It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I can't beleive this... the ACLU is out of thier mindss

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2004 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Pleople have the choice to choose, not the goverment or narrow minded groups, only the ones that have inmoral thoughts are the ones complaining and working in their minds all kind of sexualy scenarios about this nude camps, I have never attended one, my mother always told me that nudity was not dirty and when parents tell their children that nudity is dirty it only make peeping toms, our childrens are curious and they will find a way to get to what they want one way or another.

My question is' how do you want your child to learn the dirty way or in a way that will be objective and clean and open minded and monitor by you the parent?




posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 11:17 AM
link   
my argument with this is still

YOU DON'T PUT CHILDREN IN A SITUATION WHERE SOMETHING COULD...
(let me say that again) COULD HAPPEN !!!

11-12-13-14 year olds do not need to be hanging ( no pun intended ) around 17-18 year olds and adults for that matter... IN THE NUDE !!!



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Again, why would they become sex fiends all of a sudden? It isn't like it is a bunch of kids who have never been naked and never been alone being sent here. it is kids that have grown up as nudists in a nudists lifestyle. They aren't going to snap and start #ing like rabbits(or bunny's!!) just because they are naked at a camp. They grew up with it, and unlike you, do not see anything wrong with being naked. it isn't bad, dirty, erotic, it is natural. they are born naked and live naked and being naked is as big of a deal for them as wearing shorts is a big deal to you. it isn't for you have always worn shorts(in summertime anyways) and shorts are no big deal.
Edit Part....
And not allowing something to happen because...."something"..... might happen is bull#. Don't send you kid to school! One of the kids might snap and shoot everyone. Don't go outside, you might get hit by a car. Don't eat, you might choke and die. Don't take showers, you might slip and crack your skull open. Don't blink, that one milisecond you aren't looking something could happen. In other words, "something" could happen no matter who you are or where you are so don't worry, be happy.

[edit on 20-7-2004 by James the Lesser]



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 05:19 PM
link   
The real issue being skirted around here is does the government have the right to legislate morality. It is a moral question whether or not children should be allowed to run around nude with other children in a semi public venue. What a parent does in the privacy of their home is one thing but in a venue such as a childrens camp there is some semblance of a public venue and should be under the rights of a state govenment to regulate to some degree.

Now to address the main issue of whether the government can legislate morality the obvious answer is yes. Most laws have their basis in a moral code. Do not steal. Do not murder. Do not perjure your self. Do not be intoxicated in public. Do not beat your wife. Do not have sex with animals. All of these laws are predicated on a moral code common to the people of that state. A state therefore has a right to legislate morality. Children are not considered responsible for themselves until they are age 18. Thus they do not have the right to the level of privacy that allows nudists to operate within their own homes. Now you might argue that the parents have the right to raise their children as nudist and thus send them to a nudist camp. This argument does not hold water however because we are talking about a semipublic venue. For instance a parent can discipline their child with spankings and the like in the privacy of their home, in most states. Yet a school teacher cannot do so because they do not have the right that a parent has. When the child is out of the direct control of their gaurdian a different set of rules apply. Those rules are the ones that apply to children in general in the state. Children in general in most states are not allowed to run around in public in the nude. Hence children in a semipublic venue are not allowed to do so.

Another argument that could be made on the subject is one of the greater good. Most laws dealing with morality have to do with serving the greater good by limitting behavior that is detrimental to society. Nudism among children of puberty age has little benefit and yet has the potential to foster abuse among children. Pubescent males especially are sensitive to the direction that the wind blows. How much more sensative would they be to girls running and playing in the nude. The fact of the matter is that no matter how much the nudist would like to claim that the site of nudity has no effect on them it is an ingrained physical response mechanism of arousal that we are talking about here not a behavior that is learned or taught. It is part of our base nature and instinct that males are aroused by visual stimulation. While the camp may not be a giant orgie as the alarmists would cry, it most certainly has the potential to foster some terrible abuses by needlessly enflaming a group of pubescent children.

Does a state legislature have the right to decide that they are not going to issue a hotel or campground license to a nudist childrens camp. They most certainly do just as they have a right not to issue such a license to a camp that believes that natural defication and urination is the only truly natural way to live and thus have no septic or sanitation service. If you say the government has no right to legislate an issue like children's nudist camps then the government has no right to legislate a sheep ranch for those who wish to fornicate with sheep, nor would they have the right to legislate a camp where children are allowed to perform body tatooing on each other.

