Post by: gunsmith on February 24, 2007, 05:53:49 PM
Feb. 23, 2007 Federal agents arrested Charles Rust-Tierney, the former president of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU, Friday in Arlington for allegedly possessing child pornography.
According to a criminal complaint obtained by ABC News, Rust-Tierney allegedly used his e-mail address and credit card to subscribe to and access a child pornography website.
The complaint states that federal investigations into child pornography websites revealed that "Charles Rust-Tierney has subscribed to multiple child pornography website over a period of years."
As recently as last October, the complaint alleges, "Rust-Tierney purchased access to a group of hardcore commercial child pornography websites."
Complaint Alleges Access to Graphic Material
Rust-Tierney admitted to investigators that he had downloaded videos and images from child pornography websites onto CD-ROMs, according to the complaint.
The videos described in the complaint depict graphic forcible intercourse with prepubescent females. One if the girls is described in court documents as being "seen and heard crying", another is described as being "bound by rope."
The investigation is being conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and the Arlington County Police as part of the Northern Virginia and District of Columbia Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force.
Rust-Tierney made an initial appearance in a federal court in Alexandria, VA, Friday. He is being detained pending a preliminary hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 28.
Youth Coach, Argued Against Restricting Public Internet
Rust Tierney coaches various youth sports teams in and around Arlington, Virginia, according to court documents.
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."
Post by: Manedwolf on February 24, 2007, 06:24:00 PM
Quote
The videos described in the complaint depict graphic forcible intercourse with prepubescent females. One if the girls is described in court documents as being "seen and heard crying", another is described as being "bound by rope."
This deserves the death penalty, IMO. With fire.
Quote
Rust Tierney coaches various youth sports teams in and around Arlington, Virginia, according to court documents.
Better not be anymore.
Post by: roo_ster on February 24, 2007, 07:21:19 PM
So, he ought not be pilloried in the media, since he is not guilty of hypocrisy (the greatest possble sin in today's culture--surpassing all others).
The poor, poor, dear. Let us hope he can be back coaching youths ASAP.
* Even if you pay for it with credit card
Post by: K Frame on February 25, 2007, 04:29:11 AM
I'm first in line.
We just need a couple more people, and someone to hold the salt shakers.
Post by: Nightfall on February 25, 2007, 06:44:41 AM
Post by: Jamisjockey on February 25, 2007, 07:05:51 AM
Local Pastor Arrested On Child Porn Charges
Eric Young
Young, 58, is the lead pastor of Ft. Caroline United Methodist Church
E-mail This Article
Printable Version
Make Us Home
RSS Web Feeds
FCN2go Mobile
FCNmail Newsletters
By Jackelyn Barnard
First Coast News
JACKSONVILLE, FL -- The lead pastor of a First Coast Church is under arrest, accused of downloading child pornography on the church's computer.
Friday afternoon, JSO vice made a surprise visit to Eric Young's Northside home.
Young, 58, is the lead pastor of Ft. Caroline United Methodist Church.
Church members, who did not want us to share their names, tell us Young has been the pastor of the church for about a year.
They say about three weeks ago, Young was put on leave suddenly.
First Coast News has learned, in mid-June, Bellsouth alerted the Church that someone was visting porn websites.
"Members of the church called to report they had seen pornography and they believed it was child pornography on the pastor's computer in his office," says Lt. Mike Gwynes of the JSO vice squad.
Police say they did forensic testing on the church's computer and found that it was child porn.
"Based on analysis, it was child porn and it could have only been placed there by the pastor," says Lt. Gwynes.
Lt. Gwynes says all kinds of porn were on there, but the basis for the arrest was a video of child porn.
According to the police report, it was a young girl. The video's name was, "Three year old gets raped..."
Police arrested Young at his home and booked him in jail.
The United Methodist Church's District Superintendent, Richard Neal, released this statement to First Coast News:
"We've taken the situation very seriously. He was removed from his responsibilties immediately and with his agreement he stepped aside. I'm disappointed. I'm concerned for our congregation and I'm concerned for our pastor."
Neal says Young could face formal church charges and a church trial. That trial would decide whether or not Young would keep in pastoral license.
Post by: ilbob on February 25, 2007, 08:09:55 AM
Post by: Bigjake on February 25, 2007, 09:22:00 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on February 25, 2007, 10:53:29 AM
Quote
Police say they did forensic testing on the church's computer and found that it was child porn.
This would be funny if not for the subject matter.In some of these cases, I wonder if they are arresting someone for one image that "might" be questionable, but then they mention "three year old raped" or something else similar and you realize it is no accident. Yes, porn at work is pretty stupid, but it does seem to happen a lot more than you would think.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 25, 2007, 10:59:24 AM
Why are we punishing them?
They need understanding and help from society, not shame and incarceration.
After all, think of the chil... wait, don't think about them.
Think of the true victim, the helpless addict.
