Girl Guide Promise Change

[technodad]

Looks like girl guides will no longer need to promise to "love their god" when they join.

This is great step by the Girl Guides to prove they are not discriminatory any more.

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jun/18/girl-guides-queen-god-country-promise

The Scouts next???

1. guiding uk is a voluntary organisation, it is not compulsory for anyone to join so they have a right to decide on their entry requirements, no one has a right to assume they can join.
2. Guiding uk is choosing to be as open as possible to those who would like to join 3)as sineofthetimes points out girls may be at a point in their development where it is appropriate for them to be questioning their received beliefs and should be allowed to maintain their integrity when joining the movement. 4)Guiding uk widely consulted their members and broadened this to included interested members of the public
3. I don't think the promise is right I think professionals in faith development and Religious Education should have been consulted. 6)I think a promise to grow in their understanding of what it means to hold a religious faith would be appropriate.

Equally they should have consulted scientific education professionals.

Waterbrook makes a really good point that guides are at the age when they are more than likely to be entering the questioning stage of faith. Moving away from a child like stage of faith is postive and to be welcomed and supported as a young person matures and develops.

I agree to some extent Waterbrook, but the old promise did make the movement sound like a religious organisation, which it isn't. It's much more about exploring themes such as personal development and civic responsibility, and while there are of course significant overlaps, that's not the same thing to me.

If I want my daughters to learn about religion I will send them to church or to an interfaith group set up for that purpose.

If they really want it to be a promise everyone can make, they could also remove the part about serving the Queen, which disturbs many too!

That is fair enough. Although There is at least some evidence that the Queen exists .

But, the Guide Movement is not being inclusive.They are still discriminating and treating people differently according to their beliefs; they are discriminating against Republicans. I do not want to promise to serve the Queen. I think that is morally wrong.
If their aim is to be totally inclusive, then their promise needs to be much broader. But I am not actually convinced their aim was to be inclusive!

I felt I couldn't get my children or myself involved in brownies or guides because of the the underlying churchiness of it as I would have felt fraud (not believing a bit of it myself) in the same way that I wouldn't have attended a church toddler group.

I feel this opens the door for my girls and me to get involved in a movement which promotes activity and adventure for girls where we wouldn't have before.

Am I wrong in thinking that has been done to simply avoid the inevitable litigation?

I would say not, the consultation involved all members so if they'd said "yes please keep the word God in" that's what would've happened.

Would be interesting to know all the stats about feedback actually.

My DS and I are devout atheists and he's more than happy at Cubs (and spent year in Beavers).

I am a regular helper at Cub meetings (in the local church), despite my personal beliefs...

We've agreed with the group that 'god' for us means 'humanity'.

Personally I'd prefer it if they remove the 'god' reference but it hasn't stopped us joining in.

The Sunday Times said that 'Scouts will still be allowed to pledge to do their " duty to God" as part of the movement's promise, but under the planned changes atheist members will be allowed to leave out the religious element. The exact wording of the atheist promise will be decided in the coming months.'