Town Council being bullied into changing centuries-old tradition

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Let's imagine a slightly different scenario. A man is on trial for robbing a christian church. It is a lengthy trial. Each day of the trial, the judge and other members of the court publicly pray to the christian god. Will this man get the same sentence as a hypothetical robber who did a robbery that seems equally bad to an unbiased observer?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

I see no such proposal in the article I linked. Would you like to provide your source for this?

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.

To have prayers, or not to have prayers; I fail to see the middle ground. If you believe something should be present in politics, i.e. acknowledgement of religious belief then removing it is as bad as adding it for an atheist.

It took me a while to realise this, but it's true. Removing religion from public life does not make a state secular, it makes it anti-religious.

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.

Yes, obviously I'm a secret fundamentalist, not an educated Humanist. Pull the other one, it's got bells on, and don't try to smear my character again, taking a swipe a Muslims into the bargain no less.

I was refering the French practice of dressing whores as the Virgin Mary and parrading them through Churches, or were you not aware of that part of your own history?

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'.

Not relevant, Torrington (my home) just across the border had a female Mayor 2 years running (virtually unheard of) and she was deputy to another female Mayor, both had Church services at their investiture. In any case, gender equality is different to equality of belief, which I know you don't really believe in any way. You've previously admitted to prefering Christians to Muslims, because you find the latter more distasteful and incompatable with your beliefs.

Also, neither was part of this mythical elite you seem to think runs my country.

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.

An inclusive compromise cannot be found on a matter of principle, one principle must give wayy to the other, or both are compromised.

This concept of "triangulation" was a favourite of Tony Blair, and he is one of the most morally bankrupt politicians of our age.

[Pannonian]

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.

So wait a few more decades, and that tradition will die out of its own accord, unless some younger 'uns decide to maintain it as a historical artefact. Why rush it?

[Beskar]

So wait a few more decades, and that tradition will die out of its own accord, unless some younger 'uns decide to maintain it as a historical artefact. Why rush it?

Why bother to wash the dishes straight away? Why not leave them a few days?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yes, obviously I'm a secret fundamentalist, not an educated Humanist.

Fundamantalism and humanism were quite interlinked in the past, certainly not mutually exclusive. For you to suggest they are is highly offensive!

Nah I'm joking with the offensive bit, but humanism had a big impact on the Protestant reformers that drew a lot of their inspiration from the humanism of the time.

Although I think sometimes when people speak of fundamentalism today, they really mean American Evangicalism, in which case what you said was fair enough.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Why bother to wash the dishes straight away? Why not leave them a few days?

Because you might need to use them later, and the bacteria would get worse.

BAM! Got you there...

[Beskar]

Because you might need to use them later, and the bacteria would get worse.

BAM! Got you there...

You was proving my point for "doing it now and not later".

[Reenk Roink]

I think it is actually good for these types of traditions to be challenged now and then. This creates the backlash which refreshes it up in the minds of the public again instead of letting it wither away and die with the changing social context.

Remember that atheist and the "under god" thing in the pledge of allegiance? I was expecting a Jehovah's Witness to complain about the pledge first but nothing beats some of these wacky atheists...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why bother to wash the dishes straight away? Why not leave them a few days?

Why bother to replace the dishes when they aren't broken?

Fundamantalism and humanism were quite interlinked in the past, certainly not mutually exclusive. For you to suggest they are is highly offensive!

Nah I'm joking with the offensive bit, but humanism had a big impact on the Protestant reformers that drew a lot of their inspiration from the humanism of the time.

Although I think sometimes when people speak of fundamentalism today, they really mean American Evangicalism, in which case what you said was fair enough.

I meant in the modern sense, as it is generally understood; not the historical sense meant by learned men.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I see no such proposal in the article I linked. Would you like to provide your source for this?

Various compromises have been proposed in various forced prayer councils.

For example, a quiet moment of reflection at the start of formal court proceedings. This, needles to say, the secularist is not in the least bit interested in, but it allows for any Christian to have his prayer.
Or prayers to be held before formal proceedings commence, to let the mayor come in after prayer is over. This then not being a part of formal proceedings, the Christian members can have a communal prayer.

None of the compromises have been acceptable to the 'forced prayer' crowd. The Christian concession is to allow for the secularist to wait outside. Which is preposterous. A council member does not step outside during any formal proceedings like a punished schoolkid.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/council...n-the-nex.html



The 'forced prayer' council members thus unwilling to accept any meaningful compromise whatsoever, and persisting in a practise that goes against the pertinent advice of the National Association of Local Councils and which is in all likelihood illegal as well, the NSS will now take the Council to court.

To have prayers, or not to have prayers; I fail to see the middle ground.


An inclusive compromise cannot be found on a matter of principle, one principle must give way to the other, or both are compromised.

No, I think Christians and non-Christians can live peacefully besides one another perfectly fine. All it takes is a little compromise, to live and let live.




The 'sexist' example again. Imagine it is 1975. Council boards, corporate boards, are still virtual male monopolies. Sexist jokes and behaviour abound. Now, a female board member asks an end to this, asks the male members to have their sexist fun in their own time, instead of as part as formal proceedings to which she is present.

What does one make of this? Is she a petulant spoilsport? Unwilling to fit in? A frustrated butch, a bully? Is the sexism an ancient tradition that must be maintained, because it's always been like this?
Or does the single woman on the council have a point: the council ought to be inclusive, the old white men should allow for an inclusive atmosphere, that takes into account changing customs and is in accordance with evolved equality legislation?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Various compromises have been proposed in various forced prayer councils.

Forced is inaccurate, no one is forced wither to partake or listen. You are deliberately misrepresenting the issue.

For example, a quiet moment of reflection at the start of formal court proceedings. This, needles to say, the secularist is not in the least bit interested in, but it allows for any Christian to have his prayer.
Or prayers to be held before formal proceedings commence, to let the mayor come in after prayer is over. This then not being a part of formal proceedings, the Christian members can have a communal prayer.

None of the compromises have been acceptable to the 'forced prayer' crowd. The Christian concession is to allow for the secularist to wait outside. Which is preposterous. A council member does not step outside during any formal proceedings like a punished schoolkid.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/council...n-the-nex.html

So, instead of one man leaving, you evict the whole Council bar one? How is that in any way better?

The 'forced prayer' council members thus unwilling to accept any meaningful compromise whatsoever, and persisting in a practise that goes against the pertinent advice of the National Association of Local Councils and which is in all likelihood illegal as well, the NSS will now take the Council to court.

Yes, we're such utterly terrible people, aren't we?

No, I think Christians and non-Christians can live peacefully besides one another perfectly fine. All it takes is a little compromise, to live and let live.

Of course you do, so long as they keep their faith quietly behind closed doors, like people who are ashamed.

Why not just let the Christians keep their prayers, as they do no harm, are the democratically decided wishes of the Council and mean nothing to an atheist? Dartmouth voted down a proposal to remove them, which is not surprising because the atheist who proposed it had the gall to not only bring an ipod into the Chamber but to listen to it while the Council was in Lession.

He is clearly a man of little compunction in any case, he makes atheism look bad.

The 'sexist' example again. Imagine it is 1975. Council boards, corporate boards, are still virtual male monopolies. Sexist jokes and behaviour abound. Now, a female board member asks an end to this, asks the male members to have their sexist fun in their own time, instead of as part as formal proceedings to which she is present.

What does one make of this? Is she a petulant spoilsport? Unwilling to fit in? A frustrated butch, a bully? Is the sexism an ancient tradition that must be maintained, because it's always been like this?
Or does the single woman on the council have a point: the council ought to be inclusive, the old white men should allow for an inclusive atmosphere, that takes into account changing customs and is in accordance with evolved equality legislation?

This is not done for fun, now is it an irregular activity; it is a formal (and legally instituted) part of proceedings.

Also, I should like you to find examples of sexism in the Aldermen of any of the Town Councils in Devon.

[Meneldil]

I was refering the French practice of dressing whores as the Virgin Mary and parrading them through Churches, or were you not aware of that part of your own history?

