|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Should the unveiling of a secular Memorial become the property of a single religion?
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
Marshall of the Royal Air Force etc. Sir Michael Beetham “... above all, we come together to remember the young men who flew for the Command during the Second World War....”
Background – of the 125,000 aircrew of Bomber Command, 55,573 (average age, 22 years) died (that's four out of every nine - how many nines are in your family/workplace/church? - imagine four of each nine being killed before their thirtieth birthday). I’m told that that was the highest WWII percentage death toll of all UK services other than Submariners.
For years many of both the survivors and the families of those who died have felt that their massive contribution was overlooked. No Bomber Command medal, no Memorial.
Finally, and without a lot of official support or encouragement (read money) a fitting Memorial has been created. On Thursday some 6,000 people attended the Unveiling in Green Park.
I, perhaps naively, expected the event, apart from the actual unveiling, to revolve around speeches to honour those who died, those who live with the memories of flying at night over occupied Europe running the gauntlet of night fighters, anti-aircraft fire and mid-air collisions”*, and their families. According to the official booklet’s back cover “This Memorial is dedicated to the 55,573 airmen of the United Kingdom, British Commonwealth and Allied nations who served in RAF Bomber Command and lost their lives over the course of the Second World War”.
What did we get – a Christian service. Not a bit of religion for those who believe mixed in with honouring the dead, just a Christian service (during which the Queen unveiled the Statues). I know that some of the survivors who attended are atheists, looking around the ten or so in sight (a small sample admittedly) at least four took no part in the prayers/responses/hymn singing, another sang along but was otherwise silent – as far as I could see all were capable of normal social intercourse before and after the service.
I’m not sure that anyone actually listened to the words used – I personally wondered at the rationality of singing the National Anthem (“Send her victorious”) and then having a lengthy, rambling prayer which went on about praying for peace (anyone know the track record of previous prayers for peace?). This was followed by another cleric starting off a series of prayers with the words “Almighty God, from you alone comes wisdom and understanding.....” as if an almighty god who’s “love enfolds us in both life and death” (next prayer – same guy) is going to be swayed by a bit of arse-licking when he let WWII go on for six bloody years. (lots more deleted).
Anyroadup – the questions are two
1 – Should the church (or indeed, any other organisation) be allowed to hijack an event it has not (at least, not enough to be mentioned in the list of major benefactors) contributed towards. As an apparent last-minute “grab for glory” it was clearly contrary to the principles of many of those (either of non-christian faith or no faith) who, in my opinion, should have been the key consideration, and
2 – how do such events get squared with Matt 6:6? Does being an “important” cleric confer sufficient wisdom and understanding to enable them to ignore the advice of the alleged person/god that they claim to serve?
*From the Foreword to the official booklet by Sir Robert Wright, Controller, Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund (the guardians of the Memorial).
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
I do sympathize for the predicament, but isn't it the case that those commemorated served a monarch who was also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, which was and still is the Established Church, affiliated with and supported by the government? Even though other faiths (or none) are tolerated, there is an automatic Established one. I wouldn't expect anything different to happen in any other countries in the world with an Established religion.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
1 – Should the church (or indeed, any other organisation) be allowed to hijack an event it has not (at least, not enough to be mentioned in the list of major benefactors) contributed towards.
How do you know the church 'hijacked' the event? Presumably whoever organised it asked for a service and no one else involved particularly objected? I'm guessing the clergy didn't just barge in on the day waving crosses about like the 'No one expects the Spanish Inquiition! sketch.
[ 01. July 2012, 06:57: Message edited by: Yerevan ]
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
Or 'inquisition' even. Far too early in the morning...
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
The simple answer to the OP is "No, this should have been a secular event" - by which I don't mean that religious leaders should have been excluded, nor religious references removed.
A few suggestions.
1. It seems wrong to me that any religion should align itself to the power structure and history of a nation. By so doing it loses its power to offer a prophetic critique of what has been happening. That was why ++Runcie's service after the Falklands War caused such a rumpus: he challenged the idea of God as "our" national deity.
2. It puts religious words into the mouths of people who don't understand or believe them. Worse, it asks atheists and those of other faiths to say/sing them - or be accused of "not taking part properly".
