Praying No Longer On Council Meeting Agenda

[Chinahand]

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.

Here is the raw data for the survey looking at the beliefs of those who identified themselves as Christian when asked the census questions on religious background.

 

The most interesting question for me is:

Q25. Which of the following BEST describes your view about Jesus?

%

A. Jesus is the Son of God, the Saviour of mankind 44%

B. Jesus was a man who gave us a role model for how to live 32%

C. Jesus was just a man 13%

D. I do not believe Jesus really existed 4%

E. None of these 1%

F. Don’t know 4%

G. Prefer not to say 3%

 

I really question whether someone who does not answer A. could accept the Nicene Creed which is pretty much THE statement of the beliefs necessary to be a Christian.

 

I fully accept the Christian heritage of the UK, but I find the use of the census question to claim large numbers of Christian believers very disengenuous.

[Chinahand]

@P.K. tolerance goes both ways - why can't any Christians meet privately prior to the council meeting? Why should they presume to delay the Council's business to undertake their religious practices ignoring those who do not share their beliefs?

 

You are just assuming we have to agree to Christains insisting that their religion is brought into something which does not need this intrusion - and you are saying I am being intolerent - well sorry but I feel the Christians are being just as intolerent in insisting on bringing their sectarian beliefs into the council chamber. I feel this is very much a symetrical issue (they say I'm intolerent, I say they are) and therefore you have to look to what benefit is being gained from this intrusion compared to the alternative.

 

I fully agree with people being able to meet and express their religious beliefs - but that isn't what Christians are insisting on - they wish to bring it into council business - how does that improve the running of the council, and how is it relevent to the business they do?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

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.

Nobody has said that we JUST think it is wrong. We have reasons/

 

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.

I think you have missed the point here. Tolerance is not necessarily a good thing. Think about it some more. Do we tolerate everything and should we? Can I hit a child in the face really hard; throw a brick through someone's window; or drive without a license?

 

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?

You are missing the point. This is about where such practices become part of the procedure, as if it is a necessary or required moment for people before making decisions or debating.

[Evil Goblin]

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?

I would like to think that is because I am such a deep and complex character - unfortunately, it is probably because a lot of the time I'm stumbling around in the dark trying to find some light!

 

Although the subject seems relatively simple - should prayers be part of the proceedings of Tynwald or a council - try as I might I can't help but see it as part of a pretty complex set of matters. I need to chew over things to formulate a sensible response and will get back to you and LDV.

[Cronky]

I totally agree with you P.K. This whole debate about has been orchestrated by people who are intolerant. The Bideford judgment says:

 

The Town Council has 16 members for the four wards of the 16000 population of

Bideford. They are summoned to the full meetings of the Council by letter from the

Town Clerk. The same modestly formal style is used routinely: “You are hereby

summoned to attend a meeting of Bideford Town Council to be held in the Council

Chamber…for the purpose of transacting the following business.” The letter then sets

out the agenda. The first item is “Prayers by [a local named clergyman]”. The second

item is the taking of apologies for absence, deliberately second, so that those who do

not wish to attend prayers are not marked as absent.

 

It really can't see what Mr Bone had to complain about. There was no requirement for him to attend prayers.

 

In recent years we have had this thing called 'political correctness' in Britain. I have never understood what it was meant to be about but it did seem to inspire some very prissy attitudes particularly towards saying anything that might give offence. Given that, I find it really surprising that it is now thought acceptable in some quarters to be so intolerant of religious beliefs. I don't understand where that is coming from or why the attitude is getting so much publicity.

 

There is no public will to do away with the established constitutional settlement of a Monarch and and established Christian Church. It's working very well in practice. Modern Britain is a place with pretty much unlimited freedom of speech. All well and good! So why does anybody feel threated by Christianity? The UK's new residents and their emerging faiths are entirely happy with the situation. Witness Baroness Warsi's comments this morning. She does not hold Christian beliefs but supports the established settlement which gives her the complete freedom of worship.

 

There have been a lot if highly intolerant comments on this thread. I don't get it. If you are not religious then Britain is an equally good place to be. Why do people want to attack something that they don't have to get involved with? There are probably lots of things about Britain I don't like if I stopped to think about it - but I just don't get involved. I certainly wouldn't advocate banning something I didn't like - unless it was causing actual harm to someone.

 

I say live and let live.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Yes, this is about intolerance. And I am intolerant of some things, such as having a particular type of religious belief gain legitimacy and be seen as necessary for the conduct of government.

 

I am also intolerant of racism, unwarranted violence, child pornography, and many other things. Please use your brains before making out that tolerance is something wonderful in itself.

 

And 'live and let live'? You've missed the point ENTIRELY. It sounds like a very immature response. This is not some issue of tolerance surrounding individual people and their freedom of expression. To think that probably indicates you have little idea of why there are issues with tolerance. You've not understood the reasons behind it.

