Discussion:
Court puts Boy Scouts in a moral quandary - Supremes have a duty to stand up for justice
(too old to reply)
"Diversity" A Liberal Fraud
2010-05-08 17:26:54 UTC
Permalink
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/07/court-puts-boy-scouts-in-
a-moral-quandary/

By Robert Knight

Which of America's Founders could have foreseen a federal judge in 2003
kicking the Boy Scouts out of San Diego's Balboa Park, where the Scouts
had a lease on a campground for 25 years?

The judge, Clinton appointee Napoleon Jones, ruled that the Scouts are
"religious" and cannot lease city land. The American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) had filed the suit for a lesbian couple and an agnostic
couple over the Scouts' oath to honor God and be "morally straight."

First, the Scouts are not a religious group simply because they
recognize the Creator. By that reasoning, the Declaration of
Independence is a religious document, not to mention the Constitution,
which is dated "in the Year of Our Lord, one thousand, seven hundred and
eighty-seven." No, it's not Lord Krishna.

And even if the Scouts are a religious group, so what? Do only secular
groups have a right to lease public property? The San Diego ruling
violates the First Amendment's religious freedom guarantee and
establishes a de facto atheist religion. Surely, this is so wrong that
the Supreme Court will set things right, right? No.

On May 3, the court declined to hear Boy Scouts of America v.
Barnes-Wallace, leaving intact the abuse. This is not the first time the
Supreme Court has seen the Scouts mugged and bleeding and hurried on by.
In 2004, the court let stand a ruling by the 2nd Circuit Court upholding
Connecticut's ejection of the Scouts from the state employees charitable
donation program. Prodded by the usual suspects - gay activists and the
ACLU (pretty much interchangeable) - Connecticut officials said the
Scouts' policy of barring homosexual Scoutmasters violated the
sexual-orientation portion of the state's anti-discrimination law.

In 2006, in Evans v. Berkeley, the court let stand a ruling against the
Scouts and for the city of Berkeley, Calif., whose city officials had
ended a 50-year-long arrangement that had allowed the Sea Scouts to use
a public marina's dock at no charge. Citing a local law barring
discrimination based on sexual orientation, the city had upped the
Scouts' rent to $500 a month, prompting the Scouts to sue the city for
violating their freedoms of speech and association.

Much of the media, which has been bashing the Catholic Church over the
scandal of homosexual priests molesting boys and young men, which
constitutes 80 percent of the abuse cases, can't find a single reason
why the Scouts would want to bar gay men from taking boys camping.

The Scouts are caught between a rock and a hard place. Either they drop
their moral standard and put boys and their own legal survival at risk,
or they face endless harassment designed to bankrupt them.

Since 2000, when the Scouts won in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale,
they've been under constant assault. It's as if they lost the case. More
than 50 United Way chapters dropped them, as did many public school
districts. Philadelphia is still trying to eject the Cradle of Liberty
Council from its headquarters, which the Scouts built in 1928 in a city
park.

The current Supreme Court's unwillingness to take this slam-dunk First
Amendment case from San Diego indicates that the justices don't
understand the ramifications of turning the Scouts into the equivalent
of the Ku Klux Klan. Or they understand it and some of them don't mind.
It takes just four justices to decide to hear a case. What did they
think was more important?

Maybe they simply don't trust Justice Anthony Kennedy for the fifth
vote. He wrote the Lawrence v. Texas decision in 2003 that overturned
sodomy laws partly because international elite opinions rated higher
than that of elected representatives from the Lone Star State.

Perhaps the justices are waiting for conflicts among cases at the
circuit level in order to intercede. However, given the stakes here for
the freedoms of religion and free assembly, one might think the ongoing
attacks on the Scouts would warrant the court's attention.

Robert Knight is a writer for Coral Ridge Ministries and the author of
"Radical Rulers: The White House Elites Who Are Pushing America Toward
Socialism" (radicalrulers.com, 2010).
End All Wars
2010-05-08 18:37:31 UTC
Permalink
Troll: Court puts Boy Scouts in a moral quandary

A kindly reminder to the members of:
alt.politics.obama
rec.arts.disney.parks
alt.politics.homosexuality
hiv.aids.law
rec.scouting.usa

PLEASE DON'T FEED THE CROSS-POSTING TROLL
by becoming a puppet tool of his misguided hate.


