Not everyone may recognize the resignation of Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury as an important constitutional event, but it may be. The Archbishop has presided charmingly over a Church of England in increasing turmoil over women priests, women bishops and homosexual marriage, trying to hold the more abrasive proponents of reaction and progress apart under a barrage of vulgar jeering from the media and the populace. Williams has bowed out just before the legalization of gay civil marriage, and before the inevitable barrage of efforts to bring the churches into line with that.
Speaking as an atheist of Catholic background, somewhat snooty despite myself towards mediaeval superstitions (although no longer a dunderheaded Dawkinsist fundamentalist atheist), I pay what the French call 'vibrant homage' to Rowan Williams who has never put a foot seriously wrong but has remained equable, highly intelligent and learned, and decently humble through all the difficulties he has had to face. The only other religious spokesman who begins to compare with him is the late Imam Zaki Badawi, the Egyptian cleric who used to explain Islam to us in the same brilliant, low-key way that Williams brought to bear on our official (in case anyone has forgotten) religion.
See today's Matt cartoon on the terrorflag front page of Williams performing cartwheels of joy, with a passer by commenting: 'He's bearing up.' I hope he feels at least that happy. He deserves to.
|
|
I very nearly posted yesterday - he's an uniquely qualified man to lead this country - a huge intellect (Reads or speaks 11 languages) a man who has walked a diplomatic tightrope with consummate skill, to see Cameron paying tribute to him yesterday, not fit to gather the crumbs from under his table. The Church will find it difficult to replace him. I am not an Anglican by the way.
|
|
I'm for a secular society - I see no importance whatsoever in his resignation. But I don't doubt that he's an intelectual and a consumate diplomat. I just have no time whatsoever for religion. I find it hard not to laugh when I see the images of them all parading into a Cathedral in all the regalia. As if it gives religion some credibility. It's just dressing and pomp.
|
He was a man increasingly marginalised, presiding over a declining power, within which he failed to consolidate his organisation or heal any rifts.
he may be a highly inteligent man with the highest morals and standards, someone to be admired, but he achieved nothing and has jumped because of his lack of achievement and authority.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 17 Mar 12 at 20:07
|
|
Arguably he was marginalized because of anti-gay and anti-woman zealots...if that's your Christianity you can lump it. Quakers here I come I think.
Last edited by: R.P. on Sat 17 Mar 12 at 20:17
|
>> Arguably he was marginalized because of anti-gay and anti-woman zealots..
Its a serious consideration, and probably a factor. It was his failure to deal with it that made it worse.
>>.if that's your Christianity you can
>> lump it.
Nothing Christian about religious leaders.
|
|
Hence my Quaker comment, a colleague and friend is a Quaker, he was a medic in the Marines and served in NI. - a very decent bloke who only let me into the secret of his religion when we worked together once, couldn't ask for a nicer chap.
|
|
He is a lefty (nearly communistic) twonk.
|
Of course he is Roger - Maybe that was a sickle he was carrying on his stick thing !
|
>> I'm for a secular society - I see no importance whatsoever in his resignation.
But you're a hard-bitten, cynical copper focused largely on the downside of things.
Our society is effectively a secular one. No one expects a minister to take a decision on the basis of religious belief, although religious lobbying can influence government policy on some matters. Nor does religion play as a rule much part in mainstream political discourse anyway - thank God I am tempted to say - in this country.
However there are good reasons for not just sweeping it away. Believers can defend it more effectively than I can, but it seems to me harmless to the state, in fact useful in some ways, and beneficial to the millions of believers and half-believers. And apart from all that, it is built in to what we have by way of a constitution, a bushy thing that most struggle to understand.
Perhaps you are a republican too Woodster. No blame of course if so. But serious constitutional change looms.
|
A man in a frock worshipping a sky-pixie! You could,'t make it up: hang on though, they did!
I think that it is disgraceful for any religion to be a state's "official" religion. As for letting bishops into a legislative chamber simply because there ARE bishops - that is also pretty silly.
(I am also against persons with inherited titles as "Lords" , although there are fewer now, or placemen/women as life peers, having any say in legislation, )
|
I thought you were supposed to be a reactionary Roger. What you're spouting here is Brave New World piffle.
God people are boring.
|
|
Just taking it in vain as Catholics do Rob. He's never minded so far.
|
|
Yep - God people ARE boring!
|
|
Rowan Williams? I cant seem to care. Presides over an organisation who's decline is terminal and whoever replaces him is simply the captain of a sinking ship.
|
|
I'm an Atheist thank God.
|
I had no idea I was in the company of such towering intellects. The bankruptcy of religion and the monarchy dramatically asserted in so few words, the craven idiocy of all mainstream politicians established at a stroke, the irrelevance of constitutional ceremony, the dishonesty of the media, the corruption of police, the prevalence of jobsworths and lefty ideologues... When are these geniuses going to get their chance at power, a simple matter to them, and lead us smiling into the rational, healthy, tunic-wearing, hygienic-underweared world of tomorrow?
I can hardly wait.
|
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqB3F6N527U&feature=related
Interesting speech from Stephen Fry.I have no problem anybody having a belief or non belief their business.You have to make up your own mind.
|
|
Maybe the thing doesn't matter.Maybe we all live in some kind of a Matrix which nobody understands.Could this be a dream.If God didn't excist we invent one.
|
>> (Daily Mash)
Yes, very funny, and apposite of course. But in two dimensions, not three.
|
|
Trouble is most people have no self-belief these days either.
|
|
Oh Lord, please protect me from your followers.
|
>> Speaking as an atheist of Catholic background, somewhat snooty despite myself towards mediaeval superstitions (although
>> no longer a dunderheaded Dawkinsist fundamentalist atheist), I pay what the French call 'vibrant homage'
>> to Rowan Williams who has never put a foot seriously wrong but has remained equable,
>> highly intelligent and learned, and decently humble through all the difficulties he has had to
>> face.
I can identify with every word there, substituting Quaker for Catholic.
|
And 'Anglican' for me. I think I still am one, or at least the C of E would like go think so.
But I need to take issue with 'Dawkinsist fundamentalist atheist', AC. Fundamentalists believe only in an absolute truth, which can never be questioned or modified because it is both absolute and true. There may be people who take that view of atheism the way others do of the various and contradictory theisms, but Dawkins isn't one of them. On the contrary, he maintains that he would change his views tomorrow if presented with compelling evidence that he is wrong, and the same is - or should be - true of any real scientist.
|
>> Dawkins isn't one of them.
True actually. In fact the other week he said he wasn't really an atheist any more, just an agnostic. But it's a recent development. He was quite a thuggish atheist for many years. As I was.
Scientific and religio-spiritual reasoning can coexist but don't really mix. I know a couple of individuals who embody both to a high degree, but I don't begin to understand how they do it. It's pretty close to insanity if you ask me.
Vastly preferable to the dreary stuff that passes for sanity with some people though.
|
I'm a Christian (although as an organist probably beyond redemption) and Archbishop Rowan is undoubtedly a good, clever and highly spiritual man. But he hasn't been the communicator that the post of Abp of Canterbury needs in the modern age. Too many of our bishops have never been parish priests: I think they all should have been.
The place for academic theologians is in universities: they aren't the ideal people for leading the Church in an increasingly secular society. The Church of England - and all churches of all denominations - do have a role. Rowan Williams hasn't managed to put across convincingly what that role is.
|
>> all churches of all denominations - do have a role. Rowan Williams hasn't managed to put across convincingly what that role is.
Defining it would be the problem, not just to a bishop but for most of us. Someone thrown up by the existing system may have no choice but to bumble a bit while working on it. We've all been there surely, those of us who aren't there more or less all the time. We have to await a cybernetic messiah for the internet age.
