Bishops To Hold “Official Inquiry” Of Girl Scouts

-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger

Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades, Chair of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, is concerned with the Girl Scouts of the USA (GSUSA) and the Scouts’ “possible problematic relationships with other organizations.” Rhoades is also concerned about various “problematic” program materials, although specifics details are being withheld.

The GSUSA is “a secular organization that refrains from teaching religious or spiritual beliefs or practices” that tries “to further girls’ leadership.” Therein lies the problem.

The Bishops are just the latest combatants in the War on the Girl Scouts. The first salvo was fired by James Dobson’s Focus on the Family when the Girl Scouts made their religious oath optional for membership. On the political front, Indiana state Rep. Bob Morris, R-Fort Wayne claimed:

A Girl Scouts of America training program last year used the Planned Parenthood sex education pamphlet “Happy, Healthy, and Hot.”

The GSUSA’s response was unequivocal: “No, we did not.”

Morris also claimed that “Planned Parenthood instructional series and pamphlets are part of the core curriculum at GSA training seminars.” GSUSA’s responded that they do “not have a relationship or partnership with Planned Parenthood.”

Indiana Republican House Speaker Brian Bosma mocked Morris by offering Girl Scout cookies, Thin Mints, to his colleagues in House chambers.

The GSUSA does not take a position or develop materials regarding human sexuality, birth control, or abortion. In the words of Rep. Morris: “If you’re not against it, you’re for it.”

CNN contributor Dana Loesch has suggested that conservatives should protest by boycotting Girl Scout cookies. Although I haven’t in the past, in the future I’m going to be buying Girl Scout cookies at every opportunity. I will donate them to the local food bank.

H/T: Steve Benen, David Crary (AP), Rob Boston (AU), Carol Morello (WaPo), Joseph L. Conn (AU).

72 thoughts on “Bishops To Hold “Official Inquiry” Of Girl Scouts”

  1. Debbie Jaynes, are you related to Julian Jaynes from Princeton?

    On another question: you say “I’m just a 52 year old homeschooler, what do I know?”

    I don’t know. I couldn’t understand what you were saying.

  2. It’s clear, where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

    Cross “alpha phi omega/girl scouts (or scouting)” for some different insight on this topic.

    This is a huge curiosity for me, including the number of GOP politicians who submit on all things Girl Scout like cowering dogs in the media.

    I had a similar feeling as I watched the Stepford-like behavior on the big Israel question by all politicians during the 2008, 2010 elections.
    Maybe something like “Hegelian dialect”?

    I’m just a 52 year old homeschooler, what do I know?

  3. To Anonymously Yours and all with that mindset why not speak your peace on the horrific Orthodox pedophile problem. I am a Catholic and proud of it.
    So the Pope was a Hitler youth. I love the new Pope. Thank God for him.
    I hate the priest scandal they all belong in jail if they bothered children sexually.


    The bishops are in using techniques since the first wheat fields were planted.
    What was that technique? Repression, quite simply repression, or as some would call it “xelective breeding” of humans.

    One king, according to Herodotos, exemplified it by strolliing through his wheat field, striking down all individual straws which stuck up. Remember: “stuck up” please.

    This ruling by selection is practiced today, all over the world. You find it near you. Examples are countless.
    It is even evident here at this blog.

    Take the comments made to me by MikeS yesterday on this thread. He said that most of my comments were self-referential, and thus unworthy of being here.

    In Sweden, MikeS and others with similar tactics would be grouped under a name.

    It is called the “Jäntelagen”. What is it?

    It is when those who have power, whether it was the farmer to his “jänte” servant, or the professor to the assistant professor, or the Prime Minister to his cabinet, when any superior tells his subordinate to not stick up, to not believe he has any rights, to not stand for themselves, etc. Add your own examples, please.

    Now, after many millenia, we have become so “well-bred”, that we automatically react to even an implied blow, rebuke, criticism, bullying, etc. by cringing (in many ways), and offer deference to this person of power—-I did not say better person, please note the difference.

    Some would criticize this “resisting power” concept by saying: “Why, we would have chaos otherwise.”

    I say we would have instead power sharing and true growth of people as societies and aa individuals.

    The formation of the Constitution had the primary purpose of defining and disposing power, and thus riches and control. Are we agreed on that? I hope so.

    And we wouuld certainly not have the division of political power we see today in America, nor experience in our personal lives: jobs, schools, organized activities. and in our blogs including here, the type of “don’t stick up, don’t be individualistic (much discussed), don’t think, and as MikeS said: Don’t be self-referential.


    But as is necessary to inquire. how much is productive and how much leads to aimless discussion, where most don’t want to go. So if we keep on the thread of holding to a thread we could reach an acccomodation to which most would be satisfied. And the arguinng of that level is between he and I, as equals as he disclaimed official capacity.