3. All civic religion endorses the idea of "Of course I'm a Christian - I'm British, aren't I?" which, to my mind, seriously blunts the evangelistic challenge of the Church.
4. I find it interesting that we can invoke God on public occasions like this, yet determinedly exclude him from the things that matter, such as the Parliamentary process and public debate of morals. I find it interesting that, while the USA eschews Establishment and, indeed, has the First Amendment, God can be mentioned freely in such discussions.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I'm also sympathetic to the OP, but 'hijack' contains at least one odd presupposition - that it was hijacked.
Was it? How do you know? Possibly the organizers thought, in their wisdom, oh well, we'd better get a few vicars and bishops along, people like that sort of thing.
I agree with the comments about civic religion also. The C of E is becoming a kind of bizarre Oxfam cast-off, which keeps turning up again and again, and nobody has the heart to throw away.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Should the church (or indeed, any other organisation) be allowed to hijack an event it has not ... contributed towards.
I would imagine most of those who served in Bomber Command considered themselves Christians. I'd guess there were more Jews than atheists but who knows.
As an atheist I have no problem with events like this per se though, like HughWillRidmee, I might dislike some specific prayers. But that's true of most public events.
For me, the point of funerals and services of rembrance is to have an appropriate setting to think about those who have died. The church has a long tradition of setting an appropriate framework - something which it is harder to do with a more eclectic mix of people, views and such.
I daresay some of those who didn't say prayers were just quietly remembering their comrades, lost youth, horror of war and so on. They could no doubt also draw something from knowing that they were with others who also knew what it was really like. They didn't need talk of "flying at night over occupied Europe running the gauntlet of night fighters, anti-aircraft fire and mid-air collisions" - they'd done it.
Pesonally I take prayers as hints about what you might find valuable to think about and have no difficulty translating most of the concepts into secular terms. I'm sure religious believers do the reverse at secular ceremonies. It's the "serious house on serious earth" bit that seems important to me - not the colour of the wallpaper.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
England isn't like the United States. It has an establish Church and all, so atheists there can hardly go on pretending that their country is a secular one.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
The majority of British people are Cjristians . The men who flew in Bomber Command were for the most part Christian .
Therefore having Christian clergy participate
was appropriate . There is the established church arguement.
My thanks go to the people who served in Bomber Command (RAF,RAAF, RCAF et al ) They helped end one of the worst regiemes the earth has seen. Morality of it all ? Go ask the people of Rottedam, Coventry any of the 12 million murdered in thye camps half of which were jews . The fliers of Bomber Command help ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif) ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ed end that suffering
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
The majority of those who flew would have regarded themselves as Christians, and the Church of England is the majority church in Britain, so it seems to me to be fair that the C of E should play a major part in the service.
However, the "Established Church" argument doesn't really work, because the Bomber Command memorial is to commemorate the men of Bomber Command from all parts of Britain, and not all of Britain has an Established Church.
(I'm proud to say that I know someone who flew with Bomber Command, who was there at the unveiling last week.)
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
tessaB
Shipmate
# 8533
|
Posted
I'm wondering who would be appropriate to lead some sort of unveiling ceremony if not the church?
This is the sort of thing the church does really well. Being a focal point for the community in times of both stress and celebration. Having no axe to grind in terms of public exposure for reelection such as a politician might or indeed having an eye on their budget as a high ranking military person may. The Church can be simultaneously outside, and the centre of community.
--------------------
tessaB
eating chocolate to the glory of God
Holiday cottage near Rye
Posts: 1068 | From: U.K. | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
I have seen these things done perfectly well in France with no religious component to the ceremony. But that's France. As a Catholic who just occasionally gets irritated by the CofE dominance of these things, with the rest of us expected, at most, to turn up and look exotic, I would say that it's just the way it's done here and it's almost unimaginable to have it done otherwise - notwithstanding the perfectly valid point about the distinction between Britain and England and the related issues of religious settlement.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
*Sigh* ASs with all these church v state arguments, there is a woeful ignorance of history. It is not a case or question of where does the church fit iin with the state, etc, because the English 'state' is also religious. The Church is intertwined with the state at every level. Over the centuries canon law, the church authorities and the legal system, the governmental system have all been indistinguishable. It's only in recent centuries that the state has become more secular but the ecclesiastical stuff is all still there - for example, the Archbishop of Canterbury ranks higher than the Prime Minister.
