Not quite done ....

[eisely]

Atheist Vows to Fight Boy Scout Ouster

 

By Chris Stetkiewicz

 

SEATTLE (Reuters) - Ten years as a Boy Scout taught Darrell Lambert to be honest, strong and inquisitive; to respect his parents, his country and nature; to help people and of course to always be prepared.

 

 

 

He learned those lessons well, and ironically has drawn on several of them in his fight against the Boy Scouts of America, which banished him from the group for failing to learn another mandatory lesson: belief in God.

 

 

"I could have stayed in if I had just said that I believe in God, but I would be lying, and I don't lie," Lambert told Reuters.

 

 

The defining "Scout Oath" begins with a pledge to "do my duty to God and my country," but the first tenet of a related 12-point "Scout Law" calls for honesty.

 

 

The 19-year-old Lambert earned nearly 40 merit badges and rose to the rank of Eagle Scout, the group's highest, before becoming an assistant Scout master at his troop in Port Orchard, Washington, about 20 miles from Seattle.

 

 

But earlier this month, after telling a review board he was an atheist, Lambert got a letter from the local governing council stating that, since he refused several requests to change his stance, his membership had been revoked.

 

 

"They said an atheist can't be a good citizen, that an atheist wouldn't turn in a wallet if he found it on the street," Lambert said. "They said that to be a first-class citizen you have to believe in a god."

 

 

"I told my Eagle board that I didn't believe in God when I went for my review and if anyone said that I wasn't a good citizen, then they could kiss my butt," he said.

 

 

BOY SCOUTS SEND REGRETS

 

 

The Boy Scouts Seattle-area council said it regretted that Lambert felt his beliefs had been compromised, but that its 5 million U.S. members valued its moral principles and they could not make an exception.

 

 

"For 92 years we've held duty to God as one of our core principles and one of our core values. We ask all our leaders to subscribe to that," said Mark Hunter, spokesman for the council.

 

The group does not specify how members should worship God, saying it welcomed "everyone from Methodists and Catholics to Hindus."

 

But the oath clearly calls for a belief in God, Scouts national spokesman Gregg Shields said, and atheists or agnostics, regardless of their other qualities, can not honor the oath and therefore do not belong.

 

"I would challenge (Lambert) to think about the first line of the oath," Shields said. "If he didn't believe in a god, it would be very difficult for him to take that Scout oath."

 

SCOUT VOWS TO FIGHT

 

Lambert argued that Scouts had violated its own charter, which prohibits rules inconsistent with U.S. laws.

 

"If you look at anti-discrimination laws, civil rights, freedom of religion, this is pretty inconsistent with those rules," Lambert said, vowing to pursue his case through the courts if necessary.

 

He plans to appeal to a regional Scouts board in Tempe, Arizona. But first he wants to gather letters of support pouring in from as far away as Japan and Australia.

 

"If that doesn't work I will go to national BSA and as far as I need to go after that," Lambert said. "If they want to be a private religious organization, under the laws of the United States and Washington state, they are not supposed to receive any government funding. But they are."

 

Many of the 1,400 chapters of the United Way, a nationwide public-private service group, stopped funding the Scouts in 2000, after the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) ruled it was a private group that could determine standards for membership including sexual or religious orientation. That decision upheld the group's expulsion of a gay troop leader and overturned a New Jersey Supreme Court finding.

 

The United Way charter prohibits the charity from funding groups that discriminate based on race, sex or religion.

 

The Boy Scouts, a venerated American institution with members including astronauts, former U.S. presidents and sports heroes, also hold a rare congressional charter granting a range of privileges at state and local levels. The group can solicit members in public schools and receive special access to public lands and funds from fire and police departments.

 

CHOOSING ROLE MODELS

 

The Scouts successfully defeated several challenges over atheism and homosexuality in the 1980s and 1990s, including a lawsuit by California twins who refused to take an oath to God.

 

Courts continue to agree with the group. Earlier this month a Washington, D.C., appeals court ruled the Scouts could reject two gay men as troop leaders, overturning a lower court ruling and citing the precedent of the Supreme Court's New Jersey decision.

