Prayers unlawful

[peterb]

Mandatory or not, having prayers in any way associated with 'official' business is offensive.

I don't think it is any more ogffensive than a pressure group exerting its influence to ban a harmless tradition because one person objected to it.

[roachcoach]

Well if its offensive to even one/making people feel awkward, it's probably fair to say its not completely harmless isnt it?

It has no place on the formal agenda of a meeting, this should be done in their own time, plain and simple. Its not something that sets a tone I would view as appropriate for a meeting of that nature.

[directhex]

I don't think it is any more ogffensive than a pressure group exerting its influence to ban a harmless tradition because one person objected to it.

I wish people would stop confusing tradition and religion. This is the kind of bull**** scenario that leads 72% of census respondents to say they're Christian - and only about 25% of those actually have any personal belief rather than "because they were christened or baptised into the religion" or "because their parents were members of the religion" (i.e. "tradition" nonsense)

[TheAnimus]

I don't think it is any more ogffensive than a pressure group exerting its influence to ban a harmless tradition because one person objected to it.

Ah yes, harmless tradition. I'll be honest peterb you don't strike me as remotely objective on this.

How is having as part of an official process a prayer, a good thing? It is only for one group of peoples benefit. It is also symbolic of religions not been treated equal by the state.

We have a lot of very bad traditions in this country, we should do something about them.

As we see from one of the posters here, he has no qualms been prejudice against one group of people, with no rational justification for it.

So if we don't speak out against persecution, against bullying, if we don't force secularism as an issue then we may well end up in a situation like the US, people who have no understanding of biology dictate research in to stem cells, people who just don't like gay people are allowed to be refuse them all services.

Eric pickles has weighed in and is changing the law to skirt around he court judgement.

And then this happens, because people who are in favour of it haven't been half as vocal as those who aren't.

To all those who happen to be worshiping the 'right' god for these meetings, what do you loose by not having it as part of the official process? Other than power, and re-enforcement for your group?

[Phage]

I believe that the separation of any church from state is of the utmost importance. Eric Pickles over-ruling the courts makes it look even worse as government moves to defend one religion. I can't see what justification there can be for it.

If I were of another religion I would be also offended by the implication that this is a meeting associated with another, and then it leads to all sorts of mis-understandings. What does it say about policies on equality and non-discrimination ?

It's not harmless, and it shouldn't be a part of our government. Of course, what people do in another room prior to the meeting is their own business.

[aidanjt]

Who the hell is Eric Pickles anyway, and what gives him the authority to overrule the courts? Even the Prime Minister shouldn't have that authority.

[directhex]

Who the hell is Eric Pickles anyway, and what gives him the authority to overrule the courts?

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Who famously stated that "Britain is a Christian country"

[roachcoach]

Who the hell is Eric Pickles anyway, and what gives him the authority to overrule the courts? Even the Prime Minister shouldn't have that authority.

Well he's being sneaky by pushing a law through that invalidates the judgement, he's not telling the court 'no' directly, but altering the law around it.

Quite ridiculous in this day and age.

Be a bit like making a law specifically to allow the deportation of old Abu because someone disagreed with the judgement

[peterb]

Ah yes, harmless tradition. I'll be honest peterb you don't strike me as remotely objective on this.

I'm certainly not objective in one pressure group deciding policy for another. And I'm not sure that any posters in this thread are particularly objective.

How is having as part of an official process a prayer, a good thing? It is only for one group of peoples benefit. It is also symbolic of religions not been treated equal by the state.

Well, turn that round, how is it harmful?

A form ofd worship is mot mandated by the state, it was, presumably, decided by the councillors, and approved after a vote. In that sense it was a democratic process,

But is a quiet time of reflection/medirtation/prayer (call it what you will) about the business to be discussed, after a busy day, a bad thing?

So if we don't speak out against persecution, against bullying,

Gets my vote!

if we don't force secularism as an issue

Isn't bullying force? So bullying in one situation is acceptable but not in another?

then we may well end up in a situation like the US, people who have no understanding of biology dictate research in to stem cells, people who just don't like gay people are allowed to be refuse them all services.

Or perhaps the situation in the US is because the state takes no interest in religion - even though their bank notes, ironically, state "In God we trust" and the US founding fathers went to the US to escape religious persecution - so perhaps there might be a lesson there.

Who the hell is Eric Pickles anyway, and what gives him the authority to overrule the courts? Even the Prime Minister shouldn't have that authority.

He is a democratically elected member of Parliament who will aanswer to the electorate at the next election.

[Phage]

The 'In God We trust' thing was purely to differentiate themselves from the atheist communists, and the founding fathers went abroad to practice persecution not escape from it.

Please explain in what way I am not being objective ?

[peterb]

The 'In God We trust' thing was purely to differentiate themselves from the atheist communists, and the founding fathers went abroad to practice persecution not escape from it.

Please explain in what way I am not being objective ?

I wouldn't cite Wikipaedia as particularly authoratitive, but the earliest founding fathers went to escape persecution, later settlers were responsible for religious revivalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History..._United_States

As for being objective, it could be argued that by posting in the topic, there is an object in doing so, but I don't think your posts are any less objective than mine.

My view is that one group of people have shown intolerance to another group. Had a religious organisation sought to mandate a form of worship, that would have been equally reprehensible.

