Was Robert E. Lee Morally Straight?

[Hunt]

This facetious-sounding thread title is designed to throw some light on some of the other discussions that are going on, especially on the question of gay leadership.

 

Was Robert E. Lee morally straight as provided in the Scout Oath, and illuminated by the Scout Law? How would you go about making such a judgment? Would you judge him by the consensus moral standards of today, or those of his time? How would you take into account the fact that his actions that would today be viewed as sinful (such as owning slaves) were supported as moral by the church to which he belonged?

[acco40]

From usscouts.org -

 

morally straight.

To be a person of strong character, your relationships with others should be honest and open. You should respect and defend the rights of all people. Be clean in your speech and actions, and remain faithful in your religious beliefs. The values you practice as a Scout will help you shape a life of virtue and self-reliance.

 

Now Mr. Lee was open and honest in his relationships (as far as I can tell) - you knew where he stood on political issues! Was he clean in his speech and actions? I'll give him a pass on that one (I don't think the reference is to keeping dirt off of himself and his uniform during battle & encampments). Did he remain faithful in his religious beliefs? Again, I don't know but will give him a pass. Did he respect and defend the rights of all people? Well, I'm not sure but maybe he didn't think of slaves as "people" but as property (like his horse) so he may have to be given a pass there too.

 

Like today, I don't want to hit the hornet's nest with a stick but could an abortion doctor or executioner be thought of as morally straight today? Do they respect and defend the rights of all people? How about President Bush. Do the detainees in Gitmo have any rights that should be respected or defended?

 

Not much real value could come out of debates like these.

 

 

[Hunt]

I don't really want to debate the moral straightness of Robert E. Lee for his own sake--but to provide some food for thought on what we mean by morally straight, and how we go about determining whether a person's actions are consistent with that standard.

[Rooster7]

Acco40,

 

Like today, I don't want to hit the hornet's nest with a stick but could an abortion doctor or executioner be thought of as morally straight today?

 

Only one of the above is responsible for the intentional killing of an innocent life.

 

[purcelce]

Open drawer.

Pull out gun.

Insert bullet in gun....

 

Oh how I love the Issues and Politcs threads...

 

Before you guys jump down my throat I'm throwing down my "Freedom of Opinion" card.

 

Now back to your regularly scheduled debate...

[OldGreyEagle]

You could add George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, oh heck all of the continental congress and signers of the Declaration of Independence as well.

[OldGreyEagle]

FUnny, I thought it read "Thou Shalt not Kill"

 

Not "Thou Shalt not Kill unless you have a really good reason like the person is a convicted murderer"

[evmori]

I'm gonna take a stab at something. I think the point to this thread is "Is morality relative?" And to answer that one would have to define morality. And as far as I know, other than personality morality, I don't think a general definition of morality exists.

 

'Nuff said!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Fuzzy Bear]

"With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword....." Lee in a letter to his sister, April 20, 1861

[johndaigler]

 

ne incautus futuri

 

[Fuzzy Bear]

ipso facto

 

ipse dixit

[NJCubScouter]

The only reference I have seen in this thread to any specific alleged moral failings of Robert E. Lee are that he owned slaves. We could (and I think, have on this board in the past) a lively discussion about whether you evaluate the morality of a historical figure based on the standards of today (because standards do change, and slavery is a perfect example) or the standards of the time in which the person was living. It is a question without a certain answer, though my solution is that if you go around condemning every historical figure who is otherwise viewed as a "good guy," because he did what everyone else in his community and in his time was doing, you end up with a "history" populated almost entirely by scoundrels. And who wants that?

 

Having said all that, I notice OGE mentioned George Washington (who also owned slaves and, historically speaking, might be more entitled to a "pass" because the "immorality" of slavery was in fact the subject of debate and disagreement in 1861 (i.e. Lee's time), much more so than it had been in 1776, 1789, etc. (i.e. Washington's time.)) However, I do not get the reference to Ben Franklin and John Adams. If the issue is slavery, these two in particular were outspoken opponents of slavery and proponents of abolition long before it was "fashionable." Now, on other aspects of morality, we don't need to talk too much about Franklin, it is clear that some of his personal activities were not what we would hold up as a role model to Scouts today. Adams, though, seems to have been in all respects pretty clean, morally speaking. He did not always get along with everyone and then there were those Alien and Sedition Acts, but nobody's perfect.

[OldGreyEagle]

How morally straight are a bunch of rabble who may be defined as the "lunatic fringe" who advocate the disposition of the current goverment to be replaced by one that is radical and never has been tried?

 

A scout is loyal, John Adams was distinctly not loyal to his King nor was be respectful to the lawfull authority governing Boston

[Hunt]

I just read (or actually, listened to) an interesting biography of Washington called "His Excellency" by Joseph Ellis. The issue of the morality of slavery was very current during his life, and he was severely taken to task by some critics for owning slaves, and on several occasions abolitionists made religion-based pleas to him to show leadership and free his own slaves. His problem was that he didn't own all his slaves outright--a bunch of them technically belonged to his wife's family, and he couldn't easily free them (it is also thought that his wife was not sympathetic to the idea of freeing them). In the end, he freed all his own slaves in his will--he was very concerned about his own reputation and legacy, and thought this would help it.

[Rooster7]

OGE,

 

FUnny, I thought it read "Thou shalt not kill"

 

Not "Thou Shalt not Kill unless you have a really good reason like the person is a convicted murderer"

 

Per my understanding, Thou shall not kill is a poor translation. A more appropriate reading is Thou shall not murder. I dont view an executioner, who is carrying out a sentence determined by the state, as a murderer. Furthermore, Gods Word gives the state authority to judge and punish individuals under its dominion.

 

Read the Old Testament. What did God command Moses to do after he came down from mountain to discover the Jews embracing a Golden calf as their god?

 

Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' "The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. Then Moses said, "You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day."

Exodus 32:27 - 29

 

This was shortly after God gave Moses the Ten Commandments. Per your interpretation, is God commanding His people to break a commandment? I dont think so.