News5 mins ago
Brownies And Girl Guides Used As Human Shields By Secularists...
68 Answers
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://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sandyRoe. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
LG, your question was ...
> Again - please demonstrate how an oath or pledge that allows a wider and more inclusive membership is a bad thing Ellipsis?
Did I not do that?
In terms of the Brownies then ...
> "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."
This is inherently exclusive:
do my best - what about lazy people?
love my god - what about atheists or people of multi-god faiths?
serve the Queen - what about republicans?
and my country - what about nationals of other countries?
help other people - what about selfish people?
keep the Guide Law - what about anarchists?
Not to mention Guides are girls! Adults are excluded, and males are excluded.
Why is there an oath at all? Guides don't need no stinking oaths!
It's a simple fact that the purpose of the organisation is to instill the values of the organisation into the members of the organisation. If the values include religion, so be it. My boys, who aren't religious, did not join the Cubs or Scouts. Nor did they go to the local faith school, even though it gets much better results than the other local schools. If you don't agree with the rules or values of the organisation, don't join the organisation!
> Again - please demonstrate how an oath or pledge that allows a wider and more inclusive membership is a bad thing Ellipsis?
Did I not do that?
In terms of the Brownies then ...
> "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."
This is inherently exclusive:
do my best - what about lazy people?
love my god - what about atheists or people of multi-god faiths?
serve the Queen - what about republicans?
and my country - what about nationals of other countries?
help other people - what about selfish people?
keep the Guide Law - what about anarchists?
Not to mention Guides are girls! Adults are excluded, and males are excluded.
Why is there an oath at all? Guides don't need no stinking oaths!
It's a simple fact that the purpose of the organisation is to instill the values of the organisation into the members of the organisation. If the values include religion, so be it. My boys, who aren't religious, did not join the Cubs or Scouts. Nor did they go to the local faith school, even though it gets much better results than the other local schools. If you don't agree with the rules or values of the organisation, don't join the organisation!
If what Jim said is true, then religion is a value of no more benefit to society or to a child than those that any socially aware atheist would embrace. In itself, I don’t think it is a ‘value’. It is simply a belief in an unknown invisible entity – and therefore not essential to encouraging good ethical principles. It is surplus to requirements.
Still not a valid argument ellipsis.
How is removing an oath to god a bad thing? Will it be the cause of moral corruptness, perhaps? Maybe you might be comfortable with retaining an outdated and outmoded oath in a world of all faiths and none, where some children at the moment are excluded because of their belief - or more accurately lack of belief- from an organisation which aims to instill more than just a faith in a god. I am not, and welcome the change.
You have yet to provide any kind of coherent argument against the change in the oath.
How is removing an oath to god a bad thing? Will it be the cause of moral corruptness, perhaps? Maybe you might be comfortable with retaining an outdated and outmoded oath in a world of all faiths and none, where some children at the moment are excluded because of their belief - or more accurately lack of belief- from an organisation which aims to instill more than just a faith in a god. I am not, and welcome the change.
You have yet to provide any kind of coherent argument against the change in the oath.
"[Belief in God] is therefore not essential to encouraging good ethical principles..."
That I agree with, but a belief in God does define what a lot of people's values are. It is also, of course, inherently divisive as long as there are people who do not believe in that same god. In the long run, ought we not encourage inclusivity amongst children? The Scout Promise, and its guiding equivalent, could just as effectively be replaced by:
"On my honour, I promise that I will do my best, to do my duty to others, to help other people, and to keep the Scout law."
From experience I'd expect that most children probably only say it because they have to anyway. That would mean that it doesn't matter overly if the 'God bit' is left in or taken out. The only people who care are the adults, and they aren't the ones saying it! But the version as I've proposed above has pretty much all it needs to have in it. The "Scout Law", or its guiding equivalent, is the substantial part of the code anyway: Trustworthiness, loyalty, consideration for others, courage, respect, self-respect, community, carefulness. There is no religion in that. Removing references to God, and even to the Queen, are not going to threaten the movement in any substantial way. That said, most scout groups and guide groups are based on church sites, so severing the link entirely would probably weaken the movement.
As I've said before, religion is a small part, and not a vital part, of the movement. In that case it should be possible and perhaps even desirable to take that part away in the interests of inclusivity. Who knows, it might even strengthen it and make the movement more attractive?
