Former ACLU Chapter President Arrested for Child Pornography

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The ACLU has been suing the BSA off and on for about a decade now.  At first the ACLU seemed to think that they, not the BSA, were the ones with the authority to define who and what the BSA should be.  Thankfully the US Supreme Court put an end to that little bit of arrogance.

More recently the ACLU has been suing to deny public support to the BSA, usually based on the fact that Boy Scout members are expected to say an oath to God at their meetings.  The ACLU recently won a suit to shut down the Boy Scouts' quadrennial jamboree, because the ACLU didn't like the fact that a bunch of boys were reciting their oaths to God on public land.  Such is the nature of the ACLU's "support" of our 1st Amendment rights and their "tolerance" for people of differing beliefs...

Homosexual and/or athiest organizations that offer a benefit to the community are are not denied public support on the basis of theoir sexual orientation or religion.  How is it not discriminatory for the ACLU to turn around and deny public support to the BSA on the basis of religion and sexual orientation.  It seems that according to the ACLU, discrimination is OK as long as you're discriminating against Christians.  Discrimination is OK as long as you're discriminating against heterosexuals.

The BSA has a right to disallow homosexuals (or anyone else they choose) from their organization.  Similarly, Homosexuals have a right to form whatever organizations they want and to disallow heterosexuals from participation.  This isn't discrimination!  This is the way a free society is supposed to operate - everyone does his thing without infringing upon the other guy's right to his thing. 
Freedom means not telling the other guy what to do.  But the ACLU's definition of freedom is punishing any organization that doesn't hold to the ACLU's definition of what's right and wrong.

The ACLU needs to lay off the BSA.  They need to respect the BSA's rights to be themselves and to choose their own oaths, beliefs, and membership.  They need to respect the right of ALL public benefit organizations to seek public support, without regard to religion or sexual orientation or any other dimension of political correctness. 

Politically incorrect and unpopular organizations have just as much right public support as anyone else.  This was essentially the same justification that the ACLU used to justify their support of NAMBLA.  But note the one-sidedness of the ACLU's adherence to that policy.  Hypocrisy at its finest...

[gunsmith]

Woody not only is the closeted gay Scoutmaster still involved (and leading kids in prayer)
he was also Mayor of a small city in NY!

He was never a pedophile though.

he doesn't have an agenda to push.

The ACLU may not come out and say they are pedophiles, that they would love to rape boy scouts and make them into model victims.

I believe that is what they want though, this guy just happened to get caught.

The liberal agenda is the destruction of children, an androgynous culture of victimizing the young and calling it a reversal of "christofascist" values.

The ACLU hates the Boy Scouts for it's mere existence, if they didn't have an agenda they would once in awhile defend conservative civil rights.
they never do.
They always side with the pedophile, the bigot, and the Nazi.
I am praying this guy meets the type of convict who likes to "play doctor" with pedophiles when he gets locked up.

[RevDisk]

Why do you hate the Boy Scouts so much? I don't understand.

Because, contrary to their claims, the ACLU is more interested in perpetuating political correctness than in supporting anyones' civil liberties.  The Boy Scouts had the gall to think that, as an organization that benefits the community, they're entitled to public assistance on par with any other organization that benefits the community, regardless of their religious beliefs and affiliations.

Wooderson or RevDisk will no doubt be along shortly to explain why I've got it all wrong.  But the bottom line is that the ACLU won't leave the BSA alone until it caves in on its principles.  That the BSA's principles are constitutionally protected is irrelevant.  They must be forced to conform to the ACLU's singular definition of what is acceptable and unacceptable.

Such is the nature of political correctness and the culture war.  The various leftist groups (of which the ACLU is one) have decreed that anyone who doesn't hold to one particular arbitrary, narrow minded set of cultural norms and values is bigot.  And bigotry cannot be tolerated.

This may be hard to believe, but I was a cub scout at one point.  I was asked to leave because I added devices to my pinewood derby car.  Think JATO's.   

Gunner, I'm trying to have a discussion with ya.  I'm attempting to ask questions.  Yes, I put across my thoughts, aka "evil agenda".  (Even small L libertarians have evil agendas according to some, I suppose)  Why should my tax dollars fund an organization that wants to practice religious, amoung other, discrimination?  The Constitution is fairly clear, as is various federal and plenty of state laws.  If you want to practice discrimination, you're entitled to do so as a private organization.  You're not entitled to public money if you do so.  Seems logical enough. 

Here's my simple question.  Why should I be forced to financially support an organization that says my religion is not acceptable?

