Town Council being bullied into changing centuries-old tradition

[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?

[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.

[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 stripper

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.

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.