ChatterBank1 min ago
Scouts to open it's doors to atheists.
151 Answers
http
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?
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?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. 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.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
The Scouts ceased to be an explicitly christian group some while ago. They have expanded their selection of oaths since to include all faiths. The only people currently excluded from joining are atheists, since all of the current oaths require a commitment to god.
These new proposals bring Scouting up to date, in line with the modern cultural values of equality for all, regardless of gender, race or creed. And this is what the scouting movement wants - it is trying to be an aspirational organisation for all youth.
All I would wish for, since they are reviewing their oath and approved alternatives, is that they allow affirmation rather than swearing to god (like they do in a court of law) and ideally to offer a form of words that also might allow you to opt out of an oath to the Monarchy, should you so wish.
Whilst we might live in what is technically a constitutional monarchy, it is, more importantly, a democracy -and as such individuals should be entitled to the principled view that a monarchy is anachronistic, enshrines privilege, and on balance does more harm than good.
Holding such a view should not be a bar to joining an organisation that aims to be an inclusive youth movement hoping to inculcate aspirational values and ethical behaviour.
The Scouting Association is a voluntary organisation - not some youth wing of the establishment, or the military!
These new proposals bring Scouting up to date, in line with the modern cultural values of equality for all, regardless of gender, race or creed. And this is what the scouting movement wants - it is trying to be an aspirational organisation for all youth.
All I would wish for, since they are reviewing their oath and approved alternatives, is that they allow affirmation rather than swearing to god (like they do in a court of law) and ideally to offer a form of words that also might allow you to opt out of an oath to the Monarchy, should you so wish.
Whilst we might live in what is technically a constitutional monarchy, it is, more importantly, a democracy -and as such individuals should be entitled to the principled view that a monarchy is anachronistic, enshrines privilege, and on balance does more harm than good.
Holding such a view should not be a bar to joining an organisation that aims to be an inclusive youth movement hoping to inculcate aspirational values and ethical behaviour.
The Scouting Association is a voluntary organisation - not some youth wing of the establishment, or the military!
< scout (and emphatically the Girl Guide) movement in the 20th Century>
We are not in the 20th century anymore Khandro in case you haven't noticed.
When LG suggested the movement should not be automatically aligned with the establishment or military I think he was expressing what would be more appropriate for the current membership
We are not in the 20th century anymore Khandro in case you haven't noticed.
When LG suggested the movement should not be automatically aligned with the establishment or military I think he was expressing what would be more appropriate for the current membership
@Khandro
What? You are using wartime privations and exigencies to justify your risible assertion that the Scouting Association should be regarded as the youth wing of the establishment or worse, the military?
Does it say, anywhere in their articles of association, that they are part of the military or the government? Does it state they are part of the Establishment? No, it does not.
They are a voluntary organisation with a desire to inculcate aspiration and ethical behaviour in the nations youth - a worthy aim. They most definitely should not be regarded as some kind of paramilitary.
They have also (at least for the Scouting Association of the UK) expressed a desire to be inclusive and welcoming to all - this is to be welcomed and supported. So those who view the Monarchy as a "Bad Thing", but are otherwise aspirational and ethical should not be barred from entry - a form or forms of words should be devised that all can swear to,regardless of gender, race and creed, in truth and with a clear conscience.
You were spouting nonsense when you suggested that dropping a commitment to the monarchy was "nasty", and you just descend further into the pit into trying to defend such an asinine notion.
What? You are using wartime privations and exigencies to justify your risible assertion that the Scouting Association should be regarded as the youth wing of the establishment or worse, the military?
Does it say, anywhere in their articles of association, that they are part of the military or the government? Does it state they are part of the Establishment? No, it does not.
They are a voluntary organisation with a desire to inculcate aspiration and ethical behaviour in the nations youth - a worthy aim. They most definitely should not be regarded as some kind of paramilitary.
