Win Prizes Ask an Atheist - Shoe's on the other foot now!

[Gethelred]

Alright, we're going to have a change of tack.

As I'm sure you can see, the thread title has been changed to Ask an Atheist. People who have a question to ask of the atheists who populate this thread - more than the christians do - should feel free to ask questions of them.

If you've still got a live question posted to a christian, feel free to continue conversing for the time being.

Standard board rules apply.

 

[Chief]

The monarch reigns but does not rule over the people. In a constitutional monarchy, the people are the ultimate authority.

A small price to pay for getting a billion quid+ because your ancestors killed a ton of people.

 

[Roylion]

Yeah I didn’t think you’d get it.


?? Not sure why you think I don’t think the Welcome To Country is all that.

Then why did you say "I think there is no comparison", when I was clearly stating that both the coronation and 'welcome to country' were both ceremonies?

I stated quite clearly "I'm not indigenous either, but I can appreciate why a 'Welcome to country' is performed. Why can't I (or any other) appreciate what the coronation is?"

I offered no opinion on their relative worth. You did that.

…. And you are silent on what the reasons for that might be.

I'm made no comment on that. You did.

And my point is that I have no quibble with minor tweaks to reflect changing times (though I will also observe that every single change raises the question of what is “tradition”, and how much heed should be paid to it - questions the monarchy and its supporters clearly prefer to ignore),

Not ignoring it all. Some parts of the ceremony have a long tradition...other parts are new.

but that the (thankful) retirement of the divine right of kings is kind of a big one, kind of the fundamental basis of the entire tradition, and that therefore - and in the context of the thread topic - as much as we might thrill to ritual, tradition, and good ol’ colour and movement, the ceremony has been divested of a pretty major chunk of its raison d’être.

Yes. Similar to how the monarchy itself has changed from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy.

And you are perfectly entitled to that pleasure. I am not in the least criticising it (though I feel “historical” is a term that raises as many questions as “tradition”).

Does it? How? The ceremony of coronation of the monarch in England has been performed at Westminster Abbey since 1066, with elements of the same ceremony, such as the anointing of the monarch, still present. The coronation spoon that is used to both mix wine and water in a chalice as well as anointing the sovereign dates from the twelfth century for example. Hence it is historical.

I am just trying to give you the opportunity to see for once that your position actually necessitates a great deal of nuance,

I'm well aware of the changes that have been made to the coronation ceremony over the years. That does not necessarily detract from the idea that there are many traditional aspects still performed today or the historicity of the event itself

 

[Roylion]

A small price to pay for getting a billion quid+ because your ancestors killed a ton of people.

The history of the royal family is more complex than that.

 

[Chief]

The history of the royal family is more complex than that.

But that's what it boils down to. Murder, theft, slavery, incest. All the good stuff the kids should look up to.

 

[Roylion]

But that's what it boils down to. Murder, theft, slavery, incest. All the good stuff the kids should look up to.

The history of humanity all over the planet.

 

[carltonchelsea]

Au contraire, I’m fine with flamboyance for flamboyance’s sake.

It’s one of the things that most elevates we human beings- our penchant for observing the incredible flamboyance of, say, nature’s (utterly existential) mating rituals, and then aping them for our own human purposes.

My point is that we should still subject those contrived purposes to scrutiny.

And I think there are good reasons to say that the course of events over the years has conspired to greatly reduce the ability of what the world witnessed on Saturday to inspire awe.

Yes oh yes, I’m sure the young Brits, the frontline workers, nurses and working classes were super impressed by the the hundreds of millions of pounds it cost to bang a furry hat on that weirdos bonce, particularly after his old bat joined Jesus at the golden table in hell, stoked I bet!

 

[Boston tiger]

To be fair the poms chopped the head off the last King who claimed divine right.

I watched hardly any of it but was impressed with a sword they gave him. England was certainly rolling in the dough at some stage in their history.

