The Army, Remembrance and Religion
Discussion
I've just read this article from the Telegraph reporting that the British Army has issued guidelines saying that Remembrance acts should not be religious.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/10/soldie...
Predictably the article includes reference to Grant Schapps and some senior Generals moaning about wokeness, but is it, or is it just recognising changes in society?
The 2021 census saw a big decline in those regarding themselves as Christian of 5.8 million people, coming in below 50% for the first time at 46.2%, with the second largest group being "no religion", which increased by 8.1 million people and accounted for 37.2%.
Obviously those two groups combined at 83.4% of the population far outweighs any other religions present in the UK, and even the change in the number of people claiming no religion is more than the total number of adherents to other religions.
Another point to consider is age. Almost 30% of all those reporting themselves as Christian are aged 65+ and the average age of Christians in Britain is now 51. We're not talking about the overall British population here though. We're talking about the British Army where just 10 Generals are aged over 60, and only 13,250 are aged over 40, compared to 41,390 under the age of 30. For reference, amongst those aged 21-25, just 3.9% claim to be Christian, and all of this is without even beginning to consider the difference between those who ticked "Christian" simply because that's what they were told they were as children vs those who regularly attend religious services, with only 5% of the overall supposedly Christian population actually going to church on a weekly basis.
If we're going to use the term "Woke" in its pejorative sense to mean "imposing the views of a small minority on the large majority for fear of causing offence", then surely the most Woke thing the British Army could possibly do would be to keep a Christian religion that the overwhelming majority of their soldiers do not believe in as a part of their Remembrance activities?
Whilst in theory Remembrance is about honouring all who've served in the Forces, I don't think it's particularly controversial to say that for most it's really about remembering those who fought to protect our freedoms from WW1 onwards, so whilst the vast majority of those we're remembering would've thought of themselves as Christian, wouldn't that notion of fighting to protect our freedoms include not imposing a religious element to Remembrance on the vast majority of non-believers in attendance?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/10/soldie...
Predictably the article includes reference to Grant Schapps and some senior Generals moaning about wokeness, but is it, or is it just recognising changes in society?
The 2021 census saw a big decline in those regarding themselves as Christian of 5.8 million people, coming in below 50% for the first time at 46.2%, with the second largest group being "no religion", which increased by 8.1 million people and accounted for 37.2%.
Obviously those two groups combined at 83.4% of the population far outweighs any other religions present in the UK, and even the change in the number of people claiming no religion is more than the total number of adherents to other religions.
Another point to consider is age. Almost 30% of all those reporting themselves as Christian are aged 65+ and the average age of Christians in Britain is now 51. We're not talking about the overall British population here though. We're talking about the British Army where just 10 Generals are aged over 60, and only 13,250 are aged over 40, compared to 41,390 under the age of 30. For reference, amongst those aged 21-25, just 3.9% claim to be Christian, and all of this is without even beginning to consider the difference between those who ticked "Christian" simply because that's what they were told they were as children vs those who regularly attend religious services, with only 5% of the overall supposedly Christian population actually going to church on a weekly basis.
If we're going to use the term "Woke" in its pejorative sense to mean "imposing the views of a small minority on the large majority for fear of causing offence", then surely the most Woke thing the British Army could possibly do would be to keep a Christian religion that the overwhelming majority of their soldiers do not believe in as a part of their Remembrance activities?
Whilst in theory Remembrance is about honouring all who've served in the Forces, I don't think it's particularly controversial to say that for most it's really about remembering those who fought to protect our freedoms from WW1 onwards, so whilst the vast majority of those we're remembering would've thought of themselves as Christian, wouldn't that notion of fighting to protect our freedoms include not imposing a religious element to Remembrance on the vast majority of non-believers in attendance?
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: It's just the Telegraph being divisive.
Every single day you look on there and it's trans this woke that WW3 is close.
They're nutters.
Possibly, but the crusty old officers did presumably send the letter?Every single day you look on there and it's trans this woke that WW3 is close.
