Most of these questions aren't yes/no answers, you need to be much more specific for some of them. I'll try to answer them anyway.

Yes

Yes, religion isn't among them though unless it becomes anti social in how it's expressed.

Yes

Yes, as long as that assembly (assuming it's sole purpose is the promotion of those ideals) doesn't include children and only includes consenting adults.

Depends on the paradigm. If it's 'playing with other children is healthy for my child' that's fine. If it's 'must make my child have the same religion that I do'. then no.

If your belief system is worthy, give the children all the information available about all the belief systems and they'll come to yours anyway right? If they don't, that's their right. Unless of course the other belief system has indoctrinated them, then I'm sure you'd have a problem with someone urging their belief system on your children.

Depends on the type of ideals and it's irrelevant who's funding it. Private or public, I don't agree with discrimination. It's important therefore to establish if it's actually discrimination or simply tailoring to a target demographic.

Apparently adults are free to make kids believe whatever suits them. That is the same tactic that non-democratic societies and dictators use so it seems to me that it's not the type of society that's the relevant issue but whether or not it's ok to urge meta-belief systems like religions on children.

This is distinct from education which is necessary.

Parents shouldn't be allowed to tell their kids that its good to help others less fortunate, make their kids eat their veggies, and playing football is good and builds charicter?

We had this discussion a few years ago; in order to enter a Freemason lodge one has to acknowledge a Higher Deity. This, apparently, is the rule in western thought but of course there's the French who do not have this precondition in order to enter their lodges. But then again, they are the French.

Kids are not vertically challenged adults. They're different both cognitively and physically. If you had been never taught anything assertively, you would not have been able to become a functioning member of a society.

Ultimately parents must be the guardian of children and what they learn, and usually any given society also has norms for how parents should behave.

I think there are two different issues that should be separated. First, I think fretelöo is correct in saying that this requirement is dumb. If the Scouts in the U.K. is anything like in the U.S.(disclosure: I was in the U.S. version of Boy Scouts growing up), this requirement is irrelevant to their purpose. While some troops do have more of a religious character than others, many troops are completely irreligious. Also, I would guess that a significant percentage of Scouts are atheists, but just don't make it an issue.

However, I think tame_deuces is also correct. The Scouts are a private organization and should be allowed to set their own rules for membership--including requiring faith statements. I also agree with him that Mightyboosh's view that parents should raise children without encouraging any "meta-belief systems" is both unrealistic and actively harms them.

MB, you are promoting ideas that you yourself dont belive.

You say parents dont have the right to force their kids into beliving things, yet you are forcing your kids to NOT belive what is being said to them in them in the RE thread by forcably excluding them from attending. You're not allowing them to make their own choice.

Yes they should.

Yes they are. I'm not disagreeing with teaching children assertively. Where are you getting that from?

Do you have children? Imagine I take one aside and tell them that it's bad to steal. You might be a little put out that I'm doing your job for you, or not, but you probably wouldn't mind what I'm teaching them. Now imagine instead that I take one of your children aside and explain to them why they should vote Republican when they're old enough. Would you consider the second example to crossing a line? That it's not my place, or anyone's, to urge a particular political system on a child? That's how I feel about religion.

Your guesses aside since they don't add anything substantial to your position, none of this excuses that the children are being forced to pledge loyalty to a deity, whether they mean it or not, or risk being excluded from Scouts. It's discriminatory, anachronistic and it's unethical. If it wasn't I have reasonable doubt that they'd be considering removing it from the pledge.

It's no different than politicians in Iran being having to be 'approved' by the Islam Council before being able to ruin for office. Both are simply another method by which religions attempt to propagate their doctrine and perpetuate themselves.

I'm shocked you feel that way. I wonder if there's an extreme to which that view could be taken that would cause you to become uncomfortable, a threshold that you also wouldn't cross. A little Reductio ad absurdum (see, been doing some reading ). Some kids in KKK outfits? A couple of 5 year olds reading from the Q'uran in full Islamic ceremonial clothing? Some kids wearing 'god hates ****' tee-shirts? Where's your line for when teaching children a meta belief system is no longer acceptable? I'm sure you have one and that it's just not in the same place that mine is.

Unless you by 'encouraging' you don't mean 'shove down their throats' as is happening here in the UK in our primary schools and through constant reinforcement such as the Scout/guide pledge? I encourage my children to learn about and analyse meta belief systems, what I'm not doing is telling them which one they should believe.

No, that's wrong, and I have repeatedly had to say this.

I teach my kids about all the meta belief systems including Secularism as a choice, I don't tell them which one to believe. I educate, I don't indoctrinate.

They may have been withdrawn (not 'forecably excluded' as you put it somewhat dramatically, I exercised my legal right to withdraw them) from RE, but that was to protect them from an unethical bias. They may not know as much as their peers about Christianity but I guarantee you they know more about all the other religions.

You're splitting hairs here. (Young) cHildren follow their parents in what/how they should believe stuff whether you want that or not. If you tell them that stealing is wrong, you "indoctrinate" them (in your words) as you (I would assume) don't give them a comprehensive lecture about all possible moralities - including those in which stealing might be justified - and then just leave them with the list with no indication as to which you prefer and why.

