Town Council being bullied into changing centuries-old tradition

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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).

Useful, like a theoretical construct that doesn't actually exist?

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.

But this is a broad policy we require--that is what makes the first two questions here irrelevant. Individual atheists judges can be horribly prejudiced, and individual christian judges can be paragons of justice. But if, on the whole, prayer being an integral part of a governmental proceeding is a significant biasing factor, then the practice should be stopped.

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.

The kind where he raises both hands and repeats "it is the power of Christ himself compels you" over and over to the defendant

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.

That seems separate from what we are talking about. Doesn't post-christian philosophy (based on the work of christian philosophers) include a separation of church and state? So why backtrack because it turned out well?

[Rhyfelwyr]

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?

*breathes calmly*

They have this debate in Islam as well you know...

[Beskar]

I am from a rural area and I think getting rid of the tradition is a great idea. I want to live in the 21st century, not the 18th. Though, it was only recently that our council got a figurative boot up their behinds and started doing something.

[Pannonian]

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?

Oi can't read and oi can't wroite but it doezzn't really matterr
Cos oi'm a local Devon boy and oi can droive a tractorr

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

*breathes calmly*

They have this debate in Islam as well you know...

Yes, but it is couched in different language, and they have a different cosmology and Divine Drama in Islam as well. Irrc Angels in Islam have no Free Will ans Shai'tan (which means "enemy" rather than "accuser") is a Djjin, yes?

I am from a rural area and I think getting rid of the tradition is a great idea. I want to live in the 21st century, not the 18th. Though, it was only recently that our council got a figurative boot up their behinds and started doing something.

Well, if your local Council votes democratically to remove tradititions like prayers then I fully support that.

Oi can't read and oi can't wroite but it doezzn't really matterr
Cos oi'm a local Devon boy and oi can droive a tractorr

Oddly, I am the opposite. I can read and write, but not drive a tracter.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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?

Everywhere in Europe it is thought that corruption is what the slightly more swarthy foreigner does'.

Often, it isn't. Corruption can be defined as abuse of public power and privilige for private gain. It fades off into mere 'use' of power and privilige for private gain in different cultures.

This went wrong in the Greek thread too. All cultures have a different organisation. What to an Englishman looks like corrupt nepotism, is to the Sicilian a working system of clientelism. The local important politician-businessman exchanges favours, takes care of his own. It is often not even recognised as corruption by them.
Likewise, what to the Englishman is simply a traditional organisation of society, may appear as corrupt nepotism to others. The class society, the state church, the lowest social mobility in Europe, the local aristocrat who gets elected MEP - only to use that position to gain more wealth - these things are not recognised, not understood, by the Englishman as corruption, as abuse of power.

The Frenchmen entertains his relations over lunch, does his business with them in this manner, appoints the people he has learned to trust and has come to value in this manner. To the Swede, a high trust society, this is understood as corruption, as favouring friends. He'll take the Frenchman to the European court because he does not understand why his bid for a public work, despite being cheaper, was not granted to him but went to the more expensive Italian instead.

It is this, which I sought to compare.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Useful, like a theoretical construct that doesn't actually exist?

Yes, or as a universal governing principle that underlies our understanding of the world.

But this is a broad policy we require--that is what makes the first two questions here irrelevant. Individual atheists judges can be horribly prejudiced, and individual christian judges can be paragons of justice. But if, on the whole, prayer being an integral part of a governmental proceeding is a significant biasing factor, then the practice should be stopped.

You have yet to demonstrate it is a biasing factor, or that it is a negative one. It has been pointed out that an overtly Christian system is inherently canted towards clemency when the defendant is penitent.

The kind where he raises both hands and repeats "it is the power of Christ himself compels you" over and over to the defendant

So a judge that performs exorcisms? Strictly outside his remit, that.

That seems separate from what we are talking about. Doesn't post-christian philosophy (based on the work of christian philosophers) include a separation of church and state? So why backtrack because it turned out well?

We aren't talking about seperation of Church and state here, we're talking about a Christian vs and Atheist judge. My point is that both (in Britain) are steeped in Christian tradition; which is why they generally give out lighter sentences when the convicted admits guilt or shows remorse.

[Beskar]

Alright, I am going to be really blunt here, so people can actually sink this in:

Who cares about a Christian, Atheist or Hindu judge, just as long they actually follow the law as it was intended to the letter and pass a sentence which is follows our principles of justice?

Same for the Town Council, why should we care if the councillor is Christian, Atheist, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Pastafarian, just as long as they do their job in the way they are expected to do it.

This isn't about what the faith of the councillors are, and this argument should not be reduced to that level. It is just a simple fact that while on the job, you do your job, you don't search amazon/ebay on the computers, you don't hold mass on the tax-payers expense, insert random-information here.

If a councillor wants to pray privately on their own time, or even go "I believe this is the moral action to do", good on them, they can do that and no one has a issue with it.

