This story can be found anywhere... but here are a couple of links:
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/...ticleid=1045865
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23509

(of course.. with differing views)

Basically, the Boy Scouts put up donation boxes at Cambridge Polling stations to send essential goods to troops serving overseas. Then the city decided to oust their boxes, as it was deemed too political. This happened even though there were "political" fliers all over the place supporting other causes.

Questions for debate:

1. Is a box asking for donations for troops "politically motivated"?

2. Is supporting troops a sign of support for the war?

3. Does anyone believe that because it was the "Boy Scouts" that it drew undue attention?

If one believes that supporting the troops is pro war, that person would be against of some of the anti-war left. I read signs everyday that say something along the lines of 'support our troops, end the war'. These signs simply suggest that it is possible to support the troops without supporting the war. I live in Iowa, so you can believe that for the last two years, I have been seeing more political signs than I desire with the mid-term elections last year and the circus we call the primaries this year.

We can only speculate what caused the attention, but it wouldn't be hard to believe that in a blue state such as it is, the fact that the controversy involves what many to believe a conservative organization, the end result is what it is. We can't say for sure, but if Code Pink was collecting money to send care packages to the troops, would they have been yanked? Things that make you go hmm....

Is a box asking for donations for troops "politically motivated"?
No.

Is supporting troops a sign of support for the war?
Hell no.

Does anyone believe that because it was the "Boy Scouts" that it drew undue attention?
Well, according to the first article the Boy Scouts had nothing to do with it. This misunderstanding sounds like a new version of misunderstandings that are common with secular displays of Christmas around the holidays vis-à-vis constitutional law (pagan tree displays for example), but damn if it doesn't make good headlines and proof of persecution for people who already have a persecution complex regarding their religious and political beliefs.

The second article, written by Robert Maginnis, states the Scouts tend to be pro-military is a political statement in itself. I only glanced, but I couldn't find anything on the Scouts' website about the military except information in historical context related to WWI and WWII. How does Maginnis know the Scouts are pro-military? Furthermore he uses the position of local institutions on homosexuality to prove the incident was malicious (i.e. we want the military to let homosexual openly serve, ergo we don't support the military while the current policy remains). He uses these policy positions to "prove" Cambridge has a large homosexual community. I've made several pro-homosexual statements here and on my blog. That doesn't make me a lesbian, my boyfriend a closet homosexual, etc.

In other words Maginnis could have done a better job linking the Boy Scouts' position on homosexuality to Cambridge's position on homosexuality and consequent "deliberate" decision to remove the boxes if he wanted to explain the incident through this argument.

Here it is, the main problem for debating a distant event/topic. We weren;t there. We can only trust the testimony of witnesses (faulty, at best), and statesmen (outright liars). And here, we have two articles from both.

From what i can read, city officials state that "proper permission" was not given, nor was it asked for. Whatever "proper permission" is, i have no idea, but if it was something required in advance, then the one at fault is the scout in question. Having done my own service projects for the venerable insitution, (long, long ago, when the earth was yet in its infancy...) I can say, with good conscience, that if he did not take the time, or effort to Be Prepared for his project, then the problems that arose were his own.

On the other hand, a conservative journalist puts it up to more pansy liberals engaging in terrorist-pandering troop hate.

I think we're all well-aware of these guys' realtionships with the truth. Do the words "needle" and "haystack" ring a bell?

1. Is a box asking for donations for troops "politically motivated"?

Probably not. Nonetheless, procedure must be followed. It is possible, that in Cambridge, it is proper protocol to ask permission before posting any fliers at a poll booth.

2. Is supporting troops a sign of support for the war?

Liberals would say no. Conservatives yes. Personally, I think its a question of whether you support the ends, or the means. The result, whether you like it or not, is still the same, regardless.

3. Does anyone believe that because it was the "Boy Scouts" that it drew undue attention?

The media will probably be all over this...

Its perfect, you know. In the aftermath of the Jena Six, the media will relish the opportunity to present, in its usual "balanced, rational fashion", its opposite; the suppression of troop-supporting scouts, by the mean, heartless bluebloods of the east coast. Meh. let them rage. A true scout won't fling about any scathing criticism just to appease the netwoks, of that I am sure. Without a willing victim to testify, there'll be no fuel for the fire.

Surprisingly, no one's mentioned that I put a seemingly liberal and conservative view on this thread.

I believe wholeheartedly that had it been a Cindy Sheehan box, nothing would've been done. I think that the Boy Scouts denounce homosexuality, don't let women in, include Church in their doctrine, and thus are a target.

Liberal Americans often don't understand the Scounting mantra, and I can't say that I've personally met a Democrat that was a Scout for very long. It's a typically conservative organization, nowadays started predominantly in Churches and on Military bases. Seriously, 20 years ago it was in Elementary schools and Middle Schools, but it seems that's a thing of the past.

I find it deplorable that anyone would push these kids out while allowing fliers for political gain to remain. It's not surprising, but deplorable.

I do believe that had it been another organization that it wouldn't have happened. I think city officials probably caught flack, knew that the Boy Scouts wouldn't create a stink, and asked them to leave. Now soldiers are getting slighted supplies. Great. Just great.

Well you know, its not some mystic cult.

Mantra? Anti-democratic? And...



Ah. Now the scouts are seen as homophobic, too?

I think that your perception of others' perceptions, is flawed. People do not think of the BSA as some Hitler's Youth spin-off for modern-day america. Have you ever used the word "Boy scout" in casual conversation? Have you ever seen, in public, a single example where they were reagarded as anything other than excellent?

Like I said. This was probably some good natured kid who forgot to go through the proper channels before starting his eagle project. Collection drives are the easiest kind, as opposed to building public property, or repairing ailing public faculties, so i'm sensing the barest undercurrent of laziness there.

Your two sources aevans176 are both opinion pieces and the one in the right-wing, Human Events, is from a suspect source. I've seen HE editor Terry Jeffrey on Hardball. He's totally useless to any rational discussion. Two of their contributors are Phyllis Schaflay and Ann Coulter. It pretty much tells us what side of the plate they bat from and dampens the credibility of your source. Believe me the, Boy Scouts do not need friends like the folks at HE.

