Welcome to Quadrant Online | Login/ Register Cart (0) $0 View Cart
Menu
July 08th 2018 print

David Wetherell

Erasing Religion from Military History

Historian K.S. Inglis’s widespread and systematic prejudice towards churches is manifest in his book 'Sacred Places', which omits mention of war memorials in places of worship and the minimises the role of church leaders in the birth and evolution of Anzac traditions

chaplain badge IIIKenneth Stanley Inglis (1929–2017), is one of Australia’s most distinguished and versatile historians. His many books include The Stuart Case (1961), The Australian Colonists (1974) and his two-volume history of the national broadcaster, This is the ABC (1983) and Whose ABC? (2006).

Following the appearance in 1963 of his Churches and the Working Classes in Victorian England, Inglis began to focus on the significance of the Anzac movement. This resulted in two seminal articles. The first of these, “Anzac and Christian—Two Traditions or One?” (1965) became the most frequently consulted piece of writing in the entire back catalogue of St Mark’s Review. The second, also published in 1965, appeared in Meanjin under the title of “The Anzac Tradition” and is, in part, a reflection on the official war historian C.E.W. Bean’s writings. It is a fine work of scholarship.

This essay appeared in a recent edition of Quadrant.
Click here to subscribe

 

Fragments of these articles reappear in his final work, the 500-page Sacred Places: War Memorials in the Australian Landscape, which first appeared in 1998 and has been re-issued three times. Inglis wrote about monuments in the Australian landscape, but this book has made him something of a monument in the Australian publishing landscape.

However, Inglis has minimised the churches” role in the creating of war memorials and the formation of Anzac ceremonial. When explaining the decision to perpetuate the Anzac legend and the annual commemoration of the fallen on Anzac Day as we have come to know it, he has largely overlooked the contribution made by the churches to both.

Inglis has given ample attention to monuments in public places, but he has overlooked memorials standing in Australian churches, which he acknowledges are public places. With the exception of a single image among 220 photographs in his book, “sacred places” inside church buildings are wholly omitted.

One of the most splendid of these sacred places is the Warrior’s chapel in Christ Church Cathedral in Newcastle. Brass, bronze, marble and stained glass monuments to the fallen were also raised in many Protestant and Roman Catholic churches, and memorial halls were built beside churches after 1920, aided by a generous federal subsidy. None of these is given any notice.

The downplaying of Christian involvement in early Anzac commemorations must be viewed against a background of changing Australian historiography. Most recent histories of Australia give little attention to religion and the churches. Alan Atkinson’s The Europeans in Australia (1) is exceptional in its interest in religion. However, it must be conceded that most secular historians” aloofness from churches is only one side of the coin: the other side is compassion. In contemporary histories there’s usually a genuine empathy for the “forgotten people”– the marginalised, the economically downtrodden, migrants and refugees.

Any suggestion that organised religion and clergy had little to do with early Anzac observance needs to take into account what actually happened. In Egypt, for example, at the first anniversary service in Cairo in 1916, a sermon was preached by a denominational chaplain before hymns were sung by the thousands of servicemen present: “For All the Saints Who from Their Labours Rest” and “On the Resurrection Morning”.(2) But the index to Sacred Places lists no religious services or denominations, and there are references to only two clerical figures—the Anglican chaplain-general, Archbishop Charles Riley of Perth, and Catholic Archbishop Daniel Mannix of Melbourne.

Conspicuous among church leaders in Australia was David Garland, for nearly twenty-five years organiser of Queensland’s Anzac Day Commemoration Committee (ADCC) until his death on the eve of the Second World War. An Anglican canon and lobbyist, his role is credited by his biographers as pivotal in shaping inter-war Anzac commemorations. In the Australian Dictionary of Biography (ADB), Wendy Mansfield asserts that Garland initiated the Anzac Day march, the returned soldiers’ luncheon, the wreath-laying ceremonies at memorials, and the special church services. These, she says, “vigorously backed by Garland”, were taken up in other states. (3) Mansfield reiterates a claim made in Brisbane on Anzac Day 1924, by the Queensland acting premier W.N. Gillies, at the unveiling of the Queensland War Memorial at Toowong by the Australian governor-general, that Garland was “the founder … of the observance of Anzac Day”. (4) At a seminar chaired in 1992 by Professor Inglis at the Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA), a speaker insisted strenuously that Garland’s influence had reached beyond Queensland. Inglis responded by omitting Garland from the book altogether. Nor did Inglis or his research assistants consult Garland’s extensive Anzac Day papers in Brisbane’s Oxley Library.

