Time to change the cadet promise and move with the times

[incubus]

Sorry to invoke Godwin’s law, but would you swear an oath or promise to Hitler? The name/concept of Hitler is offensive to many and represents something which many people abhor.

Alternatively, what value is there in swearing to the Easter Bunny which is considered as mythical to many as god is to others?

It is about a person making an oath that they actually mean, which means something to them and which they might consider binding. If not, there is no point in swearing an oath at all.

It is good enough for the RAF and good enough for courts of law. Why would it be a problem for us?

[pEp]

@glass half empty 2

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.

That would only work if you chose your own sexuality, which of course you don’t. For that statement to be true, you would have parents taking their children to gay classes on a Sunday morning teaching them how to be gay, led by the head gay. As you can see, that is nonsense, and so is your idea of comparing forcing religion on someone to forcing an innate sexual orientation on to someone.

[glass_half_empty_2]

[quote=“incubus” post=3057]It is about a person making an oath that they actually mean, which means something to them and which they might consider binding. If not, there is no point in swearing an oath at all.

It is good enough for the RAF and good enough for courts of law. Why would it be a problem for us?[/quote]
Do cadets actually mean and or understand when they make their promise? As I say I’m not convinvced.

In a court if you take the oath and then decide not to abide by it, the consequences are quite severe. Similarly in the armed forces, if you decided to go against it, you’d be in for sticky time. In the ATC it’s words on a page that you say once and promptly forget, as their is no conseuence.

[Perry_Mason]

So if it means so little why are people bothered about God being removed?

[glass_half_empty_2]

@Perry Mason

So if it means so little why are people bothered about God being removed?

I’m not. But then I’d say lose it completely.

The so called importance of the need to lose “God” is for me all part of this slide to secularism which in the UK seems to mean constantly bash away at the Christian church in all it’s guises, as it’s an easy target. If it was taking secular thinking as per definition, then this would be really interesting as it would mean getting into the realms of race hate and denial of human rights accusations and wrt Islam, Judaism and the religons of the sub-continent.

It strikes me that only the religion of the UK is where the obsrvance and open display of symbols of faith as has been reported, is not protected by the law of the land. Could you tell a Sikh not to wear a turban? Could you tell a Muslim that they cannot pray as often as they have to? You might try it once.

[incubus]

@glass half empty 2

The so called importance of the need to lose “God” is for me all part of this slide to secularism which in the UK seems to mean constantly bash away at the Christian church in all it’s guises, as it’s an easy target.

It actually only appears that way because in this country it is the christian church (in its many sects) which is ensconced and the CofE more than others. I also do not believe that as the majority belief system in the UK with many privileges not afforded to other religious groups, it is a particularly easy target. It does seem to be taking the attitude of a victim because its support is in the decline and it is used to having things all its own way in the past.

The principles of secularism would put everybody on a level playing field regardless of belief and aim to ensure that nobody is required to make any statements to which they hold personal moral objections, so far as religion is concerned at least. There would either be one promise which was acceptable to all or there would be options for the various factions. In the interests of unity I would prefer the former or, perhaps better, no promise at all.

[glass_half_empty_2]

@incubus

The principles of secularism would put everybody on a level playing field regardless of belief … so far as religion is concerned at least

This has been tried and doesn’t work. You can “level” any playing field and there are winners and losers, you wouldn’t be able to have a neutral position. I would suggest there are potentially more losers than winners. How far would it extend? Would a fully secular society still allow people to openly practice their faith and hold their beliefs? If not, how would this be policed and what would happen to anyone who defied the ‘rules’? Would religious belief be criminalised?
I still fully believe that the notion of secularism in the UK is purely a vehicle to target the estblished church and not secularism in the broader sense, because the broader sense will mean getting into some tricky areas as I say brought upon us by human rights legislation.

[incubus]

@glass half empty 2

This has been tried and doesn’t work. You can “level” any playing field and there are winners and losers, you wouldn’t be able to have a neutral position.

Speaking about this specific context, I’m not sure why a non-religious (note: not an anti-religious) promise would not be every bit as valid a promise to make for believers as the present one. The only exception I can think of might be people who have a psychological compulsion to swear everything to a god and I’d have deeper concerns about them and their families.

