TexasCHLforum.com

jamminbutter wrote:BSA is now a dying organization, it has lost the way from it's roots and and as chuckj stated was neutered and defiled many years ago. I no longer state that I AM but WAS an Eagle Scout. If they desire, my children will be involved in Trail Life and Heritage Girls but not BSA or GSA.

GSA was declining as well when we finally hung up the troop. Data suggests that community organizations (including churches) are declining annually. I blame the fluoride in the water. thats why I only drink distilled water and pure grain alcohol.

The Annoyed Man wrote: So what we are left with is this: We either trust that the courts are impartial, or we don't, because no amount of stalinist oversight will force impartiality. What makes the state think that a judge who no longer participates in scouting or supports it, still doesn't hold his scouting oath to be a sacred thing? What makes the state think that this judge still won't let his former associations color his thinking?

They cannot even remotely guarantee that. The only guarantee they can have is to create a three judge panel of women like Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan to approve all judicial appointments going forward......and that is a terrifying thought. So the only alternative we can have is to trust the current system, and not hector judges about their past associations.

Could you trust a judge that's a KKK member to rule on an issue of race based discrimination? I couldn't..
Could you trust a judge whose kids are involved in the BSA to rule on an issue of sexual orientation based discrimination? I can see that as possible.

Courts are not impartial. Especially SCOTUS. That's why the political appointments are so important.

It's human nature to be partial. And like VM - I absolutely rail against those who would make an major issue out of what private individuals do with their personal time while they ignore the "big points" of the good book, I have zero affirmation for people who need to throw their particular brand of minority issue in our faces.

Perhaps the problem is "protected class" aka preferred/preferential treatment. Perhaps the answer is doing away with all "protected classes" and returning to all men are created equal. Nobody is required to agree with or support anyone else's choices but no one is penalized for disagreeing either.

LDB415 wrote:Perhaps the problem is "protected class" aka preferred/preferential treatment. Perhaps the answer is doing away with all "protected classes" and returning to all men are created equal. Nobody is required to agree with or support anyone else's choices but no one is penalized for disagreeing either.

The fruit of political correctness, "protected classes" and the like is ripening. We see it in the "protected classes" somehow going from those perceived to need a leg up to those entitled to whatever they ask for at others' expense. We see it in the way "tolerance" is causing true intolerance in our society. The moral compass that used to steer the People has been given up for sound-bytes and touchy-feely rhetoric -- because we, the People have become fat and happy and we allow it. God help us to see the error of our ways.

jamminbutter wrote:BSA is now a dying organization, it has lost the way from it's roots and and as chuckj stated was neutered and defiled many years ago. I no longer state that I AM but WAS an Eagle Scout. If they desire, my children will be involved in Trail Life and Heritage Girls but not BSA or GSA.

And who stood by and let it die?

As a matter of fact the majority of people in the United States are standing by and watching as this country is slowly being torn apart.

That which you tolerate, you condone.

All I see are comments on the web. Yea this is going to be a wonderful country for our children and grandchildren to live in. Don’t blame the liberals if we let them do it.

I use the word "you" to refer to the majority of people in this country as a whole. Not any one person on this forum.

VoiceofReason wrote:

jamminbutter wrote:BSA is now a dying organization, it has lost the way from it's roots and and as chuckj stated was neutered and defiled many years ago. I no longer state that I AM but WAS an Eagle Scout. If they desire, my children will be involved in Trail Life and Heritage Girls but not BSA or GSA.

And who stood by and let it die?

As a matter of fact the majority of people in the United States are standing by and watching as this country is slowly being torn apart.

That which you tolerate, you condone.

All I see are comments on the web. Yea this is going to be a wonderful country for our children and grandchildren to live in. Don’t blame the liberals if we let them do it.

I use the word "you" to refer to the majority of people in this country as a whole. Not any one person on this forum.

I could add a bit more but don't need to get graphic , I started talking about this when Bill Clinton was sworn in . Let me give you a tip that you probably already know . By the time you talk about ''IT' is coming don't deceive yourself and others...................'IT' is already there . I agree with Voice of Reason's post .

The BSA sold itself out over greed of corporate dollars!

I regret starting to read this thread. How is this discussion even appropriate for this Forum?

And don't bother to answer. I won't be back here.

