UK Councils now allowed to hold prayer meetings

[Deleted]

Not exactly. If the prayer is something like one nation under God, then state not sponsoring any particular religion. If it says one nation under rama, or a specific god then its endoring a religion. Why is marginalization bad? if majority have no problem with it, then minority can leave or not do since its not forcing anyone to pray. Choice is still there. Minority will be margilized in all decisions anyway. Its the nature of being minority. Thats how democracy works. Giving too much rights to minority is a huge problem. Just look at U.S. congress, a small numbers of republicans could filibuster when democrates had super majority. Nothing got done at all.

I honestly dont think the majority of people are christian, they only tick that box because its what there parents told them to do as a child,

[Deleted]

Since, UK does not have any law that separates church and state, it comes to majority since its a democracy. If atheist or non religious councilors are minority, they can leave during the prayer meeting. and thats that. The right of minority should not take away the rights of majority.

So, yeah the marginalisation of non-religious people is okay, but Christians is not.

That's basically what I read.

[artemishunter1]

I wouldn't say he was offended, I would have thought that his opinion that prayer meetings shouldn't be part of a governmental body's official agenda especially given we live in a secular society.

It seems More people support praying then not praying. Europe is a democracy you know. Gov't is gov't, theres no secular or religious. In a democracy, what people support goes.

[Bongomadness]

It's not the fact that you pray, its the fact that it's apart of the official councils agenda, they can feel free to pray before a session but not during so.

I agree with this, most religious people here would gladly say 'well he could of left the room' or something to that degree if he was that offended...now hold on this shit works both ways, but as we all know being an athiest and what not portrays you as being bad to alot of religious people. Strange though i dont get any athiests knocking at my door wanting to talk about how the garden of eden doesnt exsist and ramming it all in my face so yea maybe they should do this kind of stuff in there own time or in a sperate room before the meeting starts.
Ive said my bit and ill not add more, religious threads here always end baaadly lol

[artemishunter1]

So, yeah the marginalisation of non-religious people is okay, but Christians is not.

That's basically what I read.

Read again. I said, majority will win out, since theres no specific laws separting church and state in Europe. If the majority is Christians, then their marginalization is not ok.

[Deleted]

Not exactly. If the prayer is something like one nation under God, then state not sponsoring any particular religion.

Correct, though it is in fact sponsoring theism if it does that.

f it says one nation under rama, or a specific god then its endoring a religion. Why is marginalization bad? if majority have no problem with it, then minority can leave or not do since its not forcing anyone to pray.

Ask any minority in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran or any fascist state you like and they'll tell you what fun being marginalised is. Have you ever heard of tyranny of the majority?

Choice is still there. Minority will be margilized in all decisions anyway. Its the nature of being minority. Thats how democracy works. Giving too much rights to minority is a huge problem. Just look at U.S. congress, a small numbers of republicans could filibuster when democrates had super majority. Nothing got done at all.

That's not the same as ethnic/religious/cultural minorities being undermined, having their rights taken away from them etc.

[artemishunter1]

I agree with this, most religious people here would gladly say 'well he could of left the room' or something to that degree if he was that offended...now hold on this shit works both ways, but as we all know being an athiest and what not portrays you as being bad to alot of religious people. Strange though i dont get any athiests knocking at my door wanting to talk about the garden of eden and ramming it all in my face so yea maybe they should do this kind of stuff in there own time or in a sperate room before the meeting starts.
Ive said my bit and ill not add more, religious threads here always end baaadly lol

True, but again in this case, the religious people seem to be majority considering the legislature passed.

[nixcookies]

thats what a lot of councils were doing, doing prayers 5mins before the meetings so they are not part of the meeting, i think plymouth and exeter were both doing that.

Yeah a very small number of councils where doing it but the judge's ruling made it illegal for that to happen, but councils have used palimentary law to surpass it.

Not exactly. If the prayer is something like one nation under God, then state not sponsoring any particular religion. If it says one nation under rama, or a specific god then its endoring a religion. Why is marginalization bad? if majority have no problem with it, then minority can leave or not do since its not forcing anyone to pray. Choice is still there. Minority will be margilized in all decisions anyway. Its the nature of being minority. Thats how democracy works. Giving too much rights to minority is a huge problem. Just look at U.S. congress, a small numbers of republicans could filibuster when democrates had super majority. Nothing got done at all.

Not every religion believes in a god/gods

The main reason why I think it's a problem is because we are a secular nation and religion shouldn't touch any aspect of our government. (Even though the House of Lords does not adhere to this)

[Deleted]

Read again. I said, majority will win out, since theres no specific laws separting church and state in Europe. If the majority is Christians, then their marginalization is not ok.

You know that such is true in every state in Europe? I have not read every EU nation's constitution, I must admit.

In any case, with your 'lawful neutral' stance you basically open the door for any majority state-approved religion to stomp on the rights of others and watch on approvingly as no legislation technically forbids it. We need a constitution, and fast to prevent this kind of nonsense from happening.

---------- Post added 2012-02-18 at 02:40 AM ----------

It seems More people support praying then not praying. Europe is a democracy you know. Gov't is gov't, theres no secular or religious. In a democracy, what people support goes.

No, that's mob rule. I suspect in some states in the USA a cool majority support prohibiting homosexual intercourse and yet they don't have the right to demand it. Tyranny of the majority.

[artemishunter1]

Correct, though it is in fact sponsoring theism if it does that.


