Considering the debates over what show to put on the tele so no-one feels excluded which then dissolves into
either everyone feeling equally unhappy watching something that nobody is especially wanting to.
someone feeling like they are forced out,
worse everyone doing their own thing & not coming together at all (or just sitting in the corner on their phone)
we may be over reaching a tad trying to deal with the more deeper philosophical existential questions of life the universe & everything.
Perhaps taking turns maybe the option? but do we want to live in a society where
A) the majority are happy/ content but some are left out
or
B) more “inclusive” society where everyone is equally unhappy /uncontent
Personally things all seem pretty miserable across the country at the mo……
& perhaps these questions are better suited to parliament / councils / local forums rather than a youth organisation that’s loosing a little focus on its delivery of its core aims……
You should re-think that one. It is deeply offensive that people suggest my beliefs are so weakly-held by comparison that they’d crumble in a fight for my life.
It’s a classic trope and one brimming with religious arrogance.
And yet, of the two squadrons I’ve been on, the church bit is indeed a part of the whole event, and is very much compulsory.
It’s all well and good those of you saying “the church bit is optional after the event”, or “I’ve never made anyone go to church”. But that is not the case everywhere.
On the other hand you could reframe/interpret the quote that when people face extreme danger they react instinctively without thought to rationale or reasoned behaviour & without thought to any empirical evidence or morals ….
One group of people being excluded is not the same as another group losing their unfair privilege.
We shouldn’t falsely equate the two.
This country is home to all of us and this event belongs to all of us, therefore if some people have to give up a privilege so we can partake as equals, so be it.
It’s more of a lazy, throw away comment that’s repeated without thought rather than anything more barbed.
It’s a common saying and would more accurate as “there are no non-believers /faithless when in a foxhole facing the enemy” as person would have to have belief/faith in themselves, their comrades & their equipment.
It’s probably better as phrase to inspire confidence to those about to face such danger than a deeply considered philosophical point.
I certainly agree that it’s lazy, but I otherwise think you’re being too generous.
The only context I’ve ever heard the phrase said (and I’ve heard it a lot), is from a religious person dismissing me personally or those who think like I do.
It is to be taken at face value. “You deny god now, but when faced with your own mortality, your resolve will crumble and you’ll beg for forgiveness”.
Let’s remember that Britain is a Christian country and has been for centuries. Perhaps the majority religion is changing due to immigration etc. However Christianity is sewn into the fabric of these Isles.
That does not mean things could not be more inclusive. it means that the “unfair privilege” is actually a national standard on the ethics and tradition of this country. It also does not mean that people can’t practice what they’d like.
I think you’re getting a bit off your own track here. I haven’t seen anyone bashing atheism at remembrance events so using that example as part of your own argument for inclusivity is silly (I’m trying to be polite here).
Forgive me, but there is an irony here for me, in that your passion for your stance, is tantamount to an almost counter-evangelical pseudo-religious fervour. I personally am not bothered either way and can happily attend a religiously led remembrance for example without being offended by the stuff I don’t personally believe in. It clearly bothers you, but even if you don’t share the religious sentiment, having been brought up with this, I find that there is almost comfort in the familiarity of ceremony. But like Voltaire said, ‘I may disagree with everything you say, but I’ll defend unto death, your right to say it!’
As previously explained, if I were to stand at the lectern and talk about how there is no god or afterlife, and so looking after one another in this one chance we get, that would be alienating to people who have a religious worldview.
I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss activism as you have using language that would only draw a comparison with a negative religious slant.
I’d remind you that I’m not trying to force my worldview on anyone. I’m logically consistent.
My non-religious worldview has no place being inserted into a ceremony for everyone, because I understand that people hold differing world views, and that’s ok.
I object to being forced to listen to other people’s worldviews being broadcast as though they are true at an event that has no need of that intrusion. If the shoe were on the other foot, many religious people would be shouting about “strident and militant atheists”, but somehow the status quo isn’t strident and presumptuous?
I’m happy that some people aren’t bothered by it, but that doesn’t make it right. If we say we value things like freedom of and from religion, we shouldn’t be baking it into public ceremony and forcing people to observe it.
It isn’t for one group to decide how inclusive they’re going to be to others.
It’s my country too, and I should be valued as an equal, not treated as less than just because I don’t believe the truth claims of the religion I was brought up with.
If you claim that we were a Christian country because of how many adherents there once were, then by that same logic we no longer are.
You can’t apply a set of rules for establishing Christian privilege and then change how you measure it in order to justify its position decades later.
Forgive me, as I can’t tell if that’s tongue-in-cheek.
There are obviously subtle but important connotations to how one can use that phraseology.
Yes, I have a very clear view on how we should treat everyone well and seek to level the playing field and not exclude anyone.
I also have a worldview in the sense that others have a religious or non-religious worldview.
I seek to completely remove the latter from remembrance regardless of flavour, because it is a point of division and exclusion at an event that is for everyone and seeks to remember the sacrifice of an incredibly diverse global population.
I include not involving my religious / non-religious worldview in remembrance.
And again, there are various religious people who have agreed with this sentiment, so any attempt to frame it as a non-religious person hating on the religious is simply not a good-faith argument (one I believe was training to become clergy, though I may have just misrepresented them, so apologies if so).
