Posted on 05/19/2003 6:01:32 AM PDT by SJackson
Its happening again, another badly misguided local United Way chapter banning any UWA funds from going to the Boy Scouts groups because they wont allow homosexuals to be scout masters a constitutional right assured the Boy Scouts of America by no less than the United States Supreme Court.
Incredibly, at a time when critics are attacking Roman Catholic dioceses in the U.S. for allowing gay priests to have access to teenage boys, thus exposing them to the strong possibility of molestation, others are demanding that gay scout leaders be allowed the same kind of risky access to teenage boy scouts.
Since the Supreme Court ruled in June 2000 that the national Boy Scouts of America (BSA) organization did not have to accept homosexuals because it is a private organization, about 50 local United Way chapters, including Seattle and San Francisco, have gutlessly surrendered to pressure from gay groups and stopped contributing to them, according to CBS News.
Now comes the Miami-Dade United Way (UW) chapter which says it will no longer give nearly a half-million dollars a year to the local chapter of the BSA after June, because the scouts wont provide some asinine be-nice-to-gays-theyre-normal-just-like-us "sensitivity" training program for its leaders.
According to an Associated Press report, the local UW's board of directors voted unanimously to discontinue the annual $480,000 grant - about 20 percent of the Scouts budget. Most of that money goes to programs in the area's poorer communities, the AP reported.
"It's a serious blow to the council's ability to deliver Scouting programs," scout council spokesman Jeff Herrmann told the AP.
The local UW claims it made its decision because the Boy Scouts reneged on an alleged 2001 pledge to put into effect training programs to help Scout leaders to be "sensitive" in dealing with kids who have trouble coping with sexuality, a pledge to which Herrmann flatly denies the scouts ever agreed.
"Sex education and sexual orientation are not part of our program and we're unwilling to make them part of our program," he told AP.
The Miami-Dade UW is the latest to cut off the Boy Scouts in Florida. The UWs of Broward and Palm Beach County stopped allocating funds to Boy Scout programs about two years ago.
Their actions provoked a firestorm of protests and cost both United Way chapters dearly. When the United Way of Broward stopped giving funds to the Boy Scouts in 2001, one couple donated $200,000 to the South Florida Council, which oversees scouting programs in Miami-Dade, Broward and Monroe counties. The Palm Beach County UW says it has lost about $500,000 in donations after it stopped giving the Gulf Stream Council of Boy Scouts money from the United Way general fund.
Good! Americans shouldnt put up with these threats to the welfare of young scouts. We can start by making direct contributions to the Boy Scouts along with other groups when our local UWAs cravenly surrender to homosexual pressures and cut funding for the scouts, and we should boycott the United Way chapter and urge others to do the same.
Companies should inform United Way they will not give if UW insists on getting involved in such social engineering practices. If your employer has a UW drive, dont be afraid to ask if they support the Boy Scouts. Ask before you give a cent.
We must understand that gay groups are attempting to undermine the decision of the United States Supreme Court. Certain UW chapters are being foolish enough to listen to them. They cannot be allowed to succeed.
Americas war against terrorism is not the only war we are fighting. We are also engaged at home in a struggle to restore decency and morality in the public square. The battle to protect our children from those who seek an opportunity to corrupt them is a battle we cannot afford to lose.
Some observers have predicted that if homosexual activists continue their relentless attacks on the nations moral underpinnings they will inevitably create a backlash that will send them reeling back into the closet.
Fine. Let the backlash begin.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Reagan, the eldest son of President Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Premiere Radio Network.
If ad hominems are the tools of the lazy, you must be the poster child for the Sloth Society of America.
After all, you called me here by leveling an unsolicited ad hominem attack at me.
While I suppose that's all very intimidating, you might want to consider discreetly keeping the macho role-playing thing a private matter between you and those who share an appreciation for that sort of activity.
A guy with a picture of a goofy tiger on every post he posts wants to lecture me on role-playing?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
That would be the 10th Amendment through our representatives. Or are you one of those Liberaltarians who doesnt know the meaning of certain rights. Incest, bestiality, consensual pedophilia you know those kind of private sexual acts.
