Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
Alex, in that case you need to tell Lizzie that she got it wrong when she said this earlier in the week -
The Queen has spoken of her belief that the Church of England has "a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths" in the UK.
In a speech at London's Lambeth Palace, she argued the Church's role was not to "defend Anglicanism to the exclusion of other religions".
She added the concept of an established Church was "occasionally misunderstood" and "commonly under-appreciated"
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
getting back to the localism thingy the stuff that ray linked in from the government cove was large on waffle and vision but woefully lacking in specifics.
what constitutes local power over centralisation, is it our local councils?
if the answer is yes then the only changes i can see are less serivces as more money is cut from central funding.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Howard, the L. Bill definitely needs a good read through, I'm doing this tonight, to get acquainted to it.
Just to mention Ray's point, the oath of coronation upholds the Christian Faith as is custom in Britain, but does not prevent people from practicing another religion, so it has nothing to do with intolerance.
I'm not sure what Liz was on about, because the Anglican Church does not harass other religions, unless she was suggesting that the Church of England should change its own teachings and become a mixture of all religions.
This would make Liz head of all religions. Final aspiration?
But again, I may have misinterpreted that, so perhaps Liz herself should specify.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i heard her majesty speak alex and the words she uttered were as ray stated, i wish you luck with the localism bill, as per usual the original document was specifically designed to confuse people and stop them asking too many questions.
Howard , if it helps I posted a link to a summery of the localism bill on the last thread we had on this subject , its not too bad to get to grips with .
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
During a debate on BBC 1 this morning it came out that the percentage of British people describing themselves as 'Christian' has dropped from 72% in 2001 to 54%. A further study conducted by MORI for the Richard Dawkins foundation found that only 10% of those would describe themselves as 'practising'.
I can not think of any council that would object to any of their members meeting in a room to share a religious rite of their choice before any scheduled meeting. Such matters should be up to those who want to take part and, as long as they are kept off the agenda and out of the council chamber, I cannot see that any would object any more than they do when party groupings go off for a pre-meeting discussion.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
The guy also pointed out that the same percentage describing themselves as practicing was the equivalent of the population who believe Elvis is still alive............
That doesn't make all of them nutters......
or does it....?!
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
Interestingly it is still more than were members of Mary Whitehouse's infamous 'Viewers and Listeners Association' and remember the undue influence they used to wield?
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
#26 Does that include sacrificing virgins before meetings? That might liven up the process.........
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
Hey I might even turn up if they wanted a Bacchanalia.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#29 Bern, virgins are few and far between nowadays, every time a Muslim martyrs himself he gets 72 when he gets to Heaven, this is one area where recycling is absolutely essential.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
Would it horrify them to find the 72 were all Catholic nuns??
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
I thought it was 72 vegans.........?
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Chris, Eric Pickles signed " a general power of competence contained in the Localism Act which enables councils to do anything an individual can do that is not illegal."
This excludes your law that " as long as they are kept off the agenda and out of the council chamber".
So the Town Council of Bideford in Devon decided to hold prayers as was their custom, they voted to do so, and if they do it at the start of the agenda and in the Town Council chamber is there God-given right! It is NOT illegal.
Anyone who wished not to attend was allowed to stay away from the prayers and join the meeting when the opening prayers were over. Amen!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
does it really matter whether the prayers are held inside or outside the council chamber?
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
And back to the boring rants. No 'law' was stated just a common sense opinion. The council chamber is where a council meets to discuss and enact council business. The agenda is a detailed programme of that business. Not everyone wants to wave their religious opinions in public and as they are NOT a part of any councils duties or responsibilities a sensible option would be to allow those who wish to indulge their religious feelings prior to meetings to do so in the privacy of like-minded people. Excluding councillors and delaying meetings for personal reasons should never be an option and it is not what they are elected for, that is why there are priests, vicars and churches.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Yes, Howard. If the Council votes they should be held inside the chamber and it is not illegal then they can do so. There is no court that can over-rule it.
It is not illegal to hold prayers inside the chamber, and for it to become so there would have to be a law in Parliament.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
seems rather pointless alex, most religious people are content to pray where it is convenient.
for example muslims can throw down a prayer mat anywhere and speak to allah.
didn't the messiah also hold prayer meetings in public in his day?
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Chris, in Bideford and many other English Councils, the councillors have been holding prayers in the chamber at the start of meetings for centuries. The people who vote for them know this and therefore, yes, they are voted in order to continue following these Christian customs while going about their duty.
As I have stated already, Bideford Town Council voted to continue their custom, and after the infamous court ruling, many English councils proclaimed they would go ahead with their Christian prayers as before.
So Chris, it is not up for anyone to force these people to stop their practices of Faith within the chamber and at the start of meetings, because they have decided they want it that way.
Those who wish to abstain from the prayers are allowed to.
It is not reasonable to suggest that a councillor who turns up at, say, 8 o'clock for a meeting, is loosing time because they have to wait a few minutes for the prayers to end.
They can also turn up at 8.05, once they know that the prayers last five minutes, or at 8.10, if they know the prayers last ten minutes.
They will no doubt have been informed how long prayers last.
Because this is reasonable, British Law by sacred tradition will not tolerate a tyrannical court ruling that asserts something that is unreasonable and deliberately intent on reducing other people's liberties and rights to worship God.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Howard, there are councils in Britain who find it convenient to say prayers in the chamber.
They do not see it as pointless.