Time to change the cadet promise and move with the times

Adult Staff Execs
141

[quote=“bprichfield” post=2816]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[/quote]

  1. It’s funny how people who agree with your point of view are responsible for ‘well reasoned (although obvious) argument’ while those who disagree with you are guilty of ‘spurious glorification’, isn’t it?

2)Religion is not a ‘cancerous blight’ it is, to paraphrase Terry Pratchett, the result of highly evolved apes trying to work out the mysteries of the universe in a language evolved for telling each other where the best fruit is.

  1. You say yourself that personal beliefs are not ‘monolithic’ and then refer to ‘religion’ as if it is.

  2. Religious people are not in the minority, you say yourself that it is a norm at all levels of society.

  3. What if the ‘supernatural event’ you refer to is the second coming of Christ or the arrival of the Mahdi? In fact, I can’t think of a ‘supernatural’ happening that wouldn’t contradict your point of view, did you mean to type something else?

  4. The Vatican claims Darwin's theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity

Science Islam - Evolution Creation or BOTH? …and that would be examples of two religions accepting belief in evolution…would you like me to find some more examples?

You’ve put forward the typical militant atheist argument: rude, lacking in research, ignorant and utterly self assured. You are Richard Dawkins, aren’t you?

142

[quote=“tango_lima” post=2826]1) It’s funny how people who agree with your point of view are responsible for ‘well reasoned (although obvious) argument’ while those who disagree with you are guilty of ‘spurious glorification’, isn’t it?[/quote]It’s not funny, it’s accurate. Rational people tend to make rational arguments and as rationality is a fairly simple concept, those arguments tend to be obvious to rational people. Any glorification of religion is spurious, because it highlights a tiny and often insignificant positive aspect while completely ignoring the more numerous and significant negatives.

[quote=“tango_lima” post=2826]2)Religion is not a ‘cancerous blight’ it is, to paraphrase Terry Pratchett, the result of highly evolved apes trying to work out the mysteries of the universe in a language evolved for telling each other where the best fruit is.[/quote]You describe personal beliefs well, organised religion is an attempt to take ownership of personal belief and the people who subscribe to it.

[quote=“tango_lima” post=2826]3) You say yourself that personal beliefs are not ‘monolithic’ and then refer to ‘religion’ as if it is.[/quote]You are right, religion as a whole is not monolithic, but many individual religions are (or rather, monotheistic). Many religions completely disregard the millions of views of its “flock” and instead issue a single belief system to them; based on static devices given status and authority of age and mystery (ancient books, etc.), through a centralised hierarchy of agents.

[quote=“tango_lima” post=2826]4) Religious people are not in the minority, you say yourself that it is a norm at all levels of society.[/quote]I was careful to say that the mechanisms of this country and inextricably tied to religion, but not its people. Statistically, in this country the majority of people are recorded as “religious”. However, empirical evidence tells us that actually most “religious” people here are just “cultural christians” - because of course Christianity has cleverly attached itself to commonly-held (rational) morals, insisting that only Christianity can provide such ethical guidance. This is of course rubbish and to try and assert that religion has any sort of “moral high ground” is ludicrous.

[quote=“tango_lima” post=2826]5) What if the ‘supernatural event’ you refer to is the second coming of Christ or the arrival of the Mahdi? In fact, I can’t think of a ‘supernatural’ happening that wouldn’t contradict your point of view, did you mean to type something else?[/quote]You presume to know my point of view? At no point have I denied the existence of a supernatural occurrence or being, yet you assume this to be the case? Whatever the truth about existence, I don’t believe it’s possible for any organised religion to be right about the matter, because of their nature. That does not mean that I deny the existence of things beyond our comprehension, but that fact means it’s ludicrous to expect man-made religion to give accurate answers.

[quote=“tango_lima” post=2826]…and that would be examples of two religions accepting belief in evolution…would you like me to find some more examples?[/quote]I admit that my reference to evolution was flippant. But for Christianity to suggest it embraces evolution, while still claiming the earth is just 10k years old is laughable. Have you worked out an excuse for dinosaurs yet? (I’m not seriously asking and don’t care).

[quote=“tango_lima” post=2826]You’ve put forward the typical militant atheist argument:[/quote]Again, you presume to know my personal beliefs and chose to impossibly apply a label to them for derogatory purposes.

[quote=“tango_lima” post=2826]rude,[/quote]After all of the outrages that religion is directly responsible for, rudeness is necessary. Such tyranny should be shamed out of existence. As it happens, I’d contest that I’ve been particularly “rude”, just direct and frank.