Post by: Mannlicher on February 25, 2007, 11:39:11 AM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on February 25, 2007, 12:01:08 PM
Definitely more ironic than the pastor, given the "free speech" angle.
Post by: gunsmith on February 25, 2007, 12:34:04 PM
If that were true they would take up conservative causes as well.
Insipid liberals confuse the ACLU defending the Skokie nazi march as a conservative thing.
The ACLU hates children and thinks that children are here to serve the sexual needs
of liberal adults (this arrest cements my opinion)
they attack Boy Scouts, give free legal advice to NAMBLA.
Represented a NAMBLA member who kidnapped, raped and killed a little boy.
Notice how much this story is dominating the news?
Post by: RevDisk on February 25, 2007, 02:23:52 PM
I'll avoid the obvious comments I have regarding how disturbing this is, and instead point out how surprised I was about the paid subscription via credit card to a child porn site. I'd always imagined it as a few sickos trading stuff through IMs/e-mails or something.
No, unfortunately, it's not. It's an industry, and not a small one at that. Human slavery is still a big trade, too. I'd recommend picking up a couple books by Andrew Vachss. Or ask to hear the horror stories any AG or prosecutor that's had to work the family court can tell you. It's not small numbers. Stories I've heard here in the States rival any war crimes I've seen.
PETA always amused me. Humans are never as cruel to animals as they are to other humans.
While many folks hear will chuckle or point out this one guy as a reason to distrust the ACLU as a whole, there's plenty of folks out there that have done the same. Reading up on the last batch of Catholic sex abuse charges as one over-publicized example. Plenty of judges, priests, politicians, etc have been caught, convicted and sentenced.
A very well connected Republican politician named Larry King organized a child molestation ring that went rather high up into government. By blackmailing his clients, he bought a large amount of protection. Marc Dutroux ran a Belgian network that ran very high into European and American governments.
For any folks who think because I'm pragmatic, I somehow condone these freaks. Let me express my feelings in a very clear manner. Such people need to be either executed or isolated from humanity on a permanent basis. Not for what they've done, which would justify such treatment by itself, but moreso to prevent future victims. I know more than a few victims. Mental scars cut deeper than physical ones. They last a hell of a lot longer too. Most of the jail sentences are a joke, with a handful of exemptions. Incest sentences are even more lenient.
The 'professional' freaks are very intelligent, and thus very dangerous. I heard one story going around the LE community of freaks' lawyers plea bargaining UP to avoid getting on the registry. Instead of rape, pleaing to attempted murder or whatever so they can avoid getting put on the sex offenders registry. Another cute trick was getting sentenced to "chemical castration" such as tamoxifen. Looks good on paper as a means of punishing sex offenders. In reality, they get testosterone shots to neutralize the tamoxifen or Depo Provera. Testosterone is not a controlled substance, and thus shady docs have virtually no way of getting caught for reversing chemical castration. The blackmarket health care industry is larger than most people would believe as well, more diverse as well. Another 'popular' trend amoung organized rings is to engage in "Satanic abuse". In other words, they wear costumes and dress up sex crimes in so-called Satanic ritual. When the kid testifies before the court, he or she sounds insane.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 25, 2007, 02:29:41 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on February 25, 2007, 02:40:03 PM
Post by: Standing Wolf on February 25, 2007, 04:53:53 PM
Quote
...Rust-Tierney allegedly used his e-mail address and credit card to subscribe to and access a child pornography website.
Not only vicious and evil, but stupid. It's time for a short rope and a long drop.
Post by: LadySmith on February 25, 2007, 11:51:19 PM
Andrew Vachss is my favorite author.
And I'd try to bump you out of first place in that line, Mike.
Post by: Pb on February 26, 2007, 04:49:49 AM
Post by: wooderson on February 26, 2007, 11:10:14 AM
Quote
The ACLU hates children and thinks that children are here to serve the sexual needs
of liberal adults (this arrest cements my opinion)
This is simply absurd.of liberal adults (this arrest cements my opinion)
Quote
they attack Boy Scouts, give free legal advice to NAMBLA.
Represented a NAMBLA member who kidnapped, raped and killed a little boy.
They don't "attack Boy Scouts" - they challenge the idea that a discriminatory organization can receive federal monies. Once the Boy Scouts are fully private, they're free to assign all the "God Hates Fags" merit badges they please and the ACLU doesn't care.Represented a NAMBLA member who kidnapped, raped and killed a little boy.
They didn't represent any "NAMBLA member" - the represented the organization in a lawsuit raised by the victim's family. It was rather akin to families suing firearms manufacturers, actually. And we all know that's evil, right?
Post by: Perd Hapley on February 26, 2007, 11:38:20 AM
Quote
They don't "attack Boy Scouts" - they challenge the idea that a discriminatory organization can receive federal monies. Once the Boy Scouts are fully private, they're free to assign all the "God Hates Fags" merit badges they please and the ACLU doesn't care.
And your comments aren't an attack on the Boy Scouts, either, I presume?