Ask any minority in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran or any fascist state you like and they'll tell you what fun being marginalised is. Have you ever heard of tyranny of the majority?


That's not the same as ethnic/religious/cultural minorities being undermined, having their rights taken away from them etc.

That "right" does not exist in Europe since its not part of the constituiton. Their "rights" that does not exist in paper, only implied should be taken away, since its a lesser evil. Taking away the right of Majority in this case (right for prayer meeting, since it passed), would be greater evil.

[nixcookies]

It seems More people support praying then not praying. Europe is a democracy you know. Gov't is gov't, theres no secular or religious. In a democracy, what people support goes.

I agree that decisions should be what the majority of people want but I think this is a tad of an assumption you've made, I think this was more of a backlash from religious minsters and back benchers than it was for the British people.

[artemishunter1]

You know that such is true in every state in Europe? I have not read every EU nation's constitution, I must admit.

In any case, with your 'lawful neutral' stance you basically open the door for any majority state-approved religion to stomp on the rights of others and watch on approvingly as no legislation technically forbids it. We need a constitution, and fast to prevent this kind of nonsense from happening.

---------- Post added 2012-02-18 at 02:40 AM ----------


No, that's mob rule. I suspect in some states in the USA a cool majority support prohibiting homosexual intercourse and yet they don't have the right to demand it. Tyranny of the majority.

That tyranny is better than the disfunction this we have to deal with so many times in congress. In the U.S. however, right is protected in paper. Not doing otherwise, will be illigal. Thats how homosexual laws are being overturned.

[Deleted]

That "right" does not exist in Europe since its not part of the constituiton. Their "rights" that does not exist in paper, only implied should be taken away, since its a lesser evil. Taking away the right of Majority in this case (right for prayer meeting, since it passed), would be greater evil.

So does that mean that because Muslims are a majority in Saudi Arabia you're in favour of the ban on Christian and Jewish prostelyzation and their permanent status as second-class citizens? Does that also mean that because apostates of Islam and homosexuals are in a minority in Saudi Arabia that you're in favour of the Saudi Arabian government executing them?

Would it be a "greater evil" for Saudi Arabia to rescind its laws on homosexuality and leaving Islam?

[artemishunter1]

I agree that decisions should be what the majority of people want but I think this is a tad of an assumption you've made, I think this was more of a backlash from religious minsters and back benchers than it was for the British people.

Its a small town. their legislature voted. so, in that small town. they won. Rest of the british people don't get a say. This is not national level.

[Deleted]

That tyranny is better than the disfunction this we have to deal with so many times in congress. In the U.S. however, right is protected in paper. Not doing otherwise, will be illigal. Thats how homosexual laws are being overturned.

So let me get this straight, if 75% of people in your state voted to forbid homosexual intercourse and execute anyone caught doing it, you'd be okay with that? Just because it has a majority mandate?

---------- Post added 2012-02-18 at 02:46 AM ----------

Its a small town. their legislature voted. so, in that small town. they won. Rest of the british people don't get a say. This is not national level.

No, they didn't. Eric Pickles, a member of government overturned the right and granted all councils the right to have prayer meetings.

[Vizardlorde]

forced to salute and sing songs? not in my school :\

happens in most totalitarian countries, i had to know the national anthem when i was 5 and a bunch of other brainwashing hymns by the time i was in 4th grade, im glad the us only requires the pledge of allegiance cuz i really hated standing up for like 15 mins singing crap and honoring the flag

[artemishunter1]

You know that such is true in every state in Europe? I have not read every EU nation's constitution, I must admit.

In any case, with your 'lawful neutral' stance you basically open the door for any majority state-approved religion to stomp on the rights of others and watch on approvingly as no legislation technically forbids it. We need a constitution, and fast to prevent this kind of nonsense from happening.

---------- Post added 2012-02-18 at 02:40 AM ----------


No, that's mob rule. I suspect in some states in the USA a cool majority support prohibiting homosexual intercourse and yet they don't have the right to demand it. Tyranny of the majority.

Well, Britain does not have bill of Rights. so, any rights that we have such as freedom of speech and some other freedoms don't exist. This allowed them to combat radical muslim and radical christians calling for war.

[Thorim]

If they want to Pray, they can do it before or after, not DURING a time-slot allocated to a Council meeting.

The High Court was absolutely right, and now the Failservatives have just bullied their opinion though (The Cons were not elected, they did not win the election).

Hopefully it will go to the Court of Appeal and then the Supreme Court if needs be.

[Bearshield]

I agree with this, most religious people here would gladly say 'well he could of left the room' or something to that degree if he was that offended...now hold on this shit works both ways, but as we all know being an athiest and what not portrays you as being bad to alot of religious people. Strange though i dont get any athiests knocking at my door wanting to talk about how the garden of eden doesnt exsist and ramming it all in my face so yea maybe they should do this kind of stuff in there own time or in a sperate room before the meeting starts.
Ive said my bit and ill not add more, religious threads here always end baaadly lol

Speaking as a Christian myself I think the easiest solution would be to simply have a moment of silence. Then everyone can use that time to respectfully do what they please without offending anyone else.

[Blackspur]

lots of forced salutes and sing songs last i checked in school so...

Erm what era are you living in? Or are you even referring to the UK? I can guarantee that there there is a very, and I mean very small number of schools 'forced to salute and sing songs.