House Condemns Criticism of Boy Scouts

[Riprorin]

House Condemns Criticism of Boy Scouts

House Condemns Efforts to Limit Government Ties to Boy Scouts Because of Group's Religious Element

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON Nov 20, 2004 ? The House on Saturday commended the Boy Scouts and condemned legal efforts to limit government ties to the group because of its requirement that members believe in God.

A nonbinding resolution, passed by a 391-3 vote, recognized the 3.2 million-member Boy Scouts for its public service efforts. But the main thrust of the debate was what the House Judiciary Committee chairman, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said were the "strident legal attacks" on the group.

The Pentagon agreed last week to tell U.S. military bases around the world not to directly sponsor Boy Scout troops. The warning resulted from legal challenges to government relations with a group that bans openly gay leaders and compels members to swear an oath of duty to God.

The American Civil Liberties Union and others say that direct government sponsorship of such a program amounts to discrimination.

The Pentagon's ruling does not prevent service members from leading Boy Scout troops on their own time. Also, Boy Scouts still can meet on areas of military bases where civilian organizations are allowed to hold events.

Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz. said the ACLU's challenge was a "nuisance lawsuit" and he was urging Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to reconsider the Pentagon's position.

"Scouting values, military values, citizenship values, a respect and reverence for a creator are not a violation of the doctrine of church and state," said Hayworth, who was an Eagle Scout.

The measure's sponsor, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said Congress would work "to defend the Boy Scout's ability to continue the fine work that they have done for nearly a century."

Voting against the resolution were Democratic Reps. John Dingell of Michigan, Barney Frank of Massachusetts and Lynn Woolsey of California.

On the Net:

Information on the bill, H.Res. 853, can be found at

Link

It's good to see all but three Democratic congressman standing up for the Scouts.

 

[KidViciou$]

Zell Miller wasn't in that list of democrats? what, is he not christian?

 

[Riprorin]

Zell Miller is a senator. This was a House vote.

 

[KidViciou$]

my fault, i wasn't paying that much attention

 

[0marTheZealot]

With all the problems in the world, we are talking about this.

I'm going to file this one under petty/trivial.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
With all the problems in the world, we are talking about this.

I'm going to file this one under petty/trivial.

And they are going to get worse if we let the radical left destroy our cultural heritage.

It's interesting that the ACLU has had a 20 year vendetta agaisnt the Boy Scouts, yet they defend pedophiles.


ACLU defends child-molester group
Asks judge to throw out lawsuit against NAMBLA for 10-year-old's murder

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Julie Foster
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

The American Civil Liberties Union has asked a judge to dismiss what it calls an "unconstitutional" lawsuit against a national pedophile organization being sued in a wrongful death case after two of the group's members brutally raped and murdered a 10-year-old boy.

The $200 million civil lawsuit, which charges the North American Man-Boy Love Association with wrongful death, was originally filed in Massachusetts Federal District Court on May 16.

As reported in WorldNetDaily, Salvatore Sicari and Charles Jaynes picked up fifth-grader Jeffrey Curley and took the boy to the Boston Public Library where Jaynes accessed NAMBLA's website. Later, the men attempted to sexually assault Curley, but the boy fought back. Attempting to restrain him, Jaynes gagged the 10-year-old with a gasoline-soaked rag, eventually killing him. The men put Jeffrey's body in a tub with concrete and threw it in a river.

According to Curley family attorney Larry Frisoli, Jaynes kept a diary in which he wrote that he turned to NAMBLA's website in order to gain psychological comfort for what he was about to do. The killer had been stalking Curley prior to the boy's murder and possessed various materials from the clandestine group.

The ACLU argues that the newsletters and other NAMBLA materials in Jaynes' possession, which contain ''photographs of boys of various ages and nude drawings of boys,'' are protected speech under the Constitution. The material does not ''urge, promote, advocate or even condone torture, mutilation or murder,'' ACLU attorneys wrote. ''Examination of the materials that have been identified by the plaintiffs will show that they simply do not advocate violation of the law,'' the dismissal motion states. ''But even if that were the case, speech is not deprived of the protection of the First Amendment simply because it advocates an unlawful act."

Both killers are now serving life sentences. The family filed the lawsuit against NAMBLA and the Internet service provider that hosted its site, arguing their son might still be alive were it not for the group and its website.

But the ACLU believes NAMBLA is being unconstitutionally ''sued for their ideas.'' According to court documents from the ACLU, the case raises ''profoundly important questions under the First Amendment,'' because NAMBLA is not being sued for making any particular statements, but simply for creating an ''environment'' that encourages sexual abuse.

''What they don't like is what NAMBLA stands for,'' said John Reinstein, legal director of the Massachusetts chapter of the ACLU. ''They don't like their ideas or the notion that someone else would have accepted them,'' he told the Boston Globe.

