Good grief. Now I have heard it all.  The Girl Scouts are now a target of the Religious Right and in particular, the Catholic bishops inquiry. 

Apparently the GSA who are non-sectarian,  aren’t Christian enough for  some folks and the Catholic bishops.  For starters, girls are allowed to insert Allah or Buddha in as a substitute for God, in the Girl Scout promise which says: “On my honor, I will try to serve God and my country.”   If that is who they worship, why not?  Some troop took in a transgendered child.  That caused an uproar.  Good for the troop.  Why exclude people?

According to the Washington Post:

NEW YORK — Long a lightning rod for conservative criticism, the Girl Scouts of the USA are now facing their highest-level challenge yet: An official inquiry by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

At issue are concerns about program materials that some Catholics find offensive, as well as assertions that the Scouts associate with other groups espousing stances that conflict with church teaching. The Scouts, who have numerous parish-sponsored troops, deny many of the claims and defend their alliances. 

The inquiry coincides with the Scouts’ 100th anniversary celebrations and follows a chain of other controversies.

Earlier this year, legislators in Indiana and Alaska publicly called the Scouts into question, and the organization was berated in a series aired by a Catholic broadcast network. Last year, the Scouts angered some conservatives by accepting into a Colorado troop a 7-year-old transgender child who was born a boy but was being raised as a girl.

Some of the concerns raised by Catholic critics are recycled complaints that have been denied by the Girl Scouts’ head office repeatedly and categorically. It says it has no partnership with Planned Parenthood, and does not take positions on sexuality, birth control and abortion.

Whaat will the Catholic Bishop’s inquiry be looking for?

The new inquiry will be conducted by the bishops’ Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth. It will look into the Scouts’ ”possible problematic relationships with other organizations” and various “problematic” program materials, according to a letter sent by the committee chairman, Bishop Kevin Rhoades of Fort Wayne, Ind., to his fellow bishops.

The bishops’ conference provided a copy of the letter to The Associated Press, but otherwise declined comment.

Girl Scout leaders hope the bishops’ apprehensions will be eased once they gather information. But there’s frustration within the iconic youth organization — known for its inclusiveness and cookie sales — that it has become such an ideological target, with the girls sometimes caught in the political crossfire.

“I know we’re a big part of the culture wars,” said the Girl Scouts’ spokeswoman, Michelle Tompkins. “People use our good name to advance their own agenda.”

“For us, there’s an overarching sadness to it,” Tompkins added. “We’re just trying to further girls’ leadership.”

This is beginning to sound like an inquisition.   Dunk the leadership.  If they drown, they are innocent?

The GSA stand strong and remain inclusive.  While the Boy Scouts of America exclude atheists and refuse to allow gays in leadership roles, the Girl Scouts have no such restrictions.  The GSA has even been attacked in state legislatures:

“When you have a leadership brand like Girl Scouts, it’s natural that we would have some critics,” said Chavez. “We’re proud of our inclusive approach because that is what has always made this organization strong.”

Girl Scout controversies surfaced recently in two state legislatures.

In Indiana, Rep. Bob Morris wrote to his colleagues depicting the Girl Scouts as a radical group that promotes abortions and homosexuality. He later apologized for “reactionary and inflammatory” comments, but stood by his contention that the Scouts have links with Planned Parenthood.

Are these people just right wing nut jobs?  It doesn’t get any less radical than the Girl Scouts.  The Girls Scouts are big into setting goals and having plans for your life.  They even teach you how to do things like sew your own damn patches on rather than have your mother do it.  They prepare girls for leadership positions by instilling self confidence. 

When are Americans going to start just laughing these things out of town?  The Girl Scouts are about as mild as you can get as far as kid organization.  The Catholic bishops need to go clean up their own back yard before they start on the neighbors.  If parents don’t like the Girl Scouts, for whatever reason, then tell your kid no.  Join Campfire Girls.  There is probably something wrong with them too though.  This culture warrior stuff is just getting absurd. 

Happy 100th Anniversary to the Girl Scouts of America!

Juliet Gordon Lowe, Founder  –short biography

Washington Post:  continued reading on GSA as a lightning rod.

 

 

 

37 Thoughts to “Starting the War on Women early with the Girl Scouts”

  1. SlowpokeRodriguez

    War on women? You mean the left’s war on working mothers? That war on women? If you had just posted the story instead of trying to score political points with it, you’d have broad support. But by using it to further a Democratic election-season fairy-tale, you drag yourself down to the MSNBC level.

