Praying No Longer On Council Meeting Agenda

[Evil Goblin]

Respecting someone's right to do something is a different matter to respecting something.

Agreed.

 

You seem to think the word respect has some connection to the matter of rights.

It does - you may not respect a particular view but should acknowledge someone else's right to hold it.

 

How do we know that he is not assisting? He could really dislike the way things are set up here and wants to makes things difficult. Or these Christians might have got it wrong and their invoking something that wants to make mischief.

I would have thought that if God was all powerful then he would do something about a situation he did not like! Yes. the Christians might have got it wrong but that's another matter.

[Evil Goblin]

EG - I think LDV's post #23 was not entirely serious.

I know - that's why I said he was trolling.

 

They are choosing (probably deliberately) to pray somewhere inappropriate and at an inappropriate time. You will likely disagree so let's take another example of something unreasonable. Let's say the meeting has started and two members decide to chat loudly between themselves. Should we respect their right to do that and is not allowing it disrespect? Of course not and of course it it isnt!!!:

YOU may think it is inappropriate and an inappropriate time but maybe they don't. If a majority of Members are happy for there be a specific time set down at the beginning of proceedings for prayer then what's wrong with that? No one is forced to pray - those that wish to can simply ignore the prayers, just sit quietly whilst others do pray. As to your example - in those circumstances they are chatting loudly amongst themselves when there is no specific time allocated for them to do that and of course they should not do it.

 

Let them pray somewhere private or in church on the way there should they feel the need for god's guidance or whatever in the impending meeting.

Yes, they should do that anyway.

[Evil Goblin]

Evil Goblin, if someone insisted on asking the "Wee Little People" to guide the council wisely and sprinkle their good luck dust over the proceedings should everyone respectfully sit there while they do it? How about a councillor who insisted a horoscope was cast to ensure the diarising of any events fitted with the influences of the stars and planets - please note Nancy Reagan did actually require this at times during the Regan Presidency.

If a majority consider that asking the Wee Little People for help is appropriate then so what.

 

Quite simply these activities have no place in a council meeting and neither do prayers to a God. If people of a religion or any other belief wish to gather prior to a meeting to go through their rituals then that is their private business. But to do it during Council time is inappropriate and wasteful.

YOU may think that such activities have no place in a council meeting but those taking part (or at least a majority of them) may think them entirely appropriate. You, LDV and BB are showing considerable intolerance towards others.

[Evil Goblin]

As to Mr C's nonsense about it being wasteful of time I can assure him that praying for a successful outcome is probably a better use of time than a vast amount of the so-called "debate" that will undoubtedly follow....

+1

[ballaughbiker]

You, LDV and BB are showing considerable intolerance towards others.

Can't speak for the other two but in my case you are wrong. I have no problem whatsoever (read don't really care) if people want to pray in their private time but this is not private time. They are effectively forcing their religious practices on people who don't want it and that is an example of considerable intolerance.

 

Prayers have nothing to do with the meeting concerned and are therefore completely inappropriate. Over the centuries, extreme intolerance has been demonstrated by the church and people with religious conviction. They have played on people's irrational fears causing division and marginalisation in society and at last many people in the western world are saying enough is enough. That is not intolerance but continuing with religious brainwashing is if it continues to invade non-believer's lives.

 

I am still not convinced it was a majority of the council who wanted to pray anyway. That seems most unlikely.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

It does - you may not respect a particular view but should acknowledge someone else's right to hold it.

Yes, but we're not talking about. And nobody is saying that people cannot hold a view or belief.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

As to Mr C's nonsense about it being wasteful of time I can assure him that praying for a successful outcome is probably a better use of time than a vast amount of the so-called "debate" that will undoubtedly follow....

+1

Well they could do that. They could all enter the room and pray and then walk out again. Then we can all marvel at the result.

[Evil Goblin]

Can't speak for the other two but in my case you are wrong. I have no problem whatsoever (read don't really care) if people want to pray in their private time but this is not private time. They are effectively forcing their religious practices on people who don't want it and that is an example of considerable intolerance.

I do not see that this is forcing of religious practice on anyone - those who do not agree with it can just sit and ignore it. How do you know that people do not want it, or at least don't care enough to do anything about it? I can't see any intolerance here - no one is being forced to pray.

 

Prayers have nothing to do with the meeting concerned and are therefore completely inappropriate.

But some people evidently do think it has something to do with the meeting and is appropriate and it seems that those that don't do not feel strongly enough to do anything about it.

 

Over the centuries, extreme intolerance has been demonstrated by the church and people with religious conviction. They have played on people's irrational fears causing division and marginalisation in society and at last many people in the western world are saying enough is enough. That is not intolerance but continuing with religious brainwashing is if it continues to invade non-believer's lives.

This sounds more like general anti-religious polemic rather than having any real relevance to prayers at the beginning of council proceedings.

[Evil Goblin]

Yes, but we're not talking about. And nobody is saying that people cannot hold a view or belief.