The church isn't my business really except as an observer. I'm not a member or fellow-traveller. But I wish it no harm in its well-meaning mainstream forms. Why would anyone really, unless they had been harmed by it in some way? Some of the dismissals here seem to me sour and unthinking.
|
"But I wish it no harm in its well-meaning mainstream forms. Why would anyone really, unless they had been harmed by it in some way? Some of the dismissals here seem to me sour and unthinking."
I guess I go along with that. Rowan William seems to be a decent and wise man and whilst not religious I'm not particularly anti religious either. The C of E is so much part of the country's history and culture that I think I would miss it if was not there.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17419351
Time for E&W to drag themselves out of the early 20th Century.
Sunday trading laws are a hoot.
And Nadine Dorris even moreso - I bet she'd soil her pants if she knew the leader of the Scottish Conservatives was a lesbian.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Sun 18 Mar 12 at 00:36
|
I'd go back to pre-1994 Sunday trading laws tomorrow. When every day is the same, the enslavement of the proletariat to capitalism will be complete.
Who are E, and W?
|
|
Ingerland and Whales [sic]
|
|
Engeland land of the Angels you must be kidding.>:)
|
|
Some of the dismissals may be sour and unthinking but equally, some of them are borne of thought and are not sour. For some of us, the bottom line is that religion is a fantasy, and not for the sound of mind. That it may have been around for a long time doesn't alter that. That it is woven into our society and our history still doesn't alter that. I couldn't care less (in the nicest way) that someone believes, but I cannot for the life of me understand why the mainstream media report the views of the church on social matters and government policy matters. Rowan's view has no more or less worth than, well, anyone elses really. So why report his?
|
>> I couldn't care less (in the nicest way) that someone believes, but I cannot for the life of me understand why the mainstream media report the views of the church on social matters and government policy matters.
You don't participate Woodster, and neither do I. But many others do. And even you and I would be worse off without it. 'The superfluous' - art, religion, sport - is crucial for everyone. A purely utilitarian world would be quite ill-making, surely?
Think of it as part of the rich tapestry.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sun 18 Mar 12 at 10:54
|
>> Think of it as part of the rich tapestry.
Indeed. It is a backdrop. Pretty English churches make up the wonder and beauty of our countryside, magnificent cathedrals (Ely and York) are treasure chests of history from times Roman to the present day, imposing magnificent structures of engineering and architecture, keepers of works of art, When the Queen dies and Charles the Turnip ascends the throne, the church will be there to provide the world with pomp, circumstance, and links to thousands of years of (faded) glory.
All those things we would miss, but one man in charge trying to set the moral tone for the rest of us? A Faux pope? - Nope. The Archbishop of Canterbury is nothing more than a costume actor in the play, A character in the tourist disneyland of our heritage. He is of no real day to day consequence.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 18 Mar 12 at 11:20
|
>> A Faux pope? -
Glad you brought him up Zero. Poor old cardinal Ratzinger is suffering the same problems as the archbishop, similar anyway, but on a somewhat bigger scale.
We are all just 'costume actors in the play'. You may think you are earning a living and perpetuating your precious bloodline, but so what? It's lost in the hurly-burly and of no real consequence.
|
>> >> A Faux pope? -
>>
>> Glad you brought him up Zero. Poor old cardinal Ratzinger is suffering the same problems
>> as the archbishop, similar anyway, but on a somewhat bigger scale.
>>
>> We are all just 'costume actors in the play'. You may think you are earning
>> a living and perpetuating your precious bloodline, but so what? It's lost in the hurly-burly
>> and of no real consequence.
No, the likes of you and I are the audience, we come and go, we pay our ticket price, we boo and hiss, applaud, but do we believe in the message? No we are merely there to be entertained. Without us there would be no play.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 18 Mar 12 at 11:44
|
>> >> >> A Faux pope? -
>> >>
>> >> Glad you brought him up Zero. Poor old cardinal Ratzinger is suffering the same
>> problems
>> >> as the archbishop, similar anyway, but on a somewhat bigger scale.
Yup, poor old Ratz, he has the job of trying to maintain medieval practices. No contraception, churning out saints, scouring the world for miracles in the name of the church, celibate priests? come on - he has no chance.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 18 Mar 12 at 11:53
|
>> we are merely there to be entertained. Without us there would be no play.
Offstage you mean, eating ice cream and booing and jeering?
No such luck Zeddo. We may not be principal actors like the archbishop, but we're in the play. As unimportant extras, walk-ons.
|
>> No such luck Zeddo. We may not be principal actors like the archbishop, but we're
>> in the play. As unimportant extras, walk-ons.
And there is the unpalatable truth, that used to be the way, extras in the play and as such we could be directed. That is the case no longer, most of us are now just an audience. That is why we boo and hiss.
|
>> we could be directed. That is the case no longer, most of us are now just an audience. That is why we boo and hiss.
Postmodern theatre Zero, with some of the extras imrovising. But it was always like that...
|
," but I cannot for the life of me understand why the mainstream media report the views of the church on social matters and government policy matters. "
Surely because if you ask the most people would say that they believe in some sort of God and many would claim C of E as their religion even though they never attend a church. For all their claims to atheism large proportion of people are still married in church, have their children baptised and have some sort of priest officiate at their funeral.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Sun 18 Mar 12 at 11:26
|
>> sort of God and many would claim C of E as their religion even though
>> they never attend a church. For all their claims to atheism large proportion of people
>> are still married in church,
because its the nicest prettiest best equipped and accepted place to do it. Most of those who choose the church have a: never been there and b: will never go back - unless its a wedding.
>> have their children baptised
Becoming increasingly rare. Certainly mine and the offspring of my friends and acquaintances have not been baptised.
>> and have some sort of priest officiate at their funeral.
Again, on the downturn, I have been to several funerals where a "humanist" guided the service. With increasing numbers of cremations, the church will be required less and less for this function. Pity really, a churchyard is a fabulous place to study the people and lives of the surrounding village.
|
All true to some extent but there is still, in many people, some sort of belief in God and a feeling that they should be married in a church. I have only ever been to one non religious funeral, and I must admit it did seem distinctly odd. People do cling to the church in times of distress and grief and I suspect will continue to do so.
"And almost everyone when age,
Disease, or sorrows strike him,
Inclines to think there is a God,
Or something very like Him."
|
Religion of any kind serves an important purpose in concealing and excusing the actuality of our personal futility and transience. It is, or was at least, the glue and structure which holds that which we choose to regard as civilisation together. Ironically of course it is has and indeed still is, also used by those who seek power and status as a maniplulative tool to control and encourage the masses to conflict with and dominate each other, mainly only to the benefit of those who control them. Like most systems of mass social mind control it simultaneously comforts, guides and structures society while excusing and justifying the most appalling of acts in the name of righteousness.
We are probably still better with it than without it, despite its flaws. Without some form of joint moral code we truly are stuffed.
|
|
A rather good post if you don't mind me saying so.
|
>> A rather good post if you don't mind me saying so.
>>
I second that. very good Humph.
|
Kind of you to even notice my ramblings gentlemen ! :-)
I always kind of fancied being a vicar. Trouble is I'm not very religious, not awfully keen on working weekends and we like to go skiing at Christmas when we can. As for the clothes, well...
Wouldn't really work would it on reflection?
:-)
|
Not very religious you are saying Humph.Maybe you are more religious than what you let on.>:)
|
>> Kind of you to even notice my ramblings gentlemen ! :-)
>>
>> I always kind of fancied being a vicar. Trouble is I'm not very religious, not
>> awfully keen on working weekends and we like to go skiing at Christmas when we
>> can. As for the clothes, well...
>>
>> Wouldn't really work would it on reflection?
>>
You are the perfect candidate, then!
|
By night an atheist half-believes in God.
- Edward Young.
|
Some interesting points that are a pleasure to read. For once we're not at each others throats!
