This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/08/brownies-swap-god-for-gobbledygook

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
God swapped for gobbledygook God swapped for gobbledygook
(10 days later)
Which words or phrases would make your top five list of the worst linguistic horrors in modern English? Here are mine:Which words or phrases would make your top five list of the worst linguistic horrors in modern English? Here are mine:
1) "Chillax". I try to tell myself that this has always been a practical joke and nobody has ever actually used the word in normal conversation. But this is scant consolation because I know for certain that people say "chill" to mean "relax", having heard it with my own ears (which still shiver occasionally of their own accord, like two spaniels remembering a car crash), which is very nearly as bad.1) "Chillax". I try to tell myself that this has always been a practical joke and nobody has ever actually used the word in normal conversation. But this is scant consolation because I know for certain that people say "chill" to mean "relax", having heard it with my own ears (which still shiver occasionally of their own accord, like two spaniels remembering a car crash), which is very nearly as bad.
2) "Vino" to mean wine.2) "Vino" to mean wine.
3) "Fizz" or "bubbly" to mean champagne.3) "Fizz" or "bubbly" to mean champagne.
4) Actually, since we're here, any slang term for drinks at all. Beer may inspire the worst offences. "A few jars", "a cheeky brew", "a couple of cold ones"… all are as revolting in the mouth as the sour, fizzy, doughy sludge they're referring to. Or maybe you like beer? Good luck to you. But no need to develop a series of pet names as though you and the beer had just got back from honeymoon and were cooing to each other on a candle-lit beanbag.4) Actually, since we're here, any slang term for drinks at all. Beer may inspire the worst offences. "A few jars", "a cheeky brew", "a couple of cold ones"… all are as revolting in the mouth as the sour, fizzy, doughy sludge they're referring to. Or maybe you like beer? Good luck to you. But no need to develop a series of pet names as though you and the beer had just got back from honeymoon and were cooing to each other on a candle-lit beanbag.
5) "Be true to yourself". It simply doesn't mean anything. Our language is awash with empty new phrases (as listed whenever the conversation turns to "management speak") but "Be true to yourself" is particularly foul because it aspires to the status of moral principle. Which it cannot be, because it doesn't mean anything. It is as incoherent as the moral of the Duchess in Alice In Wonderland: "Be what you would seem to be – or, if you'd like it put more simply – never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."5) "Be true to yourself". It simply doesn't mean anything. Our language is awash with empty new phrases (as listed whenever the conversation turns to "management speak") but "Be true to yourself" is particularly foul because it aspires to the status of moral principle. Which it cannot be, because it doesn't mean anything. It is as incoherent as the moral of the Duchess in Alice In Wonderland: "Be what you would seem to be – or, if you'd like it put more simply – never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."
It's just shorter.It's just shorter.
Given the hierarchy, I suppose I should be relieved that the new Brownie Promise, relaunched last Sunday with updated wording for little girls all over the country, is not "I promise I'll chillax over a glass of 'poo, or maybe a swift half, which would be totes amazeballs".Given the hierarchy, I suppose I should be relieved that the new Brownie Promise, relaunched last Sunday with updated wording for little girls all over the country, is not "I promise I'll chillax over a glass of 'poo, or maybe a swift half, which would be totes amazeballs".
Nevertheless, it is barely less grim to see that the new Promise asks girls to pledge (instead of "to love God") that they will "be true to myself and develop my beliefs".Nevertheless, it is barely less grim to see that the new Promise asks girls to pledge (instead of "to love God") that they will "be true to myself and develop my beliefs".
Oh for the love of God! (Or, rather, not for the love of God.) What ghastly committee meeting, what endless wrangle, what months of debate, what conferences and whiteboards and PowerPoint presentations led to this lame, weak, hollow clump of Californian couch jargon?Oh for the love of God! (Or, rather, not for the love of God.) What ghastly committee meeting, what endless wrangle, what months of debate, what conferences and whiteboards and PowerPoint presentations led to this lame, weak, hollow clump of Californian couch jargon?
