|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Calling the Arch****** of York and his erastian shrine Minster to a Christmas hell
|
Brother Oscar
Apprentice
# 17227
|
Posted
I did consider starting a sensible purgatory thread about this and may be I will, or may be some one else will. May be I will feel stupid later for posting this but right now I'm angry enough to start a hell thread.
So, having arrived at York Minster early to get a seat I was leafing through my order of service for Nine Lesson's and Carols when I came to the sixth lesson and noted that the reader would be Brigadier Posh Name. A pacifist and reviler of erastianism I felt very uncomfortable at this representation of the military establishment at a celebration of the birthday of the baby Jesus. Surely, someone from a poverty charity would have been more appropriate to read a lesson telling about the birth of this child of marginal peasant parents? Surely, someone from a refugee organisation would have been better to read a lesson about this infant refugee?
Still I stayed until the full irony and awfulness of the situation hit me. The Brigadier seemed to get the irony because despite arriving proudly in his uniform at the lectern he faltered over the ***ning words: "In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus...". That's right in the days of that military leader of the Roman Empire, who brought security through the sword and declared himself Son of God. In contrast to Augustus, who better to tell us about the heaven born prince of peace than a commander in an army that in the current century has protected British interests through dodgy wars and even dodgier allies and fought with new and more threatening weapons? It was too much for me. I got up and left, quite sure that the baby Jesus was crying.
However, this wouldn't concern the Arch****** who in the last days has cautioned against military cuts because they might threaten national security. Unlike others who have taken this as an opportunity to promote the future of soft power and international development as a path to peace.
Earlier in the year this same Arch****** protested the closing of arms factories because it would mean the loss of jobs at a time of financial crisis. Unlike others who took this as an opportunity to call for the creation of jobs in renewable and sustainable technology.
No I'm not surprised that the Arch****** takes the birth of Christ as an opportunity to get closer to Britain's military establishment, rather than as an opportunity to point to the peace of Christ. Or to question that military establishment which, turns young men desperate for a jobs into killers, which fails to support the psychological and medical needs of soldiers returning from war, which kills civilians and destroys homes, which supports regimes that oppress their own people.
Sentamu you militaristic erastian hierarch! The Prince of Peace is coming so be quick and:
“Come out of Babylon, my people, so that you do not take part in her sins, and so that you do not share in her plagues; for her sins are heaped high as heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities."
[Calling the Arch****** of York and his erastian shrine Minster to a Christmas hell]
[ 13. February 2013, 00:24: Message buggered about with by: comet ]
Posts: 23 | From: Loidis | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Brigadier Posh Name
If the Gargoyles had started getting feisty you'd have been relieved that there was someone there who could bark out the order of "chap with wings, six rounds rapid".
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Brother Oscar
Apprentice
# 17227
|
Posted
@Amos
I get it! I did ask myself whether I'd feel the same were the reader a private solider or a military chaplain. I'm not sure that I would.
I would also not feel the same if the Archbishop had spent time talking about the evils of war or promoting soft power, or about the responsibility of the state to care for veterans. Instead he has been imperialistically promoting the military as a national security tool and as a fix for our economic problems without publically thinking through the moral and human cost.
If I were to start a purgatory thread about this it would be about how this episode made me think seriously about soldiers - whose experience of life and of faith must be so different from that of civilian - celebrate Christmas. And of course some of them so far from their families and homes. My anger is directed against the Archbishop where-as my prayers will genuinely be for soldiers these next days.
Posts: 23 | From: Loidis | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brother Oscar:
I would also not feel the same if the Archbishop had spent time talking about the evils of war or promoting soft power, or about the responsibility of the state to care for veterans. Instead he has been imperialistically promoting the military as a national security tool and as a fix for our economic problems without publically thinking through the moral and human cost.
Then you went to the wrong service. Try the two services a year held for soldiers and families of soldiers of the Yorkshire Regiment who have been injured or killed in active service.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Brother Oscar: I agree that the Archbishop of York can be really, really irritating. Count your blessings, and give thanks for Durham.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imersge Canfield
Shipmate
# 17431
|
Posted
Yes, sorry you had that experience of feeling compelled to leave, and not getting some joy, peace or whatever. No wonder people walk out or don t go in the first place.
Sentamu thinks he's 'born again'; and so need not worry about the actual message of the grown Jesus.
