NavalMoose
Member
- Reaction score
- 75
- Points
- 460
And NavalMoose, if your opinion of me really mattered, I might be insulted
Feathers are obviously ruffled.
Feathers are obviously ruffled.
Religion in the Canadian Forces & in Canadian Society
- Thread starter Jarnhamar
- Start date
NavalMoose
Member
- Reaction score
- 75
- Points
- 460
Speaking of trolls. Welcome to ignore. Must be fun being an internet tough guy, and calling actual war fighters lazy. Anyways, done with you
So when faced with someone who doesn't agree, always revert to insults and throwing out the "I've been there, you haven't" phrase when you don't know if the person has "been there" or not. Bottom line, if you don't like the ceremony, don't go, you won't be missed. I am now also done with you.
So when faced with someone who doesn't agree, always revert to insults and throwing out the "I've been there, you haven't" phrase when you don't know if the person has "been there" or not. Bottom line, if you don't like the ceremony, don't go, you won't be missed. I am now also done with you.
Nforce2012 said:
I put together a few words to help you understand better.
observe: verb
1. Notice or perceive (something) and register it as being significant.
2. Watch (someone or something) carefully and attentively.
observance: noun
1. The action or practice of fulfilling or respecting the requirements of law, morality, or ritual.
2. An act performed for religious or ceremonial reasons.
celebratory: adjective
1. celebrating an important event or a special occasion.
celebration: noun
1.The action of marking one's pleasure at an important event or occasion by engaging in enjoyable, typically social activity.
2.A celebratory event or series of events.
solemn: adjective
1. Deeply earnest, serious, and sober.
2. Somberly or gravely impressive.
3. Performed with full ceremony: a solemn High Mass.
4. Invoking the force of religion; sacred: a solemn vow.
5. Gloomy; somber.
tradition: noun
1. the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation,
especially by word of mouth or by practice: a story that has come down to us by popular tradition.
2. something that is handed down.
3. a long-established or inherited way of thinking or acting.
4. a continuing pattern of culture beliefs or practices.
5. a customary or characteristic method or manner.
traditional: adjective
1. Of, relating to, or in accord with tradition.
ceremony: noun
1. a formal event performed on a special occasion.
2. any activity that is performed in an especially solemn elaborate or formal way.
3. the proper or conventional behavior on some solemn occasion
remembrance: noun
1. The action of remembering something.
2. The action of remembering the dead, esp. in a ceremony.
military ceremony: noun
1. a formal ceremony performed by military personnel.
Please note here the word performed.
Or, to be more clear,
In the performance of your duty as a soldier you will take part in and observe
the traditional solemn ceremony that is celebrated on Remembrance Day.
It's part of what is known as walking the walk and standing tall in unity with others
for those who made the ultimate sacrifice, regardless of religious affiliation or beliefs.
Some food for thought and shared with provisions of The Copyright Act.
Why is Tradition Important?
By Elliot Temple
http://fallibleideas.com/tradition
Tradition is existing knowledge. A tradition is a group of related ideas that have lasted for a long time. In some cases people have spent that time trying to improve the ideas. We'll call that a dynamic tradition because it changes over time. In other cases, the focus has been on keeping the tradition exactly the same over time. We'll call that a static tradition because it does not change. Although these approaches are contradictory, some traditions are mixed.
Dynamic traditions are important because they contain some of our best knowledge. Today, they contain only the best ideas any participants have thought of in the whole history of the tradition. I don't mean they are perfect, but if they missed a good idea, it was despite people's efforts, not intentional. They do a pretty good job of gathering the best ideas, and keeping those around, and discarding ideas that are discovered to be mistaken. The reason dynamic traditions are especially valuable is the sheer amount of thought, criticism and error correction that has gone into them from many people.
Just because traditions contain valuable knowledge doesn't mean they are always right. Sometimes they aren't. I shouldn't defer to traditions just because a lot of smart people didn't see any way to improve them further. I should defer if I don't see any way to improve them further.
