In a 98-0 vote, the Senate approved the provision as part of massive bill setting Defense Department policy for next year. Senate majority leader Bill Frist, a former Boy Scout who sponsored the Senate provision, said it is necessary to push back on a spate of lawsuits to limit Boy Scout activities on government property. The provision adopted Tuesday says Boy Scouts should be treated the same as other national youth organizations. Frist said that the provision "removes any doubt that federal agencies may welcome Scouts to hold meetings, go camping on federal property, or hold scouting events and public forums" on government property.
In 1999 the ACLU of Illinois filed a lawsuit claiming that the Pentagon's sponsorship of such Boy Scout activities violates the First Amendment. The ACLU argues that direct government sponsorship of the group amounts to discrimination. Civil liberties advocates have assailed the Boy Scouts organization because it bars openly gay leaders and compels members to swear an oath of duty to God.
jamesrage said:http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid19165.asp
I would like to take this moment and say "Ha Ha you scum in the ACLU have lost,even the liberals in the white house told you to **** off" Although I speculate the liberals in the whitehouse only voted in favor of the boy scouts
to not lose voters.
The Bush Admin threatened to veto this bill so it was shelved. It'll have to be debated again in September.
Second, depending on the case, an addition to the federal code may not be enough. The Constitution trumps federal code.
I'm not sure who's to blame for this, the article writer for the advocate or Frist but it doesn't seem to make sense. The 1999 law suit against the Pentagon wasn't the fact that the Boy Scouts were using the public land, it was the fact that the Pentagon was spending SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS to accomodate this private group. Since the Pentagon derives money from taxpayers, this is a conflict of interest since tax payers are then turning around to pay for a jamboree (of death).The Advocate said:In a 98-0 vote, the Senate approved the provision as part of massive bill setting Defense Department policy for next year. Senate majority leader Bill Frist, a former Boy Scout who sponsored the Senate provision, said it is necessary to push back on a spate of lawsuits to limit Boy Scout activities on government property. The provision adopted Tuesday says Boy Scouts should be treated the same as other national youth organizations. Frist said that the provision "removes any doubt that federal agencies may welcome Scouts to hold meetings, go camping on federal property, or hold scouting events and public forums" on government property.
In 1999 the ACLU of Illinois filed a lawsuit claiming that the Pentagon's sponsorship of such Boy Scout activities violates the First Amendment. The ACLU argues that direct government sponsorship of the group amounts to discrimination. Civil liberties advocates have assailed the Boy Scouts organization because it bars openly gay leaders and compels members to swear an oath of duty to God.
But a federal judge ordered the Pentagon to stop. At issue: the Scouts' oath: "On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country…"
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took the case to court, saying that the Scouts' pledge of duty to God makes them a religious organization.
Unless the federal judge's ruling is overturned on appeal, the Scouts will be looking for a new place, and private funding, for their next jamboree.
Congress has made its opinion known on this subject. In his speech to the Scouts, the President noted that Congress has passed a resolution declaring that the Boy Scouts should have "equal access to public lands."
The Scouts call that ridiculous. Boys Scouts of America spokesman Bob Bork stated, "Just look around. This is camping. This is fishing. This is archery. This is hiking. This is not religion."
And then this:. . . To do my duty to God . . .
Your family and religious leaders teach you about God and the ways you can serve. You do your duty to God by following the wisdom of those teachings every day and by respecting and defending the rights of others to practice their own beliefs.
Idiots.Boy Scout Leader Kicked Out For Atheist Beliefs
Lambert's atheism was never a problem during his 10 years in the Scouting organization until he became an assistant Scout Master. At a training conference, he told other leaders of his beliefs, saying it is wrong to kick out kids who don't believe in a god.
"We don't define God," says Scout spokesman Mark Hunter, "but we ask that each of our leaders subscribe to that, our declaration of religious principles."
Its nice to see how you prey on "Political Correctness", EX: are teachers not "Learning Facilitators", I rest my case! Also your promotion of "Athism" is just as amusing!shuamort said:I'm not sure who's to blame for this, the article writer for the advocate or Frist but it doesn't seem to make sense. The 1999 law suit against the Pentagon wasn't the fact that the Boy Scouts were using the public land, it was the fact that the Pentagon was spending SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS to accomodate this private group. Since the Pentagon derives money from taxpayers, this is a conflict of interest since tax payers are then turning around to pay for a jamboree (of death).
Moreover, it seems that the tide is changing again:
What I find amusing is this part:
I call BS, why else would they not include this then:
And then this:
Idiots.
It'd be even more nice if you made sense. What on earth are you on about?stsburns said:Its nice to see how you prey on "Political Correctness", EX: are teachers not "Learning Facilitators", I rest my case! Also your promotion of "Athism" is just as amusing!
I'm glad you lack the ability to understand things abstractly, so let me lead you by the hand on what I meant.shuamort said:It'd be even more nice if you made sense. What on earth are you on about?
You precided to say "Idiots", also your past comments all lead to how it is God based, and the banning of one idividual who was "Atheist". In which can be viewed as defending the "Atheism". Also it is common knowledge that the ACLU repeadely tries to remove the word "God" from being used anywhere, suggested by this propaganda flyer:http://www.debatepolitics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=359&stc=1&d=1123004626"We don't define God," says Scout spokesman Mark Hunter, "but we ask that each of our leaders subscribe to that, our declaration of religious principles."
