On November 27 the U.S. House, by a vote of 391-3 passed a nonbonding
resolution recognizing the 3.2 million member Boy Scouts for its public service
efforts. The main thrust of the resolution was to show support for the Scouts,
especially after an ACLU suit forced the Pentagon to tell U.S. military bases
around the world not to directly sponsor Boy Scout troops. The ACLU's problem?
The Boy Scouts do not permit open homosexuals from being Scout leaders and they
expect their members to swear an oath of duty to God. Those voting against the
resolution were Democratic Reps. John Dingell of Michigan, Barney Frank of
Massachusetts and Lynn Woolsey of California.

Thank your US Congressman for his 'yes' vote in support of the Boy Scouts!
See
below.

ACTION NEEDED:

Contact your U.S. Congressman and thank him or her for supporting the Boy
Scouts by voting for the resolution sponsored by Rep. Darrell Issa, R.
California. Go to http://www.house.gov and key in your nine-digit zip code for
contact information.

--I just really love this.  It is nice to know most of the people who represent us still think highly of the BSA.  Only three, blue state democrats decided that the BSA was not worth honoring.  I feel better about this country, the republicans and the democrats in the US House, and the Boy Scouts of America.

On November 27 the U.S. House, by a vote of 391-3 passed a nonbonding
resolution recognizing the 3.2 million member Boy Scouts for its public service
efforts. The main thrust of the resolution was to show support for the Scouts,
especially after an ACLU suit forced the Pentagon to tell U.S. military bases
around the world not to directly sponsor Boy Scout troops. The ACLU's problem?
The Boy Scouts do not permit open homosexuals from being Scout leaders and they
expect their members to swear an oath of duty to God. Those voting against the
resolution were Democratic Reps. John Dingell of Michigan, Barney Frank of
Massachusetts and Lynn Woolsey of California.

Thank your US Congressman for his 'yes' vote in support of the Boy Scouts!
See
below.

ACTION NEEDED:

Contact your U.S. Congressman and thank him or her for supporting the Boy
Scouts by voting for the resolution sponsored by Rep. Darrell Issa, R.
California. Go to http://www.house.gov and key in your nine-digit zip code for
contact information.

--I just really love this.  It is nice to know most of the people who represent us still think highly of the BSA.  Only three, blue state democrats decided that the BSA was not worth honoring.  I feel better about this country, the republicans and the democrats in the US House, and the Boy Scouts of America.


People on both sides will disagree with me, but I just don't see the Boy Scouts as a pressing issue.  I didn't really agree with the ACLU that the Scouts should be prohibited from using public parks/military bases because they're religious or don't accept gays as scout masters.  I do respect the points of view of the three who voted against the resolution, but I think it's a distraction from the crises our country is facing--such as the rise of fascism via Republican extremists.
You don't have to be a boy scout to learn life skills and civics.  Scouting is strictly voluntary, not like school.  I wouldn't want to see a precedent disallowing one group from using public facilities because of their religious views because that would lead to retaliatory law suits against OTHER groups on the same grounds.

People on both sides will disagree with me, but I just don't see the Boy Scouts as a pressing issue.  I didn't really agree with the ACLU that the Scouts should be prohibited from using public parks/military bases because they're religious or don't accept gays as scout masters.  I do respect the points of view of the three who voted against the resolution, but I think it's a distraction from the crises our country is facing--such as the rise of fascism via Republican extremists.
You don't have to be a boy scout to learn life skills and civics.  Scouting is strictly voluntary, not like school.  I wouldn't want to see a precedent disallowing one group from using public facilities because of their religious views because that would lead to retaliatory law suits against OTHER groups on the same grounds.


Very well said, I like that a lot.

Question (and I don't mean to imply anything): Is Barney Frank your congressman?

On November 27 the U.S. House, by a vote of 391-3 passed a nonbonding
resolution recognizing the 3.2 million member Boy Scouts for its public service
efforts. The main thrust of the resolution was to show support for the Scouts,
especially after an ACLU suit forced the Pentagon to tell U.S. military bases
around the world not to directly sponsor Boy Scout troops. The ACLU's problem?
The Boy Scouts do not permit open homosexuals from being Scout leaders and they
expect their members to swear an oath of duty to God. Those voting against the
resolution were Democratic Reps. John Dingell of Michigan, Barney Frank of
Massachusetts and Lynn Woolsey of California.

Thank your US Congressman for his 'yes' vote in support of the Boy Scouts!
See
below.

ACTION NEEDED:

Contact your U.S. Congressman and thank him or her for supporting the Boy
Scouts by voting for the resolution sponsored by Rep. Darrell Issa, R.
California. Go to http://www.house.gov and key in your nine-digit zip code for
contact information.