Humph: a good post but I disagree about the 'moral code'. We don't need the church to teach us morality. It comes from within and we teach our children. I don't need to be told that theft and murder are wrong, I instinctively know. The believer is no more or less likely to abide by some sort of moral code than an atheist. I don't want to drag this thread down, but we've seen enough crime within various religions to know that any thought of the church holding high moral ground is frankly laughable.
|
|
I nearly forgot: this all brings to mind the old joke about the dyslexic, agnostic imsoniac who lay awake all night wondering if there really is a dog. Sorry....
|
I am, perhaps not making my views clear. I do in fact, more or less. agree with you Woodster. I do though recognise that there are plenty of people who simply couldn't begin to cope with the recognition of their own insignificance and who take real comfort from a certainty of being part of a greater good and purpose. ( I am at peace with my own worthlessness by the way ! )
:-)
The moral codes threaded through our society have, for the most part, been quantified and reinforced by the very religions we now fashionably reject. Perhaps it is time to promote a more pragmatic view but I sense that there are still those who prefer to be guided and to have some group belief to lean upon than to stand, as they might see it, alone in the wildnerness.
We all cope with our short tenancy of the planet in different ways I suppose. Thinking about it too deeply and practically can be fairly depressing.
|
>> We don't need the church to teach us morality. It comes from within and we teach our children.
It doesn't come from within Woodster. It comes from our parents and role models. It comes from society and the law. And the churches and religions are and were in the mix.
Morality evolves to keep pace with 'reality'. It always did. And changes were often, indeed usually, accompanied by disputes and conflicts. Rowan Williams's political and theological problems are an example of this. We no longer hang people for stealing a sheep worth fourpence, but we do give them dirty looks for using sexist or homophobic language. Not so?
|
|
And by the way, the radical split between official morality and the actual behaviour of prelates (or some of them) has always been a rich source of entertainment for the faithful in general. We have Chaucer and Shakespeare. Persian popular culture is full of stories about randy, thieving mullahs. There's nothing new under the sun.
|
''It doesn't come from within Woodster. It comes from our parents and role models. It comes from society and the law. And the churches and religions are and were in the mix.''
Well, yes, we agree then. I did say that we pass on rights/wrongs to our children. That's the same as 'it comes from our parents' .
Man devised religion, wrote the laws. Therefore it comes from ourselves. Laws are agreed by whatever body at the time passed them (people). Many of our laws are brought about due to changing times and society. In essence all come from us, no?
|
>> In essence all come from us, no?
Of course. But we aren't all born with a blueprint of morality inside us. It had to be evolved, defined and developed before it could be passed on from generation to generation. There are things in it - e.g. prohibition of incest, disapproval of lies - that aren't necessarily obvious.
The religions always involved themselves in this process of transmission, backing up the parents and teachers and being backed up by them. You and I may feel we know what's right or can work it out. But a lot of people aren't so sure of themselves.
|
|
Fair comment and I've enjoyed your posts. You'll note that I didn't take issue with your assessment of me as a 'hard bitten cynical copper' ! If I don't practice my cynicism it goes rusty y'know..
|
>>For some of us, the bottom line is that religion is a fantasy, and not for the sound of mind<<
Famous people who believed in God:
Copernicus
Sir Francis Bacon
Kepler
Galileo
Descartes
Blaise Pascal
Newton
Robert Boyle
Faraday
Gregor Mendel
Kelvin
Planck
Einstein
:}
|
But Roger, Zero, AC, Woodster et al don't so its about level.
Seriously you can't really argue that something is true just because other believe it to be. Strangely Isaac Newton was a believer in Alchemy and spend a good deal of his life researching ways to turn lead into gold. That doesn't make Alchemy to be possible just as his belief in God doesn't prove there is one.
|
|
Should I now find a whole stack of famous people that don't, or didn't, believe in God? What does your post prove? That they were 'sound of mind' because of their achivements? Being clever doesn't necessarily mean that one is mentally well. Perhaps I shouldn't suggest that to believe means you're not of sound mind, but it remains, that for me, the very concept of 'belief' (in a god) is inexplicable. If I suggested that I beleived in fairies you'd probably think I was at best daft. It wouldn't mean that I wasn't functioning properly in all other respects. What's the difference? Is it a higher or more noble thing to believe in a God?
|
Rowan Williams might well be a highly intelligent man....but he was also a first class buffoon.
Because.....he was a political appointment who didn't even have the sense to try to appeal to all.
Now John Sentamu, that is an interesting prospect.
|
Mere politicians - all trying to hawk "their way" to us.
“Suppose that every memory, written word, and piece of technology on earth was destroyed all at once, leaving humanity to start completely from scratch. Everything we have come to know about science would eventually be discovered again. Given a few thousand years, people would figure out chemistry, and rediscover all of the same elements we know about now. People would once again understand biology, including its evolutionary origins. People would eventually see the motions of other galaxies in the sky, and work out the details of the big bang.
This is the glorious part about science, it can and would all be replicated.
I can assure you, however, that your story about a talking snake would be gone forever.”
Says it all really.
|
|
"Christian soldiers" - discuss...
|
|
In what context Humph ? The context of the hymn ? or some inter state conflict where both sides believed that God was on their side ?
|
|
I canunderstand how established Churches can get people wound up, but how can the basic message of the New Texstament cause so much anguish, after all it's a message about love and peace something this s****y little planet much needs.
|
OK Rob, first thing to say is an emphatic assurance that I'm not being judgemental here. Please believe that. However, I've never served in the armed forces but I do observe that many who do claim at least to be religious and in the case of the British armed forces often Christian.
What interests me is how they reconcile that with being asked to kill people on the instruction of their elected governments. I'm not naive in failing to understand the concept of defence but remain at least curious as to how those who are charged with such duties square it morally.
I'll state again that I'm not judging or expressing an opinion here. Just trying to understand.
|
>> OK Rob, first thing to say is an emphatic assurance that I'm not being judgemental
>> here. Please believe that. However, I've never served in the armed forces but I do
>> observe that many who do claim at least to be religious and in the case
>> of the British armed forces often Christian.
The WW2 german soldier had a large belt buckle, upon which was the inscription in bold letters
Gott Mit Uns (god with us)
|
|
I thought it was the case with WW1 uniform as well but may be wrong of course. Both sides in the first conflict were certainly as "Christian" as either side were likely to get. There is a Welsh poet buried not so far from here - who was a deeply Christian man who objected to the war but joined the Field Ambulance Service and was posted to Macedonia - he saw sights that shook his faith and changed him for life but he continued to minister to his death for Christ....bet that was hard.
|
>> I thought it was the case with WW1 uniform as well but may be wrong
>> of course.
You're right, it was also inscribed on their WW1 helmets.
|
|
I think that WW1 was the end of this particular type of innocence ( industrialized warfare and the associated horrors - never again they said) - I'm reminded of a Sunday School teacher (an ex-tankie) he was amongst the first into Belsen - shook his faith as well....but he kept it. A simple working class man, with a simple no frills faith.
|
I will not cease from mental fight
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land...
Stirring tune of course, but the sentiment would exactly fit an El Qaeda element preparing a car bombing campaign for Christmas in the West End.
Of course the author William Blake didn't mean it like that at all. Islam too is a religion of peace, decency and tolerance as a skim through the comprehensible passages of the Koran will confirm. But the more zealous sort of believer has a fatal weakness for this warrior imagery. You will find it alive and well among, for example, grassroots far-left activists, people who think of themselves as thoughtful and caring.
