Girl Guides drop oath of allegiance to God and the Queen

A topic which pervades many others

Girl Guides drop oath of allegiance to God and the Queen

Postby Nathan » 18 Jun 2013, 22:03

I guess the old oath had too much in the way of substance and connection to the organisation's patriotic and Christian roots to be allowed in this brave new world. The new oath calls for girls to 'be true to myself' and 'serve my community'.

What is your community if not your country, as embodied by its head of state, who is a former member and whose daughter-in-law is its president? 'Be true to myself' - what does that actually mean, and what message does that send? 'The most important thing in life is to just do what you want, whatever that may be, me me me and to hell with everybody else?'

Talk about the long march through the institutions - it seems the movement has has the obligatory name change in recent years from 'The Girl Guides' to 'Girlguiding', and hired a new chief executive, Julia Bentley, "former head of the fpa, an abortion and contraception group that has distributed condom demonstrators for use by girls as young as 11, published leaflets which suggest to 12 and 13-year-olds that it can be all right to have sex, and opened an on-line sex shop selling sex toys and aids to customers of any age."

Looking at the history of the movement on its website, you can see as good a microcosm as you are likely to get of our culture's disintegration over the past century:

1912: New badges such as the Air mechanic badge were introduced in addition to Cyclist, Photographer, Electrician, Sailor, Telegraphist and Tailor.

2004: The '4ward, 4 self, 4 others' peer education programme was launched. Girls take part in sessions run by their peers on subjects including media awareness, eating disorders, the environment and sexual health.

A few of the comments, which I needed to read to reassure me I'm not the only one feeling quite strongly at what in itself is a fairly trivial thing:

When you join an organisation because of what it stands for then go to the extreme of wrecking it to suit the trendies' dogma, there will be nothing there when the trendies are no longer in fashion, and for what?


We are being destroyed from within.


"I'll be true to myself," has no base line of behaviour, it hold nothing up as an example, self is the ultimate measure, it's a bar everyone can get over with no effort, liberal BS, everyone gets a medal. So the youth and future of our country will be set no goals or hold up anyone else as an example to themselves... and the country goes down the pan. PS, who invited the tiny little pressure group the humanist society to get in on the act?


Pathetic, shallow, meaningless. No higher authority than self! No wonder we are in a mess.


Great. My daughter's Guide troop will now close, given that its leaders are driven to volunteer by their religious beliefs. Thanks Humanists. You've made Girl Guiding so wonderfully inclusive that it will no longer actually exist in my area. Well done.


Gosh, this is a stark indication of how our society has changed very rapidly in my lifetime. Moral relativism is the new order. It's no longer deemed suitable to expect young girls in this country to swear allegiance to the queen - despite the fact that she represents this country as head of state. I feel very, very sad and regard this decision as a damning indictment of the hideous multi-cultural mess we have created. God save the Queen!


That seems to raise the individual 's status to that of an all powerful being - no humility, no answerability and presumably no consideration for others. Just the philosophy what the ruling elite wish to inculcate into the young?
Nathan
 
Posts: 880
Joined: 08 Dec 2012, 17:58

Re: Girl Guides drop oath of allegiance to God and the Queen

Postby Elliott » 18 Jun 2013, 23:36

Before I begin, Nathan, I should point out that the second-last comment you posted is incorrect. The Girl Guides' new oath retains the thing about being loyal to the Queen. (Though I wonder if they'll abolish it when we have a King instead... wouldn't want to be getting girls to swear allegiance to a MAN, would we?)

Anyway... I also feel sad about this, Nathan.

Back in 1989, I was in the Boys' Brigade for a few months. For a liberal family like mine, the organisation's religious element was something we found a bit quaint and silly, something for other families but not for ours. I can't recall whether there was a religious element to the pledge, or even if there was a pledge, but I do remember a trip to the church one day, agonisingly boring for a six year-old boy. Probably I would have, with my rebellious nature, resented making a dishonest pledge to a god I didn't believe in, but, like Christian assembly at school, this sort of thing was just taken for granted twenty-five years ago, and adults (Atheist ones) kept you right: "your needs and desires are not all-important". My family did not try (or even contemplate trying) to change the Boys' Brigade to suit us. We knew what the rules were, we knew what sort of organisation it was, so it would be ridiculous, not to say selfish, for us to demand changes to it after we had freely chosen to join it. Ultimately the Boys' Brigade wasn't for me, but that was for reasons of personality, not religion. I left it after just a few months, but my brother stayed for several years. We were a liberal family, modern and Atheistic, but we were content to take part in things that weren't ideally suited to us; we understood that the religious element came from history and that it was still relevant to many people. It was quaint to us, but we never flattered (deluded) ourselves with notions of victimhood; we kept things in perspective.

I read about this change to the Girl Guides several months ago when it was proposed. (I actually collated a lot of comments from the articles, but never got around to posting them here.) Back then I seem to recall that it was merely a proposal, and like all PC proposals one makes the comforting assumption that it will probably remain a proposal - until it is quietly enacted, by which time real acceptance has been fomented from the afore-mentioned passive acceptance; they've whittled you down to just sighing and surrendering, accepting that the world is changing in yet another way that you would not have chosen but lack the power to combat.

I agree with the comments you quoted. Moral relativism indeed. And what harm can it possibly do a child to swear allegiance to their country? Are we saying that it's perfectly fine not to be loyal to your country, that people who take such a position should be welcomed by the rest of us in civic life, as if their treachery-in-waiting is a harmless "lifestyle" choice like choosing between Mac and Windows?

Everyone sees how these decisions are destructive of social bonds, social trust, civic responsibility, personal morality and character formation. Everyone knows it, at least everyone on the conservative side. It's just obvious, it's just another piece of the slow dismantling that we've come to expect over the last few decades.

Part of it is undoubtedly the hideous managerial bureaucracy that has emerged in every area of our society in the last twenty or thirty years. Even the idea of the Girl Guides having a "chief executive", as if it's some soulless office-based corporation! More actively, these managers are dangerous because, once they exist, they have to do things in order to prove to themselves that they're relevant. So, a radical change to a century-old organisation!

But let's not kid ourselves that it's just managerialism looking for things to do. This is ideological. The CEO says that the Girl Guides is "the ultimate feminist organisation", and comes across as very much the type of lifeless PC robot that Blair stuffed into every position of power in the country.

I expect that the change from "serve my country" to "serve my community" is considered more "inclusive" because "community" could mean anything. (It could be, for example, a Muslim girl pledging to serve the Islamic community - and the rest of Britain be damned.)

As usual, being "inclusive" means being nothing. It means destroying your own identity. We can see this paralleled in the Church of England, which in its efforts to be inclusive has become an ineffectual eunuch of an organisation, rapidly losing its members who see an organisation that is no longer worthy of respect. The same with the Conservative Party with its efforts to "reach out"; this equates to "become less conservative", and has seen its membership plummet. The same with Britain itself, and indeed every country that has gone the multicultural route: the only way to accommodate other cultures is, ultimately, to have no culture of your own. The only way for the Girl Guides to be inclusive is to be as bland, nondescript and meaningless an organisation as possible. Allegiance to the Queen has been retained for now, but I wouldn't be surprised if ten or twenty years down the line it too is scrapped because, after all, some kids don't believe in the monarchy, right?

The ironic thing is, they're encouraging children to "be true to themselves", even while, as an organisation, the Girl Guides betrays everything it was set up to do. "You be true to yourself, you nurture your identity - because this organisation doesn't have one."

As for this:
Gill Slocombe, the Chief Guide wrote:I honestly think the Baden-Powells would have approved, they were so free thinking and good at thinking in terms of people’s needs.

... were the Baden-Powells "free thinking"? This is the first I've heard about it. Sounds like an equivalent of "Shakespeare was the Eastenders of his day!"
Elliott
 
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh

Re: Girl Guides drop oath of allegiance to God and the Queen

Postby Elliott » 19 Jun 2013, 16:25

A parody report on this from the Daily Mash.
Elliott
 
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh

Re: Girl Guides drop oath of allegiance to God and the Queen

Postby Elliott » 24 Jun 2013, 10:54

A good article on this by Graeme Archer, one of the very few Telegraph bloggers I actually enjoy reading.
Elliott
 
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh

Re: Girl Guides drop oath of allegiance to God and the Queen

Postby Elliott » 25 Jun 2013, 10:07

Jane Kelly of the Salisbury Review writes on this matter.
Elliott
 
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh

Re: Girl Guides drop oath of allegiance to God and the Queen

Postby Elliott » 26 Aug 2013, 18:54

Apparently the Girl Guides group in Harrogate rebelled on this matter, but they have now given in and will use the secular oath. A blogger from Harrogate, Jem Henderson, is quoted several times in that article and comes across as utterly loathsome (and borderline illiterate).

Gill Slocombe, CEO of the Girl Guides, says:
Whilst all leaders will need to accept this change as we go forward, we will be talking with leaders who are anxious and working with them to help resolve any difficulties. We sincerely hope it won’t be necessary for anybody to leave the organisation.


I would say this is an example of modern weasel talk, combining gentle phrases with iron fist meaning.

For example, "necessary" for anybody to leave the organisation? That means necessary for the organisation to disbar somebody who refused to use the new oath. It could also be interpreted as "anybody feeling that it was necessary for them to leave rather than give up their religious principles" - but then, what has created that necessity? This entirely arbitrary move by the GG's high command, who seem to be a bunch of raving feminazis.

Another example would be "we will be talking with leaders who are anxious and working with them to help resolve any difficulties". What can that possibly mean other than saying to them something like this: "look, this is the way things are going generally, and in any case we're in charge and we've made the decision, and we're sorry you don't like it, but accept it or leave". The diplomatic-sounding phrase "resolve any difficulties" is being used to mean "persuade and/or force".

What has happened here is that an organisation has been infiltrated, taken over, then profoundly altered by progressives. The Girl Guides might well continue to do much the same things as it has always done, but it is now a fundamentally different organisation.

I hope that an explicitly religious (Christian) alternative to the Girl Guides is started up. But I think that would breach equalities/discrimination laws.
Elliott
 
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh


Return to Political Correctness

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron

User Menu

Login Form

This site costs £100 per year to run and makes no money.

If you would like to make a small contribution to help pay for the web hosting, you can do so here.

Who is online

In total there are 3 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 3 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 175 on 12 Jan 2015, 18:23

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
Copyright © Western Defence. All Rights Reserved.