Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Philip, what I wrote I'm also sure of.
Let's consider: the words "venting their hatred..." You might find that there is actually a law, but probably one that the judge involved in this case has not come across, or which no lawyer made known to the court during the proceedings.
It is against the law to make hatred speeches in many circumstances, for example against people on account of their ethnic origin, or to cause hatred-inspired humiliation against them.
It probably is illegal to take hatred-based actions against people on account of their faith in God, especially when such actions result in intolerance that can damage the liberty of people to practice their faith in God.
One thing is freedom of speech, something else is injurious speech that is hatred-based.
Unfortunately, here we have someone whose intolerance went as far as the court, with the backing of a society whose aim is to destroy freedom of faith. The tables were turned, and the victims were depicted as the aggressors ("they prayed to God before the meetings, this offended me, I have been insulted...").
And the aggressor became the victim ("I forbid them to pray together in communion to God, so, oh honourable Court of Justice, please hear my case, they are aggressive towards me, ORDER them never to pray again before a meeting").
It is astonishing that a court can make such a ruling that is blatant persecution based on EVERYTHING that is unreasonable, and get away with it, and actually have this ruling applied as a precedent for all councils in the UK, and inevitably as a basis for further action against any manifestation in public of prayers to God or celebration of the Faith, in whatever form.
It was reasonable for the council member to simply present himself at the meeting hall after the prayers were finished, as the prayers were not part of the official procedure. He knew this to be the case, as it was the custom in the council.
The society that backed his case with financial and intellectual support is no doubt satisfied, satisfied to have defeated, humiliated and downcast other people who pray to God, satisfied to have inflicted a blow on believers, to have done some Faith-bashing.
Satisfied to have wrung a court order making prayers illegal where once they were common practice among those who believe.
And yet these intolerant individuals were in no way harassed or otherwise inconvenienced by the prayers of other people. Perhaps these were even praying for those who hate them.
Just imagine God said to one of those intolerant people: "lo and behold, those who once prayed for you have been silenced by the court order you helped bring about against their Faith! So begone!"
Guest 725- Registered: 7 Oct 2011
- Posts: 1,418
Alexander essentially I agree with what you say. I think the court case stands as one of the most ridiculous waste of taxpayers money, court time and newspaper space witnessed in many years. It should not have been allowed to get as far as a court case.
My point was to point out the last line in your previous posting which is going down the same route as the court case - ie. using law to stifle free speech or freedom of assembly which is the logical next step if anyone else takes this case even further.
I must say I haven't really seen extreme agnosticism or extreme atheism or it's manifestations in fact I'd say it's an extremely small group of people who actively campaign on such issues but of course bring a court case does give good copy and no doubt the group behind the action must be feeling very pleased with itself.
I do have a problem, however, with the influence of religion of whichever colour having an influence over the lives of those who choose not to believe and an influence on matters which do not pertain to important issues.
So when, for example, I hear the Archbishop of Canterbury spouting nonsense about environmental issues I really think he ought to shut up. He is not qualified to do so (as is the case with most who warn of impending doom to our planet).
If anyone should be banned from doing so surely it should be the likes of him who cause great damage to people's lives by standing on a platform and spreading false rumours.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Philip, it has nothing to do with banning free speech or freedom of assembly that I was envisaging, but preventing court orders that ban prayers to God before a meeting.
This would mean that any attempt to bring about a court case to prevent council members praying before a meeting has started would be flung out of the court.
The prayers were not enforced. This has been established in the case mentioned in the link in post 1.
I can't grasp how you manage to see prayers prior to a council meeting as being in any way associated to banning free speech or freedom of assembly.
The problem with this court case is that it does not uphold freedom of any kind, but forbids prayers before a work session begins. It has to be overturned, as it is a basis for persecution, a basis for a stalinist type of intolerance towards freedom of Faith obtained not through Parliament but through a judge's decision. Parliament must intervene.
I still cannot understand how you manage to turn this point I'm making into an attempt to ban freedom of speech and assembly. Have I written that anywhere? Please show me where, Philip.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,897
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
