NationStates Jolt Archive

All I can say is that I totally agree with the ACLU on this one:


ACLU Raps 'DNA Dragnet' in Cape Cod Murder Case

2 hours, 9 minutes ago U.S. National - Reuters


By Greg Frost

BOSTON (Reuters) - Civil rights advocates Monday urged U.S. law enforcement officials trying to solve a 3-year-old murder case to stop asking for DNA samples from male residents of a Cape Cod community.

Police in Truro, Massachusetts, are seeking genetic thumbprints from nearly 800 men who live in the quiet seaside hamlet hopes of solving the murder of Christa Worthington, a fashion writer.

Worthington's body was discovered Jan. 6, 2002, at her Truro home with her 2-year-old toddler, Ava, at her side. A $25,000 reward has so far failed to yield her killer.

In a bid to jump-start the investigation, police have begun asking Truro's male residents to voluntarily produce DNA samples -- collected by swabbing inside the mouth -- to help find a match for the semen that was found on Worthington's body.

The New York Times reported Monday that police are approaching men in public with the request, and have announced that they will closely watch those who refuse. Authorities also say they may expand the drive to neighboring communities, the Times said.

"This is a particularly insidious form of coercion because it attaches a penalty to the assertion of one's constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches," Carol Rose, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) of Massachusetts, said in a statement.

"There are many legitimate privacy reasons why an innocent person may not agree to a DNA test."

In a letter to local prosecutors and police, Rose's group urged a halt to the "DNA dragnet," calling it a "serious intrusion" on personal privacy.

The letter raised questions about the possibility that samples may be entered into a state or federal DNA database without donors' knowledge or consent and questioned whether the effort would be worth the cost, which it estimated at $80,000.

Moreover, the letter cited a University of Nebraska study released last year that concluded that DNA sweeps of possible criminal suspects are "extremely unproductive."

Cape and Islands District Attorney Michael O'Keefe dismissed the ACLU's concerns.

"I don't tell the ACLU what to do and I don't expect them to tell us what's appropriate in a homicide investigation," he said. He declined to comment further on the investigation.



I guess those cops are getting a wee bit lazy. Whatever happened to doing old fashioned investigations? I totally dislike the idea of the powers that be getting DNA samples from people in a certain place (who aren't suspects yet), just to find a killer. Sure you may say if you are innocent, why do you care? But I do care about my rights being infringed because the police can't solve a crime on their own.

So you normally disagree with the ACLU? They're nearly always right, even if they are slightly extremist.

Whatever happened to reasonable belief and search warrants?

cant expect cops to do investigations, thats too old fashioned, why do real police work can you go around making a databse of dna and pick people out of it for whatevr they feel like

So you normally disagree with the ACLU? They're nearly always right, even if they are slightly extremist.

I wouldn't say nearly always. I'd say 4 out of 5 times. :)

For example, I very much disagree with them on school vouchers and their crusade against the Boy Scouts.

Yeah, what were we thinking trying to catch a murderer. If we did this, than we wouldn't be aloud to murder anybody :rolleyes:

Yeah, what were we thinking trying to catch a murderer. If we did this, than we wouldn't be aloud to murder anybody :rolleyes:

If they'd get off their butts, put the donuts away, they may be able to solve crimes! You know, earn their salary!

Bad Cop-No donut!

I suppose not even Wadd can be wrong all the time.

If they'd get off their butts, put the donuts away, they may be able to solve crimes! You know, earn their salary!

Bad Cop-No donut!
Yep, that must be the cause of there inability to solve the crime! They all conform to the stereotype! Not because inane legal cases block there power. The cops should follow your shining example and judge people based on stereotypes, not evidence pertaining to reality.

Yep, that must be the cause of there inability to solve the crime! They all conform to the stereotype! Not because inane legal cases block there power. The cops should follow your shining example and judge people based on stereotypes, not evidence pertaining to reality.
Well, juries already do it, so I suppose it couldn't much worse than our already absurd legal system. That said, there is this little thing called the Constitution which prevents cops from acting on their assumption that everyone is guilty. They have to provide evidence to suggest a search warrant is necessary before they can start stealing parts of people's bodies.

Wait, which Boy Scout thing? 'Cause there's several. Also, if they're accepting federal funds (which they do), they are required to follow federal guidelines (which they don't).

I suppose not even Wadd can be wrong all the time.

I thank you! (http://www.laurelcanyonassoc.com/Images/20th%20History/JohnHolmes2.jpg)

You know I'm modest! I'm correct about 99% of the time!

Well, juries already do it, so I suppose it couldn't much worse than our already absurd legal system. That said, there is this little thing called the Constitution which prevents cops from acting on their assumption that everyone is guilty. They have to provide evidence to suggest a search warrant is necessary before they can start stealing parts of people's bodies.
Boo hoo, you have to get a cotton swab in your mouth. Life is tough, why don't you complain to the woman whos dead about how bad you have it?

Whatever happened to reasonable belief and search warrants?
PATRIOT Act.

Boo hoo, you have to get a cotton swab in your mouth. Life is tough, why don't you complain to the woman whos dead about how bad you have it?

Yes and if your arrested because the barely above minimum wage lab tech botch the DNA test and your convicted and your life is ruined, we will all cry for you.

Boo hoo. :(

Run along now, go down to your local cop shop and volunteer to be put in their DNA database with all the released felons and sex offenders.

Shoo, off you go.

Don't let the Constitution hit you in the ass on your way out. :D

PATRIOT Act.
I had to do a debate about that in school once.
I got my ass beat because:
A) We were supposed to wear dress clothes and I didn't have any, which they almost disqualified our group for
B) I was late, which was *not* my fault, they took me to the nurse because they thought I was on drugs
C) 4 letters: ADHD. Even if I was there the whole time, we would have lost.

Oh well, that's what the Interent is for. I can go back and correct what I wrote so it actually makes sense.

For example, I very much disagree with them on school vouchers and their crusade against the Boy Scouts.

So you believe we should give tax dollars to organizations which do not follow the rules to qualify for that money?

In other words, if you personally like the group, they shouldn't have to follow the rules? Yeah, that's wonderful, but completely illogical.

Yes and if your arrested because the barely above minimum wage lab tech botch the DNA test and your convicted and your life is ruined, we will all cry for you.

Because I'm sure when you're family members get murdered your going to be ranting against them using things like "evidence" to try and put people in jail. The same half-assed argument can be used to say that we should never have used fingerprints, because those can be fouled up. Hell we shouldn't use any evidence at all! Thank you for showing me the light, of a system of justice based soley on heresay and the occasional witness.

cant expect cops to do investigations, thats too old fashioned, why do real police work can you go around making a databse of dna and pick people out of it for whatevr they feel like

You people no nothing about detectives, theres a little thing called, lack of evidence. :rolleyes:

Yes and if your arrested because the barely above minimum wage lab tech botch the DNA test and your convicted and your life is ruined, we will all cry for you.

Boo hoo. :(

Run along now, go down to your local cop shop and volunteer to be put in their DNA database with all the released felons and sex offenders.

