Should Darrell Lambert have his Eagle Rank revoked?

[scoutldr 726]

My point was that the Scout Oath and Law are not a "cafeteria plan", picking and choosing what you like and ignoring the rest because they are inconvenient or more "socially acceptable". So why are we choosing to enforce duty to God, but not the other duties with equal vigor? In my opinion, Darell Lambert was no more a hypocrite than the rest of us...just on different subjects.

[littlebillie 10]

scoutldr - well and succinctly put. in fact, it really boils it down - good!

[evmori 11]

"In my opinion, Darell Lambert was no more a hypocrite than the rest of us...just on different subjects."

 

Ah but he was! He admitted he mouthed the part of the Oath & Law that dealt with God because of his belief! And there is no possible way an atheist can live up to the Oath & Law! Sure we all don't live up to each point of the Law all the time, but our goal is to try to. Mr. Lambert can't. He should be expelled.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[denver4und@aol.com 10]

Hi. There are two things certain about newspaper coverage. 1 -- you never get the whole story; and 2 -- you never get the whole story. I don't know this young man, but everyone assumes that he lied to get through his board, or that the board ignored his honest answers. Maybe, but maybe he also changed his mind, or was recruited as a poster boy for a cause. The gay case that went to the supreme court, by the way, was one where the young man was recruited for a cause, and had never acted out or outed himself while he was in his troop.

 

Finally, I have got to agree with the poster who said "if you wanna through stones, go ahead, but......" There's a reason that lesson is in the Bible.

 

A Scout is "kind".

 

yis

[CubsRgr8 10]

Darell Lambert was no more a hypocrite than the rest of us

 

Perhaps a review of the Random House College Dictionary definition of the word hypocrite would be helpful here.

 

Hypocrite - a person who pretends to have desirable or publicly approved attitudes, beliefs, principles, etc., he does not actually possess.

 

My failure to consistently live up to the ideals of behavior articulated in the Scout Oath and Law does NOT make me a hypocrite - it makes me human! And I don't pretend anything - I fully believe in and support these ideals, hard as they may be for me to achieve. I do my best to impart these values to every scout I work with in my pack and troop.

 

On the other hand, Mr. Lambert's lies about his faith in God, which "he does not actually possess", made him a hypocrite and completely unsuitable to serve as a BSA leader.

[Rooster7 11]

From scoutldr -

 

My point was that the Scout Oath and Law are not a "cafeteria plan", picking and choosing what you like and ignoring the rest because they are inconvenient or more "socially acceptable". So why are we choosing to enforce duty to God, but not the other duties with equal vigor? In my opinion, Darell Lambert was no more a hypocrite than the rest of us...just on different subjects.

 

The irony in this statement is incredible. It is Mr. Lambert who is picking and choosing from BSA's values as if he was entitled to the "cafeteria plan". We want the menu to remain intact and as advertised. As for those other folks (i.e., adulterers, alcoholics, income tax cheaters, liars, etc.), if they came forward and pronounced their actions and beliefs as acceptable, they too should be expelled. Yes, we all stumblewe all seem to have sins that consume our time and energy. However, unlike most atheists and homosexuals, most folks do not claim their sins to be acceptable, or worse - something to be celebrated. Now, you may not choose to recognize atheism or homosexuality as some kind of shortcoming. That's your choice. Regardless, BSA and I dare say, most of its members, do not feel that these beliefs/actions are morally acceptable. So, until the membership requirements change, I submit that the hypocrites are not those folks who embrace the current criteria (and support its enforcement), but those who chose to ignore it.