If you feel the need to respond,
kindly remove all newsgroups save your own.
Path: eternal-september.org!tioat.net!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.politics.obama,rec.arts.disney.parks,alt.politics.homosexuality,hiv.aids.law,rec.scouting.usa
Subject: Court puts Boy Scouts in a moral quandary - Supremes have a duty to stand up for justice
Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 17:26:54 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 80
Injection-Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 17:26:54 +0000 (UTC)
Author-Supplied-Address: "\"Diversity\" A Liberal Fraud" <boot-obama-out_AT_2012_DOT_com>
X-Usenet-Filter: Cleanfeed http://www.mixmin.net/cleanfeed/
X-Usenet-System: InterNetNews (INN) https://www.isc.org/software/inn
Xref: eternal-september.org alt.politics.obama:91881 rec.arts.disney.parks:25227 alt.politics.homosexuality:72600 hiv.aids.law:1 rec.scouting.usa:254
Alfred Stomacker
2010-05-08 19:13:07 UTC
Permalink
""Diversity" A Liberal Fraud"
Post by "Diversity" A Liberal Fraud
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/07/court-puts-boy-scouts-in-
a-moral-quandary/
By Robert Knight
Which of America's Founders could have foreseen a federal judge in 2003
kicking the Boy Scouts out of San Diego's Balboa Park, where the Scouts
had a lease on a campground for 25 years?
The judge, Clinton appointee Napoleon Jones, ruled that the Scouts are
"religious" and cannot lease city land. The American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) had filed the suit for a lesbian couple and an agnostic
couple over the Scouts' oath to honor God and be "morally straight."
First, the Scouts are not a religious group simply because they
recognize the Creator. By that reasoning, the Declaration of
Independence is a religious document, not to mention the Constitution,
which is dated "in the Year of Our Lord, one thousand, seven hundred and
eighty-seven." No, it's not Lord Krishna.
And even if the Scouts are a religious group, so what? Do only secular
groups have a right to lease public property? The San Diego ruling
violates the First Amendment's religious freedom guarantee and
establishes a de facto atheist religion. Surely, this is so wrong that
the Supreme Court will set things right, right? No.
On May 3, the court declined to hear Boy Scouts of America v.
Barnes-Wallace, leaving intact the abuse. This is not the first time the
Supreme Court has seen the Scouts mugged and bleeding and hurried on by.
In 2004, the court let stand a ruling by the 2nd Circuit Court upholding
Connecticut's ejection of the Scouts from the state employees charitable
donation program. Prodded by the usual suspects - gay activists and the
ACLU (pretty much interchangeable) - Connecticut officials said the
Scouts' policy of barring homosexual Scoutmasters violated the
sexual-orientation portion of the state's anti-discrimination law.
In 2006, in Evans v. Berkeley, the court let stand a ruling against the
Scouts and for the city of Berkeley, Calif., whose city officials had
ended a 50-year-long arrangement that had allowed the Sea Scouts to use
a public marina's dock at no charge. Citing a local law barring
discrimination based on sexual orientation, the city had upped the
Scouts' rent to $500 a month, prompting the Scouts to sue the city for
violating their freedoms of speech and association.
Much of the media, which has been bashing the Catholic Church over the
scandal of homosexual priests molesting boys and young men, which
constitutes 80 percent of the abuse cases, can't find a single reason
why the Scouts would want to bar gay men from taking boys camping.
The Scouts are caught between a rock and a hard place. Either they drop
their moral standard and put boys and their own legal survival at risk,
or they face endless harassment designed to bankrupt them.
Since 2000, when the Scouts won in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale,
they've been under constant assault. It's as if they lost the case. More
than 50 United Way chapters dropped them, as did many public school
districts. Philadelphia is still trying to eject the Cradle of Liberty
Council from its headquarters, which the Scouts built in 1928 in a city
park.
The current Supreme Court's unwillingness to take this slam-dunk First
Amendment case from San Diego indicates that the justices don't
understand the ramifications of turning the Scouts into the equivalent
of the Ku Klux Klan. Or they understand it and some of them don't mind.
It takes just four justices to decide to hear a case. What did they
think was more important?
Maybe they simply don't trust Justice Anthony Kennedy for the fifth
vote. He wrote the Lawrence v. Texas decision in 2003 that overturned
sodomy laws partly because international elite opinions rated higher
than that of elected representatives from the Lone Star State.
Perhaps the justices are waiting for conflicts among cases at the
circuit level in order to intercede. However, given the stakes here for
the freedoms of religion and free assembly, one might think the ongoing
attacks on the Scouts would warrant the court's attention.
