Posted on 11/05/2002 12:27:48 AM PST by kattracks
SEATTLE (AP) — An Eagle Scout who has earned 37 merit badges said Monday he has been kicked out of the Boy Scouts for refusing to declare a belief in a higher power. Darrell Lambert said he was told of the decision earlier in the day by the Chief Seattle Council, the Scouts' regional governing body.
"Am I bitter? No. Disappointed? Yeah," he said. "We're in the 21st century. Our country was founded on religious freedom, and the Boy Scouts of America are still discriminating."
Lambert said he plans to appeal the decision within the Scouting council within the required 60 days.
On membership applications, Boy Scouts and adult leaders must say they recognize a higher power, although not necessarily a religious one.
As a private organization, the Boy Scouts can bar anyone it chooses from membership. The organization's ban on gay leaders was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2000.
The issue arose about a month ago, after Lambert attended a Boy Scout leadership training seminar where he argued with a Scout leader about whether atheists should be expelled from the organization.
Last week, the council said it would give him about a week to declare his belief in a higher power. Lambert refused, saying that to lie would make him a bad Scout.
The Irving, Texas-based Boy Scouts of America did not return calls seeking comment Monday.
Lambert, 19, said he has been an atheist since ninth grade, when he concluded that science had disproved the accounts of creation given in the Bible.
He had declared his atheism to the Scout leaders overseeing his Eagle Scout application last year, but was still granted the award.
"They commended me on my honesty," he said.
His mother told CNN that no one in their family attends church, and that her husband is also an atheist.
"Darrell's not just fighting this for himself. He's fighting this for all the Scouts that have no real belief in God," Trish Lambert said.
Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Firstly, I am prolife. Secondly, when I was in the BS my assistant scoutmaster was a homosexual (who later became a priest).. I went on one canoe trip with him and slept overnight. I survived without being molested. Thirdly, I am a liberal - colourblind. Race is not an issue for me or my kind. As for your comment about 'madmen', it's conservative foreign policies that have provoked madmen to attack Americans. Take for example the bombing of Sudan and the Taleban in Afghanistan in recent years. If Osama Bin Laden is behind the WTC attack and the bombing of the USS Cole it's reasonable to assume that American military policy contributed to this act of retaliation.
Na na NA NA ... na na NA NA ... hey heyyyy ... GOODBYE!
Well, close to two hundred boys or so each year are homosexually molested in the Boy Scouts (and the number was much greater before its strict anti-molestation policies). That doesn't mean that all homosexual men will go after teenage boys. But the sexual attraction is there, and many cannot or will not control it. Same in the Catholic Church, where a couple of thousand teenage boys have been molested by homosexual priests. Homosexual men put in close quarters with teenage boys is bad news, on average. That's one reason why scouts won't have known homosexual men as scoutmasters - and why the Catholic Church is now in the process of banning homosexual men as priests.
I'm glad!
Oh my! The sexual molestation of children is a crime. These men should be prosecuted - for their crimes.
That doesn't mean that all homosexual men will go after teenage boys. But the sexual attraction is there, and many cannot or will not control it. Same in the Catholic Church, where a couple of thousand teenage boys have been molested by homosexual priests. Homosexual men put in close quarters with teenage boys is bad news, on average.
When one bad apple threatens to spoil the barrel, remove the one bad apple to preserve the barrel.
That's one reason why scouts won't have known homosexual men as scoutmasters - and why the Catholic Church is now in the process of banning homosexual men as priests.
Why not just ban child molestation?,.. oh, it is already banned.
Anyone with a tiny spot of common sense (often lacking among liberals) understands that it's a bad idea to put men with sexual inclinations towards males in close quarters with teenage and sexually mature boys in the absence of parents. Not all homosexual men will molest teenage boys - but a singificant percentage of them will (just like in the Catholic Church). There's no justification for allowing that to happen.
Right, it is - and in the Catholic Church (and in Boy Scouts), homosexual molestations of teenage boys continue to occur. Any responsible policy regarding the safety of children and teenage boys should seek to prevent such molestations from occurring in the first place - hence the ban on homosexual men being in close quarters with teenage boys. - And most parents wouldn't send their teenage daughters out camping with a bunch of normal (heterosexual) men either. It's just common sense - and a true concern for kids. The Boy Scouts has it. The Catholic Church, heretofore, most obviously does not.
I've known a few homosexual men, none of whom have had such inclinations (shrug). If all homosexual men were inclined to have sex with minors, then yes, I would agree that all homosexuals should be banned.
- And most parents wouldn't send their teenage daughters out camping with a bunch of normal (heterosexual) men either.