But you do seem to be saying that it is wrong for people to express their belief even when that expression causes no harm to anyone.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I believe it is wrong to express when their behaviour has religious aspects and becomes part of the procedure of government. They can pray as long and as much they want from waking up in the morning to immediately before any conduct of government business.

Admittedly, it doesn't bother me as much as would other things, such as the old requirement to swear on the Bible in Court, for example. It is a small matter of the intrusion of religion in the workings of the State.

[Evil Goblin]

I believe it is wrong to express when their behaviour has religious aspects and becomes part of the procedure of government. They can pray as long and as much they want from waking up in the morning to immediately before any conduct of government business.

Admittedly, it doesn't bother me as much as would other things, such as the old requirement to swear on the Bible in Court, for example. It is a small matter of the intrusion of religion in the workings of the State.

I think it's also worth reflecting on the fact that matters religious are part and parcel of the ritual and procedures by which the legitimacy of the State is reinforced. At a personal level I think that "They can pray as long and as much they want from waking up in the morning" would be more appropriate for a Christian but perhaps it is the role certain religious rituals to help support the legitimacy of the State as constituted?

[Endovelicus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17021831

 

Britain is under threat from a rising tide of "militant secularisation", a cabinet minister has warned.

Religion is being "sidelined, marginalised and downgraded in the public sphere", Conservative co-chairwoman Baroness Warsi wrote in an article for the Daily Telegraph.

The Muslim peer said Europe needed to become "more confident and more comfortable in its Christianity".

The British Humanist Association (BHA) described Baroness Warsi's comments as "outdated, unwarranted and divisive".

"In an increasingly non-religious and, at the same time, diverse society, we need policies that will emphasise what we have in common as citizens rather than what divides us," said BHA chief executive Andrew Copson.

Meanwhile, new research suggests Britons who declare themselves Christian display low levels of belief and practice.

Almost three quarters of the 1,136 people polled by Ipsos Mori agreed that religion should not influence public policy, and 92% agreed the law should apply to everyone equally, regardless of their personal beliefs.

It also found that 61% of Christians agreed homosexuals should have the same legal rights in all aspects of their lives as heterosexuals.

And a further 62% were in favour of a woman's right to have an abortion within the legal time limit.

 

[La_Dolce_Vita]

It might have been and may partly be today (to some small extent), although many elements where religion comes into things is largely a matter of tradition (so are most people's beliefs actually). But the legitimacy of the state today and certainly what liberals should aspire for it to be is one that is based on the popular will.

 

I think few today are crazy enough to genuinely think that God is on the side of the government and in support of it or that rituals serve to show that God blesses government. I think few do really see references to the Lord or God as legitimising something, as if having such rituals really do ensure that it has a claim to do something. It would be a very immature person who thought so, if we are talking about Christianity.

 

But then I don't know how childishly people really think. Maybe more people (than I think) genuinely believe that the practice of 'forcing' a blessing on something makes sense.

[Chinahand]

Evil Goblin I really find you fascinating - you aren't a believer, but you seem to think that it is necessary for supernaturalism to be a part of government.

 

Why?

 

Is that really your ideal, rather than a neutral state which is not biased towards any particular religion?

 

Ignore current realities - do you desire a world where people use myth and the supernatural to regulate their society rather than one which says no one can claim God is on their side and insists policy is guided by reason and democratic choice rather than theological dictat?

 

I am also intrigued by your +1 to P.K.'s claim that council time is better spent praying than undertaking usual council business. There is no doubt that council time can be more efficiently used. But that is an entirely separate issue from the time they take up praying; reducing or extending prayer will have no effect on it whatsoever.

 

Do you really believe that prayers to a particular deity have any more influence than say a request prior to the councillors starting their work to ponder their democratic duty and to uphold the laws of the land?

 

And P.K.'s defence of the power of council members rights to run their affairs however they vote is even stranger in my mind. Even if a council's majority voted to give their in-laws some money, or voted to make a bishop their chairman that does not make it legal.

 

Councils have a job to do - that should be strictly defined and I simply don't think being partisan to a religious faith has anything to do with it. EG do you really think it does?

[P.K.]

And P.K.'s defence of the power of council members rights to run their affairs however they vote is even stranger in my mind. Even if a council's majority voted to give their in-laws some money, or voted to make a bishop their chairman that does not make it legal.

 

Now you're just posturing.

 

To me the issue is being viewed the wrong way. For tolerance to work it has to be a two-way street and just because you don't agree with something that doesn't automatically make it wrong. If some council members want to continue with prayers then they should be allowed to. Because tolerance is NOT about stopping people doing want they want to do. It should be all about ALLOWING people to do what they want to do. Some council members don't want to pray then fine, leave the room - I mean, just how hard is it to be tolerant of each other's beliefs?

 

This is just more pc nonsense and the sooner it's kicked into the long grass the better.