Constitution Party Issues Statement on Religious Liberty and the Boy Scouts

The following was posted on the Constitution Party’s Facebook page on June 13, 2013:

In response to a comment that the Boy Scouts should be free to make their own rules and choose their own leadership, we wholeheartedly agree as evidenced in the plank on Religious Liberty:

Article I of the Bill of Rights reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Our Constitution grants no authority to the federal government either to grant or deny the religious expressions of the people in any place. Both the First and Tenth Amendments forbid such tyranny.

We call upon all branches of government to cease their attacks on the religious liberties of the people and the states, regardless of the forum in which these liberties are exercised.

We assert that any form of taxation on churches and other religious organizations is a direct and dangerous step toward state control of the church. Such intrusion is prohibited by the Constitution and must be halted.

We assert that private organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America, can determine their own membership, volunteers, and employment based on their oaths and creeds.

(The following is the opinion of the national Communications Director Karen Murray, and is NOT an official statement of the Constitution Party.)

Note: The recent decision by the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to allow boys who consider themselves to be homosexual is up to the BSA. However, most Constitution Party supporters believe what Noah Webster said, “The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitution and laws… All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts in the Bible.” They also believe the words of John Adams when he said, “”We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams is a signer of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and our second President.

Yes, the BSA has the right of association with whomever they please, as do we all. If a group or organization or individual cannot support this decision in good conscience they have the unalienable right to dis-associate from the BSA. Many Constitution Party supporters have served as leaders or were raised in the Scouting tradition. They also have the unalienable right to be saddened at what they see as a violation of the Scout Oath:

On my honor, I will do my best To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight.

The future holds the answer. Our children shall reap the consequences of our choices, whether they be good or evil. In the meantime, the Constitution Party absolutely upholds the right of the BSA to associate with whomever they choose. We also affirm the right of individuals and organizations to dis-associate with the BSA should they choose to do so. If we opposed the right of association, we would cease to be the Constitution Party, and we might as well accept the demise of the American Constitutional Republic. But as we are eternal optimists, we will continue to support religious liberty in America, under the Constitution, no matter who may disagree with us.

82 thoughts on “Constitution Party Issues Statement on Religious Liberty and the Boy Scouts

  1. Dr. Jimmy Rustles

    So basically “we support free association but let the record reflect that we hate fags.”

  2. Jill Pyeatt

    I took my son to Scouts until he started high school and found too much else to do. I suspect that there was a lot of financial pressure on the Boy Scouts of America. Parents regularly got letters from the local council telling us how desperately they needed donations, and I regularly wrote back that I would pay dues and fees associated with my son’s scouting activities, but I wouldn’t give any more money until they chose to allow gay kids. I know many parents did that–probably half the parents in our troop.

  3. Jill Pyeatt

    I am of the opinion that around 10 % of our population is homosexual. That represents a lot of kids, and a lot of parents.

  4. Jared King

    Now correct me if I’m wrong, because I could be very well misinformed, but aren’t the Boy Scouts funded by tax payer dollars?

    If so, that means those who support gay rights have to pay money to an organization they don’t care for, and even gay people themselves have to pay money to organization that basically hates their guts.

    The Boy Scouts have a right to be bigots. Once they become a private organization. Then we can start talking about “religious liberty”.

  5. Daddyfatsax

    Don’t I pay property taxes that go to public schooling? I don’t have kids…where is my standing?

  6. Jill Pyeatt

    I think Boy Scouts is privately funded. I don’t know that they receive tax dollars.

  7. Green Party

    Boyscouts get the tax exempt status, which was going to be stripped from them unless they allowed. Gay scouts. They file as a “nonprofit”.

  8. Andy

    “Jill Pyeatt // Jun 14, 2013 at 1:57 pm

    I am of the opinion that around 10 % of our population is homosexual.”

    Every figure that I’ve heard is lower than that, as in more like 1-3%.

  9. Jill Pyeatt

    In Los Angeles County, the figure is closer to 10 percent, I guarantee you. Admittedly LA. Is a unique community, but I’m willing to bet other communities have as high a recent, but people just don’t talk about it .

  10. Andy

    “Jill Pyeatt // Jun 14, 2013 at 6:02 pm

    In Los Angeles County, the figure is closer to 10 percent, I guarantee you. Admittedly LA. Is a unique community, but I’m willing to bet other communities have as high a recent, but people just don’t talk about it .”

    Los Angeles is a huge county. It is the most populated county in the USA with close to 10 million people. There are parts of Los Angeles county that have lots of gay people, like West Hollywood. West Hollywood may well have 10% or more of the population being gay, but this is not a reflection of the entire county, nor is it a reflection of the entire country.

    I think that your figure of 10% of the US population being gay is not accurate. I suspect that the real figure is in the 1-3% of the population range.

  11. Andy

    I posted this video on another thread, but since the topic has come up, I’ll post it again here.

    Dave Champion: Gay Marriage – Facts and Myths

  12. langa

    Regarding the percentage of the population that is gay, I have heard various statistics, but I believe the 3% figure refers to those that are openly gay, while the 10% is an estimate (perhaps accurate, perhaps not) of the total gay population, including those who are still in the closet (which, even today, is almost certainly more than half of the total number).

  13. Andy

    “langa // Jun 14, 2013 at 8:02 pm

    Regarding the percentage of the population that is gay, I have heard various statistics, but I believe the 3% figure refers to those that are openly gay, while the 10% is an estimate (perhaps accurate, perhaps not) of the total gay population, including those who are still in the closet”

    I find the 10% figure as a national average hard to believe.

  14. Thomas L. Knapp

    IIRC, the 10% figure was from the Kinsey studies, and represented the percentage not just of males who considered themselves homosexual, but who admitted to having had a homosexual encounter or even a homosexual fantasy.

    I’ve never really seen why the percentage is important, though. I’m less worried about how many people might be non-heterosexually oriented than I am about how many people subscribe to the evil, violent, anti-American doctrines of the Constitution Party. There’s really no comparison between a dude who might try to pick me up at a bar on one hand, and a murderous satanic lunatic like Grundmann or Hood seeking political power on the other.

