One of more conspicuous Polish traits - inconsequence?

Poles may seem inconsequent to foreigners. What is worse, they often seem inconsequent to each other.

Sometimes this Polish inconsequence is good and beneficial, sometimes not.

First example

From time to time a discussion breaks out in PF about Poland being nominally a secular, religiously neutral country but with crosses, symbols of Catholicism, hanging everywhere in public places, including schools and even Parliament.



Some members object to it, some support: https://polishforums.com/news/police-chief-removes-crosses-67561/

Polish constitution says

Article 25
Churches and other religious organizations shall have equal rights.
Public authorities in the Republic of Poland shall be impartial in matters of personal conviction, whether religious or philosophical, or in relation to outlooks on life, and shall ensure their freedom of expression within public life.

sejm.gov.pl/prawo/konst/angielski/kon1.htm

Article 53
Freedom of conscience and religion shall be ensured to everyone.

So, it is not so clear after all, because in one place we read about impartiality and equal rights, in next about freedom of religion. The state institution should remain impartial but what if people working there want to have a cross??? Their freedom of religion should be respected.

The very introduction attempts to combine it somehow:

We, the Polish Nation - all citizens of the Republic,
Both those who believe in God as the source of truth, justice, good and beauty,
As well as those not sharing such faith but respecting those universal values as arising from other sources,
Equal in rights and obligations towards the common good - Poland,
Beholden to our ancestors for their labours, their struggle for independence achieved at great sacrifice, for our culture rooted in the Christian heritage of the Nation and in universal human values,

...
Desiring to guarantee the rights of the citizens for all time, and to ensure diligence and efficiency in the work of public bodies,
Recognizing our responsibility before God or our own consciences,

Practice proves that as long as most people in Poland prefer to have crosses on walls, they shall hang there. And that is simple democracy - majority rules.

Is it inconsequence???

did the nation really have a Christian heritage though?
anyway i am not sure that getting upset about crosses is worth it.

Are you sure about that tho? We should have a referendum or something ;)
I think most people don't really care about having crosses on walls or not. Especially in public places, and at work. Your work place is your work place.

Home is different.

One of our best French humorists once said: it's a chance Jesus didn't drown. Or we would have to hang fishbowls on walls today ;)

The beginning of the Polish state is marked by the RC baptism of Poland in 966. Even communists acknowledged it.


Referendums are needed when the matter is too ambiguous to decide. e.g. https://polishforums.com/history/jaruzelski-pinochet-67566/#msg1392987

In case of crosses it is not - some people who constitute a majority hang a cross and then are able to defend it against the minority because they are more numerous. Simple democratic statistics.

:):)


Look at France - the majority of people don`t want crosses etc, so they don`t hang them and if anybody tried, they would take it down because they are more numerous.

Isn`t it simple?


Second

I already mentioned it elsewhere - despite official ban, the ritual slaughter is still practised in Poland.
While industrial-scale ritual slaughter has ceased in Poland since being outlawed in the country's parliament, the Sejm, the Jewish community is still practicing shechita, its chief rabbi told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday.

American-born Chief Rabbi Michael Schudrich defended continuing shechita as usual, saying that the Jewish community has spoken with several top constitutional lawyers who believe that it "is already legal." The Jewish community "did a big shechita" a week-and-a-half ago, Schudrich said.

It seems Polish Jews are consequent while Polish Poles aren`t.

so you mean that unless someone is Christian/Catholic they are not Polish?
is that what you are saying?
reminds me of Ireland, no wonder so many people left.

Where did I say or at least hinted at it? Funny but I sometimes think you have major problems understanding even such simple English as I use...... :):):)

it was your final sentence about 'polish poles' that made me wonder.
anyway another whining about Jews thread is it?
yawn.

Don`t be silly. Polish Poles was certain shortcut. Excuse my English, if necessary.

I hope your mare is more intelligent. I am sure if she was an active member of the forum for such a long time as you, she wouldn`t ask such stupid questions. :):):)

Goodnight. :):)

I can assure you I am not 'stupid', 'silly' or lacking in 'intelligence'.
i suppose being a schoolteacher you are in the habit of saying such things to people who do not agree with you,
and then shouting 'goodnight' to prevent further words...?
sad but predictable.

Never mind. If you are or not, it is too late to do anything with it now.


