Militant secularisation threat to religion, says Warsi

I disagree, he has become increasingly belligerent as he has gotten older. However the article doesn't state anything other than Richard Dawkins supporting the separation of Church and State and moving religion from the Public to solely the Private sphere. I am quite sure that is what Richard Dawkins' view is on the subject.
I can only assume you didn't actually read the whole of the article you quoted, as an example;

"I happen to like attending the Holy Week processions in Spain where everyone pitches in behind the statues of the suffering Christ, whether or not they are believers, because it’s an expression of communal identity as well as Christian faith"

Dawkins like's singing carols. Problem?

Castiel said:
You live in the wrong country then, because we have an established religion. And the council voted on removing the prayers from Council Meeting....on both occasions they voted to keep them. That should be enough.

Or is democracy only for secular opinions?
Democracy should not establish one set of opinions/beliefs over any other. The fact that this lack of establishment is called secularism does not mean that it is a comparable notion. Basically, you're this >< close to arguing the same way as people who call atheism a religion.


Castiel said:
Inspired response. My comment may have been glib but "tradition" is no shield against examining whether a practice should continue.
 
I can only assume you didn't actually read the whole of the article you quoted, as an example;

"I happen to like attending the Holy Week processions in Spain where everyone pitches in behind the statues of the suffering Christ, whether or not they are believers, because it’s an expression of communal identity as well as Christian faith"

Dawkins like's singing carols. Problem?

She is simply disagreeing that these things are easily separable from the Public sphere and only making the point that I referred to regarding Communal Identity and how that relates to her opinion on keeping religion in public life.

"But it’s another matter to relegate religion to the private sphere, which is what Baroness Warsi is suggesting that secularists want to do and which Prof Dawkins professedly does want to do. It is impossible to isolate those parts of your identity which belong to the religious and the rational sphere, simply because human beings aren’t formed like that."

She is disagreeing with Richard Dawkins position on relegating religion to the private sphere, not ascribing any opinion to him that he doesn't hold. Dawkins believes that these things can be separated, she does not.


Democracy should not establish one set of opinions/beliefs over any other. The fact that this lack of establishment is called secularism does not mean that it is a comparable notion. Basically, you're this >< close to arguing the same way as people who call atheism a religion.

So democracy doesn't establish one set of opinions over another?

I wonder what I vote on at each election then.

Inspired response. My comment may have been glib but "tradition" is no shield against examining whether a practice should continue.

I never said anything of the sort, but at the same time we should not simply remove tradition for the sake of it....it is inherent in our cultural identity and we remove it at our peril. That is not to say that some tradition should not be removed, or that some are contrary to modern ethical positions...but praying in a council meeting isn't, in my opinion, one of them.

Anyway, I don't necessarily agree with everything she is saying, and people do not have to agree with her, but she makes some pertinent points regarding cultural identity and how that related to a persons private and public life.

I really have to go now, so we shall have to agree to disagree, at least on this point.
 
Last edited:
Just sounds like whining from a member of an archaic and out-dated institution struggling to come to terms with the 'Information Age' - now the various churches can no longer control the flow of information to its followers and have to compete on a more level playing field it is unsurprisingly spacking out that people realise that a lot of it is plainly nonsense and the whole hierarchy and clerical structure is a massively corrupt and corrupting influence on the underlying message of any of the major religions.
 
I'm not religious.

Yes I know, I wasn't directing that point at you

The point is that he was not forced to pray, he was simply present at the meetings when they were held because they were part of the council meeting. Not unlike saying Grace at a meal...I have no issue with not saying prayers at the beginning of a meeting, but I do have issue with the subversion of a democratic decision.

I am not disregarding the rights of minorities, but I don't agree that the persons rights were infringed to any degree, he wasn't forced to pray and being in the same room as someone praying is hardly an infringement of anyone's rights.

It seems to be about one man trying to enforce his beliefs on the group, he tried to do it through the democratic system, twice and when that failed he took it to court. That just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Like I said, I don't particularly care about the particular case, or whether they say prayers before, during or after a meeting...just the way in which it was done and why.

Yeah I'm not that bothered by the case either, but I would make one point in that whilst you might consider it undemocratic, the court has ruled this to be an unlawful practise. With that in mind, I personally can't see a lot wrong with what led to it going to court in the first place.
 
Yeah I'm not that bothered by the case either, but I would make one point in that whilst you might consider it undemocratic, the court has ruled this to be an unlawful practise. With that in mind, I personally can't see a lot wrong with what led to it going to court in the first place.

I am more concerned over the costs that defending, and then appealing such a trivial matter infer. Also that it may set a precedent that may affect something of greater importance on the democratic rights of the group....not to mention the traditions of Parliament and similar related issues such as the Oath of the Coronation and a whole raft of Traditions that I quite like and feel give Britain it cultural identity and are an invaluable part of our heritage.

I have trouble believing that Clive Bone could have been that embarrassed or disadvantaged by saying a prayer before a meeting...he was not required or forced to say them himself. It appears to me that he has enforced his opinion over that other rest of the group.