In downplaying official Christian involvement in the planning of Anzac Day, Sacred Places is at odds with Inglis’s treatment of clergy in two earlier publications. In 1961 he gives credit to a Roman Catholic priest’s evidence in The Stuart Case, suggesting that it probably contributed to the commutation of Rupert Stuart’s death penalty.(5) The Australian Colonists gives some attention to colonial religion. Inglis also recalls his respect for his Christian Socialist teacher in the 1940s who went on to become a missionary in India. By contrast, Sacred Places is consistent with his 1963 analysis of the denominations and the Victorian working classes in negating the churches’ efforts to the point of dismissal.

In Sacred Places Inglis makes a contentious observation about soldiers in the Great War. Speaking of the men in the trenches, he says that the “average Australian soldier” was “not religious’.(6) He bases this on the war historian Bill Gammage’s observation, made after Gammage’s reading of a thousand diaries and letters for his book The Broken Years (1974), that the average soldier did not discuss religion in his correspondence.

Gammage is one of Inglis’s disciples. Gammage’s book was the inspiration for Peter Weir’s film Gallipoli. But his style differs considerably from that of his mentor. There cannot be a greater contrast between Inglis’s sophistication and the naivety of Gammage’s portrayal of the “average soldier”. According to Gammage, the Australian soldier in the First World War disliked chaplains primarily because he was an Australian. (7) This is something Inglis is unlikely ever to have written. But for all the clumsiness of Gammage’s religious references and Inglis’s finesse there is an ideological resonance between the two. In effect, both writers respond to the presence of religion by ignoring it.

The English poet Robert Graves started the fashion, in Goodbye to All That (1929), of depicting British First World War soldiers as irreligious and of Anglican chaplains as ineffectual and superfluous. The book is stylishly written and notable for its inaccuracies. One of Graves’s claims is that Anglican chaplains would occasionally, on a quiet day, “make a daring afternoon visit” to distribute cigarettes on the Western Front before hurrying back to a rest billet. (8) Graves’s aspersions are followed by Gammage, and a tradition has begun to settle into a historical orthodoxy: Australian chaplains were shirkers who stayed away from the front lines. (9)

Gammage’s claim in The Broken Years is that the average digger “distrusted chaplains, and sometimes detested them, because he was an Australian, and because they were officers, enjoying the privileges of leaders but not the concomitant risks and responsibilities of battle”. This extraordinary assertion contrasts starkly with the evidence presented by Michael McKernon in Victoria at War, 1914-1918, that “dozens, if not hundreds” of Anglican priests and Protestant ministers volunteered for active service. (10) Precise statistics of Australian clergy who died or were wounded were not available at the time of McKernan’s writing, but in the British Army, 166 chaplains of all churches were killed in action, and 196 awards for bravery were awarded to Anglican chaplains. Altogether 450 chaplains were awarded the Military Cross, with 145 crosses and bars to Anglican chaplains alone. The Victoria Cross was awarded to three Church of England chaplains. The only winner of a double VC in the Great War was Noel Chavasse of the 1/10 King’s Liverpool Regiment, brother of an army chaplain and son of the then Bishop of Liverpool.(11)

In addition, recent research has challenged the conventional view of soldiers as “irreligious” as advanced by Gammage and Inglis in the wake of Graves’s characteristic mingling of fact and fiction. The historian Colin Bale has studied the First AIF soldiers’ service records in 1916 and 1918, including a list of the personal effects of soldiers killed in action. Bale’s samples reveal that two-thirds of the soldiers had among their personal effects prayer books, Bibles, hymn books, religious literature and such paraphernalia as rosaries and religious medallions. There is also a large body of chaplains’ accounts testifying to religious interest among the First AIF. Bale’s conclusion is that “significant numbers of soldiers appear to have been more interested in religion than has often been thought”. (12)

As for the assertion by Gammage and Inglis about the letters of the “average soldier” revealing lack of religion, personal belief is a subject many people dislike writing about. Many Britons and Australians, especially young males, were reserved and reluctant to write or talk publicly about things close to the heart. “As you know,” wrote one soldier to his wife, “I never did make a big show about being religious, but it is in my heart all the same.” (13)

Young people then did not write about physical sex either, a fact acknowledged by Gammage. Some questions are perhaps too profound to be raised in letters to relatives at home, and in any case, not a few diggers might have found it difficult to frame deepest feelings in words. We shall never know what the men on the Western Front really thought about religion, or what they did when they returned home.