All ceremonial, therefore, is essentially Anglican - from the coronation of the head of State right down to the annual Remembrance commemorations - it's all Christian and most people accept it.
It's our heritage, our identity and tradition. It will never change - certainly not while we have a monarchy and Parliament they way that it all is now.
The interesting thing is that minority religious leaders - Muslims and Hindus - want to keep the established church and all its civic functions because it makes it easier for them to practice their faith.
No one - except the rather sad, intolerant and mean-spirited National Secular society wants to see Christianity taken out of national celebrations and commemorations.
It's what makes us British.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
Mudfrog said: quote:
The interesting thing is that minority religious leaders - Muslims and Hindus - want to keep the established church and all its civic functions because it makes it easier for them to practice their faith.
This keeps being stated, is there any actual citation for it?
quote:
No one - except the rather sad, intolerant and mean-spirited National Secular society wants to see Christianity taken out of national celebrations and commemorations.
And the odd Christian who thinks serving two masters is a bit of an issue...
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
the English 'state' is also religious.
quote:
It's what makes us British.
Since when has English =British?
The C of E should take the lead because it's the majority church in Britain. BUT it's not true to say that quote:
The Church is intertwined with the state at every level
if the state you are talking about is Britain.
Great Britain was created by the Act of Union 1707. That Act guaranteed that Scotland would remain Presbyterian. Therefore, the Church of England is not, and at no point in the history of Great Britain has been, the Established church in Britain. It's the Established church in England. But Bomber Command was British, not just English. Therefore, the issue of Establishment is irrelevent. The C of E should be the main church at the unveiling because it is the majority church in Britain.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
the English 'state' is also religious.
quote:
It's what makes us British.
Since when has English =British?
The C of E should take the lead because it's the majority church in Britain. BUT it's not true to say that quote:
The Church is intertwined with the state at every level
if the state you are talking about is Britain.
Great Britain was created by the Act of Union 1707. That Act guaranteed that Scotland would remain Presbyterian. Therefore, the Church of England is not, and at no point in the history of Great Britain has been, the Established church in Britain. It's the Established church in England. But Bomber Command was British, not just English. Therefore, the issue of Establishment is irrelevent. The C of E should be the main church at the unveiling because it is the majority church in Britain.
I take the point about England/Britain.
But i would suggest that in Scotland the religious culture is similar. people expect the church to have a central role in community life
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Yes, I agree. And I think most / all Scots happily concede that the C of E is the largest, and therefore pre-eminent church. I said in my post that I thought the C of E should be involved in the ceremony.
But it's odd when people promulgate a definition of Britishness which excludes me, and which would exclude the elderly man I know who flew in Lancasters in Bomber Command and who was at the unveiling last week.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Well, if the memorial had been in Scotland then the religious bit would have been Presbyterian. But as your friend was on English soil, the only church that could be represented was the CofE.
I'm not CofE and I wouldn't have felt excluded had I attended.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
Just imagine if the British Humanist Association and the National Secular Society had beaten the state to it, and arbitrarily held an entirely religion-free atheistic ceremony for the fallen airmen. No sermon, but a speach from Terry Hatchet about how fantastic it is that we have "progressed" beyond religion, and we should all put our faith in science. As for the dead - well, they just live on in the memories of those still alive who remember them, and their children etc etc...
How do you think that would have gone down?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
I'm not arguing that it shouldn't have been C of E!!
The OP suggested that any church involvement excluded those of non-christian faith or no faith.
I'm arguing that comments such as Martin L
quote:
those commemorated served a monarch who was also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, which was and still is the Established Church, affiliated with and supported by the government?
or Zach82
quote:
England isn't like the United States. It has an establish Church and all,
or your
quote:
All ceremonial, therefore, is essentially Anglican - from the coronation of the head of State right down to the annual Remembrance commemorations - it's all Christian and most people accept it.
