Town Council being bullied into changing centuries-old tradition

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/legal-bid-to-stop-council-prayers-1985675.html

What's this you say? An atheist Councillor on Bideford Town Council (near where I grew up) is, along with the National Secular Society, is taking this local Council to the High Court in order to stop them saying prayers before meeting. Why is he doing this, you ask? Well, because they make him, "embarressed".

I'm sorry, I thought we lived in a democracy, and if the majority of Councillors elected want prayers - why can't they have them?

If a republican was embarresed by the Royal Arms, we wouldn't take them down.

This goes for any religion or denomination, I fail to see why forcing religious people to hide their religion is seen as "progreesive". As far as I can see, this is a degressive totalitarian stance, and it is getting worse in this country.

[miotas]

They can pray in their own time, having formal prayers as a part of the council meeting is ridiculous.

[Fragony]

Does he as an atheist have to say prayer as well, I would definately refuse to do so.

[PanzerJaeger]

It argues that formal recitation of prayers at the meetings breaches Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which protects freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Now the group is seeking a judicial review to settle the issue.

There's some irony in there... somewhere...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Does he as an atheist have to say prayer as well, I would definately refuse to do so.

No, he doesnt. He can abstain, or leave the room.


They can pray in their own time, having formal prayers as a part of the council meeting is ridiculous.

Why? Just accross the border in Torrington the investiture of the new Mayor always includes a Church service.

[Subotan]

They can pray in their own time, having formal prayers as a part of the council meeting is ridiculous.
If I was in that councillors position, I would most likely feel embarrassed whilst everyone around me prayed.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If I was in that councillors position, I would most likely feel embarrassed whilst everyone around me prayed.

I never understand this. Can you enlighten me?

[Pannonian]

If I was in that councillors position, I would most likely feel embarrassed whilst everyone around me prayed.
I've stayed sitting down when around 40,000 others were standing up. I didn't insist on the others following me and sit down, I just did what I did and let the others do what they do. One's freedom ends where it impinges on others.

[Brenus]

There you go for the seperation Church and State... Like in Iran...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There you go for the seperation Church and State... Like in Iran...

Seriously, you're comparing rural England to Iran?

[Meneldil]

There you go for the seperation Church and State... Like in Iran...

I demand us french godless atheists get our own specific smiley. Some yellow-ball tearing down a church while waving a flag would be nifty.

[Fragony]

Can you enlighten me?

probably not ;)

[Rhyfelwyr]

Atheism is a luxury for the middle-classes. Secular humanism is the new opium of the people, a bourgeoisie ideology increasingly being imposed on the superstitious, religious masses through the bourgoisie political institutions (liberal democracy). The civic spirit which comes with secular humanism, is surely a diversion from the real issue of class struggle. The whole idea of live and let live, and the moral relativism launched in response to religious absolutism, is in reality a facade to protect bourgeoisie decadencies such as nationalism and homosexuality. I remember someone on the TWC said atheists make up IIRC 14% of the US population, yet only 0.2% of the prison population - I doubt that is due to their superior atheist morals.

I know it's different for different countries, but here in the UK, when someone actually goes to the trouble of identifying as a secular humanist as opposed to being nominally religious, you can be 90% sure it's some middle-class guy going through a mid-life crisis, it's like the mini-rebellion for those that don't go for motorbiking.

[Beskar]

I wonder if they were performing other ritual acts like the Karma Sulta before meetings, PVC would have his arms up in the air over the issue. The Councillors can pray in their own time, not impose it at everyone in the meeting. As for the guy having to leave a meeting then return because of it, is a ridiculous statement. Would you complain if the meeting suddenly all kneed down towards Mecca and wailed to Allah, imposing it on everyone else and all the non-muslims have to go and wait outside till they are done?

Rhyfelwyr, secular Humanism isn't the "new opium of the people" because it nothing to what the phase actually refers to, also, there is no diversion to "class struggles" or kin. It is like you threw a bunch of phrases together which doesn't actually work.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Prayers integrated in formal council proceedings? What? :shocked2:


How is that possible in this day and age? ~: yellow-ball tearing down a church while waving a flag :

Are these prayers oecumenical, or Anglican?

[Strike For The South]

Quaint but no place in a true free state.

Why would you pay homage to the entity that kept you in shackles and sent your kin to die in dorves agains the moors?

Glutton for punishment?

[Centurion1]

Don't you have an official state religion in the coe so its perfectly legal if its an anglican prayer.

I don't really care either way though my innate american love for seperation of church and state is tingling

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Don't you have an official state religion in the coe so its perfectly legal if its an anglican prayer.

I don't really care either way though my innate american love for seperation of church and state is tingling


This is, I suspect, spot on. If the prayers are conducted in "Church of England" fashion, then they would be in accordance with the official state religion and nothing more than part of the normal instruments of governance. Recitations from the Vedas would be out of bounds as they are NOT part of the Anglican faith and therefore form no part of public life, as is the case with all that popery stuff I enjoy. Unless and until Parliament passes a law forbidding prayer at government functions, I think this lawsuit will be fruitless.


PJ:

Many secularists prefer to argue from the position that such principles as that embodied in Article IX cited above allow for a "unit veto." That is, if any ONE person objects on the grounds of their beliefs that ALL persons present must refrain from that activity during a public meeting/function of governance in order to refrain from offending and/or embarassing the one person thereby discomfited.

All in all, I find Pannonian's response the more mature approach. There are laws protecting your right to not join in, so have the courage of your convictions and sit down. If anybody asks/comments, you now have their implicit leave to tell them why you sat down and why you think the activity in question is a waste of time.

[InsaneApache]

I've stayed sitting down when around 40,000 others were standing up. I didn't insist on the others following me and sit down, I just did what I did and let the others do what they do. One's freedom ends where it impinges on others.

Quite so.

[InsaneApache]

When MPs take the oath in parliament there are two different versions.

I (name of Member) swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

I (name of Member) do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law.

Perhaps the council could celebrate it's diversity a bit more. :laugh4:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Many secularists prefer to argue from the position that such principles as that embodied in Article IX cited above allow for a "unit veto." That is, if any ONE person objects on the grounds of their beliefs that ALL persons present must refrain from that activity during a public meeting/function of governance in order to refrain from offending and/or embarassing the one person thereby discomfited.Of course secularists argue on these grounds, as does everybody else steeped in the tradition of Western liberal freedom of the last two centuries.

If any ONE person objects on the grounds that his own private thoughts are his own then the rest of society will have to suit him and refrain from thoughtcontroling him. If any ONE person thinks his poetry is worthwhile then the rest of society will have to suit him and can not ban his writings.

That is our Western individual freedom, and indeed society will have to respect it regardless of whether they think the individual a spoilsport or a pesky nuisance.



This man's conscience is his own, and the others have no right to forcefeed their religion on him. Which, in effect, is what is happening here: one can not fully partake in governance unless one subscribes to the exact religious practises of the council. I thought America had a revolution over this sort of state control over a man's conscience, over this religious unfreedom. In this regard, it is not British ideas of liberty that America adopted, but those of another country.



Are you sure you are being consistent with your general philosphy here, Seamus? What if those dratted secularists with their insufferable provocations are more in line with your political position? :curtain:

[Tellos Athenaios]

Wow. Puritans and atheists married in one post before the Church Of England. But where's the tea?

[Banquo's Ghost]

This man's conscience is his own, and the others have no right to forcefeed their religion on him. Which, in effect, is what is happening here: one can not fully partake in governance unless one subscribes to the exact religious practises of the council. I thought America had a revolution over this sort of state control over a man's conscience, over this religious unfreedom. In this regard, it is not British ideas of liberty that America adopted, but those of another country.


Louis, you are entirely missing the point.

The fellow is not behaving in a British manner. Making such a scene used to be quite alien to the British way of doing things. This is why the Church of England was invented. It's designed for state rituals that require absolutely no faith or religious conviction whatsoever. Think of it as the same as taking tea. There are those who know how to pour the milk - and they are British. And then there are those who don't, or couldn't care less, and they are foreign.

C of E rituals in government merely affirm the sense of shared nationhood, and occasionally (as in this case) reveal agitators and those of a choleric or foreign disposition. It really is quite harmless.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well, I think PVC misrepresents the article. The atheist councilor objects on the grounds that praying in a government meeting is "inappropriate". But the argument for having it stopped is not obvious.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Louis, you are entirely missing the point.

The fellow is not behaving in a British manner. Making such a scene is quiet alien to the British way of doing things. This is why the Church of England was invented. It's designed for state rituals that require absolutely no faith or religious conviction whatsoever. Think of it as the same as taking tea. There are those who know how to pour the milk - and they are British. And then there are those who don't, or couldn't care less, and they are foreign.

C of E rituals in government merely affirm the sense of shared nationhood, and occasionally (as in this case) reveal agitators and those of a choleric or foreign disposition. It really is quite harmless.I shall readily submit to your wisdom.


East is east and west is west, and ne'er the twain shall meet and all that.


Every French mairie (town hall?) has a statue of Marianne. Of old, it is tradition to display her with her back turned towards the nearest church. It is a fine art, lost on those without an appreciation for fine détail, and unfortunately in danger of becoming a lost art too in these coarse, untraditional times.

[Crazed Rabbit]

This man's conscience is his own, and the others have no right to forcefeed their religion on him. Which, in effect, is what is happening here: one can not fully partake in governance unless one subscribes to the exact religious practises of the council. I thought America had a revolution over this sort of state control over a man's conscience, over this religious unfreedom. In this regard, it is not British ideas of liberty that America adopted, but those of another country.

