Originally posted by Crœsos:
Non-Christians welcome as long as they pray to Jesus?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I think you're having some trouble grasping the implications of the term "non-Christian". quote:To be fair, there are probably a couple of CofE priests who reckon that the Church could get along quite well without God.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The Church is an organisation that wouldn't exist without God.
The Guides is an organisation that would.
quote:Anyone who takes their news from the Daily Mail deserves to be laughed at.
I promise that I will do my best:
To be true to myself and develop my beliefs,
To serve the Queen and my community,
To help other people
and
To keep the (Brownie) Guide Law.
quote:I knew the England selectors had made a mistake by putting them in at the top of the batting order!
Originally posted by Anglican't:
According to the Daily Mail (which I linked to in the TICTH thread) both the Queen and God are out.
quote:Agreed. By the way, here is a link to the news item on the Girlguiding UK website.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The Church is an organisation that wouldn't exist without God.
The Guides is an organisation that would.
So belief in God is not a prerequisite for being a Guide, and having it in the promise is an artificial bar to membership.
quote:Go to France. Problem solved.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I look forward to excising the Queen from the promise as well. I'd quite like to help out our local scouts as a leader, but not whilst I have to make some vague ill-defined promise of "duty" to a head of state whose position is based entirely on an accident of birth and therefore whose legitimacy in a modern democracy I have limited confidence in.
quote:Bit drastic to help out with a leisure organisation. 'Sides which, I doubt I'm the only resource in the country that's untappable whilst this unnecessary requirement remains in place.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Go to France. Problem solved.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I look forward to excising the Queen from the promise as well. I'd quite like to help out our local scouts as a leader, but not whilst I have to make some vague ill-defined promise of "duty" to a head of state whose position is based entirely on an accident of birth and therefore whose legitimacy in a modern democracy I have limited confidence in.
quote:They're more likely to hope they're no longer going to be dragged out of bed at Stupid O'Clock on Mothering Sunday (Ha! Some special day for Mum when she's the one having to chivvy them all along) to get them to a church they wouldn't normally darken the door of at 9.15am.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
This change acknowledges the shift in conformity over the decades; active religious observance is no longer part of the fabric of received ideas among those who like their children to put on uniforms and pledge oaths to the powerful. Great news for Christians, but I do wonder whether some parents will mistakenly conclude that the values of the organisation have therefore been reformed.
quote:I've thought that for years! And since that is exactly what has been happening anyway since churches began, then the differences would be entirely those thought up by people.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The Guides is an organisation that would.
To be fair, there are probably a couple of CofE priests who reckon that the Church could get along quite well without God.
quote:Indeed. Whereas idolatry of the self and monarch are very much the order of the day in 21st Century Britain.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
This change acknowledges the shift in conformity over the decades; active religious observance is no longer part of the fabric of received ideas among those who like their children to put on uniforms and pledge oaths to the powerful.
quote:I think you will find it has been managing perfectly well for a long long time....
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The Church is an organisation that wouldn't exist without God.
quote:Except the Girl Guides as part of the Scouting movement is not Christian except in the sense that it has always included Christians (and in the UK most have been Christian). Officially the members of the movement have three duties
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If the girl guide movement is a Christian organisation, it must include God imv.
...
quote:Oh! I was thinking of those parents who might now consider signing their children up who wouldn't have before.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:They're more likely to hope they're no longer going to be dragged out of bed at Stupid O'Clock on Mothering Sunday (Ha! Some special day for Mum when she's the one having to chivvy them all along) to get them to a church they wouldn't normally darken the door of at 9.15am.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
This change acknowledges the shift in conformity over the decades; active religious observance is no longer part of the fabric of received ideas among those who like their children to put on uniforms and pledge oaths to the powerful. Great news for Christians, but I do wonder whether some parents will mistakenly conclude that the values of the organisation have therefore been reformed.
quote:I assume you mean the 'be true to myself' bit. I really don't think that children need their egos broken down at a point when they're only beginning to achieve individuation. In fact, to me, the problem with these kinds of organisation, since I successfully fought against being enrolled in one as a child, is the emphasis on suspending one's individuality, and the idea that this is beneficial. I don't think this change of oath is likely to change that much, but it will mean that when the child eventually gets bored and jacks it in, she'll be more likely to be able to frame that as a further development of self, rather than some kind of betrayal of God.
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Indeed. Whereas idolatry of the self and monarch are very much the order of the day in 21st Century Britain.
quote:I think this is unfair, likewise Hairy Biker's 'idolatry of the self' criticism. After all, the new Guide Promise still has these phrases in it:
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
...the part of the novel promise which interests me most is that which refers to developing 'my beliefs'.
The me-centric world marches on!
quote:That doesn't seem very me-centric or self-idolatrous to me.