The Curleys won a $328 million wrongful death case against their son's killers earlier this year, but since both men are penniless, Frisoli called it largely a moral victory. WND reported in July that Frisoli was preparing a class-action lawsuit against NAMBLA. If NAMBLA loses the class-action suit, individuals and parents of children who were involved in sexual relationships with members will be able to collect damages.

According to Frisoli, NAMBLA has anywhere from 300 to 1,300 members, depending on which time period is selected for the lawsuit, translating to thousands of children that would constitute the class in the suit.

Link

 

[Riprorin]

More about NAMBLA, the group that the ACLU defends and the above case:

The case alleges that Jaynes joined the North American Man/Boy Love Associate in the fall of 1996, read the group's publication and website and "became obsessed with having sex with and raping young male children.

According to Frisoli, the organization educates its members on how to locate children that might be susceptible to sexual advances, how to gain the children's trust, how to deceive their parents and how to escape punishment if caught.

"They have a manual entitled The Survival Manual: The Man's Guide to Staying Safe in Man-Boy Sexual Relationships. I call it the 'Rape and Escape Manual," says Frisoli. "It includes chapters on the right and wrong places to have sex, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the legal rights of defendants. In case someone wants to flee the country, it explains how to avoid law enforcement in foreign countries and how to rip off credit card companies for cash abroad. NAMBLA denies the manual exists, but I have it sitting on my desk."

Link

 

[KidViciou$]

this is a really sticky case, and i'm glad i'm not the judge or jury

as much as i hate nambla and what they stand for, we can't take them down solely based on what they say. however now with this case, if we take them down because the information they published was used in this manner, couldn't it open a floodgate of liability lawsuits? kinda like how those kids burned down the house after watching beavis and butthead?

this is a really tough situation, i want ot take nambla down, but how to do it while still preserving the country's foundations?

 

[KidViciou$]

i think i broke the forum!!!

 

[dahunan]

NAMBLA needs to be taken down with a fully automatic weapon.

 

[KidViciou$]

wait, wasn't that aclu nambla thing an entirely seperate topic???

 

[nageov3t]

where is the condemnation in the bill?

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) recognizes the Boy Scouts of America for the public service the organization performs for neighborhoods and communities across the United States; and

(2) commends the Boy Scouts of America for the Good Turn for America program and the work the organization has accomplished while partnering with the Salvation Army, Habitat for Humanity International, the American Red Cross, and thousands of other community and civic organizations across the United States to address critical issues facing communities in the United States.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/...8:1:./temp/~c108UXgUgT::

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: KidViciou$
wait, wasn't that aclu nambla thing an entirely seperate topic???

It is all about hating on people who don't want to be Christianized.. isn't that what Rips topics are about?

 

[miketheidiot]

the boy scouts is a breeding ground for pedophilia and should be deservingly banned, for the sake of the children. I mean haven't you seen that adam sandler SNL public service announcement?

 

[Taejin]

Any organization with religious indoctrination and goals should not be supported by the state.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

:thumbsup: for the House

CsG

 

[skace]

What is wrong with the ACLU sticking up for NAMBLA in that sh!t you posted? If I read it right, it would be like my son being killed by a bunch of people who played Doom3, but since they were penniless, I decided to sue the makers of Doom3 and the hardware company who made the computer it was played upon, since I know I could make a fvcking fortune off them and because I don't like video games.

I'm sort of surprised you have to swear an oath of duty to a god to get into the Boy Scouts. I'm sure there are reasons the house voted against this, although I'm not understanding them from the article. It almost seems as if the house is conciously choosing to overlook these things simply because of the overall good the Boy Scouts bring to communities.

 

[Red Dawn]

I think when the Boy Scouts banned gays they were just trying to change their image to that of a more manly one from that of a bunch of sissies. Little did they realize how much grief they would receive over it.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: skace
What is wrong with the ACLU sticking up for NAMBLA in that sh!t you posted? If I read it right, it would be like my son being killed by a bunch of people who played Doom3, but since they were penniless, I decided to sue the makers of Doom3 and the hardware company who made the computer it was played upon, since I know I could make a fvcking fortune off them and because I don't like video games.

Interesting analogy, but here are the facts in the case:

Two grown men, (members of NAMBLA) stole the bike of a ten year old boy. They then promised to help him find it. They offered to drive him to the store to buy him a new bike if he would have sex with them. He refused, they strangled him with a gas soaked rag, and then sodomized his dead body. When the police raided the homes of these men they have tons of literature from NAMBLA.

NAMBLA encourages grown men to persue and attempt to have sex with underage boys.

This is the group that the ACLU is defending and pro-bono to boot.

 

[IndieSnob]

I love how everytime the ACLU is brought up by certian conservatives they point out the 'bad' groups and cases they defend. Why not bring up all the good they have done when your fellow citizens rights have been destroyed? Sorry to burst your bubble, but if you hate the ACLU you have to hate most every single defense attorney. Whether you like it or not EVERYONE has the right to a fair trial and challenge constituionaility. I guess some of you are so hell bent on your blind hatred you have to pigeonhole everything into absolute good or evil.