Robert Knight is a writer for Coral Ridge Ministries and the author of
"Radical Rulers: The White House Elites Who Are Pushing America Toward
Socialism" (radicalrulers.com, 2010).
All they have to do is claim they are Muzscums and the whole thing will go
away.
juanjo
2010-05-08 20:59:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alfred Stomacker
All they have to do is claim they are Muzscums and the whole thing will go
away.
Ah yes, the bigots are out of their holes today
RamRod Sword of Baal
2010-05-08 21:52:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alfred Stomacker
""Diversity" A Liberal Fraud"
Post by "Diversity" A Liberal Fraud
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/07/court-puts-boy-scouts-in-
a-moral-quandary/
By Robert Knight
Which of America's Founders could have foreseen a federal judge in 2003
kicking the Boy Scouts out of San Diego's Balboa Park, where the Scouts
had a lease on a campground for 25 years?
The judge, Clinton appointee Napoleon Jones, ruled that the Scouts are
"religious" and cannot lease city land. The American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) had filed the suit for a lesbian couple and an agnostic
couple over the Scouts' oath to honor God and be "morally straight."
First, the Scouts are not a religious group simply because they
recognize the Creator. By that reasoning, the Declaration of
Independence is a religious document, not to mention the Constitution,
which is dated "in the Year of Our Lord, one thousand, seven hundred and
eighty-seven." No, it's not Lord Krishna.
And even if the Scouts are a religious group, so what? Do only secular
groups have a right to lease public property? The San Diego ruling
violates the First Amendment's religious freedom guarantee and
establishes a de facto atheist religion. Surely, this is so wrong that
the Supreme Court will set things right, right? No.
On May 3, the court declined to hear Boy Scouts of America v.
Barnes-Wallace, leaving intact the abuse. This is not the first time the
Supreme Court has seen the Scouts mugged and bleeding and hurried on by.
In 2004, the court let stand a ruling by the 2nd Circuit Court upholding
Connecticut's ejection of the Scouts from the state employees charitable
donation program. Prodded by the usual suspects - gay activists and the
ACLU (pretty much interchangeable) - Connecticut officials said the
Scouts' policy of barring homosexual Scoutmasters violated the
sexual-orientation portion of the state's anti-discrimination law.
In 2006, in Evans v. Berkeley, the court let stand a ruling against the
Scouts and for the city of Berkeley, Calif., whose city officials had
ended a 50-year-long arrangement that had allowed the Sea Scouts to use
a public marina's dock at no charge. Citing a local law barring
discrimination based on sexual orientation, the city had upped the
Scouts' rent to $500 a month, prompting the Scouts to sue the city for
violating their freedoms of speech and association.
Much of the media, which has been bashing the Catholic Church over the
scandal of homosexual priests molesting boys and young men, which
constitutes 80 percent of the abuse cases, can't find a single reason
why the Scouts would want to bar gay men from taking boys camping.
The Scouts are caught between a rock and a hard place. Either they drop
their moral standard and put boys and their own legal survival at risk,
or they face endless harassment designed to bankrupt them.
Since 2000, when the Scouts won in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale,
they've been under constant assault. It's as if they lost the case. More
than 50 United Way chapters dropped them, as did many public school
districts. Philadelphia is still trying to eject the Cradle of Liberty
Council from its headquarters, which the Scouts built in 1928 in a city
park.
The current Supreme Court's unwillingness to take this slam-dunk First
Amendment case from San Diego indicates that the justices don't
understand the ramifications of turning the Scouts into the equivalent
of the Ku Klux Klan. Or they understand it and some of them don't mind.
It takes just four justices to decide to hear a case. What did they
think was more important?
Maybe they simply don't trust Justice Anthony Kennedy for the fifth
vote. He wrote the Lawrence v. Texas decision in 2003 that overturned
sodomy laws partly because international elite opinions rated higher
than that of elected representatives from the Lone Star State.
Perhaps the justices are waiting for conflicts among cases at the
circuit level in order to intercede. However, given the stakes here for
the freedoms of religion and free assembly, one might think the ongoing
attacks on the Scouts would warrant the court's attention.
Robert Knight is a writer for Coral Ridge Ministries and the author of
"Radical Rulers: The White House Elites Who Are Pushing America Toward
Socialism" (radicalrulers.com, 2010).
All they have to do is claim they are Muzscums and the whole thing will go
away.
The strange thing is that in other Western countries that have boy scouts