I promise that I will do my best... To serve... my community [and] [t]o help other people
quote:Those two highlighted bits seem contradictory. If the Girl Guides are a Christian organization, their membership criteria will necessarily exclude non-Christians. If it's "open to everyone who wants to engage with it", including Muslims, Jews, and assorted other non-Christians, then it's not a "Christian organization".
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If the girl guide movement is a Christian organisation, it must include God imv. However, this should always be by invitation rather than imposition, and insisting that anyone states a faith they may not have in order to be included is wrong. The movement ought to be and is open to everyone who wants to engage with it. I applaud the volunteers who work so hard to facilitate it.
quote:Generally not. Our lot are meant to attend on Easter Sunday and Mothering Sunday IIRC; the former most of them don't because they're visiting/being visited by rellies/on holiday; the latter is a church full of mums dragged out of bed far too early on the pretext of a service that's about how special they are*
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I was in the cubs (never made it to the scouts) and I remember having to go to Church on a regular basis. I think it was once a month. Not everyone in the pack went. I seem to remember seeing Brownies there too (though they may have been whatever comes before Brownies).
Does something similar still apply for Scouts / Guides?
quote:I agree 'self-idolatrous' is a bit hyperbolic, but 'be true to yourself' in my mind invites memories of Erin's (RIP) sig: 'Remember always to be yourself. Unless you suck.'
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think things through for myself and am willing to reject things that I conclude are not true;
You think you know better than The Bible/The Westminster Confession/The Church/Tradition.
He is self-idolatrous.
quote:This is not about self-idolatry, it is about avoiding peer pressure
I promise that I will do my best:
To be true to myself
quote:This is about having a moral code.
and develop my beliefs,
quote:Community is how one defines it, yeah? But starting local is not about being exclusionary, but adjusting the scope to fit into a child's reasonable scope.
To serve the Queen and my community,
To help other people
quote:They vary slightly, but they are all similar to this.
and
To keep the (Brownie) Guide Law.
quote:Very self-idolatrous.
A brownie guide thinks of others before herself and does a good turn every day.
quote:No laughing, just a scolding to whomever left them on their own without supervision.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Anyone who takes their news from the Daily Mail deserves to be laughed at.
quote:Not the way I see it. A Christian organisation may be so because it has a Christian ethos built into its constitution, and still be open to all who want to use whatever it offers regardless of their beliefs. This doesn't mean that they should be quiet about their Christian beliefs, quite the opposite: imv they should be openly Christian, invite all to explore Christianity, and pray openly.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Those two highlighted bits seem contradictory. If the Girl Guides are a Christian organization, their membership criteria will necessarily exclude non-Christians. If it's "open to everyone who wants to engage with it", including Muslims, Jews, and assorted other non-Christians, then it's not a "Christian organization".
quote:Such as with a church-based youth group, perhaps. I suppose the question for people as they responded to the Girlguiding consultation was whether they thought Girlguiding was a Christian organisation in something like the above sense. It seems most respondents answered that question in the negative, preferring Girlguiding to be more explicitly welcoming of girls and young women of any religious persuasion.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
A Christian organisation may be so because it has a Christian ethos built into its constitution, and still be open to all who want to use whatever it offers regardless of their beliefs. This doesn't mean that they should be quiet about their Christian beliefs, quite the opposite: imv they should be openly Christian, invite all to explore Christianity, and pray openly.
quote:My apologies, I should have thought longer on my choice words.
Originally posted by Gwai:
Let's keep things civil, please.
quote:Good that our former "Mother Country" has caught up.
I Promise to do my best,
To be true to myself, my beliefs and Canada
I will take action for a better world
And respect the Guiding Law
quote:Non-Christians welcome as long as they pray to Jesus?
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Not the way I see it. A Christian organisation may be so because it has a Christian ethos built into its constitution, and still be open to all who want to use whatever it offers regardless of their beliefs. This doesn't mean that they should be quiet about their Christian beliefs, quite the opposite: imv they should be openly Christian, invite all to explore Christianity, and pray openly.
I think you're having some trouble grasping the implications of the term "non-Christian".
quote:Not at all. Non-Christians are invited to pray to God on many occasions, in schools, in public meetings, in outdoor services as on Remembrance day, etc.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Non-Christians welcome as long as they pray to Jesus?
quote:I think that there is a tangible difference in attitude between those who are working for God primarily and those who are working for human beings primarily, even though the former ultimately achieves the latter.
Originally posted by Susan Doris:I wonder what, if any, the differences are between a Christian ethos (mentioned above by Raptor Eye) and a humanist one?
quote:And how is praying to an unnamed, non-specific God "explor[ing] Christianity", as you advocate? Is this one of those things where you tell people from other religions that they're really worshiping Jesus but are too ignorant to realize it without a helpful Christian to point it out to them?
