Militant secularisation threat to religion, says Warsi

[elmarko]

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 expect better from you.

That's a pretty poor argument, you know full well a neutral position is one which does not advantage or disadvantage anybody.

If he will is one of neutrality then I fail to see how he is imposing his will, are gay people who wish to be treated with equality "imposing there will" on the rest of us?.

It's OK to admit you were wrong.

 

[Castiel]

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.

Yet the court ruling stated quite categorically that Clive Bone was NOT discriminated against.

And it is about a democratic decision.....there was no discrimination, so it was entirely down to what the group wanted (Clive Bone being part of that group) and they voted twice to retain the prayer.

When you take part in a democratic process do you not agree to abide by that process?

Like I said, if he had used the legislation to simply point out that the council was being unlawful then I may have a little more sympathy for his position...however he called both votes on the issue....HE did, not the council or anyone else...and by doing so he implicitly agreed to abide by that process. He failed to get what he wanted so he sued...

That leaves a bad taste in my mouth I'm afraid. It smacks of bullying.

 

[Castiel]

I expect better from you.

That's a pretty poor argument, you know full well a neutral position is one which not not advantage or disadvantage anybody.

If he will is one of neutrality then I fail to see how he is imposing his will, are gay people who wish to be treated with equality "imposing there will" on the rest of us?.

It's OK to admit you were wrong.

He was not discriminated against...his equality was not infringed, his Human Rights were not under threat.

He was imposing his will, he tried democratically and failed, so tried the courts instead.

 

[Castiel]

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

Maybe it is, however currently we are not, and in my opinion it should be up to the people to decide, not one man.

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

Using the same logic that Clive Bone and his supporters said he was discriminated against. You cannot have it both ways.

 

[bam0]

Using the same logic that Clive Bone and his supporters said he was discriminated against. You cannot have it both ways.

He was forced to attend the meetings, as a councillor, and sit there while they said prayers. That is unnecessary and discriminatory, I don't understand how you could see it as anything else.

 

[elmarko]

He was not discriminated against...his equality was not infringed, his Human Rights were not under threat.

He was imposing his will, he tried democratically and failed, so tried the courts instead.

So,

Let's turn the tables.

5 people, one of which is a Christian - ask's to not be subjected to a 5m Dawkin's rant on religion during council meetings.

They take a vote & the 4 atheists decide to keep it as it is.

Is this right?.

Should be Christian just "deal with it and ignore it"?.

I wouldn't expect a Christian to be treated that way, so I fail to see why it should not apply the other way around.

His will he was imposing was for equality, not personal preference - something which you keep selectively ignoring.

 

[Naffa]

He was imposing his will, he tried democratically and failed, so tried the courts instead.

Religious people that didn't support equality of religion voted down attempts to promote it, big surprise. He went to the impartial courts, and they sided with him... Big surprise?

And like I said, we were discussing the ethics of the precedent set by the ruling and the practice, and we had been doing just that until a few posts ago.

Anyway, this is the part where things start going around in circles. You know where I stand (I hope), and I know where you stand.

 

[Castiel]

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.

I am not disputing that....however that legislation is being altered according to the Communities Secretary in the Localism Act as soon as next week apparently....so prayers will be able to be held as part of the meeting if the council democratically decide that is what they want.

 

[Castiel]

Religious people that didn't support equality of religion voted down attempts to promote it, big surprise. He went to the impartial courts, and they sided with him... Big surprise?

They did not side with his ethical or equality arguments though....that is the point I was making, they specifically ruled that he was not discriminated against by the practice.

They judged purely on a technicality in the legislation.

And like I said, we were discussing the ethics of the precedent set by the ruling and the practice, and we had been doing just that until a few posts ago.

Yet the ruling specifically ruled out any ethical precedent.

Anyway, this is the part where things start going around in circles. You know where I stand (I hope), and I know where you stand.

We are not so very apart overall....as I pointed out in my original post. We simply disagree on how we get there and whether it is worth it. As I said I am conflicted to a large extent.

 

[bam0]

I am not disputing that....however that legislation is being altered according to the Communities Secretary in the Localism Act as soon as next week apparently....so prayers will be able to be held as part of the meeting if the council democratically decide that is what they want.

And I would fully expect such a change to be challenged. To be honest I can't find the full ruling on the previous case but I wouldn't be surprised to find that the equality and discrimination pleadings were dismissed due to the fact that the prayers were anyway unlawful. As I just said above, compelling someone to attend a religious ceremony, doesn't seem to be anything but discriminatory.

 

[Naffa]

Yet the ruling specifically ruled out any ethical precedent.

Tell that to all of the religious who have come out and claimed that their religious freedom has been compromised.

 

[Castiel]

So,

Let's turn the tables.

