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
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?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.
That's not the same as ethnic/religious/cultural minorities being undermined, having their rights taken away from them etc.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.
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 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)
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 "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?
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 ----------
No, they didn't. Eric Pickles, a member of government overturned the right and granted all councils the right to have prayer meetings.
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
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.