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Not at all. Non-Christians are invited to pray to God on many occasions, in schools, in public meetings, in outdoor services as on Remembrance day, etc.
quote:Whereas anyone who's not a Christian is unkind, impatient, ungentle, miserable, and hate-filled? Yeah, I can see why you'd want to keep that sort out of the Girl Guides.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Where the Christian element grows people spiritually so that kindness, patience, gentleness, joy, love etc is in ever greater evidence, this is noticeable to me in the atmosphere.
quote:Except Raptor Eye is taking it one step further and saying that simply making that assumption isn't good enough and the Guides should be explicitly Christian. I can imagine that a lot of parents from non-Christian faiths would probably reconsider membership for their daughters if they were expected to spend a significant amount of their time there "explor[ing] Christianity".
Originally posted by Gwai:
I'd say that Christianity is assumed in many western countries, . . .
quote:My guess is the Girl Guides may reconsider that bit of the promise when the current Queen ceases to be Queen. Elizabeth was a Girl Guide and Ranger and has been patron of the organization since 1952.
Originally posted by leo:
I am very pleased that they have made this change - why were atheists not be allowed to join before unless they told lies when swearing the oath?
There are, however, two reasons why I can't join:
1) I don't agree with having as monarchy
2 I don't fancy a sex change.
quote:By "individuation" do you mean the ability to say "me" and "mine"? I think you'll find that children achieve these things long before the age when they go to Brownies.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:I assume you mean the 'be true to myself' bit. I really don't think that children need their egos broken down at a point when they're only beginning to achieve individuation.
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Indeed. Whereas idolatry of the self and monarch are very much the order of the day in 21st Century Britain.
quote:Which just goes to show that it's a good idea to think through your Thought for the Day in advance, rather than letting it emerge onto the airwaves as a spontaneous brainfart.
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
On dear old Radio 4 this morning the Bishop presenting 'Thought for the Day' opined that children promising to develop their own beliefs is as odd as allowing children to develop their own code for road safety.
quote:Hmmm, not quite. The change was made because many members had asked for a promise review, and because the majority of respondents supported these particular changes. Plenty of (older) girls (and some younger ones, in fairness) and potential leaders were unable to make the promise as it stood. OK, so membership of Girlguiding is entirely optional, and no-one has to sign up if they don't agree - but it seems to me that the new promise doesn't change what the organisation stands for, but finally opens it up to those for whom this point in their spiritual journey doesn't include any God. It may have in the past; it may in the future; but just because it doesn't now, they have nothign to offer or to gain? Really?
Originally posted by shamwari:
[QB] So, in order to be inclusive and to make everybody feel comfortable, the Girl Guide promise has been changed and God omitted.
quote:I'm happy to try to live by those laws - they're certainly a challenge at times, and I don't exactly see much scope in there for self-indulgence!
A Guide is honest, reliable and can be trusted.
A Guide is helpful and uses her time and abilities wisely.
A Guide faces challenge and learns from her experiences.
A Guide is a good friend and a sister to all Guides.
A Guide is polite and considerate.
A Guide respects all living things and takes care of the world around her.
quote:Yes - I was disappointed - Bishop Tom Butler usually does a lot better than that.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:Which just goes to show that it's a good idea to think through your Thought for the Day in advance, rather than letting it emerge onto the airwaves as a spontaneous brainfart.
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
On dear old Radio 4 this morning the Bishop presenting 'Thought for the Day' opined that children promising to develop their own beliefs is as odd as allowing children to develop their own code for road safety.
quote:Oh indeed, I meant the process by which children begin to be able to tell their own opinions from those of their parents/other adult authority figures. There's probably another word for it.
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:By "individuation" do you mean the ability to say "me" and "mine"? I think you'll find that children achieve these things long before the age when they go to Brownies.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:I assume you mean the 'be true to myself' bit. I really don't think that children need their egos broken down at a point when they're only beginning to achieve individuation.
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Indeed. Whereas idolatry of the self and monarch are very much the order of the day in 21st Century Britain.
quote:I think we have plenty of references by now for the conclusion that this attitude won't fly in a buyer's market.
Originally posted by Arch Anglo Catholic:
I'm not sure if the CofE view has to endear itself to others all the time; sometimes mother church has to be inconveniently, uncomfortably right.
quote:That's how it struck me too: rather self-centred and self-indulgent; not sure whether these are values we should be inculcating in our children.
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:Indeed. Whereas idolatry of the self and monarch are very much the order of the day in 21st Century Britain.
