Forum Sponsors

Professional Carpet Cleaning at an affordable price - A & M Carpet Care
xxxx
All Round Renovation

www.takeflightacademy.co.uk

Advertise here

The East Dulwich Forum
The Bishop, The EDT, The Great Exhibition, the Actress or another?
Goto Page: 12Next
Current Page: 1 of 2
messageChoice on forcing prayers at work 'can no longer be left in the hands of judges'.
Posted by Huguenot 11 February, 2012 17:12

No secular legal system is acceptable for the church it seems.

Once the church declares their willingness to operate outside the legal system of the UK, in my mind they not only show their true colours, but question their right to preferred status in our social framework.

It is a joke for Eric Pickles to claim that preventing councils from enforcing christian faith in their activities is 'illiberal and intolerant'.

The only illiberal and intolerant activity is that of an authoritarian and bigotted totalitarian medieval belief system to attempt to control the activities of secular government.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was 2012:02:11:17:17:14 by Huguenot.

messageRe: Choice on forcing prayers at work 'can no longer be left in the hands of judges'.
Posted by HAL9000 11 February, 2012 18:16

Christian anarchism is coming to a Church near you soon.

messageRe: Choice on forcing prayers at work 'can no longer be left in the hands of judges'.
Posted by Huguenot 11 February, 2012 18:50

Gosh, what a mess that philosophy is.

I hardly think that was what Lord Carey was endorsing.

messageRe: Choice on forcing prayers at work 'can no longer be left in the hands of judges'.
Posted by Loz 11 February, 2012 23:35

Wait until another council, say Tower Hamlets, starts enforcing Muslim prayers before meetings. Pickles' position will change in about 30 milliseconds.

messageRe: Choice on forcing prayers at work 'can no longer be left in the hands of judges'.
Posted by ££££ 12 February, 2012 01:26

Mumbo jumbo it may all be BUT

...er, are we a secular state Huge? I don't think so.

..and to Loz, I believe (not checked) that Sharia Law is being accepted as law in some areas (by which I maen both legally -in civil areas of the law - and geographically). So sort of double standards.

...strikes me Christianity and the C 0f E especially is an easy target. I think they're by and large a bunch of misguided bumblers. A few counsillors saying the Lords Prayer strikes me as far less scary than the unelected idiots of European Bureacracy who hold the reins on Greece, Irealnd and Italy for example Huge

messageRe: Choice on forcing prayers at work 'can no longer be left in the hands of judges'.
Posted by ££££ 12 February, 2012 01:28

...to be honest I'm as bored of Richard Dawkins et al as I am of Archbishop Runcie.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was 2012:02:12:01:33:43 by ££££.

messageRe: Choice on forcing prayers at work 'can no longer be left in the hands of judges'.
Posted by Huguenot 12 February, 2012 04:01

So far as I know Sharia law has no legal standing in the UK - it tends to be used by local communities to resolve those local issues that are most influenced by local public opinion and peer pressure.

It's equivalence outside the muslim community would surely be a neighborhood meeting?

Sharia Councils are often used as arbitrators in disputes, and can generate a contracted agreement between individuals which is legally binding, but this is not the exception for Muslims: any two individuals in the UK can make a legally binding agreement at any time that is recognised by UK law.

As we have been exposed to with the CPZ, local community feeling wields an enormous amount of influence on events despite its lack of legal standing - so from my POV there is no reason to single out Muslims on this subject.

I accept the point that issues regarding prayers at work are far less influential than efforts to resolve sovereign debt crises. But that I'd argue the debt issue is transitory, whereas trying to enforce the creation of an undemocratic authoritarian power system based on medieval myth and prejudice will have a much longer lasting impact.

messageRe: Choice on forcing prayers at work 'can no longer be left in the hands of judges'.
Posted by StraferJack 12 February, 2012 07:11

"...to be honest I'm as bored of Richard Dawkins et al as I am of Archbishop Runcie."

