|
if anyone cares, i do not believe that allowing gay people into the boy scouts is wrong because it would open doors for pedophiles.
But i do believe that allowing homosexuals into the boy scouts clearly conflicts with one of the main puposes of the organization. There are no girls allowed, as it would raise a lot of social conflicts, and i'm sure most people understand this. Allowing homosexual people would be similar to allowing girls into the organization. It would lead to a lot of discomfort and distrust, not only for the kids, but also their parents. To give a simple example, there would most probably be no harmless showering together anymore.
Furthermore, the boy scouts is after all a christian organization. And as long as they bring no actual harm to other people, they can believe whatever they want to. A lot of people are actually trusting this very organization to represent at least some christian values.
And since there is no actual harm done to other people, i find the argument of discrimination ridiculous. If you think that everyone has the right to do everything they want, go to an islamic ruled country and tell them you do not believe in their god. Chances are, if you pick the right one you will be executed. Why pick on (and ruin, as stated above) a friendly organization, when there is much more cruelty going on around the world? And if you believe the more freedom the better, go to a warzone, and you will soon learn that true freedom comes at its price, whereas restrictions also guarantee safety, as i already mentioned above.
Lastly, for the funding that the organization recieves:
The government funds things that it believes are of common interest. You might not like some restrictions, but a lot of people in the US actually do, and there are enough of them to make a valid point in funding the organization. In my country, the state does fund a ton of things i heavily dislike, or which i believe are immoral or unfair. But when it serves a lot of people i have still respect for it.
|
im not sure what BSA you were a part of that all the boys showered together, but that certainly didn't happen in our troop. and i would not have felt any discomfort from having a homosexual scout sleeping in a tent with me (or a girl for that matter, rawwwr). regardless, dont you think those are things that should be decided on the local level (where they actually have context and facts) rather than the national level (where they make generalizations that are based on bullshit)?
|
On October 11 2012 01:45 Cirqueenflex wrote:
if anyone cares, i do not believe that allowing gay people into the boy scouts is wrong because it would open doors for pedophiles.
But i do believe that allowing homosexuals into the boy scouts clearly conflicts with one of the main puposes of the organization. There are no girls allowed, as it would raise a lot of social conflicts, and i'm sure most people understand this.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think homosexual males are still males. I didn't know that your sexual orientation changed your sex...
On October 11 2012 01:45 Cirqueenflex wrote:To give a simple example, there would most probably be no harmless showering together anymore.
I've never heard of boy scout troops showering together...
|
On October 11 2012 00:43 micronesia wrote:
What government funding does the BSA receive? Indirectly they do through a few benefits... but I'm not aware of money being given to the BSA from federal taxpayers.
Two well-known Chicago religious leaders have asked a federal appellate court in Chicago to uphold the basic constitutional principle of government neutrality between religious groups and secular groups and bar the Pentagon from the extraordinary spending of millions of dollars to support future Boy Scout Jamborees (the only youth organization event so funded by the Pentagon). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is hearing arguments on Thursday April 6 in Winkler v. Rumsfeld, a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois.
Last year a federal district court judge in Chicago found that the Pentagon's special expenditure of more than $7 million for each Jamboree violated the principle of government neutrality in religion and ordered the funding stopped. The appellate court argument is the most recent action in the case brought by the ACLU of Illinois on behalf of religious and community leaders from Chicago alarmed at the favored treatment afforded by the Pentagon to the Boy Scouts of America, despite the BSA's religious requirements for participation.
“Government neutrality in religious activities is a fundamental constitutional value embraced by most Americans," said lead plaintiff Eugene Winkler, former pastor at the First United Methodist Church in Chicago. "Government must be neutral because we are a nation of many religious views - as well as those who do not practice a religion. The expenditure of more than $29 million by the Pentagon for an organization that requires young people to believe in God - and the simultaneous exclusion of secular organizations from this benefit -- undermines that principle of neutrality. We trust the appeals court will uphold the decision below.”
Two lead plaintiffs in the case filed in 1999, Winkler and Rabbi Gary Gerson, said they hoped the appeals court would uphold the judge's order that helps maintain the critical constitutional principle of government neutrality towards religion. The Boy Scouts of America, a private organization, requires youth who participate in their activities to believe in God. Indeed, the BSA expels youth who do not. Yet Congress and the Pentagon provide the Boy Scouts with a unique and lucrative benefit, funding of more than $29 million over the past two decades. No other youth organization competes for this generous federal benefit.
