Veterans' Group Enjoins Effort to Save Boy Scouts

Voegelin

Reactionary
Aug 18, 2003
20,145
1,430
Connecticut
✟26,726.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com
Wednesday,
April 13, 2005

The American Legion says it will go all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary, to stop the American Civil Liberties Union from using the courts to "destroy American values at taxpayer expense."

Continued here
 

Jacey

WinJace
Jan 12, 2004
3,894
337
46
Atlanta
Visit site
✟5,805.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Democrat
Voegelin said:
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com
Wednesday,
April 13, 2005

The American Legion says it will go all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary, to stop the American Civil Liberties Union from using the courts to "destroy American values at taxpayer expense."

Continued here

Why bother reading the article............all the discrepancies I need to know are right here..............

They can go to the Supreme Court but they will lose. What are they, counting on activist judges?

The Boy Scouts won the right to discriminate. They don't need to take non-theists. But they don't get federal funds, etc, to do it.

How are the taxpayers helping to destroy the Boy Scouts?
 
Upvote 0

tollytee

Well-Known Member
Feb 19, 2005
1,234
108
67
Sun Valley, Nevada
✟1,910.00
Faith
Christian
Politics
US-Republican
Jacey said:
Why bother reading the article............all the discrepancies I need to know are right here..............

They can go to the Supreme Court but they will lose. What are they, counting on activist judges?

The Boy Scouts won the right to discriminate. They don't need to take non-theists. But they don't get federal funds, etc, to do it.

How are the taxpayers helping to destroy the Boy Scouts?

Apparently you should have read the acticle. Had you done so, you wouldn't have asked the questions.

First, the BSA was sued not because it recieved federal funds. The ACLU sued to keep them from meeting on school properties during evening hours and weekends. Further, it sued to keep them from holding jamborees on wilderness properties which were within militiary bases.

Also, the ACLU recieves taxpayer money to fund their lawsuits through provisions of the USC and CFR.
 
Upvote 0

OhhJim

Often wrong, but never in doubt
Aug 19, 2004
4,483
287
66
Walnut Creek, CA
✟6,051.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Will the Boy Scouts be destroyed if they are forced to play by the same rules as everyone else? It seems to me that if any organization has to have special considerations to stay in business, then maybe they aren't that viable. And, if they are that important to some people, maybe those people should support them, rather than asking for special treatment from the government.
 
Upvote 0

ebonicsonly

Well-Known Member
Mar 22, 2005
446
20
40
✟685.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
tollytee said:
Also, the ACLU recieves taxpayer money to fund their lawsuits through provisions of the USC and CFR.



:wave: If you are going to make this comment please explain it. Don't make it seem as if the ACLU is tax funded. What the law states is that if an attorney representing a person or organization wins a civil rights case or a religious rights case can include attorneys fees in the court costs.

Applicability of statutory and common law
The jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters conferred on the
district courts by the provisions of titles 13, 24, and 70 of the
Revised Statutes for the protection of all persons in the United
States in their civil rights, and for their vindication, shall be
exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United
States, so far as such laws are suitable to carry the same into
effect; but in all cases where they are not adapted to the object,
or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable
remedies and punish offenses against law, the common law, as
modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the State
wherein the court having jurisdiction of such civil or criminal
cause is held, so far as the same is not inconsistent with the
Constitution and laws of the United States, shall be extended to
and govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the
cause, and, if it is of a criminal nature, in the infliction of
punishment on the party found guilty.


(b) Attorney's fees
In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections
1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title, title IX of
Public Law 92-318 (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.), the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.), the Religious
Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C.
2000cc et seq.), title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42
U.S.C. 2000d et seq.), or section 13981 of this title, the court,
in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the
United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs,
except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an
act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity such
officer shall not be held liable for any costs, including
attorney's fees, unless such action was clearly in excess of such
officer's jurisdiction.


Expert fees are included

(c) Expert fees
In awarding an attorney's fee under subsection (b) of this
section in any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of
section 1981 or 1981a of this title, the court, in its discretion,
may include expert fees as part of the attorney's fee.


