Time to change the cadet promise and move with the times

Adult Staff Execs
301

[quote=“Perry Mason” post=4253][quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=4250]I wouldn’t insist that a Jehova’s Witness cadet has a blood tranfusion.

I don’t insist that my cadets attend the church part of Rememberence Parade, unless they are happy too.

However I would quite happily say (in the nicest possible way) ‘tough luck’ to a parent who tried to insist that I add some arbitrary relgious element to a non-religious organisation.[/quote]

This ^[/quote]I have severe ethical issues with the Jehovas Witness point. The ignorance of an adult should not be permitted to jeopardise the well-being of a child.

302

[quote=“incubus” post=4255][quote=“Perry Mason” post=4253][quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=4250]I wouldn’t insist that a Jehova’s Witness cadet has a blood tranfusion.

I don’t insist that my cadets attend the church part of Rememberence Parade, unless they are happy too.

However I would quite happily say (in the nicest possible way) ‘tough luck’ to a parent who tried to insist that I add some arbitrary relgious element to a non-religious organisation.[/quote]

This ^[/quote]I have severe ethical issues with the Jehovas Witness point. The ignorance of an adult should not be permitted to jeopardise the well-being of a child.[/quote]

Same, I’ve had to witness this in my extended family. Luckily nobody died.

However, as CFAVs we’d never have this call to make.

303

[quote=“incubus” post=4255][quote=“Perry Mason” post=4253][quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=4250]I wouldn’t insist that a Jehova’s Witness cadet has a blood tranfusion.

I don’t insist that my cadets attend the church part of Rememberence Parade, unless they are happy too.

However I would quite happily say (in the nicest possible way) ‘tough luck’ to a parent who tried to insist that I add some arbitrary relgious element to a non-religious organisation.[/quote]

This ^[/quote]I have severe ethical issues with the Jehovas Witness point. The ignorance of an adult should not be permitted to jeopardise the well-being of a child.[/quote]Agreed, but that’s an entirely different subject altogether!

304

Are we trained sufficiently to decide if our cadets are mentally competent?
Why do we need a parental signature to consent involvement in the organisation and activities to the age of 18? Parents are responsible for the actions of their children up to their 18th birthday and parents say what is and isn’t right, not some UN desk jockeys. Unless we get a change and the age of majority is lowered, parents have the final say, regardless of what their kids might think.

Having read the idiots guide, nowhere does it mention what the child has to do to be afforded rights, what it basically says it what has been reported on for the last couple of decades, kids can run amok thinking that they are untouchable, citing “I know my rights”. It doesn’t say if you step outside the rules’/laws laid down then all of your rights are rescinded, until it has this as point number 1, it’s a pointless document. My youngest daughter tried the “I know my rights” line when we grounded her for a month after we had a visit from a local constable after her and her mates got up to no good in the town. We made it crystal clear that while she was under 18 and resided under our roof the rules were ours to be abided by. She soon reeled her neck in.

305

This is all getting a bit “Daily Mail” :popcorn:

306

Quote of the day! :smiley:

307

[quote=“the fixer” post=4236][quote=“asqncdr” post=4231]Really?

You would go against parents express wishes for a 13.3 year old would you?

Do you actually command an ATC unit?[/quote]

Yes, if the cadet expressed not to make the religious oath.

Yes I do command an ATC unit.[/quote]

There are several different versions of the this question over the previous page, but to the situation above you can up the count to 4 would override parents choice of oath to support the Cadet in making their own choice.

It is the Cadet making the promise so they can select which version they want to make.

Assuming the future options will provide the format that goes for different religion to parents, no religion, or a religion.

308

[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=4270]Are we trained sufficiently to decide if our cadets are mentally competent? Why do we need a parental signature to consent involvement in the organisation and activities to the age of 18? Parents are responsible for the actions of their children up to their 18th birthday and parents say what is and isn’t right, not some UN desk jockeys. Unless we get a change and the age of majority is lowered, parents have the final say, regardless of what their kids might think.[/quote]Well, lets leave aside that children aged 16 are legally deemed able to give informed consent for medical matters and may in fact be deemed able to do so at a younger age if they are judged to understand the details and consequences shall we? Our own consent forms already apply that.

Far from being some nonsense imposed by the UN, in this case it would appear to be a sensible statement which aims to protect children from abusive or ignorant parents or regimes. If that means that some people have to accept that their children might be sentient creatures with the ability to make their own decisions then so much the better.

I also constantly wonder why I need a parental consent signature for my cadets aged 16 and 17 when the parents of those cadets have absolutely no say whatsoever in the matters for which they are asked to give consent, even without considering crossing the border. It is high time you lot dropped the age of majority to 16.

309

Your lucky never to have had to get a social worker to sign the consent form of a Looked After Child! They can understand one for joining - but doing them for every event got a little tiresome - particularly as the Social Worker concerned was only part time and their manager refused to sign them on the basis that it is the social workers responsibility!!! Sigh…

Anyway, that’s another can of worms for another day, meanwhilst, back to the religious debate!

310

You make an interesting, perhaps unintended, point…

What about a social working who then has to make the decision on the child’s religion for the purpose of enrollment?

Clearly it makes far more sense to defer that choice to the child. But legally the social worker’s remit here is not that different to any other parent.
So, assuming we had to ask the parent which oath they’d like their child to say, where would that leave us with those children in care?

311

Had this for 18 months a couple of years ago. The best part was the social worker was Nigerian and when I phoned him, I couldn’t understand a word he said, so did it all by email and left the face to face work with the foster carers.