But if the majority of councillors agreed, then for one, with the backing of a non-partisan group; should seek to overturn that, is wrong. It doesn't really matter if it religion or not, it is the priniciple and the lack of tolerance that I find unsettling.

[Phage]

As for being objective, it could be argued that by posting in the topic, there is an object in doing so, but I don't think your posts are any less objective than mine.

Can't say fairer than that.

But if the majority of councillors agreed, then for one, with the backing of a non-partisan group; should seek to overturn that, is wrong. It doesn't really matter if it religion or not, it is the priniciple and the lack of tolerance that I find unsettling

We're at cross purposes then.
For me,

1) Religion of any form in government is a bad thing.
2) In this case not only are they mixing church and state, they then continued even after someone objected. You can't have democratic principles and then apply them to religion. Belief doesn't work like that.
What if the objector had been a Sikh, or an atheist ? "Sorry mate, we're praying" just isn't acceptable. Sends a very bad message.

I think it matters a great deal that it is religion. It's not like they're voting on whether to have a library run, or whether to have two bin collections a week. They're voting on a matter of faith....just very wrong. They should have been stopped.

AFAIK, the Puritans left in order to be able to practice religious persecution and intolerance. Not the US mythology. They wanted to continue to remove all the Catholic influences from the church.

From Wikipedia on Puritans.
"Puritans by definition felt that the English Reformation had not gone far enough, and that the Church of England was tolerant of practices which they associated with the Catholic Church"

[TeePee]

The 'Pilgrims' went to the US specifically to start a theocratic colony, with their religion and no other. The founding fathers were not the pilgrim settlers but the participants in the revolution more than a hundred years later.

The genius of the founding fathers is setting up a government which has far better checks and balances. If the government does something unlawful, ultimately the supreme court can overrule it. This has become political and corrupt in the 20th century, of course, and there are many examples of government laws which violate the bill of rights. NDAA which passed this year is pretty obvious. The NFA in 1934 was another example.

In this case nothing stops the council members from practising their religion. They are simply prevented from forcing their religion on the other members.

[TheAnimus]

I'm certainly not objective in one pressure group deciding policy for another. And I'm not sure that any posters in this thread are particularly objective.

That is the issue for me, one group is enforcing it. One group simply says "not by law". That is ultimately the difference, this isn't about private individuals in their private lives. This is about having one of a mirriad of beliefs been forced.

Well, turn that round, how is it harmful?

How would you feel if every meeting started with you been forced to pray to a differen't god? The reason its harmful is because it is not part of the seperation of church and state. If you don't seperate church and state its not really very fair on people, they have no choice. Now some people don't mind having no choice, look how many people buy macs.

A form ofd worship is mot mandated by the state, it was, presumably, decided by the councillors, and approved after a vote. In that sense it was a democratic process

Ah so democratic religious beliefs are OK are they? Lets have a poll which decides the orientation, and god help you if you think the wrong way to everyone else.

But is a quiet time of reflection/medirtation/prayer (call it what you will) about the business to be discussed, after a busy day, a bad thing?

That can be achieved in a manner which is accessable to all, or simply not be part of the formal agenda. In the same way that if we've a late friday meeting a load of us are likely to go to the pub, its not part of the agenda mind.

Isn't bullying force? So bullying in one situation is acceptable but not in another?

Interesting you say that, because ultimately yes. If I saw a homosexual been refused the sale of Condoms in a shop, what can I do? Can I 'bully' the owner, by simply saying its not acceptable in a tolerant society? Or do we just let him be bullied so the merchant doesn't feel upset? What if its a B&B......

If you take an action it often has consequences on others, in this case the consequences on those who wish to pray is almost null. But the consequences on those who feel excluded by their religion not been the chosen one, or by their abscense of fairytails.

I also take a "off by default" role to laws. I don't think we should look at the law book, and say simply "well this law does no harm, well keep it" quite the opposite "this law does no good, why keep it?". I mean think we used to ban consentual sex between adults!

Or perhaps the situation in the US is because the state takes no interest in religion - even though their bank notes, ironically, state "In God we trust" and the US founding fathers went to the US to escape religious persecution - so perhaps there might be a lesson there.

oh my. You do know that the religion creaping furhter in to power is a more recent trate than the constitution. What you've shown is the damage when a majority doesn't respect the power they have, doesn't take the time to think for others.

He is a democratically elected member of Parliament who will aanswer to the electorate at the next election.

And as the majority of people in this country are Christian unless we get them to become more tolerant of others, more caring, understanding and loving, this isn't going to change anything is it?

[GeorgeStorm]

As far as I'm aware, people who don't want to take part in it are allowed to arrive a couple of minutes later?

I see no harm in it, no one if forced to take part...

[peterb]

<---snip

And as the majority of people in this country are Christian unless we get them to become more tolerant of others, more caring, understanding and loving, this isn't going to change anything is it?

I think you'll find that the majority of Christians in this country are tolerant, careing, understanding and loving. There are some, like any diverse group, that are not, but that is equally true of the no-religous. And you will also find that few reject evolution in favour of creationism. You make a sweeping generalisation by extrapolating the actions of a few to include everyone.

And you accuse me of not being objective?