You tell them stealing is wrong because of suchandsuch and that's that. If you wanna posit now that you encourage and accept follow-up questions and dissent, then I'm simply counter-positing that most religious education is encouraging that as well.

No I'm not, this is fundamental but vital distinction. 'Not stealing' is a rule that will help them survive in a moral society. '2+2=4' is just a counting skill. 'The universe was made by a creator being that you should fear and worship, there are lots of versions but you should believe the one I believe'.... uh, not the same thing.

I don't know the status in the UK, but in the US there is not just the atheist/agnostic ban but also the homosexual ban, which is likewise disgusting. As someone whose whole family has been involved in every level of scouting (beavers up to leading venturers), I can attest that there is tremendous value to scouting. I don't want to throw up my hands and say that it is a religious institution and religious institutions are legally allowed to discriminate (whether on religious grounds or LGBT grounds, although this is jurisdiction dependent). I want to vociferously condemn the discrimination for the harm it causes and make scouts, otherwise a laudable organization, something we can be proud of.

I have written somewhat about the homosexuality and scouts stuff on my blog, first post being this one: http://progressiveproselytizing.blog...able-anti.html

Doesnt change the fact that you're not unbiased and are not leaving the choice to them as to what conclusions to draw from your lecture. You're still indoctrinating them.

That you personally believe that the assertion '2+2=4' or the moral rule "dont steal" are of different import and/or different truth than "God exists as a trinity of father, son and holy spirit" is of no relevance at all.

Nope since the definition of indoctrination includes this vital sentence - " It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned." and I'm definitely not doing that to my kids, on the contrary, I'm helping them to become critical thinkers (as well as I'm able to), I encourage them to ask questions and critically examine everything they're told.

Again, on the contrary, it's of the utmost importance. If you think those things are indoctrination, then please explain to me what education is, I think you're conflating the two (Thanks asdf).

Well, I'm mostly of the opinion that if your sincere beliefs and opinions don't match those of a group then you probably shouldn't sign up.

I'd be more bothered by my children pledging fealty to the monarch but that might just be me. I doubt it would put me off sending a kid to scouts, although I'd have told them to be respectful.

And Boosh, you really need to get past this fallacy that because it's a group established with a religious ethic in mind that it's only reason for being is to push religion on kids. You sound like a conspiracy nut.

I already indicated my response above: Religious education encourages dissent and follow-up questions as well. Prove me wrong, pls. Just saying I'm wrong doesnt count, neither does circumstantial evidence or personal experience. Something substantive please.

So teaching things that you believe are of importance to kids in an biased and clearly suggestive manner is education, while stuff that you don't think is important in a biased and clearly suggestive manner is indoctrination. That seems peculiar.

If your kid steals something, do you accept his strong philosophical defence of amoralism, or do you tell him it's wrong to steal?

This isn't really true. As in, if we cannot use the scout oath as a codification of their purpose, what can we use? And that includes clear and explicit mentions of doing ones duty to God in BSOA.

Incidentally in the 2000 case over whether BSOA was allowed to discriminate against homosexuals (which BSOA won, correctly, in my view, given current failings in the law) it was a point of contention as to whether being against homosexuality itself was sufficiently part of the core mission of BSOA and thus whether they should uphold their right to free assembly based on this core mission. The dissent argued that given the absence of explicit mention in the oath it was not sufficiently core, the majority said it didn't matter as long as it was espoused by the leaders and a clear policy. However, explicit mentions of god absolutely are in the oath and so even the dissent's argument would be invalid.

What I think you mean is that many of the OTHER things part of their purpose are just as valid if you eliminate the part of their purpose that has to do with God. This is what I would like, for them to retain the other components and get rid of this bit.

Out of curiosity, do you think that every person wanting to emigrate to, say, Canada, should have to swear fealty to the Queen (the nominal head of a specific church? I would be a republican, in this sense.

I would indeed sound like a nut if that's what I was saying. Luckily, it's not.

It may be part of the overall reinforcement that pervades society in general, but it wasn't set up with that aim, in fact I did detail in one post exactly what it was set up for, perhaps you missed that while you were reading the entire thread to make sure you didn't get anything wrong?

This has been discussed elsewhere. In that thread I got the person I was talking to to admit that when their church encouraged them to ask questions and to 'doubt' they weren't actually expecting them to lose their faith or change their minds. It's very dishonest and quite patronising how religions claim to allow questioning.

Refer to and join that thread if you can find it, this thread isn't about that.

It would if it were the case, it's not. It's also getting really far away from the thread topic.

Well you said it right here.

I'm not saying that it's a "religious institution", I think people are transposing their misconceptions onto my posts there (I know you weren't saying that, I'm just using it for demonstrative purposes). I also agree that the homophobic discrimination is disgusting.

This thread is specifically about the pledge of loyalty to a deity. I doubt many scout troupes actually take it any further than that in the practice of scouting. It's most likely going to be removed from the pledge in this country, I wanted to know what people thought about that specifically?

So I explicitely said that personal experience isn't really an argument but you give it anyway? Hope I don't notice?

And you're simply dismissing the matter as "far away from thread topic" when pressed?

No you've misunderstood, that was part of a separate conversation started by this question:

I don't consider the Scouts a Faith Based organisation, and I definitely don't consider that religious indoctrination is the purpose of the Scouts. This thread is about the wording of the pledge.