Is Christianity Being Marginalised?

[Beef Oven]

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.

Oh my God! They were subjected to that!? Minuted as late? Put yourselves in their shoes - how would you feel if the minutes stated that you were late?

That is shocking - they should apply for (and receive) lots of compensation - much more than people get for the loss of a limb in an industrial accident or war-injuries.

I hadn't realised the shocking truth about this case. Sometimes I am ashamed to call myself British.

[amateur51]

'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 ...

OK scotty, well I've given you my take several times on what I think this is about, taken from what I've read. You are of course entirely free to take a different view.

[amateur51]

Oh my God!

Your God?


Would that be the same as scotty's or something a tad more exclusive?

[MrGongGong]

'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.
:

eeer WHY ?
So what if they voted in favour of everyone farting in unison whilst swearing allegiance to Bagpus ?( about as rational as God IMV)
come off it Scotty you LOVE this so called "persecution" its what gives meaning to your religious beliefs

Believe all you like BUT don't use so called "democracy" impose your beliefs on others ........

[Beef Oven]

Why don't we take the temperature down a bit?

[MrGongGong]

Why don't we take the temperature down a bit?

gas mark 2 maybe ?

[scottycelt]

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.

Now we need a bit of clarification here ..

In a previous post you stated that nobody was 'offended' by the saying of prayers at council meetings now you claim that some find it 'obnoxious'. I would have thought the latter even stronger than the former, but at least we may be getting to the truth of the matter!

Most democratically-inclined folk are perfectly happy to accept the will of a majority even though any decision is contrary to their own personal view. This is not at all a case of freedom of the individual, merely one of club practice. Neither adherence to Christianity nor Atheism is against the law in the UK ... at least currently!

Surely the Bideford councilors should be free to decide their own formal practice with an equal voice for all members in that decision-making ... in other words, an atheist majority is perfectly free to end prayers as a Christian one might be to continue them?

What on earth is so 'obnoxious' about that?

[amateur51]

Surely the Bideford councilors should be free to decide their own formal practice with an equal voice for all members in that decision-making ... in other words, an atheist majority is perfectly free to end prayers as a Christian one might be to continue them?

What on earth is so 'obnoxious' about that?

Deliberately Missing the Point : Strrrrike ONE!

[MrGongGong]

Deliberately Missing the Point : Strrrrike ONE!

I wonder what would happen if they wanted to cast a pentagram and say a prayer to Satan ?

[amateur51]

I wonder what would happen if they wanted to cast a pentagram and say a prayer to Satan ?

Bliss!

[scottycelt]

OK scotty, well I've given you my take several times on what I think this is about, taken from what I've read. You are of course entirely free to take a different view.

Thanks, Ams ... that's a relief ... I have long begun to wonder ...

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Now we need a bit of clarification here ..

In a previous post you stated that nobody was 'offended' by the saying of prayers at council meetings now you claim that some find it 'obnoxious'. I would have thought the latter even stronger than the former, but at least we may be getting to the truth of the matter!

Nobody is offended by other people calling on devine help with their lives if that's what turns them on.

Some of us find it obnoxious that they expect everybody else to hang around whilst they do so.

It's a difference of freedom of conscience (no offence here) and imposition of one's beliefs on others (which is obnoxious).

Clarified?

[Bryn]

Bliss!

I didn't know Sir Arthur was a Satanist.

[scottycelt]

Deliberately Missing the Point : Strrrrike ONE!

Care to kinda 'put more flesh on the bones' of your carefully considered argument, here, Ams ... ?

[scottycelt]

Nobody is offended by other people calling on devine help with their lives if that's what turns them on.

Some of us find it obnoxious that they expect everybody else to hang around whilst they do so.

It's a difference of freedom of conscience (no offence here) and imposition of one's beliefs on others (which is obnoxious).

Clarified?

Ah, so you're saying Bideford Council should have bent to the will of the minority against the wishes of the majority ... gotcha!