Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Bashing the Boy Scouts II
The City of Berkeley is allowed to withhold funds and aid to the Boy Scouts, while allowing similar aid to similar organizations, based on the Scouts’ restrictions against atheists and homosexuals. The California State Supreme Court has ruled, and the U.S. Supreme court has declined to hear the appeal.
Six years after the Supreme Court ruled the Boy Scouts could ban gay leaders, the group is fighting and losing legal battles with state and local governments over its discriminatory policies.
The latest setback came Monday when the high court without comment refused to take a case out of Berkeley, Calif., in which a Scouts sailing group lost free use of a public marina because the Boy Scouts bar atheists and gays.
The action let stand a unanimous California Supreme Court ruling that the city of Berkeley may treat the Berkeley Sea Scouts differently from other nonprofit organizations because of the Scouts’ membership policies.
For something that has become such a touchy issue, this whole thing about where public funding goes — it doesn’t appear to be drawing an equal representation of all interested groups. Rarely does the electorate get to directly vote on it.
And I suppose that by itself is okay, in matters of constitutionality. Whether one document logically comports with another, is not a matter for voting. But it seems a little strange to me; I can’t remember the last time a leftist, secular organization, of any kind, was denied funds or aid from a public treasury on the strength of more traditionally-minded segments of the populace feeling alienated by the principles and practices of that organization.
It would appear this wind blows only one way. Now, I think we would all agree if it’s all about “fairness,” this is something that should be fixed before any important decisions are made. About anything.
There’s more…
On a separate matter, federal judges in two other court cases that are being appealed have ruled that government aid to the group is unconstitutional because the Boy Scouts of America requires members to swear an oath of duty to God.
Huh. Such a case would necessarily ask, once again, how high is that “wall of separation.” Whatever the answer is, I hope it comfortably explains what’s documented here:
[Thomas] Jefferson’s actions as President of the United States are important guidelines in understanding what he meant by the “wall of separation.” In 1803, one year after the Danbury letter, Jefferson made a treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians, wherein he pledged money to build them a Roman Catholic Church and to support their priests � all from federal funds. Jefferson apparently saw no conflict between asking Congress to implement the treaty’s provisions by appropriating funds, and the prohibition that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . .” In addition, Jefferson signed three extensions of “An act regulating the grants of land appropriated for Military Services, and for the Society of the United Brethren for propagating the Gospel among the Heathen.” This act granted free of charge titles to sections of land to the United Brethren. In addition to holding the land in trust for Indians who were already Christians, the United Brethren used resources derived from cultivating and leasing the land to send out missionaries to proselyte among the non-Christian Indians. Once again, had Jefferson been an absolutist, as the Everson Court suggests, he would have vetoed not one, but all three extensions of this act. Thus, the Danbury letter is significant because when taken out of context, it provides the foundation for an absolute separation of church and state. Not only was Jefferson referring to the federal government, but his activities while in office also indicate that he was not an absolutist.
This is another lingering question I have. Not just about what Jefferson, et al, did — but why we, today, spend so little energy inspecting these little anecdotes. It’s supposed to be all about “constitutionality.” I think most of us, whatever our biases, would use the Doctrine of Original Intent in inspecting the Constitution. The Constitution is 215 years old, and most of the guys who had a role in writing it and ratifying it, spent years afterward doing lots of stuff and writing lots of other stuff down. Original Intent — shouldn’t we be examining evidence of their intent?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
> Original Intent — shouldn’t we be examining evidence of their intent?
YES
- Phil | 10/19/2006 @ 14:52WE
SHOULD!!!