Briton wrote:

Tenacious Tubbs wrote:I've been thinking about this recently - because I have an instinctive fondness for these kinds of ancient customs and theatrics, and the monarchy in general. I just value them as part of our history and heritage, and don't think that they should be thrown away too easily.

I asked myself, why do I value our cultural heritage? Honestly, I couldn't come up with a rational basis. I've read things like "we need know where we've come from to know where we're going", but that's just platitudes. There's no rational reason for not discarding it all and starting over.

Nonetheless, I do value them in the same way I wouldn't want to knock down Stonehenge, or any number of the medieval castles around the UK to build a big Tesco. And I wouldn't to bulldoze our national forests and parks to build social housing. And that's equally irrational at it's core. So sue me, I'm human

How the fuck is protecting our environment or historical buildings comparable to preserving a hereditary form of government that institutionalises privilege into our society? That's just bonkers.

Tenacious Tubbs wrote:What is the reason for protecting our historical buildings?

Because they are part of our heritage. They are irreplaceable and historically important. Did France (and other countries) destroy all their historical buildings/sites when they changed their system of government? Now answer my question; why do you think it's irrational to preserve Stonehenge?

Tenacious Tubbs wrote:
EDIT: And can you demonstrate that the monarchy institutionalises privilege into our society, further, that is, than one single family with zero real constitutional power?

Actually in theory the monarchy has a lot of constitutional power but I accept it is in practice a ritual institution at the moment.

It is not just one family either. We have many hereditary titles and hereditary positions in the UK...some of which give people a position in our legislature as a birth right. Then there is the privileged position of the church that is part of the same system. Of course privilege is institutionalised in the United Kingdom.

I don't agree that the prime minister or leader of the opposition is under any obligation to make public statements of religiosity, but that's probably just because I understand what secularism means.

Just like I'm under no obligation to join in the worshipping when I attend church funerals. I am showing respect in my own way. The people who are using this to bash Corbyn are the ones disrespecting people who fought in the Battle of Britain.

ED209 wrote:I don't agree that the prime minister or leader of the opposition is under any obligation to make public statements of religiosity, but that's probably just because I understand what secularism means.

I rarely agree with you ED but on this one I do 100% why the hell should he have to sing a moronic dirge that he doesn't agree with ?

CarlPierce wrote:

ED209 wrote:I don't agree that the prime minister or leader of the opposition is under any obligation to make public statements of religiosity, but that's probably just because I understand what secularism means.

I rarely agree with you ED but on this one I do 100% why the hell should he have to sing a moronic dirge that he doesn't agree with ?

He doesn't have to. He can choose not to & can't be forced to sing it.

Briton wrote:

Briton wrote:

Tenacious Tubbs wrote:I've been thinking about this recently - because I have an instinctive fondness for these kinds of ancient customs and theatrics, and the monarchy in general. I just value them as part of our history and heritage, and don't think that they should be thrown away too easily.

I asked myself, why do I value our cultural heritage? Honestly, I couldn't come up with a rational basis. I've read things like "we need know where we've come from to know where we're going", but that's just platitudes. There's no rational reason for not discarding it all and starting over.

Nonetheless, I do value them in the same way I wouldn't want to knock down Stonehenge, or any number of the medieval castles around the UK to build a big Tesco. And I wouldn't to bulldoze our national forests and parks to build social housing. And that's equally irrational at it's core. So sue me, I'm human

How the fuck is protecting our environment or historical buildings comparable to preserving a hereditary form of government that institutionalises privilege into our society? That's just bonkers.

Tenacious Tubbs wrote:What is the reason for protecting our historical buildings?

Because they are part of our heritage. They are irreplaceable and historically important. Did France (and other countries) destroy all their historical buildings/sites when they changed their system of government? Now answer my question; why do you think it's irrational to preserve Stonehenge?

Actually, I said I couldn't think of a reason to value our heritage, including Stonehenge. Could you provide one?