We do know, however, that the diggers were members of Christian denominations; but where the evidence is plentiful Inglis is silent. Wartime bureaucracy provides plenty of evidence—in this case,

400,000 pieces of evidence—in soldiers’ and sailors’ enlistment documents. Over 90 per cent were at least nominally Christian. It seems strange that the diggers’ description of themselves as being Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, Anglican, or members of the Salvation Army is not mentioned in Sacred Places.

I have gone to some lengths to introduce the theme of textual and photographic prejudice in Inglis’s work, not to advance the absurd theory that thousands of Australian diggers were bypassed simply because their monuments are inside churches, but to point out the cumulative effect on the reader of these large-scale omissions. It is scarcely credible that such a distinguished scholar as Professor Inglis would have forgotten to check memorials to the fallen inside churches. Assembling his influential work took several decades and he is not known to suffer lapses of memory.

Continuing the same theme in his final contribution on war memorials in Tom Frame’s Anzac Day Then and Now, which was published the year before his death, Inglis draws attention to a church spire and cricket stumps in a window of the National War Memorial in Canberra. As for Melbourne and Sydney he remarks, “I found little or no more of Christianity in [these] monuments of Anzac” than in a verse by the non-religious wartime versifier C.J. Dennis. The shrines, Inglis says, are not Christian but ancient Greek in architecture and iconography. (14) Actually, the inspiration for the ziggurat profile of Melbourne’s Shrine of Remembrance is not ancient Greek but Mesopotamian, the ziggurat being one of the familiar devices of the Art Deco movement.

Finding “little or no more” of religion, Inglis fell short of observing that not only religion, but Australian flora and fauna too, are completely missing. Of wattles and banksias, kangaroos, wombats and echidnas there is no trace. The reason may be that in its lack of embellishment, the architecture of Art Deco achieves its effect through streamlining and simplicity. Inglis seems also to miss the point that, seen from above, the Melbourne Shrine of Remembrance is shaped in the form of a massive cross, which is at least suggestive.

Visiting Sydney’s Anzac Memorial in Hyde Park, Inglis noted the bronze figure of a naked warrior lying on a shield supported by mother, wife and sister. He avoided saying that the fallen soldier’s outstretched arms are lying across a sword which bears the shape and proportions of a Christian cross. To separate the memorial even further from Christianity, he said the observer is “required to look down, not up as in a Christian building”, that is, the Anzac Memorial is the reverse of Christian worship.(15) This is thin and tenuous. In Catholic and Anglican churches, the congregation looks upwards to the altar, but in most Protestant churches the Holy Table is situated more or less at the same level as the worshippers.

Going on to survey the inscriptions on war memorials in general, Inglis draws attention to some that include God but on the whole he distances the inscriptions from their scriptural roots; he says that the Bible was “not widely used as a source-book for inscriptions”. (16) He may indeed be right, but he had to stretch facts in one case. The inscription on the floor of Melbourne’s Shrine of Remembrance contains the words “Greater Love Hath no Man” (17)—which, says Inglis, is “a statement unlike anything Jesus ever said”—an incorrect assertion, for the words are recorded as coming exactly from Jesus’s own lips in the so-called Farewell Discourses (John 15:13). One which came from the Bible was “Their Name Liveth for Evermore” first proposed by Rudyard Kipling, followed quickly by the observation that Kipling was “not an orthodox Christian”. (18) Unorthodox may be true but the inspiration for many of Kipling’s most memorable lines came straight from the King James Bible, such as “Recessional”:

Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget, lest we forget.

Or his inscription on the tomb of the unknown soldier: “Known unto God”.

As for Mansfield and Moses’s portrayals of Canon Garland, let’s assume Inglis is right, that Australian Anzac commemorations were spontaneous and the Queensland commemorations were no precedent. (19) And Inglis may indeed be correct in saying that the initiating of Anzac services and war memorials outside Queensland was spontaneous, owing little or nothing to an Anglican priest. This is consistent with Inglis’s position that the churches played virtually no part in the war memorial movement or the formation of Anzac Day ceremonial. On the other hand, Garland’s status as “the architect of Anzac Day” may still be valid. Other forms of commemoration were attempted during the First World War and beyond, but in the end it was the model advanced by Garland and others that was accepted around the country.