Contrary to the beliefs of Leftists and Rightists, I'm neither.  I'm a constitutionalist/libertarian/whatever.  I think both sides are equally nuts.  But constantly provide much amusement.

Homosexual and/or athiest organizations that offer a benefit to the community are are not denied public support on the basis of theoir sexual orientation or religion.  How is it not discriminatory for the ACLU to turn around and deny public support to the BSA on the basis of religion and sexual orientation.  It seems that according to the ACLU, discrimination is OK as long as you're discriminating against Christians.  Discrimination is OK as long as you're discriminating against heterosexuals.

Actually, yes.  Such organizations would be banned from public support if they discriminated based on race, religion, etc.  That's the duel edge of "equal justice under the law".  Discrimination is not ok if you want public money.  Discrimination is perfectly fine as long as it's a private organization. 

By your logic, the KKK wouldn't exist.  It obviously does.  They're an organization almost exclusively geared towards discrimination, yet they're a fairly widely spread private organization that isn't banned from existence.  Look up Brandenburg v. Ohio (395 U.S. 444) if you'd like to see a fairly huge hole poked in your ideas.  Ah, but why read and learn, when one can make sweeping inflamed statements that aren't supported by facts? 

I'd exchange "bigot" with "enemy to be discredited, marginalized, and destroyed" and then agree. Clearly, being a bigot is not the problem, because most leftists are bigots of one sort or another.

While I am not a member of any fringe group, leftist or rightist.  But I do find this one amusing.  Are you saying 'Leftist' groups view folks who disagree as "enemy to be discredited, marginalized, and destroyed", or are you saying that saif Leftist groups are an "enemy to be discredited, marginalized, and destroyed" ?

The liberal agenda is the destruction of children, an androgynous culture of victimizing the young and calling it a reversal of "christofascist" values.

I was chuckling to myself, but then I realized you might be serious.   

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Here's my simple question.  Why should I be forced to financially support an organization that says my religion is not acceptable?

Generally, you shouldn't be forced to financially support any purpose not described in Article I Section 8 (or the equivalent portion of your state constitution).  But it's been a long time since the government limited itself that short list of activities.  I'd be on their side if the ACLU sought to eliminate government support to ALL organizations that don't fit the profile outlined in the constitution.  But that's not what they've done.  They only want to sanction organizations like the BSA that don't fit their progressive, politically correct ideal.

These days all sorts of non-profit organizations get public support.  The Boy Scouts are just one of many.  If we are going to give support to any organizations at all, then we mustn't use religion or sexual orientation as a factor in deciding who gets what.  Public support should be measured out based upon the benefits the organization provides to the community.

The ACLU might have a case if the BSA was the one and only organization to receive public support, that if the only way to receive these public monies was to be a straight, Christian male.  But this is obviously not the case.  Religious and non-religious organization alike receive similar support, and homosexual as well as heterosexual organizations receive this sort of support. At least this was the way it was before the ACLU got involved.  Now religious and heterosexual organizations are unfairly denied public support based solely on their religion and sexual orientation.  And the ACLU has the nerve to call this justice...

The problem with the ACLU's position is that, in the name of ending discrimination against gays, they're intentionally discriminating against Christians and straights.  They've simply replaced one form of discrimination they don't like with a different form that they like better.  They aren't interested in justice, they're interested in pushing their agenda.

The true equality minded solution is for ALL organizations to receive public support in on equal terms, regardless of their religious affiliations or preferences on matters of political correctness.  Let the merit of the organization be the deciding factor in what amount of support it receives from the community.  Leave religion and sexual orientation out of the considerations.

The libertarian minded solution would be to stop providing support to ALL organizations.  None of them are constitutionally mandated, so none should receive any support.

Note that the ACLU isn't interested in either equality or liberty.  They want to use the power of the courts to push their agenda upon the population, which I find abhorrent.


I'm somewhat familiar with the Supreme Court's ruling in Brandenburg V Ohio.  It was a case about the legality of a Klansman advocating violent racism.  It doesn't poke any holes in my argument.  In fact, it doesn't even touch upon my argument.  It might have relevance to the earlier discussion of NAMBLA, but it has very little to do with the BSA vs ACLU thing we're discussing here.  (I disagree with the SC's opinion, and think the lower courts were closer to the right answer.  But as I said, it's irrelevant here.)

None of my statements can be construed to mean KKK shouldn't exist.  The KKK is a discriminatory organization, but so what?  They, like the BSA and any everyone else, have the right to self determination.  They have the right to seek public funding on equal footing with any other organization, and let the community judge for themselves whether spending monies on them would be a benefit for the community.

[gunsmith]

PLEASE GIVE ME A BREAK!

