|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Remembrance
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Jade Constable asks: quote:
Those who died on the 'enemy' side (which would have included many sincere Christians who were conscripted against their will)?
I suppressed a French MW report from 2011 as my notes were incomplete, but after the service I spoke with the Gabonese rector of a country church in Brittany who told me that when he celebrates on the anniversary of the town's liberation by US troops during WWII, mention is made of all the soldiers and fighters who died in that place, of whatever stripe. As well, on the 60th anniversary, a quiet and semi-private mass (as all involved wish to avoid controversy), some aging German veterans attended a mass of reconciliation with French and US survivors of the event. He told me that this had been done in a few other places, but it was still controversial. He said that he understood this as his father's tribe had been long enemies of his mother's; many were unable to attend their wedding and he had uncles who had never spoken; it was a cause of joy when people were able to overcome these divisions at the altar.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
In our service today I preached on "Greater love hath no man..." but related it very specifically to the voluntary death of Christ and his suffering with and for the world. I did also comment in passing on the way in politicians or other leaders have sometimes been far too quick to get involved in wars and so sent service-people to die when they should not have done.
The church I went to today had a really strange sermon about how it's God's job to remember the dead, and how we should only remember the living - the preacher went on about the whole remembrance 'season', including Bonfire Night, All Souls, Halloween, as well as today, and likened some of it to ancestor worship - he was a visiting preacher, I believe, possibly of a somewhat evangelical bent (judging by his delivery), so I don't know whether this is standard spiel for evo's, perhaps someone can enlighten me.
Also, one of the prayers we used only mentioned those who died in the cause of freedom, so presumably excluding Germans and (possibly) Soviet soldiers who died, and of course the millions who just died for no particular cause, except that they happened to be in the wrong place.
So, it was a bit off-putting overall, but just a small part of the service, fortunately.
[ 10. November 2013, 16:56: Message edited by: Holy Smoke ]
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Our remembrance service did not glorify war, it glorified God. It was about the call for peace, as well as paying tribute to and remembrance of all those who have died in wars, all including those being fought at the time. It was respectful and moving. I thank God that it's a Sunday set aside in the church calendar.
It's important to recall the tragedy of war, the loss of young life and the tears of the bereaved, for the sake of the push for peace. The red poppy means that to me now. I have in the past listened to those who suggested that it was about perpetuating war. I know better now, based on the experiences of the services I have attended, and the people I have spoken to who have been directly involved.
So the person who wrote the Guardian article, who has been directly involved and does not wear a poppy doesn't count?
Also, nobody here has said it perpetuates war. It makes heroes from events from which there were no heroes, only losers, because the horror of war means nobody wins. Plus, those of us who choose not to wear a poppy should not be pressured into wearing one and be treated as if it is disrespectful to follow our consciences.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
I didn't attend a Remembrance service today , not for any particular reason . I did though watch 20 mins of the Cenotaph ceremony, and was pleased to hear the commentary focus on the various faiths being represented rather than too much going on about Afghanistan .
I confess to getting a degree of angst at Church Remembrance services .
I'm thinking my mistake is to try and justify war . Yes, it's all very easy to get high on the *keeping a mad tyrant out bit*. Although I don't believe many on the actual sharp end of Churchill's 'blood , tears and sweat' recalled it with any great sense of affection or noble feelings.
But when you get into 60,000 dead or injured in one day on the Somme for no tangible gain ? Or recent wars, where it is unclear as to why sacrifices are being made thousands of miles away for a patch of desert ?
This is where the problem comes for me.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
trouty
Shipmate
# 13497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Our remembrance service did not glorify war, it glorified God. It was about the call for peace, as well as paying tribute to and remembrance of all those who have died in wars, all including those being fought at the time. It was respectful and moving. I thank God that it's a Sunday set aside in the church calendar.
It's important to recall the tragedy of war, the loss of young life and the tears of the bereaved, for the sake of the push for peace. The red poppy means that to me now. I have in the past listened to those who suggested that it was about perpetuating war. I know better now, based on the experiences of the services I have attended, and the people I have spoken to who have been directly involved.
So the person who wrote the Guardian article, who has been directly involved and does not wear a poppy doesn't count?
Also, nobody here has said it perpetuates war. It makes heroes from events from which there were no heroes, only losers, because the horror of war means nobody wins. Plus, those of us who choose not to wear a poppy should not be pressured into wearing one and be treated as if it is disrespectful to follow our consciences.
You shouldn't be forced to wear one but what pisses people off is the grandstanding that you and other non-wearers do over it. It's as if you want some sort of medal for your stance. That cunt Jon snow is the biggest hypocrite on the planet for the remarks he made when he had earlier berated people who wouldn't wear his favoured bracelt.
Posts: 205 | From: Somewhere out there | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
trouty
Shipmate
# 13497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I didn't attend a Remembrance service today , not for any particular reason . I did though watch 20 mins of the Cenotaph ceremony, and was pleased to hear the commentary focus on the various faiths being represented rather than too much going on about Afghanistan .
I confess to getting a degree of angst at Church Remembrance services .
I'm thinking my mistake is to try and justify war . Yes, it's all very easy to get high on the *keeping a mad tyrant out bit*. Although I don't believe many on the actual sharp end of Churchill's 'blood , tears and sweat' recalled it with any great sense of affection or noble feelings.
But when you get into 60,000 dead or injured in one day on the Somme for no tangible gain ? Or recent wars, where it is unclear as to why sacrifices are being made thousands of miles away for a patch of desert ?
This is where the problem comes for me.
History is obviously not your strong point. I suggest you read some proper academic histories of the Somme rather than basing your remarks on Blackadder and the like. Also, what s the basis for your belief that few shared Churchill's view about the sacrifices that would be needed? Just your gut instinct? Again I would refer you to some proper academic historians.
I have no problem with Remembrance because I understand what it is for - to remember the sacrifices that were made, to honour not just the dead but all who fought and gave up their youth that we may have a better life today and that honouring them in this way is not glorifying war, no matter what the ignorant white poppy brigade might say.
Posts: 205 | From: Somewhere out there | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
trouty
Shipmate
# 13497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Doc Tor, thank you for the link to that moving article (I am left of the Guardian so don't usually read it).
