GHE2… what a 13/14 year old will say to a parent, and what they will say to an ATC member of staff are completely different things.
I’d have expected your many years as a baby sitter and parent would have taught you that.
It might not be a firm basis to make statements about them with regards to their behaviour outisde ATC, but it’s a perfectly sound basis to make statements about their behaviour on ATC duty.
Yes I do and I know that they will mention it at home more so than at the shool or ‘club’ they are in. Then if I as a parent have concerns these are raised with the school or ‘club’. I’ve seen enough and known enough parents over the years at the sqadrons I’ve been on with concerns and as yet not one of them has said that they are offended by the cadet promise, other things like treatment by NCOs or staff or other cadets and camps, clothing, how their son/daughter gets to do xyz. Some of these parents have said they are non-believers and have been of other faiths.
Thus if the parents aren’t coming to our door, then one has to assume that things are OK, especially on something like the inclusion or exclusion of a word in the promise, be that Queen, country, God or flag. Because as a parent if it concerned you that much you would say.
But then what would I know.
Over all you can argue either side of it being kept or be removed. I feel both sides have there own areas of merits.
On a personal level, when I took my cadet promise I didn’t have an issue but neither did I have any religious loyalty, would say agnostic not atheist. I didn’t have an issue with on any level.
In retrospect after joining the RN I see the importance not of being religious but having religion present in the Armed Forces and feel that at least an element of this should run through as a thread of the Cadet Forces. Due to the limit of having Sqn Padre, the cadet promise is an area for exposure to this element of the Armed Forces.
Yes you could argue that the Cadets are not the Forces or that it should not be forced on cadets as it is a voluntary organisation but considering the age of cadets at times they might need the support religion can offer but without being religious. Yes it is not really connected to the cadet promise but if you remove god from the promise, when would we lose chaplains form the ATC and then you have lost that potential support, support that I have witnessed first hand working for non-religious cadets.
The cadet promise and chaplains are not the same.
A chaplain is a member of staff, who offers religious support to those who want it.
The cadet promise is a mandatory undertaking for anyone who wants to join.
Currently, we are giving non-religious potential cadets a choice of making a statement which is in direct contradiction of their beliefs, or not joining.
[quote=“MattB” post=1295]A chaplain is a member of staff, who offers religious support to those who want it.
Currently, we are giving non-religious potential cadets a choice of making a statement which is in direct contradiction of their beliefs, or not joining.[/quote]
I feel sorry for your Padre(s) if you only think they provide religiious support. I suppose you only think the clergy work on a Sunday and the odd marriage or funeral. I have had cadets and staff seek a word with the Padre when times have got tough or they are having problems and no they are not overtly religious.
Why do we assume a cadet is non-religious because their parents don’t tick a box. I regularly don’t tick boxes on surveys etc. Also it is one thing to say that you don’t do religion and another to say you’re an atheist. The latter would mean that you have explored it and found is disagreeable.
Over the next couple of weeks you will find people who say that they are non-religious turning up in churches and attending carol services. From my exoerience a number of signed up atheiests will be there as well.
Sorry, I didn’t quite make my point clear enough - I meant to emphasise that the padre is a member of staff first. They may also provide some religious support.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=1304]Why do we assume a cadet is non-religious because their parents don’t tick a box.[/quote]Why do some people assume that the cadet is religious just because the parents have?
It isn’t a tick-box anyway, it is (well, was) a text entry.
Whether an individual is religious is a matter for that cadet and that cadet alone. I have to wonder how many cadets personally complete that box and do so without external influence or pressure (direct or implied). It also has the same flaws as the census question on religion as the answer can mean a multitude of things. Intelligent people will take care before drawing any inference from what is actually stated on a 3822A
So what do you suggest wrt permission to do this and that and medical information, do we ignore that? Also I thought the form was for parents/guardians to fill in, hence the phrase “This form is to be completed by the person having parental responsibility”.
Maybe a minor point, unless you want to start getting into Gillick-Fraser.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=1316]So what do you suggest wrt permission to do this and that and medical information, do we ignore that? [/quote]No, just as we don’t “ignore” religious information provided; which is why I have never suggested that we ignore it, just that we take care making inferences (which also applies to medical information.)
One important difference )there are many) between the medical information on the sheet and the religious information is that a parent of a healthy child is unlikely to declare that they have a history of cardiac arrhythmia based on the fact that they themselves have the condition.
Only the cadet can state truly what their “religion” may or may not be, though their parents or any religious organisation affiliated with their family may have a differing opinion.