If I make up a new idea, and I don't see any way to improve it further (in 20 minutes of thought), then it's not particularly reliable. I could easily have missed something. With a tradition, perhaps thousands of people put in twenty minutes of thought, and some others put in years, so even if I don't see any way to improve things, and even if I don't know much about the subject, it has an advantage over just making something up myself.
All the knowledge in traditions can be intimidating. And no one has time to carefully and critically go through all the details of all the traditional knowledge they use. That's OK. But one should bear in mind two things. First, if something goes wrong — if there seems to be a problem — then relying on tradition isn't good enough. It's not working, and you'll need to tweak something or find another tradition. And second, a thoughtful person should critically evaluate some traditions. It's your choice which, but everyone ought to be good at something and have the experience of trying to improve some knowledge. Everyone should put some serious thought into some area. There isn't much point to life if I don't seriously think about some parts of it.
In the case of a disagreement, an appeal to tradition is invalid. The tradition might be wrong and someone thinks it is. To address that disagreement, I have to consider their criticism of the tradition, any alternative ideas they have, and any arguments in favor of the traditional idea, and then try to work out what is true. Traditions containing people's best ideas of the past won't always be the best ideas anyone thinks of in the future. The biggest value of traditions is they can often give useful ideas that are not controversial, or starting points which partially solve problems.
In a disagreement, although we can't say, "This is true because a lot of smart people didn't see anything wrong with it, and who are you to say they missed something?" the fact that something is a tradition is not irrelevant either. Dynamic traditions have, over the years, faced a lot of criticism. They often already include explanations of why common criticisms of the tradition are mistaken. Major traditions have existing literature that provides arguments and ideas on the subject. This literature can answer many disagreements, which are often made in ignorance.
When we find something wrong with a tradition, if at all possible we should improve the tradition, not abandon it. We should seek a way to modify the tradition but also retain existing knowledge. To keep the most existing knowledge, our change should be as small as possible to solve the problem. If we were to start over from scratch, we may avoid the flaw we found, but we're not perfect and our new ideas will contain other flaws. And new ideas won't have the benefit of decades or centuries of people trying to find and correct flaws. We should consequently be respectful of tradition even as we find errors in it, and try to improve it with new ideas of our own.
Static traditions are different. Although they've been around a long time, no one has been trying to find mistakes in them, so they aren't very useful. Nor are they innocuous. Consider: why does the static tradition still exist? Why didn't it disappear after its original advocates died? With a dynamic tradition, it's passed on to the next generation because people find it useful, and teach it. A static tradition, too, must have some mechanism for being passed on. But it can't be that people voluntarily learn it due to its usefulness. Because it never changes, and never corrects errors, it's not very useful. Instead, people must in some way be tricked or fooled into it, or indoctrinated, or forced, or brainwashed. Often they are pressured, and made to feel bad, sinful or guilty if they do not follow the tradition. But controlling people's emotions is difficult. Because people are creative and will try to defend themselves, it takes a lot of knowledge to reliably control or manipulate them. Where does that knowledge come from?
Static traditions are not actually entirely static. The main ideas, doctrine or dogma is kept constant. But the way of passing it on changes. The more people try to preserve the tradition unchanged, and make sure it will last forever, the more creativity they put into mechanisms for transmitting the tradition to the next generation.
All traditions face a selection effect. For a tradition to last, it has to be passed on from older people to younger people. But only so many ideas can be taught to the next generation. Children are only in school, and in their parents' home, for so many years. The amount of ideas is large, but it's limited. Only a certain amount of tradition can fit. Only the ones that are better at being passed on will make the cutoff.
Dynamic traditions compete by being as useful as possible. Thus the selection effect pushes them to be better and better. They try to be true, and people like the truest ones so much that they teach them to children.
Static traditions compete differently. They can't compete with good ideas directly, so they use other approaches such as manipulating or controlling people. In short, in some way they disable the person's creativity so he doesn't realize the tradition is low on useful truth content, and doesn't think of alternative ideas against which a static tradition can't compete. The selection effect for static traditions makes them worse, not better. Any static tradition that fails to create a permanent blind spot in the person runs a serious risk that one day he'll realize it's not a great tradition and doesn't have a lot of useful knowledge. And if he realizes that, whether he ever changes his mind or improves himself, what he won't want to do is teach it to his kids. There will never come a time when his children have some problem or question, and he thinks if he teaches them this tradition it will help them, since he knows it is not useful.