What it means in America pays the court costs if America loses in a civil rights or religious rights issue.:doh:

As a legal intern for the ACLU I know that the majority of funding comes from private citizens and fund raisers.


Theses laws also apply to the Thomas More Law Center which does the same thing for christians that the aclu does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: D. Scarlatti
Upvote 0

butterfoot

Formerly Known as cameronw
Dec 16, 2004
7,866
316
49
✟9,595.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
ebonicsonly said:
I don't want my tax dollars going to christian organizations the same way christians dont want their tax dollars going to my pro-choice organizations.

But our tax dollars do go to Pro-choice organizations. So why can't a christian organization get its share?

-cw
 
Upvote 0

ebonicsonly

Well-Known Member
Mar 22, 2005
446
20
40
✟685.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
cameronw said:
But our tax dollars do go to Pro-choice organizations. So why can't a christian organization get its share?

-cw

Do you have a source that says that pro-choice organizations get government funding and/or the use of government property ( not public property) ? I am just not directly aware of any.If I am not mistaken the Bush administration cut funding to organizations such as planned parent hood. If gay,pro-choice,islamic,jewish,wiccan and anything under the sun organizations get funding and permission to use government property for their events then I see no problem.
 
Upvote 0

butterfoot

Formerly Known as cameronw
Dec 16, 2004
7,866
316
49
✟9,595.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
ebonicsonly said:
Do you have a source that says that pro-choice organizations get government funding and/or the use of government property ( not public property) ? I am just not directly aware of any.If I am not mistaken the Bush administration cut funding to organizations such as planned parent hood. If gay,pro-choice,islamic,jewish,wiccan and anything under the sun organizations get funding and permission to use government property for their events then I see no problem.

http://www.ppblueridge.org/

Obviously they get it because if they didn't I wouldn't see articles like this one

http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/1375717.html
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

StromRider

Senior Member
Feb 25, 2005
941
150
60
North Lauderdale, FL
✟129,564.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
tollytee said:
Apparently you should have read the acticle. Had you done so, you wouldn't have asked the questions.

First, the BSA was sued not because it recieved federal funds. The ACLU sued to keep them from meeting on school properties during evening hours and weekends. Further, it sued to keep them from holding jamborees on wilderness properties which were within militiary bases.

Also, the ACLU recieves taxpayer money to fund their lawsuits through provisions of the USC and CFR.

The ACLU was right to sue the BSA for those reasons. It may be legal for the BSA to discriminate against atheists and homosexuals but doing so means they've given up the right to use government facilities for their events.

The government - of all the people, isn't supposed to be in the business of discriminating against people and supporting those that do.
 
Upvote 0

ebonicsonly

Well-Known Member
Mar 22, 2005
446
20
40
✟685.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
cameronw said:
http://www.ppblueridge.org/

Obviously they get it because if they didn't I wouldn't see articles like this one

http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/1375717.html

As for your first article you do realize that citizens do donate a lot of money to these organizations. Most people on planned parenthood birth control have to pay for a portion of their birth control monthly based on their income.Planned Parent Hood is also an international organization which the Bush took money away. EC is going through the proceedings to be available over the counter. Of course EC is going to be given out for free so they people us them and in turn buy them when they are legal.

The bill I found was the HHS Appropriations bills which Bush signed. It states the federal government can't give money to abortion organizations but states had to include in their medicaid program available for women who need abortion in selected case. By selected cases they mean when the womens life is at risk,rape or incest. Do you believe abortions should be given in these cases?

HR 3061 for FY 2002, signed by President Bush (PL 107-116) on Jan. 10, 2002
<LI>http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:1:./temp/~c107kIqp4w::
<LI> HR 2673 for FY 2004, signed by President Bush (PL 108-109) on Jan. 23, 2004
The GOP hasn't made this bill public yet bt you can call the library of congress and get a copy.
 
Upvote 0

Polycarp1

Born-again Liberal Episcopalian
Sep 4, 2003
9,588
1,669
USA
✟25,875.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The Boy Scouts of America have every right in the world to restrict their membership to boys who are not gay and who believe in God. What they do not have is the right to shut out those boys and then claim that they are some sort of public service that deserves taxpayer support. Either you provide a service without discrimination on the basis of religious belief (and in some states on the basis of sexual orientation as well) and can seek public funds and meet in publicly-owned locations, or you restrict your membership to just the people you want to let in, and don't try to cadge money from taxpayers to support your discriminatory practices. It's as simple as that.

