Is Christianity Being Marginalised?

[anotherbob]

Like-minded people just agree to meet 10 minutes before the meeting to pray in another room - simples

There might be procedural difficulties if Councillors needed to consult their deity during a meeting, perhaps requiring guidance on a vote ;)

[teamsaint]

I don't know if "prayers work".
I do know that conciousness affects how matter behaves.

This leads us down very interesting paths.

[amateur51]

There might be procedural difficulties if Councillors needed to consult their deity during a meeting, perhaps requiring guidance on a vote ;)

[scottycelt]

The surprising thing (at least to myself) is not so much the court judgement (wearingly predictable in today's anti-religious climate) but that some councils still apparently maintain the pre-meeting prayer practice.

I wonder just who is offended by such a practice apart from the National Secular Society and a small minority of intolerant atheists? I've never heard it brought up in any conversation or discussed in the media until the action was brought by the agenda-driven malcontents.

Christians have been persecuted for centuries in other parts of the world and a little bit of petty prejudice in the UK is nothing to get too worked up about.

Of course the secular bigots' next target will be religious services at such things like state weddings and funerals, and remembering the dead at the Cenotaph. Now, there's a real challenge for them, coming up with something to put in their place at such events ...

Maybe we'll be offered a 'sermon' about the Big Bang from Professor Dawkins and the like ... ?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I wonder just who is offended by such a practice

Nobody was "offended": but some councillors objected to being marked "late" in the Council minutes because they felt didn't want to hang around looking at the wallpaper whilst some of their colleagues wanted to pray.

And being thrown to lions, burnt at the stake, and other types of execution can be called "persecution", but being told that your faith is not something you are entitled to submit others to against their convictions is pushing the definition to the belittlement of those who have really suffered for their beliefs.

[Chris Newman]

A sketch by John Cleese based, I think, on a sketch written for That Was The Week That Was, entitled A Consumer's Guide To Religion' by Robert Gillespie and Charles Lewsen

http://www.4shared.com/mp3/C-6Am8S_/...rs_guide_.html

Yes, variations on this sketch got a lot of airings. I am pretty sure John Cleese and Ronnie Barker did something similar in The Frost Report with David Frost.

[amateur51]

The surprising thing (at least to myself) is not so much the court judgement (wearingly predictable in today's anti-religious climate) but that some councils still apparently maintain the pre-meeting prayer practice.

As I understand it, this judgement is merely saying that local authorities do not have the powers to have prayers on their agenda under some Local Government Act of 1972. In other words, the Christians assumed that it was ok when in fact it wasn't. I wonder how they came about that idea . The people whose practices are being limited are thus local councillors of all faiths, not just Christians

I wonder just who is offended by such a practice apart from the National Secular Society and a small minority of intolerant atheists? I've never heard it brought up in any conversation or discussed in the media until the action was brought by the agenda-driven malcontents

Does silence denote acceptance or might it on occasion denote fear of rocking the boat, in case this sort of contempt & ignominy should be heaped on them for being forthright and assertive?

Christians have been persecuted for centuries in other parts of the world and a little bit of petty prejudice in the UK is nothing to get too worked up about.

And Christians have never given other religious groups and people of no faith a hard time, have they scotty?

[scottycelt]

Nobody was "offended": but some councillors objected to being marked "late" in the Council minutes because they felt didn't want to hang around looking at the wallpaper whilst some of their colleagues wanted to pray..

Well the wounded heart veritably bleeds for the poor time-strapped wee dears ...

The 'marked late' line was just an excuse to get rid of the prayers altogether as part of the formal council proceedings ... we all know that, not least the National Secular Society, so why pretend otherwise?

[BBMmk2]

The national Secular society want prayers banned in both Houses of Parliament!!

[amateur51]

Well the wounded heart veritably bleeds for the poor time-strapped wee dears ...

The 'marked late' line was just an excuse to get rid of the prayers altogether as part of the formal council proceedings ... we all know that, not least the National Secular Society, so why pretend otherwise?