Post by: wooderson on February 26, 2007, 11:54:48 AM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on February 26, 2007, 11:58:03 AM
They didn't represent any "NAMBLA member" - the represented the organization in a lawsuit raised by the victim's family. It was rather akin to families suing firearms manufacturers, actually. And we all know that's evil, right?
The analogy is inaccurate. Gun manufacturers don't support, promote, or advocate for the "right" to commit horrible and disgusting crimes against defenseless victims. NAMBLA does. Quote
they attack Boy Scouts, give free legal advice to NAMBLA.
Represented a NAMBLA member who kidnapped, raped and killed a little boy.
They don't "attack Boy Scouts" - they challenge the idea that a discriminatory organization can receive federal monies. Once the Boy Scouts are fully private, they're free to assign all the "God Hates Fags" merit badges they please and the ACLU doesn't care.Represented a NAMBLA member who kidnapped, raped and killed a little boy.
Here's an idea that the ACLU could benefit from: Christians are just as entitled to their beliefs and lifestyles as "fags" (your term, not mine) are to theirs.
Post by: wooderson on February 26, 2007, 12:08:36 PM
The connection was quite tenuous in that case, really - the attacker was found 'in possession' of some NAMBLA materials (which did not, of course, explain how to commit the acts he committed). There's no causal chain between NAMBLA and the act. (Do you believe "the violent video game made me kill those people"?)
In gun suits, the perp actually has to use a company's product to commit a crime.
A lawsuit which has never occurred, but would be relevant here - a trainee of Gunsite or wherever goes nuts, slaughters a lot of people, shoots a bunch of cops before being captured. Should victims be able to sue Gunsite because they taught the wackjob how to use his weapons in a manner that later allowed him to kill a large number of people?
Post by: Manedwolf on February 26, 2007, 12:09:30 PM
NAMBLA is just a bunch of people who endorse committing a horrible crime, and ought to be locked up. That's not free speech, it's conspiracy to commit crimes.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on February 26, 2007, 12:18:00 PM
The ACLU's argument against the BSA can just as easily be reversed. There is a very real, very legitimate, and Constitutionally protected understanding held by millions of Americans that homosexuality is wrong. Why should those millions be forced to give up some of their paychecks to support a practice they find sinful and wrong? Why should they be forced to pay for a Federal bureaucracy that actively supports an activity that disagree with?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on February 26, 2007, 12:26:54 PM
A lawsuit which has never occurred, but would be relevant here - a trainee of Gunsite or wherever goes nuts, slaughters a lot of people, shoots a bunch of cops before being captured. Should victims be able to sue Gunsite because they taught the wackjob how to use his weapons in a manner that later allowed him to kill a large number of people?
The analogy still isn't accurate. Gunsite doesn't encourage anyone to commit crime. They don't encourage people to slaughter innocent people or shoot a bunch of cops. Gunsite goes out of its way to avoid criminals in it's classes. They certainly don't seek out or support people who have engaged in or desire to engage in criminal activity.NAMBLA, on the other hand, does encourage it's members to abuse children and violate laws against pedophilia and sexual abuse, claiming that such activities are acceptable and harmless. NAMBLA is a meeting place and support organization for pedophiles. They seek out criminals, many prominent members are self-described pedophiles, and they advocate for the right to their pedophilia without penalty. Given that pedophilia is a crime, it isn't rational to describe NAMBLA as anything other than a criminal organization.
Until Gunsite or S&W or whomever actively encourage people to commit murder you won't have a reasonable analogy.
Post by: wooderson on February 26, 2007, 12:31:08 PM
Quote
What, and federal monies are never spent on homosexuals or on organizations that support homosexuals/homosexuality? Homosexuals don't receive special privileges under the law?
If you can find an organization that specifically prohibits the involvement of heterosexual individuals and receives a significant portion of public funds (along with other forms of support - use of schools, etc.), let's see it.Quote
The ACLU's argument against the BSA can just as easily be reversed.
Absolutely, in the event that you can find a Boy Scouts-analgous organization that discriminates against heterosexuals. Find it.Quote
There is a very real, very legitimate, and Constitutionally protected understanding held by millions of Americans that homosexuality is wrong.
Completely and utterly irrelevant - the BSA case didn't seek to deny anyone their right to hate homosexuals until the cows come home. The suit sought to stop state funding for a discriminatory organization. Period.Quote
Why should those millions be forced to give up some of their paychecks to support a practice they find sinful and wrong? Why should they be forced to pay for a Federal bureaucracy that actively supports an activity that disagree with?
First, I'd note that you ask only leading questions. You don't bother to actually identify which organizations are being funded by the government to "support homosexuality."That small issue (cough) aside, we don't decide where our individual tax dollars go. Period. Some folks don't like homosexuals, I don't support the war in Iraq. I don't get to decide not to pay for Dubya's sand trap.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 26, 2007, 12:32:30 PM
The ACLU's argument against the BSA can just as easily be reversed. There is a very real, very legitimate, and Constitutionally protected understanding held by millions of Americans that homosexuality is wrong. Why should those millions be forced to give up some of their paychecks to support a practice they find sinful and wrong? Why should they be forced to pay for a Federal bureaucracy that actively supports an activity that disagree with?