Traditions are important because they contain our best knowledge collected over the years. But they can also be dangerous. Static traditions that induce blind spots in people and are useless at everything except getting themselves taught to children. It is up to us to consider which traditions are which.
___________________________________________________________
Thoughts ?
Hearing prayers and hymns said and sung by those that believe in God or other deity at any marriage, funeral, Remembrance Day, or other such service has never troubled me, and why should it?
Those that adhere to a faith derive comfort and joy from these things, and who am I to deny them that, even if I do not share their faith?
My only concern in the matter of faith is that people are free to practise the faith of their choosing in the manner that they see fit, so long as it causes no harm to anybody else.
We diminish ourselves by distancing ourselves from those things that give such pleasure to others.
Hearing an occasional hymn or prayer never caused anybody any harm. It is not forced religious indoctrination, which would definitely be objectionable.
I have no sympathy for the original poster. His "suffering" is about as trivial as anything could be when compared to the sacrfices made by those whom we honour on this Day.
Those that adhere to a faith derive comfort and joy from these things, and who am I to deny them that, even if I do not share their faith?
My only concern in the matter of faith is that people are free to practise the faith of their choosing in the manner that they see fit, so long as it causes no harm to anybody else.
We diminish ourselves by distancing ourselves from those things that give such pleasure to others.
Hearing an occasional hymn or prayer never caused anybody any harm. It is not forced religious indoctrination, which would definitely be objectionable.
I have no sympathy for the original poster. His "suffering" is about as trivial as anything could be when compared to the sacrfices made by those whom we honour on this Day.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Loachman said:
As I said in my first post, I have no objection to a couple hymns and reading a passage or two from the bible. Religious overtones don't bother me at all. When its an hour of church stuff and 10 minutes of wreath laying, then I get annoyed. Everything in moderation.
I definitely agree with you in regards to the OP, but just because he is a troll does not mean there is not a discussion to have.
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 430
Remembrance Day ceremonies are built on long-standing traditions. Prayers at a memorial service are not an attempt to convert. Participation by uniformed members is military ceremony, not religious rite. I have yet to see anyone propose and write an alternative service with the intent of actually promoting change. Complaining afterwards is easy.
In their origins, Remembrance Day ceremonies were a way for families and communities to remember those who fell on foreign battlefields who could and would not be repatriated for burial in family plots. Those ceremonies were conducted in the faiths of the fallen, who in the World Wars, from Canada, would have been predominately (although not exclusively) Christian. The Priests and Ministers who helped conduct these ceremonies would have been those from regimental churches and chapels, those same places that [consecrated] Regimental Colours still hang today in many communities. It was the honouring of lost friends and family members, most of whom would have received Christian burial rites; either abbreviated as they may have been overseas, or in full degree if they had died at home. We attend these ceremonies in honour and memory of the fallen, it is their service, not ours. When any of us die, we can choose the words to be said at our our memorials, but is it our place to take away the words that have been said at theirs for these long decades?
In their origins, Remembrance Day ceremonies were a way for families and communities to remember those who fell on foreign battlefields who could and would not be repatriated for burial in family plots. Those ceremonies were conducted in the faiths of the fallen, who in the World Wars, from Canada, would have been predominately (although not exclusively) Christian. The Priests and Ministers who helped conduct these ceremonies would have been those from regimental churches and chapels, those same places that [consecrated] Regimental Colours still hang today in many communities. It was the honouring of lost friends and family members, most of whom would have received Christian burial rites; either abbreviated as they may have been overseas, or in full degree if they had died at home. We attend these ceremonies in honour and memory of the fallen, it is their service, not ours. When any of us die, we can choose the words to be said at our our memorials, but is it our place to take away the words that have been said at theirs for these long decades?
- Reaction score
- 6,482
- Points
- 1,360
Sythen,.........I'm an athiest also,...I just get tired of listening to whiny sniviling [not saying you are one yet] athiests who think listening to prayers and such at a service for the fallen is akin to some kind of hardship.