The bottom line is this: There are things that are right and good for society and there are things that are wrong and bad for society. The state legislatures job is to create a framework of laws within which society can thrive and prosper while respecting the privacy of individuals. Privacy ends at the front door of your home. Beyond that you are in the semipublic and public domain. In that domain you are subject to the laws of the state that you live in. Anything else is anarchy



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 05:29 PM
link   
I should have kids so I can determine what is best for everyone in life.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 06:58 PM
link   
If you believe in God how could he have allowed for people to be born naked?
BEING NAKED IS NOT IMMORAL.
Johannman and Elevatedone, If I had a kid with natural hormones I probably wouldn't send them to this camp, but to outlaw that which is natural is just wrong. The adage "There aught to be a law . . . " is usually the sign of an ignorant mind (a control freak). The reason the government should outlaw murder rape and robbery is because they interfer with the conducting of good business practices. It confers upon the marketplace a semblance of order and rules. The government should keep it's forays into morality to a bare minimum.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone
my argument with this is still

YOU DON'T PUT CHILDREN IN A SITUATION WHERE SOMETHING COULD...
(let me say that again) COULD HAPPEN !!!

11-12-13-14 year olds do not need to be hanging ( no pun intended ) around 17-18 year olds and adults for that matter... IN THE NUDE !!!

It is also a well known fact that pediphiles use these camps for their hunting grounds....



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Well, I guess I can't argue with them too much. Afterall, I just sent my resume' to the ACLU to see if they have any job openings.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 07:58 PM
link   
It must be amazing how we can know so much about a particular lifestyle as if we have our own private satellites watching every move made. Please. The reality is most of us don't know a thing about this lifestyle, so who are we to judge them? It would be no different than some people judging Christians because they are a front for the NWO and are the real Satanists. Of course I wouldn't buy that either. Assumption, Arrogance and fear are the biggest mind killers.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crysstaafur
It must be amazing how we can know so much about a particular lifestyle as if we have our own private satellites watching every move made. Please. The reality is most of us don't know a thing about this lifestyle, so who are we to judge them? It would be no different than some people judging Christians because they are a front for the NWO and are the real Satanists. Of course I wouldn't buy that either. Assumption, Arrogance and fear are the biggest mind killers.

I don't know about others as I can only speak for myself. I am not judging. I think the point "trying" to be made here by some, is that it is putting a child at risk....pedophiles are running amuck these days, and for a mother who loves her children, it's very scary. As a child, I was victim to several pedophiles and I know it would kill me, and I would kill them, if my kids and/or grandchildren, were to fall pray to such monsters.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 08:25 PM
link   
The thing I don't get is people hating the ACLU for supporting the free speech of an organization or organizations that they don't agree with. I think NMBLA is disgusting, but they have a right for their voices to be heard, whether you agree with what they have to say or not. The ACLU is not supporting Boy/Man love, they are supporting NAMBLA's rights. The actual organization's agenda is completely irrelavent to the ACLU. The ACLU was born out of the civil rights infringements made by the government during WWI, and have been around ever since defending Americans' rights. This means defending the right of the KKK and The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People alike.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Parents have the right to do their homework before sending thier kids anywhere. I do not doubt that, that is simply the bright thing to do. If a detailed investigation cannot be done by parents, then typically the kids are sent somewhere that puts on a sense of familiarity to the parent. That can be equally dangerous. The parents who are nudists probably don't just send their kids anywhere in the nudists phone book for summer nudie camp, they in all probablility know some people involved with one and get to know it first. The moment an issue like you had mentioned comes up, even just once, then that is too much and places like this close permanently forever. Are there any *documented* cases of nudist camps being dangerous to their own clients? Please post links,books(with ISBN's),Newsprints. Otherwise it's no more solid than this post.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 08:59 PM
link   
Spngsambigpants brought up an interesting point about the ACLU's decision to represent NAMBLA.


Originally posted by spngsambigpants
The thing I don't get is people hating the ACLU for supporting the free speech of an organization or organizations that they don't agree with. I think NMBLA is disgusting, but they have a right for their voices to be heard, whether you agree with what they have to say or not. The ACLU is not supporting Boy/Man love, they are supporting NAMBLA's rights.


I have struggled with the ACLUs decision to represent NAMBLA on this issue. I have tried to rationalize this as a first amendment case, but it's not.

They were wrong to accept.

NAMBLA's website calls for a change in laws, legalizing sex with children...it's never, ever going to happen. The ACLU calls this freedom of speech. I think they are dead wrong.

