[TABLE="class: outer_border, width: 800, align: left"]
[TR]
[TD]
[TABLE="width: 640, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD][h2]Girl Guides may abandon pledge to God and Queen[/h2][B]In one of the biggest shake-ups in its 102-year history, it has begun a consultation that could lead to significant changes to the oath that guides are expected to take when they join.[/B][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
[TABLE="width: 500, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD]GIRLGUIDING UK is considering removing any mention of God or the Queen from its oath, the head of the organisation says.
''The 'promise' has been part of the girl guides since its beginning - it is crucial and unique,'' the organisation's chief executive, Julie Bentley, said.
''We know from listening to our members that some people do find some parts of the oath challenging and when members do make that oath we want them to mean it and believe it.
''Times do change, the world has changed and the way people view the world has changed. Our response is not to be stuck in a rigid way but to respond to the needs of our membership.''
She said this was ''in no way a watering down of our values or moral compass''.
The announcement was made weeks after a similar consultation by the Scout Association, which is considering providing an alternative ''promise'' to welcome atheists as full members.
Unlike the Scouts, who have insisted they will not remove the demand that members do their duty to the Queen, Ms Bentley said the Guides consultation could change ''everything or nothing''.
The consultation, which will close on March 3, is open to members of the organisation and those outside it.
The consultation states: ''The Promise is guiding's beating heart - it's the core expression of our values and the common standard that brings us all together. But over the past few years we have heard from more and more girls and volunteers who struggle with the wording, particularly in interpreting what it really means to girls today.''
Guides promise to do their best, love ''my God'', serve ''the Queen and country'' and keep the Guide law. The consultation asks for opinions on a range of alternatives.
As well as ''love my God'', they are asked to choose from options which range from ''serve God'' to ''search for the spiritual value in my life'' and ''serve the highest truth and love faithfully at all times''.
In the ''essence of citizenship'' section, respondents are asked to comment on options that include ''serve the Queen and my country'', ''be useful to my country'' and ''engage myself with responsibility in the community I live in''.
Guardian News & Media[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][B]SOURCE: [/B] [URL]http://www.smh.com.au/world/girl-guides-may-abandon-pledge-to-god-and-queen-20130105-2ca0v.html[/URL][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
I see blank
I understand dropping the God part, but why the queen and country part?
Are immigrants using the girl guides to corrupt British values?
Those godless treasonous fem-nazis!
Seriously though, I think it should be made optional to take the oath to God and Queen, or the one without God and Queen, Or a combination thereupon.
yeah that might help some
You know I've always wondered why some institutions ask you to take a pledge to something worthless and abstract like "God" or "the Queen" or "the Flag" or whatever silly thing that appeals to jingoists. Why can't it be "humanity" or the "common good" first and foremost?
Is wishing for the welfare of everyday people such a banal truism that people in power (and those who are not) find it unnecessary to utter it, or is it because they need to create an image of a higher power to ascribe meaning to due to some baseless zero-sum game mentality?
Why change it at all? Just leave it, it's a ceremonial thing made when they first created the Girl Scouts.
Heresy
[QUOTE=Zambies!;39112535]I understand dropping the God part, but why the queen and country part?[/QUOTE]
Nobody should have to pledge their service to a ugly old bat.
[QUOTE=Zambies!;39112535]I understand dropping the God part, but why the queen and country part?[/QUOTE]
Because monarchies are out of date and the Queen, as many Facepunchers love to point out, has "no real power".
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39114869]Because monarchies are out of date and the Queen, as many Facepunchers love to point out, has "no real power".[/QUOTE]
And proceed to whine about how the UK should be a republic while scratching their neckbeards and wondering why they don't live in a nice house.
[QUOTE=Zambies!;39114888]And proceed to whine about how the UK should be a republic while scratching their neckbeards and wondering why they don't live in a nice house.[/QUOTE]
P. cool assumptions man.
[QUOTE=Zambies!;39114888]And proceed to whine about how the UK should be a republic while scratching their neckbeards and wondering why they don't live in a nice house.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, all British Republicans are whiny neckbeards. Nice.
