ED209 wrote:I just prayed for an end to council prayers. WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW?

Ah, but was it granted? The evidence seems to suggest that prayer is more effective in the USA

Paul G wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:

1 minute at the beginning of a meeting to which those present have consented and all of whom are volunteers. Such behaviour is beyond the pale

If it's one minute, it can be one minute BEFORE the meeting. Problem?

Its all about neatness and protocol really! Where I do the prayers the members of the council arrive before the mayor and the chaplain. The prayers are said, and then the mayor opens the meeting. Technically the prayers are therfore before the meeting, but out of convention and politeness no one feels the need to demand a pause in the proceedings so that they can nip in between the prayers and the formal beginning of the meeting, to ensure that their human rights are not violated!

Ian Tattum wrote:

Paul G wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:

1 minute at the beginning of a meeting to which those present have consented and all of whom are volunteers. Such behaviour is beyond the pale

If it's one minute, it can be one minute BEFORE the meeting. Problem?

Its all about neatness and protocol really! Where I do the prayers the members of the council arrive before the mayor and the chaplain. The prayers are said, and then the mayor opens the meeting. Technically the prayers are therfore before the meeting, but out of convention and politeness no one feels the need to demand a pause in the proceedings so that they can nip in between the prayers and the formal beginning of the meeting, to ensure that their human rights are not violated!

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?

trubble76 wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:

Paul G wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:

1 minute at the beginning of a meeting to which those present have consented and all of whom are volunteers. Such behaviour is beyond the pale

If it's one minute, it can be one minute BEFORE the meeting. Problem?

Its all about neatness and protocol really! Where I do the prayers the members of the council arrive before the mayor and the chaplain. The prayers are said, and then the mayor opens the meeting. Technically the prayers are therfore before the meeting, but out of convention and politeness no one feels the need to demand a pause in the proceedings so that they can nip in between the prayers and the formal beginning of the meeting, to ensure that their human rights are not violated!

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!

Ian Tattum wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:

Paul G wrote:

If it's one minute, it can be one minute BEFORE the meeting. Problem?

Its all about neatness and protocol really! Where I do the prayers the members of the council arrive before the mayor and the chaplain. The prayers are said, and then the mayor opens the meeting. Technically the prayers are therfore before the meeting, but out of convention and politeness no one feels the need to demand a pause in the proceedings so that they can nip in between the prayers and the formal beginning of the meeting, to ensure that their human rights are not violated!

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?

trubble76 wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:
Its all about neatness and protocol really! Where I do the prayers the members of the council arrive before the mayor and the chaplain. The prayers are said, and then the mayor opens the meeting. Technically the prayers are therfore before the meeting, but out of convention and politeness no one feels the need to demand a pause in the proceedings so that they can nip in between the prayers and the formal beginning of the meeting, to ensure that their human rights are not violated!

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.

CarlPierce wrote:Imagine the fun you could have taking the piss out of them at COUNCIL prayer time if you were a councillor.

Pray time starts.....
So mr chairman you put your hands together like this right.....and you can ask god for anything you want.....

wow this is amazing ok here goes everyone.

HI GOD - CAN YOU FIX IT FOR US TO RUN ALL THE SERVICES AT NO COST SO WE CAN ABOLISH COUNCIL TAX.

Erm how does this work people does he like knock once for yes and two for no?

HI GOD I KNOW SORTING OUT THE MESS THIS LABOUR COUNCIL GOT US IN MIGHT BE A BIT MUCH WHAT ABOUT RUNNING THE SERVICES AT HALF COST. CAN YOU LIKE KNOCK ONCE FOR US PLEASE.

chair interrupts you at this stage asking you to leave.

STOP INTERRUPTING MY PRAYERS mr CHAIRMAN ARE YOU ONE OF THOSE MILITANT SECURISTS WHO WANTS TO BAN PRAYING.

OK FOLKS ITS OBVIOUS THAT GOD IS VERY BUSY AT THE MOMENT and doesnt want to be interrupted HE TOLD ME TO TELL YOU TO JUST GET ON WITH THE MEETING AND HE WILL SEND US AN ANGEL TO LET US KNOW HE IS READY.

I'm reminded of the i think Monty Python sketch which goes along the lines of:

Oh god.
You are so big.
So very very big.
You are bigger than all the other gods.
You could squash us like ants.
Please don't squash us like ants

Amen

Perhaps this whole prayer thing could be sorted by all the religious councilors grouping together in small groups divided up by their preferred sky wizard. Then each group could go to a building where they can all pray together. To save time at the start of each meeting they could instead have one big praying session a week in there 'prayer lair' and get it all done. I suggest Sunday morning because for some reason half the shops are closed.

