Jump to content
David CO

Catholic Diocese boots out GS

Recommended Posts

The boys were not lost in the shuffle. Other units stepped up and took the boys. It was BSA who lost out as 27 COs went away and were not replaced. That hurt the BSA employees who are evaluated based on the number of units that exist or are started. Imagine being the DEs who lost those units through no fault of their own.

 

I would like to think that the BSA and councils made some sort of adjustment to reduce the impact on the professionals of the units that left due to the membership changes.  It would be kind of unfair to do otherwise.  It would be particularly unfair given the differing impact of that decision in different parts of the country.  My council probably did not lose any units at all because of that, or at least very few, whereas there are obviously some parts of the country where that was not the case, for example, where you live.

 

Note I am not saying I think the BSA DID make that adjustment.  I have no idea whether they did or not.  I would just like to think they did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GSA has no official position on abortion or planned parenthood.  GSA simply supports abortion and Planned Parenthood in many other ways.  And why is GSA so shy about it?  Nothing wrong with having a position on one of the great social and moral issues of the time.

 

GSA holds up Gloria Steinem (co-founder of Choice USA), Margaret Sanger, and Betty Friedan as role models.  What is the message?  Are their positions on abortion trivial?  I would think they would proudly say no.

 

GSA tells its members that Media Matters is the arbiter of the good and true in media.  MM is anti-anti-abortion.  What is the message?

 

Anna Marie Chavez, GSA CEO from 2011-2016  https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Embattled-Girls-Scouts-CEO/236826 was an active supporter of pro-abortion rights candidates and policies .  

 

Officially, GSA has no relationship with Planned Parenthood, beyond holding up Planned Parenthood icons as models.  But GSA councils have named strong supporters of Planned Parenthood as "Girls Scout Greats." Example: Leticia Van De Putte, NARAL-endorsed candidate for Lt. Governor of Texas.

 

I submit that the position noted in the OP is not built on a lie but on disagreement with the behavior of the GSA.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this sources seems to document so interesting things GSUSA councils have been involved in. Does not look like fake news.

 

http://mygirlscoutcouncil.com/events-hostedendorsed-by-gs-councils.html

 

http://mygirlscoutcouncil.com/organizations-featured-by-gs-councils.html

 

What it looks like is an anti-Girl Scouts web site.  Based on the original article linked in this thread, the GSUSA denies many of the affiliations alleged in this web site.  If I had to decide who to believe, I'll go with the GSUSA.  But of course what I think has nothing to do with what this thread is about.  A church or diocese has the right to affiliate or dis-affiliate with whatever groups it wants, based on the facts, or non-facts, or whatever criteria it chooses.  Whether it is a good idea or not is a separate question, but since this thread involves a religion that is not mine, I don't think it's my place to comment on that issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And the GSUSA FAQ page about social issues:  http://www.girlscouts.org/en/faq/faq/social-issues.html

 

Excerpt:

Does GSUSA have a relationship with Planned Parenthood?  

No, Girl Scouts of the USA does not have a relationship or partnership with Planned Parenthood.

 

 

Is this from the same FAQ page that says that the Girl Scouts welcome male leaders?

Edited by David CO
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Catholic Church touts itself as a Christian based group.  AHG touts itself as a Christian based group.  GS/USA does not.  End of discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What it looks like is an anti-Girl Scouts web site.  B

Any anti, or pro, source should be taken with the proverbial "grain of salt.  That's why it's so tough to council on the duty and obligation of a citizen to be informed.  Everywhere you go, it's spin. spin, spin.

 

 

 

So religious discrimination?

 

Yes.  So?  Religious discrimination by private parties is a necessary consequence of freedom of religion and Constitutionally protected.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to be the moral authority for anyone TAHAWK. Because one can discriminate, doesn't mean one should. Just sayin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure that one's local church isn't going to host a neo-nazi or clan rally on premises just because they think they can pick up a convert or two.  Discrimination isn't necessarily the evil word everyone makes it out to be.  To a certain extent EVERYONE does it.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any anti, or pro, source should be taken with the proverbial "grain of salt.  That's why it's so tough to council on the duty and obligation of a citizen to be informed.  Everywhere you go, it's spin. spin, spin.

 

I tend to apply multiple grains.  Truckloads, sometimes.  For example, when I look at that site and see several favorable references to a competing girl's scouting-type organization, I have to wonder about the motivation behind what I am reading.

 

None of which, as I said before, has anything to do with the absolute right of a religious organization to allow or disallow use of its facilities and resources as it sees fit, regardless of whether the facts on which the decision is based are true, false, opinions* or some combination of all of those.

 

*In which case they are not facts and can be neither "true" nor "false", but you know what I mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What it looks like is an anti-Girl Scouts web site.  Based on the original article linked in this thread, the GSUSA denies many of the affiliations alleged in this web site.

 

No, I wasn't citing that site, but rather the 3rd party news organizations that originally reported on the topic in question...which the web site uses as their original source. The Imperial Valley Press, while not CNN, is a news organization...as are many of the other sources. But these days citing even offical news organizations is no guarantee of non-partisanism. 

Edited by Col. Flagg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×