Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. Policy to “Serve All Girls”

2 CommentsCurrent Events, ,

The following blog post is by Deborah Beuerman.

Articles published recently announced that boys who would rather live as girls can now be included as members of the Girl Scouts of the United States of America.

A transgender girl—a boy who acts like a girl—who is treated as a girl by his family will be accepted as a “girl” by Girl Scouts. This is really not new news.  A 7-year old boy who had been living as a girl since he was 2 was allowed to join a troop in 2012.

Sadly, a policy of inclusion has been in place for many years, with the Girl Scout membership policy simply stating that Girl Scouts is open to all girls.  On the face this sounds good, but such a simple statement without more definition can be broadly interpreted, and can be the basis for removing guiding principles for the organization.  Girl Scout founder Juliette Gordon Low did want diversity in scouting, but the definition of her day was quite different from the “diversity and tolerance” of our day.  While she did not want to exclude any girl because of race, socioeconomic class, or disability, today’s idea of including generally is focused on sexuality.

(more…)

READ MORE

Renown Scientists Skeptical of Scientific Research

Current Events,

In a recent Breakpoint commentary, Eric Metaxas writes that renown scientists are beginning to question much of the scientific research being published.

Metaxas writes,

“In late April, researchers published the results of their efforts to replicate 100 of ‘psychology’s biggest experiments.’ They were only able get the same results in 39 of them.

“Commenting on the failure, Daniele Fanelli of Stanford told the prestigious journal ‘Nature’ that ‘reproducibility rates in cancer biology and drug discovery could be even lower.’ She added, ‘From my expectations, these are not bad at all.'”

According to scientists, researchers are increasingly plagued by problems ranging from small sample sizes to conflicts of interest in conducting scientific research.

Metaxas concludes by saying,

“[I]f a lot of the stuff being published is ‘incorrect’ or ‘untrue,’ please refrain from comparing people who question the scientific consensus to Holocaust deniers and flat-earthers.

“A little bit of humility would not be bad at all.”

You can read Metaxas’ entire commentary here or listen to it below.

[audio:http://www.breakpoint.org/images/content/breakpoint/audio/2015/060115_BP.mp3]

READ MORE

Family Council Calls on Justices to Stand by Arkansans

Current Events, ,

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, April 28, 2015

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges. This is considered by many to be a landmark case that will determine the future of marriage in America.

Family Council President Jerry Cox released a statement, saying, “Contrary to what some may believe, this is not simply a fight over same-sex marriage. This is about how marriage will be defined in America and who gets to write that definition.”

Cox said the U.S. Supreme Court should uphold state marriage laws in order to be consistent with its decision in United States v. Windsor. “In that ruling, the court said that marriage would be defined by each individual state. Upholding state marriage amendments as constitutional is the only way the court can be consistent with its 2013 Windsor decision.”

Cox said state marriage laws do more than simply ban same-sex marriage. “When the law says marriage is the union of one man to one woman, that is not simply a same-sex marriage ban. That defines the institution of marriage, and it prevents any other union from being classified as ‘marriage,’ including everything from same-sex marriage to polygamy.”

Cox said the U.S. Supreme Court should respect the will of the people concerning marriage. “If the court chooses to strike state marriage laws now, it will be doing so at the expense of democracy. Voters in Arkansas and thirty other states chose to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Voters in only three states have voted to define marriage differently. Every poll in more than a decade has indicated Arkansans still support the definition of marriage they adopted in 2004. This is something voters have handled very capably up to this point. Unilaterally striking these state marriage laws would signal that voters are incapable or irrelevant in the eyes of the U.S. Supreme Court.”

###

READ MORE