Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Girl Scouts On the Hot Seat

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • >


    I didn't say that. I'm not aware of an organized political campaign against Girls Scouts.

    The Catholic Church seems to have doubts about Girl Scouts. I have doubts about the Girl Scout program, which seems to discourage camping and which tends to be suspicious of having men working in the program, even fathers.

    This thread is my contribution to the culture war against Girl Scouts, but that's just raising questions not an organized political attack on girl Scouts like those waged by the left against BSA.

    And in any case, there is nothing wrong with having a "culture war" which is a political dispute about what values should rule in the public square.(This message has been edited by seattlepioneer)

    Comment


    • Someone asked earlier in the thread how/where this was playing out on the local level. Here's one example:

      http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Girl-Scout-Troops-Banned-from-Church-137815843.html

      Comment


      • AHG MOM and SP

        The article AHG Mom references in her post just proves my point even more, the Catholic Church is guilty of an unwarranted smear campaign against the GSUSA. SP your unfounded and untrue accusations just go to prove you are as narrow minded, prejudicial, and intolerant as the Catholic Church to which you belong. Both of you IMO are poor examples of scouters and the ideals of scouting. You both can take your bigoted and intolerant attitudes and preach them somewhere else, they are totally inappropriate in scouting, and I really feel the sorriest for your kids being raised hearing this intolerance on both your parts. Absolutely disgusting!

        Comment


        • Ummm...just to be clear, I don't think I expressed an opinion one way or another about the article. I'm not Catholic, and don't really care about what the Catholic Church does or doesn't do. I was simply responding to an earlier request for information. As for the personal insults, I'm not even going down that road. I wish you all the best, BadenP!

          Comment


          • BadenP,

            Your attitude toward the Catholic Church is completely contrary to that of our founder, who sought the approval of Church authorities (specifically Cardinal Bourne) before proceeding with his work. I might add, at a time during which the Church was much less tolerant of educational methods that were not specifically Catholic. While you are, of course, welcome to your opinion, it is incongruous with the name you use in this forum.

            I would add that there is no organized "smear" campaign on the part of the Church against the Girl Scouts, and if the Church is asking questions about the Girl Scouts it is because members have brought concerns to the attention of their bishops, who are duty-bound to investigate those concerns.

            Comment


            • As is so common, BadenP is swinging wildly.

              I am not Catholic nor am I a member of any church.

              It must be very frustrating to be BadenP.

              Comment


              • BadenP - Get a grip. Your wantonly uninformed hatred is driving you to irrationality better suited for Jerry Springer than rational society.(This message has been edited by fred8033)(This message has been edited by fred8033)

                Comment


                • BP.. You are getting heated, and it does sound like you are against Catholics as a whole which to me is no better then the sermons and messages being sent out by the Catholic leaders for Catholics as a group to rise up and organize as a group for some political injustaces..

                  perdidochas stated : Whatever you want to make up is fine. You have a bone to pick with the Catholic church, and you view history through that filter.

                  Which came after my last message, so I assume it was addressed to me..

                  In answer. It has nothing to do with Catholics.. The belief came from 9/11 which has it's base from Muslim Leaders twisting their religious followers in the wrong direction.

                  Therefore, if it was the Amish were to start preaching for their people to rise up an an Amish group to protest paying taxes for governmental use of anything modern (plane flights, cars, electricity etc..), rather then talking about living peaceful, clean, religious lives. I would be concerned. I don't know if they ever employee any one outside the Amish community, but I would also be very upset if they started fireing non-Amish employees because during their free time, it was discovered he drove a car and had an apartment that had electricity. I would be concerned if as a group they protested electing any presidential canidate who campaigned using TV and radio ads.. I would be concerned with the Amish Leaders preaching to their Amish brother at their Sunday service to rise up in civil disobedience by refusing to pay their taxes as a show of protest.

                  Now as far as the Amish being really a threatening concern, maybe not so much.. Unless someone convinced them that for the good of the cause they would need to modernize, it would be hard for them to wreak much havoch in the modern world.

                  But I would be equally upset about the message to rise up and protest the Amish were now getting at their Sunday service, and the fact that this was not at all what the Amish teachings were about.

                  I would also be upset about people the Amish hired knowing they were not Amish, then fired and did not protest the Amish ways and were respectful at work, but were fired when they did not follow the Amish ways in their private lives simply because they were casualties of protest..

                  It may not make sense to anyone else but me, because this is my fear. But there is something different in sending a postive message to your congregation and going out to educate ANYONE that will listen to a viewpoint you have with logic and reason. And of that group (which are not all of their faith, but are united with this idea) working for change in our culture or government is open to more then just their group.. Then using the pulpit and your sermons to unit the group to protest and civil disopedience.

                  The girls Scouts is one sign of either forcing people to accept your terms or dropping them. The firing of the women for using in vitro fertilization. It's 50-50 about my reaction for firing gay people gay people really should seek employment with Catholics, if they do they better keep a very secret life style.. Anyway these type of things are pointing to an "us" verses "them" mentality..