I have no idea what the word "precided" means. If you meant preceded or presided, neither of those would really apply either.stsburns said:You precided to say "Idiots",
Thanks for the strawman, but it's not applicable in this instance. Atheism isn't even the crux of this debate, it's the BSA's insistence on being a private club with their private rules and then sticking their dirty paws in the public trough. The Boy Scouts of America v. Dale decision was them pushing this rally cry of being a private club. Fine. Be the private club. But when they want to take public funds, as is the case with $7M of public funds to hold their death jamboree, well, that's when they cross the line.stsburns said:also your past comments all lead to how it is God based, and the banning of one idividual who was "Atheist". In which can be viewed as defending the "Atheism".
You're citing yourself as common knowledge? No. That just won't do. You are aware who starting this lawsuit against the Pentagon, right? A pastor.stsburns said:Also it is common knowledge that the ACLU repeadely tries to remove the word "God" from being used anywhere, suggested by this propaganda flyer:
The State Supreme Court ruled today that a prosecutor violated the New Jersey Constitution when he removed two jurors from a jury pool, one for wearing Muslim religious clothing and another for having engaged in missionary activity.
"In this country, people have a right to express their religious beliefs without fear of discrimination by the government," said ACLU of New Jersey Legal Director Ed Barocas. "Excluding people from jury pools based on their religious belief or expression violates the principles of freedom found in the Bill of Rights."
Thank you for your response! "Preceding" just think of it as "Your response was...". Thank You for informing me, also I would like to state I do not cite myself I cite "Cafepress.com" because that is where I got the flyer. My deepest apologies! http://www.cafepress.com/cp/info/shuamort said:I have no idea what the word "precided" means. If you meant preceded or presided, neither of those would really apply either.
Thanks for the strawman, but it's not applicable in this instance. Atheism isn't even the crux of this debate, it's the BSA's insistence on being a private club with their private rules and then sticking their dirty paws in the public trough. The Boy Scouts of America v. Dale decision was them pushing this rally cry of being a private club. Fine. Be the private club. But when they want to take public funds, as is the case with $7M of public funds to hold their death jamboree, well, that's when they cross the line.
You're citing yourself as common knowledge? No. That just won't do. You are aware who starting this lawsuit against the Pentagon, right? A pastor.
Then there are other things like:
Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks
or
ACLU of New Jersey Successfully Defends Right of Religious Expression by Jurors
Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?jamesrage said:The ACLU are scum.Instead of being called the American Civlil Liberties Union they should be called the Anti-Christian Liberal's Union.
Really? Are they wiping out all xtian mythological symbols or just the ones on government property? Your hyperbole is tiresome.jamesrage said:A few token cases on the side of Christians means nothing when they are trying to wipe out any chritstian symbols from sight and side
What "America haters". It seems you're the one going against America and the Constitution and what it stands for.jamesrage said:while allowing the America haters,
What "pedophilers" are you talking about that the ACLU is defending. Please show case and cite it.jamesrage said:pedophilers,
I'm not sure what "narmal" is. But since they've defending Christians and are doing that in this case right now, I don't see what your beef is. Especially if you're allegeding, as is the leader, that the Boy Scouts of America ISN'T a Christian organization. Can't have your cake and eat it too.jamesrage said:and anything that is against the values of Christians and narmal Americans.
Really, got a cite for that? Got proof that all of the crazy fundamental extremists should be blamed on the ACLU? Seriously, I'd LOVE to see it.jamesrage said:The ACLU have turned perversity into diversity and turned normal Americans into extreamist and fundalmentalist
Yeah, tolerance is a real bitch. Unless it's tolerating fundamental extremists, eh?jamesrage said:becasue they do not want to tolerate perversity,pedophilers,and other deviant lifestyles.
allegeding
What "America haters".
What "pedophilers" are you talking about that the ACLU is defending. Please show case and cite it.
Hmm, link didn't work.jamesrage said:
I COMPLETELY agree with you there. Here was ACLU's rebuttal:jamesrage said:
ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations
August 31, 2000
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.
What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.
It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.
Wait... There are liberals in the white house? I thought they were reactionary extremist...fascist freaks or something.jamesrage said:http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid19165.asp
I would like to take this moment and say "Ha Ha you scum in the ACLU have lost,even the liberals in the white house told you to **** off"
the fact that you actually buy the bullshit on that website speaks volumes about you.
Wait... There are liberals in the white house? I thought they were reactionary extremist...fascist freaks or something.
You won't, because liberals AREN'T ANTI AMERICAN! Are you so ****ing far gone that you can't comprehend that loving freedom does NOT MAKE YOU ANTI AMERICAN?
jamesrage said:Does Ward Churchill ring a bell.
Alright, I see an artist whose work is provocative and whose statement is that do to the current administration, America is going down the toilet.jamesrage said:
Some folks just claim to be liberal, because way back when, it was respected, and admired. These days, we have these angry, nasty, hateful people, and they claim to be liberals, they are not, they are just trying to steal that reputation from good hippies that really were about peace and love. Ward is a great example of one of those people, while stealing the liberal reputation, it seems he stole the reputation, and heritage of the Indians as well, what a piece of S**T.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?