    However, let me return to the broader point which embraces all societies, democratic or those with no formalities.

    At which point and how much should we yield to the threat of having our heads chopped off.
    I won’t try to answer that. It is better if each of us consider this issue. There are others here who have much to contribute.

    Now saying this will cause those with power to react. Those that have and those who feel (for some reason by virtue of age, position, experienc, certification, etc,) “feel” that they deserve deference, and the right to wield the sword of power.

    Take MikeS, a man revered here, and having been here only a short while, I would agree that he should be.

    Yesterday, while disclaimeing any “authority”, he had the audacity to tell me how my comments should be kept more on topic. The point itself is one which is well-taken by me.
    However, the manner of giving the information smacked of a presumption that he could give this dictate without appeal or reasoning between equals.

    This is the practicing of the “jäntelag” which I have written about.

    Is it my hurt pride that motivates me?

    Not at all. Despite self-referencing, I am rather only concerned with the “jäntlagen” practice which we see EVERYWHERE in America today.

    Many categories of oppression are fought via new laws.

    However the right to be human, and to pursue “the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is practically extinct in this society.

    And as Chomsky pointed out, it has been in practice as long as both media and academic institutios have existed, which were what he was addressing—-but he referred also to the whole of society’s selective breeding process—-and let’s call it by its right name: OPPRESSION: DON’T STICK UP. DON’T OPPOSE. YOU WILL LOSE YOUR JOB. YOU WILL LOSE JOB POSSIBILITIES. YOU WILL BE MARKED AS A TROUBLEMAKER, A REBEL, AND BE CAST ON TH HEAP OF NON-PERSONS WHO DON’T COUNT FOR ANYTHING.

    How any times has this workings of the system been touched on here? Countless times, I opine.

    To those righfully wondering why I used my experience with MikeS as a reference. I do so as it shows the importance of self-referencing. Not solely for content, although that is properly a primary reason. But also for the motives which drive us from inaction.

    As someone said so insightfully here, paraphrasing, without a positive expected outcome, or avoidance of a negative one, how little would we do. In practive very litte.
    So much may start there in yourself. But need not come in the story, as was MikeS’ points out. At least I think he did.
    For him, self-referential was a sin in least it seemed to be something inappropriate to posting here. He assumed congruent frames of reference, and that was a common mistake made by all.
    I’m not an up to date American , nor a therapist.

    But that is another discussion. Happy comments all.

  5. Malisha,

    When their PR people have decided is the “right” time.
    My belief is that favors close to election time.

    However, to be facetious: when they’ve perfected a modern version of the auto-da-fé of MadrId climaxing the Inquisition. Specially note that the treatment of the accused closely is followed today by our ows torturers.

  6. When is the result of the Bishops’ “official inquest” expected to be completed? I want to read it! And — do they do those things in their inquests where they dress up and put someone on a rack (is it “rack” or “wrack” in that instance?) and solemnly intone stuff at them a lot?

    There was a medical examiner in a New York County who was a specialist in the medical analysis of the crucifixion of Jesus. He would have people come in and volunteer for a certain amount of time of “virtual crucifixion.” Some TV Documentaries wrote him up for a while — uh oh I’m OT — anyway, maybe this belongs on the “Shame on Yoo” thread — anyway, those bishops, when does their report get issued?

  7. MikeS,

    First let me thank for the extensive comment from you.
    I would have preferred it as a dialogue between equals´, not as a dictum from above. Or is that too obtuse.
    You say:
    “Since then though roughly 90% of your comments make it all about yourself, rather than even tangentially referring to the topic of the thread. Everything you write is self-referential and quite frankly obtuse. That speaks to your manner of writing which is really difficult to follow. ”

    The 90% figure is yóur estimate. I don’t agree. Like so many non-lawyers I am by that limitation confined to referencing that which is within my range. Often wide-ranging as with Harrapans (sp), but pertinent to the issues in the thread.

    As to obtuseness, that could be explained by not wishing to over-explain matters, and prefer to assume my points are quite accessible. However, I do not write concisely, and that is also inhibiting me as to wishing to be concise and can thus lead to leaving out neccessary connecting material. Your opinion is however noted and will be kept in mind. In fact, I will even more cónsider that factor. Clarity is a great skill. And when I encounter it, my plesure rises greatly—and vice versa, also veeeerrrryyy important, I note.

    You write:
    “—or that you are being purposely passive-aggressive. I suspect it is the latter.”

    You and GeneH are good on using that pejorative term. And thus you reveal a purpose which is to demean me with psychological diagnoses. As I pointed out to GeneH. the diagnosis itself is controversial, and likely to soon diasppear.
    But never mind that. you are instead purposely using it to demean my personal value as a person, no matter how you hide behind the chimera of “concern”.

