But if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it. Apart from a real miniroty having an issue (and I’m talking probaberly 100s) the service is the service. And those who really have an issue more than likely won’t be there anyway. It actually deeply offends me that the National Anthem was left out of your service.
You hold a Commission on behalf of His Majesty, if you don’t feel like that’s true, feel free to resign said Commission.
Now we’re getting somewhere.
Firstly, if 46% of people being Christian is “massive” then I think you need to review objections to the non-religious numbers.
Secondly, if it deeply offends you that the national anthem wasn’t in my ceremony (not that it had ever been in, and nor did I have a way of playing it), then you are now starting to understand how I feel having to attend every year and be made to feel like an outsider.
It is my country too and I’m just as entitled to feel welcome and included for the secular Act of Remembrance.
You’re not an outsider - you’re a British Citizen and as such should support the National Anthem being played at such events.
If the person feels & perceived they are an outsider then they will act as if they are particularly if they have been hurt in the past.
We don’t know peoples backgrounds or their history’s so we shouldn’t judge.
It needs reassurance & inclusion & change to make people feel involved & which I think is the OPs intent.
To be clear, my personal views about the national anthem being a terrible choice of song and hardly inclusive of a lot of British citizens had nothing to do with the fact it wasn’t played.
On your assertion that I’m not an outsider, you’ve shouted me down for seeking change, implying I have no right to seek that change. Feels a bit “us” and “them” to me.
Edit: Also, might I firmly suggest you have no place dictating how I should feel about anything, purely because I’m a British citizen. Poor taste considering what we’re supposed to be remembering at this time of year.
Are DBS’s worth the electrons expelled on it, really only proves that the individual has not been found out. I know of two individuals who have been prosecuted, both nurses, one for child pornography, one for drugs offences. Both employed for many years and had even moved jobs numerous times.
So have the BBC on numerous occasions, Saville and Edwards come to mind.
I think the compromise would that the national anthem would be played but not sung, recognising that aspect won’t change without drastic constitutional change across multiple countries across the world.
Moving away from singing a little bit.
Having said that some people would define themselves as Christian in that way.
They may not go to church or have been confirmed but the theology they live by are the Christian teachings they had as part of school & so they identify themselves as a Christian.
I imagine those who don’t wouldn’t do so.
Therefore what things would you define as making someone a Christian rather than someone who is conditioned by culture or upbringing to consider themselves as such?
As an aside in the many years I worked on an Intensive Care Unit, I have always preferred a syringe of Adrenaline in my hand rather than a person of whatever God the patient prefers, but have seen some strange things over the years that I cannot explain, that when the Adrenaline and other drugs have failed, and the person of God has left, and the patient has recovered. Usually, the patient is deeply sedated and is presumed to be unaware of their presence.
On this point, I don’t have any issue at all with the playing of the music and would agree with your sentiment. I much prefer it without the words.
The whole thing about the national anthem not being a part of the ceremony is because it has simply never been a part of the ceremony, not even when I was a child on the squadron. Therefore, when formulating my own event, it did not even cross my mind to consider including it.
I think back to events I’ve taken part in around the world and I don’t actively recall the national anthem being played at any of them, so there’s a good chance this is simply a matter of expectation management.
Having inspired pretty much the entire squadron to get involved in band, I have high hopes for where we can take it by this time next year. There’s every chance that I’ll be able to have them play the national anthem for the arrival of the lieutenancy’s representative.
Being inclusive as I am, I’m keen to bend over backward to accommodate as many as possible provided that action doesn’t actively disengage someone else.
Hopefully this gesture and reasoning may help @juliet_mike understand what I’m trying to achieve as I bring more new people into the fold.
I take my stewardship of Remembrance really seriously. People can object to change for the sake of it, but in a lifetime it’ll just be some stuffy event that doesn’t mean anything to anyone because we failed to broaden its meaning and appeal at every opportunity.
All prospective attendees need to bring is a desire to remember the sacrifice and loss of conflict.
All we need to do is speak it in a language that as many people as possible understand to ensure it survives through the generations.
Slight misunderstanding.
The point is that the way you ask the question can make some people in the grey area declare themselves as Christian (for example) when you start by talking about their ethnicity, then the type of school they went to, and then you say “what is your religion?”
Whereas if you don’t prime them and you ask something like “do you consider yourself religious?” (Or something much more neutral — can’t remember the exact one), then those people are much more likely to say “no”.
The more neutral question is the much more accurate indicator of the responses you’ll get when you then dive deeper into what they really think about lots of detailed concepts and questions, thus demonstrating that they are in fact not really religious.
The census refuses to change and ask questions that aren’t leading, but you see the same sort of gap between the two studies, despite the direction of travel (less religious over time) being mirrored.
Edit:
Specifically on your question at the end, it’s exactly those cultural bits that would sway those people.
