TBH, that sounds rather like teddy-throwing - either you have to have your own way or nothing at all.
I can see no reason why there’s a problem with giving them the choice. If a religious cadet chooses not to use the ‘God part’ because they’re worried that they might get bullied then it’s sad, but it’s their choice.
The number of young people that I’ve seen displaying the articles of their faith implies that not every one is afraid to show their true colours.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=3913]
You are of course, havin’ a larf.[/quote]
At this stage in the thread I think you’re fairly safe to assume that no, I’m not “havin’ a larf”.
Obviously teenagers are going to choose the option with least grief. I think you are missing my point again.
I’m NOT suggesting an opt in/opt out choice. I’m saying “there should be no mention of god in the wording of the promise”.
If however a cadet expressed a specific desire to make their own mention to god then I’d have no problem with them doing so.
If a religious cadet didn’t want to include something for fear of ridicule then fine. They can say their own prayer to god in their head if they wish…or whatever works for them.
Have you not been one of those in the thread touting the “Cadets all say the promise and no one has complained!” line? Care to apply your own sentiment here to that very point?
Funnily enough, I can remember being a youngster of 13 and feeling annoyed that I was expected to make a promise to a christian god. ‘Organised religion’ being something I particularly disliked this was not something I was happy about.
…but I took the option that meant least hassle.
[quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=3916][quote=“glass half empty 2” post=3913]
You are of course, havin’ a larf.[/quote]
At this stage in the thread I think you’re fairly safe to assume that no, I’m not “havin’ a larf”.
Obviously teenagers are going to choose the option with least grief. I think you are missing my point again.
I’m NOT suggesting an opt in/opt out choice. I’m saying “there should be no mention of god in the wording of the promise”.
If however a cadet expressed a specific desire to make their own mention to god then I’d have no problem with them doing so.
If a religious cadet didn’t want to include something for fear of ridicule then fine. They can say their own prayer to god in their head if they wish…or whatever works for them.
Have you not been one of those in the thread touting the “Cadets all say the promise and no one has complained!” line? Care to apply your own sentiment here to that very point?
Funnily enough, I can remember being a youngster of 13 and feeling annoyed that I was expected to make a promise to a Christian god. ‘Organised religion’ being something I particularly disliked this was not something I was happy about.
…but I took the option that meant least hassle.[/quote]
It was a rhetorical question as I am quite aware you weren’t joking.
Cadets have all said the promise without complaint and it is equally worrying that at 13 or whatever age you said the promise, despite supposedly having a deep disdain for one word.
Do those describing themselves as non-religious actively promote attendance of ATC Sunday and Remembrance services? Do you attend these and if so take a full and proper part or sit/stand around like a ham butty at Bar mitzvah? Is a “I don’t believe” line acceptable to respective OCs and the organising body? But if not attending by choice can you promote attendance with full integrity?
It was pointed out recently that the consent to join, no longer has a religion box.
I do expect people to attend cadet Sunday and remembrance day. I get round religion by not bowing my head when our padre says “let us pray” and then not repeating any part of it, nor saying amen.
This suits me fine. This year was the first year I didn’t go to church on remembrance day too, because it was the first time I have felt comfortable doing so. Im 24 now, what does that say about us!
I’ve not bowed my head or shut my eyes during prayers since I was at Primary school. If I shut my eyes now I doze off, but that’s an age thing.
…because it’s the option that get’s them the least hassle.
I may be wrong, but you seem to be saying that it’s somehow a silly idea to suggest that a cadet could add some mention of god to an otherwise ‘religion neutral’ promise if they particularly want to (because clearly this will lead to ridicule and the cadet would just take the option with least grief…Not saying it). But when we take it the other way, cadets reciting a ‘religion biased’ promise without complaining is not at all a reflection of them choosing the same “least grief” option; it’s somehow proof that nobody minds promising to god?
…and somehow I’m the one who has “little comprehension”??
I’ve got to ask…what do you find ‘worrying’ about it?
Because what I find worrying is that christianity was so ingrained that a youngser could feel positively obliged to promise a duty to a religion and idea of ‘god’ that they detest.
Fortunately there’s no more mandatory religious indoctrination in schools anymore. The abomination that was a “daily act of worship” has been abolished.
It’s high time we in the ATC caught up with the modern world in this respect.
Yes I do actively promote attendance. Though if cadets don’t want to attend the church service after the Parade I’m not going to force them. So long as they are there marching with the Squadron and on parade outside for the wreath laying then as far as I’m concerned they’ve done their bit.
I do attend the service, so as to continue to be present for those cadets who do also. But, as with pEp, I don’t join in with prayers. Nor do I join in with any of that ‘dear god, I’m such an awful, detestable sinner. Please! I beg your divine forgiveness…’ stuff.
