Lockheed-Martin cuts ties to Boy Scouts

[Fehler]

So the guys behind Duck Dynasty are entitled to their beliefs, but the guys behind Lockheed-Martin are not.

[skeptic]

So the guys behind Duck Dynasty are entitled to their beliefs, but the guys behind Lockheed-Martin are not.

That is not what she said at all. She makes the valid point that the decision is an overreach, small minded political posturing, and hurts the children the most.

[GeorgiaMom]

So the guys behind Duck Dynasty are entitled to their beliefs' date=' but the guys behind Lockheed-Martin are not.[/quote']

 

 

Neither is entitled to try to force their personal beliefs on another, especially when children are hurt in the process.

 

Phil Robertson did not come out and say that anyone should be compelled to believe as he does. He was asked his personal view of sin in an interview, and he gave it by quoting the Bible. Phil went on to say that he respects all people whether or not their beliefs are in agreement with his own.

 

i take the same view. If I were interviewed and asked the same question, I would also give a Biblically based answer. I would expect to not lose my job over it.

 

Lockheed is not stating a personal belief. They are trying to force their corporate beliefs on others by hurting kids. It is repulsive.

 

Can you imagine if our church based American Heritage Girls troop took the same view? Can you imagine the justified fallout if we turned children away from our troop activities because of their own personal religious beliefs? We do not. Neither does our church. All children are welcome. All adults are welcome for that matter, whether atheist, Hindu, gay, straight, we don't care.

 

We do care who teaches as a representative of the troop or the church. That is different. I have no problem telling an adult that if they wish to join our church leadership and serve as a teacher, then they need to agree with the beliefs of our church. I also have no problem being told that myself. I do not expect, as a Protestant, to be allowed to teach Sunday School at my friend's Catholic church. That would be ridiculous. I'm not Catholic. I do expect my children to be welcome at the Catholic church's kids' events, including the Boy Scout troop I hope my son will join, and they are.

 

Lockheed is excluding my nine year old son from an educational robotics program next year because Lockheed doesn't approve of the church he attends, the religion of his family, or the fact that we send him to a Scouting organization that aligns with our family's religion. That is wrong. Lockheed is continuing to offer the program to GSUSA, while excluding BSA and AHG.

 

I think expecting adults to adhere to a religion's beliefs on lifestyle and faith is perfectly fine if they freely choose as adults to belong to that church or organization. I think telling children they aren't welcome because the group doesn't agree with their faith is wrong.

 

The executives at Lockheed are completely entitled to any faith or beliefs they choose. If they want to send money to GLAAD instead of the Scouts because GLAAD is more in line with the executives' values, I think that's fine. That's freedom of speech. I have an equal right to send my donation money to groups that encourage values I think are important. If Lockheed had just stopped sending corporate donations to BSA, they'd have no criticism from me.

 

But Lockheed went further. They've told our community in Atlanta that Scouts like my son, and American Heritage Girls like my daughter are not welcome at their educational programs open to the public. That's wrong.

 

Bible thumper that I am, I actually agree with the recent BSA membership decision. Our church doesn't expel people who identify as gay, and I don't think the BSA should either. I do think it's fine to insist that people who want to lead in the organization adhere to the lifestyle and beliefs that the organization wishes to promote. I have no problem with saying "no gay leaders", just as I have no problem with saying "no gay Sunday School teachers" at my church. I also have no problem being told by my friend's Catholic church that it would not be appropriate for me to teach in their Sunday School because I am not Catholic. It's ok for people to have different beliefs and lifestyles. That's real tolerance.

 

GA Mom

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

So the guys behind Duck Dynasty are entitled to their beliefs' date=' but the guys behind Lockheed-Martin are not.[/quote']

 

 

Neither is entitled to try to force their personal beliefs on another, especially when children are hurt in the process.

 

Phil Robertson did not come out and say that anyone should be compelled to believe as he does. He was asked his personal view of sin in an interview, and he gave it by quoting the Bible. Phil went on to say that he respects all people whether or not their beliefs are in agreement with his own.