I am a pacifist; however, the remembrance industry is as poor at honouring soldiers as it is at honouring those brave enough to go with their consciences and oppose war. Both are victims of the sin of war. The Established Church's lapse into civic religion and endorsement of militarism is appalling and an insult to Christ and His Kingdom of Peace, although other churches are not blameless either (particularly the Salvation Army). Tomorrow (well, today) I shall attend the local Quaker Meeting for Worship in thanks for their faithful witness to peace.
What a load of fucking shite you come out with.
I thank God that brave men and women in 1914-18, 1939-45 and so many conflicts since have not been pacifists. You come across as very smaug and extremely ignorant but what else can be expected from someone who boasts of being left of the Guardian? Do you really think that non-pacifists are in favour of war? Do your really think that you and Quakers are the only ones who want peace? Do your not think that the Quaker way may actually lead to more conflict? Do you think that the Second World War, for instance, could have been prevented by holding hads and singing We Shall Overcome. Sorry but smug so-called anti-war loudmouths just totally piss me off. We're not trying to force poppies on you. We jsut want you to show some fucking respect of our views if you are capable of it. I suspect you are not.
Our AC Church had a great remembrance service we we all gave thanks for what all our armed forces and particularly those from our church did and do for us.
Posts: 205 | From: Somewhere out there | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
trouty
Shipmate
# 13497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I didn't attend a Remembrance service today , not for any particular reason . I did though watch 20 mins of the Cenotaph ceremony, and was pleased to hear the commentary focus on the various faiths being represented rather than too much going on about Afghanistan .
I confess to getting a degree of angst at Church Remembrance services .
I'm thinking my mistake is to try and justify war . Yes, it's all very easy to get high on the *keeping a mad tyrant out bit*. Although I don't believe many on the actual sharp end of Churchill's 'blood , tears and sweat' recalled it with any great sense of affection or noble feelings.
But when you get into 60,000 dead or injured in one day on the Somme for no tangible gain ? Or recent wars, where it is unclear as to why sacrifices are being made thousands of miles away for a patch of desert ?
This is where the problem comes for me.
History is obviously not your strong point. I suggest you read some proper academic histories of the Somme rather than basing your remarks on Blackadder and the like. Also, what s the basis for your belief that few shared Churchill's view about the sacrifices that would be needed? Just your gut instinct? Again I would refer you to some proper academic historians.
I have no problem with Remembrance because I understand what it is for - to remember the sacrifices that were made, to honour not just the dead but all who fought and gave up their youth that we may have a better life today and that honouring them in this way is not glorifying war, no matter what the ignorant white poppy brigade might say.
Gone a bit far in my response to you, I'm afraid. I should have read what you said more carefully but was feelin a bit emotional after reading some of the shit on here and tarred you with the same brush. Apologies.
Posts: 205 | From: Somewhere out there | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Jade
I'm not saying that the views expressed by the writer of the article from The Guardian don't count. But what I, and some others, are saying is that they are just that: the views of one ex-serviceman. There will be others who may have a different view: the viewpoints of them all will be valid because that is just what they are - personal viewpoints and there is no right or wrong, however much you may feel more in tune with one that another.
I'm astonished that you find it surprising that my church remembers all the dead from WWII - this has been the norm in every parish where I've worshipped since around the early 1970s. Perhaps you need to look beyond the symbolism and the more formal parts of Remembrance services (the bugles, silence and exhortation) to the words expressed in the prayers and sermons.
And I think you're being a little unfair in claiming that the CofE in general was anti Conscientious Objectors: for one thing, how can you ignore George Bell? And he was only the most famous example of many clergy who, even while they supported with their prayers the efforts of servicemen and women, made no secret of their hatred for the carnage and devastation being wrought across the world.
As for feeling pressured about a poppy, I would never try to coerce someone into supporting any concern, charitable or otherwise, that someone cannot wholeheartedly support. I personally feel that the work of the Royal British Legion in supporting veterans is of value and that is one of the reasons why I buy a poppy because sales of them provides the RBL's main source of income to fund this work.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Good move.
(to trouty.)
[ 10. November 2013, 18:04: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
All I can say is thank God that you are alive today and speaking English. Especially if you are Jewish, homosexual, disabled, a Traveller, a Jehovah's Witness, dark-haired or even Christian!
Had Hitler managed to invade and conquer Britain you can be sure that none of the above would have lasted very long under the Nazi government.
Yes, but being homosexual was illegal in the UK under Churchill's government. I don't think anyone was fighting WWII for gay people. In fact Alan Turning, who's brilliant mind allowed the British to win, was hounded to his death by the very society that he served. And travellers, JWs, Jews and the disabled haven't all been treated very fairly in the last 7 decades either. It's only recently that we've learned a bit more tolerance. What's to say that our German rulers wouldn't have changed in the same way over that time? And what's so great about the English language anyway? The way we've let the Americans rot our language clearly shows we have no respect for it, and as for being alive ... well who is it we were remembering?
Most of the stuff we're proud of in Britain was constructed after WWII (and has been in decline ever since the 1970s). Let's not make remembering those who died into a feast of "weren't we great to bash the evil hun". Can we just keep it a remembrance of those who died in appalling circumstances?
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Rolyn, I don't understand how that answers my question.
Kaplan Corday, not a conviction shared by Jesus so it carries no weight whatsoever for me since I let it go.
moron, I adored Churchill unquestioningly for his courage and ruthless pragmatism. Until I looked anew at the East Bengal Famine of 1943. Tipping point. Among others. Many others. Rational humanitarian ones let alone true Christian ones. Pacifism alone begins to look rational and humane. A correct response to aggression. But in Christ it is obvious regardless. Which liberated Europe in the fourth century and India, Ulster and South Africa in the twentieth. As for my protected pulpit, protected from what? By what?
L'organist, I of course don't have that feeling and don't need your prerogative. But of course you couldn't have meant it in my direction as it is utterly irrational. So whose?
And why does anyone assume I'm asking history questions? I KNOW that narrative.
And trouty. Served have you? Know anyone who has? How can non-conflict lead to more conflict? Non-violence to more more violence? Non-coercion ... non-imperialism ... non-slavery ... Declaring war leads to more war. Declaring total war leads to ... There would have been no first or second world wars including the Holocaust (no Hitler, no Russian revolution, no communism, no Mussolini, no Franco) and Hiroshima without Britain. There would be no Kashmir and no Israel. No partition of India. No Apartheid. No Drogheda. No ... name it. It's easy to name what there would have been. Certainly not anything worse or even as bad. But we'll never know will we?
