Bank of America pulls Boy Scout funding

FacebookTwitterPrintFriendly

A reader sent me the following link earlier this week:

Boy Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind and – according to the Bank of America – discriminatory.

If you have heard of Valdosta, chances are it was because of the local high school football team’s prowess at winning national championships. But today, the overbearing effects of overactive liberalism reached far into South Georgia and slapped the Boy Scouts right across the face.

At a recent Valdosta Kiwanis Club meeting, the local Boy Scouts leader, Matt Hart, was present to accept a donation from the Club. Matt gladly accepted the contribution to help the local Boy Scouts spruce up their summer camp and then he told the Kiwanis Club the Scouts were grateful for the donation because the regular donation received each year from Bank of America had been denied this year because Bank of America believes the Boy Scouts national organization discriminates against gays.

In fact, Matt, the Executive Leader of the Alapaha Area Council for the Boy Scouts, shared with the group a recent letter he received from Bank of America Charitable Foundation explaining the denial:

The letter, in part, stated:

“…Under the non-discrimination policy, the Bank of America Charibale Foundation cannot provide funding to any organization that practices discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, sex, secual orientation, age, national origin, ancestry, citizenship, or veteran or disability status. The Boy Scouts’ current employment and membership practices do not comply with this policy.”

[…]

“If the Alapaha Area Council, Boy Scouts of America has the autonomy to depart from the current discriminatory practices of the national organization, and will verify that fact in writing, the Bank of America Charitable Foundation may consider reviewing this request again.”

How much do you want to bet that the militant wing of the ‘gay movement’ had something to do with this?

54 thoughts on “Bank of America pulls Boy Scout funding

  1. It is simply amazing that angry loudmouths who claim to speak for a sub-population that comprises perhaps 3% of all Americans can wield that much power. Homosexual activists have discovered how to make themselves look a lot bigger and tougher than they really are.

  2. Ah, homosexuality…it’s changed from “the love that dare not speak it’s name” to “the love that won’t shut the hell up!”

  3. “How much do you want to bet that the militant wing of the ‘gay movement’ had something to do with this?”

    You don’t have to be that militant to decide not to fund intolerance. Common sense if you ask me.

  4. Yes andrew, I’m a raving intolerant bigot because I don’t want some slime bag gay camp consular pawing my son or “teaching him” his own brand of sexual orientation. Bull.

    – Bang **==

  5. Why would we ask, andrew?

    It’s simply a different form of discrimination. Screw B of A. If they want to fund only Gay events and groups, more power to ’em. They won’t be very successful catering only to 1 – 2% of the population. But that’s what pandering is for!

  6. “Yes andrew, I’m a raving intolerant bigot because I don’t want some slime bag gay camp consular pawing my son or “teaching him” his own brand of sexual orientation. Bull.”

    Thats exactly it.

  7. – Lets put it this way andrew… any bleeding heart libturd every touches my kid they won’t have to worry about anything after that… If you don’t understand why you’re brain dead… Only a damn moonbat would suggest a parent has no right to defend his child….. moron

    – Bang **==

  8. Why not Bang, they already say that you have no say in what gets taught to our kids…

    Pretty soon we the parents will bear the responsibility of raising our kids, clothing them, feeding them, medical and dental care…..while they say what our children can be taught and who can teach our kids.

    Tell me this, how many Republican or Conservative (I separate them because really they are two separate beings so to speak), tell me how many have been using tactics like some of the teachers that have been caught doing to teach our children?

    What was the last one, some teacher showing internet movies deragatory of Bush and a woman touching her breast to her class?

    The womens studies professor who vandalizes and destroys private propert yin the name of her free speech?

    Our little Eichamans professor (talking about those in the twin towers)?

    The list goes on and on…and out of all those we see and hear about….how many of those are Conservatives? How many are Republicans?

    Where is the hate coming from and who is teaching it to our kids?

    Is it Liberals? Democrats?

    You tell me, who does it seem to be doing this…..

  9. “Tolerance”

    A concept preached by, but rarely practiced by, the left. A notion espoused by the left to gain acceptance of their own proclivities.

    The Boy Scouts have a long history of developing in young boys the very qualities that make good adult citizens. Their duty to God and country requires avoiding the behaviors to which God Himself is greatly intolerant. Withholding funding for such an organization demonstrates a severe list in moral direction and a singular spinelessness in the face of tantrums by a tiny portion of society.

