UKC

I read in the paper recently (and forgive the lack of accurate quotes etc, it was a week or two ago) that a spokesperson from the Scout Association said that they still required the kids to take an oath of loyalty to the Queen and to 'God'. Pressed on whether this was a Christian God, the chap said that the association wished that the kids showed a 'general belief in a God' rather than a particular denomination.

As an aetheist and a republican (and an ex-scout to boot) I found this an unbelievably offensive and bigoted comment from what is essentially a non-religious organisation. Does this mean if I have kids they will not be able to go camping and under-age drinking with their freinds because they have been brought up aetheists? Should the Scouts be allowed to exclude children on the basis of their beliefs?

Matt (no smiley this time, I'm annoyed!)

In reply to matt25:

says who?

In reply to rich:

Well it wasn't (apart from the odd nod like the oath etc.) when I was a kid. It was about camping and learning self reliance and appreciating the wilderness. I loved it and the fact I was a junior aetheist never seemed to matter. I just think we should have moved on in 2007...

Matt

In reply to matt25:

But isn't it the same today, i.e the kids will go through with pledging their allegiance to God and the Queen, whilst patently not giving a shit about either?

In reply to matt25:

When I was in the scouts not only did we take the oath, but as a result were required to attend family service once a month. Also went to church for St Georges Day and Remembrance Sunday. Your troop may have been different, but I am pretty sure when Baden Powel set it up religion would have been at the core.

In reply to matt25:

If you feel so strongly that you don't want your children to take the oath don't send them to scouts, its obviously not for you. Actually aren't you pre-empting the fact that your children will also be aethist and republican or are you planning on brain washing them to hold the same beliefs as you?

There are ots of places I don't go to because I don't believe in what they stand for but i don't want to change them, its like going to anfield and complaining that they play You'll Never Walk alone. If you don't like it don't go, why must every thing be homogonised?

In reply to matt25:
It may appease you somewhat to hear that they're reported to be pulling down a wood chapel (at Gilwell I'd guess); the ostensible reason is that it might give offense to other religions/beliefs.
I'd have more problem with the loyalty to the Queen bit. But if the primary purpose is under-age drinking my lad's out of there!

In reply to matt25: it's still very much a part as i understand it

In reply to Tyler:

isn't there something called the Woodcraft Folk for non-religious outdoor kids? or maybe it doesn't exist any more - I dunno.

In reply to Jimmy D:

Sure, but like I said, I think we should have moved on. This guy was essentially saying that if the kid does not believe in God, he isn't welcome in the Scouts. What would be the reaction if he was insisting muslim kids swore allegience to a Christian God, or that Christian kids swore allegience to Allah? There would be an almighty Daily Mail Jihad of a row. But it seems it's OK to tell aetheist kids they are not welcome?

Matt

In reply to matt25:

I suppose that depends on whether or not you'll allow them to make their own life-choices or not...

In reply to matt25:

From Wikipedia:

Although the Constitution of WOSM states that the Promise should include a reference to Duty to God [2], six countries (Belgium, Czechoslovakia, France, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, and Finland) were granted the right in the 1920's to additionally use an alternative promise without a reference to God [4]. Two of these countries still offer this alternative promise (The Netherlands and Czech Republic), where others have abandoned it. WOSM stated in 1932 that no new exceptions will be made and has expressed the hope that the few remaining countries will stop using any promise lacking a reference to Duty to God.

The Israeli Scouts though founded in 1919/1920 and joining WOSM in 1951 and WAGGGS in 1963 also have no 'duty to God' or apparent equivalent in their promise.

In reply to matt25: they don't though - you can promise to any god

In reply to CJD:

They're still going - a friend of mine's involved with them. A sort of socialist/humanist/progressive scouting alternative.

In reply to Tyler:

No it isn't. The question remains: Do the scouts have the right to exclude children on the basis of their religious beliefs?

In reply to CJD:

No, the woodcraft folk still exist. I've heard they're pretty good, if a small organisation.

If an atheist wanted scouts-type activities for their kids, why not just send them to woodcraft folk or start a group of their own instead of demanding that the whole scout movement change to suit them?

In reply to MartF:


OK, so lets just say my children DECIDE they are going to be aetheists like their dad. You think they shouldn't be allowed to join the scouts because of their beliefs?

Matt

In reply to CJD:

Wasn't that in Viz? The Modern Parents didn't want theier kids to be part of a Paramilitary Quasi-Nazi Fascist Movement, (The Cubs), and ended up sending them camping with devil-worshiping paedophiles?

In reply to matt25: Let me know when you and all the other republicans against traditions are going to have your book burning.
Leave the scouts alone, with a worldwide membership, and a hundred years so far it seems to be working without dragging politics into it

dib dib dib and all that

In reply to matt25:...you and this silly bitch are made for each other...1
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2098322,00.html

In reply to woolsack:

Some raditions are fine. Bigotry is a tradition we can do without.

Matt

In reply to matt25:

I don't know about the Scouts, but the Guides changed their promise a couple of years ago. One of the changes was to specifically to include the word "my" before the word "god" and to give the option to change that to "gods" where appropriate to make it clear that members are free to follow whichever religion they choose. I believe the Scouts made similar changes at around the same time. Personally, I always crossed my fingers behind my back when forced to reiterate this bit of the promise anyway.



But Scouts was originally an organisation with very strong Christian roots. BP, whatever else he may have been, was a devout Christian and promoted those values strongly within the organisation. As society has become more secular, the Scouts have been forced to adapt accordingly to avoid losing members, and thus their role as a Christian organisation has been pushed very much into the background. Their willingness to re-word their promise to allow people to swear fealty to a god of their choice when making the promise rather than a Christian god as was originally the case is just the latest sign of this.



Does this mean if I have kids they will not be able to go camping and under-age drinking with their freinds because they have been brought up aetheists? Should the Scouts be allowed to exclude children on the basis of their beliefs?

Well, it never stopped me...I just never said that bit of the promise when it was being recited as a group for whatever reason, and when forced to make it solo, I would cross my fingers (childish I know, but it made me feel slightly less hypocritical). Oh, and I was mysteriously absent for most church-related events! I don't think the Scouts should be allowed to exclude children on the basis of their beliefs, but given the very Christian background of the organisation, and the degree to which the organisation has its head stuck in the past on a number of other issues, I think it is actually doing a reasonable job of including people.

That's not to say that I don't think you have a valid point, and that it doesn't irk me too btw! But it is by far and away not the most annoying thing about the organisation!

K (ex Brownie, Guide, Scout, Venture, Brownie leader and Cub leader....and atheist!)

In reply to matt25:
Not at all, but I've never heard of a case where children were not allowed in because they didn't believe in God.

In reply to matt25:

You are very unlikely to see a leader refuse a child based on the fact they don't believe in god.
However, when it comes to joining as a leader you are expected to have some sort of spiritual belief, christian or otherwise.

Until you've spent some time learning about the scout association as it stands TODAY stop talking rubbish about kids being excluded based on their religion.

In reply to matt25:

they can exclude those who have no beliefs, and being atheist yourself do you think you should stop your children making up their own minds if they wish to be any religion they fancy?

a list of alternative promises on wiki;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scout_Promise

In reply to kathrync:

I agree, it is an annoying point about the organisation but unfortunately the OP hasn't got any recent experience of scouting and believes the situation to be far more extreme than it actually is!

In reply to MartF:

The guy said that they ask the children to have a belief in 'a god'. If that's not a strong suggestion that aetheists can sod off, I don't know what is!

There may be no cases of it in practicality, but that doesn't make it right.

Matt

In reply to matt25:

It seems you are the bigot;

Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion: intolerance, prejudice. See like/dislike.

http://www.answers.com/topic/bigotry

In reply to sutty:


No, and I didn't say I would. But the likelyhood is, that as an aetheist, my children are likely to be aetheists too. Accusing me of brainwashing my kids is just avoiding the point, which is: Should the Scouts be saying that they only want children of religion, even if in practice aetheists are allowed in?

Matt

In reply to sutty:

Eh? What the hell are you talking about. At no point did I say I distrusted or disliked religious people. Idiot.

Matt

In reply to sutty: I was in the wolf cubs, scouts & venture scouts, religion (prayers, church parades,etc) was so low key in the groups I joined as to be all but invisible (especially the venture scouts).

Plenty of under age drinking though

In reply to Hamish Dunn:


I'm not saying that aetheists are being excluded from the organisation in practice. I'm just saying that this was not a cool thing to say. Effectively telling aetheist children they are not welcome.

Matt

In reply to matt25:
In your OP you said a 'general belief in a God', that says to me that they specifically don't want indoctrinated little trouble makers taking the piss out of the other kids who maintain a more open mind to the possibility, a sort of don't rock the boat clause, casting an eye back to the movements roots but also allowing a bit of leeway

In reply to Hamish Dunn:

Neither Scouts nor Guides seemed to mind that I am an atheist...they are so desperate for leaders that as long as you are interested, pass the police check, and have no obvious plans to teach the kids to shoplift they don't really care anymore!

K

In reply to matt25:

Why shouldn't an organisation be based on religion?

BY your way of thinking Christian church groups should allow people of other religions to join.
How would this work since the members no longer share the same beliefs and the whole point of the group is lost.

If you don't like the scouting values/beliefs, send your kids to a youth group.

In reply to Hamish Dunn:

Please read the thread, or at the very least the original post before making your post.

Matt

In reply to woolsack: I was in the Church Lads Brigade (until I joined the sea cadets) while being an atheist, I preffered the uniform.

In reply to Hamish Dunn:

So you think a youth organisation should be able to discourage a SINGLE group of children for their beliefs?

Matt

was a scout from 12 to 18 and god never came into it, being of an atheist nature. other than the pledge we didn't do anything remotely religious, was more an activity club where climbed, caved, kayaked, walked, make fires, learnt to drink etc. happy memories. patrol camps kicked ass. i'd send my kids, if had any, in a shot.
saying that we did come across the odd overly disciplined bunch with a bellowing leader who looked a bit miserable.

In reply to matt25:

But you did say that the spokesperson's comment was "unbelievably offensive and bigoted". Considering that the Scout Organisation was established as a Christian movement, it would surely be more surprising if it did not make some reference to its founding principles.

In reply to Doug:

When I was in the scouts I went to a jamboree, and it was there I learned to play pontoon.

I think saying the oath is much like the average person singing the national anthem, just words that mean little but as long as you do not buck the system you are fine to join.

In reply to matt25:

Anyway, I'm off on holiday, so I'll have to leave you there!

As a final thought: This was only one guy I know. In general I have a lot of repsect for the Scouts. I just think it's off to discourage ONE of the many belief groups of children from joining your organisation, while being welcoming to all the others.

Matt

In reply to matt25:
But you said this earlier:

"the chap said that the association wished that the kids showed a 'general belief in a God'"

which is entirely different from asking them to actually have a belief in a God

Then I wouldn't worry then, it's a microscopic version of what Coel was bleating about one time about religious assemblies being law in school, it doesn't mean it will happen, and it doesn't mean non-religious kids can't go or indeed will be adversely affected if they do.

It's like crying over milk that might get spilled, maybe... one day.

In reply to matt25:

read the first six words of this factsheet and you'll understand scouting is not trying to kick out your kids:

http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/library/hqdocs/facts/pdfs/fs322016.pdf

In reply to Hamish Dunn:

He'll be along with 'Atheism isn't a faith' in a minute...