Occasionaly cadets (and rarely a member of the public) as why I don’t join in. So I tell them: “I’m not christian”.
Most of the time that cadets were only asking because they thought there might be some sort of ‘military protcol’ about it all.
These days I brief them all beforehand that I don’t expect anyone to join in with prayers or hymns if they don’t want to, as I won’t be.
I also tell them that there is no obligation for them to go up for a blessing at communion time if they don’t want to. Some do.
[quote=“padre2366” post=3694]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?[/quote]Yes we do. Painfully, it is taking far longer than necessary, but society is evolving to try and respect all beliefs equally and removing unfair bias. Enjoy the ride.
[quote=“padre2366” post=3694]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?[/quote]Its not a risk, but a feature. The Corps does not exist to allow religions and their representatives access to the young people in our care.
[quote=“padre2366” post=3694]What have we as society achieved?[/quote]Lots, much of it tempered by or in spite of organised religion.
[quote=“padre2366” post=3694]we have removed God from our Schools (Assembly)[/quote]You are mistaken. The proportion of “faith schools” (including those state funded) is increasing - as is the number of students subjected to these poisonous institutions.
[quote=“padre2366” post=3694]we’ve removed God from the sanctity of marriage[/quote]Yet still you lot claim to have ownership of the principle for the purpose of denying it to homosexuals.
[quote=“padre2366” post=3694]we have removed God from our legal system.[/quote]It is still an option for that process. You are also forgetting that you enjoy the unfair priviledge of having 26 bishops at the crucible of lawmaking - the House of Lords.
[quote=“padre2366” post=3694](we can ‘affirm’ which really means I can lie my head off because I don’t have to answer to a higher authority.)[/quote]You may need to have fear to do good, the rest of us do not. Please don’t slur the sane.
[quote=“padre2366” post=3694]We have almost removed God from Christmas! How well are we doing?[/quote]Like most religions, Christianity takes other peoples ideas and claims it as its own. Christmas is no exception.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=3729]Frankly this topic should be locked as it will go round in ever decreasing circles.[/quote][quote=“padre2366” post=3739]Gentlemen. yes it may be time to lock this thread. Thankyou for your discussions[/quote]Typical of religionistas - not liking what they hear, so rather than exercising personal responsibility (not clicking on the thread), they instead try (thankfully unsuccessfully) to silence others. The audacity to assert you have the right to prevent others from exercising theirs shows how intolerant you really are.
[quote=“steve679” post=3758]personally, and in my experience, a Sqn Padre is not present to prech to Cadets, neither are they for religious advantage, as an “impartial” staff member (by that i mean not in a blue uniform, but a familiar face) who can help support and guide a Cadet in times of trouble and on the wider aspect challenge the Cadet’s thoughts on what is meant by citizenship and the like.[/quote]You are correct - padres are meant to be impartial. Which is precisely why religion should have no bearing whatsoever on their appointment. We should have someone suitably trained in pastoral care. Most organised religions have proven time and again their incapability at best and abuse at worst, when charged with the care of young people.
[quote=“padre2366” post=3867]I think she was impressed that that a copy of the book was obtained. (Thankyou Amazon)[/quote]Since when was it the purpose of the Corps to distribute religious dogma to the young people in its care? I would ask who paid for it, but its comparatively a minor point and I can’t think of what would be an acceptable answer in any case.
BPR.
I think that it’s time for another ACC get together, well, this thread would give food for discussion if nothing else 
I still have my unused airline tickets from the last (cancelled) event…when was that again?
wilf_san
I was disapointed I couldn’t make it up to the Newcastle event.
I have asked about this- the Guardian article is not 100% correct. HQACO is looking at and alternative non-religious oath and is at the moment checking the legalese. The original oath would remain alongside this new option.
The campaign in the Guardian is led by the Humanists- who are trying to claim that they uniquely represent the views of any Agnostic or atheist and have been bombarding me with rubbish since they earoled me at the last Battle Of Britain parade!
Most atheists I know have a dislike for formal organised religions as well as not believing in God; I would therefor question where their mandate to represent this group comes from?
I find the Humanist organisation people I have met so far to be rude, opinionated and inflexible, feeling like some organised religions in fact!
Less than 2% of the UK population at last census described themselves and Humanists, 6% said they were Vulcan!
To finish- have you heard about the Dyslexic, agnostic insomniac?
He used to lay awake all night wondering if there was a Dog or not
or even the dyslexic who sent his Christmas list to satan or the pimp who spent a fortune on a warehouse! :dry:
And…back on topic!
There must be a demand for them, nothing but nothing in this day and age exists as a “nice to have” and education today is all about parental choice. Our children went to a CofE Primary and I would say that only 15% of the kids were from “religious families”, but it was and still is one of the most over-subscribed primary schools in the area.