 

[carltonchelsea]

So just turn off the telly! Read a book! Go for a walk! Get jiggy with your partner!

It was news time, we like to watch several night time news broadcasts, there was no escaping it I’m afraid, much like the queens death, they saturate me into either laughter, anger or docility, or all the above!

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

The history of humanity all over the planet.

So there's absolutely nothing special about royalty. Glad we've established that, but going on Saturday's display I'm not sure they're intending to concede that point.

 

[Roylion]

So there's absolutely nothing special about royalty.

What I basically said, in replying to a comment to me, is that murder, theft, slavery, incest isn't confined to just royalty. I thought that was quite clear.

 

[Chief]

What I basically said, in replying to a comment to me, is that murder, theft, slavery, incest isn't confined to just royalty. I thought that was quite clear.

They managed to do it on a large scale and with regularity, taking land and wealth for themselves.

 

[Roylion]

They managed to do it on a large scale and with regularity, taking land and wealth for themselves.

History is littered with people who have taken land and wealth for themselves, right across the planet. That what wars are mostly fought over.

But in this case Anglo-Saxon chieftains invaded Britain, established kingdoms and then - one - established themselves as overlord over the others to become the King of England. Before 1087 William the Conqueror removed the native Anglo-Saxon aristocracy after his conquest, mainly because they kept rebelling against his rule, and replaced them with his own Norman followers. He controlled all of the former personal lands of his predecessor King Edward through inheritance. He also took personal control of much of the lands of the loser of Hastings King Harold II. That has formed the basis of the Crown Estate today. Over the years the disposal of land of the Crown has outweighed the acquisitions.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Then why did you say "I think there is no comparison", when I was clearly stating that both the coronation and 'welcome to country' were both ceremonies?

OK I get it, when I utilise what is clearly a rhetorical device, you respond with pedantry. OK.

I offered no opinion on their relative worth. You did that.

I'm made no comment on that. You did.

Yes, I know I did. My very point is that the coronation is now essentially an empty spectacle. And I give reasons for why I believe that. You, on the other hand, appear to be saying you found the spectacle interesting because you found it interesting. Blow me down.

Not ignoring it all. Some parts of the ceremony have a long tradition...other parts are new.

I wasn't referring just to you. My point is it's quite clear that a big part of what is apparently "tradition" is little more than what powerful people, like kings and queens, and many of those with an interest in maintaining the monarchy, say it is.

Yes. Similar to how the monarchy itself has changed from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy.

And that too is a huge change. Yet there has still been no commensurate scaling down of the pageantry of the coronation. Hence the meaning has been hollowed out of it to a great extent.

You seem really keen to deny that there's anything of much significance in downgrading a figure from "divinely chosen" to "amazing person who we must all look up to (though they're only amazing by accident of birth)".

Does it? How? The ceremony of coronation of the monarch in England has been performed at Westminster Abbey since 1066, with elements of the same ceremony, such as the anointing of the monarch, still present. The coronation spoon that is used to both mix wine and water in a chalice as well as anointing the sovereign dates from the twelfth century for example. Hence it is historical.

So usefully define "historical" then. I would suggest "historical" can be invested with quite a number of meanings. As you used it before, it would seem to mean something which has been happening infrequently, for a long time. Lots of things fit that category.

I'm well aware of the changes that have been made to the coronation ceremony over the years. That does not necessarily detract from the idea that there are many traditional aspects still performed today or the historicity of the event itself

That is not my point. My point is that the ceremony has been effectively drained of its awesomeness because quite rightly, we no longer believe the British monarch is chosen by god. That you as an agnostic can still enjoy the colour and spectacle and "tradition" is quite fine, and don't let me stop you.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

What I basically said, in replying to a comment to me, is that murder, theft, slavery, incest isn't confined to just royalty. I thought that was quite clear.

Um, yes, it's quite clear. They have been known to murder, and thieve, and enslave, and commit incest, just like we commoners have been known to do. So the royals aren't in any way special, is my point. Surely that too is quite clear?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

If they were the same age and weight, who would win a fight between King Charles and Jesus?