  15. Andy

    “Thomas L. Knapp // Jun 14, 2013 at 8:48 pm

    IIRC, the 10% figure was from the Kinsey studies,”

    That study does not sound accurate to me.

    “I’ve never really seen why the percentage is important, though. ”

    The percentage is not important, because it comes down to individual rights. .0001% of a given population could be gay, yet they should still have the same individual rights as everyone else. The “tyranny of the majority” should not lead to trampling on the rights of those who engage in voluntary activities, even if some conservatives find it to be offensive (or “politically incorrect”).

  16. langa

    I’m less worried about how many people might be non-heterosexually oriented than I am about how many people subscribe to the evil, violent, anti-American doctrines of the Constitution Party. There’s really no comparison between a dude who might try to pick me up at a bar on one hand, and a murderous satanic lunatic like Grundmann or Hood seeking political power on the other.

    I see no real reason to worry about either of them, given that the extremist positions of certain CP wackos have virtually no appeal to anyone except for their fellow religious fanatics, most of whom are older people.

    In fact, the trend is really going in the opposite direction, with many young people rejecting Christianity because they perceive it as too judgmental and intolerant. Obviously, the (hilarious) rantings of Hood and his ilk will only strengthen that perception. So, far from being any sort of threat to the gay movement, Hood is actually more of an (unintentional) ally to it.

  17. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Knapp – A) The Kinsey study was conducted on a prison population by a degenerate who fashioned the study to produce the intended results – that the pathology of homosexuality was far more widespread than it is; here with 2 to 3% of the population being afflicted as compared to the 10% lie which is commonly used by the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement to advance their pathology. Dr. Judith Reisman has produced a great volume of material exposing the corruption and lies of Kinsey.

    B) The ” satanic lunatics ” of your definition are the Founding Fathers of the nation and the foundation of western civilization; true Christians who fight for the moral foundations of our nation and of civilization itself. It is only in our time that moral mutants like yourself have openly worked to advance the pathology of homosexuality and especially the once unthinkable idea that homosexuality should be taught to children – something which only monsters such as yourself, Jill P., and all too many other degenerates of our time will endorse.

    Riley and I actually represent the majority of history and civilization throughout time up until this moment when a new sub-human species, spawned by and in allegiance to The Enemy of God, has emerged which will actually sacrifice the children of our nation and the world as a whole to sodomites.

    Whether you can sodomize children for generations to come is, still, open to debate. That you and your fellow attackers will answer for your evil to The Creator is not open to debate.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. an ” Omega Man ” who hears the screeches, at IPR and so many other places, of the moral degenerates – the undead – that the children of America be delivered to their attackers and soul killers

  18. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Knapp – I forgot to ask – of course you will define the ” evil, violent, anti-American doctrines of the Constitution Party.”

    As compared to just flapping your jaws as you usually do.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. standing firm under a blizzard of B.S. from the enemies of God and humanity

  19. Thomas L. Knapp

    DJG @ 23,

    “The Kinsey study was conducted on a prison population by a degenerate who fashioned the study to produce the intended results”

    Yes, there were a number of methodological problems with Kinsey’s work, one of which (broadening the definition of “homosexual” beyond credibility) I pointed out.

    “The ‘satanic lunatics’ of your definition are the Founding Fathers of the nation”

    Nice try, but George Washington was a deist freemason who averred that “the United States is in no sense a Christian nation;” Ben Franklin was a member of the Hellfire Club, an English society which held Black Masses for entertainment; and the version of the Bible that unitarian Thomas Jefferson put together ended with Jesus’ death.

    Of the few “founding fathers” who WERE reasonably mainstream Christians, none would recognize the demonic, voodoo-infused swill you and your ilk preach as “Christianity.”

    “the once unthinkable idea that homosexuality should be taught to children – something which only monsters such as yourself, Jill P., and all too many other degenerates of our time will endorse.”

    You are a lying sack of shit. I have never endorsed any such thing.

    “I forgot to ask – of course you will define the ‘evil, violent, anti-American doctrines of the Constitution Party.'”

    I’ve mentioned a number of them in the past, but just for starters:

    1) The Constitution Party defines speech it doesn’t like as “pornography,” ignoring the 1st Amendment while claiming to support the US Constitution.

    2) The Constitution Party ignores the clear and unambiguous constitutional prohibition on any federal regulation of immigration whatsoever, supporting unconstitutional immigration regulation while claiming to support the Constitution.

    3) The Constitution Party pretends that the US was created as a “Christian nation,” when the Constitution itself implies otherwise, and when the Treaty of Tripoli — treaties being co-equal with the Constitution as “Supreme Law of the Land” — specifically claims exactly the opposite.

    There’s nothing very American, nor anything very constitutional, not anything plausibly falling under the category of Christianity, about the “Constitution Party.” It’s just another evil death cult, and not a particularly interesting one.

  20. Jill Pyeatt

    I have never endorsed homosexuality for kids, either, yet the hateful Dr Grundmann throws my name out like I’m a Satan worshipper as often as he can. For over two months I have utterly ignored “Madman” Grundmann, hoping he would go away and stop ragging me, yet all his comments here say essentially the same thing. For some reason, we allow him to insult the same people over and over again. He hasn’t convinced anyone of anything, and is apparently too dense to get that all we do is make fun of him here. Clearly ignoring him isn’t working. Like a bad case of herpes, he keeps showing up.

    And “Foulmouth” Grundmann keeps lumping me in with Cody, like we’re best friends. I’ve never met Cody and probably only share a few views with him. He’s certainly nice enough and is certainly a smart young man, but Grundmann somehow lumps as together. Huh? He just sees the world however he wants to, I guess. He is one of the three most maddening people I’ve ever run across.

  21. Trent Hill

    There was not a great deal of outside pressure on the Scouts. Their longtime corporate funding partners dried up, sure, although I’m not sure one could call that “outside pressure”. Additionally, many of the local United Way groups stopped giving–although again I’d say that I’m not sure that counts as “outside” pressure.