They have also (at least for the Scouting Association of the UK) expressed a desire to be inclusive and welcoming to all - this is to be welcomed and supported. So those who view the Monarchy as a "Bad Thing", but are otherwise aspirational and ethical should not be barred from entry - a form or forms of words should be devised that all can swear to,regardless of gender, race and creed, in truth and with a clear conscience.
You were spouting nonsense when you suggested that dropping a commitment to the monarchy was "nasty", and you just descend further into the pit into trying to defend such an asinine notion.
LG //What? You are using wartime privations and exigencies to justify your risible assertion that the Scouting Association should be regarded as the youth wing of the establishment or worse, the military?//
Boy scouts and girl guides are not a youth wing of the military, nor should they be regarded as so, this is your fabrication, however their contribution to the effort required to prevail in wartime was commendable, to say the least; Girl Guides nursing the wounded and boy scouts worked as an auxiliary force dealing with distribution and general aid.
Your other fabrication that there are potential boy scouts being excluded because they see the Monarchy as a 'bad thing' (as you obviously do) beggars belief.
Bringing in the "gender, race and creed" card, shows just how week your arguments are.
Boy scouts and girl guides are not a youth wing of the military, nor should they be regarded as so, this is your fabrication, however their contribution to the effort required to prevail in wartime was commendable, to say the least; Girl Guides nursing the wounded and boy scouts worked as an auxiliary force dealing with distribution and general aid.
Your other fabrication that there are potential boy scouts being excluded because they see the Monarchy as a 'bad thing' (as you obviously do) beggars belief.
Bringing in the "gender, race and creed" card, shows just how week your arguments are.
@Khandro What beggars belief is your continuous carping, your continued defence of something that is petty and irrelevant - rather like the requirement to swear an oath to god, which the Scouts, rather sensibly, if a little late, are now minded to drop. Good for them! Shows that they at least are progressive, unlike yourself.
Gender. race and creed equality is not just a card you play in some game of oneupmanship except. it seems. in your mind - it's a fundamental lodestone of a decent, civilised society, and I am astonished that you would countenance a situation where those individual wishing to join the Scouting Association, but who do not believe in the monarchy might be excluded simply because they do not wish to lie and swear an oath they might not believe.
None of the fundamental values of scouting, or its principles, require allegiance to the monarchy. Being Trustworthy, self-confident and self controlled; having self-respect and respect for others (I would fail because what respect I have for you has vanished entirely); to work together and work toward a better society;caring for the natural world, respecting possessions and property - These are all values to be esteemed, and no one needs an oath of allegiance to the monarchy in order to activate such values.
None of those values require an oath to one particular god either, and the Scouts have recognised that, offering first a range of oaths depending on which particular god a prospective scout might follow- and now they are considering affirmation for atheists-those individuals who need no god to define their ethics or morals - an excellent and worthy change.
Given their earnest attempts to change and adapt to the cultural norms of a modern, liberal, secular democracy,it is a shame they do not go the extra mile and offer an alternative to pledging allegiance to the monarchy for those youths who consider the monarchy an irrelevance.
Like a lack of beliefs in any god, a lack of belief in a monarch does not make that person any less moral or ethical - but it does make them less prone to distort fact or lie in order to twist reality to better match their faith.
Gender. race and creed equality is not just a card you play in some game of oneupmanship except. it seems. in your mind - it's a fundamental lodestone of a decent, civilised society, and I am astonished that you would countenance a situation where those individual wishing to join the Scouting Association, but who do not believe in the monarchy might be excluded simply because they do not wish to lie and swear an oath they might not believe.
None of the fundamental values of scouting, or its principles, require allegiance to the monarchy. Being Trustworthy, self-confident and self controlled; having self-respect and respect for others (I would fail because what respect I have for you has vanished entirely); to work together and work toward a better society;caring for the natural world, respecting possessions and property - These are all values to be esteemed, and no one needs an oath of allegiance to the monarchy in order to activate such values.
None of those values require an oath to one particular god either, and the Scouts have recognised that, offering first a range of oaths depending on which particular god a prospective scout might follow- and now they are considering affirmation for atheists-those individuals who need no god to define their ethics or morals - an excellent and worthy change.
