...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...

prissyenglish,

I hope my reply isn't too disjointed (usual interruptions are taking place) but these are my thoughts.

1. The promise hasn't just been updated, so to speak, but fundamentally changed. The old promise was very clear. The guide promised to uphold society's morals, ethics and civic values - by way of reference to God, Queen and country. Despite the (noteworthy) lack of specific reference to Christianity, the promise's focus on society ensured that what it meant was very clear. By contrast, the focus of the new promise is not on society at all, but the person making it. I don't think this reflects what I understand Guiding to be about. Promising "to be true to myself and develop my beliefs" is an entirely worthless promise, because what it means can change depending how the person feels. It has no objective meaning, and therefore promises nothing to anyone but the person making the promise.

I think this is quite the worst aspect of the change.

1. Contrary to the OP, the reference to serving the Queen has been retained. This would be a good thing, but the reference to "community" (whatever that means) rather than "country" shows that it is clearly an untidy fudge. I actually agree with Graham Smith (ref linked article) on that point.

1. I thought Quakers couldn't make any promises.

1. I don't see why a person with republican beliefs can't promise to serve the Queen. Serving the Queen means obeying the laws and upholding civic values. Neither of those things prohibit the holding of a political belief that the monarchy should be abolished. It is overly sensitive to object to making promises to the Queen who is by law the head of state.

1. Why requiring a promise to the Queen is exclusive is beyond me anyway. Last time I checked, the UK was a monarchy. It is no good trying to maintain some sort of polite ignorance of this.

1. Supporting the monarchy and believing in God aren't out of date and, Punkatheart those who think they are tend to be of a certain political viewpoint; so I stand by my remarks, which I don't think were so much patronising as accurate.

1. Suggesting that the reference to the Queen be removed would be astonishingly rude coming from someone involved in Guiding, given that the Queen is the patron.

1. Re God: this has probably been done to death, but I don't see how including one small group (atheists) at the expense of a much larger group (all those who have various beliefs in God) is "inclusive". I think the rationale is similar to that with respect to the Queen - Guardian readers thinking it's a faintly odd thing that is best politely ignored - rather like a skin disease. The truth is that belief in God is entirely normal, and it is quite appropriate both for voluntary societies and society in general to take note of that.

1. Punkatheart's attitude to religious people is illustrated by her comments about her fellow leader. Enough said.

I can't actually open the article, so haven't actually been able to read the new promise yet . My comments are based on the change from god to beliefs, and on the Canadian promise, (which I assume is reasonably similar to the new UK one) so you'll have to bear with me if I've got the wrong end of the stick. I had ignored the queen stuff, as I understood it hadn't been removed at all?

I quite like 'develop my beliefs' as it suggests that the girls are in the process of careful research and personal decision-making towards what they do believe in (and of course the idea being that guiding provides them with an environment in which they can hopefully make wise choices in this department!) It seems less dogmatic in some way? (It wouldn't be my first choice - ours currently states 'be true to myself, my beliefs and Canada'.) I don't see removing the word 'god' as removing, well, God from the equation, tbh. I see it as being incorporated into 'beliefs'. I don't think the change is to pacify those without faith, so much as to incorporate all faiths (and indeed none - as an afterthought, rather than the primary concern?) I have no idea if that makes sense though... It's certainly been the main impetus this side of the pond. I haven't heard any atheist argument except on mn.

I can't comment on the community thing - I have no problem with swearing allegiance to queen or country, and have done so on many occasions (another reason why the woodies won't have me ;-) ). Auntie Betty paid my wages for way too long for me to abandon the idea of Queen's Guide as an institution.

I'll keep trying to open the damned article though (my Internet seems to be struggling with a vast swathe of hosts today) as I still haven't seen the actual thing - just opinions and general gist.

I am going to have to go and look up the Quakers and promises thing now, though. Completely unable to comment. And as far as I know, have never come across a Quaker girl guide...

I agree that developing your beliefs is a pretty ambivalent phrase, but then if you have not been brought up in a religious household then promising to "love my God" means nothing and most children in that position would struggle to understand how the statement had any relationship to morals, ethics or civic values. Indeed I don't believe that the concepts are necessarily related (atheists are in my experience as moral / ethical as religious people).

If my children had been forced to spend months studying and preparing to say something utterly meaningless to them then they would have found that problematic, and I would imagine that this is even more of an issue for older children and adults who are I would have thought more likely to really think about what they are saying. Which is important surely?

I would imagine the 'being true to myself' aspect is a part of the guiding emphasis on empowerment: "We build girls? confidence and raise their aspirations. We give them the chance to discover their full potential and encourage them to be a powerful force for good."