They're nutters.
It feels like they're bemoaning the fact that the Army is no longer doing things they way it did them when they joined, presumably half a century or so ago, without acknowledging the huge and rapid shift in adherence to religion in this country in the meantime.
I don't entirely follow all of that.
What the telegraph decides as "woke" is not necessarily a good basis to form an opinion.
Religion, like all cults, works best when you get people young, and don't give them any choice.
Religion has been removed from schools and societal expectation now for the most part, and education is improving which allows people to question the existence of a magic being in thr sky. I expect the numbers practicing Christianity will keep getting smaller. The future king is an example of this. I'm not sure if this post is trying to have a subtle dig at communities where religious fervour is not reducing, but it's an individual choice (sort of) so it is what it is.
Personally I attended remembrance day parades each year, as my kids are in cubs/scouts. It's lead by a vicar, people murmer and mumble their way through two hymns (which only old people seem to know) and then he says the lord's prayer.
To me it is right that it is a religiously led event, as it is as much a spiritual event as it is historical or civic event. It gives comfort to some (again mainly older people) and it makes the event more poigneant, as it should be..
However I would never dream of going to actual church. It has no relevance. I will probably go when I'm dead, though like my wedding, it will probably be a civil ceremony.
And as for the army - perhaps they feel an overly Christian ethos is not helping to attract recruits who are not religious?
Training youngsters to kill other people and risk being killed themselves must take a lot of work. My limited understanding is that armed forces have always had very strong links to ceremony, history, routine, traditions, flags, symbols etc, which helps them form a cohesive unit to deal with the sharp end of their job.
Religion is just as extension of this in my view, but I don't think it is a fundamental pillar, so could probably be removed whilst leaving enough pillars in place to support what they do.
,
What the telegraph decides as "woke" is not necessarily a good basis to form an opinion.
Religion, like all cults, works best when you get people young, and don't give them any choice.
Religion has been removed from schools and societal expectation now for the most part, and education is improving which allows people to question the existence of a magic being in thr sky. I expect the numbers practicing Christianity will keep getting smaller. The future king is an example of this. I'm not sure if this post is trying to have a subtle dig at communities where religious fervour is not reducing, but it's an individual choice (sort of) so it is what it is.
Personally I attended remembrance day parades each year, as my kids are in cubs/scouts. It's lead by a vicar, people murmer and mumble their way through two hymns (which only old people seem to know) and then he says the lord's prayer.
To me it is right that it is a religiously led event, as it is as much a spiritual event as it is historical or civic event. It gives comfort to some (again mainly older people) and it makes the event more poigneant, as it should be..
However I would never dream of going to actual church. It has no relevance. I will probably go when I'm dead, though like my wedding, it will probably be a civil ceremony.
And as for the army - perhaps they feel an overly Christian ethos is not helping to attract recruits who are not religious?
Training youngsters to kill other people and risk being killed themselves must take a lot of work. My limited understanding is that armed forces have always had very strong links to ceremony, history, routine, traditions, flags, symbols etc, which helps them form a cohesive unit to deal with the sharp end of their job.
Religion is just as extension of this in my view, but I don't think it is a fundamental pillar, so could probably be removed whilst leaving enough pillars in place to support what they do.
,
Still serving and have been thinking the same about military services and religion for a fair few years. I'd welcome this as I have no interest in religion and neither do a large portion of my colleagues. Any act of remembrance is about me remembering those before and no longer with us. The whole religious aspect is pointless bordering on the irritating depending on how long the waffle is and what it is.
For those that do they can seek it with the relevant religious personnel always available. The padres do however provide good support as part of their pastoral care. There are also loads alternatives in various military charities and the welfare service though. Padres also get paid a fair whack with extra perks so maybe savings to be had. I'm down at Sultan at the moment which has 3 of them.
For those that do they can seek it with the relevant religious personnel always available. The padres do however provide good support as part of their pastoral care. There are also loads alternatives in various military charities and the welfare service though. Padres also get paid a fair whack with extra perks so maybe savings to be had. I'm down at Sultan at the moment which has 3 of them.