Good times...
I would consider being religious if it was actually funny and involved almost naked hot chicks.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Good times...
I would consider being religious if it was actually funny and involved almost naked hot chicks.

That doesn't surprise me given that you're in favour of simulated sex acts photographed on Church alters.

[Myrddraal]

Let's imagine a slightly different scenario. A man is on trial for robbing a christian church. It is a lengthy trial. Each day of the trial, the judge and other members of the court publicly pray to the christian god. Will this man get the same sentence as a hypothetical robber who did a robbery that seems equally bad to an unbiased observer?

I should hope so. I would be very very disappointed in the British legal system if they did not. Are you saying that a Christian judge would deal out a harsher sentence in this situation?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I should hope so. I would be very very disappointed in the British legal system if they did not. Are you saying that a Christian judge would deal out a harsher sentence in this situation?

Sure. As I learned in the movies, it used to be considered extremely immoral to commit any sort of crime in a church, because it was an offense to god. When religion is a part of civic functions it brings with it that chance for bias. And, if he is praying publicly each day in court, perhaps he does not believe that church and state should be separated.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I should hope so. I would be very very disappointed in the British legal system if they did not. Are you saying that a Christian judge would deal out a harsher sentence in this situation?

I wouldn't expect them to, and I fail to see how it is relevant.

Turn the question on it's head: Would an atheist Judge understand or appreciate the multiple social-care functions a Church fulfill, and the consequent damage done by the robber to the local community?

[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.)

[Husar]

Let's imagine a slightly different scenario. A man is on trial for robbing a christian church. It is a lengthy trial. Each day of the trial, the judge and other members of the court publicly pray to the christian god. Will this man get the same sentence as a hypothetical robber who did a robbery that seems equally bad to an unbiased observer?

No, he will get a more lenient sentence than he would from an atheist judge who reads the 'guns weekly' and 'how to protect your front yard' magazines at home since Jesus told the Christian judge to forgive and to 'love thy enemies as you love thyself' or however it's written in old english, doing the prayers would give the judge the peace of mind required to judge the case wisely.

[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.

[HoreTore]

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.

Good.

The state is and should remain secular. "Tradition" is a word usually used to defend practices we know are wrong and halt our progress to a better future.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

No, he will get a more lenient sentence than he would from an atheist judge who reads the 'guns weekly' and 'how to protect your front yard' magazines at home since Jesus told the Christian judge to forgive and to 'love thy enemies as you love thyself' or however it's written in old english, doing the prayers would give the judge the peace of mind required to judge the case wisely.

I wouldn't expect them to, and I fail to see how it is relevant.

Turn the question on it's head: Would an atheist Judge understand or appreciate the multiple social-care functions a Church fulfill, and the consequent damage done by the robber to the local community?

Eh? So atheists judges would either be biased or ignorant in this case? I suggested a hypothetical unbiased observer of an equal case.

That doesn't jibe with reality anyway. The most religious governments are the least just, and the most secular do just fine. Secular morality is more modern and religious morality is entangled with centuries-old traditions.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

So this is the country bumpkins unable to understand the pace of the modern world? Or is that just a more genteel way of saying we're a bunch of ignorant, bigoted, corrupt, elitist stuck in the muds?

I'm sorry, but you comments regarding local government in England have been excessive, intemperate, inaccurate, and down right slanderous. If this is some attempt at an apolagy or justification of your previous statements it is severly lacking.

Eh? So atheists judges would either be biased or ignorant in this case? I suggested a hypothetical unbiased observer of an equal case.

You can't have an unbiased observer, such a thing does not exist. A religious judge runs the risk of being too sympathetic to the Church, an atheist of not recognising the severity of the crime because of a lack of experience. Mitigation of either prejudice comes only with temperence, experience and reflection. In short, the quality of sentencing is dependent on the quality of the judge and his application of the Law, not on his theology.

That doesn't jibe with reality anyway. The most religious governments are the least just, and the most secular do just fine. Secular morality is more modern and religious morality is entangled with centuries-old traditions.

I dissagree, because most of the "religious" governments are Islamic, while most of the "secular" ones are post-Christian. Therefore, they are rooted in different traditions and not directly comparable. You would need to compare the judgements of a specifically Christian judge with a specifically atheist one in order to have any idea if the two differ substantively, and in what ways.

