As a sqn cdr I have always been uncomfortable with the cadet’s promise about “god”.
Being an atheist I am also uncomfortable with the church services.
Is it not time to make the organisation secular?
If it’s good enough for the scouts… However, know how handbrake house operate - it will be 15-20 years before anything happens.
I’m also very uncomfortable with the whole “god” thing and think that moving in this direct can only be a good thing!
I heard that HQAC have been mooting this very issue very recently, so it may not be as far off as one may think. After all, even when attesting into the RAF now, you can affirm rather than swear an oath to a deity,
Same in the Courts as well.
The latest 3822As don’t have a space for religion…
Indeed they don’t. Though Bader still demands that you enter something in that box, which 90% of the time means scrolling through to select “Not stated”. About time Bader was updated too, to make that box optional and/or “Not stated” as the default; or just remove completely.
I think the whole mention of “God” should go. Though I reckon we’d have difficulty at local level removing it, since our Chaplain conducts enrollments in accordance with an order of service issued by HQAC which contains prayers.
It would be silly to remove the word “god” yet still have a service with bloody prayers in.
What’s needed is for HQAC to make a complete decision and to stop encouraging Christianity within the organisation.
I’m not saying ditch chaplains altogether necessarily, but it should not be so formally pushed.
[quote=“Operation Dynamo” post=952]The latest 3822As don’t have a space for religion…[/quote]These came out at about the same time that SMS made the Religion field mandatory in the New Cadet wizard. Guess what: lots of cadets now down as “Not Stated” 
Edit: Damn you, WD!!!
i found it ironic that a organisation with its links with the church has chosen to go down the route to remove religiion
i’m not saying only believers are allowed in and they are at church weekly, but they are considerably more religious/“Churchy” than other youth organisations (namely ours)
i think there was a discussion about this for our promise, on the subject of removing “Queen”, in the archive for those non-Royalist…ironic given our parent organisation and the office at the top of the organisation!
i would have thought the easiest route would be to change the wording “…to my God…”
We have to be careful about divorcing our entire existence (the Organisation) from its links with the various churches. They provide much more than just God bothering, if you engage them correctly. Think about the Personal Awareness Courses at Amport house. Yes, run by the Chaplaincy centre, but welcoming to all faiths or beliefs and they offer quite an insightful look into ones standing in society and that persons impact.
[quote=“steve679” post=959]i would have thought the easiest route would be to change the wording “…to my God…”[/quote]Doesn’t really help the atheists though does it!
why not?
if they dont have a God then “their God” may seem ironic, but they know what it means to them.
the use of “my God” opens up the interpretion of personal belief, if any, while “God” on its own indicates a much more “obvious” figure who is being referred to…
Mitch? 
In the words of Basil Fawlty…
“Oh Buddha”
why not?
if they dont have a God then “their God” may seem ironic, but they know what it means to them. [/quote]It means absolutely nothing and renders the oath pointless, just like the present wording. It might appease a proportion of the wider population but it is not a total solution and is therefore no solution at all.
Personally, as someone who is very non-christian “do my duty to my god” is equally as irritating to me as “do my duty to god”.
To me, it still suggests that we’re ‘expected’ to have some sort of affiliation to organised religion. It just smacks of a half-hearted to attempt to appease. Much like when some christians say that they “respect other’s right not to believe in the one true god”; or they “respect homosexuals rights just so long as they behave appropriately”.
It’s a bit of a “Well, we’re RIGHT…but we have to pretend that others have a valid point of view” approach.
I’d support removing that part altogether. One doesn’t need to fulfill a duty to any god to be a good person.
If they were to suggest removing “duty to the Queen” though I’d be lodging my resistance against that.
I’m not a huge Royalist; I don’t have a photo of Auntie Liz on my wall at home, or a collectors china tea set of the coronation, or anything like that. But we wear the uniform of her Air Force; many of our activities are provided by, or in the spirit of her armed forces; and we live in her country. It seems madness to even contemplate it.
The difference is that the Queen definitely exists…
I’ll get my coat…
Bin the promise altogether rather than sod around taking this or that bit out, because a word or two might upset some people’s sensibilities. :ohmy:
I would say that not one single cadet in the modern era actually takes notice or understands what they are saying, and give HQAC another page in the 3822 to fill with drivel as they seem to have done, with the “parent contract”, which I never seen signed and nor do I pursue its signing and the uniform size page, which I have never seen filled in. I think what the 3822 really needs are vision and mission statements, printed on softer absorbent paper that can be torn out in an emergency. 
However, it is amusing how people here seem to extrapolate that “not stated” or empty box on a form to mean that the cadet has no faith/religious belief. By that line of thought I have no ethnicity, gender, age, marital status or sexual preference, as I “prefer not to say”, when presented with these questions on ‘monitoring’ forms as what on earth does it matter anyway. So who is to say that parents on filling the form in are exercising that right and they religious, but prefer not to say?
At 13/14 not very many have made a positive affirmation of faith or no faith, as they will be practicing / observing other’s behaviour’s and thinking out of habit rather than personal choice and this applies equally to religion, politics and whether someone is a Monarchist or republican. The latter of which is also (as stated) in the promise.
On a more general note the 3822 IMO needs a complete overhaul and put into some sort of sensible order and lose some of the front pages. I was looking at my 3822 from the 70s and it seemed a lot more practical than the modern ones, with nowhere near as much at the front requiring the CO’s signature.
3822s are going soon. Financial constraints are pushing a cheaper alternative.
Such as?
Yep I heard this last year and given the speed HQAC move we’ll still have them in 10 years time, when they’ll talk about it again.
Take a look on Sharepoint there are relatively easy things under “change requests” that are over year old, so something like a new style 3822 and the requirement to make a decison … don’t hold your breath.