Shoo, off you go.

Don't let the Constitution hit you in the ass on your way out. :D

Wow, I can see why your crying, that was a bunch of crap put together with a string to try and give reasonable support to your ideas. Nicccccce.

You people no nothing about detectives, theres a little thing called, lack of evidence. :rolleyes:

And lack of evidence gives the detective the right to randomly search people until they find something?

You people no nothing about detectives, theres a little thing called, lack of evidence. :rolleyes:
some one better call sherlock fucking holmes, there is always evidence.

some one better call sherlock fucking holmes, there is always evidence.
Of course, I said 'lack of' as in there isnt enough evidence to make a conclusion. And if cops go off of a little evidence, than they pick a bunch of suspects, which, granted one of them is the real perpertraitor, but its probably 1/5,000 chance you'll get the real guy. And plus, evidence must be reviewed by the court to see if one is ready for a trial, and if you dont have shit, you dont get to go to trial and convict anyone, for lack of evidence.

The ACLU does sometimes do things that I would deem unforgivably ridiculous, but in most cases, to my knowlege, they serve their purpose rather well. In this case, however, I disagree with them, though only slightly. Yes, it may be a rude and invasive way to go about investigating a homicide case, but, weighing costs and gains, I would consider such an investigation acceptable.

And lack of evidence gives the detective the right to randomly search people until they find something?

No, but it does give the killer the write to walk away. Some people choose to not let that happen.
Also, these arent mandatory, they said "Well be watching you if you dont." They arent forcing this on anyone. You have nothing to hide, you have nothing to hide.

Yeah, what were we thinking trying to catch a murderer. If we did this, than we wouldn't be aloud to murder anybody :rolleyes:
You know, if we were all locked up in cells, we'd be a lot safer too. It's all about how you value rights and freedoms.

The ACLU does sometimes do things that I would deem unforgivably ridiculous, but in most cases, to my knowlege, they serve their purpose rather well. In this case, however, I disagree with them, though only slightly. Yes, it may be a rude and invasive way to go about investigating a homicide case, but, weighing costs and gains, I would consider such an investigation acceptable.

In that case, the next time there is a murder in your area, the cops can enter your house without any reason to suspect you and ransack it for evidence. If they find anything they think might possibly maybe have anything to do with a crime, they can take it. This would have been called unreasonable search and seizure, but since you don't really care much about the bill of rights, it is now allowable.

Edit: Scratch that, you *can* say that they can't search your house. However, if you do, they can begin following you around and watching every move you make.

No, but it does give the killer the write to walk away. Some people choose to not let that happen.
Also, these arent mandatory, they said "Well be watching you if you dont." They arent forcing this on anyone. You have nothing to hide, you have nothing to hide.

Sad, but true. It's a byproduct of this little philosophy: "Innocent until proven guilty."

PATRIOT Act.
What a load! What part of the Patriot act did away with any right?

some one better call sherlock fucking holmes, there is always evidence.

Why not call fucking Watson? :(

What a load! What part of the Patriot act did away with any right?

Let's see, you can now be held without charge for as long as they feel like it.

Your privacy can be invaded without the need for a warrant. (phone taps, library records, etc.) Sure, this probably happened before, but it was not admissable in court.

You can now be charged for refusing to talk to a police officer, even if the officer has absolutely no reason to talk to you.

Sad, but true. It's a byproduct of this little philosophy: "Innocent until proven guilty."

No, thats if I went up to someone and said, "YOUR GUILTY!" and threw um in jail. If you philosophy was applied to all criminal cases, we couldnt examine any suspects for the fact that they are innocent at the moment.

Because I'm sure when you're family members get murdered your going to be ranting against them using things like "evidence" to try and put people in jail. The same half-assed argument can be used to say that we should never have used fingerprints, because those can be fouled up. Hell we shouldn't use any evidence at all! Thank you for showing me the light, of a system of justice based soley on heresay and the occasional witness.

How exactly do we get from a desire for justice to a need for a police state? Personally, if my family was murdered, I'd want justice as much as the next man, but it isn't exactly justice on my part to force everyone in the area to have a policeman swab out their mouths at the same time; in point of fact, it's quite unjust of me. That does not in any way imply that I'm some kind of judicial Neo-Luddite at all. It just means that when they fingerprint someone, they ought to have some kind of reasonable explanation for why they are fingerprinting them, something that preferably has to do with the case at hand, and not as a "just in case" measure in the off-chance that the person may leave a fingerprint at the scene of a crime in the future.

No, but it does give the killer the write to walk away. Some people choose to not let that happen.
Also, these arent mandatory, they said "Well be watching you if you dont." They arent forcing this on anyone. You have nothing to hide, you have nothing to hide.

Yeah, and how is that not invasive of my privacy rights guaranteed by the 5th and 11th Constitutional Amendments? A DNA database can be used to fabricate evidence against any suspected criminals, and don't say that evidence isn't fabricated, I've watched it happen. Having nothing to hide is not the same as being innocent.

"Did you think we want those laws observed? We want them broken. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power the government has is to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can be neither observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - then you cash in on the guilt."
-- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged --

Cops can cite you with just about anything without a shred of evidence and unless you pay a lawyer an obscene amount of money, you won't get the case dismissed because 9 times out of 10 the judge doesn't "question the officers on the scene". Never mind the fact that the 3 officers arresting you gave 3 entirely different reasons for wanting to arrest you, and nevermind the fact that you have 15 people vouching for your alibi, Do not pass Go, Do not collect 200 dollars, pay the government 480 dollars and spend 1 weekend in jail.

No, thats if I went up to someone and said, "YOUR GUILTY!" and threw um in jail. If you philosophy was applied to all criminal cases, we couldnt examine any suspects for the fact that they are innocent at the moment.

That's right, until the cop gets enough evidence to get a search warrant, he ain't getting anything, no arrest, nothing. Of course, he could always trump up some other charges on a throwaway case to get the evidence he needed to charge you with another crime.

How exactly do we get from a desire for justice to a need for a police state? Personally, if my family was murdered, I'd want justice as much as the next man, but it isn't exactly justice on my part to force everyone in the area to have a policeman swab out their mouths at the same time; in point of fact, it's quite unjust of me. That does not in any way imply that I'm some kind of judicial Neo-Luddite at all. It just means that when they fingerprint someone, they ought to have some kind of reasonable explanation for why they are fingerprinting them, something that preferably has to do with the case at hand, and not as a "just in case" measure in the off-chance that the person may leave a fingerprint at the scene of a crime in the future.
yeah i can only think of 2 ways your getting your fingerprints in the database: go to jail or go into the cubscouts/boyscouts/whatever, they dont just go up to random people and be like: give us your fingerprint for our database or we will install a security system in your home and watch your like a nazi version of big brother or the real world

No, thats if I went up to someone and said, "YOUR GUILTY!" and threw um in jail. If you philosophy was applied to all criminal cases, we couldnt examine any suspects for the fact that they are innocent at the moment.