OK the Portuguese destroyed the heart of Africa starting half a millennium ago. Spain and Portugal ruined South America.
Rome.
Britain is just the most influential Babylonian-Roman head, horn crown since the Reformation, but of course all of Christendom is as bad compared with our ignored, denied, emasculated, domesticated, blasphemed, co-opted founder.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
So the person who wrote the Guardian article, who has been directly involved and does not wear a poppy doesn't count?
Also, nobody here has said it perpetuates war. It makes heroes from events from which there were no heroes, only losers, because the horror of war means nobody wins. Plus, those of us who choose not to wear a poppy should not be pressured into wearing one and be treated as if it is disrespectful to follow our consciences.
Huh? I said I wore a poppy, and what it meant to me. I couldn't care less if nobody else wears one. In the past I didn't wear one for some years, and I didn't feel pressurised when others did. I understand the symbolism of the white poppy, but the red one for me also says 'give peace a chance'. Nobody should face what soldiers face, and they wouldn't if as Martin says we all followed the example of Christ. We all have trouble doing it.
As you said, nobody wins, but for those who suffered and who are still suffering the loss of health or life or relationship or home I stand with them in their pain, and think especially of those I personally know or knew who lost part of their lives whether injured or not. Yes, they were heroes: not of my making nor of the service I attended, but of their making through their suffering, and those of their families, as they continued to carry the burden.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cathscats
Shipmate
# 17827
|
Posted
It is not the remembering that is the problem, though there are things that it would be better to forget, it the civic side of things. Today I officiated at 3 war memorials. The British Legion - decent body of men - were at each one, mainly the same members. But by the time we got to the third time of lowering the standards and listening to the piper, I began to reflect that it is those who came back who are in the Legion. Those who died might not feel so positive about their military experience that they would want a quas-military remembrance. If we are to remember properly, in a way that is relevant to all and shows the importance of all loss in war, maybe we should not let the Legion think they can or should run things? Though then the question would be who would do it?
--------------------
"...damp hands and theological doubts - the two always seem to go together..." (O. Douglas, "The Setons")
Posts: 176 | From: Central Highlands | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778
|
Posted
Sigh. Jade appears (not for the first time) to be living on a different planet from the one I live on. Martin seems to be speaking a different language, which reminds a bit of Dutch in that it looks superficially like English but I can't understand a word of it.
A few points, in no particular order for what they're worth (which is probably not much, as peoples' minds seem pretty fixed):
1. Many churches (Anglican and RC) have requiems on Remembrance Sunday. This is the only Sunday of the year in which a requiem mass may normally be celebrated (and only by Papal permission for certain Anglophone countries). There is nothing celebratory or jingoistic about a requiem. It's a mass for the dead.
2. I think I've heard more Remembrance Sunday sermons that mentioned Bishop Bell and his opposition to aerial bombing than those that didn't. This includes services at All Saints, Margaret Street, and St Mary's, Bourne Street, so it's not as though I've been associating with wet liberals the entire time.
3. Whilst my parish's service this morning was a bit of an unhappy mixture(in that we couldn't seem to decide whether Remembrance took precedence over the Third Sunday of Advent or not), several things about it contradict the impression given by Jade and Martin about 'normal' CofE practice: firstly, the sermon mentioned the dead of all sides and that 'heaven is not only for "us" and people "we" like'; secondly, the only man in uniform was in a Red Cross ambulance driver uniform (about half the people wore poppies), and he was asked to bring up the wine at the offertory.
4. At the service I was at this evening, the sermon was by a Russian Orthodox priest and was on God's response to human suffering, and mentioned both the First World War and the purges of Stalin, as well as the 1918 influenza epidemic.
5. When I attended, some years back, a service of remembrance in my college chapel, the focus was very much on 'the young men from this college who died before their time in the course of war'. It was a solemn occasion, we read out their names. Nobody was celebrating anything. The sheer number of names was startling for a college of the size (it's worth remembering that officers died in proportionally very high numbers, so a smallish Cambridge college could experience loses of such a large proportion of its young alumni that to talk of 'decimation' would be obscene understatement). That service, a clear example of English civic religion as could be found anywhere under the sun, was a group of young people remembering a time when their predecessors, as young and hopeful as they were, went to war, and fought, and were slaughtered. It was a time for that generation of students, none of whom had served in the military (as far as I know) to remember a time when death in warfare was much nearer at hand than images on a television screen. And I think that's very healthy. Nobody, and I repeat this, viewed as a fucking celebration.
6. Every Remembrance Service ever done anywhere has 'O God of Earth and Altar'. If you think that's a jingoistic hymn, read it again.
7. Finally, although outside the realm of liturgical observation, Remembrance Day for me brings to mind two works of art. One is Britten's War Requiem. Britten was a pacifist and CO. The War Requiem, sung and listened to all over this country, is an anti-militaristic piece. The second piece of art I'm reminded of, perhaps more idiosyncratically, is from Kipling's 'Hymn Before Action'
quote:
Ah, Mary pierced with sorrow,
Remember, reach and save
The soul that comes to-morrow
Before the God that gave!
Since each was born of woman,
For each at utter need --
True comrade and true foeman --
Madonna, intercede!
--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
But not yours. Without irony either! And as I said S. Bacchus, in English, in the BBC Festival of Remembrance the head chaplain chap officiated over our nation's losses in taking up arms, making war, fighting, killing for 'justice, freedom and peace'. I'm glad that wasn't reiterated in your back yard. It was in mine and countless others I'm sure.
I felt particularly sorry for the marine who broke the 11th commandment. The first EVER to do so on our side. Amazing.
As your mind is still open, what does Jesus' example lack for you?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
All I can say is thank God that you are alive today and speaking English. Especially if you are Jewish, homosexual, disabled, a Traveller, a Jehovah's Witness, dark-haired or even Christian!
Had Hitler managed to invade and conquer Britain you can be sure that none of the above would have lasted very long under the Nazi government.
Yes, but being homosexual was illegal in the UK under Churchill's government. I don't think anyone was fighting WWII for gay people. In fact Alan Turning, who's brilliant mind allowed the British to win, was hounded to his death by the very society that he served. And travellers, JWs, Jews and the disabled haven't all been treated very fairly in the last 7 decades either. It's only recently that we've learned a bit more tolerance. What's to say that our German rulers wouldn't have changed in the same way over that time? And what's so great about the English language anyway? The way we've let the Americans rot our language clearly shows we have no respect for it, and as for being alive ... well who is it we were remembering?