Any responsible parent should get to know and trust the leaders who will be taking care of their children during campouts.
In a perfect world..
In a perfect world..
Boy Scouts places boys' interests first. That's as it should be.
Poopoobutter - If a significant percentage of them have that inclination (they do), that's reason enough to ban them. Surveys show that over half of homosexual men have had sex with teenage boys between 16 and 19 years of age while being over 21 themselves. And finally, you don't really know what your homosexual friends do. They most likely are not going to tell you that they are attracted to teenage boys. Finally, my own homosexual friend says that sex with any boy over 16 if morally fine, given that that's the age of consent. In New Mexico, it's 14, so I guess he'd find that acceptable. Gay organizations are pushing for lower and lower ages of consent everywhere. Given all of the above, parents aren't going to want homosexual men with their teenage boys, I assure you - and they're right. Boy Scouts is one of the last places where (normal) men can be men, and boys and parents can be relatively assured of having normal men as mentors and role models.
The local Council should have acted on this when it had the chance. There were probably also many opportunities to get this information as he was coming up through the ranks in high school.
What would you consider a significant percentage? If a percentage of black men were inclined to commit crimes, would you support the banning of all black men as Scout leaders because they would be poor role models?
Surveys show that over half of homosexual men have had sex with teenage boys between 16 and 19 years of age while being over 21 themselves.
19 is not 'teenage', and most boys are sexually mature by age 16, but that's an entirely different issue.
And finally, you don't really know what your homosexual friends do. They most likely are not going to tell you that they are attracted to teenage boys.
Being attracted is natural. Acting on that impulse is criminal.
Finally, my own homosexual friend says that sex with any boy over 16 if morally fine, given that that's the age of consent.
Age of consent is a sticky issue. If sexual maturity was the determining factor of when a person can consent to sex we'd have over a billion rules for sexual consent. As a libertarian, I believe it's best left up to the individual.
In New Mexico, it's 14, so I guess he'd find that acceptable. Gay organizations are pushing for lower and lower ages of consent everywhere.
It's my understanding that most boys are aware of their sexual orientation by age 14. IMO, not a concern of the State.
Given all of the above, parents aren't going to want homosexual men with their teenage boys, I assure you - and they're right.
Not all parents are so tight-butted about homosexuals being in the company of their children. Heck, some parents are gay.
Boy Scouts is one of the last places where (normal) men can be men, and boys and parents can be relatively assured of having normal men as mentors and role models.
I had a 'queer' assistant scoutmaster and he done me no harm.
If teenage boys (like my sons) were the specific temptation that caused many black men to commit crimes, that would be reason to ban them from Boy Scouts. Of course, teenage boys are precisely the temptation that leads a significant percentage of homosexual men to molest such boys. That's why most parents wouldn't let their teenage daughters go out camping with heterosexual men either. Most parents, believe it or not, do not want to increase the odds that their children will be molested. But apart from that, most parents don't want to condone, implicitly or explicitly, the filthy practices engaged in by (the majority) of homosexual men - such as anal intercourse - or the promiscuity which is endemic to homosexual society. You may disagree with these parents - but they have the right to determine who will be in charge of their children. Homosexuals are in a far outer universe to think that they have the right to be in the close company of other people's children on overnight campouts in the absence of those children's parents. They don't. So sorry.
Age of consent is a sticky issue. If sexual maturity was the determining factor of when a person can consent to sex we'd have over a billion rules for sexual consent. As a libertarian, I believe it's best left up to the individual.
The fact is that many homosexual men are sexually attracted to teenage boys and see nothing morally wrong with trying to seduce, entice (often with pornography) or convince teenage boys that homosexual encounters with them are OK. When ages of consent for such encounters are set at 14 or 16, there is no legal barrier for them to do try to do so (which is of course why gay organizations are trying their hardest to seek lower and lower ages of consent). Most parents, believe it or not, do not consider it right that their 14-year old sons should be the target of older men who seek to find sexual gratification with them. You may, ppb - if so, I suggest that you let your 14-year old sons spend lots of time with homosexual men. That's your decision. Most parents are quite happy to know that scouts will make every effort to prevent such men from approaching their 14-yr. olds.
C'mon, poopoobutter. Many 14-year olds are just entering into sexual maturity, and many have conflicting sexual feelings for some time - until they are somewhat more adult. The last thing parents want is for an older man on a scout trip to try to engage their son in homosexual activity. Again, that's their right. (And most parents don't believe that 14-year olds are well-equipped to make good decisions regarding sexual behavior anyway.) You might think they're misguided, but so what? You raise your sons as you see fit. We will raise our sons as we see fit. Do you concede that we have the right to do so?
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.