About those anti-aviatoin newsgroups

"Margy Natalie" wrote in message ...


Men are not excluded from the 99s. I'm sure if you want to pony up the
membership fee they would be glad to take it and welcome you to their meetings.

Voting membership is reserved to woman who hold pilot certificates. They have a
FWP non-voting status for woman who are not yet licensed.

"Gary L. Drescher" wrote in message
news:_tr0b.199730$o%2.92520@sccrnsc02...
| "C J Campbell" wrote in message
| ...
| Well, I don't know about 'egregious,' but I do not intentionally
misquote
| you or anybody else.
|
| I never said it was intentional or that you're lying. I think you
| reflexively fabricate convenient facts, and then turn around and sincerely
| believe your own fabrications. For instance, I'd bet you actually believe
| your claim that there are many gay-rights groups that exclude straight
| members and meet in public schools, despite your apparently having never
| encountered even a single example.
|
| --Gary


Broward County in Florida is debating right now whether to allow Boy Scouts
to continue to meet in their schools. "No matter what they decide, Till and
some board members said they do not plan to back off exactly what the Scouts
challenged in federal court this year: the district's insistence that some
groups meeting in schools not discriminate based on sexual orientation." I
see that as saying that it is OK for some groups to discriminate, but not
others. Perhaps you can ask Broward County if there really are other groups
that discriminate based on sexual orientation, and why it is tolerable for
them to do it but not the Boy Scouts.

The assault has the South Florida Council, Boy Scouts of America, fearing
for the very survival of its programs. "If you're not allowed to meet in
public schools, if you're not allowed to use city facilities, if you're not
allowed to raise money, it's kind of tough to have a program for children,"
said Jeffrie Herrmann, Scout executive.

You might want to ask some of your gay friends just how far they are willing
to go to destroy the Boy Scouts. If they are not allowed to meet in public
schools (as in South Florida) or in fire stations (as in Chicago), how long
will it be before they are not allowed to meet in recreation centers in
public parks? And from there, how long will it be that they will not be
allowed in the public parks at all?

"C J Campbell" wrote in message

Broward County in Florida is debating right now whether to allow Boy Scouts
to continue to meet in their schools.

Crikes around here we have Churches renting space in the schools on the weekend.
It's one of the most cost-effective venues for them. Local court decisions said that
if you're going to allow entities to rent the facility you can't discriminate against churches.

C J Campbell wrote:


You might want to ask some of your gay friends just how far they are willing
to go to destroy the Boy Scouts. If they are not allowed to meet in public
schools (as in South Florida) or in fire stations (as in Chicago), how long
will it be before they are not allowed to meet in recreation centers in
public parks? And from there, how long will it be that they will not be
allowed in the public parks at all?

As a straight woman and mother I don't have any problem with the BSA destroying
itself by having a policy that bans a group of children from becoming or staying
members. It's hard enough for a kid to come to grips with being gay, but then
to be thrown out of a social group where he has been a member for years because
of it is awful. I don't think any group should be allowed to harm children in
this way. When a kid is 7 they usually don't think much about sexual
orientation, but that same cute little cub scout at 13 or 15 might know full
well he is gay. Now, should he lie, hide who he is, or get thrown out of a
group he's belonged to for 8 years. Tough choice for a kid! BTW my daughter
was a girl scout, but I didn't look into boy scouts for my son because I was not
comfortable having my son surrounded by a group of bigots.

Margy

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net...
The exact words are, "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". The intent is
clearly to prevent the US Congress from making a law establishing a
national
religion or any law prohibiting the free exercise of one's religion.

Seems to me "respecting an establishment of religion" refers to laws based
on religion, not the establishment of a national religion. If they wanted
to limit it to prohibiting only the establishment of a national religion,
they would have written "THE establishment of A NATIONAL religion", not "an
establishment of religion".

Don't worry though...I know that you'll disagree 'til you're blue in the
face. So feel free to disagree once again. Don't bother me none. There is
ample interpretive precedent that disagrees with you, and I have no need to
engage in a futile effort to change your mind.

Pete

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net...
Which bills say that? I've seen nothing that remotely suggests that.

No, of course you haven't. That's because you live in your own special
world, where things mean only what you'd like them to mean.

