Posted on 01/03/2003 8:35:59 AM PST by RonF
Darrell Lambert is prepared for a long struggle with the Boy Scouts of America, one decided by public opinion and not by lawsuits.
The 19-year-old Eagle Scout, the subject of national attention after being booted out of the organization last month for being an atheist, doesn't think his recent appeal will reverse his situation. Not soon, anyway.
Darrell Lambert of Olalla, who was kicked out of the Boy Scouts for being an atheist, has appealed the decision. But he says he won't go to court. "I'd like them to realize it is the moral thing to do."
"I think eventually the Boy Scouts will change," the Olalla teen said yesterday. "It'll just take longer than I like."
Lambert, who earned 37 merit badges in 10 years and assisted in leading a Port Orchard troop, sent his appeal last week to the Scouts' Western Region office in Tempe, Ariz. His letter started a process that likely could take months to resolve.
...
"Legally, (the Scouts) have a right to discriminate," Lambert said at a presentation on the issue yesterday. "Morally, they don't. That's what I'm fighting. They can't teach good citizenship and practice bad citizenship."
(Excerpt) Read more at seattlepi.nwsource.com ...
It is my opinion that the people doing this kind of thing can be broadly divided up into two categories.
1) Homosexuals and atheists who have Scout-age boys and wish to secure the benefits of Scouting for them, including participating in the program with them as registered leaders.
2) Homosexuals and atheists who see the BSA as immorally discriminating against them (or youth like them) and wish to disrupt it's operations to the point that it will either change or be destroyed.
In the case of the former, many such persons are people who simply joined the BSA and kept silent (at least publicly) regarding their sexual orientation or spiritual beliefs, as they didn't want to be kicked out and lose working with their kid. Others are former Scouts who, either towards the end of their youth career in Scouting or after they left determined that they were homosexual and don't see it as incompatible with Scouting. National Council has stated that they know full well that there are homosexuals in Scouting, and that they will not seek them out. This bascially means that the BSA accepts homosexuals joining their organization as long as they keep their sexual orientation from public notice, and explains why they always qualify their statements to say that "avowed" homosexuals are banned, as opposed to "all" homosexuals are banned.
I can't speak for any atheists, but from those gays that I've talked to many of the former group of individuals genuinely feel that homosexuality is moral, that it is not equivalent to or lead to child molestation, and that "out" homosexuals can be fit role models and Scout leaders. YMMV, but that's their take on the subject, and there are religions organizations that agree with them.
OTOH, the latter group has people who have different motives. The BSA has a unique place in American culture, and some feel that if they can force the BSA to accept gays and lesbians and atheists, then the general level of acceptance of such will increase. Others feel that it is unjust that an organization such as the BSA should get any access to the kind of support that the various governments give to not-for-profit organizations, as it seems to them to show an endorsement of the BSA's policies by the Government. And others just want to destroy it, feeling that it's irredeemable and that it's aims and methods are unacceptable.
Personally I'm sick and tired of fags and atheists using the shield of public tolerance as a battering ram for public endorsement.
I believe that this is the motive for at least some of those who attack Scouting.
I have a question for you. And I don't want to start a debate with you on the topic; I'm asking you for your opinion and I won't challenge it. What I'd like to know is, do you think that someone has to be a) a Christian, or even b) a believer in any faith to be a conservative? Can an atheist be a conservative? Can a Hindu be a conservative?
Then, by necessity, moral's are relative. You like vanilla, I like chocolate.
Both Jesus of Nazareth and Pol Pot were right, relaitively speaking.
You can't possibly believe there is an omnipotent God if you say such a thing.
While I not sure whether or not there is an omnipotent god, again, I dismiss the notion of one with the properties, characteristics and traits of the Christian God.
But now you are trying to call me an "atheist without a spine". I have no doubt that you are sincere in your belief in the Christian God. Why do you the sincerety of my agnosticism?