According to your Boston Herald link:



According to another story in the Boston Herald:



http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/...ticleid=1045046

I know, a comnmunications break down isn't quite as exciting...



especially when you compared to the liberal/Democratic conspiracy against the Boy Scouts you seem to outline above, but it just might be true.

BTW: An address for donations has been listed in the Boston Herald article. Could be that they get more than they would have hitting the polling places. With address in hand, aevans176, you can even send a donation of your own. Just think, a rare golden opportunity to put one's money where their mouth is.

I wonder- is intellectual laziness one of the main conservative trait-

seriously Aevens- what a load of total bull fecal material- all you had to do it ask wiki for a list of eagle scouts- and you come up with dems and repubs, saints, scholars and rogues.

In fact, it seems, to be conservative (and republican) , you need to be either hopelessly corrupt or a closet gay that cruises air ports for anonymous hook ups. Pretty much every single republican in federal office today seems to be under a cloud of investigation, either for sex hook ups in airports or outright recieving bribes (that would describe the ENTIRE Alaskan republican delegation, and so far, 3 convictions for recieving bribes from oil companies, and I am betting on at least 7 more reps (all republicans ) being convicted within a year)

So- starting with the eagle scout - that is a dem senator from New York
Ackerman- that would be the "a's" there Aevens

might want to look at this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Eagle...s_of_America%29

IN fact, with what the republicans have done to this country since Reagan has come to power, pretty much destroying everything they have touched, and not in a good way- you must really hate America Aevens- why do you hate America so much?

I can't imagine a Republican being self-less enough to EVER be a scout Aevens. Though, being a closet gay DOES fit in with the "scout lifestyle" it seems?

Though, of course- BOF pretty much nailed all your other issues- eh?

Wow, you told him! Every single republican in this country is corrupt, because you said so!

Brilliant Post CR. Once again, not debating one piece of evidence or a shred of information included in your post excepting the trolling insults that obviously make you feel better. Go back to your sweat pants, bag of Cheetos, and Judge Judy. Being upset with me doesn't make you a winner.

Frankly, that's a good point about this Boy Scout issue. How are Boy Scouts liberal at all?
What are scouts?


Not exactly liberal thoughts at all. Liberals (particularly politicians) are more likely to believe (facts... follow me here):
- the government is responsible for helping those without, not the people
- the facts in life can be twisted (see Clinton's "sexual relations" comments)
- churches are for crazy people
etc, etc, etc... I have more facts. Follow this.

I spent a large portion of my younger years as a scout CR. My parents were scout leaders, and although I didn't become an Eagle Scout (playing football was more important), I was a Life.

I'll do something you find completely impossible... use facts. You ready? BOF, I'll spare you... it's Turkey day and I know you mean well...

http://4yoursafety.com/scoutscgi/search.cgi
This is a site that lists Boy Scout Troops...
You're going to notice something VERY quickly. A LARGE PORTION are affiliated with or are part of Churches. Funny enough, this is even a world-wide phenomenon.

Being that on this board, Liberals chastise Christianity repeatedly, how on earth (particularly with such conservative values) could you possibly ever associate Boy Scouting with any other ideology than Conservatives? (not necessarily Republicans... I believe those to be 2 different things nowadays).

The information is the same regardless of what type of Op-Ed piece it comes from. The problem I have with inadequate debates on this board is that they never address facts.

Here are some:
1. The Boy Scouts were booted from the polling station.
2. Other people were allowed to stay, including people who were pushing "liberal" fliers.
3. There are no direct mentions of a lack of "proper" paperwork, etc. from the city of Cambridge.

It's easy to establish that at least many if not most Boy Scout units are associated with Churches, and that Churches are arguably Conservative, right? Would someone argue that Churches are liberal?

It's easy to show that even the Boy scouting values mention reverence, which in most cases is in direct relation to God.

It's easy to show that in that part of the country, conservatives and their values are held with at least some level of contempt. That contempt, in my opinion, was part of the decision to move the Scouts collection booth.

The victims in this case are the soldiers. Good job Cambridge. Kudos to making even something as innocent as children trying to be helpful into a political fight against the "war" and conservatives....

You know, there are christian liberals. Reconciling god with reason isn't as hard as you think.

Plus, the boy scouts, as much as they're touted as a moral constant, are still, you must remember, teenage boys. Being in a trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent environment, doesn't necessarily mean that they exhibit said qualities. In my scouting days, I remember quite the repertoire of salty language being tossed about camp.



You opinion article, states that they asked permission to collect, not distribute. And again, your opinion article states that miscommunication had a part in it. If this is true, than the Life Scout who organized this eagel project should have anticipated, and recieved permission in advance. I botched mine terribly, so I know the consequences of not thinking ahead.

Christian churches fall under a rather wide umbrella, ranging from various degrees of conservatism or liberals. As you know, aevans176, in Texas Southern Baptists, a rather conservative group of folks, predominate. Although you are conservative, aevans176, I doubt you are Baptist. You often talk about kicking back with a cold one to some Texas roadhouse blues. Baptists frown on such "folly."

The Boston area is not D/FW. It is the home of the liberal Unitarian Univesalist Association. Massachusetts is a liberal state, so it wouldn't be difficult to asssume that some of the scouts are from more liberal Christian traditions. Being a scout, who's troop meet in a relativly conservative churh does not mean that individual scouts are eigher liberal or conservative.

Your statement takes something complex and oversimplifies it.

Ya, well, if conservatives need to relate to an organization started by a pedophile- Robert Baden-Powell- and I believe there are STILL no requirements for background checks- a haven for pedophilia- personally, if conservatives and catholics want thier system of organizaed pedophilia- they can have it.

The only ones I would feel my kids to be safe around would be the ones that have openly declared gay scoutmasters- it is the ones that call themselves "christians" and "heterosexuals".

Lord Robert Baden-Powell, the founder of the Scouts, was a homosexual and a pedophile. Tom Jeal's The Boy-Man, a 1990 biography, details Baden-Powell's attraction to, and likely affairs with, teenage boys, as well as his fondness for nude boy photos and requirements that Scouts in his care should bathe outside naked. Today Baden-Powell would have made the top ten on a Sex Offenders Registry list.

