Militant secularisation threat to religion, says Warsi

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.

It was one man pushing his ideology on others....as the judge pointed out his right to equality was not infringed by the practice neither was he disadvantaged in any way, it was only upheld on a technical point of law in the legislation.
 
Last edited:
It was one man pushing his ideology on others....as the judge pointed out his right to equality was not infringed by the practice, it was only upheld on a technical point of law in the legislation.

Again, you're trying to frame a neutral position as one that is negative to an affirmative position, this is no more valid than claiming atheism/agnosticism are religions.
 
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.
As Naffa pointed out, this is tyranny of a majority - not democracy.

The rights of the minority also need to be protected, if that's a Christian in a group of Islamic people, an atheists with a group of Catholics or a Christian with a group of atheists.

In all cases nobody should have to be subjected to the personal religious ideology of others in governmental proceedings.

Which is why a neutral position is preferable, as it protects everybody.

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.
Again, as pointed out above.

Just because we are not currently a fully secular country it doesn't mean we don't want to fight for it.

We didn't live in a country with gender equality some time ago, it doesn't mean that people didn't try to change that.

Besides, in regards to the attitudes of the population - we are a secular country, just we have aged remnants of old laws/traditions which have yet to be adjusted to align with the social attitudes of the time.
 
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.
You're not comparing like for like. The Canon of Christianity (especially for the majority of mainstream Christians) is almost entirely contained within the Bible, so not knowing the name of the first book of Matthew is more significant than, say, not knowing the full title of On the Origin of Species. It's not as if the entire modern theory of evolution by natural selection, is contained within those pages. But I found the whole thing pretty irrelevant in the first place, so I would not be too upset to be proven wrong on that point.

Also the form of aggressive atheism that Dawkins promotes is indeed an ideology.
I note that not I, nor said article, mentioned 'aggressive atheism', simply 'atheism'. And no matter how hard you try, you cannot determine anything about someone's ideology from simply knowing that they are an atheist, let alone define an ideology of 'atheism'.

It was one man pushing his ideology on others....
An ideology of neutrality, meaning nobody is discriminated against? :D

The reason these people are so frustrated is that they do not want religious neutrality, or plurality... They want the tyranny of their religion.
 
Again, you're trying to frame a neutral position as one that is negative to an affirmative position, this is no more valid than claiming atheism/agnosticism are religions.

Clive Bone removed his neutrality when he decided to impose his will on everyone else....that is not a neutral position.

He simply did not have to participate....that is neutrality.
 
I'm not religious, yet I am not offended by a council meeting saying prayers before a meeting, if you do not want to say them, simply sit there quietly while those that do continue.
Why should a none religious person have to sit there?, they should not have to, they should be allowed to walk out of that situation and return to talk daily business.
Richard Dawkins.
He makes some fair points in some situations.

You live in the wrong country then, because we have an established religion.
The uk has more of a secular spirit imho.
 
An ideology of neutrality, meaning nobody is discriminated against? :D

unfortunately the remaining councillors do feel discriminated against....so it is not a neutral position.

The reason these people are so frustrated is that they do not want religious neutrality, or plurality... They want the tyranny of their religion.

They do not want atheism imposed on them, nor the removal of their traditions by aggressive secularism.

Personally I don't care whether they say a prayer before, during or after a Council meeting....even if I were a councillor it wouldn't bother me, I don't have to participate neither did Clive Bone...what annoys me is the imposition of an individual to stop others from doing something that harms absolutely no-one simply because it doesn't meet with his philosophy.

Given the response from Govt, it was an entirely counter-productive thing to do, as the Judge ruled that neither his equality or human rights were infringed and the Govt are going to change the legislation in the form of the Localism Act.
 
Last edited:
Oohhh, radically. And you're right, the chances are, anybody that holds that view will never have it changed. ;)

Yes I am sure Dawkins will never accept any evidence for the existence of any form of god/God whatever even if it were possible to provide it. He removes himself from a sensible scientific viewpoint towards a vindictive and aggressive and often completely blinkered approach as the years roll on. Fortunately, most can see him for what he is and do not judge atheist/agnostic people by his example in the same way they don't judge religion on the acts of a few individuals.
 
I note that not I, nor said article, mentioned 'aggressive atheism', simply 'atheism'. And no matter how hard you try, you cannot determine anything about someone's ideology from simply knowing that they are an atheist, let alone define an ideology of 'atheism'.

you could say the same about being a Theist. However the article directly deals with Rochard Dawkins and his 'brand' of atheism.
 
Clive Bone removed his neutrality when he decided to impose his will on everyone else....that is not a neutral position.

He simply did not have to participate....that is neutrality.

An argument against, for example, affirmative action, is not an argument for racism. It's the same here, pushing for a neutral position is equality. Not participating might be a neutral act for the individual, but it is not neutrality for the group.
 
unfortunately the remaining councillors do feel discriminated against....so it is not a neutral position.
Wow, I can't believe how far off the mark you are on this one. Just because the councilors feel discriminated against, the position is not neutral? Not everyone is seeking equality, enfranchisement for all and an indiscriminate system of governance. When universal suffrage was becoming a reality, some men made the same argument. Need I go on?