@glass half empty 2

I would suggest there are potentially more losers than winners.

There would be no losers except those who feel they must promote the idea of a god at every opportunity rather than accept that their particular beliefs are far from universal and that an organisation which accepts people from the whole range of beliefs in this society should adopt practices which embrace that.

[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=3067]Would a fully secular society still allow people to openly practice their faith and hold their beliefs?[/quote]A secular society (or organisation) would build its practices without bias or privilege accorded to any set of beliefs and would aim to treat everybody equally. Religion is a personal matter and can be practised without interference except where those practices are in contravention of national law (examples in the UK would be corporate discrimination, child torture, slavery, animal cruelty; in france you might include the wearing of veils)

One person’s religious beliefs should not be forced upon others who do not share those beliefs (forcing all women to wear veils, prohibiting shopping on Sundays, banning prayer breaks for muslims, requiring someone to work on their sabbath or holiday)

Of course some religions have policies which put them in direct conflict with others and this is because they are serving their own interests and trying to seize as much power and as many members as they can. Other individuals take it upon themselves to assume some “requirement” which doesn’t truly exist: while seikhs are required to wear the 5 Ks (even then the turban should be removed where safety takes precedence) we now have christians claiming that they must openly wear crosses as jewellery when there seems to be no such “requirement” in their doctrine). That is actually nothing more than a political statement.

[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=3067]I still fully believe that the notion of secularism in the UK is purely a vehicle to target the established church[/quote] It targets the “established” church because in a secular society you do not have an established church; establishment meaning it is bound into the political world in the way that the CofE is. Disestablishment of the church is a key goal for the secular movement as it conveys an unfair position of privilege to one set of beliefs.

What secularism does not do is specifically target the CofE as an entity, nor any other religious organisation, except when there is an attempt to grant specific rights or privileges over and above every other member of society or which are contrary to national law.

[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=3067] and not secularism in the broader sense, because the broader sense will mean getting into some tricky areas as I say brought upon us by human rights legislation.[/quote]Lets get into them and challenge them. There are clear areas of conflict between differing sets of beliefs and they cannot all be reconciled. I believe the human rights laws are written too broadly and allow practices to continue which cause genuine harm and until these are challenged and amended we may never improve the situation.

All of this is way way beyond the very simple suggestion of having a promise which does not alienate anybody with a particular belief.

[MattB]

@glass half empty 2

[quote=“incubus” post=3066]The principles of secularism would put everybody on a level playing field regardless of belief … so far as religion is concerned at least

This has been tried and doesn’t work. You can “level” any playing field and there are winners and losers, you wouldn’t be able to have a neutral position. I would suggest there are potentially more losers than winners. How far would it extend? Would a fully secular society still allow people to openly practice their faith and hold their beliefs? If not, how would this be policed and what would happen to anyone who defied the ‘rules’? Would religious belief be criminalised?
I still fully believe that the notion of secularism in the UK is purely a vehicle to target the estblished church and not secularism in the broader sense, because the broader sense will mean getting into some tricky areas as I say brought upon us by human rights legislation.[/quote]I think that you’re getting somewhat confused by the difference between secularism and atheism.

We’re arguing for a secular promise, not an atheist one - it just happens that the end result would look identical.

Secularism isn’t about trying to stop anyone from being religious - it’s accepting that religion is nothing more than a personal choice of beliefs, and as such should not be forced upon anyone. Quite how anyone could consider that to be a bad thing is completely beyond me.

[glass_half_empty_2]

So let me get this straight, if I am to understand what is being said, in a secular society the freedom of people to practice their religion and hold their beliefs would be sacrasanct.
So by that token it would mean that one of the current debates around homosexual and lesbian marriage, would not exist as anyone whose religion does not hold with these, could quite easily say no and there are no repercussions. Because you can’t say to someone with a Christian belief for instance, OK we now live in a secular society and you are free to practice your beleifs, except if it upsets others, but you are expected to be upset and have your freedom of expression walked over. Which actually is how it feels now, with laws being passed to essentially walk all over Christian belief and the stories that regularly appear in the media tend to support this.

I think that the notion of secularism would get a much better press if it wasn’t hijacked by the tofu munching, sandal wearing, pinko/lefty liberals. I personally feel this group have wreaked havoc on our society.