  2. Second Alamo

    Should we now add Allah and Buddha on our currency as well?

  3. Second Alamo

    I think todays communications is a double edged sword. Way in the past everyone had an opinion, but rarely did everyone get to view everyone else’s opinion. Now everyone is able to share their opinion with the world, and so everyone and everything seems to be under scrutiny or attack. Those on both sides of an issue can quickly ban together to bring increased pressure on any subject. This blog is a good example of people collectively voicing their opinions, and supporting each other who would never have even spoken or met one another. The end result is that society seems more fractured than ever due to the coalescing of opposite opinions that wouldn’t have been possible in the distant past other than by large organizations.

  4. Try as I might, I will never meet with your approval, Slow. Cry. Whine.

    On the other hand, you read it, didn’t you?

    Is there a war on working mothers? I always felt there was when I was a working mother.

  5. Emma

    The Church is providing guidance and instruction to its membership–take it or leave it. I really don’t see how this is a “war on women” or anything of the kind. How many non-Catholics view Catholic broadcast networks anyway? I don’t have any problem with the Girl Scouts, but SA is right: It’s the instant-communications culture now that exposes us to points of view we would otherwise never hear. Why react to all of it, if it doesn’t apply to you?

  6. @Second Alamo

    I don’t know that I disagree with you. I have thought about the “old days” when communications were much slower. I think we knew less and dealt with bigger, broader issues. Society was less fractured.

  7. marinm

    I don’t think I’ll have an issue – as a Catholic – letting my daughter join the Girl Scouts. I do see the organization on the whole as very wholesome and empowering.

    I guess the way that I see this is not to different from Sesame Street. It has great educational promise and provides our daughter with a fun, engaging education. Now it’s my job as a parent to make sure that I stay engaged and where appropriate correct the show or show it’s bias to my kids so that they don’t become liberals.

    So I don’t see a problem with the GS as long as parents don’t sleep at the switch! 🙂

  8. Oy Vey

    @marinm
    “So I don’t see a problem with the GS as long as parents don’t sleep at the switch!
    Same may be said about the public schools.

  9. SlowpokeRodriguez

    There is a well-known scenario where someone who thinks they have power stands up and says in a loud, bold voice: “Follow ME!!” and is completely ignored. That is the moment where that person realizes they have no power anymore. Hello, Catholic Church!

  10. I don’t think the article just speaks to the Catholic Bishops. The GS are being targeted by politicians and other conservative groups also.

    Emma, pronouncements from any religious institution can affect everyone. About 1/4 of all scouts are Catholic.

  11. marinm

    @Oy Vey

    Very much so. If I’m not in a financial position to provide for a private education then you know I’ll keep on guard to correct the liberalism taught at the K-12 level.

    1. What kind of liberalism do you expect to be taught in say k-3? Don’t take other people’s things? Raise your hand?

      I already blasted one of the local elementary schools for wanting about 50 dollars worth of school supplies that you take in in the summer and surrender. I told them it was socialism because the school system was too cheap to provide supplies. So they hit up the parents who will (notice I didn’t say can) afford it and scab off of them. There were even things in there for the teacher to use.

      Its a good thing that my ire was over grandchildren and not my kids because I simply wouldn’t have sent it.

  12. @Cargosquid
    Just realized that I put this in the wrong thread and it was supposed to be in the Open Thread. Clicked the wrong one. Oops.

  13. marinm

    @Moon-howler

    “What kind of liberalism do you expect to be taught in say k-3?”

    In a perfect world? None.

    1. I don’t know what you consider liberalism. Please define. It sounds like human decency is considered liberalism.

  14. kelly_3406

    I agree that the Catholic Church should not get involved in the religious expression of Girl Scouts. Having said that and as the parent of a girl scout, the leadership and focus of the Girl Scouts do seem to have taken a left turn.

    I will give you a couple of examples. A hallmark principle of scouting has always been good citizenship. They highlight the responsibilies of a good citizen which include the need to vote, to serve the country and to help those in need, etc. Now they seem to be taking it a step further to advocate such values as social justice with passing references to civil disobedience.

    Another principle has always been stewardship of the Earth. In the past, that always meant picking up litter, minimizing water use and conserving electricity. These are all things that everyone can agree on, but now they have references to protecting climate and supporting efforts (government regulation?) to curb carbon dioxide emissions. They are subtly taking sides in the climate change debate.