Not at all. But there has to be a *reason* to suspect them, not just, "Well, you happen to live in the same town as this woman."

Let's see, you can now be held without charge for as long as they feel like it.

Looks like this applies only to aliens, and only those associated with terrorists. Pretty good idea!

Your privacy can be invaded without the need for a warrant. (phone taps, library records, etc.) Sure, this probably happened before, but it was not admissable in court.

Wrong. The standard for probable cause is reduced. Warrants are still required.

You can now be charged for refusing to talk to a police officer, even if the officer has absolutely no reason to talk to you.
I can't even find this in any discussion of the Patriot act.
By and large the provisions are pretty good. The courts will sort out the unconstitutional ones and we will have a little more protection agains terrorists.

That's right, until the cop gets enough evidence to get a search warrant, he ain't getting anything, no arrest, nothing. Of course, he could always trump up some other charges on a throwaway case to get the evidence he needed to charge you with another crime.

Aparrantly you dont get it here. They dont need a search warrant for one reason, they are asking them to be considerate and swab there mouth. They arent forcing them.

Looks like this applies only to aliens, and only those associated with terrorists. Pretty good idea!

Wrong. It applies to anyone who the authorities say they think might be associated with terrorists.

Wrong. The standard for probable cause is reduced. Warrants are still required.

Not according to the act itself.

I can't even find this in any discussion of the Patriot act.

Well, there have already been court cases on it. I believe the lower courts found it to be unconstitutional. I'm not sure if it's made it through the upper courts. It may have already been removed.

By and large the provisions are pretty good. The courts will sort out the unconstitutional ones and we will have a little more protection agains terrorists.

So you admit that there are unconstitutional provisions. Good. Of course, if you are being held without charge, you can't challenge them, but oh well.

Aparrantly you dont get it here. They dont need a search warrant for one reason, they are asking them to be considerate and swab there mouth. They arent forcing them.

"Hey, let me swab your mouth or I'll put you under constant surveillance."

Hmmm... coercion anyone?

So you admit that there are unconstitutional provisions. Good. Of course, if you are being held without charge, you can't challenge them, but oh well.
Every bill that passes out of the Congress and is signed by the President is liable to have an unconstitutional provision. I don't see any great victory there.

I'm too tired to go through all the arguments we all know by rote. You win.

So you believe we should give tax dollars to organizations which do not follow the rules to qualify for that money?

In other words, if you personally like the group, they shouldn't have to follow the rules? Yeah, that's wonderful, but completely illogical.

Money? What money? The Boy Scouts get 0% of their money from tax dollars.
http://www.scoutingforall.org/tax.shtml
Note: this is NOT a pro-BSA site.
There has only been ONE year when the government gave anything to the BSA, in 1962!

"Though no level of government directly funds the operating budget of the BSA, member and unit sponsors paid fees that amounted in 1993 to $56.8 million out of a total budget of $115 million."
Now, there are some programs that do fund scouting, for example the Coast Guard. And they get free labor out of it.

Further:
* Saying "Under God" is not against any "rule" in the nation. In fact, I've even heard a few people say it during that Pledge of Alliegence thing. Which, like joining scouts, is OPTIONAL.

* As long as you don't declare your sexual orientation, no harm no foul. Gee! That sounds like the military's "Dont' Ask, Don't Tell", now don't it?

But then, I guess even a non-denominational asexual group isn't allowed their rights of Assembly and Freedom of Speach if they're not politically correct.

A pro-rights group should not work for anyone's disenfranchisement.

As for school vouchers, why should anyone be against them? A parent inherently has the right to choose what is best for their child's education.

yeha htey have the right to choose whats best for their child, at their own expense. every child has the right to a decent education, however i will not foot the bill from random radicals who get bitchy and want the taxpayers to fund their kid through a private school (not the community, but a single child) instead of going to the public school THUS taknig away moeny from the public scholl THUS making the school shittier from lack of funds

yeha htey have the right to choose whats best for their child, at their own expense. every child has the right to a decent education, however i will not foot the bill from random radicals who get bitchy and want the taxpayers to fund their kid through a private school (not the community, but a single child) instead of going to the public school THUS taknig away moeny from the public scholl THUS making the school shittier from lack of funds

Er?
If your kids aren't in the public school. Why should your tax dollars be?
Further, with fewer students, teachers can give the other students better/more supervision.

Er?
If your kids aren't in the public school. Why should your tax dollars be?
Further, with fewer students, teachers can give the other students better/more supervision.
because its the public school, its gets taken out of your total taxes anyway. ooh ooh i know, hey you only drive on aTHESE roads, how come you have to pay taxes that fix THOSE roads


and no, with fewer students the school gets fewer dollars, thus education goes down hill with less funds, assumnig the funds wernt being invested in football anyway

because its the public school, its gets taken out of your total taxes anyway. ooh ooh i know, hey you only drive on aTHESE roads, how come you have to pay taxes that fix THOSE roads

Um... you're already paying for the roads with the gas tax, the car tax (if you have 'em), the oil disposal tax (if you have 'em). So you're getting what you pay for.
You're paying taxes for your kid's education. The reason why you can't choose for your kids to go to St. Balthazar's instead of Center School is what? The money you paid is still going to educate your kid.


and no, with fewer students the school gets fewer dollars, thus education goes down hill with less funds, assumnig the funds wernt being invested in football anyway

MONEY DOES NOT EQUAL EDUCATION!
Since I was in elementary school 20 years ago, the education budget in my home town (where my family still lives) has gone from 40% of the town budget to 70%. And the kids are no smarter. Test scores are almost identical to what they were in 1984.

MONEY DOES NOT EQUAL EDUCATION!
Since I was in elementary school 20 years ago, the education budget in my home town (where my family still lives) has gone from 40% of the town budget to 70%. And the kids are no smarter. Test scores are almost identical to what they were in 1984.
like i said "assuming the funds arnt being invested in football"

like i said "assuming the funds arnt being invested in football"

Or in 90% retirement after 20 year plans. :(

I can see that for cops. I can see that for firefighters. For teachers?!?

Or in 90% retirement after 20 year plans. :(

I can see that for cops. I can see that for firefighters. For teachers?!?
teachers are underpaid,overworked babysitters

teachers are underpaid,overworked babysitters

Overworked, maybe. Underpaid? Not in Connecticut or New York...

How exactly do we get from a desire for justice to a need for a police state? Personally, if my family was murdered, I'd want justice as much as the next man, but it isn't exactly justice on my part to force everyone in the area to have a policeman swab out their mouths at the same time; in point of fact, it's quite unjust of me. That does not in any way imply that I'm some kind of judicial Neo-Luddite at all. It just means that when they fingerprint someone, they ought to have some kind of reasonable explanation for why they are fingerprinting them, something that preferably has to do with the case at hand, and not as a "just in case" measure in the off-chance that the person may leave a fingerprint at the scene of a crime in the future.
Fine I conceed your point
"I would rather let a thousand murderers go free then actually catch them"--Chief Wiggum
The police should try to pin what they have on some poor schmuck rather then be sure they have the right guy.

yeha htey have the right to choose whats best for their child, at their own expense. every child has the right to a decent education, however i will not foot the bill from random radicals who get bitchy and want the taxpayers to fund their kid through a private school (not the community, but a single child) instead of going to the public school THUS taknig away moeny from the public scholl THUS making the school shittier from lack of funds

I don't think its intended to be a "I'm in Private School, no money for you" system, vouchers are so you can capitalize (god I know I'm gonna get shafted for wording, just hear this out) on your expressed beleif in the Public School system failing and not worthy of your endorsement. Lets face it, not all schools are bad but when a significant number of public schools in an area become corrupt, giving them more money isn't going to produce results, though you might see the princibles of select said corrupt schools in a new BMW.