They do not want atheism imposed on them, nor the removal of their traditions by aggressive secularism.
And there we have it, they are simply ignorant of what a secular society actually is. As I said before, they believe that secularism = atheism, which is so obviously false that I'm almost getting bored of pointing it out. Nobody is saying that they cannot be religious, nobody is trying to remove their religious traditions (I mean, really...) Aggressive secularism, if it is pushing anything, is pushing for an indiscriminate society, and an indiscriminate system of governing it.

The only way that a plurality of religion can exist, thrive and prosper is in a secular society. But these people DO NOT WANT THAT.
 
They do not want atheism imposed on them, nor the removal of their traditions by aggressive secularism.

It's not as though the prayers have been replaced by Richard Dawkins giving a lecture. They've just been told to keep their religion private. The last I heard of, it was possible to be Christian without constant prayer.
 
unfortunately the remaining councillors do feel discriminated against....so it is not a neutral position.

They may well feel that they are being dicriminated against but they aren't actually being discriminated against. What has happed is their previous priviliged position has been removed. The prayer at the start of the council meeting is effectively promoting Christianity.

This is the real problem Baroness Warsi et al have with secularism, it removes their special protections and status.
 
An argument against, for example, affirmative action, is not an argument for racism. It's the same here, pushing for a neutral position is equality. Not participating might be a neutral act for the individual, but it is not neutrality for the group.

Besides the fact that the Group praying doesn't impeach on their neutrality toward their job as councillors and the little fact that they are not neutral politically anyway so the argument for neutrality is largely undermined.

The same with the argument about tyranny of the majority....that is effectively what Democracy is, Democracy isn't about neutral positions, it is about giving the people a choice in the position they wish to take, the downside to this is that whatever position is taken their will be a minority whose position is not taken.

This is the basis of my argument here, I care little of whether they pray or not, it matters little to me. However that a single councillor tries to use the courts to undermine a democratically defined position does annoy me.

Now if he had gone direct to the statute book and said "hang on fellas, we can't actually do this" then I would have a little more respect for his position...however he did not do that, he first tried on two separate occasions to use the democratic process of the council to remove the tradition....that is fine, he lost on both occassions. To then decide that wasn't good enough as he didn't get his way, he took it to court.

And this is the important part:

the court ruled that neither his equality or his human rights were infringed....the ruling in his favour was based on a technicality in the 1972 legislation, it was not one based on anything other that that.
 
Wow, I can't believe how far off the mark you are on this one. Just because the councilors feel discriminated against, the position is not neutral? Not everyone is seeking equality, enfranchisement for all and an indiscriminate system of governance. When universal suffrage was becoming a reality, some men made the same argument. Need I go on?

The court ruled that Equality was NOT infringed by the saying of a prayer. Why can't people understand the actual ruling.

The only way that a plurality of religion can exist, thrive and prosper is in a secular society. But these people DO NOT WANT THAT.

We are not a secular society. And if the majority of people do not want that, then why should they be subjected to it?

Maybe their should be a referendum on the disestablishment of the Church?

I personally do not mind if the state is Secular or not....but I don't particularly like being bullied into it, even if it was a preferable position.

You are pretty much preaching to the converted as I pointed out in my first post, I am however conflicted as I see secularism also a degradation of our Traditions...which I like.

People are using the word "Apologist" as if it is an insult....it is not. It is, with Christianity a field of Theology whose aim is to present a rational basis for the Faith and defend it against misrepresentation and erroneous positions ascribed to Christianity.

I am not really interested in getting into another pointless debate on just how misinformed about religion people are in general or arguing against points that have been discussed and dismissed ad infinitum...but I would like to make one point other than the one above and that regards Secularism itself.

Secularism is not, as some people both religious and otherwise seem to think, about promoting atheism or agnosticism over religion...it is about neutrality of all philosophical positions.

People seem to think that Secularism somehow defends the rights of atheists or is an extension of atheism, including many militant atheists and that is simply a misrepresentation of what Secularism is actually about.

Secularism is opposed to all forms of discrimination, all forms of privilege and is as opposed to the banning of the Burqa in France as it is to the sitting Bishops in the House of Lords.....

We have a choice to make in how far we wish the state in which we live and work to embrace secularism...I am conflicted on that as I see the point that secularism promotes in that Public decision making should not be influenced by purely religious motivation, and I include Humanism (and Atheism) in that....I also do not want to see the further erosion of the Traditions of this Country which are like it or not based firmly on a Christian History that led us to become this largely free society where we can have this kind of debate in the first place.

For example, we should be free to send our children to Faith Schools as well as free to send our children to Secular Schools....the provision should be about equality, not about one position over the other.