[quote=“tango_lima” post=2826]lacking in research,[/quote]I won’t take lessons in research from someone who’s idea of research is to be told what they believe. Again, I contest that anything I’ve said is untrue.

[quote=“tango_lima” post=2826]ignorant[/quote]Please justify this slur.

[quote=“tango_lima” post=2826]and utterly self assured.[/quote]So religious people are claiming a monopoly on conviction as well now then? The difference between religion and me is that religion claims to know the answers for a fact, whereas I deny that such a thing is possible. I would say it’s surprising that this is met with such horror, but then of course the reason is that such an attitude is a threat to religion.

[quote=“tango_lima” post=2826]You are Richard Dawkins, aren’t you?[/quote]Again you perpetuate the cliché of impossibly labelling anyone with whom you don’t agree as Richard Dawkins, which if anything is a kind of reverse-insult, even though its intended to be derogatory.

143

I will remind people to be civil. Debate is fine, but please don’t let this get personal.

144

Perhaps when people reach this point in the thread, before hitting that big ol` reply button, they should read my “alternative” tongue-in-cheek promise :woohoo:

145

Perhaps when people reach this point in the thread, before hitting that big ol` reply button, they should read my “alternative” tongue-in-cheek promise :woohoo:[/quote]

Maybe they should :wink:

146

Perhaps when people reach this point in the thread, before hitting that big ol` reply button, they should read my “alternative” tongue-in-cheek promise :woohoo:[/quote]

Maybe they should ;)[/quote]

I did like it…in fact, I’m going to rush back up to the top of the page and give you some positive karma, because I’m just feeling like that sort of groovy dude this evening.

In other news: I don’t want to get personal about this, and I think I explained my position earlier in the thread. The only thing I would say, is that since nobody knows who I actually am (what with the anonimity and all), I could be Dawkins myself, or even the Archbishop of Canterbury…

On the subject of ‘ignorance’ etc…I didn’t call bprichfield any of the things that I called his argument. I don’t necessarily disagree with him, I just don’t like the way his argument is constructed.

147

[quote=“pEp” post=2853]I will remind people to be civil. Debate is fine, but please don’t let this get personal.[/quote]So forthright argument is now verging on being uncivilised? Or perhaps I misunderstand? Please, anyone who has an issue with what I have written, join in this futile debate!

[quote=“tango_lima” post=2863]The only thing I would say, is that since nobody knows who I actually am (what with the anonimity and all), I could be Dawkins myself, or even the Archbishop of Canterbury…[/quote]As I alluded to in my previous response to your cliche about anyone against religion being Dawkins; what relevance is the identity of the fingers typing? Your arguments appear to defend religion and it is on that basis that I and anyone else should respond.

[quote=“tango_lima” post=2863]On the subject of ‘ignorance’ etc…I didn’t call bprichfield any of the things that I called his argument. I don’t necessarily disagree with him, I just don’t like the way his argument is constructed.[/quote]Whether you deem me or my argument to be ignorant, such a remark should not be made without context or justification.

BPR.

148

[quote=“bprichfield” post=2872][quote=“pEp” post=2853]I will remind people to be civil. Debate is fine, but please don’t let this get personal.[/quote]So forthright argument is now verging on being uncivilised? Or perhaps I misunderstand? Please, anyone who has an issue with what I have written, join in this futile debate!

[quote=“tango_lima” post=2863]The only thing I would say, is that since nobody knows who I actually am (what with the anonimity and all), I could be Dawkins myself, or even the Archbishop of Canterbury…[/quote]As I alluded to in my previous response to your cliche about anyone against religion being Dawkins; what relevance is the identity of the fingers typing? Your arguments appear to defend religion and it is on that basis that I and anyone else should respond.

[quote=“tango_lima” post=2863]On the subject of ‘ignorance’ etc…I didn’t call bprichfield any of the things that I called his argument. I don’t necessarily disagree with him, I just don’t like the way his argument is constructed.[/quote]Whether you deem me or my argument to be ignorant, such a remark should not be made without context or justification.

BPR.[/quote]

The context and justification for what I’m saying is your argument itself. You lack perspective and you’re trying to criticise something you don’t understand (or at least, that’s the impression your argument gives).

My use of Dawkins isn’t shorthand for ‘anti religious’. It’s shorthand for ‘pompous windbag who thinks he knows everything but actually has never bothered to examine anything outside his own very narrow world view and appeals to the masses who are much the same but isn’t taken very seriously (in fact,is pretty openly mocked) by people with a little bit of education in the matters he likes to claim he is an expert on.’