Kermit power said:
Possibly, but the crusty old officers did presumably send the letter?
It feels like they're bemoaning the fact that the Army is no longer doing things they way it did them when they joined, presumably half a century or so ago, without acknowledging the huge and rapid shift in adherence to religion in this country in the meantime.
I'd quite like to see the whole letter before forming an opinion but my gut reaction is that however good they may be at soldiering anyone who puts their name to a letter with the phrase “the lunacy of pushing woke ideas” in it is probably looking back at the world through rose tinted glasses longing for "back in my day".It feels like they're bemoaning the fact that the Army is no longer doing things they way it did them when they joined, presumably half a century or so ago, without acknowledging the huge and rapid shift in adherence to religion in this country in the meantime.
I just googled the three names mentioned and their average age is 85.
Ian Geary said:
I don't entirely follow all of that.
What the telegraph decides as "woke" is not necessarily a good basis to form an opinion.
Religion, like all cults, works best when you get people young, and don't give them any choice.
Religion has been removed from schools and societal expectation now for the most part, and education is improving which allows people to question the existence of a magic being in thr sky. I expect the numbers practicing Christianity will keep getting smaller. The future king is an example of this. I'm not sure if this post is trying to have a subtle dig at communities where religious fervour is not reducing, but it's an individual choice (sort of) so it is what it is.
Personally I attended remembrance day parades each year, as my kids are in cubs/scouts. It's lead by a vicar, people murmer and mumble their way through two hymns (which only old people seem to know) and then he says the lord's prayer.
To me it is right that it is a religiously led event, as it is as much a spiritual event as it is historical or civic event. It gives comfort to some (again mainly older people) and it makes the event more poigneant, as it should be..
However I would never dream of going to actual church. It has no relevance. I will probably go when I'm dead, though like my wedding, it will probably be a civil ceremony.
And as for the army - perhaps they feel an overly Christian ethos is not helping to attract recruits who are not religious?
Training youngsters to kill other people and risk being killed themselves must take a lot of work. My limited understanding is that armed forces have always had very strong links to ceremony, history, routine, traditions, flags, symbols etc, which helps them form a cohesive unit to deal with the sharp end of their job.
Religion is just as extension of this in my view, but I don't think it is a fundamental pillar, so could probably be removed whilst leaving enough pillars in place to support what they do.
I thought the article was outwith the usual Telegraph paywall, but it now seems to have disappeared behind it!What the telegraph decides as "woke" is not necessarily a good basis to form an opinion.
Religion, like all cults, works best when you get people young, and don't give them any choice.
Religion has been removed from schools and societal expectation now for the most part, and education is improving which allows people to question the existence of a magic being in thr sky. I expect the numbers practicing Christianity will keep getting smaller. The future king is an example of this. I'm not sure if this post is trying to have a subtle dig at communities where religious fervour is not reducing, but it's an individual choice (sort of) so it is what it is.
Personally I attended remembrance day parades each year, as my kids are in cubs/scouts. It's lead by a vicar, people murmer and mumble their way through two hymns (which only old people seem to know) and then he says the lord's prayer.
To me it is right that it is a religiously led event, as it is as much a spiritual event as it is historical or civic event. It gives comfort to some (again mainly older people) and it makes the event more poigneant, as it should be..
However I would never dream of going to actual church. It has no relevance. I will probably go when I'm dead, though like my wedding, it will probably be a civil ceremony.
And as for the army - perhaps they feel an overly Christian ethos is not helping to attract recruits who are not religious?
Training youngsters to kill other people and risk being killed themselves must take a lot of work. My limited understanding is that armed forces have always had very strong links to ceremony, history, routine, traditions, flags, symbols etc, which helps them form a cohesive unit to deal with the sharp end of their job.
Religion is just as extension of this in my view, but I don't think it is a fundamental pillar, so could probably be removed whilst leaving enough pillars in place to support what they do.
