NYT

‘Family Friendly’ White House Proves Less So for Many Aides

0
Miami Herald

Honduras quits Organization of American States

 0
Don Surber

Would Galileo buy global warming?

 0
AP

Mrs. Obama bringing glamor to Moscow this weekend

0
WaPo

Obama Urges Groups to Stop Attacks [on Dems who oppose ObamaCare]

 0
All Headlines »
 

Bank of America pulls Boy Scout funding

Posted by: Sister Toldjah on May 17, 2006 at 10:14 pm

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?

In: Gay Community Issues, Political Correctness, Social Issues | Email This Post | Print This

RSS feed for comments on this post.

54 Responses to “Bank of America pulls Boy Scout funding”

Comments

  1. Pam says:
    May 19, 2006 at 4:22 pm

    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

  2. Big Bang Hunter says:
    May 19, 2006 at 5:56 pm

    - 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 **==

  3. Pam says:
    May 19, 2006 at 10:49 pm

    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

  4. Baklava says:
    May 19, 2006 at 11:28 pm

    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.

  5. Big Bang Hunter says:
    May 19, 2006 at 11:32 pm

    “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 **==

  6. Big Bang Hunter says:
    May 20, 2006 at 12:30 am

    - 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 **==

  7. andrew says:
    May 20, 2006 at 2:34 am

    “Doctural references.”

    The best kind there is!

  8. Pam says:
    May 20, 2006 at 8:32 am

    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!

  9. Big Bang Hunter says:
    May 20, 2006 at 9:55 am

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

    - Unfortunate choice of words in view of the topic.

    - Bang **==

  10. Pam says:
    May 20, 2006 at 10:00 am

    Not at all.

  11. Big Bang Hunter says:
    May 20, 2006 at 10:34 am

    - 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 **==

  12. Severian says:
    May 20, 2006 at 10:43 am

    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.

  13. Pam says:
    May 20, 2006 at 10:58 am

    - 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.

  14. Pam says:
    May 20, 2006 at 10:59 am

    Severian that was a well worded way to answer the question.:)

  15. Big Bang Hunter says:
    May 20, 2006 at 11:06 am

    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 **==

  16. Pam says:
    May 20, 2006 at 11:42 am

    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

  17. Lorica says:
    May 20, 2006 at 12:01 pm

    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

  18. Lorica says:
    May 20, 2006 at 12:03 pm

    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

  19. Severian says:
    May 20, 2006 at 12:16 pm

    What gives. – Lorica

    Sexual ambiguity?:-"

  20. Big Bang Hunter says:
    May 20, 2006 at 12:35 pm

    - 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 **==

  21. andrew says:
    May 20, 2006 at 1:43 pm

    “What gives. – Lorica”

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

  22. Big Bang Hunter says:
    May 20, 2006 at 5:17 pm

    Pam – KMA – you blew it and you’re just to small to admit it.

    - Bang **==

  23. Big Bang Hunter says:
    May 20, 2006 at 5:31 pm

    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 **==

  24. Sister Toldjah says:
    May 20, 2006 at 5:35 pm

    I think it’s time to close this thread – it’s gotten too contentious.

« Older Comments