The ACLU had a lawsuit to prevent the Boy Scouts from camping on some dang Army Base.
Something they had been doing for years!

That is plain old screwing over little boys who want to cook some hotdogs during a campout.
it is a far cry from the gov't "subsidizing" anything!

My constitution said that govt shall make no law respecting establishment of religion.
The ACLU and libs base the so called seperation(SIC) clause on a dang letter
that Jefferson wrote assuring some church group that a church of the USA
wasn't going to dictate to them. (ignoring all the other letters & writings by Jefferson saying we should always carry guns, odd, they ignore all of his other writings, why do they do that? hmmmm maybe it does not fit their agenda? did old TJ actually pray? ,hmmmm)

Our founding fathers said prayers all the time during the writing of the dang constitution!!!
The ACLU is plain ol anal retentive monsters with no joy or sunlight of the spirit
in their miserable existence, it pains them and causes them anguish that little boys
have some joy, fun and the knowledge of a benign Creator.

The ACLU is the type of people who stomp all over children, breaking their toys "for their own good"
disgusting,shameful monters and inhuman pedofile rapist.

BTW...I don't like them much either.

[SteveS]

That's the duel edge of "equal justice under the law".  Discrimination is not ok if you want public money.  Discrimination is perfectly fine as long as it's a private organization. 

Under the equal protection clause, some discrimination is allowed, depending on the type and the class.  Homosexuality does not receive the same level of protection as race or religion, nor does it get the same court scrutiny.  Age and gender are also relegated to a lower level of scrutiny.  That doesn't mean discrimination can be arbitrary, but can exist under certain circumstances.

How much funding does the BSA receive from the government?

[wooderson]

The ACLU has been suing the BSA off and on for about a decade now.  At first the ACLU seemed to think that they, not the BSA, were the ones with the authority to define who and what the BSA should be.

Cases, please. Exactly which cases are your referring to?

Which ones sought to change BSA policy rather than simply changing the attitude of the state toward BSA funding and aid?

More recently the ACLU has been suing to deny public support to the BSA, usually based on the fact that Boy Scout members are expected to say an oath to God at their meetings.  The ACLU recently won a suit to shut down the Boy Scouts' quadrennial jamboree, because the ACLU didn't like the fact that a bunch of boys were reciting their oaths to God on public land.  Such is the nature of the ACLU's "support" of our 1st Amendment rights and their "tolerance" for people of differing beliefs...

Case?

Homosexual and/or athiest organizations that offer a benefit to the community are are not denied public support on the basis of theoir sexual orientation or religion.  How is it not discriminatory for the ACLU to turn around and deny public support to the BSA on the basis of religion and sexual orientation.  It seems that according to the ACLU, discrimination is OK as long as you're discriminating against Christians.  Discrimination is OK as long as you're discriminating against heterosexuals.

I'll ask for the seventeenth time: which "homosexual and/or athiest [sic]" orgs are receiving public monies and aid, whilst discriminating against heterosexual and theist members?

Which ones, exactly?

The BSA has a right to disallow homosexuals (or anyone else they choose) from their organization.  Similarly, Homosexuals have a right to form whatever organizations they want and to disallow heterosexuals from participation.  This isn't discrimination!  This is the way a free society is supposed to operate - everyone does his thing without infringing upon the other guy's right to his thing.

And neither group would be deserving of federal funding. You know, the point raised by the ACLU.

Christ.
 

he ACLU needs to lay off the BSA.  They need to respect the BSA's rights to be themselves and to choose their own oaths, beliefs, and membership.

The ACLU already does.

The ACLU does not "respect" the state's right to fund any and all private groups.

They need to respect the right of ALL public benefit organizations to seek public support, without regard to religion or sexual orientation or any other dimension of political correctness.

So if the Klan or Aryan Nation starts a Big Brothers/Big Sisters group, they should be eligible for state funds?

Politically incorrect and unpopular organizations have just as much right public support as anyone else.

No, they don't.

This was essentially the same justification that the ACLU used to justify their support of NAMBLA.

No, it wasn't. The ACLU's justification for aiding NAMBLA is that all groups are deserving of due process and equal treatment under the law. That has bugger all to do with the BSA's discriminatory policies.

But note the one-sidedness of the ACLU's adherence to that policy.  Hypocrisy at its finest...

If the BSA is attacked by angry parents because an Eagle Scout kills people with the archery skills learned in the Scouts, they ACLU would (rightly) aid them in the wrongful death suit.

[wooderson]

He was never a pedophile though.

Neither were those kicked out of the Scouts. What's your point?