Most of the stuff we're proud of in Britain was constructed after WWII (and has been in decline ever since the 1970s). Let's not make remembering those who died into a feast of "weren't we great to bash the evil hun". Can we just keep it a remembrance of those who died in appalling circumstances?
But, unlike Hitler, we were not - and had to intention to start - gassing them. My point is simply this: Had we not fought against Hitler, had Hitler been allowed to invade Britain then the
British Jews, the British homosexuals, the British gypsies, the British disabled people, the British dark-haired people, the British Christians (eventually) would have been taken to death camps.
One of the most offensive things I ever read was the opinion of a Quaker who said quitye categorically that as far as he was concerned 'it wouldn't have been so bad living under Hitler's rule', and that 'British people were wrong to fight against him.' As far as he was concerned, the extermination of British Jews was an acceptable price to pay for him to maintain his pacifism.
[ 10. November 2013, 21:40: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
I'm afraid. I should have read what you said more carefully but was feelin a bit emotional after reading some of the shit on here and tarred you with the same brush. Apologies.
Apology accepted .
I've always found Britain's role in both World Wars to bring on emotion .
Martin , I haven't answered your question as I've forgotten what it was . I agree this little Mr. Big Island has not always covered itself in glory down the ages . Re. warfare and foreign intervention we have cocked things up royally on several occasions .
Remembrance Day for me is chiefly about honouring the dead from 2 World wars . If , as seems to be the case, in this Century it is to become something all encompassing then so be it . People should feel free to dip in or to dip out .
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
We are, as ever, confusing what had to be done with celebrating what we did.
As one of those unfortunates who'd have ended up in the gas chambers, I am inevitably grateful for my chance of life. But as Cathscats says, is a quasi-military remembrance what we need? No flags, no medals, no uniforms, no marching, no fly pasts: read out the names of the dead, one by one in a cold clear voice, stack their coffins like cordwood and weep for what we have lost.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I don't understand.
If the church had stopped Britain being part of the problem, had the clarity of its alleged founder, the courage, then it would also have had the courage not to co-operate in a British implementation of the Holocaust. The Nazis couldn't have done it without us.
This is what it, the church, we will have to do next time. For the first time. Anywhere. Ever.
Be the kingdom.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
For a long time I have been puzzled as to why we get so emotional about people who die serving their country in the armed forces, but others not in the armed forces are forgotten. Why don't we honour our police, firefighters, teachers, doctors, nurses, etc who have lost their lives in the service of their country at home and abroad, in wartime and in peacetime? Surely they are just as important and worthy of remembrance and respect.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I'm not pleased with Remembrance Day and services any longer. Since the misguided 'wars on terror', it has morphed into a 'support the troops' thing. This is a refocussing. I do not support the troops. I support remembrance. Of suffering, death, sorrow, and the goal of avoiding this. Not promotion of current wars.
WW2 has always seems pretty clear in terms of 'rightness' and 'wrongness' of the sides and of allied victory. Except for the Pacific war which seems to be the USA's fault as much as the Japanese in terms of the prelude: Philippines and economic war for starters. WW1 was a product of 19th century thinking and the British-German arms race. We're still dealing with the middle-east mess they left with that one.
I write this as one who lost 3/5 of his family in WW2, with all those boys serving Germany killed, the last by Americans in Michigan in a POW camp, a war crime. Whose father was being trained for an allied invasion of Norway after escaping Hong Kong in Jan 1942 and then was nearly interned by paranoid Americans and British. Whose father-in-law liberated Holland, and the Hunger Winter.
Thus I find myself rather angry at the usurping of Remembrance for war boosterism. "The universal soldier, (s)he really is to blame...."
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Adding 2 cents' worth to say that I find the White Poppy campaign to smack of "Look at me! I'm so pure and holy to be thinking about all those pointless deaths, while you Red Poppy guys are all slavering for more war"
despite the fact that virtually everyone here, and everyone I know where I am, treats this as a moment of respect for those who went to do a job, not all of them willingly. Some died, some came back broken, all came back changed. Huge numbers of people were "collateral damage", and many of them were no more warlike than any of the people posting on this thread.
And we pay attention to all of them - at least, in this area, and in our schools, we do. I'll send you the script of the reading s that were done here if you want. It is in pretty basic English.
Take your damn showpiece poppy somewhere private, and snivel about how you aren't appreciated. When you finally reach the mental age of, say, 21, maybe you'll begin to understand.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
I'm sorry, but I thought our soldiers died for "freedom". That freedom includes the right to dissent from Remembrance Day and the right to wear a white poppy, red poppy or no poppy at all.
Freedom in a democracy means allowing people the opinion that most wars were simply fought based on greedy, self-interested, nationalist concerns.
It means being free to not join in Remembrance Day ceremonies on the basis of conscience.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by no prophet:
Except for the Pacific war which seems to be the USA's fault as much as the Japanese in terms of the prelude: Philippines and economic war for starters.
On behalf of the American people, I apologize to the people of Japan for not aiding them in their conquest of East Asia. That was wrong. We had Pearl Harbor coming. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Piglet
Islander
# 11803
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
... That freedom includes the right to dissent from Remembrance Day and the right to wear a white poppy, red poppy or no poppy at all ... [and] ... being free to not join in Remembrance Day ceremonies on the basis of conscience.
I couldn't have put it better than that. I wear a poppy not as a "glorification of war", as some would have it, but as a mark of respect for those whose sacrifice has given me that freedom, and I would defend with my last breath anyone's right to disagree with me.
I'm very happy that our service this morning included a short act of remembrance - reading out the names of Cathedral parishioners who were killed in WWII*, They shall grow not old, and singing the Royal Anthem, Ode to Newfoundland and National Anthem, which I always find very moving.
* We commemorate those lost in the First World War on 1st July.
--------------------
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
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Hairy Biker quote:
being homosexual was illegal in the UK under Churchill's government. I don't think anyone was fighting WWII for gay people. In fact Alan Turning, who's brilliant mind allowed the British to win, was hounded to his death by the very society that he served. And travellers, JWs, Jews and the disabled haven't all been treated very fairly in the last 7 decades either. It's only recently that we've learned a bit more tolerance. What's to say that our German rulers wouldn't have changed in the same way over that time? And what's so great about the English language anyway? The way we've let the Americans rot our language clearly shows we have no respect for it, and as for being alive ... well who is it we were remembering?