It's our heritage, our identity and tradition.
excludes those who are British, but not English, who served a monarch who was a member of the Church of Scotland, and for whom Anglicanism is emphatically not part of our heritage.
I'm not arguing against the C of E, I'm arguing that it shouldn't be the C of E on the spurious ground that the C of E is the Established church when, for many British people, it isn't. It's the Established church of our neighbouring country.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
If the ceremony had been held in Scotland, it would have been a different story. But it wasn't.
And for the record, I never said that the C of E was the Established British church, nor did many others.
If the ceremony had been held in Edinburgh, I no doubt that the C of S would have been involved.
Reality Check once again: You are dealing with Established religions who deign to allow you to believe and practice what you want.
[ 01. July 2012, 22:07: Message edited by: Martin L ]
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
No sermon, but a speach from Terry Hatchet...
As you were, "Terry Sanderson"
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
1 – Should the church (or indeed, any other organisation) be allowed to hijack an event it has not (at least, not enough to be mentioned in the list of major benefactors) contributed towards. As an apparent last-minute “grab for glory” it was clearly contrary to the principles of many of those (either of non-christian faith or no faith) who, in my opinion, should have been the key consideration,
You make three assertions here: 1) The event was "hijacked" by the church. Firstly, what do you even mean by that? Presumably the clergy didn't rush in with drawn guns to take over the ceremony. Secondly, do you have any evidence that this was actually the case? 2) This was a last-minute "grab for glory". How do you know that it was last-minute rather than always planned this way? 3) This was contrary to the principles to many of those celebrated (presumably of those celebrated, your statement is vague). Do you have anything beyond personal impressions for claiming that "many" were opposed?
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
2 – how do such events get squared with Matt 6:6?
Matt 6:6 has bugger all to do with the situation at hand, which was leading a communal celebration. The celebrating clergy were hardly in the business of showing off their personal piety or individual charity.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
All ceremonial, therefore, is essentially Anglican - from the coronation of the head of State right down to the annual Remembrance commemorations - it's all Christian and most people accept it. ... It's what makes us British.
Firstly, "Anglican" is not a synonym for "Christian". Not even in England. Secondly, if the identification of "Anglican" with "British" (or at least "English"...) survives the next twenty years, that would be rather good going for the Anglicans. A hundred years? I really don't see that, in spite of the English habit of holding on to traditions no matter how empty. Times are moving fast, and the UK is not one of the slower places all things considered.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Just imagine if the British Humanist Association and the National Secular Society had beaten the state to it, and arbitrarily held an entirely religion-free atheistic ceremony for the fallen airmen. No sermon, but a speach from Terry Hatchet about how fantastic it is that we have "progressed" beyond religion, and we should all put our faith in science. As for the dead - well, they just live on in the memories of those still alive who remember them, and their children etc etc...
How do you think that would have gone down?
I wouldn't waste my time thinking about it. At no time did I suggest that religion should have been excluded – might that be a somewhat Carey-esque interpretation?
I see no reason why religion generally – christian (established or not) and non-christian - should not have had a place for those who think it appropriate.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog people expect the church to have a central role in community life
A central role but not The only role as it was in Green Park
quote:
originally posted by North East Quine The majority of those who flew would have regarded themselves as Christians, and the Church of England is the majority church in Britain, so it seems to me to be fair that the C of E should play a major part in the service. I don’t know how you know that – the veteran I was with has always insisted that his war service merely confirmed his pre-existing atheism. Perhaps he was unique? And it wasn't a major part it was the whole thing from start to finish
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC The majority of British people are Cjristians . The men who flew in Bomber Command were for the most part Christian . Therefore having Christian clergy participate was appropriate The majority of British people are Christians? – only with a very undemanding definition of what it is to be a Christian Mori Having christian clergy participate is reasonable – allowing no role for those who aren’t Christians is not – isn’t it just arrogance?
Remove the word that’s enabled some people to avoid addressing the issues.
1 ) Should any religious organisation be able to dominate a secular event to the exclusion of all other creeds and no creed?
2) Matthew's Gospel reports Jesus as saying
6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Were the highly visible prayers in Green Park disobeying their Lord?