they do not have these problems, it seems only the USA seems to have these
problems and maybe it is because the church became involved with the US Boy
Scouts movement.
Alfred Stomacker
2010-05-08 23:43:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Post by Alfred Stomacker
""Diversity" A Liberal Fraud"
Post by "Diversity" A Liberal Fraud
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/07/court-puts-boy-scouts-in-
a-moral-quandary/
By Robert Knight
Which of America's Founders could have foreseen a federal judge in 2003
kicking the Boy Scouts out of San Diego's Balboa Park, where the Scouts
had a lease on a campground for 25 years?
The judge, Clinton appointee Napoleon Jones, ruled that the Scouts are
"religious" and cannot lease city land. The American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) had filed the suit for a lesbian couple and an agnostic
couple over the Scouts' oath to honor God and be "morally straight."
First, the Scouts are not a religious group simply because they
recognize the Creator. By that reasoning, the Declaration of
Independence is a religious document, not to mention the Constitution,
which is dated "in the Year of Our Lord, one thousand, seven hundred and
eighty-seven." No, it's not Lord Krishna.
And even if the Scouts are a religious group, so what? Do only secular
groups have a right to lease public property? The San Diego ruling
violates the First Amendment's religious freedom guarantee and
establishes a de facto atheist religion. Surely, this is so wrong that
the Supreme Court will set things right, right? No.
On May 3, the court declined to hear Boy Scouts of America v.
Barnes-Wallace, leaving intact the abuse. This is not the first time the
Supreme Court has seen the Scouts mugged and bleeding and hurried on by.
In 2004, the court let stand a ruling by the 2nd Circuit Court upholding
Connecticut's ejection of the Scouts from the state employees charitable
donation program. Prodded by the usual suspects - gay activists and the
ACLU (pretty much interchangeable) - Connecticut officials said the
Scouts' policy of barring homosexual Scoutmasters violated the
sexual-orientation portion of the state's anti-discrimination law.
In 2006, in Evans v. Berkeley, the court let stand a ruling against the
Scouts and for the city of Berkeley, Calif., whose city officials had
ended a 50-year-long arrangement that had allowed the Sea Scouts to use
a public marina's dock at no charge. Citing a local law barring
discrimination based on sexual orientation, the city had upped the
Scouts' rent to $500 a month, prompting the Scouts to sue the city for
violating their freedoms of speech and association.
Much of the media, which has been bashing the Catholic Church over the
scandal of homosexual priests molesting boys and young men, which
constitutes 80 percent of the abuse cases, can't find a single reason
why the Scouts would want to bar gay men from taking boys camping.
The Scouts are caught between a rock and a hard place. Either they drop
their moral standard and put boys and their own legal survival at risk,
or they face endless harassment designed to bankrupt them.
Since 2000, when the Scouts won in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale,
they've been under constant assault. It's as if they lost the case. More
than 50 United Way chapters dropped them, as did many public school
districts. Philadelphia is still trying to eject the Cradle of Liberty
Council from its headquarters, which the Scouts built in 1928 in a city
park.
The current Supreme Court's unwillingness to take this slam-dunk First
Amendment case from San Diego indicates that the justices don't
understand the ramifications of turning the Scouts into the equivalent
of the Ku Klux Klan. Or they understand it and some of them don't mind.
It takes just four justices to decide to hear a case. What did they
think was more important?
Maybe they simply don't trust Justice Anthony Kennedy for the fifth
vote. He wrote the Lawrence v. Texas decision in 2003 that overturned
sodomy laws partly because international elite opinions rated higher
than that of elected representatives from the Lone Star State.
Perhaps the justices are waiting for conflicts among cases at the
circuit level in order to intercede. However, given the stakes here for
the freedoms of religion and free assembly, one might think the ongoing
attacks on the Scouts would warrant the court's attention.
Robert Knight is a writer for Coral Ridge Ministries and the author of
"Radical Rulers: The White House Elites Who Are Pushing America Toward
Socialism" (radicalrulers.com, 2010).
All they have to do is claim they are Muzscums and the whole thing will
go away.
The strange thing is that in other Western countries that have boy scouts
they do not have these problems, it seems only the USA seems to have
these problems and maybe it is because the church became involved with the
US Boy Scouts movement.
Just because they believe in God is not a reason for this shit . This is
just more atheist liberal shit .
* US *
2010-05-09 08:07:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Post by Alfred Stomacker
""Diversity" A Liberal Fraud"