Step back 20 years and, in that paragraph, replace "homosexuality" with "interracial marriage".
Step back 40 years, and replace it with "being black".
Step back 100 years, and replace it with "being Irish".
Now. Doesn't it sound repugnant?
I consider NAMBLA to be a bunch of people plotting criminal acts. That deserves no legal protection. But when you talk about Americans thinking that PEOPLE are wrong for being who they are...that they're somehow "wrong people" for being homosexual, you're right back into the past ugliness of blind hate and second-class citizens. And for the record, I've never talked to any gay individual that expressed anything but disgust about NAMBLA, thinking it was one of the most awful PR disasters for gay rights there is. Dirty old men lusting after boys is not the same as normal homosexuals who just happen to prefer adults of the same gender.
Post by: wooderson on February 26, 2007, 12:36:58 PM
Quote
The analogy still isn't accurate. Gunsite doesn't encourage anyone to commit crime.
And NAMBLA doesn't encourage anyone to rape and murder - which is what they were being sued for.Quote
They don't encourage people to slaughter innocent people or shoot a bunch of cops. Gunsite goes out of its way to avoid criminals in it's classes. They certainly don't seek out or support people who have engage in or desire to engage in criminal activity.
yada yada yada, neither does NAMBLA yada yada yada.You don't seem to have read my statement. Nowhere did I suggest that Gunsite taught criminals. Or taught how to kill cops. Or anything you've just referred to.
Again: "trainee of Gunsite or wherever goes nuts" AND "they taught the wackjob how to use his weapons in a manner that later allowed him to kill a large number of people"
You don't think the former is possible? Was Charles Whitman 'a criminal' (since we're dealing with firearms, let's require a felony) before he killed his mother? Was the Utah shooter?
You don't think that Gunsite training would allow a schizophrenic or someone who'd simply lost it to use his weapons more effectively?
(Which, before anyone misreads: I'm pointing out the absurdity of suing a third-party with only a tenuous or non-existent connection to acts committed by a criminal.)
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on February 26, 2007, 12:46:23 PM
NAMBLA teaches that pedophilia and sexual assault is OK, that the laws against such are wrong and ought not be obeyed. Let me say this as simply as possible: NAMBLA encourage members to hurt innocents!! Gunsite does NOT teach that murder or assault or battery is OK, nor does it teach that the laws against such should be violated. Quite the opposite, in fact. Gunsite goes out of its way to discourage people from hurting innocents!!
The distinction is so obvious that even an ACLU supporter should be able to understand it.
Post by: roo_ster on February 26, 2007, 12:47:36 PM
The problem NABLA has was further exacerbated by the materials on their web site not only advocating heinous acts, but providing guides and instructions how to successfully commit those acts. To be more specific: how to kidnap and rape children wihtout beig charged & convicted of kidnapping and child-rape.
To sum up NAMBLA's situation:
1. They advocate illegality
2. They provide how-to guides on the subjects of kidnapping and child-rape.
3. They provide guides on how to avoid legal repercussions
Now, for the firearms manufacturers to come anywhere near the level of moral responsibility and culpability, they would have to
1. Advocate something illegal, like murder-for hire with their wares ("Nothing says 'Execution-style slaying' like the Taurus HITMAN series of revolvers...")
2. Provide a guide on how to find customers who want you to murder someone for them as well as a how-to on murder
3. Detail how to kill for money while not rousing the wrath or notice of law enforcement
Folks who voluntarily work with the likes of NAMBLA need to be shunned by polite society. This includes the ACLU scum whow helped them out.
BTW, I recall Soldier of Fortune beign sued for allowing a hitman classified ad & someone subsequently being murdered by the person who paid for the ad. Where was the ACLU then? Guess there were no kiddies to rape as a perk.
Post by: wooderson on February 26, 2007, 12:59:35 PM
Quote
Gunsite didn't encourage the nutjob to hurt anyone, nor did they tell the nutjob that it was OK to hurt people.
And NAMBLA didn't say "rape and murder." Whether you believe that's a subtext to their beliefs or not, it did not exist in any of their written materials.Quote
Quite the opposite, I imagine. I've never been to gunsite but I have been to other training programs. They go to great lengths to stress the responsibility that their training entails. They go way out of their way to teach their trainees on what the laws are and how not to violate any of them. They make a concerted effort to ensure that no harm comes to any innocent victim.
So it would be absurd to sue them, right?Quote
NAMBLA teaches that pedophilia and sexual assault is OK, that the laws against such are wrong and ought not be obeyed.
They teach that pederasty should be 'OK.' There is a difference.But, again, though I tire of pointing this out: they weren't sued for their overall beliefs.
Quote
The distinction is so obvious that even an ACLU supporter should be able to understand it.