As World War II began Baden-Powell's repulsive political and racial attitudes, which inform the history of Scouting but are clearly separate from it as well, became even more evident. In 1937 Baden-Powell was eager for the scouting movement to establish official ties with Hitler youth groups. In 1939 he noted in his diary: "Lay up all day. Read Mein Kampf. A wonderful book, with good ideas on education, health, propaganda, organization etc. — and ideals which Hitler does not practice himself."

Baden-Powell was/is a confirmed racist, fascist and nationalist that denied 20000 african children food even once. (siege of Mafeking)

So, anyone that does some reading over the org that Baden-Powell might make one want to keep that org out of anyplace, ESPECIALLY where white, christian males that call themselves "heterosexuals" prey on boys for thier pervo sex acts on the side- seem to make a pretty good case against the organization

I guess not liking pedophiles is only what liberals do- BTW- as far as I have found, there are STILL no requirements for background checks.

Even though this is OBVIOUSLY a mistake, which, Aevens- you have not acknowledged yet, as BOF pointed out.

I don't think I will be letting my kids be exposed to that organization though- too dangerous to thier character. No background checks and all.

BTW Aevens- you are the one that said "liberals don't make scouts for long"- a lie, obviously, and a stupid lie at that, that took about 2 seconds to debunk

So how did THAT have anything to do with the subject at hand EXCEPT 'trolling".

Just called you on your spreading of bull fecal material Aevens- so why don't you go back to your lynching or whatever you do for fun in a given day? Do you do that in sweats and cheetohs?

Cause I am not really fond of either- or is that a Scout thing too?

I can absolutely see why someone, after just a cursory reading of how scouts came into being, would ban them from anywhere near they are- however- this was obviously just a mistake, no one asked

hey- not asking permission to place thier crap wherever they feel like laying it around- is that a scout trait as well> I didn't know they were big into litering too?

Oh you've done it now...*cracks knuckles*

We've been over this, in a thousand different topics. A founder's personal history does not shed any light on the establishment that he/she created. Thomas Jefferson, as we all know painfully well, from NT's previous topic, was a hypocrite. Nonetheless, America is still the "land of the brave, home of the free" etc etc, ad nauseum. Martin Luther King committed adultery, at least once, probably multiple times. But still, the african-american advancements groups bear none of that stigma.

What makes you think that all scoutmasters are pervosexuals? I...I'm not following your path of logic.

Unless, of course, you feel better by venting your vile spite on proud establishments. If so, continue your frenzied spleen.

Just, please. Do so in the other direction. Your flying spittle can be felt through my computer screen.

Nope, just following the same line of argument as Aveans mentioned- you know, that liberals can't POSSIBLY be the upright scouts that conservatives already are- I just pointed out that he is bragging on himself being a follower of a pedophile

Pedophiles go to were the kids are, and NEVER (or nearly so, less than 1%) declare themselves to be "homosexual"- they nearly always declare themselves to be first- Christian, second- heterosexual. Part of the denial of what kind of sexuality they are is what makes them predators. Declared gay males are almost never pedophiles- in fact, in 20 years, I can't recall a single pedophile declaring himself to be homosexual

1) Married or in a heterosexual relationship at the time
2) Very devout Christian- usually very active in the church
3) overwhemlingly white- a few Alaskan natives, quite a high number actually- but that is due to where I live- in the "lower 48" predatory real pedophiles are mostly white.


Groups like sunday school, boy scouts, and extra-curricular school activities are were about 99% of the places where pedophiles cruise for kids these days- and they are usually "so good with kids".

I know they still don't ask for background checks in the boyscouts locally- just checked.

The logistics of the situation you propose are crazy. Scoutmasters are rarely given the opportunity to touch their scouts in private. The very threat that you speak of--pedophilia, has put parents, and scoutmasters alike, on edge. they are cautious now, with adult supervision covering almost every outing. Scouts travel in patrols, patrols travel in troops. It becomes painfully obvious when abuse is occurring---where it occurs at all.

Scoutmasters are elected by the judgement of the parents, and that judgement, i admit, can be flawed. But there is, as well, the judgement of the scouts, and no matter how dissolute they may seem; i remember my "fresh meat" patrol took a full ten minutes to stand at attention, at first, they can still, as a unit, sense when something odd, or just plain creepy is happening. THe old, kindly scoutmaster who constantly puts his hand on their thighs is one of them.

Again, CR, your post lacks any links, any factual linking, any quotes. It rather spews rhetoric and hatred with no objective backing, which is precisely why I make inference that one such as yourself is sitting in a single wide watching Nascar. The Cheetos and sweat pants reference was specifically to apathetic people who haven't the ability to discern fact from emotional rants.

The Scouts weren't littering, and are no more pedophile ridden than any other organization. Does your children's local T Ball team require background checks? No. Most organizations that are civically minded don't.

Consider that child predators come from all walks of life.
http://www2.oprah.com/presents/2005/predat...ator_main.jhtml
http://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,1607,7-164-34...95178--,00.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10912603/

Are you now not going to send your kids to school? To Wal Mart? Are they not safe anywhere? Also- do background checks prevent child molestation? Consider that more than one teacher as of late has been arrested for doing just this. I'd assume that most of them had background checks.

The unfortunate nature is that sometimes org's like that attract bad people. Does that make them bad? Of course not.

You've done plenty to malign the Boy Scouts, Conservatives, etc. Good job. You even have been so bold as to attack me as a person, which I'm sure is great for your self-esteem. Please feel free to swing through and see me in Dallas if you're in town. I'd bet my paycheck, which I'm confident is more than adequate, that you won't accuse me of being a pedophile "or follower" face to face. PM me and I'll give you my contact info if you'd like. People often make emotional comments on the internet to vent their frustration with being pushed around in public.

The Boy Scouts are as American as Apple Pie and baseball. I'd venture that some people will say that being American has nothing to do with those things, and those are the very people that gave birth to this thread I'd suppose.

Ah-ha! Erroneuous. The Scouts have international branches. Of course, they still proscribe to the under god thing, but the "nation" in question can differ.