 

From denver4und@aol.com -

 

Finally, I have got to agree with the poster who said "if you wanna throw stones, go ahead, but......" There's a reason that lesson is in the Bible. A Scout is "kind"

 

When Jesus confronted the angry crowd, he did not declare prostitution to be an acceptable practice. He told the prostitute to "go and sin no more." If an atheist or a homosexual sincerely declared that he no longer embraced atheism and/or homosexuality, then I'm sure BSA would welcome that person into the foldJust as Jesus welcomes the repentant prostitute into His kingdom. However, this is not a matter of casting stones. It's a matter of recognizing a standard. In this particular case, those who refuse to recognize God will not be accepted into BSA's ranks. Likewise, if you believe in the Bible, then you know that those folks who continue to embrace sin (as if it were not sin) will not be welcomed into the God's kingdom. God expects us to recognize Him and to change our actions to reflect new hearts and minds.

 

As for whether or not Mr. Lambert should keep his Eagle award, I vote no. The Eagle award is more than a simple recognition that a boy has acquired certain skills and abilities. It's supposed to be a sign to all that the boy has the character and values supported and uplifted by BSA. If you cannot claim the twelve points of the Scout Law as a code that you strive to live by, or the Scout Oath as something you intend to affirm, then you should not be able to claim yourself to be an Eagle Scout.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

I think I have already said all I need to say about Mr. Lambert, but I do want to comment on this one statement by Rooster:

 

If an atheist or a homosexual sincerely declared that he no longer embraced atheism and/or homosexuality, then I'm sure BSA would welcome that person into the fold...

 

Clearly you are correct about the atheist, in fact the letter Mr. Lambert's SE sent to him specifically invited him to declare his belief in a "higher power" within a specified period. Mother Nature would be fine, just say you believe in something and you're in. The impression I got from the article was that the SE did not particularly care whether the declaration of belief was "sincere" or not. As I said previously, people do change their religious beliefs, but I don't think anybody really believes that someone is very likely to change under a 7-day deadline.

 

Anyway, to the real point: I am not at all sure that the same thing would apply to an "avowed homosexual." I don't know of any evidence that the BSA would welcome back someone who says that he is not gay anymore. I do know that the letter that James Dale got from his SE did not ask him to renounce his homosexuality within 7 days or 10 days or whatever, in which case he could stay as a leader. Dale's letter said he was out, effective immediately. No discussion, just get out, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

 

I know that there are some who claim that homosexuality can be "cured" or "healed" or "repaired," but that there is also a lot of skepticism about whether this actually happens in a number of the alleged instances. (Do a Yahoo search on "can homosexuality be cured" and you will find some divergent viewpoints.) As for me, I think that those who say they have been "cured," are in fact likely to be suppressing their their true feelings and orientation, and are just as likely to go "back." That doesn't mean such suppression can never work. There is evidence that, ironically, B-P was such a person, who suppressed his true orientation all his life, and to anyone's knowledge, never acted on those feelings. I suspect that such people are rare.

 

I have to say, though, that if I were one of those who believe that an "avowed gay" has a better chance of molesting boys than an "avowed straight," I would be especially nervous about a Scout leader who once proclaimed that he was gay, and now says he has decided to be straight. I think that someone who is suppressing what he is, is much more likely to experience that "short circuit" in his brain that causes a person to act in extremely destructive ways. I'm not proposing a rule or anything, because of course I think that avowed gays should not be excluded from leadership in the first place. I'm just saying that I guess that I as a parent would be especially attentive if my son's troop had a leader who had been openly gay and then "renounced" it.(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Ahhh, NJ, could you give some references that B-P was gay?

[denver4und@aol.com 10]

Hi.

 

Hey CubsRgr8, you lost the thread. The question had nothing to do with his being a leader, that was decided and the thread asked should somebody revoke his eagle badge. I didn't address the former, just the latter.

 

Hey Rooster7, you're an inspriation for many verses, like "judge not, lest....". Again, you can "vote" to take away the badge, but my challege posted earlier has not been accepted. so far, no one can find a mechanism for revoking an eagle award. As for forgiveness and who gets into heaven. For crying out loud, we're scouters. As for me, I'll let God do his work and I'll worry about scouting in my neighborhood -- God'll decide who goes to heaven (and won't be all be surprised at who's name is on the "admit" list and who's isn't?!? ).