As for the ACLU, I really think it has gotten horribly off target with its innitial mission.
If you don't want to get your DNA tested, I wouldn't mind someone watching your public life, soon as they start getting into the private stuff w/o a warrent they have over-stepped their bounds.

Money? What money? The Boy Scouts get 0% of their money from tax dollars.
http://www.scoutingforall.org/tax.shtml
Note: this is NOT a pro-BSA site.
There has only been ONE year when the government gave anything to the BSA, in 1962!

The only thing the ACLU has done was to attempt to stop DOD support of the Boy Scouts because they are not equal opportunity employers, nor do they let all boys in.

Now, there are some programs that do fund scouting, for example the Coast Guard. And they get free labor out of it.

Wait, are you saying that the Coast Guard is not tax money?

Further:
* Saying "Under God" is not against any "rule" in the nation. In fact, I've even heard a few people say it during that Pledge of Alliegence thing. Which, like joining scouts, is OPTIONAL.

If the scouts do not let people of all religions join, they can get *NO* government funds whatsoever. The scouts used to require that you say it. After a lawsuit, they began allowing atheists, etc. into scouts.

* As long as you don't declare your sexual orientation, no harm no foul. Gee! That sounds like the military's "Dont' Ask, Don't Tell", now don't it?

Which is idiotic. Either way, if you are not an equal opportunity employer, you can get *NO* government funds.

But then, I guess even a non-denominational asexual group isn't allowed their rights of Assembly and Freedom of Speach if they're not politically correct.

They are allowed their rights, but they are not allowed any government money whatsoever unless they meet the guidelines for such.

As for school vouchers, why should anyone be against them? A parent inherently has the right to choose what is best for their child's education.

Government money cannot be spent on proseletyzing. As long as the parent can absolutely prove that the school does not require any type of religious indoctrination, the government may provide vouchers.

In that case, the next time there is a murder in your area, the cops can enter your house without any reason to suspect you and ransack it for evidence. If they find anything they think might possibly maybe have anything to do with a crime, they can take it. This would have been called unreasonable search and seizure, but since you don't really care much about the bill of rights, it is now allowable.

Edit: Scratch that, you *can* say that they can't search your house. However, if you do, they can begin following you around and watching every move you make.

My, what a slippery slope. We're all sliding down the old sllllllllippery slope, oh my! The slippery slope is out to get you. Oh, wait, it's just a fallacy, another dumbass rhetorical game. Not to worry, for I know just the thing:

If you think there's a slippery slope, prove it, Gonzo.

Because I'm sure when you're family members get murdered your going to be ranting against them using things like "evidence" to try and put people in jail. The same half-assed argument can be used to say that we should never have used fingerprints, because those can be fouled up. Hell we shouldn't use any evidence at all! Thank you for showing me the light, of a system of justice based soley on heresay and the occasional witness.



Oh NO! all my family members are going to be murdered!

Suspend the constitution right now!

Everybody up against the wall!

Wow, I can see why your crying, that was a bunch of crap put together with a string to try and give reasonable support to your ideas. Nicccccce.

Run along, you too. Shoo you right wing scamp.

When you get to the police station make sure you tell them that they want your DNA for a murder investigation. :D

My, what a slippery slope. We're all sliding down the old sllllllllippery slope, oh my! The slippery slope is out to get you. Oh, wait, it's just a fallacy, another dumbass rhetorical game. Not to worry, for I know just the thing:

If you think there's a slippery slope, prove it, Gonzo.

In this case it is *exactly* the same - unreasonable search and seizure. There is no difference whatsoever between the requirements needed to get your DNA and the requirements needed to search your house - reasonable cause.

In this case it is *exactly* the same - unreasonable search and seizure. There is no difference whatsoever between the requirements needed to get your DNA and the requirements needed to search your house - reasonable cause.The contribution is voluntary and helps to narrow down the list of suspects. The people being asked were already suspects, and this was a way for them to get off of the list. Can you think of a logical reason that one would refuse to go along with it?

I am sure that the ACLU believe that they have good reasons. I am not sure whether or not I would agree with them even after hearing their case, but if they believe that they are doing right, I at minimum approve of them for taking action to do something that they believe is right. Your slippery slope, however, is nothing more than a slippery slope. A slippery slope can be legitimate, but it must be proven so.

The only thing the ACLU has done was to attempt to stop DOD support of the Boy Scouts because they are not equal opportunity employers, nor do they let all boys in.

Aha. And this is SO BAD why?
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zeiger/030802
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005946

Call me crazy, but if some gay, athiest or even gay/atheist group formed and wanted to do the same thing, I think people would be up in arms if the ACLU started to discriminate against them because they didn't let straight Catholics into their roster.


Wait, are you saying that the Coast Guard is not tax money?

That depends. Are you saying that once a budget is allocated that the gov't branch can not say how it gets spent? If so, that's a heck of a statement. "From now on, no more money for safe sex programs! And no more tanks!" -- Talk about a slippery slope!

The point is that there is no direct funding, but there are co-ops and joint projects. Or are the Boys and Girls Clubs outreach programs and "Toys for Tots" bad too?


If the scouts do not let people of all religions join, they can get *NO* government funds whatsoever. The scouts used to require that you say it. After a lawsuit, they began allowing atheists, etc. into scouts.

Because the ACLU is better funded.


Which is idiotic. Either way, if you are not an equal opportunity employer, you can get *NO* government funds.

But this isn't a job, it's a club. The Masons can reject you, why not the Scouts?


They are allowed their rights, but they are not allowed any government money whatsoever unless they meet the guidelines for such.

Um... right. So I can just declare myself on Social Security? No? That's age descrimination! That's not following the guidelines!


Government money cannot be spent on proseletyzing. As long as the parent can absolutely prove that the school does not require any type of religious indoctrination, the government may provide vouchers.

And it isn't. Here in New Haven, the voucher kids sit in the same school, but they take extra gym instead of religious ed. Their room (or side of it) has no religious icons. The curriculum is secular.

