National Anthem

[PRESLEY]

44 minutes ago, m williamson said:

My father detested the monarchy and politicians in general. He served this country throughout WW2. He saw action in France, North Africa and Italy.

He was once asked why he served as he had no respect for the monarchy. He explained that he had fought for his family, his friends and his country in that order. You don't need to be subservient to have a love of your country.

In answer to your question no I don't believe anyone is above me in the ' pecking order '. As a small boy I asked my mother what this aristocracy stuff was all about and her answer was " I want you to remember two things for the rest of your life, first there is no man woman or child on this planet ' better ' than you, secondly by the exact same token you are no better than any man woman or child on this planet. "

 

As young as I was I understood that she was talking about intrinsically better. There are lots of people better than me at certain things and also a few not as good at other things, but in terms of worth as human beings we are all equal.

I have had an interesting life during the course of which I have met many people, a number of whom were well known including a royal prince, a head of state,  numerious professors including a world famous  physicist and several famous footballers and hurlers and have held conversations with them without ever being in awe of any of them.

Humans, are fallible and that applies to us all, abasing yourself in front of someone because they were born into a particular family is complete embarrassing nonsense.

A cracking post with which I am in full agreement with. 

[trastrick]

56 minutes ago, m williamson said:

My father detested the monarchy and politicians in general. He served this country throughout WW2. He saw action in France, North Africa and Italy.

He was once asked why he served as he had no respect for the monarchy. He explained that he had fought for his family, his friends and his country in that order. You don't need to be subservient to have a love of your country.

In answer to your question no I don't believe anyone is above me in the ' pecking order '. As a small boy I asked my mother what this aristocracy stuff was all about and her answer was " I want you to remember two things for the rest of your life, first there is no man woman or child on this planet ' better ' than you, secondly by the exact same token you are no better than any man woman or child on this planet. "

 

As young as I was I understood that she was talking about intrinsically better. There are lots of people better than me at certain things and also a few not as good at other things, but in terms of worth as human beings we are all equal.

I have had an interesting life during the course of which I have met many people, a number of whom were well known including a royal prince, a head of state,  numerious professors including a world famous  physicist and several famous footballers and hurlers and have held conversations with them without ever being in awe of any of them.

Humans, are fallible and that applies to us all, abasing yourself in front of someone because they were born into a particular family is complete embarrassing nonsense.

👍

[Mister M]

I always thought the Hubert Parry / William Blake hymn Jerusalem would be a great national anthem.

[harvey19]

1 hour ago, m williamson said:

My father detested the monarchy and politicians in general. He served this country throughout WW2. He saw action in France, North Africa and Italy.

He was once asked why he served as he had no respect for the monarchy. He explained that he had fought for his family, his friends and his country in that order. You don't need to be subservient to have a love of your country.

In answer to your question no I don't believe anyone is above me in the ' pecking order '. As a small boy I asked my mother what this aristocracy stuff was all about and her answer was " I want you to remember two things for the rest of your life, first there is no man woman or child on this planet ' better ' than you, secondly by the exact same token you are no better than any man woman or child on this planet. "

 

As young as I was I understood that she was talking about intrinsically better. There are lots of people better than me at certain things and also a few not as good at other things, but in terms of worth as human beings we are all equal.

I have had an interesting life during the course of which I have met many people, a number of whom were well known including a royal prince, a head of state,  numerious professors including a world famous  physicist and several famous footballers and hurlers and have held conversations with them without ever being in awe of any of them.

Humans, are fallible and that applies to us all, abasing yourself in front of someone because they were born into a particular family is complete embarrassing nonsense.

But in reality there is a pecking order in society.

[crookesey]

9 minutes ago, Mister M said:

I always thought the Hubert Parry / William Blake hymn Jerusalem would be a great national anthem.

You’ve got me thinking and I can’t think anything negative about this suggestion.

[m williamson]

8 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

But in reality there is a pecking order in society.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with human equality.  It has to do with political power, unearned and unwarranted respect because of accident of birth and the inclination of some to show deference to people they percieve as their betters because that's how they were raised.

There are also those who's abilities make them stand out from the crowd and earn genuine respect. That does not however make them intrinsically better human beings and the sensible ones among them are aware of that.

18 minutes ago, Mister M said:

I always thought the Hubert Parry / William Blake hymn Jerusalem would be a great national anthem.

Not a bad song, the only problem being that the first verse asks four questions the answer to each one being NO.

If you don't regard that as a problem away you go.

[harvey19]

Human equality how would you define this ?

We are all individuals with different mental and physical abilities.

Different but equal ?

 

[crookesey]

43 minutes ago, m williamson said:

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with human equality.  It has to do with political power, unearned and unwarranted respect because of accident of birth and the inclination of some to show deference to people they percieve as their betters because that's how they were raised.

There are also those who's abilities make them stand out from the crowd and earn genuine respect. That does not however make them intrinsically better human beings and the sensible ones among them are aware of that.

Not a bad song, the only problem being that the first verse asks four questions the answer to each one being NO.

If you don't regard that as a problem away you go.

In this case NO is not definitively negative, think about it.

[m williamson]

10 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

Human equality how would you define this ?

We are all individuals with different mental and physical abilities.

Different but equal ?

 

We are all equal as human beings and we should respect each other accordingly.  However, no one should ever show defererence to another person purely because that person happened to be born into a particular family.

 

Respect is a different matter. If through their own actions and abilities an individual has achieved a certain standing and they have managed that without hurting others in doing so then they should be respected for that. However, that respect should not contain any obsequious fawning, simple good manners is sufficient and any decent person would want nothing more.

Millions of people who may not have been blessed with extraordinary talents nonetheless contribute to the world and should also be treat accordingly.

Basically everyone is entitled to respect until such time as they demonstrate that they are not worthy of it. At which time they remain equal as humans but lose the respect of the rest of us.

 

[m williamson]

4 minutes ago, crookesey said:

In this case NO is not definitively negative, think about it.

The question may be rhetorical but I'm still going with NO because Ryanair hadn't been launched then and although walking on water was in his locker there was no mention of flying.

 Blakes poem is apparently a bit controversial because some people have suggested that it's a dig at English nationalism. He was no particular fan of religion and was against the war with France. The French established a republic founded on reason rather than religion and Blake tended to favour that.

Then again, I've found that people have a tendency to interpret poems, songs and philosophical quotes the way that agrees with their personal views.