 

bye

 

[Rooster7 11]

Denver,

 

Hey Rooster7, you're an inspiration for many verses, like "judge not, lest....".

 

If I honestly thought you understood God's Word, your little rebuttal would really concern me. However, my friend, you are what I like to call, a bumper stick theologianlots of rhetoric, but no substance.

 

God's word when read in its entirety is very consistent. Unfortunately, many folks like to cut up into pieces and present as if His wisdom was a bunch of catchy slogans. This gives people the ability to make His Word say what they want it to say. Yes, I believe no one should judge the heart of any man. I understand that only God knows one's heart.

 

"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

Luke 6:37&38

 

However, this does not mean we should not have standards. Since you want to use Christian teachings to make your point, lets examine the instructions given to the early Christians by the apostle Paul:

 

I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

1 Corinthians 5:9-13

 

I do not believe BSA is a metaphor for the Christian church or vice versa. However, even you wish to hold them to the very same standards, it seems to me that they have a right if not a duty, to exclude the company of folks who refuse to submit themselves to their moral code. It seems to me, you're asking us to do a lot more than forgive these folks (atheists and homosexuals). You're asking us to accept them as if they shared our values, which they obviously do not.

 

You inferred that I am being judgmental. Let me speak more plainly than you - You need to pick your company better.

 

Fear the LORD and the king, my son,

and do not join with the rebellious,

for those two will send sudden destruction upon them, and who knows what calamities they can bring?

Proverbs 24:21&22

 

As for "your challenge" - I doubt if there's an official procedure for revoking someone's Eagle award. However, private organizations don't have to following the same protocol as your government. Not everything has to be put down in writing. If BSA wanted to do it, I'm sure they could.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

OGE, I thought that the subject of B-P's orientation, or rather the circumstantial evidence regarding his orientation, had been discussed on here before. Turns out I was right. Check this out:

 

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=5417&p=2#id_5611

 

This is a post by tjhammer on Feb. 11 of this year, which as it turns out is the day before I joined the forum. It was probably one of the posts I read that day as I was deciding whether to plunge into the fray.

 

If you want some "outside" evidence, check this out:

 

http://faqs.jmas.co.jp/FAQs/scouting/8_USA-official-policies

 

This document contains the following passage:

 

--------------------------------------------

 

Subject: Is it true that Scouting's founder, Baden-Powell, was gay?

 

A number of biographers have suggested Baden-Powell's homosexuality.

Tim Jeal, author of The Life of Lord Baden-Powell, argues, "The

available evidence points inexorably to the conclusion that

Baden-Powell was a repressed homosexual." Information gleaned from

Baden-Powell's diary and correspondence indicates that he often

expressed enjoyment at watching young men swim naked; enjoyed pictures

of nude men; expressed disdain for female nudity. Also cited is

Baden-Powell's extremely close, decades-long friendship with Kenneth

McLaren, with whom he served in the British Military and always made

sure he bunked.

 

(ref: The Life of Lord Baden-Powell by Tim Jeal (1990); Eminent

Edwardians by Piers Brendon (1979); The Character Factory: Baden-Powell

and the Origins of the Boy Scout Movement by Michael Rosenthal (1986);

Advocate Magazine, 31 Dec 1992 issue).

 

--------------------------------------------

 

Now, before anybody jumps on this, I realize this is not "proof." There is no "proof" on this subject. The book that is most often cited is by Mr. Jeal, and I assume that there is material in that book in addition to what is mentioned above. But like any other book, it's just a book, written by a fallible human being who has taken the facts at hand and has drawn a conclusion. It will not surprise you to know that there are many who disagree with Mr. Jeal's conclusion.

 

Frankly, B-P's actual orientation is irrelevant to me. The existence of this speculation is sort of interesting, though. It was certainly a surprise the first time I heard about this.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

If B-P's sexual orientation is irrelevent to you, why first imply he was gay, provide flimsy references and then run like the devil away from them and say you realize that what you have doesnt prove a thing.

