Fury as prayers are banned at council meetings

DoctorE · #1 by **DoctorE** » Oct 02, 2011 11:43 am

The pesky Christians/faith-heads are all over the place praying/whining, would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for the meddling atheists

CHRISTIANS reacted furiously last night after it emerged that council members have been banned from saying prayers at meetings.

Two councils in East Sussex have been warned that Christian prayers are “not part of their duties”.

Mayfield parish council was issued the “advice” by the Sussex Association of Local Councils after voting to include a prayer session in its meetings. Councillors were told it was not appropriate at a public meeting and should be taken off the agenda. The row prompted councillors from nearby Crowborough town council to get involved, claiming prayers have formed part of their meetings for as long as anyone could remember. Mayor Kay Moss said: “No one’s ever said there was a problem.

“The prayer predates me by a long way. There was a motion a few years ago to do away with it but we voted for the prayer to continue. I’ve never heard since that we were doing anything wrong.”

Alan Craig, leader of the Christian Peoples Alliance, said: “This demand is part of the secularisation of our society.

As we rip up Christian values and now Christian prayers we see the result on our streets in the form of rioting, binge drinking and drug culture.

“As we rip up Christian values and now Christian prayers we see the result on our streets in the form of rioting, binge drinking and drug culture. The most important thing is to get Christian values and Christian prayers back into our society and not take them away.

Continues: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/274 ... l-meetings

z8000783 · #2 by **z8000783** » Oct 02, 2011 11:47 am

I don't believe anyone is trying to stop Christians praying to themselves before a prayer meeting are they?

John

Teox · #3 by **Teox** » Oct 02, 2011 11:50 am

Paul G · #4 by **Paul G** » Oct 02, 2011 11:51 am

Well if you were doing them for a long time then I guess it's ok. Idiots. Just get on with your work.

hackenslash · #5 by **hackenslash** » Oct 02, 2011 11:55 am

About time.

byofrcs · #6 by **byofrcs** » Oct 02, 2011 12:07 pm

What exactly do they pray for that they cannot do themselves ?

Hypothetical looney Council prayer wrote:Dear Lord, forgive us our sins, for we have many, including ones that the Press haven't yet discovered.

We ask you Lord that you make those that complain about potholes, pavement slabs, tree roots, graffiti, litter, flydumping, accounting practices, school placements, council housing, council tax, and these other many things be placed into your hands and we beseech that you pass judgement on them and inflict on them a fire that boils their blood and turns then flesh to ash.

Praise Be to God.
Amen.

Seriously I know of no study that has prayer been shown to work on what it asks for.

rEvolutionist · #7 by **rEvolutionist** » Oct 02, 2011 3:11 pm

I wish public Christians would just go away.

Nora_Leonard · #8 by **Nora_Leonard** » Oct 02, 2011 6:15 pm

Atheist MPs and Lords have been complaining about the prayers said at the start of every session in Parliament. They aren't 'compulsory', but if you don't want to attend you have to stand outside until they're finished. And at the moment they are only Christian...

Sittings in both Houses begin with prayers. These follow the Christian faith and there is currently no multi-faith element. Attendance is voluntary.

The practice of prayers is believed to have started in about 1558, and was common practice by 1567. The present form of prayers probably dates from the reign of Charles II. Members of the public are not allowed into the public galleries during prayers.

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/business/prayers/

byofrcs · #9 by **byofrcs** » Oct 02, 2011 6:30 pm

Nora_Leonard wrote:Atheist MPs and Lords have been complaining about the prayers said at the start of every session in Parliament. They aren't 'compulsory', but if you don't want to attend you have to stand outside until they're finished. And at the moment they are only Christian...

Sittings in both Houses begin with prayers. These follow the Christian faith and there is currently no multi-faith element. Attendance is voluntary.

The practice of prayers is believed to have started in about 1558, and was common practice by 1567. The present form of prayers probably dates from the reign of Charles II. Members of the public are not allowed into the public galleries during prayers.

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/business/prayers/

Weird - I wonder why it is secret ? Does Hansard record what they pray ? Technically, if intercessory prayer is claimed to work, then shouldn't Hansard record what is wished for ?

