Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
14 January 2011
13:3488909World War Two was fought by the Allied nations against a despicable ideology that had taken hold in central Europe. As a part of that ideology involved an extreme racist attitude that was pursued in ways that we could have hoped would never be seen again its defeat was not only vital but still serves as a valid lesson to the generations since and to come. The lesson of unity among nations against such an evil should still be remembered and celebrated.
Given the number of conflicts being fought today, and the courage still being shown by British troops, it is well worth showing that great sacrifice will not be forgotten.
The 'religious' side of WW2 is much harder to pin down. Nazi ideology fed on the undercurrent of anti-semitism that infects much of the world and took it to extreme ends with people condemned for having a great-grandparent that held to the Jewish faith. Alongside that they were also persecuting homosexuals, gypsies, the handicapped and anyone else they saw as not fitting in with their narrow views. Apart from the fanatics at the top (Himmler certainly dreamt of creating a new religion out of Germanic mythology and Nazism) soldiers on all sides were still praying to the same god to get them through.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
14 January 2011
13:4188913Remembering bravery and cherishing our history are worth doing for two reasons: 1) remembering events makes them "live" in our minds and less likely to re-occur (sadly, this does not work globally, as the genocide in Rwanda - among others - shows); 2) the people who suffered and/or died did so for us and deserve as much remembrance as we can manage. People have a considerable potential for evil, as well as for good, and if we take our collective eyes off the ball for too long there is a danger that the evil that men do will happen despite our good intentions.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
14 January 2011
13:5688915Let's be fair, Paul Scotchie, I did write that we already have war memorials in Dover, including at the seafront, to commemorate people who have given their lives in the two Wars, and that we quite rightly have these memorials.
My point was whether we need another one in 2011 to commemorate a single action that took place in the 40's. I believe that people from Europe passing through Dover along the Seafront, seing yet another war-action memorial in place in our day and age going back to the Second World War, could receive a mixed bag of messages.
I recall watching a few years back a programme on TV, when a German warship from the 40's was located at the bottom of the sea. I'm not sure if it was the Bismark, could have been. Veteran sailors from Germany and Britain, who once opposed each other, both took part in a commemorative celebration for the dead German sailors, although I can't remember the details. They had some kind of plaque placed at the sea-bed.
The Germans also feel sad about the loss of the many British sailors of the Hood.
In the 70's I recall seeing on TV a meeting of veteran British and German pilots who talked together and commemorated the fallen pilots.
There are times when people feel the need to heal the wounds, and consider the reciprocal suffering and loss that war brings. Another war-memorial such as suggested upsets this ballance.
As for peaceful religion, which you mentioned, no I will not find that it is the cause of most wars around the world! And Christian Faith is present in Dover's emblem. Saint Martin of Tours, who divides his cloak to share it with a poor man, is represented on Dover Town's emblem.
Many pilgrims used to pass through Dover from the continent and found hospice in Dover's priories, before travelling to Canterbury, and again on returning to the continent.
Why not a monument to our peaceful history with our neighbours in Europe?
Where does St. Martin of Tours come in with 'wars around the world'?
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
14 January 2011
15:0588918Alexander; Bede celebrated the baptism of two 'princes' from the Isle of Wight, who were the only survivors of the non-christian population massacred by christians, they were then executed. Were they happy to be going to a christian heaven after seeing their home wiped out by them? Christians burnt Jews in York and Christian crusaders, answering calls from christian saints and a christian pope to free the holy land from Islam, who slaughtered the mainly Jewish population of Jerusalem.
Today christians are being murdered in the middle east while their persecutors kill eachother over the difference between being shi'ite or sunni. Like it or not religion is the driving force that prompts a lot of bloodshed (often urged on by those with added agendas of their own). Religion is not 'peaceful'. The old testament abounds in 'smitings' and even outright genocide while the gospels clearly show that the disciples were armed in the garden, with guards posted (all four gospels show Jesus's displeasure at them sleeping on watch). Peoples faiths and their understanding of it may be peace loving but religions are not.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
14 January 2011
15:1788920I can see your angle, Chris, but (as you probably knew I would) I disagree. Religion does not kill, in the same way that knives do not kill - it is the people driving them that do that. There are many religions that are faith-based that are genuinely peaceful and loving. Religions are grounded in faith but managed by people, and sadly many of those people corrupt the organisation for their own bitter and twisted ends. Faith and religions attract people in crisis or in youth, searching for meaning - a perfect time at which to manipulate and pervert. There are many many peaceful and loving faith and religion representatives, but it is usually only the Paisleys and Hamsars who grab the headlines and reach into the communities for a bit more hatred.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
14 January 2011
15:3588922I do agree with you on the many peaceful people, inspired by their faiths but (and you knew there would be one) without the religions giving them cause would so many be willing to kill in their name. Those that drive them can only do so because the foundation is laid for them in the religious texts and teachings. Would so many have joined the crusades if they had not been taught that they would go on to heaven after death and that by joining the 'cause' they would get a free entry? Would so many be willing to carry out suicide killings if they were not taught that martyrdom got them into a heaven? Religion does not kill anymore than guns do but without them how many would be, or could be driven to be, killers?
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
14 January 2011
17:0488933Alright. Now as Paul Scotchie brought the theme up about ' peaceful religions causing wars worlwide', he won't object to this thread continuing on this subject (with the adverted commers).
Chris, no Christian Saints called on soldiers to join the Crusades to the Middle East. They did not call down from Heaven for people to join up, if that is what you meant!
The pope as a man (I think it was Urban) called for the first Crusade, and other popes later called for further Crusades in the Middle East.