As for the ACLU, I really think it has gotten horribly off target with its innitial mission.
If you don't want to get your DNA tested, I wouldn't mind someone watching your public life, soon as they start getting into the private stuff w/o a warrent they have over-stepped their bounds.
im pretty sure my dna counts as something private to me, you know since other people cant see it or have it or anything without taking it from me. they cant go around neighborhoods asking for fingerprints if some one is killed, this is nazi polcie work, we need some sherlock holmes police work damnit

Call me crazy, but if some gay, athiest or even gay/atheist group formed and wanted to do the same thing, I think people would be up in arms if the ACLU started to discriminate against them because they didn't let straight Catholics into their roster.People are already up in arms because the ACLU has criticised the Scouts. This wouldn't be much of a switch.

But this isn't a job, it's a club. The Masons can reject you, why not the Scouts?The Masons don't recieve funding or other benefits from the government. If they do, they shouldn't.


Um... right. So I can just declare myself on Social Security? No? That's age descrimination! That's not following the guidelines!It's discrimination, yes, but it is necessary and proper.

And it isn't. Here in New Haven, the voucher kids sit in the same school, but they take extra gym instead of religious ed. Their room (or side of it) has no religious icons. The curriculum is secular.Sounds like a well-regulated voucher program. I am generally somewhat skeptical of voucher programs, but this one sounds fine.

I've always liked the ACLU selective reading of the Constitution. They're all for some amendments, and would like to erase others.

That, and they would like to take the meaning of the ones they like to the greatest possible extreme.

The contribution is voluntary and helps to narrow down the list of suspects. The people being asked were already suspects, and this was a way for them to get off of the list. Can you think of a logical reason that one would refuse to go along with it?

No, they were not suspects, as there was no reason to suspect them. They were simply people who happened to live in the same town as this woman.

I am sure that the ACLU believe that they have good reasons. I am not sure whether or not I would agree with them even after hearing their case, but if they believe that they are doing right, I at minimum approve of them for taking action to do something that they believe is right. Your slippery slope, however, is nothing more than a slippery slope. A slippery slope can be legitimate, but it must be proven so.

It isn't a slippery slope at all. Search and seizure is search and seizure. If they can walk up to every single male in a town and ask him for DNA with threats to put him under surveillance if he does not willingly provide it, they can go to every single house which houses a male and ask to search it with the threat that they will put him under surveillance if he does not willingly allow them to. There is no slippery slope here - it is the *exact* same issue.

Aha. And this is SO BAD why?
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zeiger/030802
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005946

It isn't. The Boy Scouts should not receive DOD funds unless they meet the requirements for receiving such funds - equal opportunity employment and allowance of any boy, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. into the program.

Call me crazy, but if some gay, athiest or even gay/atheist group formed and wanted to do the same thing, I think people would be up in arms if the ACLU started to discriminate against them because they didn't let straight Catholics into their roster.

Not at all. And the ACLU is not the one discriminating here - they are battling discrimination.

That depends. Are you saying that once a budget is allocated that the gov't branch can not say how it gets spent? If so, that's a heck of a statement. "From now on, no more money for safe sex programs! And no more tanks!" -- Talk about a slippery slope!

As per the 1st Amendment, no government money can go towards the promotion of any one religion. To do so would be to establish that religion as a government-preferred religion. Neither safe sex nor tanks have anything at all to do with promoting religion.

The point is that there is no direct funding, but there are co-ops and joint projects. Or are the Boys and Girls Clubs outreach programs and "Toys for Tots" bad too?

They are good things, and they should be funded by those who wish to fund them. The girl scouts can't really be brought into this since they do allow people of all religions, races, sexual orientations, etc. into the program. The boy scouts, however, does not. As such, it cannot receive government funds, no matter how lofty its other goals might be. By your logic, we could fund the KKK with government funds, as long as they were contributing to a charity.

Because the ACLU is better funded.

No, because government funds were going towards an organization which discriminated against young boys based on their religion. The lawsuit was perfectly reasonable and therefore won.

But this isn't a job, it's a club. The Masons can reject you, why not the Scouts?

There are jobs within the Boy Scouts. The Masons don't receive government funds. If they do, they cannot reject you.

Um... right. So I can just declare myself on Social Security? No? That's age descrimination! That's not following the guidelines!

Looks like you need to read up on law. There is a little thing referred to as compelling interest.

And it isn't. Here in New Haven, the voucher kids sit in the same school, but they take extra gym instead of religious ed. Their room (or side of it) has no religious icons. The curriculum is secular.

As such, there is no problem with that school receiving government funds. However, the majority of religion-based private schools have no such system.

People willing to give up freedom for security will be worthy of neither and lose both. - Benjamin Franklin

People are already up in arms because the ACLU has criticised the Scouts. This wouldn't be much of a switch.

But it would be a whole lot fairer than persecuting a private group for being selective in their membership. I'm not complaining about not being made welcome at a Daughters of the American Revolution group, either.


The Masons don't recieve funding or other benefits from the government. If they do, they shouldn't.

Neither do the Scouts!! As with the Masons, they can (and do!) enter into contracts with Gov't Agencies, but they don't get any funding! It's called *free enterprise*.


It's discrimination, yes, but it is necessary and proper.

Sorry, that doesn't fly. Either discrimination is good or bad. Whom are you or I to choose? Why not some racist judge, who suddenly decides that all fines on black or white people are doubled today? :(


Sounds like a well-regulated voucher program. I am generally somewhat skeptical of voucher programs, but this one sounds fine.

That's the law!
This is why I can't understand folks being against voucher programs. They seem to thing that the kids are getting religious ed or something.


Like I've said before: I think the ACLU is generally a good organization, and I agree with them about 80%.

Neither do the Scouts!! As with the Masons, they can (and do!) enter into contracts with Gov't Agencies, but they don't get any funding! It's called *free enterprise*.

All of the lawsuits against them have bee predicated on the fact that they *do* receive government funding. If this were not true, there would be no lawsuits.

Sorry, that doesn't fly. Either discrimination is good or bad. Whom are you or I to choose? Why not some racist judge, who suddenly decides that all fines on black or white people are doubled today? :(

Again, read up on a concept called "compelling interest."

Edit: or, in the case of gender issues related to basic biology, I believe the term is "strict scrutiny."

All of the lawsuits against them have bee predicated on the fact that they *do* receive government funding. If this were not true, there would be no lawsuits.


Do you believe in links? Because I haven't seen one from you yet.


Again, read up on a concept called "compelling interest."

Edit: or, in the case of gender issues related to basic biology, I believe the term is "strict scrutiny."

Do you believe in links? Because I haven't seen one from you yet.

It isn't. The Boy Scouts should not receive DOD funds unless they meet the requirements for receiving such funds - equal opportunity employment and allowance of any boy, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. into the program.

More BS.
Equal opportunity isn't. Why? Affirmative Action
http://www.cpms.osd.mil/vip/per_data/21.htm
"1. Recognize equal opportunity programs, including affirmative action programs, as essential elements of readiness that are vital to the accomplishment of the DoD national security mission. Equal employment opportunity is the objective of affirmative action programs."
Have a doubleplusgood day! :(


Not at all. And the ACLU is not the one discriminating here - they are battling discrimination.