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
This change acknowledges the shift in conformity over the decades; active religious observance is no longer part of the fabric of received ideas among those who like their children to put on uniforms and pledge oaths to the powerful.
quote:I take the opposite opinion and am usually suspicious of groups that take steps to obliterate members' individuality or sense of self. That's how cults get started.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
That's how it struck me too: rather self-centred and self-indulgent; not sure whether these are values we should be inculcating in our children.
quote:I wasn't aware you and Hairy Biker had kids together. Should have lurked more.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
That's how it struck me too: rather self-centred and self-indulgent; not sure whether these are values we should be inculcating in our children.
quote:^ This.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I take the opposite opinion and am usually suspicious of groups that take steps to obliterate members' individuality or sense of self. That's how cults get started.
quote:It makes people less likely to knuckle under to abusive authority figures, for example.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Whereas encouraging selfishness helps society how, exactly?
quote:Sorry, is this a real worry? That too many Girl Guides will take jobs in the financial services sector?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
...and go on to become bankers and wreck economies?
quote:....and go on to become bankers who perhaps don't wreck economies because they have a sufficiently robust sense of self-identity and personal morality to stand up against profit-driven management demands.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
...and go on to become bankers and wreck economies?
quote:In a lot of ways large corporations tend to require subsuming the self in pursuit of corporate interests. For example, individual corporate officers may personally have objections to dumping toxic waste in the local lake or using Third World slave labor but their fiduciary duty dictates that they pursue whatever policy is best for the corporate bottom line.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:....and go on to become bankers who perhaps don't wreck economies because they have a sufficiently robust sense of self-identity and personal morality to stand up against profit-driven management demands.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
...and go on to become bankers and wreck economies?
quote:Badges?!? Earned individually!?! I'm sure you mean tiny little idols to the self.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The Guides (Miss Tor is now a Ranger, having done Rainbows, Brownies and Guides. I'm also treasurer of her group) has always put a strong emphasis on personal development, through earning badges and awards. These are not earned corporately, but individually, through demonstrating the skills and knowledge the challenge requires.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:No more of a real worry IMO than the previous promise wording causing people to submit to authoritarianism.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Sorry, is this a real worry? That too many Girl Guides will take jobs in the financial services sector?
Originally posted by Matt Black:
...and go on to become bankers and wreck economies?
quote:I didn't mention individuality. I mentioned selfishness. Step away from the straw man...
Just out of curiosity, which jobs for young women do you consider require the appropriate lack of individuality?
quote:Fortunately, she's now at an age where she sews the bastard things on her Guide blanket herself...
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Badges?!? Earned individually!?! I'm sure you mean tiny little idols to the self.
quote:No, it seems you equated individuality with 'selfishness'. The wording of the new promise, combined with the existing Guide laws, do not seem likely to valorise selfishness.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I didn't mention individuality. I mentioned selfishness. Step away from the straw man...
quote:Why are you so sure about that? If someone objects to the idea that young girls should "be true to myself and develop my beliefs", it seems to follow that they believe such youngsters should be true to someone/something other than themselves and let someone else develop their beliefs for them. Particularly if having your own beliefs is considered "selfish".
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Yeah, I don't get this. Thinking for oneself, standing by ones thought out convictions and working out one's own faith seem like damned good values to me, and nothing to do with selfishness. I'm not quite sure what others would rather we inculcate. It almost sounds like some people want to tell the little brats what to believe and they'd better damned well believe it, but I'm sure that's not it, so I'm missing something.
quote:Accident of birth? That is ridicuhous - the Queen is God's chosen servant. His world is no random chaos. We have an explicitly Christian monarchy. No theology that I know of could conceive that this was a cosmic accident, except one which denies the omnipotence of God.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I look forward to excising the Queen from the promise as well. I'd quite like to help out our local scouts as a leader, but not whilst I have to make some vague ill-defined promise of "duty" to a head of state whose position is based entirely on an accident of birth and therefore whose legitimacy in a modern democracy I have limited confidence in.
quote:Pfft.
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Accident of birth? That is ridicuhous - the Queen is God's chosen servant. His world is no random chaos. We have an explicitly Christian monarchy. No theology that I know of could conceive that this was a cosmic accident, except one which denies the omnipotence of God.
quote:The problem with assuming divine right is that it can be extended to any successful governing enterprise. For example, since God is omnipotent He made Charles I the King of England. Since nothing can happen that it contrary to God's will, God then decided that Charles I should be executed and replaced by the Council of State/Lord Protector Cromwell. Then God, being fairly fickle, decided to replace the lot of them with Charles II.
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Accident of birth? That is ridiculous - the Queen is God's chosen servant. His world is no random chaos. We have an explicitly Christian monarchy. No theology that I know of could conceive that this was a cosmic accident, except one which denies the omnipotence of God.
quote:This was all part of His holy plan to bring King William over and defend us finally from the foreign tyrannies of France and Rome. We were being admonished for misbehaving by being saddled with the likes of Cromwell. Upon restorimg the BCP we were made into the foremost power on earth and the greatest empire ever known.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:The problem with assuming divine right is that it can be extended to any successful governing enterprise. For example, since God is omnipotent He made Charles I the King of England. Since nothing can happen that it contrary to God's will, God then decided that Charles I should be executed and replaced by the Council of State/Lord Protector Cromwell. Then God, being fairly fickle, decided to replace the lot of them with Charles II.