In fact his human rights and equality argument were dismissed by the court, and it was only a technicality in the 1972 Local Government Act that forbade it.

I am afraid that he has probably cut off his nose to spite his face though as the Government are addressing this with the new Localism Act which will make it lawful for prayers to be held at the start of meetings. So the ruling is a double edged sword tbh.
 
Why?

It hardly costs anything, if anything, took about 5 minutes and hurt no-one. The tea and biscuits however, that is evil, just think how much taxpayers money goes on Rich Tea and Earl Gray across the country and how many Nurses that could pay.;)

Maybe instead paying someone to supply the tea and biscuits, they should just take a moment to reflect on their decision making instead.

:p:D

Principle by and large. Talking to an imaginary friend is really dumb and counter-productive, tea and biscuits, necessary fuel for the body!

Conservatives are really stuck in a hard place, and its amplified massively in the USA.

AevFw.png
 
Lol. The household mousetrap is made up of five parts, the platform - hammer - spring - catch - and locking pin. If you remove one of those parts the system does not work. How did complex biochemical systems evolve?.
Firstly,

Are you implying that none of those parts could have an independent use outside of that of a mouse-trap?, are do know that certain things have multiple functions.

Also, are you ignoring the point to which I say,

"Why are you using the example of a mouse-trap, something we both know DIDN'T evolve" to try to disprove evolution.

That's akin to me saying "All dogs bite" then as a counter argument you show me a rabbit that does not bite.

The argument you present is utterly invalid.

An eye that works is an eye that works, it is as simple as that.
No it isn't.

You don't know what you are talking about.
 
Not allowing prayer in council meeting isn't the atheists getting there own way - something which people are failing to appreciate, it's simply maintaining a neutral position - this is providing no preference to any group.

That is the democratic approach, to maintain neutrality.

It's not like they are asking for a 5m video of a Dawkins talking about the flaws of religion before every single meeting - I'd be against that equally for the same reason.

Also, you can't just ignore the fact 90% of the arguments in favour are nothing but an appeal to tradition - it undermines the argument as being logically fallacious from the get go.

The fact we have done it in the past is meaningless, we used to kill homosexuals, lock up disabled people, burn witches & enslave black-people - the fact we used to do things isn't really any indication we should continue to do them.

Change is not always for the worse & preaching to maintain the status-quo is usually done by those already in a position of advantage & are accustomed to it.
 
But i bet if the council employee that was unhappy about the praying was outspoken during the prayers he would have been attacked by the religious fanatics. I am sure in some areas that are heavily muslim in the uk, they have muslim pray rooms in the council officers.
 
Not allowing prayer in council meeting isn't the atheists getting there own way - something which people are failing to appreciate, it's simply maintaining a neutral position - this is providing no preference to any group.
You have hit the nail on the head, and this is the end of the discussion, as far as I'm concerned. Secularism does not equal atheism.

One of the downsides against having an uncodified constitution is that you can't entrench ideals such as protection from the tyranny of the majority, but I think the concept is still very important. Even if all the councilors bar one wanted to have prayer on the agenda, it still should not be put on there. No one is saying that councilors cannot pray before the meeting, after it, whatever. It's simply that prayer cannot be an official part of the proceedings of the council.

It's not as clear cut as it would be in the United States or France, where a quick look at the constitution would sort it out, and a ruling would ban the practice outright. Here, it's a more ethical, long winded debate on what should be the case. Still, that doesn't change democratic principle of equality, and enfranchisement for all.
 
Fraser: Richard, if I said to you what is the full title of The Origin Of Species, I’m sure you could tell me that.

Dawkins: Yes I could.

Fraser: Go on then.

Dawkins: On the Origin of Species…Uh…With, oh, God, On the Origin of Species. There is a sub-title with respect to the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.

It was a golden minute of radio. But as well as being hilarious, it was hugely symbolic. In The Daily Telegraph yesterday, Baroness Warsi highlighted the militant secularism on the march in Britain. But as Dr Fraser revealed, the atheist army is led by an embarrassingly feeble general. The arrogance and intolerance of the atheists, exemplified by Prof Dawkins, is their Achilles’ heel.

Last week’s court decision to ban prayers at the start of council meetings is all of a piece. The judge may or may not have got the law right – there will almost certainly be an appeal. But it is the National Secular Society which, in taking its case to court to have its views imposed on the rest of us, is responsible for the ban on Christians praying.

As a Jewish schoolboy, I had to sit through Christian prayers at the end of every assembly. It would not have occurred to me or any other Jew I knew that we should try to stop them praying in front of us. We were a small minority at a school with a large majority of Christians. I simply sat silently, my mind wandering off to other things.

The militant secularists, however, have only one modus operandi – attack. Respect for others’ views seems to be entirely missing from their moral calculus.

They entirely miss the irony of their position. Religious leaders who focus solely on a sectarian appeal to their own followers, and who seek to raise their own standing by diminishing the views of others, end up on the margins of serious debate. And as their noise drowns out the quieter, less confrontational majority, they act against their own religion’s interest.