The ACLU may not come out and say they are pedophiles, that they would love to rape boy scouts and make them into model victims.

I believe that is what they want though, this guy just happened to get caught.

"This guy"? What in god's name are you babbling about? The NAMBLA case has absolutely nothing to do with the Boy Scouts.

The ACLU hates the Boy Scouts for it's mere existence, if they didn't have an agenda they would once in awhile defend conservative civil rights.
they never do.

Well, possibly because no one's seeking to deny "conservatives" due process or access to the courts or basic civil rights.

But they have defended churches in various free expression suits.

And the Nazis, of course.

[gunsmith]

the  "this guy" refers to the pedofile ACLU child porn guy in the OP.

I'll ask for the seventeenth time: which "homosexual and/or athiest [sic]" orgs are receiving public monies and aid, whilst discriminating against heterosexual and theist members?

raises hand

The city and county of San Francisco!

ding ding ding , gunsmith wins another round of the ACLU stinks!
 

[RevDisk]

I'm somewhat familiar with the Supreme Court's ruling in Brandenburg V Ohio.  It was a case about the legality of a Klansman advocating violent racism.  It doesn't poke any holes in my argument.  In fact, it doesn't even touch upon my argument.  It might have relevance to the earlier discussion of NAMBLA, but it has very little to do with the BSA vs ACLU thing we're discussing here.  (I disagree with the SC's opinion, and think the lower courts were closer to the right answer.  But as I said, it's irrelevant here.)

None of my statements can be construed to mean KKK shouldn't exist.  The KKK is a discriminatory organization, but so what?  They, like the BSA and any everyone else, have the right to self determination.  They have the right to seek public funding on equal footing with any other organization, and let the community judge for themselves whether spending monies on them would be a benefit for the community.

And just out of curiousity, whom was the counsel of record for the Klukker?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The ACLU has been suing the BSA off and on for about a decade now.  At first the ACLU seemed to think that they, not the BSA, were the ones with the authority to define who and what the BSA should be.

Cases, please. Exactly which cases are your referring to?

Which ones sought to change BSA policy rather than simply changing the attitude of the state toward BSA funding and aid?

More recently the ACLU has been suing to deny public support to the BSA, usually based on the fact that Boy Scout members are expected to say an oath to God at their meetings.  The ACLU recently won a suit to shut down the Boy Scouts' quadrennial jamboree, because the ACLU didn't like the fact that a bunch of boys were reciting their oaths to God on public land.  Such is the nature of the ACLU's "support" of our 1st Amendment rights and their "tolerance" for people of differing beliefs...

Case?

Homosexual and/or athiest organizations that offer a benefit to the community are are not denied public support on the basis of theoir sexual orientation or religion.  How is it not discriminatory for the ACLU to turn around and deny public support to the BSA on the basis of religion and sexual orientation.  It seems that according to the ACLU, discrimination is OK as long as you're discriminating against Christians.  Discrimination is OK as long as you're discriminating against heterosexuals.

I'll ask for the seventeenth time: which "homosexual and/or athiest [sic]" orgs are receiving public monies and aid, whilst discriminating against heterosexual and theist members?

Which ones, exactly?

What, do I have to tie your shoe laces for you, too?  The information is out there for anyone to find.  The fact that I haven't cited them doesn't indicate that they don't exist, it indicates that listing them all for you would be a waste of my time.  Here are two links that I shouldn't have to post for you.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-699.ZS.html
This is the Biggie of the court  cases, BSA v Dale, in which the ACLU worked on behalf of a gay scoutmaster who was asked to leave the BSA.  The ACLU argued that the BSA shouldn't have the right to determine its own membership and policies.  In essence, the ACLU was trying to force the BSA to accept the ACLU's definition of what makes a good scoutmaster instead of the BSA's own definition.  The Supreme Court upheld the BSA's rights.

http://www.aclu.org/search/search_wrap.html?account=436ac9516921&q=Boy+Scouts&imageField.x=0&imageField.y=0&imageField=search
This second link I offer is the link you should have found for yourself but were too lazy to lookup.  It's the result of searching the ACLU's website for references to "Boy Scout".  It includes a laundry list of court cases, many stretching back into the 1990's.  Let there be no doubt that the ACLU has been involved in lawsuits against the BSA for all throughout the past decade.

The BSA has a right to disallow homosexuals (or anyone else they choose) from their organization.  Similarly, Homosexuals have a right to form whatever organizations they want and to disallow heterosexuals from participation.  This isn't discrimination!  This is the way a free society is supposed to operate - everyone does his thing without infringing upon the other guy's right to his thing.