While the Boy Scouts do some wonderful things for boys, their national organization made up their mind that they would exclude some boys from participation on grounds that are illegal for publicly funded organizations to discriminate on. It's to be regretted that they did that, but it was their free choice.

(By the way, that does not mean they need to have atheist boys trying to deconvert Christians or gay boys trying to molest other boys. Rules are rules. It means that they decided that any kid who cannot honestly say he believes in God is no longer eligible to be a Scout, and no boy who, being honest, must admit he is attracted to other boys, is eligible either. It says nothing about what they do but who they are. And that kind of discrimination is repellent to me. If their rules were that a boy who disrupts Scout activities by anti-religious campaigning, or a boy who molests another boy, were to be excluded, that would be different.

And if the American Legion decides it's supporting that kind of discrimination, well, perhaps its own special status needs to be re-examined too.
 
Upvote 0

Voegelin

Reactionary
Aug 18, 2003
20,145
1,430
Connecticut
✟26,726.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
No one noticed there was anything wrong with Boy Scouts meeting on military bases until homosexuals started to attack the Boy Scouts.

Let the left continue its Jihad against the BSA.

Democrats lost the married woman vote in a landslide last election. The trend for families not to vote Democrat will only accelerate the more the party panders to the radical left.

Btw...nobody noticed the Ten Commandments was illegal either until the radical left started to sue. No one ever voted on removing them from the public square. Nor for banning or regularing Nativity scenes, monitoring who mentions God in which setting in public schools and where and when.

My family goes back beyond 1812. My ancestors could do or not do all these things in freedom. If one of them wanted to put up a creche, they didn't have to worry about extreme left wing lawyers taking them to Federal Court.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

StromRider

Senior Member
Feb 25, 2005
941
150
60
North Lauderdale, FL
✟129,564.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Voegelin said:
No one noticed there was anything wrong with Boy Scouts meeting on military bases until homosexuals started to attack the Boy Scouts.

No one noticed the BSA was as discriminatory as it is until homosexuals (and atheiests too!) stopped accepting being discriminated against and started pressing for the rights that should be available to everyone.

Voegelin said:
Btw...nobody noticed the Ten Commandments was illegal either until the radical left started to sue. No one ever voted on removing them from the public square. Nor for banning or regularing Nativity scenes, monitoring who mentions God in which setting in public schools and where and when.

Withs religious zealots accelerating their efforts to change this country into a theocracy, atheists (and less zealous religious types) just got tired of it all and started pushing back. What's wrong with keeping your religious symbols at home or at church? Is your religion so weak it won't survive unless the symbols are plastered all over the landscape?
 
Upvote 0

Zippythepinhead

Contributor
Jan 5, 2005
5,204
192
Utah
✟6,492.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Voegelin said:
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com
Wednesday,
April 13, 2005

The American Legion says it will go all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary, to stop the American Civil Liberties Union from using the courts to "destroy American values at taxpayer expense."

Continued here
Good for them:thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

419gam

Veteran
Mar 26, 2005
1,030
74
California
✟1,559.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Voegelin said:
My family goes back beyond 1812. My ancestors could do or not do all these things in freedom. If one of them wanted to put up a creche, they didn't have to worry about extreme left wing lawyers taking them to Federal Court.

Wow, 1812 that makes you Extra-American. Just because your ancestors could do those things without worrying about legal action doesn't make it right. Your ancestors could have owned and whipped and beaten slaves as well. Lets change everything back to the good old days.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
54
Visit site
✟22,369.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Voegelin said:
My family goes back beyond 1812. My ancestors could do or not do all these things in freedom. If one of them wanted to put up a creche, they didn't have to worry about extreme left wing lawyers taking them to Federal Court.

In 1812, your family could own slaves and the women of your family couldn't vote. They could do it in freedom. What's your point.
 
Upvote 0