So bored in fact, you brought him up when NOONE else did

messageRe: Choice on forcing prayers at work 'can no longer be left in the hands of judges'.
Posted by BrandNewGuy 12 February, 2012 10:33

Even the BBC managed to get this story wrong. The judge did *not* rule against Bideford Council saying prayers before a meeting. He ruled against them including it as part of the agenda and thus the "important business" of the council. If they want prayers before the meeting, non-compliant councillors can happily absent themselves, but if it's part of the "important business", it's not right for the council to allow councillors to absent themselves.

So they're free to say prayers before the meeting, just as Tower Hamlets are free to say Muslim prayers before theirs - just so long as no one is obliged to turn up, listen and/or take part.

Far from this episode being part of a "militant secular" attack on Christianity, the reaction looks more like a concerted attempt by the C of E establishment to muscle its way back into public life as in the "good" old days.

messageRe: Choice on forcing prayers at work 'can no longer be left in the hands of judges'.
Posted by Otta 12 February, 2012 14:23

££££ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...to be honest I'm as bored of Richard Dawkins et
> al as I am of Archbishop Runcie.


EXACTLY!!!

Live and let live.

messageRe: Choice on forcing prayers at work 'can no longer be left in the hands of judges'.
Posted by ££££ 12 February, 2012 16:10

StraferJack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "...to be honest I'm as bored of Richard Dawkins
> et al as I am of Archbishop Runcie."
>
> So bored in fact, you brought him up when NOONE
> else did


cooor, fancy that bringing up Richard Dawkins in a thread about securalism, reliogous intolerance, the role of religion in the state etc etc, how irrelevant.


To be frank SJ i'm copletley baffled by your post, you think Dawkins etc are irrelevant to this subject?

*walks away scratching head slightly bemused

messageRe: Choice on forcing prayers at work 'can no longer be left in the hands of judges'.
Posted by BrandNewGuy 12 February, 2012 16:56

Well, he wasn't mentioned on the story and this thread's now gone off-topic, so from that point of view bringing up Dawkins' name hasn't been helpful...

messageRe: Choice on forcing prayers at work 'can no longer be left in the hands of judges'.
Posted by Otta 12 February, 2012 17:20

Yeah Quids, you must not mention anyone not expressly mentioned in either a thread title, or the OP.

messageRe: Choice on forcing prayers at work 'can no longer be left in the hands of judges'.
Posted by StraferJack 12 February, 2012 17:29

Yeah I do think Dawkins is irrelevant to the discussion

Pickles and Christian groups have presented the ruling as some sort of attack on Christianity.  All the ruling says is that religious prayers (and that can be any denomination you like) should not be part of "formal" council business.  Attack on Coe or christianity? How so?

How is that weird. Or do you want to include every councillors religion to be included as part of the formal kick off

If churches start being attacked or people prevented from praying in their own home or place of worship I'll man the barricades with you (well... Up to a point)

But this is a formal meeting to discusses the needs of all voters and citizens.  Having a prayer exclusive to any one religion is just inappropriate.  Having prayer for all religions is impractical.  Ergo, forget the prayers (as part of formal business remember. Noone is prevented from praying beforehand.  and crack on with what needs doing
Even if this country was religious (and it surely ain't.  It might not be formally secular, but Christian? No)  it would still be inappropriate 

Mentioning people  otta? Wtf. Complaining about people you don't like In a thread which doesn't talk about them isn't "mentioning".  It's bringing up a totemic bogeyman to express prejudice, not to talk about the point in hand 

Which, as we are in the subject, what exactly is the point of praying before the meetings (or parliament) ?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was 2012:02:12:17:30:43 by StraferJack.

messageRe: Choice on forcing prayers at work 'can no longer be left in the hands of judges'.
Posted by Otta 12 February, 2012 17:45

I was just taking the Mick out of BNG's post,.

messageRe: Choice on forcing prayers at work 'can no longer be left in the hands of judges'.
Posted by StraferJack 12 February, 2012 18:05

Hmmmm

messageRe: Choice on forcing prayers at work 'can no longer be left in the hands of judges'.
Posted by ££££ 12 February, 2012 18:07

Mentioning people otta? Wtf. Complaining about people you don't like (EDS NOTE WHERE DO I SAY THIS?) In a thread which doesn't talk about them isn't "mentioning". It's bringing up a totemic bogeyman to express prejudice, not to talk about the point in hand




Truly lOL that SJ has now got me as some wacky creationist becuase I pointed out the 'evangelical' tone of Dawkins (I have his book by the way) et al is beginning to bore me in the way that say dull old protestant vicars have for years.