 

[Roylion]

OK I get it, when I utilise what is clearly a rhetorical device, you respond with pedantry. OK.

Come on. You clearly had a point to make that 'welcome to country' was more worthy than a coronation as a ceremony.

My very point is that the coronation is now essentially an empty spectacle.

To you. You’re entitled to your opinion. As I’m entitled to my opinion which is every bit as valid as yours. I've explained the point of a coronation.

And I give reasons for why I believe that. You, on the other hand, appear to be saying you found the spectacle interesting because you found it interesting. Blow me down.

How hard is it to understand that I found it interesting as a historical event for reasons I have explained a couple of times now? Not that I really have to justify the reasons I watched the coronation.

My point is it's quite clear that a big part of what is apparently "tradition" is little more than what powerful people, like kings and queens, and many of those with an interest in maintaining the monarchy, say it is.

Tradition: "The transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation, or the fact of being passed on in this way." It's clear that events like the coronation are based on tradition.

And that too is a huge change. Yet there has still been no commensurate scaling down of the pageantry of the coronation.

It's a ceremony based on the traditions and heritage of the United Kingdom.

You seem really keen to deny that there's anything of much significance in downgrading a figure from "divinely chosen" to "amazing person who we must all look up to (though they're only amazing by accident of birth)".

In my view a hereditary constitutional monarchy has political strengths and safeguards. The next person in line is trained for the job. Future monarchs are most often trained from childhood to fulfil the position of monarch.

Certainly as a head of state, members of the royal family are trained in constitutional law from a young age so that they might adequately fulfil the requirements of the job

For example, Charles had training in consitutional law by the late Queen exposing him to the workings of government through briefings, private lessons and involvement in different givernmental departments.

When William was a teenager, the late Queen began William's constitutional education by taking him through the state boxes and guiding him through the papers. Starting in 2009 William underwent an two-year training program designed by the Queen and Prince Charles which included working with different departments in the British government, private lessons from "constitutional experts" and briefings with high-profile figures, like then-Prime Minister, Sir John Major.

A President does not necessarily have that type of training.

So usefully define "historical" then. I would suggest "historical" can be invested with quite a number of meanings.

"of or concerning history or past events."

As you used it before, it would seem to mean something which has been happening infrequently, for a long time.

"of or concerning history or past events."

Coronations of English monarchs have been happening since at least AD 973 and some of the coronation rite has remained the same since that time.

Lots of things fit that category.

Well yeah.

That is not my point. My point is that the ceremony has been effectively drained of its awesomeness because quite rightly, we no longer believe the British monarch is chosen by god.

And that has been the case for some time. For over 330 years.

That you as an agnostic can still enjoy the colour and spectacle and "tradition" is quite fine, and don't let me stop you.

And as a historical event. Which it was.

 

[western royboy]

If they were the same age and weight, who would win a fight between King Charles and Jesus?

Substitute KC in for Satan on South Park and you’ve already got it, Satan threw the fight because he took the odds on Jesus

 

[travelli]

The monarch reigns but does not rule over the people. In a constitutional monarchy, the people are the ultimate authority.

The head of state ultimately signs off of legislation though. The people and politicians might propose ideas and debate, but it is the head of state that gives it the thumbs up or thumbs down.

I know this power is largely symbolic, but it can and has been used

Also, to get Australian citizenship, you still must swear allegiance the the king.

Now, as that ceremony made clear, that king (our head of state) is essentially the pope of the protestant faith. Is that appropriate? Potential conflict of interest? Is it representative? Do you think this system would have the backing of the Australian majority? Or even UK for that matter.

When the dust settles, I doubt we will see another ceremony so overtly christian as that one. It was fun as an oddity, but if they tried it again, they'd be chased out the door.

