'Rogue' UK Girl Guide troop won't use new non-religious promise, excludes new leader

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

The Christian leaders of a troop of Girl Guides are defying orders from their national HQ to scrap the old promise to ‘love my God’.

 

A controversial decision was made in June to abandon allegiance to God, with the traditional pledge replaced with the words ‘be true to myself and develop my beliefs’.

 

The new promise comes into effect from September 1. But last night it was revealed that a group of ‘rogue’ Girl Guide leaders have vowed that they will stick with the old promise and defy the line set by Girlguiding UK, the national body. The move has split the group – an atheist Girl Guide leader who recently joined has enlisted an atheist pressure group to fight on her behalf to adopt the new pledge.

...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...fy-orders.html

[Twocubdad]

Despicable. These women should be jailed for hate crimes. How dare they publicly utter something so hateful as professing their love of God.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

It appears their "love of god" means excluding people who don't believe the same as them, and also breaking the rules of the organization. Why don't they start their own organization instead of trying to change the one they're in?

[moosetracker]

Well the new saying IS much more longer.. I too would resist anything that makes something longer & harder.. Seriously though Merlyn here is where we split.. Though I would be fine with some change to include atheists, I would expect Atheists to come in respecting the beliefs of others.. Probably if this happened to BSA, then I would end up trying to appease by allowing both the old & new oaths to be done, and you can pick the one you like, and stay silent and RESPECTFUL while the other group says the one they like..

 

This may not be what National would be happy with, but I don't believe that atheist should come in and disrespect the beliefs of others... Probably over the course of cycle of scouts in & out of the unit, the whole group of newer scouts would be happy to just pick up the newer oath.. Unless of course they had parents with "issues".. (Ok make that two cycles.)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Seriously though Merlyn here is where we split.. Though I would be fine with some change to include atheists, I would expect Atheists to come in respecting the beliefs of others.. Probably if this happened to BSA, then I would end up trying to appease by allowing both the old & new oaths to be done, and you can pick the one you like, and stay silent and RESPECTFUL while the other group says the one they like..

 

What's that got to do with this story? The leaders of this GG troop are the ones not respecting the atheist.

 

And if you're referring to "Why don't they start their own organization instead of trying to change the one they're in?", your sarcasm meter is busted.

[Cambridgeskip]

You see your problem here is that you've taken something written in The Daily mail at face value. Alas this paper has a similar reputation in the UK as Fox News does in the USA. It is so biased and utterly dishonest on pretty much everything that it is referred to as The Daily Hate. I'm not sure what the truth of this matter is but I'd put a sizeable bet on it not being what was written here.

[moosetracker]

Merlin Leroy - No, I got the sarcasm.. It is just that I also sense you are pointing to the GG troop as the only one acting wrong in this story.. Since the story indicates that the atheist is not trying to find compromise, either by asking that both pledges are said, or looking if there is a different troop in the area that has conformed.. I do not see the GG troop as the only one acting incorrectly.. Also my comment is based on the fact the promise was changed by National to only respect the atheists and not the religious base that has been their original base group and I assume is still the greater portion of the group.. The change was made because atheist came into the group and instead of looking for a compromise that would make each group happy, they disrespected the beliefs of the group they were entering and lobbied National to only placate to their beliefs.. This action of atheists is why I am much more vocal about supporting the inclusion of atheists in BSA, and only slightly siding with you about including atheists..

 

Homosexuals want to be in scouting to be part of the group, and though homophobias will claim that they will insist that we all become homosexuals, or are joining in order to rape us all in our sleep, (which is pure bunk), They may push hard to be accepted equally, but they do not push that everyone become homosexuals. I can respect that. I have no problem with a group that just wants to be accepted..

 

If this was the only reason behind atheists wanting to join, I would be behind them also 100%.. For all atheists who this is their only agenda, I am behind them 100%.. But there is the faction of atheist who want to enter, then kill the religious tradition of BSA, by stamping out any religious aspect.. That group I am NOT welcoming, because they will NOT be respectful of others.. Therefore I can only see my support for this effort as somewhere between 60 to 75% based on what I estimate is the "normal people" atheist group and the "activist" atheist group..

 

With homosexuals, I also do not believe in local option.. Meaning that no unit should be forced to accept homosexuals if they are totally against them. I don't see it healthy for either party. The homosexuals should want to go to a group where they are welcomed and made to feel part of the group.. Obviously this group and this atheist are not a good mix. The atheist should look for a group that accepts her with open arms, then force compliance by a group that does not want to change.

