Ship of Fools: Should the unveiling of a secular Memorial become the property of a single religion?

Thread: Should the unveiling of a secular Memorial become the property of a single religion? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023284

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

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).

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

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.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

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 ]

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

Or 'inquisition' even. Far too early in the morning...

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

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.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

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.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

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.

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

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]

ed end that suffering

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

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.)

Posted by tessaB (# 8533) on :

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.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

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.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

*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.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

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...

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

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.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

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.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

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?

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

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.

Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on :

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 ]

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
No sermon, but a speach from Terry Hatchet...

As you were, "Terry Sanderson"

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

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.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

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?

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

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.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

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.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

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.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

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..

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

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.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

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?

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

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.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

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.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

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.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

'This poor man'? If there are people that one can legitimately patronise, Lord Sacks isn't one of them.

Posted by watervole (# 17174) on :

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.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

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.)

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

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?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

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.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

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.

Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :

The NSS obviously have too much time on their hands [Biased]

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

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.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Which many of them- at least the NSS crowd, going by their public utterances- are.

[ 02. July 2012, 16:30: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

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.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

trisagion
Interesting post - will respond tomorrow.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Deleted - accidentally posted twice.

[ 02. July 2012, 17:15: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

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.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

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.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

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.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

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]

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

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.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

HughWillRidmee

But don't you think that your use of the terms 'hijack' and 'grab for glory' suggest a scenario, in which the C of E came along, and intruded on a ceremony? Is this actually what happened?

How would you know this?

I would think it more likely that the organizers themselves thought that the Church should be involved, but again, I don't know that.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Trisagion's latest post above is spot on. This is how we do things here. It may or may not be a cultural thing rather than an expression of religious belief as such - I don't want to get into the question of the differenec between the two- but here, it is what is seen as fitting. In France it would probably not be. That's right for them and this is right for us.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
...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.

Yes, I can see that if we were to have a similar way of doing things to france, then we'd have to reach that point via a completely different set of circumstances.

quote:
Neither have we a concept of civic piety divorced from forms of Christian worship, not even in an embryonic form.

I'm probably being dim, [Smile]

but I've been sitting here trying to think what 'civic piety' is, but have failed! Could you say briefly what you are thinking of here, please? Thanks.

quote:
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.

That is very interesting - I don't think I have ever thought about that idea.

quote:
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?

None, I'm afraid! That's just a bit of optimistic thinking which I think can be expressed in discussions such as this, but which is a very long way off indeed in the real world. [Smile]

quote:
I can see how the religious forms of the ceremonial may have developed but they seem to be as religious as once they were.

I agree, but nowadays if people want to criticise and comment, they can do so freely, whereas when I was young, there would be much sucking in of teeth, and dismay at this lack of respect.

quote:
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.

Yes, that is very understandable and those wishes I'm sure are accepted without any objection. I imagine individual atheists would certainly not want to introduce a jarring note at this time, and accept that theirs is, for the moment and for some time to come, a minority view.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

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!

No, no, don't worry about that!! I would have done it anyway!

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

A question:

If our national celebrations, commemorations, remembrances, coronations, jubilees, thanksgivings, etc were to be suddenly secularised...

...imagine a royal civil wedding, a cenotaph service with no hymns and prayers, a secular-society service of mourning following a disaster...

...do you think the British public would acceot it?

No, I didn't think so.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

As long as there was still sufficient pomp and circumstance, processions, dressing up and grand music I'm not sure they would be too bothered. The State and the armed forces can do all that just as well as the Church as you can see by looking at the State Opening of Parliament or the Trooping of the Colour.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
A question:

If our national celebrations, commemorations, remembrances, coronations, jubilees, thanksgivings, etc were to be suddenly secularised...

...imagine a royal civil wedding, a cenotaph service with no hymns and prayers, a secular-society service of mourning following a disaster...

...do you think the British public would acceot it?

No, I didn't think so.

Ha! A man after my own heart! [Big Grin]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

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.

I couldn't agree more. We're talking the period 1940-45 when the majoirity of Britain observsed, or aligned itself to, Christianity .
It is therefore entirely appropriate that Christian representation was at the forefront of this ceremony .

As for the morality of what these air-men did ? They willingly climbed into cock-pits and gun-turrets because that's is what war policy of the day required of them .
Their memory shouldn't be tainted over controversy surrounding the manner in which wars were fought and won during that era.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

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.