And hopefully you'll read the things I've reiterated multiple times.But probably not.
Post by: RevDisk on February 26, 2007, 01:01:15 PM
There are various legal arguments for prohibiting federal funds going towards private groups that practice discrimination. Of course, if the BSA got the OK to get money while discriminating against gays, expect the KKK and other hate groups to line up for cash. All or none, more than likely. It's not about gays getting "special privileges", it's very clear. If you are a private group that discrimates against a specific group, you should not get federal funding.
I fail to see the downside, aside from wasting tax dollars. But I do get VASTLY amused when certain folks harp on their money going towards things "sinful and wrong", but have no problem with public tax dollars going towards "faith based initatives". Hey, I don't tax you to fund my drunken hedonistic religious rituals. Don't try to tax me for YOUR entertainment.
Way off topic, but to those of you who believe a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (or any other civil right) is a good idea... Remember this. The Constitution protects the people and limits the government. That is it's sole purpose. Such an amendment would reverse the purpose of the Constitution, to limiting the rights of the people instead of protecting them. That's a dark path. It would end up going a direction you would not enjoy.
Post by: wooderson on February 26, 2007, 01:02:37 PM
Quote
BTW, I recall Soldier of Fortune beign sued for allowing a hitman classified ad & someone subsequently being murdered by the person who paid for the ad. Where was the ACLU then? Guess there were no kiddies to rape as a perk.
Never heard of the case.But if the facts are as you laid them out - Soldier of Fortune was an intermediary in a murder-for-hire scheme. No different from "a guy who introduces a guy."
The only way this becomes a proper analogy is if two guys met while reading Soldier of Fortune and one hired the other as an assassin. Or they attended a Soldier of Fortune pizza party. Something like that where the magazine didn't have a direct role to play in the crime.
Post by: wooderson on February 26, 2007, 01:04:07 PM
Quote
NAMBLA is just a bunch of people who endorse committing a horrible crime, and ought to be locked up. That's not free speech, it's conspiracy to commit crimes.
This may be true.But what ACLU-bashers who've heard of one case don't seem to grasp is that NAMBLA's core ideology was irrelevant to the case in question. And while it's an uncomfortable position to take, we shouldn't ignore that fact just to make defending the ACLU easier.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on February 26, 2007, 01:20:48 PM
NAMBLA is a criminal organization. They seeks out criminals as their members. They teaches that it's OK to commit their pet crime. They seek to change the law such that they can commit their crimes without penalty. Their admitted desires are for these crimes to take place freely and frequently. They may never have put pen to paper recording their intentions and actions toward this result, but their actions do lead inexorably to that result. As such, I believe that NAMBLA is complicit in the perpetration the crimes of child abuse, pedophilia, and sexual assault. They ought not be supported by the ACLU, or by the courts, or by anyone/anything else.
Post by: roo_ster on February 26, 2007, 01:24:30 PM
Quote
BTW, I recall Soldier of Fortune beign sued for allowing a hitman classified ad & someone subsequently being murdered by the person who paid for the ad. Where was the ACLU then? Guess there were no kiddies to rape as a perk.
Never heard of the case.But if the facts are as you laid them out - Soldier of Fortune was an intermediary in a murder-for-hire scheme. No different from "a guy who introduces a guy."
The only way this becomes a proper analogy is if two guys met while reading Soldier of Fortune and one hired the other as an assassin. Or they attended a Soldier of Fortune pizza party. Something like that where the magazine didn't have a direct role to play in the crime.
Anyway, the SOF case is not the main point, that being that a group that advocates illegality and provides how-to guides is a whole lot more culpable than a company that produces legal wares and advocates only the legal use of them.
That NAMBLA is more culpable, morally, is purt-near unquestionable (relative to, say gun-makers or knife-makers who advocate only legal use of legal items). The big question after that is, "Are they legally culpable?"
The ACLU was not (in that case) advocating for kiddie-rape & kiddie porn, but they were aiding those who do. They (ACLU) bear moral responsibility for those actions.
Like I said, they ought not be fit for polite company. It is not nice to enable chomos.
Post by: roo_ster on February 26, 2007, 01:29:23 PM
Kidnapping, raping, & filming kids getting raped: sympathetic enough to rouse the ACLU's legion of lawyers.
Torturing critters: Just too wong for the ACLU to touch
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on February 26, 2007, 01:57:35 PM
The way I see it, Christians have a right to form public organizations and seek public support on equal footing with non-Christians. Homosexuals have the same right create public organizations and for those organizations to seek out public support. Neither side has the right to restrict the other's free exercise of this right. The ACLU stands selectively behind these rights for some, and against these rights for others. The ACLU supports our liberties, so long as we all adhere to a liberal, politically correct, and progressive lifestyle.
Where is the ACLU on the 2nd Ammendment? Answer: on the leftist, statist side supporting gun control, to the detriment of the Constitution.
