA's fault for issuing illegal charters.
> > > Stop breaking the law.
>
> I'd say it's at least as much the fault of the governmental
> organizations for doing the chartering, since they're the
> ones who are bound by rules like "you can't run a club
> that has a religious test for membership."
We disagree as to whether what BSA requires is a religious test and
thus whether a government's support of BSA constitutes an
establishment of religion.
> > There's nothing that the BSA expects from the boys that constitutes
> > illegal discrimination, because there's nothing that BSA expects
> > that's inconsistent with our nations values, heritage, and public
> > policy, as I have listed numerous times.
>
> None of this is legally meaningful, as you've been told many times.
> The Constitution doesn't say that interpreting the law is up to you
> and your sense of our "national values" (which is really just another
> way of saying "tyranny of the majority.") It's up to the courts and
> they don't seem to agree with you. If they did, the efforts of people
> like Brian would not have been successful.
>
> Why do you hate our Constitution?
The court cases, IIRC, involving BSA have almost always involved Civil
Rights Act issues and not Constitutional issues. In fact in a major
Constitutional issue, Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, the U.S.
Supreme Court used the Constitution to rule against the enforcement of
a state's civil rights laws. Meanwhile, "In God We Trust" is still on
our currency, we are still "One Nation under God" when we recite the
Pledge of Allegiance, as we saw in January, oaths of office
administered singly or as a group (e.g., new Senators) included "So
help me God" in the "repeat after me", and our Unknowns are still
"Known but to God."
Finally, I personally don't want to know what a boy's religion is or
isn't because I never want what a boy's religion is or isn't to ever
become a factor. Isn't that just about giving you everything you want?
Brian Westley
>On Sep 13, 3:47 pm, Marc <marc.vanheynin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 12, 12:58 pm, Stan <stanle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sep 12, 2:11 am, Brian Westley <west...@visi.com> wrote:
>> > > Like I said, it's the BSA's fault for issuing illegal charters.
>> > > Stop breaking the law.
>>
>> I'd say it's at least as much the fault of the governmental
>> organizations for doing the chartering, since they're the
>> ones who are bound by rules like "you can't run a club
>> that has a religious test for membership."
>We disagree as to whether what BSA requires is a religious test and
>thus whether a government's support of BSA constitutes an
>establishment of religion.
Yes, because you're wrong. Even the BSA doesn't agree with you.
They now state explicitly that government entities are not to
charter BSA units.
>> > There's nothing that the BSA expects from the boys that constitutes
>> > illegal discrimination, because there's nothing that BSA expects
>> > that's inconsistent with our nations values, heritage, and public
>> > policy, as I have listed numerous times.
>>
>> None of this is legally meaningful, as you've been told many times.
>> The Constitution doesn't say that interpreting the law is up to you
>> and your sense of our "national values" (which is really just another
>> way of saying "tyranny of the majority.") It's up to the courts and
>> they don't seem to agree with you. If they did, the efforts of people
>> like Brian would not have been successful.
>>
>> Why do you hate our Constitution?
>The court cases, IIRC, involving BSA have almost always involved Civil
>Rights Act issues and not Constitutional issues. In fact in a major
>Constitutional issue, Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, the U.S.
>Supreme Court used the Constitution to rule against the enforcement of
>a state's civil rights laws. Meanwhile, "In God We Trust" is still on
>our currency, we are still "One Nation under God" when we recite the
>Pledge of Allegiance, as we saw in January, oaths of office
>administered singly or as a group (e.g., new Senators) included "So
>help me God" in the "repeat after me", and our Unknowns are still
>"Known but to God."
>Finally, I personally don't want to know what a boy's religion is or
>isn't because I never want what a boy's religion is or isn't to ever
>become a factor. Isn't that just about giving you everything you want?
Of course not, you idiot.
Can atheists join? No.
---
Merlyn LeRoy