As for the promise, it was just said like any other cadet.

312

Under the current system, it would be.

However, if there were changes in place which offer a choice; and if we were to believe asqncdr’s ‘the parent must choose, not the cadet’ theory, then those cadets in care would pose a different situation.

What right would a social worker have to choose the religious preference of a child in foster care? And on what would they base their decision if they did?
In this case we would have to honor the child’s own choice.

Further, it then follows that such policy should be applied across the board. Why should one child be able to make their own decision while another is not?

In addition, the legal responsibility of a social worker to a foster child is, I feel, not sufficiently different to that of a natural parent, in the case of deciding which promise wording should be used, so that we should not make any distinction between the two as far as the law is concerned (asqncdr’s flawed point being a that ‘UK law would fall against us’ if we didn’t follow the parent’s choice).

Thus the only conclusion is that all cadets must be given their own choice, and that their choice must be honoured, even if it conflicts with their parents wishes.

  • A very round about way of coming back to what common sense already told us. Let the cadet choose.

Assuming that choices weren’t offered, but instead the religious element was simply removed from the promise altogether; and assuming that a parent attempted to insist that we include some special religious copntent just for their child, I’d love to know how asqncdr thinks we’d fall foul of the law by going against that parents wishes if we told them “sorry, no”.

N.B. Not that I can actually imagine any parent insisting that we add “god” into a Corps-wide promise that didn’t include it.

313

In the event that the child wishes to say the non-religious oath and the parent demands that they say the religious one, I’m intrigued as to how ASqnCdr plans to force the cadet to say the latter.

Is there any rule which states that a parent can deny a child’s freedom of speech?

314

You should actually read the posts, I already offer some choice and welcome more choice.
Using good old common sense and appreciating the parents wishes as well.

I think that is the gist of what the versions will be- but perhaps they should get rid of it altogether.

I would force them by threatening membership of this site if they did not comply! That would make them do it PDQ

315

[quote=“asqncdr” post=4218]The discussion was about changing the Oath not the very nature of Religion[/quote]Indeed, but as some claim to be completely unaware of the need for change, it is necessary to highlight why religion should not enjoy any form of endorsement.

[quote=“asqncdr” post=4218]I do enjoy talking about Religion, you don’t seem to have one…yet, so I hope you do find something in your hour of need.[/quote]Don’t patronise me. Yet again, you may feel that you need religion in your “hour of need”. Please stop claiming that we all do.

[quote=“asqncdr” post=4218]or event to step inside one for other peoples, but of course you probably will…[/quote]Indeed you highlight why it is such an issue that Christianity enjoys unfair priviledge in this country. The deliberate and systematic indoctrination of people means that there are few (though thankfully increasing) alternative options for such events. Remembrance day is a perfect example of the unfair exclusivity religion has over such ceremonies; nevermind the brainlessness of praying for peace to a god who is only responsible for the good of humanity but not the war.

[quote=“asqncdr” post=4218]We must respect parents wishes with regards to 13/3 years old’s not children foibles, if a parent wants a religious Oath then they get it.[/quote]Absolute tripe, of which only a religious person is capable of reasoning.

[quote=“MattB” post=4261][quote=“incubus” post=4255]I have severe ethical issues with the Jehovas Witness point. The ignorance of an adult should not be permitted to jeopardise the well-being of a child.[/quote]Agreed, but that’s an entirely different subject altogether![/quote]No it isn’t. It is one of a multitude of injustices caused by religion and therefore adds to the case that religion should not be endorsed in the slightest. I’d invite anyone to explain how such a disgusting superstition is not child abuse or as in many cases, murder.

While we’re talking about the UN, lets remember that even in this day and age, we still apparently need an “International Day of Zero Tolerance to Female Genital Mutilation” (Which was on Wednesday). Alas, there doesn’t seem to be one for boys. I guess the view of man being created in god’s image… except he missed a bit, which needs to be mutilated to perfection - is more palatable? Of course, like many other atrocities in the world, religion is largely at fault for this. It is disgusting, as are the people who promote it.

[quote=“asqncdr” post=4303]Using good old common sense and appreciating the parents wishes as well.[/quote]I’d avoid claiming ownership of “common” sense. You are well in the unhinged minority here.

[quote=“asqncdr” post=4303]I would force them by threatening membership of this site if they did not comply! That would make them do it PDQ[/quote]Don’t let the door hit your backside on the way out.

BPR.

316

I think that asqncdr last post may have been taken a little too seriously!!! :whistle:

Why cannot some of the membership here accept that some of us think there is no direct need for change of the promise, and yet respect the beliefs of others. That doesn’t make us bad people.

317

Why can’t you have the conviction in your views to defend them and actually enter the debate rather than just negatively commenting on it all the time? Removing religion from the promise is to respect the beliefs of others.

As for taking asqncdr’s comments seriously, while they are clearly loathsome, I believe that he is serious. Therefore his comments should be dealt with seriously.

I admit that those who defend religion are not necessarily “bad”. They are either heavily misguided victims or abhorrent manipulators.

BPR.

318

You present my reason in the manner of your post…

TTFN x

319

I’ve locked this topic now. It’s bordering on becoming personal and circular and I don’t see any need to keep it open.

As ever, PM me if you have a good reason to unlock.

320

I’ve unlocked this topic as I’m hoping we’ve cooled off sufficiently, and one member who hasn’t posted before has an unusual stance on this issue he would like to share…