 

(The comments above are based on the article as written)

 

OK Cambridgeskip.. You have stated the story is not accurate.. Is this because this rag has a reputation of never having a correct story.. Or do you happen to know the true story.. Have more respectable news agencies debunked this story, where you can give us the more accurate story?.. Even FOX can every now and then do a story that is not debunked.. Or is just corrected for their snarkiness or biased on the subject.. I did not really see which side they were pushing in this story. It seemed more like a report really created a demon or an angel, it just seemed to report both sides of the argument. So I wasn't able to pick out the pure bunk..

[Cambridgeskip]

Moose - I cant confess to having seen any other news source report this story but neither have I gone looking. Neither have I set out to research the story to debunk it. Time and inclination frankly don't allow it. So, you may ask, why have I been so bold as to suggest the truth is something else. Experience. Every time the Mail prints something about a subject I have a decent amount of knowledge on I find myself able to rip it apart with out so much as lifting a finger. An example. Take this story in the Mail where to read it you would think that scouts in the UK were banned from using knives. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211475/Britains-blade-culture-claims-victim--Scouts-penknives.html Utter nonsense. They simply cherry picked a few quotes from an article in the UK leaders magazine which gave an over view of our horrendously complicated knife law and turned that into knives are banned. The truth? Scouts should bring knives to scouts or camps when told to and to avoid any possible problem with the police have them in a bag rather than their pocket. How is that banned? Next up we have this article which says we have a special uniform has been introduced for Muslim girls. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2122446/The-new-Scout-uniform-Muslim-girls.html The truth? Utter nonsense. Both this dress and the t-shirt which they claim is normal uniform (a green long sleeved shirt, and dark blue combats with a group necker is normal uniform) are part of the iScout range which is baiscally an optional, casual set of clothing for wearing at times when full uniform is not appropriate. I personally have a very comfy iScout hoody that I bought a couple of sizes to large to put over multiple layers when it gets a bit chilly on camp. This dress was simply to provide something appropriate for girls from Muslim families in a similar vein. As it happens its actually very popular with non muslim female scouts. It basically follows the Mail's general editorial policy on scouts and guides which can be sumed up as "Baden Powell would be turning in his grave". I can give numerous more examples surrounding the proposed new promise, sex education, girls in scouts and plenty more. All of which cherry pick quotes and facts and turn the story into a lot of old nonsense. Ever time there are stories about scouts or guides or something else I know plenty about (I'd go for tax, lower division football and hill walking and climbing as my other speciality subjects) I can pick huge gaping holes in the story. All of our news papers are biased to one side of the political spectrum (right wing - Daily Mail, Daily Express, The Sun, The Times, The Telegraph, left wing, the Guardian, the Independent, The Mirror, The Scotsman) and to a greater or lessor or extent but the Mail is to be singled out for being the most outrageous of the lot. In short, its not worth the paper its written on.

[moosetracker]

Fair enough Cambridgeskip, just thought if you had more to the story, you could enlighten us..

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

You see your problem here is that you've taken something written in The Daily mail at face value.

 

It's also in the Telegraph and on the website of the National Secular Society, but you apparently aren't interested in doing any checking or you'd know that already.

 

It is just that I also sense you are pointing to the GG troop as the only one acting wrong in this story..

 

Hey, they're disobeying the rules of a group they freely joined; if they don't like it, they can start their own group. That's what many BSA members have pushed on atheists and gays for years, but I guess that "rule" only works for rules you prefer.

 

But there is the faction of atheist who want to enter, then kill the religious tradition of BSA, by stamping out any religious aspect.. That group I am NOT welcoming, because they will NOT be respectful of others.

 

Just like you're not being respectful of atheists right now. Hypocrite.

[moosetracker]

I don't feel I am a hypocrite for looking for ways that we can all get along, and be respectful of each other.. It is wrong for the religious sector to not want to find a way to include your group.. But it would be equally wrong for the atheist to come in and then make BSA exclusive to only them, and be disrespectful of the religious sector, and their beliefs.. Inclusiveness means finding ways to have everyone resepectful and tolerant of each other.

I understand that the oath would be troublesome for some atheist. But, I feel there are solutions for compromise. Such as having two oaths, similar in all but a single line, and allowing public school charters and other charters that are hosted by public places to have the one that doesn’t incorporate God. Have religious chartered orgs keep the current oath, and those who are private charters of non-religious orgs will have their choice of which oath to choose.. At camp or other combined events, both oaths are done, and the person chooses which they prefer saying.. Eagle boards, either oath is valid.

Perhaps there are better ideas on how to compromise and be welcoming and respectful of all.. Finding compromise is not being disrespectful of either group.

