Down with the ACLU

We all disagree with the ACLU from time to time, but they do stand up for Civil Liberties - without them, who knows what this country would be.

The Boy Scouts have enjoyed many a special privelege denied to other groups, and have violated people's rights themselves.

This link turns up over 30 examples:

http://search.aclu.org/AdvancedSearchResults.cfm

Maureen

First, I admit that I do not personally support many of the cases that the ACLU decides to take on. Nor do I like all of the decisions that sprout from them.

Still, when it comes to personal rights and freedoms in the US, there is no stronger proponent than the ACLU.

While I was a scout myself, I agree with the stand that the Boy Scouts should not be allowed any special consideration or use of public facilities not afforded to other groups. The Boy Scouts DO discriminate against those who do not accept God in their lives.

In many parts of the US, the umbrella charity "United Way" no longer funds Scouting. They stopped funding Scouting because the Scouts discriminate against non-religious and homosexuals. Aside from self-righteousness, why should non-religious and gays be kept out of Scouting?
(By the way, I stopped giving to United way years ago because they fund Planned Parenthood.)

As the US population continues to become more culturally diverse, many of the standards of our youth will fall aside to allow for the rights and freedoms of the diversifying culture.

As to pedophilia, as far as I know, the ACLU does not support pedophilia. They have fought for people who have faced job and cultural discrimination because they had a pedophile crime on their record.
That is one BIG problem with US society. It is VERY difficult for a person with ANY criminal record to find and keep a decent job.

As to court costs for civil cases, how would you pay for a trial if you were discriminated against?

Most individuals who have faced discrimination do not have the means to pay for a lawyer let alone a trial that escalates to higher courts.

Other than forced busing in the 60's, I can't say that I have seen a lot of judicial activism.

When you look at most cases objectively, you see the rule of law being followed.

While the founders of this nation were God fearing men, they constructed a legal framework for our nation that did not enforce a specific religious belief system.

If the US were a truly "just" society, the ACLU would be fully funded from our Federal Taxes.

Chas

The ACLU is being funded with my tax dollars to bring suit against the very institutions that I hold dear and sacred. I advocate withdrawing their Federal funding and removing their incentive to bring these frivolous law suites against the government. What?s more, I believe that any lawyer found to bring a civil suite without merit should be fined and imprisoned. If your waiting for the HAHA it?s not coming. I am serious as a heart attack. What we need are some Judges who will grow some courage and throw these rascals in prison and let them reap the harvest they so diligently planted for so many years.

.
The Boy Scouts do not receive any public funding. They don't, they never have, and they never will accept even one cent of public money, paid by either willing or unwilling taxpayers.

In June 2000, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts of America is a private social organization and not a public entity. And as such, the Boy Scouts have the right to set certain rules for membership. But they do not receive any public funding.

The Boy Scouts receive their funding from dues paid by the scout's parents; and most troops have scholarship funds available (also paid for by other parents) for boys whose parents can't afford the dues. They receive additional funding from charities like the Knights Of Columbus and the United Way. (Some United Way chapters, however, have deemed the Boy Scouts unworthy to receive any donations. I guess they have their priorities.) They raise money by selling popcorn every year, and many people buy the popcorn year after year.

Local businesses and business groups provide support for both local troops and district organizations. The people running these businesses know that the Boy Scouts, whose primary goal is youth development, will be instrumental in turning out the leaders of tomorrow and future fathers who know the value of family. Many local churches also provide support for local troops. Many churches have found this to be a win-win relationship, as many troops provide community service by way of pancake breakfasts to raise funds for the poor, or perhaps take on a community project that would otherwise remain undone.

Many philanthropists provide funding for the Boy Scouts. There are various summer camps around the country on land donated by private citizens and staffed by local volunteers. People contribute used pickup trucks, and local mechanics donate their time and materials to keep them running. And hundreds of fathers spend their vacation weeks at these summer camps so the boys have the opportunity to go and grow.

So no, there are no taxpayer dollars going to the Boy Scouts.

The taxpayers can feel comfortable knowing that their tax dollars instead go to pay for condoms in public schools. For needles for drug abusers. To children who have more children. To provide police presence at gay rights parades. To the pockets of farmers - or farming corporations - to not grow anything. To drug dealers to provide information on the "bigger fish" drug dealers. To the "arts" so the public can see the desecration of what some people consider sacred figures - but hey, it's "art".

But no, not one cent has ever been spent on the Boy Scouts.

.
What does Hill-Burton have to do with the ACLU attempted persecution of the Boy Scouts?

