Alan Cox celebrates the queen [LWN.net]

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 8, 2012 23:55 UTC (Fri) by yokem_55 (subscriber, #10498) [Link] (11 responses)

For American readers, I believe it should be made clear, that the political affiliation that Alan Cox is referring to is not the American party of the same name, but rather refers to the belief that the UK head of state should not be an unelected monarch.

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 9, 2012 13:17 UTC (Sat) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link] (4 responses)

And for those who never paid much attention in history class, it's worth making clear that the UK (well, roughly the same political entity but not yet under that name) actually already tried this once, executing Charles I and creating a republic which lasted about a decade until Charles II (the dead king's heir) was installed.

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 11, 2012 14:42 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

It wasn't much of a republic though, having a Protector for life who was treated with similar degrees of deference as the king used to be, and who passed on his position (briefly) to his son.

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 11, 2012 15:05 UTC (Mon) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link] (2 responses)

Indeed, and our short republican period for some odd reason was called "The Commonwealth", not to be confused with the Commonwealth of Nations which our current Queen Liz heads, population 2.1 x 10**9.

Whatever the rational logic of becoming a republic, Oliver Cromwell wasn't any fun, no-one seems to want a President Blair, Brown, Thatcher or Major either and losing our .uk (United Kingdom) addresses and domains would be unthinkable. And having a term of office so far equal to those of 11 US Presidents ain't bad.

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 11, 2012 17:19 UTC (Mon) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link]

our short republican period for some odd reason was called "The Commonwealth"

"Commonwealth" was an attempt to create an English word that had the same approximate meaning as the Latin "Republic". The "common" in commonwealth is obviously meant to be the same as the "public" in republic. The "wealth" is from an older, more general meaning of good rather than specifically money. So a commonwealth is a government devoted to the common good, rather than to the advancement of the few or the one as in an oligarchic or monarchic system.

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 14, 2012 16:43 UTC (Thu) by ceplm (subscriber, #41334) [Link]

Notice how many states of USA (yes, USA used to be a plural) are called Commonwealth today (e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts).

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 9, 2012 13:38 UTC (Sat) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (5 responses)

I think the whole 'Queen' part gave it away, honestly.

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 9, 2012 15:04 UTC (Sat) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link] (4 responses)

... says drag.

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 9, 2012 15:57 UTC (Sat) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

Weird. I thought my name was there right above the post.

But thanks for pointing it out, I guess.

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 9, 2012 16:12 UTC (Sat) by cry_regarder (subscriber, #50545) [Link] (2 responses)

:-) Guess he didn't get it -- or he's playin it

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 10, 2012 1:23 UTC (Sun) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link] (1 responses)

I'm fairly confident he didn't get the joke. In that a guy in drag is a queen.

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 12, 2012 13:31 UTC (Tue) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

you are right. Too many levels confused me for a moment.

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 9, 2012 1:20 UTC (Sat) by pr1268 (guest, #24648) [Link]

CLASSIC!!

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 9, 2012 8:13 UTC (Sat) by oever (guest, #987) [Link]

At BoingBoing, someone has removed Alan from the picture:
http://boingboing.net/2012/06/06/the-luvilee-jubilee-underwhel.html

This is the picture hat Linus posted:
http://cache.gmane.org//gmane/linux/kernel/1310239-001.bin

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 9, 2012 13:45 UTC (Sat) by jensend (guest, #1385) [Link] (2 responses)

With the not-yet-merged GIMP matting tool/RCGJAN fork (foreground extraction with better edge detail refinement and automatic alpha adjustment, especially noticeable with hair) this could have been made quite convincing without spending any extra time on the joke.

https://github.com/rggjan/gegl-global-matting
https://github.com/rggjan/Gimp-Matting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkQ1r5g49d4

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 9, 2012 16:02 UTC (Sat) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link] (1 responses)

One can do much better with the Gimp already, but making it too realistic would defeat the purpose.

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 10, 2012 21:13 UTC (Sun) by pboddie (guest, #50784) [Link]

Indeed. Pasting a "V for Vendetta" Guy Fawkes mask onto the image would be amusing, too, but that would of course be in honour of a different Alan.

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 10, 2012 6:54 UTC (Sun) by jd (guest, #26381) [Link] (50 responses)

It is worth remembering that in Saxon times, the king -was- elected, by the Wittengamot. This served the same role, and was formed in much the same way, as the American Electoral College. It is only since 1066 that Britain's monarch has not been elected.

I do not agree with tradition for the sake of it, nor the abolition of tradition for the sake of it, especially when both sides are happy to ignore a few hundred years of tradition that inconveniently demonstrates that the notion that a conflict even exists is merely Cromwellian FUD.

