Time to change the cadet promise and move with the times

Adult Staff Execs
121

Ah, but actually, it’s:

“God and the Queen, my Country and my Flag”

‘God’ - with a capital ‘G’ is usually taken to be the Christian entity, ‘my god’ would indeed make the promise more encompassing to refer to the god of the speaker’s belief.

‘the Queen’ - we can safely assume to be HM The Queen as opposed to the female sovereign of any other nation.

‘my Country and my Flag’ - as cadets are not necessarily British citizens, cadets could actually be pledging allegiance to their own Country and Flag and not to the United Kingdom!

So (perhaps inadvertently) the cadet promise is to the Christian God that a cadet does not necessarily believe in but not to the country whose uniform the cadet wears! :ohmy:

122

No thats taking the extreme view of it plus its god in general so its not restricted to Christianity.

The argument is that if they are not concerned then the focus should not be on that it has god in but that it represents the armed forces.

If at that age you have decided that you are not religious, does that mean you choose not to follow a set practice or you choose that there is is no existence of a higher power or you take the view of rationalism or that you are not sure what any religion truly stands for but hold beliefs and are there fore agnostic.

If a cadet feels that on any grounds they don’t want to say it, they would mention it or just mumble through that part. Just as they do if they don’t want to undertake any other activity.

I feel it is more than a statement of religion if one at all. It is part of the way the armed forces function and thus should have some presences or element in cadet forces. It is in QRRN that all CO should allow and promote time for religious reflection, as is also found in the respective RAF and Army documentation. This should be in someway filtered into the Cadet forces and this is one of those elements.

It is not oppressive nor is it restrictive, no cadet should be forced into any activity and many cadets are more than happy to say if they don’t want to do something.

Its almost change for changes sake, it has not caused any problems or difficulties in the past.

Just out of interest here our the promises of the other cadet forces

[quote=SCC]I promise to serve my God, the Queen, my Country and the Sea Cadet Corps, and to obey the orders of my superior officers.

I will be proud of my uniform, and be smart and seamanlike in wearing it, and always do my duty.[/quote]

123

additionally, Hedon Chipmunk, I stand corrected on the God/god issue. It is in etymology God is Christian as it was the first use, in modern times with the diversity of religions it refers to any God.

124

[quote=“flago” post=1369]Even the Pagan, who has no god[/quote]Fairly typical religious ignorance there.
Clearly you know little about Pagan beliefs.

Anyway, moving back to the general discussion…

Once again the underpinning sentiment here seems to be the same idea that “God” is a place-holder word to encompass all.
That is a pretty standard religious attempt at pretending to accept other’s beliefs whilst actually failing to accept that they don’t see things they way you do.

There need be only one retort - the fact that there are a number of people who are speaking out here that the word “God” does not represent our beliefs, wishes, or lives is more than enough to shatter that cosy little world. “God” is not an all encompassing term. We are the proof of that.

You can tell us we’re wrong and that it does encompass all beliefs, but that is nothing more than self-serving ignorance, you might as well be telling everyone the sky is red, because it’s clearly not true!

125

[quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=1406][quote=“flago” post=1369]Even the Pagan, who has no god[/quote]Fairly typical religious ignorance there.
Clearly you know little about Pagan beliefs.[/quote]

Depends which area of Paganism you hold your beliefs, for him he had no god. Could explain in what he believed but its a bit off topic, there is even a sect of Christianity that has no gods but hold belief in the values of Christian teaching.

I agree that it is clear that there are people here that do not feel it includes them. I do however find it un-constructive that you state its not encompassing but by removing it you are excluding those who do hold religious beliefs.

I have explained that there is more to the reasoning of the promise/oath than swearing to serve god faultlessly (which ever god it may be). That is not the reasoning behind it and has a greater meaning.

I would like to make it clear, I am in no way ‘religious’. I do, though, due to my own experience with the Chaplaincy feel that there position in the forces is unquestionable. It is due to this that I feel there should be some position that is still maintained within the cadet forces as the cadet forces follow the parent service.

If a cadet holds the belief that they cannot fire a weapon, or fly in military aircraft, they opt out. This is a similar aspect of the military activities of the cadet forces, the ability to opt out makes it inclusive.

I do thought find it entertaining though that because I defend the word ‘God’ I am type-cast as a self-serving ignorant person

126

In that case I appologise if I misunderstood you. I obviously can’t speak for this lads own personal beliefs. I thought you were suggesting that all Pagan beliefs/religions have no god; Which is definitely not the case.

So what? This isn’t the church, it’s the Air Training Corps. They make their promise to Queen and Country like everyone else. If they are religious, then let them promise their duty to god in their own way, their own time, and their own hearts and minds. Like everyone who isn’t christian is already expected to do.

[quote=“flago” post=1412]That is not the reasoning behind it and has a greater meaning.[/quote] and the other side of the debate is that we don’t care what ‘greater meaning’ it might have. We don’t like it.

No. I’m not saying that.

I’m saying that whoever keeps banging on (in the face of undeniable proof otherwise) that “God” is perfectly suitable, ‘all-inclusive’ word is ignorant. Because very clearly it’s not all-inclusive - if it were, we wouldn’t be having this debate at all.

127

[quote=“flago” post=1403]If at that age you have decided that you are not religious, does that mean you choose not to follow a set practice or you choose that there is is no existence of a higher power or you take the view of rationalism or that you are not sure what any religion truly stands for but hold beliefs and are there fore agnostic.[/quote]It meant that I did not believe in a god, and was therefore completely non-religious.

