In my view, it is similar to the law on smoking.
I do not smoke. Why should I have to choke and suffer because YOU want to inhale toxins? I shouldn’t, and that’s why dirty smokers have to go outside now.
I do not have a religion. Why should I be made to sit through prayers/religious ceremonies because YOU like them? I shouldn’t, and that’s why I don’t attend church services. Nor would I attend a Mosque, Synagogue or Temple, if we had services there.
Ah but smoking is less harmful to people’s health than relegion 
How can you be devout in non-belief? If you are devout then you have to put effort in. What do non-believers put their efforts into not believing?
We are all too quickly assuming that for a non-believer it should be as simple as ‘not believing’ with no effort required.
The truth is that in many cases that it’s not a matter of not believing in god that’s the issue, it’s the dislike of having christianity somewhat thrust upon us.
If this is a rationale, ie knock the established church, which when you consider the organisation could be considered as part of the establishment, couldn’t it be looked at as just a hissy fit against the establishment.
It could, depending on your point of view.
But it’s the 21st centuary - we shouldn’t have an established church. As I said above - it’s a members club. No reason for it to be pushed into the lives of non-members.
Here’s a hypothetical…
Suppose for a moment that you’re on my squadron, or you have a child on my squadron… and that, because of my personal beliefs I start every enrollment ceremony by smudging. That is, burning a smudge stick of sweetgrass and sage and using a fan made of feathers to waft the smoke over yourself as a cleansing ritual.
I might also expect that the only person alowed to talk at any time is the one person holding the talking stick, and this gets passed around the group allowing each person to speak their piece. I could also ask everyone to join me in giving thanks to Wakan Tanka in what could be called a ‘prayer’.
Would you, as a Christian, find this offensive? Unnecessary? Not to your taste?
Thing is the “ritual” of the cadet promise and anything that goes with it isn’t because of my personal beliefs. I do the majority as it’s more convenient and all I do is follow what it says in the 3822. I don’t add anthing else.
However in your hypothetical I would consider it a bit odd, but if it’s what the organisation prescribes as the way it’s done, so be it. Would I be offended, no, just see it as a bit weird. Would it be to my taste? High church/RC “smells and bells” aren’t to my taste, so probably not, I don’t do incense burning. I’ve done a “talking stick” sort of thing on the squadron, so that wouldn’t be a problem and a prayer so what.
If it was something that you were doing off your own bat, then I’d question it with you and up the chain if it wasn’t the norm, because as a parent I would be concerned about the suitability of bloke in charge.
So burning stuff and cleansing isnt your thing, but talking to an imaginary friend is perfectly ok? 
So burning stuff and cleansing isnt your thing, but talking to an imaginary friend is perfectly ok? :P[/quote]
This is what I don’t get about ‘militant atheism’. You choose not to believe in God, fine; but why do you feel the need to be so rude about it?
Surely you ramming your atheism down everybody’s throats is no different from the evanglical preachers and fanatics that you’re so exercised by.
Actually I thought this was the first bit of rudeness…
I hardly consider not wanting beliefs rammed down my (and otherrs who do not have the age/braid on their shoulder to speak up for themselves) throats “a hissy fit”.
What is so scary to Christianity about divorcing its self from “the establishment”? Is the Church afriad it will cease to exist altogether?
[quote=“perry mason” post=1091]Actually I thought this was the first bit of rudeness…
I hardly consider not wanting beliefs rammed down my (and otherrs who do not have the age/braid on their shoulder to speak up for themselves) throats “a hissy fit”.
What is so scary to Christianity about divorcing its self from “the establishment”? Is the Church afriad it will cease to exist altogether?[/quote]
But in this case and in the context of this argument, the only people ramming anything down anyone’s throats are the Dawkins brigade.
The cadet promise only refers to ‘God’, it doesn’t say that that has to be the Christian God or even the monotheistic God of wider Abrahamic belief. It also doesn’t require those cadets to espouse any particular religious affiliation or declare a desire to be part of any particular religious or ethnic/religious group.
Given their habit of refering to themselves as such, if you’re a total nihilistic atheist (and I honestly don’t believe that many people really are when you get right down to it - by my definition, Richard Dawkins certainly isn’t, even though he’d be enraged if I told him so), why not take ‘God’ in this instance as a reference to the nearest Warrant Officer?
But this is the point…it shouldn’t say “god” in there at all.
It shouldn’t be expected that all non-christians simply ignore that reference, or pretend that it means something else, just because it has a relevance to some other people.
The idea that being an atheist is simply a state of being “not bothered either way” is nonsense.
We’ve also further discovered that if I were to actively practice something that fits with my life - in place of christianity - at an enrollment ceremony, at least one christian here would “question it up the chain” because as a parent they’d “doubt my suitability to be in charge”!
Aside from the fact that such a response would be utterly ridiculous and clearly unfounded; it does highlight the point that I wanted to make -
What I consider to be important to me is not necessarily important, acceptable, or indeed wanted in someone elses life.
It’s exactly the same with christianity. I don’t want to have prayers to god and hymns at enrollment ceremonies. Nor do I personally want mention of god in the cadet promise. Why should I and every other non-christian who has an opinion about it be expected to bend?
You defend the inclusion of god because it means something to you, but you seem unwilling to accept or really appreciate that’s just not the case for a great many other people.
The answer isn’t to expect everyone else to work around christianity…the answer is to detatch religion from the organisation. Thus making a fair and level playing field for all.
If christians, buddhists, sikhs, &c want to include their own silent prayers in such ceremonies then thay can simply do so. I’d support the option to include a moment of silence for that very purpose in such ceremonies just as strongly as I make these points here.
Well the discussion seems to be rolling along nicely. Who was it who said “never discuss religion or politics”.
I don’t see why the ATC don’t follow the route that the forces use,prior to swearing the oath they ask the question “God,Queen and Country or Queen and Country?”. Keeps it simple and its down to the choice of the person being enrolled.
As for the above discussion, that is the great thing about the society that we live in,you have the choice to choose. Every aspect of religion,faith or belief or lack of is personal choice and should be supported by all. As far as I was aware that is what I fought for and what the lads still on deployment are still fighting for.
In my somewhat sheltered life I have found that people who “oppose” the established or broadly accepted view point are more antagonistic about things and want change, than those who fall into the group that sit within the established/broadly accepted view.
I’ve never said to anyone you should follow anything that I do or change to fit my view, because essentially I’ve got more important things in my life to get concerned about.
[quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=1098]If christians, buddhists, sikhs, &c want to include their own silent prayers in such ceremonies then thay can simply do so. I’d support the option to include a moment of silence for that very purpose in such ceremonies just as strongly as I make these points here.[/quote]I’d be quite happy if it wasn’t a silent prayer! I’m all for having a basic, secular promise which the individual cadet can then choose to follow with a prayer, if they so wish.
[quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=1098]But this is the point…it shouldn’t say “god” in there at all.
It shouldn’t be expected that all non-christians simply ignore that reference, or pretend that it means something else, just because it has a relevance to some other people.
The idea that being an atheist is simply a state of being “not bothered either way” is nonsense.
[/quote]
I say again: It says ‘God’ not ‘The Christian God, Jehova, King of Kings,may all other deities and false idols be crushed beneath his omnipotent heel.’
I’m not aware of any religion that doesn’t refer to its deity as ‘God’.
As to your personal atheism, if it is, as you are arguing, a system of belief for you, how is it different to someone else’s religious belief? And, with that in mind, how is your demand that your ‘God’ get special treatment any different to (for arguments sake) the demand that the name ‘Wakan Tanka’ be used instead?
[quote=“tango_lima” post=1141] And, with that in mind, how is your demand that your ‘God’ get special treatment any different to (for arguments sake) the demand that the name ‘Wakan Tanka’ be used instead?[/quote]The secular position is that no deity or other token of supernatural belief receives any special place or reference in the promise: all are excluded as only then can you ensure that no individual is asked to make a promise against an entity or concept which they deny or oppose.
Atheism does not replace the christian (or other) concept of god with another variant, entity or concept. It rejects such concepts and therefore replaces them with nothing whatsoever - no entity, no reference, no consideration, no replacement; the bits in a religious person’s world view which contain or relate to a supernatural entity are absent.
Not every person who espouses secularism as a position for organisations is an atheist; many religious people see it as a sensible, inclusive position to take. Atheists tend to have most to gain from it as they cannot simply interpret references to god in a way that fits in with their particular belief as their particular belief denies all gods.
I think they should also ditch any use of the Lords prayer with an ACO specific one.
Our Bader,
Who failed on Monday,
Exams be thy bain…
I agree in principal, and if said individually could work. To be honest, I was thinking of our own enrollments where the chaplain leads everying in various prayers. 30 odd different prayers all spoken in the same slot would be problematic.
I do wonder though, how many fresh cadets would have the courage to follow the standard promise with their own chosen spoken prayer, all on their own? Which is why I suggested a moment of silence so that all can pray if they wish, or not, without feeling ‘on the spot’.
…and I say again, you’re still assuming that “god” is an acceptable generic term for all belief systems…it’s not. And what about atheists who have no interest in ANY form of “god”?
[quote=“tango_lima”]As to your personal atheism, if it is, as you are arguing, a system of belief for you, how is it different to someone else’s religious belief?
[/quote]
I’m not saying I’m an athesist, but the point works either way.
My beliefs are no ‘different’ to anyone elses in the sense that they are my own choice and equally valid. I wouldn’t expect others to be forced to make a promise to and say prayers to elements of my belief system, so why is the same curtousy not extended to me?
Is that not the exact position that you’re taking here?
Execting that your christian god get special treatment, and everyone else will just have to find a way to make the words fit for themselves.
Remove the reference to god altogether and then no one religion is favoured over another.
The whol idea of promising a duty to god is uneccesary in the ATC anyway.
Nowhere in the 3 aims does it state that we are expected to encourage religion in any form; and there is no requirement to be religious in any sense in order to be a good leader or good citizen. It’s totally superfluous.
[quote]Atheism does not replace the christian (or other) concept of god with another variant, entity or concept. It rejects such concepts and therefore replaces them with nothing whatsoever - no entity, no reference, no consideration, no replacement; the bits in a religious person’s world view which contain or relate to a supernatural entity are absent.
[/quote]
It thinks it does. But it doesn’t really. All it does is take one system of belief and replace it with another.
I see where the problem lies now…you’re wrong. I have yet to meet any person who objects to ‘God’ as a way of refering to their deity of choice. The only reason it gets specifically associated with Christianity is that, back in the day, somebody edited the name ‘Jehova’ out of the common bible, because they decided that the commandment about ‘taking His name in vain’ meant using His name at all.
For the record: I’m not a Christian and I don’t really believe in ‘God’ in the traditional religious sense. I’ve just not got a a lot of time for the blustering, ill mannered atheism which seems to be all the rage at the moment.