We pay these people - in the privacy of their own home they can do what they like, but on public property whilst the public is paying their salary then it has to be documented as public record.

I suspect they are rather embarrassed about what they pray about.

Dracena · **#10** by **Dracena** » Oct 02, 2011 7:55 pm

They are hypocrites

“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen.

Nora_Leonard · **#11** by **Nora_Leonard** » Oct 02, 2011 8:21 pm

byofrcs wrote:
Nora_Leonard wrote:

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/business/prayers/

Weird - I wonder why it is secret ? Does Hansard record what they pray ? Technically, if intercessory prayer is claimed to work, then shouldn't Hansard record what is wished for ?

We pay these people - in the privacy of their own home they can do what they like, but on public property whilst the public is paying their salary then it has to be documented as public record.

I suspect they are rather embarrassed about what they pray about.

If you go to that link it gives the typical prayer. Basically they're praying for guidance and help in seeking what's best for all humankind...not an unworthy sentiment. But it excludes (by design, not that non-Christians aren't allowed in when the prayer is being said, just that many don't want to be there) non-religious and non-Christians. Kind of the way the BBC excludes Humanists from Thought of the Day.

j.mills · **#12** by **j.mills** » Oct 02, 2011 8:48 pm

“The prayer predates me by a long way. There was a motion a few years ago to do away with it but we voted for the prayer to continue. I’ve never heard since that we were doing anything wrong.”

And now you have. Duh.

“As we rip up Christian values and now Christian prayers we see the result on our streets in the form of rioting, binge drinking and drug culture.

Nominated for 2011's Non Sequitur Of The Year Award...

The most important thing is to get Christian values and Christian prayers back into our society and not take them away.

Here I'm following Hitchens' advice, that sometimes these brain-defying remarks cannot be countered, only underlined...

byofrcs · **#13** by **byofrcs** » Oct 03, 2011 1:36 am

Nora_Leonard wrote:
byofrcs wrote:
Nora_Leonard wrote:

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/business/prayers/

Weird - I wonder why it is secret ? Does Hansard record what they pray ? Technically, if intercessory prayer is claimed to work, then shouldn't Hansard record what is wished for ?

We pay these people - in the privacy of their own home they can do what they like, but on public property whilst the public is paying their salary then it has to be documented as public record.

I suspect they are rather embarrassed about what they pray about.

If you go to that link it gives the typical prayer. Basically they're praying for guidance and help in seeking what's best for all humankind...not an unworthy sentiment. But it excludes (by design, not that non-Christians aren't allowed in when the prayer is being said, just that many don't want to be there) non-religious and non-Christians. Kind of the way the BBC excludes Humanists from Thought of the Day.

Ah yes, magic from a prayer that suggests guidance from a god which is documented as being intrinsically anti-humanity whilst at the same time having no proof of its existence.

It mentions the current form seems to date from Charles II and he was more or less siding with Catholicism whilst the parliament wanted to support the Church of England. The parliament of that day was busily enacting laws that restricted religions other than the established Church.

As an oath it is vacuous; its form should be legally binding tantamount to perjury and in which the guidance are not some fantasy of the imagination of some long-dead Middle Eastern peoples but current British human rights law.

These prayers denigrate the power from the people - they imply that the power comes from God down. It is a remnant of the divine right of Kings to rule. It needs to be abolished as the anachronism that it is.

willhud9 · **#14** by **willhud9** » Oct 03, 2011 2:43 am

Dracena wrote:They are hypocrites
“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen.

Not this again :nono:

Nora_Leonard · **#15** by **Nora_Leonard** » Oct 03, 2011 6:41 am

Until I actually visited the Hansard website I was irate at the very thought of prayers before Council Meetings and sessions of Parliament. And of course I think it's total nonsense that rioting etc can be blamed on a movement away from Christianity.

However having now read the actual prayer I find something admirable in the sentiment of wanting to do the right thing, the unselfish thing, reminding themselves of their responsibility to the people etc. Kind of like the huddle players get into before a game. But there is no reason that couldn't still be done but in terms that wouldn't exclude anyone, and also that wouldn't involve mentioning a god. Just as some of us do at Thanksgiving, when we express gratitude for certain things in our lives. Obviously I don't mean 'to god'.

