Town Council being bullied into changing centuries-old tradition

[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?

[Tellos Athenaios]

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

[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.

[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.

[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?

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.

[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.

[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 - 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.

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]

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 already? Doesn't that change matters?

[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

[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.