I'd love to see a systematic analysis of the arguments and of the options available. We benchmark everything else, we parametrize everything else, why not approach monarchy the same way we approach every other issue?

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 10, 2012 11:53 UTC (Sun) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link] (49 responses)

I don't think there are any practical effects one way or another. If Britain became a republic, the president would be like India's president -- essentially an elected queen/king (indirectly elected, in India's case), a symbolic head of state who does not actually govern -- rather than like the US president. The system of government would not change. The whole debate is about symbolism. The symbolism, too, has greater resonance in countries like Australia where, in theory, the people do owe allegiance to a foreign Queen even today.

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 10, 2012 13:18 UTC (Sun) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link] (41 responses)

There are _some_ practical effects. The present monarch has done a very good job of staying neutral. She doesn't have to explain herself since she is unelected anyway -- so she can calmly decline interviews, and choose to avoid conflict. For example, the Queen as an adult British national can vote in the UK (in both local and parliamentary elections) but she chooses never to do so.

An elected president would by definition be more divisive. Some people would have voted for the current president and others would not. To attract support from the electorate the president would have to stand for some things, and against others. So that's a very serious change from the (modern) monarchy.

Now, the successor to the throne presents a problem. Right now, as merely Prince of Wales, he is known for constant meddling. If he doesn't stop doing that when enthroned he's no better than an elected president, and arguably worse. But of course whether he'll choose that course remains to be seen, which makes arguing against it a rather weak case for republicans.

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 10, 2012 13:37 UTC (Sun) by Kluge (subscriber, #2881) [Link] (11 responses)

"There are _some_ practical effects... An elected president would by definition be more divisive."

As rsidd points out, an unelected *English* (or, more accurately, German-English) queen is a divisive figure in locales where *English* rule is a point of contention. I suppose that's true of Australia, but it's clearly true of Scotland and Wales.

It's worth noting that Alan has spent a number of years learning Welsh.

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 10, 2012 15:21 UTC (Sun) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link] (1 responses)

Sorry, I thought we were talking about _practical_ things.

Wales hasn't been an independent entity for a _very_ long time. The rise of Welsh nationalism is a _modern_ phenomenon of exactly the sort of divisiveness I'm against. You understand why that exists right? It has the same purpose as Scottish or English nationalism. Define an "other" that can be the proxy enemy when the real problems are right at home, then rally people behind you in your imaginary fight against the "other" while secretly picking their pockets. Divide and conquer. That seemingly intelligent people continue to fall for it in the 21st century is a disappointment.

An elected president could no more be English AND Welsh AND Scottish AND Irish AND Cornish (and whatever other nationalist groupings you want) than they could be blonde, red-headed and dark-haired all at once, so they certainly can't make things any better on that front.

It's also waaay off topic for LWN.

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 10, 2012 15:29 UTC (Sun) by hummassa (guest, #307) [Link]

> It's also waaay off topic for LWN.

Yes it is. But anyway, I think th OP's point was that an elected president offers the opportunity to the population to rotate between a Welsh, a Scott, an Irish, etc. Not that in reality it would happen a lot; in practice, what tends to happen is that the hegemonic group elects their president much more often.

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 10, 2012 21:43 UTC (Sun) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link]

an unelected *English* (or, more accurately, German-English) queen is a divisive figure in locales where *English* rule is a point of contention

The incumbent queen is at least one quarter Scottish. When she came to the throne the big issue in Scotland was not that she had been crowned queen of Scots but that as far as the Scots are concerned she is Elizabeth I., not Elizabeth II. – the original (English) Elizabeth was before the union of the English and Scottish crowns. In the intervening 60 years they must have got used to this as EIIR postboxes are no longer being blown up in Scotland.

The Scots are traditionally less happy with the actual UK government in London – even though the last few prime ministers, including the current one, have all been Scots. As a matter of fact, if the Scottish National Party (SNP) succeeds in its current drive for Scottish independence, the plan is that an independent Scotland would still hang on to the queen (or whoever will be the monarch at the time), effectively going back to the state of affairs that existed between 1603 and 1707.

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 10, 2012 23:19 UTC (Sun) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (7 responses)

Let's be more accurate still ... a German-*NORMAN* queen.

The current system of monarchy is an alien practice imposed on the English by a foreign conqueror.

But anyway, most history is bunkum, anyway. I proudly wear the kilt, which to all intents and purposes is a Victorian invention ...

And as I like to put it, "the Saxons speak English, the Anglish speak Scots, and the Scots speak Gaelic". After all, "Sassenach" is a Scots word for an Angle, who lived in the lowlands with their capital in Edinburgh! And where is Scotia? You've all heard of Nova Scotia - New Scotland - but Scotia itself is Ireland!

The history we've all been fed is largely modern BS looking at the past with patriotic spectacles on. That's fine by me provided we see it for what it is, and not fight to defend what never was.