In reply to MartF:

Technically it isn't. But I always think it must take real faith to believe so strongly in nothing at all !

I jsu don't think I could find the strength to make the serious effort that it must take to be an atheist

On a more serious note, as a Scout Leader, I'd tend to start worrying about anyone of Scout age that had taken on the very strong atheist stance that is necessary in order to feel excluded at such a young age. It is very, very rare to see atheism this strong at a young age without some serious indoctrination somewhere.

In reply to MartF:

>> There may be no cases of it in practicality, but that doesn't make it right.


So you see nothing wrong in telling non-religious kids that they are somehow second class,
tolerated but not full members. That is an obnoxious attitude.

Maybe if the law were changed to require that religious children be routinely denigrated and insulted in school assemblies (but religious kids could still attend and won't necessarily be adversely affected) then you might see why this sort of attitude is wrong.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
Who said anything about anyone being accorded second-class status? Does the Scout Association have different classes of membership?

In reply to timjones:

>> He'll be along with 'Atheism isn't a faith' in a minute...


But then I've never heard of an atheist who "believes in nothing at all".


Hmm, Scout age goes up to 18 does it not?

But let's take, say, 13. Do you think that many 13-yr-olds might feel sufficiently Jewish that they might "feel excluded" by an overtly Christian service. Or sufficiently Christian that they might feel uncomfortable with an overtly Islamic service?

It might only be a minority, but quite a few kids do have opinions on religion that are worthy of respect. Afterall, if you wish for respect for your views, why don't theirs merit respect even if they are 13?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

you do like sailing close to the wind of the act of sedition at times.

In reply to tony:


Of course it doesn't, its just that some folks like to make an issue of this.

I joined as a Cub at 8 and 32 years later I'm still going strong as a leader ad activity instructor in all that time I've only seen the vaguest hint of a problem when "radical" atheists have been spoiling for trouble.

In reply to sutty:


Exactly right.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Jeez, you've got some issues mate.

Maybe it's just the Atheists turn to be ridiculed and persecuted, just like all the other groups have been throughout history

In reply to Coel Hellier:


And IME experience they always get the utmost respect, whatever their belief or indeed lack of belief. Scouting just carries on and welcomes all until someone with your extreme views hauls over the horizon looking for trouble.

In reply to tony:

>> So you see nothing wrong in telling non-religious kids that they are somehow second class,
>> tolerated but not full members. That is an obnoxious attitude.


Well, I was talking mostly about school assemblies, but it applies to the Scout Association also.

If the Scout Association expects kids to have religious faith, but "tolerates" those who don't, then they are effectively being treated as second class, not bona fide members.

Expecting non-religious kids to pay lip service to something they don't believe themselves reinforces this message, telling them that their views and opinions are less acceptable, that they must hide them, and pretend to be something they are not.

Again, this is treating them as second class. In the same way, if Muslims were required to pretend to be Christians then this would be treating the Muslims as second class.

In reply to matt25:

If you said you were a scout yourself then you should know that Scouts are for anyone no matter what - their religion, background, beliefs, sex.

I have now been in the Scouts now for 14year and have seen a massive change in the way that they make everyone welcome which is now giving more more kids oppertunities.

think before you speek ya bunker nut!!!!!!!!

In reply to timjones: so what you're basically saying is that as long as they either agree with or are prepared to quietly and tacitly support the religious aspects of the organisation then they're welcome

In reply to sutty:


Err, eh?

In reply to matt25:

Isn't this all a storm in a teacup? I was in the scouts, and I'm an agnostic (I won't use the term aetheist, as that implies a blind faith in the non-existance of God that's as illogical as any other religion..)
Can't your kids just do what everybody else does and just say the words? Get it over with and get on with the lighting fires and under age drinking.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Thankfully most people just aren't as oversensitive as you. They're just to busy getting on with living and enjoying their lives to take the hump over such minor issues!

In reply to Hamish Dunn:

I agree. The scouts were set up with a a strong christian ethos at the core of the movement if you dont like it dont send your kids to scouts. Although why you would have an objection to the oath i'm not really sure, it's only words after all. I don't think you would deny that most 'christian' values are preety sensible and if we all followed them everyone would be a lot happier.

In reply to rich:

i said i once and i will say it again every1 is welcome to scouting, no matter what any1 else tells you and if they do then they obviously dont have a clue about scouts!!!!!!!!!

In reply to timjones:

>> Afterall, if you wish for respect for your views, why don't theirs merit respect even if they are 13?


In many cases that is exactly what happens, many Scout leaders are exemplary in that regard. But Scout policy overall is less exemplary: it regards religious faith as superior to a lack of religious faith, and is so less respectful to those who lack religious faith.


In what way is my view -- that kids should be treated equally and equally respectfully regardsless of their religious views or lack of religious views -- "extreme"?

In reply to Coel Hellier:
So presumably you have evidence to show that those children are treated differently? Presumably if they're not bona fide members, they are barred from certain activities?

In reply to rich:

What I'm saying is that if the atheist doesn't make a big issue of it no-one else will either IME. We all get on with enjoying Scouting instead wasting time on petty religious bickering or philosophical discussion on gods existance.

In reply to tatty112:


Hmm, I think tatty rather misses the point of an oath. Unless one _does_ care about the words and what they imply there is no point in having the oath.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Where does it say that religious faith is superior to a lack of faith?

In reply to tony:


They are indeed treated disrespectfully: they are exposed to the message that their views and lack of religion is inferior to the religiousness of others in the troop.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


I agree Coel but in the light of the OP if he objects that much to the oath you can simply justify it by saying 'its only words'

In reply to Coel Hellier:


What exactly is your personal experience of this?

In 32 years I've met many thousands of people in Scouting. Only one of them had even the slightest tendency to express the belief that religious folks were in any way superior and you'd have to push him damn hard to get him to express it.

In reply to climberkid32: who are you? the worldwide scouting pope?

also - putting lots of exclamations at the end of a sentence doesn't make it true

the summary of people's arguments here seem to be something along the lines of:

that scouting has a religious ethos (or belief if it's possible to ascribe a belief to an organisation)

that, however, non-believers are accepted and even welcome

that they have to swear an oath to do their duty to god (or similar)

but that it doesn't matter because nobody really takes it seriously so they can, like, lie

is that about right?

In reply to tony:


The oath and the talk of "spiritual development" imply this.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Where does it say its superior?

I think its all lies in an inferiority complex in some atheists. Does the Church of England sit in church and chant how superior its members are? I certainly don't get this impression, do you?

In reply to timjones: I can't believe any scout leader would do that.

Scouting policy was instigated by baden powell. Are we now so 'right on' that we're saying that a fella can't set up an organsation and have a constitution for that group that ensures members have similar convictions as his own.

In reply to Ridge:

When I was in the Scouts we used the Methodist hall for target practice aas the troop had a dozen or so Wierauchs as we had a mean shooting team.

we also used to go to the pub in uniform after parade when I was in the Ventures and ran a book in church as to how longthe service would last.

I think you could say we took a pragmatic view of Methodism.

ot In reply to Andy Say:

Not true, it was pulled down, and moved to another location and all the old materials used in the new one.

But lets not let the truth get in the way of a good daily rag story.

In reply to timjones:


So you think that expecting kids to take an insincere oath involving someone else's religious concepts is OK, and that only the "oversensitive" will object?

Try doing that to religious kids and see how many "oversensitive" parents you encounter.

In reply to John Rushby:


Thats a bit extreme.

Didn't you like methodists?

What ammo did you use? You'd need something pretty big for a substantial building.

In reply to timjones:
on the contrary I think they often contemplate how easy it is to fail to meet the ideals

I don;t understand how everyone thinks that being religious equates to feeling superior - it provides ideals to strive to, not to claim falsely to reach

In reply to matt25:

>No it isn't.

Which question of mine are you answering here, it doesn't make sense.


Surely the question to be asked is "Do they exclude children on the basis of religious beliefs?"



If religion forms as big a part of Scounting as you assume why would they want to join? Would you go to a mosque and complain that because you don't belief in Allah or wish to follow the Koran you are being "excluded"?

In reply to matt25:

They excluded me on the grounds of gender, after it went coed

In reply to rich:

does it matter how i am ya bunker nut!!!!!!!!

i see u are trying slag me off with the old pope joke, iv heard people who use that like to take it up the arse.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Do you know that, or are you extrapolating that from your own views? What activities are they barred from?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

.177 for the target guns and .22 for the field target guns. I took us 3 weeks to take out the font.

In reply to Tyler: i think the 'problem' is that it's an organisation trying to juggle inclusivity and exclusivity

In reply to rich:


Not sure about that. It is indeed in the oath though.


Yes.


It's part of the tradition.


Pretty much.


Yes.

In reply to rich:

Is there a problem?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

As many people have said, it was founded with strong Christian principles. Why should it not talk about 'spiritual development'?

In reply to timjones:

>> They are indeed treated disrespectfully: they are exposed to the message that their views
>> and lack of religion is inferior to the religiousness of others in the troop.


It doesn't use that word explicitly. But it is the gist of the overall message that Scouting adopts on religion.


I think this all lies in the utter insensitivity of many religious people to non-religious people. It is as though the non-religious people don't have feelings: they can be asked to utter "just words" oaths which they don't mean because non-religious people don't matter.

Now, if there was an organisation that routinely expected Christian children to swear their rejection of Christianity, all hell would break loose, because people could then see what was wrong with coercing kids into insincere oaths regarding somebody else's religion.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

If you don't like it don't make them join the scouts. Nobodies forcing parents to make their kids join the scouts.


You won't find many christian parents wanting their kids to join the mosque youth club. that would be taking the piss, 'as a christin i want my kid to go to the mosque youth cl' but i don't want them to learn about islam'

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Don't get so uptight about it!

As a matter of interest just how many kids do you think have a problem with this?

In many hundreds (thousands?) of new Scouts aged between 8 and 20 I've encountered just one that felt uneasy about it.

He was invested over the parabolic sound transmission thingy at Goonhilly visitor centre. He may or may not of promised to do his duty to god, reception was a bit fuzzy at my end

In reply to tony:

Indeed, and why restrict a child's spiritual development by making them 'scared' of religion?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I see. So if some parents are ranting nutters who want to stop their kids having fun by inflicting their beliefs on them, you want to be able to do the same?

In reply to tony:


Well, we should all be clear what it is:

Is it an inclusive organisation that respects and treats equally all kids of any religion or none?

Or is a Christian organization which aims to promote and coerce Christian/religious spiritual values onto children?

In reply to climberkid32:

it matters who you are if you are seeking to be the sole spokesperson for a worldwide movement

you have no control over the thoughts and actions of all people in the organisation - the only person i could think of that did have that sort of clout in the world was the pope and the catholic church (kinda)

i had no intention of slagging you off with it - a different analogy or a few more words on my part would maybe have avoided that impression - sorry about that

In reply to Coel Hellier:


If they choose to lie to gain access to a club which, according to their belief, they 'shouldn't' belong to then the issue is with the individual not the organisation.*

Same as if I turned up for communion because I faniced a bit of wine, I couldn't really kick off becuase of the 2 hours religious mumbo jumbo before I got my hands on some.

*Assuming they do discriminate on this issue, which is, as yet, unproven

In reply to Ridge:


Ehh? Where did you get that question from?

My stance is that schools and scouts should not be coercing children into insincere participation in religious oaths.

In reply to MartF:

the problem lies in the difference between the words inclusive and exclusive

In reply to Coel Hellier:


or maybe its a Christian organization which aims to promote Christian/religious spiritual values rather than coerce. If it is the latter would you object to it?

In reply to MartF:


Who wants to make anyone "scared" of religion?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

It is a bunch of kids who are not wrecking bus shelters or sat atrophied in front of the telly.

The powers that be at BP house might have a view onthe queen and the Big Man, but as an atheist and a republican I knew I was just playing the game when I did the vow stuff, as did the leaders.

It was more pressing to dry tents, stick the kayaks back together, sniff around the guides and get ratted on the international camps.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Wheres your proof of coercion?

In reply to rich:


Basically yes, or rather inclusivity whilst remain true to the founding prinicples. Seems people want to have their cake and eat it.

In reply to Tyler:


I wouldn't object if it were open and clear about its intentions and methods.

At the moment, it can't really decide whether it wants to be inclusive and treat non-religious kids equally, or whether it wants to be a religious organization.

In reply to timjones:


Maybe scouting is different but my wife was a guide leader for a short period and this was certainly not true of the guiding organisation. It quickly became apparant that the guide group was basically an arm of the local evangelist church and expected both guides and leaders to attend Sunday services. My wife did not wish to do this and so left. She also noted that the one muslim guide left shortly after joining too. Although no reason was given it is hard to believe she or her parents felt very welcome in what was clearly part of a Christian set up who did not welcome non-Christians of any sort

In reply to timjones:

>> My stance is that schools and scouts should not be coercing children into insincere participation in religious oaths.


Presenting something to a kid as something he is expected to participate in (in schools or scouts or whatever) is coercive, given their age.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Coel i alwasy get the impression from your posts that you are the offspring of some religious nutters who forced you to partake in weird rituals under the name of 'christianity'. This seems to have given you a massive chip on your shoulder and the feeling that you have to 'defend' all the 'innocent' from being influenced by 'religious fanatics'. Get off your high horse if people don't like the ethos of scouts they don't have to make their kids go.
A movement like scouts can have a strong 'christian (or religious) ethos and try to instill christian values in young people, without being a coersive, bible bashing, lets make 'em all religious, loony thing.

In reply to Tyler:

with you

FFs it is the Scouts. we had muslim lads in our Scouts and the God / Allah/ flying spaghetti monster was not an issue.

i understnad the principle Coel is arguing, but the practicality is the Scouts do a bloody good job.

I got stick from mates who thought it some sort of poncey gay club. They are all fat bastards now who do nothing mor than stand and pontificate in their local.

The scouts gaveme the opportunity to climb, kayak, paraglide, shoot, get my Queen's Scout and see Nidderdale Blodderer's wife's tits.

In reply to MG:


If its anything like Scouting, I suspect she was involved with a sponsored group. A group may be "sponsored" by a church, but there will almost invariably be a non church sponsored group close at hand that will have less extreme views.

I suppose its a bit like supporting United or City

In reply to John Rushby:


Is that, though, a good lesson, to take vows insincerely, with the witnesses knowing you are being insincere?

And is it not treating non-religious kids as second class to require them to pay lip service to oaths they don't mean, when this is not required of religious kids?

In reply to rich:

As far as I can tell there isn't a problem, apart from for the OP who by proxy is 'unbelievably offended' by the wishes of the Scout Organisation. From the people with years of Scouting experience on here it would appear that it isn't in fact a problem, and after all, that is what the post is about.

I'd be interested to see what it's like in the Masons for a bit but I'm unsure of their allegiances and practices, and after all I've heard it's pretty in/exclusive. Ah well, it's optional anyway, I'll probably not bother trying to join...

This post really is like knocking the milk over then crying about it, rather than crying over spilled milk. The milk is still in the glass!

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Who is coercing anyone? To coerce is to persuade an unwilling person to do something by using force or threats. What cases can you cite where force or threats have been employed?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

It is a lesson in realpolitik.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Is that an invite to join your club?

How do your kids feel about religion?

In reply to timjones:


Perhaps, I don't know. The point is though that the literature produced by the central guiding organisation stresses that it is not tied to one religion whereas the reality seems rather different, which to me seems dishonest

In reply to Coel Hellier:
What could be more clear than having an oath which incorporates the line 'To do my duty to God and to the Queen'? It's not exactly ambiguous.

In reply to tony:

assuming that it works the way the stuff posted on here works a six year old boy goes along to beavers - possibly with his existing friends, probably with other people from his school - he plays some games and has some fun for a few weeks

he is then told he has to promise, promise mind you, to "love god" or he's out

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Ah you mean like school football on a Friday afternoon

Personally I stood on the pitch and ignored what I saw as a foolish ritual acted out by braindead morons. It never got to fighting or argument unless one of the cult leaders or members tried forcing us to partake. It never did me any harm and I was still able to take part in the more interesting, fun and informative school activities, just like religion and scouting.

In reply to tatty112:


Well, you could describe run-of-the-mill CofE comprehensives like that, if you wish tatty.


What I am attacking is the idea that religious people get special privileges and that the feelings of non-religious count for less.

So much of this bias is so unconcious that people aren't even aware of it!

For example, I bet that most of the Scout leaders here would see it as hugely wrong to expect a Jewish boy scout to take an oath to Jesus. Yet they are baffled if it is suggested that they should not expect a non-religious boy to take an oath to God.

Why the double standard, unless it is that the opinions of non-religious boys matter less?

In reply to tony:

See my previous posts. Parts of the guiding organisation are certianly coercing guides into attending church.

In reply to timjones:


Yes indeed. School sport is indeed often coercive!

In reply to tony:

>> My stance is that schools and scouts should not be coercing children into insincere participation in religious oaths.


Isn't it blindly obvious that, for example, school assemblies that include worshipping the Christian God are coercive?

They are inevitably coercive unless the kids are frequently told that they can choose not to attend; and that is almost never the case.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
Did you read the .pdf?

They don't actually do that. God is who/ whatever the kid wants it to be in effect.

Also, do you know any 'baffled' Scout Leaders who have been presented with your invented 'problem'

How do your kids feel about religion Coel?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

So why do you feel so uptight about Scouting and religion, whereas I can be more relaxed and seperate school from football?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

it's interesting isn't it

i think it's that religious feelings are more deeply held

but ok to lie about if you want to join the scouts

or the masons . . .

In reply to MG:

Are they coercing them, or are they making the assumption that having joined an organisation with a religious oath, the members are willing and happy to go to church? If people are being forced to go to church against their wishes, then that seems wrong, but on the other hand, if they don't want to go to church, why would they join an organisation where religion plays an active part?

In reply to Coel Hellier:
Why have you introduced the issue of school assemblies into a thread about Scouts? Can you answer my question with reference to Scouts, rather than school assemblies?

In reply to tony:

They are coercing them by saying that unless they do so they are doing everthing that is expected of them as guides and are therefore behaving somehow "badly".

if they don't want to go to church, why would they join an organisation where religion plays an active part?

The organisation states that it is not related to any particular religion yet so a whole range of children may wish to join. In practice however it is clearly Christian and coerces its members in to behaving as Christians. This I think is wrong

In reply to MartF:

>> For example, I bet that most of the Scout leaders here would see it as hugely wrong to expect
>> a Jewish boy scout to take an oath to Jesus. Yet they are baffled if it is suggested that they
>> should not expect a non-religious boy to take an oath to God.


Yes Mart, I know that. That was my point. They don't do it because they see clearly that it is wrong to expect a Jewish boy to take an oath to Jesus.

Yet they can't see that it is equally wrong to expect a non-religious boy to take an oath to the somebody-else's-religious-concept of "God".


Yes, all the ones here are baffled by my suggestion that it is wrong to coerce non-religious kids into insincere religious oaths.

In reply to MG:

Does it force non-Christians who have swore an oath to a different God (Muslims, Hindus, etc) to go to Christian churches? That's certainly wrong.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I see it more as me, as a non-religious person, going along with other peoples quaint but harmless ideas. I don't go round telling little kiddies that Santa isn't real, it's just an extension of that really.

In reply to tony:

There was certainly pressure on my wife, a leader, who is not a Christain to go, yes. And I believe there was also pressure on non-Christian guides as I mentioned above. We seem to agree.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Rubbish. I'm baffled by your stubborn maintenance of the assumption that we all make a big issue of it. Go back and reread some of the posts with your brain in gear and your prejudices in neutral

In reply to tony:


I didn't, MartF did at 14:39, when he talked about what I'd previously said about schools. I was staying out of this thread until then.


OK, sure. If a kid is presented with the opportunity to camping, kayaking, climbing, lots of other stuff that lots of kids will want to do, and then he's told "Oh, you have to say you'll love God and do your duty to God", then that is highly coercive on any kid.

Indeed, simply putting a kid in that sort of situation where he is "expected" to believe in God and go along with words to that effect is coercive.

In reply to MG:


In spite of my avowed hatred of football I still look at the odd match to make sure I'm not mistaken and I've somehow missed the obvious. Maybe it doesn't do any harm to take the same attitude to religion?

In reply to timjones:


If _you_ had read the posts you'd see that I _don't_ assume that most Scout Leaders make a big deal of it. Indeed, I said earlier "In many cases that is exactly what happens, many Scout leaders are exemplary in that regard".

And I'll happily restate that many troops are indeed exemplary. However, the ethos of Scouting still has that element of expecting belief in God and religious faith, sending the message that non-religious kids are in some ways second class and not quite kosher, even if tolerated and indeed welcomed by troops.

In reply to timjones:


Confused. If you are saying I should periodically check to see if I would like to be religious then OK (although I am fairly certain I know what the answer will be). But I don't see how that is relevant to my criticism of an organisation that claims to be a-relgious but then coerces children into attending church.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I suspect most 13 year olds wouldn't bat an eyelid, and wouldn't consider themselves to have been coerced. The only ones likely to be bothered about it are those who have had their atheism drummed into them from an early age, and they presumably wouldn't want to join these pesky god-botherers in the first place.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

How strong is your aetheism then, are you willing to die to keep it as Christians have in the past or would you have a conversion?

nobody is coerced into joining the scouts, they do it voluntarily and accept the rules in passing, the same as any other club you join.

I would hope even you live by Christian principles, and not go around fighting for women, food, or kicking people out of their house as animals do at times.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
Maybe they do, but it hasn't yet made it into text... Regardless, it is an optional organisation with Christian foundations so parents can easily make a decision if they don't think they should be attending such an organisation. I suppose if it was an issue for the child at the time of making their particular promise they could always say they're not happy about it and leave.

How do your kids feel about religion?

I haven't noted any Scout Leaders on here, nevermind ones that are baffled by your ideas.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


And I think you'll find that the Scout Association is wise to this and doesn't upset the applecart over it. So why do you attempt to do exactly that? Are you a member, do you want to become a member? Or are you just causing trouble for the sheer hell of it?

In reply to Coel Hellier:
Let's not let facts get in the way of a good argument eh?

If you'd read the .pdf you'd know that it only mentions doing their duty to God (or Allah, or their Dharma etc) and the Queen.

In reply to tony:


That doesn't make it any less coercive! Indeed, I expect few of the kids in Mao's Red Guards or similar would have seen anything wrong with their indoctrination.