Are you sure you are being consistent with your general philosphy here, Seamus? What if those dratted secularists with their insufferable provocations are more in line with your political position? :curtain:

What a weak minded twit this man is then, if the mere existence of religion in public overwhelms him. He is not forced to pray, he is not forced to stay. He wants 'freedom of religion' by demanding every other belief but his be banned from public life.

There is no 'control' over his conscious, nor is this man prevented from fully partaking in governance. Your exaggeration illuminates the lack of a case for restricting prayer.

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

What a weak minded twit this man is then, if the mere existence of religion in public overwhelms him. He is not forced to pray, he is not forced to stay. He wants 'freedom of religion' by demanding every other belief but his be banned from public life.

There is no 'control' over his conscious, nor is this man prevented from fully partaking in governance. Your exaggeration illuminates the lack of a case for restricting prayer.

CR Would you be alright with integrating the following in formal proceedings of your city council:



All council members to strip naked and walk around the table three times while reciting the following:

'We, members of the council, pledge to remove the right to keep and bear arms. We pledge to abolish the second amandment. This is our divine task set by Ctulah.

May the wisdom of Marx continue to inspire the decisions of this council.

Allahu Akhbar!'

Would a council member who objects be a weakminded twit? Should he just wait outside until the rest of the council is done with this formal introduction to council proceedings?

[Sigurd]

I bet the fellow cringes when UK's National Anthem is sung.
Does he sit with fingers in his ears when every one else stands holding their hand over their hearts?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I bet the fellow cringes when UK's National Anthem is sung.
Does he sit with fingers in his ears when every one else stands holding their hand over their hearts?

Why do you bet that? Do you know him? Googling around I came across this discussing the incident:


I think the Remembrance Day incident when two councillors were publicly criticised for not attending a service at the Parish Church depite being present at the Act of Remembrance at the War Memorial has given them and any who have similar attitudes some justification in thinking they are being got at.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Would you be alright with integrating the following in formal proceedings of your city council:



All council members to strip naked and walk around the table three times while reciting the following:

'We, members of the council, pledge to remove the right to keep and bear arms. We pledge to abolish the second amandment. This is our divine task set by Ctulah.

May the wisdom of Marx continue to inspire the decisions of this council.

Allahu Akhbar!'

Would a council member who objects be a weakminded twit? Should he just wait outside until the rest of the council is done with this formal introduction to council proceedings?

First of all, none of the council members are required to pray. For your scenario; getting naked could well be against the law. As for the rest - I've got no care for the second amandment ~;p - I wouldn't mind. They can claim wisdom from whomever they want; I'll clearly vote for someone else next election. That's the way this atheist could remove prayer; get all atheists elected. You know, use the democratic process instead of trying to sue people into removing every belief but your own.

And I said he was a weak minded twit if this praying was really 'force feeding' religion to him as you posited, not because he objected.

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I wouldn't mind.



You would mind if that story were true. You are just biting the bullet to defend your position.

[Crazed Rabbit]

You would mind if that story were true. You are just biting the bullet to defend your position.

:rolleyes: Maybe Louis should come up with something that could, actually, happen. And yes, I would mind, but not in the way Louis meant. I would vote the idiots out, not try to force my opinion on others with lawsuits.

Louis writes of how a single man cannot be censored to defend the atheist suing. And yet what he supports is the rest of the council being silenced and prevented from praying. It is the atheist who wants to force his conscious onto others, and uses 'embarrasment' as an excuse to stop others from speaking.

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

That's the way this atheist could remove prayer; get all atheists elected. You know, use the democratic process instead of trying to sue people into removing every belief but your own.Imma gonna ban your next drawing.

Don't like it? Use the democratic process and vote to have your book allowed.

Or, basic rights are not up to democratic vote - they precede that. By default, you've got freedom of speech. And freedom of religion too. Other citizens do not have a democratic vote to decide whether your book can be published or not. It's none of their business.

A city council, or any other lawmaking body, should not by default to pick one truth, one religion, and tell everybody else that they are free to leave if they don't like it. That's reversing the freedom.
Freedom is for these council members to be free to have their prayers if they must, but not as part of formal council proceedings.



Maybe Louis should come up with something that could, actually, happen. And yes, I would mind, but not in the way Louis meant. I would vote the idiots out,You did vote them out. In 1776. Unless you live in Texas, in which case you are taught in schools that you didn't.

An example that could actually happen is presented in the OP of this thread - a private cult is part of public lawmaking proceedings.
(Except, of course, that it is a bit more subtle than that, as BQ pointed out.)

[Sasaki Kojiro]

:rolleyes: Maybe Louis should come up with something that could, actually, happen. And yes, I would mind, but not in the way Louis meant. I would vote the idiots out, not try to force my opinion on others with lawsuits.

Really? I would run out the door as fast as I could and call the police/insane asylum.


Louis writes of how a single man cannot be censored to defend the atheist suing. And yet what he supports is the rest of the council being silenced and prevented from praying. It is the atheist who wants to force his conscious onto others, and uses 'embarrasment' as an excuse to stop others from speaking.

CR

Ooh, but you are just continuing PVC's misquote. The man is clearly talking about how he believes in the separation of church and state, in addition to being embarrassed either by something that would embarrass you and I if we heard it (we don't know what they sound like) or because he's overly sensitive, there is no way for us to figure that out from the information given.



Imma gonna ban your next drawing.

Don't like it? Use the democratic process and vote to have your book allowed.

Or, basic rights are not up to democratic vote - they precede that. By default, you've got freedom of speech. And freedom of religion too. Other citizens do not have a democratic vote to decide whether your book can be published or not. It's none of their business.

Yes, it's strange how people are willing to put rights at the mercy of a simple majority vote.

[Lemur]

I don't mean to be dense, but I'm battling a wicked summer flu so I may make even less sense than usual, but ...

... doesn't the UK have a state religion (http://www.cofe.anglican.org/) already? Doesn't that change matters?

[Pannonian]

All in all, I find Pannonian's response the more mature approach. There are laws protecting your right to not join in, so have the courage of your convictions and sit down. If anybody asks/comments, you now have their implicit leave to tell them why you sat down and why you think the activity in question is a waste of time.

The whole of Wembley was standing up and singing the national anthem, except for me, as I didn't see why I should praise the monarch in song (if they'd played Jerusalem, I'd have joined in until my throat was hoarse). I got some quizzical looks, but not a word from anyone.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I wonder if they were performing other ritual acts like the Karma Sulta before meetings, PVC would have his arms up in the air over the issue. The Councillors can pray in their own time, not impose it at everyone in the meeting. As for the guy having to leave a meeting then return because of it, is a ridiculous statement. Would you complain if the meeting suddenly all kneed down towards Mecca and wailed to Allah, imposing it on everyone else and all the non-muslims have to go and wait outside till they are done?

Rhyfelwyr, secular Humanism isn't the "new opium of the people" because it nothing to what the phase actually refers to, also, there is no diversion to "class struggles" or kin. It is like you threw a bunch of phrases together which doesn't actually work.

Not bothered, sorry. Provided it's legal and the majority of the Council are happy, and obviously provided it isn't used to obstruct the democratic process I don't care. Bideford is a very traditional Market Town, and this probably is someone who has moved into the area and discovered he doesn't like Little England. Why should all the other Councillors submit because he is having a hissy fit?

It is deeply and intrinsically unfair.


Louis, you are entirely missing the point.

The fellow is not behaving in a British manner. Making such a scene used to be quite alien to the British way of doing things. This is why the Church of England was invented. It's designed for state rituals that require absolutely no faith or religious conviction whatsoever. Think of it as the same as taking tea. There are those who know how to pour the milk - and they are British. And then there are those who don't, or couldn't care less, and they are foreign.

C of E rituals in government merely affirm the sense of shared nationhood, and occasionally (as in this case) reveal agitators and those of a choleric or foreign disposition. It really is quite harmless.

This is the bais of my view, but there is another point. This is an example of quiet, unassuming CofE'ness in an English Town Council, but the "Secular Humanists" are trying to paint it as some form of barbarism that needs to be ruthlessly and universally stamped out. Such efforts in the past have failed to even drive religion underground, let alone destroy it, becacause we like in a secular democracy, not Stalinist Russia. However, what they have done is managed to fracture and weaken the body of the Church, driving more and more people to fundamentalist sects where the sort of excess they dear really does go on.

Someone REALLY needs to tell these people that, given a choice, most don't choose atheism because it doesn't actually have anything to offer vs. religion other than "freedom", which many people feel they have any way.


Well, I think PVC misrepresents the article. The atheist councilor objects on the grounds that praying in a government meeting is "inappropriate". But the argument for having it stopped is not obvious.

I see that as his excuse, if you read closely you can see that he really objects because, as an atheist, he feels uncomfortable surrounded by all these solemen nominal Christians.


What a weak minded twit this man is then, if the mere existence of religion in public overwhelms him. He is not forced to pray, he is not forced to stay. He wants 'freedom of religion' by demanding every other belief but his be banned from public life.

There is no 'control' over his conscious, nor is this man prevented from fully partaking in governance. Your exaggeration illuminates the lack of a case for restricting prayer.

CR

I would not put it quite like that, but yes. Why does it so affect him? And why in the name of God does it discourage atheists from becoming Councillors?


The whole of Wembley was standing up and singing the national anthem, except for me, as I didn't see why I should praise the monarch in song (if they'd played Jerusalem, I'd have joined in until my throat was hoarse). I got some quizzical looks, but not a word from anyone.

Quite.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Imma gonna ban your next drawing.

Don't like it? Use the democratic process and vote to have your book allowed.

Oh, I'm sorry, is the council forcing this man to pray?