Cheers,
Wol

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 10, 2012 23:27 UTC (Sun) by jackb (guest, #41909) [Link] (6 responses)

Let's be more accurate still ... a German-*NORMAN* queen.

The current system of monarchy is an alien practice imposed on the English by a foreign conqueror.

Isn't European history basically several iterations of one group of Germans conquering lands that had previously been conquered by a different group of Germans several generations before?

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 11, 2012 7:42 UTC (Mon) by Im26 (subscriber, #48749) [Link]

Is that a prediction of how the Euro-zone is going to be sorted out?

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 11, 2012 8:36 UTC (Mon) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link] (3 responses)

You're over-simplifying. There are parts of Europe where we have had intermixed waves of Africans and Germans, sprinkled with a few Greeks and Celts here and there. That may explain why my country is such a mess.

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 11, 2012 11:26 UTC (Mon) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (2 responses)

Don't forget Romans, Mongols, various Slavic tribes, Finns and so on. It's a wonderful total mess.

Germans?

Posted Jun 13, 2012 23:18 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link] (1 responses)

Basically the history of Europe up until the 15th century is, much like in the rest of the world, a succession of waves of nomad people washing over a few established civilizations. The Alans and Visigoths that finished off the Roman empire were the successors of Gauls and Germans; these were later attacked (and sometimes conquered) by Huns, Berbers, Bulgars, Rus, Turks and Mongols. Most of them came from the vast Eurasian steppes; most occupied a piece of land and many were later conquered again.

After the Mongols (whose history is really astounding) there were few traditional tribes which could withstand organized armies with their newly acquired firepower, so then it was the turn of the Europeans to go elsewhere and wreak havoc on nomadic peoples (and sometimes civilized, like the Aztecs) worldwide. Germany did not acquire military preponderance again until the 20th Century, and there was a very long hiatus dominated basically by Spain, France and then England. In a couple of world wars the German military power was reduced to ashes, and then it was the turn of the US to try their hand at colonialism. Few true German conquests can be reported historically.

Germans?

Posted Jun 14, 2012 8:45 UTC (Thu) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]

> Few true German conquests can be reported historically.

Basically because when germans ruled they called themselves "romans" (funny, isn't it?): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 11, 2012 15:30 UTC (Mon) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link]

When my parents met in the German city where the Queen's family came from (Hannover) it was the other way around. Europe is pretty mixed these days and I can't think of any time in history when this wasn't so; most of the very recent, hardworking and welcome immigrants to my part of Coventry these days come from Poland and Romania.

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 10, 2012 17:18 UTC (Sun) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] (3 responses)

The Queen can vote in elections? The House of Commons is there to represent commoners, which pretty clearly does not include the king or queen. Only commoners can vote in elections to it. The Queen cannot.

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 10, 2012 17:56 UTC (Sun) by SEMW (guest, #52697) [Link]

You'd have thought so, but apparently the government position is that the Queen can legally vote, even though members of the House of Lords can't (the Queen isn't a member of the HoL, she's the third limb of Parliament). Which does seem a bit strange.

See e.g. http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs... ("The Queen can vote, but in practice it is considered unconstitutional for the Monarch to vote in an election" - by 'unconstitutional' they they mean a constitutional convention, not law).

There's a short article on it at http://goo.gl/Snvt8.

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 10, 2012 18:36 UTC (Sun) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link] (1 responses)

The House of Commons represents communities, not "commoners". For most of its history the majority of what you're calling "commoners" could not vote for an MP but Parliament took the view that these people were nonetheless represented by the MP for their local area and some members at least took this responsibility quite seriously.

Only in 1918 with that year's Representation of the People Act were the majority‡ of adult Britons finally eligible to _vote_ for a representative, and in the following months and years liberalisation continued until women could sit in both Houses, the voting age was equalised, and so on. The Act's provisions (as updated) have the effect that the Queen could, technically, vote.

‡ The total size of the electorate was slightly less than 50% of the population, but the population figures include children and other groups who are still disenfranchised today.

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 11, 2012 9:20 UTC (Mon) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]

I was using the word commoners to mean everyone who is not royal, part of the aristocracy or the Church. (historically priests could not vote either)

Queen and Popess (or "Mome"?)

Posted Jun 11, 2012 7:59 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link] (22 responses)

There are _some_ practical effects. The present monarch has done a very good job of staying neutral.

It goes a bit deeper than that. The English monarch has since Henry VIII been also Head of the Church of England, effectively destroying the separation of church and state. Even though the Church of England outwardly resembles the Catholic faith with a few distinctions (such as women priests), there is a big difference in that the highest authority is not elected by his peers as the Pope, but it is an hereditary role; the King or Queen appoints the Archbishop of Canterbury who in turn rules over the Church of England.