It raises up another point, PVC, are you simply attacking the "athiest" for being an atheist? What about if it was a Muslim, Hindu or another faith? It is pretty low of you if you are doing it simply because they are atheist.

As for the force-council mass, no one should have to leave the room, simply because some people want to pray at the start of the meeting. They can do it in their own time. I don't really care what they are doing, but I am not paying for people to do a private activity and not doing their job. When I am in Tesco, I don't want to listen to a sermon from a cashier, I want to have my grocerys dinged and pay for service. If the councillors organised a pre-meeting ebay hunt, I wouldn't be amused either.

Also, what is to stop the councillors from meeting up before or after work to pray?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It raises up another point, PVC, are you simply attacking the "athiest" for being an atheist? What about if it was a Muslim, Hindu or another faith? It is pretty low of you if you are doing it simply because they are atheist.

As for the force-council mass, no one should have to leave the room, simply because some people want to pray at the start of the meeting. They can do it in their own time. I don't really care what they are doing, but I am not paying for people to do a private activity and not doing their job. When I am in Tesco, I don't want to listen to a sermon from a cashier, I want to have my grocerys dinged and pay for service. If the councillors organised a pre-meeting ebay hunt, I wouldn't be amused either.

Also, what is to stop the councillors from meeting up before or after work to pray?

You're still upset because you think I called you immoral, aren't you?

Well I didn't mean to imply that, and I'm sorry that I offended you.

To clarify the relevent point: I have said repeatedly in this thread (including in response to you) that the manner in which the Council is run should be decided by the Council by democratic vote; particularly when there is only one dissenter. In this instance we have a Council which has decided democratically (multiple Councils in point of fact) that they wish to formally say a prayer before opening business. This is democratically decided view of the democratically elected Councillors; it should not be overridden by the National Secular Societ, or anyone else.

In particular, the Courts should not make a habit of interferring in the running of the Executive, we don't use them for that.

If the Council had democratically voted to remove the prayers, replace them with prayers from another faith, or have a "moment of reflection" I would be equally happy with that.

What I object to is an ideologically motivated national society with large reserves of cash using the Courts to bully a small and impoverished Town Council for the sake of making an ideological point.

Now, let me be COMPLETELY clear on this point Beskar, because I think you have misunderstood the situation slightly. This is not a "forced-Mass", which would involve compelling the atheist to take Holy Communion from a Priest before opening proceedings, it is a short prayer said before proceedings.

So my question to you is the same as my question to everyone else: Namely, how is it better to "force" the entire Council, bar one, to meet beofre formal proceedings to have this prayer than it is to "force" one man to leave whilst it is said In Council? Surely it is better to inconvenience one man than ten others?

[Louis VI the Fat]

To clarify the relevent point: I have said repeatedly in this thread (including in response to you) that the manner in which the Council is run should be decided by the Council by democratic vote; particularly when there is only one dissenter. In this instance we have a Council which has decided democratically (multiple Councils in point of fact) that they wish to formally say a prayer before opening business. This is democratically decided view of the democratically elected Councillors; it should not be overridden by the National Secular Societ, or anyone else.

In particular, the Courts should not make a habit of interferring in the running of the Executive, we don't use them for that.

A council can not democratically decide the rights of its members, no more than it can democratically decide to send one of its members to death.

Democracy does not mean majority rule, it means virtually the opposite: minority rights, the rule of law, and a reasonable decision making process.


If a council is not willing to abide by what is most probably the law, then it will be taken to court.

[gaelic cowboy]

hmm everyone seems to be invoking typical british tradition on the thread to continue quaint rural traditions etc. Well one tradition they could use in this case is the traditional witch hanging as evidence for this tradition I give you the Bideford chamber of commerce historical section

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Three of Bideford’s inhabitants were amongst the last to be legally hanged in England in the 17th Century

In 1682 a poor elderly woman, Temperance Lloyd, was arrested ‘upon suspicion of having used some magical art, sorcery or witchcraft upon the body of Grace Thomas……..’ The meeting in front of the magistrates took place in Higher Gunstone, whilst Grace’s illness consisted of a ‘griping’ in her ‘belly, stomach and breast.’

Grace Barnes was experiencing fits and Mary Trembles who was loitering outside Grace’s house, was accused of being a witch along with another old woman, Susanna Edwards. Grace was carried to the town hall to give evidence. Mary and Susanna were sent off to join Temperance at Exeter.

At the trial on August 1682 the three ‘very old, decrepit and impotent’ women all pleaded not guilty. All three seemed to have freely confessed to their ‘crimes’ during cross-examination.