Personally have no problem with
anyone praying in my presence long
as they do not expect me to do so too
And long as they are not employed in non
religious capacity while they are doing this
So this an objection just on legal grounds and
not any other : if this was established in law and
unambiguously so then a lot of nonsense would have
been avoided such as court cases : not nonsense in the
sense that it is not right but that it is unnecessary though

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.

The difference in the examples that you quote is that people who attend weddings, funerals etc. understand and expect that there will be prayers and can choose whether or not to attend.

If I were to become a councillor, I would expect council meetings to deal with council business only, and not to waste a single moment of my time on pointless, irrelevant and ineffective religious ceremony.

Perhaps where councils refuse to remove prayers from the agenda, councillors who support secularism should start using a few minutes of the AOB part of every council meeting to recite scenes from Monty Python's Life of Brian. It has just as much relevance to council business as worshipping Christ, so no-one should object.

Paul 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.

The difference in the examples that you quote is that people who attend weddings, funerals etc. understand and expect that there will be prayers and can choose whether or not to attend.

If I were to become a councillor, I would expect council meetings to deal with council business only, and not to waste a single moment of my time on pointless, irrelevant and ineffective religious ceremony.

Perhaps where councils refuse to remove prayers from the agenda, councillors who support secularism should start using a few minutes of the AOB part of every council meeting to recite scenes from Monty Python's Life of Brian. It has just as much relevance to council business as worshipping Christ, so no-one should object.

As there are prayers of some kind before most Council meetings, and few operate with the secrecy of the freemasons, any coucillors know exactly what to expect. Why don't you become a councillor and you can then lobby for change, and then if you find that your fellow councillors don't agree with you, you can either respect the democratic process or make your own dignified protest.
One problem with being a councillor with that sort of attitude is that unless you make sure you join the majority party, you will have to endure the apalling experience of frequently having to concede the policy victory to the most powerful grouping on matters far more emotionally and morally painful, even, than having to endure a few prayers and moments for silent reflection.

Ian Tattum wrote:

Paul wrote:The difference in the examples that you quote is that people who attend weddings, funerals etc. understand and expect that there will be prayers and can choose whether or not to attend.

If I were to become a councillor, I would expect council meetings to deal with council business only, and not to waste a single moment of my time on pointless, irrelevant and ineffective religious ceremony.

Perhaps where councils refuse to remove prayers from the agenda, councillors who support secularism should start using a few minutes of the AOB part of every council meeting to recite scenes from Monty Python's Life of Brian. It has just as much relevance to council business as worshipping Christ, so no-one should object.

As there are prayers of some kind before most Council meetings, and few operate with the secrecy of the freemasons, any coucillors know exactly what to expect.

Expect? Perhaps.
Understand (the relevance of prayers in a council meeting)? Probably not.
Silently and unwillingly concede? Quite probably in many cases.

Why don't you become a councillor and you can then lobby for change, and then if you find that your fellow councillors don't agree with you, you can either respect the democratic process or make your own dignified protest.

I don't expect my elected representative (who is effectively attending in my place) to waste time on unimportant issues.
Deciding what form prayers should take, if any, is effectively asking all councillors to declare their religious beliefs and preferences. Nothing whatsoever to do with council business. I wonder how many FTSE 100 companies start their board meetings with a religious ceremony rather than getting on with the real business? Why are council meetings in need of prayers?

One problem with being a councillor with that sort of attitude is that unless you make sure you join the majority party, you will have to endure the apalling experience of frequently having to concede the policy victory to the most powerful grouping on matters far more emotionally and morally painful, even, than having to endure a few prayers and moments for silent reflection.

Yeah. It's only a few moments. Like it or lump it.
So where one particular sect or religion holds sway, then they have the right to impose on the rest of the council whatever religious trappings they like? It is a democracy after all.
By not accepting a sensible compromise, prayer for those who feel the need before the meeting starts, but keep them off the agenda, Pickles and his ilk have made this a matter of principle.

Paul wrote:

Ian Tattum wrote:

Paul wrote:The difference in the examples that you quote is that people who attend weddings, funerals etc. understand and expect that there will be prayers and can choose whether or not to attend.

If I were to become a councillor, I would expect council meetings to deal with council business only, and not to waste a single moment of my time on pointless, irrelevant and ineffective religious ceremony.