Oddly enough- yes, T-ball requires background checks here- anything related to the boys and girls club, school, or any organization usually associated with children. They all do it voluntarily, and if they watch kids, such as a daycare, background checks BY THE FBI, INCLUDING FINGERPRINTING is required.

However- churches and the boy scouts don't do this- I wonder why this is? Only if they have a licensed daycare on the premises are they required to do it- and they don't do it voluntarily.

Oh, and Aevens- the boy scouts are English in Origin, NOT American.

Wow, do you even read the history of the orgs you belong too?

Seriously. Arguments that make no point are not arguments at all.

Boy Scouts in America hold "American values". That's precisely what I meant, and it had nothing to do with origin, but if it makes you feel better to pretend that you made a point... go ahead and score it.

What are American values?

For most people... they're things like: Helping neighbors, hard work, dedication, protecting allies, preserving the nuclear family, being patriotic, and of course being Christian (or having "Christian values).

Yes- CR, you can be cynical and apathetic, but with roughly 3/4 (or more) people considering themselves Christian it's pretty to safe to assume that the Bible has permeated our culture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_...e_United_States
(LOOK- A FACT!!! TRY IT!)

If you are going to say that the things above listed are conservative values, then what valude do liberals liberals, whom you’ve characterized with ample stereotypes, generalizations and misinformation, have?

●If scouts and conservatives are “trustworthy,” does this mean liberals are shady and on the take?

●If scouts and conservatives are “loyal,” does this mean liberals routinely stab people in the back?

●If scouts and conservatives are ”helpful,” does this mean liberals are more likely to pass on by when someone needs a jump-start?

●If scouts and conservatives are ”friendly,” does this mean liberals go around biting people’s heads off?

●If scouts and conservatives are “courteous,” does this mean liberals are rude?

●If scouts and conservatives are “kind,” does this mean that liberals are hurtful?

●If scouts and conservatives are “obedient,” does this mean that liberals typically disobey laws about such things as parking in handicapped zones without a permit, littering the highways and running stop lights?

●If scouts and conservatives are “cheerful,” does this mean that liberals are all doom and gloom?

●If scouts and conservatives are” thrifty” does this mean liberals waste all their money on cabarets and other amusements?

●If scouts and conservatives are “brave,” does this mean liberals are the true chickenhawks?

●If scouts are and conservatives are “clean,” does this mean liberals don’t shower often enough or have their teeth cleaned every six months?

●If scouts are “reverent,” does this mean liberals are blasphemous?

The scout traits are pretty much universal among civilized, polite people, not just conservatives.




“American values"? In the 1970s my social group consisted of a number of nurses from the British Isles. These people came as close, or closer to personifying your description of scouts as Americans.

I’m going to be honest with you aevans176 you’ve dug yourself a quite hole with this thread. You dig the hole deeper with every post. Don’t you think it’s time to stop digging?

I don’t want to get too involved in the pedophile question, but it does happen in scouting. Here’s a link to an article from The New York Times.



http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...753C1A965958260

The scouts are international. There are scouts operating under many gods, not just one. Allah, Haile Selahssie, Baron Samedi from the land of the Loa, so long as they obey the scout code, the particular deity in question is often irrelevant.

No matter what my personal feelings on the subject- it is obvious that it is not seen anymore as a benign good thing for all of America- it is seen, and rightly so from Aevens comments- a right wing organization bent on ideologically brainwashing kids to be "good little republican conservatives"- in fact, Aevens seems quite proud of that view- which would mean, that it is not a nice charitable org anymore- but a political activist arm, no different than NOW or NRA or Greenpeace- it's no longer about happy, wholesome, fun, it is now a PAC in and of itself.

If I have a storefront- I won't put out stickers for the NRA, NOW or PETA- because I am not in business to discuss politics and encourage boycotts of my business, but to make money.

Likewise, the goverment should not be spending money for PACs personal issues either- and, like it or not, the BSA has aligned itself as a "conservative" organization, no different that any other non-profit PAC.

If PETA had done the same thing in this situation, whether or not the money they were raising were going to troops or not- I would be furious with a state building being used by PETA for whatever the reason. Sure, they are helping the troops and helping stray puppies everywhere - but I don't want goverment resources being used for it either!

Now you're being ridiculous. Brainwash? Right-wing plots to bring down the establishment?

Its just a bunch of kids. They get together on weekends, and camp, fish, maybe throw the old pigskin around. They cuss, certainly. Sometimes, as was my case, they grow up to become drinking buddies. Drinking buddies who consistently tease a certain one of their number, for being the only one not to make Eagle.- Meh. I get back at them in other ways.

What I'm trying to say is, the boyscouts don;t do anything, except, perhaps, instill a reverence towards nature, that today's youth sorely need. And they don;t need to become conservative to do that.

Funny- several tyranical goverments have patterned thier entire org around one like the boyscouts- they are called "the young pioneers" IIRC in Russia- and man, there is really no difference- most of the time, it is all about cookies and hikes, and oh yeah, pledging allegence to the state- don't question authority, be obediant etc.

Regardless- Aevens seem to think you can't even be a liberal and be in the boyscouts- so this makes it a primarily PAC oriented group- no matter what activities- those activities are there to brainwash the kdis into a certain kind of thinking.

If the American military relies on the Scout movement to provide it with "essential goods" (your words not mine) then America as a nation has worse problems than perceived political bias against Conservatism. The only essantial goods for troops serving anywhere are food, water, equipment and ammunition. Anything else is a luxury. Doesn't the government provide those things for their own troops? If not, again, I would suggest that your wrath should not be directed against what you perceive to be the outrageous calumnies heaped upon the old-fashioned American inventions of apple pie, baseball and Boy Scouts (none of which were invented in the USA), but against the logistical and budgetary support given to troops on active service.

For background, the Scout movement started out as a paramilitary organisation, and in the UK at least, maintained some tangential links to cadet forces, reserve units and even regular forces into the 1980s (I don't know if this has continued since then). So it's not a big surprise at there being any scout involvement in troop support, even if the effects are largely a minor uplift in morale (probably more for the scouts than the troops themselves).