I'm sorry they dropped God from the pledge rather than simply offer, as is done with jurors, an alternative wording for anyone whose faith or lack of it cannot incorporate the name. It seems a mean trick to play on all those churches that lend their halls for Brownie and Guide activities – forcing them to choose between continuing to house an organisation that has publicly severed its link with what they stand for, or withdrawing the space and leaving local children with nowhere to gather.I'm sorry they dropped God from the pledge rather than simply offer, as is done with jurors, an alternative wording for anyone whose faith or lack of it cannot incorporate the name. It seems a mean trick to play on all those churches that lend their halls for Brownie and Guide activities – forcing them to choose between continuing to house an organisation that has publicly severed its link with what they stand for, or withdrawing the space and leaving local children with nowhere to gather.
In other words, they can choose between feeling foolish or cruel. It's an insidious position in which to place anyone, especially given that the new Promise also swears to "serve my community", of which churches are surely an important part.In other words, they can choose between feeling foolish or cruel. It's an insidious position in which to place anyone, especially given that the new Promise also swears to "serve my community", of which churches are surely an important part.
But even if there is some reason why God must be dropped entirely, was there really no better alternative? Could they not have looked for something like the "higher power", which Alcoholics Anonymous allows so cleverly to stand, in the minds of atheists, for cycles of nature, the universe, time, society or anything that helps a person to realise they are part of something bigger than themselves and behave with accordant responsibility?But even if there is some reason why God must be dropped entirely, was there really no better alternative? Could they not have looked for something like the "higher power", which Alcoholics Anonymous allows so cleverly to stand, in the minds of atheists, for cycles of nature, the universe, time, society or anything that helps a person to realise they are part of something bigger than themselves and behave with accordant responsibility?
Promising to "be true to myself" feels like the very opposite of that. Although, I repeat, it doesn't mean anything at all, it certainly carries a suggestion of something utterly individualistic. It's the language of The X Factor. It feels stubborn, self-important and faintly aggressive. It brings selfhood looming into the foreground, reducing the rest of the world to passers-by who benefit or suffer by mere coincidence as the individual dream is followed.Promising to "be true to myself" feels like the very opposite of that. Although, I repeat, it doesn't mean anything at all, it certainly carries a suggestion of something utterly individualistic. It's the language of The X Factor. It feels stubborn, self-important and faintly aggressive. It brings selfhood looming into the foreground, reducing the rest of the world to passers-by who benefit or suffer by mere coincidence as the individual dream is followed.
I've never met a child who wasn't true to itself, anyway. Anyone who happened to sit next to any children on a long-haul flight this summer, including their own, probably wishes they were a bit bloody less true to themselves.I've never met a child who wasn't true to itself, anyway. Anyone who happened to sit next to any children on a long-haul flight this summer, including their own, probably wishes they were a bit bloody less true to themselves.
When I was a kid, I was true to myself every time I screamed that I didn't want to go to bed. Every time I messed about in class because I didn't like geography. Every time I pulled my friend Danielle's hair because I was jealous of her Barbie collection. Every time I claimed my brother hit me. True to him? No. True to my own belief that he was being mean and should be nicer to me? Oh yes.When I was a kid, I was true to myself every time I screamed that I didn't want to go to bed. Every time I messed about in class because I didn't like geography. Every time I pulled my friend Danielle's hair because I was jealous of her Barbie collection. Every time I claimed my brother hit me. True to him? No. True to my own belief that he was being mean and should be nicer to me? Oh yes.
Every bit of acting up through resentment, impatience, temper, boredom or sadness was "true to myself" and if my parents had sent me to the Brownies, I suspect it would not have been for a pat on the back.Every bit of acting up through resentment, impatience, temper, boredom or sadness was "true to myself" and if my parents had sent me to the Brownies, I suspect it would not have been for a pat on the back.
Perhaps I misunderstand the phrase. Perhaps it is not a way of promoting self-centredness to a moral position. If I am misunderstanding, though, it's because of the loose, weedy incomprehensibility of the term.Perhaps I misunderstand the phrase. Perhaps it is not a way of promoting self-centredness to a moral position. If I am misunderstanding, though, it's because of the loose, weedy incomprehensibility of the term.
I'm sure the Brownies and Guides are good and worthwhile organisations, aiming to help children socialise and develop moral awareness alongside living skills, despite rewording their Promise to suggest the opposite. I'm sure they're very good people. But they have not, I think, earned their language badge this year.I'm sure the Brownies and Guides are good and worthwhile organisations, aiming to help children socialise and develop moral awareness alongside living skills, despite rewording their Promise to suggest the opposite. I'm sure they're very good people. But they have not, I think, earned their language badge this year.
www.victoriacoren.comwww.victoriacoren.com
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.