Re the Queen. I am an immigrant from the UK to Canada, and hope to take my citizenship test in due course. Which includes swearing allegiance to the Queen, something that makes me quite uncomfortable because I feel no particular loyalty to the queen, nor do I feel that my views on the monarchy have anything to do with whether I am law abiding or a good citizen. I would still be law abiding and aim to be a good citizen if the monarchy was abolished tomorrow. It just feels totally archaic and irrelevant.

The problem is that when you feel dissociated from a part of an important oath it is very undermining, and becomes instead just words you say to pass a test. Which is surely not the point of any promise?

Oh and are you comparing atheists to skin diseases or saying they should think of the previous promise as being like a skin disease? Either way that is a very odd thing to say.

What a shame. "True to myself"? Let's hope there aren't any mean boys or girls out there who take this to heart.

And I agree with toadintheHole, competely - articulated very well, this idea about the new promise being all about the person making the promise.

I would like to deal with Toad?s last point first:

My ?attiitude? to religious people? My problem with my other leader ? who is still a friend ? was that she wanted to bring Christianity strongly into a brownie meeting, to the extent of saying the Lord?s prayer. It?s simple not appropriate to bring any one religion into every secular meeting. This is not an ?attitude towards religious people.? My Quaker meeting house is full of religious people. We also have atheists and also people of other faiths. I also had discussions with my other leader and eventually she did accept she was pushing a doctrine, which was not the place for it. So the statement made is sweeping and inaccurate.

Now I do take Toad?s first point that the new promise focuses on self ? but there is a reference to community. Is community not society? I think that taking responsibility for oneself and being a moral person, is perfectly possible. But I do understand the problem there ? it?s just not a problem I can relate to as strongly.

Yes initially I got a bit excited and thought the Queen element had been dropped. But no, a Republican would not want to make promises to the Queen. It would be hypocrisy. Yes, we currently a monarchy and no one is in ignorance about that ? polite or otherwise. I obey the law and I also uphold civic values. I don?t need to want or not want a monarchy for that. The Government make the laws. But many of us do not head straight into guiding and do not have passion for the Queen. Like me, we are drafted as a parent when units are about to close. Then we stay on because it is the only way to keep the unit open. No one else stepped forward.

I personally think that the promise is dated ? that?s why it had been radically changed. Society/community is much less eager to be obsequious. I always thought that in a lot of ways guiding was hugely radical and I respect the changes ? it must have been major for them. As someone who was a guider I could see the strengths of the organization but also some sticking points for the recruitment of volunteers. It is vitally important that units stay open.

You are confusing Quakers not swearing to tell the truth ?by God? in a court of law. We affirm instead.

I am no longer in guiding ? this is an open discussion. It is not disrespectful to express an opinion.

?politely ignored like a skin disease? Odd expression but quite fitting as I have cutaneous lymphoma and so I really don?t understand the connection with the Queen. No one sees her as a skin disease or is ignoring her. But again you bring in the ?Guardian readers? as an insulting term ? which weakens the argument. Even better to say ?left wing.?

?The truth is that belief in God is entirely normal, and it is quite appropriate both for voluntary societies and society in general to take note of that.?

Of course it is. But NOT IN A SECULAR ENVIRONMENT. Guiding is not a religious organisation. I have many religious and non-religious friends. Tolerance cuts both ways.

There are many many ways of being spiritual. An atheist or a pagan can be so. But yes, guiding does have to change for ?minorities? as you put it.

Again, guiding is wonderful in so many ways and the time and passion that guiders put in is inspirational. But I am not a lone voice. Many will be supportive of the new promise and of course, many will not. A change was made recently in Quaker society and we wholeheartedly accepted gay marriage in a Quaker church. Some Quakers reacted strongly and did not want it ? but there were a lot of discussions. Some left Quakerism and some came back. Quakerism is in a constant state of flux and I think society itself needs to adapt if things and people change.

That?s what this is about ? not an attack on religious people or the march of militant atheism. Discussion. Inclusion.

As an atheist I support dropping the reference to god.
Now guides and scouts need to sort out whether they are single sex or unisex. The current arrangements are unfair on boys as girls can join the scouting organisation but boys can't join the girls one. As there is a shortage of leaders I don't see why the 2 organisations don't either merge or revert to being single sex until the venture scout age. That is fairer on boys and the male role model element of scouts is more important for boys who are less likely to have a same sex parent model than girls .

Toadin the hole.

What a well put post and absolutly correct.