Perhaps this is why the question is no longer asked on the F3822A.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=1316]Also I thought the form was for parents/guardians to fill in, hence the phrase “This form is to be completed by the person having parental responsibility”.[/quote]and some of that information can be inaccurate either due to the parents not knowing the full detail or by them choosing to wilfully mislead or fail to disclose.
Perhaps F3822A should be reviewed periodically for accuracy. Certainly in Scotland they should maybe be reviewed when the cadet reaches 16 as at that stage the parents have no right to consent or to withhold consent and cadets may wish to amend
certain details (flying permissions, next of kin or whatever.)
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=1316]Maybe a minor point, unless you want to start getting into Gillick-Fraser.[/quote]Very keen on discussing that case law and its relevance but it is a bit beyond the scope of thsi thread I fear.
Blimey what strange line of thought. As a parent if I didn’t know the full details of my kids when they were 13/14, I would have been surprised. So what info would YOU as a parent omit or choose wilifully mislead on? I’m intrigued. Don’t say religion, as that’s not going to harm anyone, despite the tone of some of the posts here.
As I have said and will keep saying teenagers tend to change their minds on a number of things frequently, dependent on what favourite pop stars/sportsmen/sportswomen are flavour of the month, or even their latest/best mates say if it means being “in”. My daughters changed their hairstyle, eating habits (both dabbled with being veggies, twice), style of dress you name it. So periodically update 3822A by all means, but be prepared for more frequent than you might expect.
At 16 they are still minors in the eyes of the law and while some parents and kid seem to think otherwise, it’s not the case, entirely.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=1329]So what info would YOU as a parent omit or choose wilifully mislead on?[/quote]Me? I don’t know.
Other parents have, for whatever reason, failed to mention quite important physical and mental issues which have come to light later on. As you can expect, I’m quite reticent to quote any specifics but I’d be surprised if many ACO staff have not seen examples of this.
Asthma seems to be one medical condition which is regularly “hidden”, even if it is also most likely diagnosed more frequently than it probably should be.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=1329]As I have said and will keep saying teenagers tend to change their minds on a number of things frequently, So periodically update 3822A by all means, but be prepared for more frequent than you might expect.[/quote]Let them - it is their prerogative. For opinions such as the religion point I question whether we really need to know in most cases.
[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=1329]At 16 they are still minors in the eyes of the law [/quote]Not so in Scotland, which can add its own special problems: with the specific exclusion of matters of Child Protection, a person of 16 is legally an adult. If at 16 they wish to state a different religion, NoK or set of permissions I would feel obliged to allow them to do so.
Back to the point of specifying religions: Bader has a pull-down box for each cadet or staff member labelled “Religion” (which is an inaccurate label) containing over 30 options including Atheism and “not Stated” (though excluding Agnosticism or Humanism) and around 15 flavours of christian. Exactly how many of those viewpoints comes with a package of special restrictions that is actually important for us to know, such as refusal of blood transfusions, requirements to carry special things or special dress regulation considerations? For what purpose do we capture that personal information?
The fact it’s disgnosed in childhood is frustration for many parents. My son was diagnosed as asthmatic when he was 6 and we were given Ventolin for when he had difficulties, but by the time he started senior school he hadn’t had a problem for 18 months and had not had any problems since. So it’s not something we’ve mentioned to anyone when asked. How many cadets have had childhood asthma disgnosed, or more likely lazy doctoring, with no attacks for years and when passed to the CMO (as it comes up on a GS medical) they’ve been cleared? I’ve known cadets play sport, go flying and gliding, before we became aware of it and no doubt 1000s of others who’ve never applied for a GS.
The very fact you snipped the examples displays a total lack of understanding of the teenage psyche and their need to assert some form of difference invariably to shcck/challenge parents, school and the establishment, which in 99% of cases is little more than a passing fad/phase. This applies across the board. I would imagine most of us have been their personally to some extent or other.
[quote=“incubus” post=1337]
Back to the point of specifying religions: Bader has a pull-down box for each cadet or staff member labelled “Religion” (which is an inaccurate label) containing over 30 options including Atheism and “not Stated” (though excluding Agnosticism or Humanism) and around 15 flavours of christian. Exactly how many of those viewpoints comes with a package of special restrictions that is actually important for us to know, such as refusal of blood transfusions, requirements to carry special things or special dress regulation considerations? For what purpose do we capture that personal information?[/quote]
There are hundreds of religions and it not practical to expect all to be there. It rightly excludes humanism as it, in it self, is not a religion but a philosophy. It becomes religious when tied with religious rituals, ie Christian, Jewish and Buddhist are its recognised forms. As for Atheist and Agnostic considering most people don’t really know the difference and most of the time who say they are Atheist are in fact Agnostic.
