Town Council being bullied into changing centuries-old tradition

[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.