News6 mins ago
Girl Guides
47 Answers
Tonight's Sky News reports that the Girl Guides have decided to change their oath. Gone is any reference to God, being true to myself and my beliefs being substituted, and to my country, my community being substituted. However Guides will still swear allegiance to the Queen, their patron. Is the removal of any allegiance to your country a foolish step? Community suggests a divisiveness which we should be at pains to stop.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by FredPuli43. 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.I can't see the point of ignoring your country while pledging allegiance to its head of state. Or is it the suggestion that she is only mentioned as their patron, so that US Guides might pledge allegiance to WalMart, or whoever sponsors them?
Community, goodness knows, I suspect it is a fudge designed to mean anything to anyone. Your friends at school, your co-religionists, your borough council, who knows?
Community, goodness knows, I suspect it is a fudge designed to mean anything to anyone. Your friends at school, your co-religionists, your borough council, who knows?
Community could be the Sikh, Catholic, Muslim, the town, the gay or any other group with a shared interest. We are trying, aren't we, not to have people thinking they only have such a narrow, personal, allegiance but to think of themselves as of this country rather than of a sect, religion or town etc? Country means the UK (or any of its constituent parts, as you will). The Girl Guides are a national organisation.
I am happy enough that God and Country has been taken out - A promise to God was potentially exclusionary, and Nationalism breeds its own problems.
You are right that community can be defined in many ways but that does not mean that the term will be used in such narrow terms as you suggest; and I think they mean community in its widest sense.
Good for them, I say. About time the Scouts got off their backsides and confirmed their new pledge - they have been considering it for long enough...
You are right that community can be defined in many ways but that does not mean that the term will be used in such narrow terms as you suggest; and I think they mean community in its widest sense.
Good for them, I say. About time the Scouts got off their backsides and confirmed their new pledge - they have been considering it for long enough...
The word GOD is slowly becoming a swear word. To many people the word is offensive.. In the USA they have already stopped using it in the courts. When a witness swears in the "so help me GOD" has been taken out,and there's a call to have the words "in god we trust" taken off the dollar notes.. We mustn,t upset certain sectors in society,but upsetting the majority of people is fine. The world is going mad.. GOD help us..
Not so much the world going mad, as the world growing up and seeing reason I think, Sammo. And, whilst it might upset you Sammo, that does not necessarily mean that will upset the majority. In all countries, there is a growing cohort of people with different faiths, or none. It is entirely appropriate that oaths and promises, especially when related to state actions, are open and inclusive to people of all faiths and none...
An oath to god was never a specific requirement as laid out in the constitution, and those states where it was used have been phasing it out under legal challenge.
From the US Constitution
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Wise old birds that they were, the founders of the US Constitution were very clear that the church and religion had no place in government...
An oath to god was never a specific requirement as laid out in the constitution, and those states where it was used have been phasing it out under legal challenge.
From the US Constitution
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Wise old birds that they were, the founders of the US Constitution were very clear that the church and religion had no place in government...
It is very strange, sammo, that a country which is avowedly secular, as evidenced by its constitution and its denial of any religious symbols in public buildings and the holding of any religious service in public schools, should want God brought into an oath of allegiance. Do you wish to insist upon something which your nation, assuming you are American, has denied? But it may be that Americans say one thing but expect another, for it is a country where politicians are expected to declare their faith; how many atheists are there in Congress?
Lazy gun...the Constitution may say that but religion having no place in government ? I can't think of a better example of a religiously-obsessed society than America. They may have a black President but it doubtful that they will ever elect an atheist one.
Last year they almost had a Mormon President, a religion immersed in drivel to the extreme !
Last year they almost had a Mormon President, a religion immersed in drivel to the extreme !
\\\\Country means the UK (or any of its constituent parts, as you will). The Girl Guides are a national organisation. \\\\
Seems perfectly sensible statement.......what is the problem? why remove it?.......anything to do with immigrants or Islamisation of the UK?
\\\\ Nationalism breeds its own problems. \\
Only because we have let immigration grow out of control...........
Yes! I suppose your are right.....change it...........and the monarchy......and anything else that is deemed.."inappropriate for our modern times.
Seems perfectly sensible statement.......what is the problem? why remove it?.......anything to do with immigrants or Islamisation of the UK?
\\\\ Nationalism breeds its own problems. \\
Only because we have let immigration grow out of control...........
Yes! I suppose your are right.....change it...........and the monarchy......and anything else that is deemed.."inappropriate for our modern times.