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 am slightly ashamed Grimma that my instinctive reaction was that I didn't LIKE him! Therefore he MUST be wrong.

On balance, shame it had to go so far, but glad its been resolved and the verdict is one I think is right.

Not having grown up in the UK, I find it bizarre that a prayer would have been on the council's agenda to start with.

Same with hymn singing during assembly at non-faith schools. I really cannot get my head around it.

And it does bother me but I am not sure why; it just doesn't feel right.

Of course he was right, for all the reasons exexpat has stated.

How on earth does this play with the other councillors who, while not athiest, may not be Christian either? Religion has no part to play in council business.

Their comment on the matter is below.

"Many local councils include prayers as part of the formal meetings. We argue that it is wholly inappropriate for a group of publicly-elected members to appear corporately to subscribe to any religious beliefs, far less one in particular.

Furthermore, for local democracy to be representative we think it is imperative that the Council reflects the diversity of the community it serves and moves away from practices that deter full involvement from all sections of that community. We are aware of potential candidates who will not put their names forward for election because participation in prayers is against their personal values. This deprives local democracy of potential new members and diversity. For Councillors who do still come forward to represent their communities, Prayers can create a feeling of exclusion. A senior local cleric has also made it known that he believes that prayers are not appropriate in Council meetings.

Everyone should be free to practise their faith, just as they should be free not to have one. Our campaign does not deny anybody the right to pray, but we do question the appropriateness of a council meeting as a place for prayers. We regard acts of worship in council meetings as a key secular issue concerning the separation of religion from politics."

Yes, it is bizarre.

The hymns in assembly is worse, of course - the councillors are all adults.

Its an anachronism. In the news reports:
"Simon Calvert, of the Christian Institute, said ..."I mean we're talking about a practice that goes back to the Elizabethan era. "

Interesting (and sympathetic) article about it here: Banning council prayers.

The author is Giles Fraser, who was until recently Canon of St Paul's Cathedral.

Candidates don't put their name forward for election because there's a prayer before meetings? Wtf? If they're talking about people from ethnic minorities or religions other than Christianity, I think they'd be very happy to invoke the almighty. And an atheist that lets a few prayers put them off getting on the council hasn't got much backbone in the first place.

Even though the case was won for legitimate reasons, it all sounds like a pretty deathly point-scoring opportunity rather than a serious concern about religious freedom. As I said at the outset, it paints us atheists as being rather miserable and intolerant.

I think it is a pity that he had to go to court over it, but that he was right to do so.

The best outcome would have been that he said to the others, "Why is this on the Agenda? It's can't really be considered council business." And for them to have responded "It's just always been done that way. As each of us joined the council, none of us wanted to be the new boy criticising the Old Guard, so it just hung around. You're right, it's not council business. Shall we make it a motion, you propose, I'll second, then we can all agree to discontinue it? Everyone OK with that? Right, sorted!"

But they didn't do that, did they? Hence it ended up in court.

I see it as something like taking a stand against sexist or racist jokes. You're going to get accused of humourlessness and asked, "What's the harm? You can just ignore them," but passive acceptance legitimises the attitude behind them.

If you believe (and have backing in the law) that religion has no part in council business, but attempts to deal with the issue without going to court have been met with bluster and a refusal to compromise, then yes, eventually, I think it is right to get the law involved.

OP, I'm a Christian and I kinda agree with the councillor - it's not a church, it's a business meeting, and in a multicultural country (although, knowing Bideford well, it's not THAT multicultural there!) there shouldn't be any place for Christian prayers in that kind of environment.

If Christians wish to pray beforehand, then of those that do believe should be free to do so, but the councillor should also feel free to be able to attend them meeting without feeling pressured to take part in something he doesn't believe in.

Then everyone is maintaining their freedom to practice what the do/don't preach, as it were!

Completely disagree. I think he was right 100%. I went to a PTA meeting at school the other night which was opened with a prayer, a parenting class that a candle of Jesus' light was passed around .

There is no place for this sort of crap outside of religious worship...where thankfully I never go to.

I wonder if the councillors would have prayed to Allah or chanted that 'there is no God' if a prayer is so harmless.

It's hard to use the "there should be a separation of Church and State" argument when the Head of State is also the Head of the Church of England but I do agree with the man's actions. I cannot understand why the prayers should have formed part of the agenda - those who felt the need could pray beforehand.

Hassled... >It's hard to use the "there should be a separation of Church and State" argument when the Head of State is also the Head of the Church of England

thats exactly why these small battles have to be fought. Disestablisment won't come from the top down, so it will have to be done from the bottom up. I don't much mind if the Queen (or her successor) is left as Head of the church and head of state, there's no reason why they can't be distinct and separate roles. Just need to get religious discrimination and privelige out of schools, out of parliament, out of the State.

Hassled The head of state is also the Duke of Normandy, or the commander in chief of the Canadian armed forces, people can have more than one job, and you don't have to bring one to the other at all times.

Actually, Cogito, I'd find it equally ridiculous if a Muslim insisted on praying before a meeting in this country.

When I lived in Saudi, before meetings, one of the women would always say "this was made in Allah's name". Obviously that's totally fine in Saudi, that's their belief. It's not fine in Britain because here we have religious freedom and religion shouldn't be brought into work.