 

 

The conclusion to be drawn from Sacred Places must be that Queensland’s Anzac evolution, through the efforts of military chaplains and other clerics and laymen led by Garland, was an isolated event in no way echoed elsewhere. Coupled with the text’s failure to admit the existence of memorials in churches—with the exception of two paragraphs in 500 pages—one is driven to conclude that the omissions are deliberate.

So what’s going on here? Perhaps Inglis’s lack of sympathy with churches is political. It is possible that a tendency to play down Anglicanism in particular may have its roots in a politically-based hostility to churches. Perhaps churches are seen as part of a system of imperial power? Like many other young undergraduates at Melbourne University in the late 1940s, Inglis was enrolled in the Student Christian Movement (SCM). He was also a co-founder of the University’s ALP Club.(20) Being moderately left-leaning and having a liberal theological base, the membership of SCM included some with socialist leanings, notable among whom were the anthropologist Camilla Wedgwood and the Anglo-Catholic priest Frank Coaldrake.

But “socialism” did not describe the political leanings of the mainstream Anglican church, and it has been said that at times the church allowed itself to be identified too closely with capitalists and the middle classes. This may possibly have helped produce a jaundiced outlook in the author of Sacred Places and his circle.

On the other hand, Melbourne University ALP Club members, including Inglis, would have been well aware that among the city’s Anglicans there were significant pockets of socialist influence. Both Coaldrake and Wedgwood were on the Criminal Investigation Branch (CIB) list of those suspected of communist sympathies. (21) So was Farnham Maynard, vicar of St Peter’s Eastern Hill, whose lunchtime lectures at the university were once disrupted by hecklers said to have been inspired by the CIB. (22) In addition, the socialist sympathies of William Temple, Archbishop of York and of Canterbury (from 1928 to 1944) were well known. As a professor and vice-chancellor of the University of Papua New Guinea, Inglis would also have been aware of socialist experiments within the New Guinea Anglican mission which were sometimes labelled as “communist”.(23) In short, the words “Christian socialism” described a recognised variety of churchmanship within the Anglican spectrum.

The author of Sacred Places was regarded by his contemporaries with respect and affection. Why, then, did his charitable and self-effacing qualities give way to intolerance and obfuscation? Educated at the elite Melbourne High School, Inglis spent his youth in a lower-middle-class suburb. Until the 1960s, the tone of Melbourne’s wealthier suburbs was more “English” than either Brisbane’s or Sydney’s. As Barry Humphries and the urban historian Elizabeth Rushen among others have shown, the city and suburbs were sharply stratified.(24) Social snobbery was rife in Melbourne during the 1930s, and the Depression did nothing to erase this reality. Melbourne’s socio-economic landscape during the 1930s and 1940s is offered here only as background toning.

Since the appearance of Churches and the Working Classes in 1963 a mass of literature has arisen, which no one without experience could detect, which minimises the churches’ achievements and which leads its readers on by a process of editorial selection and deletion. This has been done with such skill that its effect has been virtually unnoticed by readers, including those sympathetic to religion.

In Inglis’s eyes Anzac ceremonial acquired a special significance through “the inability of suddenly bereaved people to draw adequate comfort from their traditional Christian faith”. (25) Inglis observes that organisers “might even keep clergymen off the platform altogether” (26), words evidently lost on Anzac Day organisers who continued to invite clergymen to the platform to say the prayers. On the centenary anniversary of the Gallipoli landing, the crowd who had gathered at Anzac Cove were led in prayer by the Catholic chaplain.

In his 1967 inaugural lecture as professor of history at the University of Papua New Guinea, Inglis said that balance and fair-mindedness should characterise historians’ treatment of religion. (27) This was especially so in the contested religious field of Papua New Guinea, where during the initial decade the university students came from heavily missionised areas. As professor of history, he gradually moved away from the ideal of fair-mindedness. From considering Christianity fifty years ago among the leading strands in the post-1915 commemoration of war dead, he moved in the direction of wiping the slate clean of the churches.