...I thought that unlike say mr DC you didn't have me down as some sort of right wing nutjob, quite shocked that a throway remark about Dawkins in a thread about the role of religion in the state send you into such a frenzy. Ithought you got me...a bit.

Coming Next SJ trawls through threads looking for evidence that Quids is in the Tea Party.

messageRe: Choice on forcing prayers at work 'can no longer be left in the hands of judges'.
Posted by Otta 12 February, 2012 18:10

Personally, I never knew prayers were held before meetings, I've certainly never come across it, and if I did, I'd find it all very strange, and wouldn't join in.

What I find bizarre though is that someone was wound up enough by it, to bother going to court. I also find it weird that people actually spend their time in basically anti religion organisations. What exactly is the point?

You're quite right SJ, that people could have a prayer before the meeting if they felt the need. Equally though, those who don't like it, could just ignore it.

Finally, the UK is a Christian country. The monarchy, and indeed the church, may seem irrelevant these days, but at the end of the day, like it or not we still have a Queen who is boss, and head of the CofE.

Our national anthem is GOD save the queen.

I personally don't think religion should be anywhere near politics, but it is.

messageRe: Choice on forcing prayers at work 'can no longer be left in the hands of judges'.
Posted by BrandNewGuy 12 February, 2012 18:17

Otta Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're quite right SJ, that people could have a
> prayer before the meeting if they felt the need.
> Equally though, those who don't like it, could
> just ignore it.

Which is what the judge said, so why is the C of E up in arms?

messageRe: Choice on forcing prayers at work 'can no longer be left in the hands of judges'.
Posted by Otta 12 February, 2012 18:17

StraferJack Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hmmmm


WTF?

Quote:
Brandnewguy
Well, he wasn't mentioned on the story

Quote:
Me
Yeah Quids, you must not mention anyone
not expressly mentioned in either a thread
title, or the OP.

I'm really not getting how that has been misinterpreted. I was being silly yes, but bloody hell SJ, calm yourself.

messageRe: Choice on forcing prayers at work 'can no longer be left in the hands of judges'.
Posted by StraferJack 12 February, 2012 18:20

Edited for duplicated post



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was 2012:02:12:18:23:51 by StraferJack.

messageRe: Choice on forcing prayers at work 'can no longer be left in the hands of judges'.
Posted by Otta 12 February, 2012 18:20

I doubt the whole CofE are up in arms. It's a retired old Archbishop talking to The Mail.

messageRe: Choice on forcing prayers at work 'can no longer be left in the hands of judges'.
Posted by StraferJack 12 February, 2012 18:22

Quids. Please don't put words in my mouth. I no more think (or have ever thought) you are a creationist than I think you a milwall fan. Why would you pretend otherwise. You said dawkins bored you so I took from that you don't like him. Much anyway. Is that a leap too far? Hardly. Does it portray you as a creationist? Just HOW could it do that. You are going too far I think. A right wing nut job? Where do you get this stuff? I picked you up on a tiny point and you reacted. I then talked about the facts that happened (ie Coe not under attack) and you have chosen to put quite a number of unworthy comments in my mouth. I genuinely don't get it

Otta. What does "it's a Christian country" even MEAN? Have you checked church going numbers recently?

messageRe: Choice on forcing prayers at work 'can no longer be left in the hands of judges'.
Posted by Otta 12 February, 2012 18:28

Quote:
Otta. What does "it's a Christian country"
even MEAN? Have you checked church
going numbers recently?