As for the reason for knowing this it can be useful. It does not need to be useful for every cadet to require it but it might for the few. Same logic for medical, it only effects the few but it is useful. We have had a Pagan at the Sqn and that made things interesting and having an un-registered Jehovah Whiteness or Mormon could also be useful.
But back on topic, this discussion could go on for quite a while. If a change was to be made I think it would make sense to released a official alternative rather than changing the current one. The reason for this is as I stated before. As a uniformed organisation we are meant to imitate the parent service and through this should have an element of religion present. In the intreat of freedom of religion, I feel an official alternative recognises this as well as follows the traditions of the Armed Forces.
A final thought though, how many people who are ‘atheists’ happily have weddings and funerals as well as participate in services of remembrance?
I think we need to question how much attention is actually paid to the promise made by the cadet during enrolment. To the 13 year old cadet, they have to say these words so that they can do the fun stuff their mates are doing like shooting and flying, so I doubt they are going to be overly bothered if they have to say god or not. How many children aged 13 have a sure belief in religion and which variety?
As I recall the promise does state ‘my god, my country and my flag’ which makes it accessible for any nationality/religion.
The cadet gets reminded every now and then of this promise when other cadets are enrolled, but I’ll be honest other than the reminder that I did that 6 years ago, I pay little attention, and wait for the 3 cadets being enrolled to be out of time and to say their names simultaneously.
IMO it is more a rite of passage from being a part member to being able to do everything. What with the introduction of PI 501, I feel the promise is going to be even less important than it is at the moment, as we will be treating 501 as the cadet ‘contract’ as opposed to the promise.
[quote=“themajor” post=1360]As I recall the promise does state ‘my god, my country and my flag’ which makes it accessible for any nationality/religion. [/quote]Once again neatly assuming that everyone is religious.
I don’t know how many teenagers have a sure belief in religion - but I know that at age 14 I was sure that I wasn’t.
[quote=“themajor” post=1360]IMO it is more a rite of passage from being a part member to being able to do everything.[/quote]That happens with us when they pass Part 1 training and I mark them as Enrolled on Bader. That is done without fanfare, partly for historical reasons as our padre (before he retired) was a sporadic visitor and it was sometimes months before he could pop down and do a brief enrolment ceremony. We’ve not adjusted our enrolment process yet to compensate.
[quote=“MattB” post=1361][Once again neatly assuming that everyone is religious.
I don’t know how many teenagers have a sure belief in religion - but I know that at age 14 I was sure that I wasn’t.[/quote]
Then if they don’t know why is it an issue if it says god or not as the major said, most are not even bothered.
I would be interesting to see cadets discuss this, I did when I was a cadet and if i remember rightly it was pretty much, not bothered. Even the Pagan, who has no god, did not have an issue. As Major put it, it is a right of passage, it should then be representative of the constitution of the Armed Forces.
[quote=“flago” post=1369][quote=“MattB” post=1361][Once again neatly assuming that everyone is religious.
I don’t know how many teenagers have a sure belief in religion - but I know that at age 14 I was sure that I wasn’t.[/quote]
Then if they don’t know why is it an issue if it says god or not as the major said, most are not even bothered.
I would be interesting to see cadets discuss this, I did when I was a cadet and if i remember rightly it was pretty much, not bothered. Even the Pagan, who has no god, did not have an issue.[/quote]
I think I have found the debating topic for my next potential NCO course.
[quote=“flago” post=1369][quote=“MattB” post=1361][Once again neatly assuming that everyone is religious.
I don’t know how many teenagers have a sure belief in religion - but I know that at age 14 I was sure that I wasn’t.[/quote]
Then if they don’t know why is it an issue if it says god or not as the major said, most are not even bothered.
I would be interesting to see cadets discuss this, I did when I was a cadet and if i remember rightly it was pretty much, not bothered. Even the Pagan, who has no god, did not have an issue. As Major put it, it is a right of passage, it should then be representative of the constitution of the Armed Forces.[/quote]I think you missed my point. I was sure that I wasn’t religious at that age!
Is the argument for keeping the promise simply that “Oh, they don’t realise that they’re religious and when they grow up they understand that they’re really Christian and will accept Jesus into their hearts” then?