Sure, that would be Matt 6:1-5, which starts with the clear statement "Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them...", and continues with an obvious individual practice done "in the synagogues and in the streets", namely the giving of alms, and then considers prayer as a display of personal piety "in the synagogues and at the street corners". At no point in these verses is there any discussion about either the full-blown religious ceremonial of the day, which obviously would have involved the Levitical priesthood and likely the temple (e.g., Zechariah in Luke 1:5-13) or the communal worship that happened in the synagogues, which of course was honoured by Jesus acting as a leading celebrant (Luke 4:16-22). Zechariah (explicitly called righteous before God, and father of John the Baptist) and Jesus Himself are presumably sufficient witness that priestly and communal Jewish worship were above board as such and that Jesus (according to Matthew) was here concerned with condemning fake displays of piety aimed at impressing people rather than glorifying God.

Not that all this isn't fucking obvious, but hey, you did ask...

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

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.
I couldn't agree more. We're talking the period 1940-45 when the majoirity of Britain observsed, or aligned itself to, Christianity .
It is therefore entirely appropriate that Christian representation was at the forefront of this ceremony .

As for the morality of what these air-men did ? They willingly climbed into cock-pits and gun-turrets because that's is what war policy of the day required of them .
Their memory shouldn't be tainted over controversy surrounding the manner in which wars were fought and won during that era.

Can I add a brief personal note here. My father and father-in-law served in the RAF through WW2. F-i-l was in Bomber Command for a few months, at the end of which he was shot down and temporarily lost his sight. My mother's first husband was killed flying in Bomber Command too.

Whatever they might have believed at the time didn't do much for their continued faith. My mother-in-law took communion in my lifetime, but none of our parents showed a sign of any faith at all.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I'm probably being dim, but I've been sitting here trying to think what 'civic piety' is, but have failed! Could you say briefly what you are thinking of here, please? Thanks.

Sure.

Typically, when I have seen this in France, it involves a recitation of an account of what is being memorialised. Maybe some music or a period of silent reflection.. A speech or two from community leaders, politicos or the like, making reference to the events being recalled linking them to some secular (i.e. studiously avoiding any reference to God, religion or the like) "transcendentals" - in France the obvious ones would be liberté, égalité, fraternité. There might be an investiture or the presentation of someone linked to the memorialised event, the National Anthem and everyone clears off for a vin d'honeur.

Other than a few péchuistes* of my acquaintance I've rarely come across even very devout French Catholics who would think that this civic piety would be improved by a religious component or even should include one.

* French Trad.

quote:
None, I'm afraid! That's just a bit of optimistic thinking which I think can be expressed in discussions such as this, but which is a very long way off indeed in the real world.

I do hope so.

quote:
I agree, but nowadays if people want to criticise and comment, they can do so freely, whereas when I was young, there would be much sucking in of teeth, and dismay at this lack of respect.

True enough.

quote:
Yes, that is very understandable and those wishes I'm sure are accepted without any objection. I imagine individual atheists would certainly not want to introduce a jarring note at this time, and accept that theirs is, for the moment and for some time to come, a minority view.

Perhaps, indeed, a minority view when it comes to things like this for a very long time indeed. I really do think it's about a certain national self-conception that sucks in even the convinced agnostics.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

quote:
originally posted by Dafyd: 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.

Memorials are endorsements. This is why there are many memorials to the victims of crimes, but few memorials to those recognised as criminals. You said yourself in the OP that you expected the event to revolve around speeches to honour those who died. You were not expecting speeches denouncing them for war crimes.

quote:
2 – neutral between competing beliefs atheism is the absence of belief, military service is not a belief.

Absence of belief cannot motivate people to set up memorials. Nor can it motivate people to care either way whether that memorial takes the form of a religious service. Nor is it possible to respect an absence, as there's nothing there to respect. Nor can one exclude an absence, by e.g. holding a Christian service.

As for military service, unless the memorial contributes to ongoing operations in Afghanistan in a way that currently escapes me, setting up a memorial has nothing to do with military service. A memorial expresses the belief that something or other is worthy of remembrance. The belief that the military deserve memorials more than, for example, dustbin collectors is certainly a belief within the current meaning of the term.

quote:
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)?

Hang on - I thought you were contending that atheism is the absence of a belief or position. So are you saying that atheism wasn't ignored? Or are you saying that atheism is a position or not a position depending upon what suits you at the time?

Anyway, I think that if there should be a memorial at all it should be to the civilian victims of Bomber Command. I'm not getting what I think there should be. If I cared enough to do something about that I would do so on the grounds that I disagreed with it. I wouldn't have a case on the second order grounds that my opinion was excluded from the service. The same, frankly, applies to your objection.