 

i take the same view. If I were interviewed and asked the same question, I would also give a Biblically based answer. I would expect to not lose my job over it.

 

Lockheed is not stating a personal belief. They are trying to force their corporate beliefs on others by hurting kids. It is repulsive.

 

Can you imagine if our church based American Heritage Girls troop took the same view? Can you imagine the justified fallout if we turned children away from our troop activities because of their own personal religious beliefs? We do not. Neither does our church. All children are welcome. All adults are welcome for that matter, whether atheist, Hindu, gay, straight, we don't care.

 

We do care who teaches as a representative of the troop or the church. That is different. I have no problem telling an adult that if they wish to join our church leadership and serve as a teacher, then they need to agree with the beliefs of our church. I also have no problem being told that myself. I do not expect, as a Protestant, to be allowed to teach Sunday School at my friend's Catholic church. That would be ridiculous. I'm not Catholic. I do expect my children to be welcome at the Catholic church's kids' events, including the Boy Scout troop I hope my son will join, and they are.

 

Lockheed is excluding my nine year old son from an educational robotics program next year because Lockheed doesn't approve of the church he attends, the religion of his family, or the fact that we send him to a Scouting organization that aligns with our family's religion. That is wrong. Lockheed is continuing to offer the program to GSUSA, while excluding BSA and AHG.

 

I think expecting adults to adhere to a religion's beliefs on lifestyle and faith is perfectly fine if they freely choose as adults to belong to that church or organization. I think telling children they aren't welcome because the group doesn't agree with their faith is wrong.

 

The executives at Lockheed are completely entitled to any faith or beliefs they choose. If they want to send money to GLAAD instead of the Scouts because GLAAD is more in line with the executives' values, I think that's fine. That's freedom of speech. I have an equal right to send my donation money to groups that encourage values I think are important. If Lockheed had just stopped sending corporate donations to BSA, they'd have no criticism from me.

 

But Lockheed went further. They've told our community in Atlanta that Scouts like my son, and American Heritage Girls like my daughter are not welcome at their educational programs open to the public. That's wrong.

 

Bible thumper that I am, I actually agree with the recent BSA membership decision. Our church doesn't expel people who identify as gay, and I don't think the BSA should either. I do think it's fine to insist that people who want to lead in the organization adhere to the lifestyle and beliefs that the organization wishes to promote. I have no problem with saying "no gay leaders", just as I have no problem with saying "no gay Sunday School teachers" at my church. I also have no problem being told by my friend's Catholic church that it would not be appropriate for me to teach in their Sunday School because I am not Catholic. It's ok for people to have different beliefs and lifestyles. That's real tolerance.

 

GA Mom

So what's your opinion of excluding atheist kids from the BSA?

 

L-M is just (finally) following their own stated nondiscrimination policy.

[fred johnson]

Lockheed's decision is a major blow to Atlanta area Scouts, including my 9 year old Bear. We have been looking forward to the merit badge programs at Lockheed for years, which would have begun with Webelos next year for our family.

 

Lockheed is one of the crown jewels of the Atlanta area merit badge programs. Few other institutions match them for quality of offerings to Scouts of all ages. They have a well developed and long standing outreach program for children.

 

I have a low opinion of any company or group that is willing to hurt children to make a political point. This is cruel. If Lockheed wanted to withdraw funding from the national organization (where most of the money goes to overpaid executives anyway) that would have been an acceptable way to make a point.

 

But to tell a bunch of kids, including my nine year old son, who have been looking forward to this that they all of a sudden can't go because of decisions made by adults in which they had no part is small minded and nasty. If I had the opportunity to speak to the head of Lockheed, I would suggest he grow a pair. Hurting kids like this is never ok, for any reason. It is incredibly unbecoming for grown men to treat kids like this. I am angry on behalf of my son.

 

On the other matter....