That I agree with, but a belief in God does define what a lot of people's values are. It is also, of course, inherently divisive as long as there are people who do not believe in that same god. In the long run, ought we not encourage inclusivity amongst children? The Scout Promise, and its guiding equivalent, could just as effectively be replaced by:
"On my honour, I promise that I will do my best, to do my duty to others, to help other people, and to keep the Scout law."
From experience I'd expect that most children probably only say it because they have to anyway. That would mean that it doesn't matter overly if the 'God bit' is left in or taken out. The only people who care are the adults, and they aren't the ones saying it! But the version as I've proposed above has pretty much all it needs to have in it. The "Scout Law", or its guiding equivalent, is the substantial part of the code anyway: Trustworthiness, loyalty, consideration for others, courage, respect, self-respect, community, carefulness. There is no religion in that. Removing references to God, and even to the Queen, are not going to threaten the movement in any substantial way. That said, most scout groups and guide groups are based on church sites, so severing the link entirely would probably weaken the movement.
As I've said before, religion is a small part, and not a vital part, of the movement. In that case it should be possible and perhaps even desirable to take that part away in the interests of inclusivity. Who knows, it might even strengthen it and make the movement more attractive?
> How is removing an oath to god a bad thing?
How is removing an oath to the Queen a bad thing? Or the country? Or to doing your best?
Removing an oath to God is not a bad thing, if that's what the Guides want to do. But it shouldn't be done simply so that people of no faith can join an organisation that has faith as a central tenet.
Neither you nor I are particularly religious, so arguing the toss about the religious aspect is to miss the point, which is ...
What right have non-members of a club got to demand that a club changes its rules so they can join?
> Caroline Mason said her daughter had felt unable to take part in her Brownies enrolment in north Somerset due to the religious content of the Promise.
So what? Also, I bet her sensitive daughter is delighted that her Mum's in the Daily Telegraph using her story in this way.
> Mr and Mrs Willett said their daughter was left unhappy at not being able to play a full part in a joining ceremony at the 2nd Crawley Down Brownies.
So what again? Plenty of children are unhappy all the time, because they don't qualify for certain things. Sports teams and universities to name two areas where it's possible not to qualify simply on merit.
In the case of the Guides, you have lots of options: take the oath and don't mean it; take the oath and mean it; or don't join. Whining that an organisation that's popular and successful should change so that it suits your own worldview is pathetic. As I said earlier, if atheists want to set up a secular Guides-like organisation then there's nothing stopping them and it could be quite popular and successful itself ...
How is removing an oath to the Queen a bad thing? Or the country? Or to doing your best?
Removing an oath to God is not a bad thing, if that's what the Guides want to do. But it shouldn't be done simply so that people of no faith can join an organisation that has faith as a central tenet.
Neither you nor I are particularly religious, so arguing the toss about the religious aspect is to miss the point, which is ...
What right have non-members of a club got to demand that a club changes its rules so they can join?
> Caroline Mason said her daughter had felt unable to take part in her Brownies enrolment in north Somerset due to the religious content of the Promise.
So what? Also, I bet her sensitive daughter is delighted that her Mum's in the Daily Telegraph using her story in this way.
> Mr and Mrs Willett said their daughter was left unhappy at not being able to play a full part in a joining ceremony at the 2nd Crawley Down Brownies.
So what again? Plenty of children are unhappy all the time, because they don't qualify for certain things. Sports teams and universities to name two areas where it's possible not to qualify simply on merit.
In the case of the Guides, you have lots of options: take the oath and don't mean it; take the oath and mean it; or don't join. Whining that an organisation that's popular and successful should change so that it suits your own worldview is pathetic. As I said earlier, if atheists want to set up a secular Guides-like organisation then there's nothing stopping them and it could be quite popular and successful itself ...
~Ellipsis. You still have not offered any kind of convincing argument though.
The Brownies, The Guides, The Scouts - none are an explicitly religious organisation. Indeed, as Jim has already stated, religion is a small part of it. So, why are you so exercised as to object to the removal of one small part of the Oath? The removal of which means that kids no longer have to pretend or to lie when taking it. The removal of which will add to inclusivity?
Instead, what you appear to want is to promote greater division, with separate organisations - "A Guides organisations for Atheists". Why?
Does making an Oath to god make the kids more moral, or better? If the answer is no, why are you bothered? If your answer is yes on the other hand, then that says far far more about you than it does about the organisation.