In a Council Meeting or Parliamentary Session it could be the moment of shared reflection where, for that moment, political divisions are set aside. I'm just saying...

byofrcs · **#16** by **byofrcs** » Oct 03, 2011 9:37 am

Nora_Leonard wrote:Until I actually visited the Hansard website I was irate at the very thought of prayers before Council Meetings and sessions of Parliament. And of course I think it's total nonsense that rioting etc can be blamed on a movement away from Christianity.

However having now read the actual prayer I find something admirable in the sentiment of wanting to do the right thing, the unselfish thing, reminding themselves of their responsibility to the people etc. Kind of like the huddle players get into before a game. But there is no reason that couldn't still be done but in terms that wouldn't exclude anyone, and also that wouldn't involve mentioning a god. Just as some of us do at Thanksgiving, when we express gratitude for certain things in our lives. Obviously I don't mean 'to god'.

In a Council Meeting or Parliamentary Session it could be the moment of shared reflection where, for that moment, political divisions are set aside. I'm just saying...

But it hides a deeper problem of accountability and responsibility: the idea that guidance can come from god rather than being grounded in humanism.

This prayer was introduced in the late 1500-early 1600s and over a short period of time that they prayed this same Parliamentary prayer for guidance they massively increased the number of crimes that could incur the death penalty. Did their prayer somehow contribute to this result ?

In the early 1800s they then started to remove the crimes that could be tried as capital crimes. Again were these men (and they are only men in Parliament until 1919) influenced by the sentiment of the prayer or was the changes in society making the sentiments they expressed into law only a 100 years beforehand now look rather inhumane and untenable ?

It's my belief that as we understand more about the world around us and as this knowledge removes the superstitions that have chained society to a shackle of ignorance then our laws become more tolerable and humanistic. As prayer is intrinsically an appeal to the supernatural and so is harking back to an age of superstitious beliefs then it has no place in the rule of our modern society.

Nora_Leonard · **#17** by **Nora_Leonard** » Oct 03, 2011 10:19 am

byofrcs wrote:
Nora_Leonard wrote:Until I actually visited the Hansard website I was irate at the very thought of prayers before Council Meetings and sessions of Parliament. And of course I think it's total nonsense that rioting etc can be blamed on a movement away from Christianity.

However having now read the actual prayer I find something admirable in the sentiment of wanting to do the right thing, the unselfish thing, reminding themselves of their responsibility to the people etc. Kind of like the huddle players get into before a game. But there is no reason that couldn't still be done but in terms that wouldn't exclude anyone, and also that wouldn't involve mentioning a god. Just as some of us do at Thanksgiving, when we express gratitude for certain things in our lives. Obviously I don't mean 'to god'.

In a Council Meeting or Parliamentary Session it could be the moment of shared reflection where, for that moment, political divisions are set aside. I'm just saying...

But it hides a deeper problem of accountability and responsibility: the idea that guidance can come from god rather than being grounded in humanism.

This prayer was introduced in the late 1500-early 1600s and over a short period of time that they prayed this same Parliamentary prayer for guidance they massively increased the number of crimes that could incur the death penalty. Did their prayer somehow contribute to this result ?

In the early 1800s they then started to remove the crimes that could be tried as capital crimes. Again were these men (and they are only men in Parliament until 1919) influenced by the sentiment of the prayer or was the changes in society making the sentiments they expressed into law only a 100 years beforehand now look rather inhumane and untenable ?

It's my belief that as we understand more about the world around us and as this knowledge removes the superstitions that have chained society to a shackle of ignorance then our laws become more tolerable and humanistic. As prayer is intrinsically an appeal to the supernatural and so is harking back to an age of superstitious beliefs then it has no place in the rule of our modern society.