It is not just a theoretical distinction; attending Evensong at Westminster Abbey is quite eye-opening, as there are prayers dedicated to her; all Prime Ministers and Members of Parliament are blessed in the service. Imagine this happening in other countries like the US, France or even the Catholic countries. In Italy the separation of church and state went so far as to warrant a whole new state within a state.

I can understand why Alan Cox might dislike this state of affairs.

Queen and Popess (or "Mome"?)

Posted Jun 11, 2012 11:24 UTC (Mon) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (19 responses)

Yet it actually helps. By this time the official Church of England has degenerated into a set of meaningless rituals which are mostly kept as a tradition.

It's the reverse in the US. There's no state religion, but there are all these "In God we Trust" and "... under God" everywhere.

There are professed atheists in the UK parliament while there are non in the US Congress and Senate.

Queen and Popess (or "Mome"?)

Posted Jun 13, 2012 19:08 UTC (Wed) by price (guest, #59790) [Link] (18 responses)

Not quite true - Rep. Pete Stark, who represents a portion of the San Francisco Bay Area, is openly atheist. I'm not aware of any others, though.

Queen and Popess (or "Mome"?)

Posted Jun 13, 2012 19:11 UTC (Wed) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (16 responses)

He came out as atheist in 2007. So US seems to be slowly but surely moving into the modern world :)

Queen and Popess (or "Mome"?)

Posted Jun 14, 2012 13:56 UTC (Thu) by JamesErik (guest, #17417) [Link] (15 responses)

Faith is orthogonal to modernity, Cyberax.

Queen and Popess (or "Mome"?)

Posted Jun 14, 2012 14:13 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (14 responses)

Institutionalized requirements (written or unwritten) for faith, however, certainly are NOT orthogonal.

Queen and Popess (or "Mome"?)

Posted Jun 15, 2012 18:29 UTC (Fri) by JamesErik (guest, #17417) [Link] (13 responses)

As are institutionalized requirements *against* faith. OTOH, institutional *allowance* for faith (and its absence) is quite congruent with modernity. The question of how far the allowance extends is quite an interesting one. Compare some US evangelicals' advocacy for sponsored prayer in state schools to French secularists' banishment of religious attire in state schools. It is not unreasonable to conclude these fall fairly close to each other on the modernity continuum while being poles apart on the faith continuum.

Queen and Popess (or "Mome"?)

Posted Jun 15, 2012 23:01 UTC (Fri) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (12 responses)

There is exactly one example of officially atheistic country in the history. And it's not the USSR which was officially secular with freedom of religion.

Try to guess that country?

>Compare some US evangelicals' advocacy for sponsored prayer in state schools to French secularists' banishment of religious attire in state schools.
That is a good decision.

>It is not unreasonable to conclude these fall fairly close to each other on the modernity continuum while being poles apart on the faith continuum.
No they're not. There should be no religion in public schools, and that includes conspicuous and demeaning religious symbols.

Now, if atheists would demand to have equal time at any sermon or church service then it would be the same.

Officially atheistic country

Posted Jun 17, 2012 6:32 UTC (Sun) by jonasj (guest, #44344) [Link] (1 responses)

There is exactly one example of officially atheistic country in the history. And it's not the USSR which was officially secular with freedom of religion. Try to guess that country?

I've read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism and I still can't figure out which country you are referring to.

Officially atheistic country

Posted Jun 17, 2012 11:30 UTC (Sun) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism#People.27s_Soc... - that's technically the only country where atheism was the state religion officially (Cambodia during Khmer Rouge might be another example, but it's a bit hard to tell).

Even the USSR proclaimed freedom of religion in all of its Constitutions (there were several of them).

Queen and Popess (or "Mome"?)

Posted Jun 18, 2012 20:49 UTC (Mon) by JamesErik (guest, #17417) [Link] (9 responses)

Cyberax, it strikes me that you decry "written or unwritten" requirements for faith but then counter with arguments about "officially atheistic" countries. I think it'd be fairer to apply our arguments uniformly, so I'll stick with "unofficial" or "unwritten".

I posit that in public schools, banishment of religious attire is as much a regression of modernity (or nearly so) as sponsored prayer, though the former is done (falsely, IMO) in the name of modernity. Claiming "[t]here should be no religion in public schools" does not sufficiently distinguish between an individual's expression of faith and a state expression of faith.

Why on earth shouldn't students be free to wear a head-dress or yarmulke or "religion sucks" t-shirt or none or all three at once? Why on earth shouldn't a student be free to discuss her thoughts about spirituality? I find myself strongly disagreeing with you, Cyberax: it is most decidedly NOT "a good decision" to for a state deny students these freedoms.