Most of the stuff we're proud of in Britain was constructed after WWII (and has been in decline ever since the 1970s). Let's not make remembering those who died into a feast of "weren't we great to bash the evil hun". Can we just keep it a remembrance of those who died in appalling circumstances?
Yes, homosexuality was illegal in 1940s Britain - and virtually everywhere else in the world as well. Unfortunately for your theory that after an invasion our German rulers would have changed over time on the EVIDENCE of what went on in continental Europe the Jews, Witnesses, gypsies, homosexuals and Slavs wouldn't have had the luxury of time to wait for this civilisation-through-time to happen, they would have been dead.
What's so great about the English language? Err, no-one has said that either of the World Wars for fought for reasons of linguistic purity: but if you're asking the strange mish-mash that is English seems to be the easiest language for a vast number of the earth's inhabitants to pick-up - perhaps because of its very lack of formal structure? And this ability for one language to be understood by so many is what has enabled so many living under regimes of violent tendency to have their voice heard - or are you suggesting that demonstrators from China to Iran to Syria would be just as easily understood (in the West especially) if their uploaded videos and blogs were in Cantonese, Farsi or Arabic?
And your rant about the Americans "rotting" our language: do get up to speed - even US written software has long acknowledged (for 20+ years) that British English and US English are two similar but non-identical languages.
Most of the stuff we're proud of has been constructed since WWII? Reeally? So you're happy to disregard the achievements of Brunel, Telford, McAdam, Nash, Wren, Hawksmoor, etc, etc, etc. You'd cheerfully ignore the work of Rutherford, Fleming, Jenner, Newton? The first 300 years of the Royal Society?
As for pride being in decline since the 1970s - you're right there: and it could have something to do with the "history is bunk" attitude that has been prevalent among some so-called educationists who should know better.
And before you say that the distant past doesn't matter there is truth in the old maxim "Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it". The same man also said "Only the dead have seen the end of war".
Lastly HB, point out to me and the rest on this thread where ANYONE has "bashed the evil hun" - please.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by no prophet quote:
WW2 has always seems pretty clear in terms of 'rightness' and 'wrongness' of the sides and of allied victory. Except for the Pacific war which seems to be the USA's fault as much as the Japanese in terms of the prelude: Philippines and economic war for starters.
The Pacific War as much the fault of the USA as Japan???
FYI the Pacific War (as you call it) had its origins in the second Sino-Japanese War - and that began in 1931. In case you haven't heard of it other than in the context of the film The Manchurian Candidate, Manchuria is in fact a very real place: a place where the most appalling atrocities occurred and where, had the first world bothered to look, they would have seen a presentiment of things to come with the experiments on human guinea pigs of elements for chemical and biological warfare.
In fact the Japanese aggression and partial invasion of China was so serious that, at least until 1937, the Chinese were receiving support and military hardware from the US, Soviet Union, Germany and the UK. The League of Nations commissioned the Lytton report in 1932 from a multi-national group headed by Bulwer-Lytton into the Japanese actions in Manchuria.
As for your economic war between the US and Japan, are you quite sure that the attack on the USS Panay in 1937 put no strain on the relationship? And how do you explain the "out-of-the-blue" attack on Pearl Harbour?
And even if you can convince yourself that the US "had it coming" from the Japanese, that doesn't justify what happened to millions of Koreans, Burmese, Malays, Pacific Islanders, Vietnamese, not to mention the British, French and Dutch - even a few Soviets - residents in the territories captured by the Japanese.
Perhaps your view is coloured by the fact that there was no Far East equivalent of the Nuremberg trials after the Japanese surrender. The decision to play-down the atrocities committed by Japanese Imperial Forces was a cruel betrayal of the millions of men, women and children slaughtered by an army whose casual barbarity was sickening. If you doubt that statement, look at the way that Japanese actions during WWII are still quoted by the Chinese and Koreans (among others) as a reason for strained relations between themselves and the Japanese.
For Japanese horrors to have gone unpunished says more about the cynicism and rabid anti-communism of Roosevelt, Truman and Macarthur than about justice or plain human decency.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I am left of the Guardian so don't usually read it.
When I was an impressionable teenager back in the Sixties, I participated in an anti-Vietnam War demonstration in which the marchers were chanting predictable anti-American sentiments.
Suddenly, a group of Maoists, apropos of nothing in particular, commenced their mantra of “Smash Soviet revisionism!”
It was the most pretentious piece of ideological one-upmanship I have encountered until now.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There is no public remembrance/honour for COs.
Why on earth should there be?
My father-in-law's Field Ambulance unit, which contained other COs beside himself, has always marched on Anzac Day,and received exactly the same recognition as other units.
Nor have COs been ignored in military histories.
The novelist John Masters, who served as an officer under Slim in Burma, wrote in his autobiographical The Road Past Mandalay:-
"The American Field Service are bloody marvels. They seem to be, in equal proportions - pansies [!], Quakers, conscientious objectors, and altruistic young men; but damned nearly all heroes".
[ 11. November 2013, 05:16: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Nor TGC do you acknowledge the loss of Australian lives in the Pacific Theatre of the war? We particularly remember the New Guinea Martyrs, two of whom were missionary nurses and former members of the Parish. We have a chapel dedicated to all the New Guinea Martyrs.
Perhaps you should read more about the Japanese invasion of China, starting with the Rape of Nanking. Then follow with accounts of the invasions of countries further to the south. It is worth noting that with the exception of Chandra Bose and his group, there were very few collaborators in the various countries occupied by Japan.
And L'organist there were war crimes trials against a series of Japanese. They are not as famous as the Nuremberg Trials and those that followed in Germany, but did result in a large number of convictions.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So the Philippine–American War was not a factor?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Our remembrance service did not glorify war, it glorified God. It was about the call for peace, as well as paying tribute to and remembrance of all those who have died in wars, all including those being fought at the time. It was respectful and moving. I thank God that it's a Sunday set aside in the church calendar.
It's important to recall the tragedy of war, the loss of young life and the tears of the bereaved, for the sake of the push for peace. The red poppy means that to me now. I have in the past listened to those who suggested that it was about perpetuating war. I know better now, based on the experiences of the services I have attended, and the people I have spoken to who have been directly involved.
So the person who wrote the Guardian article, who has been directly involved and does not wear a poppy doesn't count?