    If one pays close attention, it is clear that the girl scouts are adopting liberal positions on some very divisive issues in society. I would be hard pressed to provide documentation to back this up, however. Over the past few years, pamphlets and fliers get handed out at various girl scout functions where one tends to see these things. It is almost as if this is intended to be a stealth campaign.

    1. @Kelly, I think the GS tend to look at current issues. Certainly current issues have changes since I was a GS kid. Climate change to most people isn’t a debate, its a warning to change the way we do things.

      I am not sure what you mean with the citizenship. I suppose civil disobedience could be addressed. I am not sure it should be encouraged but it certainly should be defined and perhaps evaluated in terms of usefulness and defined as a means of addressing ways to disagree with your governmentl. That is part of being a citizen. Certainly great social change has happened in our country as a result of civil disobedience if one things about ending a war and the Civil Rights movement.

      I think GS should be current to be relevant. I don’t think politics or one religion’s value system should be infused into the fabric of the Girl Scouts. They should maintain their own ethos that is reflective of their mission statement and goals.

  15. kelly_3406

    I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph, MH. But injecting global warming and social justice does infuse politics into the GS.

  16. I disagree. Most Americans accept that mankind’s habits do affect the environment which ultimately effects climate. I am sorry. That simply isn’t political to many of us.

    Social justice? Exactly what do you mean by “social justice?” I think to most people “social justice” means that all people, regardless of religion, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, will be treated equally under the law. Other people learn in church that they are to take care of those less fortunate. To me, that is not a political issue either. I guess I just don’t see either of your concerns as political issues.

    In fact, what you are saying almost offends me because if I raise those issues, one way to shut me down is to accuse me of being political. That is almost a way to “trump my ace” before I even start off.

  17. I am walking away from this thread with a bad feeling. Marin doesn’t want his kids to learn “liberalism” in school and Kelly thinks that global warming and social justice are infusing politics into an organization.

    I am not sure what either person means by these terms and the statements seem very broad.
    Marin, I think you had better plan on home schooling because parochial schools teach kids to share and show concern for their neighbors also.

  18. Cato the Elder

    “Social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution. These policies aim to achieve what developmental economists refer to as more equality of opportunity than may currently exist in some societies, and to manufacture equality of outcome in cases where incidental inequalities appear in a procedurally just system. The Constitution of the International Labour Organization affirms that “universal and lasting peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice.”[4] Furthermore, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action treats social justice as a purpose of the human rights education.[5]”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

    So you see, it’s got very little to do with either society or justice. It’s Orwellian Newspeak.

    1. Social justice sure has changed since the good old days. It now seems to have been recreated by a political movement.

      You young people! Always trying to reinvent the wheel.

  19. kelly_3406

    Cato has ably addressed the issue of social justice, so let me cover anthropogenic global warming. First of all, I am surprised that you do not see the political aspect of AGW given the strong debates on your blog regarding this issue. Rather than getting into the science, let’s discuss the implications that give conservatives heartburn. AGW provides the federal government with the rationale to regulate every aspect of our lives. Rather than advocating personal responsibility for good stewardship of the environment, the AGW crowd now advocates government regulation to COMPEL behavior for the sake of the environment (e.g. only certain types of light bulbs allowed). For those of concerned about excessive federal power, this is indeed a political issue infused in the GS.

    1. We don’t have strong debates here about global warming. Neither Elena nor I are scientists. I think you have our blog confused with another.

      We have said nothing about AGW.

      The only thing I find objectionable is the denial that climate change, as a result of man, exists. It does from all scientific indication. It does from all logical indications also. Should we be concerned? I think so. What should governments do? I don’t know.

      So why are the girl scouts at fault for being concerned over climate change?

      Galileo was kept under house arrest for many years, until his death, for having the audacity to say that the sun was the center of the solar system.

  20. kelly3406

    Moon-howler :
    The only thing I find objectionable is the denial that climate change, as a result of man, exists. It does from all scientific indication. It does from all logical indications also. Should we be concerned? I think so. What should governments do? I don’t know.

    I beg to differ. There is plenty of scientific “indication” that does not fit AGW — these findings just do not get much press.

    1. Kelly, I have never said the words AGW. Not ever. You are trying to hang something on me I have never mentioned.

      There is climate change. Period. Now what causes it might be open to debate.

      The very notion that man can dump chemicals in rivers, on fields, etc, and can put millions of automobiles on the road that emit CO and not have it affect the earth or its climate is preposterous.

      I am not even sure what you are differing with. Are you an environmental scientist?

