Wasn’t it Henry VIII who decided that his “form” of religion was best? 
And of course, you could look at the Crusades, my religion is better than yours?
Whatever your religious (or non-religious) viewpoint, there will always claims / counter-claims & opposing views. As long as they don’t lead to conflict, then that has to be healthy for debate.
The previous DCAS, Rich Maddison, added a humanist link as part of his email signature.
Almost all forms of religion take it as axiomatic that the others are wrong - at least partially. Jews/Muslims/Christians have a lot in common but each thinks the other went wrong along the way. And don’t get me started on Christian denominations!
I didn’t say this was a good thing; but I do think it’ll stop this discussion being meaningful.
But you’ve actually provided the context that makes this conversation both essential and meaningful.
This is literally why we need to take Remembrance back to its secular roots so that we can come together around our shared purpose.
Involving my humanism, or @JustCallMeFlight’s Christianity (as an example), or Joe Bloggs’ Judaism etc is what makes this a tense discussion (that needs to be had).
It isn’t about pitching for conversions or swinging our evidence bases, it’s about remembering an immense sacrifice, made by people of all creeds.
I don’t argue for making you listen to my humanism, which will alienate you, and I take the same stance on other belief systems.
It should be “personal philosophy-less”, so to speak, because the belief system we buy into has nothing to do with the secular Act of Remembrance or anything else.
To be fair, had there been semi-detached services in several places of worship, and if we were allowed to choose which to go to in uniform, I’d have probably heard the sermon that converted me anyway (the Church in Wales chapel was the closest to the war memorial and the Welsh Presbyterian Church was considered nationalist — although I don’t know how fair that categorisation was) and I wouldn’t have wanted Remembrance Day to end early, just because I wasn’t religious, especially with reservist pay being linked to time attended …
Different people will experience things differently. If you have been actively ridiculed or discriminated against for atheist or agnostic beliefs then that is wrong. The reverse is also wrong.
When any of us is picked on it’s important that we don’t over-extrapolate or project our own thoughts that our treatment as individuals is the norm rather than the exception. I can only speak of my experience & what I have observed of the treatment of other. You can only speak of your own experience. Both can be true & not contradictory- it’s a big country with a variety of people.
The media & culture is such you will always get this reaction from Sections as money is to be made from exploiting peoples divisions and people who’ve unknowingly to you have been discriminated against are likely to be more sensitive.
The question is did you do what you did because things had become stale & needed wider engagement or because you personally felt excluded & wanted to change it regardless of others.
Perhaps more pertinently, what do you envision the ideal society end- state to be?
If it is a society where the religious & secular is balanced & mutually tolerated then I would say that would probably be acceptable.
If it is a society that has replaced religion with secularism then you haven’t really changed or moved society forward & just changed the trappings & the words.
A lot of this can be summarised as “noble cause corruption” - doing something in perhaps the wrong way or in way intolerant of others because the cause is right & noble.
This is what lead to such historical horrors such as the Spanish Inquisition as they never asked themselves “what if we are wrong” not about their decisions but about the base assumptions for their entire position. For the Spanish Inquisition that was “does god, eternal souls & damnation exist”. For the atheist it is “the belief in a religion or a supernatural deity is harmful & divisive to a society”
Religion has given humans an evolutionary advantage allowing it to develop & move away from the natural animal behaviour of acting on instinct & taking what you can grab with no consideration of individuals. A lot of the ethical values underpinning our laws & cultures are stemmed from religious rather than secular beliefs.
It would be shame to throw the baby out with the bathwater but tolerance does not mean exclusion.
The Vatican
I’ll get my cassock …
This is going a bit life of Brian & “what have the romans”
Also would argue North Korea (person centred deification) & one party communist states like China where the “religion” is the communist party & deviation from party policy is treated as heresy
It doesn’t end early without the religious bits though. This is a strawman.
You can fill it with a ton of very meaningful stuff, as we did on Sunday.