I am not there for me......................
I am not there for me......................
Reading this thread just makes me wonder what kind of services you are attending. I've been to a remembrance day ceremony every year of my young life (father was CF and now I'm CF) and have never felt them to be religious services. Honestly, unless your ceremonies are drastically different than anything I've ever seen, then I can't imagine you've ever been to a religious service if you think they've become the same thing.
Were you made to say 'Amen'? (Which means 'we believe' or 'we agree' or some kid of communal agreement)
Were you made to face to eastward, kneel, and pray? (If so, you've probably got a legitimate complaint)
Were you made to perform or receive a Sacrament, as they would in at least the Catholic faith? (I certainly hope not, because then there would be liturgical issues as well as personal freedom issues)
Were you made to make a declaration of faith, and a statement of your faith in God, Allah, Jesus, a Church, saints, or anything like that? (Again, you've probably got good grounds for complaint.)
Or, did you just have to listen to someone else pray/read scripture for a bit, all the while having the freedom to ignore them or reflect on your own? If so, then I'm sorry that remembrance day ceremonies aren't cooked to order. Many others have made good arguments for the reasons behind the traditions and religious undertones.
I can't imagine any remembrance day ceremony actually resembled a church service.
Also, those of you who are offended, when they reach the part of the national anthem that says 'God keep our land', do you stop saluting? Does this bother you? Do you refuse to salute during 'God Save the Queen'? Does that bother you? Or are you willing to properly fulfill your uniformed responsibility to support Canada and the Monarchy despite both nation's traditions of faith?
Were you made to say 'Amen'? (Which means 'we believe' or 'we agree' or some kid of communal agreement)
Were you made to face to eastward, kneel, and pray? (If so, you've probably got a legitimate complaint)
Were you made to perform or receive a Sacrament, as they would in at least the Catholic faith? (I certainly hope not, because then there would be liturgical issues as well as personal freedom issues)
Were you made to make a declaration of faith, and a statement of your faith in God, Allah, Jesus, a Church, saints, or anything like that? (Again, you've probably got good grounds for complaint.)
Or, did you just have to listen to someone else pray/read scripture for a bit, all the while having the freedom to ignore them or reflect on your own? If so, then I'm sorry that remembrance day ceremonies aren't cooked to order. Many others have made good arguments for the reasons behind the traditions and religious undertones.
I can't imagine any remembrance day ceremony actually resembled a church service.
Also, those of you who are offended, when they reach the part of the national anthem that says 'God keep our land', do you stop saluting? Does this bother you? Do you refuse to salute during 'God Save the Queen'? Does that bother you? Or are you willing to properly fulfill your uniformed responsibility to support Canada and the Monarchy despite both nation's traditions of faith?
- Reaction score
- 6,080
- Points
- 1,160
We've discussed this subject on a number of occasions, with the same results.
There is no need for anyone getting upset, calling out other posters, etc.
The troll that posted the thread has not been here since he put it up.
Glad you all fulfilled his expectations.
This is locked. If you need more eye poking info on the subject, search up one of the other topics that the hit and run trolls post here every year around Remembrance Day\ Christmas time.
Milnet.ca Staff
There is no need for anyone getting upset, calling out other posters, etc.
The troll that posted the thread has not been here since he put it up.
Glad you all fulfilled his expectations.
This is locked. If you need more eye poking info on the subject, search up one of the other topics that the hit and run trolls post here every year around Remembrance Day\ Christmas time.
Milnet.ca Staff
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
Are you a Padre taking a survey?
- Reaction score
- 2,849
- Points
- 940
Here we go again.....
the 48th regulator
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Journeyman said:
Amen to that!
dileas
tess
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,782
- Points
- 1,160
Its interesting that this thread popped-up when it did. I'm currently writing my fourth book and have wanted to bring to the fore the issue that one of my principle characters is a practising Roman Catholic while the other is an atheist. I've recently been researching the issue and have read several books by atheists explaining their viewpoints as well as several essays by believers as to why they believe in God. Unfortunately the later are often somewhat thin in expressing anything beyond an abiding faith and quite frankly I have been looking for good and cogent arguments that I can adopt for the religious character. That may sound crass to the faithful but quite frankly I am not looking for a straw man to knock down; its exactly the opposite, the character has strength and I don't want his belief system to be hollow.