I feel this has often led to trouble. Never mind apocalyptic redneck Christian fantasies in the US: some of the Prophet of Islam's more carelessly-transcribed passages make it possible for the decent majority of peace-loving Muslims to be hassled and intimidated by a handful of malevolent, often reasonable-sounding nutters. This is the real risk with religion, and why I pay homage to people like Rowan Williams and Zaki Badawi (they are not alone of course).
|
To deny the existence of an old man with a beard sitting on a cloud, or a literally omniscient and omnipotent being misses the point. I doubt if many vicars, or all of the people in Dog's list, believed that anyway. I certainly don't, but neither do I dismiss the religious as feeble minded, which is what Dawkins sometimes seems to do and why, for me, he is wrong.
To spell it out, for many religious people it's a sophisticated metaphor, or perhaps a better term is allegory. AC I think has alluded to this and can probably explain what I mean better than I can!
For those who don't deal in this kind of subtlety, the literal version serves the same purpose.
Clerics take this for granted, which is why the collective term for them is a 'smugness'.
|
Dog is God, as is each and every one of us whether we chose to believe it or not, God is in a single blade of grass and the very universe itself, all religion is man-made but, inspired by God.
Religions follow many paths but they all lead to the one ultimate reality - God, The Creator, Jehovah, Allah, Brahma, The Supreme Being, call it what you will.
Truth can be found in The Bible, The Koran, The Tanakh etc., but the key which unlocks the secrets within is knowing how to read it, bearing in mind it was written down many thousands of years ago, by many different people, over a period of quite some considerable time.
|
"Christian soldiers" - discuss... "
The words by Sabine Baring-Gould are of their time (Victorian) but if we don't take every word literally we can still sing them today - and it's very hard not to sing along to the tune by Sir Arthur Sullivan.
We were singing another splendid tune by Sullivan in church this morning - a tune written for Queen Victoria's diamond jubilee hymn, though we didn't sing the same words. That reminded me how whatever we all think of the morals implicit in religion, there's no doubt that one great benefit is that it brings out the best in creative music and other forms of art.
The word 'religion' - coming from the Latin word for to bind - has perhaps had its day, and it's good that people can express their views freely in this country, as in the civilised debate on this thread. It's important that we never go too far in the opposite direction to the Victorians and ostracise people who do believe in a God, whatever they may call that God.
|
>> It's important that we never go too far in the opposite direction to the Victorians and ostracise people who do believe in a God, whatever they may call that God.
Heh heh... the poor archbishop used the term 'dim-witted' - for him an unusually harsh term of abuse, although it sounds almost affectionate by our standards - in reference to alleged (by the terrorflag among others) incidents in which people's harmless little crucifix necklaces have been jobsworthily banned as potentially offensive to believers in other religions...
Have these things really happened? They'd better not happen near me I can tell you.
|
When Jeebus comes back, I'm pretty sure the last thing he'll want to see are millions of crucifixes.
/Bill Hicks
|
My apologies Avant, I wasn't referring to the hymn.
Rather to the thorny question of how does a Christian get from "Thou shalt not kill" to "Thou shalt not kill unless ordered to do so on behalf of the government of the day"
Once again, I'm not criticising or expressing an opinion. Indeed it's a question I have personally and most thankfully never had to face but I'm interested to hear how those who have, or have been close to those who have, reconcile that in their minds.
|
|
I had a Jesuit great-uncle, a clever man and teacher - headmaster indeed - I knew quite well, who won a quite serious gong in the first world war for non-combatant gallantry under fire. He was a young military chaplain at the time, and no doubt there were similar sincere and altogether solid men of God in the opposite trenches during that vast continental orgy of murder and crime.
|
|
Quite so AC. Indeed the last thing I intend is to question anyone's gallantry. But, it's at least odd isn't it how we so subjectively view these things. Well, I think so anyway. Maybe it's best not to think in the end. There probably isn't an answer.
|
The problem with many so-called spiritual leaders is they rather loose sight of that which the represent. Its the danger of dressing people up in glossy outfits and calling them leaders I suppose.
He has been for many years rather too consumed with his own presumed importance, his pride.
“In his pride the wicked does not seek him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God.”
Psalm 10:4
Pride is a sin. Its in the bible. Perhaps if he took more notice of the good book, he may have stopped puffing his chest out and got on message with God.
|
|
Don't Let Nobody Drag Your Spirit Down - Eric Bibb www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kg7JSVLt6rY&feature=related
|
Of course he hasn't really resigned, not in the true sense, as in made the announcement, packed his cardboard box, and walked out leaving the keys at reception.
He was due to leave at the end of the year anyway, having done his stint, but just chose to make the announcement now.
Nobody actually resigns nowadays - they have their pension and severance pay to negotiate first. He may well be planning his action for constructive dismissal. :)
Last edited by: Cliff Pope on Mon 19 Mar 12 at 09:12
|
'...the thorny question of how does a Christian get from "Thou shalt not kill" to "Thou shalt not kill unless ordered to do so on behalf of the government of the day"...
I'm interested to hear how those who have, or have been close to those who have, reconcile that in their minds.'
Well, my father was faced with that during WW2. As a member of a fundamentalist Christian group that took the Bible very seriously indeed, he refused military call-up, stood before the tribunal appointed to deal with such people, articulately argued his position and was registered as a conscientious objector.
He was given the choice of hospital work, which he was initially inclined to take, or agricultural work, which he was persuaded to accept. In fact, he spent most of the war with a local firm specialising in he development of agricultural machinery; the mechanisation of farms was a priority in view of the shortage of manpower.
My father worked on such things as cabbage-planters and sugar-beet harvesters. After the war, of course, agriculture had gone through a sea-change which ultimately led to the increasingly sophisticated machines we see today; it was work such as my father did that helped that process on its way.
My mother, at home most of the time while he was at the works or out on location, was left to face the brunt of neighbours' bile, directed at "conchies".
Last edited by: FocalPoint on Mon 19 Mar 12 at 14:00
|
Your father and mother where brave people Focal point.I don't know how to put this in writing there are far more eloquent and better writers on this forum than me.
It takes courage to stand up against a system which forces people to go to war.I remember a story from my mother when WW2 started in Holland.German soldiers from the villages just across the Dutch border where taking their uniforms off when entering Holland.This is a true story.This goes for all peoples on this planet we are not here to kill each other.Just my humble opinion.
|
|
Yes, it took a lot of courage to be a conscientious objector, and even more perhaps in the first world war. Even so, being scowled at and called a conchie by your neighbours didn't compare to what might happen to you if you tried anything like that on the nazis. As your Dutch/German compatriots must have realised Dutchie, poor guys... same stuff in Alsace, Lorraine, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary etc. Real sweetie-pies those nazis.
|
|
Pleny escaped after the war A.C. To America and South America I believe.Didn't the Vatican bless qute a few of them I could be wrong.I often wonder about those American pilots who dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and killed thousands.I don't think I could have done it if ordered.
|
>> American pilots who dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and killed thousands.I don't think I could have done it if ordered.
A lot of people would like to think that they couldn't participate in acts of shameless mass murder Dutchie. But that's what much of war is, and those youngish men, highly trained and subjected to propaganda that tended to dehumanize the enemy - standard practice in most wars - were in a very different place from the one you and I are in now.
|
|
A lot of squaddie training is designed to make them follow orders without thinking to avoid this sort of problem, isn't it?
Last edited by: Focus on Mon 19 Mar 12 at 15:59
|
>> It takes courage to stand up against a system which forces people to go to
>> war.
It takes even more courage to actually fight for your life and fight for the freedom of others, inc future generations.
In no one in a democracy was to fight, for whatever reason....then the despots of the world would win.
It's all well and good someone successfully arguing that their religious beliefs prevent them from fighting...that just means someone else's father/husband/son has to do it instead.
The second world war was a necessary evil...can you imagine what Hitler would have done if he'd won, he managed to kill off 6m people as it was.
|
That is of course the conundrum Westpig. Or more accurately, the prisoners' dilemma. The German infantry in the trenches of WW1 got no better deal than the Tommies, and if everybody decided that not killing people was the right thing to do, they'd all be better off except for the despots. It won't happen of course.