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
What do you think the airmen and their families would have expected at the time just prior to when they died? Would they have expected (or wished for) multi-faith/humanist funerals to please the politically correct? I don't think so.
What they would have expected (all those years ago) was precisely what they got. Case closed.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
HughWillRidmee: quote:
1 ) Should any religious organisation be able to dominate a secular event to the exclusion of all other creeds and no creed?
2) Matthew's Gospel reports Jesus as saying
6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Were the highly visible prayers in Green Park disobeying their Lord?
1) Personally, I think not. But...
2) Depends on if their words were only for show and not sincere. And only God knows about that. Otherwise there should be no public prayers at all just in case, or none longer than, say, the Lord's Prayer. And I'm not down with that.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
In Canada the religious parts of the National Remembrance Service in Ottawa are shared between the Senior Protestant Chaplain of the Canadian Forces and the Senior Catholic Chaplain of the Canadian Forces.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
What do you think the airmen and their families would have expected at the time just prior to when they died? Would they have expected (or wished for) multi-faith/humanist funerals to please the politically correct? I don't think so.
What they would have expected (all those years ago) was precisely what they got. Case closed.
Case re-opened
1 - I doubt many of them were wishing for a funeral of any sort
2 - The Memorial is ABOUT the dead not FOR the dead, it's for the living, the survivors and their families - they are the people whose life has been damaged by the loss of loved ones, of comrades and of health; THEY are the people whose pain should be addressed.
Some of those who attended (both veterans and relatives) were enthusiastically joining in the hymns, prayers and responses - fine. Others were not - not fine. A sensitive christianity, (a decent human being?), would seek to offer the most inclusive support to all. I saw no evidence of such consideration and that, IMO, demeans the concept of christianity. Frankly - I don't care if christianity suffers because of it's apparent arrogance - I do care that an opportunity to reach out to hurt people was not taken.
If I were to express my feelings for anyone who regards seeking to care for the needs of decent people as being PC I suspect this thread would find itself in Hell very quickly..
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
In addition to my points above:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
2 - The Memorial is ABOUT the dead not FOR the dead, it's for the living, the survivors and their families - they are the people whose life has been damaged by the loss of loved ones, of comrades and of health; THEY are the people whose pain should be addressed.
The loss of the people present does not get addressed by ignoring the people lost. The word "memorial" is a give-away there... It's about your loss of them, not just about you somehow abstractedly feeling sad. So if they were staunch Christians, then you reasonably can be asked to suck up your atheism in a memorial for them. Because you are doing this in memory of them, and for yourself only insofar as you miss them - them as they were, including potentially their disagreement with what you believe in. And yes, the same would apply for a Christian remembering an atheist grandfather. If there was some atheist rite for remembering the dead, then in honor of that person who is being remembered a Christian reasonably could be asked to sit through a recitation of Nietzsche or whatever. Because that's what they would have liked. You are not being asked to participate as a believer, you don't have to lie about your convictions. That would be wrong indeed.
If there was nothing but a Christian service, then I would agree that this would be too limited. But given that most of the people celebrated were Christian, and given that there is no time to do all possible beliefs justice, I think adding a Christian service certainly is justifiable. Furthermore, a Christian service has the simple advantage that one does not have to make up a ceremony. In some sense it is a "stock response", and that actually is quite helpful. Formalized behavior works better for such occasions than inventing new stuff.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
2 - The Memorial is ABOUT the dead not FOR the dead, it's for the living, the survivors and their families - they are the people whose life has been damaged by the loss of loved ones, of comrades and of health; THEY are the people whose pain should be addressed.
Presumably this logic also applies to funerals? Should the Christian family of a deceased atheist be able to over-ride the atheist's desire for a secular funeral, on the basis that funerals, like memorials, are really for the living?
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
Upthread, Garasu posted:
quote:
Mudfrog said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The interesting thing is that minority religious leaders - Muslims and Hindus - want to keep the established church and all its civic functions because it makes it easier for them to practice their faith.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This keeps being stated, is there any actual citation for it?
It certainly seems that the Chief Rabbi thinks this: Article by Lord Sacks
M.