1. Is a box asking for donations for troops "politically motivated"?

I don't know. A plain box with a coin slot in the lid and "Support Our Troops" painted on the front, with maybe a Scout's fleur-de-lys logo on it isn't, I 'd say. If the first link on your thread-opening post is representative (the one written by the deputy mayor of Cambridge) then the scouts in question didn't even have boxes - brown paper bags with photocopied signs stapled to them would be a more accurate description.

But then, as you'll have read in the first link you posted, the Scouts weren't moved on because of who they were or what they were claiming to support, but because of a lack of communication.

2. Is supporting troops a sign of support for the war?

Not remotely. Hate the sin, love the sinner - is that Christian enough for you?

3. Does anyone believe that because it was the "Boy Scouts" that it drew undue attention?

Not remotely. I think it has drawn undue attention because Conservatives, and especially pro-War-on-Terror Conservatives, feel like they are on the back foot, and are doing what they always do when they feel defensive and manufacturing a bogus subject to pick a fight over that they think they can win.

And the 24-hour rolling news media - which can only generate excitement (in the absence of real unfolding events) by putting two opposing opinions on a couch and engineering a confrontation between them picks up on any such manufactured issues, and turns them into real ones despite there being no substance behind them.



This was a bureaucratic bungle, not an anti-war or anti-troop or even an anti-scout plot by swivel-eyed liberal boogie-men bent on national brainwashing. As we say over here, it wasn't more cock-up than conspiracy (or see Hanlon's Razor in my sig for a more elevated expression of the sentiment).

Furthermore







Er, didn't you give birth to this thread? Nobody else opened the topic...

But while Boy Scouts, apple pie and baseball may well be very popular in the USA, and may even represent more abstract concepts that represent America to both Americans themselves and other around the world, none of those three archetypes are actually very American at all (though one has more claim than the other two).

Boy Scouts were invented in Brownsea Island, Hampshire, England by Lord Robert Baden Powell.

Apple pie was probably invented somewhere in Western or Central Europe in the medieval period but was popularised in England in the 15th and 16th centuries - Source - Answers.com *I'm suspicious of this idea of the perfect apple pie being American. My mother makes the best applie pies I've ever tasted, and they are made with the applies she grows in her garden in Wales. Therefore the perfect apple pie is either Welsh or entirely subjective.

Baseball "evolved out of several different “bat and ball” games such as English Rounders, Cricket, and American Town Ball that had been around for centuries. " (source baseball 101. Anything that evolves cannot claim to have been invented by anyone. Though, just as Rounders and Cricket evolved in England and are, to all intents and purposes, English sports, I'll grant you that Baseball evolved in the USA and so is an American sport. (So please stop calling the all-America championship the "World Series" )

To end on a serious note, however, I'm vaguely uncomfortable with ANY fundraising or campaigning going on inside any Polling Station. Outside is fine. In an ante room is fine. But actually in the same room as the polling booths? - Sorry, that's not allowed in Julianland. If you haven't made your mind up by the time you get to the booth, you shouldn't get any help from anyone, however tangential or obscure (or obvious) it might be.


edited to fix tags

I think you are mistaken. Boy Scout troop members are a reflection of their community. There are very fews ceremonies or formal events. Apart from the oath, law, and motto, there is no dogma of any kind in Scouting. If you live in a very religious, conservative area, then you're going to end up with religious, conservative Scouts.

I went the distance in an excellent troop in Warren Township, Ohio (Troop 216.) I did make Eagle. We also travelled to Philmont in New Mexico, and Kentucky and Virginia for skiing and canoing (several times). When I had to leave at 18, I was jealous because they were finally going spelunking.

The key thing to remember is that this troop is in rural southeast Ohio, which is poor, rural Appalachia. The troop pooled their funds, and used some donations, and more income from cutting firewood and cleaning industrial plants to purchase new equipment and subsidize these trips so that they would be affordable for every member of the troop that wanted to go. When a Scout left, they donated back their uniform, so another family wouldn't have to buy a new one. The trip to New Mexico is probably the further many of these guys have been from home in their lives to this day.

We did all this, and apart from benedictions at Eagle ceremonies, with clergy chosen by the new Eagle's family, there was not a single whiff of religion or any form of abuse. If there's is some inner cabal of pedophiles in Scouting, then they are hiding from themselves fairly well. Of course bad things happen in Scouts, much as they do in schools, churches, parks, and hospitals. The national organization may not require background checks, but local troops can perform them, if they want.

And for the record, I'm very much a social liberal, though a fiscal conservative, so I must be the exact opposite of an average Republican, nowadays.

In answer to the questions

1. Is asking for donations for troops "politically motivated"

It entirely depends on who started the asking for donations, for example if a member of a political party was stood at the polling station asking for donations or mentioned to the scout leader that it might be a good idea then I would say yes it could be politically motivated, however if it was the scouts idea then I would say no it wasnt. I think what this comes down to is the fact that the scouts were inside a polling station an obvious symbol the democratic political process is the reason they raised eyebrows. I have to agree with Julian's point about whether they were in the room with the polling booths in them or in an anteroom (which would seem more appropriate) although to be fair so long as everytime someone made a donation they didnt say "Vote Bush" or something like that then I wouldn't mind.

2. Is Supporting the troops a sign of supporting the war

To my mind a troop of scouts asking for donations is more of an honest attempt to help people who at this time of year may be feeling quite alone in a place where they could be shot and killed or blown up at any time. While I was member of the Scouts (what feels like a very long time ago now) I know that while we never collected for troops but did collections of food for the elderly and donated old toys at Christmas to kids who might not have any. This seems like a logical, if not a very well thought out (at some point I'm sure someone must have thought "hmm this might be controversial") extension of that.

3. Does anyone believe that it was the boy scouts that this drew undue attention

Yes, worldwide the boy scouts are seen as a symbol of charity and helpfulness to have them associated with a political hot potato is a quick way to sell newspapers.

I grow concerned about posts regarding the nature of Scouting - as a former boy scout myself I can say that I never heard or witnessed any paedophilia occuring within the movement, I know that within the UK at least there are strict background checks carried out on anyone who works with children after several high profile child abuse cases.