Are they? Because a group's members require you to believe in God and not be gay? I know a few golf courses that don't allow women. Even some famous ones (ever hear of Augusta?). Why isn't the ACLU fighting that? http://www.usatoday.com/sports/golf/masters/2003-04-09-johnson-policy_x.htm


As per the 1st Amendment, no government money can go towards the promotion of any one religion. To do so would be to establish that religion as a government-preferred religion. Neither safe sex nor tanks have anything at all to do with promoting religion.

So... just what religion are the Scouts? Lutheran? Jewish? Catholic? Methodist? Calvinsit? Hussite? Buddist? Congregationalist? 7th Day Adventist? :p

1st Amendment? WTF are you talking about?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Congress is NOT making any laws here. There is no establishment of religion, just an affirmation that the Scout believes in A GOD.

Here, I think you need this:http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti


They are good things, and they should be funded by those who wish to fund them. The girl scouts can't really be brought into this since they do allow people of all religions, races, sexual orientations, etc. into the program. The boy scouts, however, does not. As such, it cannot receive government funds, no matter how lofty its other goals might be. By your logic, we could fund the KKK with government funds, as long as they were contributing to a charity.

For the last time: THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF THE BOY SCOUTS. They are allowed to enter into contracts with government agencies, just like everyone else.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents]
No, because government funds were going towards an organization which discriminated against young boys based on their religion. The lawsuit was perfectly reasonable and therefore won.

Scouts does NOT descriminate based on religion, it just requires that the boy in question believes in A GOD.
By your arguement, why can't I recieve money from the United Negro College Fund? http://dallaslibrary.org/CGI/govgrants.htm ? Just because my skin isn't black?


There are jobs within the Boy Scouts. The Masons don't receive government funds. If they do, they cannot reject you.

So when the Masons hold charity picnics or gathering or balls on publicly held grounds (say in a park or a town hall common room) and their usage fee gets waived, that's different how?


Looks like you need to read up on law. There is a little thing referred to as compelling interest.

From a guy that misuses the First Amendment, I take that as an accolade. *What* compelling interest? You bandy that phrase around a bit. So please explain to me how it works into my example.


As such, there is no problem with that school receiving government funds. However, the majority of religion-based private schools have no such system.

Which doesn't matter anyway, since the Supreme Court said it was legal. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/27/scotus.school.vouchers/

And, BTW, how do YOU know that the majority of faith-based private schools have no such system? Show me a little proof, eh?

More BS.
Equal opportunity isn't. Why? Affirmative Action
http://www.cpms.osd.mil/vip/per_data/21.htm
"1. Recognize equal opportunity programs, including affirmative action programs, as essential elements of readiness that are vital to the accomplishment of the DoD national security mission. Equal employment opportunity is the objective of affirmative action programs."
Have a doubleplusgood day! :(

True affirmative action does not include the quota systems (which are enforced discrimination).

Are they? Because a group's members require you to believe in God and not be gay?

Yes. That is clear discrimination, allowable by a completely private organization, but not one which receives public funds.

I know a few golf courses that don't allow women. Even some famous ones (ever hear of Augusta?). Why isn't the ACLU fighting that? http://www.usatoday.com/sports/golf/masters/2003-04-09-johnson-policy_x.htm

Do they receive government funds?

So... just what religion are the Scouts? Lutheran? Jewish? Catholic? Methodist? Calvinsit? Hussite? Buddist? Congregationalist? 7th Day Adventist? :p

Basically Christian. They are ok with other Judeo-Christian religions, or anyone who won't object to saying God in their pledge. However, up until the lawsuit ~ten years ago, they would kick out any boy who skipped over the God part.

Congress is NOT making any laws here. There is no establishment of religion, just an affirmation that the Scout believes in A GOD.

Maybe you missed the fact that the amendments are legally applied to *all* of the government, not just Congress? And allotting money to a given religion does establish that religion above others.

Scouts does NOT descriminate based on religion, it just requires that the boy in question believes in A GOD.

...which is discrimination based on religion. If you require that the child have a religion (although they mostly require that the leaders/employees do so), then you are discriminating based on religious beliefs aka on religion.

So when the Masons hold charity picnics or gathering or balls on publicly held grounds (say in a park or a town hall common room) and their usage fee gets waived, that's different how?

It isn't, unless all non-profit groups are similarly waived. However, someone has to bring a lawsuit before anything can be done about it.

From a guy that misuses the First Amendment, I take that as an accolade.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that the Bill of Rights only applies where you personally want it to.

*What* compelling interest? You bandy that phrase around a bit. So please explain to me how it works into my example.

The government has a compelling interest in ensuring that the elderly who cannot work are still able to take care of themselves. Those who are clearly under the age of retirement and not disabled can clearly work.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/27/scotus.school.vouchers/Which doesn't matter anyway, since the Supreme Court said it was legal. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/27/scotus.school.vouchers/[/quote]

The ruling in question was specific to the Cleveland program. I don't know all the details on the program, do you?

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/27/scotus.school.vouchers/And, BTW, how do YOU know that the majority of faith-based private schools have no such system? Show me a little proof, eh?[/QUOTE]

Every one in the area in which I grew up proseletyzed, as did all of the schools which friends of mine have attended. That is a 100% rate. Anecdotal or not, it sure is strong evidence to me.

And, just for you:
http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=8642&c=100
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17023&c=141
http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=8130&c=100
http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=7101&c=100
http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=15481&c=100

^ Cases which demonstrate government funding or express backing of the Boy Scouts being struck down due to their discriminatory practices.

I thank you! (http://www.laurelcanyonassoc.com/Images/20th%20History/JohnHolmes2.jpg)

You know I'm modest! I'm correct about 99% of the time!
You should become a stock broker.

True affirmative action does not include the quota systems (which are enforced discrimination).

Affirmative action means favoring one group. Equal opportunity means no favoritism. That's a contradiction, no?

"True"? Now it's subjective? "Oh, Hitler was evil, but he was only truly evil after 1937."


Yes. That is clear discrimination, allowable by a completely private organization, but not one which receives public funds.

THEY ARE NOT RECIEVING PUBLIC FUNDS. THEY EARN THEM. :headbang:


Do they receive government funds?


Does the ACLU say that they must? I thought they fought descimination without a price tag?


Basically Christian. They are ok with other Judeo-Christian religions, or anyone who won't object to saying God in their pledge. However, up until the lawsuit ~ten years ago, they would kick out any boy who skipped over the God part.

This might have something to do with it:
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10% (2002 est.)

...Yet I've met Jewish and Buddist Scouts.

Sorry, I'm smelling a terror of the minority here. :(


Maybe you missed the fact that the amendments are legally applied to *all* of the government, not just Congress? And allotting money to a given religion does establish that religion above others.


Yes, yes I did. BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST. Unless you can come up with it?

So which religion is it? I'm still waiting for you to pick one that's being "established".


...which is discrimination based on religion. If you require that the child have a religion (although they mostly require that the leaders/employees do so), then you are discriminating based on religious beliefs aka on religion.


Just like the NAACP descriminates for Black People?


It isn't, unless all non-profit groups are similarly waived. However, someone has to bring a lawsuit before anything can be done about it.