    What changed this policy was internal pressure. Scouts for Equality was instrumental in that. I noticed Dale already mentioned it. I am a Life Scout, Order of the Arrow member, and was a Troop Leader, too. I was in Boy Scouts for virtually my entire life up until the point I turned 18—and then I joined Venture Crew for 2-3 years. During that time I knew at least one homosexual scout who was discriminated against and therefore remained in the closet.

    BSA changed their policy because 60%+ of the delegates voted to do so. This is because since the “vs. Dale” decision, BSA had lost over a million members and was hemorrhaging all the time. They’ll lose some more in the form of Mormons, Baptists, Pentecostals, and a few other organizing troops disappearing, but on the whole they are now set up for positive growth.

    The shameful thing about this is that there has always been and will always be homosexual kids in Scouting. Regardless of what you think about that–why would you want to take Scouting from them?

    Just to clear up the disagreement above: Scouting does not receive tax dollars, except in the form of preferential treatment at national parks and such.

  22. Trent Hill

    BTW: Thus far no major religious denomination (churches make up 70% of sponsoring groups, which is where individual troops meet and receive support/recruiting) has decided to pull support over this. The LDS came out and said they were ok with it, most other major denominations either expressed support or similar neutrality as the LDS, with only the Southern Baptist Convention actively opposing the change in policy and publicly condemning it. Even then, though, they did not ban churches from involvement with BSA, or even suggest such a move.

    I do know, however, that many churches will stop sponsoring. I know 6 sponsoring-churches (and their troops) in Pensacola will be disbanding in December because of this policy change. I havent heard of any others, but i’m sure there will be more.

  23. Mom of Boys

    BSA is a private organization with a national charter and a congressional charter. The congressional charter allows BSA to be the only SCOUTING movement for youth in America. That is wrong. The conflict in BSA would not happen if another group were allowed the opportunity to make a SCOUTING program. BSA did not invent scouting. Baden-Powell founded the effort. His work Scouting for Boys is in the public domain and groups all over the world have used it. The United States government has chosen to discriminate against the minority by creating a huge monopoly for SCOUTERS in the USA. Regardless of who the minority is, Scouting should not be reserved to only BSA. ONLY BSA can have a scouting organization and use the words scout, scoutcraft and scouting; that is wrong and the government is restricting liberty on this one. That is WRONG and unlawful and AGAINST the constitution of our country.
    Check the laws. This is wrong.
    BSA should be able to retain their specific program and their specific insignia but much of what they used began with Baden-Powell and is in the public domain.
    ONLY in America do parents and youth have no other option for Scouting or Scouts.
    Other groups have to name themselves other names and that teaches dishonesty.

    Congressional Party listen up – BSA and the US Congress are limiting the rights and privileges of Americans who want to be in both traditional and non-traditional scouting efforts.

    That is unconstitutional. So please don’t support this. Looks at the crazy laws and the created monopoly that benefits only BSA. BSA is all over the place. In less than a year, they have gone back and forth on their policies. They can do all of this because no one else is ALLOWED to be scouts IN AMERICA. For the SAKE of the people, this should STOP.

  24. Mark Seidenberg

    Jill Pyeatt at Post # 26

    This is nothing new on Don Grundmann. Until
    September 2, 2008, Dr. Don Grundmann was on
    the State Central Committee of the American
    Independent Party of California. In 2008 he was
    removed as an Area Director by then State Chairman, Ed Noonan. He was replaced as Alameda County Chairman of the AIP by Patrick
    Colglazier. Therefore he as of September 3, 2008
    held no office with the AIP.

    Don Grundmann walk out of the 2008 State Convention caused a 100% vote at the Convention for the nomination of the ticket of
    Dr. Alan Keyes/Dr. Wiley Drake for POTUS/VPOTUS.

    I was the Chairman of the AIP Convention in
    Sacramento, CA when Don Grundmann did that
    walk out. When he left the convention the delegates gave an applause. He was calling the
    delegates all kinds of bad names, because he could get no one to place his name in nomination
    for POTUS.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg

  25. Paulie

    10% sounds low to me, if anything.

    I think that’s a lot higher when we count bisexuals and people who don’t bring themselves to admit it as well as those with homosexual or bisexual fantasies that they don’t act out.

    Among women it is much more socially acceptable to be bisexual and most women I have talked to have admitted having lesbian experiences and/or desires at some point, even though most of them are primarily straight. With men it is more of a stigma, so fewer men admit to it, but it’s probably just as prevalent.

    People who have a hard time believing that the percentage is that high are mostly confusing openly homosexual with homosexual and just have no clue how many of the people they assume are totally straight are not.

    And the percentage is just as high in conservative areas as in liberal ones, the difference being only in how many homosexuals are out of the closet.

    Also, as people have said above, the percentage does not matter. Even if it was very small it would not change the basic facts about discrimination, acceptance, bigotry and equality before the law.

    Yes, the Boy Scouts should be free to exercise bigotry, and yes, they should be denied tax exempt privileges if they choose to do so. They should also be shamed, ostracized and publicly pressured into a full equality position by voluntary means. No different than if they discriminated by “race,” religion, etc.

  26. Andy

    “Paulie // Jun 16, 2013 at 11:18 am

    10% sounds low to me, if anything.”

    Oh come off it. This is complete bullshit. There is no way that anything close to 1 out of 10 people being gay is accurate. The real percentage is lower than that. 1-3%, and even 3% may be too high of a figure.

  27. Don J. Grundmann, D.C.

    Paulie @ # 32 – You do such an excellent job of presenting all of the arguments which the child molestors will use in the next phase of the attack upon the nation by the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement after pervert marriage is legalized.

    Opposed to sodomizing children?

    Well then you are obviously ” bigoted,” believe in ” discrimination,” and are against ” acceptance ” and ” equality.”

    And of course you will advocate that any opponents to sodomizing children should be ” shamed, ostracized, and publically pressured.”