Also, nobody here has said it perpetuates war. It makes heroes from events from which there were no heroes, only losers, because the horror of war means nobody wins. Plus, those of us who choose not to wear a poppy should not be pressured into wearing one and be treated as if it is disrespectful to follow our consciences.
You shouldn't be forced to wear one but what pisses people off is the grandstanding that you and other non-wearers do over it. It's as if you want some sort of medal for your stance. That cunt Jon snow is the biggest hypocrite on the planet for the remarks he made when he had earlier berated people who wouldn't wear his favoured bracelt.
I don't do any grandstanding, thanks all the same. How can you possibly read my mind? Perhaps instead you'd like to read my posts about my concerns about modern Remembrance Sunday (different from the original) and why I can't in good conscience keep it any more. However I don't make a big deal about it at all - the Ship is the only place I discuss it in fact - just go out without a poppy (I don't wear a white poppy FYI). Guess what, I still get berated in public for it. But cheers for your ignorance. I actually think Jon Snow does a great job at fighting the politicism of the red poppy, which has become political even if it wasn't in the first place. When the BBC can make all its employees wear one but ban the white poppy, that is unfair, not free and political.
Not wearing a poppy =/= wearing a white poppy. I do however support the white poppy makers and donate to them in lieu of buying a poppy when I see them, since actually they are far from ignorant and work for peace. You know, that thing God rather likes.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There is no public remembrance/honour for COs.
Why on earth should there be?
My father-in-law's Field Ambulance unit, which contained other COs beside himself, has always marched on Anzac Day,and received exactly the same recognition as other units.
Nor have COs been ignored in military histories.
The novelist John Masters, who served as an officer under Slim in Burma, wrote in his autobiographical The Road Past Mandalay:-
"The American Field Service are bloody marvels. They seem to be, in equal proportions - pansies [!], Quakers, conscientious objectors, and altruistic young men; but damned nearly all heroes".
We don't have Anzac Day in the UK and COs do not get recognition with other participants.
COs were incredibly brave (standing up for their consciences and usually God too) yet were persecuted by their friends, family, churches and country. I think their sacrifices deserve honour too.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Doc Tor, thank you for the link to that moving article (I am left of the Guardian so don't usually read it).
I am a pacifist; however, the remembrance industry is as poor at honouring soldiers as it is at honouring those brave enough to go with their consciences and oppose war. Both are victims of the sin of war. The Established Church's lapse into civic religion and endorsement of militarism is appalling and an insult to Christ and His Kingdom of Peace, although other churches are not blameless either (particularly the Salvation Army). Tomorrow (well, today) I shall attend the local Quaker Meeting for Worship in thanks for their faithful witness to peace.
What a load of fucking shite you come out with.
I thank God that brave men and women in 1914-18, 1939-45 and so many conflicts since have not been pacifists. You come across as very smaug and extremely ignorant but what else can be expected from someone who boasts of being left of the Guardian? Do you really think that non-pacifists are in favour of war? Do your really think that you and Quakers are the only ones who want peace? Do your not think that the Quaker way may actually lead to more conflict? Do you think that the Second World War, for instance, could have been prevented by holding hads and singing We Shall Overcome. Sorry but smug so-called anti-war loudmouths just totally piss me off. We're not trying to force poppies on you. We jsut want you to show some fucking respect of our views if you are capable of it. I suspect you are not.
Our AC Church had a great remembrance service we we all gave thanks for what all our armed forces and particularly those from our church did and do for us.
![[Confused]](confused.gif) Sorry, but I don't think what I've said deserves such rudeness. Aside from unfortunately not actually being Smaug the dragon from The Hobbit, calling pacifists names (when pacifism has a lot of historical presence within Christianity and has never been just a Quaker thing at all - and FYI I am A-C myself) and suggesting that I am incapable of respecting others' views based on nothing at all (I have done nothing but this, just disagreeing) is not exactly making you deserving of respect.
I did not realise that obeying Christ's commands to turn the other cheek (as I see pacifism, I realise there are other interpretations) was such a terrible thing, but for me it is Christ I must obey and not governments.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Jade
I'm not saying that the views expressed by the writer of the article from The Guardian don't count. But what I, and some others, are saying is that they are just that: the views of one ex-serviceman. There will be others who may have a different view: the viewpoints of them all will be valid because that is just what they are - personal viewpoints and there is no right or wrong, however much you may feel more in tune with one that another.
I'm astonished that you find it surprising that my church remembers all the dead from WWII - this has been the norm in every parish where I've worshipped since around the early 1970s. Perhaps you need to look beyond the symbolism and the more formal parts of Remembrance services (the bugles, silence and exhortation) to the words expressed in the prayers and sermons.
And I think you're being a little unfair in claiming that the CofE in general was anti Conscientious Objectors: for one thing, how can you ignore George Bell? And he was only the most famous example of many clergy who, even while they supported with their prayers the efforts of servicemen and women, made no secret of their hatred for the carnage and devastation being wrought across the world.
As for feeling pressured about a poppy, I would never try to coerce someone into supporting any concern, charitable or otherwise, that someone cannot wholeheartedly support. I personally feel that the work of the Royal British Legion in supporting veterans is of value and that is one of the reasons why I buy a poppy because sales of them provides the RBL's main source of income to fund this work.
I have never ever heard churches remember all the war dead in Remembrance services, and I've been to a lot of them. Possibly a churchmanship difference? I was at RC early Mass and then Quaker meeting for worship today, but best friend was at her local CoE church (she's not from a CoE background) and was uncomfortable that the service was all about celebrating that 'Britain won the war' and not much else. So it does vary, it seems.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I am left of the Guardian so don't usually read it.
When I was an impressionable teenager back in the Sixties, I participated in an anti-Vietnam War demonstration in which the marchers were chanting predictable anti-American sentiments.
Suddenly, a group of Maoists, apropos of nothing in particular, commenced their mantra of “Smash Soviet revisionism!”
It was the most pretentious piece of ideological one-upmanship I have encountered until now.
Sorry, what does that have to do with anything I said?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
Sigh. Jade appears (not for the first time) to be living on a different planet from the one I live on. Martin seems to be speaking a different language, which reminds a bit of Dutch in that it looks superficially like English but I can't understand a word of it.
A few points, in no particular order for what they're worth (which is probably not much, as peoples' minds seem pretty fixed):
1. Many churches (Anglican and RC) have requiems on Remembrance Sunday. This is the only Sunday of the year in which a requiem mass may normally be celebrated (and only by Papal permission for certain Anglophone countries). There is nothing celebratory or jingoistic about a requiem. It's a mass for the dead.
