[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I agree with parts of what you said..., and indicated so very early on when I pointed out that I was well aware that a softball sanctioning organization is not the state.

Fair enough.

I disagree with the rationalization that this implies and strongly disagree that the rights of the presumed guilty are superceded by the rights of the presumed innocent.

I see your point. But I'm drawing a line in a different place. I am not saying the rights of the presumed guilty (although in many cases we're not talking about PRESUMED guilty, but CONFIRMED guilty ... but that's a separate argument) are superceded by the rights of the presumed innocent. I'm drawing the line between the rights of the general populus vs the rights of those unable to defend themselves (children, in this case).

The rights of the children playing softball do not trump my rights as a citizen. Of course, since the ASA is not the state (as I said before), I can choose to not sign the form and live with whatever the consequences are.

Fair enough, but for the sake of the argument, let's say this WAS the government making this requirement. Not that all adults must submit to background checks ... but that all adults who are being placed in positions of authority over children must submit to background checks. See, there's the crux. The group of people whose rights you are saying are being trumped are people who are being placed in a position where we teach our children to listen to them and trust them. That trust can be misplaced if we do not ensure that those that are being trusted CAN be trusted. And again ... even if this was the government doing this, you, Joe Citizen, could simply refuse to sign the form and not participating in being an authority figure over children. Again - your rights not being trumped unless you want to be placed in these trusted positions.

Again, my dispute with what you are saying is the rationale you are using, since it is a very small half-step to use that same rationale where it is the state that is snooping and not a softball league. This rationale that "if it saves just one" then the loss of liberty is acceptable is disturbing in the extreme, to me. I trust that since you beleive this way that you have no problem whatsoever with the phone call monitoring program the Bush adminsitration put into place, since that would protect many more than "just one child."

Again, I see your point, and agree with much of it. (Can I have my liberal card back yet?) I do NOT believe the spying on of adults by the Bush administration was (or is) warranted. But to me this and the original topic are NOT equivalent. It would be more equivalent if, for example, the government made you sign a form allowing your phone to be tapped if you were going to be given government secrets, for example. And no ... I'd have no problem with that policy in that case.

It's not really the rationale of "it saves just one" that leads me to my opinions on the BG check thing. It's the rationale of doing the due diligence to ensure that we are not putting people in positions of trust that should not be trusted with that position. I think it's a vastly bigger leap going from BG checks of umpires to phone tapping of the general public.