Currently non consummation is grounds for divorce. If you introduce marriage for homosexual and lesbians, interesting to prove this, especially for the latter. I await the first divorce case for a homosexual/lesbian marriage citing non-consummation. As far as I can tell the only reason that homosexual/lesbians want marriage is some of the legal stuff around rights of ownership/inheritance, but this can be done in a will, which doesn’t need a marriage ceremony. My brother has done this with his girlfriend and 2 children. Whereby his children will get stuff and she only gets stuff as long as they are together and she’s done the same. They’ve been together 18 years, which is longer than many have been married.
Straying slightly I think that this idea of homosexual/lesbian marriage enters the realm of debate over whether the sons of a monarch should be higher in the line of succession, than daughters and people wanting to make it a straight-line regardless of gender. While yes you can do this by a law change, this by-passes many legal matters that need to be altered for this idea of succession to actuall work. The fact that people (politicians and activists) just see it as a straightforward change, does display a worrying lack of knowledge of the legal system.
But, surely, we all have a fear of the consequences for doing wrong. Hence you don’t go past speed cameras at excessive speeds or go around stabbing people etc, unless you are stupid on a level that defies belief.
Crack on then, I don’t think that as yet, I’ve not seen or heard anything new. Some of the points raised against must be born of irrational fear and loathing, due to something happening in younger life, which could have been made to go to church as a child (certainly got my back up as I’d have sooner been playing football) or I can’t see it so I can’t believe it, brought up in an agnostic/athiest household and just going along with this (I know 3 vicars who all grew up in homes like these) or later in life grew to dislike the idea of Christianity as an estrablished religion and exercise a freedom of speech, not universally enjoyed. Some like myself studied sciences and questioned the ideas in biblical texts, but doesn’t stop us believing in something else as well. In fact over the years I have heard numerous sermons questioning biblical texts. I don’t actually think that scientists are any better, as many theories are put forward and in essence it’s he who has the greatest influence/influential friends at the time that gets his way, regardless of it being right or wrong.
As for tolerance I don’t see in the tone of some replys what appears to be much in the way of tolerance from those decrying the word included in the promise, just an air of smug self-righteousness.
The question that needs to be posed is what do people think makes them non-religious, in order to ascertain what makes, in their eyes, someone religious.
[quote=“asqncdr” post=3991]I have asked about this- the Guardian article is not 100% correct. HQACO is looking at and alternative non-religious oath and is at the moment checking the legalese. The original oath would remain alongside this new option.[/quote]It’d be nice if they put out a memo explaining this/rebutting the Guardian article.
[quote=“asqncdr” post=3991]I find the Humanist organisation people I have met so far to be rude, opinionated and inflexible, feeling like some organised religions in fact!
Less than 2% of the UK population at last census described themselves and Humanists, 6% said they were Vulcan![/quote]I recognise your gripe. But the mouth doesn’t matter, what comes out of it does.
There must be a demand for them, nothing but nothing in this day and age exists as a “nice to have” and education today is all about parental choice. Our children went to a CofE Primary and I would say that only 15% of the kids were from “religious families”, but it was and still is one of the most over-subscribed primary schools in the area.[/quote]The “demand” is absolutely irrelevant. Kids should not be subjected to an education jaundiced by partial and vested interests irrelevant to the actual business of education. Nor one which fosters segregation and bigotry. “Faith” schools play a huge part in promoting hatred and ultimately, violence - NI is a perfect example.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=4011][quote=“bprichfield” post=3962][[quote=“padre2366” post=3694]we’ve removed God from the sanctity of marriage[/quote]Yet still you lot claim to have ownership of the principle for the purpose of denying it to homosexuals.[/quote]Currently non consummation is grounds for divorce. If you introduce marriage for homosexual and lesbians, interesting to prove this, especially for the latter. I await the first divorce case for a homosexual/lesbian marriage citing non-consummation.[/quote]Is this rule essential to the principle of marriage? No, therefore it can go.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=4011]As far as I can tell the only reason that homosexual/lesbians want marriage is some of the legal stuff around rights of ownership/inheritance,[/quote]You are either being deliberately obtuse or are bigoted beyond even my earlier estimation.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=4011]The fact that people (politicians and activists) just see it as a straightforward change, does display a worrying lack of knowledge of the legal system.[/quote]This is not a valid objection. The law is broken and needs fixing. As often happens, further/unforseen concequences occur but are easily dealt with (if needed).
But, surely, we all have a fear of the consequences for doing wrong. Hence you don’t go past speed cameras at excessive speeds or go around stabbing people etc, unless you are stupid on a level that defies belief.[/quote]No matter how much you lot repeat it, it isn’t true. Sane people like to do good for the purpose of doing good, even if that is perhaps to advance one’s own agenda/self-preservation/etc at times. You may want/need a benevolent dictator to threaten and manage your life, but don’t inflict it on the rest of us.