Coming across this thread has been eye opening and I note that most of the discussions took place almost eight or nine years ago and that while some of the participants are still around many have moved on. I'd be interested where things stand now.
As a starting point I note that at times the mods had to bring some order to the discussion in effect setting some ground rules and in particular stating that participants had to show respect for others' religious beliefs. At this point I think mods should have a thought about whether this thread (and my questions) ought to be shut down or opened up further because quite frankly asking theists and atheists to show respect for each others' position is ignoring the elephant in the room.
Its almost by definition that neither atheists nor theists respect the belief system of the other. We may be friends; we may tolerate each others existence; we frequently respect each other as individuals but there is no respect for each others' belief systems because deep down we each "know" that the other is either dead wrong or is living a fraud.
So essentially what I'm saying to the mods is this. Lets talk about why we do or don't respect each others' belief system but keep the discussion one where still remain respectful to each other as individuals.
That said let me start with some basic facts.
1. North American culture in the last three centuries has been dominated by two sects of the Christian faith which for much of that time was a central part of the vast majority of the peoples' lives. That faith was carried into both our education and military systems. We still have publicly funded Catholic schools in this province and until not too long ago it was clear that the "public" schools were in reality Protestant ones (I still remember reciting the Lords Prayer right after singing O Canada every day and having "bible" not "comparative religion" studies). In the military chaplain services were initiated to minister to the troops in places where access to non-military clergy were not available - a particular need for those denominations where only an ordained priest or minister could perform essential sacraments.
2. Our society has changed. Rather than almost universal adherence to one or the other of the two principle Christian faiths we now have a large percentage of individuals who do not believe in any supreme being and another large percentage in other faiths. I do not have statistics for the Canadian military but a recent study in the US military hows the following rounded off percentages: Catholics 20%; Baptists 18%; other Protestant 22%; Other Christian 4%; No faith 25%; all others faiths 11%. What's interesting was that almost twice as many enlisted ranks identified as "no faith" as opposed to officers and that personnel under the age of 40 were twice as likely to identify as "no faith" as over 40s. My guess, and only my guess, is that in Canada the "no faith" percentage would be higher.
3. The right to religious freedom means that a person is free to practice the religion of their choice and also that the person cannot be subjected to any particular religious belief by the state. Some of the earlier posts have discussed some (at least in my opinion) low level intrusions of religion into general service life. You should be aware however that in the US there have been very serious ones because of the upswing in the evangelical movement (particularly in their chaplain corps). Evangelicals proselytize (ie attempt to convert others). This has resulted in major issues such as the blatant attempts by senior officers to convert cadets at the USAF academy and the distribution of camouflage covered Pashto bibles to the locals by US troops in Afghanistan.
So that leaves me with several basic questions for debate.
1. My initial question (to help me with my novel) - with everything we have learned in the last two hundred years respecting evolution and the last hundred years about the creation of the universe, why does someone still profess a belief in a supernatural supreme being that concerns itself with the behaviour of individual humans?
2. Considering the diversity of our military population can we practically cater to all our members' (including atheist ones) spiritual needs or even should we? Should those who profess a given religious or humanist belief seek out pastoral care privately from the civilian sector? Why can't such things as military remembrance services etc become purely secular ones in the hands of COs, RSMs etc?
:warstory:
Coming across this thread has been eye opening and I note that most of the discussions took place almost eight or nine years ago and that while some of the participants are still around many have moved on. I'd be interested where things stand now.
As a starting point I note that at times the mods had to bring some order to the discussion in effect setting some ground rules and in particular stating that participants had to show respect for others' religious beliefs. At this point I think mods should have a thought about whether this thread (and my questions) ought to be shut down or opened up further because quite frankly asking theists and atheists to show respect for each others' position is ignoring the elephant in the room.