But promising a kid camping trips, climbing trips, kayaking, etc, in return for declarations of religious faith, is most definately coercive.

A similar question: let's say a school promised the kids a kayaking trip, but only to those kids willing to say "I'm not religious and don't believe in God". I bet most 13-yr-olds would see no problem and just say the words; but does that make it acceptable practice?


What about if they just wanted to go camping or kayaking or climbing?

In reply to MG:

Surely it can't be so hard to understand that Scouting (and Guiding?) can have both religious sponsored groups that expect regular attendance at church or the synagogue or the mosque as well as non-sponsored groups who don't? If you don't want to regularly attend church join a non-sponsored group.


Viz Top Tip:

If you support Man Utd don't join the Man City supporters club or buy a season ticket for Man City. Join the Man Utd supporters club instead and buy a Man Utd season ticket. That way you won't feel coerced into attending a load of games you don't want to go to or get loads of Man City propoganda through your letter box

In reply to Jimmy D:

No, my son was really torn when he had to take the oath. He explained to the scoutmaster that he wasn't sure whether he believed in a god of any sort, so didn't want to say those words in the oath. This was entirely off his own bat.

We only found out when he became quite upset because the scoutmaster had told him that "these were just some words we have to say" and "it doesn't matter whether you believe or not, you just say the words".

This early condoning of total hypocrisy by an authority figure affected him quite badly.

In reply to matt25: Coel you turn every thread about religion into a coercive rant that you use to put across your views (ever thought about being a scout leader ) so i don't know why you feel the need to criticise an organisation for wanting to encourage 'faith'. you encourage 'lack of faith' so how is that different?

In reply to MartF:


If the only mention of spirituality/God in Scouting is in the oath itself then it really is empty lip-service.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


<Whispers quietly>

Join the Scouts and keep your religious beliefs to yourself. Its a good bet that if you don't cause trouble no-one else will.

In reply to tatty112:


Tatty, if I were to take kids climbing I would do so regardless of the religious views and I would not require them to say "I think religion is bunk" as the price of the climbing trip.

The Scouts, however, do feel entitled to coerce kids into religious oaths as a price of taking them on trips. That is why it is different.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

They could just ask their Mum or Dad to take them.

In reply to timjones:


My criticism is the lack of openess. From the guide website

"Guiding is for everyone, regardless of race, faith, background or ability."

but this is not what appears to be the case on the ground. To extend your footballing metaphor, it is like buying a Man U ticket only to find Man City playing. But maybe scouts are different

In reply to Tyler:

Wind your neck in Coel.

Your constant babbling about religion is boring at best, but you have really missed the point this time.

We know you object to assemblies at school which you view as 'coercion'. I disgaree, but can see you have a point in that religious assemblies are required by law and children are required to go to school.

But the law doesn't require anyone to join Scouts! So the children are not being coerced as they CHOOSE to go. If we follow your logic then it would be impossible to have any clubs with any form of ethos or rules in case one person disgarees with them, decides to join regardless and claims they are being forced to follow the rules they disagree with!

I might try the same logic at my work and say they are coercing me to work for less money than I would like to be paid and with fewer holidays. I guess they would tell me that if I don't like it I can always leave. The same goes for Scouts.

In reply to timjones:


But it is still a coercive environment where kids are "expected" to be religious, believe in God, and utter religious oaths.

And you see nothing wrong with bribing kids into acquiescing to this by promising camping, climbing and kayaking trips.

Hmm, would you see anything wrong with the Jehovah's witnesses giving kids £20 notes in return for participation in a 20-min bible study? It is the same principle is it not? Chances are that if the kid just "keeps his religious beliefs to himself and doesn't cause trouble" then he'll get the £20. So you see nothing wrong with that?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

See? Now you're beginning to understand that it's not really an issue. And don't forget it's not so much an oath, rather a promise.

Takes the sensationalism out of it somewhat don't you think?

In reply to MG:


In scouting terms its more like buying a ticket at the Man U box office and being a bit surprised when you wind up watching Man U. Its a local team with local players, the other team is just down the road and they're all playing the same game under different flags.

In our local Scouts the now closed Methodist group were called The Methodists, it kind of gave the game away a little bit. The non-sponsored groups tend to be named after the town, village or suburb, whereas the sponsored groups are often named after a church.

In reply to John Rushby:

In general, yes. But my son was then very "literal" in his approach to things, and it didn't half fcuk with his head to be told in effect by an authority figure who he was supposed to respect that lying was OK.

In reply to Chris James:


You mean they are attracted by promises of camping trips, climbing trips, kayaking trips, etc. And the price is that they have to make declarations of religious faith. That is coercing those declarations of faith.

In reply to MartF:

>> If the only mention of spirituality/God in Scouting is in the oath itself then it really is empty lip-service.


Unlike you, I don't like the hypocrisy of insincere oaths. And if this spirituality/God stuff in Scouts really is lip service and a non-issue then why not just ditch it? That would be more honest, would it not?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


I'd sooner you kept your own beliefs to yourself and I'm happy for anyone else to do so. Your constant trumpeting of atheist mantra is as bad as any religious indoctrination IMO.

As long as someone is polite and civil and enjoys what they're I'll enjoy partaking in an activity with them. If they persist in jamming their beliefs dow my throat all the time they become a boring pain in the arse, regardless of what that belief may be!

In reply to tony:


I don't think that's true. I've never tried to hide from my kids that I'm agnostic with a strong leaning towards atheism, and my wife is basically a lapsed catholic, but we've never pushed anything down their throats. They've gone to religious assemblies, carol services etc at school and generally been encouraged to learn about religions and make up their own minds.

They might not have turned out religious but they all seem to have a strong moralistic streak, and hypocrisy seems to piss them all off royally, whether it comes from religious people or not.

In reply to tony:

>> What about if they just wanted to go camping or kayaking or climbing?


Come on, many kids' parents do not have the competence or equipment to take their kids camping, kayaking or climbing. And some may not have the money to send their kids on commerical courses.

Thus, if a kid is offered the opportunity to go on such trips for minimal expense then the kid might well be mad keen. It is then coercive to invite the kid along and then say "OK, but you must take our religious oaths".

In reply to MG:

I suppose they're on OK ground there, as they don't specify: "regardless of faith, or lack thereof".

You could infer from that that it's *not* open to people of no faith.

In reply to matt25:

im heavily involved in scouts myself, being a christian organisation at heart it used to be to a christian god, but they've had to expand that to cover all other religions. someones lack of religion is not a problem in the slightest, as long as they accept that the occasinal church trip is part of what the scouts do.

In reply to timjones:

>> Hmm, would you see anything wrong with the Jehovah's witnesses giving kids £20 notes in
>> return for participation in a 20-min bible study? It is the same principle is it not? Chances
>> are that if the kid just "keeps his religious beliefs to himself and doesn't cause trouble"
>> then he'll get the £20. So you see nothing wrong with that?

I note that you didn't address the above point.


That is a ridiculous claim. What I post here (1) can be ignored by anyone who chooses, (2) is mostly accompanied by robust expressions of opposite viewpoints, and (3) is not accompanied by bribes or coercion. That makes it very, very different from, for example, school assemblies.


I agree. Now, who are the ones who demand declarations of faith as a price of particiation in an activity? It is the religious people in general.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

That's a leap of faith you're taking there. Have I suggested that I like the hypocrasy of insincere oaths (...or promises)? Or is it just sufficiently implied for you to rant about it?

Ditching the promise is an option obviously but if the organisation wants to reinforce it's basic Christian foundations and also encourage people of different beliefs to use their own religion in line with it's moral teaching then that's fine too. After all, it's their club.

I do have sympathies for what happened to Rob Naylor's youngster for example but it is now becoming screamingly obvious that one of your kids has been upset at school about a religious matter and so you've made it your mission to extol the virtues of anti-Godism where you can. That's why I've asked a number of times how your kid/ s feel/ s about religion. This persistent vitriol has to have it's foundations in a traumatic event, otherwise it's just irrational.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

they will also be told how to behave safely but that will be in one ear and out the other in ten minutes.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I am tempted by the idea of scantily clad women parading around the house demonstrating underwear and sex toys but if my wife put on an Anne Summers type party then I wouldn't expect to be allowed to join. Because I didn't fit the criteria - i.e. I am man.

If kids think joining a group that holds religious belief important sounds cool, but are so sure minded of their beliefs that believe that saying the oath would lead them to hypocrisy, then they shouldn't join.

It's a private club! There is no requirement for them to take every kid in the country. What WOULD be unacceptable is for someone to join a club, knowing you disgaree with its ethos, and then demand that the club should change its fundamental beliefs because you don't like them.

You don't seem to have responded to Tony (?)'s question - do you actually know what coercion means as you appear to misuse the word in every religious thread?

In reply to matt25: The thing that worries me about the Scouts isn't the religious basis, it's that it doesn't seem to appeal to the kids who most need it. Those who would really benefit from getting out and doing activities that don't involve putting cars on bricks/bricks through cars! I think maybe they need an image make-over that involves more than a "funky according to boring adults" sweat-shirt. Like a new head scout that happens to also be a premiership footballer? It needs to be seen as more open if the organisation is to grow and improve. And I think more should be done to promote joining the scouts in schools. It's still as great an idea as it's ever been, but I think some parents are less proactive in getting their kids to do much of anything these days...

In reply to timjones:


No, I'm not a member (I'm not eligible to be a member being an adult atheist).

Am I causing trouble just for the hell of it? Well no, this is just one of a number of ways in which non-religious are treated less favorably and are expected not to mind.

It is just expected that a non-religious person will have no problem making an insincere oath (whereas it is accepted that it would be quite wrong to ask a religious person to do so).

And it is just expected that a non-religious person will go along paying lip-service to religion just because doing otherwise is upsetting the apple cart and making a nuisance of oneself.

Sorry, I don't like those attitudes. Why should such things be expected of the non-religious but not the religious?

In reply to Chris James:


Sorry, which question? I may have missed it.

In what way do I misuse the word "coercion"?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

There is no coercion. No-one is forced to do anything - that's what coercion means. If they don't want to swear the oath, there is no compulsion to do anything. There might be scope to compromise, on both sides, but the idea that there is force applied is nonsense. Or do you have evidence where force has been applied?

In reply to Chris James:


OK, and how about the ones who aren't really sure (they are young, afterall) but who get to go camping/kayaking/climbing with their friends if they consent to making declarations of faith? Isn't it clearly coercive on those kids?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Just to remind you it's a promise, from a child, about joining a club - that he'll almost instantaneously forget about, especially when he sees the Kayak, or the Death-slide etc.

I was a Scout but until this thread had no idea about any religious connotation, I was more interested in having fun when I was in the Scouts so any random lines I had to say to join in obviously had no effect on me.

In reply to MartF:


Yes indeed. When I suggested that the oath was just "empty lip service" you replied with "See? Now you're beginning to understand that it's not really an issue". That implies you at least go along with the hypocrisy of insincere oaths and don't regard them as an issue worth fussing over.


Well above you said it was "not really an issue" implying that it was empty lip service. It can't be both important and not important. Make your mind up.


Your supposition is completely false.


Wrong. There is little "vitriol" in anything I've said; and the foundation is simply annoyance that non-religious people are expected to go along with religion while no-one asks the religious people to publically repudiate their faith just to "fit in" and "avoid upsetting the apple cart".


It is not at all irrational. And I don't need lessons on rationality from someone who, hearing a story about a baby being declared dead and then recovering, fails to even consider that the doctor might have made a mistake in declaring the baby dead.

Almost every club has entry requirements.

Would it make sense to join a football club and refuse to play football?

How about joining a bridge club then refusing to play bridge?

Clearly not. So how about if I do join those clubs and not only refuse to play the same games as everyone else, but demand that everyone else stop playing them too?

Would that be fair and sensible?

Membership of a club is not a right, it's a privelege.

In reply to MartF:


But you can't treat the promise as both completely unimportant and also important. Make you mind up. And some kids do indeed care about the sincerity of what they say, even though it seems that you don't.


OK, but not all kids are like you. Some do indeed think about things, the words they're saying, and what they mean.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Now I know why nobody was sat talking to you the last time we were in the vaynol, you are a pedant of the highest order.

In reply to matt25: sorry for not reading the whole thing so i may repeat what has already been said.

the kids can be any religian then wish even aetheist as they can change the word 'god' if there 'god' is not known as 'god', but on the other hand you can become a leader if you are any religion but the are alowed to refuse you if you are an aetheist.

i personal do not see how this can work as if you are not alowed to discriminat then it does not mater if you are an aetheist or not even if you are becoming a leader.

the whole organisation is about teaching kids and giving them a good time not drumming religion in to them.

In reply to matt25:

Matt I run a Scout group and I can tell you that we don't exclude any child on any basis except the safety of the other children. By which I mean violent or abusive conduct that puts the kids or the leaders at risk.

If anyone has experience of their child being excluded for any other reason contact the Association HQ at Gilwell and they will actively find you a group that'll welcome them - as well as taking corrective action.

I have two kids in my unit whose parents objected to "Duty to God"; I simply changed it to "keep true to my beleifs and to do my duty to the Queen".

I also invested an American lad who lived over here for a while and we used the US promise.

Beleive me, any District or County Scout Leader has taken on a duty to provide scouting and in my area we fight a constant battle to open new groups, involve young people and find leaders.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
Despite your need to repeatedly hammer your point home I think you're over-reacting, and deep-down so do you. Let it go, move on, becuase if you're like this at home aswell as on here there's going to be some serious neuroses in your family.

I was a very thoughtful and considerate child and often dwelt on things I maybe shouldn't, but thankfully I had relaxed parents who kept me from worrying about things that didn't really matter.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I have to say, I think this argument made a lot more sense applied to compulsory school assemblies.

No-one forces you to join the Scouts.
Surely it comes down to whether you want to compromise your own beliefs or not:

• You can say your oath, whether you believe it or not, and go and do Scout activities with them
  
• You can go and do all these activities which kids can do in Scouts with some other group. Scouting was after all founded on a Christian core, even though it is now in general a very laissez faire sort of thing, but if the remaining sections which draw inspiration from the movement's Christian core bother you that much then surely you just choose to not sacrifice your principles for the Scouts and go and have your fun elsewhere? I don't see why we should force Scouting to remove all traces of its heritage, since its not a comulsory thing and if its heritage offends people then they have the voluntary choice to go elsewhere.

I'm utterly baffled how "coercion" comes into it. No-one forces you to join the Scouts. Its not as though they are the only place for kids to learn to kayak, for example, I learnt that outside the Scouts - I could maybe go for "coercion" if Scouts were the only place for a kid to learn to kayak, for example, just about, but lets face it, it isn't.

As for your example about the Jehova's witnesses, I'm happy to take you up on that one, since you said no-one had answered it.

I'm perfectly happy with that arrangement. If you as an athiest value £20 more than 20 minutes of your time and your principles, then you take the £20 and go to the bible class. If you value your principles more than £20, then you either go without the money or you find a way to get it elsewhere, like a paper round for example. In its own way, you are still "earning" money by giving up your time and sacrificing your principles to go to a bible group, so I don't see a huge disparity between the two.

AJM

In reply to MartF:


Well yes, I do have a style of pushing a principle hard. As I've said above, I have no quarrel with 98% of what actually happens in about 90% of Scout troops.

The issues here are indeed somewhat minor, however that doesn't mean they're not still worth discussing. And I do find it odd that there are still many instances where non-religious people are expected to go-along with lip service to religion. That is dying out, slowly, but I'll try to help it on its way.


Total time spent concerned with the issue Scout Association and religion this entire year: about 1 hr, in 10-min chunks spread over this afternoon.


Actually, I don't think I've raised a religion-related topic in a face-to-face conversation with anyone this year. At least, I can't remember having done so.

In reply to matt25:

I don't remember making any oaths when I was a cub or a scout... They used to run a flag up and we had prayers in the evening, but in those days you did every day in the morning assembly at school too so it didn't seem odd... It was set up originally to train British youth to go and beat up the Boers so it wouldn't be that surprising I suppose!

In France there are all sorts of scouts, catholic scouts, protestant scouts, muslim scouts, Armenian scouts even communist scouts... but overall there seem to be fewer so it doesn't seem like a good idea to me... I learnt a lot in the scouts, sea scouts... learnt to camp, row, sail make horrible doey things on a stick, lash things, very formative altogether.

In reply to AJM:


As a practical matter, many kids will not have that many opportunities to go camping, kayaking, climbing, etc. Parents on this forum will be pretty unusual in their familiarity with such things. Although there are indeed other organizations, the Scouts is a large one, and for many kids the de facto choice will be doing such things with Scouts or not doing such things.


You are not addressing what I intended by that example. If the JWs did go around offering kids £20 for participating in a JW bible class I would expect that there would be howls of outrage from people concerned that the JWs were bribing and indoctrinating kids. Am I wrong in thinking that?

Yet the Scouts are doing something similar in offering to take non-religious kids on camping/climbing/kayaking trips, but expecting them to make declarations of religious faith as part of the deal.

In reply to matt25:

Just to put a bit of information to this thread:

Scout promise:
http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/library/hqdocs/por/2006/1_2.htm#part_1

Variations to the promise:
http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/library/hqdocs/por/2006/1_5.htm#part_

Religious policy:
http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/library/hqdocs/por/2006/chapter_2.htm#part_1

Leaders and volunteers:
http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/library/hqdocs/por/2006/2_2.htm#part_1 in particular:

<quote>
Note: Paedophilia is a bar to any involvement in the Scout Movement.

Note: With reference to religious belief, the avowed absence of religious belief is a bar to appointment to a Leadership position.
</quote>

In reply to matt25:
I'm just going to add my 2ps worth here.
For what it's worth I am a guide leader, I run a Rainbows unit for 5-7 year old girls. I don't have a recognised faith, I might be an aetheist or maybe an agnostic, it varies for when I can be bothered to think about these things.

In guiding, and I can't speak for Scouting as I've never been nvolved no member has to make a promise. The only point at which making the promise becomes mandatory is to become an adult leader, gain teh Queens Guide Award or the Baden Powell Award. A girl can be an active Brownie or Guide and never make her promise. Some units will be closed sponsored units, these are often associated with churchs, and will contain a religous element. Most units are open to all, will not be openly religous, and even if they meet in a Church Hall girls should not be forced to attend services. Guiding is working very hard to ensure that some older style Guiders get this message. I tell my Rainbows there will be Church Parade on occasions, they know that I won't be there, and many of them attend anyway. They are palced under no pressure to go, the same is true of all the units on my district.
The Guide promise says "I promise that I will do my best, to love my god, to help other people and to keep teh guide law"
The use of teh lower case g is intentional, it's not meant to mean god as in a religous God though it can do it that's what that girl believes. It can mean your inner belief, inyourself, your set of values, A Christian God, Allah, Hindu Gods.......
Guiding is truely open to all, many units exsist in places that are very sicially deprived, with over 60,000 members it must still hold a great value to a great deal of people.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
Coel; normally I'd support you in your 'anti religous' campaigns but on this one I think you're realy making a mountain out of a molehill based on your lack of experience of the Scout movement. Personally I wish they would change the oath or give a clear atheist alternative plus a republican one (it was duty the the Queen that provoked argument more than god in our venture scout unit) but its a small, pedantic point compared to much else, such as the trouble they have getting leaders or the stupid over regulation due to safety worries - much of what I did in the Scouts would now be banned, or at least made very difficult to organise due to an appalling increase in red tape, mostly well intentioned but having very negative effects

In reply to captain paranoia:

Thanks for the info. I quote:

"All Members of the Movement are encouraged to: (1) make every effort to progress in the understanding and observance of the Promise to do their best to do their duty to God; (2) belong to some religious body; (3) carry into daily practice what they profess."

This supports my claim above that Scouting treats being non-religious as second class to being religious.

In reply to Doug:


Thanks!


Yes, to some extent I am, as I've said above.


More based on my pushing of a principle. I think there is merit in doing that . . .
especially when it is just pushing it to an internet audience of whoever cares to read.

In reply to Doug:


Indeed.

The odd thing is that the Scouting Movement really is worldwide, and encourages overcoming national boundaries; indeed, that seemed to be the way BP tried to take it after WW1, as a reaction against nationalist wars.

So why they persevere with a nationalist promise, I don't know.

It may seem to a petty point, but encouraging children to take false oaths is hardly the thing to be doing? Oaths are serious business, and not to be taken lightly. Surely, scouting teaches boys to be honest?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

In the hope of something positive coming from this has this thread provoked any of you with all your skills and knowledge to volunteer as a helper (if not a leader). Most Scout groups would bite your hand off if you can assist in some skilled provision of adventerous activities.

http://www.scouts.org.uk/join/adulthelp.html#HelperParent

In reply to Katie Weston:

Katie, I agree with everything you say but as clarification in Scouts the promise is made at investiture - had no idea guiding doesn't require a promise.

The only ceremonial with a religious element I push is Remembrance Sunday though I do encourage St George's Day

In reply to sutty:

Overlooked this post earlier, so am replying now:


Well I wouldn't martyr myself or burn someone at the stake or suicide bomb over disagreements such as these. I consider that a plus point over those willing to kill/die "for their faith".


No, Sutty, I do not live by Christian principles. I do live (to a decent extent) by the moral principles that are common to much of humanity (some of which Christianity has adopted; for example the Golden Rule was enunciated long before Jesus), but these are not _Christian_ principles.

In reply to all:As a young leader in scouts, I have found it best to describe it in such a way;

'If you have no belief in a god then you have no duty to one therefore you have already carried out that part of the promise, it is the people who do believe in God that more of a problem as they have to obey the laws of the land and the religious laws so have to do more work'

In reply to Coel Hellier:

>I consider that a plus point over those willing to kill/die "for their faith".

No, a lack of faith in your conviction you are right.

In reply to Doug:
You are right.

In reply to Bruce:
Put jam in the doughy-things-on-a-stick.

In reply to theoriginalmoggy:
You learn something every day! In reality nearly every girl makes their promise, but there are some particulary at guide age who delay making their promise as they aren't entirely happy theu can keep it.
I'd also made a mistake in my last post, there are 600,000 current members of Guiding, and 1 in 3 British females have been a Guide. Both Guiding and Scouting have to be doing something right to be so popular all over the country, some of teh biggest waiting lists are for inner city units.

In reply to sutty:

>> I consider that a plus point over those willing to kill/die "for their faith".


Not really, even if I was convinced I was right, I would still take the attitude that we should not pursue disagreements over what is right to the extent of killing each other over them.