I remember a boy in my school being told by his parents that he wasn’t allowed to take RE classes, because religion was a bad thing etc, etc…and even then, I thought it was very short sited of the parents. RE is/was about understanding something that effects millions upon millions of people.

The issue I have with this thread (as I said before) is the attack on ‘religion’, when ‘religion’ is not a thing. There are as many religious views and beliefs as there are people so it can’t be a huge homogenous evil responsible for all the world’s ills, because that isn’t the nature of what we’re talking about. However, a lot of people (Dawkins included) genuinely don’t seem to understand that.

For some people, ‘religion’ is about a supernatural man who tells them exactly what to do, but for most it has nothing to do with that. Most religious beliefs are actually centred on challenging orthodoxy and questioning the nature of life the universe and everything.

Life isn’t a binary choice between ‘religious’ and ‘not religious’.

I appreciate that my view isn’t widespread. Somebody asked me the other day: “Do you believe in God?” and was confused when I said I couldn’t answer that question.

149

Stick to the topic, rather than allowing this thread to descend into a religion debate. IIRC the last one got locked because of this.

150

But, this is the topic…

How can we say whether ‘God’ should be in the cadet promise, until we can define ‘God’? And how can we discuss the relevence of God to the Corps without discussing the relvence of God in general?

151

[quote=“tango_lima” post=2880]But, this is the topic…

How can we say whether ‘God’ should be in the cadet promise, until we can define ‘God’? And how can we discuss the relevence of God to the Corps without discussing the relvence of God in general?[/quote]Because the factual (non)existence of deities is irrelevant to the argument - what matters is the views of the individual.

It is demonstrably true that peoples opinions on that matter vary greatly and from a secular perspective every view is equally valid (or deranged, as you prefer) and therefore the methods we employ should embrace all of these views and ideally be acceptable to everybody; or at least not be UNacceptable to any reasonable person.

The removal of god-specific phrases is opposed by those with a vested interest in pushing their own particular religious views and, frankly, bolstering their numbers. While it could be said that a secular promise pushes an atheist agenda (an atheist promise would not have a direct alternative to using “god” in the same way that a muslim-based one may use “Allah”) it actually aims to accept everybody by not taking a partisan stance.

152

Aren’t WO (ATC) to be (wrongly) considered “God” at all times? :popcorn:

153

In reply to people questioning my previous post, I was not suggesting people become uncivilised upon mentioning the topic of religion, but rather as a reminder to people that this debate can often be heated, and it would make my life easier if I don’t have to start editing people’s posts because they got personal!

154

[quote=“tango_lima” post=2878]The context and justification for what I’m saying is your argument itself. You lack perspective and you’re trying to criticise something you don’t understand (or at least, that’s the impression your argument gives).[/quote]You claim my argument to be ignorant, yet refuse to actually identify where in my argument that my ignorance is shown, thus avoiding an opportunity to correct such ignorance?

[quote=“tango_lima” post=2878]It’s shorthand for 'pompous windbag who thinks he knows everything but actually has never bothered to examine anything outside his own very narrow world view…[/quote]I agree that Dawkins is perhaps an “Atheist Prophet” but don’t see how you could possibly say that I am the same as him and know that I have “never bothered to examine anything outside his own view”. Unless of course you are going on the basis of this “ignorance” which you have apparently detected but refused to identify.

[quote=“tango_lima” post=2878]I remember a boy in my school being told by his parents that he wasn’t allowed to take RE classes, because religion was a bad thing etc, etc…and even then, I thought it was very short sited of the parents.[/quote]Perhaps the boy was poorer for not learing about religion. But my tears are instead reserved for the child prisoners in segregated “faith schools” which perpetuate much of the violence and prejudice in the world. Saying that religious education should be given in spite of people with limited world views is absolutely hilarious!

[quote=“tango_lima” post=2878]RE is/was about understanding something that effects millions upon millions of people.[/quote]In a highly sympathetic and uncritical way. History lessons inevitably fill in some of the “blanks”, but still the numerous negative aspects are largely ignored. Ergo, this selective education is just another mechanism of indoctrination to accepting religion.

[quote=“tango_lima” post=2878]The issue I have with this thread (as I said before) is the attack on ‘religion’, when ‘religion’ is not a thing.[/quote]I understand your point but instead suggest a distinction between personal beliefs and organised religion. In some ways the secularist argument is to make clear that religious beliefs are personal and should not extend beyond that boundary. Personal beliefs of many flavours are to be celebrated, but organised religion is a tool of cycnical manipulation wether originally intended or not.