Thankfully, the leaders of these organisations appear to be far more enlightened than you, and we can therefore have popular organisations for young kids that are secular, which is excellent news, despite the whinings of the few.
If you do not like it of course, please feel free to set up your own. religious-based organisations...
The Brownies, The Guides, The Scouts - none are an explicitly religious organisation. Indeed, as Jim has already stated, religion is a small part of it. So, why are you so exercised as to object to the removal of one small part of the Oath? The removal of which means that kids no longer have to pretend or to lie when taking it. The removal of which will add to inclusivity?
Instead, what you appear to want is to promote greater division, with separate organisations - "A Guides organisations for Atheists". Why?
Does making an Oath to god make the kids more moral, or better? If the answer is no, why are you bothered? If your answer is yes on the other hand, then that says far far more about you than it does about the organisation.
Thankfully, the leaders of these organisations appear to be far more enlightened than you, and we can therefore have popular organisations for young kids that are secular, which is excellent news, despite the whinings of the few.
If you do not like it of course, please feel free to set up your own. religious-based organisations...
Why would I want to do that, LazyGun? I've told you several times that I'm not religious. Do you actually read what people write?
> Thankfully, the leaders of these organisations appear to be far more enlightened than you, and we can therefore have popular organisations for young kids that are secular, which is excellent news, despite the whinings of the few.
Eh? Did you actually read the article, as well?
> Thankfully, the leaders of these organisations appear to be far more enlightened than you, and we can therefore have popular organisations for young kids that are secular, which is excellent news, despite the whinings of the few.
Eh? Did you actually read the article, as well?
@Ellipsis yes, I do read what people write - I just do not think your contributions make any kind of sense. And yes, I did read the article.
You feel it was a wrong move to remove/change the Oath - but still have not made any kind of convincing case for keeping the Oath as it was, or offered any kind of explanation of what harms might accrue,despite repeated contributions to this thread. Is the pledge to god central to being a scout, a guide, or a brownie? If not, why should we be at all concerned about amending the pledge to be more inclusive?
About the best you can come up with is some nonsense about "club rules", and "if you don't like it, don't join" which are just weak. Or perhaps to set up an alternative, competing organisation, which is just unnecessary.
And nowhere have you explained what harm you feel might accrue from changing the Oath. If there is no harm, then why oppose the change? If there is a harm, what harm do you envision? In an evolving society and culture, it makes a lot of sense that organisations and their rules and membership might also evolve and change too.
Its a welcome acknowledgement of current culture. Fortunately we are recognising that organisations that are exclusionary are becoming things of the past.
You feel it was a wrong move to remove/change the Oath - but still have not made any kind of convincing case for keeping the Oath as it was, or offered any kind of explanation of what harms might accrue,despite repeated contributions to this thread. Is the pledge to god central to being a scout, a guide, or a brownie? If not, why should we be at all concerned about amending the pledge to be more inclusive?
About the best you can come up with is some nonsense about "club rules", and "if you don't like it, don't join" which are just weak. Or perhaps to set up an alternative, competing organisation, which is just unnecessary.
And nowhere have you explained what harm you feel might accrue from changing the Oath. If there is no harm, then why oppose the change? If there is a harm, what harm do you envision? In an evolving society and culture, it makes a lot of sense that organisations and their rules and membership might also evolve and change too.
Its a welcome acknowledgement of current culture. Fortunately we are recognising that organisations that are exclusionary are becoming things of the past.
> You feel it was a wrong move to remove/change the Oath
No, I feel it's wrong for people to whine and complain that they (or more precisely their daughters) are required to take an oath. They're not required to take it. They're perfectly free to not join the organisation. The vast majority of children DON'T join the Guides, after all.
> And nowhere have you explained what harm you feel might accrue from changing the Oath
An erosion of freedom, diversity and choice.
The Guides are often organised and run by people of a religious persuasion. I don't feel it's my place to tell them how to run their organisation. They're free to do as they wish, within the law, and make their organisation the popular success that it is on the back of their efforts.
Who am I, or you, or Caroline Mason, or Mr and Mrs Willett, to tell people how to behave? What right do we have to interfere with a perfectly decent, lawful organisation and try to shape it in our image?
No, I feel it's wrong for people to whine and complain that they (or more precisely their daughters) are required to take an oath. They're not required to take it. They're perfectly free to not join the organisation. The vast majority of children DON'T join the Guides, after all.