(Have you considered Quakers for an occasional visit ? No majors at least)
with good wishes,
Imersge
--------------------
'You must not attribute my yielding, to sinister appetites'
"Preach the gospel and only use jewellry if necessary." (The Midge)
Posts: 419 | From: Sun Ship over Grand Fenwick Duchy | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
This may be an unhellish point, but I wonder whether Archbishop Sentamu's view may be coloured by his experience living under Idi Amin in Uganda - and wishing the British government had taken him out. I totally agree with the OP, but I'd like to be charitable at this time of year to the Archbishop.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
Whatever the merits of the complaint against Sentamu, it pales in comparison to the Archbishop of Westminster's efforts. Never mind the incarnation, what are we going to do about the poofs?
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Stephen the Stoned
Shipmate
# 9841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Whatever the merits of the complaint against Sentamu, it pales in comparison to the Archbishop of Westminster's efforts. Never mind the incarnation, what are we going to do about the poofs?
Are they not always with us?
--------------------
Do you want to see Jesus or don't yer? Well shurrup then!
Posts: 518 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
To start with the nit-picking:
1) The Dean of a Cathedral is responsible for what happens in a cathedral, not the bishop. Slightly strange, and a situation that Rome has reformed with the appointment of administrators of cathedrals, who ARE directly subject to the bishop. However the CofE retains the medieval polity, where the Dean is supreme within his own sphere.
2) Erastiansim is the idea that the Christian prince should be responsible for the reform of the church. It is most clearly seen in the English Reformation, where the monarchs determined the outcome, not the church. It's certainly got NOTHING to do with the pacifism that you are seeking to espouse.
However to address this piece of ignorance more directly: as has already been pointed out, York's response to the the military is probably formed by the experience of Uganda. There Amin was only removed from power when he attacked Tanzania, and they came in and deposed him. Given the horrors of that regime, and of Pol Pot, who was similarly deposed by the Vietnamese, it is hard to defend a pacifist line.
There are two internally consistent Christian positions. The first is that no violence is ever justified. This bases its logic on Mt 5:29. However to be consistent, this requires that a Christian stands by and watches NOT EVEN CALLING THE POLICE when they see an evil act in progress. You may have the faith required to forgo stopping a child being raped and murdered in front of my eyes, but I don't.
The only alternative is to argue that the state has a legitimate role in the control of evil, and it is perfectly reasonable for a Christian, acting with the authority of the state and therefore of God, to act to control evil. This does not justify ALL military behaviour of course. However once you argue that it is legitimate to stop the murderer today, there is no reason not to stop the military conqueror tomorrow. And once you've gone there, it is legitimate to work in an arms factory, and such workers have as much right to bemoan the ending of their jobs as the car maker or the baker. (Actually given that cars kill people on the roads and bakers produce cakes that cause people to have bad health that kills them, the distinction is probably more limited than we might like to think.)
So overall there is no justification to get a snot on about a military man in a church service, especially in the CofE whose Article 37 explicitly says: 'It is lawful for Christian men at the commandment of the Magistrate to wear weapons and serve in the wars.' You want to avoid such issues - go join the Quakers; stop expecting the CofE to act like it isn't what it is. I don't go to a ice hockey match expecting to see ballet; why should you go to a CofE church and expect pacifism?
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Yes, sorry you had that experience of feeling compelled to leave, and not getting some joy, peace or whatever. No wonder people walk out or don t go in the first place.
Sentamu thinks he's 'born again'; and so need not worry about the actual message of the grown Jesus.
(Have you considered Quakers for an occasional visit ? No majors at least)
with good wishes,
Imersge
I am told that our meeting used to have an attender who came regularly in military uniform. I don't know what his rank was. Not all Quakers are pacifists - though probably the majority.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
There are two internally consistent Christian positions. The first is that no violence is ever justified. This bases its logic on Mt 5:29. However to be consistent, this requires that a Christian stands by and watches NOT EVEN CALLING THE POLICE when they see an evil act in progress. You may have the faith required to forgo stopping a child being raped and murdered in front of my eyes, but I don't.
The only alternative is to argue that the state has a legitimate role in the control of evil, and it is perfectly reasonable for a Christian, acting with the authority of the state and therefore of God, to act to control evil. This does not justify ALL military behaviour of course. However once you argue that it is legitimate to stop the murderer today, there is no reason not to stop the military conqueror tomorrow. And once you've gone there, it is legitimate to work in an arms factory, and such workers have as much right to bemoan the ending of their jobs as the car maker or the baker. (Actually given that cars kill people on the roads and bakers produce cakes that cause people to have bad health that kills them, the distinction is probably more limited than we might like to think.)