[HoreTore]

I dissagree, because most of the "religious" governments are Islamic, while most of the "secular" ones are post-Christian. Therefore, they are rooted in different traditions and not directly comparable. You would need to compare the judgements of a specifically Christian judge with a specifically atheist one in order to have any idea if the two differ substantively, and in what ways.

Korea and Japan says hello.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You can't have an unbiased observer, such a thing does not exist.

You can imagine one as a contrast.

A religious judge runs the risk of being too sympathetic to the Church, an atheist of not recognising the severity of the crime because of a lack of experience. Mitigation of either prejudice comes only with temperence, experience and reflection. In short, the quality of sentencing is dependent on the quality of the judge and his application of the Law, not on his theology.

Emotional sympathies are many times harder to work around than lack of information. And PVC, I am not saying that christian judges are bad. But isn't praying publicly each day before the trial a sign that he is bringing too much of his theology into his application of the law? It doesn't seem to be a sign of temperance, experience, or reflection.

I dissagree, because most of the "religious" governments are Islamic, while most of the "secular" ones are post-Christian. Therefore, they are rooted in different traditions and not directly comparable. You would need to compare the judgements of a specifically Christian judge with a specifically atheist one in order to have any idea if the two differ substantively, and in what ways.

I accept the point about the 3rd world nature of most of the religious governments...but doesn't saying that the good governments are post-Christian make my point for me? We've moved past the state being religious, though we still have relics:

A blue law is a type of law, typically found in the United States, designed to enforce religious standards, particularly the observance of Sunday as a day of worship or rest, and a restriction on Sunday shopping.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Korea and Japan says hello.

Both of which A: have problems particularly in the case of worker-rights and B: have accepted Westernised Christian-Humanist principles into their Law.

[Louis VI the Fat]

country bumpkins
unable to understand
ignorant
bigoted
corrupt
elitist
stuck in the muds
excessive
intemperate
inaccurate
slanderous
severly lacking

Temper, temper!



...we are only destroying your way of life by trying to find a compromise on prayer in town councils.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You can imagine one as a contrast.

I'm sorry, I don't think it's helpful. Though, of course the obvious unbiased judge would naturally be God (see how he's useful like that? Francis Bacon wrote an essay on this).

Emotional sympathies are many times harder to work around than lack of information. And PVC, I am not saying that christian judges are bad. But isn't praying publicly each day before the trial a sign that he is bringing too much of his theology into his application of the law? It doesn't seem to be a sign of temperance, experience, or reflection.

Who says the atheist only has an un-emotional prejudice? Or that the Christian judge isn't using his practical expereince of the Church to inform his decision? It comes down, as I said, wholly to the quality of the judge and how he uses his experience.

As to his paying every day, and what this reflects, that would depend entirely on the type of prayer he was ingaged in, be it liturgical, affective, diadactic or contemplative. I am assuming from your comment that you don't have any direct expereince of varied forms of prayer, and you may be thinking of the more recent fashion for ecstatic prayer5, which is different again.

I accept the point about the 3rd world nature of most of the religious governments...but doesn't saying that the good governments are post-Christian make my point for me? We've moved past the state being religious, though we still have relics:

Do you suppose a post-Christian philosophy is the same as a post-Islamic one? Modern British Law and its distinction between guilty action and guilty intent were born in the confessional around 1000 AD, while the modern atheist demand for Freedom of concience has it's root in the dissenter's demand for the same in the wake of the Reformation and under the influence of the original Humanists. How different would our institutions be if we had an Islamic tradition of a deterministic religion to build on instead of the Christian tradition of Free Will?

We won't know until we haver a post-Islamic society to consider.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Temper, temper!



...we are only destroying your way of life by trying to find a compromise on prayer in town councils.

If we were at table this would be the point at which I would put down my hapkin and leave, which is what I will now figuratively do.

If you cannot understand how comparing local Councils in rural Devon with the Sicilian mafia is offensive to someone living in the area then we can't have a meaningful discussion about anything, can we?