Time to change the cadet promise and move with the times

Adult Staff Execs
81

[quote=“5432golf” post=1245][quote=“redowling” post=1152][quote=“5432golf” post=1148]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…[/quote]

:lol:

Definately. Let’s do this now.[/quote]

New thread anyone? :popcorn:[/quote]
Feel free to make one.

I would ask everyone to remain on topic and remind you all of the following lines from the AUP:

[quote]12.01 Contributions must be civil and tasteful
12.02 No disruptive, offensive or abusive behaviour: contributions must be constructive and polite, not mean-spirited or contributed with the intention of causing trouble. This is called Trolling, and will not be tollerated[/quote]

82

Angus, I fully see the point you are getting at. I am not exactly religious, just don’t really understand why people are so anti-religion. Nothing is faultless and religion can be held to account for many things.

We all know that there are many areas of religious text, be they christian or not, which are not widely acknowledged in religious communities. If they were we can quite easily say there would be many more conflicts.

Other than the argument ‘I am not included as I am not religious’, which is not the sentiment behind the phrase in the oath, I see no reason for change. Additionally considering the UK is of the denomination of the Church of England to me the oath holds this link/tradition.

You many not like ‘God’ being in the oath but are ok with ‘Queen’ someone who is the head of the church, is ‘chosen’ by god, swears to serve in the interest of god.

[quote]The Archbishop of Canterbury: "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolable the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?"
The Queen: “All this I promise to do. The things which I have here before promised, I will perform, and keep. So help me God.”[/quote]

wdimagineer2b I did expect such a reaction but it is just the ideas taught by any religion. The simple threads see in the Jewish Two Tablets on which the Noahide and Rabbinic laws are built, the christian 10 commandments or the Moral Commandments of Islam to name a few. The same principles the majority of society follow.

As i said before, change it to invisible pink unicorn, it would hold the same representation. For want of a better solution the word god, i feel, is sufficient. If an individual has such a distain over this they can simply omit it whilst reading not officially remove it where it effectively represents a code of conduct in society. Which I feel good citizenship does not cover as it is a vague and spurious concept.

83

I think you’re misunderstanding the difference between being against religion and being against having religion forced upon us.

I’m not a great fan of religion myself, but I respect people’s right to believe in what they want - and to display and act upon that belief so long as it doesn’t adversely affect anyone else and doesn’t break any laws.

What I’m against is the idea that somehow my views and beliefs are invalid and not worth bothering with because they aren’t those of a religion.

84

So it has now been suggested that “god” in the oath is intended as shorthand for a complex set of moral codes.

Lets leave aside that this is a very shoddy way to present a legal contract for a moment and concentrate on the substance behind this conjecture. Is there any actual documented substance to back up that opinion or could it simply be an attempt at justification by those with a vested interest in retaining the position of the church in this area?

The church’s moral position is becoming distant from the desires of large parts of society and even from the law of the land. It does not seem to be the best basis for guidance to me - that would be the laws of the land and obedience of those is implicit.

The queen’s present position as head of the C of E is incidental too - we are concerned with her position as Head of State and not as head of a church (how does that link currently work out in areas of the UK where the queen is not the head of the local state religion anyway?

Then you make an oath it is intended to be something which the person would consider to be morally binding and which they would not take lightly. That will vary from person to person but inclusion of a subjective or controversial element such as the reference to “god” can devalue the strength of that moral conviction in people who, for one reason or another, find that wording objectionable. We can either devise a multitude of oaths fashioned to (or even by) the individuals or we can strive to find a single oath which will serve well across the spread of our membership.

The present cadet promise is not fit for purpose as has been explained at length above. We need to move to a secular promise or, as a couple of us have suggested, drop the promise altogether as it has been somewhat overtaken.

Stage 2 is removing the expectation that the clergy have any place in the routine business of an Air Cadet unit.

85

[quote=“incubus” post=1254]So it has now been suggested that “god” in the oath is intended as shorthand for a complex set of moral codes.
[/quote]

It’s not a suggestion. It is.

If you’re so desperate to live in a secular society, why don’t you move to France or Turkey? Although you may find that, despite it being enshrined in their constitutions, the secularists and atheists are still a minority.

I agree with flago:

[quote]Angus, I fully see the point you are getting at. I am not exactly religious, just don’t really understand why people are so anti-religion. Nothing is faultless and religion can be held to account for many things.
[/quote]

I’m not sure why people think I see the atheist or secular point of view as worth less than the alternative. It’s just that however much the ‘militant atheists’ stamp their feet and shout “I’m outraged! I’m outraged!” they’re still actually a pretty tiny minority.

Plus, of course, I find their constant attitude that they know best and are here to save us all from our dangerous and ‘insane’ superstitions ‘distasteful’.

86

[quote=“tango_lima” post=1255][quote=“incubus” post=1254]So it has now been suggested that “god” in the oath is intended as shorthand for a complex set of moral codes.
[/quote]

It’s not a suggestion. It is.[/quote]Whether it is or not, as has been pointed out:

  1. It’s a fairly ambiguous way of doing it at best
  2. If the wording ‘God’ applies to whatever religion or belief system that we want it to then the values could be anything. I might decide to be a Satanist, in which case presumably it’s OK for me to conduct myself in accordance with those beliefs?
  3. If the wording does apply only to the Christian God, then:
    a. It’s not at all inclusive - contrary to your previous answers
    b. It applies to a set of values which - as someone pointed out above - include a number of elements that I certainly don’t feel I wish to live by or impose on anyone in the organisation, including sexism and homophobia.

[quote=“tango_lima” post=1255]I’m not sure why people think I see the atheist or secular point of view as worth less than the alternative. It’s just that however much the ‘militant atheists’ stamp their feet and shout “I’m outraged! I’m outraged!” they’re still actually a pretty tiny minority.

Plus, of course, I find their constant attitude that they know best and are here to save us all from our dangerous and ‘insane’ superstitions ‘distasteful’.[/quote]It has nothing to do with ‘saving’ YOU from your beliefs - it has everything to do with the fact that we don’t want them forced on US.

87

I’ve yet to see any cogent argument as to why the phrase “do my duty to god” should remain other than the very tenuous “it represents a certain set of values”. I repeat, can anyone give a good reason why it remains?

Maybe to people who are religious, or hold a certain sympathy this is acceptable, but to those who arent many this this as akin to swearing an oath to something totally imaginary.

Surely insisting someone make an oath to something they do not believe in actually lessens or wholly invalidates the value of such an oath? Personally I have an issue swearing to/agreeing to something which I do not belive in, and think that to do so would harm my own conscience and credibility.

Whether or not you agree with my view, it is as valid as yours.

Removing references to god in this context does not in any way impinge upon the rights of those who are religious, or indeed more specifically the CofE. Again, if you think it does, please explain to me why.

And I’d add… jsut becuse its the way we have always done it, doesn’t mean we should continue doing so.

88

[quote=“Perry Mason” post=1258]I’ve yet to see any cogent argument as to why the phrase “do my duty to god” should remain other than the very tenuous “it represents a certain set of values”. I repeat, can anyone give a good reason why it remains?[/quote]I think that we’ve established that it’s a distinctly uncertain set of values!

89

[quote=“MattB” post=1256]

[quote=“tango_lima” post=1255]I’m not sure why people think I see the atheist or secular point of view as worth less than the alternative. It’s just that however much the ‘militant atheists’ stamp their feet and shout “I’m outraged! I’m outraged!” they’re still actually a pretty tiny minority.

Plus, of course, I find their constant attitude that they know best and are here to save us all from our dangerous and ‘insane’ superstitions ‘distasteful’.[/quote]It has nothing to do with ‘saving’ YOU from your beliefs - it has everything to do with the fact that we don’t want them forced on US.[/quote]

But the debate here stems from the fact that the majority of us don’t see using the word ‘God’ as an imposition of anything. Several people have given their examples of how they feel that they can use ‘God’ without it compromising their own beliefs.

My argument is that the promise doesn’t need changing because:

  1. Most people genuinely don’t care. They aren’t afraid that if they use the word ‘God’ they suddenly have to start going to church and [BEING FRIENDLY WITH] the choir master
    and
  2. We are not a secular society. The Queen is the Head of the Church as well as head of the Armed Forces and chaplains etc are an established part of service life. Changing that goes way way above the ATC and its promise.
90

On (1):

  1. Minorities have rights, just as many as the majority.

  2. A quick look back through this thread shows that we’re not a minority anyway.

On (2):

  1. As has been pointed out, the Queen is the head of a lot of things, doesn’t mean that we need to be affiliated with them all.

  2. As has also been pointed out, recruits to the RAF don’t have to swear to a deity. Why should we?

91

[quote=“MattB” post=1261]On (1):

  1. Minorities have rights, just as many as the majority.

  2. A quick look back through this thread shows that we’re not a minority anyway.

On (2):

  1. As has been pointed out, the Queen is the head of a lot of things, doesn’t mean that we need to be affiliated with them all.

  2. As has also been pointed out, recruits to the RAF don’t have to swear to a deity. Why should we?[/quote]

You’re argument is that you don’t want other people’s views imposed on you, therefore you should have the right to impose your views on them. Why can’t you see how self defeating that is?