If you read my post carefully you'll see that I'm not saying they should keep it as a prayer, but rather as a moment of reflection, a moment of pulling together in shared responsibility. I didn't say anything about allowing them to defer responsibility to a god. Rather the opposite, an acknowledgement of the responsibility that they all owed to the people who had put them into office.

byofrcs · **#18** by **byofrcs** » Oct 03, 2011 10:30 am

Nora_Leonard wrote:
byofrcs wrote:
Nora_Leonard wrote:Until I actually visited the Hansard website I was irate at the very thought of prayers before Council Meetings and sessions of Parliament. And of course I think it's total nonsense that rioting etc can be blamed on a movement away from Christianity.

However having now read the actual prayer I find something admirable in the sentiment of wanting to do the right thing, the unselfish thing, reminding themselves of their responsibility to the people etc. Kind of like the huddle players get into before a game. But there is no reason that couldn't still be done but in terms that wouldn't exclude anyone, and also that wouldn't involve mentioning a god. Just as some of us do at Thanksgiving, when we express gratitude for certain things in our lives. Obviously I don't mean 'to god'.

In a Council Meeting or Parliamentary Session it could be the moment of shared reflection where, for that moment, political divisions are set aside. I'm just saying...

But it hides a deeper problem of accountability and responsibility: the idea that guidance can come from god rather than being grounded in humanism.

This prayer was introduced in the late 1500-early 1600s and over a short period of time that they prayed this same Parliamentary prayer for guidance they massively increased the number of crimes that could incur the death penalty. Did their prayer somehow contribute to this result ?

In the early 1800s they then started to remove the crimes that could be tried as capital crimes. Again were these men (and they are only men in Parliament until 1919) influenced by the sentiment of the prayer or was the changes in society making the sentiments they expressed into law only a 100 years beforehand now look rather inhumane and untenable ?

It's my belief that as we understand more about the world around us and as this knowledge removes the superstitions that have chained society to a shackle of ignorance then our laws become more tolerable and humanistic. As prayer is intrinsically an appeal to the supernatural and so is harking back to an age of superstitious beliefs then it has no place in the rule of our modern society.

If you read my post carefully you'll see that I'm not saying they should keep it as a prayer, but rather as a moment of reflection, a moment of pulling together in shared responsibility. I didn't say anything about allowing them to defer responsibility to a god. Rather the opposite, an acknowledgement of the responsibility that they all owed to the people who had put them into office.

I saw that but I don't agree that much on putting aside the political divisions. To me we elect the opposition to attack every decision making sure that all the dirty laundry is aired. The worse thing you can hear in government is when something is passed without debate. I don't want them colluding in prayer (as an appeal to authority) or between the parties.

On the other hand if they are simply universally agreeing the rules of engagement then that is fine. Perhaps this is just me and my liking the adversarial nature of the UK legal system.

chairman bill · **#19** by **chairman bill** » Oct 03, 2011 10:30 am

I think some MPs should ask to sacrifice a goat in the Commons chamber. Just in case the prayer doesn't work.

Nora_Leonard · **#20** by **Nora_Leonard** » Oct 03, 2011 10:40 am

byofrcs wrote:
I saw that but I don't agree that much on putting aside the political divisions. To me we elect the opposition to attack every decision making sure that all the dirty laundry is aired. The worse thing you can hear in government is when something is passed without debate. I don't want them colluding in prayer (as an appeal to authority) or between the parties.

On the other hand if they are simply universally agreeing the rules of engagement then that is fine. Perhaps this is just me and my liking the adversarial nature of the UK legal system.

No, I agree with that point. In any case, there will always be opposition, even within a so-called united party.

But I think it could be more than just agreeing the rules of engagement. They could all agree to follow their conscience and strive to do what is right—which we all know again will be disputed.

One of the things that I loved about the show The West Wing was that it showed that there are good people trying to do what is right in all parties. You may not agree with their politics, but it's far too easy to just dismiss the other side as 'evil' or 'corrupt'. I think one of the great hard lessons in life is learning that not everyone is going to agree with you on what is the 'right' course of action.

One of the things that one of the people in the original article complained about was that if you do away with prayer you'll do away with all that is right and good. I think there is common ground that can be shared by religious and non-religious alike in the realm of ideals and ethics. Just...don't define them in religious terms.

I'm not sure if I'm explaining this properly?