Beeb reports:

The government is activating a power it says will allow councils in England to hold prayers at meetings.

Communities secretary Eric Pickles says he is "effectively reversing" the High Court's "illiberal ruling" that a Devon council's prayers were unlawful.

He says part of the Localism Act that aims to give councils greater powers and freedom will be brought in early.

...

"By effectively reversing that illiberal ruling, we are striking a blow for localism over central interference, for freedom to worship over intolerant secularism, for Parliamentary sovereignty over judicial activism, and for long-standing British liberties over modern-day political correctness."

Well gee. I'm so glad the minister is acting promptly to ensure I can have arbitrary religious rituals imposed upon me. What a shit.

They are not being imposed though it is wrong to restore them

Of course they will be imposed. Not necessarily in all cases - there may be some councils who vote this down - but where the non-secular Christians are in the majority, anyone else on the council will have prayers imposed on them, or miss part of council meetings.

"Oh, Mighty Taranis, give this council the power to do your bidding.
Give us the fore-thought to control the planning regulations.
Empower us with your wisdom, that we can debate the cutting of the grass verge in the high street.
Gift us with your vision, so that we may decide on the new bike rack outside W.H. Smiths.
Show us your mercy, so that we may decide on the prize for the tombola at the summer fate.
Most of all, Mighty Taranis, give us rain, so we need not burn a virgin at the summer solstice.
Coz we runnin out o virgins..."

Does it have to be Christian!

DaveD wrote:Of course they will be imposed. Not necessarily in all cases - there may be some councils who vote this down - but where the non-secular Christians are in the majority, anyone else on the council will have prayers imposed on them, or miss part of council meetings.

And this crap about there having been a 'ban' imposed last week, an 'illiberal judgement': the Bideford council, and any other that has included prayers in its meetings, has been on each occasion in breach of a law that was passed in 1972. The court has recognised the offences, not invented them. Christian councillors on public time and the public dime, persistently flouting the law - how is it the secularists who are painted as the bad guys here?

It's increasingly driven home to me these days that human rights are not to protect me from the likes of Abu Qatadar, which can't be done, but from the reckless depredations of the arrogant, ignorant governments that are supposed to serve my interests. If I was a councillor forced to endure prayers, I think I might exercise my own freedom of religion and expression by going La-la-la! loudly throughout!

This is wrong because religion
is an individual freedom and the
council were not right to include the
prayers as part of official business then
The problem here is not actually with them
rather when they are being said : so this case
should never had come to court : if the councillors
want to pray they can do so but not on the clock : my
self I would just leave the room but the fact is that they
were acting in breach of law : we are a secular country here
Yes I know the Queen is Head Of State and also The Church Of
England but she does not make law : Parliament does : none of the
three major parties fight elections on a religious agenda even though
individual members may themselves be religious : this is not the United
States Of America where any candidate has to reference their belief system
otherwise have a snowball in Hell s chance of ever getting elected : have had the
decision reversed so let it be : do not want to pray then just leave the room instead

surreptitious57 wrote:do not want to pray then just leave the room instead

During the meeting? How will the non-praying councillor know when to return? How many votes will be rushed through while that councillor is absent?

A councillor should not have to leave the room during a council meeting. If an atheist councillor is going to have the droning magic spells of others forced upon her, why shouldn't she respond with her own simultaneous recitation? If la-la-la seems non-constructive, she might read a passage from Carl Sagan or Bertrand Russell. What's good for the goose...

How the hell can a government minister be allowed to enact a rule which overrides a court decision? Don't courts have supremacy in deciding what's legal and what's not?

Symmetry of text surreptitious57, does not an arguement make.

j.mills wrote: ...a law that was passed in 1972. The court has recognised the offences, not invented them.

They broke the LAW. Okay not a war crime, but this was on the books for fourty years. They where called on it, and got busted. What next. Town halls faceing Mecca?

And when Tower Hamlets Council starts demanding it's non-Muslim members pray to Allah before meeting what will the Mail do then, poor thing?

Mind you, Eric Pickles may be the final conclusive prove for the existence of god. After all, how else could this thing not be dead as a result of coronary heart disease or complications of diabetes?



Regardless of party politics, it's a true tragedy for the British people that Evan Harris lost his seat at the last election. It seems that not even Angela Eagle is prepared to stand up for secularism without Dr. Harris's lead.

Weaver wrote:How the hell can a government minister be allowed to enact a rule which overrides a court decision? Don't courts have supremacy in deciding what's legal and what's not?

Technically they are not. The Localism Act was passed by Parliament and received Royal Accent last year. All that has happened is that it is being brought into force a few months earlier than was originally envisioned. It would have become law anyway.

As I understand (which may well be incorrect since I am not a lawyer and haven't read the Localism Act in full), the judge in the Bideford case declined to rule in Human Rights grounds citing an existing point of statutory law. Thus it is still possible that allowing prayers on the agendas of council meetings will still contravene the Human Rights act and/or the European Convention on Human Rights. Which all means that huge amounts of public money will be wasted on further, more expensive cases when a simple resolution of you can say prayers before or after meetings but not during them, is all that is needed.

It's hard to appease a canid wrapped in a fleece though...

The decision that has now been
overturned presumably has a basis
in law as otherwise Eric Pickles is then
guilty of breaking it : all of this however as
mentioned this could have been sorted with ease
with out resort to legal measures : the council move
prayers to before the beginning of business : it really is
that simple : therefore anyone who wishes to participate can
do so and vice versa : the issue remember is not the prayers them
selves but when they were being said : long as this is not happening in
company time then they can do what they wish : no one is attacking religion
just stating that there is a time and a place for it and that time and place is not
on the clock : problem here though is that a Government official has now reversed the
decision which makes it in breach of the law as it stands : now is this going to be shoved
back to and fro ad infinitum : really is not worth the effort but his authority however should be
challenged but after that whatever the outcome let it be : do not want to pray then leave the room

How about if all of us that live in a council area where they insist on putting prayer on the agenda hold back a small percentage of our council tax? We could give them prayers, or an IOU from God, instead.

It's not actually clear that the new Localism Act will make legal what was previously illegal. I look forward to views from m'learned friends.

chairman bill wrote:It's not actually clear that the new Localism Act will make legal what was previously illegal. I look forward to views from m'learned friends.

It's certainly not so clear as Eric Pickles thinks.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2012/ ... competence

Weaver wrote:How the hell can a government minister be allowed to enact a rule which overrides a court decision? Don't courts have supremacy in deciding what's legal and what's not?

While I don't agree with the governments decision I do accept that they have a right to do so. The idea that an unelected judge (rule by constitution = rule by unelected judges to me) ultimately tell a government what it can or cant do is an American concept and to be honest not one I want to ever see in the UK.

Courts in the UK can say a government is breaking its own laws but there is nothing stopping a government changing the law, they are a delaying factor not a veto

That Peter Griffin look alike really fucking annoys me, it pretty much proves he's an anti-secular fucktard and that it clearly shows he is one of the anti-secular fucktards who wants the UK to become a full on Christian theocracy. Is there any party in the UK that is pro-secular? There isn't one anymore since the major ones are religious suck ups, time to start a political party of our own me thinks.

Religion is a tricky one in the UK, the vast majority of us couldnt give a shit about religion (not the same as being atheists).
You have a small minority group who are religious and an even smaller group that are pro secularist church disestablishing.

You also have the problem of faith schools which are basically middle class stamp collecting schools, dont allow the council estate peasants joining but on the whole give better education results