 

I think Phil Robertson is completely entitled to his own personal religious beliefs, as they were stated. It is illegal under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to suspend or fire anyone because of their expression of a personal religious belief.

 

I'm sure A&E were very well aware that the Robertson family are Christians. One of Phil's sons is a pastor. The entire Robertson family is involved in many Christian outreach ministries (Operation Christmas Child, etc.). For them to suddenly suspend/fire one of them for quoting a Bible verse and stating that the Bible forms his own personal belief about sexual relations and marriage, while also stating that he loves and respects everyone who does not share his belief, is stunningly stupid. Is A&E actually surprised that this family reads the Bible and bases their personal lives on it?

 

Amazing how those who scream "tolerance" the loudest are actually the most intolerant people I've ever seen.

 

I'm with Phil. The Bible forms my basis for my own personal behavior, too, to the best of my ability. I believe in monogamous hetersexual marriage, too, in my own life. Why would this be anyone else's business? How do my personal religious choices have any effect on people who don't share my beliefs: whether gay, unmarried, or whatever? Their personal lives are not my business, and my personal life is not their business. Can't we all get along?

 

I find it amazing that people outside the Christian church have so much trouble dealing with doctrinal differences when so many of us within the church deal with them just fine. I am Protestant. I have many Catholic friends. We have different beliefs on some very central parts of life (reproduction) and faith (transubstantiation, intercession by priests, etc). And yet we get along just fine. We respect each other. They don't try to change my beliefs, and I don't try to change theirs. Why can't GLAAD and similar get a grip and understand that we don't have to be identical to get along?

 

 

GA Mom

Well said and I agree. I do wish Lockheed could just let the kids keep attending merit badge and activity pin sessions. It's a zero budget line entry for them. They provide space without routing $$ for support. Plus, it's probably a huge internal positive for their employees and employee moral.

 

I also fully agree with the statement that those who scream tolerance are the most intolerant people. That's my experience too. The memory that's most ingrained in my head is similar. Several members of a theater I was part of would go out to dinner. We each paid our bill and left a tip. It was those who screamed for the democrat party that would use the excess tip that many of us left to reduce their own tip to zero. Got to the point that we would pay separate because those complaining about the 1% would not pay their own fair share. My same experience with tolerance too.

 

Also reminds me of a relative of mine. Huge democratic party supports and the first to pull out the calculator to figure out the 10% tip to the penny. And they are the same ones to yell about bigotry and social injustice.

[moosetracker]

I guess I am seeing the comments here that seem to indicate that Lockheed has the nerve to do this, and how insensitive it is.. I see people who did not appreciate the support but have changed to expecting the support..

 

Fact is it is Lockheed's time and money, and Lockheed "owes" BSA nothing.. They did it out of generosity, for public relations, and most probably for a tax break.. They will most likely find a new project to contribute to.. It may benefit children it may not.

 

It is sad if they did a great program.. But, if you had an outstanding Scoutmaster or Cubmaster that put on a terrific program and he suddenly they decided they could no longer volunteer their time to the program, would you react the same way.. "The nerve. We depend on them. He is ruining the program the kids depend on.."

 

I don't know what type of program the provided, but perhaps some of the best of the program could be run by some of the adult volunteers who have gone to it and know the basics. Same as if a volunteer from the unit steps down, you figure out who in the unit can step up to fill the hole.

 

This year it may be a statement, next year it will be a memory.. Life will go on.. Eventually BSA will change. When it happens Lockheed may return, or they may never return. The may think twice about returning to a program who stopped appreciating what they offered and started expecting it to the point that when they moved on, it was demanded they return..

[GeorgiaMom]

I guess I am seeing the comments here that seem to indicate that Lockheed has the nerve to do this, and how insensitive it is.. I see people who did not appreciate the support but have changed to expecting the support..

 

Fact is it is Lockheed's time and money, and Lockheed "owes" BSA nothing.. They did it out of generosity, for public relations, and most probably for a tax break.. They will most likely find a new project to contribute to.. It may benefit children it may not.

