Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,885
To me the obvious answer to satisfy all is to have prayers outside of the council chamber just prior to the meeting that way it is not part of the officialdom.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
Which is Jan, where I came in.
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
Keith, it has been clearly stated many times that those who do not wish to attend the prayers in the Council chamber do not need to.
Jan, to ban prayers from the Chamber would be an act of forbidding the Christian Faith and making it outlaw, forcing people to abide to an imposed act of intolerance against their own will, which is precisely what the Government has not allowed to happen.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
"Here is a nice room for your prayer meeting," or "you will listen to our prayers". Which is the intolerant one?
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 one that bypasses common sense and makes a big fat hairy expensive legal deal out of it?
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,885
I remember Chris I was just restating the obvious for those that wish to inflict their religious views on others.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
ALEXANDER;
I think you are the one inflicting things on those that maybe dont want it.
maybe the best way(if its felt there is a need) then put it to the vote
with the option not to attend should it be agreed to have a service
but first the majority should feel a need for such a service rather than imposing something that maybe the majority are not fussed
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
just thinking back to my time in ilford, redbridge council had councillors that were jewish, hindu, muslim, sikh probably christian and non believers too.
they would have needed to start their meetings an hour earlier to get all the praying in.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
council chambers was just one example
is alexander saying all e mployment has to have prayers before they start work?
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
thought it was just about council chambers, i am sure that alex doesn't get his prayer mat out before he paints a house.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Keith, the court ruling was meant to ban all English councils from holding prayers at the start of their meetings. Although it was directed at Bideford Town Council, the English Law meant that it was directed at all councils in England owing to the principle of precedent.
The national Government decided that a court cannot hold such authority over local Government, and overruled the court order, on the grounds that local Government can not be ordered by a judge to abolish the Christian Faith.
The Government also declared that the Christian Faith is a basic principle of British society, and noted that the House of Commons holds prayers in the Chamber.
Many English councils had already stated they would not follow the court order, so we would have been on the verge of State persecution against local Government if Parliament had not intervened.
I am sure if the Police had been asked to arrest councillors for holding prayers at the start of a meeting within the council chamber, the Police would have refused to carry out the order.
No-one can order local Government to abolish the Christian Faith. If they had succeeded, they'd next have tried their hand at ordering Parliament to stop saying prayers, using the European Human Rights Act to dictate Stalinist tyranny.
One cannot order British Police to drag local Government officials out out the Chamber and to prison.
The Government understood full well that the State would have been close to collapsing if this court order had not been swiftly overruled.
If you read back on the original thread, Keith, relating to when the court order came out, I stated straight away then that the Government must overrule the court order, which they did!
I know I am going to regret saying this again , the government did not overturn the court ruling , Eric Pickles brought forward an element of the Localities Bill that nulified the ruling by changing the law under which it was made . There was no direct challenge by the government to the HIgh Court ruling . The law was superceeded by the new law .
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Sarah, Eric Pickles stated clearly that the court ruling was unacceptable even before the Localism Act was signed by him. In fact, it was an ACT that overruled the court order, not the Bill. This particular, namely an Act signed in Parliament to stop a court order, and the reasons given by the Communities Minister who signed it, deflates your version.
Or not , but I am now bored with the same conversation going around and around so Im out
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,885
I do not blame you Sarah gets rather pointless when some have such entrenched opinions and refuses to accept any other view.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
I am pretty sure that, while you may be able to abolish a club or an institution, you can not abolish a faith. Surely people either believe in it or they don't, if they do it is a faith.
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
Amen.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
call me mr over intuitive but i suspect that alex will have a come back line on this one.