 

Several more legal challenges of the group's policies on gays and atheists are under way, and protest groups such as Scouting For All have formed in an effort to pressure the Boy Scouts to change their policies.

 

Rejection from the Scouts was devastating for Lambert, who thrives in Washington state's ample woodlands and enjoys teaching camping skills to younger Scouts.

 

"I love doing (Scouting), so this is heartbreaking," he says. "It's sort of a slap in the face."

 

 

 

[SR540Beaver]

Geez Eisely, there you go stirring the pot again! LOL

 

Three cheers for Lambert trying to be the best scout he can be by following 11 points of the Scout Oath. Now if he could have only managed the 12th point, he would be exemplory.

 

Who would want a policeman that followed all the rules set forth for him except the rule about excessive use of force? How about a fireman who followed all the rules except for running back into a burning building to save a child? How about a doctor who follows all of the rules except the one that says they have to treat any patient in need of medical care presented to them? They would all still be policemen, firemen and doctors.....right? They should be given the highest honor of their profession and advanced to a teaching position....right? There are just certain aspects of the career they chose that they decide not to adhere to, and if people don't like it...well, they can just kiss their butts! Right?

 

The truth of the matter is that Lambert's mommy was his Scout Master and seems to have given him a pass throughout his scouting years. When he was out of scouts and training for a leadership role, he outted himself and got called on it. Mommy wasn't in charge and able to protect him anymore. I have a hunch that since he had his Eagle, he thought he got in under the wire and was home safe. He figured wrong.

[Rooster7]

One thing I have noticed...

 

Lambert and some of his supporters seem to think BSA is all about character building (i.e., they argue belief in God is not necessary to become a good citizen, etc.). While character building is an essential element, I think BSA's values encompass much more. The Scout Oath and Law should not be viewed as merely guidelines for good citizenship. For example, this is how I see the three duties:

 

Duty family is about having loyalty for those that love you the most.

 

Duty to country is about helping others, in particular those that share your heritage.

 

Duty to God is about loving and worshiping God.

 

So, as much as Lambert might be able to claim he loves family and country, and even be a good citizen, he cannot claim he loves and worships God. He fails to see the value in doing so. He doesn't even recognize God's existence. Obviously, BSA and its members, not only recognize God, but they see value in loving and worshiping Him. As a citizen in this nation, you don't have to share that value...you can even criticize others that do, but you do have to respect the rights of others - including their right to form a private organization that is exclusive to those folks with the same beliefs.

 

There is no honor in their words. They ring hollow and bitter.

 

[dan]

This has been discussed before, but to bad!

 

"I could have stayed in if I had just said that I believe in God, but I would be lying, and I don't lie," Lambert told Reuters.

Someone needs to explain to him what a lie is!

 

The defining "Scout Oath" begins with a pledge to "do my duty to God and my country," but the first tenet of a related 12-point "Scout Law" calls for honesty.

Someone needs to explain to him that just because Trustworthy is the 1st one it does not make it any higher than the 12th one!

 

"They said an atheist can't be a good citizen, that an atheist wouldn't turn in a wallet if he found it on the street," Lambert said. "They said that to be a first-class citizen you have to believe in a god."

He took a quote from one person and turned it into THEY.

 

"I told my Eagle board that I didn't believe in God when I went for my review and if anyone said that I wasn't a good citizen, then they could kiss my butt," he said.

Can someone explain this one to me? Did he tell this to his Board of Review?

 

"It's sort of a slap in the face."

YOU THINK?!

 

 

He plans to appeal to a regional Scouts board in Tempe, Arizona. But first he wants to gather letters of support pouring in from as far away as Japan and Australia.

Does anyone know where to send letters of unsupport to him?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SR540Beaver]

dan,

 

I don't know where to send a letter of unsupport. But I would suggest sending letters of support to his Council and to national. I think our support would far outweigh his.

[Compass]

Don't you just love this style of reporting? Simple and unquestioning. Hey, he's good. Mom. Apple pie. Flag wrapped around the shoulders. Everyone loves him. But, he's hurt. Someone hurt him. Someone bad. BSA hurt him. Bad BSA Bad.