I found this regarding 1st amendment rights:


Further "no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present," wrote Justice Brandeis in the case of Whitney versus California (1927), "unless the incidence of the evil is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion." Thus the Holmes-Brandeis clear-and-present-danger formula is mainly a rule trying to determine the sufficiency of the evidence. According to this formula, before being allowed to punish a man for what he has said or written, the government has to clearly prove that his speech presents an imminent danger of a major substantive evil.


IMO NAMBLA's promotion of sex between an adult and child meets the definintion of substantive evil and is therefore, not protected under the first amendment.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 09:15 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleys
Spngsambigpants brought up an interesting point about the ACLU's decision to represent NAMBLA.


Originally posted by spngsambigpants

I have struggled with the ACLUs decision to represent NAMBLA on this issue. I have tried to rationalize this as a first amendment case, but it's not.

They were wrong to accept.

NAMBLA's website calls for a change in laws, legalizing sex with children...it's never, ever going to happen. The ACLU calls this freedom of speech. I think they are dead wrong.


I agree. Saying it is "free speach" to call for legalizing the abuse of children is pretty sick. Minors are called minors because they are generally believed to be capable of making decisions that could harm them even though they disagree with it being harmful. Who would stick up for kids that would go along with the NAMBLA group and end up with AIDS or some other STD? These kids don't even know what STDs are! How could they make a rational decision to avoid an acitivity that would likely cause them to contract a potentially fatal, incurable disease.

Now on the nudist thing:

I assume these nudists go the the ACME or GIANT or WEIS market or some similar place for their food clothed. I assume they go to the bank with clothes on, and school, and the gas station, and the library, and etc. etc. etc. Therefore they have to KNOW that wearing clothes is different than not wearing them. I don't wear clothes in the shower...but I'm not a nudist.

I cannot believe these people think that being nude is just how they (don't) dress on the normal day. I do believe they do this to get a charge out of it.

I saw a special on public TV some time ago about a tribe in Africa that didn't wear any clothes except the men had little string bows tied around their "private part". It didn't hide it, it just sort of decorated it...


These guys didn't walk around all day with an erection; because they DID live every day, day in and day out, in the nude. Folks living in the US DO NOT live every day, day in and day out, in the nude. So there is NO similarity between naked natives in the jungle and naked teens letting it all hang out at a nudist camp.

I believe it IS the government's job to protect these kids from their stupid parents who would let them go to that camp. Just like it is the government's job to protect kids from their parents that would let them drink alcohol or smoke (anything) at 11 years old, for example.

If parents are that stupid, they need the government to step in and "smack them upside the head" as was mentioned earlier.

For example, several times in recent years parents were sent to jail for providing alcohol for their kid's sports teams. One mother (I believe she was the coach) was sent to jail for having sex with the guys on the team she was involved with. Did these boys want to have sex with her? Obviously they did! Was it just OK because they have the right to decide? NO! They are minors and this is made illegal to protect them from people like her! Just like juvenile nudist camps should be illegal.


[Edit: Sorry.. I had the whole thing in a quote.]



[edit on 20-7-2004 by leiphasw]



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyV
It is also a well known fact that pediphiles use these camps for their hunting grounds....

Is this a fact? I read both of the links you provided and while the first one does refer to one specific case from 1989, I don't see how that qualifies all nudist camps as "hunting grounds", anymore than any other kid's camp.

The second link is about a guy who was selling videos of children's nude beauty pageants from EUROPE. He was not selling videos taken at a nude summer camp. The videos he was selling were not illegal, sexual or pornographic in nature.

The man who broke the story to the St. Petersburg Times, U.S. Rep. Mark Foley, was a Senate hopeful running for Bob Graham's seat. He had already campaigned against kid's nudist camps, and was trying to bolster his argument by implying that the camps are being run by pedophiles.


But the sales don't appear to break the law, which delineates between non-sexual nudity and lewdness, said Pasco-Pinellas State Attorney Bernie McCabe...
Foley's office said his goal is more to shame Zadanoff than to punish him...


I have heard of many incidents of camp counselors at "clothed" summer camps, taking advantage of teenage campers, should we ban all children's camps?

As for relations between the kids, why do you think summer camp is so well-known as the place to lose your virginity? American Pie wasn't exaggerating that much when it portrayed "band camp" as a "sex camp".

Most "normal" summer camps aren't particularly strict about who they accept to be counselors either, but in a kid's nudist camp, they are VERY careful about who they pick as the kid's guardians.

