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

  • #16
    Completely True. And thus the question.

    Although, a Scout who swears( or agrees to live in accordance with) the oath can also leave at any time. Something the enlisted person in the military doesn't have availible.

    Comment


    • #17
      I have a deep dislike of parents who use there children to make a political point. This isn't the kid making this descision, it's the mother, but she hasn't got the guts to stand up for hereself. The Monarch is the head of the Church of England, it's therefore a good idea if he/she is CofE. Plenty of Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, Jews, Hindu's etc,etc have no problem with the promise

      Another thing, we're a private organisation,if your not prepared to abide by the rules you don't have to join.

      Comment


      • #18
        I don't think the point is that the monarch should not be a member of the Church of England since he/she is at its head. It is the fact that the succession laws are expressly anti-Catholic and do not discriminate against other religions.

        Comment


        • #19
          The succession laws were passed by parliment, and it is upto parliment to change them. This mother is shooting at the wrong target if she thinks the law should be changed.

          Comment


          • #20
            Shes protesting the anti-Catholic institution. The Queen could certainly come out and suppot a repeal of parts of the Act of Settlement, but of course she won't do that.

            Comment


            • #21
              No she couldn't. It would be seen as completely unconstitutional for the Queen to comment on which laws she supports.

              Comment


              • #22
                Not really . . .

                It would be against convention perhaps. The Queen certainly still holds the power to refuse assent, appoint the government, etc. She holds extensive powers. She just refuses to use them.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Not so. The Queen is constitutionaly obliged to obey the will of her ministers. If an Act of Parliment has been voted through by both houses she must sign assent, to refuse would result in a constitutional crisis, and probably the end of the Monarchy.

                  Any amendment or repeal of the Act of Settlement must come from parliment, the Queen will never comment on the rights and wrongs of any Act of Parliment.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    In 1707 Queen Anne refused assent to the Scottish Militia Bill. It is clearly part of the royal perogative. It can still be done. Modern monarchs simply have not guts to do what they think is right.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Well Chug, the SA in the UK is similar to the BSA in that it claims to be a private organization while gladly taking public money (such as 1.5 million pounds for their jamboree), but at the same time excluding people who don't have the "right" opinions, either political or religious.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Our Scouting Assoc is based heavily on the Brit model. We have two promises and each youth can choose between "duty to the Queen of Australia" or "duty to Australia". There is also the international promise which certainly leaves the Queen out. So that is three choices and I have heard them all but almost always the firsst option with Bess in there.

                        I would be surprised if the OK did not also have options available if not well publicised.

                        I don't think any promise in the world mentions the particular Scout Assoc you are joining. It is always about spirituality, nationality and self respect. The law once described international membership of Scouting "brother to all Scouts". BSA doesn't get a mention as I recall. The international promise really would be available to any person around the world disputing a technicality about head of state.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          In response to The Scout;

                          In case you haven't noticed 1707 was over 300yrs ago, y'know 300yrs ago all you Americans were well behaved colonists. Things change, the Queen cannot go against the will of parliment if it is acting consitutionaly.

                          and as for Merlyn le Roy;

                          The 1.5 million was given specifically for the World Jamboree, which I believe members of the BSA attended. Just because someone makes a donation doesn't give them the right to dictate terms for ever. Also, for the money the committee organising the 2012 Olympics received valuable advice on how to run a huge international event. The couldn't believe that the whole Jamboree was organised and run by volunteers.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Like I said, public money for a supposedly "private" club.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Chug, what is the purpose of the royal perogative then? Why does it exist?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                The Royal Perogatives does not include being able to repeal Acts of Parliment that have been lawfully passed.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X