Again, I consider that a plus point over the extremists who are willing to pursue religious disputes to the extent of killing. My attitude is far more tolerant, less likely to lead to violence, and more moral.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Encouraged to Coel, not required to. Scouting's about giving opportunities to try, participate, be involved and develop. We don't force, ever. Developing a spiritual awareness is an important part of growing to be a rounded adult, if we encourage your chosen religious beleif and you stick with it great; if however, you reject it - as you have - you have developed a critical awareness of what you need and that's equally great.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

To avoid quoting your whole post, I'll deal with each point as a paragraph.

The first argument is another argument about how much your principles are worth. If you are going to stick by them then there are other places to do this stuff. It may be harder to organise, but your principles are intact. If you are prepared to sacrifice your principles for the convenience factor then thats your choice. There is no obligation to do so.

Perhaps there would be. I don't think its a valid argument though, and I'd tell those who complained about bribery that I didn't agree with them. Kids who don't care will take the money, sit and play noughts and crosses through the class, and then go home. Kids who care about their beliefs would refuse to go.

I suppose I see them all as a form of test. I don't see it as dissimilar to my situation. I could probably find a higher paid job in London than I have at the moment. But I've decided that my wish to live outside London and not commute, and have nearby climbing, is more important to me than the money.

I see the religious principles in this example as similar to my wishes. If you are prepared to sacrifice your principles for the extra convenience or the money or whatever, then thats your choice, and in the end it all comes down to how much they mean to you. If you are prepared to say the words to gain the extra convenience then thats your choice - there is a cost. I don't see your comment that differently from saying that offering to take you kayaking and then saying you have to pay as a part of that deal is bribery. When it comes down to it it costs to sacrifice your principles on one level or another, and it just depends how much that cost is to you.

If it were compulsory then I would agree with you. But its not, its basically about degrees of convenience vs your principles.

AJM

In reply to theoriginalmoggy:


OK, but if they "encourage" religion, religious committment and duty to God then that in itself is treating the views and opinions of non-religious kids as inferior and less desirable. That is treating those kids as second class, and the kids will pick up that message to some extent.

In reply to matt25: You do not have to follow any type of religion in scouting, the religious side of things is basicaly just when taking oath to scouting, once this is over and done with there is no other mention of religious backgrounds at all, although will they take oath to charles once old lizzy pops her clogs?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

No Coel, "encourage" doesn't always mean 'promote', it can also mean 'give opportunity'. That's all we do. If the kid has religious beleifs then we give them the opportunity to explore and develop them. If they are unsure, we give them to opportunity to explore and resolve - either way; if they have none then we look to help them develop their spiritual life (and I'm not using spiritual as an alternative to religious).

What we do insist on, however, is absolute equality regardless of faith or absence of faith in the same way that we are neutral on race, colour, sex, sexuality, ability etc etc.

In reply to Katie Weston:

And we know the reason why? Lack of adult volunteers. 'Cmon guys and gals - get involved rather than just debating.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Its encouragment to consider the options, no-one is forcing them to take up any particular oprion.

In reply to theoriginalmoggy:


I can accept that that is indeed what many troops do, and I have no complaint at all about that. However, it seems to me that the stated official policy is stronger than that.


If that was really the case I'd support you all the way. And I'll accept that in many troops it is the case. But that is not what stated national policy says.

In reply to theoriginalmoggy:


OK, but if there is a shortage of volunteers why state on your website "With reference to religious belief, the avowed absence of religious belief is a bar to appointment to a Leadership position"? Won't that reduce the number of volunteers?

And it doesn't accord with your claim about equality of religious belief with lack of religious belief.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

From the guidelines on spiritual development:

"Members should be encouraged to develop an inner discipline and training; be involved in corporate (group) activities with others; understand the world around them;
help to create a more tolerant and caring society;
discover the need for prayer and worship, both personal and shared." Encouraged to not required to!

And yes it says prayer and worship becuase we include people with religious beleifs and people without them.


From POR chapter 2 - Key Policies (the asteriks are mine for emphasis)
"Accordingly:

The Scout Association is committed to extending Scouting, its Purpose and Method to young people *in all parts of society*.

No young person should *receive less favourable treatment* on the basis of, nor suffer disadvantage by reason of:

class;

ethnic origin, nationality (or statelessness) or race;

gender;

marital or sexual status;

mental or physical ability;

political or *religious belief*.

All Members of the Movement should seek to practise that equality, especially in promoting access to Scouting for young people in all parts of society. The Scout Association opposes all forms of racism."

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Leaders are adults, not children - we do not exclude any child for any reason other than the ones I stated earlier. And volunteers don't have to be leaders. Coel; if you lived dahn sarf, I'd invite you along to my unit to a) put across your POV as part of our spiritual development programme and b) to try to recruit you to help on occasions when the unit goes abing, climbing and hill-walking. Helpers do not have to have a religious beleif.

I was referring, as you are well aware, to the way that we treat the kids in our care.

I'll be frank, Scouting in the UK is a Christianity based organisation, we've made massive efforts to include other faiths and kids with no professed faith. In other countries e.g. middle-east it is (I beleive) Islamic based.

We should, I agree, accept leaders who are aethiest or agnostic in the same way we accept the non-observant or the lapsed. But we do not ever discriminate where the kids are concerned.

In reply to matt25:

What always amazes me is peoples complete lack of understanding of what 'Duty to God and the Queen' actually means.

The queen is the figurehead of England, not a person, any more than the flag is some magical piece of cloth. They represent our country and serve only as a focal point. To do your duty to the queen is to do the best for your country. These may be outdated ideals but remeber the scouts were created during times of war when these ideals were essential to our survival as a nation. I would suggest these are just as important now as we all seem to be losing our national idendity.

The same applies to God. I have never met anyone who believes he is a real person living above the clouds. He is a figurehead and object for humans to use a focus while using the bible/koran etc as a guide to live their life.

Anyone who says they are an atheist has clearly missed this point and I severly question where exacty do they get their morals from.

England is a Christian country. Everyone living here, like it or not, is a Christian. They may call themselves, Jew, Muslim, etc but they are living their lives conforming to our Christian based laws, regardless of who they pray to.

In reply to TimR: the second half of your post is complete rubbish, I'll leave Coel to point out your errors, I've better things to do

In reply to TimR:

I agree with Doug that last sentance is complete garbage

In reply to theoriginalmoggy:
Corection second to last!

In reply to matt25: Well, there's no way I would allow my son to become a Cub/Scout, just as I would never allow him to become a choir boy. I'm sure I don't need to explain further, infact, to do so would probably see the mods banning me again.

In reply to smart guy:

I think I would ban you just for the inference. An extremely serious accusation made about a group of people who do a fabulous amount of good in our world.

And don't try and deny what you meant.

In reply to TimR:

>I would suggest these are just as important now as we all seem to be losing our national idendity.

And our ability to spell.


Bollocks. They're based on Judea-Christian laws with a hint of Ancient Rome (pagan?)/

In reply to matt25:

Hey..I got a Bigotry badge in my troop

BP

In reply to crossdressingrodney:

I couldn't remember how to spell "doughy", thanks... ours were always so blackened by the fire as to be uneatable even with jam.

It's funny that religion would seem to be an issue for scouting these days, judging by this thread at least, as I don't remember it being important to us at all. It was a school scout troop and the leaders were teachers... we didn't have to bother with any of this oath mumbo jumbo, I'm sure. I wonder if society hasn't become more religious since those days (late 50s to early 60s) in some ways... we were forced to go through the motions but it didn't mean anything to most of us, just the ticket to pay to go camping, make aerial rope-ways and set light to things.

I had a fckin' blast in the Scouts. Did some mental things I would never have had the chance to and met cool people from all over the world. Still have heaps of friends I met through the Scouts.

Ahhh the Barr Wood, summer off 77, Ramones and Stranglers on the cassette, Kestrel lager, pot noodles......

In reply to Removed User:

I got kicked out of brownies and that was that

it was the start of my anti-authority stance, I believe <cough>

In reply to Removed User:

It seems that you didn't get exactly overwhelmed by the religious and patriotic aspects of scouting either

I reckon some of the posters must have chosen the wrong troop!

In reply to theoriginalmoggy:


OK, "encouraged", but the fact that there is no equivalent language encouraging them to investigate atheistic veiwpoints tells us that the SA sees religious faith as superior to and more desirable than being non-religious.


Doesn't quite say "or lack thereof". An expectation to say a Duty-to-God oath does "treat less favourably" those kids who are not religious and don't believe in God.

To treat _every_ kid equitably you need a clearly stated alternative promise that doesn't mention god of any sort, suitable for non-religious kids who don't believe in any god/gods. At the moment those kids are still second class, expected to adopt the wording of somebody else's religious view.


OK fine, but that was basically my point all along. That it is a religious-based organization that sends the message to non-religious kids that being non-religious is less desirable and "second class" to being religious, any religion so long as you pick one of them!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Ha ha .... we had our fingers crossed at the Queen bit and a special salute for the Union flag.

Our leader was a devout Catholic and a Unionist (go figure in Central Scotland...)but you can only fight the system from within (ahem).

There was always the chance to play with axes, bush saws, knives, fires, rope swings, cans of cheap lager, weekends away from yer Maw with one bath on a Thursday and the next on Sunday. Politics and religion were adult shit best left alone.

In reply to TimR:


"God" is a concept rooted in a particular religious view, that a conscious creative agency deliberately created the world and us and cares about our behaviour.

It is thus not a suitable word as an "object of focus" for those of us who don't agree with that view.


On the contrary, most people who say they are atheist understand that point very well.


Well not from the Koran/Bible, that's for sure. Actually, they get if from the same place as everybody else, namely their innate biology and genetic moral programming.


Let's see, please give me the Biblical references for trial by jury, right to silence, habeas corpus, double jeopardy, independent judiciary, etc.

And how many of the Ten Commandments are enshrined in our laws? Umm, only about 2 out of 10? (lying and murder); 3 if you count "false witness" to mean lying in court. The overlap is no more than with many other pre-Christian and non-Christian law codes.

In fact, our laws originated from a mix of pre-Christian Celtic law and pre-Christian Roman law and pre-Christian Saxon and Danish law.

Suprisingly little of our law can be traced to the Bible, and those bits that are most likely Biblical, like the illegality of homosexuality, have now been abandoned in our more enlightened times.

In reply to Coel: OK then I'm a Christian Atheist then as I don't believe in the physical presence of god, just an omnipresent force to do good.
I won't bother disciplining my kids either because their innate biology and genetic moral programming will mean they will grow up to be model citizens.
I think you'll find if you look closely that all the ten commandments have similar laws. The fact that they have evolved from Pagan rules doesn't mean that they are not Christian. The church has had a massive influence in moulding those laws into a workable framework over the last few centuries. If we were a Muslim country we might have laws allowing us to slaughter goats in our back gardens willy nilly. Pehaps if we had Jewish laws, nothing would get done after sundown on Fridays.

In reply to TimR:


Are you sure we don't have jewish laws. Hal;f the population seem to see it as some sort of right to skive off work for the entire weekend

In reply to TimR:


oh dear, you not quite getting it are you


ermm i thought they were different, hence why ten and not one


nope it just means they got nicked, what it does mean is it cannot be claimed to be a purely christian virtue.



not really they had mostly separate courts,.


leaving aside the work slowing down after the friday pub lunch. exactly how are you distinguishing that from a Sunday?

