Choice on forcing prayers at work 'can no longer be left in the hands of judges'.

[Huguenot]

No secular legal system is acceptable for the church it seems.

Once the church declares their willingness to operate outside the legal system of the UK, in my mind they not only show their true colours, but question their right to preferred status in our social framework.

It is a joke for Eric Pickles to claim that preventing councils from enforcing christian faith in their activities is 'illiberal and intolerant'.

The only illiberal and intolerant activity is that of an authoritarian and bigotted totalitarian medieval belief system to attempt to control the activities of secular government.

[HAL9000]

Christian anarchism is coming to a Church near you soon.

[Huguenot]

Gosh, what a mess that philosophy is.

I hardly think that was what Lord Carey was endorsing.

[Loz]

Wait until another council, say Tower Hamlets, starts enforcing Muslim prayers before meetings. Pickles' position will change in about 30 milliseconds.

[????]

Mumbo jumbo it may all be BUT

...er, are we a secular state Huge? I don't think so.

..and to Loz, I believe (not checked) that Sharia Law is being accepted as law in some areas (by which I maen both legally -in civil areas of the law - and geographically). So sort of double standards.

...strikes me Christianity and the C 0f E especially is an easy target. I think they're by and large a bunch of misguided bumblers. A few counsillors saying the Lords Prayer strikes me as far less scary than the unelected idiots of European Bureacracy who hold the reins on Greece, Irealnd and Italy for example Huge

[????]

...to be honest I'm as bored of Richard Dawkins et al as I am of Archbishop Runcie.

[Huguenot]

So far as I know Sharia law has no legal standing in the UK - it tends to be used by local communities to resolve those local issues that are most influenced by local public opinion and peer pressure.

It's equivalence outside the muslim community would surely be a neighborhood meeting?

Sharia Councils are often used as arbitrators in disputes, and can generate a contracted agreement between individuals which is legally binding, but this is not the exception for Muslims: any two individuals in the UK can make a legally binding agreement at any time that is recognised by UK law.

As we have been exposed to with the CPZ, local community feeling wields an enormous amount of influence on events despite its lack of legal standing - so from my POV there is no reason to single out Muslims on this subject.

I accept the point that issues regarding prayers at work are far less influential than efforts to resolve sovereign debt crises. But that I'd argue the debt issue is transitory, whereas trying to enforce the creation of an undemocratic authoritarian power system based on medieval myth and prejudice will have a much longer lasting impact.

[StraferJack]

"...to be honest I'm as bored of Richard Dawkins et al as I am of Archbishop Runcie."

So bored in fact, you brought him up when NOONE else did

[BrandNewGuy]

Even the BBC managed to get this story wrong. The judge did *not* rule against Bideford Council saying prayers before a meeting. He ruled against them including it as part of the agenda and thus the "important business" of the council. If they want prayers before the meeting, non-compliant councillors can happily absent themselves, but if it's part of the "important business", it's not right for the council to allow councillors to absent themselves.

So they're free to say prayers before the meeting, just as Tower Hamlets are free to say Muslim prayers before theirs - just so long as no one is obliged to turn up, listen and/or take part.

Far from this episode being part of a "militant secular" attack on Christianity, the reaction looks more like a concerted attempt by the C of E establishment to muscle its way back into public life as in the "good" old days.

[Otta]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ...to be honest I'm as bored of Richard Dawkins et

> al as I am of Archbishop Runcie.

EXACTLY!!!

Live and let live.

[????]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "...to be honest I'm as bored of Richard Dawkins

> et al as I am of Archbishop Runcie."

>

> So bored in fact, you brought him up when NOONE

> else did

cooor, fancy that bringing up Richard Dawkins in a thread about securalism, reliogous intolerance, the role of religion in the state etc etc, how irrelevant.

To be frank SJ i'm copletley baffled by your post, you think Dawkins etc are irrelevant to this subject?

*walks away scratching head slightly bemused

[BrandNewGuy]

Well, he wasn't mentioned on the story and this thread's now gone off-topic, so from that point of view bringing up Dawkins' name hasn't been helpful...

[Otta]

Yeah Quids, you must not mention anyone not expressly mentioned in either a thread title, or the OP.

[StraferJack]

Yeah I do think Dawkins is irrelevant to the discussion

Pickles and Christian groups have presented the ruling as some sort of attack on Christianity. ?All the ruling says is that religious prayers (and that can be any denomination you like) should not be part of "formal" council business. ?Attack on Coe or christianity? How so?

