Scout promise overhall for athiests [sic] and republicans [uk definition]

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

http://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2012/04/25/scout-promise-overhall-for-athiests-and-republicans/

 

REFERENCES to God and the Queen could be removed from the Scout Promise, the organisations Scottish leader has revealed.

 

Graham Haddock, who is the Scouts chief commissioner in Scotland, said the group was taking a hard look at the oath in order to make them more inclusive.

 

Atheists and republicans could be given their own version of the pledge, which currently urges members to do [their] duty to God and to the Queen.

 

Mr Haddock, who works as a paediatrician at Glasgows Royal Hospital for Sick Children, admitted that a significant minority felt the movement was not inclusive enough.

 

He said: As an organisation, we could do better at being inclusive.

 

It is important that we have the maturity and courage to look at these things.

 

If the conclusion is to maintain the status quo then we have at least reflected on the debate. If we maintain God and the Queen bits of the promise, that will upset some people, and if we decide to remove them from the promise, which would clearly be a fundamental step, then well upset a whole pile of other people. Its not exactly a win-win situation but never the less we do have a responsibility to reflect.

 

If 90% of members say we should extend the option of an alternative promise that expresses statehood in a different way, then fine, but we have to bear in mind that the Queen is our patron.

 

Mr Haddock also revealed that Tricia Marwick, the MSP for Mid Fife and Glenrothes, had raised the issue of the promise with him following a complaint from a constituent.

 

But Scout bosses in London insisted there was no plans to change the oath, which is taken by the organisations 525,000 members, and would not say wheter it was under review.

 

But Mr Haddock said the pledge was being looked at on a national level, and a result was expected next summer.

 

He said: We are currently in the throes of a review. The first stage is complete, and the issue for next summer is pretty much the oath, what we call the promise. Its being considered at the current time.

 

Currently all members swear On my honour, I promise that I will do my best to do my duty to God and to the Queen to help other people and to keep the Scout Law.

 

However foreign nationals are allowed to swear allegiance to the county in which I am now living and non-Christians can change God to be appropriate for their religion.

 

The revelation will raise hopes of a more adaptable oath, with an opt-out for those who disagree with monarchism or who have no religious feeling.

 

Last week the National Secular Society wrote to the UKs chief Scout, adventurer Bear Grylls, to ask him to back a more inclusive version of the oath.

 

They said many children form atheist families are discriminated against.

 

The Scout movement started in 1907 by Robert Baden-Powell and had more than 41,000 members in Scotland and a worldwide membership of 31 million.

 

[DLChris71 10]

I think that one of the comments at the bottom regarding scouting being inclusive vs. exclusive is more telling. I think that certain group think that being inclusive means that an organization should accept anyone and let them do anything they like. In turn they think that because a group invites all people to aspire to a standard established by the group that the group is being exclusive, hypocritical, and malicious. I think that's pretty sad, especially that being asked to aspire to a standard is cause for an accusation of discrimination.

 

Yes, I think an atheist child should be able to join a group, under the condition that they meet the requirements of the group they are joining. If they don't want to meet the requirements then they should pursue an activity in another area.

[Mr. Boyce 13]

"Inclusivity" and "multiculturalism" are overrated; kind of 90s, don't you think?

[Papadaddy 121]

You forgot the "(sic)" after "overhall". Just sayin...

[Cambridgeskip 658]

I wouldn't read too much into this. UK HQ have denied it

 

http://www.scouts.org.uk/noticeboard/440/no-plans-to-change-scout-promise

 

This is mainly just the NSS trying to kick up a bit of trouble. I am a republican (in the UK sense!) but have no problem with an oath to the Queen as under our constitution any duty to the Queen is a promise made to the population as a whole.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

DLChris71 writes:

I think that one of the comments at the bottom regarding scouting being inclusive vs. exclusive is more telling. I think that certain group think that being inclusive means that an organization should accept anyone and let them do anything they like.