Post by "Diversity" A Liberal Fraud
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/07/court-puts-boy-scouts-in-
a-moral-quandary/
By Robert Knight
Which of America's Founders could have foreseen a federal judge in 2003
kicking the Boy Scouts out of San Diego's Balboa Park, where the Scouts
had a lease on a campground for 25 years?
The judge, Clinton appointee Napoleon Jones, ruled that the Scouts are
"religious" and cannot lease city land. The American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) had filed the suit for a lesbian couple and an agnostic
couple over the Scouts' oath to honor God and be "morally straight."
First, the Scouts are not a religious group simply because they
recognize the Creator. By that reasoning, the Declaration of
Independence is a religious document, not to mention the Constitution,
which is dated "in the Year of Our Lord, one thousand, seven hundred and
eighty-seven." No, it's not Lord Krishna.
And even if the Scouts are a religious group, so what? Do only secular
groups have a right to lease public property? The San Diego ruling
violates the First Amendment's religious freedom guarantee and
establishes a de facto atheist religion. Surely, this is so wrong that
the Supreme Court will set things right, right? No.
On May 3, the court declined to hear Boy Scouts of America v.
Barnes-Wallace, leaving intact the abuse. This is not the first time the
Supreme Court has seen the Scouts mugged and bleeding and hurried on by.
In 2004, the court let stand a ruling by the 2nd Circuit Court upholding
Connecticut's ejection of the Scouts from the state employees charitable
donation program. Prodded by the usual suspects - gay activists and the
ACLU (pretty much interchangeable) - Connecticut officials said the
Scouts' policy of barring homosexual Scoutmasters violated the
sexual-orientation portion of the state's anti-discrimination law.
In 2006, in Evans v. Berkeley, the court let stand a ruling against the
Scouts and for the city of Berkeley, Calif., whose city officials had
ended a 50-year-long arrangement that had allowed the Sea Scouts to use
a public marina's dock at no charge. Citing a local law barring
discrimination based on sexual orientation, the city had upped the
Scouts' rent to $500 a month, prompting the Scouts to sue the city for
violating their freedoms of speech and association.
Much of the media, which has been bashing the Catholic Church over the
scandal of homosexual priests molesting boys and young men, which
constitutes 80 percent of the abuse cases, can't find a single reason
why the Scouts would want to bar gay men from taking boys camping.
The Scouts are caught between a rock and a hard place. Either they drop
their moral standard and put boys and their own legal survival at risk,
or they face endless harassment designed to bankrupt them.
Since 2000, when the Scouts won in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale,
they've been under constant assault. It's as if they lost the case. More
than 50 United Way chapters dropped them, as did many public school
districts. Philadelphia is still trying to eject the Cradle of Liberty
Council from its headquarters, which the Scouts built in 1928 in a city
park.
The current Supreme Court's unwillingness to take this slam-dunk First
Amendment case from San Diego indicates that the justices don't
understand the ramifications of turning the Scouts into the equivalent
of the Ku Klux Klan. Or they understand it and some of them don't mind.
It takes just four justices to decide to hear a case. What did they
think was more important?
Maybe they simply don't trust Justice Anthony Kennedy for the fifth
vote. He wrote the Lawrence v. Texas decision in 2003 that overturned
sodomy laws partly because international elite opinions rated higher
than that of elected representatives from the Lone Star State.
Perhaps the justices are waiting for conflicts among cases at the
circuit level in order to intercede. However, given the stakes here for
the freedoms of religion and free assembly, one might think the ongoing
attacks on the Scouts would warrant the court's attention.
Robert Knight is a writer for Coral Ridge Ministries and the author of
"Radical Rulers: The White House Elites Who Are Pushing America Toward
Socialism" (radicalrulers.com, 2010).
All they have to do is claim they are Muzscums and the whole thing will go
away.
The strange thing is that in other Western countries that have boy scouts
they do not have these problems, it seems only the USA seems to have these
problems and maybe it is because the church became involved with the US Boy
Scouts movement.
Your argument doesn't wash. The Catholics aren't the only
supporters of the boy scouts, but they ARE the single most
targeted religion for homosexual pedophiles. Most other scout
supporting religions allow their preachers to marry and you
never hear a peep from them about homosexuals molesting boys.
Scouts have been swearing to do their duty for god and country
since the beginning. You don't hear them swearing to bend each
one another over so a buddy can stick his cock up their ass.