As I have said before, I was brought up a Quaker, in so far as one can be - the Friends quite rightly won't allow a child to be a Member, you must make up your own mind at 18.
I met at least a couple of people who had been with the Friends Ambulance Unit in WW2, having stuck to their principle that killing is wrong.
There is no satisfactory answer to the question of whether there can be a just war. I incline to the 'necessary evil' view now, but wrong is still wrong.
|
I think that's where I am too Manatee, although I can't really say as I've never had my views tested. I very nearly went into the RAF when I left school but didn't go for reasons I still don't fully understand. My motivation at the time though was some vague notion that I wanted to put myself in danger of getting a shot of an aeroplane rather than any strong feeling of duty to my country so I suppose it was the right decision in the end.
I'm of the generation who were sent to the Falklands, some of my friends did just that and I of course continue to admire and respect their actions but to this day I'm not sure I'd have found the dilemma of unquestioningly following orders I may or may not have agreed with an easy one.
As previously and strenuously stated though, I don't really feel fully entitled to a view as I've never had to make those choices. For that at least I thank God. However you interpret that definition.
|
You join the army, they take you to bits, and put you back together again as a killing machine.
If it works you go off and kill, if it doesn't you get chucked out.
Not sure what god has got to do with it. Faith in your mates, yes - faith in god? nope
The rest of the armed forces are so remote in how they kill its not really a problem
|
>> I'm of the generation who were sent to the Falklands, some of my friends did
>> just that and I of course continue to admire and respect their actions but to
>> this day I'm not sure I'd have found the dilemma of unquestioningly following orders I
>> may or may not have agreed with an easy one.
However 'the generation' that were sent to the Falklands in 1982 were all volunteers for the armed forces.
National Service finished in about 1963, so it could be argued that anyone in the forces in the 80s should have known that they would, from time to time, be asked to kill strangers.
|
I think some of you hand wringers need to see a bit of reality.
The world's 'decent' countries should have stepped in to prevent the Khmer Rouge from killing millions, the same with Rwanda, etc, etc.
The only way a bully is stopped, is when someone is brave enough to stand up to them.
Iran will be next.
Being that conscientious objector, will never stop a bully....in the same way declaring a nuclear free zone will not prevent a warhead from landing on it.
Sometimes human beings have to be strong. Thank Christ there are still some left willing to be strong on behalf of others who are not.
The strong should look after the weak...(although in my mind the jury is out on the deliberately weak).
|
>>I think some of you hand wringers need to see a bit of reality.
It's seeing the reality that causes the hand wringing!
As it happens, my conclusion is the same as yours. If somebody comes into my house with malice aforethought, I'll try to get my retaliation in first and repent later.
|
I hope I am in time to make this the symmetrical hundredth post.
Today's comic had a story suggesting that Rowan Williams had resigned, rather than waiting to retire, to spoil the campaigning chances of his front-running successor the Archbishop of York, an abrasive character at the conservative end of the synod. Certainly he has seemed short-tempered since the resignation.
The story was accompanied by a photo of Williams with a cheesy, conniving grin on his face.
Have I misjudged the saintly Rowan Williams? Is he now displaying a fine Italian hand?
Tee hee!
|
>> The world's 'decent' countries should have stepped in to prevent the Khmer Rouge from killing
>> millions, the same with Rwanda, etc, etc.
Nothing to do with us - we are not the worlds moral policemen, the blood of our boys should not be spilt there
>> Iran will be next.
Nothing to do with us, its up to the Arabs (and Jews) to police their own areas not us.
|
>>It's all well and good someone successfully arguing that their religious beliefs prevent them from fighting...that just means someone else's father/husband/son has to do it instead.
And in doing so they will by default be killing some other person's father/husband/son/daughter/wife/mother/brother/sister won't they?
WP, I really don't disagree with you, I can see no real alternatives either but I do see a real dilemma here too don't you? I'm just interested to learn how those who confront it deal with and rationalise that. Nothing more. Not taking any stance at all, I hope you can see that? Interested in the debate element only. Sorry if it offends. Not my intention anyway. Exploring the subject matter however, is the objective of my questions.
Through discussion, I hope to more fully understand. That's all.
I haven't got the answer by the way. It's not supposed to be a trick question.
I think AC has come the closest to to providing a credible explanation when he mentions the necessity to mentally "de-humanise" the enemy.
|
>> >>It's all well and good someone successfully arguing that their religious beliefs prevent them from
>> fighting...that just means someone else's father/husband/son has to do it instead.
>>
>> And in doing so they will by default be killing some other person's father/husband/son/daughter/wife/mother/brother/sister won't
>> they?
Oh yes.....and that is bad. Trouble is, sometimes there's no alternative. To do nothing would end up being worse.
>>
>> WP, I really don't disagree with you,
>> Sorry if it offends. Not my intention anyway. Exploring the subject matter however, is the
>> objective of my questions.
>>
>> Through discussion, I hope to more fully understand. That's all.
>>
>> I haven't got the answer by the way. It's not supposed to be a trick
>> question.
I'm not offended. I'm glad people with feeling post....and I'm proud to live in one of the world's democracies, where diversity of opinion is not only the norm, but people are free to say it....it's just that on this subject matter (WW2 and conscription) those that chose not to get involved, left it for the rest to have to deal with...and I wouldn't differentiate between a conscientious objector or a spiv who dodged the call up and was selling black market fags.
|
>>and I wouldn't differentiate between a conscientious objector or a spiv who dodged the call up and was selling black market fags
Lucky you're not in the judiciary then.
|
>> >>and I wouldn't differentiate between a conscientious objector or a spiv who dodged the call
>> up and was selling black market fags
>>
>> Lucky you're not in the judiciary then.
>>
I meant the principle of 'doing your bit'. Not a low life thief versus a decent man with morals.
|
|
Many willing-to-fight me ended up as Bevin Boys and spent the war mining coal - not a suitable position for true COs ?
Last edited by: Lygonos on Mon 19 Mar 12 at 23:11
|
>> >> >>and I wouldn't differentiate between a conscientious objector or a spiv who dodged the
>> call
>> >> up and was selling black market fags
What a thoroughly disagreeable and abhorent statement that is. As The jock doctor said, many CO's did coal mining, farming, fire duty, etc etc. There were many non military roles taken up by CO's who did their best to keep basic standards of life running in the uk, and aid those who suffered through direct action.
|
>> What a thoroughly disagreeable and abhorent statement that is. As The jock doctor said, many
>> CO's did coal mining, farming, fire duty, etc etc. There were many non military roles
>> taken up by CO's who did their best to keep basic standards of life running
>> in the uk, and aid those who suffered through direct action.
>>
Coming from you Zero, i'd say that is a bit rich.
The point is/was a CO doesn't tend to get too much in harm's way (stretcher bearers at a front would be a possible exception).
Why should someone else's son/husband/father be conscripted to go off to their death when the bloke next door doesn't?
|
>> Why should someone else's son/husband/father be conscripted to go off to their death when the
>> bloke next door doesn't?
Getting accepted as a CO involved some serious hoop jumping and an appearance before a formal tribunal. Not something skivers/yellow bellies would get through. I agree with Z that comparing a CO to spivs is objectionable.
The other point is that I doubt the military wanted these guys at the front potentially refusing orders and preaching what might be regarded as sedition. Forcing them at gunpoint raises the same issues as are still echoing today in respect of shell shock etc cases executed in 14-18.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 21 Mar 12 at 10:16
|
>> Getting accepted as a CO involved some serious hoop jumping and an appearance before a
>> formal tribunal. Not something skivers/yellow bellies would get through.
They could have helped out in the merchant navy....shed loads of them went to a watery grave.