Inglis is probably right in implying that the first stirrings in 1916 towards a national Anzac commemoration did not come from Garland alone but had spontaneous origins in Australia, New Zealand and Britain. However, it is not Garland who matters but what Garland represents—and these are Inglis’s real bane: the churches. By his selections and omissions, his reader is left to draw the conclusion that religion in general and Christianity in particular are a purely private matter which needs to be kept out of the public domain as much as possible. It is permissible for sport, art and entertainment to be organised, but not religion. Inglis’s widespread and systematic prejudice towards churches culminates in the textual omitting of war memorials inside churches and the minimising of church leaders in the evolving of Anzac traditions. As a result Sacred Places is unbalanced.

 

David Wetherell is an Honorary Fellow in History at Deakin University in Geelong.

 

References

 

(1) Alan Atkinson, The Europeans in Australia, Oxford University Press 2004-16

 

(2) JA Moses and G.F. Davis, Anzac Day Origins Canon DJ Garland and Trans-Tasman Commemoration Barton books Canberra 2013, p.182-4.

 

(3) Wendy Mansfield, “Garland, David John 1864-1939” Australian Dictionary of Biography, Vol.8 1891-1939 Melbourne University Press, 1981, pp.619-20.

 

(4) JA Moses Anzac p.228-9

 

(5) KS Inglis, The Stuart Case, Melbourne University Press 1961 pp.41-51.

 

(6) Inglis, Sacred Places: War Memorials in the Australian Landscape Melbourne University Press, 1998, p.214.

 

(7) Bill Gammage, The Broken Years: Australian Soldiers in the Great War Penguin, Melbourne 1975 p.xiv

 

(8) Robert Graves, Goodbye to All That Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1982 p.158

 

(9) Gammage, Broken Years p.xiv

 

(10) Michael McKernan, Victoria at War; 1914-18, State Library and NewSouth Press, Sydney, 2014, p.72

 

(11) Michael Snape , God and the British Soldier: Religion and the British Army in the First and Second World Wars, Routledge, Milton Park, 2005 p.179; Terry Buckingham, “A Sacred Presence, a Holy Battle” in New Directions, London, November 2017, p.33

 

(12) Peter Bale, “‘In God We Trust’: The Impact of the Great War on Religious Belief” in Peter Bolt and Mark Thompson (eds) Donald Robinson Selected Works vol 3: Appreciation Australian Church Record, Sydney, 2008 p.303-14 at pp.304-7. See also Michael Gladwin, Captains of the Soul: A History of Australian Army Chaplains Big Sky, Melbourne, p.77.

 

(13) Snape, God, p.102-3

 

(14) Tom Frame, Anzac Day Then and Now NewSouth 2016, p.16

 

(15) Inglis, “The Anzac Tradition” in John Lack (ed) Anzac Remembered Selected writings of KSInglis Department of History University of Melbourne, 1998, pp.40-1.

 

(16) Inglis, Sacred Places p.193.

 

(17) Inglis Sacred Places p.193-4.

 

(18) Inglis Sacred Places p.211-12.

 

(19) Inglis to writer at Melbourne Shrine of Remembrance launch in 2005.

 

(20) Renate Howe, A Century of Influence: The Australian Student Christian Movement 1896–1996 University of New South Wales Press, Sydney, 2009, pp. 267-70.

 

(21) Howe, Century, p.267.

 

(22) Howe, Century, p.267

 

(23) David Hand, Modawa Papua New Guinea and Me Salpress, Port Moresby, 2002 p.132.

 

(24) Elizabeth Rushen, Bishopscourt Melbourne: Official Residence and Family Home Mosaic, Melbourne, p.145.

 

(25) Inglis, Sacred Places p.461

 

(26) Inglis, Sacred Places p.462

 

(27) K.S.Inglis, The Study of History in Papua and New Guinea, Inaugural Lecture by K.S. Inglis University of Papua and New Guinea, Port Moresby, 1967 pp.13-14.

 

 

Comments [11]

  1. en passant says:

    David,
    I struggled MANfully through this article to get to the point, but I am not sure I ever found it.

    I have a problem with gods & war, unless it is Odin, Thor, Shiva, Allah or any other psychopath dedicated to killing and sacrifice. I have never been able to reconcile the ‘peace & tranquility’ brigade with the blood and mayhem of the battlefield. It is frequently written by combat soldiers that those who are not afraid or do not pray during a battle are liars. This is probably true. However, in the aftermath, when the killing has stopped, but the blasted and broken bodies are evident I think it is equally probable that even more soldiers look at the carnage and reject god. In one of my favourite poems, the brilliant ‘The ANZAC on the Wall’ the death of her fiance caused one woman to reject god. Fiction? Yes, but knew one mother that fits that bill.
    “And Kathy never wed – a lonely spinster some found odd.
    She wouldn’t set foot in a church – she’d turned her back on God.”