    You write:
    “Then too, there is the annoyance at your methodology of trying to suck people into your personal drama, as you are doing here with me. I believe the point I was making was clear in the comments I directed at you and yet you pretend an inability to understand them which elicits further response from me.”

    In fact I have asked you repeatedly (and the need for repetitions rest with you, not me) for the comment you made which you claim I have misinterpreted.

    You have yet to respond to that. If you feel that is game playing snd sucking into a personal drama, that is your opinion. I do´not agree at all.
    That is the same tactic used by GeneH when I say to him that “speculations do not require proof”, and he ignores the point and attacks on another point instead saying I suck up to the women here—-as if that had any relevance to the proof needed for speculations. No answer to my point at all.

    And still no answer to the question which has been repeated time and again to you. Problems answering?

    Sucking people into my personal drama. I am persistent, perhaps one of the things less attractive and socially accepted. But if I get a straight answer I am satisfied. But hinting is beyond my understanding.

    I have no need of personal drama. I have a full life with many warm and close contacts, so late as yesterday in a 3 hours discussion with Anna over coffee, etc.

    And I thrive on personal contact, whether it be in jest, claps given to others, hugs, or even boisterous and spirited opposition on views and opiniions, the list is long. Reporting the legal angle is beyond me, and perhaps of others too. But occasionally my views may be of value is my wish here.

    Drama, that is in your eyes. And your rank as a professional therapist says nothing to me when you use the tactics displayed today, and the technique of throwing a diagnosis into someones face (someone ín your eyes needing therapy, since you put a defective personality label on me, and you have diagnosed it.)

    Is that professional? Not in my book.

    Again your saying “sucking people etc” is a personal matter and surely not subject for blog discussion.
    But YOU think it is so. I DO NOT.

    You write:
    “It is with your projected idea of a “hierarchy” of untouchable leaders that you have on occasion lashed out at one or another of us in a passive/aggressive way, trying to hide the action with obscurity. Now I can accept that this is not conscious on your part, but even so, that doesn’t mean I have to treat you with kid gloves. You are no victim here, so why not stop the pretense that you are and rejoin us all in relevant discussion?”

    To me, you, the guest bloggers, were a mystery.

    But GeneH when calling me down (what else shall I call it?) said that I had been the subject of much discussion among you, you NOT being defined, who participates, how, what, why, purpose, etc.

    But one purpose of his saying this would seem to me to be that I was being watched, evaluated, found wanting, and so forth; as the bully he is, he would gladly use innuendo.

    You, yes you corrected him in this matter. And I gladly accepted and laid my fears aside (“being bullied fears” and evaluated for eventually being cast out).
    How big a threat is that to my life, none.

    Now you want to say that it is an idea that I, yes I, keep harping on repeatedly.

    That I deny and believe there is no ground for this claim you make. And it is my right to say so, and I will continue by my comments here to show that such paranoia does not afflict me.

    You Write:
    “I do not feel negatively towards you, but actually I’m trying to reach out to you because I’m glad you’re here and believe you can play and important role here with your perspective from Europe.”

    Thank you for those kind closing words. But I shall refrain from stressing you personally with too intimate speculations addressed to you. I note on one occasion Blouise held with me on my evaluation, so even amateurs can make correct diagnoses—if that one instance and one person can be significant. It was meant as a comfort on an issue that was apparently of concern to you where you used yourself and your experiences to help me. And I with a sudden insight felt I could return the favor. As noted in the Bible, it is easier to see the mote in your neighbor’s eye than the beam in your own. So let us help each other. That summarizes my life’s ideal—-símple cooperation and empathy. We are here for so little time, why make it a hell for each other.
    I found thus comfort in your saying (my paraphrase) heaven is fine, if it be there, but here is more important to us for now.

    And since you won’t say what you admonished me to do,
    and thus clarify my “misinterpretation”, then we must assume that it for some reason will not be brought up by you. So, it will rest there. In the shadows. Is that too obtuse or passive/aggressive for you. It is neither one nor the other. It is ridicule. The last weapon of suppressed people. Just as Soviet intellectuals used for decades, those who had not capitulated to the New Era.

    And permit me a final jest, not in revenge but in humor.

    I am astounded and honored by the attention I’ve been accorded by GeneH and ýou. I certainly had no desire for the illustrious attention. And seriously you are both illustrious in my eyes, although one has the sad need of being a bully, but that is his problem.

    And you responded. so appropriately and timely too, to my whinings to Blouise, as did she also.
    I shall be as usual aware of the need to help the discussion progress here productively.

    (here comes the joke) And will remain humbly here admiring the deeds of the demigods, playing near Mount Olympus, close to the eternal sun shining on them.

    I am content here. Only that my mind may range freely.

Comments are closed.