Brownies And Girl Guides Used As Human Shields By Secularists...

[sandyRoe]

Innocent little girls wishing to join the Brownies or Girl Guides may have to stop pledging their devotion to God because some parents have voiced objections. Can this forcing them onto the battlefield to act as human shields while the secularists go about dismantling all that many hold dear be ever justified?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8901378/Girl-guides-set-to-drop-oath-to-God-in-bow-to-secularists.html

[jim360]

I went through the Scouting movement, and did find the idea of saying "do my duty to God", and the prayers at meeting's end, slightly awkward, but I'm not sure that removing it entirely would be a good thing. Why not have an opt-in system of some sort, or an opt-out? If you don't want to take an oath to God, then don't, but if you do, then feel free.

Religion is invasive when it takes away the freedom of others and affects their lives. It seems to me that Secularism doing the same thing -- taking away people's freedom to worship their God(s) if they want to -- would also be taking away freedom and being invasive, and is therefore no more desirable. In the long run fewer people might want to take an oath to God, but that ought to be their choice, no?

[sandyRoe]

It might be said that if someone doesn't like the rules of a particular club they are under no compulsion to join it.

[mushroom25]

does the phrase "do my best to love my god" imply just the christian deity, or is it meant to encompass all "gods" irrespective of the religion of their followers?

[jim360]

Then again, one might also say that children are obliged to respect their parents' wishes. Cue cries of "indoctrination". But overall I'd say time at the Scouts was a positive experience, even though I wasn't all that keen on the religious aspect of it.

[sandyRoe]

That phrase seems drafted to allow all faiths.

[jim360]

All faiths, except those of no faith at all. So it is exclusive of atheists, and in that case there ought to be an option for such people not to have to say that particular line. The thing is that scouting and guiding are about far more than that oath -- it seems unfair to insist that people have to take that oath or not be in the movement, as it offers a lot. Traditional skills, socialising, physical activities and so on. I'm not sure that a similar, secular organisation exists -- so where else (other than at home, but that relies on the parents having the time and the skills) can atheistic children go?

[pixie373]

Yes. It's justified exactly because they are innocent. Brownies and Guides are not religious meetings, so a belief in God is not necessary. We shouldn't be encouraging children to agree with something they don't mean.

[jomifl]

Guides and Brownies is not 'heaven' so no need to grovel to god, plenty of time for that later when they can perhaps understand the issue.

[naomi24]

Human shields? What on earth does that mean in this context?

[Maydup]

I loved my time at Brownies and Guides, but I never understood the relevance of "doing my duty to God". I'm very pleased its been dropped and yes, whatever it is you're asking, is justified.

[douglas9401]

It's been a while Jim but do |I remember correctly: "...do my duty to God and the queen..."
A wee bit creepy looking back.

[pixie373]

I'm sure Brownies had something about "keep the countyside code" in it? Or am I making that up?

[sandyRoe]

I use the phrase in this sense. 'Poor little Jemima, or Chloe, or Arabella, can't socialise with their friends because their abhorrence of all things religious prevents them from pledging their devotion to any god.', say the secularists. 'So, change the rules.'
The children are being used as shields by people who have an unGodly agenda.

[ludwig]

Perhaps they should just drop the oath altogether. If you look at it ...

"I promise that I will do my best, to love my God, to serve the Queen and my country, to help other people and to keep the Guide Law."

Secularists, anti-royalists, traitors, and people who don't want to help other people or keep the guide law could all have valid reasons for objecting to make such a promise, so perhaps they should just not bother. Seriously - it's not the Freemasons, it's just a kids club, so what are they doing taking oaths anyway?

[Maydup]

"I promise to be kind and helpful" would do!

[pixie373]

That would be better, maydup! I still don't understand how they're being "used" by not having to say it. Are they being"used" by the religious as it stands now?

[naomi24]

sandyRoe, // “their abhorrence of all things religious prevents them from pledging their devotion to any god”//

That’s nonsense. Abhorrence has nothing to do with it. They don’t believe in a god, therefore pledging allegiance to a god would be disingenuous – or perhaps you would prefer the organisation to teach them that hypocrisy is imperative if it gets you what you want?

[sandyRoe]

'Hypocrisy' isn't the word I'd use. Learning that an emollient approach to life's problems can be useful, where compromise played its part, would be a lesson worth having. Perhaps they could take the oath with their fingers crossed?

[naomi24]

'Hypocrisy' is precisely the word I'd use.

[jim360]

In general whenever I've had to say or do anything religious it's always felt awkward or even hypocritical. So I've finally decided to stop doing it if I can help it -- though listening to the music is fine by me. It was the same saying that oath (that does include the "and to the Queen" that, oddly, I've never had a problem with). What meaning is there behind swearing to do your duty to something you do not believe in? And yet making the Scout Promise is something you have to do to become a Scout, so there's no choice about it. And there wasn't much choice about joining, either, because "mum said so", and let's face it, when you're young you are always going to lose the argument with parents. In this case the most "tragic" consequence of that was of feeling at times awkward and hypocritical, and as I've mentioned before there is a lot more to the Scouting (and Guiding) experience than just the promise you make on joining.

But the point is, you can't say "well don't join it then" because firstly that's not going to work for atheist children of Christian (or in general religious, but mainly Christian) parents who may be obliged to go. And secondly, again, it's a small part of the Movement and hardly vital or even central. Is it so hard to either drop the religious aspect or make it non-compulsory? In either case, saying that "oh this is just secularist persecution" is both to exaggerate wildly and to pretend that the "persecution" (itself exaggeration, and really the "making uncomfortable") of atheists doesn't matter.