In summary, the Army decided back in 2022 to mandate the separation of Remembrance and religion, and now the Telegraph are happily reporting on a bunch of retired senior officers bemoaning the fact (in an open letter) that it's this sort of woke nonsense that means that the Faeroe Islands will be able to invade and enslave us within the decade.
If the Army started saying, for example, their regiments couldn't parade their battle colours for fear of offending potential recruits who can trace their heritage back to some of the places listed as battles on the honours then I'd be right there supporting them, but in the context of having to keep that preserved in the historical aspic of Remembrance services being led by a representative of the Anglican Church whilst said church is hurtling rapidly towards oblivion seems wrong.
As earlier poster (who is serving) says its pointless for many but does offer a level of support for some.
Not religious myself but go to kids Carol concert etc could nit care less and we celebrate (perhaps mark is better word) Eid and Divali at work can't say I mind one way or the other
Not religious myself but go to kids Carol concert etc could nit care less and we celebrate (perhaps mark is better word) Eid and Divali at work can't say I mind one way or the other
Kermit power said:
I thought the article was outwith the usual Telegraph paywall, but it now seems to have disappeared behind it!
In summary, the Army decided back in 2022 to mandate the separation of Remembrance and religion, and now the Telegraph are happily reporting on a bunch of retired senior officers bemoaning the fact (in an open letter) that it's this sort of woke nonsense that means that the Faeroe Islands will be able to invade and enslave us within the decade.
If the Army started saying, for example, their regiments couldn't parade their battle colours for fear of offending potential recruits who can trace their heritage back to some of the places listed as battles on the honours then I'd be right there supporting them, but in the context of having to keep that preserved in the historical aspic of Remembrance services being led by a representative of the Anglican Church whilst said church is hurtling rapidly towards oblivion seems wrong.
Quite - last Remembrance Parade I went to was two years ago. I walked my son to the Sea Scouts bit of the forming up parade, my three medals on, trying to look like a veteran (I am one, just feel like one so little that I forget!) as I then walked up to the veteran section. They looked like they all knew each other so I bottled it . . . could have marched with the Sea Scouts (I volunteer with them, running safety boats for water activities), but just joined the crowd instead.In summary, the Army decided back in 2022 to mandate the separation of Remembrance and religion, and now the Telegraph are happily reporting on a bunch of retired senior officers bemoaning the fact (in an open letter) that it's this sort of woke nonsense that means that the Faeroe Islands will be able to invade and enslave us within the decade.
If the Army started saying, for example, their regiments couldn't parade their battle colours for fear of offending potential recruits who can trace their heritage back to some of the places listed as battles on the honours then I'd be right there supporting them, but in the context of having to keep that preserved in the historical aspic of Remembrance services being led by a representative of the Anglican Church whilst said church is hurtling rapidly towards oblivion seems wrong.
Only CofE running the service. At the time it struck me that it was a bit jarring . . . three / four closing blessings from other faiths would have lifted the event enormously.
dai1983 said:
Still serving and have been thinking the same about military services and religion for a fair few years. I'd welcome this as I have no interest in religion and neither do a large portion of my colleagues. Any act of remembrance is about me remembering those before and no longer with us. The whole religious aspect is pointless bordering on the irritating depending on how long the waffle is and what it is.
For those that do they can seek it with the relevant religious personnel always available. The padres do however provide good support as part of their pastoral care. There are also loads alternatives in various military charities and the welfare service though. Padres also get paid a fair whack with extra perks so maybe savings to be had. I'm down at Sultan at the moment which has 3 of them.
My "service" such as it was consisted of a few years having a laugh in the TA, which I joined primarily because they let us blat around Salisbury Plain in Defenders and shoot paper enemies at Pirbright, but the inevitable exposure even that gave you to the centuries long traditions of the British Army meant that for years afterwards, Remembrance Sunday was the only time I'd willingly enter a church of my own free will.For those that do they can seek it with the relevant religious personnel always available. The padres do however provide good support as part of their pastoral care. There are also loads alternatives in various military charities and the welfare service though. Padres also get paid a fair whack with extra perks so maybe savings to be had. I'm down at Sultan at the moment which has 3 of them.