There will, no doubt, be feats of lingusitics and torturous thinking wheeled out to refute your points (as sure as night follows day) and it will be amusing to read them.

I'm with Toad and Crumbled and Meala on this. The new promise is vague and self-referential. Zoe Williams makes some good points today - www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/20/be-true-to-yourself-best-guides-can-do

The change from "country" to "community" is poorly thought-out: Cameron's Big Society notion has been quietly abandoned. Yes, each Guide troop lives in a community, in which the girls' lives are set, but especially at this time of national economic gloom, the sense of a divided nation has never been more pertinent: communities are becoming more defensive for how changes affect "them" rather than the nation as a whole. The sense of aiming for and striving for all the people in this country is a large concept and is what Guides should be encouraged to be looking at, not just helping out in the local community. This is too narrow a focus. Those who were consulted, said they could relate better to "community" rather than "country" - of course, everyone does - but the point of the promise was, and still should be to uphold something wider, bigger, stronger than one's natural affinity for one's locality. And the continued reference to the Queen does not encompass that idea.

I do think there is also an erosion in the way that mention of faith is increasingly deemed an intrusion into public life. The Guides were underpinned by a faith position and no longer will be. The only "duty" I see in this new promise is to oneself and one's own potentially emerging/conflicting/confused ideas of what is right and wrong.

So, no more "Brownie Bells" either.

Toadinthehole - you said I don't see how including one small group (atheists) at the expense of a much larger group (all those who have various beliefs in God) is "inclusive"

but actually atheists/people without a religion are not a small group. According to the last census, a quarter of the UK population described themselves as having no religion, and the proportion is higher among young people.

25.1 per cent of people have no religion

That is a large number of people to exclude from a supposedly inclusive organisation.

Another thorny discussion 2rebecca.

But it will be discussion. The discussion here begun by people with different views is not 'torturous thinking' and I do listen and mull over points made by people with opposing views. I am not 'amused' by different views as if I am feeling superior - I respect them, even if I disagree. But when a sweeping statement is made about my attitude to religious folk which is inaccurate and insulting - then I have to defend my position. Not linguistics at all. But I do not state my points and then say 'end of' aggressively - as if my opinion is law. I would consider that it is the beginning of the discussion and I would love to hear from guiders, leaders, ex brownies and guides etc etc.

Also I have only refuted points which are inaccurate - such as the one about Quakers.

Great points by Nooka - brownies was great to build confidence. We had a self-esteem session at the beginning where we all said something great about another brownie. Lots of giggles and sweetness ensued. Truly lovely.

Ultimately living a good life can be by people of all faiths or none. Exactly what the promise says. I think by linguistics (which is language) you might ultimately mean semantics, missmary. Discussion is obviously about language, talking, chewing over the ideas. Semantics is interpretation. Yes in some ways it is but I think guiding has listened to what people are saying and changed accordingly to benefit the organisation, to include more volunteers who will now feel more comfortable. Why is that a bad thing?

I think the skin disease comment was odd but I think it was a coincidence that I have cutaneous lymphoma. That would be desperately cruel thing to say otherwise and I don't think there is cruelty intended. But I definitely don't see the Queen as a skin disease - just another human being. I do not feel deference to her and I cannot fake that.

Yes, I want to hear more about how you can be an atheist Quaker! I've always liked the sound of their philosophy, but thought they were very Jesus-focused.

When I was a child I did not even think about what the promise meant and didn't really consider the meaning. It was just something I had to do to be part of the guides.

I think it's sad and unnecessary and pandering to a few.

For the Quaker curious:

www.nontheistfriends.org/

I don't think it is a few - either in terms of people on the census who claimed 'no religion' or with the people who consulted on changing the promise. I am sorry you feel sad about it Dacky - what particular aspect upsets you?

No religion does not mean no God, necessarily, although it will in many cases.

Yes, some of the people who ticked 'no religion' may have a vague belief in a god or gods. But likewise, having a religion also does not necessarily mean believing in a god, like in the OP's case. Similarly, Buddhists, pagans, Hindus and lots of other 'religious' people would not necessarily be comfortable with the 'my god' (singular) wording, as they may have many gods or none.

Great. I can still remember the guilt I felt when I took the pledge as an agnostic ten-year-old. It was the first time I had lied for a strategic reason and quite a hard thing to get my head around.

Promising to serve God (whatever you believe in) is a huge part of what guiding was about when it was conceived

No it wasn't. Girl Guiding has never been a "Christian" organisation. It has been an inclusive organisation and the promise was not inclusive!