AIBU to think this miserable bugger gives the rest of us atheists a bad name?

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

Victory on Council Prayers

Surely there was a way to let others say a simple opening prayer without accusing people of breaching his human rights, flouncing out of the council and then taking the matter to court?

I think bringing HR into was ridiculous, and bringing any court action a bit , but I can understand why he felt uncomfortable, otherwise.

I agree with the finding that it isn't relevant to council business.
IIRC, He wasn't objecting to it happening, so much as it being an Agenda item (so formally expected).

I agree, just looks like the media stirring it up again.

I'm a Christian and don't see why only those who want to say prayers beforehand shouldn't group together and do so and then continue with the 'business' afterwards.

No big deal.

YANBU. He should have the right not to take part, but the chosen religion of the state is Christianity and much as it annoys me sometimes, it doesn't negatively affect my life if a prayer is said in my company.

I'd prefer of course to see Religion kept out of state matters, but I do feel he's a miserable bugger that is intolerant, overly dramatic and with a misplaced idea about change.

Although part of me welcomes the fact that his ideals have been recognised, I think there's bigger issues out there to fight.

I agree with you Cogito.

I'm an atheist too,but can't understand why he is making such a fuss.
If prayers have no meaning to him, why should it matter to him either way?

Given that it was decided that it was unlawful under a specific LG act, as opposed to a judgement on discrimination or anything similar, it seems entirely appropriate to bring it up, either to highlight ludicrous laws that are poorly written or just plain bonkers. Or to ensure it was enforced.

The problem with this man's use of the human rights argument is that it can also be used by the council members who want to pray. Can't the man just remove himself from the room while the prayers are going on?

I don't understand the fuss either. For things to escalate to this kind of level there's usually some kind of personal grudge behind it.

It's not as if he might catch religion is it?

Clearly some people have nothing better to do.

I'm a Christian and don't see why only those who want to say prayers beforehand shouldn't group together and do so and then continue with the 'business' afterwards.

This is exactly what can now happen. The issue was that the prayers were on the agenda, part of the formal business.

Its just a small step on the way to getting rid of anachronisms and moving towards a properly secular society which neither discriminates against nor priveliges people based on their faith or lack of it.

I think the wishes of the other councellors to pray should be respected. Surely its possible for him to read a newspaper in another room until they are finished.

Religous freedom needs to go both ways. Having prayers as the first item on the agenda means that those who don't want to partisipate can avoid the prayers. An agenda is just a time table. Ie. prayers at 9am proper meeting 9.05am.

I think he is just out to make trouble and wants his 15 minutes of fame.

"Religious freedom is an absolute right, and so is freedom from religion"

Does anyone disagree with that?

He's not saying they shouldn't pray. Just not as part of council business. That's all. It was unlawful for the other councillors to be doing this, the judge is simply upholding the law. A small corrective, shouldn't be anything for anyone to get riled about.

Fussy annoying people walk the earth in all guises!

Thinking on it, I actually think its right... although I don't like hows it had to have been done.

I realised my own double standard there, I agree that it shouldn't be part of council 'business', I agree that religious people should have a quick prayer amongst themselves informally rather than part of the agenda, I believe state and religion should be separate.

I think I only agree with with the OP's statement because a) it was at massive cost, massive fuss, over drama - which all seems so 'unbritish' what? and b) it shouldn't ever have got that far and c) I don't much like what I've seen of the bloke!

I suppose if that's what it takes to find a fair solution, its a huge shame, but maybe the fuss was the only way to get what he believed was right?

I agree with Stranded. Church and State should be separate imo. They can pray in their own time.

And maybe it is a little petty for him to take legal action. But if change wasn't forthcoming any other way, then I can see why.

I don't agree with faith schools either (why should some children get a different education because their parents believe in an unproven concept?), but that's been debated ad infinitum on MN.

I think the whole case was a massive AIBU thread and the law was on his side.

Can't the man just remove himself from the room while the prayers are going on?

"...Clive Bone, who felt uncomfortable at having to sit through prayers, homilies and requests for divine guidance while carrying out his formal duties as an elected councillor. The only alternative to this discomfort was to walk out, unbidden by the mayor, which would look discourteous to those in the public gallery."

Not really.

but I would have no problems with anyone, of any faith saying prayers before meetings.

no one has

"Bideford had rejected compromises made by (now former) Councillor Bone and the NSS for prayers before the meeting, or a period of silence during the meeting"

Sorry, the council could have easily kept to the law and avoided this.

I honestly think he was in the right. There is no need to pray at the start of a meeting as part of official business, if you want to pray go and do it in another room or pray quietly to yourself.

I have zero problem with anyone being religious, but I don't think it has any part in council business. If my boss prayed with a group of people at the start of a meeting, I'd be a bit pissed off.

You are certainly not being unreasonable. I am an atheist but sing in our school choir because I like music. I don't join in with the audience participation things like prayers or communion. Some say I am a hypocrite - I reckon if I'm right and he/she's not up there it doesn't matter anyway, and if they're right and he/she is he/she knows I'm not playing ball in any case - go straight to hell, do not pass go, do not collect £200.

I think this is a precious bit of chip on the shoulder - does it REALLY matter either way???

I would be deeply uncomfortable if the participants in a meeting insisted on holding prayers before the start of the meeting.

Council meetings are public meetings, and to make them a Christian arena is to exclude those who are not Christian. It also smacks of a holier than thou attitude.

Business spaces of all sorts should be free from ostentatious religious practice. If a prayer room/chapel area is made available for private worship, then that is different.

a) it was at massive cost, massive fuss, over drama - which all seems so 'unbritish' what? and b) it shouldn't ever have got that far and c) I don't much like what I've seen of the bloke!

(a) the council had their costs indemnified by the Christian Institute.
(b) agreed - the council should have simply had the prayers before the meeting. I can't imagine why they didn't
(c) lets not get into ad hominem objections. Otherwise someone might point out that Eric Pickles is huffing about the verdict

It always amazes me that people bring up the cost of court cases. Upholding the law is important.

The man who started the case was a councillor, and the prayers were on the agenda as a part of official council business. If he went into another room, he would be technically absent from part of a meeting he was officially supposed to attend and therefore not fulfilling his duties as a councillor.

The prayers will presumably now be taken off the agenda, but there is nothing to stop any councillors who are Christian getting together to pray before the meeting officially starts.

I really don't see why anyone would need to pray before getting on with talking about rubbish collections and graffiti, but each to their own. It just shouldn't be compulsory, and it was, as has been clarified today, against existing laws.