I don’t think they really have a government in the same way though, so no ten points for you 
On your first para: both, and extra. I have always been excluded. So have others. So too would the children I’m charged with looking after. I wanted to create the space of inclusion that nobody did for me. We are all equally valuable.
On the rest, I object to your framing. One doesn’t replace religion with secularity in the way you’ve suggested.
Secularity protects everyone equally. It preserves your right to hold private religious and non-religious beliefs of every flavour while protecting the shared space so you can’t be discriminated against.
There’s a big difference between Christians losing their immense privilege so everyone else can enjoy a level playing field and take part together and the idea they’re being targeted.
It is false to place religion on one side and non-religious on the other and suggest that removing religion from public life makes it an atheist win.
Non-religious people aren’t defined by their lack of religion anymore than a religious person is defined by their acceptance of a religious belief.
There are thousands of beliefs with which one can positively identify, religious or not, and so creating a neutral space for all of us really is the best way. Deeply held personal beliefs about which we’re all likely to disagree or find fault stay at home or in our communities.
When we all meet for a national event, we should focus on what we’re there for.
Secularity is literally the gold standard of mutual respect and tolerance. It requires everyone to say “we all believe different things and that’s ok. We don’t feel threatened and accept that public spaces and events are for all.”
I understand what you’re saying, but there’s a consideration you’re missing.
Exposure.
The number of people I had reach out to me since the inclusive event and an article I did on the Defence SharePoint is huge. People who want change, but think they’re alone, don’t know what change should look like, or both.
Having this discussion helps reach out to people who may never even have thought about it.
I know I’m unlikely (though it’s definitely not impossible) to sway any religious colleagues, but many of them do get it, which means returning Remembrance to its secular roots absolutely will happen, once the conversation grows…
An assumption & idealisation 
I appreciate this is what you believe & are passionate about so again I will respectfully ask
“What if you are wrong?”
What if, in reality, Secularity does not protects everyone equally? Only those who comply with the official secular line of thought.
What do you do then & what are you left with?
I understand your question on an academic level, but then it renders any sort of response a bit pointless.
I can only talk about what secularity actually means.
If you want to invoke “but what if someone tries corrupting it so then it isn’t secularity” then ok, but that’s got nothing to do with what I’m talking about.
I might as well let a magic 8 ball do my talking
(Hope that doesn’t read as though I’m picking a fight — not intended that way).
I would rather a couple of hours hearing stories from those lost in the wars, remembering their sacrifices. Hearing about the great things people have done. And possibly hearing stories from those around today, and what remembrance means to them. This would all be a lot more welcoming to me, compared to sitting in a church singing hymns and saying prayers.
chief of state: Pope FRANCIS (since 13 March 2013)
Source: https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/holy-see-vatican-city/
In fact it has most of the structures one would expect from a state, just that His Holiness is in charge of most of it. And the electorate is limited to Cardinals under the age of 80.
So I claim my 10 points and a devotional candle
But I will stop now as this is diverting what is actually a rather enlightening thread
That wasn’t my intention at all. If optional religious services are still part of the day, as I would argue they must be to be truly inclusive, then everyone taking part in those optional services must also be able to fully partake in the secular ceremony. Therefore, there will be a time, during those religious services, that nothing else is happening. Even before I found my faith, Remembrance was an important day to me in which I would have participated fully: including the optional elements (for the purposes of which I would have self-identified as culturally Christian — in the same manner that in my youth the non-religious were labelled CofE).
If the Church still decides to have a service on remembrance day, that is of course fine. That shouldn’t stop, they are free to do as they please, which is a good thing.
The difference here is separating that from the wider remembrance ceremony, imo.
Sounds a bit like socialism… has never actually worked in practice, sounds great in theory!
10 points well earned. With belligerence like that over quiz points we must be related…
I’m going to acknowledge so you don’t think I’m being rude but otherwise just leave this one alone, if that’s alright. I just don’t follow and I can’t tell whether I’m being trolled!