Secular arguments for equal respect apply to many important areas. But should they apply to how a society designates some people and acts and events as worthy of public remembrance then they forbid that entirely.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Sioni Sais
Thankyou for your personal testimony . I respect what you are saying there .
I've been fortunate to have no first hand experience of war . My father was lucky enough to see WW2 out in the RN without seeing a shot fired in anger . Mother did speak of boyfriend killed in wartime air-training accident.
Neither had much time for Christian faith .

When I go round restoring war memorials in our district I often wonder how many of those killed would feel about having "To the Glory of God" written above their names.
The evidence is that the traumatic witness of warfare cuts much deeper than the pomp of institutionalized religion .

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Trisagion
Thank you for your reply, particularly with regard to civic piety - that's something new I've learnt. One of my sons is in France regularly and I shall ask him to attend something like that if he has the chance, as he too will be interested.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
HughWillRidmee
But don't you think that your use of the terms 'hijack' and 'grab for glory' suggest a scenario, in which the C of E came along, and intruded on a ceremony? Is this actually what happened?
How would you know this?
I would think it more likely that the organizers themselves thought that the Church should be involved, but again, I don't know that.

You are quite right in that I don’t suppose for one minute that the intent was there, but the appearance was, and I was hoping to provoke some thoughtful discussion. I do think that someone amongst the organisers (and in the church) ought to have queried the format - perhaps they did and were over-ruled.

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Trisagion's latest post above is spot on. This is how we do things here. It may or may not be a cultural thing rather than an expression of religious belief as such - I don't want to get into the question of the differenec between the two- but here, it is what is seen as fitting. In France it would probably not be. That's right for them and this is right for us.

We used to do slave trading, blood-letting, bear baiting and hanging innocent people as well. Just because this is how we do things doesn’t mean that it’s how we should do things.

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
A question:
If our national celebrations, commemorations, remembrances, coronations, jubilees, thanksgivings, etc were to be suddenly secularised...
...imagine a royal civil wedding, a cenotaph service with no hymns and prayers, a secular-society service of mourning following a disaster...
...do you think the British public would acceot it?
No, I didn't think so.

If you and Mark Betts Ha! A man after my own heart! want a discussion about the exclusion of religion from ceremonial perhaps you’d like to start one. Here it’s straw man. As a starter - I agree with Pre-cambrian that As long as there was still sufficient pomp and circumstance, processions, dressing up and grand music I'm not sure they would be too bothered. The State and the armed forces can do all that just as well as the Church as you can see by looking at the State Opening of Parliament or the Trooping of the Colour.

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
We're talking the period 1940-45 when the majoirity of Britain observsed, or aligned itself to, Christianity .
It is therefore entirely appropriate that Christian representation was at the forefront of this ceremony . I wasn’t around then – but talking to some who were I suggest that whilst observation was high belief probably was less so. And yet again – it wasn’t at the forefront of this ceremony – it was the ceremony.

....Their memory shouldn't be tainted over controversy surrounding the manner in which wars were fought and won during that era. Although it’s nothing to do with the OP – How does one taint the memory of brave people by querying (rightly or wrongly) the decisions of their superiors?

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Memorials are endorsements.
memorial noun 1 a statue or structure established to remind people of a person or event:
endorse verb [with object] 1 declare one’s public approval or support of
“To honour their sacrifice the Bomber Command Memorial is being built in central London” click ....the centrepiece of the memorial, a 9ft bronze sculpture depicting a seven-man bomber crew returning from a mission. PA Why honour the dead since they are neither going to know nor care? Because Memorials are about those who are left, they function somewhat as funerals in offering assistance with closure. We don’t build a memorial to a bombing campaign. An endorsement carries the notion of recommendation. One cannot recommend the dead.

Absence of belief cannot motivate people to set up memorials You previously wrote If your argument for secularism is that the state should be neutral between competing beliefs
secular adjective 1 not connected with religious or spiritual matters
My argument for secularism is not as you stated – it’s should also encompass people with no religious or spiritual beliefs.

Hang on - I thought you were contending that atheism is the absence of a belief or position. So are you saying that atheism wasn't ignored? Or are you saying that atheism is a position or not a position depending upon what suits you at the time? I must be more tired than I thought – I really don’t understand what you’re saying. Atheism is the absence of belief in a god or gods. As such it can be a position a person’s point of view or attitude towards something , just as can Christianity. The event was a Christian service. There was no acknowledgement that many of the dead, the survivors and the relatives who attended were not Christians (whether atheist, agnostic, Wiccan, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Anthroposophist, Jedi, FSM etc.).