They were found guilty and sentenced to be hanged. They were hanged on Friday 25 August 1682 at Heavitree in Exeter. They were among the last people to be executed in England for practicing witchcraft.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

hmm everyone seems to be invoking typical british tradition on the thread to continue quaint rural traditions etc. Well one tradition they could use in this case is the traditional witch burning as evidence for this tradition I give you the Bideford chamber of commerce historical section

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Three of Bideford’s inhabitants were amongst the last to be legally hanged in England in the 17th Century

In 1682 a poor elderly woman, Temperance Lloyd, was arrested ‘upon suspicion of having used some magical art, sorcery or witchcraft upon the body of Grace Thomas……..’ The meeting in front of the magistrates took place in Higher Gunstone, whilst Grace’s illness consisted of a ‘griping’ in her ‘belly, stomach and breast.’

Grace Barnes was experiencing fits and Mary Trembles who was loitering outside Grace’s house, was accused of being a witch along with another old woman, Susanna Edwards. Grace was carried to the town hall to give evidence. Mary and Susanna were sent off to join Temperance at Exeter.

At the trial on August 1682 the three ‘very old, decrepit and impotent’ women all pleaded not guilty. All three seemed to have freely confessed to their ‘crimes’ during cross-examination.

They were found guilty and sentenced to be hanged. They were hanged on Friday 25 August 1682 at Heavitree in Exeter. They were among the last people to be executed in England for practicing witchcraft.

I'm a little confused, there's no talk og burning; and we never burnt witches in any case. We only burned heretics.

[Rhyfelwyr]

This whole thing is petty. Having prayers before the meeting is one of these historical quirks, a remnant from a time when nobody considered that some people might actually object to praying - nothing malicious in it. All that needed to be done was for this atheist to go 'hey guys, I really don't like to pray, so could you change this so we can all just have a moment of reflection instead, whether we use it to pray or not'. But instead he has to run to the secular society, which might as well be called the 'society of middle-aged men having a rebellious phase because they're under their wife's whip (I swear this is the case for 90% of people who say they are secular humanists)', and then he uses the funds of some faceless organisation to trample all over what could have been a perfectly reasonable practice if he bothered to compromise.

A council can not democratically decide the rights of its members, no more than it can democratically decide to send one of its members to death.

Democracy does not mean majority rule, it means virtually the opposite: minority rights, the rule of law, and a reasonable decision making process.

I agree.

I would not appeal so much to the democratic argument PVC. This is an issue of fundamental rights, and so it is above any appeal to the democratic process.

hmm everyone seems to be invoking typical british tradition on the thread to continue quaint rural traditions etc. Well one tradition they could use in this case is the traditional witch burning as evidence for this tradition I give you the Bideford chamber of commerce historical section

We were still arresting women for witchcraft during WWII you know...

[gaelic cowboy]

I'm a little confused, there's no talk og burning; and we never burnt witches in any case. We only burned heretics.

i fixed it reread my earlier post

[gaelic cowboy]

We were still arresting women for witchcraft during WWII you know...

no way man that's gas

[rory_20_uk]

Oi can't read and oi can't wroite but it doezzn't really matterr
Cos oi'm a local Devon boy and oi can droive a tractorr

Oi! I'm from Devon!

Anyhoo, back to the topic...

I'm Agnostic, but I don't think that everything in the UK should be removed to ensure that it does not upset or embarass someone or other.

The country's religion is Anglicanism. It is a Monarchy.

Certainly there are some traditions that need to be altered over the years such as Rotten Boroughs, but sorry, even if most of the councellors are Muslim we don't pray East before meetings.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A council can not democratically decide the rights of its members, no more than it can democratically decide to send one of its members to death.

Democracy does not mean majority rule, it means virtually the opposite: minority rights, the rule of law, and a reasonable decision making process.


If a council is not willing to abide by what is most probably the law, then it will be taken to court.

I suppose I should respond, as I know you'll never apolagise and it is a worthwile point.

The question must be decided democratically in a secular society, the only question is at what level. It MUST NOT be decided by the Courts because this involves three old men deciding the morality for an entire nation.

In a secular society we allow no supreme or other supernatural principle to influence the forming of our Law, while individuals can exercise their personal convictions the State must maintain impartiality. This absolutely deprives the State of the ability to define an "inalienable" rights which are outside the competence of the Demos to legislate, because their is now Higher Power which the State acknowledges who can grant such rights.

So, every "Right" in a secular State must be decided by the majority will of people, and then written into law, if the State claims to enforce a "Right" ordained by some Higher Power then it preferences one particular Higher Power over another and ceases to be secular.

The fact that Rhy agrees with you re-inforces my point, as he probably believes that the right of minorities not to be oppressed is ordained by God.

The fact is Loius, that you are in a Catch 22; invoke an inalienable Right and you allow me to deploy God and we lock horns until the Apocalypse, or you abandon that "right" and allow democratic process to decide the issue.

With regard to the current laws, it is almost certainly a legally mandated requirement to have an act of worship before Council, and even if it isn't it can't be illegal because it is legally mandated that every school has a daily act of worship (a law of which many schools are currently in breach).