When was the last time the ACLU took down one of the myriad of constitutionally-abhorrent social programs the Fed illegally spends our tax dollars on? Answer: they don't oppose social programs, despite their utter lack of constitutional authority.
When was the last time the ACLU stood up for the right of a straight, white, Christian, male to receive equal consideration for college entrance or job-promotion? Answer: they don't oppose limitations on the rights of boring, average Joes to receive equal treatment - they generally only support the rights of politically correct minorities.
When was the last time the ACLU supported a Christian organization's right to go about its business in public as freely as any non-religious organization? Answer: they oppose Christian organizations, under some contorted belief that the 1st Amendment calls for "prohibiting the free exercise of religion" in the name of "separation of church and state".
Post by: wooderson on February 26, 2007, 02:46:33 PM
Quote
NAMBLA is a criminal organization. They seeks out criminals as their members. They teaches that it's OK to commit their pet crime.
Actually, they don't encourage anyone to "commit their pet crime," much less murder. Which, again, was the focus of the lawsuit, wrongful death.You are letting emotion get in the way of reason.
Quote
They ought not be supported by the ACLU, or by the courts, or by anyone/anything else.
And it's not. You're not catching on to that. The ACLU defended NAMBLA on legal principles, nothing more - the very specific belief that you can't be sued because two wackjobs read your magazine and accessed your website, even though no one can show a direct causal link between your magazine and website and the actions undertaken.Just as Soldier of Fortune can't be sued because some militia-men get a couple of funny ideas.
Post by: wooderson on February 26, 2007, 02:47:00 PM
Quote
I'd be willing to bet that an animal-torture group that was sued for providing how-to guides after some guy's pet was tortured to death by a fellow who read & followed those guides could not count on the ACLU to take up their fight.
Actually, the ACLU has, in the past, defended the act of ritual animal sacrifice, much less third-party involvement. Nice try, though.
Post by: wooderson on February 26, 2007, 02:51:08 PM
Quote
SOF lost their case, BTW.
If the facts are as you've said, they should.Quote
Anyway, the SOF case is not the main point, that being that a group that advocates illegality and provides how-to guides is a whole lot more culpable than a company that produces legal wares and advocates only the legal use of them.
The SOF case was not the point, I guess, because you're trying to draw a direct comparison between an intermediary in murder (with full knowledge of the ad being placed) and a situation where the plaintiff has absolutely no connection to the crime committed, other than its materials being present in the individual's belongings.Quote
That NAMBLA is more culpable, morally, is purt-near unquestionable (relative to, say gun-makers or knife-makers who advocate only legal use of legal items). The big question after that is, "Are they legally culpable?"
Bingo. Moral culpability is irrelevant to the ACLU, as it should be. The ACLU deals with the rule of law.Quote
The ACLU was not (in that case) advocating for kiddie-rape & kiddie porn, but they were aiding those who do. They (ACLU) bear moral responsibility for those actions.
No, the ACLU was advocating for due process. The plaintiff is irrelevant, be they the Klan or NAMBLA or Soldier of Fortune or Smith & Wesson.Your argument is that we should simply disregard the basic rule of law because an organization you dislike is in the dock. That rights and liberties can be disregarded when they're inconvenient. One wonders how you feel when antis treat the 2nd in this manner.
Post by: wooderson on February 26, 2007, 02:56:38 PM
Quote
The way I see it, Christians have a right to form public organizations and seek public support on equal footing with non-Christians.
Equal footing?How many non-Christian Presidents have there been?
What percentage of the country self-identifies as Christian?
Which states discriminate Christians in, say, marriage? Adoption?
Which states bar Christian churches?
Has the IRS stripped all Christian chuches of their tax benefits?
Where is this wanton anti-Christian discrimination going on?
Quote
The ACLU stands selectively behind these rights for some, and against these rights for others. The ACLU supports our liberties, so long as we all adhere to a liberal, politically correct, and progressive lifestyle.
Exactly where has the ACLU sought to deny Christians their right to assembly? Their right to speech? Gimme some cases here.Oh, that's right: they haven't. Just as you can't specify exactly which anti-hetero discriminatory organizations are analgous to the Boy Scouts.
Because all of this exists in your head.
Quote
When was the last time the ACLU stood up for the right of a straight, white, Christian, male to receive equal consideration for college entrance or job-promotion?
Right, poor oppressed white men. We have it so tough, controlling all the wealth, every level of government, and the vast majority of churches. Poor, poor us.You're so boring.
Quote
When was the last time the ACLU supported a Christian organization's right to go about its business in public as freely as any non-religious organization? Answer: they oppose Christian organizations, under some contorted belief that the 1st Amendment calls for "prohibiting the free exercise of religion" in the name of "separation of church and state".
This is simply nonsense. The ACLU has repeatedly supported Christian groups and their various Constitutional rights.That it doesn't promote a Christian theocracy does not make the organization anti-Christian.