OTOH, I suspect we're in agreement it is bad (or perhaps "not modern") to have the state impose a religious teaching. Hopefully that's all you meant by "no religion in public schools."

I must confess you've lost me a bit on your last point, though, Cyberax. Why is it okay for the state to compel a private organization to do anything of the sort? I'm wondering if you're from Europe where state churches were the historical norm? If so, I can see a modicum of merit in your claim in that the pulpit effectively was an extension of the state. Certainly in the US, the state has no say whatsoever in how religious groups conduct themselves. (Not entirely true, but close enough for the purposes of this discussion.)

Queen and Popess (or "Mome"?)

Posted Jun 18, 2012 23:14 UTC (Mon) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (8 responses)

I never said that suppression of religion is good. It's bad simply because:
1) Free society should respect beliefs its members.
2) It makes religion look like a victim.

>Claiming "[t]here should be no religion in public schools" does not sufficiently distinguish between an individual's expression of faith and a state expression of faith.
Nope. Others should not be forced to be subjected to your faith symbols.

What if my faith demands that my children carry a freshly chopped cat head on their backpacks? Will it be OK?

How about visual depictions of Satanists' orgies? You know that Satanism is a real religion, right?

Would a ritual animal sacrifice during lunch hour be OK?

Queen and Popess (or "Mome"?)

Posted Jun 19, 2012 1:00 UTC (Tue) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link] (2 responses)

>>Claiming "[t]here should be no religion in public schools" does not sufficiently distinguish between an individual's expression of faith and a state expression of faith.

> I never said that suppression of religion is good.

> Nope. Others should not be forced to be subjected to your faith symbols.

Woah, those are contradictory statements, you can't be free of other peoples faith symbols unless you engage in severe suppression of religion. Everyone has to deal with the fact that everyone else isn't exactly like them and has different ideas, different looks, different values. The only time there should be conflict is where acts cause clear, definable, measurable harm. I don't see how the display of simple religious symbols or choice of clothing can possibly reach the bar of causing harm.

Queen and Popess (or "Mome"?)

Posted Jun 19, 2012 7:26 UTC (Tue) by xaoc (guest, #54140) [Link]

You cannot see how the simple religious symbol of a man nailed to a cross, depicting an old torturous execution technique, can possibly cause a harm?

Oh and he is often wearing a thorn crown as if the nailing is not enough of a torture.

Queen and Popess (or "Mome"?)

Posted Jun 19, 2012 10:39 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]

We're talking about religious symbols that are not merely "different" (nobody cares about Asatru hammers or that nice Wicca pentacles). Hijabs and burquas are used RIGHT NOW as instruments of subjugation of women.

That's not some theory or wild guess, that's a simple fact. Not all religious symbols are equal.

Queen and Popess (or "Mome"?)

Posted Jun 19, 2012 2:59 UTC (Tue) by viro (subscriber, #7872) [Link] (3 responses)

> What if my faith demands that my children carry a freshly chopped cat head on their backpacks? Will it be OK?

Unsanitary - you'll end up with sticky mess all over the place. Hazmat regs exist for a good reason. Incidentally, you'll have serious trouble with animal cruelty laws almost anywhere, school or no school. No idea what those are .ru and .ua these days, but back in .su times I'd expect at least "zlostnoe huliganstwo w obschestwennyh mestah" to stick, pardon the pun.

> How about visual depictions of Satanists' orgies?

Who cares? If sufficiently distracting, you'll run into school regs against _that_, be it a Satanist orgy or a secular one.

> You know that Satanism is a real religion, right?

*shrug*
A pile of boring graphomania, but then so are Hubbard's writings, religious or not. Again, who cares?

> Would a ritual animal sacrifice during lunch hour be OK?

The same mix of hazmat regs and animal cruelty laws, probably. Depends on what's being sacrificed - I'd expect e.g. chanting "death to E.coli, death by millions" while washing your hands to get you very weird looks, but I doubt that it'll get you in more serious trouble than that...

I really don't get it - as far as I'm concerned, one can come to school with e.g. a copy of "Materialism and Empiriocriticism"[1] hanging on a chain off their neck and as long as they don't try to recite that junk in physics class, they shouldn't get in trouble.

[1] for those lucky enough to have missed that, ah, glorious achievement of human thought, that was the one and only claim of V.I.Lenin to being a serious philosopher. Unfortunately, he had chosen theoretical physics as the area to shed his light on. Of course, he had no fscking clue on said area, but when had that stopped any philosopher? Resulting drivel had been preserved as part of .su state religion and ritually quoted - often enough in forewords to physics textbooks, of all places...

Queen and Popess (or "Mome"?)

Posted Jun 19, 2012 10:37 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (2 responses)

>Unsanitary - you'll end up with sticky mess all over the place.
Seal it into clear plastic. Would it still be OK?