Ultimately the label “religious”, “spiritual”, “philosophical” or whatever else is completely unimportant and a debate of semantics. The difference is when groups of people who claim to share particular beliefs then try to continually enforce those beliefs both on themselves and others - as is the case in the cadet promise. It is assumed that the individual believes in a single supernatural being at the expense of everyone who does not. Instead it is preferable to remove the assumption completely.

But, this is the topic…[/quote]I wonder if Op Nimrod used the word “descend” on purpose? :stuck_out_tongue: Whatever course this thread takes, there shouldn’t be a reason to lock it unless someone specifically breaks the AUP (even then, just clearing up that incident/user would be preferable to killing the thread/new content).

BPR.

p.s. While I very much enjoy the irony of receiving “karma” from a thread in which I dispute religion, I’d prefer it if those who have issues with what I’ve written instead contribute to this thread and feed back useful information rather than just giving me a nice badge :wink:

155

I’m loathe to add another contribution in spite of the debate appearing to have been abandoned by everyone else, but would like to know if we can add a poll to this question?

It would be interesting to see actual numbers of supporters/detractors attached to this!

BPR.

156

Suggested options:

A promise to God
A promise to My God
A promise to My God with the option of omitting that bit
No promise to God but an option to include it
No mention of God at all but an option to have a prayer at the end
No mention of God/religion allowed at all during the promise

157

I would suggest that any survey done here would be mostly irrelevant unless we worded it carefully and limited it to cadets as it is they who would be making the promise.

I’d sooner see an anonymous poll of opinion taken at a number of squadrons across the country.

158

I recall a similar argument at Cranwell when I was going through IOT. The discussion was over the oath taken in the church after the Graduation parade and likewise the question was asked, ‘what if I don’t believe in (a) god’? At the time, and notwithstanding that the whole oath/statement call it what you will was made in a religious environment, the answer was that it didn’t matter whether you believed in (a) god, you could remove any reference to a deity if you wanted to, the crucial element was you making a statement in front of your colleagues that you would serve loyally etc etc. So in effect it was you giving your word to your fellow officers that you would behave in a certain way.

159

I still fail to understand how or why anyone (supposedly intelligent) thinks that saying the word God in the Christian sense will somehow turn them into a church going, bible punching type or is an attempt to subvert young minds. If I say the word gay (in the modern context, not the original one) will I as a man stop finding my wife and other women attractive and appealling and start finding men appealling in that way, no. Vice versa women.
Similarly talking/listening to a vicar will not convert you as won’t talking/listening to a homosexual/lesbian won’t make you one. You can apply this across the board in terms of being swayed one way or the other on something just by being bombarded with the arguments or stipulations of others. I have worked with a bloke for all the 30 years I’ve worked where I do, who is an ardent Left wing, union mad, card carrying Labour member and we have become quite good mates but in all that time, I’ve never felt “oooo I’ll vote Labour” and he hasn’t been swayed to the other side either. I’ve got good friends who are vegetarians, but when we go out for meals I and others still have meat and they have whatever they want. We’ve got friends who are atheists but again there is acceptance that we aren’t going to change each other.

So how or why when although it’s the established church and there is nothing in the law of the land saying that you must believe, go to church etc, people can get so anti, baffles me.

The only people this will or seems to matter hugely to as seems to be the case on here are those who it appears puport to atheism. Most parents I would suggest are ambivalent as are most cadets. I don’t take it that “not stated” for religion means no religion, they may have but just don’t want to say.

With respect to the promise from my own perspective :
Do I as a Christian care if the word God appears in the promise, no.
Do I as a monarchist care if the word Queen appears in the promise, no.
Do I as a nationalist care if the words country or flag appears, no.

Why because IMO none of these things matter within the context of the modern Corps as I don’t actually think that many cadets are concerned by them. They join an organisation to do some things if they fancy it, so losing the promise would have little or no consequence. I did like the alternative promise posted, as that’s how I’ve seen the majority of cadets over recent years actually behave, whether or not we like to admit it. You get the ones who are reliable, ie “serve their unit loyally” but for the majority it seems just too much effort. Which is of course reflected in those who get promoted or offered the goodies.

160

Can anyone provide a good justification why God must be part of the cadet promise?

Surely if giving a “secular” oath, as opposed to swearing on the bible is good enough for the Law Courts of this land, then it’s good enough for the ATC?