Also I know from personal experiance that Scouts from all over the world whatever religion they follow have taught the value of helping others and charity - this is not just a Christian value it is one that is echoed in every world religion. I am not going to deny that in the West these groups are often tied to the Church the reason being that when the Scout Movement was formed Churches where at the centre of most communities far more than they are today. I hasten to point out that while I consider myself an agnotic after losing my faith at 16 the values of charity, selflessness and a love of the outdoors that both Scouting and my parents gave me have never left me and if more people followed these values then the world would be a much better place (The outdoors bit is none essential BTW I dont want it getting too crowded out there)

The words of City Manager Bob Healy:

"'This non-issue has been escalated way out of proportion in the ‘real world’ of running a city, by a barrage of e-mails, many not from Cambridge residents,' Healy said in the e-mail. 'The law, on ‘political statements’ is very clear.'"
***
"'I have no issue with ‘sending necessary items’ to the troops in Iraq,' Healy said. 'However, ‘collection boxes’ in polling places, with either pro-war, or anti-war statements are not permitted.'"

"Support The Troops", a "political" "pro-war" message according to City Manager Bob Healy.

Now might I ask how many times we have heard it said by some that we can oppose the war but support the troops? Mr. Healy's statements put the lie to the lie [as it were]. And so no one gets me wrong, if Bob Healy believes the war to be immoral, then support for our troops is also immoral as they are the ones waging the immoral war. And so Bob ought to have an issue with "sending necessary items to the troops in Iraq" if he believes the war immoral. My only advice to the man would be, Bob, be smart or honest or both, but never ever be neither as you are now.

Oh, and Julian, it is horrible idea in the extreme for someone to propround on an alien subject matter [as it were]. You answered no. 2 as follows:

"2. Is Supporting the troops a sign of supporting the war

Not remotely. Hate the sin, love the sinner - is that Christian enough for you."

It isn't Christian at all. As related, the soldiers are fighting the war. Supporting them allows them to fight the war and so it supports the war. There is otherwise nothing in Christianity that finds it proper for one to view a continuing course of conduct as immoral while at the same time giving aid and comfort to the other respecting the commission of that very immorality. You don't hate the sin and love the sinner by handing the addict the syringe and the heroin. Here, if your support of the troops allows for their greater combat effectiveness, or any combat effectiveness at all, in this, our immoral war, well, then you ain't hating the sin and loving the sinner but are instead loving the sin and hating the sinner. The "hate" and "love" in the expression, well, the hate is to never compromise on the sin and the love is to never ever give up hope and the effort with respect to the other's redemption from that sin. For the same reason, and on the theory that condemnation of the sin might cause one to reconsider the sin and move towards redemption, well, we are also told to rebuke the sinner lest we bear sin because of him [i.e., in not condemning the sin to the sinner, we've deprived her or him of the occasion to reconsider and move towards redemption and so in such circumstance we will bear our sin]. And the irony here, well, in our theology, the one who sees the immoral war as immoral but yet still provides for its continued occurrence is in a worse position than the one who wages the immoral war while believing it moral. Lastly, I trust that this will all be Christian enough for you.

Despite the fact that boy scouts asking for donations is most likely not a political sign, I feel the people who's idea it was to begin with are pro-war.

Eh... there's a bit of a flaw in that logic. The troops do not have the luxury of choosing when and where they go to war. They go where the commanders tell them to go. It's called respecting the position the troops are forced to be in. While one can feel that a war is immoral, one can support the people who do not have a choice but to fight the immoral war. The battle over whether the war is moral or immoral is and should be outside the theatre of war... between the governments waging the war and the citizens. I believe that supporting the troops means finding the best way to get them safely home as soon as possible. I believe the war is immoral. The two beliefs are not mutually exclusive.

IN fact, I would say supporting the war is not only NOT supporting the troops- it is downright treasonous. WE have tens of thousands of casualities, over 3000 dead, no end in site, and for no good reason. To NOT hold the politicians feet to the fire, and tell them "bring them home NOW" is outright treason KT.

The premise of this whole topic is not what it appears to be, thus, the questions are based on a shaky foundation. Akalae's comments appear to be right on. There aren't a lot of materials out there about this and what has been presented, is nothing more than personal opining from afar. From what I have found, this hardly constitutes a liberal anti-American conspiracy. The election commissioner's response clearly indicates that the polling places are on private property, thus, entailing the need for written permission. An election commission member informed the soldier-box boys that they couldn't "piggy-back" their project with the polls on the property. He would have to gain permission for his different project himself. Evidently, the person never did this.



Why were the boxes removed?, because the person didn't do their homework.



No permission, no rights to set up-it's that simple.

Unless there is a receipt, of which I'm sure are issued for such things, then the scouts have a legitimate grievance. If they don't........ So ,where is the receipt? Where is the confirmation that this was actually approved? Let's skip the political blather,and other inconsequential analysis in the face of the simple fact that this was unapproved from the start. Bashing liberals or those who "hate" the scouts doesn't erase the fact that whoever was in charge of this, didn't do their proper homework to get this set up. I just love how the fox clip in my last hyper-link did not present any shared of evidence or fact as to how the boy scouts obtained permission.

entspeak:

Our soldiers are free moral actors in the universe. If they believe their orders to be "illegal" and/or "immoral" they can always refuse to serve. Not an easy circumstance to be in, but whoever said that our morality was all fun and games? The example you are looking for would be Ehren Watada. A similar circumstance is related in Abraham Rabinovich's The Yom Kippur War[:] The Epic Encounter That Transformed The Middle East [at 446]:

"Half of Raviv's depleted brigade, twenty-two tanks, had been destroyed. Watching from across the [Suez] canal, Sharon was beside himself as he watched another tank burst into flames. 'If your mission is necessary,' he would write of the battle, 'you accept even the worst casualties. But this was meaningless, suicidal.' During the night, however, the Egyptians pulled back almost a mile. As Shazly would acknowledge, the withdrawal was necessitated by Sharon's northward advance on the African side of the canal and the fire that Reshef's tanks were directing from there into Sinai. After three days of grinding combat, the corridor to the [canal] crossing point had been widened from two and a half miles to five miles.

