Town Council being bullied into changing centuries-old tradition

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-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.

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

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

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miotas

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miotas

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

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

---

Seriously, you're comparing rural England to Iran?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Can you enlighten me?

---

probably not ;)

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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

Quote:

---

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?

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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