RobK

Money laundering doesn't explain the past several centuries of Swiss freedom from invasion. In fact, I would think the banks would make it a very desirable possesion. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being "not at all important" to 10 being "really reall really important" [h]ow big a part does the US military (including National Guard and Reserves) play in "being prepared"? Bob, you're implying a false dichotomy. On a scale of one to ten, how important is the front wheel of a motorcycle to being able to ride it? How long would a beseiged city stand if no one inside were armed and

I think you've taken my examples of the Afghans and the VC backward. No Bob, I'm saying that the Soviet Union was never able to subdue the Afghans, and the US did not defeat the VC in Vietnam in spite of all our might. I'm saying that an armed populace held off and eventually drove out an overwhelmingly superior foreign occupying power. Bob, why did Hitler not take Switzerland? He took Poland, he took Czechoslovakia, he took France and their Maginot Line! But not Switzerland. That was only 60 years ago. Machiavelli addresses this subject quite thoroughly in The Prince ("http://www.constitution

Bob, the point was not that one of those powers in particular would in the future, but that it has been thought about and done before. Just because we are mighty, doesn't prevent another nation from becoming mightier, and it doesn't keep us mighty. It's not as if our military is going to be dismantled, or our ability to detect invading forces approaching removed. How do you know? Just saying it will never happen won't prevent it from happening. The only way to ensure that it doesn't happen is to actively prevent it from happening. I'm sure many of the citizens of Rome felt as you do

Here's another article of interest from the Christian Science Monitor: http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0106/p02s01-ussc.html From the article: But carrying weapons has its own set of concerns. For example, gun-owning seniors, like any age group, are at risk for having their weapons used against them. Byers notes, however, that researchers haven't been able to compile the exact number of incidents in which this has happened.

We find Jesus' command to "turn the other cheek" in two places, Matthew 5:39 and Luke 6:29. Read them in the context of the whole chapter. Here's a link: "turn the other cheek" in the Gospels. The slap on the cheek Jesus means is not a real physical assault, it's an insult meant to provoke a fight. He's saying, don't let yourself be provoked into fighting and don't seek revenge. The idea is not "don't defend yourself ever", it is to not seek vengance and to be forgiving of those who wrong you. Especially consider the "Love your enemy" section (begining at Matthew 5:43) which immediately f

If people really knew what Fascism was, they wouldn't constantly equate it with the right wing. Let's remember again the full name of Hitler's Nazi party: National Socialist German Worker's Party! Sound right wing to you? Read for yourself what Mussolini said fascism was: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html

A couple of points: 1) The Biblical case for armed self defense: Luke 22:36 -- Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. Luke 22:38 -- So they said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough." Jesus told his disciples, If you don't already have a sword, sell your garment and buy one. And some of the disciples already had swords! If Jesus didn't want us to be armed, 1) would He have told His disciples to buy swords, and 2) wou

FBI crime statistics are that fewer than 0.2% of all guns in America have ever been used in any crime. Guns kept for self-protection are almost never used against their owners. As a simple test, think back to the last time you heard of it happening. If it happened, you'd hear about it on the news. I personally can't recall a single instance in my 30+ years. Moreover, the statistics show that you are LESS likely to be injured as a crime victim if you resist, with a gun or without. Also, gun related accidents are at all time lows. One thing you won't hear on the news is that almost all gun

I was in no way attempting to excuse the actions of past Republican administrations. I was attempting to illustrate the left's hypocrisy and the absurdity of attempting to make moral equivalence between Prescott Bush and John Walker Lindh. We hear from the left a constant clamor about Reagan/Bush having dealt with Hussein and how evil they were for it, but no mention EVER of the French or Germans dealing with them. I don't know all the facts about Prescott Bush's dealings through that company with the Nazi's but I will certainly not condemn his grandson for anything Prescott might have d

So, le Voyageur, this company was founded in 1924, 17 years before the US entered WWII, 9 years before the Nazi party (let's remember its full name: National Socialist German Workers' Party) took power in Germany. And this company managed a number of German/American buisnesses. Having a stake in this company is equivalent in your eyes to taking up arms in common cause with a self-avowed mortal enemy of the US? You're probably one of those who say we ought to "internationalize" the rebuilding of Iraq and let France and Germany take part, `cause you know, even though the UK, Poland, It

How about making the focus not "growth" (raw numbers of youth served) but "retention" (youth served well through out their youth). And retention should not be seen as "made eagle before he quit", but "actively particpated until he aged out". I think the organization is trying to do too much, trying to be all things to all people and so serve everyone, and so spreading itself too thin. We need to focus on the core competency.

"Studies have shown that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime." 100% of people executed for murder never murdered again. Sounds like an effective deterrent to me. Studies have also shown that most murderers have committed more than one murder. If they're executed after the first murder, they are absolutely prevented from murdering again.

You can learn a lot about laser tag guns here: They are essentially big TV remotes. They use the same technology -- IR. And you can usually pick up the output with night vision scopes. I think the prohibition against paint ball and laser tag is very lame. BP would be disgusted.

