I think there is a line where you take this a step too serious. Searing allegiance to the queen is irrelevant to the cadet forces. From what you say the SCC cannot function. I think any cadet can ignore an order from a cadet officer with minimal recompense.
If a cadet does not want to sware alliance to the queen, would you refuse them to join? No, country? No, flag? No, god? No.
Is there not a point where by the cadet promise is a tradition harking back to past forms of the ACO where orders were orders issued regularly by HM Government through air command for the operation of bases.
Yes an alternative to god is inclusive and should be available. The out right removal undermines the tradition and institution of the ATC.
At the end of the day the ACO is a Cadet Organisation supported by the MOD it is not the forces and taking it as seriously as some people have commented is a bit extreme.
As I was told by one of my Rating, respect is a wonderful thing, I will respect and follow the rank but never have to respect the person. Why does he do that? As they are in a position of superiority, does a commission or a promise make a difference to him? No he follows the order as it is the institution.
[quote=âflagoâ post=8099]I think there is a line where you take this a step too serious. Searing allegiance to the queen is irrelevant to the cadet forces. From what you say the SCC cannot function. I think any cadet can ignore an order from a cadet officer with minimal recompense.
If a cadet does not want to sware alliance to the queen, would you refuse them to join? No, country? No, flag? No, god? No.
Is there not a point where by the cadet promise is a tradition harking back to past forms of the ACO where orders were orders issued regularly by HM Government through air command for the operation of bases.
Yes an alternative to god is inclusive and should be available. The out right removal undermines the tradition and institution of the ATC.
At the end of the day the ACO is a Cadet Organisation supported by the MOD it is not the forces and taking it as seriously as some people have commented is a bit extreme.
As I was told by one of my Rating, respect is a wonderful thing, I will respect and follow the rank but never have to respect the person. Why does he do that? As they are in a position of superiority, does a commission or a promise make a difference to him? No he follows the order as it is the institution.[/quote]
For me, itâs more to do with the âfostering good citizenshipâ part of the Aims of the ATC.
Shouldnât that include loyalty to your country and itâs system of government, in our case the Constitutional Monarchy?
But if our Monarch swears her allegiance to God, and acknowledges the need for God in her public and private lives then are we saying that our Head of State, Church. Armed Forces etc has got it wrong?
Incubus, that is short and to the point! It is getting really difficult to be able to say anything else to you on the subject as you clearly have , by previous comments, closed any avenue by which this topic can be discussed further. So I wish you good fortune in your life and jut say that although you have closed your mind to God, He has not done the same to you.
I am truly unconcerned about the opinions which people think that imaginary entities may hold about me. There can be no middle ground in that particular area and further discussion on that specific point is fruitless.
This is exactly why it is critical that an individualâs personal belief is exactly that - a personal matter. Any organisation which aims truly to welcome people of various beliefs absolutely must ensure that it does not push one particular line and must give people the option of avoiding activities in which they are uncomfortable or unhappy participating.
[quote=âincubusâ post=8151]Any organisation which aims truly to welcome people of various beliefs absolutely must ensure that it does not push one particular line and must give people the option of avoiding activities in which they are uncomfortable or unhappy participating.[/quote]Especially if that organisation is [partially] funded by the taxpayer.
Good answer Sir. So why have you been publicly pushing the fact that you do not believe in God and that you want those who do, to agree to a change in the promise so that you can feel comfortable? Surely if my views about the change in the cadet promise/ belief in God should be kept private, if I have read your last post correctly, then by the same fact you should also keep your views private!
He said it was a personal matter, not that it should be kept private (although the choice to keep it private if wished is also to be respected).
The important thing here is that itâs a personal choice to believe - or not - in a God, and a personal choice as to whether you wish to swear to that God.
Because on the see-saw of equality and fairness the balance is currently tipped very much towards the cleric on the left. I aim to move the balance so that it is as level as possible but not going so far that his head is in the clouds.
The goal is for it to be as acceptable as possible to as many people as possible. Is there a religion which actually requires every oath or promise to be made to their deity or proxy of choice, because as far as I can see it is only such a religion which would have cause to be aggrieved by my proposed, bland, exclusion of any religious reference.
The Christian church holds a position of privilege in this country which they do not deserve and very clearly but understandably resists any attempts to either remove these privileges (seats in the Lords) or to grant them to others (gay marriage)
[quote=âpadre2366â post=8171]Surely if my views about the change in the cadet promise/ belief in God should be kept private, if I have read your last post correctly, then by the same fact you should also keep your views private![/quote]Religious belief should be private and all people should have the right to live their lives without being pestered by those of an opposing or differing viewpoint.
I do realise that in a way I am ignoring that right now, but that is unavoidable in pursuit of the end goal which is for greater equality by moving towards a secular organisation and society. Without standing up to the existing unfairness in our society (which requires a public assault of your beliefs) the status quo will remain and the shrinking minority will continue to exercise undue influence.
Rather than starting from the position we are at, instead start from a clean slate and design a system which will be best for everybody. It will be a compromise but the result will be worth it.
Every cadet in the organisation should have the freedom to choose their religion and their choice should not in any way affect their membership and opportunities within the ACO.
With that in mind there should be a promise the cadet can make at enrollment that doesnât refer to God.
The word God has connotations of the Christian God. Some cadets follow a religion which has a god or gods who have other names. Some cadets donât have a religion and all god names are irrelevant to them.
There are 2 options to correct this:
We have one promise which does not mention any Gods that everyone can say as it applies to everyone.
We have several versions of the promise or some editable words so that the individual can create a version of the promise that is personal to them.
I suspect option 2 is what is being worked on, but we will see. However option 1 puts everyone on an equal footing without bringing attention any differences between the cadets taking their promise and doesnât cause complications of different people saying different things. I appreciate that some cadets may feel their promise is more meaningful if they can state they are making it to the god of their choice.
To come back to your question it comes down to the difference between not referencing God or specifying a particular God and Religion.
Not a 100% removal but an option to go with the current flow or opt for the new promise? Workable! No objections to giving cadets the choice. Just hope that other Chaplains are able to adapt and not feel like it is the end of the world.
(I think that I have already replied to your comments but seem to have lost it.) But I thought that you had got what you wanted, those who do not believe will no longer (when it comes into force) make a promise to something/one they do not believe in. I do not think that this will involve scrappy enrollments providing those who plan and lead the service put some time and effort in to it to make it meaningful and not just reading words off a piece of card. I know it sounds like compromise but both sides have emerged well.