 

[travelli]

Given how deracinated the ceremony now is from its original form (where we were supposed to believe that, Wow! This man has been chosen by GOD to lead us!) I think you’re essentially saying you like colour and movement. Nothing wrong with that of course. I like colour and movement.

At least the Catholic leadership group has a vote!

 

[peetoo]

History is littered with people who have taken land and wealth for themselves, right across the planet. That what wars are mostly fought over.

But in this case Anglo-Saxon chieftains invaded Britain, established kingdoms and then - one - established themselves as overlord over the others to become the King of England. Before 1087 William the Conqueror removed the native Anglo-Saxon aristocracy after his conquest, mainly because they kept rebelling against his rule, and replaced them with his own Norman followers. He controlled all of the former personal lands of his predecessor King Edward through inheritance. He also took personal control of much of the lands of the loser of Hastings King Harold II. That has formed the basis of the Crown Estate today. Over the years the disposal of land of the Crown has outweighed the acquisitions.

You make ‘William the bastard’ sound like a kindly soul

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

You make ‘William the bastard’ sound like a kindly soul

His PR issues were nothing compared to those faced by Vlad The Impaler.

 

[peetoo]

His PR issues were nothing compared to those faced by Vlad The Impaler.

I think his problem is he commissioned the domesday book which cataloged the over the top destruction his forces wreaked in this new kingdom

 

[Roylion]

You make ‘William the bastard’ sound like a kindly soul

How did I do that?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Come on. You clearly had a point to make that 'welcome to country' was more worthy than a coronation as a ceremony.


To you. You’re entitled to your opinion. As I’m entitled to my opinion which is every bit as valid as yours. I've explained the point of a coronation.



How hard is it to understand that I found it interesting as a historical event for reasons I have explained a couple of times now? Not that I really have to justify the reasons I watched the coronation.



Tradition: "The transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation, or the fact of being passed on in this way." It's clear that events like the coronation are based on tradition.



It's a ceremony based on the traditions and heritage of the United Kingdom.




In my view a hereditary constitutional monarchy has political strengths and safeguards. The next person in line is trained for the job. Future monarchs are most often trained from childhood to fulfil the position of monarch.

Certainly as a head of state, members of the royal family are trained in constitutional law from a young age so that they might adequately fulfil the requirements of the job

For example, Charles had training in consitutional law by the late Queen exposing him to the workings of government through briefings, private lessons and involvement in different givernmental departments.

When William was a teenager, the late Queen began William's constitutional education by taking him through the state boxes and guiding him through the papers. Starting in 2009 William underwent an two-year training program designed by the Queen and Prince Charles which included working with different departments in the British government, private lessons from "constitutional experts" and briefings with high-profile figures, like then-Prime Minister, Sir John Major.

A President does not necessarily have that type of training.



"of or concerning history or past events."



"of or concerning history or past events."

Coronations of English monarchs have been happening since at least AD 973 and some of the coronation rite has remained the same since that time.



Well yeah.



And that has been the case for some time. For over 330 years.



And as a historical event. Which it was.

OK, yep, I get it. Loud and clear.

You don't think the relegation of a monarch’s status from Divinely Chosen to merely Top Bloke is any big deal. (Others would beg to differ.)

Consequently you don't think that this relegation in any way diminishes the gravity, solemnity and awesomeness of a ceremony which not only originated in the era that believed in the Divine Right of Kings, but was, in fact, expressly intended to demonstrate such alleged divinity as unambiguously as possible.

And any perceived slack is more than adequately taken up by “tradition" and “history”.

We’ll leave it there. Have a great day mate.

 

[evolved2]

Agree, but in these secular times, how do atheists feel about this ceremony. The top power in the governments of UK & Australia are fundamentally christian. They are only legitimate by the authority of the christian god. Does the monarchy have any place at all in society?

Possibly. I'm happy to weigh the status quo against alternatives before deciding. The monarchy is benign and has very little influence in Australia, plus we get a free public holiday.

Benign Christianity isn't that bad.