Or, basic rights are not up to democratic vote - they precede that.

So not ever having to hear a public official pray is a basic right?


A city council, or any other lawmaking body, should not by default to pick one truth, one religion, and tell everybody else that they are free to leave if they don't like it. That's reversing the freedom.
Freedom is for these council members to be free to have their prayers if they must, but not as part of formal council proceedings.

No, they are praying, and people are free to join in or not. They're not limiting anyone's freedom.


An example that could actually happen is presented in the OP of this thread - a private cult is part of public lawmaking proceedings.
(Except, of course, that it is a bit more subtle than that, as BQ pointed out.)

I wouldn't mind the city council in Dearborn MI having city council members pray in the Muslim tradition as a part of formal proceedings.


Really? I would run out the door as fast as I could and call the police/insane asylum.

Well yes, but you get my point.


Yes, it's strange how people are willing to put rights at the mercy of a simple majority vote.

I do not view being exempt from ever hearing a public official pray as a right of any kind. I do not support putting rights up to majority votes.

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

Not bothered, sorry. Provided it's legal and the majority of the Council are happy, and obviously provided it isn't used to obstruct the democratic process I don't care. Bideford is a very traditional Market Town, and this probably is someone who has moved into the area and discovered he doesn't like Little England. Why should all the other Councillors submit because he is having a hissy fit?England is a free country, no? There are no signs that say 'forbidden for non-Christians'.

All council members can have all the prayers, or whatever private preparation they desire, before a council meeting. But not paid for by the taxpayer, nor forced on those with a different conscience.

[Pannonian]

England is a free country, no? There are no signs that say 'forbidden for non-Christians'.

All council members can have all the prayers, or whatever private preparation they desire, before a council meeting. But not paid for by the taxpayer, nor forced on those with a different conscience.

"We've always done it this way" is a valid argument in Britain, inefficient or not. The custom isn't what is logically right, but the status quo until someone makes a convincing argument for change.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well yes, but you get my point.

I do not view being exempt from ever hearing a public official pray as a right of any kind. I do not support putting rights up to majority votes.

Well, I don't quite get your point, because it isn't clear that "being exempt from ever hearing a public official pray" is what is at issue here. I think the question of whether christian prayer being a standard part of a governmental procedure is right or wrong is a debate worthy question. Louis takes the example further to make it clear.

I think you agree that religious laws are not right--even though we have many about not selling liquor on sundays, etc. So lets say the city council is voting on a law* about whether stores should be allowed to sell liquor on sundays. They feel that it is un-christian to sell liquor on sundays, but do not have any other reason for being against it. Would you want them to have an institutional prayer session before the vote if you were in favor of liquor being sold on sundays? Isn't that saying "it's always ok to vote based on your specific religious faith"? But it seems clear that a jewish council should not enforce kosher laws on a non jewish minority, and a muslim council should not ban pork if there are non muslims even if they are a minority. This is why separating religious traditions from the government is important.

*leaving any governmental details out since we are talking in general


I see that as his excuse, if you read closely you can see that he really objects because, as an atheist, he feels uncomfortable surrounded by all these solemen nominal Christians.

mm, that's possible, but I don't think there's enough there. It may be the author of the article trying to paint it that way. The bit I quoted earlier was about the theists having a more persecutory attitude than you are suggesting.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

England is a free country, no? There are no signs that say 'forbidden for non-Christians'.

Yes, a free and democratic country where freedom of religion is considered a basic right. As I said, this is a majority Christian Council; with one petulant atheist member.


All council members can have all the prayers, or whatever private preparation they desire, before a council meeting. But not paid for by the taxpayer, nor forced on those with a different conscience.

I doubt even the Tea and biscuits are payed for by the tax-payer, this is a Town Council, not a District or Country Council.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Yes, a free and democratic country where freedom of religion is considered a basic right. As I said, this is a majority Christian Council; with one petulant atheist member.And if they decided to open the meeting with a female stripper, would you describe a female board member who objects to it as a petulant feminist member, a spoilsport for not giving in to the majority's wishes?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And if they decided to open the meeting with a female stripper, would you describe a female board member who objects to it as a petulant feminist member, a spoilsport for not giving in to the majority's wishes?

Why do they want the stripper? Serious question.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I doubt even the Tea and biscuits are payed for by the tax-payer, this is a Town Council, not a District or Country Council.

rofl, I bet they they have homemade baking down there. The real issue is then whether you put the jam on top of the cream on your scone, or the other way around (I heard there is a bit argument between the people of Cornwall and Devon over this issue).

[Banquo's Ghost]

"We've always done it this way" is a valid argument in Britain, inefficient or not. The custom isn't what is logically right, but the status quo until someone makes a convincing argument for change.

Precisely. And not just a valid argument, the very basis of the constitution and law of the country; as sacred to the British as anyone else's written constitution.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Why do they want the stripper? Serious question.It's hypotethical. Why is the single member the bully simply by virtue of being alone, when it is not him/her who's forcing people to have to listen to / watch something they fundamentally disagree with?


Precisely. And not just a valid argument, the very basis of the constitution and law of the country; as sacred to the British as anyone else's written constitution. Atheists have always not said prayers. Shouldn't their British rights be respected to do as they've always done?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

rofl, I bet they they have homemade baking down there. The real issue is then whether you put the jam on top of the cream on your scone, or the other way around (I heard there is a bit argument between the people of Cornwall and Devon over this issue).

We do indeed have home baking, most of it fuelled by the Mothers' Union.


It's hypotethical. Why is the single member the bully simply by virtue of being alone, when it is not him/her who's forcing people to have to listen to / watch something they fundamentally disagree with?

Hypothetical is not relevant. The prayers will be directed towards God's assitence in the better governance of the Town, they are directly relevant.

This is an (at least) nominally Christian Council articulating not only a desire to govern wisely, but also an awareness of something other than themselves to which they are answerable; and unlike the electorate and the public He cannot be duped.

You must understand that removing these prayers is not a secular move, it is an anti-Christian one. Taking something away from a Christian group for the benefit of one man harms all of them in the way the previous situation might harm him. So, this should be a majority decision for the Council itself which should be representative of it's constituants.

As to who is being a bully, this man has the backing of the Secular Scoiety, its money and its lawyers.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Hypothetical is not relevant. The prayers will be directed towards God's assitence in the better governance of the Town, they are directly relevant.

This is an (at least) nominally Christian Council articulating not only a desire to govern wisely, but also an awareness of something other than themselves to which they are answerable; and unlike the electorate and the public He cannot be duped.

You must understand that removing these prayers is not a secular move, it is an anti-Christian one. Taking something away from a Christian group for the benefit of one man harms all of them in the way the previous situation might harm him. So, this should be a majority decision for the Council itself which should be representative of it's constituants.

As to who is being a bully, this man has the backing of the Secular Scoiety, its money and its lawyers.Well if you put it like that, then it is about Christians imposing their ways onto all. These people can pray 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Just not as part of formal council proceedings.

Can these people, or you, not live with a compromise? Live with the freedom of conscience for all involved? Why should even a slight infringment on the idea that all people should serve one particular God in one particular way at all times be an infringement of the rights of these Christians? If it is anti-Christian to allow for a Hindu, or an atheist, or a Jew, to partake in formal council proceedings, then you truely are advocating theocracy, government in name of Him who can not be duped.


Sorry, but I prefer a democracy, free and laic, the work of man, for man.
It is unconstitutional in the US (as of yet...but it's in the process of being overthrown in favour of theocracy). In France, these people would be guillotined. In England, well...I suppose they call it no separation of church and state, no freedom of conscience, for a reason.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Louis:

The USA was founded on the freedom of religion. Each should be free to worship as they pleased and, most especially, that government should make no law favoring one religion over another or using any religious test/standard as a condition for citizenship, property rights etc. That is not quite the same thing as freedom FROM religion.

We have benedictions all the time in our Congress, and some of the members even choose to attend as opposed to working in their offices until the first vote rings in. It is a custom many enjoy and one in which those who do not wish to partake can opt out. I prefer it that way. The USA is not quite a laicite-style state when it comes to religion, but we are definitely closer to that end of the scale than is Iran.

I was asserting that England -- however "empty" some like Banquo may believe that their official religion may be (it was good jest if not concrete fact) -- is not constitutionally founded on either the freedom from or the freedom of religion but can technically be thought of as quasi-theocratic (though of course it is not in practice). This would mean that the non-believer councilor wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on in court, howevermany folks agreed with the councilor, unless and until an Act of Parliament alters this status. I am aware of no such.

You're wonder to listen to, however. If any lefty could get me to the barricades it would be you.

[Beskar]

I bet the fellow cringes when UK's National Anthem is sung.
Does he sit with fingers in his ears when every one else stands holding their hand over their hearts?

We don't really have a national anthem.

There is debate to what is the national anthem though, there is "Rule Britannia! Britannia rules the waves!", there is "Land of Hope and Glory", "Auld Lang Syne", then there is the "God save the 'Monarch'", song where we should get rid of both institutions.

[Reenk Roink]

The people making analogies with 'odd' ritual behaviors to make their point fail to realize that the ritual of Christian prayer in the town hall meeting is markedly different from their hypothetical scenario in that it is widely recognized as acceptable by society (one could say even widely approved by society).

[Sigurd]

We don't have a national anthem.

There is debate to what is the national anthem though, there is "Rule Britannia! Britannia rules the waves!", there is "Auld Lang Syne", then there is the "God save the 'Monarch'", song where we should get rid of both institutions.
There seems to be consensus that 'God save the Queen' is the preferred song when National Anthems are required. e.g. sporting events. Isn't it so that even England (not having a national anthem?) uses this song for international soccer games?

