[quote=“5432golf” post=3356]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]As pointed out by incubus; its called progress. Perhaps the organisation is finally removing the tentacles of an outdated and irrelevant institution which has nothing to do with its core aims and mission.
Even if the policy is made true, successfully implementing it (like all others) will be a completely different story.
No doubt what I am going to say about this topic having read through the 14 pages of replys is going to attract a whole host of adverse comments, doubts on my sanity (which already is in question!) and maybe doubts upon my parentage but being a former football referee you cannot say anything new! To nail my colours to the mast I am a Squadron Chaplain and have been so for over 19 years. Having caried out hundreds of enrolements in this time I have never had any objections from Cadets to them saying the word ‘God’ in the Enrolement Service. In pre-enrolment talks when the promise is being discussed Cadets accept the promise as being one of the things that is done within the ACO. They make thier promise and get on with being a cadet! If someone did object then I would expect them not to say ‘God’ at the appropriate time. I have not heard of any cadet being refused admittance to the Corps because they had objections to part of the promise!
Where is this all going to go? Do we then say that the post of Chaplain is no longer required? Do we stop 'padre’s hours? can we afford to take the risk that if we remove God from the promise, the Chaplain is not going to mention God in his/her talk? After all we don’t want to confuse cadets by saying, on one hand,that we as an organisation don’t acknowledge God but listen to the Chaplain who does!
What have we as society achieved?: we have removed God from our Schools (Assembly), we’ve removed God from the sanctity of marriage, we have removed God from our legal system. (we can ‘affirm’ which really means I can lie my head off because I don’t have to answer to a higher authority.)We have almost removed God from Christmas! How well are we doing?
Option A: Removing God from the promise and ultimately from the ACO is not going to make a huge diference, cadets will still continue to do what they do. Not having to think about God means that we can do what ever we want because there is no accountability to any higher power other than what we decide is going to fit in with what we want.
Option B: ??? sorry option B does not appear as the consequences could be too much for us to bear because if the Church has got it right then we have got the rest of eternity to get a working party together to work out if we made the right decision. Please bring your own torch as it will be pretty dark but at least there is no need to bring blankets or a sleeping bag as the venue has its own heating system!! (AWO’s need not worry as being ‘god’ you are safe!)
[quote=“padre2366” post=3694]Option A: Removing God from the promise and ultimately from the ACO is not going to make a huge diference, cadets will still continue to do what they do. Not having to think about God means that we can do what ever we want because there is no accountability to any higher power other than what we decide is going to fit in with what we want.[/quote]Only if you assume that one needs a god in order to be a good person. You may believe that, I don’t.
I can’t see any thing that makes your belief any more important or valid than mine.
Padre, the notion that anybody should need a “higher power” to have morals is totally absurd. I believe in no god, I have morals. I would guess they are reasonably similar to yours.
I don’t get why you feel a “higher power” is required for you to act with morals. In the real world you argue that the justice system and Govt is our higher power. However, with day to day morality do you really need the fear of god/hell to be a decent person? I know I don’t.
To answer you point about padres, I think they are becoming rapidly irrelevant for vast swaths of the corps. Would the corps fall apart without them? Absolutely not.
One can argue that it is discriminatory to include the word god in the promise. One can’t argue that if NO god is mentioned. It’s not imposing any belief system on anybody. Secularism is different to atheism.
Ladies/Gentlemen. I think what we all will agree on is that this decision to look at removing the word ‘God’ from the cadet promise has open a huge topic for debate and to be completely honest it is a topic to which there is never going to be an answer that fits comfortably with everyone and all we are going to suceed in is going around in circles. However reasoned debate on any subject is always good providing each person gets a chance to give his/her opinion. Maybe one of the ways forward is not to have a promise as such. Have some form of statement that all people irrespective of belief will be able to subscribe to that will set out what the ACO requires of each new person who joins.
Those who say that the ACO will be able to function without Squadron Chaplains could well be right. In my Wing there are squadrons who have not had a Chaplain for ages or even at all and they operate very well. However there is the ocassion when due to circumstances having the advice/services of a chaplain can help the situation. (Anyway at the moment the discusion is not about Chaplains)
Being part of the ACO is about helping Cadets to reach thier full potential, to enable them to make the most of every opportunity and enable them to grow in character. Making a promise in itself is not going to do that. The promise is a statement that says the cadet is going to try to the best of his/her ability and our job as cfav is to help them to do that irrespective of religious beliefs. If by being a Chaplain I can help someone to do that then great, but I can also use my experiences gained through life and in a secular way to do that as well.
Think of Chaplains as fire extinguishers, they are present in our squadrons and don’t do much, but the moment you use them for thier intended purpose…
I’ve certainly said that on several occasions - those resources are available in the community for those who seek them. We manage to operate perfectly well without a regular injection of religious opinion.
To be fair, if you stand a cleric up in front of a group of people you expect them to mention god in rather the same way that if you stand a pilot up in front of a group of people you expect him to start talking about flying aircraft. If you genuinely think this will confuse the cadets (rather than merely being contrary) then I fear for your cadets.
We, as an organisation which is open to a diverse range of people, should certainly acknowledge the belief which some hold in god or gods just as we should acknowledge the alternative beliefs held by others. The organisation shoudl not however “acknowledge god” as that assumes a partisan stance and fixes our position as that of a religious organisation: something to which I strongly object and which is contrary to our aims of diversity.
with a god-based oath I can similarly lie my head off as I don’t acknowledge the validity of the supposed authority within that oath.