  21. The problem is that the scientists that claim manmade global warming aka AGW aka “climate change” insist that CO2 is the forcing agent. However none of their predictions have come true, none of their theories are reproducible or and none of their models can be regressed to create conditions that actually existed, ie., the Medieval Warm period.

    Can pollution harm life on the planet? Absolutely.
    Is the planet warming? Controversial. Evidence shows no warming since 1998 and warming prior to that has been a continuance of global warming since the Little Ice Age that ended in 1850 or so. Furthermore, temperature/weather stations have been proven to have been compromised by urban development or bad placement.

    And I haven’t mentioned the fraud and deception by the so-called climate scientists at the IPCC at the UN.

    1. Echo chamber, Cargo.

      It just all depends on where you look.

      I prefer to keep an open mind and I prefer that we not bet the whole ball of wax on political discord between people who really aren’t in the position to evaluate the data.

  22. @Moon-howler
    Political discord? These are scientists. They ARE evaluating the data and finding it to be wrong.

    The data shows no warming. The data does not agree with ANY of the models. None of the theories presented have come true.

    By all means, keep an open mind. But that also means believing that the whole AGW thing is wrong.

    1. @Cargo

      You are attempting to make it sound like everyone is in agreement. They are not. Typically, scientists do not always agree with each other. they are as competitive as everyone else.

      You also talk like you expect an event to happen rather than a process.

      You say nothing has happened? polar melting has happened. Glacier melting is happening. Sea level has risen significantly in cities like Norfolk.

      Can you fellows read carefully: I HAVE NEVER MENTIONED AGW.

      Don’t try to start a fight with me about YOUR AGW. I am not going to participate. I am also not going to let you get by with saying that there is no climate change. That is pure bullshit.

      I don’t believe you have the credentials to declare that climate change or global warning is totally wrong. Too many scientists disagree.

  23. Where did I claim that everyone is agreement? I mentioned that scientists are disagreeing with the “consensus.” There is no consensus.

    I don’t expect an event to happen. The OTHER guys…the Warming side, does and predicts them. And any process has to show events happening. Otherwise there is no process, no change. Long term climate science is too complex for any of the warming models too predict what’s going on, especially decades down the road. Heck, recently a climate scientist has investigated the possible correlation to supernovae activity and cloud formation on earth and found some matching trends.

    Polar ice is at record levels.
    Glaciers are retreating in some areas, expanded in others.
    We have talked about man made global warming. AGW is just short hand for that. You and I have had discussions.

    I’m not trying to start a fight. I’m taking you at your word that you have an open mind and presenting evidence. While I don’t have “credentials,” those that are arguing against “global warming” do have them. And some of those “credential” experts on the “warming side” have been wrong on every count. Or been proven to be fraudulent.

    There is ALWAYS climate change. THAT is not in question.

    The arguments are A) is the earth warming b) is that warming caused by man and if so, how c) what, if anything, can man do to effect said global warming d) is warming a bad thing?

    Since you said you have an open mind about this, I posted a link to a site on the counter arguments by scientists. I’m just taking you at your word.

    1. The open mind comes from the scientific crew, not the moon is made of green cheese grew. I need to clarify that.

      Perhaps you just made it sound like that.

      Are you trying to tell me that nothing man is doing is changing our climate? That makes no sense.

  24. kelly_3406

    Sorry for the delay in answering you on this, MH. I was busy with Mother’s Day activities fur meine Frau.

    In regard to AGW, I believe some explanation is necessary. The term “anthropogenic global warming” means climate change due to releases in the atmosphere by human processes. You may never have used the term, but your statement about humans causing climate change is an implicit reference to AGW.

    I would also like to mention that carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide (released due to emissions from millions of cars and burning fossil fuels) are not very good greenhouse gases. In order to get the large increases in temperature as postulated by AGW proponents, the small initial CO2-induced warming has to be amplified by large, positive feedbacks. So far these feedbacks have not been shown to be sufficiently large or even positive, except in highly tuned models.

    Claims that this is settled science are premature at best. Surface temperatures have been pretty steady for the last decade. Until there is more proof that AGW is large enough to pose a significant issue for society, I am not willing to divert trillions of tax dollars from a slow economy to solve a problem that may not exist.

  25. @Moon-howler
    I’m saying that there is still argument about what effect man may or may not have on the climate. I believe that the CURRENT argument overstates man’s effect on climate, except in local conditions due to urban development or pollution. Smog, etc have local effects.

Comments are closed.