This is about people changing or maintaining the role of the State in such a way that religious is made to have a place in it, where it should not.

The government should not be biased towards any religion.

[P.K.]

I fully agree with people being able to meet and express their religious beliefs - but that isn't what Christians are insisting on - they wish to bring it into council business - how does that improve the running of the council, and how is it relevent to the business they do?

 

If you look very closely at the agenda I think you'll discover that prayers are made prior to any council business actually taking place. There you go....

[Evil Goblin]

This is about people changing or maintaining the role of the State in such a way that religious is made to have a place in it, where it should not.

The government should not be biased towards any religion.

LDV - there is, I believe, a good argument to the contrary to be made. I will build that in to my response to China.

[Chinahand]

P.K. Every Councillor was sent a letter which stated:

 

"You are hereby summoned to attend a meeting of Bideford Town Council to be held in the Council Chamber…for the purpose of transacting the following business."

 

The first item of the agenda was Prayers.

 

For me that is bringing religion unnecessarily into local government. It is using the council powers for a religious pupose.

 

If the local Church group wanted to send its own letter inviting people to a prayer meeting, which was separate from the council meeting I'd have no objection whatsoever.

 

I don't think the concept of separation of Church from State is difficult to understand. I see it as being a symbol of tolerance for diversity in society. Clearly you don't and are happy to see different religions exapting state organizations.

 

Would you be happy for an elected Council in say Bradford starting the meeting facing Mecca and praying they institute the bye-laws in accordance with Sharia, the words of the Prophet and the will of Allah?

 

If not, what is the difference?

[Chinahand]

Cronky, what have I said that is intolerant?

 

Surely you see the symmetry here - you are insisting on your right to bring religion into a council meeting, I am questioning that right.

 

You are in favour of doing something despite others disagreeing, so am I. Either side can paint the other side as intolerant, doing so gets us no where.

[Chinahand]

Cronky - of those who answered Christian when asked the census question concerning religion

 

78% either strongly agreed, or tended to agree, that:

Religion should be a private matter and governments should not interfere in it.

 

and 74% that:

Religion should be a private matter and should not have special influence on public policy.

 

I believe you are underestimating the desire for the state to separate itself from religion.

 

Edited to add:

 

26% strongly agreed, or tended to agree with:

Reserving seats in the House of Lords for Church of England bishops

While 32% strongly opposed, or tended to appose the Bishops getting places.

[P.K.]

Would you be happy for an elected Council in say Bradford starting the meeting facing Mecca and praying they institute the bye-laws in accordance with Sharia, the words of the Prophet and the will of Allah?

 

You're missing the point, probably deliberately as per. Prior to council business they don't cry "God Will's It!" before planning the next crusade against the corner shop proprieter's in their local council ward. In the same way Oldham council won't be trying to impose Sharia law on places like Shaw with it's excellent fishing tackle shop.

 

You sign up to your local council you also sign up to it's traditions and there is nothing wrong with that. Every council chamber has a picture of the Head of the C of E on the wall, including Bradford no doubt, because it's part of the tradition. Also the idea that religious beliefs cloud council business because of prayers I think is frankly ludicrous.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Sign up to your local council? I don't know what you mean. In practice, you move somewhere and come under the governance of the local council. You don't apply. There is no choice about it.

And I don't see why you are placing value on the traditions of the council itself. It is just a section of the State.

 

I think that idea is frankly ludicrous too. Good job nobody implied anything remotely like it!

[Endovelicus]

Sign up to your local council? I don't know what you mean. In practice, you move somewhere and come under the governance of the local council. You don't apply. There is no choice about it.

Everyone else who read that would probably have taken it to mean 'become a member of your local council.' Sometimes, LDV...

[Cronky]

Telegraph - A Muslim Asian woman could embarrass liberals into taking religion seriously

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100137219/a-muslim-asian-woman-could-embarrass-liberals-into-taking-religion-seriously/

 

 

The Tory chairman, and first Asian woman minister, has let rip about secularists' campaign against religion. Baroness Warsi, who is leading a historic Government delegation to the Vatican, will tell Pope Benedict XVI that she shares his fears that Christians are being "marginalised". Britain is losing its habit of tolerance, and becoming a country “where, in the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury, faith is looked down as the hobby of 'oddities, foreigners and minorities’. Where religion is dismissed as an eccentricity because it’s infused with tradition.”

 

The brilliant Lady Warsi, who is changing her own daughter to a Christian school, speaks out for tolerance, and argues that it is only when Britons are sure of their own religious identity that they can respect other faiths.

 

She's right - Britain is becoming intolerant. I have never, ever, heard someone with religious beliefs deride someone without religious beliefs. But it is becoming increasingly acceptable socially to attack those with beliefs. That's a very un British attitude.