Pentagon support for the quadrennial Jamboree extends far beyond providing a venue for the event. Indeed, evidence in the case demonstrated that the Pentagon's expenditure on behalf of the Jamboree serves no military purpose; rather, the funding is simply expended to support the BSA's efforts to provide a quality camping experience for their members. As an example, the Pentagon once spent a half million dollars for temporary workers to erect and break down tents. Other goods purchased by the Pentagon for the participants at the Jamboree include pediatric medical supplies, commercial vehicles and cookie dough. The Pentagon also spent $65,000 for commemorative mementos to mark the Jamboree.
According to the religious leaders who brought the case, the extraordinary aid provided to the Jamboree is particularly alarming because of the BSA's exclusions of non-believers. Before a young man can join the Scouts, tie a knot or pitch a tent, they are required to swear an oath of "duty to God." If the youth refuses to sign the oath, they are not admitted into the Scouts. Moreover, the BSA describes itself as a religious group, is effectively controlled by religious organizations, has religious requirements for youth to advance in the ranks and engages in a host of other religious practices. The evidence in the case also demonstrated that the Jamboree is explicitly religious. Troop leaders, for example, are issued a guidebook by the Boy Scouts of America indicating that a prayer book is "required personal camping equipment" for all youth attendees. The BSA also issues a "Duty to God" booklet for each participant that recommends prayers for each day of the Jamboree.
Reviewing these facts in the district court, Judge Blanche Manning of Chicago found the statute that provides special treatment and special funding for the Boy Scouts Jamboree is not neutral with regards to religion. The Judge's decision reasoned that the government aid was "not offered to a broad range of groups; rather, it is specifically targeted toward the Boy Scouts, which… is a religious organization from which agnostics and atheists are excluded."
"The BSA - by its own admission - is a religious organization," added Winkler. "The federal government' simply cannot give special treatment to a private group that excludes young men who do not profess a particular religious faith."
The lawsuit was filed in 1999. At earlier stages of the case, the Chicago Public Schools and the Pentagon entered into settlements agreeing to stop their direct sponsorship of Boy Scout troops. Boy Scouts can still meet on military bases and military personnel can still participate in Scout activities on their own time.
Charles Peters, David Scott, Kevin F. Feeney and David Sattelberger of the Schiff Hardin law firm are co-counsel along with ACLU of Illinois attorneys Adam Schwartz and Harvey Grossman in representing Reverend Winkler and Rabbi Gerson and the other plaintiffs.
http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/prominent-chicago-religious-leaders-ask-federal-appellate-court-protect-government-n
http://www.aclu-il.org/news/archives/winkler.pdf
They may not directly fund the group but it's completely incorrect to say millions of tax payer dollars have not been spent on them.
|
that lawsuit was thrown out of the courts, fyi.
|
United States24571 Posts
On October 11 2012 02:17 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 00:43 micronesia wrote:
What government funding does the BSA receive? Indirectly they do through a few benefits... but I'm not aware of money being given to the BSA from federal taxpayers. Show nested quote +Two well-known Chicago religious leaders have asked a federal appellate court in Chicago to uphold the basic constitutional principle of government neutrality between religious groups and secular groups and bar the Pentagon from the extraordinary spending of millions of dollars to support future Boy Scout Jamborees (the only youth organization event so funded by the Pentagon). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is hearing arguments on Thursday April 6 in Winkler v. Rumsfeld, a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois.
Last year a federal district court judge in Chicago found that the Pentagon's special expenditure of more than $7 million for each Jamboree violated the principle of government neutrality in religion and ordered the funding stopped. The appellate court argument is the most recent action in the case brought by the ACLU of Illinois on behalf of religious and community leaders from Chicago alarmed at the favored treatment afforded by the Pentagon to the Boy Scouts of America, despite the BSA's religious requirements for participation.
“Government neutrality in religious activities is a fundamental constitutional value embraced by most Americans," said lead plaintiff Eugene Winkler, former pastor at the First United Methodist Church in Chicago. "Government must be neutral because we are a nation of many religious views - as well as those who do not practice a religion. The expenditure of more than $29 million by the Pentagon for an organization that requires young people to believe in God - and the simultaneous exclusion of secular organizations from this benefit -- undermines that principle of neutrality. We trust the appeals court will uphold the decision below.”
Two lead plaintiffs in the case filed in 1999, Winkler and Rabbi Gary Gerson, said they hoped the appeals court would uphold the judge's order that helps maintain the critical constitutional principle of government neutrality towards religion. The Boy Scouts of America, a private organization, requires youth who participate in their activities to believe in God. Indeed, the BSA expels youth who do not. Yet Congress and the Pentagon provide the Boy Scouts with a unique and lucrative benefit, funding of more than $29 million over the past two decades. No other youth organization competes for this generous federal benefit.
Pentagon support for the quadrennial Jamboree extends far beyond providing a venue for the event. Indeed, evidence in the case demonstrated that the Pentagon's expenditure on behalf of the Jamboree serves no military purpose; rather, the funding is simply expended to support the BSA's efforts to provide a quality camping experience for their members. As an example, the Pentagon once spent a half million dollars for temporary workers to erect and break down tents. Other goods purchased by the Pentagon for the participants at the Jamboree include pediatric medical supplies, commercial vehicles and cookie dough. The Pentagon also spent $65,000 for commemorative mementos to mark the Jamboree.
According to the religious leaders who brought the case, the extraordinary aid provided to the Jamboree is particularly alarming because of the BSA's exclusions of non-believers. Before a young man can join the Scouts, tie a knot or pitch a tent, they are required to swear an oath of "duty to God." If the youth refuses to sign the oath, they are not admitted into the Scouts. Moreover, the BSA describes itself as a religious group, is effectively controlled by religious organizations, has religious requirements for youth to advance in the ranks and engages in a host of other religious practices. The evidence in the case also demonstrated that the Jamboree is explicitly religious. Troop leaders, for example, are issued a guidebook by the Boy Scouts of America indicating that a prayer book is "required personal camping equipment" for all youth attendees. The BSA also issues a "Duty to God" booklet for each participant that recommends prayers for each day of the Jamboree.
Reviewing these facts in the district court, Judge Blanche Manning of Chicago found the statute that provides special treatment and special funding for the Boy Scouts Jamboree is not neutral with regards to religion. The Judge's decision reasoned that the government aid was "not offered to a broad range of groups; rather, it is specifically targeted toward the Boy Scouts, which… is a religious organization from which agnostics and atheists are excluded."
"The BSA - by its own admission - is a religious organization," added Winkler. "The federal government' simply cannot give special treatment to a private group that excludes young men who do not profess a particular religious faith."
The lawsuit was filed in 1999. At earlier stages of the case, the Chicago Public Schools and the Pentagon entered into settlements agreeing to stop their direct sponsorship of Boy Scout troops. Boy Scouts can still meet on military bases and military personnel can still participate in Scout activities on their own time.
Charles Peters, David Scott, Kevin F. Feeney and David Sattelberger of the Schiff Hardin law firm are co-counsel along with ACLU of Illinois attorneys Adam Schwartz and Harvey Grossman in representing Reverend Winkler and Rabbi Gerson and the other plaintiffs. http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/prominent-chicago-religious-leaders-ask-federal-appellate-court-protect-government-nhttp://www.aclu-il.org/news/archives/winkler.pdfThey may not directly fund the group but it's completely incorrect to say millions of tax payer dollars have not been spent on them.
So it's just support of Jamborees? Personally I'd be okay with abolishing Jamborees lol.... no need for them.
|
as much as i disagree with the boyscouts here, it really is a pain to read OP's where the personal bias of the OP is so blatantly clear. the report of the news should be unbiased, and then when you have an opinion on the topic you can state that in a separate paragraph. putting opinion into the news part of the OP just makes it intentionally inflammatory no matter what side you're choosing
|
On October 11 2012 01:17 kmillz wrote:I am always baffled when I hear "there is no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia" as the argument for lifting the ban in BSA. While it is true that there is no connection, most pedophiles are male so the concern of females sexually abusing a boy scout should be significantly lower than of men. Show nested quote +"Most sexual offenders against children are male, although female offenders may account for 0.4% to 4% of convicted sexual offenders. On the basis of a range of published reports, McConaghy estimates a 10 to 1 ratio of male-to-female child molesters." A male pedophile who abuses little boys IS a homosexual. While that does not mean homosexuals are pedophiles, lifting the ban on gays would completely open that door for more pedophiles to prey on small boys because they no longer have to pretend like they are straight. http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1420331
Is Jeff Sandusky a homosexual? Because I believe he has a loving wife and multiple children. Openly gay men are less likely to abuse boys than straight (by the boyscouts definition) men, you heard it here. I'd love to have a study to throw at you, oh well. Go watch the South Park episode on it buddy.
|
On October 11 2012 01:45 Cirqueenflex wrote:
if anyone cares, i do not believe that allowing gay people into the boy scouts is wrong because it would open doors for pedophiles.
But i do believe that allowing homosexuals into the boy scouts clearly conflicts with one of the main puposes of the organization. There are no girls allowed, as it would raise a lot of social conflicts, and i'm sure most people understand this. Allowing homosexual people would be similar to allowing girls into the organization. It would lead to a lot of discomfort and distrust, not only for the kids, but also their parents. To give a simple example, there would most probably be no harmless showering together anymore.
Furthermore, the boy scouts is after all a christian organization. And as long as they bring no actual harm to other people, they can believe whatever they want to. A lot of people are actually trusting this very organization to represent at least some christian values.
And since there is no actual harm done to other people, i find the argument of discrimination ridiculous. If you think that everyone has the right to do everything they want, go to an islamic ruled country and tell them you do not believe in their god. Chances are, if you pick the right one you will be executed. Why pick on (and ruin, as stated above) a friendly organization, when there is much more cruelty going on around the world? And if you believe the more freedom the better, go to a warzone, and you will soon learn that true freedom comes at its price, whereas restrictions also guarantee safety, as i already mentioned above.
Lastly, for the funding that the organization recieves:
The government funds things that it believes are of common interest. You might not like some restrictions, but a lot of people in the US actually do, and there are enough of them to make a valid point in funding the organization. In my country, the state does fund a ton of things i heavily dislike, or which i believe are immoral or unfair. But when it serves a lot of people i have still respect for it.
Wait so why do we allow the gay kids to shower with the straight kids in school? Wouldn't that create an uncomfortable situation? I am surprised we don't here 1000s of complaints from parents.
|
On October 11 2012 01:45 Cirqueenflex wrote:
There are no girls allowed, as it would raise a lot of social conflicts, and i'm sure most people understand this.
What's funny is that boys are allowed into the Girl Scouts, but they are a much more tolerant organization in general, rather than one based on the notion of King and Country.
|
On October 11 2012 02:26 dAPhREAk wrote:
that lawsuit was thrown out of the courts, fyi.
and? Are you saying the accusations of taxpayers money being spent are false? If not what's your point?
|
On October 11 2012 02:39 Smat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 01:17 kmillz wrote:I am always baffled when I hear "there is no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia" as the argument for lifting the ban in BSA. While it is true that there is no connection, most pedophiles are male so the concern of females sexually abusing a boy scout should be significantly lower than of men. "Most sexual offenders against children are male, although female offenders may account for 0.4% to 4% of convicted sexual offenders. On the basis of a range of published reports, McConaghy estimates a 10 to 1 ratio of male-to-female child molesters." A male pedophile who abuses little boys IS a homosexual. While that does not mean homosexuals are pedophiles, lifting the ban on gays would completely open that door for more pedophiles to prey on small boys because they no longer have to pretend like they are straight. http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1420331 Is Jeff Sandusky a homosexual? Because I believe he has a loving wife and multiple children. Openly gay men are less likely to abuse boys than straight (by the boyscouts definition) men, you heard it here. I'd love to have a study to throw at you, oh well. Go watch the South Park episode on it buddy.
You cite one example of a closet gay and pedophile and use that to support your argument that openly gay men are less likely to abuse boys than straight? That's funny, because last time I checked a man who was straight doesn't touch boys.
|
On October 11 2012 02:54 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 02:26 dAPhREAk wrote:
that lawsuit was thrown out of the courts, fyi. and? Are you saying the accusations of taxpayers money being spent are false? If not what's your point?
it means that there are no factual findings that are proven/binding on anyone. and the article you cited, which refers to the plaintiff's allegations, is basically biased as hell since it is, after all, the plaintiff's unproven allegations. so, the article and lawsuit prove nothing. (i would say that the ACLU are a poor source of unbiased information as well, but don't even need to go that far.)
|
On October 11 2012 02:59 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 02:54 heliusx wrote:On October 11 2012 02:26 dAPhREAk wrote:
that lawsuit was thrown out of the courts, fyi. and? Are you saying the accusations of taxpayers money being spent are false? If not what's your point? it means that there are no factual findings that are proven/binding on anyone. and the article you cited, which refers to the plaintiff's allegations, is basically biased as hell since it is, after all, the plaintiff's unproven allegations. so, the article and lawsuit prove nothing. (i would say that the ACLU are a poor source of unbiased information as well, but don't even need to go that far.)
where are you reading that it was thrown out? I believe this is the same case?
http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/prominent-chicago-religious-leaders-applaud-court-order-ending-pentagons-special-fun
|
its funny that this is discussed here, in a gamers forum with 99% people who dont have kids or are responsible for kids.
in REALITY men have many problems when they are close (at the same place) to young kids of the sex they prefer (hetero men with girls, homo men with boys), believe it or not.
example: my girlfriend is a teacher for 3-4 graders (about 10 years old)
when they went swimming in sport the last time there was a father that wanted to pickup his daugther. so he went into the changing room (everyone changed in 1 big room, 1 for girls, 1 for boys) to tell her she has to hurry.
my gf said to him he has to wait outside,but after that he came back in 2 times again. the policy of the school is that the parents are of course not allowed to get into the dressing room. it would not have been a problem if the mother had picked her up.
end of story is, on the next parents day the father got critisized in front of the other parents for that, and i am sure some of them are suspicious now if he had some "problematic" motivation.
i am not defending or attacking any side, i am just saying thats how the world works.
like it or not. you cant change it.
if theres only 1 case of abuse conducted by a homosexual, the shitstorm would last for 10 years.
you cant change society, you have to wait until it has changed.
and in some areas it perhaps wont change forever.
|
On October 11 2012 03:01 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 02:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On October 11 2012 02:54 heliusx wrote:On October 11 2012 02:26 dAPhREAk wrote:
that lawsuit was thrown out of the courts, fyi. and? Are you saying the accusations of taxpayers money being spent are false? If not what's your point? it means that there are no factual findings that are proven/binding on anyone. and the article you cited, which refers to the plaintiff's allegations, is basically biased as hell since it is, after all, the plaintiff's unproven allegations. so, the article and lawsuit prove nothing. (i would say that the ACLU are a poor source of unbiased information as well, but don't even need to go that far.) http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/prominent-chicago-religious-leaders-applaud-court-order-ending-pentagons-special-fun
when a district court does something and then an appellate court throws the case out saying that the district court was not allowed to do anything, the appellate court throws out the district court's factual findings, legal rulings, etc. you are citing to old articles... find something after the appellate court threw out the case saying the district court had no jurisdiction in the first place.
|
not my original source, but here from the ACLU:
his case involves whether use by the Scouts of a military base for their national Jamboree involves an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The District Court held that it does. Oral arguments were heard on the case in April of 2006, before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh District, in Illinois. On April 12, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed the case finding that the ACLU did not have standing..
http://theacru.org/acru/winkler_v_rumsfeld/
edit: doh, that is ACRU..... lol... =( [insert japanese surprise/supplies joke here]
|
United States41979 Posts
On October 11 2012 01:17 kmillz wrote:I am always baffled when I hear "there is no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia" as the argument for lifting the ban in BSA. While it is true that there is no connection, most pedophiles are male so the concern of females sexually abusing a boy scout should be significantly lower than of men. Show nested quote +"Most sexual offenders against children are male, although female offenders may account for 0.4% to 4% of convicted sexual offenders. On the basis of a range of published reports, McConaghy estimates a 10 to 1 ratio of male-to-female child molesters." A male pedophile who abuses little boys IS a homosexual. While that does not mean homosexuals are pedophiles, lifting the ban on gays would completely open that door for more pedophiles to prey on small boys because they no longer have to pretend like they are straight. http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1420331
If we're assuming that they're not informing the BSA that they're a paedophile while applying for the job then why would we assume they're going to be honest about the gender that they're attracted to. It seems a strange way of protecting children from paedophiles.
If you open with "are you a man who is attracted to other males?" and assume that they'll answer truthfully if they're trying to sneak in and molest the children then can't you just ask "are those males under the age of consent?" and assume they'll answer that truthfully too. Molesters screened out, npnp. If you assume that someone trying to molest the children would know better than to openly admit it if asked then they'd probably not openly admit anything else that'd disqualify them, like homosexuality in this case. If they openly like to stick their dick in adult men consensually and you know this then you can be pretty sure they'll be okay around your children because they're not their type. The ban protects nobody and simply reinforces the hateful stereotype that homosexual men are likely to molest children.
|
On October 11 2012 03:03 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 03:01 heliusx wrote:On October 11 2012 02:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On October 11 2012 02:54 heliusx wrote:On October 11 2012 02:26 dAPhREAk wrote:
that lawsuit was thrown out of the courts, fyi. and? Are you saying the accusations of taxpayers money being spent are false? If not what's your point? it means that there are no factual findings that are proven/binding on anyone. and the article you cited, which refers to the plaintiff's allegations, is basically biased as hell since it is, after all, the plaintiff's unproven allegations. so, the article and lawsuit prove nothing. (i would say that the ACLU are a poor source of unbiased information as well, but don't even need to go that far.) http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/prominent-chicago-religious-leaders-applaud-court-order-ending-pentagons-special-fun when a district court does something and then an appellate court throws the case out saying that the district court was not allowed to do anything, the appellate court throws out the district court's factual findings, legal rulings, etc. you are citing to old articles... find something after the appellate court threw out the case saying the district court had no jurisdiction in the first place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winkler_v._Rumsfeld
Fair enough but my point still stands, the federal government funded jamoborees with taxpayer money. The case was thrown out because "The US Court of Appeals determined in April 2007 in Winkler vs Gates that the plaintiffs had no legal standing to bring the suit in the first place, thus ending the suit and affirming that the military may assist future jamborees, including providing campsites at Fort A.P. Hill."
Therefore I still fail to see your point.
On October 11 2012 03:07 dAPhREAk wrote:not my original source, but here from the ACLU: Show nested quote +his case involves whether use by the Scouts of a military base for their national Jamboree involves an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The District Court held that it does. Oral arguments were heard on the case in April of 2006, before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh District, in Illinois. On April 12, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed the case finding that the ACLU did not have standing.. http://theacru.org/acru/winkler_v_rumsfeld/edit: doh, that is ACRU..... lol... =( [insert japanese surprise/supplies joke here]
Why would you cut off half the sentence to suit your stance? NO WHERE will it say the case was thrown out because the facts were false. The military DID fund the jamborees with tax payer money. Which is my entire point, I don't care if the government thinks it's ok for whatever reasons.
|
On October 11 2012 03:14 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 03:03 dAPhREAk wrote:On October 11 2012 03:01 heliusx wrote:On October 11 2012 02:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On October 11 2012 02:54 heliusx wrote:On October 11 2012 02:26 dAPhREAk wrote:
that lawsuit was thrown out of the courts, fyi. and? Are you saying the accusations of taxpayers money being spent are false? If not what's your point? it means that there are no factual findings that are proven/binding on anyone. and the article you cited, which refers to the plaintiff's allegations, is basically biased as hell since it is, after all, the plaintiff's unproven allegations. so, the article and lawsuit prove nothing. (i would say that the ACLU are a poor source of unbiased information as well, but don't even need to go that far.) http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/prominent-chicago-religious-leaders-applaud-court-order-ending-pentagons-special-fun when a district court does something and then an appellate court throws the case out saying that the district court was not allowed to do anything, the appellate court throws out the district court's factual findings, legal rulings, etc. you are citing to old articles... find something after the appellate court threw out the case saying the district court had no jurisdiction in the first place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winkler_v._Rumsfeldm Fair enough but my point still stands, the federal government funded jamoborees with taxpayer money. The case was thrown out because "The US Court of Appeals determined in April 2007 in Winkler vs Gates that the plaintiffs had no legal standing to bring the suit in the first place, thus ending the suit and affirming that the military may assist future jamborees, including providing campsites at Fort A.P. Hill." Therefore I still fail to see your point. Show nested quote +On October 11 2012 03:07 dAPhREAk wrote:not my original source, but here from the ACLU: his case involves whether use by the Scouts of a military base for their national Jamboree involves an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The District Court held that it does. Oral arguments were heard on the case in April of 2006, before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh District, in Illinois. On April 12, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed the case finding that the ACLU did not have standing.. http://theacru.org/acru/winkler_v_rumsfeld/edit: doh, that is ACRU..... lol... =( [insert japanese surprise/supplies joke here] Why would you cut off half the sentence? NO WHERE will it say the case was thrown out because the facts were false. The military DID fund the jamborees with tax payer money.
my point is that case means nothing because there were no binding, factual findings. so, pointing to that case and saying "look they received federal funding" is silly.
i accidentally cut off the "T." my apologies. nowhere does the case say the facts are true....
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
