Return it. I know it’s a bit close to the mark, but actually he is entitled to say what he has done.
He hasn’t actually called anyone a bigoted fool, just that they give the impression of being one…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/20/air-cadets-remove-god-pledge?INTCMP=SRCH
Interesting. Anyone heard anything formally?
[quote=“pEp” post=3336]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/20/air-cadets-remove-god-pledge?INTCMP=SRCH
Interesting. Anyone heard anything formally?[/quote]
We would have had this all over the Corps, before now in order to prepare for it. I’ll wait for the q’s as someone will think that the CO’s holding something back. Anyway it’s in The Guardian … enough said. BTW I don’t read the Mail.
The comment that 65% of youngsters regard themselves as non-religious is intriguing, as I would like to understand what is meant by non-religious in this context.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=3337][quote=“pEp” post=3336][Url]Air cadets rewrite their oath to remove God from pledge | Religion | The Guardian
Interesting. Anyone heard anything formally?[/quote]
We would have had this all over the Corps, before now in order to prepare for it. [/quote]
Now that the thread has been unlocked, would someone mind telling me why my post has not been re-instated? Cheers.
Have the Guardian scooped HQAC then? This is an encouraging development. Although it does seem to suggest that the fair promise would be an “option” and not the default - thus further widening that door for individual staff/OCs to unfairly enforce the religious promise.
[quote=Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Scripture Readers Association]I’d like to see everyone following Christ and taking the pledge. I can’t see a truly Christian organisation dropping a pledge to Christ. It’s a hollow pledge if they don’t believe the words they are saying. You can’t tell people what to believe.[/quote]The construction of this “argument” is hilarious. The first line admits the bias, the second tells us that we are a “Christian organisation”, the third agrees with the secularist view and the fourth is too ironic for words.
[quote=ChristChurch London]Should we change the words of the national anthem because they include ‘God save our gracious Queen’? What are people threatened by?[/quote]Again, we see the religionists try to attach their interests to any sort of national institution or identity. We get a choice what we believe (or should/for now), we do not get a choice about the Monarchy (yet!). Yes, we should change the national anthem, but my guess is that the Monarchy will go before it!
BPR.
It seems odd that HQAC would have decided this on a Sunday!
[quote=“MattB” post=3342]It seems odd that HQAC would have decided this on a Sunday![/quote]The entire article seems iffy to me and I had to take a closer look to check whether it was a parody article. It seems not.
There is no quote from anybody in the ACO and it is if either the guardian or the UKAFHA or BHA jumped on hearsay and announced it as fact. I would not be surprised to see HQAC issue a rebuttal on Monday.
And while we are at it, why is it accompanied by a croup of cadets saluting a Lancaster whilst wearing no headdress? If “Steve Parsons/PA” (whoever that is) had anything to do with it then words needs to be had!
[quote=“bprichfield” post=3340]Now that the thread has been unlocked, would someone mind telling me why my post has not been re-instated? Cheers.
[/quote]
Been busy, sorry. Done.
I rarely take anything written in The Guardian at face value…
We might want to see the full transcript. I’ve seen numerous interviews and read numerous statements where they have been edited for effect and lost the real meaning/context.
It is a valid point. Lose the Monarchy, I don’t think the British people are really much in favour of the alternative of here today gone tomorrow polticians as a President, which would cost more and none of the tourist payback. Would someone really stand around for hours to see a President or similar in the UK, probably not.
Wonder how many non-Christian cadets were asked about the change.
Or is it more of a “we know what’s best for you” attitude as it seems that this change has come about because of Humanist organisations.
[quote=“5432golf” post=3356]Or is it more of a “we know what’s best for you” attitude [/quote]Or perhaps a “we know what is best for the organisation” attitude?
At the moment we don’t know if there has been any change at all.
According to the article it came about because humanist organisations pointed out that it was against the law, which seems like a pretty good reason to me.
I liked this quote from the Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Scripture Readers Association; “It’s a hollow pledge if they don’t believe the words they are saying. You can’t tell people what to believe.” Sounds to me like a very good reason for the change?
[quote=“MattB” post=3358]
I liked this quote from the Soldiers’ and Airmen’s Scripture Readers Association; “It’s a hollow pledge if they don’t believe the words they are saying. You can’t tell people what to believe.” Sounds to me like a very good reason for the change?[/quote]
Absobloodyexactly!
[quote=“pEp” post=3336]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/20/air-cadets-remove-god-pledge?INTCMP=SRCH
Interesting. Anyone heard anything formally?[/quote]
Yes, I re-read the bits and pieces on Sharepoint about Drill…and it still remains you salute only whilst wearing headdress. 
This is why we should ditch the whole thing. As I said in a couple of posts when you look at the way cadets behave, I don’t think they understand / take in any of the promise at all.
If they did you wouldn’t have to almost plead for them to take part in activities, you’d be limiting the numbers, or, you wouldn’t turn up having staff who’ve re-jigged their weekend to ensure they’re available to do whatever, only to find the dozen cadets, has become ½ a dozen, with no contact. The sqns I’ve been on have done the “what would you like to see happen activity wise” and loads of ideas and they have happened with poor responses. We were nagged by the cadets to have a Christmas party, so the CWC duly arrange it. Each year 12-15 out of 30-35 bother. Those that bother have a bloody good night so job done, but if “to serve my unit loyally” had any meaning there’d be at least double the number of cadets. We’re lucky one of the CWC has access to a hall which costs nothing, otherwise it would stop.
was the lanc showing star plates?
The RAF has a very nice acronym that it uses to outline the values expected to reside in its members; RISE, Respect, Integrity, Service, Excellence - reference to a deity does not feature at all!
All we should be asking our cadets to do is to give their word and promise (show INTEGRITY) that as a cadet and therefore a member of the RAF, they will adhere to those (or similar) values. If there are cadets who have religious views, that is fine, but nobody in our organisation should feel coerced into anything (have RESPECT).
I think that we should wait out to see whether handbrake house says that they’re actually doing what the Guardian state in their article. Personally, I’m a little suspicious as it came through the ‘media’ before official channels.
Maybe they have seen the quite vociferous and verging on rather heated dicussion here, and taken it as gospel as the voice of the ACO?.. Just a thought about journalistic standards 
Being the Gruinad, it could well just be a typographical error of truly epic proportions on an article that’s actually a recipe for a lentil soup.