 

Lambert needs to wipe the apple pie crumbs off his mouth and start answering some tough questions. At what point did you know you were lying about your beliefs? Or, did you simply quit saying and going along with the Oath and the Law? Why are we supposed to think you are a hero and a good person when your silence was in itself a deception? Why would you want to continue to participate in an organization that you are philosophically at such odds?

 

And, spare me the mealy-mouth interpretations of the words on the adult joining form, Eagle forms, and so forth. Spare me semantic discussions of definitions of 'values', etc. Forgive me, but I have not one iota of interest in your predictions of the future of the BSA, its possible demise, the legal guillotine being prepared, and your joy of its forthcoming destruction. And, sorry, but Rosa Parks you ain't. Your (in)ability to be a member of a recreation club does not compare in magnitude or significance to the civil rights movement.

 

Don't kid yourself. This area was always and is quite clear. The only thing that preserves your continuing 15 minutes of fame is the persistant abdication of reporters' responsibility to report all the news.

[NJCubScouter]

Rooster says:

 

Duty to God is about loving and worshiping God.

 

... Obviously, BSA and its members, not only recognize God, but they see value in loving and worshiping Him.

 

For some reason, I keep feeling this need to point out that the BSA's conception of "Duty to God" is broader than a lot of people portray it. "Worship" is not required, if your beliefs do not require it. Obviously, most peoples' beliefs do involve "worship," so some may forget that there are others' who do not. "Deists" and others who are not in any organized religion often do not "worship," but they can fulfill their Duty to God as well as anyone else, since the BSA lets each individual decide what that "duty" means.

 

As for "loving God," I'll abstain from that philosophical discussion, at least for now. Except to say that "loving" may imply that God is necessarily an individual, conscious entity. Not everybody believes that, and in the BSA, you don't have to.

 

I also think that there's really nothing to be gained from beating up on Mr. Lambert. I don't think that what he has done is necessarily bad. The bottom line is that he is not qualified to be a Scout leader because he does not, in reality, subscribe to the requirements, which have been clearly spelled out and are fundamental to the organization. (Which makes this the exact opposite of the gay issue, by the way.) What the BSA has done with Mr. Lambert is fine with me. All of the negative commentary from people outside the "chain of command" in this case, including most of the people who have posted in this forum, is not fine with me. It is un-Scoutlike and unnecessary. I am a bit ashamed that I agree with some of you about the ultimate result.

[Rooster7]

All of the negative commentary from people outside the "chain of command" in this case, including most of the people who have posted in this forum, is not fine with me. It is un-Scoutlike and unnecessary. I am a bit ashamed that I agree with some of you about the ultimate result.

 

NJ, you're free to feel that way. I am a little disappointed that you have more affinity and respect for a young man who is seeking to fundamentally change (i.e., destroy) BSA - an organization that you supposedly love - than the folks who share that bond with you. Perhaps you don't view BSA as being under attack. Nevertheless, you may have a point. Or at least, there's a chance that we are in a minority (those that vehemently disagree with Mr. Lambert). After all, I honestly believe duty to God means to love and worship Him. Perhaps I (and some others) should have been born 30 to 40 years earlier and we both would be happier people. You could champion the cause of homosexuals and atheists unopposed. Meanwhile, I could live amongst a generation that at least recognized God properly and called sin - sin. As a bonus, you wouldn't have to be embarrassed about being associated with us. In fact, you could spray paint "Bigot" on our tombstones for all I care. Unfortunately, I was born in 1959 not 1929 - and thus we will continue to be thorns in each other's side.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[Weekender]

Ten years as a Boy Scout taught Darrell Lambert to be honest, strong and inquisitive; to respect his parents, his country and nature; to help people and of course to always be prepared.

 

Honest? The author may want to rethink that one.

 

Trustworthy (No)

Loyal (maybe, but only if he agrees with your position)

Helpful

Freindly

Courteous

Kind

Obedient (doesn't seem to be)

Cheerful

Thrifty

Brave (some would say yes...I think brave would have come years ago)

Clean

Reverent (Right!)

 

By my count I get maybe 7 out of 12