I reject your assertion of a binary interpretation - it seems to be more reflective of the way you think that the merits of the case You do it with pretty much everything you debate about, I am not sure why.
I urge you to consider to expand the grey areas of yor thought - as a Christmas present to yourself.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
I know a lot of people in the military. They are just like the rest of us. They have their good points and their bad points.
Importantly, they are children of God, just like you.
Every one I know in the military sees themselves as protecting their country and their fellow citizens. It is not the military that starts wars. It is politicians. Perhaps you ought to walk out if a politician starts speaking.
Maybe you should walk out if someone who works at a store that sells tobacco starts to speak. Or, perhaps you should walk out if someone who . . .
Oh. Wait a minute. I remember now. Church is not about how perfect the members are. It is about imperfect people coming together to worship the Lord.
How terribly judgmental, mistaken and sanctimonious it is to walk out on someone who is obviously nervous yet trying to do a good thing.
Think long and hard about what you did and why you felt justified in doing it and then bragging about it here.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Hi everyone, Merry Christmas from your (sparingly for today) Hellhost.
Just in case I have to post officially do take care as my icon is the same as Brother Oscar's.
btw Brother Oscar: i) welcome to the Ship ii) by choosing this icon do you realise what you have let yourself in for?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Sentamu thinks he's 'born again'; and so need not worry about the actual message of the grown Jesus.
with good wishes,
Imersge
Never thought anyone on here would make me feel like coming to the defense of the Archbishop of York (who, as I've already said, irritates me) but this sanctimoniousness takes the biscuit.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Stuff me, it really must be Christmas, because I never thought I'd ever say this, but....
quote:
So overall there is no justification to get a snot on about a military man in a church service, especially in the CofE whose Article 37 explicitly says: 'It is lawful for Christian men at the commandment of the Magistrate to wear weapons and serve in the wars.' You want to avoid such issues - go join the Quakers; stop expecting the CofE to act like it isn't what it is. I don't go to a ice hockey match expecting to see ballet; why should you go to a CofE church and expect pacifism?
...I agree with Ender's Shadow!
[ 25. December 2012, 14:02: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
There are two internally consistent Christian positions. The first is that no violence is ever justified. This bases its logic on Mt 5:29. However to be consistent, this requires that a Christian stands by and watches NOT EVEN CALLING THE POLICE when they see an evil act in progress. You may have the faith required to forgo stopping a child being raped and murdered in front of my eyes, but I don't.
The only alternative is to argue that the state has a legitimate role in the control of evil, and it is perfectly reasonable for a Christian, acting with the authority of the state and therefore of God, to act to control evil. This does not justify ALL military behaviour of course. However once you argue that it is legitimate to stop the murderer today, there is no reason not to stop the military conqueror tomorrow. And once you've gone there, it is legitimate to work in an arms factory, and such workers have as much right to bemoan the ending of their jobs as the car maker or the baker. (Actually given that cars kill people on the roads and bakers produce cakes that cause people to have bad health that kills them, the distinction is probably more limited than we might like to think.)
I reject your assertion of a binary interpretation - it seems to be more reflective of the way you think that the merits of the case You do it with pretty much everything you debate about, I am not sure why.
I urge you to consider to expand the grey areas of yor thought - as a Christmas present to yourself.
And I invite you to start respecting the fact that the universe is not especially forgiving to idiots who refuse to apply logic to its operations. Either a state does have the God given authority to act against evil, or it does not. And either a Christian does have the right to protect himself and others by force, or they do not. Whilst there may be extreme examples where the matters become grey, the core concepts are extremely binary; to hide behind 'Oh it's complicated' is either an excuse for lack of serious thought, or an unwillingness to admit that the conclusions that thinking about it drive you to are inconvenient given your ideology. This is known as 'Fundamentalism', and is usually disdained in polite company.
So - let's take it from the top:
1) You are part of a group of people who come across a man beating up a child. You know that if the group intervenes with force, the beating will stop. Do you walk on past?
2) You hear screaming from the next door apartment. You know that there's a history of domestic violence there. Do you call the police?
3) The ships bringing food to your country are being hijacked by pirates. You have a navy. Do you oppose its deployment to protect the merchant ships? Yes, the crews are being taken hostage, and some have been killed when the ship owners have refused to pay a ransom.
4) The country next door has a genocidal president who you believe has killed thousands of an ethnic group in the country.
a) The fool then attacks your country. Do you take the opportunity of resisting the attack - assuming you do - to liberate the country?
b) Do you intervene anyway?
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Stuff me, it really must be Christmas, because I never thought I'd ever say this, but....
quote:
So overall there is no justification to get a snot on about a military man in a church service, especially in the CofE whose Article 37 explicitly says: 'It is lawful for Christian men at the commandment of the Magistrate to wear weapons and serve in the wars.' You want to avoid such issues - go join the Quakers; stop expecting the CofE to act like it isn't what it is. I don't go to a ice hockey match expecting to see ballet; why should you go to a CofE church and expect pacifism?
...I agree with Ender's Shadow!
So do I. Apocalypse after we finish the turkey sandwiches.
And the wrong pretzels.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Stuff me, it really must be Christmas, because I never thought I'd ever say this, but....
quote:
So overall there is no justification to get a snot on about a military man in a church service, especially in the CofE whose Article 37 explicitly says: 'It is lawful for Christian men at the commandment of the Magistrate to wear weapons and serve in the wars.' You want to avoid such issues - go join the Quakers; stop expecting the CofE to act like it isn't what it is. I don't go to a ice hockey match expecting to see ballet; why should you go to a CofE church and expect pacifism?
...I agree with Ender's Shadow!
So do I. Apocalypse after we finish the turkey sandwiches.
And the wrong pretzels.
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I didn't know the Apocalypse was going to start by creating such glitchy internet connections that you post the same thing a whole 16 minutes apart.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
ach well, mebbe it's one of them timey-wimey things.
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
I never thought I'd proof text in Hell, but here goes:
quote:
Luke 3:4
Soldiers also asked him, ‘And we, what should we do?’ He said to them, ‘Do not extort money from anyone by threats or false accusation, and be satisfied with your wages.’
So long as the brigadier isn't extorting money from people, if John the Baptist is happy for him to remain a soldier, then it's good enough for me too.
I also know a good number of military personnel who have done a huge amount of direct good for refugees, regardless of whether you think the policies they were advancing were good for them or not.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
If military men shouldn't be seen in uniform church, or be allowed to speak thus dressed, I take it that Jesus shouldn't have let himelf be seen with the centurion either? He certainly shouldn't have said nice things about him.
Silly Jesus, sucking up to military power!
[ 26. December 2012, 16:55: Message edited by: Dinghy Sailor ]
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brother Oscar:
So, having arrived at York Minster early to get a seat I was leafing through my order of service for Nine Lesson's and Carols when I came to the sixth lesson and noted that the reader would be Brigadier Posh Name. A pacifist and reviler of erastianism I felt very uncomfortable at this representation of the military establishment at a celebration of the birthday of the baby Jesus. Surely, someone from a poverty charity would have been more appropriate to read a lesson telling about the birth of this child of marginal peasant parents? Surely, someone from a refugee organisation would have been better to read a lesson about this infant refugee?
If I've understood your definition of 'erastianism' correctly, would you similarly object to a social worker or civil servant from the department for international development speak in church?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Like others I am moved to post to point out that it is the Dean of York Minster, not the Archbishop of York who is responsible for what goes on in services in the Minster. Secondly I strongly suspect that the ABY is far from Erastian, nor does his past suggest he would have a rosy or complacent view of military power.
It is in the tradition of Nine Lessons and Carols that the first lesson is read by a child - often a choir boy - 'ascending' through the ranks with the last lesson read by the Dean. I wonder if the Brigadier in question might have been Brigadier Peter Lyddon (though I'm probably wrong about that as it doesn't strike me as a particularly posh name) but if it was him, he was probably chosen because he was until lately the Chapter Steward of the Minster in which capacity he acted as a kind of civil servant for the Minster.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I once attended a communion service at York Minister on Remembrance Sunday. I didn't go to the full-on military service - with the flags and regiments and things, but the earlier one that combined communion with the Two Minutes Silence.
By some miracle of organisation, the stewards dispensed the bread and wine just in time for the silence - then we all received just after the silent reflection. It was a solemn moment.
My experience of the CofE is that you get both tendencies going along at the same time ... on one level there is a rather Conservative, 'Shires' mentality in some quantities ... Major General Posh-name and So Forth ... and on another you've got people and clergy who are as pacifist as any Quaker or whatever else ...
That's what a Broad Church is all about.
I came away very uplifted on that occasion ... and I was in a Baptist church at the time. Some of the other Baptists who came along with me had never attended an Anglican communion service before and were very moved by it.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Piglet
Islander
# 11803
|
Posted
I don't really see what Brother Oscar's problem is. Brigadier Posh Name may very well be a good Christian gentleman and pillar of the church; in my home cathedral there was just such a brigadier.
Because he spent his professional career defending his country should be no bar to him taking an active part in church services.
--------------------
I may not be on an island any more, but I'm still an islander.
alto n a soprano who can read music
Posts: 20272 | From: Fredericton, NB, on a rather larger piece of rock | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
[QUOTE]We don't know the guy's name, so I can't look up where he actually was "defending his country".
Does that matter?
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Either a state does have the God given authority to act against evil, or it does not. And either a Christian does have the right to protect himself and others by force, or they do not. Whilst there may be extreme examples where the matters become grey, the core concepts are extremely binary; to hide behind 'Oh it's complicated' is either an excuse for lack of serious thought, or an unwillingness to admit that the conclusions that thinking about it drive you to are inconvenient given your ideology.
Wait, wha -- ?
Pacifists don't object to the army because they use force. They object to the army because they kill people.
Man, your life has more strawmen in it than a wicker man festival.
[ 27. December 2012, 09:33: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Pacifists don't object to the army because they use force. They object to the army because they kill people.
Is that right? So an army that merely used force short of lethal force, say merely injuring people or compelling them by terror and fear of injury, would be supported by pacifists? I don't think so. Of course there's a difference between lethal force and merely threats of lethal force or use of force short of the lethal variety but the great strength (and attractive naive unworldliness) of pacifism has always seemed to me its rejection tout court of compulsion backed up by force.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Pacifists don't object to the army because they use force. They object to the army because they kill people.
Is that right? So an army that merely used force short of lethal force, say merely injuring people or compelling them by terror and fear of injury, would be supported by pacifists?
Maybe I should have said 'kill or maim people'.
You have a point, but I still think it's nonsensical for ES to claim there's no substantive difference between the force exerted by the police and the force exerted by an army. An army uses weapons as its primary means of deterrence against undesirables. The police may use violence in extremis but its main 'force' is supposed to reside in the force of the law, with public trials and an independent judiciary.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm wondering what other professions Brother Oscar might debar from communion ... merchant bankers perhaps (although thinking about it ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) ...
I can understand the unease about seeing people in uniform officiating in a church service - either by reading a lesson or conducting prayers etc - but it's all down to context. It's interesting how many soldiers Jesus came across in his ministry ... he said of the Centurion, for instance, that he had not come across such great faith even in Israel ...
I don't read that Jesus asked the Centurion to resign his commission before he healed his servant.
I've been on the more 'radical' (or supposedly radical) end of the Protestant spectrum and I still have a lot of time for the Anabaptist tradition (in its milder rather than its Munster form) ... but it can end up in a kind of sanctimonious, holier-than-thou and rather Pharisaical mess.
'That guy can't read the lesson,' saith the Pharisee. 'He's wearing a military uniform.'
If you turned the thing around, say, is it any different to saying, 'That guy can't read the lesson he is a tramp/hobo [financier, banker, greengrocer, unemployed ... insert whatever profession you wish] ...
I'm sure Brother Oscar means well but I'm not sure he's thought through the implications - nor how Pharisaical his position could be if taken to its logical conclusion. I am sure he would be horrified at that thought.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
An army uses weapons as its primary means of deterrence against undesirables. The police may use violence in extremis but its main 'force' is supposed to reside in the force of the law, with public trials and an independent judiciary.
I'm sorry to be so purgatorial but I'm not sure you're right here either. A police force exerts force or the threat of force which, depending on the standards of the society they serve, might include lethal force. An army does the same. The primary means by which an army achieves its objective is the deployment of force or he threat of force which, depending on the rules of engagement (informed by the standards of International Law), might include lethal force. It isn't unreasonable to distinguish between the two on grounds of risk but it isn't creating a straw an to suggest that an objection to one is not, in principle, that different from an objection to the other.