The Arabs conquered the Middle East with the sword. They also allowed pilgrims from the West to visit holy places. The Turks conquered Jerusalem and vast areas in the Middle East from the Arabs, also with the sword. As the Turks then hindered pilgrims visiting what many called and do call the Holy Land, this led to the first Crusade.
The fact that the Arabs meanwhile had reconquered Jerusalem and sent message to the West that pilgrims could travel again peacefully to the holy places in the Middle East for contemplation, did not alter the pope from continuing with the first Crusade, which conquered with the sword.
Later, Christian rulers in Judea and Galilee and Lebanon, of Western origin, after initial wars to conquer with the sword, did have peaceful relations with the local Muslims and with the neighbouring Muslim states (Egypt, Syria and others), and got on well with local Muslim populations, as too did the Knights Templars. It wasn't all war, war, war and hatred.
However, wars did break out again, and eventually the Western forces withdrew from these areas.
Now you may know that there were then, and that there are now, Christian populations in Lebanon, Syria, Irak, Egypt, and also in Israel and the West Bank. These people do descend from the original populations who always lived there, as much as the Muslims do.
But Chris, if every peaceful co-habitation between different peoples of different religions, some of which I tried to mention above, is cancelled in your view, and only every war is remembered and put down to 'religion'. then I assume that if I am for peaceful co-habitation of nations and peoples in the world we live in, and proclaim the Christian Faith as I do to uphold this, and some others are for wars which I do not agree with, you will come along and say that my Christian Faith caused these wars, and those who waged them, for all that they may be believers in a religion or aetheists, do not carry any responsibility for the wars they waged.
In reality, if I am against the war in Afghanistan, which I am and have professed to be, and have stated publicly that I am against it and given reasons why our soldiers should not be there, and have signed an online petition (of BNP) to get our soldiers out of Afghanistan immediately, then I do not carry any responsibility for that war!
Neither does the Christian Faith which I profess to believe in!
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
14 January 2011
18:0288943I did not and have never said that 'religion' nor the religious followers have started all wars (many uprisings, internal conflicts and assorted atrocities but not all wars). Nor have I ever said that saints 'called down from heaven', as I do not believe in either it would be like blaming Tarzan. Bernard however did go around preaching on behalf of a crusade and he was later declared a saint. Saints are created out of people (are saints that can be prayed to polytheism disguised as monotheism?) they do not 'appear' in your heaven as ready made deities.
I have noticed that religion does make for very bad historical reasoning. Watching a documentary recently I was struck by the acceptance of one inscription refering to 'the house of David' found in Jerusalem it was declared that he had to be true. Many English kings have claimed descent from Arthur and inscription abound yet none are considered as confirmation of his possible existance.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
15 January 2011
01:4089011Hmm! As I am not Catholic, I do not believe that a saint becomes a saint when the pope declares him or her as such. But some - or many - people that have been declared saints, no doubt are saints, and would have been considered such In High even if a pope had not delared them holy.
The one who we in Dover recognise on our Town emblem with the divided cloak, did not preach any crusade. I do not even know, to be honest, if all Saints are actually in Heaven or still have to resurrect from the dead. May-be some are in Heaven.
But the Divine Beings not of human origin and who dwell In High do not depend on whether you believe in them or not, they will not lose their Authority on account of your disbelief.
In this world, we have a limited freedom of choice, and to believe or not believe in the Heavenly Host is fredom of choice.
As we were talking of wars, they carry a responsibility. To try to avoid one is better than plunging into one.
Now Chris, many people who come from Europe to visit us do believe in the Christian Faith, they are not all atheists. I don't know what they think on walking past an insulted church almost opposite the Town Hall, which some Council tried to convert into a block of flats, but how's about a monument to the generations past of Dover who dedicated their time to building churches in Dover?
Not all people in Dover are atheists!
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,879
15 January 2011
08:3789017I very much doubt that the majority of people in Dover are religious, just because someone is born into a faith that does not mean they follow or care about it.
I thought this thread was about the monument on the sea front.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
15 January 2011
10:4689035i am still wondering what will happen to the propellor still on the old hoverspeed site.
if it can be moved it would look very appropriate on the seafront.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
15 January 2011
12:2389053The proposed memorial is going through the planning process at the moment and will be discussed at DTC planning on 31st January (6:00pm). It is proposed to replace the miner statue with a simple obelisk.
As the shell of the church survived the fire I personally would like to see it turned into a theatre, an attractive building in a location that is accessible to a all of Dover providing another amenity for the town.
I won't comment on the 'beings not of human origin'; I have read the comic.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
15 January 2011
15:4789078How fab!! A new theatre in Dover. Hurrah! I would support that 110%!
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
15 January 2011
15:5589080In a church and from someone who calls the Bible a comic?!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
15 January 2011
16:0389081i doubt it would be economically viable to convert to a theatre, any potential investor would also note that the town hall and roundhouse theatre are already putting on performances.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
15 January 2011
16:1889083Apart from that
Maybe we should start a thread to encourage a developer to look into that possibility, wouldn't it be nice to have somewhere in town to see live productions rather than taking over this one? Sorry Howard, posted at the same time however as both the Town Hall and the Roundhouse are used for other functions a dedicated theatre would allow longer runs of productions allowing more people to see them. Who knows, maybe we could get another 'Mousetrap'.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
15 January 2011
17:1189094I am genuinely very excited by this idea! It may be a little ambitious, but the idea of a dedicated theatre in Dover is so warming.
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,879
15 January 2011
18:5689121The Roundhouse is not accessable to those that can not climb flights of stairs when the lift is not working, a daft place to have a theatre anyway at the top of a building.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
15 January 2011
18:5789122I though you get to it from the York Street side which is level access ?
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
15 January 2011
19:0589124This idea now has its own thread, but yes Paul there is disabled access but you have to ask for it.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour