|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Queen in. God out
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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.
Besides, your solution is contingent on a somewhat free interpretation of a very specific set of words. Other groups have different promises, which are less accommodating of such an approach. For example, the Beaver Scout promise:
quote:
I promise to do my best
To be kind and helpful
And to love God
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.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
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.
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?
They don't have to. But they won't be able to have my help as a volunteer. Up to them.
Never understood what it meant anyway. Could one of you monarchists explain exactly what my "duty to the Queen" is?
[ 21. June 2013, 11:03: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
While I haven't carried out a survey on the subject, my instinct tells me that the pool of would-be Scout and Guide leaders who do not offer their services because of strident republicanism is probably quite small.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
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?
According to 15th Cheltenham (Shurdingham) Scout Group:
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).
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
The actual meaningful bits of that I can do as a republican. But the more nebulous "showing respect" bit - well, one of the things she stands for is privelege and power based on birth rather than democratic mandate, and for that I have absolutely no respect whatsoever.
So I'm stuffed. Never mind eh.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I didn't mention individuality. I mentioned selfishness. Step away from the straw man...
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.
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...
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.
[ 21. June 2013, 11:29: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
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...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
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.
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?
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.
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.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Quite right. Apologies. That'll teach me not to use the internet without my glasses on.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
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...
Perhaps it depends on one's view of human agency.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Indeed.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
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.
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.
However, the Monarchy is valued by, I suspect, a majority of the population and this is topped up by a significant chunk, of which I confess myself a member, who whilst preferring - in theory - the sort of constitutional arrangements they have in Germany are nonetheless grateful that we went down the British path to modernity and not the German path. If there was a popular move for a Republic we would not stand in its way, but we tolerate and respect the crown as the apex of a system based on the sovereignty of parliament and the rule of law and we have a certain amount of time for the current inc. Now bung us in with the true monarchists and, I suspect, you get something like 80% of the population of the UK. So I can see that the scouts might just be prepared to see Karl signing up for the Woodcraft Folk rather than do something which many would find abhorrent and others find unnecessary.
This, I think, differs from the God issue because very few of us are invested in 'God' per se but are invested in a particular God. If the Scouts were a Christian organisation that had hitherto sworn allegiance to the Holy Eternal and Consubstantial Trinity that might have been worth dying in a ditch for but an essentially secular organisation which excludes agnostics or atheists is a bit odd.
Which is why I think God went and the Queen stayed.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Whilst I do find the Woodcraft Folk quite appealing, (a) there aren't any anywhere near us, and (b) I can't for the life of me imagine Backslideret #1 joining a group called "elfins".
I struggle to see why excising the explicit promise of duty to the Queen would be abhorrent to anyone. It'd be nice to have the option. I did consider taking the view that since I don't believe I owe Brenda any duty whatsoever I'm actually promising to do bugger all if I promise to "do my duty" to her, but I don't think that's what the writers had in mind, so it doesn't seem entirely honest.
Still, I'm not losing any sleep over it. I have plenty of other things to occupy myself with.
[ 21. June 2013, 13:59: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
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.
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.
(Snipped for brevity)
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.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
I think I could make a better case for Christianity being central to the Scouts than monarchy.
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.
Consequently 'God' in the oath is a floating signifier for The Trinity, The God of Israel, the Islamic Allah, Krishna, Shiva and so on and so forth. I distinctly remember a few years ago a Scout leader telling the assembled hordes on St. Georges Day parade that the scout law specified that they had to be of a religion but not of any given religion. Now I'm sure that BP would have objected to humanist scouts but he's not here to object and frankly it's his own silly fault for not having hopped into a time machine and consulted Karl Barth on the subject.
My own view as an erstwhile scout and as someone who has subsequently had dealings with them as a C of E person and, as someone whose daughter currently attends Rainbows is that they are primarily about the earthly Babylon but (until recently) sentimentally attached to the heavenly Jerusalem. I have no particular quarrel with that as long as we are all up front about where we stand.
I think ultimately your point about the greater importance of religion than monarchism falls on the empirical datum that the guides have just done away with God and not the Queen. If you were correct I would have expected HM the Q to go first.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sighthound
Shipmate
# 15185
|
Posted
I'm not sure I approve of oaths made for trivial reasons, and I'm even less happy about making children take oaths they may not understand just so they can join a social club.
But then I take oaths seriously. They touch my conscience. Some people seem to take oaths as just a form of words. A bit like accepting the terms and conditions of your latest software.
--------------------
Supporter of Tia Greyhound and Lurcher Rescue.http://tiagreyhounds.org/
Posts: 168 | From: England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It's a good day for monarchist atheists.
I wonder which phone box they hold their meetings in?
Really? There's probably more of them than paid up Christians in the UK I would have thought.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
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.
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.
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.
Indeed. King David amongst them.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
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
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.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
So do ship mates feel that this new promise have any effect ( long term) on the tradition Parade Services?
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
So do ship mates feel that this new promise have any effect ( long term) on the tradition Parade Services?
Most 'sponsoring churches' will continue to sponsor, because it's part of their mission, their tradition, their community.
Some may flounce. I'll be interested to see what happens at my daughter's Guide group, as the sponsoring church is extremely ConEvo, and Miss Tor's Ranger leader is "very disappointed" at the form of the new promise.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
If I cared enough I might. I don't; I just care enough to be unwilling to swear to do a vaguely defined duty to do her. Is all.
[ 22. June 2013, 21:00: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
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.