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Accident of birth? That is ridiculous - the Queen is God's chosen servant. His world is no random chaos. We have an explicitly Christian monarchy. No theology that I know of could conceive that this was a cosmic accident, except one which denies the omnipotence of God.
quote:Given God's omnipotence, didn't he establish the tyrannies of France and Rome? Or are they only tyrannical when they show up in Britain?
Originally posted by Indifferently:
This was all part of His holy plan to bring King William over and defend us finally from the foreign tyrannies of France and Rome.
quote:Erm, there was more than one armada from Spain, some of them defeated us. Armada just means navy. If you are talking about the 1588 battle from the Anglo-Spanish War of 1585-1604 (we lost the counter-attack of 1589), then it has nothing to do with religion.
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:This was all part of His holy plan to bring King William over and defend us finally from the foreign tyrannies of France and Rome. We were being admonished for misbehaving by being saddled with the likes of Cromwell. Upon restorimg the BCP we were made into the foremost power on earth and the greatest empire ever known.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:The problem with assuming divine right is that it can be extended to any successful governing enterprise. For example, since God is omnipotent He made Charles I the King of England. Since nothing can happen that it contrary to God's will, God then decided that Charles I should be executed and replaced by the Council of State/Lord Protector Cromwell. Then God, being fairly fickle, decided to replace the lot of them with Charles II.
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Accident of birth? That is ridiculous - the Queen is God's chosen servant. His world is no random chaos. We have an explicitly Christian monarchy. No theology that I know of could conceive that this was a cosmic accident, except one which denies the omnipotence of God.
He also sank the Spanish armada the century before. God is clearly showing us something here.
quote:Oh! You're taking the piss. Never mind, then.
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Upon restorimg the BCP we were made into the foremost power on earth and the greatest empire ever known.
He also sank the Spanish armada the century before. God is clearly showing us something here.
quote:Second greatest, if you're counting by land area. God apparently likes Mongols better.
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Upon restorimg the BCP we were made into the foremost power on earth and the greatest empire ever known.
quote:Wasn't it Sir Humphrey who said in Yes, Minister something to the effect that if a new Bishop believed in God that would be a bonus?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:To be fair, there are probably a couple of CofE priests who reckon that the Church could get along quite well without God.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The Church is an organisation that wouldn't exist without God.
The Guides is an organisation that would.
quote:Interesting that he's chosen an adulterer to be her successor. In fact, over the centuries he's chosen rather a lot of adulterers and drunkards.
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:Accident of birth? That is ridicuhous - the Queen is God's chosen servant. His world is no random chaos. We have an explicitly Christian monarchy. No theology that I know of could conceive that this was a cosmic accident, except one which denies the omnipotence of God.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I look forward to excising the Queen from the promise as well. I'd quite like to help out our local scouts as a leader, but not whilst I have to make some vague ill-defined promise of "duty" to a head of state whose position is based entirely on an accident of birth and therefore whose legitimacy in a modern democracy I have limited confidence in.
quote:Not to mention 'effemirate homosexuals'....
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:Interesting that he's chosen an adulterer to be her successor. In fact, over the centuries he's chosen rather a lot of adulterers and drunkards.
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:Accident of birth? That is ridicuhous - the Queen is God's chosen servant. His world is no random chaos. We have an explicitly Christian monarchy. No theology that I know of could conceive that this was a cosmic accident, except one which denies the omnipotence of God.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I look forward to excising the Queen from the promise as well. I'd quite like to help out our local scouts as a leader, but not whilst I have to make some vague ill-defined promise of "duty" to a head of state whose position is based entirely on an accident of birth and therefore whose legitimacy in a modern democracy I have limited confidence in.
quote:Maybe homosexual, but not "effemirate". If I recall history correctly he actually fought against the Effemir of Effegypt and Effdamascus during the effing Third Crusade.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
And Richard I.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
quote:I suppose the Galileans whose blood Pilate mixed with their sacrifices, the residents in the Tower of Siloam and the parents of the Man Born Blind were using the Alternative Service Book.
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:This was all part of His holy plan to bring King William over and defend us finally from the foreign tyrannies of France and Rome. We were being admonished for misbehaving by being saddled with the likes of Cromwell. Upon restorimg the BCP we were made into the foremost power on earth and the greatest empire ever known.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:The problem with assuming divine right is that it can be extended to any successful governing enterprise. For example, since God is omnipotent He made Charles I the King of England. Since nothing can happen that it contrary to God's will, God then decided that Charles I should be executed and replaced by the Council of State/Lord Protector Cromwell. Then God, being fairly fickle, decided to replace the lot of them with Charles II.