                  Comment


                  • In reading this thread, I am reminded of the reaction of many of us to the criticism about the policies regarding homosexuals and atheists. We have pointed out that the BSA is a private organization and has the right to determine its' membership requirements. That Scouting does much good and the criticism is hurting the youth. All of those things are true. So we should apply the same logic to the GSUSA. Personally, I do not agree with some of the direction of the GSUSA but it is that organization's right to hold those views and to determine its' membership requirements. We should support the GSUSA in the same manner that we would like others to treat us. That is to say that the program is about the girls and not the particular stance of the GSUSA. My daughter earned the Gold Award in the GSUSA and profited from the experiences. If she was reaching that point in her life now, I may have steered toward Venturing instead. So I would speak more with my feet.
                    Interestingly, despite a very liberal point of view, the GSUSA is suffering from the same membership woes as the BSA which would argue that having a liberal stance will not fix the membership drain for the BSA.

                    Comment


                    • Again I am reminded of the statement by The Scout, "the purpose of religion is not to bring people together."

                      Back to some earlier comments: Since I am in a place where slavery and slaves defined both society and economy, I just today had the opportunity to speak to a black priest about this. He reminded me that his church, the Catholic Church, promoted slavery in this and other places. In the mid-15th century, the Dum Diversas was used as authority to enslave any enemy of Christianity and to take all of the property of said enemies. While this was primarily aimed at Moslems, it included ALL pagans and unbelievers and condemned them to "perpetual slavery". In 1493, coincidental with the second voyage of Columbus, Pope Alexander VI specifically authorized the King of Spain to enslave non-Christians of the Americas. And then Spain did a fabulous job of it. The priest seemed very sad about all this but he said that it is important to remember the 'truth' about these things because to forget them is to invite their return. I quite agree.
                      Just a few corrections to the revisionist history I read earlier. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

                      Comment


                      • Packsaddle ... Revisionist history? I'm not an expert in this, but it's easy to see the topic is way more complex and both sided than your representing. And your throwing part of the truth out is just a way to defend your position without honest reflection.

                        ...

                        In 1537, another pope issued Sublimus Dei strongly condeming slavery with concepts such as rational beings with souls and slavery was driven by satan. In 1542, Spain was also the 1st nation to ban colonial slavery.

                        The Christian / Catholic position on slavery has evolved over time. And then when you read about historical slavery discussed in the Bible it was usually discussing "just slavery" where an individual sells himself or another family member to pay debt. Very much related to the concept of an indentured servant. There were rules on how to treat such a person, how long it could go for (i.e. not indefinite), etc. One rule was that you could not enter just slavery thru capture.

                        In 1839, Pope Gregory issued Supremo Apostolatus which condemned slavery and specifically the slave trade. Yes some american bishops did make legalistic arguements about trade versus own. But there was also a huge Catholic abolisionist movement.

                        ...

                        One point that I found really interesting is that when Mexico opened up Texas to american settlers, the settlers could not legally bring slaves in because Mexico (Catholic) did not allow slavery. (ummmm... The United States was founded essentially as and largely still is a protestant nation.) Of course Texas is also not an easy analysis. Lots of politics. Lots of situational issues. Lots of specifics.

                        ...

                        Anyway ... I'm providing just as much a choppy analysis of history. Catholic church was and is not perfect and has never been insulated from the politics of the times.

                        But it's just a smear campaign to point your finger as your doing.

                        Comment


                        • Yah, packsaddle, an unusually shallow response for yeh, mate.

                          Context is everything, eh? So yeh have to take some time to look at context.

                          In the period you're talkin' about, there was a protracted world war goin' on between Islam and Christendom, and in particular between the nascent Ottoman Empire and da Byzantine Orthodox Christians of the east. In fact, the papal bull your friend talked about was issued right around the time of the siege and fall of Constantinople. Slavery by conquest was common practice worldwide except in Catholic / Christian lands, and the Ottomans certainly enslaved quite a number of Christians. So what yeh read in those documents are indicative of the times, and not unreasonable in context.

                          What is more interestin', though, is that period aside, both before and shortly after Christendom largely repudiated slavery. Da notable exception, of course, was Portugal, but as one character in the old film "The Mission" said quite eloquently, "In fact, Portugal is insanely hostile to the Church". :P

                          Close as I can see, takin' things in context and in balance, Christendom as a whole and da Catholic folks before the Reformation did quite well, and in many ways were countercultural. In the end, they have also prevailed on the matter of slavery. That's quite a legacy by itself, even if Christian religion had achieved nothin' else.

                          Beavah

                          Comment


                          • I'm just reporting what a priest told me and that the history isn't as one-sided as YOU guys are attempting to make it. I'll grant that the Catholic Church did what you say. But it was a reversal of a history that was far from pure, IMHO, and AFTER atrocities that were condoned by them here and elsewhere in the New World. The priest seemed to want to reconcile the whole past. No reason why you guys can't do the same.

                            Comment


                            • Seems to me that IF the Catholic Church (tm) wants to bar Girl Scout Troops because they disagree with something it is their right. I think it would be stupid, bad PR, and short sighted.

                              Just as if my United Methodist Church decided that any group that discriminated against any Gays should be banned from using their facilities than my Boy Scout Troop would be hosed. It would be their right.

                              The rest of the discussion seems to be devolving into the Thirty Years War...

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X