(being generally in favour of the monarchy as symbol of the nation rather than the State, the monarch a more fitting object of those feelings of love of country that some of us have than some politician attempting to enact a programme of legislation on behalf of a majority coalition)
What I'm struggling to get my head around is how far the same is true of religious duty. If you met Jesus having a smoke around the back of the cathedral while some demiurge did the business of answering prayers and taking the credit for creating he world...
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Haydee
Shipmate
# 14734
|
Posted
As a primary schooler at a CofE school (because loads are in the UK, not because of any particular choice) I had ethical problems with saying 'amen' after prayers because I wasn't sure there was a God. My mother told me (correctly it seems) that 'amen' means 'so be it' in Hebrew. Therefore, if I agreed with the sentiments expressed in the prayer (please keep the little birds safe as they migrate) then saying 'amen' was quite ethical whatever my beliefs.
In the same way I would happily promise to 'show respect' or 'do my duty' to the Queen - I try to be generally respectful of others and do my duty by them. if someone wants to single out Her Maj that's up to them.
Posts: 433 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rev per Minute
Shipmate
# 69
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
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.
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.
(Snipped for brevity)
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.
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.
--------------------
"Allons-y!" "Geronimo!" "Oh, for God's sake!" The Day of the Doctor
At the end of the day, we face our Maker alongside Jesus. RIP ken
Posts: 2696 | From: my desk (if I can find the keyboard under this mess) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
Or maybe republicans really are just the rude prigs they often appear to be.
[ 01. July 2013, 04:12: Message edited by: Cod ]
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
DouglasTheOtter
Ship's aquatic mammal
# 17681
|
Posted
I'm a republican and not, as far as I am aware, a rude prig. The Queen is entitled to the same respect you'd accord any other old lady that you don't know, no more, no less.
--------------------
Need writing or copywriting? Visit me at...
www.rjpmedia.net
Posts: 171 | From: Twickenham | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
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.
I just don't see it that way at all.
A few years back I took out NZ citizenship and, as part of the ceremony, I swore the following oath:
quote:
"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.
It is a promise to be a good citizen, which includes abiding the civil authorities of that country, which - incidentally - is a monarchy.
It is not like joining the Nashi.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
DouglasTheOtter
Ship's aquatic mammal
# 17681
|
Posted
I'm a citizen of the UK and have never taken such an oath. My feeling is that the Queen is entitled to the same protection that you'd give anyone else of a similar age, not because she's Queen but because she's an old lady. As to pledging allegiance to her... well, no, I'm afraid. You can stick that up your botty.
--------------------
Need writing or copywriting? Visit me at...
www.rjpmedia.net
Posts: 171 | From: Twickenham | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
You've completely missed the point.
The oath I took was to the lawful civil authorities of New Zealand: ie, the Queen. It was not to the Queen personally.
If I were of pronounced republican sensibilities I would have had no problems in swearing that oath, because there is no law against political beliefs.
Compare the refusal of Sinn Fein MPs to take the parliamentary oath. That made perfect sense to me because they did not acknowledge British lawful authority over them, Queen or otherwise.
Similarly, the Guides' oath pre-amendment, made it clear that a Guide's responsiblity was to society as a whole. Perfectly appropriate to mention the Queen in that context as the lawful civil authority and a figure of national unity. Now it is simply to whatever group the individual Guide might determine at any particular point.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
DouglasTheOtter
Ship's aquatic mammal
# 17681
|
Posted
As I'm a republican, I'd like to see the Queen eased out of any oath 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. In my view, the most important and significant oath they could swear would be to each other.
--------------------
Need writing or copywriting? Visit me at...
www.rjpmedia.net
Posts: 171 | From: Twickenham | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
As I'm a republican, I'd like to see the Queen eased out of any oath
Reasonable enough. However, it doesn't follow that your political beliefs should be catered to.
quote:
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.
A separate argument, although it seems to me that promising to obey God excludes definate atheists and no-one else.
quote:
In my view, the most important and significant oath they could swear would be to each other.
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.
(edited for clarity)
[ 04. July 2013, 00:09: Message edited by: Cod ]
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Is it then your general habit to refer to elderly ladies by joke names, such as quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
<snip> Brenda <snip>
?
Because I think by normal standards that's rather rude.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I really couldn't give a toss what it is; it's still rather silly.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Which is where these titles belong - history.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
...risible codswallop like my Sovereign Lady Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II Fid Def etc. etc.
IMO it's far less risible than codswallop like calling some lying bastard politician "The Right Honourable..."
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
DouglasTheOtter
Ship's aquatic mammal
# 17681
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Which we're not forced to use.
--------------------
Need writing or copywriting? Visit me at...
www.rjpmedia.net
Posts: 171 | From: Twickenham | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
That's rude? Oh, please.
Calling someone by something other than his or her name is generally considered rude. Especially in Twickenham, being the naice place that it is.
Regardless of the stated intentions of the person.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
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.
The middle part of the OP appears to have been widely ignored.
Possibly this is because most people consider the premise that opens the second paragraph to be total nonsense. I know I do.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
DouglasTheOtter
Ship's aquatic mammal
# 17681
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
That's rude? Oh, please.
Calling someone by something other than his or her name is generally considered rude. Especially in Twickenham, being the naice place that it is.
Regardless of the stated intentions of the person.
There are worse things in life than being considered rude by someone on the internet.
--------------------
Need writing or copywriting? Visit me at...
www.rjpmedia.net
Posts: 171 | From: Twickenham | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