To return to a more hellish tone, Gamaliel, I'm not sure Brother Oscar does mean well. His OP just seemed to me to be a typically narrow-minded reaction to an almost entirely unobjectionable event. That he hadn't thought through the implications of imposing his own world view on everybody else, your post makes admirably clear. He was just being a twat.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
As another near-pacifist and anti-erastian I was inclined to sympathise with the OP, and then realised it was an over-the-top reaction to a non-problem. If I were Eric Milner-White's reincarnation in 2012, I would be inclined to rewrite the Nine Lessons and Carols slightly differently. But it is a product of its time and of a much more hierarchical and status-conscious society (not that ours isn't, but in a different way). As I understand it, the readers were deliberately chosen to reflect 'ranks' or status in society/the Church (intertwined), from the youngest choirboy to the Dean. Hence the military gent would be chosen, not for his ability as a reader (particularly), not for his devotion as a faithful Christian (particularly), but as a representative of the Armed Services.
It's not the way I would choose the readers, but it is closely bound up with the tradition of Nine Lessons and Carols which is even less susceptible of change than, it seems, the BCP. Milner-White first popularised this at Cambridge, and presumably brought it to York with him when he became Dean there.
Whatever one's views on military or any other worldly status, we are all equal in the sight of God. That's why I am ill at ease with any hints that this sort of status has any relevance within the Christian community. At a service of this nature, which is not so much the worship of 'the Church', but an invitation from the Church to society, it's not worth quibbling about.
Maybe I'm softening in my old age, because I attended the Remembrance Day eucharist in Southwark Cathedral, of all places, and had to suffer the National Anthem and I vow to thee my country. I didn't expect to hear them there, but I can understand why, and the rest of the liturgy expressed my feelings well, so I didn't get upset.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoker
Shipmate
# 11939
|
Posted
What on earth is 'near pacifist' for goodness sake?
What a lame, lilly-livered way to describes oneself. It's like a vegetarian who eats free range chicken and fish.
Pacifism is a misguided principle which, followed through to its logical conclusion, puts everyone under the most powerful, aggresive and dictatorial leaders. Because the world is the way it is, pacifism will never work.
--------------------
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
What on earth is 'near pacifist' for goodness sake?
Because even as you appear to admit, war and violence might be necessary but only as a last resort in a fallen world. In an ideal world we would all be pacifists. No-one except a crazed maniac (and there are plenty, admittedly) would start a war.
Perhaps 'reluctant non-pacifist' would be a better phrase than 'near-pacifist'. But I respect true pacifists. Maybe we couldn't exist in a world where everyone was a pacifist (though if literally everyone was, of course we could); but then we couldn't exist if everybody was celibate either. That's not to say that celibacy doesn't have value.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
An army uses weapons as its primary means of deterrence against undesirables. The police may use violence in extremis but its main 'force' is supposed to reside in the force of the law, with public trials and an independent judiciary.
I'm sorry to be so purgatorial but I'm not sure you're right here either. A police force exerts force or the threat of force which, depending on the standards of the society they serve, might include lethal force. An army does the same. The primary means by which an army achieves its objective is the deployment of force or he threat of force which, depending on the rules of engagement (informed by the standards of International Law), might include lethal force. It isn't unreasonable to distinguish between the two on grounds of risk but it isn't creating a straw an to suggest that an objection to one is not, in principle, that different from an objection to the other.
As the presence of the UK army on the streets of Northern Ireland demonstrated, when the situation has got beyond the power of a police force to resolve, the army has to be bought in to restore law and order.
Similarly, if the criminal is equipped with firearms, there is likely to be a need to use deadly force to regain control of the situation. I've already referred to the issue of pirates. AFAICS there is no logically coherent stopping point between benefiting from a police force and having an army to deter credible threats. Please feel free to offer one, especially in the context of Korea and Poland where ideologically driven dictators are trying to suppress independent countries. Or are you arguing that a country should not resist invaders? But on what basis should they resist criminals but not invaders? What if the 'invaders' are merely a well armed gang that doesn't have a state of their own?
Finally this article is a reminder of what can happen if you are attempting to be consistently pacifist; VERY funny for those of us who have limited sympathy with air headed idealists.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
What on earth is 'near pacifist' for goodness sake? What a lame, lilly-livered way to describes oneself.
Someone who doesn't object to entirely defensive use of armed forces, perhaps. It's one "l" in lily, btw.
quote:
It's like a vegetarian who eats free range chicken and fish.