[Baldrick]

[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=3082]So let me get this straight, if I am to understand what is being said, in a secular society the freedom of people to practice their religion and hold their beliefs would be sacrasanct.
So by that token it would mean that one of the current debates around homosexual and lesbian marriage, would not exist as anyone whose religion does not hold with these, could quite easily say no and there are no repercussions. Because you can’t say to someone with a Christian belief for instance, OK we now live in a secular society and you are free to practice your beleifs, except if it upsets others, but you are expected to be upset and have your freedom of expression walked over. Which actually is how it feels now, with laws being passed to essentially walk all over Christian belief and the stories that regularly appear in the media tend to support this.

I think that the notion of secularism would get a much better press if it wasn’t hijacked by the tofu munching, sandal wearing, pinko/lefty liberals. I personally feel this group have wreaked havoc on our society.[/quote]

You did not understand what was said.
In a secular society no one religion is prioritised or promoted by the state, what is sacrosanct is individual liberty, to believe what you want and express yourself how you like.
However, what nearly everyone forgets in this scenario is that every right must be balanced against everyone else’s rights. You are free to have Christian beliefs, to express yourself as fully as you like. Similarly, the rest of us are free to not agree with you, and to express our dislike of your ignorance.

Today’s decision by the European Court of Human Rights is a perfect example of the balancing which needs to happen. Look at the two applicants who lost their employment tribunals over the right to wear crucifixes. Today one woman won, as the Court held that BA’s right to dictate corporate uniform policy to its staff did not trump her rights under Article 9. Conversely, the RD&E Hospital were right to prioritise health & safety concerns over the nurse’s Article 9 rights.

[glass_half_empty_2]

[quote=“Baldrick” post=3083]You did not understand what was said.
In a secular society no one religion is prioritised or promoted by the state, what is sacrosanct is individual liberty, to believe what you want and express yourself how you like.
However, what nearly everyone forgets in this scenario is that every right must be balanced against everyone else’s rights. You are free to have Christian beliefs, to express yourself as fully as you like. Similarly, the rest of us are free to not agree with you, and to express our dislike of your ignorance.[/quote]
I think I’ve understood it perfectly and it’s not as it seems to be described.

What ignorance?

@Baldrick

Today’s decision by the European Court of Human Rights is a perfect example of the balancing which needs to happen. Look at the two applicants who lost their employment tribunals over the right to wear crucifixes. Today one woman won, as the Court held that BA’s right to dictate corporate uniform policy to its staff did not trump her rights under Article 9. Conversely, the RD&E Hospital were right to prioritise health & safety concerns over the nurse’s Article 9 rights.

The H&S thing is a fine line. If the cross was set with stones then yes as in many other workplaces and industries where contamination is a concern, jewellery set with stones are regarded as a hazard and not to be worn, however plain (ie unset with stones) jewellery is not regarded in that way. What hasn’t been said was if the cross actually contravened this. You would need to have very, very explicit dress rules and enforce them rigorously. It would be interesting to see if this hospital actually sticks to these and applies them across the board.

[Baldrick]

@Glass Half Empty 2

[quote=“Baldrick” post=3083]Today’s decision by the European Court of Human Rights is a perfect example of the balancing which needs to happen. Look at the two applicants who lost their employment tribunals over the right to wear crucifixes. Today one woman won, as the Court held that BA’s right to dictate corporate uniform policy to its staff did not trump her rights under Article 9. Conversely, the RD&E Hospital were right to prioritise health & safety concerns over the nurse’s Article 9 rights.

The H&S thing is a fine line. If the cross was set with stones then yes as in many other workplaces and industries where contamination is a concern, jewellery set with stones are regarded as a hazard and not to be worn, however plain (ie unset with stones) jewellery is not regarded in that way. What hasn’t been said was if the cross actually contravened this. You would need to have very, very explicit dress rules and enforce them rigorously. It would be interesting to see if this hospital actually sticks to these and applies them across the board.[/quote]

The real opposition was the fact that it was a necklace which were all banned under the policy. The justification is that if a patient grabs it they can do serious damage, or strangle you. She was free to wear any other form of crucifix, but refused the offer.

[glass_half_empty_2]

@MattB

I think that you’re getting somewhat confused by the difference between secularism and atheism.

