Ian Tattum wrote:

YoumanBean wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:
I am not sure that tyranny by an irked atheist really counts as a compromise! The court decided that he was not being discriminated against, or having his human rights violated, so all the NSS had left was a technicality; one which no longer will pertain when the Localism act comes into effect.

...

I will be generous and assume you did not read the rest of the thread because it has been made very, very clear that this is NOT the case.

The Judge did not RULE on whether his rights were violated. He explicitly, therefore, did not rule that his rights were not violated. He simply ruled that a different law made what they were doing illegal, nothing to do with the 'NSS finding a technicality' - they were seeking a human rights ruling.

It has yet to be seen whether the Localism Act will make continuing prayers lawful, despite High Vogon Overlord Pickles' 'pronouncement'. Either way, whether it is indeed a human rights violation has not been decided.

I will also mention that after his ruling the judge said 'prayers could be held as long as councillors were not formally summoned to attend.' which apparently is not enough for them, they have to force it on everyone. What was that about tyranny and compromise?

I have been following the case in the mainstream media and there it has been repeatedly stated that Mr Bone's case was primarilly brought on the grounds of discrimination; if all the coverage is incorrect I concede, but it does seem odd that the NSS was so interested in a minor misinterpretation of the local govenment act and had no larger object in mind!

Please do try to stop seeing things through such a distorted lens, you're completely missing the point.

The NSS did bring the case as an example of discrimination, that's exactly MY point, they WEREN'T focussed on the local government act AT ALL.

It was the JUDGE who decided not to rule based on whether it was a breach of human rights and instead rule that it was breaching the local government act. (EDIT I see chairman bill addressed this in the post above me, see that for a better explanation why the judge did this)

I'd will also repeat this point because I'd like you to address it. If not at least try to do it within your own mind and consider that you might be wrong about who was being unreasonable in this case -

I will also mention that after his ruling the judge said 'prayers could be held as long as councillors were not formally summoned to attend.' which apparently is not enough for them, they have to force it on everyone. What was that about tyranny and compromise?

Everything in post has already been made amply clear. I am bound to conclude that Ian Tattum is either being dishonest in pretending not to have comprehended it (whether this constitutes christian behaviour I leave as an exercise for the reader), or is poorly equipped to digest information and follow an argument, which I am obliged to regard as the more charitable explanation.

Ian Tattum wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

Wouldn't it be preferable to just let people who wish to pray to do so on their own time without involving official time, and without compelling non-believers to suffer through it? Why do some christians insist on involving the unwilling in their personal beliefs?

But just who is being compelled and by whom? The council leader is from a Hindu background, some members are atheist, others agnostic, most appear to be catholic, and they collectively have agreed to have prayers/reflection- its easy to do both- led by an Anglican. I do think there is a huge onus on the chaplain of a council not to become the theological wing of the naturally conservative and not to take the opportunity to preach dogma- unless you think that the nostrum that public service is good is a dogma!

Who is being compelled? Everyone. That is the very point of this issue. Prayers are not being banned, just the ones during the proceedings.
It doesn't matter what faiths or non-faiths are practised by the members, what matters is prayers should not be forced onto the unwilling.
The onus is on the chaplain is to reserve his vocational abilities for those that willingly request it, not to strongarm everyone into it.
Does your religion promote compulsion of worship or something?

How on earth does being in a room when someone is leading prayers equate to compulsion to worship? Perhaps I should pause before every prayer or other religious expression during a funeral or wedding, or Remembrance day service, and invite all those who don't like religion to step outside for a moment,; and just invite them back in for the bits that are safely secular. I could even scrutinise all the eulogies that family members wish to give to make sure they don't offend people by saying that the deceased is now watching over everyone from heaven.