Suffice to say, the rest of us HAVE seen exactly what I said we've seen.

Pete

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Gary L. Drescher" wrote in message
news:_tr0b.199730$o%2.92520@sccrnsc02...
| "C J Campbell" wrote in message
| ...
| Well, I don't know about 'egregious,' but I do not intentionally
misquote
| you or anybody else.
|
| I never said it was intentional or that you're lying. I think you
| reflexively fabricate convenient facts, and then turn around and
sincerely
| believe your own fabrications. For instance, I'd bet you actually
believe
| your claim that there are many gay-rights groups that exclude straight
| members and meet in public schools, despite your apparently having never
| encountered even a single example.
|
| --Gary


Broward County in Florida is debating right now whether to allow Boy
Scouts
to continue to meet in their schools. "No matter what they decide, Till
and
some board members said they do not plan to back off exactly what the
Scouts
challenged in federal court this year: the district's insistence that some
groups meeting in schools not discriminate based on sexual orientation." I
see that as saying that it is OK for some groups to discriminate, but not
others. Perhaps you can ask Broward County if there really are other
groups
that discriminate based on sexual orientation, and why it is tolerable for
them to do it but not the Boy Scouts.

CJ, this illustrates why it is a good thing to cite sources for your claims.
Now that you have done so, it is apparent that you have simply
*misunderstood* what you read. In fact, you got it exactly backwards. Look
again please. What Till is quoted as saying is that the board will NOT BACK
OFF FROM INSISTING that groups meeting in schools must NOT discriminate
based on sexual orientation. The phrase "some groups" obviously refers to
the fact that *only some* school-meeting groups (namely, the Scouts) have
ever even *tried* to discriminate based on sexual orientation; it is not a
declaration that it would be OK for some other groups to so discriminate!
And *even given* your tortured misreading, the statement *still* would not
remotely attest to the actual existence of any gay-rights group that did
discriminate in that manner.

So *that* was your basis for claiming that many gay-rights groups meet in
public schools and exclude straight members?

--Gary

"Margy Natalie" wrote in message
...
Geez, this sounds like the same arguement we had a church when we hired a
minister. Hoards of gays would flock to the church because she was there.
Exactly ONE gay person joined the church because of her. The rest of the
congregation nick-named her "the hoard". Everyone had lots of fun with
it.

I know it's way off topic, but that's never happened before ;-),

Margy

This reminds me of an experience that I had:
My wife and I used to attend a Unitarian church. The pastor there gave
awesome sermons, all of which would be welcome in any church or synagogue
anywhere. He left after a year and his understudy took over while a new
pastor was being secured. She really liked to have guest "sermonizers" which
I thought was cool. Well, it seemed that the only people who would get up
and talk were people with various political agendas. They would go on for 20
minutes or more talking about population control, environmental concerns,
you name it. The good feeling that we used to have when we left the church
was gone.

I figured that eventually that the political diatribes would peter out, but
then the new minister turned out to be gay. Not a problem until a good half
of his sermons was about being gay or how awful Jesse Helms is. I fully
expected him to burn ol' Jesse in effigy, that's how bad it was. The last
service I went to had us holding hands and singing "We shall overcome". This
dude essentially hijacked a church to hold gay rights rallies. Not my cup of
tea for a Sunday morning.

I'm not anti-gay, but I have to draw the line at lame-o gay ministers
though.

-Trent
PP-ASEL

Peter Duniho wrote:


Seems to me "respecting an establishment of religion" refers to laws based
on religion, not the establishment of a national religion. If they wanted
to limit it to prohibiting only the establishment of a national religion,
they would have written "THE establishment of A NATIONAL religion", not "an
establishment of religion".

You'd think that. England had/has a national religion. We wanted to
avoid that. It could have been written a whole lot clearer, just like
the second ammendment could have been written clearer, even though the
intent is obvious. I suspect they thought it was plenty clear at the
time they wrote and approved it.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
If they wanted
to limit it to prohibiting only the establishment of a national religion,
they would have written "THE establishment of A NATIONAL religion", not "an
establishment of religion".

National would be redundant. Establishment doesn't mean "creation" in this
context, it means giving official recognition by the government. Since the constitution
lays out the powers and limitations of the NATIONAL government, that's pretty much
what they mean.