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Accident of birth? That is ridiculous - the Queen is God's chosen servant. His world is no random chaos. We have an explicitly Christian monarchy. No theology that I know of could conceive that this was a cosmic accident, except one which denies the omnipotence of God.
He also sank the Spanish armada the century before. God is clearly showing us something here.
quote:We can learn to do whatever enhances our ability to articulate.
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Shall we learn to use bold ?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:I hope you're right; to me though, like I guess to Hairy Biker, it comes across as rather like Thatcher's "no such thing as society, only individuals and families" comment. It seems that you and others here see no harm in it and I hope you are therefore proved right, but I can't help having my qualms...
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:No, it seems you equated individuality with 'selfishness'. The wording of the new promise, combined with the existing Guide laws, do not seem likely to valorise selfishness.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I didn't mention individuality. I mentioned selfishness. Step away from the straw man...
quote:It looks more to me like personal integrity.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:I hope you're right; to me though, like I guess to Hairy Biker, it comes across as rather like Thatcher's "no such thing as society, only individuals and families" comment. It seems that you and others here see no harm in it and I hope you are therefore proved right, but I can't help having my qualms...
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:No, it seems you equated individuality with 'selfishness'. The wording of the new promise, combined with the existing Guide laws, do not seem likely to valorise selfishness.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I didn't mention individuality. I mentioned selfishness. Step away from the straw man...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:Maybe they could, but I don't see why such a convoluted justification should be required of them when the far more obvious solution exists of dropping an unnecessary and divisive element of a promise which bears no relation to the reality of what the group do.
Originally posted by Mr Tambourine Man:
Despite being anti-monarchist I never found it hard to swear to 'do my duty to God and to the Queen' as the scouts required. My exegesis of the promise was that said duty was to put the royal family out of a job so that they could live more normal lives away from an impossible role.
Could atheists be similarly imaginative in their exegesis as this Christian republican?
quote:If you have any bright ideas, suitable for 6- to 8-year-olds, about how they can promise in good conscience to love a non-existent being, I'm all ears.
I promise to do my best
To be kind and helpful
And to love God
quote:As I understand it, the oath to the monarch has existed since the group's inception. Since the vast majority of people are content with out current constitutional arrangements re. the head of state, why should they pander to the views of a small minority?
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Maybe they could, but I don't see why such a convoluted justification should be required of them when the far more obvious solution exists of dropping an unnecessary and divisive element of a promise which bears no relation to the reality of what the group do.
quote:They don't have to. But they won't be able to have my help as a volunteer. Up to them.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:As I understand it, the oath to the monarch has existed since the group's inception. Since the vast majority of people are content with out current constitutional arrangements re. the head of state, why should they pander to the views of a small minority?
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Maybe they could, but I don't see why such a convoluted justification should be required of them when the far more obvious solution exists of dropping an unnecessary and divisive element of a promise which bears no relation to the reality of what the group do.
quote:According to 15th Cheltenham (Shurdingham) Scout Group:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Never understood what it meant anyway. Could one of you monarchists explain exactly what my "duty to the Queen" is?
quote:
"to do my duty to God and to the Queen"
Duties are those tasks which you have to do. You should try to do those thing you know need doing before someone else tells you to do them. Your duty to the Queen, includes showing respect for her and what she stands for as the head of your country. This includes obeying the laws of your country (and any other country which you visit).
quote:I think it depends on your definition of harm. I would regard indoctrinating a child against its own interests as harm. I say 'indoctrinate' because that's what you appear to be advocating, the right kind of oath neccesary if the child isn't inevitably to become an adult you disagree with. Don't you see how determinist that is? If it were true that those who made the old promise were skewed for life in the direction of its ideology, before they had the basis for a meaningful consent, then the new promise hasn't come a moment too soon.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:I hope you're right; to me though, like I guess to Hairy Biker, it comes across as rather like Thatcher's "no such thing as society, only individuals and families" comment. It seems that you and others here see no harm in it and I hope you are therefore proved right, but I can't help having my qualms...
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:No, it seems you equated individuality with 'selfishness'. The wording of the new promise, combined with the existing Guide laws, do not seem likely to valorise selfishness.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I didn't mention individuality. I mentioned selfishness. Step away from the straw man...
quote:You know where you took what I was saying about promises about God and started arguing with me as if I was saying anything about the monarch of the day? That.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:As I understand it, the oath to the monarch has existed since the group's inception. Since the vast majority of people are content with out current constitutional arrangements re. the head of state, why should they pander to the views of a small minority?
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Maybe they could, but I don't see why such a convoluted justification should be required of them when the far more obvious solution exists of dropping an unnecessary and divisive element of a promise which bears no relation to the reality of what the group do.
quote:Quite right. Apologies. That'll teach me not to use the internet without my glasses on.
