This blog consists mostly of common sense responses to happenings (news articles, political events, etc) that just cry out for someone to say "WHOA! Hang on a second, here!" Too many people get away with just inventing their own facts as they bull-rush their way through an argument.

Unless you're dodging a taxicab or sidestepping a falling gargoyle, it's usually wise to take what time is available to evaluate and apply actual common sense. Good, old wisdom. It is, of course, my opinion, but I'll try to show why I think it's factual.
Thomas Paine said, "To argue with someone who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." ... but I argue with drunks, egomaniacs, anti-gun Statists, Socialist/Keynesians and climate-fraud peddlers, too.

**PLEASE share this around. I didn't research, consider, write and post this junk just to have it hidden.
And feel free to comment.**

CONTACT SophosArchaeus: eMail at sophosarchaeus@hushmail.com
NOTE: this page does not endorse violence, racism or threats, nor permit such abuse in any direction.
Though Americans are fully able to end a fight, that is a last-resort, defense-only option.
If you're here for such crap, get the hell off my page!]

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Strike one...

The SCotUS has issued it's first unquestionably wrong-headed, ass-backward, intentionally anti-Constitutional ruling (that SophosArchaeus is aware of), since the seating of Soto-Mayor. And on such a simple subject:

Court won't hear appeal on Boy Scouts land rental (AP)
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court has let stand a ruling saying the Boy Scouts cannot lease city park land in San Diego because the group is a religious organization. The high court refused to hear an appeal from San Diego-area Boy Scouts.
The Boy Scouts maintain that they have no theology and only hold the position that children have a "duty to God" to become productive citizens.
The American Civil Liberties Union had sued San Diego and the Boy Scouts on behalf of a lesbian couple and an agnostic couple, each with Scouting-age sons.
The Boy Scouts have been the target of lawsuits since the Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that the group can exclude homosexuals from serving as troop leaders and because Scouts must swear an oath of duty to God.

So basically, they have damaged an entire generation of patriotic, self-sufficient, resourceful young men and women (Explorers operate under the BSA umbrella), in the name of two families whose kids don't even belong to (or apparently, desire to belong to) the 100 year old group. This amounts to permitting vandalism of private property by those that can't or won't "get some".
The earlier decision was based upon the "private club" status of the BSA, which no one is required to join. They, and every other private club, 'may set it's own rules for membership', was the decision, and (despite the unsurprisingly incorrect AP summary) was based on the simple logic that in the usual all-male camping environment, if homosexuals are not present, no (zero) molestation can occur. The duty to God was also challenged, but upheld under the same, 'private club' concept.
What is wrong here, is that the Constitution is written to limit government and specifically to avoid limiting religious expression. This has been attacked and eroded for decades under the false concept of "separation of church and state", which is a recent invention of Progressives and does not appear anywhere in the language of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. What does appear (First amendment) is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or..." Purty simple, huh?
This means that the free expression of religion is guaranteed, not freedom from it; though free expression means that one can "opt out" if they are foolish enough to want to do so. It does not grant anyone a "religion-free zone", except within their own private property.
Get me a (non-Progressive) 7th grader in government class; they could get this one right.

[ed: it should be noted that a Gay Softball League World series is embroiled in controversy. They played on city-owned fields in Seattle. It seems that a winning team from San Diego had "too many straights" and was stripped of their title. They are now suing each other. A preliminary finding is that the league is a "private club, and may set it's own membership criteria".
SophosArchaeus is opposed to homosexuality - - it messes up too many young lives - - but I would fully support the finding and the right of any non-violent group to use city parks for positive activities.]

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be reasonably polite, but especially be as accurate as you can. Provide sources if you have them. We might as well learn something. [Wikipedia and blogs are usually 'pointers', not authoritative sources; they indicate data that might be confirmed elsewhere (that's how I use them here)].