'We don't have an national anthem'...
It was YOU who introduced the first national anthem of all national anthems. The rest of us followed suit. And it was God save the Queen that was the first of all national anthems.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Atheists have always not said prayers. Shouldn't their British rights be respected to do as they've always done?

They are. He has the right to sit thinking firmly of England as the unpleasant deed is done around him.

This is how every aspect of British society is maintained. Don't make a fuss.

[Pannonian]

They are. He has the right to sit thinking firmly of England as the unpleasant deed is done around him.

This is how every aspect of British society is maintained. Don't make a fuss.

Like I did. Sit there. Don't make a fuss. Let the others finish what they're doing. Then get on with the proper stuff. I didn't ask for a refund because a minute or so of my time was spent listening to people sing a song I find disagreeable. If I really found it unbearable, I could always just walk out and leave them to it.

[InsaneApache]

Along with queuing and apologising. :laugh4:

[Pannonian]

You're wonder to listen to, however. If any lefty could get me to the barricades it would be you.

Seamus is exposed as a crypto-communard.

"Quand nous chanterons le temps des cerises..."

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well if you put it like that, then it is about Christians imposing their ways onto all. These people can pray 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Just not as part of formal council proceedings.

Versus an atheist imposing his way on to all. Why should the majority be oppressed by the minority, especially when he is not forced to listen to their prayers, he can leave. The Cogent alternative is for the Council to convene informally before he arrives and have their prayers then; I'm sure he'd like that even less.


Can these people, or you, not live with a compromise?

Can you? Can he? Removing the prayers is an anti-Christian atheistic move, keeping them is a pro-Christian, anti-atheistic move. There is no middle ground for a compromise in how the Council is run, it is either or.


Live with the freedom of conscience for all involved?

That would be the part where I said the council can have a free vote on how it wants to be run.


Why should even a slight infringment on the idea that all people should serve one particular God in one particular way at all times be an infringement of the rights of these Christians?

Why is a minor expression of a belief in Almighty God an infringement on the rights of an atheist?


If it is anti-Christian to allow for a Hindu, or an atheist, or a Jew, to partake in formal council proceedings, then you truely are advocating theocracy, government in name of Him who can not be duped.

I never said non-Christians cannot partake, don't twist my words. I also said that the Council should be allowed to decide how it is run. A majority Jewish Council might decide to begin with a reading from the Torah, or whatever is appropriate. So long as the legal business is conducted in the same way in all instances I see no problem. The Council should be allowed to incorporate whatever ceremonial preamble they wish.


Sorry, but I prefer a democracy, free and laic, the work of man, for man.
It is unconstitutional in the US (as of yet...but it's in the process of being overthrown in favour of theocracy). In France, these people would be guillotined. In England, well...I suppose they call it no separation of church and state, no freedom of conscience, for a reason.

Cheap shot, rather like the "why not have a whore instead" comment. Yes, I know you said stripper, but I also know you're French, so I get the implication.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Versus an atheist imposing his way on to all. Why should the majority be oppressed by the minority, especially when he is not forced to listen to their prayers, he can leave. The Cogent alternative is for the Council to convene informally before he arrives and have their prayers then; I'm sure he'd like that even less.Like that less? The very proposal is to change the prayer to a 'moment of reflection', which each member is then free to fill in as his conscience dictates, to use it for prayer or for anything else. This is not acceptable to the Christian members, who insist on public prayer without compromise.

It is not the non-Christian who's unwilling to find a compromise here. Live and let live can work, but not with an attitude like this:


PVC = Removing the prayers is an anti-Christian atheistic move, keeping them is a pro-Christian, anti-atheistic move. There is no middle ground for a compromise in how the Council is run, it is either or.


Cheap shot, rather like the "why not have a whore instead" comment. Yes, I know you said stripperWhere I say stripper I mean stripper. What's with the absolutes? 'If you dress immodestly you are a stripper, if you are a stripper you are a whore, and if you are a whore you deserve no respect' - I thought that belonged more to that other religion.

The point of the hypothetical case is that, a few decades ago, many institutions were decidedly unfriendly to women. As women claimed their place in public society, society had to adapt its ways. Thirty years ago, this case would've been about the single female council member, who apparantly was a 'petulant, obnoxious feminist', usually said to be sexually frustrated too, for objecting to the sexist jokes, the sexist rituals, or even strippers during celebratory events. 'Why can't she adapt to the majority...we've always done it this way....it is tradition....British custom...why does that petulant woman have to make a fuzz'.

This fight was won too: the majority can not bully the single member, out of sheer tradition. An inclusive compromise will have to be found.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Louis:

The USA was founded on the freedom of religion. Each should be free to worship as they pleased and, most especially, that government should make no law favoring one religion over another or using any religious test/standard as a condition for citizenship, property rights etc. That is not quite the same thing as freedom FROM religion.

We have benedictions all the time in our Congress, and some of the members even choose to attend as opposed to working in their offices until the first vote rings in. It is a custom many enjoy and one in which those who do not wish to partake can opt out. I prefer it that way. The USA is not quite a laicite-style state when it comes to religion, but we are definitely closer to that end of the scale than is Iran.

I was asserting that England -- however "empty" some like Banquo may believe that their official religion may be (it was good jest if not concrete fact) -- is not constitutionally founded on either the freedom from or the freedom of religion but can technically be thought of as quasi-theocratic (though of course it is not in practice). This would mean that the non-believer councilor wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on in court, howevermany folks agreed with the councilor, unless and until an Act of Parliament alters this status. I am aware of no such.

You're wonder to listen to, however. If any lefty could get me to the barricades it would be you.Yes, America's freedom of religion is often disappointingly close to the freedom to be the Judeo-Christian denomination of your choice.

I think current legal precedent is that prayer are allowed, insofar as they are non-denominational, non-sectarian. http://www.religioustolerance.org/sep_c_st4.htm



This is how every aspect of British society is maintained. Don't make a fuss. Yes, Britian is a country of privilige, of inequality before the law, of subjects not citizens - all maintained simply by urging the subjects not to make a fuss. 'Hush hush now....it's tradition'.


But as for this practise of prayers, it has been (most probably) illegal for decades, is discriminatory, is intended to keep local democratic governance exclusive, is not open to even the slightest compromise, and is very much adviced against by the National Association of Local Councils.


The average age of churchgoers is now 61. The average age of council members is 58. These people refuse to accept that the overwhelming amount of Britons do not attend church. They abuse their power, and their illegal, bullying ways to cling on to their archaic, exclusive view of white Christian Little England.

British sectarianism is sooo 17th century. Or 20th century in Scotland and Ireland. 'Nuff of it.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Let's imagine a slightly different scenario. A man is on trial for robbing a christian church. It is a lengthy trial. Each day of the trial, the judge and other members of the court publicly pray to the christian god. Will this man get the same sentence as a hypothetical robber who did a robbery that seems equally bad to an unbiased observer?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Like that less? The very proposal is to change the prayer to a 'moment of reflection', which each member is then free to fill in as his conscience dictates, to use it for prayer or for anything else. This is not acceptable to the Christian members, who insist on public prayer without compromise.

I see no such proposal in the article I linked. Would you like to provide your source for this?


It is not the non-Christian who's unwilling to find a compromise here. Live and let live can work, but not with an attitude like this:


PVC = Removing the prayers is an anti-Christian atheistic move, keeping them is a pro-Christian, anti-atheistic move. There is no middle ground for a compromise in how the Council is run, it is either or.

To have prayers, or not to have prayers; I fail to see the middle ground. If you believe something should be present in politics, i.e. acknowledgement of religious belief then removing it is as bad as adding it for an atheist.

It took me a while to realise this, but it's true. Removing religion from public life does not make a state secular, it makes it anti-religious.


Where I say stripper I mean stripper. What's with the absolutes? 'If you dress immodestly you are a stripper, if you are a stripper you are a whore, and if you are a whore you deserve no respect' - I thought that belonged more to that other religion.

Yes, obviously I'm a secret fundamentalist, not an educated Humanist. Pull the other one, it's got bells on, and don't try to smear my character again, taking a swipe a Muslims into the bargain no less.

I was refering the French practice of dressing whores as the Virgin Mary and parrading them through Churches, or were you not aware of that part of your own history?


The point of the hypothetical case is that, a few decades ago, many institutions were decidedly unfriendly to women. As women claimed their place in public society, society had to adapt its ways. Thirty years ago, this case would've been about the single female council member, who apparantly was a 'petulant, obnoxious feminist', usually said to be sexually frustrated too, for objecting to the sexist jokes, the sexist rituals, or even strippers during celebratory events. 'Why can't she adapt to the majority...we've always done it this way....it is tradition....British custom...why does that petulant woman have to make a fuzz'.

Not relevant, Torrington (my home) just across the border had a female Mayor 2 years running (virtually unheard of) and she was deputy to another female Mayor, both had Church services at their investiture. In any case, gender equality is different to equality of belief, which I know you don't really believe in any way. You've previously admitted to prefering Christians to Muslims, because you find the latter more distasteful and incompatable with your beliefs.

Also, neither was part of this mythical elite you seem to think runs my country.


This fight was won too: the majority can not bully the single member, out of sheer tradition. An inclusive compromise will have to be found.

An inclusive compromise cannot be found on a matter of principle, one principle must give wayy to the other, or both are compromised.

This concept of "triangulation" was a favourite of Tony Blair, and he is one of the most morally bankrupt politicians of our age.

[Pannonian]

The average age of churchgoers is now 61. The average age of council members is 58. These people refuse to accept that the overwhelming amount of Britons do not attend church. They abuse their power, and their illegal, bullying ways to cling on to their archaic, exclusive view of white Christian Little England.


So wait a few more decades, and that tradition will die out of its own accord, unless some younger 'uns decide to maintain it as a historical artefact. Why rush it?

[Beskar]

So wait a few more decades, and that tradition will die out of its own accord, unless some younger 'uns decide to maintain it as a historical artefact. Why rush it?

Why bother to wash the dishes straight away? Why not leave them a few days?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yes, obviously I'm a secret fundamentalist, not an educated Humanist.

Fundamantalism and humanism were quite interlinked in the past, certainly not mutually exclusive. For you to suggest they are is highly offensive!

Nah I'm joking with the offensive bit, but humanism had a big impact on the Protestant reformers that drew a lot of their inspiration from the humanism of the time.

Although I think sometimes when people speak of fundamentalism today, they really mean American Evangicalism, in which case what you said was fair enough.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Why bother to wash the dishes straight away? Why not leave them a few days?

Because you might need to use them later, and the bacteria would get worse.

BAM! Got you there...

[Beskar]

Because you might need to use them later, and the bacteria would get worse.

BAM! Got you there...

You was proving my point for "doing it now and not later".

[Reenk Roink]

I think it is actually good for these types of traditions to be challenged now and then. This creates the backlash which refreshes it up in the minds of the public again instead of letting it wither away and die with the changing social context.

Remember that atheist and the "under god" thing in the pledge of allegiance? :laugh4: I was expecting a Jehovah's Witness to complain about the pledge first but nothing beats some of these wacky atheists... :rolleyes: :beam:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why bother to wash the dishes straight away? Why not leave them a few days?

Why bother to replace the dishes when they aren't broken?


Fundamantalism and humanism were quite interlinked in the past, certainly not mutually exclusive. For you to suggest they are is highly offensive!

Nah I'm joking with the offensive bit, but humanism had a big impact on the Protestant reformers that drew a lot of their inspiration from the humanism of the time.

Although I think sometimes when people speak of fundamentalism today, they really mean American Evangicalism, in which case what you said was fair enough.

I meant in the modern sense, as it is generally understood; not the historical sense meant by learned men.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I see no such proposal in the article I linked. Would you like to provide your source for this?Various compromises have been proposed in various forced prayer councils.

For example, a quiet moment of reflection at the start of formal court proceedings. This, needles to say, the secularist is not in the least bit interested in, but it allows for any Christian to have his prayer.
Or prayers to be held before formal proceedings commence, to let the mayor come in after prayer is over. This then not being a part of formal proceedings, the Christian members can have a communal prayer.

None of the compromises have been acceptable to the 'forced prayer' crowd. The Christian concession is to allow for the secularist to wait outside. Which is preposterous. A council member does not step outside during any formal proceedings like a punished schoolkid.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/council-prayers-campaign-the-nex.html



The 'forced prayer' council members thus unwilling to accept any meaningful compromise whatsoever, and persisting in a practise that goes against the pertinent advice of the National Association of Local Councils and which is in all likelihood illegal as well, the NSS will now take the Council to court.



To have prayers, or not to have prayers; I fail to see the middle ground.


An inclusive compromise cannot be found on a matter of principle, one principle must give way to the other, or both are compromised.No, I think Christians and non-Christians can live peacefully besides one another perfectly fine. All it takes is a little compromise, to live and let live.




The 'sexist' example again. Imagine it is 1975. Council boards, corporate boards, are still virtual male monopolies. Sexist jokes and behaviour abound. Now, a female board member asks an end to this, asks the male members to have their sexist fun in their own time, instead of as part as formal proceedings to which she is present.

What does one make of this? Is she a petulant spoilsport? Unwilling to fit in? A frustrated butch, a bully? Is the sexism an ancient tradition that must be maintained, because it's always been like this?
Or does the single woman on the council have a point: the council ought to be inclusive, the old white men should allow for an inclusive atmosphere, that takes into account changing customs and is in accordance with evolved equality legislation?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Various compromises have been proposed in various forced prayer councils.

Forced is inaccurate, no one is forced wither to partake or listen. You are deliberately misrepresenting the issue.


For example, a quiet moment of reflection at the start of formal court proceedings. This, needles to say, the secularist is not in the least bit interested in, but it allows for any Christian to have his prayer.
Or prayers to be held before formal proceedings commence, to let the mayor come in after prayer is over. This then not being a part of formal proceedings, the Christian members can have a communal prayer.

None of the compromises have been acceptable to the 'forced prayer' crowd. The Christian concession is to allow for the secularist to wait outside. Which is preposterous. A council member does not step outside during any formal proceedings like a punished schoolkid.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/council-prayers-campaign-the-nex.html

So, instead of one man leaving, you evict the whole Council bar one? How is that in any way better?


The 'forced prayer' council members thus unwilling to accept any meaningful compromise whatsoever, and persisting in a practise that goes against the pertinent advice of the National Association of Local Councils and which is in all likelihood illegal as well, the NSS will now take the Council to court.

Yes, we're such utterly terrible people, aren't we?


No, I think Christians and non-Christians can live peacefully besides one another perfectly fine. All it takes is a little compromise, to live and let live.

Of course you do, so long as they keep their faith quietly behind closed doors, like people who are ashamed.

Why not just let the Christians keep their prayers, as they do no harm, are the democratically decided wishes of the Council and mean nothing to an atheist? Dartmouth voted down a proposal to remove them, which is not surprising because the atheist who proposed it had the gall to not only bring an ipod into the Chamber but to listen to it while the Council was in Lession.

He is clearly a man of little compunction in any case, he makes atheism look bad.


The 'sexist' example again. Imagine it is 1975. Council boards, corporate boards, are still virtual male monopolies. Sexist jokes and behaviour abound. Now, a female board member asks an end to this, asks the male members to have their sexist fun in their own time, instead of as part as formal proceedings to which she is present.

What does one make of this? Is she a petulant spoilsport? Unwilling to fit in? A frustrated butch, a bully? Is the sexism an ancient tradition that must be maintained, because it's always been like this?
Or does the single woman on the council have a point: the council ought to be inclusive, the old white men should allow for an inclusive atmosphere, that takes into account changing customs and is in accordance with evolved equality legislation?

This is not done for fun, now is it an irregular activity; it is a formal (and legally instituted) part of proceedings.

Also, I should like you to find examples of sexism in the Aldermen of any of the Town Councils in Devon.

[Meneldil]

I was refering the French practice of dressing whores as the Virgin Mary and parrading them through Churches, or were you not aware of that part of your own history?


Good times...
I would consider being religious if it was actually funny and involved almost naked hot chicks.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Good times...
I would consider being religious if it was actually funny and involved almost naked hot chicks.

That doesn't surprise me given that you're in favour of simulated sex acts photographed on Church alters.

[Myrddraal]

Let's imagine a slightly different scenario. A man is on trial for robbing a christian church. It is a lengthy trial. Each day of the trial, the judge and other members of the court publicly pray to the christian god. Will this man get the same sentence as a hypothetical robber who did a robbery that seems equally bad to an unbiased observer?

I should hope so. I would be very very disappointed in the British legal system if they did not. Are you saying that a Christian judge would deal out a harsher sentence in this situation?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I should hope so. I would be very very disappointed in the British legal system if they did not. Are you saying that a Christian judge would deal out a harsher sentence in this situation?

Sure. As I learned in the movies, it used to be considered extremely immoral to commit any sort of crime in a church, because it was an offense to god. When religion is a part of civic functions it brings with it that chance for bias. And, if he is praying publicly each day in court, perhaps he does not believe that church and state should be separated.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I should hope so. I would be very very disappointed in the British legal system if they did not. Are you saying that a Christian judge would deal out a harsher sentence in this situation?

I wouldn't expect them to, and I fail to see how it is relevant.

Turn the question on it's head: Would an atheist Judge understand or appreciate the multiple social-care functions a Church fulfill, and the consequent damage done by the robber to the local community?

[Louis VI the Fat]

For some local flavour:

Out of curiosity, I just looked up the town in question, Bidenford. Their MEP is local aristocrat Giles Chistester. He was forced to resign, after it emerged that his corruption scheme was worth £160,000 a year.
Needless to say, the EP concluded that his breaching the rules of the EP did not constitute a breach of rules, and neither did his paying his wife out of the tax coffers.


(No, it is not directly relevant, but yes, it is funny for those who take an interest in these things. Would people be terribly insulted if I'd compare the English countryside to Siciliy? Local Godfathers elected to office, ultra-religious, conservative, corrupt.)

[Husar]

Let's imagine a slightly different scenario. A man is on trial for robbing a christian church. It is a lengthy trial. Each day of the trial, the judge and other members of the court publicly pray to the christian god. Will this man get the same sentence as a hypothetical robber who did a robbery that seems equally bad to an unbiased observer?

No, he will get a more lenient sentence than he would from an atheist judge who reads the 'guns weekly' and 'how to protect your front yard' magazines at home since Jesus told the Christian judge to forgive and to 'love thy enemies as you love thyself' or however it's written in old english, doing the prayers would give the judge the peace of mind required to judge the case wisely.

[Banquo's Ghost]

For some local flavour:

Out of curiosity, I just looked up the town in question, Bidenford. Their MEP is local aristocrat Giles Chistester. He was forced to resign, after it emerged that his corruption scheme was worth £160,000 a year.
Needless to say, the EP concluded that his breaching the rules of the EP did not constitute a breach of rules, and neither did his paying his wife out of the tax coffers.


(No, it is not directly relevant, but yes, it is funny for those who take an interest in these things. Would people be terribly insulted if I'd compare the English countryside to Siciliy? Local Godfathers elected to office, ultra-religious, conservative, corrupt.)

Giles Chichester is MEP for South West England and Gibraltar, which rather stretches your link to Bideford. And corruption in the European Parliament is a can of worms for a different thread, methinks.

The local parliamentary constituency is Torridge and West Devon (http://www.geoffreycox.co.uk/constituency/), for which the current MP is Geoffrey Cox, a Tory. But shock, horror - it has been represented by alternating Liberals and Tories for many years - one of them the celebrated Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe (whose trial was parodied so well by Peter Cook and to which I linked in the Jury thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?128282-Trial-by-Jury/page2&p=2495468#post2495468)). Hardly a bastion of privilege and Tory Godfathers then, is it?

You must not be seduced by Philipvs' ardent position that this is about religion. It is only marginally so, far more about behaviour and how the British establishment deals with radical thought. I did think that your argument using women's rights had some merit, at least as a placeholder, but then you went too far.

The problem with the passion of your vertu, Monsieur l'Incorruptible, is that people soon start losing their heads.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

For some local flavour:

Out of curiosity, I just looked up the town in question, Bidenford. Their MEP is local aristocrat Giles Chistester. He was forced to resign, after it emerged that his corruption scheme was worth £160,000 a year.
Needless to say, the EP concluded that his breaching the rules of the EP did not constitute a breach of rules, and neither did his paying his wife out of the tax coffers.

I don't recall much about him, certainly no one cares about the EU elections here anyway. Whoever is elected, the South West will suffer; so why bother?


(No, it is not directly relevant, but yes, it is funny for those who take an interest in these things. Would people be terribly insulted if I'd compare the English countryside to Siciliy? Local Godfathers elected to office, ultra-religious, conservative, corrupt.)

Yes I'm very insulted, as this is my home we are talking about after all. We aren't ultra-religious, massively conservative, or corrupt; that's the point. Picking on Devon Councils for formal prayers is a waste of time and money when you could go after other bodies which are substantively corrupt.


Giles Chichester is MEP for South West England and Gibraltar, which rather stretches your link to Bideford. And corruption in the European Parliament is a can of worms for a different thread, methinks.

The local parliamentary constituency is Torridge and West Devon (http://www.geoffreycox.co.uk/constituency/), for which the current MP is Geoffrey Cox, a Tory. But shock, horror - it has been represented by alternating Liberals and Tories for many years - one of them the celebrated Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe (whose trial was parodied so well by Peter Cook and to which I linked in the Jury thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?128282-Trial-by-Jury/page2&p=2495468#post2495468)). Hardly a bastion of privilege and Tory Godfathers then, is it?

Nice chap, Geoffrey Cox, I voted for him (twice), not a peep about him when the expenses scandal broke.


You must not be seduced by Philipvs' ardent position that this is about religion. It is only marginally so, far more about behaviour and how the British establishment deals with radical thought. I did think that your argument using women's rights had some merit, at least as a placeholder, but then you went too far.

The problem with the passion of your vertu, Monsieur l'Incorruptible, is that people soon start losing their heads.

I submit that it both is and is not about freedom of religion, and freedom of concience more widely. The NSS has launched a campaign against religious observances in local Councils, and they are targeting an area where the Councils are almost universally impoverished; a word I use deliberately. So for the NSS this is most definately about driving religion from our institutions, and striking at the phyiscially rather than morally weak in order to do it.

More widely, this is about organisations like the NSS ignoring democratic process and appealing to an extra-national court in order to force a change in the way Britain is governed, and the way we order national life, because they don't like it.

If the NSS were able to raise significant support in the region they might have an argument; but I see no evidence that they have been able to.

[Louis VI the Fat]

You must not be seduced by Philipvs' ardent position that this is about religion. It is only marginally so, far more about behaviour and how the British establishment deals with radical thought. I did think that your argument using women's rights had some merit, at least as a placeholder, but then you went too far.

The problem with the passion of your vertu, Monsieur l'Incorruptible, is that people soon start losing their heads.Oddly, I did indeed think about quoting Robespierre in this thread...:beam:

The little excursion into politics is not taking this too far, it is just an exploration of local customs that have no direct bearing on this case (but which helps to understand broader culture*).

Back to topic. There are a lot of angles from which to view this case. Yours is great: one needs to have an eye for the tradition, calmness and slow evolution that permeates local culture. What is regarded as a normal exchange of political views by one steeped in passionate, rushed debate, is considered bullying, a near invasion, by those who are steeped in tranquil conservatism, where both the pace of change is slower, and human interaction more entangled, such that an attempted overthrow of a quiet traditon by too strong a means is an attack on the social fabric. (* See, far from a pointless exersize in irrelevant local customs, reading up on the place helps to understand it)



Me, I see this case more as rural - urban than as strictly religious.

[HoreTore]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/legal-bid-to-stop-council-prayers-1985675.html

What's this you say? An atheist Councillor on Bideford Town Council (near where I grew up) is, along with the National Secular Society, is taking this local Council to the High Court in order to stop them saying prayers before meeting. Why is he doing this, you ask? Well, because they make him, "embarressed".

I'm sorry, I thought we lived in a democracy, and if the majority of Councillors elected want prayers - why can't they have them?

If a republican was embarresed by the Royal Arms, we wouldn't take them down.

This goes for any religion or denomination, I fail to see why forcing religious people to hide their religion is seen as "progreesive". As far as I can see, this is a degressive totalitarian stance, and it is getting worse in this country.

Good.

The state is and should remain secular. "Tradition" is a word usually used to defend practices we know are wrong and halt our progress to a better future.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

No, he will get a more lenient sentence than he would from an atheist judge who reads the 'guns weekly' and 'how to protect your front yard' magazines at home since Jesus told the Christian judge to forgive and to 'love thy enemies as you love thyself' or however it's written in old english, doing the prayers would give the judge the peace of mind required to judge the case wisely.


I wouldn't expect them to, and I fail to see how it is relevant.

Turn the question on it's head: Would an atheist Judge understand or appreciate the multiple social-care functions a Church fulfill, and the consequent damage done by the robber to the local community?

Eh? So atheists judges would either be biased or ignorant in this case? I suggested a hypothetical unbiased observer of an equal case.

That doesn't jibe with reality anyway. The most religious governments are the least just, and the most secular do just fine. Secular morality is more modern and religious morality is entangled with centuries-old traditions.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oddly, I did indeed think about quoting Robespierre in this thread...:beam:

The little excursion into politics is not taking this too far, it is just an exploration of local customs that have no direct bearing on this case (but which helps to understand broader culture*).

Back to topic. There are a lot of angles from which to view this case. Yours is great: one needs to have an eye for the tradition, calmness and slow evolution that permeates local culture. What is regarded as a normal exchange of political views by one steeped in passionate, rushed debate, is considered bullying, a near invasion, by those who are steeped in tranquil conservatism, where both the pace of change is slower, and human interaction more entangled, such that an attempted overthrow of a quiet traditon by too strong a means is an attack on the social fabric. (* See, far from a pointless exersize in irrelevant local customs, reading up on the place helps to understand it)



Me, I see this case more as rural - urban than as strictly religious.

So this is the country bumpkins unable to understand the pace of the modern world? Or is that just a more genteel way of saying we're a bunch of ignorant, bigoted, corrupt, elitist stuck in the muds?

I'm sorry, but you comments regarding local government in England have been excessive, intemperate, inaccurate, and down right slanderous. If this is some attempt at an apolagy or justification of your previous statements it is severly lacking.


Eh? So atheists judges would either be biased or ignorant in this case? I suggested a hypothetical unbiased observer of an equal case.

You can't have an unbiased observer, such a thing does not exist. A religious judge runs the risk of being too sympathetic to the Church, an atheist of not recognising the severity of the crime because of a lack of experience. Mitigation of either prejudice comes only with temperence, experience and reflection. In short, the quality of sentencing is dependent on the quality of the judge and his application of the Law, not on his theology.


That doesn't jibe with reality anyway. The most religious governments are the least just, and the most secular do just fine. Secular morality is more modern and religious morality is entangled with centuries-old traditions.

I dissagree, because most of the "religious" governments are Islamic, while most of the "secular" ones are post-Christian. Therefore, they are rooted in different traditions and not directly comparable. You would need to compare the judgements of a specifically Christian judge with a specifically atheist one in order to have any idea if the two differ substantively, and in what ways.

[HoreTore]

I dissagree, because most of the "religious" governments are Islamic, while most of the "secular" ones are post-Christian. Therefore, they are rooted in different traditions and not directly comparable. You would need to compare the judgements of a specifically Christian judge with a specifically atheist one in order to have any idea if the two differ substantively, and in what ways.

Korea and Japan says hello.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You can't have an unbiased observer, such a thing does not exist.

You can imagine one as a contrast.


A religious judge runs the risk of being too sympathetic to the Church, an atheist of not recognising the severity of the crime because of a lack of experience. Mitigation of either prejudice comes only with temperence, experience and reflection. In short, the quality of sentencing is dependent on the quality of the judge and his application of the Law, not on his theology.

Emotional sympathies are many times harder to work around than lack of information. And PVC, I am not saying that christian judges are bad. But isn't praying publicly each day before the trial a sign that he is bringing too much of his theology into his application of the law? It doesn't seem to be a sign of temperance, experience, or reflection.



I dissagree, because most of the "religious" governments are Islamic, while most of the "secular" ones are post-Christian. Therefore, they are rooted in different traditions and not directly comparable. You would need to compare the judgements of a specifically Christian judge with a specifically atheist one in order to have any idea if the two differ substantively, and in what ways.