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
You know where you took what I was saying about promises about God and started arguing with me as if I was saying anything about the monarch of the day? That.
quote:Perhaps it depends on one's view of human agency.
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I made no comment on the old promise, which I accept had its own problems. But I can see a new set of problems inherent in the new wording...
quote:I think that dear old Baden-Powell wanted Scouts and Guides to imbibe a particular set of values and those included loyalty to the Monarch. So if you'd asked him whether or not it was necessary he would have told you it was. Now, clearly, Baden-Powell is dead and there is no reason that the Scouts or Guides couldn't push a change their vows to do their duty to the values of British liberal democracy rather than to her Maj.
But also, as I'm in a bolshie mood, what Karl said. The question is, do Scouts need to be monarchists? If not, why insist on them making a promise that strongly assumes that they are? It's divisive and discriminatory for no purpose.
quote:(Snipped for brevity)
Originally posted by Gildas:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:I think that dear old Baden-Powell wanted Scouts and Guides to imbibe a particular set of values and those included loyalty to the Monarch. So if you'd asked him whether or not it was necessary he would have told you it was. Now, clearly, Baden-Powell is dead and there is no reason that the Scouts or Guides couldn't push a change their vows to do their duty to the values of British liberal democracy rather than to her Maj.
But also, as I'm in a bolshie mood, what Karl said. The question is, do Scouts need to be monarchists? If not, why insist on them making a promise that strongly assumes that they are? It's divisive and discriminatory for no purpose.
quote:My understanding is that Baden-Powell was a Good Little Imperialist and like all GLIs he wanted British people to be Christians but didn't want to impose Christianity on those subjects of the Empire who subscribed to other religions on the grounds that this would wreck the Empire.
I think I could make a better case for Christianity being central to the Scouts than monarchy.
quote:Really? There's probably more of them than paid up Christians in the UK I would have thought.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It's a good day for monarchist atheists.
I wonder which phone box they hold their meetings in?
quote:Indeed. King David amongst them.
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:Interesting that he's chosen an adulterer to be her successor. In fact, over the centuries he's chosen rather a lot of adulterers and drunkards.
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:Accident of birth? That is ridicuhous - the Queen is God's chosen servant. His world is no random chaos. We have an explicitly Christian monarchy. No theology that I know of could conceive that this was a cosmic accident, except one which denies the omnipotence of God.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I look forward to excising the Queen from the promise as well. I'd quite like to help out our local scouts as a leader, but not whilst I have to make some vague ill-defined promise of "duty" to a head of state whose position is based entirely on an accident of birth and therefore whose legitimacy in a modern democracy I have limited confidence in.
quote:Ah but he was anointed under legitimate local rites (as Article XXXIV reminds us), so he was an entirely kosher monarch. In any case, sinful sovereigns are set over us by Divine Providence as a rebuke to an erring people, and as a warning against the wages of sin. Or so I've always thought.
Originally posted by Spike:
Yes, but David wasn't a proper king as he wasn't King of England or crowned according g to the rite of the BCP
quote:He was just a small local chieftain for some herders.
Originally posted by Spike:
Yes, but David wasn't a proper king as he wasn't King of England or crowned according g to the rite of the BCP
quote:Most 'sponsoring churches' will continue to sponsor, because it's part of their mission, their tradition, their community.
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
So do ship mates feel that this new promise have any effect ( long term) on the tradition Parade Services?
quote:That our heads of state are eligible for that role by an accident of birth is irrelevant. Since the Restoration, our constitutional monarchy is there only with the consent of parliament and the people. So it's legitimacy is entirely democratic. If you doubt this, I invite you to form a political party dedicated to the abolition of the monarchy, and the introduction of an elected head of state. If you win enough seats in parliament, you can pass the legislation to put it to a popular referendum. Then, if the people support you, you will have made history. It may happen some day, but good luck trying at present.
Originally posted by Karl:Liberal Backslider:
but not whilst I have to make some vague ill-defined promise of "duty" to a head of state whose position is based entirely on an accident of birth and therefore whose legitimacy in a modern democracy I have limited confidence in.
quote:But once we bring BP into it, you would have thought that his idea of 'duty to the Queen/King' was to sign up to fight when the country called. His first Boy Scouts (IIRC) were taught military skills, probably none of which helped them in the trenches a few years later. So there was an implicit/almost explicit understanding that 'duty' was to follow the bugle call.
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:(Snipped for brevity)
Originally posted by Gildas:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:I think that dear old Baden-Powell wanted Scouts and Guides to imbibe a particular set of values and those included loyalty to the Monarch. So if you'd asked him whether or not it was necessary he would have told you it was. Now, clearly, Baden-Powell is dead and there is no reason that the Scouts or Guides couldn't push a change their vows to do their duty to the values of British liberal democracy rather than to her Maj.
