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 ...
The Canadian brewers of "Moosehead Beer" are currently suing the American brewers of "Moose Drool" beer over the use of the name "Moose".
If you come up with a cola drink formula and use "Coke" in any part of the name, the Coca-Cola Company will be slapping you with a lawsuit 15 minutes after they first hear about it.
If you market little marhmallows under the name of "Microsofts", you will be hearing from Bill Gates' lawyers.
Organizations protect their name recognition with lawsuits. What's your point?
Just because Pepsi does not use "Coke" in any part of it's name does not stop them from putting out a cola product by another name. So it is with any youth organization as long as they leave out the name "Scouts".
For example: "Boy Pioneers"
My words ;). But obviously this insight seems to have no value if it wasn't the desire of a deity that you have the desire not to have your stereo stolen, etc.
Some people just seem to not get it that to me it doesn't make a difference whether some god designed me in such a way that I don't want to be harmed or whether my desire not to be harmed evolved without the involvement of a deity.
I just don't want to get killed, robbed or harmed in any other way, whether there is a god or not.
So, you see nothing wrong with a government-established/endorsed/subsidized organization that has a religious requirement for boys to enter and then, by using a government charter, doesn't allow the boys denied admission to establish their own group?.....Tired of Taxes
Do you just make this up as you go along?
The Boy Scouts of America is not a "government-established" organization. It does have an Honorary Congressional Charter that gives it exclusive rights to the names "Boy Scouts of America", "Scout", "Boy Scouting", and "Scouting", as used within the United States. If it did not have an Honarary Congressional Charter, the BSA names and BSA logos would then be copyrighted by the BSA and be just as secure as the names and logos of "Coke", "Pepsi" and "Playboy".
The are over 80 organizations with Honorary Congressional Charters protecting their names. Two of these are the Jewish War Veterans, U.S.A. and the Daughters of the American Colonists, neither of which I qualify for membership in.
Your BSA argument as applied to Jewish War Veterans, U.S.A. is as follows:
If a Catholic war veteran is denied admission into the Jewish War Veterans, U.S.A, that represents a case of "a government-established/endorsed/subsidized organization that has a religious requirement for veterans to enter and then, by using a government charter, doesn't allow the veterans denied admission to establish their own group."
That argument is a lie.
There is absolutely nothing that prevents the Catholic veterans from establishing their own group that is limited to Catholics or open to all.
They can form their own group with their own admission criteria and call it "Catholic War Veterans" or "Catholic Vietnam War Veterans" or "Lapsed Catholic War Veterans" or "Gay War Veterans" or "Atheist War Veterans" and the apply for an Honorary Congressional Charter to protect their name in lieu of obtaining a copyright.
The only restriction is that the new group can't call itself "Jewish War Veterans". That name is already taken.
The point was that you maintained that Deists don't believe that they have a duty to God, whereas the citation maintains that they do.
And why is it necessary to believe in a god in order to determine a moral code via reason and observation?
Because a Deist (and most other religions) believe that what you are observing in the natural world (in any case) reflects God's will, and a Deist in particular believes that this gives you the opportunity and duty to discern God's will and the obligation to follow it.
An atheist may also observe and apply reason to his observations, but it's my understanding that his belief is that what he is observing is purely mechanistic in it's organization and function, and that nothing else exists but that which is observable (or potentially so).
I understood it perfectly. No worries.
Well, Dimensio, as an atheist, you are free to choose moral axioms based on human desire. Of course, given that many humans desire power, money, sexual gratification of any sort, etc. etc., I would myself be frightened of such a morality. I know for Christians, who are called to forgive horrendous atrocities (when they do not desire to), to love their enemies (Osama bin Laden) (when they do not desire to), to be chaste and faithful (when they do not desire to), to not judge others (when they do desire to), etc., etc. I would say that Christian morals are in complete opposition to what many humans desire! I think your thesis is extremely weak.
The BSA has a Relationships Committee to consider such questions, and it has representatives from almost all organized religions that have BSA members. They don't seem too concerned.
So wouldn't it be more consistent to change that to: "...duty to my god..." (with small "g", since Big "G" seems to be already taken by the Judeo-Christian god)?
Interesting point. But the current Scout Oath seems to satisfy the more than 4 million people who currently commit themselves to it, and doesn't seem to confuse very many people. If it's working, why change it?
Then why are you judging it?
I don't know what you mean by judging it. I was simply saying that, in general, when someone presents himself as an atheist, one has no idea of the fellow's morals. His morals could be based on anything at all (or on nothing at all). I personally believe (as do a great many others) that moral truth comes from God, and therefore believe that atheists are on a mistaken path. That's not judging - just disagreeing.
That's an inane statement and it conflicts with your previous statement.
No, Jimer. It's exactly the same as the previous statement. And it's not inane. Since an atheist is free to make up his own morals, one cannot possibly know what any atheist's morals are (unless he tells you or strates them to you).
Stalin and his ilk are neither moral nor ethical and are likely not even spiritual.
Well, based on your own moral axioms, whatever they may be. To Stalin (an atheist), he was himself moral as per his own morality.
Well, not really. Our moralities are sufficiently alike to agree that what these priests did was abuse. In ancient Athens, there was a time when it was considered normal and moral for men to engage in homosexual acts with young teenage boys. Same in Sparta. Same in parts of Afghanistan today.
Well, RonF, there are two forms of Buddhism. One believes in a deity and one does not. Spirituality by definition is belief in 'spirit', or something that exists outside of our everyday realm. The Buddhism that does not believe in God I would not call spiritual - but more like a self-help program.
You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I don't believe the BSA makes such a distinction.
You're right. In America, we should be able to form private associations with people of like mind or background whenever we want. It would be a form of tyranny to deny that freedom.
I remember watching a "60 Minutes" episode back in the '80's, when we were working with the Mujadeen against the Soviets. They were showing a tape of one of these brave freedom fighters being interviewed in the field. He was explaining that he was unafraid of being killed, because he'd go straight to Paradise if that happened. The interviewer asked what he might find in Paradise. The Mujadeen fighter enthusatically explained that all that is forbidden on Earth is allowed in Paradise, including sexual relations with young boys. I remember even then being quite startled, but no one seemed to remark on it then.
Exactly.
It is an interesting notion to think that God would allow in heaven what He forbids on Earth (as per Islamic morality). But in general terms, many Muslims believe heaven will be filled with earthly pleasures and the fulfillment of earthly desires. That is certainly a far cry from the Christian notion of heaven.
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.