 

[Kibbo]

If the Boy Scouts actively discriminates against gays and atheists, then they should not get any government support. Period.

I'm not touching the NAMBLA thing with a ten foot pole.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: IndieSnob
I love how everytime the ACLU is brought up by certian conservatives they point out the 'bad' groups and cases they defend. Why not bring up all the good they have done when your fellow citizens rights have been destroyed? Sorry to burst your bubble, but if you hate the ACLU you have to hate most every single defense attorney. Whether you like it or not EVERYONE has the right to a fair trial and challenge constituionaility. I guess some of you are so hell bent on your blind hatred you have to pigeonhole everything into absolute good or evil.

They would live up to thier name if they defended the rights of the people they DONT agree with as well, not just the ones they do, all the while outright attacking other groups. If they are going to defend NAMBLA, they should also be defending the KKK, right?

 

[KidViciou$]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: IndieSnob
I love how everytime the ACLU is brought up by certian conservatives they point out the 'bad' groups and cases they defend. Why not bring up all the good they have done when your fellow citizens rights have been destroyed? Sorry to burst your bubble, but if you hate the ACLU you have to hate most every single defense attorney. Whether you like it or not EVERYONE has the right to a fair trial and challenge constituionaility. I guess some of you are so hell bent on your blind hatred you have to pigeonhole everything into absolute good or evil.

They would live up to thier name if they defended the rights of the people they DONT agree with as well, not just the ones they do, all the while outright attacking other groups. If they are going to defend NAMBLA, they should also be defending the KKK, right?

you know they have done that, right?

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: IndieSnob
I love how everytime the ACLU is brought up by certian conservatives they point out the 'bad' groups and cases they defend. Why not bring up all the good they have done when your fellow citizens rights have been destroyed? Sorry to burst your bubble, but if you hate the ACLU you have to hate most every single defense attorney. Whether you like it or not EVERYONE has the right to a fair trial and challenge constituionaility. I guess some of you are so hell bent on your blind hatred you have to pigeonhole everything into absolute good or evil.

They would live up to thier name if they defended the rights of the people they DONT agree with as well, not just the ones they do, all the while outright attacking other groups. If they are going to defend NAMBLA, they should also be defending the KKK, right?

Didn't they defend a group of neo-nazis to march in a town made up of jews? Have they turned down a case by the KKK?

 

[Riprorin]

Whose Side is the ACLU On?

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has long since paraded themselves as being the defenders of the First Amendment. That may seem like a noble cause, until you take a closer look at what exactly the ACLU has been up to the past few years. The following is a well-documented and frightening list of recent ACLU activities:

The ACLU supports the ?right? of NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) to encourage its members to engage in sexual intercourse with young boys. NAMBLA then instructs them how to get away with it legally. This, of course, is criminal, and the First Amendment does NOT support this type of speech. Worldnetdaily.com tells of a case where two members of NAMBLA stalked, attempted to molest, and finally murdered a 10 year-old boy. One of the culprits wrote in a diary that he turned to NAMBLA?s website to gain psychological comfort for what he was about to do.

In 1998, in the case Virginia vs. Black, the ACLU supported the right of Barry Elton Black, a Ku Klux Klan leader, to burn a 25-foot cross in a public demonstration. The ACLU supported the Ku Klux Klan, saying that even ?hate speech? should be protected under the First Amendment.

In 2000, the ACLU used the courts to prevent the Boy Scouts from leasing park space from the city of San Diego. Aclusandiego.org quotes Linda Mills as comparing the Boy Scouts to the Ku Klux Klan. Apparently, in Linda Mills? mind, the Boy Scouts, which teach to its young members respect for God and nature and to have a solid moral foundation, is on the same level as a hate-filled, racist organization.

Just recently, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, with the urging of the ACLU, has found reciting the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because of the words ?under God.? It should be obvious to any fair-minded person that the word ?God? does not endorse any particular religion. According to a CNN/Gallup poll, 84% of Americans disapproved of the court?s ruling.

All of this begs the question, ?What is the goal of the ACLU?? The answer is quite obvious: to promote a radical, left-wing agenda (with the notable exception of the extreme right-wing KKK) at the expense of everyday Americans.

The ideals that the ACLU have embraced are absolutely unconscionable. In the preceding list, which is far from exhaustive, the ACLU has supported the ?rights? of child molesters and racists, while trampling on the rights of the Boy Scouts and schoolchildren. The ACLU is waging a full frontal assault on America, and it is way past time that clear-thinking Americans unite to put an end to these atrocious proceedings.

It is now obvious that the ACLU is not only an opponent of traditional American values, but is a downright enemy. What is worse is that they advertise themselves as being on our side. And that makes them the worst kind of enemy.

Link