How? Seriously? You can't stretch your mind to see how a prayer meeting is an act of worship? I don't understand how you can struggle with such basic concepts.
You may do what you wish at any funeral you are at. I couldn't care less. We are talking about turning council meetings into religious events.
However, since you brought up the subject of religion at funerals, I'll give you my story. Recently my atheist grangfather died. I made it crystal clear to those responable for the non-religious ceremony that we didn't want any religious intrusion into our day of mourning. I was assured on at least 4 occasions that a non-religious ceremony would be no problem.
I think you might see what's coming, a large crucifix was front and centre of the room throughout the event, and at the end we were presented with a book of christian prayers. The religious just can't resist forcing their stupidity onto others, even when they know full well the distress it causes.

if the religious council members wish to pray, they may do so, no-one is attempting to stop them. We are just upset that they insist on forcing the unwilling to participate also. This will ultimately be bad for the christians, I am baffled that you support the loss of secularism in our government, I am also baffled that you support the compulsory attendance to prayers.
This sort of things makes christrians look increasingly like nasty little cunts. i really wish they wouldn't keep doing it.

YoumanBean wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:

YoumanBean wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:
I am not sure that tyranny by an irked atheist really counts as a compromise! The court decided that he was not being discriminated against, or having his human rights violated, so all the NSS had left was a technicality; one which no longer will pertain when the Localism act comes into effect.

...

I will be generous and assume you did not read the rest of the thread because it has been made very, very clear that this is NOT the case.

The Judge did not RULE on whether his rights were violated. He explicitly, therefore, did not rule that his rights were not violated. He simply ruled that a different law made what they were doing illegal, nothing to do with the 'NSS finding a technicality' - they were seeking a human rights ruling.

It has yet to be seen whether the Localism Act will make continuing prayers lawful, despite High Vogon Overlord Pickles' 'pronouncement'. Either way, whether it is indeed a human rights violation has not been decided.

I will also mention that after his ruling the judge said 'prayers could be held as long as councillors were not formally summoned to attend.' which apparently is not enough for them, they have to force it on everyone. What was that about tyranny and compromise?

I have been following the case in the mainstream media and there it has been repeatedly stated that Mr Bone's case was primarilly brought on the grounds of discrimination; if all the coverage is incorrect I concede, but it does seem odd that the NSS was so interested in a minor misinterpretation of the local govenment act and had no larger object in mind!

Please do try to stop seeing things through such a distorted lens, you're completely missing the point.

The NSS did bring the case as an example of discrimination, that's exactly MY point, they WEREN'T focussed on the local government act AT ALL.

It was the JUDGE who decided not to rule based on whether it was a breach of human rights and instead rule that it was breaching the local government act. (EDIT I see chairman bill addressed this in the post above me, see that for a better explanation why the judge did this)

I'd will also repeat this point because I'd like you to address it. If not at least try to do it within your own mind and consider that you might be wrong about who was being unreasonable in this case -

I will also mention that after his ruling the judge said 'prayers could be held as long as councillors were not formally summoned to attend.' which apparently is not enough for them, they have to force it on everyone. What was that about tyranny and compromise?

You seem to be going round in a circle.Now you are agreeing that the NSS did bring the case as an example of discrimination, but only prevailed because of the letter of the 1971 government act. So what can be the objection to the council now adopting the principles of the new localism act, which allows them to pray at the beginning of the meeting? I have absolutely no wish to make councils decide to start their meetings with prayers, but if they do so, they are according to the new legislation ,acting entirely within the law. Surely one principle of a secular democracy is that councils can do anything lawful?

What!? No, it's that religion is out of politics. It doesn't become ok for religion to be involved in politics because it's lawful.

I thought christian concerned themselves with what's right, not what's allowed?

trubble76 wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:
But just who is being compelled and by whom? The council leader is from a Hindu background, some members are atheist, others agnostic, most appear to be catholic, and they collectively have agreed to have prayers/reflection- its easy to do both- led by an Anglican. I do think there is a huge onus on the chaplain of a council not to become the theological wing of the naturally conservative and not to take the opportunity to preach dogma- unless you think that the nostrum that public service is good is a dogma!

Who is being compelled? Everyone. That is the very point of this issue. Prayers are not being banned, just the ones during the proceedings.
It doesn't matter what faiths or non-faiths are practised by the members, what matters is prayers should not be forced onto the unwilling.
The onus is on the chaplain is to reserve his vocational abilities for those that willingly request it, not to strongarm everyone into it.
Does your religion promote compulsion of worship or something?