    Hence I suggest that the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement should recognize you for all of the hard work which you will have done for them to achieve their goals. The word ” sodomy ” should be changed to ” paulie ” as in – The molestor ( excuse me, the bigoted against and discriminated against ” lover ” of the child ) ” paulied ” the young boy.

    Yes, paulie. Your yoemans work to aid child sodomizers should not go unrewarded.

    Just as with Jill P. every molestor/sodomizer will owe you a debt of gratitude for changing the cultural conditions so that all of those ” bigoted ” obstacles to NAMBLA will be removed.

    Certainly I will work to ensure that you, Jill P., and every other rodent who is working for the mass molestation of children will receive appropriate acknowledgement of your special service to their cause.

    Don J. Grundmann, D.C. chronicler of the death of men in our nation and their replacement by males/femen ( wimps ) who will do the previously unthinkable actions of supporting the mass molestation of the children of the nation

  28. Jared King

    It’s amazing how this Grundmann fellow comes up with a new title every post, “chronicler of the death of men” being my new favorite.

    Yet I’ve never seen a man so obsessed with delusions and fantasies of child molestation in my life. Very disturbing.

  29. paulie

    Oh come off it. This is complete bullshit. There is no way that anything close to 1 out of 10 people being gay is accurate. The real percentage is lower than that. 1-3%, and even 3% may be too high of a figure.

    You are confusing openly homosexual with homosexual (most are in the closet). Also, all the figures don’t figure that many people are bisexual to some degree or have bisexual fantasies they don’t act on. But yes, I would guess that with closet homosexuals included, the percentage that are primarily homosexual and do act on it is at least 10% or maybe somewhat higher, say 15%. Many of them do have a heterosexual relationship on the side for “cover” though.

    It’s amazing how this Grundmann fellow comes up with a new title every post, “chronicler of the death of men” being my new favorite.

    Yet I’ve never seen a man so obsessed with delusions and fantasies of child molestation in my life. Very disturbing.

    Exactly…

  30. Cody Quirk

    #35- Don’s also single, has no children of his own, and lives with his mother.

    I am not joking.

  31. paulie

    Hence I suggest that the Homosexual/Sodomy Movement should recognize you for all of the hard work which you will have done for them to achieve their goals. The word ” sodomy ” should be changed to ” paulie ”

    Yeah, you go ahead and work on that Don. Meanwhile as Sam Kress pointed out….

    So-do-my:

    So do my neighbors
    So do my friends
    So do my parents
    So do my kids
    So do my pets
    So do my siblings
    So do my co-workers
    So my teachers
    So do my preachers
    So do my politicians
    So do my lovers

    And last but not least

    So do my holier than thou religious hypocrite acquaintances…

  32. langa

    Yes, the Boy Scouts should be free to exercise bigotry, and yes, they should be denied tax exempt privileges if they choose to do so.

    Being exempt from taxation is not a “privilege”, it’s a right, which every person should enjoy.

    What you’re advocating is basically a tax on discrimination. I don’t see how that’s any different than Holtz with his vast array of new “libertarian” tax proposals.

    Any time you argue that someone should be forced to pay more in taxes, you are advocating for more theft. Period.

  33. Ad Hoc

    Unless the overall tax burden on everyone is being reduced, arguments about who is and who isn’t exempted from taxes are not arguments about more or less theft, only who gets robbed more and who gets robbed less as compared to each other. It doesn’t reduce theft to tax other people more so that you can be taxed less or not at all.

  34. langa

    So, if someone proposed that all whites should be exempt from the income tax, and their “tax burden” should be shifted to blacks, that position would be compatible with libertarianism?

  35. Ad Hoc

    So, if someone proposed that all whites should be exempt from the income tax, and their “tax burden” should be shifted to blacks, that position would be compatible with libertarianism?

    That would seem to be more analogous to your argument, actually. Taking away the whites’ tax exemption in this scenario would be fitting your definition “Any time you argue that someone should be forced to pay more in taxes, you are advocating for more theft.”

    So if you would then argue that whites be taxed equally to blacks, unless you were reducing the total tax to zero, you would be advocating that some people (whites) should be forced to pay more in taxes, thus “you are advocating for more theft, period”.

    No?

  36. Ad Hoc

    Or, in my more exact comparison based on policies of prejudice by an organization, if you approved that we took away the KKK’s tax exemption would you be “advocating for more theft, period”?

  37. A.J.

    Tax exemption for churches is part of the tax code. It has nothing directly to do with the Constitution.

  38. langa

    In spite of your attempts to twist my arguments, I challenge you to show me (on this thread or any other) where I have ever advocated that anyone be forced to pay higher taxes.

    My position is very simple. I am always in favor of lowering anyone’s taxes for any reason whatsoever, and I am never in favor of raising anyone’s taxes for any reason whatsoever.
    There are no exceptions, no matter how much I might like or dislike the individual or group in question. As far as I’m concerned, taxation is theft, and I’m against theft. Period.

  39. langa

    By the way, here’s a question for Paulie and all the other advocates of “legalized” gay marriage (as opposed to the correct libertarian position, that government should not be involved in licensing or regulating marriage in any way whatsoever).

    If you got your way and government began licensing and regulating gay marriages, how long would it take for you to start advocating that churches who refuse to perform gay marriage ceremonies should lose their tax exempt status?

    In other words, do you really believe in freedom of association as a fundamental right, or do you view it as a privilege that must be obtained by paying bribes to the government?

  40. Andy

    “langa // Jun 17, 2013 at 1:28 am

    By the way, here’s a question for Paulie and all the other advocates of ‘legalized’ gay marriage (as opposed to the correct libertarian position, that government should not be involved in licensing or regulating marriage in any way whatsoever).”

    I agree that the real libertarian position is to abolish all state marriage licenses, for straights and for gays. Having said that, how do you handle it in the meantime, where there is not enough support to abolish state marriage licensing. I think that the only fair thing to do is to give the gays the stupid marriage licenses too if they want them.