That there was an item on the agenda for prayers was something that the Council did not have the power to have; that is what the judgement is about, as i explained earlier.

It may well be that this judgement will be reversed on appeal, scotty. Don't get your gusset in a twist

[amateur51]

The national Secular society want prayers banned in both Houses of Parliament!!

As I understand it, the NSS wants to remove prayers from the formal items on the agenda, BBM. Members who wish to pray will still be able to do so, just not in the parliamentary chamber but rather in another room ahead of that day's business.

Seems eminently sensible and fair to me

[scottycelt]

That there was an item on the agenda for prayers was something that the Council did not have the power to have; that is what the judgement is about, as i explained earlier.

It may well be that this judgement will be reversed on appeal, scotty. Don't get your gusset in a twist

As I said, Ams, this is not a huge issue for me and not all of us wear gussets, you know ...

The point is that the council in question had previously, on a number of occasions, voted to retain the prayers, so the judgement appears to interfere and conflict with democratic council proceedings. The prayers have not been banned (as hysterically reported in the media), it is the fact they should no longer be considered as part of the formal council proceedings that is the actual court judgement.

However, the National Secular Society now appears to have won its case to override the democratic wishes of councilors to formally say prayers before any local council meeting in the country ... so just who is ramming what down unwilling throats here?

Right, back to the boring AV-Man City game ...

[amateur51]

As I said, Ams, this is not a huge issue for me and not all of us wear gussets, you know ...

The point is that the council in question had previously, on a number of occasions, voted to retain the prayers, so the judgement appears to interfere and conflict with democratic council proceedings. The prayers have not been banned (as hysterically reported in the media), it is the fact they should no longer be considered as part of the formal council proceedings that is the actual court judgement.

However, the National Secular Society now appears to have won its case to override the democratic wishes of councilors to formally say prayers before any local council meeting in the country ... so just who is ramming what down unwilling throats here?

Right, back to the boring AV-Man City game ...

It doesn't matter how democratic the vote is, scotty, if it contravenes the law then it falls. They had taken unto themselves powers that they did not have. End of. Throat ramming doesn't come into it

[scottycelt]

It doesn't matter how democratic the vote is, scotty, if it contravenes the law then it falls. They had taken unto themselves powers that they did not have. End of. Throat ramming doesn't come into it

'Fraid that just doesn't wash, Ams, old chap ...

I (and possibly the majority of the population?) would have thought that up until now it was perfectly reasonably assumed that councils themselves could decide whether saying prayers should be part of the formal arrangements at their meetings.

As you correctly point out, this judgement could easily change on any appeal if that action is considered worthwhile (frankly, I think not).

Freedom from secular diktat should be every bit as desirable as 'freedom from religion' in any truly fair-minded society.

Therefore, surely such matters (only really the business of those involved) should be decided by democratic vote and nothing else.

The simple fact is that years of democratically-endorsed formal tradition at Bideford Council has now been rather eccentrically declared unlawful after action by a group of agenda-driven atheists, the huge majority of whom have otherwise no interest in the business of that council.

If the councilors themselves had voted to end formal prayers that's fine, but they have been now forced to do by law because one or two anti-religious participitants had complained at being 'marked-down' as being late for proceedings, even though that lateness was deliberate, having its own minority agenda?

Apart from the obvious silliness of it all, It does seem like a bit of good old-fashioned secular 'ramming down religious throats' to me ...

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

It does seem like a bit of good old-fashioned secular 'ramming down religious throats' to me ...

Well, it would, wouldn't it, scotty?

Just as it seems to me that the "minority agenda" of the "one or two (or three or four, or five or six) anti-religious participants" was to avoid being forced to make the decision to participate in a ritual they find obnoxious or to be officially minuted as "late". If the good Christian souls who "democratically-endorsed" the saying of prayers had allowed their Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Jedi, Atheist colleagues to be absent from the ritual without suggesting that they were lapse in their public duties they might not have felt the need to take the necessity to take the matter to court.