And actually, last I talked my unit through our code of conduct I recall it forbade us talking religion or politics with cadets, so we shouldn’t then be partaking in activities that bring those things to the fore.
4 Likes
Who are we to decide who can or cannot take part in religious activities, as a fellow athiest i undercstand the inclusivity (althoigh not fully on board of using remembrance as a platform to hail its successes). It’s proper that people have an opprtunity to opt out as well as ability to opt in. If we remove all sensitive subjects such as choice of relegion, atheism, gender etc then there is a fine line between inclusivity and preclusivity, which i dont think is your actual intent.
In our area act o f remembrance is at the war memorial followed by church service for those who choose to do so. I hobson choice is that all staff areas church going people so any cadets going go with their parents.
Whilst there is credamce in your eagerness to provide for the inclusive populus I would be careful that the potential anti religion messages dont undo your hard work. Of course you can totally disregard, I dont mean this as a person berating but some advice ( totally understand if you think its ill advice)
2 Likes
Exactly, you’re right. We shouldn’t be deciding who does. So why are so many remembrance ceremonies all Christian in nature?
I don’t think for a second @OC.1324 is suggesting the church should stop all remembrance ceremonies. I think the key thing here is offering something else that is secular.
Remembrance day/parade is often the only ‘compulsory’ cadet activity for many Sqns. And for a lot of us, involved a church service, hymns, prayers and all. Why should we be forcing our cadets to attend that? Surely a ceremony absent of any religion input is the most equal ground possible.
This isn’t about being “anti religion”.
What you describe here is in an ideal world, perfect. But what I have seen happen in most places, certainly from the cadet POV is there is no ‘for those who choose to do so’ as the ceremony is the church service.
3 Likes
I agree there is no anti religious intent, but some may interpret RAFAC openningly banning talking about or attending religious activities as prejudice. It is only right to talk about it, but clearly definibg that people have the freedom not to engage or commit without prejudice.
1 Like
But there is also no intent to ban talking about religious activities? Nor is there any intent on banning anyone attending a religious ceremony?
1 Like
I think we’re in violent agreement and perhaps simply misunderstanding each other slightly.
As the conversation I’ve sparked in defence circles demonstrated, this is a very agreeable solution (and I reference it earlier in the thread too).
The Act of Remembrance is secular and protected as such (see RBL website for more info), then if people want a religious bit, have a clear break of 15 minutes to allow people to mingle and drift without pressure to conform or be trapped, then re-muster for a religious bolt-on.
2 Likes
You are right to highlight this concern, but those who argue this may not be doing so in good faith.
It just means, as you say, that we all need to understand what we’re actually doing and clamp down on people mis-representing it in bad faith as some sort of anti-religious attack, which will only see unnecessary division.
Having read all your recent posts, I think we’re definitely on the same page here (as @JoeBloggs has also identified).
2 Likes
I think that you are starting to argue so hard for your view, that you are missing the fact that many places, observe the act of remembrance and then hold a church service for those who wish to take part. Ok, in a good number of these locations it is lead by the local vicar, because the memorial is in ‘their’ churchyard, but in all cases I’ve seen, it was a ‘regulation’ RBL act.
In my village the vicar leads the outside bit, but calls forward separate speakers to the act of remembrance, reading out of names on the memorial and calling forward wreath bearers. After that into the church (no compulsion).
2 Likes
Declaring my interest here. I’m a God botherer (with more than my fair share of hypocrisy as we all have), about 4 months from completing my divinity degree, and on the verge of signing up to a post-grad Chaplaincy diploma (which would probably end up with my return to the cadet forces if the chaplain role still exists).
From a personal perspective I would love everyone to be comfortable attending a Christian service (or even better for them to want to attend one). But I also understand the reality of the world we live in. I have a lot of sympathy for what @OC.1324 is doing here. I think there’s a difference between what he’s suggesting and a service that pushes a humanistic or atheist agenda. You’re certainly not advocating a ban on religious involvement at some point in the day
I would also agree with Rich Madison that the armed forces Chaplaincy movement needs to start including atheist/humanist chaplains to best cater to the whole force.
I’m not completely sold on your idea, but I think it certainly merits exploring.
5 Likes
Thanks for the thoughts, @Farmerdan !
The chaplaincy in the armed forces is now onboarding non-religious chaplains, so great progress, finally.
This will also make the subject of Remembrance better for the services at this time of year.
It’s important to note that I come from the military side of this, where the chaplaincy holds an iron grip on these events and swats non-Christians away when change is requested (particularly those of no religion). I should know, I’ve been one of those asking for inclusion for years and the view is always that we should shut up and respect the Christian religion (that’s not overstated).
I understand what a poster above is suggesting about there being places that can already sort of do a 2-parter, but having engaged religious authorities, they have thus far unanimously refused to lead or participate in anything unless they can include something like a prayer, so I’ll be surprised if pt1 of these events mentioned are fully inclusive and absent their Christian influence before pt2 in the church.
I would be very pleased if they were in fact already practicing that separation though.
2 Likes
At both squadrons I’ve been at, the remembrance services have been outside (mainly due to space and to allow anyone to attend) but have been led by a vicar with the full spiel, hymns, prayers etc. There is often a service in the church after, but the main service is still religious.