I accept the point about the 3rd world nature of most of the religious governments...but doesn't saying that the good governments are post-Christian make my point for me? We've moved past the state being religious, though we still have relics:


A blue law is a type of law, typically found in the United States, designed to enforce religious standards, particularly the observance of Sunday as a day of worship or rest, and a restriction on Sunday shopping.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Korea and Japan says hello.

Both of which A: have problems particularly in the case of worker-rights and B: have accepted Westernised Christian-Humanist principles into their Law.

[Louis VI the Fat]

country bumpkins
unable to understand
ignorant
bigoted
corrupt
elitist
stuck in the muds
excessive
intemperate
inaccurate
slanderous
severly lackingTemper, temper!



...we are only destroying your way of life by trying to find a compromise on prayer in town councils. :balloon2:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You can imagine one as a contrast.

I'm sorry, I don't think it's helpful. Though, of course the obvious unbiased judge would naturally be God (see how he's useful like that? Francis Bacon wrote an essay on this).


Emotional sympathies are many times harder to work around than lack of information. And PVC, I am not saying that christian judges are bad. But isn't praying publicly each day before the trial a sign that he is bringing too much of his theology into his application of the law? It doesn't seem to be a sign of temperance, experience, or reflection.

Who says the atheist only has an un-emotional prejudice? Or that the Christian judge isn't using his practical expereince of the Church to inform his decision? It comes down, as I said, wholly to the quality of the judge and how he uses his experience.

As to his paying every day, and what this reflects, that would depend entirely on the type of prayer he was ingaged in, be it liturgical, affective, diadactic or contemplative. I am assuming from your comment that you don't have any direct expereince of varied forms of prayer, and you may be thinking of the more recent fashion for ecstatic prayer5, which is different again.


I accept the point about the 3rd world nature of most of the religious governments...but doesn't saying that the good governments are post-Christian make my point for me? We've moved past the state being religious, though we still have relics:

Do you suppose a post-Christian philosophy is the same as a post-Islamic one? Modern British Law and its distinction between guilty action and guilty intent were born in the confessional around 1000 AD, while the modern atheist demand for Freedom of concience has it's root in the dissenter's demand for the same in the wake of the Reformation and under the influence of the original Humanists. How different would our institutions be if we had an Islamic tradition of a deterministic religion to build on instead of the Christian tradition of Free Will?

We won't know until we haver a post-Islamic society to consider.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Temper, temper!



...we are only destroying your way of life by trying to find a compromise on prayer in town councils. :balloon2:

If we were at table this would be the point at which I would put down my hapkin and leave, which is what I will now figuratively do.

If you cannot understand how comparing local Councils in rural Devon with the Sicilian mafia is offensive to someone living in the area then we can't have a meaningful discussion about anything, can we?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I'm sorry, I don't think it's helpful. Though, of course the obvious unbiased judge would naturally be God (see how he's useful like that? Francis Bacon wrote an essay on this).


Useful, like a theoretical construct that doesn't actually exist? :mellow:


Who says the atheist only has an un-emotional prejudice? Or that the Christian judge isn't using his practical expereince of the Church to inform his decision? It comes down, as I said, wholly to the quality of the judge and how he uses his experience.

But this is a broad policy we require--that is what makes the first two questions here irrelevant. Individual atheists judges can be horribly prejudiced, and individual christian judges can be paragons of justice. But if, on the whole, prayer being an integral part of a governmental proceeding is a significant biasing factor, then the practice should be stopped.


As to his paying every day, and what this reflects, that would depend entirely on the type of prayer he was ingaged in, be it liturgical, affective, diadactic or contemplative. I am assuming from your comment that you don't have any direct expereince of varied forms of prayer, and you may be thinking of the more recent fashion for ecstatic prayer5, which is different again.

The kind where he raises both hands and repeats "it is the power of Christ himself compels you" over and over to the defendant :beam:


Do you suppose a post-Christian philosophy is the same as a post-Islamic one? Modern British Law and its distinction between guilty action and guilty intent were born in the confessional around 1000 AD, while the modern atheist demand for Freedom of concience has it's root in the dissenter's demand for the same in the wake of the Reformation and under the influence of the original Humanists. How different would our institutions be if we had an Islamic tradition of a deterministic religion to build on instead of the Christian tradition of Free Will?

We won't know until we haver a post-Islamic society to consider.


That seems separate from what we are talking about. Doesn't post-christian philosophy (based on the work of christian philosophers) include a separation of church and state? So why backtrack because it turned out well?

[Rhyfelwyr]

How different would our institutions be if we had an Islamic tradition of a deterministic religion to build on instead of the Christian tradition of Free Will?

*breathes calmly*

They have this debate in Islam as well you know...

[Beskar]

I am from a rural area and I think getting rid of the tradition is a great idea. I want to live in the 21st century, not the 18th. Though, it was only recently that our council got a figurative boot up their behinds and started doing something.

[Pannonian]

If we were at table this would be the point at which I would put down my hapkin and leave, which is what I will now figuratively do.

If you cannot understand how comparing local Councils in rural Devon with the Sicilian mafia is offensive to someone living in the area then we can't have a meaningful discussion about anything, can we?

Oi can't read and oi can't wroite but it doezzn't really matterr
Cos oi'm a local Devon boy and oi can droive a tractorr

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

*breathes calmly*

They have this debate in Islam as well you know...

Yes, but it is couched in different language, and they have a different cosmology and Divine Drama in Islam as well. Irrc Angels in Islam have no Free Will ans Shai'tan (which means "enemy" rather than "accuser") is a Djjin, yes?


I am from a rural area and I think getting rid of the tradition is a great idea. I want to live in the 21st century, not the 18th. Though, it was only recently that our council got a figurative boot up their behinds and started doing something.

Well, if your local Council votes democratically to remove tradititions like prayers then I fully support that.


Oi can't read and oi can't wroite but it doezzn't really matterr
Cos oi'm a local Devon boy and oi can droive a tractorr

Oddly, I am the opposite. I can read and write, but not drive a tracter.

[Louis VI the Fat]

If we were at table this would be the point at which I would put down my hapkin and leave, which is what I will now figuratively do.

If you cannot understand how comparing local Councils in rural Devon with the Sicilian mafia is offensive to someone living in the area then we can't have a meaningful discussion about anything, can we?Everywhere in Europe it is thought that corruption is what the slightly more swarthy foreigner does'.

Often, it isn't. Corruption can be defined as abuse of public power and privilige for private gain. It fades off into mere 'use' of power and privilige for private gain in different cultures.

This went wrong in the Greek thread too. All cultures have a different organisation. What to an Englishman looks like corrupt nepotism, is to the Sicilian a working system of clientelism. The local important politician-businessman exchanges favours, takes care of his own. It is often not even recognised as corruption by them.
Likewise, what to the Englishman is simply a traditional organisation of society, may appear as corrupt nepotism to others. The class society, the state church, the lowest social mobility in Europe, the local aristocrat who gets elected MEP - only to use that position to gain more wealth - these things are not recognised, not understood, by the Englishman as corruption, as abuse of power.

The Frenchmen entertains his relations over lunch, does his business with them in this manner, appoints the people he has learned to trust and has come to value in this manner. To the Swede, a high trust society, this is understood as corruption, as favouring friends. He'll take the Frenchman to the European court because he does not understand why his bid for a public work, despite being cheaper, was not granted to him but went to the more expensive Italian instead.

It is this, which I sought to compare.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Useful, like a theoretical construct that doesn't actually exist? :mellow:

Yes, or as a universal governing principle that underlies our understanding of the world.


But this is a broad policy we require--that is what makes the first two questions here irrelevant. Individual atheists judges can be horribly prejudiced, and individual christian judges can be paragons of justice. But if, on the whole, prayer being an integral part of a governmental proceeding is a significant biasing factor, then the practice should be stopped.

You have yet to demonstrate it is a biasing factor, or that it is a negative one. It has been pointed out that an overtly Christian system is inherently canted towards clemency when the defendant is penitent.


The kind where he raises both hands and repeats "it is the power of Christ himself compels you" over and over to the defendant :beam:

So a judge that performs exorcisms? Strictly outside his remit, that.


That seems separate from what we are talking about. Doesn't post-christian philosophy (based on the work of christian philosophers) include a separation of church and state? So why backtrack because it turned out well?

We aren't talking about seperation of Church and state here, we're talking about a Christian vs and Atheist judge. My point is that both (in Britain) are steeped in Christian tradition; which is why they generally give out lighter sentences when the convicted admits guilt or shows remorse.

[Beskar]

Alright, I am going to be really blunt here, so people can actually sink this in:

Who cares about a Christian, Atheist or Hindu judge, just as long they actually follow the law as it was intended to the letter and pass a sentence which is follows our principles of justice?

Same for the Town Council, why should we care if the councillor is Christian, Atheist, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Pastafarian, just as long as they do their job in the way they are expected to do it.

This isn't about what the faith of the councillors are, and this argument should not be reduced to that level. It is just a simple fact that while on the job, you do your job, you don't search amazon/ebay on the computers, you don't hold mass on the tax-payers expense, insert random-information here.

If a councillor wants to pray privately on their own time, or even go "I believe this is the moral action to do", good on them, they can do that and no one has a issue with it.

It raises up another point, PVC, are you simply attacking the "athiest" for being an atheist? What about if it was a Muslim, Hindu or another faith? It is pretty low of you if you are doing it simply because they are atheist.

As for the force-council mass, no one should have to leave the room, simply because some people want to pray at the start of the meeting. They can do it in their own time. I don't really care what they are doing, but I am not paying for people to do a private activity and not doing their job. When I am in Tesco, I don't want to listen to a sermon from a cashier, I want to have my grocerys dinged and pay for service. If the councillors organised a pre-meeting ebay hunt, I wouldn't be amused either.