Post by: RevDisk on February 26, 2007, 03:13:29 PM
Bringing this discussion back on topic, the ACLU is fighting culture war against the right. As such, the news that a high-level ACLU patron was deeply involved in child pornography is noteworthy. The story's downplay in the mainstream media puts the battle lines in stark contrast. Leftists in the media, leftists in the ACLU, and progressives such as the gay rights movement and NAMBLA are shown to be in alliance. Their enemy is shown to be conservative or religious organizations who take a moral stand in favor of traditional value and against sexual hedonism and deviance (such as the BSA).
Woah there. First off, gay rights and NAMBLA are not the same, nor in alliance. Most gays that I've spoken at length with, admittedly Pink Pistol types, have pretty typical attitudes towards child molesters. (ie, shoot 'em) They're not in any "culture war". They want civil liberties, and some folks don't want 'em to have rights whatsoever.
NAMBLA is a front attempting to legalize an abusive activity. They claim to want 'civil liberties', in reality, they want to sexually victimize unconsenting children.
Big difference, mate. In one case, a group of consenting adults want civil liberties and the right to be equal. It's not my lifestyle, but I can appreciate wanting freedom. It's what America is supposed to be about. The other group is a group wanting to legalize literally destroying children. It's as opposite as you can get.
You want to legislate religious doctrine, not "promote values". Your prophet did not advocate using government coercion against people that disagreed with him. As I recall, he very much disagreed with it. He talked to many people and tried to convert them by making them want to convert of their own free will. Ironically, he was killed by religious leaders who did favor government enforced religious coercion. No one is stopping you from believing whatever you want to believe.
The BSA is a cute ad lib, but the reality is that organizations that want to practice discrimination should not receive public funds. If you feel differently, why don't you open your wallet instead of trying to open mine? I prefer to donate my cash to GOA, NRA, etc.
If you want to try to convince people to give up hedonism, go right ahead. Heck, I'll buy the beer and popcorn. It'd be vastly amusing. If you want to make your religious doctrine the law of the land, that's another story. With the exception of a couple of wackjobs who do want to stomp out all religion, folks just want to be left alone to live their lives as they please. They'll all die in time, and settle accounts in the afterlife. That's between them and whatever diety they choose.
Quote
The way I see it, Christians have a right to form public organizations and seek public support on equal footing with non-Christians. Homosexuals have the same right create public organizations and for those organizations to seek out public support. Neither side has the right to restrict the other's free exercise of this right. The ACLU stands selectively behind these rights for some, and against these rights for others. The ACLU supports our liberties, so long as we all adhere to a liberal, politically correct, and progressive lifestyle.
Where is the ACLU on the 2nd Ammendment? Answer: on the leftist, statist side supporting gun control, to the detriment of the Constitution.
Where is the ACLU on the 2nd Ammendment? Answer: on the leftist, statist side supporting gun control, to the detriment of the Constitution.
Christians do have a right to create any organization they want to. They can SEEK any public support they want. I don't know of any sane folks that argue differently. The ACLU is a private organization. If you don't like their views, don't donate. If enough folks don't like their views, they run out of money and go away. They're entitled to whatever opinion they want, stupid as many of them may be.
Quote
When was the last time the ACLU took down one of the myriad of constitutionally-abhorrent social programs the Fed illegally spends our tax dollars on? Answer: they don't oppose social programs, despite their utter lack of constitutional authority.
When was the last time the ACLU stood up for the right of a straight, white, Christian, male to receive equal consideration for college entrance or job-promotion? Answer: they don't oppose limitations on the rights of boring, average Joes to receive equal treatment - they generally only support the rights of politically correct minorities.
When was the last time the ACLU stood up for the right of a straight, white, Christian, male to receive equal consideration for college entrance or job-promotion? Answer: they don't oppose limitations on the rights of boring, average Joes to receive equal treatment - they generally only support the rights of politically correct minorities.
And what is stopping you from creating an organization that fights for the rights of "straight, white, Christian, males" exclusively? Start a PAC, try to raise funds, and take it from there. No one's stopping you. Obviously, folks who donate to the ACLU like the policies that the ACLU follows. Not my cup of tea, but as long as they don't break any laws, I fail to see the bad side?
Quote
When was the last time the ACLU supported a Christian organization's right to go about its business in public as freely as any non-religious organization? Answer: they oppose Christian organizations, under some contorted belief that the 1st Amendment calls for "prohibiting the free exercise of religion" in the name of "separation of church and state".
And I'm sure the ACLU even remotely compares financially or numerically to the number of Christian organizations. Again, what's your point? That you don't like their policies? They are fairly open about their opinions. Fair as I know, they're not hiding anything. You're making it out to sound like they're some evil conspiracy akin to a left-wing ZOG or whatever. They have no more and no less power than any other private organization.
And yes, unification of church and state does prohibit the free exercise of religion. Just because the exact phrase "seperation of church and state" is not in the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights does not mean that the 9th and 10th amendments do not exist.