2. I think I've heard more Remembrance Sunday sermons that mentioned Bishop Bell and his opposition to aerial bombing than those that didn't. This includes services at All Saints, Margaret Street, and St Mary's, Bourne Street, so it's not as though I've been associating with wet liberals the entire time.
3. Whilst my parish's service this morning was a bit of an unhappy mixture(in that we couldn't seem to decide whether Remembrance took precedence over the Third Sunday of Advent or not), several things about it contradict the impression given by Jade and Martin about 'normal' CofE practice: firstly, the sermon mentioned the dead of all sides and that 'heaven is not only for "us" and people "we" like'; secondly, the only man in uniform was in a Red Cross ambulance driver uniform (about half the people wore poppies), and he was asked to bring up the wine at the offertory.
4. At the service I was at this evening, the sermon was by a Russian Orthodox priest and was on God's response to human suffering, and mentioned both the First World War and the purges of Stalin, as well as the 1918 influenza epidemic.
5. When I attended, some years back, a service of remembrance in my college chapel, the focus was very much on 'the young men from this college who died before their time in the course of war'. It was a solemn occasion, we read out their names. Nobody was celebrating anything. The sheer number of names was startling for a college of the size (it's worth remembering that officers died in proportionally very high numbers, so a smallish Cambridge college could experience loses of such a large proportion of its young alumni that to talk of 'decimation' would be obscene understatement). That service, a clear example of English civic religion as could be found anywhere under the sun, was a group of young people remembering a time when their predecessors, as young and hopeful as they were, went to war, and fought, and were slaughtered. It was a time for that generation of students, none of whom had served in the military (as far as I know) to remember a time when death in warfare was much nearer at hand than images on a television screen. And I think that's very healthy. Nobody, and I repeat this, viewed as a fucking celebration.
6. Every Remembrance Service ever done anywhere has 'O God of Earth and Altar'. If you think that's a jingoistic hymn, read it again.
7. Finally, although outside the realm of liturgical observation, Remembrance Day for me brings to mind two works of art. One is Britten's War Requiem. Britten was a pacifist and CO. The War Requiem, sung and listened to all over this country, is an anti-militaristic piece. The second piece of art I'm reminded of, perhaps more idiosyncratically, is from Kipling's 'Hymn Before Action'
quote:
Ah, Mary pierced with sorrow,
Remember, reach and save
The soul that comes to-morrow
Before the God that gave!
Since each was born of woman,
For each at utter need --
True comrade and true foeman --
Madonna, intercede!
Is it possible for you to address a post to me without being sneery and patronising, just for once? Please?
1. I have never been to a church that holds a requiem for Remembrance Sunday, including RC churches. I agree that there is nothing celebratory about a requiem and do think that this is a good idea. It doesn't stop me from disliking the public pageantry, but actually would let me comfortably sit through a church Remembrance service.
2. Yeah, I've never been to All Saints' Margaret Street, and St Mary's, Bourne Street so those names mean nothing to me. I have however been to many many evangelical Remembrance Sunday services (since I've been an evangelical for most of my Christian life - please remember that not all Anglicans are AC) and I don't think anyone at those churches would even know who Bishop Bell was. Sad, I agree, but how things are. Even Remembrance Sunday, it seems, varies across churchmanship.
3. I have never been in an Anglican service that remembers all war dead, including the 'enemy' and non-combatants. The RC Mass I attended yesterday did, but that's the first church service I've attended that has done so.
4. I have never heard 'O God of Earth and Altar' at a Remembrance service - in fact, I have never heard it at all and have no idea how it goes. At my previous churches, nobody would have known it. I have heard 'Oh Happy Day' by (I think) Matt Redman though. I wish I was making this up.
5. The service in your college chapel sounds very well-done. However, it's not my experience of civic religion (mostly because I've never been to a university that has college chapels). What I've experienced is churches doing jingoistic services for Remembrance Sunday that barely mention Christ.
6. I have never heard Britten's War Requiem, I don't think, unless I've heard it on television and didn't know what it was called. Now that's nobody's fault but my own, given that I really don't like classical music aside from film soundtracks. Thanks for the poem.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
When the BBC can make all its employees wear one but ban the white poppy, that is unfair, not free and political.
…
Not wearing a poppy =/= wearing a white poppy. I do however support the white poppy makers and donate to them in lieu of buying a poppy when I see them, since actually they are far from ignorant and work for peace.
While I agree that the BBC ought not to make people wear anything, there is something about the White Poppy movement that I think is highly disingenuous. The White Poppy movement is a very political movement,for example:
quote:
[I]nstead of rage at a socio-political system that brought about war, instead of forceful insistence that the world be run differently, the deaths of so many British soldiers were turned into glorious sacrifice.
Demanding upheaval of the socio-political system is a controversial political statement to make.
It seems to me that to make this kind of political posturing acceptable, the White Poppy movement has to paint its opponent as also being political, so as to justify itself as the alternative. And yet I struggle to see what is political about red poppies and that one can wear a poppy regardless of how one feels about any particular conflict or conflicts generally.
Personally, I don't think Britain should have fought in the Great War and part of me wonders whether we ought to have sued for peace in 1940, and that's before we get started on modern conflicts like Iraq. But despite those thoughts it doesn't stop me reflecting and remembering on those who did fight and did die.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
When the BBC can make all its employees wear one but ban the white poppy, that is unfair, not free and political.
…
Not wearing a poppy =/= wearing a white poppy. I do however support the white poppy makers and donate to them in lieu of buying a poppy when I see them, since actually they are far from ignorant and work for peace.
While I agree that the BBC ought not to make people wear anything, there is something about the White Poppy movement that I think is highly disingenuous. The White Poppy movement is a very political movement,for example:
quote:
[I]nstead of rage at a socio-political system that brought about war, instead of forceful insistence that the world be run differently, the deaths of so many British soldiers were turned into glorious sacrifice.
Demanding upheaval of the socio-political system is a controversial political statement to make.
It seems to me that to make this kind of political posturing acceptable, the White Poppy movement has to paint its opponent as also being political, so as to justify itself as the alternative. And yet I struggle to see what is political about red poppies and that one can wear a poppy regardless of how one feels about any particular conflict or conflicts generally.