Perhaps where councils refuse to remove prayers from the agenda, councillors who support secularism should start using a few minutes of the AOB part of every council meeting to recite scenes from Monty Python's Life of Brian. It has just as much relevance to council business as worshipping Christ, so no-one should object.

As there are prayers of some kind before most Council meetings, and few operate with the secrecy of the freemasons, any coucillors know exactly what to expect.

Expect? Perhaps.
Understand (the relevance of prayers in a council meeting)? Probably not.
Silently and unwillingly concede? Quite probably in many cases.

Why don't you become a councillor and you can then lobby for change, and then if you find that your fellow councillors don't agree with you, you can either respect the democratic process or make your own dignified protest.

I don't expect my elected representative (who is effectively attending in my place) to waste time on unimportant issues.
Deciding what form prayers should take, if any, is effectively asking all councillors to declare their religious beliefs and preferences. Nothing whatsoever to do with council business. I wonder how many FTSE 100 companies start their board meetings with a religious ceremony rather than getting on with the real business? Why are council meetings in need of prayers?

One problem with being a councillor with that sort of attitude is that unless you make sure you join the majority party, you will have to endure the apalling experience of frequently having to concede the policy victory to the most powerful grouping on matters far more emotionally and morally painful, even, than having to endure a few prayers and moments for silent reflection.

Yeah. It's only a few moments. Like it or lump it.
So where one particular sect or religion holds sway, then they have the right to impose on the rest of the council whatever religious trappings they like? It is a democracy after all.
By not accepting a sensible compromise, prayer for those who feel the need before the meeting starts, but keep them off the agenda, Pickles and his ilk have made this a matter of principle.

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.The onus will then be on each council to decide how to proceed and many may well decide to axe the prayers, or like mine to continue the practice of having them immediately before business proper begins.
As for how chaplains behave, if any individual decides to take the opportunity to put the theological screws on and sneak in a partisan sermon, I would be very happy if the council stood them down. I have been a chaplain to the British Legion, a private school and a mental hospital and have always taken it as read that I have a role constrained, rightly, by the terms on which I volunteered or was employed, and think that when a council is involved the same rules should apply.

Tyranny by an irked atheist? Tyranny!?

Do you think religion has a place in tax payer funded meetings, yes or no?

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?

YoumanBean wrote:
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?

That's the bit that irks this atheist - why oh why do they insist on lying for jesus?

Paul G wrote:Tyranny by an irked atheist? Tyranny!?

Do you think religion has a place in tax payer funded meetings, yes or no?

Absolutely! Until by due democratic and legal process it has been agreed that the practice should cease.

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!

Ian Tattum wrote:

Paul G wrote:Tyranny by an irked atheist? Tyranny!?

Do you think religion has a place in tax payer funded meetings, yes or no?

Absolutely! Until by due democratic and legal process it has been agreed that the practice should cease.

That's a bit one-sided. They didn't have a vote on whether the praying should start. As far as I''m aware it was started only recently by a devout Mayor and his cronies rather than through any sort of democratic process.

If you are suggesting that removing religion from government can only be done through the full weight of the legal process - be careful what you wish for.

I suspect that for such a move it would make more sense to try and gain momentum for a blanket ban for removal of all religion throughout the whole system of government, than snipe individual council meetings. Potentially that could have the support of anyone who is not a member of the Church of England in the UK.

Damn fine idea to my mind.

Ian Tattum wrote:

Paul G wrote:Tyranny by an irked atheist? Tyranny!?

Do you think religion has a place in tax payer funded meetings, yes or no?

Absolutely! Until by due democratic and legal process it has been agreed that the practice should cease.

So if a Moslem dominated council were to 'democratically' decide on a 60:40 vote, that all meetings should start with 30 minutes facing Mecca and uttering prayers to Allah, and maybe preceding each subsequent agenda item with a recitation from the Koran, you'd have absolutely no problem with it? You wouldn't see it as a waste of time and not at all relevant to the conduct of a council meeting?

Ian Tattum wrote:... 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!

The judge didn't rule on the issue of human rights because that would be a) more complex a judgement, and b) would establish case law, neither of which makes sense when current law expressly forbids councils from doing what they were doing in Bideford. It also leaves open the possibility of a challenge on grounds of a HRA infringement, if Pickles is right about the Localism Act. He probably isn't, and his assertion that it will be made legal by that act is likely to be challenged in the courts too.