    “If you got your way and government began licensing and regulating gay marriages, how long would it take for you to start advocating that churches who refuse to perform gay marriage ceremonies should lose their tax exempt status?”

    I have not heard anyone advocate that any church should be forced to perform gay marriages, well unless you count people who were lying about this for their own personal gain and/or for propaganda reasons. I don’t think that anyone here would support forces churches to perform gay marriages.

  41. langa

    I don’t think that anyone here would support forces churches to perform gay marriages.

    Paulie supports forcing the Boy Scouts to either admit gay members or pay higher taxes. I don’t see how that’s any different than forcing churches to either perform gay marriage ceremonies or pay higher taxes. The logic is the same.

  42. Andy

    langa said: “Paulie supports forcing the Boy Scouts to either admit gay members or pay higher taxes.”

    I have not read what you are refering to (which I assume is posted above, but I have not read every post in this thread), but I suspect that you are misrepresenting is position.

  43. A.J.

    What is really theft is using everything the government provides without being willing to pay for it through taxation.

  44. langa

    Andy,

    Read Paulie’s comment @32, especially the sentence that says:

    “Yes, the Boy Scouts should be free to exercise bigotry, and yes, they should be denied tax exempt privileges if they choose to do so.”

    That doesn’t leave much room for misinterpretation.

  45. langa

    What is really theft is using everything the government provides without being willing to pay for it through taxation.

    Give me a break.

    If you’re sitting at a stop light and some guy runs up with a squeegee and cleans your windshield without your permission, and then demands to be paid $50 for his “service”, would you pay him? If not, I guess that makes you a thief, at least by your definition, right?

  46. paulie

    In spite of your attempts to twist my arguments

    I didn’t see your arguments twisted, just followed through logically.

    My position is very simple. I am always in favor of lowering anyone’s taxes for any reason whatsoever, and I am never in favor of raising anyone’s taxes for any reason whatsoever.

    When you give some people a tax exemption and don’t lower spending comesearutely, you are raising other people’s taxes.

  47. paulie

    If you got your way and government began licensing and regulating gay marriages,

    No if about it. Many states and countries are already doing so, with more added all the time.

    how long would it take for you to start advocating that churches who refuse to perform gay marriage ceremonies should lose their tax exempt status?

    Why should churches be given tax exempt status at all, regardless? If it meant government spending would be lower that would be great. Otherwise it just means higher taxes for everyone else.

    How about churches that won’t marry “interracial” couples, should they be tax exempt?

    In other words, do you really believe in freedom of association as a fundamental right, or do you view it as a privilege that must be obtained by paying bribes to the government?

    I believe in an end to all involuntary taxation and monopoly government. In the meantime until that becomes plausible, we are arguing over who gets taxed less and who gets taxed more as a result. You are not exempt from that if you are arguing that some people should get tax exemptions that others don’t get. If on the other hand you are arguing that everyone should be taxed less that is an argument for rate cuts, not tax exemptions. If you are arguing that it should be a 100% tax cut I agree with you, but we still have a question of what happens in the meantime.

  48. paulie

    Paulie supports forcing the Boy Scouts to either admit gay members or pay higher taxes.

    I also favor having the KKK admit blacks and Jews or pay higher taxes.

    Wait, no I don’t. I don’t think anyone should have to admit anyone OR pay any taxes.

    In the meantime, while I regard the whole argument to be unfortunate and no-win, I oppose having the government subsidize bigotry by taxing non-bigots at higher rates so that bigots can get a lower rate.

  49. paulie

    What is really theft is using everything the government provides without being willing to pay for it through taxation.

    That would only be true if taxation was voluntary and everyone was free to compete to provide any service the government provides.

  50. langa

    When you give some people a tax exemption and don’t lower spending comesearutely, you are raising other people’s taxes.

    Who said anything about not lowering spending? I would like to see government spending lowered as much as possible, ideally to $0.00.

    How about churches that won’t marry “interracial” couples, should they be tax exempt?

    How many times do I have to say it? Everyone who can get a tax exemption should do so, just as everyone who can get away with cheating on their taxes should do so. I’m never going to blame anyone for trying to protect themselves against theft, and I’m never going to advocate that they not be allowed to do so.

    I believe in an end to all involuntary taxation and monopoly government.

    Well, at least we agree on something, although it seems you have a very strange way of trying to achieve the result that you supposedly desire. You say you want government to stop licensing and regulating marriages, yet you call for more government licensing and regulating of marriage. You say you want to end taxation, yet you call for new taxes to be imposed. I’m not sure how these sorts of moves get us any closer to no taxation and no government.

    In the meantime until that becomes plausible, we are arguing over who gets taxed less and who gets taxed more as a result.

    You may be, but I am not. I consider such arguments to be not only a waste of time, but immoral as well. If you want to spend your time trying to decide who is evil enough that they deserve to be robbed at gunpoint, that’s you business. Perhaps you could also decide which women are so evil that they deserve to be raped, or which children are so evil that they deserve to be abused. Personally, I don’t think anyone (no matter how much I might disagree with their personal views) deserves to be raped OR robbed at gunpoint.

  51. Thomas L. Knapp

    On the one hand, I favor 100% tax exemption, for everyone.

    On the other hand, if not everyone gets to be exempt from taxes, I’m not sure why the category “believes in an imaginary man in the sky and talks about him a lot” is specifically and meritoriously fit for exemption versus other categories.

  52. Trent Hill

    There is no way the gay population in the USA is 10%. People saying that are spending too much time in San Fran and Seattle and too little time in Alabama, Georgia, or Texas.

    Extensive studies have been done, 2-3% is the self-identified number. That might rise as high as 5-6% with in-the-closet folks, but that’s a very liberal estimate.

  53. langa

    I’ve spent virtually my entire life in rural Georgia, and I don’t think 10% is a crazy estimate. I’m not saying it’s necessarily accurate, but I don’t think it’s that far off. The closet is a lot bigger than many people seem to realize.

  54. Ad Hoc

    “On the one hand, I favor 100% tax exemption, for everyone.