Briton wrote:

Tenacious Tubbs wrote:
EDIT: And can you demonstrate that the monarchy institutionalises privilege into our society, further, that is, than one single family with zero real constitutional power?

Actually in theory the monarchy has a lot of constitutional power but I accept it is in practice a ritual institution at the moment.

It is not just one family either. We have many hereditary titles and hereditary positions in the UK...some of which give people a position in our legislature as a birth right. Then there is the privileged position of the church that is part of the same system. Of course privilege is institutionalised in the United Kingdom.

Well, I do oppose hereditary governmental positions, but that's because they actually do have constitutional power. If the monarchy had actual constitutional power and exercised it, I would oppose that too. But they don't, so I don't!

Like miliband before him, corbyn is the only atheist party leader and therefore whether he likes it or not is effectively the spearpoint of secularist progress in westminster. Religious folk can choose to be secularists, but an atheist facing claims that his personal lack of beliefs rules him out of holding office has had the fight brought to him by definition.

Regardless of his party affiliation I reject the assertion that displays of religiosity are some official elements of the job. It's not harmless ceremony or whatever the fuck an apologist for theocracy would call it, it's a very real bar to athiests' representation and participation in government.

If on the other hand it is not participation in an official capacity but a personal one (and how can fucking singing be an official duty of an elected representative) then it has to be left at exactly that, he doesn't believe in god so why should he proclaim otherwise.

Evolving wrote:What do you think the words mean, then, Strontium Dog?

I'm not sure it's important is it? What matters is what it represents.

Strontium Dog wrote:

Evolving wrote:What do you think the words mean, then, Strontium Dog?

I'm not sure it's important is it? What matters is what it represents.

It represents the belief that out of our entire island of people, only one person should be considered and revered.

Briton wrote:I never said anyone said it was vitally important so stop your lying trolling.

Why ask me why it's vitally important then if you weren't trying to imply that I believed it to be so?

As always, I leave the lying and the trolling to you.

Briton wrote:You'd think someone who claimed to believe in freedom would defend Corbyn's right to not be forced to conform, rather than join the conservative pack in attacking him for his principled stand.

He has the freedom to not be the Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition, as does every person in this country. But if you accept that role, you accept the responsibilities that come with it.

Strontium Dog wrote:He has the freedom to not be the Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition, as does every person in this country. But if you accept that role, you accept the responsibilities that come with it.

You'll be able to point to legislation or documentation showing that a role and responsibility of the position is singing the national anthem?

mattthomas wrote:

Strontium Dog wrote:

Evolving wrote:What do you think the words mean, then, Strontium Dog?

I'm not sure it's important is it? What matters is what it represents.

It represents the belief that out of our entire island of people, only one person should be considered and revered.

That is a somewhat literal interpretation, one I suspect not very many people share.

mattthomas wrote:

Strontium Dog wrote:He has the freedom to not be the Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition, as does every person in this country. But if you accept that role, you accept the responsibilities that come with it.

You'll be able to point to legislation or documentation showing that a role and responsibility of the position is singing the national anthem?

And then he'll point to legislation or documentation designating god save the queen as the uk national anthem, both to occur shortly after pigs fly.

mattthomas wrote:

Strontium Dog wrote:He has the freedom to not be the Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition, as does every person in this country. But if you accept that role, you accept the responsibilities that come with it.

You'll be able to point to legislation or documentation showing that a role and responsibility of the position is singing the national anthem?

No, I can point to the fact that accepting the office of Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition is at odds with showing contempt for Her Majesty.

Thats an extremely conservative (not to mention wrong) belief. I reject the suggestion that republicanism is not a mainstream position wholly deserving of representation, because I understand what democracy and progress mean.

Strontium Dog wrote:

mattthomas wrote:

Strontium Dog wrote:He has the freedom to not be the Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition, as does every person in this country. But if you accept that role, you accept the responsibilities that come with it.

You'll be able to point to legislation or documentation showing that a role and responsibility of the position is singing the national anthem?

No, I can point to the fact that accepting the office of Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition is at odds with showing contempt for Her Majesty.