The last time I went was several years ago with Scouts when my lad was about 12. As we approached the finale of a long and boring sermon, he lent in to me and "whispered"- in a fine outdoor voice that must've carried across most of the congregation - "If we're here to remember people who served in the Forces, when is the vicar going to stop talking about God and start talking about them?"
I realised he was spot on, haven't been back since and actually find looking across all the parents and kids stopping play at the rugby club for the two minute silence far more compelling and inspiring, as once you think of all those young lads who would've shared that same innocent pleasure of the game in the years before they went off to fight, you really can't unthink it!
Ian Geary said:
I don't entirely follow all of that.
What the telegraph decides as "woke" is not necessarily a good basis to form an opinion.
Religion, like all cults, works best when you get people young, and don't give them any choice.
Religion has been removed from schools and societal expectation now for the most part, and education is improving which allows people to question the existence of a magic being in thr sky. I expect the numbers practicing Christianity will keep getting smaller. The future king is an example of this. I'm not sure if this post is trying to have a subtle dig at communities where religious fervour is not reducing, but it's an individual choice (sort of) so it is what it is.
Personally I attended remembrance day parades each year, as my kids are in cubs/scouts. It's lead by a vicar, people murmer and mumble their way through two hymns (which only old people seem to know) and then he says the lord's prayer.
To me it is right that it is a religiously led event, as it is as much a spiritual event as it is historical or civic event. It gives comfort to some (again mainly older people) and it makes the event more poigneant, as it should be..
However I would never dream of going to actual church. It has no relevance. I will probably go when I'm dead, though like my wedding, it will probably be a civil ceremony.
And as for the army - perhaps they feel an overly Christian ethos is not helping to attract recruits who are not religious?
Training youngsters to kill other people and risk being killed themselves must take a lot of work. My limited understanding is that armed forces have always had very strong links to ceremony, history, routine, traditions, flags, symbols etc, which helps them form a cohesive unit to deal with the sharp end of their job.
Religion is just as extension of this in my view, but I don't think it is a fundamental pillar, so could probably be removed whilst leaving enough pillars in place to support what they do.
,
Agree with pretty much all of this.What the telegraph decides as "woke" is not necessarily a good basis to form an opinion.
Religion, like all cults, works best when you get people young, and don't give them any choice.
Religion has been removed from schools and societal expectation now for the most part, and education is improving which allows people to question the existence of a magic being in thr sky. I expect the numbers practicing Christianity will keep getting smaller. The future king is an example of this. I'm not sure if this post is trying to have a subtle dig at communities where religious fervour is not reducing, but it's an individual choice (sort of) so it is what it is.
Personally I attended remembrance day parades each year, as my kids are in cubs/scouts. It's lead by a vicar, people murmer and mumble their way through two hymns (which only old people seem to know) and then he says the lord's prayer.
To me it is right that it is a religiously led event, as it is as much a spiritual event as it is historical or civic event. It gives comfort to some (again mainly older people) and it makes the event more poigneant, as it should be..
However I would never dream of going to actual church. It has no relevance. I will probably go when I'm dead, though like my wedding, it will probably be a civil ceremony.
And as for the army - perhaps they feel an overly Christian ethos is not helping to attract recruits who are not religious?
Training youngsters to kill other people and risk being killed themselves must take a lot of work. My limited understanding is that armed forces have always had very strong links to ceremony, history, routine, traditions, flags, symbols etc, which helps them form a cohesive unit to deal with the sharp end of their job.
Religion is just as extension of this in my view, but I don't think it is a fundamental pillar, so could probably be removed whilst leaving enough pillars in place to support what they do.
,
Although religion is still in schools.