The senior command, however, was not yet done with Missouri. Gonen ordered Sharon to send Reshef's brigade back to Sinai to resume the attack in the morning together with Raviv's remaining tanks. Sharon bluntly refused.

'This will constitute failure to carry out an order,' warned Gonen.

'Now, really,' said Sharon. 'Don't bother me with things like that.'"

The order was eventually rescinded, and more than likely in no small part to Sharon's refusal to initially carry out the order. My only problem with Watada is that I disagree with him on the "illegality" and the "immorality" of it, but if he's sincere, I can otherwise admire and appreciate his moral courage. Doesn't mean that I wouldn't be all in favor of his court martial, but if I were more directly concerned with the same the record would reflect that while I disagree with him on the underlying substantive merits and so am in favor of his court-martial, I also admire and appreciate his moral courage.

Then there's the words of the one blogger [ http://earthmeanders.blogspot.com/2007/02/...rs-are-war.html ]:

"To say you support the soldiers but not the war is to disingenuously be full of crap. The Uniform Code of Military Justice makes clear soldiers have an obligation and a duty to only obey lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders. These include Presidential orders that do not comply with the Code, the constitution and international law.

Further, it was established at the WW II Nuremberg war trials that "following orders" is not justification for war crimes. The victorious Americans set the precedent that as a soldier, you will be punished if you go along with an illegal, unlawful, immoral order.
***
Soldiers fighting in Iraq are complicit and are following unlawful orders, carrying out war crimes in an unjust war of aggression. At least fifty thousand innocent Iraqis have been murdered by the unlawful waging of war by American troops. Having been an enlisted soldier in the U.S. army, I know that soldiers are obligated to determine for themselves whether they have been given an illegal order. And while a handful have refused to serve, most have blindly followed orders as tyrant's legions have done for centuries.

Attacking, occupying and now policing a civil war in Iraq is an illegal, immoral order and it is the duty of every soldier to refuse to carry it out. By failing to refuse to follow illegal orders, soldiers are just as much at fault for the illegal Iraq war as Bush, Cheney and Rice. And any return to international law based rules of war will require that all that have committed war crimes are tried and sentenced if found guilty. America is not so exceptional that when it stumbles, that all responsible should not be held fully accountable."

And here, a statement of refusal concerning the Israel Defense Forces:

http://ijon.livejournal.com/113761.html

Morals come with consequences. If one is unwilling to pay the consequence of one's morality then it's meaningless to speak of one's morality as it isn't morality but "feel good" philosophy. Which is why, in the end, well, as I said, I disagree with Watada on the underlying substantive merits, but I've more respect for him than I do for the others who hold the same view but who are, unlike him, not willing to pay the price of principle.



nebraska29:

The problem with your explanation is simply that it wasn't the private property owner that excluded the Scouts but the city. The city had otherwise, well, the words of Tim Toomey, city council member and Ms. Marsha's boss:

"Three weeks ago, on October 22nd, I sponsored a Cambridge City Council resolution in support of the Cambridge Boy Scouts Troop 45 and their effort to support the Cambridge Military deployed overseas. The Cambridge City Council unanimously approved the resolution and went on record on October 22nd commending the Boy Scouts on organizing the Care Package Donation Drive and urging all citizens to support the Boy Scouts effort and bring in donations for the Cambridge men and women proudly serving abroad...Although they had informed the Election Commission of their intent and received encouragement from the City Council, the individual polling locations had not been notified in time and therefore had not granted the necessary permissions to Troop 45."

And so let the city first explain why it, and not the private property owner, excluded the Scouts. If it wasn't for the one other fellow's comments re things "political" I might consider writing this off to the f-bomb preceded by the word "cluster". But then again, whether 10% didn't get the word is irrelevant and so the problem that I have with the remainder of Mr. Toomey's statement is that he does indeed write it off to the word not filtering down. Problem is, well, what does the polling center have? A bat-phone to the election commission headquarters. And so when the Scouts said that we have permission from the city council and the election commission all that some had to do was call...and since Ms. Marsha's word otherwise is that some did indeed call and then got their word from the legal department, sorry, Tom, but the explanation isn't even consistent with the underlying factual predicate here [as it were]. The other way putting the matter is that the Scouts were simply not told that such was the reason at the time, but as our man said, the message was "political". And wouldn't you know, our man Tom did vote for the Cambridge city council resolution terming this, our illegal preemptive war.



CR:

Since treason is a mere offense against the state, indeed better that I play the traitor to your and Saddam's hostis humani generis. And the "jurisdiction" that you and Tim are looking for courtesy of Wikipedia:

"The term [hostis humani generis] has also been extended in recent years to describe the exercise by states or the international community of universal jurisdiction in cases involving torture or genocide."

Now from Reuters:

"Adding impact to Bush's warning, America's staunch ally Britain on Monday released a 23-page dossier accusing Saddam of human rights abuses - including systematic torture, acid baths, rape and mass executions."

In short, Dubya and Her Brittanic Majesty accused the one man, his family, and his ruling party of committing acts of land piracy. As I said, glad to play traitor when the one making the charge is hostis humani generis.

Well, since we have mass graves, torture, rape and over 650k dead, all AFTER we invadedI would say that GW is the person we should be charging with genocide, and the fact that you support a person that commited this genocide, and since you, by extension, not only just look the other way over this genocide, but are an active supporter, you would still be a traitor.

Not to mention the moral and ethical issue of you happily sending thousands of US men to thier deaths for no good reason, in fact, lied about the reasons outright- I would say, why do you hate our troops so much?

Oh, and why aren't your there with DTOM "supporting" the troops- or, are you at the mall as well?

Kivro 1 & 2 quotes



Good comments, but that was clearly settled when the election commission big-wigs investigated the matter, and discovered, that the necessary arrangements hadn't been made between the scouts and the folks who run the senior center, fire hall, community center, or some other city owned venture. They can't let other groups "piggy-back" off of them, that isn't what was agreed to when they signed on the dotted line. You might invite me over for dinner, but that doesn't mean that I can bring my whole extended family. From the previous post of mine...