    You mention that Graves’ autobiographical book contains errors of opinion. Perhaps he did show bias, but as a front line soldier on the spot (and who was wounded in action) I would consider he is more likely to be right and true than wrong.

    Now for your own biases: you state:
    “We do know, however, that the diggers were members of Christian denominations; but where the evidence is plentiful Inglis is silent. Wartime bureaucracy provides plenty of evidence—in this case,

    400,000 pieces of evidence—in soldiers’ and sailors’ enlistment documents. Over 90 per cent were at least nominally Christian.”

    Umm, you do know of course, that it was mandatory until the late 1960′s for every soldier to declare a religious category to be stamped on his ‘dog tags’ so on his glorious death the christians could be separated from the catholics and jews? In 1966 I flatly refused to have even the lowest category of NDP (Non-Denominational Protestant) on mine. I wanted either ‘A’-Atheist or ‘NR’-No religion. I got NPD (which I later flattened out with a hammer). I eventually got my NR, but I neither claim that it was because of my obstinacy or because I changed the ‘law’. A wave of NR’s were called up for National Service, so a new category was created.

    You also say: “… Kipling was “not an orthodox Christian …” He was like Cathy in the quote above. Kipling’s son John was killed in action at the Battle of Loos in September 1915, at the age of just 18. Kipling was emotionally devastated by the death of his son. John’s body was never found and Kipling was a changed man who was less enamoured by the church and god, even if he did continue to quote from the Bible.

    Finally, I never really found the point, because god s useless unless he provides all HIS side with impenetrable armour and devastating weapons to kill every enemy they meet, sort of like the current crop of vampire slayers. Cathy and Kipling should never have to grieve when some murdering maniac with his own god comes for them.

    “By his selections and omissions, his reader is left to draw the conclusion that religion in general and Christianity in particular are a purely private matter which needs to be kept out of the public domain as much as possible.” Sounds good to me, and that includes Halal, Sharia and criminal FGM.

    “Sacred Places is unbalanced.” That sounds like all religions to me …

    • Doubting Thomas says:

      And no doubt you, as I, were firmly briefed in your earliest days in the Service that the three taboo topics in the mess were religion,sex and politics. I cannot recall ever being aware of anyone’s religion unless and until I had a need to know, eg having to deal with casualty administration. Things may well have been different in the Army, but in the RAAF during my time (late 60s-early 90s) the purpose of having the appropriate religion on members’ records and dog tags was for the benefit of the next of kin rather than your to me somewhat cynical aim of separating Christians from the Catholics and the Jews. There may be an element of that, particularly in our modern “diverse” ADF. But the RAAF felt it important to ensure that the officer tasked to call upon and officially notify the next of kin of a casualty was accompanied, as required by firmly laid down RAAF casualty procedures, by a chaplain of an appropriate religion. The attitudes of the next of kin to religion should not be assumed or treated lightly. Imagine the offence likely to be taken were a Jewish chaplain turn up to notify a Muslim next of kin of the loss of their son. Some fundamentalist Christians are equally offended by other Christian faiths.

      Be that as it may, it has been common knowledge around Canberra for many years that Inglis and, I believe, his wife Almirah Inglis were Communists. This may explain his attitude to religion.

      • en passant says:

        Thomas,
        I have never been able to take religion seriously since my schooldays in a religiously divided land where all ‘Proddie’ school uniforms were MANdated to be Blue or Grey & and all of the Catholic enemy uniforms had to be Brown or Green. I could spot the swine at 100 paces. Indoctrination in hatred from primary school. My answer was to declare no religion so I could fight with everybody. No discrimination.
        Your point about the Casualty Notification Procedure is valid, up to a point, but what you miss is that those with no religion or who are adherents to some weird sect either do not need a religious person – or are not able to have one of the few of their number. There are less than 200 muslims in the military spread across the continent and maybe deployed. They could easily be in 100 locations. Do we need 100 imams on call? The same for Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and Pentecostals? Methinks the safest course is that nobody at all with a religious inclination should be on the first contact.

        In 1968, as Duty Officer I took a posse to the home of a soldier and informed his wife that he had been seriously injured, but would survive. We stayed with her for a couple of hours until the welfare, chaplain and others arrived and we could go back to the Duty Room. The aim was to get the news to the NoK before they heard it from someone else or the TV news.

        In Townsville, two of my own officers had to visit my home to tell my wife that I was in hospital after having exited an RAAF C-130 at considerable height and before it landed. She made them a cup of tea and calmed them down …

        • Doubting Thomas says:

          Serves you right, ep! Anyone stupid enough to jump out of a perfectly serviceable aeroplane more than three feet off the ground deserves everything he gets. Any woman who marries such a man has my deepest sympathy.

          • en passant says:

            Thomas,
            You have obviously never felt the thrill of leaping into space and thinking WTF have I just done?

            You are not the first to sympathize with my wife. At our celebration of four decades of marriage one guest mused that as she approached the Pearly Gates St Peter asked her why she thought she should be allowed in given that she had murdered her husband with an axe.

            ‘He was En Passant’, she replied.

            “Go right in’ said St Peter, and collect your Sainthood from the angel over there …

            I love good humour and am looking forward to the next four decades together …

    • whitelaughter says:

      Given Christians are over half the population, (62% at the last *real* census) and atheists 2% (no, not 30%, that figure includes ‘none of your business’, ‘don’t care’ and ‘what does my horoscope say?’), why don’t we have 25-31 times as many rants about the evils of atheism as rants about the evils of the church?
      All sorts of possible answers…especially regarding the average maturity levels of both groups.

  2. whitelaughter says:

    I take it this Inglis twerp has never heard of ‘fighting Mac’?

  3. LBLoveday says:

    In the Dawn Service I attended this year in an overseas Australian Consulate, the Prayer of Remembrance was omitted dy decision of the Consul-General (on instructions from Minister Bishop??).

    I checked with 3 ex-army mates and it was included at Forbes, Queanbeyan and Brisbane, as it was at the informal Service at my “local”, later on, at 10:30, followed by “bar’s open”; one mate, a non-church goer, went as far as to call the omission a “sacrilege”.
    Parliament is opened with The Lord’s Prayer, people are sworn in on The Bible – you don’t have to pray along, or believe any more than you have to agree with the ever-present “acknowledgement of country” – just stand mutely showing respect to those who do, and those who died believing, so why must bureaucrats attack seemingly every part of our heritage, tradition, values?

    Kipling was admitted to Freemasonry as a 20 year old and continued to attend meetings for much of his life in a number of Lodges. While “God” is, to me at least, a nebulous term, Kipling had to profess a belief in a Supreme Being before being admitted and subsequently repeatedly affirmed that belief. That will do me as strongly suggesting he was a committed believer in “God”, whether enamoured or not.

  4. LBLoveday says:

    In the Dawn Service I attended this year in an overseas Australian Consulate, the Prayer of Remembrance was omitted by decision of the Consul-General (on instructions from Minister Bishop??).

    I checked with 3 ex-army mates and it was included at Forbes, Queanbeyan and Brisbane, as it was at the informal Service at my “local”, later on, at 10:30, followed by “bar’s open”; one mate, a non-church goer, went as far as to call the omission a “sacrilege”.
    Parliament is opened with The Lord’s Prayer, people are sworn in on The Bible – you don’t have to pray along, or believe any more than you have to agree with the ever-present “acknowledgement of country” – just stand mutely showing respect to those who do, and those who died believing, so why must bureaucrats attack seemingly every part of our heritage, tradition, values?

    Kipling was admitted to Freemasonry as a 20 year old and continued to attend meetings for much of his life in a number of Lodges. While “God” is, to me at least, a nebulous term, Kipling had to profess a belief in a Supreme Being before being admitted and subsequently repeatedly affirmed that belief. That will do me as strongly suggesting he was a committed believer in “God”, whether enamoured or not.

  5. Doubting Thomas says:

    En passant, a couple of years after I joined the RAAF in my mid-20s (as an air traffic controller), an open invitation to undergo parachute training was circulated in routine orders. I applied but was disqualified for some physical reason, too tall if I remember correctly, or too heavy. But I did the best I could being strapped into an ejector seat a few times (for famil flights in a Vampire, a Macchi and ultimately a dual Mirage). It’s always fun to listen carefully to the pre-flight briefing as to how and when to eject, with the closing advice from the pilot who usually says words to the effect “I will call ‘EJECT, EJECT, EJECT’. Don’t ask questions because I won’t be here to answer them”. Good fun.