The Constitution spells out exactly the role and limitation of the federal government. The Bill of Rights just enumerates a bunch of rights you have. It is not the beginning nor the end of your civil rights. Let me phrase it VERY clearly, the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Post by: gunsmith on February 26, 2007, 05:08:57 PM
I was a boy scout, it was obvious that some of my scoutmasters were gay.
He was not a pederast though.
There are no "God Hate Fags" merit badges, where did you get that?
Why do you hate the Boy Scouts so much? I don't understand.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on February 26, 2007, 06:13:13 PM
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.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 26, 2007, 07:32:16 PM
Quote
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.
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.
Post by: wooderson on February 27, 2007, 09:33:18 AM
Quote
I was a boy scout, it was obvious that some of my scoutmasters were gay.
He was not a pederast though.
And he would be drummed out today.He was not a pederast though.
Quote
There are no "God Hate Fags" merit badges, where did you get that?
sigh...Quote
Why do you hate the Boy Scouts so much? I don't understand.
I neither hate them nor love them - I simply don't care. They can prosper or wither and it makes not a bit of difference to me.I do care when discriminatory organizations are funded by the state.
Post by: wooderson on February 27, 2007, 09:40:57 AM
Quote
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.
The Boy Scouts aren't a religious organization (with the protections offered to explicitly religious organizations in terms of discrimination). Their "religious beliefs and affiliations" weren't an issue in the BSA case, as they have no specific beliefs or affiliations. The Boy Scouts do not, so far as I know, discriminate against Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc.. Well, not openly at least.
The Boy Scouts may think whatever they want - but as an organization that discriminates against a class of people on moral grounds, they don't deserve public funding. Just as an organization that discriminates against Christians, gun owners or African-Americans does not.
Quote
Wooderson or RevDisk will no doubt be along shortly to explain why I've got it all wrong.
'Twould be a waste of my time. You haven't bothered to provide any specifics to the questions posed, and based on your knowledge of the NAMBLA and BSA cases, your information on the ACLU and its activities is, shall we say, lacking.Quote
But the bottom line is that the ACLU won't leave the BSA alone until it caves in on its principles.
I'm unaware of any ongoing cases involving the ACLU and BSA. Can you point me to them?Quote
That the BSA's principles are constitutionally protected is irrelevant.
The BSA's right to 'hate fags' (see, still a joke, fellas) is constitutionally protected. The ACLU would undoubtedly agree with this.You don't seem to grasp that the ACLU case was about funding by the state.
Quote
one particular arbitrary, narrow minded set of cultural norms and values is bigot.
There is some irony that a dude complaining about the war on Christians and defending discrimination against homosexuals, etc. is taking 'leftists' to task for an "arbitrary, narrow minded set of cultural norms and values."
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on February 27, 2007, 11:52:39 AM
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...
Post by: gunsmith on February 27, 2007, 12:31:18 PM
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.
Post by: RevDisk on February 27, 2007, 05:30:49 PM
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.
Quote
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?
Quote
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" ?
Quote
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.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on February 27, 2007, 07:41:35 PM
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.
Post by: gunsmith on February 28, 2007, 01:46:24 AM
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.
Post by: SteveS on February 28, 2007, 05:31:09 AM
Quote
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?
Post by: wooderson on February 28, 2007, 08:21:37 AM
Quote
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?
Quote
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?Quote
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?
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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?Quote
Politically incorrect and unpopular organizations have just as much right public support as anyone else.
No, they don't.Quote
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.Quote
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.
Post by: wooderson on February 28, 2007, 08:24:42 AM
Quote
He was never a pedophile though.
Neither were those kicked out of the Scouts. What's your point?Quote
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.I believe that is what they want though, this guy just happened to get caught.
Quote
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.they never do.
But they have defended churches in various free expression suits.
And the Nazis, of course.
Post by: gunsmith on February 28, 2007, 12:26:14 PM
Quote
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!
Post by: RevDisk on February 28, 2007, 12:38:15 PM
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?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on February 28, 2007, 01:16:09 PM
Quote
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?
Quote
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?Quote
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?
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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?Quote
Politically incorrect and unpopular organizations have just as much right public support as anyone else.
No, they don't.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.
Post by: RevDisk on February 28, 2007, 02:29:55 PM
Quote
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.
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.
Quote
This conversation is over.
Thank you for the entertainment.
Post by: gunsmith on March 01, 2007, 02:45:25 AM
The ACLU ARE peds....probably Nazi's too.
How does this have any benefit to society or freedom?
Post by: RevDisk on March 01, 2007, 02:41:16 PM
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?
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.
Post by: brimic on March 02, 2007, 12:37:39 AM
Quote
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
Post by: MechAg94 on March 02, 2007, 05:09:31 AM
Quote
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?
Politically incorrect and unpopular organizations have just as much right public support as anyone else.
No, they don't.
Post by: Rooster on March 02, 2007, 06:26:44 AM
You also realize that they will defend any constitutional right with the exception of your second amendment rights - do you not?
Post by: RevDisk on March 02, 2007, 07:33:39 PM
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?
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.