    On the other hand, if not everyone gets to be exempt from taxes, I’m not sure why the category “believes in an imaginary man in the sky and talks about him a lot” is specifically and meritoriously fit for exemption versus other categories.”

    Exactly!

  55. Ad Hoc

    …And no less true if you happen to think the guy in the sky is for real.

    “I’ve spent virtually my entire life in rural Georgia, and I don’t think 10% is a crazy estimate. I’m not saying it’s necessarily accurate, but I don’t think it’s that far off. The closet is a lot bigger than many people seem to realize.”

    There langa is correct. I’ve spent plenty of time in rural, conservative and southern states. And yes, it most certainly is.

  56. Ad Hoc

    “Who said anything about not lowering spending? I would like to see government spending lowered as much as possible, ideally to $0.00.”

    So would I but that is not what was being discussed. What was being discussed was a tax exemption for some people and not others with no change in government spending involved. Government does not spend less just because they give tax exemptions to a few crony or favored organizations. They just tax other people more.

  57. Ad Hoc

    ” yet you call for more government licensing and regulating of marriage. ”

    So long as they are doing it at all, just as with taxes, they should not discriminate. What’s so hard to understand?

    It’s very much like in your example where blacks pay all the taxes and whites pay none, or only whites may marry other whites but no one else can get a government marriage. Would you consider such schemes an improvement over the present state of affairs? Why or why not?

  58. langa

    So long as they are doing it at all, just as with taxes, they should not discriminate. What’s so hard to understand?

    What’s so hard to understand is why you are so focused on what they should be doing “so long as they are doing it at all …” , while basically ignoring the main point, which is that they shouldn’t be doing it at all. That’s the point that libertarians should be focusing on. This fixation with “marriage equality” is really no different than Gary Johnson’s obsession with the “Fair” Tax, since both of those things are just superficial attempts to salvage an inherently flawed system.

    To put it another way, consider a hypothetical rapist, who only rapes black women. Now say that he offered to keep raping the same number of black women, while also raping an equal number of white women, so as not to discriminate. Would you consider his new pattern of behavior an improvement over his old one? Why or why not?

  59. paulie

    What’s so hard to understand is why you are so focused on what they should be doing “so long as they are doing it at all …” , while basically ignoring the main point, which is that they shouldn’t be doing it at all.

    Not ignoring it at all. Already said I agree with you, but the whole premise of defending or opposing tax exemptions which some people but not others get is that they are doing it and aren’t about to stop just yet. Once they stop doing it that whole question goes away and we agree. Thus, to any extent that we discuss who gets tax exemptions and who doesn’t, regardless of which side you take, we are working within that flawed framework – your side of the debate no less so than mine. We can agree that the premise is flawed, yes. That doesn’t all of a sudden transport us to the world where such questions are irrelevant. And clearly you don’t consider them irrelevant either, since you are actively engaging in that discussion.

    superficial attempts to salvage an inherently flawed system.

    Well, yeah, that’s what a lot of practical politics is, unfortunately. Perhaps we should not oppose any specific transgressions of the state because ultimately the state shouldn’t exist? Are we allowed to argue against war crimes and unconstitutional wars, or does that make us complicit in the existence of the military-industrial complex and a tax-funded military system? Maybe if we talk about some of the worst excesses of the drug war that means we are defending the drug war as a whole? Etc.

    Stomping our feet about our ultimate long term goals does not make the real world with is practical problems based on flawed premises go away. We still have to deal with it one way or the other.

    To put it another way, consider a hypothetical rapist, who only rapes black women. Now say that he offered to keep raping the same number of black women, while also raping an equal number of white women, so as not to discriminate.

    Inaccurate comparison. The state isn’t increasing or decreasing its spending based on who does or does not get tax exemptions, while in your example the amount of overall rape is a variable. Instead of throwing out deflections it would be better if you answered the original question which goes right towards your exact point.

  60. langa

    Well, yeah, that’s what a lot of practical politics is, unfortunately. Perhaps we should not oppose any specific transgressions of the state because ultimately the state shouldn’t exist? Are we allowed to argue against war crimes and unconstitutional wars, or does that make us complicit in the existence of the military-industrial complex and a tax-funded military system? Maybe if we talk about some of the worst excesses of the drug war that means we are defending the drug war as a whole? Etc.

    As I said, it’s a question of focus. I have heard self-described libertarians (including Gary Johnson) who, when asked about gay marriage, never once mentioned the idea that the government shouldn’t be involved in marriage at all. That should be the first words out of his mouth any time that subject is broached, and if he feels the need to add anything else, he should come back to the basic point, which is not that government is discriminating, but rather, that government is dictating the terms of private relationships, which is a total violation of freedom of association, freedom of contract, etc. The discrimination is beside the point.

    Inaccurate comparison. The state isn’t increasing or decreasing its spending based on who does or does not get tax exemptions, while in your example the amount of overall rape is a variable.

    Then feel free to change the analogy, so that he reduces the number of black women he rapes by half, and replaces them with white women.

    In any case, the point is that, once again, you’re focusing on the wrong thing. The problem with what this guy is doing isn’t that he’s discriminating, it’s that he’s a rapist! Focusing on the racial makeup of his victims just distracts us from the real issue, just as focusing on sexual orientation distracts us from the real problem with government control of marriage.

  61. paulie

    Can’t fault Johnson for that; as a politician running for office he was focusing on the issues that are actually at the forefront of the public debate as opposed to esoteric points that are well down the road in terms of being practically addressed. On the other hand, I hope that he does read up some more on those esoteric philosophical and long term issues.

    Perhaps you think that it’s irrelevant if the government were to only tax non-whites, or only allow whites to marry, or only prosecute non-whites for victimless crimes. I don’t think it’s irrelevant, and I think it is a separate problem, above and beyond the problem that it is doing those things to anyone.

    I’ll grant that this is a point on which libertarians can disagree.

  62. langa

    Can’t fault Johnson for that; as a politician running for office he was focusing on the issues that are actually at the forefront of the public debate as opposed to esoteric points that are well down the road in terms of being practically addressed.