That's why I said it seems irrelevant these days. We are a multi cultural country now, and obviously we don't all parade to church on Sunday, like we would as a matter of course in the past.

Politically though, it is a Christian country, in that the queen is head of the church, and bishops sit in the Lords.

Not saying that is right, but I think Britain is still a "Christian country".

messageRe: Choice on forcing prayers at work 'can no longer be left in the hands of judges'.
Posted by StraferJack 12 February, 2012 18:40

So entrenched politicians and an outdated monarchy are behind the times. Nothing new there

So why am
I listening and (worse) seeing oickles and co for last few days talk about this as if it was some
Sort of assault on civilisation?

When something like this happens, my honest expectation is, people wonder what someone like pickles is talking about, think "does parliament really do this too? Why?" and then everyone hopes we evolve


I don't expect many people to say its a dawkins attack on church of England

messageRe: Choice on forcing prayers at work 'can no longer be left in the hands of judges'.
Posted by ££££ 12 February, 2012 18:51

Otta's right. I think both Huge in the OP and SJ are confused between state and society.

Are we a secular society - yes by and large (thank gooodness)

Are we a secular state - er no, We're not. Look at the monrachs full title for intsance "Defender of the Faith" give it away?) and far less so than France and the US are for instance, which paradoxically in thhe latter's case is far less a Secular society than us.

messageRe: Choice on forcing prayers at work 'can no longer be left in the hands of judges'.
Posted by Otta 12 February, 2012 19:01

Quids certainly never said that. He used the name Dawkins as a representation of UK atheists, which is fair enough, as he is a well known and vocal one. He just said he's bored of both sides.

Sorry Quids if that is a misrepresentation, but that's how I read it.

I agree there is a huge over reaction from SOME n the church, but I don't think you can accuse Quids of saying it was a Dawkins attack on the CofE.

Personally I just can't see why this is particularly news worthy in the first place. So what if meetings include prayers, just ignore it, there are so many other things for people to worry about.

messageRe: Choice on forcing prayers at work 'can no longer be left in the hands of judges'.
Posted by StraferJack 12 February, 2012 19:23

Well gee in that case anytime someone says something you don't like In a meeting just ignore it. Brilliant

As far as difference between society and state goes. Either you care about the state view (in which case defend it) or you don't. In which case it's irrelevant

And quids. I'm happy to be wrong or miss a point. But I'm less happy being misrepresented by your earlier posts. So if you genuinely think I view you that way or you don't I wouldn't mind knowing either way. Because its at odds with what I think I posted And at odd with how I view you. So if you do think that is what I thought of you I wouldn't mind a fuller explanation

messageRe: Choice on forcing prayers at work 'can no longer be left in the hands of judges'.
Posted by Otta 12 February, 2012 19:40

Quote:
Well gee in that case anytime someone
says something you don't like In a meeting
just ignore it. Brilliant

?!?! Quantum Leap.

messageRe: Choice on forcing prayers at work 'can no longer be left in the hands of judges'.
Posted by david_carnell 12 February, 2012 19:43

Otta Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I personally don't think religion should be
> anywhere near politics, but it is.


Err....wha?

So what, you just can't be bothered to do anything about it? Do you actually agree with this ruling but can't be arsed to care? Well, more than it takes to post here at least? Gobsmacking.

Quids - I don't think you're a right-wing nut job. And slinging stereotypes around is something you excel at far more than I do. If you need a label to make you feel better though....

Unsurprisingly I'm with SJ on this one. The court threw out the wacky, human rights based issues in this case (hands up who bothered to read the judgement) and solely said that prayers were not an acceptable element of formal council proceedings. Anyone who wants to prey, do it on your own time.

How on earth can that be a bad thing?

Goto Page: 12Next
Current Page: 1 of 2

Back to top of page
Sorry, you do not have permission to post/reply in this forum.
Donate                   Terms of use                  Help & FAQs                   Advertise               RSS rss feed               Copyright 2006 - 2018 East Dulwich Forum