In reply to TimR:


An "omnipresent force to do good" sounds like a "God" to me, so I don't think you're an atheist.


You would be very dumb not to discipline them. The taste of a cake may depend on the ingredients and recipe, but it still needs to be backed at the right temperature for the right time.

In the same way, our moral senses might be programmed by our genes, but they still need a good upbringing to develop properly. Indeed, the nurturing and disciplining behaviour of parents is one of the things programmed into us by our genes!


No they don't, at least not nowadays.


Sure, and so did a lot of other influences.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
Hi Coel,

Didn't want you to think I was ignoring your comments, but spent the weekend on camp with my Christian/Jewish/agnostic/could be athiest Explorers

So, I should really thank you because I asked the kids the question - "Does the promise make feel you second-class if you don't believe in God?" which ended up with a lively debate around the morality of making a promise if you don't beleive the words but understand the intent etc etc; so again thanks that knocked off a good 90-mins around the campfire.

I don't think so, the SA sees having a spiritual dimension to your life as being more desirable than having a non-religious dimension.
No it doesn't, because almost any rational person would take that as read - yes there are bigots who won't but as I said before let the SA know and they'll endeavour to assist if discrimination is taking place.


As I've said before; there are ways of not having to state duty to god in the promise. When I changed the promise for the atheist parents it was a form of words agreed by me, the child, his parents and the then District Comissioner.

No Coel, to treat every kid equally, you treat every kid equally. That's all it needs.

It's not a religious-based organisation; it is an organisation for young people that has a spiritual dimension (called beleifs and attitude) to go along with Outdoors, Community, Fitness and International dimensions

The SA's intention is to encourage open-minded exploration of beleifs, attitudes and the kids spiritual well-being. I see from your profile that you have an interest in science - does that not require open mindedness?

In reply to theoriginalmoggy:


Any chance of a quick summary of the kids' responses?

>> Doesn't quite say "or lack thereof".


However, the Scout Association lists alternative oaths for kids of several different religions. Notably there is no listed alternative for kids of no religion who lack belief in God (even though such kids would be far more numerous than some of the religions explicitly mentioned).

That is not treating kids who lack religion as fully equal. It is overlooking them, or regarding them as less important so they don't need to be considered, or implying that being religious is better than being non-religious such that the kids should adopt one of the religious variants (doesn't matter which one so long as they pick one).


Well good, but the SA should have a nationally agreed alterative promise for the non-religious kids (who are surely quite numerous in the UK nowadays), just like they do for various minority religions. It should not be something the kid has to specifically ask for and get approval of -- that is not treating the kid equally with others.


If you read the official line on the promise
www.scoutbase.org.uk/library/hqdocs/facts/pdfs/fs322016.pdf
it talks about lots of different faiths, and even says you can ask advice for members of other "faiths or religions".

But there is no mention at all of non-religious kids who lack belief in God, no statement about what they say, no indication of whether they are welcome. That is NOT treating those kids as equal to religious kids.


Absolutely. But shouldn't then the SA also "encourage open-minded exploration" of beliefs, attitudes and world-views that do NOT involve any God? And shouldn't the SA be explicitly welcoming of such kids in the official variations on the oath and in the literature about the oath?

In reply to Coel Hellier:
But Coel you do have a faith. You have stated that you believe that everyone has :

innate biology and genetic moral programming

Now if that isn't blind faith against all the contrary indications I don't know what is.

In reply to theoriginalmoggy:


Sorry, but, as an aetheist, I'm barred from becoming a leader. Just like paedophiles are barred.

I don't really appreciate being treated on a par with paedophiles just because I don't need a spiritual prop to give me meaning to life, or to give me a moral compass. Since I'm not welcome as a leader, I have no intention of volunteering.

And as for the 'rounded adult' comment, I'll just bite my tongue.

In reply to TimR:


<sigh>

<an explanation, once again, for the hard of empathising>

We get our morals from being able to empathise with other people; to be able to put ourselves in their place, and imagine how they would feel. And then we treat other people in the way we would wish to be treated ourselves.

Expressed succintly:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

It's really very simple, and doesn't involve a mythical superbeing, internally inconsistent holy texts, and the subsequent myriad (mis)interpretations.

In reply to captain paranoia:

and you were born with those views were you?

In reply to TimR:


I think you may be confusing me with your simplistic view of Coel's suggestion that we have some innate moral sense.

I don't think we have much innate moral sense; some primitive tribal behaviours, possibly, but I think our cognitive processes override those quite easily.

In reply to TimR:


To answer your question more directly, my sense of morals was developed as a child, by my parents asking me "how would you feel if someone did that to you?". And, since I could imagine how I would feel if someone did something 'wrong' to me, I saw that I should not do that thing to other people. As I said; empathy.

In reply to matt25:

Why do so many people seem to think that the world and organisations need to conform to their view of it?

I was a scout and said the promise many times, attended church etc. I really enjoyed it, learnt about being outdoors, they took me on my first camp etc.

Am I now a christian? No, but I have christian morals and consider myself religious.

Does the scout association discriminate against anyone? No. If you have to think of atheism when you say god- do it at least you would be being true to oneself which is what scouting is all about.

Why do people always have to shout about being discriminated against? Why do people want to force seccularism down our throats?

Our country comes from Christian roots and christian morals seem to me to a far better bet than the morals some other people seem to have in this world. Christian values are based on tolerance and understanding to name but a few. Perhaps people should take pride in our history and the moral fabric that has shaped our nation. They should consider themselves fortunate that they're able to moan about intolerances in relative peace but don't force your views down our throats as you then mock the very thing that you tirade against and the system that enabled you to do it in the first place.

In reply to captain paranoia: but that is a fairly large leap to believe that the whole of society could work this way.

Religion in whatever form is the basis for all societies. The threat of something bad happening to you if you do wrong is what prevents you from doing most bad things. Even if its just losing all your friends because you are nasty to them.

I'm not saying that everyone has to have a religion, as religion is probably an outdated concept and we have moved on, particularly in the UK. But what I can't believe is that people like Coel can say that it never has been of any use.

Everyone has to have a faith, even if its the atheists faith that humans will naturally all be good to each other, which I'm still really struggling with.

In reply to TimR: Thanks MrEd for replying in a much better way than I can. Our posts crossed in the ether.

In reply to what a stupid topic:

1. The SA does a huge amount of good.
2. It is a religous organisation that is gradually changing with the times. It will do this at its' own pace as dictated by its' members not as a result of hypothetical situations.
3. Whenever the issue of atheism arises the local District comissioner and leaders can resolve the problem with their own delegated authority.
4. No-one has posted to say that they actually were discriminated against (Cap'n Paranoia - should you actually volunteer rather than complain from a point of principle I'm sure a way could be found for you to lead. You'd be great for the organisation with your building stoves etc. but if you're not going to be involved then the SA has no reason to be involved with your concerns).

OP - send your kids to a few meetings, ask if they want to make the promise. If they don't like the phrasing then let them raise the issue. I'll be suprised if there's no accomodation to suit them. Right now you're not involved neither are your kids so no-one is going to waste time on the subject...

A few years on if enough atheist children ask for the same then it's likely these accommodations will filter into the constitution (no-one cares about the parents belief - this is an organisation for young people not adults with an agenda). The organisation evolved to accomodate a multi-cultural Britain it can evolve to accomodate a Godless one...

In reply to TimR:


So in other words laws and social structure. Please explain what religion, which has often in the past given opt out clauses has to do with this.


sorry can you please provide quotes of atheists saying that, i think you might be getting confused with extreme libertarians.

As for inbuilt morality, there does appear to be some evidence for that particularly with reference to empathy. There are a various psychological terms for people who lack this ability (sociopath/psychopath etc) with various causes provided. Look up a bloke called Gage for an example of it being caused by physical trauma.

In reply to dissonance:

Laws and social structure. Exactly. Based on the values and morals within the religion chosen. With a different religion- you'd have very different laws. For example take a look at Islamic law does that not have anything to do with religion?

With this march towards seccularims what laws are we going to end up with? What morals does seccularism hold? Would it be preferable to the system we have now?

I make the point that the values this country is based on are good values. They happen to be Christian values. Many like myself respect and admire these values despite taking issue with some of the teachings and practices and not being Christian. I find the lack of moral direction to be a continuing problem in our society and related to our sense of national identity.

Why do people find it so hard to admit that the values created in this country that people have fought and died for are good ones? Religion has its faults but we should be proud of our history and where we come from. Whether you're christian or have been accepted into this country of understanding and are free to practice whatever faith you may choose. All I ask is that these people acknowledge the moral framework that allowed them to do this and not criticise when it asks for something back in return. That is asks for the respect it deserves.

In reply to dissonance:

Well like everything in life nothing is black and white and there is a sliding scale with everyone being on a different point of em-pathy to syco-pathy scale. This is dependent on a number of factors, including on what sort of a day you've had. (and what car you are driving

In reply to TimR:

Do you want to form a tag team? Nice to see that i'm not totally isolated on this issue.

In reply to timjones:



So you find it a real effort not to believe in Unicorns then? Or do you actually believe in them?

In reply to Mr Ed:


right where shall we start.
The old traditional, what about slavery all fine and dandy in Christianity, Jesus didnt even give the centurion a lecture on not keeping slaves after all. However no longer considered ok in the uk. So is that anything to do with religion?


yes and that should give you a clue about the relation of the church to British law, to give you a starting point it was split off into ecclesiastical law in Norman times.


well, considering it has been secular since effectively Norman times and definitely the reformation i dont think too much really.


sorry, which Christian values exactly? Coptic, Eastern Orthodox, Catholic etc?



You mean as opposed to in the past?
There is more of filth and squalid misery near those great thorough-fares than in any part of this mighty city.

the landlord hits everybody, and everybody hits the landlord; the barmaids scream; the police come in; the rest is a confused mixture of arms, legs, staves, torn coats, shouting, and struggling. Some of the party are borne off to the station-house, and the remainder slink home to beat their wives for complaining, and kick the children for daring to be hungry

good old victorians hey.




ermm, not really no however i am struggling to see your connection with Christianity.


excellent, which part of history do you want to discuss?
magna carta and its effects or the black death and its on the present state?


right, so if you are not Christian then you need accepting?


sure once you successfully link it to Christianity we might get somewhere


yup and it gets the respect it deserves.

In reply to TimR:


yup, and so the relationship to religion is what exactly.

In reply to Mr Ed:


Not beliving in god does not mean that you have no morals.

For example, Coel has been saying that he feels that it is wrong to encourage children to lie, while several Christians have said that atheists can become scouts as long as they are willing to lie and "not upset the applecart".

Which of these two views would you say was more moral?

In reply to TimR:


I don't do bad things because I understand that it will hurt other people, and I don't want to hurt other people.

I don't think anything bad will happen to me if I do bad things.

In reply to tlm:

I don't believe in Unicorns. I do however believe in dogs, cats, cows, pigs, horses and sheep. And I believe that dinosaurs once roamed the earth.

In reply to TimR:


Well it isn't actually, many countries have constitutions which clearly separate the state from religion and limit the teaching of religion in schools, except as part of history lessons and such like, France and the USA are examples. Britain still has an established state religion (C of E) and no written constitution (ie. a single document, it has a sort of collective, pragmatic bunch of texts)... in this it is more the exception tha the rule.

