Scouts to open it's doors to atheists.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2242584/Scouts-pledge-drop-mention-God-promise-new-members-able-declare-atheists.html

Along with all other discipline it seems, who told that kid he could bend the peak of his uniform cap in such a way?

Soon they will be allowed to wear the peak either at the side or at the back.

What is the World coming to?

[Mick-Talbot]

Well, that lets my kids in at last but I don't think they will bother.

[sandyRoe]

I think we should be more concerned about the scouts dropping an important principal than the shape of that lads cap peak.

[Mick-Talbot]

What important principal is that sandy?

[sandyRoe]

Are they not a Christian group?

[LazyGun]

What is the world coming to indeed, allowing important youth organisations to amend their core values in line with increasing social and cultural awareness of equality and secularism.

What a disastrous day when atheists are allowed to affirm, rather than declaring an oath to a god they have no belief in.

Whatever next? Will the Scouts be letting in Muslims, or Buddhists, or even worse, women?.... oh ,wait....

Seems to me that this is a good development,a good sign, not something to decry

[whiskeryron]

You know very well what he means Mick.

WR.

[AB Editor]

The question could be: "Are they not a Christan group any more?" they certainly were , does them being inclusive effect their "Christian Group" status?

[Mick-Talbot]

I would love to know the % of scouts who do not actually give a toss about god and religion.
Be honest how many kids do you think just blurt out the god nonsense without even thinking about it?

[pdq1]

As the Scouts are a world wide organisation I wonder if this edict is also pledged in Muslim countries are are we just talking about a British one?

[LazyGun]

The Scouts have always considered themselves independent of any specific religion- when the movement started to gain traction globally=whilst acknowledging that religion and faith plays a part in many cultures, at least in the UK - it might differ in other areas of the globe...

It was The Boys Brigade that was started as an exclusively christian group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Scouting

Now, if only we could lose the commitment to the Monarch instead, the new proposals would be just about right...

[piggling]

Scouts have not been a 'Christian' group for many years - nor have the Guides/Brownies. They have been open to anyone of any faith - 'I promise to love MY god'. Personally, as a Brownie/Guide leader I think it's about time that part of the promise was updated. Maybe something along the lines 'I promise to act towards others as I would wish them to act towards me', which at least would mean more to most than promising to love their god. As my mother always says you can call your TV god to make that promise!

[Khandro]

LG; For once I was going along with you, I see no immediate connection between Scout-ism and Christianity, and as it's a world wide organisation, it is active in countries where other religions prevail, but then you have to show your 'Mr Nasty' side by wishing they would renounce their loyalty to the Queen. Why should they do that?

[LazyGun]

@Khandro

Hmm. Please show me where someone who does not believe in the Monarchy is nastier than someone who does?

You do spout some nonsense sometimes......

[Khandro]

LG; //You do spout some nonsense sometimes......// A further example of nastiness, as is usual when you are unable to answer a question.

[Old_Geezer]

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Society-and-Culture/Religion-and-Spirituality/Question1194316.html

[sp1814]

AB Editor

Write 100 lines.

I MUST NOT MIX UP 'EFFECT' AND 'AFFECT'

[LazyGun]

@Khandro - I did answer the question -by asking you to justify the logic of what you had said.

Can I help it if you spout nonsense sometimes?

[Khandro]

LG; To reiterate: My question (above, 17:25) which you fail continually to answer, was why do you wish boy scouts should renounce their loyalty to the Queen? - a simple question, requiring no justification of logic.

[LazyGun]

@Khandro - No, you didn't. This is what you posted
"but then you have to show your 'Mr Nasty' side by wishing they would renounce their loyalty to the Queen. Why should they do that?"

And this is what I wrote:

"Now, if only we could lose the commitment to the Monarch instead, the new proposals would be just about right..."

It is perfectly clear that what I would like them to do is to reconsider the need to make a commitment to the reigning Monarch as part of the conditions of membership for joining the Scouts in the UK.

You choose to characterise this as being a" Mr. Nasty" - That a desire to remove an oath of fealty to a monarch is somehow "nasty". Your assumption that this is nasty very definitely requires a justification of logic.

Sometimes, Khandro, you do spout some nonsense....

[Khandro]

^//It is perfectly clear that what I would like them to do is to reconsider the need to make a commitment to the reigning Monarch as part of the conditions of membership for joining the Scouts in the UK.//
Yes but why, when all persons enlisting in the British Army, recruits to the Royal Air Force and the Royal Marines are required by the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 to attest to the following oath:

I ... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the generals and officers set over me. So help me God.