Also, what is to stop the councillors from meeting up before or after work to pray?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It raises up another point, PVC, are you simply attacking the "athiest" for being an atheist? What about if it was a Muslim, Hindu or another faith? It is pretty low of you if you are doing it simply because they are atheist.

As for the force-council mass, no one should have to leave the room, simply because some people want to pray at the start of the meeting. They can do it in their own time. I don't really care what they are doing, but I am not paying for people to do a private activity and not doing their job. When I am in Tesco, I don't want to listen to a sermon from a cashier, I want to have my grocerys dinged and pay for service. If the councillors organised a pre-meeting ebay hunt, I wouldn't be amused either.

Also, what is to stop the councillors from meeting up before or after work to pray?

You're still upset because you think I called you immoral, aren't you?

Well I didn't mean to imply that, and I'm sorry that I offended you.

To clarify the relevent point: I have said repeatedly in this thread (including in response to you) that the manner in which the Council is run should be decided by the Council by democratic vote; particularly when there is only one dissenter. In this instance we have a Council which has decided democratically (multiple Councils in point of fact) that they wish to formally say a prayer before opening business. This is democratically decided view of the democratically elected Councillors; it should not be overridden by the National Secular Societ, or anyone else.

In particular, the Courts should not make a habit of interferring in the running of the Executive, we don't use them for that.

If the Council had democratically voted to remove the prayers, replace them with prayers from another faith, or have a "moment of reflection" I would be equally happy with that.

What I object to is an ideologically motivated national society with large reserves of cash using the Courts to bully a small and impoverished Town Council for the sake of making an ideological point.

Now, let me be COMPLETELY clear on this point Beskar, because I think you have misunderstood the situation slightly. This is not a "forced-Mass", which would involve compelling the atheist to take Holy Communion from a Priest before opening proceedings, it is a short prayer said before proceedings.

So my question to you is the same as my question to everyone else: Namely, how is it better to "force" the entire Council, bar one, to meet beofre formal proceedings to have this prayer than it is to "force" one man to leave whilst it is said In Council? Surely it is better to inconvenience one man than ten others?

[Louis VI the Fat]

To clarify the relevent point: I have said repeatedly in this thread (including in response to you) that the manner in which the Council is run should be decided by the Council by democratic vote; particularly when there is only one dissenter. In this instance we have a Council which has decided democratically (multiple Councils in point of fact) that they wish to formally say a prayer before opening business. This is democratically decided view of the democratically elected Councillors; it should not be overridden by the National Secular Societ, or anyone else.

In particular, the Courts should not make a habit of interferring in the running of the Executive, we don't use them for that.A council can not democratically decide the rights of its members, no more than it can democratically decide to send one of its members to death.

Democracy does not mean majority rule, it means virtually the opposite: minority rights, the rule of law, and a reasonable decision making process.


If a council is not willing to abide by what is most probably the law, then it will be taken to court.

[gaelic cowboy]

hmm everyone seems to be invoking typical british tradition on the thread to continue quaint rural traditions etc. Well one tradition they could use in this case is the traditional witch hanging as evidence for this tradition I give you the Bideford chamber of commerce historical section (http://www.bidefordtown.co.uk/bideford-witches-temperance-lloyd-mary-trembles-susanna-edwards-grace-thomas.html)

Three of Bideford’s inhabitants were amongst the last to be legally hanged in England in the 17th Century

In 1682 a poor elderly woman, Temperance Lloyd, was arrested ‘upon suspicion of having used some magical art, sorcery or witchcraft upon the body of Grace Thomas……..’ The meeting in front of the magistrates took place in Higher Gunstone, whilst Grace’s illness consisted of a ‘griping’ in her ‘belly, stomach and breast.’

Grace Barnes was experiencing fits and Mary Trembles who was loitering outside Grace’s house, was accused of being a witch along with another old woman, Susanna Edwards. Grace was carried to the town hall to give evidence. Mary and Susanna were sent off to join Temperance at Exeter.

At the trial on August 1682 the three ‘very old, decrepit and impotent’ women all pleaded not guilty. All three seemed to have freely confessed to their ‘crimes’ during cross-examination.

They were found guilty and sentenced to be hanged. They were hanged on Friday 25 August 1682 at Heavitree in Exeter. They were among the last people to be executed in England for practicing witchcraft.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

hmm everyone seems to be invoking typical british tradition on the thread to continue quaint rural traditions etc. Well one tradition they could use in this case is the traditional witch burning as evidence for this tradition I give you the Bideford chamber of commerce historical section (http://www.bidefordtown.co.uk/bideford-witches-temperance-lloyd-mary-trembles-susanna-edwards-grace-thomas.html)

Three of Bideford’s inhabitants were amongst the last to be legally hanged in England in the 17th Century

In 1682 a poor elderly woman, Temperance Lloyd, was arrested ‘upon suspicion of having used some magical art, sorcery or witchcraft upon the body of Grace Thomas……..’ The meeting in front of the magistrates took place in Higher Gunstone, whilst Grace’s illness consisted of a ‘griping’ in her ‘belly, stomach and breast.’

Grace Barnes was experiencing fits and Mary Trembles who was loitering outside Grace’s house, was accused of being a witch along with another old woman, Susanna Edwards. Grace was carried to the town hall to give evidence. Mary and Susanna were sent off to join Temperance at Exeter.

At the trial on August 1682 the three ‘very old, decrepit and impotent’ women all pleaded not guilty. All three seemed to have freely confessed to their ‘crimes’ during cross-examination.

They were found guilty and sentenced to be hanged. They were hanged on Friday 25 August 1682 at Heavitree in Exeter. They were among the last people to be executed in England for practicing witchcraft.

I'm a little confused, there's no talk og burning; and we never burnt witches in any case. We only burned heretics.

[Rhyfelwyr]

This whole thing is petty. Having prayers before the meeting is one of these historical quirks, a remnant from a time when nobody considered that some people might actually object to praying - nothing malicious in it. All that needed to be done was for this atheist to go 'hey guys, I really don't like to pray, so could you change this so we can all just have a moment of reflection instead, whether we use it to pray or not'. But instead he has to run to the secular society, which might as well be called the 'society of middle-aged men having a rebellious phase because they're under their wife's whip (I swear this is the case for 90% of people who say they are secular humanists)', and then he uses the funds of some faceless organisation to trample all over what could have been a perfectly reasonable practice if he bothered to compromise.


A council can not democratically decide the rights of its members, no more than it can democratically decide to send one of its members to death.

Democracy does not mean majority rule, it means virtually the opposite: minority rights, the rule of law, and a reasonable decision making process.

I agree. :uhoh:

I would not appeal so much to the democratic argument PVC. This is an issue of fundamental rights, and so it is above any appeal to the democratic process.


hmm everyone seems to be invoking typical british tradition on the thread to continue quaint rural traditions etc. Well one tradition they could use in this case is the traditional witch burning as evidence for this tradition I give you the Bideford chamber of commerce historical section (http://www.bidefordtown.co.uk/bideford-witches-temperance-lloyd-mary-trembles-susanna-edwards-grace-thomas.html)

We were still arresting women for witchcraft during WWII you know...

[gaelic cowboy]

I'm a little confused, there's no talk og burning; and we never burnt witches in any case. We only burned heretics.

i fixed it reread my earlier post

[gaelic cowboy]

We were still arresting women for witchcraft during WWII you know...

no way man that's gas
:laugh4:

[rory_20_uk]

Oi can't read and oi can't wroite but it doezzn't really matterr
Cos oi'm a local Devon boy and oi can droive a tractorr

Oi! I'm from Devon!

Anyhoo, back to the topic...

I'm Agnostic, but I don't think that everything in the UK should be removed to ensure that it does not upset or embarass someone or other.

The country's religion is Anglicanism. It is a Monarchy.

Certainly there are some traditions that need to be altered over the years such as Rotten Boroughs, but sorry, even if most of the councellors are Muslim we don't pray East before meetings.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A council can not democratically decide the rights of its members, no more than it can democratically decide to send one of its members to death.

Democracy does not mean majority rule, it means virtually the opposite: minority rights, the rule of law, and a reasonable decision making process.


If a council is not willing to abide by what is most probably the law, then it will be taken to court.

I suppose I should respond, as I know you'll never apolagise and it is a worthwile point.

The question must be decided democratically in a secular society, the only question is at what level. It MUST NOT be decided by the Courts because this involves three old men deciding the morality for an entire nation.

In a secular society we allow no supreme or other supernatural principle to influence the forming of our Law, while individuals can exercise their personal convictions the State must maintain impartiality. This absolutely deprives the State of the ability to define an "inalienable" rights which are outside the competence of the Demos to legislate, because their is now Higher Power which the State acknowledges who can grant such rights.

So, every "Right" in a secular State must be decided by the majority will of people, and then written into law, if the State claims to enforce a "Right" ordained by some Higher Power then it preferences one particular Higher Power over another and ceases to be secular.

The fact that Rhy agrees with you re-inforces my point, as he probably believes that the right of minorities not to be oppressed is ordained by God.

The fact is Loius, that you are in a Catch 22; invoke an inalienable Right and you allow me to deploy God and we lock horns until the Apocalypse, or you abandon that "right" and allow democratic process to decide the issue.

With regard to the current laws, it is almost certainly a legally mandated requirement to have an act of worship before Council, and even if it isn't it can't be illegal because it is legally mandated that every school has a daily act of worship (a law of which many schools are currently in breach).