Got two of those in our (extended) family, though they tend towards pheasant and smoked salmon. When you've stocked up on vegetarian comestibles to cater for them it's annoying when they come the "It wasn't bred for food, so it's OK" route.
quote:
Pacifism is a misguided principle which, followed through to its logical conclusion, puts everyone under the most powerful, aggresive and dictatorial leaders. Because the world is the way it is, pacifism will never work.
Whaddya mean, work? Reducing suffering by reducing the incidence and impact of violence is a Good Thing and we should not pretend otherwise. Simply because the world is brimful of sin is no reason to work against the arms trade, which helps the powerful, aggressive and dictatorial leaders way more than pacifist citizens ever do.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Pacifism is a misguided principle which, followed through to its logical conclusion, puts everyone under the most powerful, aggresive and dictatorial leaders. Because the world is the way it is, pacifism will never work.
Whaddya mean, work? Reducing suffering by reducing the incidence and impact of violence is a Good Thing and we should not pretend otherwise.
If that is what it achieves. However in the real world it appears obvious that a failure to resist evil with force merely allows the person willing to use force to indulge their evil desires unchecked. As I said before both Pol Pot and Idi Amin's deeply evil regimes were only stopped by force. What should have been done instead?
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok, Trisagion, it was a twattish OP but I was trying to be redemptive and Purgatorial rather than Hellish - partly because I've flirted with similar ideas to those expressed in the OP - twattish or otherwise.
I post twattish things sometimes. So, I submit, do you ...
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Similarly, if the criminal is equipped with firearms, there is likely to be a need to use deadly force to regain control of the situation.
Sure, and I acknowledged that the police use violence in extremis. But if the police are challenging an armed gang, their aim is to bring them to trial to face a court of law. Shooting one of them would be seen as a failure, even if there was no alternative - there would certainly be an inquiry afterwards to determine what happened. Conversely, when the British Army shoot Taliban soldiers in Afghanistan, there is no suggestion that what they really want to do is bring the Taliban to trial instead.
Also ...
quote:
AFAICS there is no logically coherent stopping point between benefiting from a police force and having an army to deter credible threats.
Even if that's true and my argument above is false, it's also true that there's no logically coherent stopping point on a colour chart between red and yellow, but that doesn't mean red and yellow are the same colour.
As a general point, I also think it is futile to advance utilitarian arguments against absolute pacifism, since absolute pacifism is not AFACS a utilitarian position, but an 'inherent moral evil' principle, like Catholics on birth control.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
if the police are challenging an armed gang, their aim is to bring them to trial to face a court of law. Shooting one of them would be seen as a failure, even if there was no alternative - there would certainly be an inquiry afterwards to determine what happened.
Each constable in England makes a formal declaration upon taking office: quote:
“I do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality,
upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.”
I find it interesting that the primary duty is preserving the peace. The prevention and detection of crime follow on from that. In either case shooting a criminal represents a degree of failure, albeit it may be a lesser evil option.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I post twattish things sometimes. So, I submit, do you ...
My sig admits as much.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Indeed. And I have read more than your sig ...
But understood little, I suspect.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Pacifism is a misguided principle which, followed through to its logical conclusion, puts everyone under the most powerful, aggresive and dictatorial leaders. Because the world is the way it is, pacifism will never work.
Whaddya mean, work? Reducing suffering by reducing the incidence and impact of violence is a Good Thing and we should not pretend otherwise.
If that is what it achieves. However in the real world it appears obvious that a failure to resist evil with force merely allows the person willing to use force to indulge their evil desires unchecked. As I said before both Pol Pot and Idi Amin's deeply evil regimes were only stopped by force. What should have been done instead?
Pol Pot achieved power from a small base thanks to: the Cambodia-Vietnamese War(s), fighting against North and South Vietnam at various time, Sihanouk's corrupt and unpopular Cambodian government, some armed support from some elements in North Vietname but mostly Chinese suplied arms.
As for Amin one really has to wonder what the world was up to, and especially the British. Israel suppied arms to his regime initially, the British didn't treat his regime seriously enough (see Punch magazine in the mid-seventies, and Alan Coren's satires on "Messages from Kampala", despite British owned businesses being nationalised and 80,000 Ugandans of Asian origin being expelled. My feeling is that we should have acted much earlier and not treated Amin as "one of ours" on the basis of his service in the King's African Rifles.
These are but starters to your "What should have been done instead?"
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