Shouting loudest doesn’t make you a majority. Most people don’t bother arguing with you because they just don’t care.

As to point two, I can’t really disagree with you. On a personal level, I’ve always found Remembrance Day religion etc uncomfortable: I’m there to remember the dead, not hear about Jesus.

But, that’s the system we’ve got and that’s the one that I swore ‘by Almighty God’ to defend. I seem to remember everyone had to say the ‘God’ bit, the heathens among us just didn’t get a Bible to hold onto during the process.

92

TL - having no mention is not having our beliefs imposed on others, its just removing reference to it.

Imposing atheist beliefs on others would mean outlawing Church, banning any involvement of the Church (or any faith for that matter) from ATC business, and not allowing others to observe their beliefs.

There is a world of difference from one to the other.

If someone want sto swear to god I wouldn’t stop them.

I just think it is unnecessary and wrong to insist that those who don’t want to, do so.

93

[quote=“Perry Mason” post=1265]TL - having no mention is not having our beliefs imposed on others, its just removing reference to it.

Imposing atheist beliefs on others would mean outlawing Church, banning any involvement of the Church (or any faith for that matter) from ATC business, and not allowing others to observe their beliefs.

There is a world of difference from one to the other.

If someone want sto swear to god I wouldn’t stop them.

I just think it is unnecessary and wrong to insist that those who don’t want to, do so.[/quote]

I agree with you in principle, but…I’ve never known a single Cadet object to it. Ever. If it was a common occurence to have cadets turn around and say: “why should I promise to do my duy to God? I’m not happy about that!” then there would be a compelling argument for a change.

But it’s not happening.

94

Let’s change it to “do my duty to WDImagineer2b” then…it’s the same representation since I ‘hold a set of values’. We’re simply using my name as ‘shorthand for a code of conduct’ after all.
I’ll decide what good deeds I expect of my disciples and publish my own bible later… :ohmy:

So christians are catered for but EVERYONE else has to either omit it, or replace it with something more valid to them?

…Alternatively we could ditch it and then if people have such desire to swear to god, they can simply include it.

But saying the single word “god” removes any confusion because it’s so much more clear cut and not vague at all?

95

[quote=“tango_lima” post=1267]I agree with you in principle, but…I’ve never known a single Cadet object to it. Ever. If it was a common occurence to have cadets turn around and say: “why should I promise to do my duy to God? I’m not happy about that!” then there would be a compelling argument for a change.

But it’s not happening.[/quote]Probably because they’re children and therefore aren’t confident about standing up for themselves against the establishment in such a situation. I went through primary school not believing in God, but still going along with all of the prayers, etc because I was worried I’d be told off if I objected.

96

[quote=“tango_lima” post=1267]I’ve never known a single Cadet object to it. Ever. If it was a common occurence to have cadets turn around and say: “why should I promise to do my duy to God? I’m not happy about that!” then there would be a compelling argument for a change.

But it’s not happening.[/quote]
They’re 13 years old, stood in front of a room full of people they barely know yet, with authority figures telling them “Say this!”.
Clearly very few will stand up and say “no thanks! I don’t like god”.

Have you ever given them the option?
"OK cadets 1, 2, and 3… this is the cadet promise you’ll be saying during your enrollment later tonight… Would any of you prefer to leave out the part about god?"
I suspect you’d see some results.

97

How many 13 year olds in a military youth organisation would turn around to a uniformed member of staff and say that?

Honestly?

Even if they strongly held atheist beliefs I doubt many would stand up for it. Its a bit different as adults, but 13/14 year olds?! Get real.

Dammit, beat me to it!

98

Perhaps the ACO should run some tests and ask cadets which of a selection of promises they would feel most comfortable giving.

99

Isn’t the removal of a word as much of an imposition of a belief/view as its inclusion?

100

How many 13 year olds in a military youth organisation would turn around to a uniformed member of staff and say that?

Honestly?

Even if they strongly held atheist beliefs I doubt many would stand up for it. Its a bit different as adults, but 13/14 year olds?! Get real.[/quote]
I still stand by the view that at 13/14 many are just falling inline with whatever their parents, favourite pop star/teacher/sportsman/woman say. Taking my kids as an example they changed their minds on all manner of things regularly and we let them get on with it as rationalising with a hormone drenched teenager is not worth the time or effort. If they wanted to talk about something then that would happen.
But I take it that many here have not got children when you say they won’t tell an adult something if they do/don’t like something. Our kids have never been shy in coming forward like that. Sorry but babysitting a small cross-section of teenagers is nothing compared to having them in the house 24/7 and hardly a firm basis to make statements about them.