Kivro:




That is indeed what the problem was. The scouts said they had permission, they didn't actually have it. Once again, where is the documentation? Where are the meeting minutes where this was approved? Where is the receipt? I doubt these things are settled merely over a handshake. They are recorded somehow in some way. This clearly comes out as after the complaint was received, they checked to see if permission had been obtained from the responsible parties. Permission wasn't granted, and since groups cannot "piggy-back" off of others, the scouts were sent packing. "Be prepared" is their motto, they should've followed it better.

nebraska29:

A question for you: how can the city say that it needs the owner's permission? Recall here that state law provides that one is entirely free to "voice" one's unrelated political message within 150 feet of any polling station [provided one does not otherwise interfere with someone else's act of voting]. So how does the city enter into a contract that takes away that right of the people to expound on unrelated political messages within 150 feet of any polling place? I would assume that any such attempted contractual provision would be deemed void as a matter of public policy. And then there's that part of the law that says that we take you at your word and so if you didn't initially tell the Scouts that they were getting the proverbial boot as the requisite permission[s] had not been obtained, but you instead told the Scouts that their message was "political" and so they had to vacate, well, you get taken at your word. And so if the "troops out of Iraq" message gets proclaimed, so does "support the troops". The Scouts otherwise have a viable cause of action against the city, under my favorite legal theory, that of "detrimental reliance", for whatever items of damage that might have been incurred via their detrimental reliance on the city's word. The city's word is otherwise found here:

http://bp1.blogger.com/_6hefhbq6eys/RzxiJM.../cityofcamb.JPG

The website notice also shows that some got the word.

Now kindly note that the Scouts weren't just collecting for any ole soldiers, but for the local army reserve unit to which reservists from Cambridge belong. Apparently, paying full city salary while the soldier receives her or his military pay is all good but collecting some fungible goods for their maintenance and support is not. And that's how absurd it is.

The only other relevant facts are these, a single complaint made by the local gadfly otherwise well known for making complaints, and Ms. Marsha and Mr. Bob being the ones to give some the boot and Ms. Marsha otherwise being on record from the beginning as opining that this whole Scout drive wasn't a good idea. The more hopeful me wishes that this was all mere stupidity, but the more jaded me thinks of Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983, and maybe, just maybe, two or more persons, here Ms. Marsha and Mr. Bob and Jane and John Does 1-10, acted under color of law to deprive some Scouts of rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America [see 42 USC 1983: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia."]

Again, for equal protection purposes, "Get Out of Iraq" = "Support The Troops", but one could while the other couldn't. And it otherwise wasn't the Scouts but Ms. Marsha and Mr. Bob who said that what is at stake here is "political". If I were the Scouts, I'd settle for a public apology and entry of consent decree wherein the city agrees to never again infringe on the expression of a political message at any polling station as is allowed by state or other law.

Your link to the city announcement of the boy scout drive was quite illuminating. It's proof of either two things; 1)the city's right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing, or 2)The scouts didn't go to the right city leaders. Why didn't the boy scouts go to the election commissioner first?, it appears that she was only brought in after a complaint was made by a citizen. Being charged with running the election division, the area clearly falls under her jurisdiction. There also appears to be more than one city department involved, as she even asked the City Solicitor's office if the Scouts had permission. Why hadn't permission been obtained from the solicitor's office? If they were complaining that commissioner Weinerman had changed her mind, then I would more than heartedly agree with you. And lastly, where is the hyperlink of the official city document that gave th scouts permission to do this? You almost have me won over Kivrot, the documentation aspect is just something I can't get past on this one. The fact that someone complained isn't relevant here. Whether it's someone who has never made a complaint since the 3rd grade, or someone who complains every day and twice on sunday, the point still stands-where is the documentation and authorized permission? It sounds like the scout person just asked someone from the city who didn't know better and told them: "sure!" while failing to send them to the city solicitor's office.

Woe be unto the poor soul who ventures to the county courthouse, seeking the right thing from the wrong office.

[quote name='aevans176' date='Nov 20 2007, 12:10 PM' post='231314']
Questions for debate:

1. Is a box asking for donations for troops "politically motivated"?

Since there is no declaration of war any use of the military is done so for political aims. This president has used the military for political props since before he even took office, so it currently even more difficult to distinguish legitimate military action from political motivations.

2. Is supporting troops a sign of support for the war? Any support of the action itself is a form of support for the "OCCUPATION", let's get clear first off, there never was a "war" and to whatever extent the actions of "war" were carried out they came to an end when Bush declared combat operations over.

Intended or unintended, the reality is that supporting the troops in any way, even by paying taxes, is supporting the war, and it's consequences. We all have the blood of innocents on our hands collectively, nationally - like it or not. If we had a domestic police force that commited the crimes being commited in our names abroad, and we did nothing to speak out about it or try to stop it (simply because we have the freedom to do so, unlike many other places in the world) then we are condoning the crimes by ommission of action. If you haven't done every single last thing possible to try to stop what is going on, then you are culpable in some way, and I for one am certainly guilty.

3. Does anyone believe that because it was the "Boy Scouts" that it drew undue attention?

This question itself actually answers the first. Any "support the troops" drive to kicked out of any place would draw undue attention - why, because it's all politically motivated. It wouldn't have mattered if McDonald's got rid of donation boxes at the cash registers, it would have been politicised, an the politicisation immediately draw attention unduely.

“This President” got Congressional approval to go after Iraqi WMD – how you call that “political” is beyond me.

And the Scouts were just supporting our TRPOOPS that “political” or not are out there fighting for the country. Taking the boxes down was reprehensible but typical for, as we say here in MA, The Peoples Republic of Cambridge.

Which begs the question, how do you go after something that does not exist?


Congress gave approval for the use of force should Iraq not allow UN inspectors to have access to the sites they wanted to inspect. Iraq allowed the UN inspectors unrestricted access, and they found nothing. The use of force was conditional, Iraq complied with the condition, so the provision for the use of force was inapplicable. You know that very well, I don't need to inform you of it, I only mention it in response since your reply doesn't address the issue.

Like I said, no declaration of war, no threat - real or apparent, to the nation, therefore the reason for the use of force is outside the bounds of the constitutionally sanctioned use of the miliatary, therefore I conclude that it was political. I'll be open to other's suggestion that it was something other than political motivation, but you will have to convince me.