According to the website of the American Association of Nude Recreation, who was responsible for providing the summer camp,

In the case of AANR youth leadership camps, our caregivers include many of the parents themselves, in addition to screened volunteers. Most of these come from professions ranging from law enforcement to paramedics, nurses, and educators making them especially well suited to add to the safety and security of this experience. We have a staff to camper ratio of nearly two staff to supervise each of the campers, including many families who elect to come together said Roche.

Parents are welcome to accompany these children to the summer camp. But just as parents are not required to attend scout, YMCA, sports or religious camps with their child, the government should not have the power to compel parental attendance if it interferes with a parents decisions to choose when and with whom they will educate their children.

All parents care very deeply about the upbringing of their children and many are on the youth camp staff. In fact, for fourteen years, youth leadership camps have a totally unblemished record, thanks to the qualified people who give their time, as well as solid rules, security, and standards of conduct."



The unfortunate fact is that anywhere there are a large number of children, there is going to be a risk of pedophiles lurking nearby. This has been increasingly clear lately, with all of the reported molestations by priests, teachers, etc. People should be responsible enough to check out any and all situations that they plan on sending their children to, clothed or not.

Giving the government even more power to decide how a parent can raise their child, is a bad idea, and the ACLU did exactly what they should have. The government has been given too much control over the individual already and this ruling has given them just that much more.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by spngsambigpants
The thing I don't get is people hating the ACLU for supporting the free speech of an organization or organizations that they don't agree with. I think NMBLA is disgusting, but they have a right for their voices to be heard.


national man boy love association...right, they arent about any voicing or talking, the whole point of their group is to promote sex ith little boys, most members are convicted pedofiles if im not mistaken.

and free speech? like pictures of little boys in sexual acts with grown men? are you kidding?



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Zero, I do look at the average teenage girl walking around and pleased to say who needs a nudist camp?


Yup you have got to like the way teenage girls dress these day thank god I wasn't born back in the 30-40's where girls had to have heavy coats and long skirts all the time.
Now most girls will get naked in a heart beat so there really is no need for a nudist camp but if some people want to walk around a camp full of nude people I say who are we to stop them. But they should not allow people below 14 and people above 17 cuz that is just wrong an 18 year old an ADULT seeing 11 year old children naked



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Posting a story to keep the subject updated:

Judge rules Virginia nudist camp for teens cannot be held without parents


RICHMOND, Va. (AP) A federal judge ruled Thursday a Virginia nudist colony cannot hold its annual summer camp for teenagers without parental supervision.

In denying a motion from the owner of White Tail Park nudist camp, Judge Richard L. Williams said parents or guardians wouldn't interfere with the youngsters' enjoyment at camp.

"They are in no way compromised by having a parent in a camper reading 'Gone With the Wind' while their children frolic outside," Williams said.

Camp owner Robert Roche and the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia had sought to block a state law that denies a license to hotels, summer camps or campgrounds that hold nudist camps for children without their parents or guardians. The law went into effect July 1.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


American Association for Nude Recreation Cancels Summer Youth Camp

KISSIMMEE, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--July 16, 2004--The American Association for Nude Recreation's Eastern Region announced today that it is canceling the youth leadership summer camp that was scheduled to take place next week at White Tail Park in Ivor, Virginia.

According to AANR East President and White Tail Park owner Robert Roche, a federal court's ruling yesterday would place an undue burden on too many parents who had planned to send their children for a week of wholesome, well supervised instruction and activities. On July 1, a new Virginia law became effective that prohibits parents from sending their children to any summer camp where their child will be "openly nude" unless a parent, grandparent, or legal guardian is also in attendance, regardless of the level or quality of adult supervision at the camp.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


While I am sure this fight isn't over, I have to agree with the Judge on his decision we will just have to wait and see what the ACLU does next.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by slank
If you believe in God how could he have allowed for people to be born naked?
BEING NAKED IS NOT IMMORAL.
The reason the government should outlaw murder rape and robbery is because they interfer with the conducting of good business practices. It confers upon the marketplace a semblance of order and rules. The government should keep it's forays into morality to a bare minimum.


Nakedness is not immorality within a family unit. It does breed immorality when it is expressed in a public and or semipublic forum with those whose morality is corrupt or not completely formed. The requirement that children be clothed when in a semipublic venue and out of their gaurdians direct control ads a semblance of order and rules to the semipublic marketplace. THus it is a valid foray into morality by the government in regulating campgrounds and hotel/ motels that cater to the public.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join