    Ron Paul, when he was a politician running for office, virtually always made the point that government shouldn’t be involved in marriage at all.

    As for discrimination, I am personally opposed to it, and I do not practice it in my personal life. However, I believe that it is basically irrelevant to libertarian philosophy, which is concerned with freedom, rather than equality (aside from the fact that everyone is equally entitled to freedom, which is different than saying that if some people currently have more freedom than others, they should have their freedom reduced until it’s equal to that of everyone else).

  63. langa

    Perhaps you think that it’s irrelevant if the government were to only tax non-whites …

    I don’t think that it would be “irrelevant”, but I do think that the solution would be to stop taxing non-whites. If someone proposed to “solve” this problem by starting to tax whites at the same level, I could not support that proposal.

  64. paulie

    Ron Paul said a lot of things, including that he would have voted for DOMA if he had been in congress at that time.

    Some people have less freedom than others and should have more freedom. You can consider that unlibertarian if you wish.

  65. langa

    Some people have less freedom than others and should have more freedom. You can consider that unlibertarian if you wish.

    Please point out where I have ever said (or even implied) that giving anyone more freedom is unlibertarian. In fact, I have consistently maintained just the opposite.

  66. paulie

    @74 Again, two answers neither of which is analogous.

    “Stop taxing non whites” would be analogous to a tax rate cut or elimination of a tax, not a tax exemption for certain people and not others.

    “Raise other people’s taxes to be equivalent” seems to suggest that the people already paying a high tax would keep paying just as high a tax and the only thing that would change would be that others would pay just as high a tax as well. Again, not equivalent.

    No one is offering to raise or drop overall taxation here. So the question has to presume that taxes remain the same overall.

    In the analogy the choices are (for the sake of simplification we’ll pretend there are equal numbers of whites and non-whites):

    A) Cut the taxes of non-whites in half and impose the difference on whites

    B) Keep all of the same level of taxation on non-whites, keep not taxing whites at all.

    Do you have a preference between B and A and if so which and why?

    If you prefer you can change around which one is the status quo and which one is the proposed change.

  67. paulie

    Please point out where I have ever said (or even implied) that giving anyone more freedom is unlibertarian.

    When you end some people’s tax exemption that means other people’s taxes go down, thus giving them more freedom, unless overall taxation is increased.

  68. langa

    You are missing my whole point. I’m not buying into your assumption that taxes have to remain the same, just as I’m not buying into Johnson’s assumption that government has to continue to regulate marriage (by the way, you never explained the difference between your support for “marriage equality” and Johnson’s support for the Fair Tax).

    My entire point is that when we, as libertarians, accept these things as givens and then proceed to argue about who deserves to have their rights violated more, this is no different than accepting rape as a given, and proceeding to argued about who deserves to be raped. It’s not only pointless, but quite unseemly, as well.

    Rather, we should focus on convincing people that this is not the way that things have to be, and showing them that as long as they accept these things, they will never be free (or happy, since many people don’t seem to care much about freedom in the abstract).

    At the very least, if we’re going to advocate for partial measures, we should at least advocate for things that get us closer to our goal, rather than things that get us farther away (like “marriage equality”, which gets the government more involved in marriage, rather than less) or leave us running in place (like the Fair Tax, or your proposed discrimination tax, neither of which do anything to reduce the amount of total taxation).

  69. paulie

    I’m not buying into your assumption that taxes have to remain the same

    I make no such assumption. However, when you defend or oppose tax exemptions, you are implicitly making that assumption. Across the board tax cuts or tax raises or tax eliminations are categorically different from tax exemptions, which can otherwise be termed tax redistributions.

    Every argument you offer in favor of preserving tax exemptions suggests raising or cutting or eliminating some tax as one of the choices involved, but while those things may happen separately, they have nothing to do with the question of tax exemption per se. Thus, to discuss tax exemptions honestly, you have to assume overall taxes stay the same. That may or may not be true – they may, coincidentally, go up or down – but that is a completely separate question.

    just as I’m not buying into Johnson’s assumption that government has to continue to regulate marriage

    I explicitly said that I oppose government regulations of marriage as well as all involuntary taxation. That’s a completely separate issue from tax exemptions. When I say that the question of tax exemptions assumes overall taxes stay the same, I am merely saying that tax exemptions are a separate question from tax rates or overall taxation, not that we actually have to assume that taxes will actually stay the same. Do you honestly not understand this?

    I don’t know why you think Johnson assumes that government has to continue to regulate marriage. He simply doesn’t find the question to be a practical one to discuss as a politician running for office in the real world of today.

    As for the “fair” tax, it has a whole boatload of problems that I have discussed at length on past threads. It is in no way shape or form similar to marriage equality. They don’t even begin to compare. It is neither fair nor just a tax – the “prebate” is a whole new can of worms altogether, and I have more than a sneaking suspicion that we would end up with both the current taxes and the “fair” tax despite anything its proponents say or for most of them even intend.

    A “fair” tax double taxes the life savings of people who paid income tax all their lives when they finally spend it in retirement; hopefully you are not one of the people that thinks gay marriages somehow hurt straight marriages. And so on and on and on. Way beyond the scope of one comment.

    My entire point is that when we, as libertarians, accept these things as givens and then proceed to argue about who deserves to have their rights violated more, this is no different than accepting rape as a given, and proceeding to argued about who deserves to be raped. It’s not only pointless, but quite unseemly, as well.

    Which is exactly what you are doing when you defend tax exemptions, because that assumes that taxes exist, or else there is nothing to be exempt from – so the clean hands argument doesn’t wash here.

    And defending tax exemptions is also categorically different from defending tax evasion. One is would be victims trying to escape; the other is government as a matter of policy creating classes of people who are punished less and punishing other people more as a result.

    Rather, we should focus on convincing people that this is not the way that things have to be, and showing them that as long as they accept these things, they will never be free (or happy, since many people don’t seem to care much about freedom in the abstract).