[QUOTE=Zambies!;39114888]And proceed to whine about how the UK should be a republic while scratching their neckbeards and wondering why they don't live in a nice house.[/QUOTE]
this is exactly what i'm doing atm
Traitors to the crown! Kill them them all.
I felt awkward about making an oath to God and the Queen when I joined the ATC. I have nothing against having a monarchy, but swearing anything to God is dishonest to me. I'd rather swear to something that matters to me, something I thought existed. But this is just the same as the courts' oaths argument.
[QUOTE=God's Pimp Hand;39114474]You know I've always wondered why some oaths always ask you to take a pledge to something worthless and abstract like "God" or "the Queen" or "the Flag" or whatever silly thing that appeals to jingoists. Why can't it be "humanity" or the "common good" first and foremost?
Is wishing for the welfare of everyday people such a banal truism that people in power (and those who are not) find it unnecessary to utter it, or is it because they need to create an image of a higher power to ascribe meaning to due to some baseless zero-sum game mentality?[/QUOTE]
Well, I dunno, 'common good' sounds awful Communist to me...
Of course, you guys are having a party about removing the god part, but when it comes to the old bag, you're like 'but its tradition!!'.
How ironic.
[QUOTE=Jamsponge;39117680]Well, I dunno, 'common good' sounds awful Communist to me...[/QUOTE]
idk I'm just pulling buzzwords out of my arse
[QUOTE=redBadger;39118066]Of course, you guys are having a party about removing the god part, but when it comes to the old bag, you're like 'but its tradition!!'.
How ironic.[/QUOTE]
The Queen exists though
[QUOTE=redBadger;39118066]Of course, you guys are having a party about removing the god part, but when it comes to the old bag, you're like 'but its tradition!!'.
How ironic.[/QUOTE]I don't see how that is ironic.
[QUOTE=werrek;39114488]Why change it at all? Just leave it, it's a ceremonial thing made when they first created the Girl Scouts.[/QUOTE]
That's a reason for it to change though, it's out of date. We're predominantly atheists and certainly no longer god fearing.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39114869]Because monarchies are out of date and the Queen, as many Facepunchers love to point out, has "no real power".[/QUOTE]
So she's like an eastern emperor whose shoguns (politicians) do the decisions in her stead?
[QUOTE=Noss;39118114]The Queen exists though[/QUOTE]
I was waiting for someone to point that out.
[QUOTE=Nitro836;39118131]So she's like an eastern emperor whose shoguns (politicians) do the decisions in her stead?[/QUOTE]
Pre-Meiji restoration :v:
[QUOTE=NoDachi;39118259]I was waiting for someone to point that out.[/QUOTE]
I don't know man this whole time I thought there might've been the remote possibility of her being an animatronic figure that was guided by pheromones laid by her corgis
[QUOTE=God's Pimp Hand;39118332]I don't know man this whole time I thought there might've been the remote possibility of her being an animatronic figure that was guided by pheromones laid by her corgis[/QUOTE]
I figured it was more likely going to be some Talbot Yancy shit.
[QUOTE=Jon27;39116535]I felt awkward about making an oath to God and the Queen when I joined the ATC. I have nothing against having a monarchy, but swearing anything to God is dishonest to me. I'd rather swear to something that matters to me, something I thought existed. But this is just the same as the courts' oaths argument.[/QUOTE]
This, whenever i went to court i would always opt out of using the bible when swearing my oath, it seemed massively dishonest for me to swear i am not lying to somthing that isnt real.
[QUOTE=Noss;39118114]The Queen exists though[/QUOTE]
No, that's a belief you hold because people have told you she exists, but she actually does not.
In reality it's been two midgets standing on top of each other wearing a mask all along.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.