LDB415 wrote:Perhaps the problem is "protected class" aka preferred/preferential treatment. Perhaps the answer is doing away with all "protected classes" and returning to all men are created equal. Nobody is required to agree with or support anyone else's choices but no one is penalized for disagreeing either.

Why do "protected classes" exist? Because at one point in time, that class of people needed protection due well documented bias and or discrimination. I'd submit that the best way to avoid creating a protected class is to make sure those biases and discrimination don't - especially not our system of government and laws. Then the courts have nothing to protect. Gay "marriage" is an excellent example - had we given them the the same rights in terms of property and taxation, there it'd be awful hard to get behind adjusting the concept of "marriage".

I like to say it's like unions. Industries that got unions probably deserved them at one time. But decades later the union has such a leg up on industry that it's the union crushing industry, not the other way around.

As we chose not to prevent the situation that caused protection of the class, the next question is then: At what point does the class no longer require protection? That one is a bit harder to answer.

oohrah wrote:I regret starting to read this thread. How is this discussion even appropriate for this Forum?

And don't bother to answer. I won't be back here.

Could you at least enlighten us as to what you find objectionable about the discussion?

Otherwise, well, bye.

Isn't "General - Off Topic" meant for anything and everything? In that case isn't this thread just as appropriate as any other?

Cedar Park Dad wrote:GSA was declining as well when we finally hung up the troop. Data suggests that community organizations (including churches) are declining annually. I blame the fluoride in the water. thats why I only drink distilled water and pure grain alcohol.

[subtle movie reference]Do women sense your power? Do you deny them your essence? [/subtle movie reference]

cb1000rider wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: So what we are left with is this: We either trust that the courts are impartial, or we don't, because no amount of stalinist oversight will force impartiality. What makes the state think that a judge who no longer participates in scouting or supports it, still doesn't hold his scouting oath to be a sacred thing? What makes the state think that this judge still won't let his former associations color his thinking?

They cannot even remotely guarantee that. The only guarantee they can have is to create a three judge panel of women like Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan to approve all judicial appointments going forward......and that is a terrifying thought. So the only alternative we can have is to trust the current system, and not hector judges about their past associations.

Could you trust a judge that's a KKK member to rule on an issue of race based discrimination? I couldn't..
Could you trust a judge whose kids are involved in the BSA to rule on an issue of sexual orientation based discrimination? I can see that as possible.

Courts are not impartial. Especially SCOTUS. That's why the political appointments are so important.

It's human nature to be partial. And like VM - I absolutely rail against those who would make an major issue out of what private individuals do with their personal time while they ignore the "big points" of the good book, I have zero affirmation for people who need to throw their particular brand of minority issue in our faces.

You might have missed it, where I said:

The fact is, we could go on and on and on, and without much skull sweat, we could come up with a list of hundreds possibilities in which the personal views of the judge are a potentially at conflict with the interests of the persons who appear before them. The BSA issue is no different than those, because at their core, ALL of these issues are politicized.

IF this issue really is important - the issue of a judge who supports BSA - then all the issues I listed above are EQUALLY important, and the state can therefore demand that all judges resign their political affiliations and stop voting. Otherwise, the state is picking winners and losers - violating the Constitution with one hand, and upholding it with the other......and that is not justice.

THIS issue isn't about how a private organization chooses to set its standards, it is about whether or not a state can require a state employee to abandon membership in or support of private organizations which the state argues would impede that employee's ability to provide an impartial judicial atmosphere. While I don't think that the state should be doing this, I DO think that the concept has some validity.......not just for LGBT, but for all kinds of people in all kinds of situations.

So no, I could not trust a judge who was a member of the KKK (nor could I trust a democrat senator who was, either) If I were a black defendant, I would expect my lawyer to know something about the judge's bio, and to demand a recusal in any trial involving me as a defendant. Ditto if I were a gay man, and the judge had been a member of or supported BSA. On the other hand, if I were a CHL charged in a self-defense shooting, I would expect my lawyer to demand a recusal of any judge who was not a member of NRA. If I were a father in a custody case, I would insist on a judge who was a single father.

Individually, each of these has merit. Collectively, they add up to a breakdown of the judicial system. IF we start sniping at one judge because of his current or past associations, well, then we have to snipe at all of them, because any one of them could be prejudiced against a given defendant before his/her court, for a myriad of reasons. Consequently, either all must be trusted, or none can be trusted.

That was my point.