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I've no idea how this commemoration was arranged, but I think that if I'd been responsible for arranging it I'd have bunged the religious bit over to the RAF Chaplains Branch and followed whatever steer they gave- end of.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
Article by Lord Sacks
The poor man is confusing his approval for the Queen and her handling of faith matters with an approval for the established church. If she were particularly good at this, then I would assume this is so because she "gets religion" by virtue of being religious herself.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
'This poor man'? If there are people that one can legitimately patronise, Lord Sacks isn't one of them.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
watervole
Apprentice
# 17174
|
Posted
Some religious and indeed Christian involvement seems fine to me. The instance in question is also likely to be more a case of what fits the needs of an older section of the population, who, one suspects, were more heavily represented at the event than in the population as a whole. The crunch issue is how well it is done.
i was not present but the bits i have seen on video looked to be dignified and did what was needed.
Having said that I have been to "religious" events of various types, which have been dominated by platitudes and spirituality of the lightest weight possible. Such things I find embarrassing at best and hardly show Christ forth in the world in any realistic way.
I wonder how well a simple event with speeches and no religious element would have gone down? It could be magnificent or it could be a disaster.
I suspect an Anglican element was expected by the people who went.
The issue of establishment is a matter for another discussion.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
Is it consistent with secularism to have memorials at all?
By setting up a memorial on state land the people who want to commemorate the Bombing Command are 'hijacking' (if you want to phrase it that way) the land from pacifists and just war theorists.
If your argument for secularism is that the state should be neutral between competing beliefs then it follows that there shouldn't be memorials for anything that privileges some beliefs over others. Saying that there should be a memorial to a military service but complaining that it shouldn't be accompanied by a Christian service is a clear case of saying 'privilege my beliefs but not the other person's beliefs'.
And claiming that there's something special about religion that means it especially shouldn't be privileged is actually a form of discrimination. (Not a big form of discrimination - not one that's worth whinging about - but it is one.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
'This poor man'? If there are people that one can legitimately patronise, Lord Sacks isn't one of them.
Oh well, that's me, always willing to give people the benefit of doubt...
To put it differently then, I'm not sure why this man is sucking up so hard to the monarchy. Is it merely habitual or does he think that he needs to prove his standing as good citizen in spite of not being part of her Majesty's church? At any rate, the deafening slurping sounds should not distract us from the lack of reasonable argument in that article, or from making the obvious comparison to other heads of state ourselves - many of whom manage to keep their multi-faith communities perfectly happy in spite of not being the figurehead of one particular faith. Mind you, not that I think QEII has anything but a good record of service also concerning this. She is certainly about as decent a human being as one can expect to find in that kind of position. However, to declare that her performance is somehow based on her being formally in charge of the CofE is not a little stupid, and actually diminishes her personal contribution.
There, was that better for you?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
No, not really. I find that the tone of your posts in general tends to rub me up the wrong way. But that's my problem not yours, and not one to discuss here, or indeed anywhere else.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Just imagine if the British Humanist Association and the National Secular Society had beaten the state to it, and arbitrarily held an entirely religion-free atheistic ceremony for the fallen airmen. No sermon, but a speach from Terry Hatchet about how fantastic it is that we have "progressed" beyond religion, and we should all put our faith in science. As for the dead - well, they just live on in the memories of those still alive who remember them, and their children etc etc...
How do you think that would have gone down?
But the point about being remembered by children etc is true! I agree that the country is not ready for such occasions to be entirely secular yet, but if it can happn inFrance, why not here, sooner rather than later?
After reading a few posts, I rang both the BHA and the NSS and told them what I was reading. Both were interested and the NSS guy is going to look at this page too.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
The NSS obviously have too much time on their hands ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
I note your change of 'Hatchett' to 'Sanderson'!
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
What do you think the airmen and their families would have expected at the time just prior to when they died? Would they have expected (or wished for) multi-faith/humanist funerals to please the politically correct? I don't think so.
What they would have expected (all those years ago) was precisely what they got. Case closed.
Yes, the question of something different just wouldn't have cropped up; or if some atheists tried to mention it, they would have been thought of as being extremely bad-mannered.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Which many of them- at least the NSS crowd, going by their public utterances- are.