> And nowhere have you explained what harm you feel might accrue from changing the Oath
An erosion of freedom, diversity and choice.
The Guides are often organised and run by people of a religious persuasion. I don't feel it's my place to tell them how to run their organisation. They're free to do as they wish, within the law, and make their organisation the popular success that it is on the back of their efforts.
Who am I, or you, or Caroline Mason, or Mr and Mrs Willett, to tell people how to behave? What right do we have to interfere with a perfectly decent, lawful organisation and try to shape it in our image?
@Ellipsis More nonsense. Erosion of civil liberties and diversity! Gosh! How precisely is allowing for greater inclusivity "eroding civil liberties"? And perhaps by allowing such greater inclusion actually promotes diversity within the organisation.
"No, I feel it's wrong for people to whine and complain that they (or more precisely their daughters) are required to take an oath. They're not required to take it. They're perfectly free to not join the organisation. The vast majority of children DON'T join the Guides, after all."
And this is just a kind of petulant restatement of "our club, our rules". Fortunately, the organisations themselves are rather more grown up than that. It was not just prospective members that were polled before changing the pledge - Parents of existing members, existing members, past members, prospective members,interested members of the public were all polled, and there was an strong appetite for a change to better reflect current society. That's a good and mature response, unlike the rather more childish "if you don't like it, don't join" sentiment you appear to be endorsing.
So you basically appear to have no significant argument. Glad we have cleared that up!
Excellent move by the guides and the brownies. Scouts soon to follow - more good news.
"No, I feel it's wrong for people to whine and complain that they (or more precisely their daughters) are required to take an oath. They're not required to take it. They're perfectly free to not join the organisation. The vast majority of children DON'T join the Guides, after all."
And this is just a kind of petulant restatement of "our club, our rules". Fortunately, the organisations themselves are rather more grown up than that. It was not just prospective members that were polled before changing the pledge - Parents of existing members, existing members, past members, prospective members,interested members of the public were all polled, and there was an strong appetite for a change to better reflect current society. That's a good and mature response, unlike the rather more childish "if you don't like it, don't join" sentiment you appear to be endorsing.
So you basically appear to have no significant argument. Glad we have cleared that up!
Excellent move by the guides and the brownies. Scouts soon to follow - more good news.
> How precisely is allowing for greater inclusivity "eroding civil liberties"?
Because in telling somebody else how to behave, and insist they behave in that manner, we erode their ability to choose for themselves how to behave. This is pretty basic stuff, isn't it?
> And perhaps by allowing such greater inclusion actually promotes diversity within the organisation.
Yes, of course it would. To the extreme where if the organisation contained all of society, then it would be as diverse as it could possibly be. But it wouldn't be the same organisation any more, it would just be ... society. And therefore pointless as a separate entity. It's because people are different that clubs where like-minded people can meet are popular, whether that's chess club, science club or Guides. If Guides are a club that believes having a faith is important, it's not a club I'd want my children to join ... but it's their prerogative to be that way.
> Parents of existing members, existing members, past members, prospective members,interested members of the public were all polled, and there was an strong appetite for a change to better reflect current society.
Where are you getting this from? The Telegraph article talks about two complaints, and states "While a spokesman for the Guides said that no timetable for the review had been drawn up, members could be consulted on the issue as early as next month." - not that consultations had already happened.
Because in telling somebody else how to behave, and insist they behave in that manner, we erode their ability to choose for themselves how to behave. This is pretty basic stuff, isn't it?
> And perhaps by allowing such greater inclusion actually promotes diversity within the organisation.
Yes, of course it would. To the extreme where if the organisation contained all of society, then it would be as diverse as it could possibly be. But it wouldn't be the same organisation any more, it would just be ... society. And therefore pointless as a separate entity. It's because people are different that clubs where like-minded people can meet are popular, whether that's chess club, science club or Guides. If Guides are a club that believes having a faith is important, it's not a club I'd want my children to join ... but it's their prerogative to be that way.
> Parents of existing members, existing members, past members, prospective members,interested members of the public were all polled, and there was an strong appetite for a change to better reflect current society.
Where are you getting this from? The Telegraph article talks about two complaints, and states "While a spokesman for the Guides said that no timetable for the review had been drawn up, members could be consulted on the issue as early as next month." - not that consultations had already happened.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.