My point is that the Masons are not non-profit; though they are a service organization.


I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that the Bill of Rights only applies where you personally want it to.


It seems that's how the ACLU paints it. And that what most lawyers are paid for: to argue the law for the interpretation that is best for their client.


The government has a compelling interest in ensuring that the elderly who cannot work are still able to take care of themselves. Those who are clearly under the age of retirement and not disabled can clearly work.

And that's different from atheists or gays forming their own groups... how?
It's a compelling interest for many people to give their children the education and framework they believe in. If they don't believe in television, they don't watch. If they don't drink, they don't go to the bar. So if they don't believe in God and/or hetero-sexuality, WHY ON EARTH go join a group that esposes both?!?


The ruling in question was specific to the Cleveland program. I don't know all the details on the program, do you?

Not in great detail. But that it was upheald tells me that


BTW, how do YOU know that the majority of faith-based private schools have no such system? Show me a little proof, eh?

Every one in the area in which I grew up proseletyzed, as did all of the schools which friends of mine have attended. That is a 100% rate. Anecdotal or not, it sure is strong evidence to me.

I don't know where you're from, and I am sorry to hear of such a story. However, had you said it that way in the first place, I'd have had no problem with it. But can you see what I'm saying: that to say "the majority" in a nation this size is a bit of a stretch if you're using your own experience only?


And, just for you:
http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=8642&c=100
http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=17023&c=141
http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=8130&c=100
http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=7101&c=100
http://www.aclu.org/LesbianGayRights/LesbianGayRights.cfm?ID=15481&c=100

^ Cases which demonstrate government funding or express backing of the Boy Scouts being struck down due to their discriminatory practices.

You're using the ACLU's site to prove your point? Shoot man. I should have not skipped all those partisan sites and looked for CNN, MSNBC, et al. :D

Affirmative action means favoring one group. Equal opportunity means no favoritism. That's a contradiction, no?

No, your particular version of affirmative action means "favoring one group" - which, as I stated, would be institutionalized discrimination.

Affirmative action in principle, and as it is often applied today, means policies that help move towards equal opportunity from a state in which there was no equal opportunity. These include programs, for instance, to decrease group stigmas.

THEY ARE NOT RECIEVING PUBLIC FUNDS. THEY EARN THEM. :headbang:

You keep saying this, but provide no evidence whatsoever. And it doesn't really matter anyways. Even if they "earn" them somehow, they are still receiving them. The government cannot contract with a company which is not an equal opportunity employer, why the hell would they be able to contract with a non-profit organization which is not?

Does the ACLU say that they must? I thought they fought descimination without a price tag?

A completely private organization can discriminate in whatever way they want. A public organization which claims to accept all (as the Boy Scouts do) cannot [[false advertising]]. An organization receiving government funds cannot.

This might have something to do with it:
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10% (2002 est.)

Might have something to do with what? How does this have anything at all to do with the fact that the Boy Scouts once kicked people out for not saying the word God?

Yes, yes I did. BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST. Unless you can come up with it?

Well, it started with the 14th Amendment, which clearly extended the Bill of Rights protections to state governments. And all legal case law has held that the protections apply to all parts of the government, not just Congress.

So which religion is it? I'm still waiting for you to pick one that's being "established".

Which religion is receiving government funds? That is the one which is being established when government funds go to religion.

My point is that the Masons are not non-profit; though they are a service organization. [/quote[

Actually, I'm pretty sure the Masons are a non-profit organization.

[QUOTE=Markreich]And that's different from atheists or gays forming their own groups... how?

Atheists or gays can form their own groups, so long as said group either (a) does not receive government funds in any way or (b) follows federal guidelines.

It's a compelling interest for many people to give their children the education and framework they believe in. If they don't believe in television, they don't watch. If they don't drink, they don't go to the bar. So if they don't believe in God and/or hetero-sexuality, WHY ON EARTH go join a group that esposes both?!?

You do realize that many of the lawsuits come from men who grew up in the scouts and recognize that, other than their anti-homosexual and anti-atheist stances, the actual goals of the scouts (which have nothing to do with either) are very important?

Not in great detail. But that it was upheald tells me that

... I think you forgot some of the statement here.

I don't know where you're from, and I am sorry to hear of such a story. However, had you said it that way in the first place, I'd have had no problem with it. But can you see what I'm saying: that to say "the majority" in a nation this size is a bit of a stretch if you're using your own experience only?

It would be a stretch if the nation weren't fairly homogenous. If all of the schools I have ever had any interaction with whatsoever required attendence at religious services/religious classes, it is pretty fair to assume that most such schools (although not all) do so.

You're using the ACLU's site to prove your point? Shoot man. I should have not skipped all those partisan sites and looked for CNN, MSNBC, et al. :D

You specifically asked for cases which involved government money or special recognition going to the scouts. If I am looking for ACLU cases, what better place to go than to the ACLU webpage? And most of those pages give the court decision in the case as well.

Which religion is receiving government funds? That is the one which is being established when government funds go to religion.
No specific religion is receiving funds. The Boy Scouts are made up of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wickens, etc. No federal money is going to a specific religion. No religion is being sponsored.

Thank you for showing me the light, of a system of justice based soley on heresay and the occasional witness.

Welcome to the 1700s system of law in the UK. We welcome you! (PS: You aren't allowed witnesses for offences against the Crown - that's banned!)

No specific religion is receiving funds. The Boy Scouts are made up of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wickens, etc. No federal money is going to a specific religion. No religion is being sponsored.

ah but since it discriminates against atheism.SOME FORM OF RELIGION IS BEING SPONSERED.even atheism cant be sponsered by the U.S. goverment.....legally.since atheism deals with religion and to sponser it violates freedom of religion.

they cannot EARN goverment money without following the guidelines.the coast guard cannot hire out boyscouts or whatever if they dont follow the requirements.

Welcome to the 1700s system of law in the UK. We welcome you! (PS: You aren't allowed witnesses for offences against the Crown - that's banned!)

I need to remember this for the next anti-US thread.

No specific religion is receiving funds. The Boy Scouts are made up of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wickens, etc. No federal money is going to a specific religion. No religion is being sponsored.

Do you see anywhere in the 1st Amendment that says "specific religion"? I don't. I see that the government cannot establish a religion, period, including general theism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talondar
No specific religion is receiving funds. The Boy Scouts are made up of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wickens, etc. No federal money is going to a specific religion. No religion is being sponsored.

Do you see anywhere in the 1st Amendment that says "specific religion"? I don't. I see that the government cannot establish a religion, period, including general theism.

So let's see what we have here...

Amendment I

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, : and it isn't, there is no establishment of religion here, only an agreement by the members of a group that A GOD exists and that they believe in it.

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; : that's the ACLU's job in this case.

or abridging the freedom of speech, : that's the ACLU's job in this case.

or of the press; : (not applicable)

[B]or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, : that's the ACLU's job in this case.

and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. : (not applicable)

...and again, there's still the point out that Congress has nothing to do with this issue, as the Government is not voting on the existance of the Boy Scouts.