I would absolutely refuse to sit through prayers of any religion in a meeting.

i agree with Grimma. I agree with what the man did. It is a shame that it had to go to court to have this upheld, but can imagine that in a small minded place like Bideford that was the only course of action open to him.

What the fuckity fuck was council time and money being spent on praying for?

What were they praying about?

Good grief. What if you went for a meeting with your bank manager and he insisted on a little pray before he agreed your mortgage?

Stop praying and get on with your jobs, eh?

I'm really pleased about the verdict. I think the man was right. As an atheist I would feel very uncomfortable being expected to pray and, to me (and I realise that this is personal) I would feel it devalued the rest of the meeting. Like I realised that I could never get married in church because if I made promises to a God I don't believe in, then in the next breath made promises to my husband it would all be completely meaningless. It's hard to explain how that translates to a council meeting, but for me it would.

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.

indeed. And here it is.

One of the Christian complained to the press about him not attending church after a remembrance Sunday silence thing.

I think this is the crux of the issue: "Prayers before council meetings set the very serious decisions of local councillors into a wider moral context to which the church, past, present and future, makes an enormously important contribution."

I don't think that Christianity should have anything to do with the meeting. That rather implies that decision making should be mindful of Christian values really doesn't it. Councillors should be answerable to their electorate not to their God in a council meeting. Their personal beliefs shouldn't come into it.

The NSS newsletter has just dropped in my inbox. This is the comment.

As we contemplate the implications of the High Court decision that the saying of prayers as part of local council business is illegal, the National Secular Society is bracing for an absolute torrent of abuse, exaggeration, misrepresentation and hysteria from conservative sources.
There will be a repeat of the usual accusations that we have destroyed Christianity in Britain, trampled religious freedom, taken away the right to pray, discriminated against believers, hijacked the judicial system etc., etc. Already James Dingemans QC, who acted for Bideford Council, has said: "The Coronation Oath would need to be abolished; the council's involvement in services of remembrance would be prevented; and chaplains would not be able to serve in HM Armed Forces."
So, in anticipation of all this predictable stuff ? which will flood the Daily Mail and Telegraph ? here are a few attempts at balancing the reaction.

1. Nobody will be stopped from praying. The only restriction will be on when they pray. Councillors who want to can still get together before the meeting and make their invocations. Otherwise, councils are secular institutions engaged in civic business, they are not churches, and prayers cannot be part of their official agenda.

1. This is a ruling about a breach of the Local Government Act. It applies therefore only to local government. Silly claims that the Coronation Oath will be illegal and prayers in Parliament will have to cease ? and even that councillors will be banned from attending Remembrance Day Services ? and even, as was claimed by one prominent evangelical Christian at the Oxford Union yesterday, that the saying of grace before meals will be outlawed ? are all untrue.

1. Religious liberty is in no way compromised by this ruling. Everyone in this country is free to practise a religion in any way they want to ? within the law. As this judgment shows, praying as part of council business is not within the law. Of course, if councillors want to pray during their duties, they can do it silently and who could stop them? Surely if a prayer is to an omnipotent God, it would be just as effective inside the head as one that is spoken? The problem comes from the way the phrase "religious freedom" has been redefined by the churches to mean not only that they are free to worship according to their lights, but that they are entitled to privilege and to impose their beliefs on others.

1. Studies show that huge numbers of people in this country have no religion, don't want any religion and, increasingly, are hostile to religion. Why ? as a condition of serving their community ? should they be forced to participate in an activity that goes against their conscience?

1. Members of other religions are also increasingly participating in our local democracies. We can no longer insist that only Christian prayers are said and, as we have seen in Portsmouth, attempts at multi-faith prayers can result in believers of other religions walking out because they don't want to participate. This could be catastrophic for community relations and is completely avoidable if prayers are said voluntarily away from the council chamber.

None of this will stop the Christian Institute and the Christian Concern people making outlandish claims about their religion being brutally murdered by heartless secularists.

But these same people will have to accept that not everyone is a Christian, not everyone wants to be a Christian and their selfish demands for Christianity to have special privileges sound more and more arrogant.

what's to stop a strong-willed group pushing their beliefs onto the country in the future?

:)

I think this is ironic. The precedent of forcing belief on a nation was exercised by Christians all those years ago. You can't then argue that a belief you may not like goes onto do the same.

This man was not miserable. YABU.
Christianity is forced down our childrens' throats at school and nothing would please me more than to see it being banned from all civil and official occasions.

Sending secret wishes to a bearded old man who lives in the sky is actual freakery and has no place in modern society.

From the Guardian article linked to by MrGin :

"Tony Inch ? the councillor who complained over Bone's non-attendance at the Remembrance service ... Inch remains baffled that anyone could object to prayers being said. ... "... I've never known anyone being put off by the saying of prayers," he said. "It's nothing to be embarrassed about. If you don't believe in God, saying prayers should be no odds." "

This is where religious people piss me off a bit. "If you don't believe in God, saying prayers should be no odds." I do not "don't believe". I do believe there is no God. And so saying prayers makes me feel silly because I know I'm talking to nothing. I don't want to feel silly. So I don't say prayers.