No I’m not confused, it’s atheists who trot out secular sentiments who I consider as confused, as the two lines of thought contradict each other. You can’t on the one hand say I don’t believe in deities and all religion should be banned and then fall in with a line of thought which says it’s OK for people to follow their religious beliefs. :?

Two groups are being ignored in all this, the agnostic and the ambivalent. I would suggest the latter are in the majority.

[MattB]

@glass half empty 2

So let me get this straight, if I am to understand what is being said, in a secular society the freedom of people to practice their religion and hold their beliefs would be sacrasanct.

Not really. People should be free to believe whatever they like, so long as it doesn’t negatively affect others. The law should always trump religion.

[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=3096][quote=“MattB” post=3073]I think that you’re getting somewhat confused by the difference between secularism and atheism.[/quote]No I’m not confused, it’s atheists who trot out secular sentiments who I consider as confused, as the two lines of thought contradict each other. You can’t on the one hand say I don’t believe in deities and all religion should be banned and then fall in with a line of thought which says it’s OK for people to follow their religious beliefs. :? [/quote]No. What I can say is that I don’t believe in deities but people should be free to follow their religious beliefs or lack thereof - this fits perfectly well with atheism and secularism.

The thing that annoys me - and I’d say probably annoys most atheists - is the fact that our lack of belief is somehow held to be less important than someone’s religious belief.

[cygnus_maximus]

[quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=972]One doesn’t need to fulfill a duty to any god to be a good person.

[/quote]

Isn’t making a promise simply saying to someone ‘you can trust me to do this or that’? Surely, this is all we should expect of our cadets, a public statement (a promise) to behave in a certain way properly befitting the organisation they are in and the one they represent? There’s been lots of discussion about beliefs, religion bashing, peoples rights to this and that, but basically it boils down to simply saying ‘I will be a good person’ and as mentioned above, you don’t need any links to religion to achieve that.

Standing by to see people’s definitions of ‘good’!

[bprichfield]

@glass half empty 2

So let me get this straight, if I am to understand what is being said… (utterly inapplicable straw-man argument) …

@Baldrick

You did not understand what was said… (patient re-iteration of debate point)…

[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=3086]I think I’ve understood it perfectly and it’s not as it seems to be described.[/quote]So, you offer your (deliberately twisted) interpretation of the secularist argument and then refuse to be told, as asked, that you have indeed misunderstood it.

@glass half empty 2

[quote=“MattB” post=3073]I think that you’re getting somewhat confused by the difference between secularism and atheism.

No I’m not confused, it’s atheists who trot out secular sentiments who I consider as confused, as the two lines of thought contradict each other. You can’t on the one hand say I don’t believe in deities and all religion should be banned and then fall in with a line of thought which says it’s OK for people to follow their religious beliefs. :? [/quote]Again, you refuse to accept that you have misrepresented the argument presented to you. Then you yet again present another twisted straw-man argument…

[quote=“glass half empty 2” post=3082]I think that the notion of secularism would get a much better press if it wasn’t hijacked by the tofu munching, sandal wearing, pinko/lefty liberals. I personally feel this group have wreaked havoc on our society.[/quote]…And still, without providing any actual objective arguments seek to insult and villify those with whom you disagree, using crude and cliche generalisations.

All of this and your other contributions to this thread give you a reputation as a bigoted fool who will not even entertain other’s views or are actually serious about debating this important issue. You are embarrassing yourself and are not worth the time that many others have invested in trying to educate you.

BPR.

(Before anyone gets shirty about things being “personal”. My assertions are only based on the anonymous contributions of this member to this thread. Its not personal in the slightest. I have deliberately highlighted areas which I think justify my point of view and invite any objections or rather, further discussion of the actual topic).

[Operation_Nimrod]

Last post removed until further consideration made by the mod team.

12 hour cooling off.

Click.

[Operation_Nimrod]

I’m not sure about this. I know he finishes off by trying to justify his comments, but IIRC, he was quite a vocal person on the last discussion on the old forum.

I hate topics like this. They never go well. I’ve locked the thread overnight until this can be discussed.

Thoughts?

[Operation_Nimrod]

Silence is deafening.

Are we leaving this be, or returning it? Leave the thread closed or re-open it?