Personally, I don't think Britain should have fought in the Great War and part of me wonders whether we ought to have sued for peace in 1940, and that's before we get started on modern conflicts like Iraq. But despite those thoughts it doesn't stop me reflecting and remembering on those who did fight and did die.
I think red poppies are political now and they were not orginally - or rather, the wearing of them has become political. I would have been happy to wear one were I around in 1919, but not now.
I do agree that white poppies are a political statement which is why I don't wear them but just wear no poppy*, along with Romans 13:14-19. I agree with the organisation enough to donate, that's all (although I haven't seen them this year, so have not done so).
*I was wearing a 'peace' badge (the word peace on a rainbow background, not the CND symbol) on my coat but had actually forgotten it was there - it's from Pax Christi (Catholic peace organisation) and connected to nuclear disarmament not Remembrance. The priest at RC Mass complimented me on it though...
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I would have been happy to wear one were I around in 1919, but not now.
I don't understand what has changed between the early 1920s and today?
quote:
I do agree that white poppies are a political statement
In which case you would agree that the BBC should ban presenters from wearing them?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I would have been happy to wear one were I around in 1919, but not now.
I don't understand what has changed between the early 1920s and today?
More wars, many with their roots in the 1914-18 war, and many more dead. I cannot see why the same symbol should not continue to be used.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
People wear a red poppy for a variety of reasons and I see nothing wrong in wearing one to commemorate:
- Family members/friends killed in action – between 1914-2013
- Those who were conscripted into wars they didn’t particularly want to fight, who lost their lives
- Those who went into it willingly and idealistically, wanting to fight for/defend their country, families, friends etc
- The acts of heroism, sung and unsung, that took place during conflicts (some we will never know about)
- Those who were shocked, badly, by what they saw and experienced
- Men who were shot for desertion or cowardice
- Those who died alone far from home, at sea, in jungles, in trenches, in sudden explosions, or shot down in mid-air
- Young lads who lied about their age to join up, out of innocence and a desire for adventure and whose lives were cut short
- Those who never made it to the end of the war they were involved in
- People who desperately tried to preserve their way of life against ruthless invaders and paid the price for that
- Men who had to live with life-changing injuries
- Any member of bomb disposal, past or present, who tried, unsuccessfully, to defuse explosives.
This isn't an exhaustive list, but if any of these strike a chord then the red poppy is something you can relate to.
And it isn’t just about Britain, either. It's worldwide. It's Poland, Austria, and Australia, and Afghanistan, and Iraq, and many other places. Displaying a red poppy doesn’t necessarily mean that you support war. It does mean that you are remembering, and honouring, those caught up in it – and almost all of them through no fault of their own.
Don’t wear a poppy if you don’t want to. I don’t. But don’t be smug about not wearing one and don’t write it off as being from the past. It isn’t. It’s still current: reclaim it.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I would have been happy to wear one were I around in 1919, but not now.
I don't understand what has changed between the early 1920s and today?
quote:
I do agree that white poppies are a political statement
In which case you would agree that the BBC should ban presenters from wearing them?
Red poppies are an equally political statement. So why aren't they banned?
And in 1919 Sainsburys weren't selling 'Remembrance' items where a whopping 10p (on something costing £1 or more) went to the British Legion. Red poppies have been turned into a money-making scheme (not by the British Legion I hasten to add) where if you don't wear one you're a traitor. Not on.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
People wear a red poppy for a variety of reasons and I see nothing wrong in wearing one to commemorate:
- Family members/friends killed in action – between 1914-2013
- Those who were conscripted into wars they didn’t particularly want to fight, who lost their lives
- Those who went into it willingly and idealistically, wanting to fight for/defend their country, families, friends etc
- The acts of heroism, sung and unsung, that took place during conflicts (some we will never know about)
- Those who were shocked, badly, by what they saw and experienced
- Men who were shot for desertion or cowardice
- Those who died alone far from home, at sea, in jungles, in trenches, in sudden explosions, or shot down in mid-air
- Young lads who lied about their age to join up, out of innocence and a desire for adventure and whose lives were cut short
- Those who never made it to the end of the war they were involved in
- People who desperately tried to preserve their way of life against ruthless invaders and paid the price for that
- Men who had to live with life-changing injuries
- Any member of bomb disposal, past or present, who tried, unsuccessfully, to defuse explosives.
This isn't an exhaustive list, but if any of these strike a chord then the red poppy is something you can relate to.
And it isn’t just about Britain, either. It's worldwide. It's Poland, Austria, and Australia, and Afghanistan, and Iraq, and many other places. Displaying a red poppy doesn’t necessarily mean that you support war. It does mean that you are remembering, and honouring, those caught up in it – and almost all of them through no fault of their own.
Don’t wear a poppy if you don’t want to. I don’t. But don’t be smug about not wearing one and don’t write it off as being from the past. It isn’t. It’s still current: reclaim it.
I'm not smug about not wearing one, but annoyed that my right not to wear one is not respected. I don't write it off as being from the past and haven't said that I sympathise with the original intention but not the modern use. Also as I've already said, the Ship is actually the only place I discuss it at all....
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Thanks for the apology, trouty, because the personal insults were definitely over the top.
Gwai
Purgatory Host
Trouty apologised to rolyn only.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I would have been happy to wear one were I around in 1919, but not now.
I don't understand what has changed between the early 1920s and today?
More wars, many with their roots in the 1914-18 war, and many more dead. I cannot see why the same symbol should not continue to be used.
Of course there's no reason why the symbol can't still be used - it's the WAY it is used that I object to.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Has anyone actually been smug about not wearing a poppy? I don't feel smug about it at all. The whole subject is painful in my family, because of various deaths, people who were very bitter about WWI, and other reasons. It's interesting how much passion it seems to arouse on this forum, I'm quite surprised really.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
]Red poppies are an equally political statement. So why aren't they banned?
But I don't accept that they are. Lot of people can wear them for lots of different reasons (as Ariel has outlined). An army colonel can wear a poppy as can an anti-war activist, so far as I can see.
quote:
And in 1919 Sainsburys weren't selling 'Remembrance' items where a whopping 10p (on something costing £1 or more) went to the British Legion. Red poppies have been turned into a money-making scheme (not by the British Legion I hasten to add) where if you don't wear one you're a traitor. Not on.
To my mind nothing can be as bad as the Lollipoppy. But as much as I dislike the Lollipoppy, I can't let that undermine the whole thing.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