Who empowered you with the right to decide that for the whole of society, since you are discussing the "rights" of society?
See above.
Get another schtick or move on.
And Ive dismissed your logic with facts and proof youre wrong. Care to debate your hypocrisy starting with incest? Or are only capable of moronic sophistry?
BTW no answer for the 10th amendment hummm???
That would be me, although it's actually a goofy Smilodon, which is from an altogether different genus and subfamily of felids than Pantera tigris..
Setting paleozoology aside, there's a rather novel concept in computing called the "graphical user interface" (GUI), which employs the use of icons. Some, I'm sure, will always feel more at ease with text, and there's nothing really wrong with that.
I cannot put up with your ignorance anymore today, so, since you have the last word, try to give a coherent reply based on some semblence of reality...........or not.
NO all you've done is post the 9th amendment without any explanation why is trumps local legislative laws. What does the clause "certain rights" mean to you? I guarantee it's different than what Maidison said.
What was that about incest again? Can you stay on task?
Your Democratic Party-based argument is disingenuous, Luis. We can all play the "If Only Everyone Thought As I Did" game. In fact, if everyone adhered to the kindness of religious morality we wouldn't need any laws, period. The issue isn't that we should allow all sorts of cruelties with the false hope that no one will engage in them; the issue is that people have a right to establish minimal rules of civilized conduct, and they have a further right to expect and encourage others to adhere to them, and to discourage their transgressions.
Relieve your boredom! Be jaded no longer! Tune in at 8 PM on Mega-Progressive Ideologue-TV for the weekly consensual pay-per-view presentation of Colossal Consensual Gladiatorial Combat to the Consensual Death For That Consensual Million Dollar Prize, where you, the consensual audience, get to vote electronically with a consensual thumbs up or a consensual thumbs down! Join in all the consensual fun, where only the consensual contestants consensually lose their unvalued, alienable lives! Laugh at the consensual death-throes! Joke at the consensual contortions! Bet on the consensual blood! Take a calloused, inured, and consensual stab for liberty! |
(Tell your cable operator: 'I want my Mega-Progressive Ideologue-TV, you judgmental statist!') |
You have no debate in you, do you CJ?
All you can do is play some sophomoric name-calling game with anyone whose ideas you can't quite grasp.
You seem to think that life comes down to political parties, well, here's some news for you Einstein. I have ideas all of my own, free from party affiliations, and I do not need your approval to feel whole.
"The issue isn't that we should allow all sorts of cruelties with the false hope that no one will engage in them."
The real issue is that you can't overstep your bounds, and when you overstep them, you will get knocked down.
That goes for you, Kevin, and all the other pseudo-men in this thread who believe that their "righteous indignation" is best supported by infantile language, and high school taunts.
If the "gay rights" movement has a catalyst, it's you and people like you.
You give them amunition, you give them something to point to and yell "haters".
You do for them more than what they can do for themselves.
You are what they use against us.
A good portion of mankind, and a substantial portion of Americans, disagree with you. Some of us, particularly those of us who are conservative by nature, do not believe that the government has the right to enact laws to protect us against ourselves.
Why would you cut out the portion of the Declaration of Independence where the Founders established the fact that all men are created equal?
Could it be because you are arguing that some are not?
I missed nothing from that document, you missed much.
Governments are instituted among men to protect the rights of the INDIVIDUALS.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Governments are set in place to secure the Liberties of the people from whom they derive their power. And NOWHERE on that document does it say one single word about the rights of a society. It talks about the right of the PEOPLE to LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.
"...if the government is allowed under the Constitution to regulate something like murder, then it is allowed to regulate *any* behavior that our representatives decide should be criminal."
That's about a scary a statement as I have ever seen.
It's also a blatant lie.
"What happens now is one of two things--either you provide no links, and the fellow declares victory on the grounds that you have no support..."
In other words, you have nothing to substantiate your claim of some kind of "agenda" existing anywhere other than in your mind.
Here start all the strawmen arguments.
Did you learn that to work at Pets R Us?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.