[ 02. July 2012, 16:30: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I agree that the country is not ready for such occasions to be entirely secular yet, but if it can happn inFrance, why not here, sooner rather than later?
For the simple reason that we aren't the product of French history. We didn't experience the very serious revolutionary trauma that led, eventually, to the notion of laicité as constitutive of our civic identity. Neither have we a concept of civic piety divorced from forms of Christian worship, not even in an embryonic form. The exclusion of religion from the public square and particularly public ceremonial is a mark of French public life: the inclusion of it a mark of British - taking different forms in different part of the Kingdom.
Another point: your post seems to assume that such public secularity is but a matter of time ("not ready for such occasions to be entirely secular yet"). What evidence do you have that it is any more ready than it was 40 years ago? I can see how the religious forms of the ceremonial may have developed but they seem to be as religious as once they were.
Finally, and this seems to me to go to the heart of the OP, over the last two and a half years I have been involved in the establishment of a military memorial for those who fought in the South Atlantic. The veterans themselves (mostly men in their early fifties and of no previously manifest religious practice) were insistent that the unveiling ceremony needed to be something in which the RN Chaplains Department took the lead. When one of my co-trustees asked why, the answer came back that that was how it should be done, that it was fitting. Not much evidence of creeping secularisation around., I can tell you.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
trisagion
Interesting post - will respond tomorrow.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Deleted - accidentally posted twice.
[ 02. July 2012, 17:15: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Is it consistent with secularism to have memorials at all?
By setting up a memorial on state land the people who want to commemorate the Bombing Command are 'hijacking' (if you want to phrase it that way) the land from pacifists and just war theorists.
Sorry. I'm afraid that's nonsense. These people were being shot down, blown up, injured, killed, on behalf of their country. To suggest that in some way it's an abuse of something - I'm not sure what - to put a memorial to them on state property, is a ridiculous idea. The next step would be to argue that it's wrong to care for those injured in defence of the state, or to provide for their widows and orphans.
The background to this is the opposite of the way HughWillRidmee has described it. For various reasons, Bomber Command was a forgotten service at the end of the war. Its survivors and those connected with them have campaigned to be able to provide a memorial. They have finally done this. They have asked for a place to erect it and a ceremony, not had one imposed on them. I suspect the request that this should include a service of some sort came from them, not the other way round. The Queen attended, again, I suspect originally at their request.
If they had not so asked, I very much doubt that any church representative would have said 'you can't erect a memorial unless you let us hold a service at it'. I don't think there's anyone who can say that.
In England, the CofE is the default church that people normally approach first for civic religion. In Scotland, I assume it's the CofS. I don't know how they deal with this in Wales. In Northern Ireland, it would be an issue of contention.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I don't think that's correct. There has always been moral and emotional queasiness over the bombing of German cities; therefore a memorial service about it (whether religious or secular) may well offend some people, who see it as a war crime.
So these things are always selective, and will displease some.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Is it consistent with secularism to have memorials at all?
By setting up a memorial on state land the people who want to commemorate the Bombing Command are 'hijacking' (if you want to phrase it that way) the land from pacifists and just war theorists.
Sorry. I'm afraid that's nonsense. These people were being shot down, blown up, injured, killed, on behalf of their country. To suggest that in some way it's an abuse of something - I'm not sure what - to put a memorial to them on state property, is a ridiculous idea. The next step would be to argue that it's wrong to care for those injured in defence of the state, or to provide for their widows and orphans.
I'm not here concerned to argue about the morality of bombing. I'm merely pointing out that there is an inconsistency in objecting to a religious ceremony on the grounds that not everyone agrees with it while being happy with there being a ceremony that everyone agrees with.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
After reading a few posts, I rang both the BHA and the NSS and told them what I was reading. Both were interested and the NSS guy is going to look at this page too.
Oh no - did you have to? Me and my big mouth! ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If there was nothing but a Christian service, then I would agree that this would be too limited. But given that most of the people celebrated were Christian, and given that there is no time to do all possible beliefs justice, I think adding a Christian service certainly is justifiable.