Finding woodlots about to be cleared is a good idea for "high impact" skills practice. To find woodlots about to be cleared, you might try contacting land developers and pallet mills. The pallet mills will be able to put you in touch with the loggers who'll do the clearing. And hey, maybe they can get you foresters for the forestry merit badge too!

The neckerchief was meant to be used, not mere vestigal adornment. From 27 Years With Baden-Powell by E K Wade (http://www.pinetreeweb.com/wade12.htm): "The Scout scarf, worn with a triangular piece at the back, was designed for its practical use, and not for any artistic merit that it might possess. To protect the back of the neck against hot sun; the nose and mouth against dust; as an emergency handkerchief; or pad: as a triangular bandage; as ties or straps for a stretcher: there were few uses to which a scarf could not be put. In games it served as a distinguishing mark or "flash

In response to several issues raised: Politics are the application of religion/morals/ethics. If your religous beliefs don't determine your political beliefs, then you're a hypocrite. I would also remind those that point out that our president didn't receive a majority of the popular vote, neither did Bill Clinton. Bush got a larger percentage of the popular vote in the 2000 election than Clinton did in either of his elections. Clinton won both elections because the conservative vote was split, not because the majority of Americans wanted him. acco40: But when churches get tax e

kwc57, The question I struggle with is what business is it of ours? ... He is not seeking worldwide domination and he isn't trying to exterminate an entire race from the face of the Earth. Is he ruthless and willing to kill his own people for his own reasons? Yes. Is it the Iraqi people's job to revolt and overthrow him or ours? Remove it from a global perspective. If Saddam were the guy next door and the Iraqi people his wife and children, and he was abusing them, would it be your buisness? Is it only the job of the battered wife and children to revolt and overthrow him? He's not s

That's too bad, le Voyageur. I wish you could agree with the BSA on this. All would be better served if you did. I hope in time...you will someday see, and feel the suffering and humilation being inflicted on others by these polices... And I hope in time you'll see the fallacy of this statement. It's not BSAs policies that cause suffering and humiliation. I look forward to a day when all sinners can see that it's the choice to sin that causes their suffering and humiliation, a time when all may turn from evil, repent, and follow God.

packsaddle, This would also apply if the "religion somewhere" said a thing was immoral. Yes, indeed and we can point to many instances of this in current practice. You can neither specify too narrow a set of moral beliefs nor too broad a set. The line must be drawn to include the largest set of non-conflicting beliefs. Homosexuality being morally acceptable conflicts too strongly with the beliefs of too many others, so it must be excluded. As to there being a religion whose deity is totally ambivalent about murder, I don't know for sure, but I don't doubt there is. That's beside

which religions are they that consider murder as good or moral? Well, there are the various sects of radical Islam that say if you die while killing an infidel it's a ticket to paradise. India had suttee and the Thuggee. The Aztecs did human sacrifice. Generally they dress it up as doing a good deed. There are other religions and sects that are even more egregious examples. The point is that we must draw the line on morality somewhere. Just because some religion somewhere says a thing is OK, doesn't mean the rest of us should accept it in our organization or society.

Quoting tjhammer: Why don't those of us who oppose the BSA policy have the same right to association and self-determination as those of you who support it? You do. Go somewhere else and exercise it. What you don't have is the right to force the rest of us to accept you in our organization. Is it solely because there are more people in BSA that think the way that you do than the way we do? Is that really a valid standard for legislating morality? I don't seek to impose my morality on you, nor do I seek to change the organization in a way that affects you. The only valid standa

Well, acco40 and tjhammer, if we're not to use religous texts or our own opinion to define "morally straight", then what are we to use? The law and oath are not self defining. They are based on external definitions. On what do you base your definition of morally straight and why? What do you use to define any part of the oath and law? Your personal opinion? On what or whose authority do you determine that being homosexual is "morally straight"? Your own opinion? I certainly don't think you base that belief on what the Bible says. Prove to us that it's not immoral. -RobK

Coming from a socialist website, this article is almost self-parody. What's next, are they going to trot out a Che Guevara look-a-like to decry the prison camp at Gitmo? BTW, one of the locations "believed to be in mountainous terrain in the eastern United States" is an underground complex at a resort in Greenbrier, West Virginia. It's been around for most of the past century.

Quoting from the referenced article: There are several problems, however, with employing 2000 year old religious texts to criticize what we now know about sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. Most significantly, it is problematic to treat the Bible as if its writers were not affected by the limitations imposed on them by their position within a very specific cultural and historical context. Using their definition of hate speech, this sounds like anti-religous hate speech to me. Telling me that I shouldn't call homosexuality sin and avoid it's adherents and pr

The fiction of a liberal media persists. Let's see, over 98% of reporters vote Democrat. Sounds liberal to me... The media in the US is largely corporate and bows to those interests. All too often I find that corporations are very liberal. So in that case, I think you're right. The media is largely corporate and does bow to those (liberal corporate) interests.