Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Barred from Cubs for not swearing allegiance to the Queen

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Barred from Cubs for not swearing allegiance to the Queen

    Now this is different!

    http://tinyurl.com/6zbq96

    http://tinyurl.com/3esnea

    http://tinyurl.com/63kwmy

  • #2
    Jehovah's Witness' can't pledge allegiance to the flag. I don't see too many of them as COs or scouts.

    Comment


    • #3
      Does she think that her son might become queen if the crown didn't discriminate against catholics?

      Comment


      • #4
        The son could never be the royal consort as if he marries and woman in the line of succession, she would lose her place.

        Comment


        • #5
          Even so, the boy marrying into the line of Royals is about as likely as me marrying Claudia Schiffer.

          Mom probably has another agenda.

          Comment


          • #6
            What is the definition of gobsmacked?

            Comment


            • #7
              Main Entry: gobsmacked
              Part of Speech: adj
              Definition: flabbergasted, astounded, shocked; also written gob-smacked
              Etymology: from gob 'mouth' + smacked 'clapping hand over in surprise'

              Comment


              • #8
                Isn't duty to the Queen more like duty to the nation as a whole with the Queen being the symbol of that nation?

                If you don't like the Queen move to America!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Some would say much more than a symbol.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I wouldn't have any problem swearing allegiance to the Queen. Now, if Charles becomes King, that would be another story. I definitely would if he offered me a knighthood. Otherwise . . .

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Oh its not about the individual, but the institution.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        From the third link in the first post
                        "He said: "Someone should explain to Matthew McVeigh that religion has nothing to do with the pledge of allegiance to the Queen.

                        "Catholic Scouts, like all other British Scouts, take this pledge because she is head of state."

                        I think this point is somewhat interesting. The BSA oath from http://www.scouting.org/Media/FactSheets/02-503a.aspx is:
                        On my honor I will do my best
                        To do my duty to God and my country
                        and to obey the Scout Law;
                        To help other people at all times;
                        To keep myself physically strong,
                        mentally awake, and morally straight.

                        We in the States do not pledge to the head of State but to our Country, the Mother in Britain wants the same, also from the same article, "Tracy Anne wants the promise amended to: "I promise to do my duty to God and my country".

                        How many Scouters would have a problem pledging to any of, say, the last 3 Presidents? Or would you see it as pledging to the Office rather than the man as people in our Armed Forces do?
                        And would this flip-flop with Scouters rotating in and out of Scouting as President's and/or political parties change?

                        IF, we had to pledge to the President then I would see it as loyalty to the office and would stay as a consistent member.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          "How many Scouters would have a problem pledging to any of, say, the last 3 Presidents? Or would you see it as pledging to the Office rather than the man as people in our Armed Forces do?"

                          I don't know of such pledge members of our armed services take. I never took such an oath to the "Office."

                          Anyway the monarchy is quite different from our transient republican head of state. The monarch technically owns the state, and the government is his/hers. She is the living symbol of the values, heritage, and traditions of the state.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            TheScout, Sure you did, if you enlisted, not became an officer,(they have a different oath one can read at the same link below) in the Armed Services of the United States of America. You pledged or affirmed to follow the orders of the President of the United States . You can read it here: http://www.military.com/Recruiting/Content/0,13898,rec_step08_swearing_in,,00.html So if you had enlisted were you saying you would follow orders given by the man or by the office? The common understanding is the office. I think I chose to swear the thing about 7 times.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I went the officer way - took the Constitution oath. I suppose I was being picking with the enlistment oath. But I would still contend there is a large symbolic difference in the difference between following the orders of the officers appointed by the President in our republican society, and swearing loyalty to the Queen in a monarchy. Our republican head of state remains a transient figure representing a political party and has never come closes to being the sovereign owner and personification of the state as a monarch does.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X