 

It is sad if they did a great program.. But, if you had an outstanding Scoutmaster or Cubmaster that put on a terrific program and he suddenly they decided they could no longer volunteer their time to the program, would you react the same way.. "The nerve. We depend on them. He is ruining the program the kids depend on.."

 

I don't know what type of program the provided, but perhaps some of the best of the program could be run by some of the adult volunteers who have gone to it and know the basics. Same as if a volunteer from the unit steps down, you figure out who in the unit can step up to fill the hole.

 

This year it may be a statement, next year it will be a memory.. Life will go on.. Eventually BSA will change. When it happens Lockheed may return, or they may never return. The may think twice about returning to a program who stopped appreciating what they offered and started expecting it to the point that when they moved on, it was demanded they return..

There is nothing in my statement that says our community is unappreciative of Lockheed. Quite the contrary. They have given a lot to the community, but they have also demanded and received a lot from our community in the way ot tax breaks, etc.

 

No one is saying that Lockheed owes the kids a merit badge program. If they elect to discontinue it completely, that is their right.

 

By your argument, if a great Cubmaster had to step down, we'd give him a plaque and thank him, as we did last year. If the Cubmaster said that some kids could come to Scouts if he approved of their religion, and others couldn't, I would object. Your argument has nothing to do with the original post. No one owes kids their time. We all owe kids fair treatment if we choose to give our time.

 

I am saying that it's wrong to say some kids can attend and other kids (like my son) can't because of their religion.

 

GA Mom

[moosetracker]

I guess I am seeing the comments here that seem to indicate that Lockheed has the nerve to do this, and how insensitive it is.. I see people who did not appreciate the support but have changed to expecting the support..

 

Fact is it is Lockheed's time and money, and Lockheed "owes" BSA nothing.. They did it out of generosity, for public relations, and most probably for a tax break.. They will most likely find a new project to contribute to.. It may benefit children it may not.

 

It is sad if they did a great program.. But, if you had an outstanding Scoutmaster or Cubmaster that put on a terrific program and he suddenly they decided they could no longer volunteer their time to the program, would you react the same way.. "The nerve. We depend on them. He is ruining the program the kids depend on.."

 

I don't know what type of program the provided, but perhaps some of the best of the program could be run by some of the adult volunteers who have gone to it and know the basics. Same as if a volunteer from the unit steps down, you figure out who in the unit can step up to fill the hole.

 

This year it may be a statement, next year it will be a memory.. Life will go on.. Eventually BSA will change. When it happens Lockheed may return, or they may never return. The may think twice about returning to a program who stopped appreciating what they offered and started expecting it to the point that when they moved on, it was demanded they return..

Not quite. Lockheed is not putting on the merit badge program only for scouts and their parents who support BSA changing the program for total inclusiveness and telling those with different ideas to go pound sand.

 

They are simply stepping out of volunteering for BSA.. Reason is not the issue your scout leader may step down because of job or family commitments or because he had a big disagreement with the committee chair or COR and their vision of where the unit should be headed.. Doesn't matter why the scout leader step down, the time he commiteed should be appreciated, and someone hopefully will be able to step up and fill the gap.. likewise Lockheed volunteered with BSA, they are stepping out.. Doesn't matter why they are moving on, you should appreciate what they have done for the program and thank them for it..

 

If it's a merit badge course, I can see them not running it.. That is BSA specific.. A public educational program.. Most likely you could attend as the general public, but perhaps you can not attend as a scout unit in uniform.. This is not really stated in the article, so not sure.. All I know is don't expect them to run a special program geared to a BSA award, merit badge or whatever

[AZMike]

"Edgy" comics make far more inappropriate comments on cable TV than Phil Robertson ever has, and they get a pass. Miley Cyrus can simulate sexual positions with a married man and smoke a joint onstage and no one gives a crap. Express a view shared by most Christians - that homosexual behavior is a sin, and that we should hate the sin but love the sinner, even as we acknowledge our own sinful nature (Robertson's stated views, which are reasonable), and the network blows a gasket.