Given their earnest attempts to change and adapt to the cultural norms of a modern, liberal, secular democracy,it is a shame they do not go the extra mile and offer an alternative to pledging allegiance to the monarchy for those youths who consider the monarchy an irrelevance.
Like a lack of beliefs in any god, a lack of belief in a monarch does not make that person any less moral or ethical - but it does make them less prone to distort fact or lie in order to twist reality to better match their faith.
LG; For clarity, my first post was; "I see no immediate connection between Scout-ism and Christianity,", boys of any religious denomination are eligible to join, but an atheist version of the scouts promise is not allowed, and the current proposal is to remove this, even though it is contrary to the tenet to "promote the development of young people in achieving their full physical, intellectual, social and SPIRITUAL potential". The removal of the religious aspect would therefore make it into a non-religious, but not an 'irreligious' organisation.
The allegiance to the Sovereign, which you wish to remove too, is tacit, being implied without being stated, therefore it would require an overt statement to the effect of disloyalty. Given that the President is Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, and the Patron of the organisation is non other than her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, your suggestion is not only bizarre, but a rather nasty one.
The allegiance to the Sovereign, which you wish to remove too, is tacit, being implied without being stated, therefore it would require an overt statement to the effect of disloyalty. Given that the President is Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, and the Patron of the organisation is non other than her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, your suggestion is not only bizarre, but a rather nasty one.
Much has been said regarding children making a choice regarding religion and the monarchy.
But does anyone seriously believe that a young child eager to join in with his or her mates into a 'club' that offers them interesting adventures both indoors and outdoors, is old enough at the ages of 6-8 years for the Beavers, 8-10½ and Scouts 10½-14 to make a decision about religion and the monarchy.
Just imagine the scenario, we have a young child who has heard about these groups from their friends, with tales of adventure out in the countryside, sleeping under canvas etc.
They then approach their parents for permission to join, and Dad or Mum says "Well you can join but do you know you have to make a promise to God and the Queen"?
Does one really believe that the youngster is then likely to say, "Well I don't want to do that, so I am not going to join then".
No they themselves are not bothered, it is just their parents that wish to object, because of their own feelings on these matters.
But does anyone seriously believe that a young child eager to join in with his or her mates into a 'club' that offers them interesting adventures both indoors and outdoors, is old enough at the ages of 6-8 years for the Beavers, 8-10½ and Scouts 10½-14 to make a decision about religion and the monarchy.
Just imagine the scenario, we have a young child who has heard about these groups from their friends, with tales of adventure out in the countryside, sleeping under canvas etc.
They then approach their parents for permission to join, and Dad or Mum says "Well you can join but do you know you have to make a promise to God and the Queen"?
Does one really believe that the youngster is then likely to say, "Well I don't want to do that, so I am not going to join then".
No they themselves are not bothered, it is just their parents that wish to object, because of their own feelings on these matters.
"Does one really believe that the youngster is then likely to say, "Well I don't want to do that, so I am not going to join then"."
Well, actually, yeah, in quite a few cases I do. I was easily within the 10-14 age gap when I started refusing to pray in school assemblies, and I know plenty of people who were the same. A lot of my classmates did.
But even if you were right, it would still be beside the point. I accept that many young children aren't in a position to make a decision of their stance on religion or the monarchy - but personally, I think that's even more of a reason not to make the choice for them (whether that choice be for or against). It's something for them to do when they're older and they care about it - not foisted on them in the name of social indoctrination. I can't see any reason that the club you mention should have a membership which is affected by one's devotion (or lack thereof) to God or the monarch.
Well, actually, yeah, in quite a few cases I do. I was easily within the 10-14 age gap when I started refusing to pray in school assemblies, and I know plenty of people who were the same. A lot of my classmates did.