>> I agree with Z that comparing
>> a CO to spivs is objectionable.
Both didn't do much to help the war effort and ducked out of their responsibilities at a time of great crisis. I clarified elsewhere that other than the angle I didn't compare them at all. Other than that I stick firmly to that view so we'll have to agree to disagree.
>>
>> The other point is that I doubt the military wanted these guys at the front
>> potentially refusing orders and preaching what might be regarded as sedition.
See, now if they did that, they'd be traitors, wouldn't they?
>>Forcing them at gunpoint.
>> raises the same issues as are still echoing today in respect of shell shock etc
>> cases executed in 14-18.
No it doesn't. Shell shock was after they'd suffered at the front. CO's didn't get to a front.
|
WP should move to ancient Sparta methinks.
|
>> Coming from you Zero, i'd say that is a bit rich.
Why? what are you trying to say?
|
>> Why? what are you trying to say?
>>
You are not exactly a shrinking violet..and...often post in a controversial fashion (not that I have a problem with that, it keeps this place interesting)...however, i'm not convinced you've suddenly turned into a flustered maiden and find a robust point of view, different to yours, "thoroughly disagreeable and abhorrent".
But ho hum, i'm willing to be corrected.
|
>> >> Why? what are you trying to say?
>> >>
>>
>> You are not exactly a shrinking violet..and...often post in a controversial fashion (not that I
>> have a problem with that, it keeps this place interesting)...however, i'm not convinced you've suddenly
But the Who! shouldn't matter, there was no reference to Who! in my response merely the content of the statement.
Anyway - the ironic thing is that the 10% put themselves in harm way to maintain the right of someone to conscientiously object, defeat an evil force and ideology that couldn't even consider such a basic human right of moral objection, or the right to be homosexual, jewish, weak sick or feeble minded.
|
>>
>> But the Who! shouldn't matter, there was no reference to Who! in my response merely
>> the content of the statement.
The 'who' is relevant, because some people are easily offended...and some not. I'd put you in the generally 'not' zone. So unless my statement was at the higher end of offensive (which i'd suggest it is not, many people think like that and many more thought like that at the time of the war), then it surprised me.
>>
>> Anyway - the ironic thing is that the 10% put themselves in harm way to
>> maintain the right of someone to conscientiously object, defeat an evil force and ideology that
>> couldn't even consider such a basic human right of moral objection, or the right to
>> be homosexual, jewish, weak sick or feeble minded.
I agree. Of that 10% though...how many were complete volunteers or were already serving in the miltary...and how many got called up and begrudgingly went out that door, to do their bit, leaving their families behind with a huge amount of regret....whilst a CO did not.
|
>> I agree. Of that 10% though...how many were complete volunteers or were already serving in
>> the miltary...and how many got called up and begrudgingly went out that door, to do
>> their bit, leaving their families behind with a huge amount of regret....whilst a CO did
>> not.
Well I know what I would have done, I would have volunteered prior to being conscripted, given that you have a chance of some choice of military participation. I would have far sooner joined the Airforce because I don't like sleeping under a hedge in the Bocage or have to toilet in an Ardennes ditch in winter, or 21 days adrift in a raft covered in fuel oil. Much prefer a warm bunk prior to my demise thank you very much.
Anyway, either way you can't argue we were fighting for the right to CO. Which is why your statement was way up there on the offensively put scale. Even more so coming from you.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 22 Mar 12 at 12:07
|
>> Well I know what I would have done, I would have volunteered prior to being
>> conscripted, given that you have a chance of some choice of military participation. I would
>> have far sooner joined the Airforce because I don't like sleeping under a hedge in
>> the Bocage or have to toilet in an Ardennes ditch in winter, or 21 days
>> adrift in a raft covered in fuel oil. Much prefer a warm bunk prior to
>> my demise thank you very much.
A most valid point. Why didn't CO's do that? They could have helped their country and not had any weariness.
>>
>>
>> Anyway, either way you can't argue we were fighting for the right to CO. Which
>> is why your statement was way up there on the offensively put scale. Even more
>> so coming from you.
>>
I see the point of people 'fighting for freedom', thefore you should allow people their freedom...it's just that when it came down to conscription I find it galling that some wriggled out of it...for whatever reason, inc high moral ones.
I genuinely don't see what's offensive about it. It's an opposing viewpoint. If some think that a CO was a marvellous moral viewpoint...then surely they must understand that others don't see it the same way.
|
>> I genuinely don't see what's offensive about it. It's an opposing viewpoint. If some think
>> that a CO was a marvellous moral viewpoint...then surely they must understand that others don't
>> see it the same way.
Because you can't just label COs in the same bucket as spivs! One has some principles that may have moral grounds, that as a tolerant country to you have to accommodate, the other is just a crook.
As it happens just as many spivs and crooks accepted the call up and ended up in the British Army, theft of equipment, material, and supplies was rife. Black market racketeering in immediate post war Germany by the BAOR was a major problem
|
>> Because you can't just label COs in the same bucket as spivs!
I did qualify that angle, quite quickly after my post.
I lable CO's and spivs purely in the 'not willing to step forward and fight for your country' angle.
In all other aspects I see no comparison.
So if we weren't talking about a world war whereby a megalomaniac wasn't tring to take over the world with a dreadful twisted view on who could live and who couldn't...then having a highly moral man next door would be a huge positive. As it was, I see a CO as not being willing to step forward...and in the circumstances of the time, I think that's a mighty poor show.
|
>> The point is/was a CO doesn't tend to get too much in harm's way (stretcher
>> bearers at a front would be a possible exception).
>>
>> Why should someone else's son/husband/father be conscripted to go off to their death when the
>> bloke next door doesn't?
In WW2:
The army peaked at 2.9 million
The airforce at 316,000
The Navy at 1.53 million
The UK population in 1945 was 47 million. That means that only 10% of the population "put themselves in harms way" I guess the other 90% were just hangers on.
|
>>The UK population in 1945 was 47 million. That means that only 10% of the population "put themselves in harms way" I guess the other 90% were just hangers on.
You forget a good number were also in the police, rounding up conchies and anyone with a name that sounded German or Italian.
|
>> only 10% of the population "put themselves in harms way" I guess the other 90% were just hangers on.
Quite large numbers were at some risk from German air raids Zeddo. You didn't have to put yourself in harm's way. Sometimes you just were. It was even worse elsewhere. You wouldn't have wanted to be most sorts of European during the second world war.
>> a good number were also in the police, rounding up conchies and anyone with a name that sounded German or Italian.
... crucifying sausage dogs...
|
>> Quite large numbers were at some risk from German air raids Zeddo. You didn't have
>> to put yourself in harm's way. Sometimes you just were.
Its ok AC, they were just Conchies and Spivs.
My Grandfather (who couldn't join the armed forces because he only had one eye) was an auxiliary fireman in the east end during the blitz.
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 21 Mar 12 at 18:05
|
>> The UK population in 1945 was 47 million. That means that only 10% of the
>> population "put themselves in harms way" I guess the other 90% were just hangers on.
>>
You are missing the point. Of that 90%, how many refused to be conscripted, to fight.
If you were a cop/fireman/worker in a munitions factory/farmer or whatever, then you weren't going off to fight, were never asked to an were never expected to.
|
>>If you were a cop/fireman/worker in a munitions factory/farmer or whatever, then you weren't going off to fight, were never asked to an were never expected to.
Why not? Better off dodging bullets while a woman or CO took their place surely.
Plenty of women made munitions for the military through the war.
Unless you'd rather see women at the frontline, which would be only fair.
|
>> >>If you were a cop/fireman/worker in a munitions factory/farmer or whatever, then you weren't going
>> off to fight, were never asked to an were never expected to.
>>
>> Why not? Better off dodging bullets while a woman or CO took their place surely.
