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

[????]

Otta's right. I think both Huge in the OP and SJ are confused between state and society.

Are we a secular society - yes by and large (thank gooodness)

Are we a secular state - er no, We're not. Look at the monrachs full title for intsance "Defender of the Faith" give it away?) and far less so than France and the US are for instance, which paradoxically in thhe latter's case is far less a Secular society than us.

[Otta]

Quids certainly never said that. He used the name Dawkins as a representation of UK atheists, which is fair enough, as he is a well known and vocal one. He just said he's bored of both sides.

Sorry Quids if that is a misrepresentation, but that's how I read it.

I agree there is a huge over reaction from SOME n the church, but I don't think you can accuse Quids of saying it was a Dawkins attack on the CofE.

Personally I just can't see why this is particularly news worthy in the first place. So what if meetings include prayers, just ignore it, there are so many other things for people to worry about.

[StraferJack]

Well gee in that case anytime someone says something you don't like In a meeting just ignore it. Brilliant

As far as difference between society and state goes. Either you care about the state view (in which case defend it) or you don't. In which case it's irrelevant

And quids. I'm happy to be wrong or miss a point. But I'm less happy being misrepresented by your earlier posts. So if you genuinely think I view you that way or you don't I wouldn't mind knowing either way. Because its at odds with what I think I posted And at odd with how I view you. So if you do think that is what I thought of you I wouldn't mind a fuller explanation

[Otta]

Well gee in that case anytime someone

says something you don't like In a meeting

just ignore it. Brilliant

?!?! Quantum Leap.

[david_carnell]

Otta Wrote:

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

> I personally don't think religion should be

> anywhere near politics, but it is.

Err....wha?

So what, you just can't be bothered to do anything about it? Do you actually agree with this ruling but can't be arsed to care? Well, more than it takes to post here at least? Gobsmacking.

Quids - I don't think you're a right-wing nut job. And slinging stereotypes around is something you excel at far more than I do. If you need a label to make you feel better though....

Unsurprisingly I'm with SJ on this one. The court threw out the wacky, human rights based issues in this case (hands up who bothered to read the judgement) and solely said that prayers were not an acceptable element of formal council proceedings. Anyone who wants to prey, do it on your own time.

How on earth can that be a bad thing?

[Otta]

Otta Wrote:

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

> I personally don't think religion should

be

> anywhere near politics, but it is.

Err....wha?

So what, you just can't be bothered to do

anything about it? Do you actually agree

with this ruling but can't be arsed to care?

Well, more than it takes to post here at

least? Gobsmacking.

"So what, you just can't be bothered to do

anything about it?"

I admit, I'm not quite sure what you mean here. What exactly am I meant to do about it? I'm all for reforming the house of lords, and would vote accordingly, but other than that I think I'm q bit powerless.

"Do you actually agree with this ruling but can't be arsed to care?"

I don't feel particularly strongly either way. My point is that I don't see why a person would feel so strongly about this that they'd take it to court in the first place.

"Well, more than it takes to post here at

least? Gobsmacking."

You're easily gobsmacked then.

[StraferJack]

Otta

On this very thread you said "live and let live". As a whole post

You are surely aware that that is the exact opposite of how people coexist in communities and therefore how politicians have to react. You and I might admire live and let live as a philosophy. But we live in a world where we have (for example) big, huuuuge, arguments about cpz. As a petty example

Real people, voted for by real people, have to reach conclusion, one way or another. Live and let live doesn't cut it. Al Swearagen was a live and let live kinda guy. It sounds nice but doesn't work at this level. If it did people who object to prayers would be listened to and told "yeah fair enough we will probably stop that now you mention it. We aren't that fussed, we prefer live and let live so if you don't want to sit through exclusive prayer, fair enough"

[Otta]

Maybe they would. The outcome would still be good, no one arguing. That is all I want.

I guess all I'm really saying is that this just isn't that important either way.

I'm talking about this specific topic, not religion in society as a whole by the way.

[BB100]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

>

> 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.

That's interesting Huguenot, I thought you were all for a totalitarian society. Or was that just in schools?