So for example I have an old friend who is absolutely 100% atheist but it’s always annoyed me that he answered “Christian” on the census one time.
Now you can argue about how he feels, but that’s not the question the census is actually trying to ask, nor is it an accurate answer (because I know what he really thinks). So if the data is to be accurate, the census is asking the wrong questions.
If you ask my friend “are you religious?”, he gives you the answer “no”, which is actually the answer to the question you wanted to ask him, rather than getting some generalised sense of whether he sort of maybe feels some cultural affinity for the Church of England because he did compulsory worship every day at primary school and heard church bells on a Sunday.
Richard Dawkins classes himself as a “cultural Christian”, but he’s absolutely 100% an atheist and thinks the religious claims of Christianity are nonsense.
To confuse them, as many did when he recently spoke of that publicly (surprising no one who has read his books), is to highlight exactly why the census is asking bad questions and why priming people before they answer ruins the data.
I was wondering when the good Doctor & the inspiration for Oolon Colluphid would make an appearance 
I must admit I didn’t make it through the “God Delusion” - it came across a little preachy & more telling people what to think rather than tell the story & let people draw their own conclusion (which by the end should align or lean towards that of the author if it’s been written well).
My experience of Dawkinism (particularly the strong adherents to it) is that tends to be quite blinkered & comes across as “we proved it - why are you still questioning? We don’t need to discuss it anymore” which shuts down that need to be curious & continuously learn about our universe & our place in it.
It doesn’t help that the originator is a massive egotist & can be summed up as
“Richard Dawkins does believe in God. It’s just that he believes God is call Richard Dawkins”
In short he wants to do what he wants & no one should be telling him “no” - he is in effect a modern day Ranter (note the capital ‘R’
Interestingly a quote from the Rangers pamphlets does seem to be quite apt for today
”the bishops, Charles and the Lords have had their turn, overturn, so your turn shall be next…”
Which interestly I think is being advocated for both remembrance & wider government.
I think the subtlety is knowing what actually counts as evidence.
Adherents of religions can’t hide behind faith when they make claims about the physical universe.
The wonder of the universe, the sheer scale, and the absolutely incomprehensible things that happen throughout it requires an open mind to even begin to entertain.
I can be convinced of anything, but I require evidence. Otherwise, it’s indistinguishable from rumour (or misinformation).
As RD once said in response to someone claiming he was “closed-minded”: “My mind is open, just not so open my brain falls out”.
If you can’t think of a way to falsify a hypothesis, the hypothesis is flawed.
Which is the whole point of inclusivity, not 1 hroup gets to be the dominant representative. Why should 64% of those surveyed be led by 46%
This is the best verbalisation of my entire point I think.
Proof that a secular ceremony really is the neutral middle ground that protects everyone, whether you’re the minority by some metric or not.
No one gets to force their beliefs on anyone else and we all get a protected space to focus on Remembrance.
Focus slipping to who has the right to dictate the character of a Remembrance event is exactly why a truly inclusive event is required — because some people clearly don’t care about being welcoming to others who don’t share their beliefs.
is that not a contradiction though?
my removing religion the event would lean towards a preference to those who do not want a religious ceremony. It is a bias towards their preference hence there is no happy medium which pleases everyone.
by including a bit of everyone’s belief everyone is included. In the ceremony i attended at Uni which was multi-faith i had to listen to Muslim based prayer and scripture, is that fair given i identify as a Christian?
i do not disagree that Remembrance is secular, but i don’t believe there is a one size fits all. whatever the solution chosen someone misses out/losses because they are missing an element they wish was/n’t present
Imagine for a moment we were starting from scratch (as was the case when it was a core, secular Act of Remembrance.)
The test is “why should we take this neutral ceremony and now add religion to it?”
The fact it’s currently got Christian fingerprints all over it is skewing the argument.
It’s false to equate “no religion” with “therefore it favours the non-religious”.
My beliefs are not “no religion”. My beliefs are “humanist”. “Humanist” and “non-religious” have some overlap on a very basic level, but are absolutely not the same thing, just like “religious” and “Muslim” are not remotely similar as descriptors. It’s a small part of describing who they are and what they might believe.
This is where we disagree I think.
Something being secular doesn’t bias towards those who are atheist.
You wouldn’t suggest Tesco is bias to atheism because there is no scripture on the walls, for example. It’s a place (generally) free from religion, so accessible to all.
Likewise we wouldn’t suggest a hospital is bias towards atheists because there isn’t someone saying a prayer for you on arrival.
If currently when you went to hospital there was a priest the greeted you on entry and said a prayer, people wouldn’t be particularly happy about that… And would be suggesting that they be removed by default but still available should you choose to go to the chapel and see them.
That’s possibly a poor analogy, but I often struggle to get what I’m thinking into words!
Much better articulated than my effort haha.
And I think it got stronger with the hospital bit. Well put!