Crack on then, I don’t think that as yet, I’ve not seen or heard anything new.
Some of the points raised against must be born of irrational fear and loathing, due to something happening in younger life,[/quote]Your perception of how others have formed their opinions is startling. Alas, it is also ignorant and wrong.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=4011]I don’t actually think that scientists are any better, as many theories are put forward and in essence it’s he who has the greatest influence/influential friends at the time that gets his way, regardless of it being right or wrong.[/quote]Science and academia in particular have numerous flaws and critical issues. However, the community never stop developing ideas and trying to find meaning and “truth”. Science is also a belief system, but it tends to back its teachings up with demonstrable/empirical evidence.
Science looks for evidence first, which then sets its agenda for further research. Organised religion has a preconceived agenda which then clutches to any straw for support. Science has caused much war and needless bloodshed, but it is nothing in comparison to what religion has done to humanity.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=4011]As for tolerance I don’t see in the tone of some replys what appears to be much in the way of tolerance from those decrying the word included in the promise, just an air of smug self-righteousness.[/quote]Organised religions, which in many cases claim to “tolerate” the human race/condition, do not deserve tolerance. Thier impact on society is too great to ignore let alone live with. People should be free to develop and practice their own beliefs in their own time and without encroaching on others - What more righteous cause is there?
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=4011]The question that needs to be posed is what do people think makes them non-religious, in order to ascertain what makes, in their eyes, someone religious.[/quote]I have my own views on life, existence and conciousness. They do not fit with the facism of organised religion and therefore I don’t consider myself “religious”. Ergo, someone who is happy (or more accurately, threatened and cajoled) to believe in such, is religious.
BPR
I don’t think HQACO knew that so many of you took the Guardian.
I am reasonably devout and am a Christian and don’t mind people knowing it, I have for quite a while been using the “My” God wording or missing it out if the Cadet or their parents wish it, I find it very unusual for 13.3 years old’s to have much of a firm view on what they believe, if they wish they can talk it through with our Chaplain, who is a Bhuddist Monk- he does not mind going to Battle of Britain parades, most of our Muslim cadets and families happily attend Services as well, I have been to Mosques for Lunch so I don’t see where the perceived problem is, unless you examine the ranting here by some people, much like the humanists the non the believers are far more vocal than the believers!
A sensible adjustment to the Oaths which more choice is sensible, but we do not live in a secular society and although my part of Christianity does not benefit from the Church/state divide and is still actively discriminated against in English law, I can live with that, after all look at the alternatives.
My neighbour the Vicar always says he is surprised at the number of athiests who decide to be buried by the church or decide to get married in Church, most because of the “setting” not due to any deep religious feeling, nothing like insurance I say!
…and in what world does that matter?
I await the first case citing non-consummation for a hetrosexual couple! I don’t doubt there have been some but frankly, I know a lot of divorcees and not one of them had the option of citing non-commsumation.
I find it hard to see how that has any relevance at all.
Of course, it could be (and this is just a hunch mind)…It could be that they are just sick of being treated like second-class humans?
But seriously, homosexual marriage!!? Next thing you know we’ll be letting women vote, and slaves will be buying their freedom.
[quote=“asqncdr” post=4024] but we do not live in a secular society [/quote]perhaps, but we should!
[quote=“asqncdr” post=4024]My neighbour the Vicar always says he is surprised at the number of athiests who decide to be buried by the church or decide to get married in Church, most because of the “setting” not due to any deep religious feeling, nothing like insurance I say![/quote]Nothing to do with insurance and everything to do with sentimentality.
Churches own most of the graveyards and those wishing to be buried in a family plot are left with little choice. Personally I don’t care what they do with my corpse so long as it doesn’t end up on a Tesco burger 
Church marriages are all about the spectacle, atmosphere and tradition of the event; a spectacle made possible in many cases by the shocking waste of good money on architecture that may otherwise have been spend on welfare. However as religion wanes and churches become vacant it should be possible for an organisation to pick up an old one, posh it up a bit and offer secular weddings for all with equivalent spectacle but no bigotry.
I agree entirely with the secular services, a mate of mine bury’s people the way they want, completely free of Religion. I should think he’s planning a swoop on Weddings now as well.
I remember an anecdote on Radio 2 one morning a few years ago…
An old lady died and her proudly christian friend asked the vicar why she wasn’t going to have a christian funeral…Apparently the vicar said it was because she didn’t believe in god and she didn’t want one.
The friend replied “Well, she was wrong! And now she knows she was, and she’s had a wonderful surprise!”… so as it turns out they gave this non-christian lady the christian funeral that she didn’t want.
The story was told with the emphasis on how wonderful it is to help people to god.
I saw it rather a different way…