As a non-religious person I tend to disengage from the ceremony (although I am usually scanning to make sure none of the cadets fall over, which doesn’t help).
2 Likes
This is what military chaplains have actually previously told non-religious people to do. It’s unforgivable.
I’m sorry you’ve shared my experience thus far. Hopefully change will be forthcoming if enough call for it.
I feel that this is aimed at me. Is a simple blessing bidding people go in peace and wellbeing still too much for you?
1 Like
Yes, apologies. Couldn’t remember who had posted the comment when I was responding.
And yes, it’s core to my entire stance that anything done accompanying the secular Act of Remembrance is accessible to all.
The Army’s AGAI 75 says as much — the Act of Remembrance must be separated entirely from any religious service so you don’t restrict access to it by hiding it amongst religious content.
A vicar finishing with a brief religious blessing would be getting right to the end and then excluding people.
Imagine I was leading it and I got right to the end and said:
“now because there is no god and when we die that’s it, be peaceful and treat each other well in the best traditions of humanity. This is the one chance we get.”
That would be equally unacceptable, because I’d be alienating anyone who didn’t share my humanist world view.
I’m not holding anyone to a separate standard. Going secular preserves inclusion for all of us.
Edit to add: and a late convert of Christianity has liked this post and what I’m saying (consistent with other posts made), so in being firm on protecting everyone’s access and inclusion equally, I really shouldn’t be courting controversy.
3 Likes
First the Army regulations have stuff all to do with the act of remembrance in a civilian setting, but if you want to go down that route… Would you further advocate for the moving of existing memorials, which have stood in churchyards for a centuary, so that they in a non-religious setting?
I think that you must be pretty hard over on this if a simple go in peace is too much for you. I find your answer above somewhat patronising when asking you a simple question to find out quite where you stood.
I ask in good faith (if I’m allowed to use the term) that you share here what your inclusive act actually entailed. You have gone on at considerable length now, but not said what you actually did.
Hi, @papa_november
I sense you’re not a fan, but I’m happy to continue engaging if you are.
Firstly, if one can’t resist adding a religious blessing to the end of an event for everyone, then I think that demonstrates a sense of entitlement that someone should be able to put their personal faith before the beliefs of others.
Again, I can’t be clearer that my personal beliefs should also not be broadcast at such an occasion. Why am I “hard over on this” for objecting to someone insisting on inserting their particular worldview into a public event for all? Why aren’t you “hard over on this” for suggesting it’s reasonable to sneak it in at the end?
Secondly, I haven’t meant to patronise and I apologise. I try to demonstrate that I’m giving you my time and attention by delivering a considered and detailed response.
Thirdly, I wouldn’t insist on a memorial being moved to a neutral setting. If that was tongue in cheek I apologise, I can’t tell. That said, I would advocate for any new memorials being placed in fully inclusive locations (such as those outside the RAF Club).
Finally, I’m very happy to share what my event entailed. I haven’t shared because nobody asked. I object to you describing me as “going on” though. That’s very dismissive. I’m engaging with people in good faith and the whole point of this thread is the subject I’m engaging on.
Rough overview:
After the parade, all those now at the memorial were brought to attention and I escorted the DL into position.
A Scout then read a poem (In Flanders Fields) to kick things off.
I then stepped forward to deliver a 5/6-minute reflection. In this, I spoke about the purpose of our gathering, and who it is we come to remember. I am introducing a theme each year (next year will be local Girl Guides who died helping the blind from homes during air raids and Scouts who helped out in the Humber area).
This year, it was civilians and children in armed conflict — my last full-time role was as a cultural advisor / outreach officer, and this was an opportunity to touch on the fact that, despite people giving their lives in the war to end all wars, over 120 still rage across the globe today.
This being the key feature to mark the event as different from many others, I was glad to see it clearly touched many, and I made it very real with anecdotes that involved people around the same age as those on parade. It was hard hitting and very emotional for people.
A cadet then read our roll of honour, and we got into the core Act of Remembrance.
My cadets then played some background on lyre bells while wreaths were laid.
We then read another poem, before I thanked everyone for joining us and to those who helped make the day happen.
I then said before we draw proceedings to a close, we’d leave them with some words of comfort, and an army cadet read “something beautiful remains”.
Parade brought to attention, I led the DL away, parade dismissed.
All in, about 25 minutes.
3 Likes
I used the term going on due to the length of a good few of your post in this thread, particularly when a simple yes would has been sufficient to my one line question about if a simple blessing was too much for you.
I asked about your view on the moving of memorials as I have seen that paticular rock thrown into the discussion pond in other locations.
Thank you for posting what your inclusive event actually entailed. I think that it might have helped if this had been posted early on, rather than much later.
I am not anti your world view, I just have a slightly different view and accept that we differ in that.
I suspect @OC.1324 may have held back on the full details, until asked for them, out of fear of being accused of “going on” or posting lengthy responses.
4 Likes
Sorry, but I disagree.
A one-word response would have been unhelpful and rude, adding nothing meaningful to the conversation and not providing you with any context.
If you cared enough to ask, it wasn’t unreasonable of me to give you more than a one-word answer.
3 Likes