But even if you were right, it would still be beside the point. I accept that many young children aren't in a position to make a decision of their stance on religion or the monarchy - but personally, I think that's even more of a reason not to make the choice for them (whether that choice be for or against). It's something for them to do when they're older and they care about it - not foisted on them in the name of social indoctrination. I can't see any reason that the club you mention should have a membership which is affected by one's devotion (or lack thereof) to God or the monarch.
@AoG and Khandro - read Kromovaracuns post. Your logic is faulty. You claim that children might be "too young" when joining the movement, perhaps as brownies or cubs, to make decisions about such abstract concepts as god and the monarchy, so you would rather default to the patronising position of making it a condition of entry that they commit to an oath that automatically assumes a position of belief in a god and fealty to a monarch! - Thats a pretty dismissive position to take.
If it is true that they are considered mentally incompetent to make decisions on such issue then they should not be presented with an oath that requires such a decision until they are competent to. Its simple.
Alternatively, if they are competent to make their own decision on such issues, then they should be allowed an array of choices that will not penalise or exclude them if they hold a view at variance with the traditional.
AoG makes the point that a principled decision by a child to, for instance, declare as an atheist or a republican would be tainted since it would likely be a position reflecting their parents views - but what do you think a belief in religion is? All babies are born as atheists.
Our culture in the UK is a liberal secular democracy, underpinned and upheld by a belief in the law and the ideals of inclusivity and equality.Given this, there is no rational argument for the Scouting Association to insist their candidates and members swear an allegiance to a god or a monarch - an unnecessary, divisive and exclusive principle.
None of the founding principles or the fundamental values that the Scouts wish to engender within their organisation require an oath of allegiance to god or monarchy in order to activate them.
Nor does an exploration of self, belief and spirituality automatically require you to be a member of one of the organised religions.
Khandros argument on this has been illiterate all along, and AoGs is not much better. We should not hold to a tradition simply because it has always been done that way, especially if such traditions run counter to current culture.
If it is true that they are considered mentally incompetent to make decisions on such issue then they should not be presented with an oath that requires such a decision until they are competent to. Its simple.
Alternatively, if they are competent to make their own decision on such issues, then they should be allowed an array of choices that will not penalise or exclude them if they hold a view at variance with the traditional.
AoG makes the point that a principled decision by a child to, for instance, declare as an atheist or a republican would be tainted since it would likely be a position reflecting their parents views - but what do you think a belief in religion is? All babies are born as atheists.
Our culture in the UK is a liberal secular democracy, underpinned and upheld by a belief in the law and the ideals of inclusivity and equality.Given this, there is no rational argument for the Scouting Association to insist their candidates and members swear an allegiance to a god or a monarch - an unnecessary, divisive and exclusive principle.
None of the founding principles or the fundamental values that the Scouts wish to engender within their organisation require an oath of allegiance to god or monarchy in order to activate them.
Nor does an exploration of self, belief and spirituality automatically require you to be a member of one of the organised religions.
Khandros argument on this has been illiterate all along, and AoGs is not much better. We should not hold to a tradition simply because it has always been done that way, especially if such traditions run counter to current culture.
// Our culture in the UK is a liberal secular democracy, underpinned and upheld by a belief in the law and the ideals of inclusivity and equality.Given this, there is no rational argument for the Scouting Association to insist their candidates and members swear an allegiance to a god or a monarch - an unnecessary, divisive and exclusive principle. //
It is my duty to point out to you all that England is a declared Christian country, HM the queen is head of the Christian church and all Christians believe in God, therefore I strongly object to yet another attempt to alter & change our long established moral principles. Those of you who do not agree to the laws & standing principles SHOULD NOT BE HERE ( full bloody stop.)
WR.
It is my duty to point out to you all that England is a declared Christian country, HM the queen is head of the Christian church and all Christians believe in God, therefore I strongly object to yet another attempt to alter & change our long established moral principles. Those of you who do not agree to the laws & standing principles SHOULD NOT BE HERE ( full bloody stop.)
WR.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Crosswords3 mins ago
ChatterBank17 mins ago
ChatterBank31 mins ago
Is It Safe To Take Paracetamol
How it Works33 mins ago
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.