We all hear about Muslim leaders issuing fatwas against homosexuals, preaching hate and the extermination of the Jews. But who hears of an Imam who is a credit to their religion?

And yet the extremists are merely a flipside of the atheists. Their actions, too, are entirely negative, aimed at winning plaudits from fellow atheists and in the process poisoning the rest of society against them. We wait in vain for a high-profile atheist to acknowledge that we can all learn from some religious leaders, even if we do not share their faith. The past two Chief Rabbis have shown the benefits of a more open approach, reaching beyond one’s own followers. Lord Jakobovits and Lord Sacks have been feted far outside the Jewish community. Neither were ennobled because they were Chief Rabbi; none of their predecessors had been so honoured. Their elevation to the Upper House was because many gentiles regarded them as figures who had something exceptional to contribute to public life. Where is that contribution from atheists? We’ve had nothing but negativity from Richard Dawkins. And he is now, after yesterday’s intellectual savaging, a busted flush.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9082059/For-once-Richard-Dawkins-is-lost-for-words.html
 
Again, a painfully stupid article. Why would someone ask something so pathetic as, 'Where is that contribution from atheists?' The questioner is either ignorant, an imbecile, or both. It either implies that no atheist has ever contributed something exceptional to public life, which is self evidently false. Or, that atheism is somehow an ideology. You cannot tell anything about someone's politics, philosophy, ethics, or even anything about someone, simply by knowing that the do not possess a belief in a deity.
 
An old person forgets something once & is caught unprepared for a question - the sky is falling.

"It was a golden minute of radio. But as well as being hilarious, it was hugely symbolic." - I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why it's symbolic.

"the atheist army is led by an embarrassingly feeble general" - Ad hominem attack.

"We’ve had nothing but negativity from Richard Dawkins." - Not really - also a gross generalisation.

"And he is now, after yesterday’s intellectual savaging, a busted flush." - Not really.

Again, religious people being unable to distinguish between returning to as position of neutrality and moving towards a position of disadvantage.

As I said before, if an alternative anti-religious method was played instead of the prayer I'd understand, as that would be moving from a position of advantage to dis-advantage - this is not the case.

Terrible article.
 
Last edited:
You have hit the nail on the head, and this is the end of the discussion, as far as I'm concerned. Secularism does not equal atheism.

One of the downsides against having an uncodified constitution is that you can't entrench ideals such as protection from the tyranny of the majority, but I think the concept is still very important. Even if all the councilors bar one wanted to have prayer on the agenda, it still should not be put on there. No one is saying that councilors cannot pray before the meeting, after it, whatever. It's simply that prayer cannot be an official part of the proceedings of the council.

It's not as clear cut as it would be in the United States or France, where a quick look at the constitution would sort it out, and a ruling would ban the practice outright. Here, it's a more ethical, long winded debate on what should be the case. Still, that doesn't change democratic principle of equality, and enfranchisement for all.


Unfortunately Clive Bone and the Humanist Society have cut off their nose to spite their face....the Localism Act, which Mr Pickles says could be instituted as soon as next week will allow prayers at the start of council meetings. People are ignoring the fact that the Judge dismissed arguments based on equality and human rights, judging neither were infringed and the ruling was made purely on a technicality that the Govt will now remove from statute.

Also however you define it, it was still one man imposing his will on the rest, and undermining the democratic process, all in the name of his ideology.

And yes Secularism is about neutrality, however for some reason people seem to be oblivious to the fact that the UK is NOT a secular society.
 
Also however you define it, it was still one man imposing his will on the rest, and undermining the democratic process, all in the name of his ideology.

And yes Secularism is about neutrality, however for some reason people seem to be oblivious to the fact that the UK is NOT a secular society.
I am quite aware of the fact that the UK is NOT a secular society, but that is not going to stop me, and others, from fighting for one.

It was one reasoned man, pushing for the practice of the council to be religiously-neutral, yes. The democratic ideal is one of equality, tyranny of the majority is not democratic, this is basic stuff. No one is arguing for banning the practice of prayer, it's simply that it shouldn't be taking place on the agenda of a council meeting. Again, neutrality is not an anti-religious stance. That's something that a lot of people don't seem to understand.
 
Again, a painfully stupid article. Why would someone ask something so pathetic as, 'Where is that contribution from atheists?' The questioner is either ignorant, an imbecile, or both. It either implies that no atheist has ever contributed something exceptional to public life, which is self evidently false. Or, that atheism is somehow an ideology. You cannot tell anything about someone's politics, philosophy, ethics, or even anything about someone, simply by knowing that the do not possess a belief in a deity.

The article is right....Dawkins made the point that some self-confessed Christians could not name the first book of Matthew as if that proves that are not Christians...yet the point being made is that most people who believe in Evolution could not name the full title of Darwins book....and that it proves nothing.

That was the point being made.

Also the form of aggressive atheism that Dawkins promotes is indeed an ideology.

I also note, and the reason why I posted the article, was the response of those who profess to atheism.....instead of addressing the point of the article, they attacked the author of the article which is precisely what the author was pointing out.
 
Back
Top Bottom