>Who cares? If sufficiently distracting, you'll run into school regs against _that_, be it a Satanist orgy or a secular one.
Irrelevant. My religion demands orgies, why should 'school regs' be superior to my freedom of religion? Otherwise, we can agree that 'school regs' can just as well ban other religious symbols.

>The same mix of hazmat regs and animal cruelty laws, probably.
Cutting heads off chicken is perfectly OK. That's how they are usually slaughtered at farms. Again, it can be made sanitary (put a chicken into an airtight bag and break its neck). Would it be OK?

>I really don't get it - as far as I'm concerned, one can come to school with e.g. a copy of "Materialism and Empiriocriticism"[1] hanging on a chain off their neck and as long as they don't try to recite that junk in physics class, they shouldn't get in trouble.
The problem is, we're not talking about a book hanging off a chain. We're talking about hijabs and burquas which are used predominantly as an instrument of subjugation.

Queen and Popess (or "Mome"?)

Posted Jun 19, 2012 19:09 UTC (Tue) by viro (subscriber, #7872) [Link] (1 responses)

>>Unsanitary - you'll end up with sticky mess all over the place.
>Seal it into clear plastic. Would it still be OK?

Modulo aforementioned animal cruelty laws *and* the odds of that thing being splattered all over the place when your little darling hits the classmate with the bookbag - sure.

>>Who cares? If sufficiently distracting, you'll run into school regs >>against _that_, be it a Satanist orgy or a secular one.
>Irrelevant. My religion demands orgies, why should 'school regs' be >superior to my freedom of religion? Otherwise, we can agree that 'school >regs' can just as well ban other religious symbols.

They can and do, insofar as said symbols disrupt the class. Religion is irrelevant here - you need a valid secular reason for restriction. Pictures of e.g. copulating pairs do have an unfortunate effect on the average teenager's ability to pay attention to anything else, regardless of the reason for said copulation.

Freedom of religion does *not* mean that laws get suspended; human sacrifices are going to get you tried and convinced for murder. You are still required to follow laws or suffer the penalties for breaking them; any other obligations you might believe to have do not free you from those. If you can't satisfy both - tough. But the laws (including the local regulations covering acceptable appearance in schools) should be religion-free.

> >The same mix of hazmat regs and animal cruelty laws, probably.
> Cutting heads off chicken is perfectly OK. That's how they are usually
> slaughtered at farms. Again, it can be made sanitary (put a chicken
> into an airtight bag and break its neck). Would it be OK?

Umm... ever dealt with live chicken? They shit when excited... IOW, I very much doubt that what you've described would be sanitary; other than that I really see no problem.

>The problem is, we're not talking about a book hanging off a chain. We're
>talking about hijabs and burquas which are used predominantly as an
>instrument of subjugation.

You mean to say that your sodding religion was *not* used as instrument of subjugation? Really? Because I remember differently and I'd been born and raised in Soviet Union. I don't know where you are from; I'm from Leningrad, born in 1972. Care to tell me how I would've been free to say what I thought of dialectics[1]? Or of Engels' pseudoscience around the history of our species ("Origin of family, private property and state"; starting with the impact of labour in evolution of hominids, followed by the oh-so-lovely treatment of historical inevitability of something similar to humans developing in the first place). Or of hist-mat and falsifiability of its predictions. Or any other pieces of idiocy in that pile of intellectual offal. And that was 80s; thirty years earlier the consequences would've been much uglier.

[1] Hegel's examples of contradictions had a lot to do with the contemporary mess in analysis; by the middle of 19th century the confusion around the different definitions of convergence had been already sorted out, TYVM, turning those into trivial "if we are seeing contradictions in an area, we probably have similar confusion there and it might be a good indicator of an area in need of attention". But then Engels had very weird views on math in general (c.f. his, er, interesting objections to complex numbers on ideological grounds)...

Time to move on?

Posted Jun 19, 2012 19:26 UTC (Tue) by jake (editor, #205) [Link]

It seems to me that perhaps we have wandered just a tad off-topic for LWN at this point. How about we leave "freedom of religion" and related topics to more appropriate forums?

thanks,

jake

Queen and Popess (or "Mome"?)

Posted Jun 19, 2012 19:31 UTC (Tue) by JamesErik (guest, #17417) [Link]

You're making up religions to fit your point, Cyberax.

"Subjecting others to your religious symbols [paraphrased]". I can hardly believe you're serious. Are you ever even around kids? The "other" students you're so keen to defend are more capable than you give them credit for: they're more than apt to just shrug it off, or maybe ask somebody about it, or maybe even make fun of it. I'm around kids a great deal, and I assure you they don't need such defending, Cyberax. They would in fact be the poorer for it.