No specific religion is receiving funds. The Boy Scouts are made up of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Wickens, etc. No federal money is going to a specific religion. No religion is being sponsored.
ive never seen a non christian in scouts

ive never seen a non christian in scouts
You certainly can't be an atheist. The "reverent" clause kind of prevents that. I remember a Jewish kid in my troop. I don't think there were ever any particular problems with his religion.

You certainly can't be an atheist. The "reverent" clause kind of prevents that. I remember a Jewish kid in my troop. I don't think there were ever any particular problems with his religion.
and buddhists, hindus, etc cant be scouts, oh yeah and muslims cant either, their god isnt he christian god DUH (according to idiot christians who would be in charge of scouts anyway)

and buddhists, hindus, etc cant be scouts, oh yeah and muslims cant either, their god isnt he christian god DUH (according to idiot christians who would be in charge of scouts anyway)
Pal, can you slow your fingers down and repeat all that so that we can understand it?

If they'd get off their butts, put the donuts away, they may be able to solve crimes! You know, earn their salary!

Bad Cop-No donut!

That's a bit unfair. It'd be nice if you had some proof that they havn't worked their butts off on this. If you knew anything about criminal justice you would know that many cases are never solved. In order to solve more crimes you need more cops. If it was my neighborhood they were looking through, I'd have no problem giving a sample since I'm not a murderer. But I do understand why some would refuse and I respect their right to do so. Just don't be surprised if the police ask a few more questions as they try to catch the mutt that did it. That's just my opinion though. But don't assume the cops havn't been trying just because they're trying to use whatever resources they have to break a case.

No, your particular version of affirmative action means "favoring one group" - which, as I stated, would be institutionalized discrimination.

Which is what it is by definition and practice today.


Affirmative action in principle, and as it is often applied today, means policies that help move towards equal opportunity from a state in which there was no equal opportunity. These include programs, for instance, to decrease group stigmas.

So lemme get this straight... you favor a group to help move them towards equal opportunity... when does this stop?
Because by definition, that *IS NOT EQUALITY*!
My family came to this great nation in 1970 and we had no advantages. Why the HELL should someone who's family has been here for 150 get more points on a college application score because he has a better tan?

Equal opportunity and affrimitive action can NOT co-exist. QED.


You keep saying this, but provide no evidence whatsoever.

BS. You need to prove that they are getting funds from the governement WITHOUT WORKING FOR IT. They aren't -- the Scouts perform tasks for any monies recieved.

But I suppose you want a link... http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=6576


And it doesn't really matter anyways. Even if they "earn" them somehow, they are still receiving them. The government cannot contract with a company which is not an equal opportunity employer, why the hell would they be able to contract with a non-profit organization which is not?

Good question. The same question might be leveled as to how the government can do business with a myriad of firms that they do. Or how Haliburton got a no-bid contract in Iraq.


A completely private organization can discriminate in whatever way they want. A public organization which claims to accept all (as the Boy Scouts do) cannot [[false advertising]]. An organization receiving government funds cannot.

The Boy Scouts do NOT claim to accept all. http://www.scouting.org/nav/enter.jsp?s=mc&c=mv

"The BSA respects the rights of people and groups who hold values that differ from those encompassed in the Scout Oath and Law, and the BSA makes no effort to deny the rights of those whose views differ to hold their attitudes or opinions."

BTW, do you "recieve funds" from your employer, or do you earn wages under a contract? I'm curious.


Might have something to do with what? How does this have anything at all to do with the fact that the Boy Scouts once kicked people out for not saying the word God?

80% of a NATION believes in a major organized religion. Another 10% believes in some sort of religion. Don't you think it *likely* that in a nation where 9 out of 10 people believe in a God that a group that has to deal with altruistim and constuctive outlets for boys and young men MIGHT JUST gravitate towards a loose religious subtext???


Well, it started with the 14th Amendment, which clearly extended the Bill of Rights protections to state governments. And all legal case law has held that the protections apply to all parts of the government, not just Congress.


Um... no it didn't. Do you actually read the Bill of Rights before quoting it?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html
Section 1: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

...and further, none of which is being done by the Scouts.
So: your point here STILL doesn't exist!


Which religion is receiving government funds? That is the one which is being established when government funds go to religion.

So you're saying that the existance of belief in A God (undefined) is a religion??? :rolleyes:



Atheists or gays can form their own groups, so long as said group either (a) does not receive government funds in any way or (b) follows federal guidelines.

(a) The Scouts recieve no federal funds and
(b) The Scouts do not need to follow federal guidelines, as they are not sponsored by the feds.
...and the same holds true if there were to be a Gaycentric scouting organization.


You do realize that many of the lawsuits come from men who grew up in the scouts and recognize that, other than their anti-homosexual and anti-atheist stances, the actual goals of the scouts (which have nothing to do with either) are very important?

Or by jackasses like the guys trying to get "In God We Trust" off our currency. http://godoffmoney.com/
Or by the jackass who didn't want his daughter to HEAR "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/14/scotus.pledge/


... I think you forgot some of the statement here.

Dang. Lost the cut n' paste. Sorry about that.


It would be a stretch if the nation weren't fairly homogenous. If all of the schools I have ever had any interaction with whatsoever required attendence at religious services/religious classes, it is pretty fair to assume that most such schools (although not all) do so.

How many states have you lived in, and which ones? I've never experienced this, nor heard of such a thing. In fact, the Jewish population at the local Jesuit high school is getting pretty large, almost 5%! (They also get an extra free period/gym/library time instead of religous ed.)


You specifically asked for cases which involved government money or special recognition going to the scouts. If I am looking for ACLU cases, what better place to go than to the ACLU webpage? And most of those pages give the court decision in the case as well.

How about anywhere that's non-biased?
For example, this would have been better:
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041116-123643-2597r.htm

I'm sure you could find some that proved your point even better than that one. :)

ive never seen a non christian in scouts

Scouting Serves the Jewish Community : http://www.scouting.org/factsheets/02-547.html
Scouting in the Islamic Community : http://www.scouting.org/factsheets/02-928.html
Scouting in the Buddhist Community : http://www.scouting.org/factsheets/02-209.html

arnt buddhists technically atheist, therefore they cant be reverent apparently, therefore they cant be scouts omgwtfbbq!

arnt buddhists technically atheist, therefore they cant be reverent apparently, therefore they cant be scouts omgwtfbbq!

Are you a disgruntled ex-scout? I'm just asking because you seem to be stuck in an endless loop of rants against the Boy Scouts and denial of evidence that contradicts your bogus claims that borders on putting your hands to your ears and going LA LA LA LA LA LA LA!

Are you a disgruntled ex-scout? I'm just asking because you seem to be stuck in an endless loop of rants against the Boy Scouts and denial of evidence that contradicts your bogus claims that borders on putting your hands to your ears and going LA LA LA LA LA LA LA!

Nah. My old buddy CS is just plain disgruntled. ;)

PS: Chess Squares - Buddhism is not atheistic any more than Christianity is death worship.