Why do you feel in order to respect the beliefs of atheists, you need to disrespect the beliefs of non-atheists?.. To me that is hypocritical. Sorry.. As stated, this is where I do not agree with you. Actually I did not know that we disagreed That much, I though my disagreement was being for your cause with reservations, I had though you agreed with finding ways to respect each groups beliefs.. I guess I was wrong, you now sound like you are one who first purpose is to get in, and whose second purpose is to pull apart what some people find a core purpose of their BSA experience.. Well I am still going to side with those atheists who would just like to join and find a way to blend in and be apart of..

 

I don't feel I am a hypocrite for looking for ways that we can all get along, and be respectful of each other.. It is wrong for the religious sector to not want to find a way to include your group.. But it would be equally wrong for the atheist to come in and then make BSA exclusive to only them, and be disrespectful of the religious sector, and their beliefs.. Inclusiveness means finding ways to have everyone resepectful and tolerant of each other.

I understand that the oath would be troublesome for some atheist. But, I feel there are solutions for compromise. Such as having two oaths, similar in all but a single line, and allowing public school charters and other charters that are hosted by public places to have the one that doesn’t incorporate God. Have religious chartered orgs keep the current oath, and those who are private charters of non-religious orgs will have their choice of which oath to choose.. At camp or other combined events, both oaths are done, and the person chooses which they prefer saying.. Eagle boards, either oath is valid.

Perhaps there are better ideas on how to compromise and be welcoming and respectful of all.. Finding compromise is not being disrespectful of either group.

Why do you feel in order to respect the beliefs of atheists, you need to disrespect the beliefs of non-atheists?.. To me that is hypocritical. Sorry.. As stated, this is where I do not agree with you. Actually I did not know that we disagreed That much, I though my disagreement was being for your cause with reservations, I had though you agreed with finding ways to respect each groups beliefs.. I guess I was wrong, you now sound like you are one who first purpose is to get in, and whose second purpose is to pull apart what some people find a core purpose of their BSA experience.. Well I am still going to side with those atheists who would just like to join and find a way to blend in and be apart of..

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I don't feel I am a hypocrite for looking for ways that we can all get along, and be respectful of each other.. It is wrong for the religious sector to not want to find a way to include your group.. But it would be equally wrong for the atheist to come in and then make BSA exclusive to only them, and be disrespectful of the religious sector, and their beliefs.. Inclusiveness means finding ways to have everyone resepectful and tolerant of each other.

 

It isn't respectful to assume atheists are likely to act like that. It's like claiming you're not racist, but adding that any black kids that join have to respect the white kids, while not mentioning anything about how the white kids have to act regarding the black kids. You're singling out one group for potential bad behavior and taking for granted that the other group is all sweetness 'n' light.

 

I understand that the oath would be troublesome for some atheist. But, I feel there are solutions for compromise. Such as having two oaths, similar in all but a single line, and allowing public school charters and other charters that are hosted by public places to have the one that doesn’t incorporate God. Have religious chartered orgs keep the current oath, and those who are private charters of non-religious orgs will have their choice of which oath to choose..

 

And the UK Girl Guides certainly could have done that, if that's what they decided, but they didn't. They seemed to think that having one promise for everyone was preferable (maybe they considered it more uniting than having various promises).

 

So why is the above decision suddenly the fault of atheists? It isn't. But you sure seem ready to place the blame on them, when, in this particular case, it's some religious members who are not following the rules, and not even allowing a new leader to take the official promise.

 

Perhaps there are better ideas on how to compromise and be welcoming and respectful of all.. Finding compromise is not being disrespectful of either group.

 

Well, you don't get there by scapegoating one group as always being the troublemakers.

 

Why do you feel in order to respect the beliefs of atheists, you need to disrespect the beliefs of non-atheists?

 

I don't. Why are you lying about me?

 

[Cambridgeskip]

Merlyn - if I went fact checking on every single story in the Daily Mail that I considered dubious I would spend my entire life doing it. I have neither the time or inclination to do so.

[moosetracker]

I am not lying about you. I am reading what you wrote and interpreting it due to what I read, and responding to what I read.. The first time you said the GG who are fighting the change in the oath could form their own group, I saw sarcasm. The second time I saw it I saw anger and seriousness.. Also calling me a hypocrite for my statement that both were wrong for not trying to find compromise, also I did not see as sarcastic but of anger.. This anger I interpret as you feeling that the atheist is totally right for not compromising and the Troop as totally wrong for not compromising.. Therefore a statement that atheists should not respect the beliefs of others in the organization.. They should force compliance from those they have conquered.. That is not lying that is responding to what I interpret you to be saying..

 

I did not state what the GG Troop was doing wrong, because you already stated that quite eloquently already.. I added to it why BOTH parties were wrong, by adding to your statements, why the atheist was equally wrong. But, I very strongly stated that BOTH parties were wrong in this argument, and I never argued with your interpretation as to why the GG Troop was also in the wrong.. That you choose to overlook that and tell me I was stating that only the atheist was at fault I would call a lie if I was to take things as black and white as you seem to be doing. Instead.. I will say you and I are both misinterpreting each other’s statements.