Because there are jobs that women can't do - not matter how much they would like to do.
That, and back then, there were tasks that needed real skill and knowledge to do, at least efficiently.
Don't forget, much has changed in the last 60+ years... mechanism's have been invented that makes a lot of your suggestions possible today, that wasn't possible then.
|
Women cant make weapons, patrol the streets, work farms...
Ummm ok, but I think you'll find they've been doing all that since well before 1939.
www.firstworldwar.com/features/womenww1_four.htm
I bet Pat agrees with you, tho, ST.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Wed 21 Mar 12 at 21:53
|
Because there are jobs that women can't do -
E.G. ?
|
During WW2 my gran drove Army trucks (without power steering or heaters) around the UK all year round. This included loading and unloading the tools and supplies of war.
After your Liverpudlian street is flattened by German bombers you'd be surprised just how hard the British housewife turns out to be.
|
|
Several on the front line eg infantry.
|
>>
>> Because there are jobs that women can't do -
>>
>> E.G. ?
Maybe I shouldn't have said 'can't do' but rather 'find hard to do'
Real heavy work... (most) women's bodies are not built the same as a man's (not JUST like that!)
and where I respect girls like Pat, Im sure that she would agree certain tasks (60years ago) would have been much harder, if not impossible for a female.
My mother was a Land Girl, so I am fully aware of what the girls did do, but as I say, the female frame is not designed to carry out some of the tasks that was needed back then.
|
>Real heavy work...
My late MiL (about 5'4" and 8st at the time) worked in a munitions factory and as a railway points and signalman. She recounted stories of her having to free and change frozen points, on her own at all hours of the day and night, and climb frozen ladders to fix the lights.
I think that all frontline troops should be female.
They'd be swapping recipes and photos of their grand-kids before a single shot had been fired ;-0
|
It's women like those mentioned above Kevin who always inspired me.
Many times I have been faced with something at work and thought 'I can't do that' but only for a fleeting moment. I loved my job too much to give up on one piddley thing!
Women can do anything they want, strength builds and we find ways of manhandling stuff to make it possible but all this is only possible if you really want to, or have to.
I was luckier than the women quoted above, I wanted to do it.
Pat
|
>>the female frame is not designed to carry out some of the tasks that was needed back then.
Such as? None of the ones I mentioned come to mind.
Coalmining perhaps, since working topless may have been a distraction.
What Kevin says hits the nail on the head too - when push comes to shove women can do virtually anything men can do.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjxY9rZwNGU
Last edited by: Lygonos on Wed 21 Mar 12 at 22:35
|
>> In WW2:
>> The army peaked at 2.9 million
>> The airforce at 316,000
>> The Navy at 1.53 million
>>
>> The UK population in 1945 was 47 million. That means that only 10% of the
>> population "put themselves in harms way" I guess the other 90% were just hangers on.
That's 10% of the whole population though. Only males between (say) 18 and 35 were eligible for military service. There'd be a cohort within that group in reserved occupations and another lot who genuinely failed the fitness hurdle.
And of course the figures you quote ar a snapshot of the forces at their peak. Many, many more passed through in the period from the war turning hot in 1940 up to VJ day and beyond. Life expectancy for Lancaster crew was less than one 30 mission tour.
Others, including my own father, did some level of service as reserves etc in anticipation of call up.
|
>> >> In WW2:
>> >> The army peaked at 2.9 million
>> >> The airforce at 316,000
>> >> The Navy at 1.53 million
>> >>
>> >> The UK population in 1945 was 47 million. That means that only 10% of
>> the
>> >> population "put themselves in harms way" I guess the other 90% were just hangers
>> on.
>>
>> That's 10% of the whole population though. Only males between (say) 18 and 35 were
>> eligible for military service. There'd be a cohort within that group in reserved occupations and
>> another lot who genuinely failed the fitness hurdle.
You have to bear in mind, more than any other war, WW2 was won by industrial might. Sure you need grunts on the ground at the death, but the Germans were defeated by an overwhelming superiority of industrial muscle, raw materials, intelligence and technology. Thats why you only needed 10% in uniform, and of that only 5% getting shot at. The other useable human resource was used to crank the grand machine that ground the germans into the dust.
Mind, the bones of 26 million russian dead helped to blunt the germans a lot. There you fought if ordered or you were shot.
|
|
I bumped into a guy over breakfast during one of my WW1 trips - he was researching the history of a group of Anglican Monks who volunteered to go and fight on the Western Front, they had a particularly fearsome reputation...
|
'All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.'
Edmund Burke 1789 - 1797
|
I'd much rather be happy than right any day.
Slatibartfast.
|
A further dilemma is that even those who decline to fight still benefit from the efforts of those who do.
Service people died bringing food to Britain during the war, and conscientious objectors presumably ate it too.
Ambulance drivers and stretcher bearers likewise could not escape some uncomfortable consequences either. One of the purposes of rescuing and saving wounded soldiers was to patch them up and send them back to fight again.
|
|
Conscientious objectors can still help and support their country in times of war, but leave the killing to others.
|
>> but leave
>> the killing to others.
>>
...and more often than not, the danger.
|
|
London was quite a dangerous place to be in WW2, as was Birmingham, Liverpool, Southampton, Manchester, Belfast, Cardiff, Clydebank, Kingston-upon-Hull, Coventry etc..
|
|
The "east end blitz spirit" was a bit of a myth, it was a pretty lawless time in parts of london during the blitz, the danger was not always from the Germans!
|
It has been interesting to see the reactions to the posting I made about my father and his conscientious objection to military service. Westpig has been pretty vociferous about it, which is perfectly OK with me.
On a personal level, I don't think I would have put myself in the same position as my father. I know he saw Hitler and Nazism as vile and his Biblically-based beliefs ensured that the holocaust was especially abhorrent to him.
Sustaining a conscientious objection to military service was never made easy by the authorities - rightly so. And those who were successful were inevitably sent to do work that was of direct benefit to the war effort. Some of my father's religious group went to prison, having failed to convince the tribunals that their objection was indeed a sincerely-held belief, and they accepted that as a sanction the state had every right to impose.
I don't share my parents' religious beliefs and I feel that Germany and its allies had to be stopped. Someone had to do it. And, unlike Z, I believe that Iran and North Korea may yet prove to be global threats that cannot be left to regional powers to resolve, if push comes to shove.
Recent history is littered with things that, in the name of humanity, never should have been allowed to happen: Rwanda, Kosovo, Syria. Whether any or all of these should have been nipped in the bud by military action by the international community is a moot point. And actually getting such action to happen is another thing.
Hindsight is always so illuminating.
Last edited by: FocalPoint on Tue 20 Mar 12 at 10:32
|
>>And, unlike Z, I believe that
>> Iran and North Korea may yet prove to be global threats that cannot be left
>> to regional powers to resolve, if push comes to shove.
All we, the 'non regional powers" have managed to do is turn local problems into global threats.
|
>> Westpig has been pretty vociferous about it
Good post FP.
I have absolutely no doubt that there were thoroughly genuine people, with high morals who through their beliefs were conscientious objectors...
...and there were loads more that were yellow bellied and used it as an excuse.
Of the former and my belief that they were genuine, is sincere...I just think that for them to have the privilege of refusing to fight, because of their beliefs, was because they were in a decent country to start with...and that by sticking to that belief and not doing what everyone (ish) else was expected to do..in some small way they were aiding an enemy (and/or forcing someone else to do it), that if he'd conquered us....would have eroded any rights and their lives would have changed, dramatically to the negative..and many of their beliefs would have had to go right out the window or go underground...so maybe it was worth fighting to maintain those rights (and a lot more).
Nothing personal to your father and it would appear to me he was indeed the former.
|
>> Conscientious objectors can still help and support their country in times of war, but leave
>> the killing to others.