The “higher authority” is The Law. If we are found to have committed purjury then we should rightly expect to face the real retribution of the law (as empowered by society) rather than be held in fear of an imagined retribution from an imagined god.
Removed having inserted it in there in the first place. Doing pretty well thanks.
[quote=“padre2366” post=3694]Option B: ??? sorry option B does not appear as the consequences could be too much for us to bear because if the Church has got it right then we have got the rest of eternity to get a working party together to work out if we made the right decision. Please bring your own torch as it will be pretty dark but at least there is no need to bring blankets or a sleeping bag as the venue has its own heating system!! (AWO’s need not worry as being ‘god’ you are safe!)[/quote]Silly man: tThe believers will be safe anyway as they’ll pay homage to their beliefs in their own ways while the rest of us uttering forced religious platitudes which hold no meaning will clearly burn in hell anyway.
Or is there a hell in your particular version of the teachings as that appears to be quite transient. Or is it a metaphor? You know, if there was a consistent message coming from the hundreds of sects of the many religions then maybe the argument might be even slightly credible.
People believe different things. Fact.
It should not be the place of the ACO to force any one particular belief system upon any individual as the organisation can function absolutely without any such bias: wider society is waking up to this concept as can be seen in the many examples you yourself have cited. It is therefore wrong or even abhorrent for us to include any person/position whose sole purpose is to put forward one particular religious viewpoint unless we can include similar representatives from every belief stance - that is not feasible and is frankly what should happen in school RE.
I firmly believe that, while we must accept the beliefs of our members, any formal religious bias has no place in the ACO.
I think we’ve gone around and around the debate for and against ‘removing’ the word god. Many arguments for and against but also pleanty in the “would it make any difference either way?” camp.
What specific are we hoping to achieve by including “god”?
Does it address a particular need? Does it tick a box that we can’t otherwise tick?
What is it about this organisation which people feel warrants the mention of god?
I’m not expected to make a promise to god when I want to play a round of 18; even though I’m sure that a number of chaps on the board are religious.
If I wanted to join the Boys Brigade or the local church choir, I would expect that there might be mention of god.
But if it’s not required at my golf club, why should it be required here?
Well, we seem ta have given Padre a warm welcome, I think not. And you wonder why lurkers may seem reluctant to post.
Remember that one of our aims is to build good citizenship, not disrespect almost verging on hatred of the views of others as shown on here, in this string.
Why this can’t be accepted by the naysayers, beggars belief.
Even if a cadet refused point blank to say any of it, I’d still sign their 3822 as it would not prevent them being a cadet and doing all the things that we do.
Frankly this topic should be locked as it will go round in ever decreasing circles.
I can’t speak for every ‘naysayer’ but from my point of view, I can very easily ‘accept’ that hundreds of cadets go through enrollment without complaining.
‘Lack of complaint’ does not equate to ‘approval’.
They accept that the promise is part of joining the Corps because we tell them it is. Some will not really like it but will say the words anyway; some will not care; some will proudly promise a duty to god.
Whether any cadets have ever complained is not my concern.
I don’t take the stand against religion being pushed within the ACO because I worry that some cadets may feel uncomfortable with it; I stand against it because I don’t personally believe it has a place in our organisation.
I believe that those who want to promise duty to god are free to do so either in their own private way, or more openly in church.
Why does the ACO need to get involved in matters of religion in any way? It’s not part of our objective.
In the spirit of freedom of speech, i think it shall remain open. I wasn’t impressed with the new member attitude you got but then again there could have been better threads to welcome yourself to the site on. As long as it remains cordial and on topic I don;t mind.
My Wing Ex O has not been able to get rid of me in 19 years so a forum does not hold any fears. I am happy for any one to challenge me on what I believe providing I am allowed to get my 10 pennyworth in (or 9 pennyworth after the tithe has been paid)
Another valid point to add is that if one reads the new Cadet Code of Conduct one will find the following wording at Para 5:
[quote]During their time in the ATC, Cadets must never:
…
Promote their own religious or political ideals or beliefs to anyone.[/quote]
(their bold)
Now, if we as an organisation are declaring that (under threat of administrative action) cadets must never promote their own religious ideals, does this not perhaphs impress that some redefinition of the role a chaplain is required also?
[quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=3746]Another valid point to add is that if one reads the new Cadet Code of Conduct one will find the following wording at Para 5:
[quote]During their time in the ATC, Cadets must never:
…
Promote their own religious or political ideals or beliefs to anyone.[/quote]
(their bold)
Now, if we as an organisation are declaring that (under threat of administrative action) cadets must never promote their own religious ideals, does this not perhaphs impress that some redefinition of the role a chaplain is required also?[/quote]
Never? This CoC seems a bit OTT, is it a way of closing this place by the back door? This thread would be out for a start.
But if in the interests of fairness and equality we are expecting cadets to refrain from pushing their own religious ideals on others, then the same MUST be applied to staff. Including Chaplains.
There must not exist a situation where staff can push any religious agenda they wish, while a cadet doing the same could be subject to administrative or disciplinary action. That would be totally unacceptable.