Silly again. :):)


I have a vague impression I am wasting my time with you, but you are lucky, it is holidays. :):)

By "inconsequent" (niekonsekventny), do you possibly mean "inconsistent"?? "Inconsequent" isn't English:-) "Inconsequential" does indeed exist, and means "unimportant" (nieważny)

lol

It is:

thefreedictionary.com/inconsequent

But it doesn't sound correct in the context. I had to check it myself yesterday.

The fact that it can be found in a dictionary doesn't mean

a. it's in normal frequent use (like niekonsekwenty in Polish)

b. most educated native speakers would understand it (I only understood because I know the word niekonsekwenty)

c. it's a good way to get the idea of 'niekonsekwenty' across in English.

A far, far better translation of niekonsekwenty is either 'inconsistent' or some kind of phrase 'don't finish what they start' or 'do everything half way'.

Lots of times, a word may exist in any language, yet be so little used that it's very usage sounds flat wrong, i.e. unnatural:-)

Agreed


I don't think I've ever used this word, so true.
Was only pointing out that the word is actually English, nothing more :)

'inconsequential' or 'of no consequence' would sound more natural

Thank yuo all for yuor linguistik expertise. It is raelly appreicated.:):):)

I agree:-)

Only how is "inconsequence" a word describing a Polish trait? Once again, a person's work may well be "inconsequential" or "of no consequence", but surely, the quality of a person or their word is "inconsistent", is it not? In German too, "konsequent" means "inconsistent" and sounds like an English word, though of course, is one of those false friends along with "aktuell" (up to date, NOT "actually") etc...

Never mind, raelly, Włodek.

Next example : many times Poles didn`t take advantage of the victories they gained over enemies:
Battle at Grunwald
After the battle, the Polish and Lithuanian forces delayed their attack on the Teutonic capital in Marienburg (Malbork), remaining on the battlefield for three days and then marching an average of only about 15 km (9.3 mi) per day.[78] The main forces did not reach heavily fortified Marienburg until 26 July. This delay gave Heinrich von Plauen enough time to organize a defense.

This proves my point, Pawian; the Poles aren't guilty of inconsequentiality, but of poor judgement (which is something completely different).
:-)

How is poor judgment related to Polish delay after the battle at Grunwald?? :):)


How long does it take you to scribble that symbol????

Only cursorily familiar with the Battle of Gruenwald from graduate history, had the Poles NOT acted as they had, their judgment (ocenia) might have been betterLOL

it's not that simple Pawian.
Here in the States most citizens openly align themselves with a religion but do not support the visible display of religious symbols in public places. Poland gets away with it because Roman Catholicism is overwhelmingly represented.....Just wait a few decades when the Muslims get a firm foothold and the Jews return.

That cross' days will then be numbered.

It's always a minority on the extreme ends of the political spectrum who make the biggest fuss of having crosses displayed or not. So if there is an attitude of inconsequence towards each other then I'd say it is limited to the fanatics.

People's attitudes about religion change over time and between generations. But by and large most people know the cross has been used in Poland for centuries and so the cross is seen as a harmless symbol which in some ways connects us with our past for historical reasons rather than religious convictions. No different than Britain, Switzerland and the Nordic countries using the cross in their flags or other state symbols.

I know many people who stopped going to church long ago from disliking the parish priest to being struck by infirmities. But they still have crosses in their homes and wear them as jewelry. They would never demand a cross be removed from a government building or school just because they personally decided to discontinue attending regular worship. But if the crosses were removed they all know life would still go on.

For them crosses are now more a talisman and a cultural tradition rather than an explicit endorsement of Christianity in general or Roman Catholicism in particular.

It is of course worth pointing out that the cross in the Sejm was never voted on, but rather placed there in the middle of the night. Hardly the action of the majority, Pawian.

Indeed, it is bad to have a situation where the constitution says one thing (Poland secular state) and one where everyone can see that reality is different (crosses in the Sejm). It gives the population the feeling that it is OK to have inconsistency between what one says/what is written and what happens in practice and that double standards are OK. In my view, it can explain certain characters traits commonly found among Poles.

Indeed. For me, the worst thing about it is that the Sejm was never given a vote on the issue.

However, it defeats me as to why someone simply doesn't take the cross down. It wasn't placed there democratically and doesn't have any basis in law, so why doesn't someone simply remove it?

maybe because it's not politically safe?

Enforcing the ban might run up against European rules on respecting minority religions. I think the last French president got in trouble for saying something about Muslims "slaughtering sheep in bathtubs" during Eid?