 

My comment was not on assumption, but due to what I read at the time the vote took place. I remember an article at the time of the decision, that pointed to there being a push for the change, by Atheist who felt it was unfair to them.. One story was on some parent who was against the oath and felt she had to walk with her child out of ear shot so he wasn’t confused by what she was teaching him. The word God was taboo anywhere around them, and therefore they should change to respect her wishes.. To hell with anyone else’s beliefs..

 

Both sides are wrong if both refuse to find compromise.. But only one side is wrong if one side is looking for compromise and the other is not.. In my first comment I stated Both were wrong.. The atheist for not offering a compromise solution of both oaths, or looking for a local Troop who would welcome her, but instead forcing the unit to comply by placing a complaint to national for FORCE them to comply.. The Troop is also wrong, for starting out with an attitude that they will not accept or make any atheist comfortable in their group.. To not bend or find a suitable compromise.. An established group, not welcoming a new member is wrong. A new person entering a group both guns blazing, is no way to make new friends.

 

I also stated that I felt National was wrong in not finding a compromise to allow both viewpoints to co-exist.. Is two oaths a great solution forever? Probably not, but it allows respect to both sides of the argument until they can grew to accept each other and be more affable to going to one oath again that both can live with.. Slapping one group down in order to bend over backwards for the other group is no way to finding a congenial solution until both groups can find a way to put down their weapons and accept each other for who they are, is simply a better way of getting oil and water to mix.. This decision, of an oath that gives victory only to one side, caused the weapons to go up and the war to rage strong.

I also did not state that ALL atheists want to be given entry to BSA to destroy it.. But, that I guesstimate that possibly 25 to 40 percent have this in mind (I should clarify that I was thinking of the activist section of the atheist group when I wrote that) . Sorry, but atheists are the ones behind trying to take “God†off of a lot of things, money, pledge, public statues etc, rather then accepting they live and work and socialize with others who are by someone destroy something they hold dear to them and have no desire to find ways to co-exists with this other group.. This group among your midst concerns me.. This is not based on an assumption of what they might do, but on what they are currently actively DOING.. You have the majority who are good people, you have a fraction who enjoy seeing anyone with a religious belief hurt and/or angered.. Unfortunatly the quiet peaceful sector do not make the news.. Still I know they are the majority, and they have a right to be allowed into BSA.. But what to do to insure the destructive group is not welcomed is my problem.

 

Perhaps the rules around tolerance need to be strengthened.. So that intolerence is a reason to be removed from BSA membership. A quick way to eminate anyone who has blatent disregard to the beliefs and dignity of others. this would tamp down either side, the religious groups for finding predjudicial fault with homosexuals or atheists or whatever they choose is beneath them (but to respect them, they need to have control over who can be members of their own group so they can happily exclude within their group, just can't make this decision for all other units). And the atheists who want to enter BSA to force those who believe in the tradition of religion being part of the BSA to be forced to watch it be removed.. It means finding a unit that is closest to your values or starting one that has your values, rather then entering one that does not and demanding they change to only address your needs at the expense of all others in the group.. But, here I am dreaming though as people who have the belief they are born to rule everybody on moral conduct, is being denied the right to follow their belief and rule the world.. SIGH.. Would be nice though.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I am not lying about you. I am reading what you wrote and interpreting it due to what I read, and responding to what I read.

 

Then you should have no problem coming up with an exact quote from me that means "Why do you feel in order to respect the beliefs of atheists, you need to disrespect the beliefs of non-atheists?" But instead you just re-read what I wrote and make up how you think I "feel" due to your own prejudices.

 

This anger I interpret as you feeling that the atheist is totally right for not compromising and the Troop as totally wrong for not compromising.

 

WHAT COMPROMISE? The GG unit leader is refusing to allow a new leader to take the official promise. What is the "angry atheist" supposed to do, grovel? Beg? Convert? What kind of "compromise"? The only thing you've offered is for each to take the promise they prefer, BUT SHE ISN'T BEING ALLOWED TO DO THAT. So now what?

 

Sorry, but atheists are the ones behind trying to take “God†off of a lot of things, money, pledge, public statues etc,

 

Yes, because money, the pledge, and public statues are supposed to be for everyone, not just the majority. How about putting "One White Nation" on our money, "One White Nation Under God" in the pledge, and having public statues dedicated to "white people"? If this was the case now, and a large percentage of non-whites wanted to change this, would they be the sort of people who should be kept out of the BSA for being too "uppity"?

 

You kind of "compromise" indicates that atheists should be satisfied with second-class status and only those who know their place should be allowed into the BSA.