How on earth does being in a room when someone is leading prayers equate to compulsion to worship? Perhaps I should pause before every prayer or other religious expression during a funeral or wedding, or Remembrance day service, and invite all those who don't like religion to step outside for a moment,; and just invite them back in for the bits that are safely secular. I could even scrutinise all the eulogies that family members wish to give to make sure they don't offend people by saying that the deceased is now watching over everyone from heaven.

How? Seriously? You can't stretch your mind to see how a prayer meeting is an act of worship? I don't understand how you can struggle with such basic concepts.
You may do what you wish at any funeral you are at. I couldn't care less. We are talking about turning council meetings into religious events.
However, since you brought up the subject of religion at funerals, I'll give you my story. Recently my atheist grangfather died. I made it crystal clear to those responable for the non-religious ceremony that we didn't want any religious intrusion into our day of mourning. I was assured on at least 4 occasions that a non-religious ceremony would be no problem.
I think you might see what's coming, a large crucifix was front and centre of the room throughout the event, and at the end we were presented with a book of christian prayers. The religious just can't resist forcing their stupidity onto others, even when they know full well the distress it causes.

if the religious council members wish to pray, they may do so, no-one is attempting to stop them. We are just upset that they insist on forcing the unwilling to participate also. This will ultimately be bad for the christians, I am baffled that you support the loss of secularism in our government, I am also baffled that you support the compulsory attendance to prayers.
This sort of things makes christrians look increasingly like nasty little cunts. i really wish they wouldn't keep doing it.

I am not struggling with the concept at all! The point of dispute is whether being expected to be present when an act of worship is conducted is the same as being compelled to worship yourself. I was recently present when a new Muslim bank was opened in London, along with the mayor and a number of non religious staff members, and the proceedings were opened with a reading from the Koran, and associated prayers- were those of us who were not Muslim or religious being compelled to worship?

Re your own recent experience of a funeral that does sound highly unsatisfactory. Where did it occur and what sort of celebrant conducted it? Many crematoriums have a cross as part of the furniture, but I have known them to agree to remove it for the purposes of a humanist or muslim ceremony, if requested, but that is down to the discretion of the crematorium management. Also it sounds as if you were not well advised by the Funeral Directors, as they can recommend humanists or non religious celebrants to handle any service which demands the absence of any religious elements. All ministers from mainstream churches are bound by their vocational commitments to use the services that are set by their churches, although they can, and do, adapt them to try and be as inclusive as possible, as most families- like councils- comprise all shades of opinion.The last funeral I conducted was taken over by a son, who although an atheist himself, unlike other members of the family, wanted his mother's private religious convictions to be honoured!Funerals are so important, I am sorry to hear your grandfather's was so mis-handled.

Paul G wrote:What!? No, it's that religion is out of politics. It doesn't become ok for religion to be involved in politics because it's lawful.

So it would be inadmissable to have a Christian Democratic party in a secular democracy?

Ian Tattum wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

Who is being compelled? Everyone. That is the very point of this issue. Prayers are not being banned, just the ones during the proceedings.
It doesn't matter what faiths or non-faiths are practised by the members, what matters is prayers should not be forced onto the unwilling.
The onus is on the chaplain is to reserve his vocational abilities for those that willingly request it, not to strongarm everyone into it.
Does your religion promote compulsion of worship or something?

How on earth does being in a room when someone is leading prayers equate to compulsion to worship? Perhaps I should pause before every prayer or other religious expression during a funeral or wedding, or Remembrance day service, and invite all those who don't like religion to step outside for a moment,; and just invite them back in for the bits that are safely secular. I could even scrutinise all the eulogies that family members wish to give to make sure they don't offend people by saying that the deceased is now watching over everyone from heaven.

How? Seriously? You can't stretch your mind to see how a prayer meeting is an act of worship? I don't understand how you can struggle with such basic concepts.
You may do what you wish at any funeral you are at. I couldn't care less. We are talking about turning council meetings into religious events.
However, since you brought up the subject of religion at funerals, I'll give you my story. Recently my atheist grangfather died. I made it crystal clear to those responable for the non-religious ceremony that we didn't want any religious intrusion into our day of mourning. I was assured on at least 4 occasions that a non-religious ceremony would be no problem.
I think you might see what's coming, a large crucifix was front and centre of the room throughout the event, and at the end we were presented with a book of christian prayers. The religious just can't resist forcing their stupidity onto others, even when they know full well the distress it causes.

if the religious council members wish to pray, they may do so, no-one is attempting to stop them. We are just upset that they insist on forcing the unwilling to participate also. This will ultimately be bad for the christians, I am baffled that you support the loss of secularism in our government, I am also baffled that you support the compulsory attendance to prayers.
This sort of things makes christrians look increasingly like nasty little cunts. i really wish they wouldn't keep doing it.

