Would YOU stand for the National Anthem?

[french frank]

Many people of my age do not attend any church or chapel and on the outside show no religious allegiances BUT grew up attending schools which had daily morning assembly, many attended Sunday school and learned Christian values which now are not matched with regular worship but shown in the way they relate to others.

I think it becomes as much a part of cultural identity as religious belief.

[french frank]

A reminder that discussion of PARTY politics against the House Rules.

[Dave2002]

So we come back to the central point I made about the 'will of the people'. If a significant majority of the people identify with a religion why should an avowedly Godless minority dictate to the majority that God should not be named in any national anthem? And as for supposed 'serfs' the people could dismiss the monarch anytime they wish if the majority wish were there!

A couple of points here.

1. Who sets the agenda? Who even decides that there should be a national anthem?

2. Some issues should not be decided "for or by everybody". If x% of a population want something, then presumably around 100-x% want something else - though not necessarily all the same things. We have seen recently what happens if x is close to 50 - then possibly many people are going to be unhappy. There are dangers with other scenarios too. What about largish (or smallish?) values of x? In some states this clearly happens, and minorities are victimised. Fortunately this doesn't seemingly happen too much in the UK, but elsewhere it does. Just because a large proportion of the population don't want certain things should not give a government or any other subgroup the "right" or the power to persecute minorities. An issue here is what things are under discussion, and then we come back to point one about agenda setting. A potentially repressive government could set an agenda, gain a majority by a "democratic" process, then persecute those who don't accept "the will of the majority".

The national anthem discussion is relatively mild, but I'm glad I live in a country where I can decide whether or not to stand for our national anthem. In some countries people who visibly don't conform may be marked out for some forms of special treatment. Conformity, or not, to a fairly mild aspect of behaviour might be used as an indicator by some of more serious concerns, with, IMO, undesirable consequences.

[Richard Barrett]

I view anything else as a futile form of protest (at best).

That is however possibly to miss the point, which could be one of personal conscience rather than "making a stand" (or a sit).

As for religion, surely this like monarchies will eventually fade away, as a throwback to times when superstition was no worse than any other "theory" of reality and our place in it, and could be used as an instrument of political power as in the middle ages. But this fading away would be brought about in the context of a society which tolerates such beliefs rather than in one that doesn't.

[ahinton]

That is however possibly to miss the point, which could be one of personal conscience rather than "making a stand" (or a sit).

As for religion, surely this like monarchies will eventually fade away, as a throwback to times when superstition was no worse than any other "theory" of reality and our place in it, and could be used as an instrument of political power as in the middle ages. But this fading away would be brought about in the context of a society which tolerates such beliefs rather than in one that doesn't.

Maybe both will indeed one day fade away (although not all monarchies or on the scale that UK's is anyway) but they're taking an awful long time to do so; although there is some evidence of increasing secularism in places, the rise and spread of Islam alone is hardly suggestive of the notion that religions will fade away any time soon. I agree with and indeed welcome your last sentence, though.

[french frank]

I can't remember when I last stood, or didn't, for the National Anthem - haven't heard it played in public, nor in private for - decades. On the whole, I think it should be obligatory to play it at all public events. Then it would give people greater opportunity to express their anti-monarchical sentiments by not standing up.

[ahinton]

I can't remember when I last stood, or didn't, for the National Anthem - haven't heard it played in public, nor in private for - decades. On the whole, I think it should be obligatory to play it at all public events. Then it would give people greater opportunity to express their anti-monarchical sentiments by not standing up.

Were such a principle to be adopted in practice, perhaps the Supreme Court hearing commencing this morning might be as good a place as any to start...

[jean]

I can't remember when I last stood, or didn't, for the National Anthem - haven't heard it played in public, nor in private for - decades.

I last heard it at the first concert of the RLPO's current season.

As I said ages ago on this thread, Vasily Petrenko has reintroduced the practice here - though only for the opening concert.

[french frank]

As I said ages ago on this thread,

Yes, I remember you saying it. It's what I'm saying: that gives people the choice to stand or not stand.

[Carried away by a bit of whimsy there. Deleted]

[cloughie]

I last heard it at the first concert of the RLPO's current season.

As I said ages ago on this thread, Vasily Petrenko has reintroduced the practice here - though only for the opening concert.

When Barbirolli played it before each Halle concert at Sheffield City Hall 50 and the rest years ago, everyone stood up and wanted to applaud after it!

[Richard Barrett]

When Barbirolli played it before each Halle concert at Sheffield City Hall 50 and the rest years ago, everyone stood up and wanted to applaud after it!

So you see there has been some progress since then...

[ahinton]

When Barbirolli played it before each Halle concert at Sheffield City Hall 50 and the rest years ago, everyone stood up and wanted to applaud after it!

I presume that by "wanted to applaud" you imply "did applaud" (the two not being synonymous) - but what were they applauding? The Hallé's (extraordinary) rendition of it? If so, they could surely have done that while seated! I therefore surmise that the decision /reason to stand for it and that to applaud it might not necessarily be connected.

[Serial_Apologist]

I presume that by "wanted to applaud" you impy "did applaud" (the two not being synonymous) - but what were they applauding? The Hallé's (extraordinary) rendition of it? If so, they could surely have done that while seated! I therefore surmise that the decision /reason to stand for it and that to applaud it might not necessarily be connected.

I wonder how many here have noticed that self-appauding seems to be becoming more and more common these days. Or are the self-applauders applauding the perspicacity of those applauding them?

[jean]

So you see there has been some progress since then...

(Except in Liverpool.)

[ahinton]

I wonder how many here have noticed that self-appauding seems to be becoming more and more common these days. Or are the self-applauders applauding the perspicacity of those applauding them?

I don't know, but what I was seeking to do here was draw attention to the difference between people "wanting to applaud" and those actually applauding (pace cloughie's reference to "everyone stood up and wanted to applaud after it!"), as well as to question what it was that was being applauded on the assumption that those who "wanted to applaud" actually did so; I wasn't suggesting that people were applauding themselves!

Then of course one could argue that there's the additional side-issue of people who stand up for the anthem for the principal purpose of drawing attention to their refusing to sing it (or trying unsuccessfully not to draw such attention in the case of the hapless Mr Sequoia who seemed uncomfortably unaware of the particular land from which his fathers originated)...