 

The Robertsons were always intended to be the punchline of a joke by A&E. When they became so wildly popular, A&E had no idea what to do other than to ask them to tone down the prayers that ended each show, and to try bleeping words to make it look like they were cussing. The people who are criticizing the Robertsons for "stereotyping" people are happy to ascribe their views to the fact that they and the people of the region they came from are illiterate, inbred, backwards, hookworm-infested hillbillies. Ironic, no?

 

Clearly, the A&E execs who panicked when they got a call from GLAAD are free to do what they want with their network (although their moral outrage did not prevent them from profiting from the "Duck Dynasty" marathon they are currently running.) I think they were surprised at the level of the backlash they received, and the popular support for Robertson. If the A&E insider source quoted by Entertainment Weekly is accurate, they are already backing down from their public posture and will continue to employ Phil Robertson. Underarmour, one of the show's sponsors, has stated that they stand by the Robertsons' right to express their religious viewpoints. Cracker Barrel restaurants, which made a knee-jerk decision to pull all Phil Robertson merchandise from their gift stores, got so much negative feedback from their customers over this last weekend that they did a 180, apologized, and said they will continue to sell the merchandise. Perhaps they realized that there are more heterosexual duck hunters who like camo who go to their restaurant than homosexual political activists.

 

That's huge, as a rebuke to the political power of GLAAD. I can't think of a time when a major corporation has knuckled under to Political Correctness then reversed themselves due to consumer outcry. It will be enlightening to see what happens, as GLAAD's moral authority has been challenged. Do they back off, claim victory and cut their losses, or redouble their efforts to gain the moral high ground and reassert control of the public agenda?

 

So yes, corporations are free to do as they wish within the law, and yes, they will have to deal with the consequences if they make decisions that their customer base finds repugnant.

The difference is that Cyrus was making a lewd performance, and is still receiving awards, in the public spotlight, and raking in the dough. She is positioning herself as a "feminist" for her actions. In the circles in which she travels, that's considered a win. Gottfried, Diller, and Gibson were not making statements about their religious beliefs. (Gibson is a member of a small schismatic sect which broke away from Catholicism, but the views he stated are not part of their church's doctrine and he isn't considered anyone's employee.) Robertson was making an expression of religious belief and is an employee of A&E, and such statements are covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, as I'm sure his attorneys and A&E's attorneys were aware. A&E was acting outside the scope of the law in making the threat.

[EmberMike]

Glad to see companies still view the BSA policies as discriminatory. I was worried that lifting the ban on gay kids might be viewed as enough of a change to renew financial support. But the fact is that discrimination still exists, and it is good to see that companies like Lockeed still see that.

[JoeBob]

Glad to see companies still view the BSA policies as discriminatory. I was worried that lifting the ban on gay kids might be viewed as enough of a change to renew financial support. But the fact is that discrimination still exists, and it is good to see that companies like Lockeed still see that.

Yep. It really helps the boys.

 

 

 

 

Still trying to figure out how.

[EmberMike]

Glad to see companies still view the BSA policies as discriminatory. I was worried that lifting the ban on gay kids might be viewed as enough of a change to renew financial support. But the fact is that discrimination still exists, and it is good to see that companies like Lockeed still see that.

JoeBob it doesn't help the boys to teach them that some kids' parents aren't worthy leaders just because they're gay.

[JoeBob]

Glad to see companies still view the BSA policies as discriminatory. I was worried that lifting the ban on gay kids might be viewed as enough of a change to renew financial support. But the fact is that discrimination still exists, and it is good to see that companies like Lockeed still see that.

Ember, are you holding up the gay lifestyle as a good example for the boys to follow?

 

Enrollment numbers are really gonna drop, unless you've figured out a way around that procreation thing...