I am not struggling with the concept at all! The point of dispute is whether being expected to be present when an act of worship is conducted is the same as being compelled to worship yourself. I was recently present when a new Muslim bank was opened in London, along with the mayor and a number of non religious staff members, and the proceedings were opened with a reading from the Koran, and associated prayers- were those of us who were not Muslim or religious being compelled to worship?

Actually, they are being compelled to attend an act of worship. this is not the same as being to compelled to worship. They are being compelled to attend a religious ceremony. Your example of a Muslim bank does not seem to apply to this issue. The Muslim part seems quite central to the whole affair, whereas christian prayers are out of place during council business.
if someone wants to engage in the business of local democracy, they have no choice but to endure christian prayer meetings.
Why can the prayer be held just for those that want to, why include the prayers as part of official business? I ask again, why the compulsion, surely it runs contrary to your beliefs to compel others to attend aginst their will? Why do you wish to force it on the unwilling?

Re your own recent experience of a funeral that does sound highly unsatisfactory. Where did it occur and what sort of celebrant conducted it? Many crematoriums have a cross as part of the furniture, but I have known them to agree to remove it for the purposes of a humanist or muslim ceremony, if requested, but that is down to the discretion of the crematorium management. Also it sounds as if you were not well advised by the Funeral Directors, as they can recommend humanists or non religious celebrants to handle any service which demands the absence of any religious elements. All ministers from mainstream churches are bound by their vocational commitments to use the services that are set by their churches, although they can, and do, adapt them to try and be as inclusive as possible, as most families- like councils- comprise all shades of opinion.The last funeral I conducted was taken over by a son, who although an atheist himself, unlike other members of the family, wanted his mother's private religious convictions to be honoured!Funerals are so important, I am sorry to hear your grandfather's was so mis-handled.

Thank you for your concern, but I would much rather you put that energy to preventing your religion being forced on the unwilling.

trubble76 wrote:I thought christian concerned themselves with what's right, not what's allowed?

I hope that that is not a preserve of christians It's we who are so often villified for trying to impose our morality on the legal system!
Perhaps next month before I lead the prayers/reflection at the beginning of the council meeting I should take the mayor to one side and ask her to use council time to re-visit their decision to carry on with the practice. I mean just because the councillors have voted twice in recent years to maintain the practice,there is no reason to be wedded to traditional democratic processes.

trubble76 wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:
How on earth does being in a room when someone is leading prayers equate to compulsion to worship? Perhaps I should pause before every prayer or other religious expression during a funeral or wedding, or Remembrance day service, and invite all those who don't like religion to step outside for a moment,; and just invite them back in for the bits that are safely secular. I could even scrutinise all the eulogies that family members wish to give to make sure they don't offend people by saying that the deceased is now watching over everyone from heaven.

How? Seriously? You can't stretch your mind to see how a prayer meeting is an act of worship? I don't understand how you can struggle with such basic concepts.
You may do what you wish at any funeral you are at. I couldn't care less. We are talking about turning council meetings into religious events.
However, since you brought up the subject of religion at funerals, I'll give you my story. Recently my atheist grangfather died. I made it crystal clear to those responable for the non-religious ceremony that we didn't want any religious intrusion into our day of mourning. I was assured on at least 4 occasions that a non-religious ceremony would be no problem.
I think you might see what's coming, a large crucifix was front and centre of the room throughout the event, and at the end we were presented with a book of christian prayers. The religious just can't resist forcing their stupidity onto others, even when they know full well the distress it causes.

if the religious council members wish to pray, they may do so, no-one is attempting to stop them. We are just upset that they insist on forcing the unwilling to participate also. This will ultimately be bad for the christians, I am baffled that you support the loss of secularism in our government, I am also baffled that you support the compulsory attendance to prayers.
This sort of things makes christrians look increasingly like nasty little cunts. i really wish they wouldn't keep doing it.

I am not struggling with the concept at all! The point of dispute is whether being expected to be present when an act of worship is conducted is the same as being compelled to worship yourself. I was recently present when a new Muslim bank was opened in London, along with the mayor and a number of non religious staff members, and the proceedings were opened with a reading from the Koran, and associated prayers- were those of us who were not Muslim or religious being compelled to worship?

Actually, they are being compelled to attend an act of worship. this is not the same as being to compelled to worship. They are being compelled to attend a religious ceremony. Your example of a Muslim bank does not seem to apply to this issue. The Muslim part seems quite central to the whole affair, whereas christian prayers are out of place during council business.
if someone wants to engage in the business of local democracy, they have no choice but to endure christian prayer meetings.
Why can the prayer be held just for those that want to, why include the prayers as part of official business? I ask again, why the compulsion, surely it runs contrary to your beliefs to compel others to attend aginst their will? Why do you wish to force it on the unwilling?

Re your own recent experience of a funeral that does sound highly unsatisfactory. Where did it occur and what sort of celebrant conducted it? Many crematoriums have a cross as part of the furniture, but I have known them to agree to remove it for the purposes of a humanist or muslim ceremony, if requested, but that is down to the discretion of the crematorium management. Also it sounds as if you were not well advised by the Funeral Directors, as they can recommend humanists or non religious celebrants to handle any service which demands the absence of any religious elements. All ministers from mainstream churches are bound by their vocational commitments to use the services that are set by their churches, although they can, and do, adapt them to try and be as inclusive as possible, as most families- like councils- comprise all shades of opinion.The last funeral I conducted was taken over by a son, who although an atheist himself, unlike other members of the family, wanted his mother's private religious convictions to be honoured!Funerals are so important, I am sorry to hear your grandfather's was so mis-handled.

Thank you for your concern, but I would much rather you put that energy to preventing your religion being forced on the unwilling.

You really do know nothing about me

Ian Tattum wrote:

trubble76 wrote:I thought christian concerned themselves with what's right, not what's allowed?

I hope that that is not a preserve of christians It's we who are so often villified for trying to impose our morality on the legal system!
Perhaps next month before I lead the prayers/reflection at the beginning of the council meeting I should take the mayor to one side and ask her to use council time to re-visit their decision to carry on with the practice. I mean just because the councillors have voted twice in recent years to maintain the practice,there is no reason to be wedded to traditional democratic processes.

The abuse of secularism is an abuse of democracy. I expect you will continue using this archaic privilege to your benefit, rather than doing what is right and fighting for the seperation of politics and religion.

Ian Tattum wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

How? Seriously? You can't stretch your mind to see how a prayer meeting is an act of worship? I don't understand how you can struggle with such basic concepts.
You may do what you wish at any funeral you are at. I couldn't care less. We are talking about turning council meetings into religious events.
However, since you brought up the subject of religion at funerals, I'll give you my story. Recently my atheist grangfather died. I made it crystal clear to those responable for the non-religious ceremony that we didn't want any religious intrusion into our day of mourning. I was assured on at least 4 occasions that a non-religious ceremony would be no problem.
I think you might see what's coming, a large crucifix was front and centre of the room throughout the event, and at the end we were presented with a book of christian prayers. The religious just can't resist forcing their stupidity onto others, even when they know full well the distress it causes.

if the religious council members wish to pray, they may do so, no-one is attempting to stop them. We are just upset that they insist on forcing the unwilling to participate also. This will ultimately be bad for the christians, I am baffled that you support the loss of secularism in our government, I am also baffled that you support the compulsory attendance to prayers.
This sort of things makes christrians look increasingly like nasty little cunts. i really wish they wouldn't keep doing it.

I am not struggling with the concept at all! The point of dispute is whether being expected to be present when an act of worship is conducted is the same as being compelled to worship yourself. I was recently present when a new Muslim bank was opened in London, along with the mayor and a number of non religious staff members, and the proceedings were opened with a reading from the Koran, and associated prayers- were those of us who were not Muslim or religious being compelled to worship?

Actually, they are being compelled to attend an act of worship. this is not the same as being to compelled to worship. They are being compelled to attend a religious ceremony. Your example of a Muslim bank does not seem to apply to this issue. The Muslim part seems quite central to the whole affair, whereas christian prayers are out of place during council business.
if someone wants to engage in the business of local democracy, they have no choice but to endure christian prayer meetings.
Why can the prayer be held just for those that want to, why include the prayers as part of official business? I ask again, why the compulsion, surely it runs contrary to your beliefs to compel others to attend aginst their will? Why do you wish to force it on the unwilling?

Re your own recent experience of a funeral that does sound highly unsatisfactory. Where did it occur and what sort of celebrant conducted it? Many crematoriums have a cross as part of the furniture, but I have known them to agree to remove it for the purposes of a humanist or muslim ceremony, if requested, but that is down to the discretion of the crematorium management. Also it sounds as if you were not well advised by the Funeral Directors, as they can recommend humanists or non religious celebrants to handle any service which demands the absence of any religious elements. All ministers from mainstream churches are bound by their vocational commitments to use the services that are set by their churches, although they can, and do, adapt them to try and be as inclusive as possible, as most families- like councils- comprise all shades of opinion.The last funeral I conducted was taken over by a son, who although an atheist himself, unlike other members of the family, wanted his mother's private religious convictions to be honoured!Funerals are so important, I am sorry to hear your grandfather's was so mis-handled.

Thank you for your concern, but I would much rather you put that energy to preventing your religion being forced on the unwilling.

You really do know nothing about me

Only what you have told me.

It's got bugger all to do with traditional democratic process and everything to do with irrelevance. It's completely irrelevant to pray, and to expect ANYONE who does not pray to sit through prayers, before a council meetIng. Maybe they should have an equally relevant democratic vote on whether they drink tea and eat donuts during every meeting, they'll then have to go through the legal process if they decide they want cream buns and coffee instead.

trubble76 wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:
I am not struggling with the concept at all! The point of dispute is whether being expected to be present when an act of worship is conducted is the same as being compelled to worship yourself. I was recently present when a new Muslim bank was opened in London, along with the mayor and a number of non religious staff members, and the proceedings were opened with a reading from the Koran, and associated prayers- were those of us who were not Muslim or religious being compelled to worship?

Actually, they are being compelled to attend an act of worship. this is not the same as being to compelled to worship. They are being compelled to attend a religious ceremony. Your example of a Muslim bank does not seem to apply to this issue. The Muslim part seems quite central to the whole affair, whereas christian prayers are out of place during council business.
if someone wants to engage in the business of local democracy, they have no choice but to endure christian prayer meetings.
Why can the prayer be held just for those that want to, why include the prayers as part of official business? I ask again, why the compulsion, surely it runs contrary to your beliefs to compel others to attend aginst their will? Why do you wish to force it on the unwilling?

Re your own recent experience of a funeral that does sound highly unsatisfactory. Where did it occur and what sort of celebrant conducted it? Many crematoriums have a cross as part of the furniture, but I have known them to agree to remove it for the purposes of a humanist or muslim ceremony, if requested, but that is down to the discretion of the crematorium management. Also it sounds as if you were not well advised by the Funeral Directors, as they can recommend humanists or non religious celebrants to handle any service which demands the absence of any religious elements. All ministers from mainstream churches are bound by their vocational commitments to use the services that are set by their churches, although they can, and do, adapt them to try and be as inclusive as possible, as most families- like councils- comprise all shades of opinion.The last funeral I conducted was taken over by a son, who although an atheist himself, unlike other members of the family, wanted his mother's private religious convictions to be honoured!Funerals are so important, I am sorry to hear your grandfather's was so mis-handled.

Thank you for your concern, but I would much rather you put that energy to preventing your religion being forced on the unwilling.

You really do know nothing about me

Only what you have told me.

But you seem to have drawn some interesting conclusions based on my defence of the democratic and lawful liberties of elected, voluntary, public servants.Plus my strictures that anyone invited to undertake a chaplaincy role should respect the diversity of views of those present, and not discriminate against those of none christian faith or no faith. As I have pointed out it is perfectly possible to have a period of reflection which allows all opinions to participate or not, according to disposition. If a council decides to do away with any such practice I completely support their decision to do so.