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

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.
Sure, that would be Matt 6:1-5, which starts with the clear statement "Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them...", and continues with an obvious individual practice done "in the synagogues and in the streets", namely the giving of alms, and then considers prayer as a display of personal piety "in the synagogues and at the street corners". At no point in these verses is there any discussion about either the full-blown religious ceremonial of the day, which obviously would have involved the Levitical priesthood and likely the temple (e.g., Zechariah in Luke 1:5-13) or the communal worship that happened in the synagogues, which of course was honoured by Jesus acting as a leading celebrant (Luke 4:16-22). Zechariah (explicitly called righteous before God, and father of John the Baptist) and Jesus Himself are presumably sufficient witness that priestly and communal Jewish worship were above board as such and that Jesus (according to Matthew) was here concerned with condemning fake displays of piety aimed at impressing people rather than glorifying God.

Not that all this isn't fucking obvious, but hey,
you did ask...

Some might see that as a juvenile attempt at reinforcing a dodgy argument with an expletive. I suspect it’s one of those times when a conclusion is obvious if you want it to be.
At no point in these verses is there any discussion about either the full-blown religious ceremonial of the day (in the temple) or the communal worship that happened in the synagogues – so that leaves you free to draw the inference that you would prefer despite the admitted lack of biblical support and despite the fact that I wasn’t referring to events within a religiously dedicated building.(And, by the way, there were trumpets!). [Big Grin]

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
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?

Is it your view, then that Matthew 6.6 is intended to discourage/ prevent anyone from leading corporate prayer in an act of public worship?

I had always interpreted this part of Matthew's Gospel as saying that (in broad terms) if you parade your piety in order to gain approval from those who see you doing it, then that approval is your full reward - don't expect it to cut any ice with God.

On the other hand if you pray aloud in order to try to give voice to the prayer of those gathered together and/or in order that others may share in your prayer maybe something different is going on.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Memorials are endorsements.
memorial noun 1 a statue or structure established to remind people of a person or event:
endorse verb [with object] 1 declare one’s public approval or support of
“To honour their sacrifice the Bomber Command Memorial is being built in central London” ....the centrepiece of the memorial, a 9ft bronze sculpture depicting a seven-man bomber crew returning from a mission. Why honour the dead since they are neither going to know nor care? Because Memorials are about those who are left, they function somewhat as funerals in offering assistance with closure.

So where in "memorial noun 1 a statue or structure established to remind people of a person or event" does it say a memorial functions in offering assistance with closure?

And how exactly is Nelson's column offering assistance with closure? How did the statue of Oliver Cromwell outside Parliament offer assistance with closure? Or the statue of Richard I?

quote:
We don’t build a memorial to a bombing campaign. An endorsement carries the notion of recommendation. One cannot recommend the dead.

So where in "endorse verb [with object] 1 declare one’s public approval or support of" does it use the word 'recommendation'?
You can approve of the dead (approve, vt 1. think well of), so if endorse means "declare approval", you can endorse the dead.

Appealing to dictionary definitions to refute points is at best pedantic and is generally wrong-headed. (Dictionaries aren't encyclopedias, sociological studies, or works of philosophy.) But if you're going to resort to pedantic appeals to the dictionary, you can't then make points that aren't supported by the definition you're quoting for support. Live by the dictionary, die by the dictionary.

I stand by my previous argument: a memorial expresses the belief that something is worthy of remembrance.

quote:
My argument for secularism is not as you stated – it’s should also encompass people with no religious or spiritual beliefs.

And what precisely is the difference you are trying to make in this case between being neutral between positions or attitudes and encompassing positions or attitudes?

quote:
Hang on - I thought you were contending that atheism is the absence of a belief or position. So are you saying that atheism wasn't ignored? Or are you saying that atheism is a position or not a position depending upon what suits you at the time? I must be more tired than I thought – I really don’t understand what you’re saying. Atheism is the absence of belief in a god or gods. As such it can be a position a person’s point of view or attitude towards something , just as can Christianity.

From the dictionary:
Attitude, n, Point of view, opinion.
Opinion, n, What one thinks about something, belief, judgement.

If atheism is an attitude towards something, then it is a belief about that something. The mere absence of belief on the other hand is the absence of an attitude.

Refusing to call atheism a belief but calling it a position or attitude is just an attempt to have it both ways, depending upon what suits your argument at the time.

[ 06. July 2012, 18:53: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
[QUOTE]
Refusing to call atheism a belief but calling it a position or attitude is just an attempt to have it both ways, depending upon what suits your argument at the time.

We disagree

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0