Refusing to big someone up =/= contempt. Happy to clear that up for you

Strontium Dog wrote:

Evolving wrote:What do you think the words mean, then, Strontium Dog?

I'm not sure it's important is it? What matters is what it represents.

Trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, SD. When are the words unimportant?

Jeremy Corbyn might join his local choir, because he likes singing, and it might transpire that this winter they're doing the Messiah. He'd find himself every Monday evening down the community centre singing "The Lord God omnipotent reigneth, For ever and ever, Hallelelujah! Hallelujah!"
You wouldn't expect him to interrupt proceedings at choir practice and say, "Hang on a minute. Not so fast, buster. I'm an atheist, I'll have you know!" That would be silly.

Are the people singing the national anthem at the Cenotaph performing it, like a choir performing the Messiah, because it's a jolly fine piece of music? An interesting take.

Perhaps he could sing "My country, 'tis of thee" to the same melody, if the words are unimportant. And "O Tannenbaum" instead of "The people's flag".

Evolving wrote:Perhaps he could sing "My country, 'tis of thee"

A great fucking tune that would fit the UK, until you get to the last verse

Briton wrote:

Briton wrote:

Tenacious Tubbs wrote:I've been thinking about this recently - because I have an instinctive fondness for these kinds of ancient customs and theatrics, and the monarchy in general. I just value them as part of our history and heritage, and don't think that they should be thrown away too easily.

I asked myself, why do I value our cultural heritage? Honestly, I couldn't come up with a rational basis. I've read things like "we need know where we've come from to know where we're going", but that's just platitudes. There's no rational reason for not discarding it all and starting over.

Nonetheless, I do value them in the same way I wouldn't want to knock down Stonehenge, or any number of the medieval castles around the UK to build a big Tesco. And I wouldn't to bulldoze our national forests and parks to build social housing. And that's equally irrational at it's core. So sue me, I'm human

How the fuck is protecting our environment or historical buildings comparable to preserving a hereditary form of government that institutionalises privilege into our society? That's just bonkers.

Tenacious Tubbs wrote:What is the reason for protecting our historical buildings?

Because they are part of our heritage. They are irreplaceable and historically important. Did France (and other countries) destroy all their historical buildings/sites when they changed their system of government? Now answer my question; why do you think it's irrational to preserve Stonehenge?

Tenacious Tubbs wrote:Actually, I said I couldn't think of a reason to value our heritage, including Stonehenge. Could you provide one?

You seemed to be saying you wanting to keep the monarchy was as irrational as conserving our historical monuments. Well I see nothing irrational in the latter and I'm still waiting for you to explain why you thinking it is.
I can think of several good reasons for 'valuing' our heritage; trying to understand it being good enough reason on it's own to preserve and study it.

Briton wrote:

Tenacious Tubbs wrote:
EDIT: And can you demonstrate that the monarchy institutionalises privilege into our society, further, that is, than one single family with zero real constitutional power?

Actually in theory the monarchy has a lot of constitutional power but I accept it is in practice a ritual institution at the moment.

It is not just one family either. We have many hereditary titles and hereditary positions in the UK...some of which give people a position in our legislature as a birth right. Then there is the privileged position of the church that is part of the same system. Of course privilege is institutionalised in the United Kingdom.

Tenacious Tubbs wrote:Well, I do oppose hereditary governmental positions, but that's because they actually do have constitutional power.

Right...so you agree that there is institutionalised privileged in the UK.

The Queen has enormous constitutional power. It's convention and circumstance that means she doesn't use it. The monarchy is our final protection against tyranny in theory.

Tenacious Tubbs wrote: If the monarchy had actual constitutional power and exercised it, I would oppose that too. But they don't, so I don't!

They do have power, and, hopefully, they would use it if the circumstances dictated.

Corbyn could easily have stuffed the Tory brat pack by simply saying "my concern was more for those that died in war, than for an unelected figurehead living in an opulent palace. Also, I wouldn't have besmirched Nelson Mandela's funeral by taking a selfie".