You atheists and fags don't understand morals or good behavior.
It's not in your psychological makeup because you are defective.
Brian
2010-05-11 01:45:48 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 09 May 2010 10:07:15 +0200, "* US *"
Post by * US *
Your argument doesn't wash. The Catholics aren't the only
supporters of the boy scouts, but they ARE the single most
targeted religion for homosexual pedophiles. Most other scout
supporting religions allow their preachers to marry and you
never hear a peep from them about homosexuals molesting boys.
Scouts have been swearing to do their duty for god and country
since the beginning. You don't hear them swearing to bend each
one another over so a buddy can stick his cock up their ass.
Catholic priests offend at the same rate as the general population but
there is a centralized bureaucracy in the Catholic church that is not
present in other churches or the public school system
juanjo
2010-05-12 01:04:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by RamRod Sword of Baal
Post by Alfred Stomacker
""Diversity" A Liberal Fraud"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/07/court-puts-boy-scouts...
a-moral-quandary/
By Robert Knight
Which of America's Founders could have foreseen a federal judge in 2003
kicking the Boy Scouts out of San Diego's Balboa Park, where the Scouts
had a lease on a campground for 25 years?
The judge, Clinton appointee Napoleon Jones, ruled that the Scouts are
"religious" and cannot lease city land. The American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) had filed the suit for a lesbian couple and an agnostic
couple over the Scouts' oath to honor God and be "morally straight."
First, the Scouts are not a religious group simply because they
recognize the Creator. By that reasoning, the Declaration of
Independence is a religious document, not to mention the Constitution,
which is dated "in the Year of Our Lord, one thousand, seven hundred and
eighty-seven." No, it's not Lord Krishna.
And even if the Scouts are a religious group, so what? Do only secular
groups have a right to lease public property? The San Diego ruling
violates the First Amendment's religious freedom guarantee and
establishes a de facto atheist religion. Surely, this is so wrong that
the Supreme Court will set things right, right? No.
On May 3, the court declined to hear Boy Scouts of America v.
Barnes-Wallace, leaving intact the abuse. This is not the first time the
Supreme Court has seen the Scouts mugged and bleeding and hurried on by.
In 2004, the court let stand a ruling by the 2nd Circuit Court upholding
Connecticut's ejection of the Scouts from the state employees charitable
donation program. Prodded by the usual suspects - gay activists and the
ACLU (pretty much interchangeable) - Connecticut officials said the
Scouts' policy of barring homosexual Scoutmasters violated the
sexual-orientation portion of the state's anti-discrimination law.
In 2006, in Evans v. Berkeley, the court let stand a ruling against the
Scouts and for the city of Berkeley, Calif., whose city officials had
ended a 50-year-long arrangement that had allowed the Sea Scouts to use
a public marina's dock at no charge. Citing a local law barring
discrimination based on sexual orientation, the city had upped the
Scouts' rent to $500 a month, prompting the Scouts to sue the city for
violating their freedoms of speech and association.
Much of the media, which has been bashing the Catholic Church over the
scandal of homosexual priests molesting boys and young men, which
constitutes 80 percent of the abuse cases, can't find a single reason
why the Scouts would want to bar gay men from taking boys camping.
The Scouts are caught between a rock and a hard place. Either they drop
their moral standard and put boys and their own legal survival at risk,
or they face endless harassment designed to bankrupt them.
Since 2000, when the Scouts won in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale,
they've been under constant assault. It's as if they lost the case. More
than 50 United Way chapters dropped them, as did many public school
districts. Philadelphia is still trying to eject the Cradle of Liberty
Council from its headquarters, which the Scouts built in 1928 in a city
park.
The current Supreme Court's unwillingness to take this slam-dunk First
Amendment case from San Diego indicates that the justices don't
understand the ramifications of turning the Scouts into the equivalent
of the Ku Klux Klan. Or they understand it and some of them don't mind.
It takes just four justices to decide to hear a case. What did they
think was more important?
Maybe they simply don't trust Justice Anthony Kennedy for the fifth
vote. He wrote the Lawrence v. Texas decision in 2003 that overturned
sodomy laws partly because international elite opinions rated higher
than that of elected representatives from the Lone Star State.
Perhaps the justices are waiting for conflicts among cases at the
circuit level in order to intercede. However, given the stakes here for
the freedoms of religion and free assembly, one might think the ongoing
attacks on the Scouts would warrant the court's attention.
Robert Knight is a writer for Coral Ridge Ministries and the author of
"Radical Rulers: The White House Elites Who Are Pushing America Toward
Socialism" (radicalrulers.com, 2010).
All they have to do is claim they are Muzscums and the whole thing will go
away.
The strange thing is that in other Western countries that have boy scouts
they do not have these problems, it seems only the USA seems to have  these
problems and maybe it is because the church became involved with the US Boy
Scouts movement.
Your argument doesn't wash.  The Catholics aren't the only
supporters of the boy scouts, but they ARE the single most
targeted religion for  homosexual pedophiles.  
Stupid and uniformed is a poor way to go through life. Catholic
priests offend at the same rate as clergy in other religious
institutions. But not only that, most Catholic sponsired scout troops
do not have priests operating as scout masters. It is lay people.
Most other scout
supporting religions allow their preachers to marry and you
never hear a peep from them about homosexuals molesting boys.  
As I said uniformed and stupid is a sad way to go through life. The
Mormons were sued for a massive molestation scandal a couple years ago
where one of their scout masters regularly molested scouts under his
control The Mormons settled the suit quickly.
juanjo
2010-05-08 21:00:53 UTC
Permalink
On May 8, 10:26 am, "\"Diversity\" A Liberal Fraud" <boot-
Post by "Diversity" A Liberal Fraud
Robert Knight is a writer for Coral Ridge Ministries and the author of
"Radical Rulers: The White House Elites Who Are Pushing America Toward
Socialism" (radicalrulers.com, 2010).
Robert Knight is a lying piece of scum and probably will soon be
caught with a male prostitute like his good friend Rev. Rekers
Breck O'Bummer
2010-05-08 22:02:12 UTC
Permalink
"juanjo" <***@mypacks.net> wrote in message news:e18e97c7-87ae-43e9-a559-***@q36g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On May 8, 10:26 am, "\"Diversity\" A Liberal Fraud" <boot-
Post by "Diversity" A Liberal Fraud
Robert Knight is a writer for Coral Ridge Ministries and the author of
"Radical Rulers: The White House Elites Who Are Pushing America Toward
Socialism" (radicalrulers.com, 2010).
Robert Knight is a lying piece of scum and probably will soon be
caught with a male prostitute like his good friend Rev. Rekers
---
Typical queers.
Dänk 110100100
2010-05-09 00:38:52 UTC
Permalink
On May 8, 11:26 am, "\"Diversity\" A Liberal Fraud" <boot-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/07/court-puts-boy-scouts...
a-moral-quandary/
By Robert Knight
Which of America's Founders could have foreseen a federal judge in 2003
kicking the Boy Scouts out of San Diego's Balboa Park, where the Scouts
had a lease on a campground for 25 years?
The judge, Clinton appointee Napoleon Jones, ruled that the Scouts are
"religious" and cannot lease city land. The American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) had filed the suit for a lesbian couple and an agnostic
couple over the Scouts' oath to honor God and be "morally straight."
Well, it seems that if religious groups are permitted to lease public
land, other groups should also be given a chance to lease the same
land. A 25 year lease seems rather unfair, depriving countless other
groups of their right to enjoy public property.
First, the Scouts are not a religious group simply because they
recognize the Creator. By that reasoning, the Declaration of
Independence is a religious document, not to mention the Constitution,
which is dated "in the Year of Our Lord, one thousand, seven hundred and
eighty-seven." No, it's not Lord Krishna.
The Boy Scouts is a religious group. I'm currently residing in Utah,
and the Boy Scouts is essentially an organ of the Mormon Cult, and
serves to indoctrinate young men into the Cult, training them for
future missionary work. Since the Girl Scouts has an anti-
discrimination policy, the Cult does not operate any Girl Scout
franchises, and uses other Cult organizations to indoctrinate young
women.
And even if the Scouts are a religious group, so what? Do only secular
groups have a right to lease public property? The San Diego ruling
violates the First Amendment's religious freedom guarantee and
establishes a de facto atheist religion. Surely, this is so wrong that
the Supreme Court will set things right, right? No.
As I said before, the Boy Scouts should have as much right to lease
public land as any other private organization, no more and no less. A
25-year lease is essentially appropriating public property for private
use, and deprives others of their right to enjoy public property that
their taxes help to maintain.
The Lesbians
2010-05-09 01:14:46 UTC
Permalink
""Diversity" A Liberal Fraud"
Post by "Diversity" A Liberal Fraud
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/07/court-puts-boy-scouts-in-
a-moral-quandary/
By Robert Knight
Which of America's Founders could have foreseen a federal judge in 2003
kicking the Boy Scouts out of San Diego's Balboa Park, where the Scouts
had a lease on a campground for 25 years?
The judge, Clinton appointee Napoleon Jones, ruled that the Scouts are
"religious" and cannot lease city land. The American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) had filed the suit for a lesbian couple and an agnostic
couple over the Scouts' oath to honor God and be "morally straight."
First, the Scouts are not a religious group simply because they
recognize the Creator. By that reasoning, the Declaration of
Independence is a religious document, not to mention the Constitution,
which is dated "in the Year of Our Lord, one thousand, seven hundred and
eighty-seven." No, it's not Lord Krishna.
And even if the Scouts are a religious group, so what? Do only secular
groups have a right to lease public property? The San Diego ruling
violates the First Amendment's religious freedom guarantee and
establishes a de facto atheist religion. Surely, this is so wrong that
the Supreme Court will set things right, right? No.
On May 3, the court declined to hear Boy Scouts of America v.
Barnes-Wallace, leaving intact the abuse. This is not the first time the
Supreme Court has seen the Scouts mugged and bleeding and hurried on by.
In 2004, the court let stand a ruling by the 2nd Circuit Court upholding
Connecticut's ejection of the Scouts from the state employees charitable
donation program. Prodded by the usual suspects - gay activists and the
ACLU (pretty much interchangeable) - Connecticut officials said the
Scouts' policy of barring homosexual Scoutmasters violated the
sexual-orientation portion of the state's anti-discrimination law.
In 2006, in Evans v. Berkeley, the court let stand a ruling against the
Scouts and for the city of Berkeley, Calif., whose city officials had
ended a 50-year-long arrangement that had allowed the Sea Scouts to use
a public marina's dock at no charge. Citing a local law barring
discrimination based on sexual orientation, the city had upped the
Scouts' rent to $500 a month, prompting the Scouts to sue the city for
violating their freedoms of speech and association.
Much of the media, which has been bashing the Catholic Church over the
scandal of homosexual priests molesting boys and young men, which
constitutes 80 percent of the abuse cases, can't find a single reason
why the Scouts would want to bar gay men from taking boys camping.
The Scouts are caught between a rock and a hard place. Either they drop
their moral standard and put boys and their own legal survival at risk,
or they face endless harassment designed to bankrupt them.
Since 2000, when the Scouts won in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale,
they've been under constant assault. It's as if they lost the case. More
than 50 United Way chapters dropped them, as did many public school
districts. Philadelphia is still trying to eject the Cradle of Liberty
Council from its headquarters, which the Scouts built in 1928 in a city
park.
The current Supreme Court's unwillingness to take this slam-dunk First
Amendment case from San Diego indicates that the justices don't
understand the ramifications of turning the Scouts into the equivalent
of the Ku Klux Klan. Or they understand it and some of them don't mind.
It takes just four justices to decide to hear a case. What did they
think was more important?
Maybe they simply don't trust Justice Anthony Kennedy for the fifth
vote. He wrote the Lawrence v. Texas decision in 2003 that overturned
sodomy laws partly because international elite opinions rated higher
than that of elected representatives from the Lone Star State.
Perhaps the justices are waiting for conflicts among cases at the
circuit level in order to intercede. However, given the stakes here for
the freedoms of religion and free assembly, one might think the ongoing
attacks on the Scouts would warrant the court's attention.
Robert Knight is a writer for Coral Ridge Ministries and the author of
"Radical Rulers: The White House Elites Who Are Pushing America Toward
Socialism" (radicalrulers.com, 2010).
The opinions of the "international elite(by which I assume you mean Mary
Robinson, one of the authors of the amicus brief in 'Lawrence') ranked
higher than elected officials in Southern States in the minds of "The
Supremes " in the Loving case as well

Part of the prombem is that the elected officials in Southern States seem to
have the intellectual and humanistic attainments of Austrolopithicus.
Dionisio
2010-05-18 05:21:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by "Diversity" A Liberal Fraud
Which of America's Founders could have foreseen a federal judge in 2003
kicking the Boy Scouts out of San Diego's Balboa Park, where the Scouts
had a lease on a campground for 25 years?
"Thomas Jefferson."
Post by "Diversity" A Liberal Fraud
First, the Scouts are not a religious group simply because they
recognize the Creator.
They are a religious organization because they say they are!

Duh.
Post by "Diversity" A Liberal Fraud
And even if the Scouts are a religious group, so what?
"So what"?!?

You, who hold religion so dear, are claiming "so what"?!?

Great googly moogly!!! Religion is "so what"?!? It's not "the point," "the goal," or even,
"the ideal"?!!!!!????!!!!????!!!!????!!!!???

Sweet Jesus!
--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:

"Made in His image, yeah right! If that's the truth, I think I'll put off meeting God for
a good long time. All of his little images running around down here are really bad PR."
-- ***@hal.fmhi.usf.edu (Mark Buzza) (10-27-94)

(Brought to you by SigChanger.)
Dakota
2010-05-18 05:43:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dionisio
Post by "Diversity" A Liberal Fraud
Which of America's Founders could have foreseen a federal judge in 2003
kicking the Boy Scouts out of San Diego's Balboa Park, where the Scouts
had a lease on a campground for 25 years?
"Thomas Jefferson."
Post by "Diversity" A Liberal Fraud
First, the Scouts are not a religious group simply because they
recognize the Creator.
They are a religious organization because they say they are!
Duh.
They are a religious group because they require their young members to
recite the Scout Oath:

On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

Those who do not believe in a god are not eligible for membership.
Post by Dionisio
Post by "Diversity" A Liberal Fraud
And even if the Scouts are a religious group, so what?
"So what"?!?
You, who hold religion so dear, are claiming "so what"?!?
Great googly moogly!!! Religion is "so what"?!? It's not "the point," "the goal," or even,
"the ideal"?!!!!!????!!!!????!!!!????!!!!???
Sweet Jesus!
In the USA, the Boy Scouts discriminate on the basis of religion. Therefore
the court ruled that they can no longer get special deals on leases of
public property. They have to pay like everybody else. (I recommend that
Christians read up on rendering unto Caesar.)

The Girl Scouts do not discriminate. It seems likely that they could get
the kind of deal the Boy Scouts just lost.

Loading...