[Jeremy]

I was surprised by the news story in the first place... I've briefly worked in a couple of local councils (Croydon and Westminster), and they've been probably the most diverse workplaces I've seen. Christian prayers before a meeting seems rather at odds with this.

As for "live and let live"... yes I agree, but wasn't this story about organizations enforcing Christian prayer? That's hardly "live and let live", is it?! I'm all for religious freedom, but when there are powerful groups (not necessarily in this country) trying to get creationism taught in schools, or stoning women for adultery, or trying to prevent the use of contraception, there is something clearly wrong. As SJ says, "live and let live" doesn't cut it, there's a clear need to argue and fight back. Even if this means talking basic common sense in a patronizing way, i.e. Dawkins.

[maxxi]

John Breeds, mayor of Rye in East Sussex, said he expects councillors will now say prayers ahead of their meetings.

"We will try to find a way around it. It doesn't actually have to be part of the meeting. Presumably if we can't say prayers at the beginning of the meeting proper, then we will just have to say them beforehand," he said.

in other words prayers that are not an official part of council business - seems fair

"It's been a tradition for hundreds of years, it's part of the whole sense of ceremony, with the robes and mace and chains, so I think it's a real shame."

which surely sums up the only reasons this kind of thing is still tolerated and that were we to choose a head of state and/or national anthem today, there would be nothing about or relating to god(s) in either one as it's all a bit silly

[El Pibe]

I think it's still a legal requirement in this country for schools to have a daily act of worship, ie prayer in assembly, though I'm not sure the falvour of said act is stipulated.

I gather most schools simply ignore it though.

My old school got around it by having a sort of thought-for-the-day type of thing which could be vaguely spritual but was very rarely religious in nature (unless it was the ex-nun's turn).

This all seems a bit stormy teacup if you ask me as is every story of christian victim syndrome bleating that makes it to the press. It's not eactly being fed to he lions is it!!

[Chippy Minton]

It is true that legally schools in England and Wales have to ensure pupils should take part in an act of "collective worship" everyday, but this is subject to the "parental right of excusal."

I think it's different in Scotland and NI.

[Huguenot]

I loves d_c's Freudian slip... "If anyone wants to prey, then let them do it in their own time"

Prey in this spelling meaning to hunt, catch and feed upon a defenseless quarry. A reasonable metaphor for the church. ;-)

I suspect that some who haven't lived in the shires may be confusing the sophistication of multicultural metropolitan politics with the conservative, white, pretentious pomp of the shires.

We're talking about parts of the world that are still lost in the nostalgic glory of empire, and it wouldn't come to me as a shock to see christiam prayers being used as a weapon by the landed gentry to exclude 'unfavourables' from the community.

If you don't get it, watch a few episodes of Midsomer Murders and then read this.

[david_carnell]

Prey?

Oh dear. The shame.

[Otta]

I'm all for religious

freedom, but when there are powerful

groups (not necessarily in this country)

trying to get creationism taught in schools,

or stoning women for adultery, or trying to

prevent the use of contraception, there is

something clearly wrong. As SJ says, "live

and let live" doesn't cut it, there's a clear

need to argue and fight back.

Can I just make t very clear that I totally agree with all of that.

I just don't think a few prayers in meetings is really worth the effort of fighting over.

Giving contraception to people in poor catholic countries, or stopping women from being stoned, or people having their hands cut off.. Well yeah, I'm all for fighting those battles.

[Otta]

Radio 4 right now, debate about bishops in the lords.

[Loz]

Are the Radio 4 debaters bashing the bishops?

[Otta]

Unfortunately, I didn't actually get to listen, just heard the beginning. They had a bishop / Lord in the studio, as well as someone against it.

[BB100]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> I loves d_c's Freudian slip... "If anyone wants to

> prey, then let them do it in their own time"

>

Amen to that.

[Ridgley]

Can?t they be a comprise those who wish to pray can do so before they have their meeting so it does not impose on those who do not wish to?

[Loz]

I'd say I've converted to Jedi-ism and spend prayer time waving a toy lightsabre around and making loud 'whoooorah' noises.

[HAL9000]

The 'forcing' is strong with this one!