In reply to Mr Ed: "'Whether you're christian or have been accepted into this country of understanding"

Maybe you should think a little before posting such rubbish - many of us were born in Britain but are not christian (eg we may be atheist, jewish, sikh etc), do we have to ask permission from the 'christians' to be 'accepted' in our own country ? a bizarre idea

No wonder Coel gets irate at the christians !

In reply to TimR:


It is not "faith", it is a sensible assessment based on very large amounts of evidence.

The idea that human children are "blank slates" with no innate moral intuition, and that the only moral sense is that which culture and upbringing give them, is absolutely potty.

(That, however, does not deny that culture and upbringing are not important, it is just that they mold our innate moral senses, rather than working on a blank slate.)

In reply to Mr Ed:


No, based more fundamentally on human values that are part of our biology and more fundamental than any religion.


This overlooks the large amount that is in common in different legal systems.


The "march to secularism" will lead us much where we are now in Western Europe, our laws already are secularised to a large extent.


No they're not. Christianity has been _one_ influence, yes, but only one among several.


They are indeed good ones! But they are not "Christian" ones, they are good humanistic ones. Christians have a bad habit of claiming as a credit to their religion much that is much wider than their religion and not really the product of their religion.


The "moral framework" of this country that you so laud is as much a product of the _rejection_ of Christianity that started occurring in the Enlightenment and had progressed since then.

When Christians were thoroughly in charge, in the middle ages, we had feudalism, totalitarianism, no equality, few civil rights, few freedoms, etc.

And the transition to what we have now was helped along its way by those who rejected Christianity such as David Hume, J.S. Mill and Tom Paine.

It is no coincidence that the generally good situtation we have now is accompanied by church attendance of only a few percent of the population.

In reply to timjones:


I don't believe in god. I do however believe in dogs, cats, cows, pigs, horses and sheep. And I believe that dinosaurs once roamed the earth.

To me, it is no effort to not believe in god. To me, god is on a par with unicorns. However, I am quite happy to understand that this is not the case for other people, and that they like believing in god, and, in fact, may have no choice about whether or not they believe in god. (I couldn't believe in god, even if I wanted to!!!

In reply to The Crow:


Maybe Cap'n Paranoia is capable of reading the official rules, which state quite clearly that he is not welcome. Why does it say that unless the SA are trying to discourage him from volunteering?

And just maybe Cap'n Paranoia _would_ volunteer if the SA didn't actively discourage him!


You are asking quite a lot of 11-yr-old kids to expect them to join and then take issue with some of the fundamental rules established by adults.


Well OK, but that means that the SA is making no attempt to reach out to and welcome such kids.

If such kids are not actively welcomed, and indeed actively discouraged (by the requirement for a religious oath, with no stated alternative for non-religious kids) then is it suprising that some feel put off?

Do you want to welcome such kids or not?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


And when atheists have been throuroughly in charge, as in the USSR and China, we had we had totalitarianism, no equality, few civil rights, few freedoms, etc.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Very true, and I don't think you could find any real psychology or science to support that idea. All the widely accepted work in the field - popper, chomsky and all the rest - supports the idea that we have inbuilt predispositions to language, structure, morality and so on which are then informed and refined by our upbringing.

I've said this before, but it seems very obvious that morality springs not from any supernatural source but from the near-universal recognition by all people that all living creatures dislike suffering and seek happiness - and that therefore suffering is undesirable and happiness is desirable.

In reply to Mr Ed:


So why, then, did Christians burn each other at the stake for having the wrong opinion about theological matters?


We do! I take pride that this nation has largely moved on from Christian values and burnings-at-the-stake and moved to a better, humanistic morality based on tolerance and understanding.


Tom Paine both mocked Christianity in "Age of Reason" and argued for democracy and human rights in "Common Sense" and "Rights of Man". John Mill rejected Christianity and argued for freedom and equality in "On Liberty" and "The Subjegation of Women".

Don't worry, I _am_ proud of our history and the throwing off of Christianity that gave us our current freedoms and tolerance.

In reply to tlm:


I've tried but it just doesn't work... sometimes it would be nice but I can't manage it

In reply to niggle:


The salient point, niggle, was that they were totalitarian communists. Your point should read "And when totalitarian communists have been throuroughly in charge, as in the USSR and China, we had we had totalitarianism, no equality, few civil rights, few freedoms, etc."

I agree. The things most bad about those communism systems were the ideas that you should believe that the communist system was best regardless of evidence, that loyalty to the system was more important than clear thinking, questioning and finding the truth. They had penalties for "heresy" and questionning just like religions have done. It was, in those respects, a quasi-religious system, and that was what was wrong with it.

In reply to niggle:

Hmmm... It doesn't have to spring from some vague dislike of suffering - after all, we are quite happy to cause suffering to chickens if we get to eat them. It can simply spring from evolutionary advantage.

If you have a species which kill each other as a matter of routine, they will not breed and reproduce as successfully as a species which do not kill one another.

Likewise, where you have a species which work together as a tribe, feeding each other when they are sick, looking after the young, cooperating to complete tasks such as hunting prey, then they are going to breed and reproduce more successfully that a species which do not work together.

It isn't complicated, kind, mystical or religious - just common sense.

In reply to niggle:


A whole niggle post with which I agree!

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Defender of your faith - "Those guys weren't real atheists"!

So their religious beliefs don't matter - yet you blame the religious beliefs of past christians for their mistakes?

That makes no sense because you're not comparing like with like.

In reply to tlm:


There's nothing "vague" about disliking suffering!

Given a choice between yourself and your family suffering starvation, and a chicken suffering death, the choice is clear. Of course there are more steps these days, but that's the root of the decision.


I think this idea's been pretty well discredited because there are so many organisms which destroy the very resources needed for their survival, such as viruses which kill their hosts.

I seem to remember hearing someone - maybe it was Richard Dawkins actually - reducing the older Darwinian axiom that organisms exist to survive down to the idea that organisms exist to expend energy.

Coel might know - was that Dawkins?

In reply to niggle:

>> The salient point, niggle, was that they were totalitarian communists.


They might well have been "real atheists" just as they were real "men", real "wearers of trousers", real "fathers", etc. But the motivation for their totalitarianism, and thus the _salient_ point, was their communist ideology.


Yes indeed. Past Christians have been motivated by their religion -- they said so! The Soviet Union and Mao's China were motivated by their communism -- they said so!

If you want me to agree that totalitarian communism is as bad as totalitarian religion then I'll happily do so in spades.

In reply to niggle:

But why? Why would the choice be clear? (It is, of course, a clear choice to me! I'm not saying I would choose the chicken over my family!) I'm just asking why this should be the case? Obviously, if there was a person that chose to kill their family and feed them to the chicken, then that person's genes would not get passed on to another generation. So it would be an evolutionary disadvantage.


But they don't kill the thing needed for their survival, do they? Otherwise, they wouldn't survive, and would become extinct. Viruses can survive with no host, as a load of crystals, until they find a new host....


I always think of organisms being - hmmm... I have a picture in my mind to describe it, but it isn't something that I can type!!!

The sun gives all of our energy, and ultimately, energy is lost from our planet as heat and light. And I see this as like a waterfall, where energy is moving in a stream. And I see organisms as little water wheels, which slow down the movement of that energy and make it's passage slower, while using the energy to fuel their lives.... I mean - nothing can "expend" energy as such, but can only convert it into a different form of energy (I know that it isn't as simple as that)

In reply to niggle:


Well not really, viruses tend to evolve to become less virulent in order that they don't kill their hosts.


Doesn't sound like it to me, though it all depends what one means by "exist to". They weren't deliberately planned to do anything.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Exactly.

Sadly for your point, atheism is an integral part of communism, so it was at least part of the motivation.

It would be stupidly simplistic to claim that it was the only cause though, just as I'm sure most people would agree that greed, politics, anger and jealousy had a lot to do with the things early christians did.

In reply to tlm:


Good thinking, but I see a flaw - this presupposes that our genes plan ahead to ensure their survival. Clearly they don't, they exist to mechanically execute a function.

In reply to niggle:


No, atheism is not an integral part of communism, you can easily have thesitic communism. Indeed one of the places communism actually works are the small-scale religious communes we call monasterys. Similarly, movements such as "liberation theology" mix religion and communist doctrines.

The communist ideology of Mao etal was the motivating factor that led to his oppressions. Mao's atheism was incidental to that, as shown, for example, by the fact that he oppressed atheistic religions such as Tibetan Buddhism just as much as any other ideologies that competed with his communism.

In reply to niggle:


There is no flaw, it is just that genes that act in the way tlm describes survive and propogate, and those that don't, don't. Thus the ones that are now around us are ones that do! How brilliantly simple Charlie Darwin's idea was!

In reply to niggle:


There was nothing in that statement suggesting they do plan. It is just the outcome tends to be the more (for want of a better word) benign genes survive.

Some of you lot could sook the fun out of Christmas......

In reply to Removed User:

yup damn christians certainly do, whats wrong with the traditional midwinter feast?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Yes but Mao and Stalin's version of communism were atheistic, so that's utterly irrelevant.


Tibetan Buddhism is not atheistic. It contains a vast number of divine beings and describes their aspects, families and actions in detail.

In reply to niggle:


Not at all.

One person's genes, unplanned, kill the family. That is the end of that set of genes. They now no longer exist.

Another person's genes, unplanned, kill the chicken. the family survive, with the chicken killing genes in them. And so they live to kill chickens another day.

Genes don't "plan" to do anything. They do what they are pre programmed to do, and then either get passed on, or don't get passed on. There are no "good" genes, or "bad" genes, just genes which suit the organism to survive in the envirmonment in which it finds itself (or not survive, as the case may be).

In reply to niggle:

>> No, atheism is not an integral part of communism, you can easily have thesitic communism.


Yes, but it was _incidentally_ atheistic in the sense that the atheism was not one of the motivating factors.


It is atheistic with respect to the supreme creator-God of western religions. Yes, some forms of it have beings which are "other forms of life" which you can call "gods", but these are still dependent beings, just like we are.

In reply to dissonance:

Ha ha... if it has fun, I'm sure the fun could be sooked oot.....

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Ha! Ha! Ha!

So anything that isn't western and doesn't feature a western creator God is atheism?

What nonsense. Tibetan Buddhism contains gods and demons. They even call them gods and demons.

In reply to matt25:

It hasn't changed that much - basically the oath is still just a nod, though I was sure it had changed anyway.

In reply to kathrync:

Look at point 3:
http://www.scoutbase.org.uk/library/hqdocs/eqopps/eo-rel-a.htm

Atheists are explicitly debarred from being leaders in the SA.
I am involved in Scouting as an activities assessor/instructor but am not allowed to be a "leader" as I don't follow a religion and would describe myself as an atheist. I wasn't prepared to lie on the application form.

I also find it annoying that just because I am an atheist, for some reason it's assumed I have lower morals than someone who follows (any sort of) faith.

In reply to Davy Virdee:

I didn't lie on the application form! I know what the rules are supposed to be, but at the time there were two cub packs in that district in danger of closing because they didn't have leaders. I was willing to accompany the kids to St Georges Day/Remembrance Day (church twice a year won't kill me) and that was enough for them...better for them to bend the rules a bit than see a cub pack close when there is a willing and able volunteer available!

K