 

I think that a group that calls itself inclusive should actually live up to its claim, instead of turning around and excluding people. That's just committing fraud.

[DLChris71 10]

That's the thing though isn't it. I don't know about things in England, but over here in the states we don't go around promoting groups as "inclusive". Most institutions are promoted on the merits of their program. Inclusive is often a corrupted idea promoted by people outside organizations, a warped sense of fairness. Stating that because some institution runs a program that it shouldn't have some standard (ethical, moral, religious, etc.), because it would exclude people who don't identify with those standards. So basically the institution is wrong for existing and for having spent years building goodwill and efforts into promoting citizenship and good works.

 

Because some individual, who does not ascribe to the standards of the institution, but does want to ride that institutions good name to promote their own different values rather than forming their own institution on its own merits. And why do they want to "ride the coat tails" of the institution that they don't agree with. Because they know that the vast majority of the public would otherwise be indifferent to their new fabrication.

 

But if they get the old classical institution to only just change it's beliefs, it's mantra, they can slip on the coat of the establishment and champion what ever value system they like until such time as the old classical institution disintegrates. It's not a matter of the body changing, it's a matter of something viral pounding on the exterior of the body trying to invade it, corrupt it, and use if for its own design.

[Tampa Turtle 1011]

I see groups promote themselves as inclusive from time to time just as some groups promote exclusivity. Some groups I have seen in the last week:

 

The Moose Lodge.

A very liberal church.

A special needs (disability) ministry in a very conservative church.

A local Civic association.

 

So the word itself isn't bad or '90s it is the issue of folks wanting to impose inclusiveness on groups that want to stay exclusive. Sometimes that is OK and sometimes it is not.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

That's the thing though isn't it. I don't know about things in England, but over here in the states we don't go around promoting groups as "inclusive".

 

Sure we do:

http://www.campfireusa.org/faqs.aspx

"We are inclusive and open to every person in each community we serve."

 

The BSA doesn't, of course, because they exclude people.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

It's true, Mr. Boyce, these days if you talk about discrimination as a bad thing, more and more people just kind of scoff at you. Call me old-fashioned, though.

[Moggie 12]

It might be wise to have little understanding of how the UK constitution works:

 

The UK is a Constitutional Christian Monarchy, note no mention of secular democracy and the specific expression of Christianity. The Queen is Head of State, Head of the Established Church (Church of England and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland) , Head of the Judiciary, Head of the Armed Forces etc... There's a trend here ;-) So a promise to the Queen as Skip states is a promise to the nation. There is no general pledge of allegiance as is understood in the USA. They do exist and are used (joining the army, RAF, Police, MP or naturalised citizen) and the pledge is to the Queen. (If you join the Royal Navy then traditionally the oath is to the Admiralty and not the Monarch.)

Young people in the UK are assumed to be travelling their path to spiritual understanding so are not excluded from scouting. Adults in the other hand do make a declaration of faith (often assumed to C of E unless you state otherwise).

The constitution is not captured in a single document but in a series of Parliamentary acts (Magna Carta, Bill of Rights etc...) and unwritten conventions.

 

In the UK there is no separation of Church and State, Bishops (Lords Spiritual) sit in Parliament, in BPs day that relationship would have been even closer than it is now.

 

Cheers

 

Gareth

[DLChris71 10]

By setting a standard, yes BSA is exclusionary. The day that BSA becomes universally inclusive is the day it stops being BSA and we can all join Camp Fire USA, or form another exclusive organization that will need to exist on its own merits.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

DLChris, do you truly believe that the only difference between BSA and "Campfire" is who the BSA excludes? Or in other words, that the BSA is defined by who it doesn't let in? If so, we have vastly different conceptions of what this organization is all about.

 

As for what they do or don't do in England or Scotland, I don't think it has much impact on what we do here. As Moggie points out, they have some different "constitutional" issues to deal with than we do. Of course, there are some aspects of our constitution (small "c" on purpose) and society that are a direct reaction to the situation in the UK at the time our country was founded.