Town Council being bullied into changing centuries-old tradition

[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]

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.

[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.)

[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, 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). 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, 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). 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...

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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).