La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 http://www.iomtoday....ayers_1_4233959 A little victory against people's crazy beliefs. But what is the situation on the Island. I couldn't find the thread about meetings beginning with prayer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endovelicus Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 On the island: "Please, God... don't let me be found out." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 The last time I can remember the Prayers in Tynwald being debated was here - though of course the thread got sidetracked (guilty M'lord). I pretty strongly feel that people's beliefs are private and that people do not have a right to start public business by invoking their God to guide or bless the process. In Church, or in private, people can, of course, call on their God to bring down whatever they wish, but people differ in their beliefs and so to priviledge one particular sect (or even a range of sects) inevitably brings something unnecessarily contentious into the public sphere. You can read the full judgement here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 I think the problem for Christians though is that scripture intructs that the beliefs must be shared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 I think the problem for Christians though is that scripture intructs that the beliefs must be shared. along with every other type of religion, there all the same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 I think this ruling is ridiculous. It is based on Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 which says: http://www.legislati.../70/section/111 111 Subsidiary powers of local authorities.(1) Without prejudice to any powers exercisable apart from this section but subject to the provisions of this Act and any other enactment passed before or after this Act, a local authority shall have power to do any thing (whether or not involving the expenditure, borrowing or lending of money or the acquisition or disposal of any property or rights) which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of any of their functions. So in other words they are saying that the Local Authority can do anything within the Act that helps it's functions. Bideford Council voted by a majority to hold prayers but did not, in any case, have the statutory powers to require attendance. All that has changed is that the Council will still hold prayers but they will 'technically' have to be before the statutory business commences. The Council never had the power to require attendance at prayers so I really don't see what the complaint was about. In short, there has been no change in the practical position. Prayers will still take place and attendance is voluntary. The push behind all this seems to be to regulate peoples beliefs out of public life. The vast majority of people, and Parliament too, have no problem with the settled constitutional position between the Church and State. If anything, we need it more than ever these days because it provides a moderating force across the whole religious divide. The new and emerging faiths in Britain have no problem with this position either. The tail is wagging the dog in Britain and I hope the Council appeal and win their case. Furthermore, as prayers are part of Parliaments business too, I hope they move to amend the Local Government Act 1972 to allow Councils to vote to hold prayers as part of their statutory business. I want to see the majority opinion hold sway in public life - as opposed to having our lives re shaped by the objections of a tiny and unrepresentative minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 I think the problem for Christians though is that scripture intructs that the beliefs must be shared. along with every other type of religion, there all the same Judaaism isn't the case. There is no instruction to proselytise as far as i am aware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 I was quite unsure what all the fuss was about, to be honest. So the Christian have a bit of an old prey at the begining, it wouldn't bother me if I was a member of the council or Tynwald, I'd just wait to enter or sit quietly reading the paper until they'd finished. But Eric Pickles was on Channel 4 News shreiking like a banshee about how he's now going to make it law to enshrine Christianity (insulting he even tried to pretend that this is not a secular country). And I'm tempted to change my mind. Anyway, I need to take a deep breath, remember that since there's no God there's no harm in people preying. Did you see the end - "Downing Street have called and contrary to our report they did have a heavyweight minister out in support of Langley - Eric Pickles." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 I think the issue is more about having such acts forming a part of procedure and thus presenting them as a necessary, required, or expected part of matters. It wouldn't bother me in the sense of just being a situation with other people praying. It is a bit creepy and I would probably have a little less respect for others, but it wouldn't anger me. My interest here is just in the process of government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moghrey Mie Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 I don't see why being elected to a local authority should have any connection with Christianity. They are not elected to do God's will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 You think that, but they don't think that. Some in our government are very religious, so would presumably believe that they are guided by God and get assistance from him do in their day to day life. However, nothing of their religion should be ingrained in the practice of government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 I don't see why being elected to a local authority should have any connection with Christianity. They are not elected to do God's will. It's worth re visiting this: Coronation Oath, 2 June 1953 http://www.royal.gov...h2June1953.aspx Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them? Queen. All this I promise to do. It's therefore entirely appropriate for Christian Prayers to be said before any government business is commenced. What is highly significant is Mr Jistice Ouseley's conclusion: 80. The saying of prayers as part of the formal meeting of a Council is not lawful under s111 of the Local Government Act 1972, and there is no statutory power permitting the practice to continue. If it were lawful, the manner in which the practice is carried out in the circumstances of Bideford does not infringe either Mr Bone’s human rights nor does it unlawfully discriminate indirectly against him on the grounds of his lack of religious belief. The Claimant obviously cannot appeal against a judgement in his favour so the Government should now find it easy to find a place for prayers with the Act. In any culture the act of prayer should always be respected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 But it should not find a place. I understand what you say about the appropriateness in sole view of the current position of the law with the Queen as Head of State. Though she has ceremonial role. And we are talking about what SHOULD be and not what is. I think you will need to make a case for why prayer should be respected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cronky Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 But it should not find a place. I understand what you say about the appropriateness in sole view of the current position of the law with the Queen as Head of State. Though she has ceremonial role. And we are talking about what SHOULD be and not what is. I think you will need to make a case for why prayer should be respected. I think you need to make a case for why prayer should not be respected! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 Why do you hold back from answering a question about your statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.