 

I beleive having gays in boy scouts is not the worst thing that could happen, but to reach into the past and rely on innuendo and unproven claims does nothing to improve the argument.

 

Oh and yeah, as a proper English gentleman of course he would express disdain for female nudity, it would not have been a "veddy' proper thing to slobber over a womans exposed ankle, let alone anything else.

[denver4und@aol.com 10]

Rooster7 wrote:

"If I honestly thought you understood God's Word, your little rebuttal would really concern me. However, my friend, you are what I like to call, a bumper stick theologianlots of rhetoric, but no substance."

and

"You inferred that I am being judgmental. Let me speak more plainly than you - You need to pick your company better."

 

You know, you're right, I should pick my company better. I'll not be corresponding to anything that Rooster 7 writes in the future (at least I hope not).

 

I have tried in the forums to be fair, non-judgmental, and to remember that this is supposed to be about Scouting, which is itself governed by the Oath & Law. I don't believe that I've ever attacked anyone else's beliefs, but instead have tried to point out that we're all entitled to our beliefs and that as Americans, we have sworn (remember the pledge of allegiance?) to defend each other's right to say what we please.

 

R7 apparently is not a person who believes in any of those things. Based on a few short paragraphs he makes personal attacks on the depth or sincerity of my religion, and not only insults me personally, but does so based only upon his own narrow minded and biggotted views of the world.

 

Hence, I'll take his advice, pick my friends more closely, and recognizing that he is not one, ignore his comments henceforth.

 

thanks, yis

 

[Rooster7 11]

Denver,

 

While I do not think your rebuttal is thought out or supportable, unlike you - I have not cast dispersions such as "bigoted" or "narrow minded". I provided a line of reason based on Biblical references that refuted your supposition (that I was being judgmental). If you find that to be a personal attack, then why bother to join this debate - or any debate for that matter. After all, if one cannot defend himself or point out flaws in logic without being criticized for it, then there's no use having a discussion to resolve controversy. I realize some folks would prefer to leave things alone...but I for one am not afraid to see how logic and reason concludes an argument.

 

Your response to me indicates that you are incapable of defending your position without reverting to the same kind of bumper sticker defense/attack you provided in your original post.

 

I have tried in the forums to be fair, non-judgmental, and to remember that this is supposed to be about Scouting, which is itself governed by the Oath & Law. I don't believe that I've ever attacked anyone else's beliefs, but instead have tried to point out that we're all entitled to our beliefs and that as Americans, we have sworn (remember the pledge of allegiance?) to defend each other's right to say what we please.

 

R7 apparently is not a person who believes in any of those things. Based on a few short paragraphs he makes personal attacks on the depth or sincerity of my religion, and not only insults me personally, but does so based only upon his own narrow minded and biggotted views of the world.

 

You laud yourself as being behaving so saintly, yet in this post and others, you portray me if not by direct accusation then by inference, as being judgmental, unkind, unforgiving, un-scout-like, un-American, unsaved, narrow minded, and bigoted. Therefore, let me ask - "Who's being judgmental?" My "attack" - if it must be labeled as such, belittled your portrayal of me as being judgmental. To make my point, I noted that you took a portion of a Bible verse to bolster your claim against me, but ignored the rest of God's Word. So, with all due respect, my conscience is clear. I suggest you examine your own.

[CubsRgr8 10]

denver4, I realize my post of 12-16 was off-thread, but then, most posts are off-thread by the time page 3 shows up, wouldn't you agree? Besides, I already said DL should keep his Eagle back on page 1.

 

My post was a response to scoutldr's comment that labled us all as hypocrites when it comes to the Scout Oath and Law. I refused to let that go unchallenged. Regardless of your opinion of the validity of excluding atheists from BSA, DL is the hypocrite in his little melodrama, not I nor anyone else.