My view would take note that a lot of the folk being remembered were of their time and of a faith and so when marking that sacrifice (whatever you think about it), it seems right to include religion.
standards said:
Agree with pretty much all of this.
Although religion is still in schools.
My view would take note that a lot of the folk being remembered were of their time and of a faith and so when marking that sacrifice (whatever you think about it), it seems right to include religion.
They would certainly have laid claim to a faith, but if they also laid claim to be fighting for our freedom, I wonder how they'd feel about religion being foisted on their present day counterparts whose religious adherence is in single figure percentages?Although religion is still in schools.
My view would take note that a lot of the folk being remembered were of their time and of a faith and so when marking that sacrifice (whatever you think about it), it seems right to include religion.
272BHP said:
I am not religious but when I was serving I appreciated the reverence that was added to certain ceremonies by the church.
We would miss that element if it was taken away but I think cutting the hymn singing out and some painful extended sermons would be a good call.
Same here, Never minded doing services or church parades when I was still in but, as a non-religious person, the hymns and sermons were something I would have been fine avoiding. I don't think in over 20 years I met more than a handful of openly Christian people serving, the overwhelming vast majority of folks I served with didn't seem fussed with religion at all TBF and in the decade since I've left I doubt the RAF has suddenly become more Christian, so the demographics are probably still the same.We would miss that element if it was taken away but I think cutting the hymn singing out and some painful extended sermons would be a good call.
The influence and exposure organised religion, particularly Christianity has in modern Britain is beyond absurd. Who are these softly spoken robe wearing doctrine followers? Why are they deferred to?
FWIW Religion is still very much alive and well in significant numbers of young peoples’ lives through their primary education. The nearest two schools to us in our Outer London borough are Christian (CofE) led/controlled/part funded. It’s a nonsense. Particularly so with such pitiful church attendance and within such a multicultural, secular and irreligious environment.
My nephew has recently completed basic training and joined his regiment. I was mildly surprised to hear his reports that Christianity had any role in the modern military.
FWIW Religion is still very much alive and well in significant numbers of young peoples’ lives through their primary education. The nearest two schools to us in our Outer London borough are Christian (CofE) led/controlled/part funded. It’s a nonsense. Particularly so with such pitiful church attendance and within such a multicultural, secular and irreligious environment.
My nephew has recently completed basic training and joined his regiment. I was mildly surprised to hear his reports that Christianity had any role in the modern military.
dai1983 said:
Still serving and have been thinking the same about military services and religion for a fair few years. I'd welcome this as I have no interest in religion and neither do a large portion of my colleagues. Any act of remembrance is about me remembering those before and no longer with us. The whole religious aspect is pointless bordering on the irritating depending on how long the waffle is and what it is.
For those that do they can seek it with the relevant religious personnel always available. The padres do however provide good support as part of their pastoral care. There are also loads alternatives in various military charities and the welfare service though. Padres also get paid a fair whack with extra perks so maybe savings to be had. I'm down at Sultan at the moment which has 3 of them.
Are church parades still compulsory?For those that do they can seek it with the relevant religious personnel always available. The padres do however provide good support as part of their pastoral care. There are also loads alternatives in various military charities and the welfare service though. Padres also get paid a fair whack with extra perks so maybe savings to be had. I'm down at Sultan at the moment which has 3 of them.
I quite like christianity as the modern version of it teaches all other religions what they should aspire to be: a benign institution that can be dipped into if you wish but in all other aspects can be safely ignored.
Churches are also often the most beautiful buildings in our towns and I want to see them preserved and supported - we ignore our history and traditions at our peril.
Churches are also often the most beautiful buildings in our towns and I want to see them preserved and supported - we ignore our history and traditions at our peril.
As this is an 'inclusivity & diversity' issue, I don't think this is off topic; is it acceptable to lower security clearance requirements to boost recruitment? Or is this just that nasty Tory bloke and his war on woke?
https://news.sky.com/story/defence-secretary-furio...
https://news.sky.com/story/defence-secretary-furio...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff