The Girl Guides change their pledge

Let's give this a good fisking: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10128251/Guides-drop-God-and-country-but-keep-the-Queen.html?placement=mid1

In one of the biggest changes in the organisation’s 103-year history, the promise to “love my God” is to be replaced with a more individualistic pledge to “be true to myself” and to “develop my beliefs”.

1. That's very much in keeping with the times: God is replaced by self; self is the new God. Unfortunately self is a lousy god - because self, being born in sin, is the problem. The problem can't be the solution. Serving ourselves is a tyranny; serving the true God who is greater than and beyond us brings freedom and hope.

2. "Develop my beliefs" ...
i. What if my beliefs are wrong? Does that matter?
ii. Or evil? Does that matter?
iii. This is still parasitical on Christianity. It's assumed that in a civilisation founded upon Christian assumptions, "my beliefs" will still be reasonably close to Biblical teachings.

And a patriotic commitment to serving their country is to become one to the “community” in the oath taken by Brownies and Guides when they join the organisation.

1. Very multi-cultural.
2. What if my community's cultural aims are mistaken or evil?
3. How ironic that the more secularists destroy our sense of community (How many folk today have idea who their next door neighbours are? Or care?), the more they bring in the mere word as an empty platitude.

But in a consultation which attracted almost 44,000 responses Guides made clear that they wanted to retain a public expression of allegiance to the Queen, who is also their patron.

A pledge of allegiance to the Queen can be retained because the Queen, being a ceremonial figurehead, makes no demands of us, and does nothing to us if we fail to meet any standards. So in our irresponsible, self-serving age it's hardly a surprise that people are happy to still make promises to the Queen.

The rethink followed the appointment of the group’s new chief executive, Julie Bentley, the former head of The Family Planning Association, who described the Guides as “the ultimate feminist organisation”.

"Family planning" is the Newspeak euphemism for what in Oldspeak would be termed "'Family Prevention', or at times 'Family Liquidation'".

Moreso, "feminism" is what in Oldspeak would be called "masculinism", i.e. the idea that women can only be fulfilled when they become men. As such, historically Guides was the very antithesis of a feminist organisation.

Gill Slocombe, the Chief Guide, said the changes would make the promise less “confusing” and easier for the organisation’s 550,000 members to take with sincerity.
“I honestly think the Baden-Powells would have approved, they were so free thinking and good at thinking in terms of people’s needs,” she said.

a) In other words, God is not relevant to peoples' needs... because none of us needs life, breath or existence, or his providence in any particulars such as food, clothing, not to mention anything beyond those basic things...

b) Riigghttt... the Baden-Powells were "free-thinkers" (a code word for secularists/atheists), so they decided to set up explicitly theistic organisations that required every member to take an oath of loyalty to God... hmmmm...

... meanwhile, back in reality, as noted here, "To the founder, Lord Baden-Powell, it was as much a peril for a young man to avoid as gambling, drunkenness, swearing or the wiles of the opposite sex."

c) Ms. Slocombe thinks honestly that the Baden-Powells would have agreed with her, because as a good member of the Party, she has been into Room 101 where she was taught to believe that only stupid or evil people disagree with the Party's Doctrines. As such, it follows as easily as night follows day that every intelligent or sane figure from every age would Certainly Agree With Us, were they still alive today. Secular humanists can't cope with principled differences of opinion. Everyone must think like they do, or be stupid or evil. No alternative. Disagree? O'Brien can see you now.

“I don’t know whether it is radical I just think it is fantastic that our members have come up with a promise that they feel they can confidently say and feel that they can keep.”

Since “be true to myself” and to “develop my beliefs”, when de-weasalised, just means "I'll do what I feel like doing", I don't doubt that few people will have trouble with keeping that pledge. But how is that fantastic? It reads not far from the dictionary definition of selfishness.

She said she was also “delighted” that, despite the reference to God being dropped, there would still be a spiritual dimension to the promise and that the Queen would continue to be a focus of unity.

Since God is the one Spirit who made us, there is no spiritual dimension without God. So this is just a weaselly way of saying "we can still keep our consciences quiet because there's some kind of ultimately meaningless god-speak-lite in there. But thankfully it's not to do with any God who demands anything specific of us that we don't want to do".

Among responses to the consultation, one young girl wrote that she felt like she was “lying to the Brownies” by making a promise to a God in whom she did not believe.

Great. So the policy of the Brownies is now to be determined by what's acceptable to self-confessed liars.

Stephen Evans, campaigns manager at the National Secular Society, said: “By omitting any explicit mention of God or religion the Guide Association has grasped the opportunity to make itself truly inclusive and relevant to the reality of 21st century Britain.

1) Ah, the secularists - always ready with their tiresome "truth depends on what time's on the clock" sound-bites. No need to present a reasoned argument for your beliefs - just assert endlessly that the calendar requires them, and patronise people who dare to differ.

2) Note that the premise "it's the 21st century" has no connection whatsoever with conclusion "God is not relevant", any more than it does with the conclusion "a man can marry a man/horse/slice of Wensleydale" or indeed with the conclusion "God is completely relevant".

3) God maintains Mr. Evans, the Guides, and everything else in existence. I'd say that's fairly relevant.

4) There's nothing inclusive about requiring would-be Girl Guides to take a humanist oath. "Be true to myself" and "develop my beliefs" is not a "neutral" pledge. It's a pledge to make oneself the central reference point of reality - the place that should be occupied by God. That's excluding people who aren't atheists.

"The new secular promise can now be meaningful and relevant to all guides and potential leaders, whatever their beliefs – and sends a clear signal that Girlguiding is equally welcoming to all girls."

That's more honest - it's a secular promise, not an inclusive one. Not everyone is a secularist; only a small, loud minority are. "Girlguiding" [sic] has has only just become equally welcoming to all girls if we mean that it has become more equally welcoming to some than to others.

But Andrea Williams of Christian Concern said: “It sounds like jargon from a consumerist self-help manual completely at odds with the true ethos of the Guiding organisation which was set up to encourage belief in God and a corporate identity, not about individualism but to understand what it really is to be part of a community.”

Now there's a woman who wasn't brainwashed by secularism and feminism. Hallelujah!

David Landrum, advocacy director of the Evangelical Alliance said: "No doubt, the Girls Brigade will be the main beneficiaries from this erroneous decision, because as the growing poplularity of faith schools attests, parents will always seek to provide religious rather than secular humanist values for their children."

Let us hope so.