France is a good example when it comes to Faith Schools. France is a secular State, yet it spends significant Tax Euros on Faith Schools...all State Schools are secular in France, yet Independent Faith schools are funded centrally as well through Grants and "écoles sous contrat" to the state education system (in other words the State pays the Teachers)...around 20% of Schools in France are funded in this way and the vast majority of them are Faith Schools (mainly Catholic). The fees for these schools (Catholic ones) are largely symbolic as they are funded directly by the Catholic Church (as in the case with many UK Catholic Schools albeit to a lesser extent) and the State (via the aforementioned contract).

The interesting thing about this is that in recent years the Faith Schools have been outperforming similar State Schools and thus the provision for Faith Schools in France is growing rather than shrinking.

It is also important to the debate to mention that France does not teach Religion in State Schools, (it is not banned, only it takes place as an elective after-school activity and strangely many French State schools have a Chaplain, something you don't see very often in UK schools)... however there is a growing demand that Religious Awareness is taught in State Schools as it is increasingly becoming the position in France that there is a need for development of greater understanding between Frances different religions.

Anyway I shall let you get on with your debate. :)
 
Last edited:
They may well feel that they are being dicriminated against but they aren't actually being discriminated against. What has happed is their previous priviliged position has been removed. The prayer at the start of the council meeting is effectively promoting Christianity.

Promoting Christianity in a Christian Country....you couldn't make it up. (not that I think simply saying a prayer is promoting anything....was Richard Dawkins promoting Theism with his "Oh God!" exclamation...;))

The interesting thing is the court ruling made the point that Clive Bones was not discriminated against either, so it would seem that whatever the position of the council no-one was being discriminated against.

The High Court backed Bone’s argument that the practice was not lawful, but rejected two other claims that his human rights were infringed or that he was being discriminated against.

Handing down the judgement, Mr Justice Ouseley said: “A local authority has no powers under section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 to hold prayers as part of a formal local authority meeting, or to summon councillors to such a meeting at which prayers are on the agenda.”

But he continued: “The saying of prayers in a local authority chamber before a formal meeting of such a body is lawful, provided councillors are not formally summoned to attend.”

Bideford Town Council – which received financial support from the Christian Society to defend the case – said that it was “surprised and disappointed” by the ruling.

But the local authority added in a statement: “We are very pleased that the court has decided in favour of Bideford that we had not discriminated against Mr Bone, nor infringed his human rights, and that the practices adopted by the council did not infringe equality legislation.”

http://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/pm/articles/2012/02/council-loses-prayers-during-meetings-case.htm
 
The court ruled that Equality was NOT infringed by the saying of a prayer. Why can't people understand the actual ruling.
Because, for the most part, we, nor those in the media, have been arguing about the actual ruling. We have been arguing about the moral and ethical implications of the decision, and of the practice.
We are not a secular society. And if the majority of people do not want that, then why should they be subjected to it?
We are very secular in some ways (social) and not at all in others (legal). Why do you think it is that less people want a secular society? Is it because of the totalitarian nature of secularism (the idea of which made me laugh out loud)? No, it's because everybody wants the monopoly of their own religious beliefs over other people's beliefs. I am fighting for a society in which people are entitled to hold whatever beliefs they wish, and the only way in which that is possible, is through a secular society. Most people don't agree on what society they do want, the only way that we can make progress is by ensuring that as many people as possible are free to believe, and think, as they please. They are not being subjected to anything. :)

In the case of the Council prayer, you said that the councilors felt discriminated against, so the court decision was not neutral. So, the secular gentleman that felt discriminated against, he doesn't count? Or is discrimination ok when you're only discriminating against an individual or a minority? Given that you stated this as your belief in no uncertain terms, don't for one second dare to claim that you're making a democratic argument. The fact is that now, the meeting itself, is a secular forum in which anyone with any religious belief, or lack thereof, can attend and not feel discriminated against. It's beyond frustrating that people take this as a violation of their religious liberty, when it is so, so clearly nothing of the sort.
 
Last edited:
The interesting thing is the court ruling made the point that Clive Bones was not discriminated against either, so it would seem that whatever the position of the council no-one was being discriminated against.

You would do well to follow your own advice and read the piece you quoted;

"Handing down the judgement, Mr Justice Ouseley said: “A local authority has no powers under section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 to hold prayers as part of a formal local authority meeting, or to summon councillors to such a meeting at which prayers are on the agenda.”

But he continued: “The saying of prayers in a local authority chamber before a formal meeting of such a body is lawful, provided councillors are not formally summoned to attend.”"

Prayers as part of the meeting, not permitted. Prayers before the meeting, fill your boots. As it should be.
 
Promoting Christianity in a Christian Country....you couldn't make it up.

Maybe it is past time we stopped being a Christian Country?

The interesting thing is the court ruling made the point that Clive Bones was not discriminated against either, so it would seem that whatever the position of the council no-one was being discriminated against.

In that case why did you say that the council members were being dicriminated against?
 
Back
Top Bottom