As far as the red herrings of cat's heads and lunchtime rituals, there are rules aplenty to cover those, as raven667 has said. Honestly, such rules could reasonably cover graphic depictions of crucifixion without religion per se coming into play at all. As you've noted, not all religious symbols are equal, but the great majority of them are not graphic.

Lastly, in "modern" societies, we should widely proclaim from the rooftops how the subjugated can be freed from their subjugation. We should earnestly help when they come to us seeking to get out of harmful situations. In the meantime--all the while we are proclaiming--we should show others respect by letting them make their own choices.

Queen and Popess (or "Mome"?)

Posted Jun 14, 2012 8:58 UTC (Thu) by steven676 (subscriber, #41893) [Link]

Yes, he is (I believe) the only publically atheist federal-level politician in the country.

Shame that he's gone completely off his rocker in his old age ...

(Disclaimer: Rep. Stark is my congressman until California's redrawn congressional districts take effect after the November elections.)

Queen and Popess (or "Mome"?)

Posted Jun 14, 2012 21:52 UTC (Thu) by samroberts (subscriber, #46749) [Link] (1 responses)

The queen is a symbolic ruler, with no control over political policy. Who cares where she goes to church, its like in God We Trust on US bills, weird historical baggage that is ignored by almost everybody.

Its actual (not symbolic) political roles becoming intertwined with religion that is shocking. Like presidential prayer breakfasts in the US's Whitehouse. That kind of behaviour wouldn't be tolerated in most other secular states.

Queen and Popess (or "Mome"?)

Posted Jun 15, 2012 11:09 UTC (Fri) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link]

By virtue of being the state religion the Church of England holds 26 seats in the House of Lords, a body whose power is not purely symbolic.

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 11, 2012 14:45 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (1 responses)

Now, the successor to the throne presents a problem. Right now, as merely Prince of Wales, he is known for constant meddling.

I have a bit of sympathy for this, even though I disagree with almost every position he has ever taken. His meddling in architecture in particular is understandable: he wanted to be an architect but was forced instead to spend his entire working life waiting for his mother to die. (His meddling in various appalling forms of sometimes-lethal alternative medicine is less forgivable.)

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 13, 2012 22:43 UTC (Wed) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

Knowing a fair bit about medicine (if my career had gone according to plan I would have been a doctor, not a programmer), I think there are plenty of doctors out there whose forms of medicine are pretty lethal ...

At the end of the day, it is normal for people to believe they are omniscient, and plenty of doctors fall foul of that malady. imho Prince Charles is often a voice of sanity in a mad world of (at least in the UK not outright) marketing lies.

Cheers,
Wol

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 10, 2012 19:07 UTC (Sun) by juliank (guest, #45896) [Link] (4 responses)

> has greater resonance in countries like Australia where,
> in theory, the people do owe allegiance to a foreign Queen even today.

Legally the Australian Queen is in fact distinct. They're both the same, but they're legally different entities.

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 10, 2012 21:05 UTC (Sun) by Jonno (guest, #49613) [Link] (3 responses)

As a notable anecdote, Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith has never visited Australia¹, but Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth made a state visit to the United Kingdoms in 2003, during which she dedicated the Australian War Memorial in Hyde Park, London.

1: Of course Elizabeth Alexandra Mary of Windsor has made several visits to Australia, but always in capacity of the Queen of Australia coming home, never as the Queen of the United Kingdom visiting.

Also worth noting is that each of sixteen different monarchies of which Elizabeth the Second is queen all have separate succession orders, under the purview of sixteen different parliaments. To my knowledge they are all currently identical, but that may change at any time.

succession planning

Posted Jun 11, 2012 10:32 UTC (Mon) by alex (subscriber, #1355) [Link] (2 responses)

I believe a recent meeting of the commonwealth started discussions to synchronise succession rules for the abandonment of male-preference primogeniture.

succession planning

Posted Jun 12, 2012 13:50 UTC (Tue) by ortalo (guest, #4654) [Link] (1 responses)

That sounds like an interesting playground for testing new kind of synchronization primitives.
I suppose they could go first via mutex, but maybe copy-on-write might be interesting for them especially with the latest development in genetics (though I wonder if, legally, cloning would be taken as a succession issue?).

succession planning

Posted Jun 14, 2012 11:43 UTC (Thu) by fghorow (subscriber, #5229) [Link]

ROTFL! +100

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 11, 2012 16:00 UTC (Mon) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link]

I think that the royal family is great for marketing. Last time I was in London, every gift shop was full of mugs, umbrellas, postcards, etc. with the picture of the Queen, of one of the princes, their spouses, etc. I've seen similar effect, but on a much lower scale in Stockholm with the Swedish royal family. You can't really do that with presidents, especially when people like these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pál_Schmitt) are elected...