>>
But helping and supporting their country in times of war = supporting the war effort, surely?
Driving ambulances, digging coal, planting potatoes, etc are all directly or indirectly contributing to actions that end with people getting killed. They all help a country to sustain the fight.
|
>> But helping and supporting their country in times of war = supporting the war effort,
>> surely?
>> Driving ambulances, digging coal, planting potatoes, etc are all directly or indirectly contributing to actions
>> that end with people getting killed. They all help a country to sustain the fight.
No they help those who are not fighting to survive.
|
>>No they help those who are not fighting to survive.
Which in turn frees up other supplies for the combatants.
Also huge amounts of energy are required for making the machinery of war and coal is a pretty good source of energy.
If someone gave me the choice of invading Europe (maybe on the 11th or 12th of June 1944 - don't think I'd have fancied D-day much) or spending 6 years of my life a mile down in the ground on my knees hacking coal veins and filling my lungs with carbon/silica (and also not having my original job to go back to unlike the soldiers)...
... I'd probably choose the European tour.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Tue 20 Mar 12 at 15:06
|
|
I think that fighting for freedom is a sound Christian philosophy, as a "sort of" believer I would have no qualms in fighting in either WW - certainly fighting to liberate the German people from the tyranny of a murderous regime like Hitler's might have worked for me in a dogma sense.
|
>> I think that fighting for freedom is a sound Christian philosophy
Ha ha ha - not quite sure where you make the link between religion and personal freedoms.
As for Christian? What do you think Jeebus would do in the face of the Nazis?
Sure as hell wouldn't be picking up a .303.
Fighting for the freedom to choose the non-combatant idiots who will send you off to fight some other people in some other place would be a better choice of words.
|
Or more positively - choosing to fight because you feel it is the best way for you to protect your loved ones and the society than you and they live in.
In whatever way you see fit.
|
I have relatives who fought in both conflicts, I have no reason to doubt their religious beliefs - set aside for the war - my uncle (who died recently) fought through North Africa and up through Italy, he was a deeply principled Christian. He clearly made a choice to fight rather than object and stay at home - I've often wondered why, I think I know though. I mentioned a former colleague who is a Quaker, he volunteered and served in the Marines as a medic....people do it and can obviously reconcile their beliefs with what they end up doing...I wouldn't mock them for that.
I also believe that Christ would be a modern day freedom fighter come terrorist (depending on what side you're on). Christ wasn't a cuddly church leader, he was the original subversive He was a huge threat to the Jewish State and Roman Empire's staus quo. That's why they killed him in a trumped up charge.
I think that the unamed thousands of Christians that Hitler had killed (he cleansed his state of Jehovah's Witnesses because of what hey believed) might have a something to say about the link of religion to freedom in their own country.
Last edited by: R.P. on Tue 20 Mar 12 at 21:35
|
You link 'fighting for freedom' with religion.
I say there is no link.
It's a personal, moral/value-based choice.
Plenty of christians would choose not to fight, plenty of atheists would.
My grandfather was a lifelong atheist, disliked all forms of 'people control' whether it be catholicism, judaism, etc.
After D-day he was involved in the liberation of Bergen-Belsen where he and a mate could carry 4 corpses between them on a stretcher to the mass graves (showing how emaciated the dead were).
He knew he was 'right' to have been fighting, but it didn't change one jot his view towards religion.
And to think Jeebus would be involved in violent struggle against any state suggests a deviation from scripture, but then again maybe he'll come back as 10-foot tall Mr T Jeebus from Revelations.
|
'....my uncle (who died recently) fought through North Africa and up through Italy, .....'
Likewise my late Father - 27th Lancers.
|
|
My wife has her fathers Africa Star, Italy Star, and 1939/45 medal framed on the wall
|
|
My late father was captured on his way out of Hook of Holland trying to get out on a coaster.Spend a few years learning to speak perfect German.Mother was in Roterdam when the bombing starterd she was lucky to get out managed to get back to our village.Strange how we jump from religion to war.
|
Perhaps we need some more Eric Bibb, brother Clifford: goo.gl/8fkuP
|
Link doesn't work, so I'll never know what you are talking about :)
|
Lets try the full link then, I only came across this fellow on Friday's Transatlantic Sessions on BBC4,
Ee's alright is our Eric ~
www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0WDTtIeSAI&feature=bf_prev&list=AVGxdCwVVULXfAvwjVtcKfYp_ut6VrIcdf&lf=list_related
|
|
If the populations of the participants nations had refused to fight in the first world war there wold never have been a second.
|
>> 'All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.'
>>
>> Edmund Burke 1789 - 1797
>>
Are your dates correct FC? Remarkable quote for an 8 year old?
|
I post this text, with apologies, in the hope that it will help explain the very profound effects of early conditioning to a state of total war as normality. The text was dashed off a few weeks ago in response to a request from a nine-year-old grandchild as part of a school project, and the style reflects that purpose to some extent. Brevity was an important requirement.
The second world war: normality
I was born in August 1938, five months after the German occupation of Austria and seven months before its occupation of the Sudetenland (most of what is now the Czech Republic). Just after my first birthday, in September 1939, Germany occupied Poland, an event that resulted in war being declared by Britain and France. Soon after that the war started.
So between the ages of one and six, when I was learning to speak, read and write, and slowly building up the idea of the world that you have when you are six, all the adults around me had their minds fixed on the war and the war represented normal life to me.
My father wasn’t in uniform but his job with the admiralty was to do with naval armaments, so of course essential. I had various uncles who were in uniform, and one was killed flying a bomber. All through the war and for many years after it, people wearing military uniform were a much commoner sight than they are now. Very large numbers of people were simply ‘called up’: made to join the army or air force or navy whether they wanted to or not, or to become land girls or air raid wardens.
The war absorbed so much of the country’s productive capacity that soon everything was rationed: everyone had a ration book and ‘points’ for different foods – meat, butter, sugar – or for clothes or sweets had to be cut out and handed to the shopkeeper along with the money. But to make sure children didn’t suffer from malnutrition, the Ministry of Food issued concentrated orange juice and cod liver oil for children, and made sure they got a pint of milk a day. Actually it is now claimed by some people that as a result of the frugal but carefully-balanced diet we were given, we are a healthier generation than yours for example. I wish I really believed this. Because another thing all adults did in the war was smoke all the time, something that was passed on to many of us.
We lived in Bath where the Admiralty then had its big offices outside London. Bath only had two German air raids. A house across the square from ours was damaged by a bomb, but the only damage to our house was broken windows. During the raids we went into the cellar of the house next door (our cellar just had coal in it). The iron railings around the grass plots in the middle of our square had been sawn off and taken away. Two big ‘static water tanks’, to provide water for firefighting, had been placed on the grass plots. I seem to remember that at the end of the war we used to fish for sticklebacks in those tanks with little nets.
Remember that for me, the war was just normality. At that age I didn’t even wonder why it had started. I knew that the enemy was Germany, led by a man called Hitler whose organization was called the Nazis. For quite a long time I confused the name Nazi with the adjective nasty. In that of course I was accidentally more or less right. But not until later did I realise just how unspeakably nasty the Nazis had been, and that having rationing was nothing compared to what others had suffered elsewhere, especially in Germany and eastern Europe.
When Germany was defeated, on VE Day as it was called, people crowded into the streets in the middle of Bath to celebrate, climbing lamp posts and riding on the running boards of cars. I wanted to do it too but my mother wouldn’t let me.
Then it turned out that the war wasn’t over after all. There was still something involving the Americans and the Japanese. That soon ended in two blinding flashes and two sinister mushroom clouds. People have been worrying ever since then that there might be some more of those if everyone isn’t careful. War is an orgy of officially-sanctioned crime.
|
Rowan Williams - R.P.
