So, the saying of prayers in council meetings is not lawful. Interestingly, the original case taken as a human rights one was not upheld. The judge – Solomon like – came to a somewhat creative solution:
Mr Justice Ouseley ruled the prayers were not lawful under section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972.
His judgement, in effect, is that as the council does not meet to say prayers, prayers should not be on the agenda. It was a neat way of solving the matter without setting a human rights precedent. And let’s be fair, being subjected to people saying prayers is not a violation of human rights no matter how hard you try to make it fit. It’s annoying, but if every annoyance was a human rights breach we would all end up in court at some point in our lives.
I agree with the judgement – although clearly Christian leaders do not.
Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey has said the Christian faith is facing “gradual marginalisation”.
His warning came after the High Court ruled a council acted unlawfully by allowing prayers at the start of meetings, a ruling which could affect councils across England and Wales.
Well, affecting councils across England and Wales was rather the point, I think. While I have sympathy with Mr Bone – I would object to having prayers forced upon me when attending a meeting that was about the business the elected officials were there to discuss – they ain’t there to indulge in worship. Would I have done as he did and involve the National Secular Society and the courts? No. That would be over the top for me. I’d have made my protest more subtly. Either I would have excused myself from that agenda item or I would have turned up in time for item 2. The message would have got across eventually.
While I support absolutely the principle of freedom of religion, this also means freedom from religion. This means that you do not impose your religion on others where it would be difficult for them to avoid it. The functions of the state should mean that there is no religion involved – and by that, I would like to see the bishops ejected from the HoL. Prayers and religious practice have no place in matters that are secular in nature. Here, then, I vigorously disagree with Carey who like other leading Christians see it as a part of the fabric of our public life.
The French have the right approach here – religion is a private matter and that is where it should stay. Yes, I know that Christianity is a proselytising religion and its very core is the spreading of the word. Well, some of us – more and more, it seems – have heard the word and aren’t impressed. We’d prefer that the word was not thrust upon us, thanks very much. We know where we can go if we want to hear it. If the councillors of Bideford want to pray, I see no reason why they should not, merely that they should not impose it upon other councillors who may not share their belief. After all, there are plenty of other times when they could pray and it is why we have churches.
The idea that a kick back is a “marginalisation of Christianity” is patently absurd. Christianity – in particular, the Anglican variety – has been marginalising itself perfectly well without outside assistance this past few decades. It has become an irrelevance, in a considerable part due to its own efforts and a supreme leader who is, frankly, a joke.
But he said he had a wider concern about the place of Christianity in society.
“This is the gradual marginalisation of the Christian faith, being pushed to the outskirts,” he said.
I suspect the pagans felt much the same…
I enjoyed Carey’s sudden realisation that the NSS are trying to have religion removed from public life. The fact that it has been their openly stated purpose for about 150 years seems to have slipped under his radar up until now.
Minor technical point. Prayers are said before the meeting begins. At that point they are not about the business of being an elected representitive. Freedom of religion means being free to practise it.
On the plus side it the ban will put a stop to the spectacle of councils saying prayers and then immediately proceding to behave like a bunch of self-serving sh1ts.
According to the report I saw, prayers were item 1 on the agenda. That would make them part of the meeting.
That aside, we really should have firm separation of church and state.
Yes, if it’s item 1 on the agenda that is a different matter although that has not been my experience of council meetings. Something I have noticed about council meetings though is that they are invariably riddled with procedural errors and poorly drafted agendas. It may be how this dispute came about.
I gather that’s precisely what it’s about – hence the fairly sensible ruling. They can pray if they want to, just no as a part of the meeting. Nothing to get their knickers in a knot over.
This issue – albeit on a smaller scale – has long been the subject of debate in our family.
The offspring – one atheist, one pagan – grudgingly accepted that, since we sent them to a Christian school, they were required to attend the weekly chapel services and, if not join in the responses and creed, at least maintain a respectful silence, as did their few Muslim and Buddhist classmates.
However, the universal practice of beginning a purely administrative assembly or school council meeting with a prayer was a different matter; quite apart from the implication that the Almighty had been personally responsible for the First XI’s glorious victory at the weekend, they both felt that religion should be kept separate from the day-to-day running of the school.
The Head, being an Evangelical type, felt the opposite, which led to some uncomfortable visits to his office to discuss, among other things, our younger son’s petition to end compulsory prayers and his request not to study a Christianity-based RE syllabus.
The Head’s reaction was extreme enough for me to think that some Christians, at least, have already decided this ‘marginalisation’ is rife and are setting about getting their retaliation in first.
That response would make me dig my heels in, too. Although a Christian as a child, I never took an active part in school worship at assembly, feeling that it had no place being there. I was far from alone.
You said: ” Either I would have excused myself from that agenda item or I would have turned up in time for item 2. The message would have got across eventually.”
No.
That’s the whole point.
That’s been tried for years, and it doesn’t work, not with people arrogant and stupid enough to believ in invisble Big Sky Fairies.
I note incidentally, from THIS:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9075159/Government-tells-councils-to-carry-on-praying-despite-High-Court-ban.html
That the gross (in every sense of the word) Pickles has told councils to “ignore the law” …
Well, doesn’t THAT set an interesting precedent?
Can we all play, and decide which laws we want to ignore?
They can ignore the law because a new law started just this month. So the ruling is out of date before the case even finished.
Christianity has been marginalised in the UK for decades. Actual practicing Christians*, as opposed to people who robotically tick the Christian box on surveys, are a tiny minority in this country but still enjoy enormous privilages. The fact that they howl so loudly every time that one more tiny privilage is chipped away tells us an awful lot about them. They have been used to getting their own way for centuries, usually by burning people alive. Now that praying has been made optional at Bideford council meetings, it will be interesting to see whether the 70% Christian figure from the 2001 census, or the 1.5% figure on church attendance manifests itself.
*I know two practicing Christians personally.
1.5% on church attendance, maybe, but how many of those are in influential areas such as education – or local government?
Far, far too many!
Tail wags dog …..
What ‘enormous privilages’ (sic) are these?
Bishops sitting in the HoL directly influencing legislation?
Being able to cherry pick students for taxpayer funded schools and put their own people to the front of the queue. The aformentioned Bishops in the Lords. Having an established Church that gets to hi-jack all kinds of national celebrations and memorial services. Platforms to spout their drivel unopposed on BBC radio. Exceptions from employment laws.
I don’t mind if the CofE is dis-established, but you can’t re-write history. Much of national life is based on tradition, and Christianity and the church is part of that tradition. You may object to the money spent on the recent Royal wedding, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to complain that it was held in Westminster Abbey, rather than the Windsor Registry Office. As for other national events that the church ‘hi-jacks’, I can’t think of any, unless you mean Christmas and Armistice Day. It’s not like the Archbishop of Canterbury insists on presiding over the FA Cup Final, or blessing the horses in the Grand National.
As for their schools, I’m all for getting rid of all state schools, but the reason they can cherry-pick, which I’m sure they deny doing, is because their schools are popular. Anyway, they don’t decide the state school funding policy.
Basically, you seem a bit chippy on the subject.