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

[sandyRoe]

The powers that be in scouting and Guiding might be forgiven for asking: 'You want to come and play with us? You want to play on our pitch with our ball? But first you want to change our rules? You don't want much, do you?'
Baden-Powell and his sister, Agnes, must be spinning in their graves.

[mikey4444]

I have never understood why the Scouting movement needs to include religion in any of its activities. But why can't these little girls take the pledge with their fingers crossed behind their backs, like I did in the Cubs more years ago than I care to remember ? Storm in a tea cup if ever I saw one.

[sandyRoe]

I did suggest that ^ but was castigated for advocating hypocritical behaviour.

[Eve]

Times have changed, I remember my days of brownies and guides and, at the same time, saying the Lords prayer and singing hymns and religious songs at school, going to church based activities in the summer holidays.

But then there wasn't the range of ethnicity and religion there is now (at least not where I lived) when it being perceived as more of a Christian organisation may make it more exclusive to others, especially how large and long established the movement it.

[taichiperson]

'The children are being used as shields by people who have an unGodly agenda.'

You might say that they are being used as shields by those with a Godly agenda too. I was quite peturbed that there was an oath to God when my boys went to try the Cubs out. It wasn't an issue though, as they decided it wasn't for them.

I was also surprised to learn that when my father was in the Police Force they had a uniformed parade to the Parish Church to dedicate their service to the Queen and to God.

[chakka35]

When I served on a jury and chose to affirm rather than to swear by a God in which I didn't believe, I idly wondered why it was assumed that to be superstitious is normal, requiring you to have to state your rationality as an exceptional case - especially since religion had nothing whatsoever to do with the civic duty I was about to perform.

To affirm should be normal while provision is made for those who want to swear religiously. Could not the Brownies and Scouts be organised on that basis? I would guess that the number who positively opted in to swear by God would be very small.

[mibn2cweus]

^ Lord have mercy upon the poor sob whose future hinges on the rationality of those who defer reason and justice to such stuporstition. :o/

[LazyGun]

Good on them, I say. Brownies and Girl Guides were not formed as an explicitly religious group, nor were the Scouts, come to that, and they too will be amending the Oath, or at least providing one that atheists can abide by without lying.

In an age where there are many faiths and none,and an accelerating and increasing number of nones, come to that, it would be discriminatory of such organisations to continue to insist upon a religiously-based oath.

Great to see such organisations embracing the spirit of inclusivity. Times change, Sandy.

[jim360]

On a lighter note, nice to see you again LG!

[LazyGun]

TY Jim - Short break in Brittany :)

[Ellipsis]

> "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."

I don't see why atheists should have a problem with that? If they have no god, then "my god"=none that part of the promise is void. No big deal.

Maybe atheists could substitute "no god" for "my "god". Maybe also Hindus could substitute "gods" for "god". Or maybe these sad parents should just get a life?

Presumably anti-monarchists also have a problem with the oath. In which case, you would have to ask whether the "serve the Queen" part of the oath should be dropped too. And then you might reach the key question: what is the oath, and indeed the Guides, for if not to instill the values of the organisation in its members?

[LazyGun]

For me, I would have welcomed the removal of an oath to monarchy, but one cannot have everything.

Show us all how the new, inclusive god-not-mentioned oath is inferior or lacking, and you might have a point- otherwise it is just sour grapes by the theists and the "it-was-better-in-my-day" brigade.

How can anyone, in all seriousness, object to an oath/pledge that offers greater inclusivity? Come on, some explicit examples please of why this latest initiative is so bad.

[sandyRoe]

how many times have I said that logic can kill my threads stone dead?

Welcome back, LG

[LazyGun]

TY Sandy :)

[naomi24]

It's quite an eye-opener to see people suggesting that children swear a false oath - the goodly Godly among them.

[Khandro]

Welcome back LG - 'The Robespierre of AB'. :-)

[Ellipsis]

> How can anyone, in all seriousness, object to an oath/pledge that offers greater inclusivity?

When the inclusivity comes at the cost of the values the organisation was set up to instill? Of course the organisation can object. Virtually every club, religion, university, pub and society has rules and values, and those who don't meet them are not allowed in, locked out or locked away.

If it doesn't have religion and monarchy as core values then it's not the Guides any more. It's a "girls' club". Presumably then the boys will start complaining that they're not allowed in, and after that the adults. The end position of "inclusive" is "everyone".

The whole point of a club is to serve common values, standards and interests among its members - not to be attractive to everyone. If atheists want a Guides-like organisation they should form one. There should be no shortage of members.

[naomi24]

Is belief in God 'a value'?

[LazyGun]

The Girl Guides, The Brownies, The Scouts - none of these were set up as religious organisations.

Again - please demonstrate how an oath or pledge that allows a wider and more inclusive membership is a bad thing Ellipsis?

[Ellipsis]

OK. Regularly on AB at present we are getting "Practical Explanation" posts. You may have seen some. They're from religious types, explaining how there will be a better next life for us all.

Now, AB could be "inclusive" and allow the posts to remain, and the posters to feel welcomed and take part in our wider community. But no - these posts are removed instantly, and the posters are banned, and most members of the "AB club" seem perfectly happy that this takes place.