  10. “any bleeding heart libturd every touches my kid they won’t have to worry about anything after that”

    Don’t send them to catholic school then.

  11. Why is it assumed that being gay automatically means you’re a pedofile? I think the straights hold the medal for that particular depravity.

    And yes, Marshall, God does consider Homosexuality intolerant. Luckily we do not live in a theocrisy and it is not illegal to be immoral.

    B of A is free to fund whomever they choose and we are free to keep our children out of Scouts to protest. A.K.A. America.

  12. Luckily we do not live in a theocrisy and it is not illegal to be immoral.

    Something the liberals count on…

  13. “Why is it assumed that being gay automatically means you’re a pedofile?”

    Who said anything about pedophilia? Those who believe in the benefits of the Boy Scouts do so because of their moral stance. Having as a leader someone who is unabashedly immoral would conflict with this. It is also not illegal to associate with people of one’s own choosing. Nor is it immoral to do so.

    B of A is indeed free to fund whomever they choose and they are free to be wrong as well. As are you.

  14. ReneeP, and I have the freedom not to do ANY business with B of A because of their anti Boy Scout actions.

    I’ve been boycotting the B of A since the “Butterball Turkeys” of Anaheim took the Scouts to court in the Mid 90’s. I should have kept the picture the OC Register printed of their dad screaming at the line of people withdrawing the accounts from B ob A.

  15. “Why is it assumed that being gay automatically means you’re a pedofile?”

    – Lets see. Camp counselors that are attracted to their own sex mixed with young men. Oh yeh. Really takes a freeking rocket scientist to devine that that’s a recipe for desaster. Uh huh.

    – Bang **==

  16. Big Bang Hunter pedophilia is an adult whose primary sexual attraction is with prepubescent children. These are sexual predators. NBC has been showing one sting operation after another of men that are attempting to lure young girls into a sex act. Take a look at the cases of female teachers having sex with young boys. These are not homosexuals. Are there homosexuals that are child predators? You bet. But not all predators are gay.

  17. I agree Pam.

    We cannot be sucked into how liberals like to paint with wide brushes, we have to be more than that, better.

    I concur that not all gays are pedophiles, same as not all catholic priests are pedophiles, or all straight men are pedophiles.

    There will always be a few that make the whole look bad.

    I have known only a few gay people in my life, and they were very nice people, only one gay male that I knew of was a real jerk, but you get that in any person.

    I am secure enough in myself that I had no stigma of going into a known gay bar and playing some pool and had a couple of beers with a friend who was gay. Just because he was trolling doesn’t mean I have to be scared or homophobic, same as if we hung out at a straight bar and I was looking to pick up a girl. As long as I am not the subject of ‘affections’ by another man, I have no problem, as long as they take ‘not interested or I am straight’ as an answer. It makes no difference to me, as long as there are some darts, a pool table and some beer, let the jokes and the pool bets begin.

    We cannot be sucked into being so afraid of one specific group that we paint them all as one way. Ie. All gays are pedophiles, all catholics are pedophiles, all women want to get married, all children are hyperactive, ect.

    We need ot move beyond labeling people or groups. If they are gay, they are still humans, even if I do not agree with their sexual habits or choice, I will not shun them.

    If in all this you remember one thing, remember this, Love the sinner hate the sin.

    Meaning I do not have to agree or like what you do, but I can still find you a decent human being.

  18. – Pam, I don’t recall anyone on here, particularly myself, making any such statements about “all gays being pedophiles”. Read what I posted again and see if you “get it”. Maybe it does take a rocket scientist for some.

    – Bang **==

  19. – I’m pretty much the big teddy bear Bak, until people put words in my mouth. I’m also a vehement defender of children, who tend to be the weakest and most commonly victimized in society. I don’t make those kinds of broad generalizations, not just because I have a long experience with psychological conditions in my professional life, but also because I have little patience with all of the strawman arguements that swirl around the issue.

    – So shoot me.

    – Bang **==

  20. Big Bang I did re-read what you wrote: – Lets see. Camp counselors that are attracted to their own sex mixed with young men. Oh yeh. Really takes a freeking rocket scientist to devine that that’s a recipe for desaster. Uh huh.