Two booklets were handed to attendees –
One starts with Order of Events
First item – Queen’s Colour of the RAF and the Standards.....will be paraded....
Second item – ARRIVAL OF THE ROYAL PARTY
.....
Fourteenth item – The Blessing
Fifteenth item (and last) - Royal Party view the Memorial
The other contains the Order of Service
First Item – Arrival of The Queen’s Colour for the RAF..............
Penultimate item – The Blessing
Final item – The band plays whilst Charles and Camilla meet some veterans etc...
My problem is not that some Christianity got tacked on to the proceedings - the proceedings was a Christian service. From the OP What did we get – a Christian service. Not a bit of religion for those who believe mixed in with honouring the dead, just a Christian service (during which the Queen unveiled the Statues).
We agree that this is too limited – thank you.
quote:
originally posted by Yerevan: Presumably this logic also applies to funerals? Should the Christian family of a deceased atheist be able to over-ride the atheist's desire for a secular funeral, on the basis that funerals, like memorials, are really for the living?
A recently relevant point – on the whole I suspect that the answer is definitely yes (though not stridently so) if the family is uniformly Christian – probably no (but with a nod to the christian’s beliefs) if the family is a mixture of Christians and atheists. Personally, as an atheist I can’t get worked up about what happens at an event I will know nothing about.
quote:
originally posted by Dafyd: By setting up a memorial on state land the people who want to commemorate the Bombing Command are 'hijacking' (if you want to phrase it that way) the land from pacifists and just war theorists.
If your argument for secularism is that the state should be neutral between competing beliefs then it follows that there shouldn't be memorials for anything that privileges some beliefs over others. Saying that there should be a memorial to a military service but complaining that it shouldn't be accompanied by a Christian service is a clear case of saying 'privilege my beliefs but not the other person's beliefs'.
1 – it’s a memorial not an endorsement – it’s a focal point for remembering. It’s not about taking a positive or negative position. Shit happened – help heal the harm it did to people.
2 – neutral between competing beliefs atheism is the absence of belief, military service is not a belief.
3- for the severalth time – I have not said it shouldn’t have had a Christian component – that’s a (presumably accidental) Carey-esque misreading of what I wrote. Are you arguing that Christian belief should have been recognised but that all other positions should be ignored (as, in fact, they were)?
quote:
originally posted by Enoch: The background to this is the opposite of the way HughWillRidmee has described it. For various reasons, Bomber Command was a forgotten service at the end of the war. Its survivors and those connected with them have campaigned to be able to provide a memorial. They have finally done this. They have asked for a place to erect it and a ceremony, not had one imposed on them. I suspect the request that this should include a service of some sort came from them, not the other way round. The Queen attended, again, I suspect originally at their request.
If they had not so asked, I very much doubt that any church representative would have said 'you can't erect a memorial unless you let us hold a service at it'. I don't think there's anyone who can say that.
That’s a fairly inventive way of interpreting the OP – perhaps you’d care to re-read it. At no time did I suggest that the church imposed anything. My point was that the event was entirely Christian despite, to my certain knowledge, many of the audience of veterans and relatives feeling unable to take an active part in the proceedings. Somewhere along the line a lack of sensitivity emerged which the church appeared to go along with. I would have expected better.
The first question I posed was 1 – Should the church (or indeed, any other organisation) be allowed to hijack an event it has not (at least, not enough to be mentioned in the list of major benefactors) contributed towards. Whilst I used a particular event to explain why I asked the question the query was intended to refer to future events (as evinced by the broadening of the hijackers from the church to Should the church (or indeed, any other organisation) I would include the BHA (with whom I've just renewed my membership) in any other organisation..
I’m tempted to think that some comments suggest decent reasoning abilities fatally undermined by poor reading/comprehension skills.
quote:
originally posted by IngoB Matt 6:6 has bugger all to do with the situation at hand, which was leading a communal celebration. The celebrating clergy were hardly in the business of showing off their personal piety or individual charity
I hadn’t appreciated the distinction – could you please supply the chapter and verse(s) which justify it and I’ll share them with atheists and Christians who ask the same question. Many thanks.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