Its almost by definition that neither atheists nor theists respect the belief system of the other. We may be friends; we may tolerate each others existence; we frequently respect each other as individuals but there is no respect for each others' belief systems because deep down we each "know" that the other is either dead wrong or is living a fraud.
So essentially what I'm saying to the mods is this. Lets talk about why we do or don't respect each others' belief system but keep the discussion one where still remain respectful to each other as individuals.
That said let me start with some basic facts.
1. North American culture in the last three centuries has been dominated by two sects of the Christian faith which for much of that time was a central part of the vast majority of the peoples' lives. That faith was carried into both our education and military systems. We still have publicly funded Catholic schools in this province and until not too long ago it was clear that the "public" schools were in reality Protestant ones (I still remember reciting the Lords Prayer right after singing O Canada every day and having "bible" not "comparative religion" studies). In the military chaplain services were initiated to minister to the troops in places where access to non-military clergy were not available - a particular need for those denominations where only an ordained priest or minister could perform essential sacraments.
2. Our society has changed. Rather than almost universal adherence to one or the other of the two principle Christian faiths we now have a large percentage of individuals who do not believe in any supreme being and another large percentage in other faiths. I do not have statistics for the Canadian military but a recent study in the US military hows the following rounded off percentages: Catholics 20%; Baptists 18%; other Protestant 22%; Other Christian 4%; No faith 25%; all others faiths 11%. What's interesting was that almost twice as many enlisted ranks identified as "no faith" as opposed to officers and that personnel under the age of 40 were twice as likely to identify as "no faith" as over 40s. My guess, and only my guess, is that in Canada the "no faith" percentage would be higher.
3. The right to religious freedom means that a person is free to practice the religion of their choice and also that the person cannot be subjected to any particular religious belief by the state. Some of the earlier posts have discussed some (at least in my opinion) low level intrusions of religion into general service life. You should be aware however that in the US there have been very serious ones because of the upswing in the evangelical movement (particularly in their chaplain corps). Evangelicals proselytize (ie attempt to convert others). This has resulted in major issues such as the blatant attempts by senior officers to convert cadets at the USAF academy and the distribution of camouflage covered Pashto bibles to the locals by US troops in Afghanistan.
So that leaves me with several basic questions for debate.
1. My initial question (to help me with my novel) - with everything we have learned in the last two hundred years respecting evolution and the last hundred years about the creation of the universe, why does someone still profess a belief in a supernatural supreme being that concerns itself with the behaviour of individual humans?
2. Considering the diversity of our military population can we practically cater to all our members' (including atheist ones) spiritual needs or even should we? Should those who profess a given religious or humanist belief seek out pastoral care privately from the civilian sector? Why can't such things as military remembrance services etc become purely secular ones in the hands of COs, RSMs etc?
:warstory:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
George Wallace said:
This above statement would be one of the more insulting comments contained within the 20 pages I just read... not intentionally I'm sure, but still offensive. [Although to be fair the person blaming 'secular ideology' for Mao, Hitler, Stalin... Was pretty well equally offensive and profoundly ignorant.]
The notion that as an atheist it shouldn't matter if you are forced to participate in theistic activities because you have 'no religion/no beliefs/no opinions on existence' is deeply offensive. It implies non-theists are incapable of reflection and deep understanding of reality. Essentially an overt implication that non-theists deserve less consideration in society.
I can keep my atheism to myself, and it does to not bother me if other people want to practice whatever they want at home, but to parade around CF members as though they are a bunch of Christian Soldiers is divisive and intolerant of those with differing views.
We can keep many traditions as we evolve and maintain a cohesive team spirit, but paying lip service to the Vatican while on parade in front of society is hardly one of them.
the 48th regulator
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
BorisK said:
And that has to be the most ignorant statement of this thread, considering the fine post right above your's, showing the historical Christian beleifs, and direction, of Canada and the CAF.
dileas
tess
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,555
- Points
- 1,260
the 48th regulator said:
I quite a agree. A bit more diplomacy and tact could have been used.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
BorisK said:
Honestly, it seems to me you think cohesion is built by denying your mates the solace of their belief system so you don't get seen in public with them.
Similar threads
