Remembrance

I just want to remember those that paid the ultimate sacrifice irrespective of creed,politics and belief so that others can still discuss the same points at a future time.I do wonder if those that did would be happy in the way that Great Britain ,its politics and its citizens have become in general.

 

Stu, i was having that exact same discussion with my Dad only yesterday. The problem of this rhetorical question is that the men who died in the World Wars would be looking at our modern world through their own particular historic lense so it's nigh on impossible to fathom out the answer. Things that seem quite irrelevant to us today (tits on page 3) may well cause outrage and indignation, so i dread to think what they would have made out of a pirate with a hook for a hand espousing his vile hatred on the street corner, inciting the murder of the Kafir's walking by, or the sharia courts that all over the country...they probably wouldn't be as open minded about it as we are.
Then there's the rise of China and the decline of the US, not to mention the complete and utter demise of Empire.

 

Completely agree with you mate but despite that,would they be at pax with how we have developed as a society ?

 

The difficulty with a non-religious remembrance of anyone - such as a non-religious funeral - is that as atheists, this is the time when you have to get real. You have to say to the loved ones (or imply): "Well, he's gone now. He's returned to dust and atoms, ceased to exist. His life was pointless in the cosmological scheme of things.". That clearly doesn't provide a whole lot of comfort. So people prefer to clutch at the only straw available: "He's gone to a better place." Well, he hasn't, has he? But in the words of the Fast Show: "I couldn't just come out and say it, man. It sounds so bleak".

That's probably why religion still has plenty of mileage left. People just don't want to face the pointlessness of their existence. The universe is absurd - that's what the existentialists were on about.

 

It is interesting - and I have discussed this subject with a scooter-riding RN padre on a couple of occasions - how many people "turn to God" when being sent into war or other dangerous situations. I think Glid is right; there is a basic human need to believe that life does go on, in some form, after physical death...

 

Pete, I can think of quite a few Royal Marines and Royal Navy personnel who I would definitely not describe as "weak minded" or "irrational" who have turned to religion in extreme situations...

 

A bit harsh. How weak minded to you have to be to be afraid of death? Haven't got there yet, but fairly sure it isn't going to be any fun when I do. Death does rather put everything into perspective. It's often not a perspective you like.

 

you dont have to say, "Well, he's gone now. He's returned to dust and atoms, ceased to exist. His life was pointless in the cosmological scheme of things."

You can say something like," Grandad was a lovely bloke, and all of our lives have been made all the richer through knowing him, and as long as i am alive, a little part of Grandpa will always be alive within my body and within my memory, and he will live on through my children"....you know, shit like that.

 

"Son, Grandad was a womanising drunk who beat Grandma on a daily basis. Right up until he got altzheimers, then your granny started beating him. Then they died". That's what it would've sounded like if my parents had told me the truth. I was still ready to believe in God then, but then my dad died young and I knew the truth.

 

quite.

 

What they have probably done is sought solace of some sort in extremes circumstances, but they were probably not seeking religion per se.

I say "probably", because I cannot conceive how difficult this must be for those involved, but I also cannot conceive that strong minded and rational military professionals would suddenly become "religious" in any circumstances.

 

after reading this thread and on similar one on another Forum i read, i can maybe put another side to the story.

whilst away on operations, and somtimes under attack for extended periods, i can promise you that there are times that the strength gained from a moment of reflection rather than 'what is the point of all this' can make all the difference to how an individual copes at a time of great stress.

if you were to take the religious element out of the ceremony, you would damage the very basis of it existing for alot of those affected.

 

Pete, don't you realise that as an atheist you are expressing the views of a minority, even though your numbers are rising. There are many Agnostics but the majority of people in this country claim to belong to a religious group. Just check out the last census figures. Doing away with the religious element would not please the majority of people who attend these events.

 

I don’t think the church has done a bad job of the remembrance ceremony. Yes it’s based on a religious foundation but the service is actually quite inclusive. I don’t recall there being any reference to the exclusion of atheists. Credit where credit is due the church has conducted the ceremonies with a dignity that very few, if any, other organisation could manage.

Those who have said the ceremony should have all religious connotations removed have not yet said who, in their opinion, should take over leading the Remembrance Day ceremonies. Richard Dawkins or a political leader perhaps?


The key point is that the Remembrance Day ceremony is probably one of the best ways to prompt the general public to remember the sacrifices that were made for their future. It has always been conducted by the church in a dignified way with a great measure of humility and has not overtly pushed religion. So I’m sorry if it upsets a few fundamentalist atheists, but I’m happy for the church to continue to represent me, with my atheist beliefs, for the national act of remembrance.

 

The way you have written this it sounds as though there is a large proportion of the ceremony that is secular (The Queen & family, ignoring the fact that she is head of the C of E, the Political leaders, Chief of the Defence Staff etc., and representatives of Commonwealth nations) and that the church gets a look in to say a few prayers, which I think accurately sums up the situation. Is this not representative of the people attending the ceremony and more so of those who we are remembering? I would say that a good proportion of those attending will claim to be Christian and probably a higher proportion of those who died would have been Christian, so a Christian element to the ceremony is justified.


Of course the problem with this view is that many of the war dead were members of other faiths (Catholics and Hindus mainly) and now there are a good number of Britons who belong to these faiths. So, maybe we should include an element in the ceremony for these religions.

 

It's a difficult subject. Society has changed and moved ever more away from religion. But does that mean that we should change ceremonies to suit? People still marry in church but never attend. When I attended the cathedral in my green days, I wasn't bothered about the religious aspect of the remembrance ceremony. I was respectful in the prayers and bowed my head but didn't join in. If people take comfort from religion who are we to criticise. If it doesn't affect me I'm not bothered. However, I can appreciate people of other faiths who relatives died in conflicts having an issue.

If people want to put things down to the work of a supreme being so be it. I've seen things I couldn't rationally explain, but then I did listen to a scientist recently who stated that physics had now overtaken science fiction....

 

I'm waiting for them to really get a handle on dark matter and dark energy.

Then we might begin to understand what the fuck is going on.