5 people, one of which is a Christian - ask's to not be subjected to a 5m Dawkin's rant on religion during council meetings.

They take a vote & the 4 atheists decide to keep it as it is.

Is this right?.

Should be Christian just "deal with it and ignore it"?.

I wouldn't expect a Christian to be treated that way, so I fail to see why it should not apply the other way around.

His will he was imposing was for equality, not personal preference - something which you keep selectively ignoring.

You are predisposing that the prayer was in somehow intentionally offensive to someone in particular or that it was a rant against non-religious positions....to my mind that would be unacceptable anyway.

If the vote was on taking a moment to reflect on [insert secular matter here] and the group voted to retain that, then I would support the majority ruling.....as long as all participants were involved in the democratic process....as Clive Bone was, in fact he instigated the process.

I do not agree with your stance on his motivation either, this is the same Clive Bone who refused to attend a Remembrance Day Service (although he did attend the parade) because it was held in a Church. As the court ruled, his equality was not infringed by the practice.

I agree with the Bishop of Exeter:

The bishop of Exeter, the Rt Rev Michael Langrish, said: "I've got no doubt the agenda of the National Secular Society is inch by inch to drive religion out of the public sphere. If they get their way it will have enormous implications for prayers in parliament, Remembrance day, the jubilee celebrations, even the singing of the national anthem.

"The wider issue has got to be resisted. It strikes right at the heart of our understanding of ourself as a society. No one is compelled to participate in these activities. There is complete freedom, that freedom has to be respected."

and the Mayor of Bideford:

Mayor Trevor Johns admitted bemusement at the ruling. "We held two votes on this issue and won both of them by a majority," he said.

"That's what disappoints me. It was a democratic process – you don't go running to the high court whenever you lose a vote. There are a lot of ramifications – not just for Bideford but all councils."

 

[Naffa]

No one is compelled, exactly. That is the exact reason why it should have absolutely nothing to do with government, at all.

 

[spudbynight]

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.

In fairness he was given that option and refused it.

 

[RDM]

Using the same logic that Clive Bone and his supporters said he was discriminated against. You cannot have it both ways.

Whilst you can?

 

[Castiel]

Whilst you can?

Illustrating that if Clive Bone was discriminated against, then so are the Council.

 

[bam0]

Illustrating that if Clive Bone was discriminated against, then so are the Council.

Removing a positive discrimination is not being discriminated against.

 

[elmarko]

You are predisposing that the prayer was in somehow intentionally offensive to someone in particular or that it was a rant against non-religious positions....to my mind that would be unacceptable anyway.

Who said that showing a rant on religion would be intentionally offence, it could be done due to a motivation to educate, show an alternative point of view.

I never mentioned intentionality offence from either side - not the actual situation or the hypothetical one.

If the vote was on taking a moment to reflect on [insert secular matter here] and the group voted to retain that, then I would support the majority ruling.....as long as all participants were involved in the democratic process....as Clive Bone was, in fact he instigated the process.

So, if a group decided to show Dawkin's videos to a Christian during meeting time that would also be fine?, or don't you think it would be inappropriate for a meeting - as .... drum-roll - a persons personal religion has no place in council meetings?

I do not agree with your stance on his motivation either, this is the same Clive Bone who refused to attend a Remembrance Day Service (although he did attend the parade) because it was held in a Church. As the court ruled, his equality was not infringed by the practice.

What, if anything that shows his motivation is to not be subjected to Christianity during work-time - which he has EVERY right to do.

I wound't force a Christian to goto a Mosque if they didn't want to, or force a religious person into watching debates on religion - neither would it be allowed for a second in my place of work.

I agree with him on that.

 

[Castiel]

No one is compelled, exactly. That is the exact reason why it should have absolutely nothing to do with government, at all.

If no one is compelled, what difference does it make, and surely then it is up to the Group to decide for themselves?

Apparently there is one Councillor in another parish that wears headphones listening to music....and the House of Lord recite the Lords Prayer (at least the Anglican version ) at the beginning of each session, they are not compelled either.

As an agnostic it makes no difference to me whether someone says prayers or not, it is meaningless to me as I do not share that faith. This is why I do not understand the point Clive Bone was making about his human rights being compromised or being discriminated against.

To my mind, he simply doesn't like religion and has imposed that on everyone else, however short-lived that might be.

For me it should be the decision of the Council or Group to make, not for one individual to impose his opinion on the majority.

 

[elmarko]

For me it should be the decision of the Council or Group to make, not for one individual to impose his opinion on the majority.

You are missing the point entirely.

As we have said, ad infinitum.

His will is to impose a neutral position - a position of equality.

There will is to continue a position which is of preference to them.

He wishes to move it to a position in which neither is given preference.

I don't believe for a moment you can't understand this.