How is that weird. Or do you want to include every councillors religion to be included as part of the formal kick off

If churches start being attacked or people prevented from praying in their own home or place of worship I'll man the barricades with you (well... Up to a point)

But this is a formal meeting to discusses the needs of all voters and citizens. ?Having a prayer exclusive to any one religion is just inappropriate. ?Having prayer for all religions is impractical. ?Ergo, forget the prayers (as part of formal business remember. Noone is prevented from praying beforehand. ?and crack on with what needs doing

Even if this country was religious (and it surely ain't. ?It might not be formally secular, but Christian? No) ?it would still be inappropriate?

Mentioning people ?otta? Wtf. Complaining about people you don't like In a thread which doesn't talk about them isn't "mentioning". ?It's bringing up a totemic bogeyman to express prejudice, not to talk about the point in hand?

Which, as we are in the subject, what exactly is the point of praying before the meetings (or parliament) ?

[Otta]

I was just taking the Mick out of BNG's post,.

[StraferJack]

Hmmmm

[????]

Mentioning people otta? Wtf. Complaining about people you don't like (EDS NOTE WHERE DO I SAY THIS?) In a thread which doesn't talk about them isn't "mentioning". It's bringing up a totemic bogeyman to express prejudice, not to talk about the point in hand

Truly lOL that SJ has now got me as some wacky creationist becuase I pointed out the 'evangelical' tone of Dawkins (I have his book by the way) et al is beginning to bore me in the way that say dull old protestant vicars have for years.

...I thought that unlike say mr DC you didn't have me down as some sort of right wing nutjob, quite shocked that a throway remark about Dawkins in a thread about the role of religion in the state send you into such a frenzy. Ithought you got me...a bit.

Coming Next SJ trawls through threads looking for evidence that Quids is in the Tea Party.

[Otta]

Personally, I never knew prayers were held before meetings, I've certainly never come across it, and if I did, I'd find it all very strange, and wouldn't join in.

What I find bizarre though is that someone was wound up enough by it, to bother going to court. I also find it weird that people actually spend their time in basically anti religion organisations. What exactly is the point?

You're quite right SJ, that people could have a prayer before the meeting if they felt the need. Equally though, those who don't like it, could just ignore it.

Finally, the UK is a Christian country. The monarchy, and indeed the church, may seem irrelevant these days, but at the end of the day, like it or not we still have a Queen who is boss, and head of the CofE.

Our national anthem is GOD save the queen.

I personally don't think religion should be anywhere near politics, but it is.

[BrandNewGuy]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You're quite right SJ, that people could have a

> prayer before the meeting if they felt the need.

> Equally though, those who don't like it, could

> just ignore it.

Which is what the judge said, so why is the C of E up in arms?

[Otta]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hmmmm

WTF?

Well, he wasn't mentioned on the story

Yeah Quids, you must not mention anyone

not expressly mentioned in either a thread

title, or the OP.

I'm really not getting how that has been misinterpreted. I was being silly yes, but bloody hell SJ, calm yourself.

[StraferJack]

Edited for duplicated post

[Otta]

I doubt the whole CofE are up in arms. It's a retired old Archbishop talking to The Mail.

[StraferJack]

Quids. Please don't put words in my mouth. I no more think (or have ever thought) you are a creationist than I think you a milwall fan. Why would you pretend otherwise. You said dawkins bored you so I took from that you don't like him. Much anyway. Is that a leap too far? Hardly. Does it portray you as a creationist? Just HOW could it do that. You are going too far I think. A right wing nut job? Where do you get this stuff? I picked you up on a tiny point and you reacted. I then talked about the facts that happened (ie Coe not under attack) and you have chosen to put quite a number of unworthy comments in my mouth. I genuinely don't get it

Otta. What does "it's a Christian country" even MEAN? Have you checked church going numbers recently?

[Otta]

Otta. What does "it's a Christian country"

even MEAN? Have you checked church

going numbers recently?

That's why I said it seems irrelevant these days. We are a multi cultural country now, and obviously we don't all parade to church on Sunday, like we would as a matter of course in the past.

Politically though, it is a Christian country, in that the queen is head of the church, and bishops sit in the Lords.

Not saying that is right, but I think Britain is still a "Christian country".

[StraferJack]

So entrenched politicians and an outdated monarchy are behind the times. Nothing new there

So why am

I listening and (worse) seeing oickles and co for last few days talk about this as if it was some

Sort of assault on civilisation?

When something like this happens, my honest expectation is, people wonder what someone like pickles is talking about, think "does parliament really do this too? Why?" and then everyone hopes we evolve

I don't expect many people to say its a dawkins attack on church of England