It was established in the hearing that although the council maintained that a councillor could leave the room during the prayers, the councillors were never told that they had this option.
Militant secularisation threat to religion, says Warsi
- Thread starter elmarko
- Start date
It was established in the hearing that although the council maintained that a councillor could leave the room during the prayers, the councillors were never told that they had this option.
Hold on, they were saying a prayer, not proselytising a religion. They were not compelling anyone to participate in the prayer, neither was it educational.....and who on earth would think that Richard Dawkins opinion on Religion is educational.
They were not showing a sermon so the analogy fails.
He was not subjected to anything...he did not have to participate.
He took the position knowing that certain things are expected of him, one of them is representing the Council and the people that voted for him to attend certain services such as the Remembrance Services....he has no belief in God, so being in a Church would not be of any concern to him, it certainly isn't to me. I certainly wouldn't disrespect those among my electorate who do hold such things as important in that way however.
This is the difference between being an atheist in that you hold no belief in God, and being an Atheist in that God is offensive to you.
I am not missing the point, I simply do not agree that his equality was in any way infringed.
On that note, I have a tonne of work to do today and a deadline to meet so forgive me but I will have to say that we should agree to disagree on this point. As I said, I am conflicted between a Secular Society and the erosion of Tradition and Heritage....both of which I think are important, but have not decided what I would like to compromise the most.
As for Clive Bone, I simply think he is a bully, and I don't like bullies.......I realise that others do not agree with me, and that is fine, no-one is compelled to do so...
Last edited:
No it isn't.
Atheists don't believe in a god - they lack belief.
I find god as offensive as I find the Loch Ness monster - I don't hold negative views on something which does not feature amongst the things I know exist.
You are mistaking atheist with anti-theist, which are entirely different things.
You are again missing the point on the above examples, you are either trying to save face by arguing a losing battle, or I've seriously misjudged how rational you are.
Surely that is a matter of opinion? Making a prayer a formal part of council proceedings does seem to be promoting a religion in some small way. Is it possible that you are effectively commiting the pyschologist's fallacy here? Just because you think the prayer is not in anyway promoting religion does not mean that all agnostics, atheists etc feel the same way?
I am not mistaking anything. And questioning my rationality in dismissing what are essentially irrational propositions is ironic.
Clive Bone says he is an Atheist, not Anti-Clerical....an atheist would not see any issue with entering a church as they would be ambivalent about the whole thing...if he simply lacks belief it would be a building like any other and the ceremony for Remembrance Day would simply be a ceremony like any other......he took an ideological position in not attending the Church Service. As someone pointed out, even Richard Dawkins likes singing Carols.....
Like you said, as an atheist yourself you do not hold negative views on God, yet Clive Bone certainly does. If that makes him anti-theist then that illustrated my point on his motivations.
Last edited:
I am giving my opinion, not predisposing others. A prayer is not a sermon after all and I think that distinction is important to make, else the practice be misrepresented.
The really important distinction is that Clive Bone did not have to participate.
Last edited:
That just isn't true. You are specifying opinions held by entire groups to be true, for example:
So you are effectively saying that no atheist would have any issue with entering a church. Which is just not true. An atheist could feel that entering a church and participating in a service is supporting the faith in question, if they have issues with said faith they may not want to show that support. They may feel the whole concept of God to be foolish and not want to even participate in what they feel is childish worship.
Religion is real even if God is not, so an atheist may well not want to support religion in even small ways if he personally feels that it is harmful.
But, at the time, he had to attend.
why do some people seem to think there is a functional difference between forcing people to do something, and forcing them not to?
equality comes when the rights of all parties are respected, hence a democratic view with an opt out is the equal and fair solution.
equality comes when the rights of all parties are respected, hence a democratic view with an opt out is the equal and fair solution.
How is special treatment for one specific religious viewpoint an equal and fair solution?
That is a form of Anti-Clericalism.
Atheism in it's purest form doesn't or at least shouldn't hold any other position than that Deities simply do not exist....the position that others are foolish or childish, or that the Church is bad for society are not necessarily related to Atheism directly.
There is a huge range of positions that come under the umbrella due to the evolving nature of the position...but elmarko gave a specific position and that one doesn't say anything about the beliefs of others or hold any negativity to others positions...he said so himself, in that case an Atheist should have no issue with attending a Remembrance Service as part of their Council duties.
Again, a form of Anti-Clericalism.
Last edited:
He did not have to participate. No-one compelled him to pray.
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchp...ocial-Attitudes-of-UK-Christians-in-2011.aspx
Even self-identified Christians don't want their religion to have a special role in public life. The notion that there is a war on Christianity is being pushed by the parts of the establishment that have no claim to authority (e.g. sitting in the House of Lords) other than as 'leaders' of the faithful.
Even if he does hold anti-theistic views, his rights should be protected.
Just because you may not agree with anti-theism it doesn't make it any less valid than theism.
He shouldn't be forced to endure religious practices during work time, it's that simple.
It makes no difference what kind of atheist he is, he is simply a person who does not think it's appropriate to conduct religious ceremonies (prayer) during a work environment.
The same argument would apply if he was a Muslim, Catholic, Jewish or agnostic.
Religion should be kept out of work & not only is it the best stance for equality (as it protects the wishes of the minority) - it's also what a majority of the country wants.
There is no way to win this argument.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
Endure? Seriously?
'Would you mind sitting still while not participating (feel free to doodle on your iPad or something) while we jot off a quick prayer?'
OH THE HARDSHIP, WONT SOMEBODY THINK OF THE ATHEISTS?!?!?
Grow the **** up. I have to endure ridiculous posts like yours. Why should i have to 'Endure' you?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...wered-as-court-ban-on-worship-overturned.html
It would seem that the ban was shortlived after all.
From tommorow (Saturday) Major local authorities such as Borough and County Councils will have the power to hold prayers as part of their meetings, with the Parishes following by the end of March.
It would seem that the ban was shortlived after all.
From tommorow (Saturday) Major local authorities such as Borough and County Councils will have the power to hold prayers as part of their meetings, with the Parishes following by the end of March.