    You are assuming because a person is gay that they are child molestors. It is your analogy. gay councelor+boy= pedophilia.

  21. Key word is “all”…

    I wouldn’t put men as the camp leaders for brownies either. just me.

  22. Doesn’t mean that “all” men are pedophiles…. and it wasn’t said..

    I have a BofA account. What should I do folks? It’d be a hassle to change it because it has my business account.

  23. Pam – No. Its based on experience rather than the crap your poly-sci professors fill young heads with, fulminating race and “identity group” warfare to stir up society and beget chaos.

    – If you had the slightest experience with the proclivities of Pediphiles you’d know they naturally gravitate to activities that involve their “targets”. But you don’t even need a degree in psycholgy, just common sense would tell you that.

    – Recognizing the real world conditions on the ground has not a thing to do with inflamitory statements like “all gays are pediphiles”. Those are strawmen ment to quiet honest discussion of the issues which might, G_d forbid, lead to actual solutions. Why do that when we can use up the time calling each other names, and making sweeping condemnations.

    – Bang **==

  24. Bak- For all your talk of common sense you seem to be the one that lacks it. Pedophiles and gays are two different groups. You own the statement that mixing Camp counselors that are attracted to their own sex mixed with young men is a recipe for disaster. It would be just as ridiculous for me to say that putting a heterosexual male teacher in the classsroom with the opposite sex is a recipe for disaster. Neither is a true statement unless you are dealing with a pedophile!

  25. oops-above is directed to Band not Bak!:">

    And Bak I see what you are saying. No bang didn’t equate “all” but he set up the scenario.

  26. Pam – I set up the senario, not from personal opinion, nor bigotry of alternate life styles. Its a fact. Organizations such as NAMBLA even openly give helpful leads to gay pediphiles looking for employment activities, “rich” in targets.

    – It would be a better world were it different. But those are the facts. Its hard enough raising a child, being a responsible parent, without having yet more to worry about. I’m not going to send my child to a lumberjack school populated by people that like to play with wood chippers in their spare time, and I’m not going to send him to a group led by people with gay life styles.

    – If thats your choice, you’re perfectly within your rights. To each his/her own. Maybe it would help if I were ignorant of the real world, and I was “unaware” of the tendencies of “altered” sexuality. I don’t choose to sit back and let defenseless childrens lives and futures be dependent on theories, and the good intentions of well meaning, but woefully uninformed people.

    – Bang **==

  27. Pam wrote, “It would be just as ridiculous for me to say that putting a heterosexual male teacher in the classsroom with the opposite sex is a recipe for disaster.

    I respect you and disagree. In a camp situation we are talking about being in a remote area with different levels of dress and laying with at night.

    The Boy Scouts have their roles defined this way for reasons. The intimacy involved is nothing like a classroom.

    While the word “all” wasn’t used I do put it in the same category as the GIRL scouts being able to define who will be in their tents with them.

  28. Bak- I am not arguing that the Boy Scouts can’t ban homosexuals. That is their right. And I support it. They don’t believe in it, they have been honest about it, and that is the way it is. NO PROBLEM. What I have a problem with is somehow jumping from gay councelors to gay pedophile councelors. And now to throw NAMBLA into the mix is a complete joke! NAMBLA is legal pedophilia! Thank the ACLU for that one. NAMBLA also directs them to become coaches of organized sports. Should gays not be allowed to coach?

    Bang is the one that is equating this and it is just plain wrong!

    “Why is it assumed that being gay automatically means you’re a pedofile?”

    – Lets see. Camp counselors that are attracted to their own sex mixed with young men. Oh yeh. Really takes a freeking rocket scientist to devine that that’s a recipe for desaster. Uh huh.

    – Bang

    Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 5/19/2006 – 10:40 am

  29. – Since you insist in trying so very hard to push this into a box that no one has mentioned, “all gays are pediphiles” (only you have said that several times now), I will have to assume you have some sort of issues that do not allow you to discuss it rationally.

    – In the mean time, no I’m not sending my child to any organization run by gays. If you have a problem with that, tough.

    – Bang **==

  30. No Band- when the question was asked:”Why is it assumed that being gay automatically means you’re a pedofile?”
    You answered the question:- Lets see. Camp counselors that are attracted to their own sex mixed with young men. Oh yeh. Really takes a freeking rocket scientist to devine that that’s a recipe for desaster. Uh huh.


    You have a problem with gay people..understood, but don’t pretend to be an authority on on pedophilia when you make statements such as this: Its based on experience rather than the crap your poly-sci professors fill young heads with, fulminating race and “identity group” warfare to stir up society and beget chaos.

    – If you had the slightest experience with the proclivities of Pediphiles you’d know they naturally gravitate to activities that involve their “targets”. But you don’t even need a degree in psycholgy, just common sense would tell you that.
    And then follow up with :

    I set up the senario, not from personal opinion, nor bigotry of alternate life styles. Its a fact. Organizations such as NAMBLA even openly give helpful leads to gay pediphiles looking for employment activities, “rich” in targets.

    – It would be a better world were it different. But those are the facts.
    I am guessing your sorce of knowledge to be this

  31. I see both sides. But it is also clear that Bang didn’t say all.

    And what he says is true. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to devine that’s a recipe for disaster. It’s another way of saying what I’ve said. Not because Gay’s are pedophiles. That’s not what Bang or I have said. It’s just a way for pedophiles to mix in. That’s why.

  32. “You have a problem with gay people..understood, but don’t pretend to be an authority on on pedophilia”

    – One more time Pam, and then I would guess further discussion is pointless. On what basis do you aver to have the slightest idea of what I do or do not “have a problem with”. But set that aside, since it’s a rhetorical question to a rediculous assertion.

    – It seems terribly important to you for reasons only you can know to impune others for speaking to situations they do not deem acceptable for the welfare of children. I’m not sure what your motives are, but on two points you can be assured. I reject the idea that you insist on mis-characterizing my meanings, so audaciously, while at the same time saying nothing of your own. I also think your need to follow this line of thinking betrays some possible issues of your own.

    – In other words I could turn it all around and say you have a tendency to defame anyone that has a point of view different than your own. Insisting that you know better the intent of another person’s words is a bit arrogant wouldn’t you aggree. I’ve posted to you my reasons, not in detail because I would think it would be obvious as to why a parent wouldn’t want to let his child swim in an alligator pond, but apparently thats lost on you.

    – I also think you’ll tend to find that telling other people what they think will generally have a despressing effect on any communications. Bak has mentioned this several times to others that fall into that trap. The more appropriate approach in adult circles is to inquire as to the other persons thoughts.

    – Your last passage was simply wrong. Or do I also have to explain the difference between “experience” and simply “reading”. Maybe you form your life views from tesxtual works. I do not. Enough said.

    – Bang **==

  33. – Oh and since textual works seem to guide you in your opinions, scan this with no less than 12 Doctural references.

    – I think 73% is a rather disturbing number, but in any event I choose not to roll the dice with childrens welfare, either way.

    – Bang **==

  34. Bak I acknowledged that Bang didn’t say ‘all” here:

    oops-above is directed to Band not Bak!

    And Bak I see what you are saying. No bang didn’t equate “all” but he set up the scenario.

    Comment by Pam @ 5/19/2006 – 2:22 pm

    And yes Bang did equate gays to pedophiles when he answered the question of Renee P. You have done a superb job of explaining the situation. Not once did you add to the mix NAMBLA. Your theory would be correct if you were dealing with a pedophile to begin with, but in this case, we are dealing with assumptions.

    You asked about your account at BOA…This article points out that it is the charitable trust of… This reminds me of the Ford Foundation, and the gay controversy surrounding it… As it stands with Ford’s: It was set up by the heirs of the Ford family, many moons ago..I want to say 40-50 years ago…none of the current board members of the Ford Motor Motor, including Ford family, have anything to do with the charitable trust. All decisions are made by the trust. In other words Ford Motor founded and run by Ford Family. Ford Trust, founded by, but no longer run by family.

    I would certainly check it out before I moved money…that is a pain in the rear!

  35. – Since you seem to be the type of person that is rude, and can’t admit when she makes a mistake, I won’t bother with you again Pam.

    – andrew. you wish to add something to the conversation? I take it you have a dim view of professional people.

    – Bang **==

  36. I don’t think being gay automatically makes you a pedophile, however, the gays are always expressing a desire to be treated like “normal” people, marriage, etc. So, do we let male adults take young girls to camp without chaperones? No. So, should we let gay men take young boys, or lesbians take young girls, out alone to camp? No. Same rules as for the “straights.”

    There’s a reason Girl Scouts have women in charge and Boy Scouts have men in charge.

  37. Since you seem to be the type of person that is rude, and can’t admit when she makes a mistake, I won’t bother with you again Pam.

    When I make one I admit it. Too bad you don’t.

  38. When you point out a mistake I made I’ll be happy to correct it Pam. You’ve been told by at least three people, numerous times you mis-spoke but you persist.

    I pointed out to you several times where you tried to change the meaning of something I posted and put words in my mouth, and you just ignored it and kept right on going. Since you insist on being both rude and petty I won’t waste any more words on you. Bon appitite’….

    – Bang **==

  39. BangWhen you point out a mistake I made I’ll be happy to correct it Pam. You’ve been told by at least three people, numerous times you mis-spoke but you persist.

    What 3 people? Severian is just now giving their opinion on the subject.

    Bak corrected me on the word”all”. From there it was an opinion of how Bak told me what you ment. What you mean and what you write are 2 very different things. You answered the original question of Renee P. You did not say : “Renee, I don’t feel that because a person is gay they are a pedophile, but” …. You continued to justify the comment by citing NAMBLA and the FRC. You claimed to get this from experience, which you later explain to mean reading. You might want to continue doing research. Are there gay pedophiles? Yes. And there are also heterosexuals that are pedophiles as well. And guess what Bang, they too follow the teaching cited in NAMBLA. It is about grooming the kid and gaining the kids trust. These people come from all areas of society and they need to be stopped.

    I did not mis-charachterize you in any way. You did that all by yourself. You typed your words.

    Sanity actually nailed the subject best here

  40. Andrew I find it interesting that you defend homosexuality here:

    “Yes andrew, I’m a raving intolerant bigot because I don’t want some slime bag gay camp consular pawing my son or “teaching him” his own brand of sexual orientation. Bull.”

    Thats exactly it.

    But condemn it here:

    Don’t send them to catholic school then.

    Comment by andrew @ 5/19/2006 – 1:33 am

    What gives. – Lorica

  41. Also I have to wonder if B of A is going to ask any bigotied large account owner to take his money out of their bank?? Seems to me to be a double standard if they don’t ask all Churchs and Christian or racists or sexists organizations that don’t concur with THEIR beliefs to pull their money out of their bank and move it elsewhere. – Lorica

  42. – More like the usual “Liberal confusion” – They so automatically take the contrarian view on anything they think might be “conservative” theres bound to be times they step on their on feet….

    – An example occured way back during the RNC in New York. A large crowd of moonbats wanted to assemble in Central Park, to show the love you know, but they were told they could not. The leader of the tinfoil hats went ballistic “demanding his rights to assemble, decrying the trampling of his free speech, threatening to sue the city, yada yada yada.

    – The Mayor listened and then told him the reason they couldn’t march was because just two months before Greenpeace had forced a bill through the city concile, outlawing large group marches in the park “because it was destroying the wildlife and foilage”. Opps……

    – Bang **==

  43. “What gives. – Lorica”

    The problem with the church sex abuse isn’t homosexuality. Its sex abuse.

  44. Ahh yes andrew, the gay community struggles mightily to distance itself from the pedophile label, and I can readily understand why, but trying to say Priest on boy is not homosexual, is the usual word dance you always get from the Left. Unfortunately for your “argument” the Priests themselves have come out in many cases and openly proclaimed themselves gay. The Church hierarchy even has an official board now that votes on such admissions to the clergy. Its a little late in the day to try to evade on an issue that the Church itself has been steadily opening up for the past 15 years. So yes, Priest on boy is abuse AND gay.

    – Contrary to Pam’s natterings I had not looked at the statistics until her false comments triggered me into it. Not surprising in study after study, percentages of anywhere from 68 to 79%, pretty much squares with my professional experience.

    – I can certainly understand why decent gays are distressed, and feel it’s unfair for everyone to be lumped in the same bag, and I aggree and wouldn’t condone that, but with those kinds of percentages you can hardly call that any sort of safe environment for a child.

    – So you don’t get off the hook for having a double standard andrew. What it comes done to is because the Church is a Conservative organization, the left feels its fair game for derision and bashing, while defending gays at the same time. The question always is when you say these things who do you think will believe it?

    – Bang **==

Comments are closed.