...to say hoorah and about time to the change in guiding pledges. No more Queen or God obligatory.

[Punkatheart]

I ran a brownie group for a while. Loved it. But I had a huge problem and some heated discussion - with a fellow leader who thought I was indeed being unreasonable.

I am an atheist Quaker (yes, we do exist) and I am most definitely not a Royalist. So I did not want to pledge to either. In fact, it's what prevented me making them final step and eventually, in part, for me leaving.

But now:

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/i-promise-to-be-true-to-myself-and-develop-my-beliefs-girl-guides-drop-religious-reference-but-pledge-to-self-and-the-queen-8664110.html

Hoorah! It may stop the preconception among many that it is a religious organisation. It is not. Or that it has to have to Queen involved. Volunteers are desperately needed - so it needs to grow and develop with the times.

Does anyone else feel passionately either way? Either as a volunteer or a parent? I know we had girls of all faiths and my other leader wanted to do the Lord's prayer at each meeting - about which I became very angry...

I am beyond happy.

I've been in Guiding since I was 5, but when it came to making my Promise as an adult to complete my Leadership Qualification, I made up my mind that, as a committed Atheist, I couldn't promise to love something that doesn't exist.

Now I can make my Promise. I'm a so pleased

Am also v pleased about the God part, but I don't understand why people have an issue with the Queen part. She's just a symbol of the state surely?

Ignore me, I misheard the radio report. The Queen is still there. Marvellous.

I am very happy and hope it moves over to Scouts soon as DS is on the wait list for Cubs!

What happens if you want to pledge allegiance to God? I trust one form of discrimination is not to be replaced by another.

I'm glad. It was one of the reasons I didn't take Guiding seriously. I went but had to roll my eyes and cross my fingers for that part. Very uncomfortable. Difficult for my parents too who essentially had to tell me not to go or to lie.

I would ditch the Queen too. Both as Head of State and part of the Promise but that's just me.

Allegiance to the Queen as Head of State is fine, although allegiance to country is better.

Allegiance to God should be cut out, and has been I am glad to see. DD and DS have been in the position of not going or lying, for Guides and Cubs respectively. Time to move with a changing world because these organisations offer so much to youngsters that it's a shame to be so restrictive with an allegiance to God.

I emailed the Scouts about their promise last year, WilsonFrickett and in October 2012 they said:

"We have recently made some changes to Fundamentals of Scouting, which are outlined in the October edition of Scouting Magazine - www.scouts.org.uk/magazine (p.42-43). However, currently we have no plans to change the Promise and we feel it still broadly reflects the Fundamentals of Scouting "

but despite that they had a consultation about it, the results of which are expected in July this year.

They never did explain why they have a special promise for a Buddhist that doesn't believe in a deity but not for an atheist that doesn't, nor why it accepts promises to serve God's that don't exist (because they can't all exist - they all claim to be the only one, so even if one is right, the others aren't) but not one that omits God altogether - so hopefully the consultation will help them out.

The new promise sounds a but clunky but we'll get used to it. It's a good start. They also replaced 'country' with 'community'.

Pleased they're listening and modernising (somewhat).

There is still mention of beliefs in the promise, so those with religious faith can just think of God when they say that bit.

If they had removed all mention of beliefs, then I would have been fuming, and it would be Girls' Brigade for my daughters instead!

But it's ok that there are versions for entirely contradictory sets of beliefs, FreedomOfTheTess? Why do those other promises not make you fume, but one that didn't mention belief at all would?

I'm really sad that they've changed the promise in this way. Promising to serve God (whatever you believe in) is a huge part of what guiding was about when it was conceived and I feel sad that girls with a faith can't make that promise. I'm glad my DD made her brownie promise a few weeks ago.

Why not have alternative promises and choose the one that most meets the needs and beliefs of individuals. I personally have more of an issue with promising to serve the Queen, seems totally irrelevant today.

It's sad that guiding is so desperate to take part that they have to do this.

When my ds was becoming a cub, we had a huge issue with the promise because he decided he didn't believe in God (although I do) and he also knew he didn't want to lie. It took lots of discussions between us, the leaders and him before he eventually decided he would say it, but ultimately he had to accept that the organisation he wanted to join had a religious aspect to it, and he either put up with that or didn't join.

He made his choice, and the Scouting movement have made theirs.

An organisation should not have to change to accommodate people that don't like it and have the choice not to be involved.

Our scout groups are thriving, so the religious aspect doesn't seem to be doing the organisation any harm.

How can Brownie-age child reasonably be expected to choose which religion they are going to follow, meala?

I don't think that they could do it for scouts, one of the major parts of scouting is spiritual development, which is why buddhism has a special promise but atheism doesn't.

I'm not religious and believe that I put jedi as my religion on my forms to join as a leader. I was going to put scientology but that isn't allowed so I put jedi which is! Made me laugh

They didn't have to change, CloudsAndTrees - they chose to. I expect because if they didn't they'd fade away and die as fewer people believe in God?

The reason they don't have separate promises for different faiths is so that all members make the same promise

We regularly make our promise together at st George's day parade etc -can you imagine the confusion?

It makes reference to ' my beliefs' so people with faith can still think about their own belief but people with no belief can think about their own moral position which is much more relevant to a 5 year old making their promise for the first time

I'm also really pleased about the use of the word community rather than country as it is much easier for the girls to relate to and actually understand the promise they are making

I don't think that it should be forcibly removed if the majority want it.

And as an athiest I would not choose to enrol ds in any organisation that has a religious aspect to it.Luckily he has never asked to go. It irritates me enough that worship is part of school.

There was a massive survey of 44,000 people. Both members and non-members, adults and children. I'm guessing a lot of them must up responded that the new version is what they wanted.

This is an interesting discussion

www.guiders.co.uk/showthread.php/47887-New-Promise-what-do-we-think

ArthurSixpence I think you're missing my point entirely.

This is a one size, fits all promise. Every girl will be saying it. Thus if they had removed all mention of beliefs, it would alienate all those of faith, which would be just as wrong of as alienating those with no faith would it not? After all, while it has never been a Christian organisation, Guiding has always had faith at its core.

If they had decided to have a separate promise for those of non-faith (instead of implementing a one for all approach), it wouldn't have bothered me in the slightest, just as the current alternatives for those of other faiths didn't bother me.

Please DO NOT try to twist my words. Thank you.

FreedomOfTheTess my apologies - I thought they used to use the same system as the Scouting movement where you could choose which one you wanted.

I'm glad about God, but annoyed about the Queen. My daughter might want to campaign to end the monarchy, and I don't think that that sort of activism should be incompatible with guiding.

All interesting points. But it is not a religious organisation and the concept of pledging to God and the Queen is terribly old-fashioned and restrictive. Although some people love the old-fashioned aspects of guiding and I can understand why in a modern world, this sort of sweet nurturing environment is wonderful. But we have to face the fact that there are many faiths and it is important that guiding is not seen as a purely Christian organisation. It's not and it needs to be inclusive.

Also, if people have said that guiding was OK as it was and that numbers are fine - they may have missed the point. Numbers of children wanting to join are high but a number feel uncomfortable with the pledges. ALso, they are struggling to fill volunteers places and making it more inclusive will help. They lost me as a leader and I know that many others have either left or not wanted to join an organisation which is seen as

military
religious
royalist

Guiding was never a religious organisation and its nice we've finally got a promise that reflects this, whilst still accommodating those who do have religious beliefs.

I'm amused by the whole 'ruining traditions, destroying heritage' brigade, the Guides were pretty bloody radical when they started, I reckon the Baden-Powell's would be pretty pleased with this!