As both an Eagle Scout, a person of religion, and a strict Constitutional observer, I have to "partially" agree with the Pentagon treading lightly with the Scouts, on one point.

The Scouts REQUIRE members to not be athiests.  So, to the extent that the Pentagon would be providing PUBLIC FUNDS to subsidize the Scouts, who exclude athiests, I see this as an infringement of the First Amendment.  That said, if a military base simply wishes to allow a Scout troop to meet on-base, with a very trivial amount of "wear and tear" on the facilities, that's fine by me.  Now, if a group of military men and women want to sponsor a troop on base, and they provide their own PRIVATE FUNDS to the troop, that is certainly alright by me, and to do otherwise would of course infringe on their right to reasonably practice/promote religion.

...Now, maybe because I was taught as a Scout to be self-reliant, I do not really like the idea of ANY institution "giving" money to the Boy Scouts anyway, and especially Government entities.  My Scout troop had to sell candy, chop wood, and so on to raise funds for our activities.  And we had a strict rule:  No "collections" where you simply stand on a street corner with a coffee can and raise $ for your troop.  Our fundraising rule was that you had to provide something of value (like easter candy, lawn service, wood chopping) to earn an honest (yes, sometimes inflated) profit.

Now, on to Barney Frank's "No vote".  As to the Constitution of the United States, since homosexuality is not at this time a "protected status", the Scouts' ban on it I have no problem with, funds or not.  And apparently 392 reps do not have a problem with it either.

I hope that the vote signals an end to some of the ridiculous "political correctness" nonsense that has been building for the past 20 years in the USA.  ::)

I have very mixed feelings about the scouts.  As  a kid I was one, but either my troop was different from the one here that my son tries out, or they have changed a lot.  This one reminded me of something akin to the Hitler youth, highly militaristic and very jingoist.  That was about 10 years ago, and I have had no contact with scouting since. 

As to the ACLU, as a member I sometimes don't like the causes they support and sometimes do, but that isn't the point.  In fact, as long as they are willing to champion everybody's Civil Liberties I will continue to support them.

Very well said, I like that a lot.

Question (and I don't mean to imply anything): Is Barney Frank your congressman?

I would be proud to have Frank as my congressman, but he isn't.  Frank represents the 4th district.
http://www.house.gov/frank/
I live in the 1st district, represented by John Olver, who I also like.
http://www.house.gov/olver/

I actually agree with LyricBoy on this.

I actually agree with LyricBoy on this.

Yeah, me too - IMO he summed it up perfectly :)

I'm not anti-homosexual, but rules are rules. Only the Scouts have the right to make and enforce their own rules, because they are a private entity. No lobbyist organization should intervene unless some of the rules are proven to hurt someone.

I'm not anti-homosexual, but rules are rules. Only the Scouts have the right to make and enforce their own rules, because they are a private entity. No lobbyist organization should intervene unless some of the rules are proven to hurt someone.


Good point, IndyGent, but when the Scouts start accepting public money, then they have to start abiding by some of the public rules.  So if some locality has pro-homosexuality laws on the books, then the Scouts will have to either start accepting homosexuals (very unlikely) or stop accepting public funds (most likely).

Thus my aversion to accepting public money.  :-X

I'm not anti-homosexual, but rules are rules. Only the Scouts have the right to make and enforce their own rules, because they are a private entity. No lobbyist organization should intervene unless some of the rules are proven to hurt someone.


It goes well beyond public funding.  There are anti-discrimination laws that protect several classes of citizens evan in private clubs.  I'm not too up on federal law in this regard, or on my own state's laws for that matter, but there is more to it that just public funding.

The Scouts are a public organization that need funding to survive. If any of you were starving and on death's door, you wouldn't refuse food from GW, Donald Trump, the oil barons or any dispicable rich person, would you? Starvation is a painful way to die. The gays already have NAMBLA, so why would they want to join the BS now?!!!
It goes well beyond public funding.  There are anti-discrimination laws that protect several classes of citizens evan in private clubs.  I'm not too up on federal law in this regard, or on my own state's laws for that matter, but there is more to it that just public funding.

The Scouts are a public organization that need funding to survive. If any of you were starving and on death's door, you wouldn't refuse food from GW, Donald Trump, the oil barons or any dispicable rich person, would you? Starvation is a painful way to die. The gays already have NAMBLA, so why would they want to join the BS now?!!!

I would not trust a cup of soup ladled up by Donald Trump, no way!
:o

How, in this day and age, is a group like NAMBLA even allowed to exist!?  They are a gay, pedophile group.  Some of the boys they take about "loving" are as young as six, according to their website, and none seem to be over fourteen.  Last I heard, they are based in New York (where else?,) now why isn't that state arresting them?  WHY!?  In my opinion, everyone of those freaks should be arrested by the state of New York (and any other state they are in,) and tried, and thrown in jail for stachatory rape.