And neither group would be deserving of federal funding. You know, the point raised by the ACLU.

Christ.
 

he ACLU needs to lay off the BSA.  They need to respect the BSA's rights to be themselves and to choose their own oaths, beliefs, and membership.

The ACLU already does.

The ACLU does not "respect" the state's right to fund any and all private groups.

EXACTLY!  The ACLU only respects the rights of the organizations it favors to seek public support. The ACLU wants to use the BSA's constitutionally protected Christian beliefs as grounds to deny them public support.  Thank you for finally admitting it.  In a just, free society ALL private groups would have the option of seeking public support.  It should be the merits of the organization, the benefit it offers to the community, that determine who gets public support and how much of it they get. 

They need to respect the right of ALL public benefit organizations to seek public support, without regard to religion or sexual orientation or any other dimension of political correctness.

So if the Klan or Aryan Nation starts a Big Brothers/Big Sisters group, they should be eligible for state funds?

Politically incorrect and unpopular organizations have just as much right public support as anyone else.

No, they don't.

Yeah, actually they do.  Sigh...  You can't comprehend how disadvantaging an organization on the basis of its constitutionally protected religious beliefs is wrong. 

Your attitudes here represent everything that is wrong with the ACLU today.  Discrimination is wrong unless you're discriminating against Christians or heterosexuals, ion which case it's good.  Giving undeserved assistance to scumbags in a pedophilia promotion group is good.  Taking support away from a group that instill ethics and character in growing boys good.  Defending a nonexistent "separation of church and state" doctrine is good, violating the 1st Amedment rights to the free exercise of religion is good.  Ignoring or outright weakening the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is good.

This conversation is over.

[RevDisk]

Yeah, actually they do.  Sigh...  You can't comprehend how disadvantaging an organization on the basis of its constitutionally protected religious beliefs is wrong. 

Your attitudes here represent everything that is wrong with the ACLU today.  Discrimination is wrong unless you're discriminating against Christians or heterosexuals, ion which case it's good.  Giving undeserved assistance to scumbags in a pedophilia promotion group is good.  Taking support away from a group that instill ethics and character in growing boys good.  Defending a nonexistent "separation of church and state" doctrine is good, violating the 1st Amedment rights to the free exercise of religion is good.  Ignoring or outright weakening the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is good.

Apparently not, as far as I'm aware, I'm not aware of any disadvantages of any religious organizations that don't practice discrimination.  I'm sure Reverend Phelps would agree with ya, though.  (Irony, ACLU followed a brief on his behalf, it is a pretty weird planet.)

The really ironic part is that I'm not really a fan of the ACLU, I just don't believe they're as evil as most rightists believe.  I find the whole "culture war" rubbish vastly amusing.  Folks need an enemy, I guess.  Even if they have to invent one. 

This conversation is over.

Thank you for the entertainment.   

[gunsmith]

The ACLU defends Nazi's and peds.

The ACLU ARE peds....probably Nazi's too.

How does this have any benefit to society or freedom?

[RevDisk]

The ACLU defends Nazi's and peds.

The ACLU ARE peds....probably Nazi's too.

How does this have any benefit to society or freedom?

Everyone is entitled to a defense under the law.  Not saying I like their taste in clients, but that's part of our system.

[brimic]

In the past, Rust-Tierney had argued against restricting Internet access in public libraries in Virginia, writing, "Recognizing that individuals will continue to behave responsibly and appropriately while in the library, the default should be maximum, unrestricted access to the valuable resources of the Internet."

His "valuable resources" would be considered filth to most adults. I hope he's somebody's 'little girl' in prison, preferably somebody with an untreatable communicable disease like hepatitis or HIV. I wish nothing but he best for him in his new home

[MechAg94]

Quote
Politically incorrect and unpopular organizations have just as much right public support as anyone else.
No, they don't.

Wooderson, doesn't this conflict with the rest of what you are trying to say? 

[Rooster]

The ACLU is a bad thing.  NAMLA and now this, are only two of the many transgressions they have made against this country over the years.

You also realize that they will defend any constitutional right with the exception of your second amendment rights - do you not?

[RevDisk]

The ACLU is a bad thing.  NAMLA and now this, are only two of the many transgressions they have made against this country over the years.

You also realize that they will defend any constitutional right with the exception of your second amendment rights - do you not?

It's a private organization, they can defend or not defend whomever they wish.

Could just do what I did.  I give my money to the GOA.  NRA is a lil soft, sometimes with NFA and evil black rifles.  Too connected at the hip with the Repubs too.  I'll drop a $20 if I see them at a gunshow, but I wouldn't want to be a member at the moment.