But also, as I'm in a bolshie mood, what Karl said. The question is, do Scouts need to be monarchists? If not, why insist on them making a promise that strongly assumes that they are? It's divisive and discriminatory for no purpose.
But Baden-Powell also wanted Scouts to be religious, and that's been a fundamental part of their history. It's been diluted to the point of non-existence over the years, but you can't easily use this argument as support for promises to the Queen without insisting on the God stuff as well.
I more or less agree with you (I generally regard oaths of loyalty to the monarch as one of the many fudges that make our constitution so very British and keep everything more or less working), but the argument based on Baden-Powell's wishes and intentions is weak. I think I could make a better case for Christianity being central to the Scouts than monarchy.
quote:Exactly. Whereas the commonly-expressed sentiment of republicans is that because the Queen is just an ordinary person, it is appropriate to treat her far more rudely than other ordinary people.
Originally posted by Russ:
The "duty to the Queen" is about the office rather than the person, seems to me. In the unlikely event of a Guide encountering Mrs Windsor off-duty, perhaps having a quick smoke around the back of the building while her stand-in is doing a bit of waving from the balcony, the duty to Mrs Windsor would be no more to any other member of the community; any special duty (in terms of showing respect) would be due to the stand-in, the functional monarch.
quote:This is a rather sweeping generalisation, Cod... Do you have some statistics or even a couple of anecdotes to illustrate this rudeness on the part of republicans?
Originally posted by Cod:
...the commonly-expressed sentiment of republicans is that because the Queen is just an ordinary person, it is appropriate to treat her far more rudely than other ordinary people.
Or maybe republicans really are just the rude prigs they often appear to be.
quote:I just don't see it that way at all.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Exactly. Singling her out in the promise makes it sound like there's some special duty owed to her because she's Queen (I can hear Blackadder II's Queenie saying "who's Queen?"). I don't recognise that special duty.
Is all.
quote:It is a promise to be a good citizen, which includes abiding the civil authorities of that country, which - incidentally - is a monarchy.
"I, [full name], swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of New Zealand, Her heirs and successors, according to law, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of New Zealand and fulfil my duties as a New Zealand citizen.
quote:Reasonable enough. However, it doesn't follow that your political beliefs should be catered to.
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
As I'm a republican, I'd like to see the Queen eased out of any oath
quote:A separate argument, although it seems to me that promising to obey God excludes definate atheists and no-one else.
and as I'm on the fringes of Christianity and recognise that people are of different beliefs and none, God seems not to belong there, either.
quote:This strikes me as something that should go without saying and should require no oath, unless one is some kind of recluse or misanthrope. Unfortunately, the revised Guide oath removes a promise to a defined community with your "most important and significant oath". There is a qualitative difference between swearing an oath to serve a group of people capable of definition by only yourself at any point, and swearing an oath to an objectively-defined community. The former is, frankly, nothing more than a promise to be nice to your mates.
In my view, the most important and significant oath they could swear would be to each other.
quote:Is it then your general habit to refer to elderly ladies by joke names, such as
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Exactly. Singling her out in the promise makes it sound like there's some special duty owed to her because she's Queen (I can hear Blackadder II's Queenie saying "who's Queen?"). I don't recognise that special duty.
Is all.
quote:?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
<snip> Brenda <snip>
quote:I could be wrong, but as I've seen it in oaths, it's either 'our Sovereign Lady Queen, etc.' or 'Her Majesty Queen, etc.' but not both. Let's get your hatred on the right track, eh?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's a common enough udage I've seen from non-Republicans as well. I do use it to be rude but the rudeness is directed towards the sort of toadying that insist on risible codswallop like my Sovereign Lady Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II Fid Def etc. etc.
quote:IMO it's far less risible than codswallop like calling some lying bastard politician "The Right Honourable..."
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...risible codswallop like my Sovereign Lady Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II Fid Def etc. etc.
quote:Which we're not forced to use.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Well if we have a monarchy that traces its history back over 1,000 years, it's likely that we'll end up with ancient titles.
quote:Calling someone by something other than his or her name is generally considered rude. Especially in Twickenham, being the naice place that it is.
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
That's rude? Oh, please.
quote:The middle part of the OP appears to have been widely ignored.
Originally posted by shamwari:
So, in order to be inclusive and to make everybody feel comfortable, the Girl Guide promise has been changed and God omitted.
The Church wants to be equally as inclusive as the Guide movement. If not more. Should we therefore drop God from the Creed?
How far should we compromise and adjust to be inclusive?
Discuss.
quote:There are worse things in life than being considered rude by someone on the internet.
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:Calling someone by something other than his or her name is generally considered rude. Especially in Twickenham, being the naice place that it is.
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
That's rude? Oh, please.
Regardless of the stated intentions of the person.