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 18, 2012 6:33 UTC (Mon) by cas (guest, #52554) [Link]

has greater resonance in countries like Australia where, in theory, the people do owe allegiance to a foreign Queen even today.

not quite true. we have our own queen (and i don't think anyone here seriously thinks we "owe allegiance" to her....to us she's mostly just an excuse for a parade on the rare occasion she comes to visit). it's just a coincidence that the Queen of Australia also happens to have another title as the Queen of England.

and it's no stranger that we have a German queen who lives in England than it is that the English have a German queen to begin with.

FWIW, I'm temperamentally/politically a republican but pragmatically a monarchist (actually an i-don't-care-ist) - it's not worth the cost and expense of getting a new head of state and calling them President rather Queen or King. And it is *most emphatically* not worth the risk that we'd get a President who thinks s/he has some sort of mandate to do things and get involved rather than just be a mostly-irrelevant figurehead whose sole day-to-day job is signing legislation passed by Parliament, meeting foreign Heads of State etc, opening hospitals, visiting orphanages, attending functions and the like.

In short, what we have now is mostly harmless and there's no compelling reason to change. Given that I think "national pride" is jingoistic bullshit - propaganda designed to sucker the working and middle classes into working harder for (and occasionally going off to war to die for) the ruling classes - I don't consider that to be a valid, let alone compelling, reason.

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 11, 2012 14:27 UTC (Mon) by jonabbey (guest, #2736) [Link] (7 responses)

Who knew LWN had so many brit-hist geeks?

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 11, 2012 14:59 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (6 responses)

The UK not-a-constitution and the formal rules surrounding the top ranks (both theoretical and actual) are such a wonderful example of a functioning mature system, a pile of semioverlapping crufty hacks piled on top of each other yet somehow still operating, often by consciously choosing never to use the bits that would break if tugged on. It's a perfect metaphor for most modern software.

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 11, 2012 17:16 UTC (Mon) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link] (5 responses)

Ya, for example today I learned about a brilliant hack in British legislation.

In 1978 they passed a act which said that even if you repeal an act of parliament, you can continue to use any shorter names for acts which were contained in the repealed act. Then, they repealed various acts whose only purpose was to assign shorter names to other acts. In the same 1978 act it says you can't "un-repeal" laws by repealing the act which repealed them, and thanks to that rule they were able to repeal all the acts which had existed just to repeal long obsolete laws, leaving just the acts which still have some sort of effect, now with nice short names.

This approach reminds me very much of shell incantations which end with...

| sh | sh

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 11, 2012 22:17 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

So do repealment Acts now contain a clause that repeals the repealment Acts themselves, for maximum efficiency?

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 12, 2012 13:55 UTC (Tue) by ortalo (guest, #4654) [Link] (3 responses)

Could you explain me again what '|sh |sh' does please?

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 12, 2012 16:34 UTC (Tue) by nybble41 (subscriber, #55106) [Link]

> Could you explain me again what '|sh |sh' does please?

It takes the output of some command and runs it as a script (piping it through the shell), and then takes the output of that script and runs it through the shell again. Two layers of shell indirection.

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 12, 2012 19:11 UTC (Tue) by hummassa (guest, #307) [Link] (1 responses)

> Could you explain me again what '|sh |sh' does please?

simple example:

h@off:~$ echo echo echo oi |sh |sh
oi

(the outermost echo echoes "echo echo oi", which when ran thru sh echoes "echo oi", which when ran thru sh echoes "oi")...

h@off:~$ echo echo echo oi
echo echo oi
h@off:~$ echo echo echo oi |sh
echo oi
h@off:~$ echo echo echo oi |sh |sh
oi

Alan Cox celebrates the queen

Posted Jun 14, 2012 2:28 UTC (Thu) by jzbiciak (guest, #5246) [Link]

I came here to write almost the identical example, only with "echo echo echo bah | sh | sh". Also, I thought about making a joke about grumpy librarians writing shell scripts, but thought better of it. ;-)

And then there's the (briefly) amusing result you get when you apply such an incantation to a shell quine. You can |sh as many times as you wish!

German Family

Posted Jun 11, 2012 23:48 UTC (Mon) by ldo (guest, #40946) [Link] (2 responses)

Apparently the British Royal Family's family name was "Saxe-Coburg Gotha". They changed it at the outbreak of the First World War, to distance themselves from the, um, other Germans...

German Family

Posted Jun 12, 2012 13:46 UTC (Tue) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (1 responses)

Well yeah. The royal families of Europe (English/French/German/Russian/etc) were all very closely related to one another at the outbreak of WW1.

German Family

Posted Jun 12, 2012 15:47 UTC (Tue) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]

... which probably explains why they were so often having some fun together on the battlefield

PS: I'm NOT being sarcastic!