The abuses of the ACLU (and those of rogue judges) will never be reformed by currently existing methods. Why? Because in practice you are expecting the legal profession to reform itself.

The values of the ACLU are the values that many in the legal establishment hold. This isn't diversity, its selective preference. Abortion on demand is defended by the ACLU because they believe in it. Removal of Christian-type religious symbols is defended because they believe they should do it.

George Will had an excellent article on this subject ("Thought police keep GOP ideas off U.S. campuses"). This is the only argument I have AGAINST higher education. Higher education institutions, like law schools, are predominantly liberal in politics and do not hold to the same values as many in the US. It is very difficult to attend a public higher education institution without receiving the accompanying attempt at political indoctrination.

Congress will never correct this situation, because a) many of them are lawyers themselves and b) they hold the same values.

Judges will not correct this problem because they are lawyers themselves, and will not vote against themselves. (Judge Roy Moore in Alabama was one of the rare exceptions, who sided with the Constitution of the State of Alabama against other judges.)

Like in the election, the issue is values. Do you agree that the unborn are people or not? Do you agree that states rights are more important than federal rights? Do you believe in religion as important, or do you believe society should be atheistic? The problem with values is that 2.5 billion people will probably not agree on values!

I think we do need watchdog groups like the ACLU. We also need watchdog groups to watch groups like the ACLU. The ACLU has done some good things. It has also done some flaky things. The legal profession is not "special," and is not above the law. Like the groups they attempt to be held accountable, the ACLU does need to be reminded they can be held accountable themselves. And since the legal and political professions will not do it, it will have to be done by private citizens.

The instance of space and buildings, while not direct funding is indirect value given.

Providing a building to meet for free; another group would pay a rent is the issue. It is unlikely that another group would be likely to be welcome on any military base - that is preference. Why the BSA, and why not another group?

This link will bring you to a site that claims there has been Federal monies directly given.

http://marylandatheists.com/act_cur_boyscouts.htm

You asked why do I even mention Hill-Burton. I am more familiar with how the federal funds are acquired and the limitations placed on the Hospital or health care facilities using those funds. There is always a trade-off of some sort in any grant or funding, government or private.

Maureen

Max,

I do understand the difference between direct financial support and providing a place to meet.

Still, providing a place to meet is providing support to the organization.

I don't know all of the details, but the church that sponsored a BSA troop that I had some fringe involvement with kicked the Scouts out. As I understood things at the time, part of the reason was that other groups were requesting similar access. Since the church did not want to allow any additional groups, it decided to eliminate all groups that were not entirely part of the congregation.

The Salvation Army is running out of places for their kettles, as more and more retailers have decided it is too much of an issue to deal with the other groups requesting access.

As more and more places restrict access to individuals, we will see increased battles for equal treatment.

I see the root problem as 2 things:

Building owners can no longer afford the high cost of liability insurance that comes with allowing groups to use the building.

The continued breakdown of the "community". and commercialization of meeting places.

Chas

You seem to hold the position that the ACLU is a left biased organization.

While the concept of individual rights is at it's core very liberal, the ACLU is not biased toward the liberal view as much as it is toward individual rights.

As I recall, Rush Limbaugh had help from the ACLU when he was trying to protect his medical records form public and police scrutiny.

In the run up to the November elections, the ACLU was called in to help several Republican groups that were working to aid Ralph Nader in his quest.

The ACLU is an unrelenting champion of individual rights.

It goes against the letter and intent of the US Constitution to say that only those rights, for the individuals, that I (insert your interest group here) deem worthy are allowed.

It is not an issue between the ACLU and "moral values".
It is an issue of individual rights versus religious intolerance.

Chas

.
That's another fallacy -- the government "forcing" people to pay taxes, and then "forcing" them to behave a certain way if they want any of it back in the form of government spending -- or even for using a stupid government building. They're screwing you going in and then they're screwing you again on the way out. An obvious example of this is federal highway funds. The feds take billions of dollars from states' taxpayers, and then turns around and gives the money back to the state government - but with strings attached. The speed limit string, the lower "impaired" rating string. The same applies to school spending. They take billions from the states' citizens, and them make the state schools "behave" a certain way if they want the money back. Heck, why can't we just eliminate the middle-man -- the feds -- and pay those taxes right to the state government?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The biggest infringement on a person's individual liberties is the US tax code. They take money against our will, and then hold it over our heads as a way to coerce us to "behave" a certain way. And that is the real abomination.

of any group - not the BSA organization itself. I have stated, and will state again that overall, that organization has accomplished a great deal, and has a proven track record. I do know that Washington D.C. relies heavily on the volunteer efforts of the BSA, and I believe there has been some reimbursement for at least the out-of-pocket costs. I do find it unfortunate that the BSA has not adopted new by-laws effecting a welcome for all.

Their ban on gays is discriminatory. I don't worry about gay people, I worry about law-breaking predatory pedophiles - not the same thing, though most homophobes would neither recognize nor understand the differences.

A case could be and would be made if someone who is straight were to attempt to join a lesbian or gay group, and was refused. I am sure if someone who was not "black" were to attempt joining the NAACP and was refused, a suit could ensue. If you want to investigate whether this has yet occurred so you can be the first to give it a try - kudos to you.

Wasn't there an article in Connecticut about blocking the BSA from being among the groups that Fed. Employees make contributions to?

You are mixing apples and oranges:

The chaplains of any denomination are there (on bases) to support and minister the troops. They are not a group apart that are unrelated to the well-being/morale of the troops;

What a federal employee does privately in his own time and offsite, as long as it does not jeopardize the government or country, and is not illegal and/or does not violate anything in the Federal Human Resource code, is not the government's business. The ACLU would step in and bring suit against the government if that were to occur, becuase the employee's rights were violated.

That is EXACTLY the point.

You mention that if someone does not like what they (whomever)stand for, they don't have to join or contribute. That is true.

However, when tax dollars or other federal resources are involved, either directly by monetary grant or indirectly through preferential treatment or passive but valued donation of any sort, and the beneficiaries of these donations have committed violations of some people's rights, there has been a breach of all people's rights.

It is not an easy concept. It is irritating when the ban does not affect you or yours directly, so the issue is difficult to see.

I am not demonizing any group. If anyone is on the low road, Maxwell, it's not me. It is difficult to recognize that the ACLU is necessary to protect our rights from being subsumed or trampled upon.

I recognize that if one group has rules that discriminates aganst certain law-abiding citizens derives a benefit of any sort from the government, or enjoys government privileges that are denied other groups the government is, in effect, tolerating and condoning a trespass of rights.

Thanks for finding a link on their opinion on 2nd Amendment Rights. However, I find it strange that they make an effort to protect other instances of what they see as individual rights, but refuse to see the Right to Bear Arms as an individual right. And I do find it strange that they do not have a position you could find on private property rights, one of the very basic rights in the US Constitution defined in Amendment 5.

I agree they have the right to attempt to protect what in their view are civil liberties. I just disagree on some of their positions on what our civil liberties are. My previous post mainly addresses the comment that they should be Federally funded. As a private advocacy group, they should have no government funding, only government protection of their freedom of speech. Any funding should come from private individuals and groups who freely choose to support them. And if they bring suit and lose, I would like to see them required to pay the legal expenses of the other side, along with court costs. This is "loser pays" principle, which only seems to apply to losing defendents in civil cases in the US, not losing plaintiffs. Having it apply to losing plaintiffs would bring a reduction in frivolous suits.

.
If you make the blanket statement that you're against "preferential treatment", then you must also be against race-based affirmative action. You must also be against the government policies of granting a certain percentage of government contracts to women owned companies. You must also be against the giving of government education grants to targeted groups of people under a specific income level. You must also be against........shall I continue, or do you make exceptions for some things but not others?

Oh, I know, you're going to support those "preferential treatment" measures in the name of being fair. But it seems to me that the over zealous attempts to make absolutely certain every one, every group, and every cause is "treated equally", that individual rights are literally trampled upon. You (and others) and I will obviously never see eye-to-eye or agree on the issue of Boy Scouts using public facilities. But hey, what do I know?

All I know is that I spend literally hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars (spent either directly or indirectly) each and every year in my capacity as a Boy Scout leader for a local Boy Scout Troop. I don't get involved in policy-making, nor do I have any real contact with the national council. I never question an adult leader about his sexual preference, nor could I care any less about it than I do. I don't care about a person's faith, and I never question it. And contrary to what might be popular belief, the national council never questions or directs individual troops on such things.

I am absolutely convinced, however, that the Boy Scouts of America is being targeted by groups for the sole reason to advance their political agenda. Hey, if some individual kids are harmed by the consequences, then so be it. After all, it's all in the name of being "fair". But it's not fair. It's wrong, and it's destructive.

As a local Boy Scout troop leader, I don't see the things that are plastered all over the news. All I see are the good things that come out of scouting. I see trouble-maker boys become caring and productive young men when they have an outlet and some guidence for an alternative. I see fatherless boys becoming aware when they realize that they have some positive male role-models that they can consider and aspire to become. I see confused and insecure boys become confidant and secure as they realize the rewards that come out of hard work and effort to achieve worthy goals. I see the single mothers who struggle with their "strong-willed" sons who have a place they can turn to for help with their boys. I see the boys who learn the life-skills of becoming self-sufficient and responsible citizens.

But if these zealots had their way, we could no longer meet in the public school that allows us the use of their facilities once a week. We could no longer do our annual camp-out at a nearby Air Force base. We could no longer plan on attending the national camporee at the Army base in Virginia. We could no longer pledge an allegiance to our country and our God. And I would no longer see the good things that come out of scouting. But hey, it's all in the name of "fairness", right?

I'm reminded of a story I read several years ago about a good-hearted woman in Houston, Texas who would spend her extra money and extra time making home-made sandwiches for a variety of people who were, for some reason, struggling to feed themselves. Every day she would make sandwiches and hand them out, free of charge with no strings attached, to those she found in need. As time went by, she was making more and more sandwiches to feed more and more needy people, and she found that she was running out of resources. I don't know the exact details, but somehow she was offered, and she accepted some government money to help pay for the growing costs. Well guess what happened? Now that she was taking "government funds", she had to comply with the myriad of government rules. And some of those rules included the requirement for a certain percentage of "hot meals". But she couldn't do hot meals, she was a sandwich lady. And guess what eventually happened? Yea, that's right. She was literally put out of business, and she was forbidden to hand out any more sandwiches.

In the end, in the name of being fair, or in the name of being whatever, it just might do more harm than good. And the zealots who are attacking the Boy Scouts of America are, in my opinion, doing more harm than good. And if you want to call that "being fair", personally speaking, I want nothing to do with it.

So on that note, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

.
No Chas, I don't think you understand.

With all due respect, and at the risk of offending you, I believe you are thinking like an aloof and elitist "goody-two-shoes" who wants to maintain an appearance of being "fair", and wants to come across as being "all-inclusive", but in the end you are just trying to force other people or other groups to conform to your notions of what you believe to be the right way of thinking. And you're not being consistent in your thinking either. If you want to call it "an exception" to allow the Boy Scouts to use public facilities, then so be it. Call it an exception. But if you don't want to make an exception for the Boy Scouts, then you must not make an exception for anyone for anything. (See my other messages, so I don't have to repeat myself.)

You really need to quit listening to NPR. They've brain-washed your better judgement.

.
Obviously, I'm quite passionate about the issue of the Boy Scouts, and especially the subjects concerning all of the bad press they've been getting of late -- all extremely unfair and quite misleading, if you ask me.

After thinking about it for a bit (my last message to you), I was going to go back and edit out the parts that might be viewed as offensive. But "cyber-knowing" you as long as I have, I came to the conclusion that you wouldn't be offended, so I decided to leave it as is.

So take it simply as a very passionate reply, not necessarily to you, personally, but to what I consider a real character assassination by the political activists who are hell-bent in demonizing an absolutely outstanding organization just to push through their self-centered political agenda.

It's been asked of many people from either side of the political spectrum, is everything always black and white? Aren't there ever any shades of gray? And in the context of the Boy Scouts, I'm just flabergasted that people don't agree that if any organization was entitled to some "shade of gray", it's the Boy Scouts.

But I think I've had enough of this discussion.

It is about levelling a tilted playing field. Sort of like golfers who use the 'handicap' system to put everyone on equal footing.

We are not created equal, but we should have equal opportunity.

Maureen

Maxwell wrote "You really need to quit listening to NPR. They've brain-washed your better judgement"
...
It is well known that NPR is a major re-broadcaster of alien mind control signals from Omicron Perseii 8, and are part of the alien plot to weaken Earth's defenses. Wearing an aluminum foil hat will help protect against these signals.

We haven’t heard from our pal Bucky lately. I wonder if he’s ok. Bucky if your reading this – You know it’s all in fun right? I for one enjoy your reading the twaddle you spew forth! ;o) Julian, Col and Maureen have been reading the twaddle I spew out quit nicely.
By the way… I learned a new word the other day: TWADDLE. It just rolls off the tongue.

Chris -

Who is Marlene? I will tease you no end if you meant me - especially in the other discussion.

Because if you can't even get a 7 letter name straight, I shudder to think of what you would do (and seem to be doing) to the OT and NT!

Maureen

Marlene is my mothers name. I was thinking about you and for whatever reason typed her name. That's funny. No Freudian comments please! ;o)