[Huck]

How about George Washington?

[TomServo]

Dixie Ping!

[Mister Baredog]

How about George Washington?

NO he's out too, slave owner you know. I guess if some are bothered by history they think they can just rewrite it, How about Soupy Sales! I don't know why this scout troop cares, don't they know they are all bigoted homophobes anyway?

[Tax-chick]

How about George Washington?

Another slaveholding Dead White Man? Forget it! I'll bet they either choose a black person, or something bland like "Richmond Council."

What a bunch of wimps. If they were ever Boy Scouts, they obviously didn't learn anything important!

[NYFriend]

Washington and Lee have a lot in common. The slavery issue is what is probably driving this issue. But, also (I'm not saying more, less or equal) both could very easily be considered traitors to their nation. With Lee we get into the state vs. nation issue, and in modern times this is harder for us to understand but was probably a fair argument in 1860. With Washington there are more complicated issues relating to international law that basically end up with him being ok because his side won, an answer that is generally rejected by non-classical thinkers in internaitonal relations. I'd be interested in any thoughts about this.

I'm willing to bet that the debate will come down to personal feelings about the role of the federal government. While I might say that Washington fought for the United States, and Lee against it, others may argue that Lee fought for the Unites States that Washington fought for, and against a nation that was simply called the United States. I happen to disagree on the underlying issue in this argument (related to the legitimate role of the federal government), but I understand it.

Thoughts?

[Mike Darancette]

How about George Washington?

The public has supported the BSA in it's efforts to keep Gay Scoutmasters out, now BSA caves to this kind of crap.

Just name it after some Sodomite for all I care.

[HELLRAISER II]

How about Robert E. Lee?