How, in this day in age, is a group like NAMBLA even allowed to exist!?

Letting it exist sounds like it might even be a good idea to me: an overt organization is easier to infiltrate, and check for actual illegality, than an illicit, underground one.  Kind of like its own honeypot trap, if you see what I mean.  Having said that, I'm more than a little bit uneasy about that kind of person - the sort that says "we're not doing anything illegal, we're just talking about it"... and saying how great it is (but don't try this at home, guys..)

Just a thought - do you know if MJ is a member? ;)

In Britain the Scouting organisation doesn't ban homosexuals from applying to become leaders. And quite rightly so.

It is more difficult if people are atheists because we do require leaders to work with the young people on developing the "spiritual" side.  However there are always ways around that rule if you feel the person will make a good leader.


The Scouts are a public organization that need funding to survive.

Amen to that!

How, in this day in age, is a group like NAMBLA even allowed to exist!?  They are a gay, pedophile group.  Some of the boys they take about "loving" are as young as six, according to their website, and none seem to be over fourteen.  Last I heard, they are based in New York (where else?,) now why isn't that state arresting them?  WHY!?  In my opinion, everyone of those freaks should be arrested by the state of New York (and any other state they are in,) and tried, and thrown in jail for stachatory rape.





D*mned First Amendment!  I find NAMBLA revolting, personally, but it is legal to discuss doing things that are illegal to actually do.  The courts would have to find NAMBLA guilty of explicitly inciting their members to go out and commit crimes.  The courts would have prove a "clear and present danger."  This kind of case is very difficult to prosecute.  NAMBLA may yet be found to be inciting criminal behavior and presenting a clear and present danger.  I don't know what their website actually says because I refuse to go there.
I know NAMBLA is advocating legal "reform" (I use the term reluctantly) of the age of consent laws.  When asked on the radio what the age of consent should be, one of their representatives said "four," SICK SICK SICK!!!  Anyway, it is also legal to advocate changing the law.  The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana (NORML) has been doing this for decades.  I  agree with NORML, but not NAMBLA!  You could form the National Organization for the Legalization of Homicide, and that would be legal too.
Similar questions have been raised about "The Turner Diaries," a novel that gives explicit instructions on how to commit terrorist acts.  Timothy McVeigh credited "The Turner Diaries" as an inspiration for the Oklahoma City Murrah Building boming of 1995.
Some people believe the information in the book is so dangerous, it ought to be censored.  I don't agree.  Books aren't dangerous, people are dangerous.

In some cases vigilante justice seems just fine. This is one of them. It felt great to hear on the radio that a neighborhood of fathers beat the crap out of a guy that had gotten their children drunk and then mollested them.
After they beat his face in they called the cops :)

I don't even want to get into the BSA, homo, religion thing.

When asked on the radio what the age of consent should be, one of their representatives said "four," SICK SICK SICK!!! 

You do know there motto don't you?

"Eight is to late."

--NAMBLA is hated in America, from the far, far-left, to the far-right.  I remember watching the O'Reilly Factor, and he was talking about how NAMBLA is starting to give up on America and try there luck where they have a better shot, namely Canada.  Doesn't surprise me.

You do know there motto don't you?

"Eight is to late."
"too"

--NAMBLA is hated in America, from the far, far-left, to the far-right.  I remember watching the O'Reilly Factor, and he was talking about how NAMBLA is starting to give up on America and try there luck where they have a better shot, namely Canada.  Doesn't surprise me.

Guys like O'Reily LOVE NAMBLA because it is soooo easy to demonize.  I mean, it's got child molestation built right into its name, how much scummier can you get?  Not much.
However, I believe the power and influence of NAMBLA is vastly overstated.  99.999% of child molesters have nothing to do with NAMBLA.  They're far more likely to be in your workplace, in your neighborhood, and in your church than to be one of a handful of misquided pervos comprising NAMBLA.
::)

In some cases vigilante justice seems just fine. This is one of them. It felt great to hear on the radio that a neighborhood of fathers beat the crap out of a guy that had gotten their children drunk and then mollested them.

On the assumption, of course, that they got the right guy: that's the problem with vigilante "justice" - once the lynch mob is in full swing, they don't really care who they're after.

"We're coming to a choice in this country: Boy Scouts or ho-mo-sexuals, and which one would you rather have living next to YOU!"
--Rev. Pat Robertson, 1992

"We're coming to a choice in this country: Boy Scouts or ho-mo-sexuals, and which one would you rather have living next to YOU!"
--Rev. Pat Robertson, 1992

Well, at least homosexuals don't come round once a year having washed your car and expecting to be paid for it ;)