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

[LazyGun]

The public consultation is a matter of public record. The Guides had over 40,000 responses which informed their decision to change the Oath. The 2 cases the Telegraph alludes to merely represents the specimen cases selected as exemplars of what was wrong with the previous system. Well done the Guides, recognising the changing culture and then responsibly polling members, previous members and other interested parties to contribute. So I think that process rather comprehensively negates your "its our club, our rules" pettiness, or that its just 2 troublemakers causing all the fuss.

Once again - The Guides were never set up to be an explicitly religious order; It was designed to teach young girls such skills as to enable them to be more confident,resourceful an courageous, to make a positive contribution to the world around them. Given all that, why do you object to removing an outdated Oath to god, which is an incidental issue, so that more girls can benefit without being made to feel uncomfortable over a meaningless pledge to god? That promotes inclusivity and diversity within the Guides organisation itself, a good thing.

In all of your responses, you have signally failed to offer any kind of coherent response to this simple question - what harms do you envision to the organisation or its membership or to wider society that might accrue from the removal of this pledge to god? Well ok, you offered the notion that this was somehow an erosion of civil liberties, but the facts show that is just silly.

Come on -What actual harms to the organisation, to past, prospective or existing guides, brownies and shortly Scouts, does this amendment of the pledge to God actually represent? Is it a moral one? A cultural one? What?

[Ellipsis]

> The public consultation is a matter of public record.

Then please post a link to it.

[LazyGun]

Try searching. What am I, your glorified research assistant?

[Ellipsis]

All along we have been discussing two different articles it appears. One, which you've never mentioned. And the other, which is in the OP and which I was naturally therefore talking about.

Now I've asked you to post a link to the article you're discussing, so we can at least be talking about the same thing. And you've refused. What am I, psychic?

[LazyGun]

Why did the Guides change their Oath? Do you - in all seriousness - think that they changed the Oath merely because of the fuss cause by 2 cases?

And that is the central point, dropping the Oath to God.

You have offered nothing to support your objection to this move, other than some weak ass "their club their rules" rubbish.

Try googling- Girl Guides Promise Consultation. You know, a bit of research?

[Ellipsis]

Oh I see. The Telegraph article was from 2011 - thanks for that sandyRoe!

So the Guides held the consultation and dropped the oath. That's fine if it was their choice - no "objection to this move" whatsoever in that case. :)

[sandyRoe]

I do apologise, Ellipsis. I seem to be losing track of time.

[Khandro]

Welcome back James Joyce!