Ian Tattum wrote:

Paul G wrote:What!? No, it's that religion is out of politics. It doesn't become ok for religion to be involved in politics because it's lawful.

So it would be inadmissable to have a Christian Democratic party in a secular democracy?

FFS, is this wilfull, or can't you help yourself? If a Christian political party wants prayers before its meetings, there really is no problem, and if a Christian party wants to promote Christian-based policies through advertising & manifesto, they are free to do so. So could a Satanist political party. What neither can legally do is impose its rites and rituals on others who don't share their beliefs. A Council chamber is not a religious institution, and you can have no right in a liberal democracy, to impose religion outside of such a religious institution.

This is not difficult stuff to get your mind around. I reckon you could easily explain it to a seven year old.

Not a christian one perhaps.

chairman bill wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:

Paul G wrote:What!? No, it's that religion is out of politics. It doesn't become ok for religion to be involved in politics because it's lawful.

So it would be inadmissable to have a Christian Democratic party in a secular democracy?

FFS, is this wilfull, or can't you help yourself? If a Christian political party wants prayers before its meetings, there really is no problem, and if a Christian party wants to promote Christian-based policies through advertising & manifesto, they are free to do so. So could a Satanist political party. What neither can legally do is impose its rites and rituals on others who don't share their beliefs. A Council chamber is not a religious institution, and you can have no right in a liberal democracy, to impose religion outside of such a religious institution.

This is not difficult stuff to get your mind around. I reckon you could easily explain it to a seven year old.

I think the central problem here is that too many christians regard and/or would like to sell their presence in UK political life as the norm rather than the monumentally exceptional privilege it actually is.

The biggest problem we have is that we are actually living in a very real theocracy with an offical state religion and unelected clerics in the upper house.

Amusingly, all this insistance on exceptionalism to pray during council meetings has done for me personally is to harden my own attitude against those who wish to impose more theocratic frippery on the rest of us. The C of E as an official religion presided over by and sanctioning the head of state has to go. I guess that would mean the ejection of the monarchy as well, but I'm finding my heart isn't bleeding over such a prospect.

Ian Tattum wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:

trubble76 wrote:
Actually, they are being compelled to attend an act of worship. this is not the same as being to compelled to worship. They are being compelled to attend a religious ceremony. Your example of a Muslim bank does not seem to apply to this issue. The Muslim part seems quite central to the whole affair, whereas christian prayers are out of place during council business.
if someone wants to engage in the business of local democracy, they have no choice but to endure christian prayer meetings.
Why can the prayer be held just for those that want to, why include the prayers as part of official business? I ask again, why the compulsion, surely it runs contrary to your beliefs to compel others to attend aginst their will? Why do you wish to force it on the unwilling?



Thank you for your concern, but I would much rather you put that energy to preventing your religion being forced on the unwilling.

You really do know nothing about me

Only what you have told me.

But you seem to have drawn some interesting conclusions based on my defence of the democratic and lawful liberties of elected, voluntary, public servants.Plus my strictures that anyone invited to undertake a chaplaincy role should respect the diversity of views of those present, and not discriminate against those of none christian faith or no faith. As I have pointed out it is perfectly possible to have a period of reflection which allows all opinions to participate or not, according to disposition. If a council decides to do away with any such practice I completely support their decision to do so.

You defence is of your religion, nothing more. You claim to respect the views of all, but you act against this by supporting the inclusion of a prayer session as part of official council business. Those that wish to pray could do so before or after the meeting but instead they, with your assistance, force it upon the unwilling by including it council business. You refuse to acknowledge this attack on secular democracy and fail to defend the forcing of your prayer on those that don't wish to share your superstitions.

Paula wrote:It's got bugger all to do with traditional democratic process and everything to do with irrelevance. It's completely irrelevant to pray, and to expect ANYONE who does not pray to sit through prayers, before a council meeting.

It's the equivalent of reading Hansel and Gretel. Even if all council members agree to having read a fairytale at them at the beginning of each official meeting, that doesn't make it any less irrational, irrelevant and a waste of everybody's time and tax payers' money.