[quote=“flago” post=1403]a cadet feels that on any grounds they don’t want to say it, they would mention it or just mumble through that part. Just as they do if they don’t want to undertake any other activity.[/quote]That’s the point though, there isn’t an option not to say it. The promise is written as is, and is to be said as such.

I’d be quite happy with an official regulation that stated that the ‘My God’ part of the promise was optional (and could be replaced with the deity of choice).

128

Religion is a personal belief system, therefore simply in this more enlightened day and age should not be applied collectively on behalf of individuals within an organisation, unless the collective or organisation is a religious one.

I HAVE had to deal with this as OC on a squadron, and simply allowed the cadet to ommit the word “god” from the promise. Is it any less valid? Or should I simply have kicked that cadet out (as some youth organisations have (Brownies, Cubs)!) for not being willing to accept a god?

129

Should have put a call in to these guys…

130

I do agree these are valid points, a recognised alternative is required but I don’t agree it should invalidate or supersede the current one.

James Blond, that is the common sense approach that could quite easily be used to make the promise more flexible.

Yes the ATC is not a religious organisation, nor is the RN, Army or RAF but they do have key support from the church and the ACO also has support from the Church. For these reasons, I feel, the primary promise should stay as stands but an alternative offered or the ability to omit as I would be disappointed if the cadet would ever consider excluding someone who was not comfortable with the promise and agree each person rightly has there own belief.

Would that be an agreeable compromise? you could say it should be the other way round but I hope, from my previous post, you agree that there is a role in the ACO for the chaplaincy.

131

I guess one question is, why is chaplaincy explicitly religious? Surely they’re there to provide moral guidance, not preach, so why not concentrate on those aspects rather than the fact they’re CofE / CofS / Jewish / Muslim, etc

132

Even the Guides are consulting to change on it now…

#timetojointhebandwagon

133

That annoys me even more, they are looking at taking god and the queen out. Particularly as she is their bloody patron!

134

They’re not half making it complicated though are they!?..

“Be true to a higher ideal” or
"serve the highest truth and love faithfully at all times" as possible alternatives to “love my God” - It’s a bit wordy and flowery isn’t it?

Instead of “serve my Queen” they could have:
“engage myself with responsibility in the community I live in” - what a mouthfull!

135

[quote]"Over the past few years we have heard from more and more girls and leaders who struggle with the wording, particularly in interpreting what it really means to girls today.

“Girlguiding UK is committed to retaining a Promise that is in line with its original principles, but we know it is crucial that girls and young women understand and believe in the words they say.”[/quote]
This especially the understanding part I imagine is true for all such youth organisations and I imagine some adult ones as well.
If they struggle with the wording write it in txt spk with a few lols etc and they’d understand it then.

136

I, cadet Bloggs, promise to serve my unit loyally, and be faithful-ish, Depending on how the afternoons Call of Duty Sesh goes, to the obligations expected by the staff in the Air Training Corps, Air Cadet Organisation, Or Air Cadets, whichever it is being called at the mo.

I further promise, though reserve the right to do so with crossed fingers to do my duty to a religious being, artifact, or to Facebook, my country assuming it will continue to pay my mum her
fag and booze money, and whatever that flag is called.

Forever and ever,
Bader

137

No EMA anymore mate. Child benefit only… for a few more weeks.

138

Have updated.

For those with a sense of humour failure this is a joke and i value our cadets far higher than that. I thank you.

139

Good work. Gets my vote.

140

Well done for christening the new forum with a lovely bonfire, Technics :wink:

As usual for these debates, there’s been a lot of well reasoned (although obvious) argument along this thread, as well as the spurious glorification of selected aspects of religion while also attempting to change the terms of the argument.

Its a source of embarrassment for us as a species that in this day and age such a debate needs to take place. Additionally, the issue is not wether cadets should make a promise to god, but actually that the Corps is a reflection of a society (particularly the Armed Forces) unfairly and massively biased towards religion.

Like society and evolution in general; personal beliefs are legion and transient. Not monolithic and static. Religion is a cancerous blight on humanity and anyone who cannot work that out for themselves will not have someone else tell them (they only let other people tell them nice things, you see) and are beyond rational argument. Ergo, these arguments are always doomed. But they are important to have.

The problem the Corps faces with regards to iradicating religion isn’t “Handbrake House”, but the higher echelons of the MOD all the way up to Parliament and beyond. This country (its mechanics, not people) is so deliberately and cynically infected with religion that the odds are heavily stacked against any attempt to loosen its grip.

Harpooning the octopus in the head would only be possible by an actual supernatural event, significant enough to completely destroy “faith” in the most gullible and committed. Therefore the only other way could be by chopping each tenticle as we go. Removing god from the cadet promise could be one small but useful cut to make.

The Corp’s leadership doesn’t communicate potential decisions on the table, therefore we can’t really assume that this issue is under review, can we? So what do we do instead?

The UK Armed Forces Humanist Association has campaigned for a rebalancing of the relationship between the MoD and religion, obvious stuff like secularisation of padre’s and promises, but actual changes have not been realised. Indeed, they emailed many ATC Sqn’s a while ago to advertise this option to all cadets. Although this would be nothing compared to a cadet’s exposure to religion, both huge and unsupervised, they were no doubt ignored by many OCs.

Religion already loses every argument it has with rationality and religious people are firmly in the minority in this country. Yet there is still a huge resistance to changing things to accurately reflect and accomodate everyone’s views.

My answer? Unfortunately, I think we’re gunna have to wait for the least among us to evolve. But its OK because they don’t believe in evolution, so time will be the ultimate arbiter of this sorry and unnecessary debate.

BPR