Yes, diverdogz. But your morals are whatever you want them to be. Other agnostics and atheists can make up whatever morals they want. People who believe in God believe that true moral axioms exist outside of the human mind, and that they are provided to us by God. I for one would never want my children to think that they should just make up their moralities. Neither does Boy Scouts.
This is exactly what has happened to Girl Scouts - which has abandoned the idea that God (and His morals) are essential in life, and has become pro-abortion, pro-lesbianism and pro-premarital sex. The Girl Scouts doesn't believe in anything anymore - other than whatever anyone else believes must be just as good as what you believe.
Actually, Jimer, the Boy Scouts are growing rapidly in our area (growing troops in our town - an additional troop added last year). Why? Because there are a great many people (like me, for instance), who want their sons taught that belief in God is essential in life, that the Scout Law and Oath help our sons to become better people, that there is no place for homosexual men in close quarters with our sons on overnight campouts, etc. etc. You may not share these beliefs - and thus, Boy Scouts is not for you. For me, it's the best youth organization I know of for my sons.
Me too, Van Jenerette!
It's exactly the opposite which will happen, Jimer. You'll be quite surprised.
C'mon, Dimensio. The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a federal religion. Giving a charter to Boy Scouts in no way does so. There's absolutely nothing unconsitutional about the Boy Scouts' charter.
Hey, diverdogz. An atheist finds a $20 bill on the empty road and pockets it, because his personal morality happens to tell him that such is OK (some idiot lost their money and it's their own fault and I have no obligation to relieve him of his own stupidity). A Christian finds the $20 and is tempted to keep it, but finds (at his time and expense) a way to return it because he believes that God does not want him to steal. In this example (and a thousand others), the intercession of others is completely absent.
Sure Dimensio. But most people believe in God and want their children to believe in God. Therefore, they send their sons to organizations like the Boy Scouts, which believe in God. If you have children, you can send them to an atheist organization. There's certainly nothing wrong in wanting your children to be brought up in a way that promotes the beliefs you believe are essential to them.
Agnostics are neutral...
probably could join the Unitarian church/BSA---
atheists are NEGATIVE---hostile/against!
Maybe you are partially agnostic...but your belief system is very active---antitheistic!
Don't you think freedom requires Truth---honesty---'sobriety'?
Well, true believers (at least Christians) know that forgiveness will NOT be provided by God without true repentance - that unless we really are dead set on becoming better people, forgiveness will not be provided. Atheists may suffer consequences - but in many occasions - there are no consequences for acts. (A man commits adultery and makes sure his wife never finds out.) And for many atheists, the consequences may be pleasurable or nice, even though acts committed are grave sins for religious people. Stalin (an atheist) caused the murder of millions - yet became the powerful and revered head of his country. The consequences for him were not so bad. A Christian, in contrast, knows that the consequences in the next world will be grave for such actions, if not repented.
Science has no morality - no intrinsic goodness or badness. I would be loathe to worship it. And I'm a science guy.
Government regularly spends tax dollars on all sorts of things that I (and many others) don't approve of - providing abortion services, as an example. But it is the right of our government to do so. If the government, representing the American populace, reflects its wishes to provide abortion services, I can only try to organize and protest such expenditures. Same with Boy Scouts. If the goverment, reflecting the wishes of the populace, deems it beneficiary to provide (very limited) help to the Boy Scouts, so be it. You have the right to try to protest. But the goverment has done nothing wrong or unconstitutional. And the fact is, most Americans see the value of the Boy Scouts, and don't begrudge the government's helping out the scouts from time to time.
I don't agree. Government should help out those organizations that voters want it to help out.
Well, Dimensio - Christians are taught to love everyone, including their enemies (and including atheists). But you can love someone and disagree vehemently with him at the same time, yes?
You are under the mistaken belief that getting caught is the only consequence. Living with the FEAR of getting caught is a consequence. The lost time, the "living a lie" and self-loathing are all consequences.
See, you are concerned about the consequenses in an after-life, I'm concerned about the ones in this life. An afterlife, should there be one, will take care of itself.
Well, morality would just be what each of us wants it to be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.