    That’s not a rather; it’s a separate issue, and one we agree on.

    BTW marriage equality does not get government more involved in marriage. It is not equivalent to a “fair” tax, which is of course not fair. The fraudulent tax does not “leave us running in place,” it creates a whole host of new problems, unlike marriage equality.

    And you really should start answering questions, not just ignoring them and asking new ones, if you would like to continue discussion.

  70. langa

    Thus, to discuss tax exemptions honestly, you have to assume overall taxes stay the same.

    Do you really believe that if the government took away the BSA’s tax exemption, it would grant a new tax exemption to someone else? I find it much more likely that they would keep everyone else’s taxes the same, and just spend the extra money they get from the BSA. This is how governments typically behave. You seem to recognize this in the context of the “Fair” Tax, but not in the context of your proposed discrimination tax. Why would the two situations be any different?

    I don’t know why you think Johnson assumes that government has to continue to regulate marriage. He simply doesn’t find the question to be a practical one to discuss as a politician running for office in the real world of today.

    Yet Ron Paul, who has run much more successful campaigns than Johnson, brought up the issue frequently. When I pointed this out earlier, you deflected with a non sequitur about DOMA, which doesn’t address the point of the Ron Paul example, that it is possible to run a “practical” campaign without always abandoning principle in favor of glib soundbites.

    As for the “fair” tax, … It is in no way shape or form similar to marriage equality.

    As I already pointed out, they are very similar, as they are both “Band-Aid” solutions that do nothing to address the fundamental issues at hand.

    … hopefully you are not one of the people that thinks gay marriages somehow hurt straight marriages.

    No I don’t, but even if they did, it wouldn’t matter. Gay people have just as much right to freedom of association as straight people do.

    This brings me to another point. You seem to be insinuating that I am somehow opposed to gay marriage, but I assure you that is not the case. I fully support gays having the right to enter into any voluntary association that they choose, including marriage. However, I also (unlike you apparently) support the right of others to decide whether they want to recognize these marriages as legitimate, and it is the refusal to recognize this right that forms the crux of my opposition to the statist scheme that you call “marriage equality”.

    I have given examples of this in several past threads, but just to refresh your memory, consider the case of an employer who provides spousal benefits to his employees, or a bed and breakfast that wishes to offer a discount to newly married couples. Shouldn’t these people be free to decide what constitutes a “spouse” or a “marriage”? In other words, should they not also enjoy freedom of association? But under your scheme, if they chose to define these terms differently than the government dictates, you can bet your bottom dollar that they would be slapped with a discrimination suit, along with an injunction forcing them to accept the government’s definition of marriage. You may say you don’t support those types of suits, but they would be the inevitable outcome of your “marriage equality” scheme.

    BTW marriage equality does not get government more involved in marriage.

    Of course it does. It would lead to government issuing more marriage licenses, dictating the terms of more relationships (as in the examples I gave above), and so forth.

    I have asked you this before on other threads, but I don’t recall ever getting a good answer. How in the world would your “marriage equality” scheme get us one iota closer to getting government out of the marriage business entirely?

    If I recall correctly, the last time I asked you, you said something like: “Well, once you end the discrimination, it will be easier to end the whole system.” But that makes no sense.

    If you increased the penalty for possession of powder cocaine to make it just as harsh as the penalty for crack, you would be reducing discrimination, but you would not be one bit closer to ending the Drug War. In fact, you would be further away. How is your “marriage equality” scheme any different?

    And you really should start answering questions, not just ignoring them and asking new ones, if you would like to continue discussion.

    I have been trying to limit myself to what I considered the most important parts of your arguments, mainly for the sake of brevity. If I were to engage in point-by-point refutation of everything you wrote, and you did the same with me, each comment would soon look like a short novel. In fact, judging by these last couple of comments, we may be approaching that level anyway.

    I’d prefer not to invest that much time in this discussion, but if there are any of your arguments that you feel I have tried to duck, just point them out, and I’ll be happy to try to respond to them at some point, provided you’ll extend me the same courtesy, of course.

  71. paulie

    Don’t have time to read/respond to the whole thing right now (maybe later if I remember, but I’m getting busier with work).

    I’ll start with the first part for now since that was the origin of the discussion.

    Do you really believe that if the government took away the BSA’s tax exemption, it would grant a new tax exemption to someone else? I find it much more likely that they would keep everyone else’s taxes the same, and just spend the extra money they get from the BSA.

    Governments don’t make up budgets based on the amount of tax receipts. They make up budgets based on the whims of politicians, pay for some of it with tax receipts and the rest by inflating the money supply and incurring debt, growing service payments of which eat up an ever larger share of taxes.

    If some group gains or loses its tax exemption, politicians don’t sit down and redo the budget. I’ll grant you that they don’t specifically sit down and figure someone else to give a tax exemption to either. What they do is increase the debt or inflate the money supply. Since it’s not free money (the spending has to be paid for somehow even if it’s years later and/or hidden), I would consider either of those to be a tax on everyone, that is, a redistribution of tax theft away from everyone who is part of the favored tax exempt group to everyone else.

    This is how governments typically behave. You seem to recognize this in the context of the “Fair” Tax, but not in the context of your proposed discrimination tax. Why would the two situations be any different?

    Creating a whole new taxing scheme can bring in the revenues that the government fails to collect through its existing taxes, especially if, as I expect

    1) It ends up being imposed on top of existing taxes rather than replacing them as the proponents claim and/or naively believe will happen,

    2) The sales tax becomes part of the shelf price of goods and services, thus eliminating the “sticker shock” of high tax rates. Combined with the monthly welfare check “prebate” even more dumbasses will think they are getting something for nothing. There are already a shockingly high number of idiots that don’t realize that the income tax refund is just getting their own money back from the government after letting the government collect interest on it for the year. That would get exponentially worse with the fraudulent tax.

    Fundamentally reorganizing the tax scheme is a far different thing than giving some group or another a tax exemption.

    That was longer than I intended…more later, maybe.

Leave a Reply