Agree with you there. IIRC, the largest “denomination” in the UK today is non-religious. Even some who are religious are non-theist, so it only makes sense to reflect that as an organisation.
As an example, I’m more than happy to join in with Remembrance Parades and remember my friends from my army days who never returned from Afghanistan, but I’ve always felt rather uncomfortable taking part in the church service given my own views and that none of my lost friends were religious either.
Multiple versions for different faiths (or none):
so they do continue with a promise - thus imo i don’t see us being “out of touch” or “outdated”
we’re not the only ones holding on to this concept
When I first became OC years ago, one of first “big changes” I made was stopping our cadets being mandated to enter church after the remembrance parade. Now I give them the option - those that want to are welcome to, with their parents. Anyone else is welcome to disperse. Surprisingly I don’t think I’ve had a cadet go in at all since then.
The concept of being coupled to any religion is antiquated and completely at odds with a modern, dynamic and inclusive youth organisation. Our padre is excellent, they’re a great member of our unit and essentially uses it for critical thinking and moral dilemmas being posed to cadets rather than using it to recruit new blood. Others I have met however treat themselves as some of the most important people in the org without which we wouldn’t function.
I have no problem with a promise. I quite like it. I have a problem with the organisation using it and other areas to thrust religion upon us.
I don’t disagree.
my comments on questioning the validity of a promise are in reaction to:
I was “for” the wording change to “My God” and indeed removal all together of religious links - there is the same in the Attestation two versions one with and one without
Edit to add: in today’s world of inclusivity it is disappointing that HQAC are thrusting Christian views down to Squadrons
Very interesting to see the Muslim scout promise says to do your duty to Allah and then the King. The other religions don’t specify an order/precedence.
Not a criticism, just interesting to see the variations between religions. The atheist one obviously has no mention of God but you pledge yourself to the King. What if you’re an atheist republican? 
Pledge yourself to your best self?
Whilst religion is a personal choice, for His Majesty’s subjects allegiance is not optional (whatever their political persuasion).
The allegiance part of the promise probably made a lot more sense in 1941 when cadets helped out with basic defence tasks.
Nowadays, it’s a bit old fashioned and jingoistic.
We’d better do away with saluting holders of the King’s commission then, for fear of being old fashioned and jingoistic.
I dunno, as I grow older I just find the allegiance part of a promise for 12 years olds a bit child soldiery.
Oh that has come up many times. Their Facebook forum discussions make this place look like a Sunday school outing.
(They even have their own regular recurring topics like our O18 cadets and CivCom arguments)
I really dont see why it had to change…someone’s looking for things to do…
Also, why in an age where more of the population is non-religious than religious, are we including as a default allegiance to a creator?
It is completely unnecessary to slip religion into something like this, and I’ve always found it rather alienating.
Edit: Apologies, my browser didn’t load up all the chat on this subject.
He must be new here, a steep learning curve for him/her.
To my mind we’re so busy looking at these issues - you’re right - the larger issues such as staff / senior cadets / overall lack of morale / lack of Senior Leadership and poor decision making with the youth of today and what they want are being overlooked.
You can have many things going on at once, and have different people looking at different things. For example this change may well have been being explored by the Corps Chaiplin, who won’t be involved in other things going on such as lack of flying.
The erasure of the Air Training Corps is an affront to those of us who joined the ‘Corps’ and were proud to do so.
The Air Training Corps was formed in 1st of February 1941…
When was it killed off!
My original squadron was one of the first squadrons formed but not a ‘Founder’ squadron…
I know a lot of serving and former ‘Corps’ members that are ashamed at what HQAC has made the Corps into and some of the staff that caused the issues that are still serving (!)
I feel like someone high up is confusing the public branding with the actual organisation.
The Air Cadet Organisation was the easier to understand brand name for people who wouldn’t understand the nuance. But you joined the CCF or the ATC.
The change to RAFAC doesn’t change that, right? On the bits that matter, like standards (of the fabric variety) and your sqn badges, the ATC still very much exists, right?
Or is it me that has the wrong end of the stick?
Sorry, thought the acp9 gubbins was only supposed to go to padres, who then spend time finding the usable 10%! Think the reword came after an “obeying orders” incident… every time I discuss the promise with new Cadets I find my explanation changes, which either means I’m still evolving or am wishy washy C of E 