Morality =/= religion. In fact, there are some things contained within the religious texts, not to mention beliefs held by "religious" individuals which are morally repugnant by modern standards.

Working religion out of public institutions is going to take longer in Britain because it's so heavily embedded in many of our traditions. However, with the House of Lords due for the axe we're well on the way.

Lolwut? The House of Lords is going nowhere - it'll be reformed rather than abolished.

And frankly I'd rather keep what we've got than end up with the farce that seems to befuddle many fully-elected second chambers.

Yes, reform is on the cards and ut won't be comparable to the former chamber at all, and something tells me after it becomes a fully-elected chamber it won't retain the name.

I'm sick of pandering to delusion. Faith and religion should be abolished, it's about time we embraced evolution.

There's nothing saying that it will be fully elected. The current favourite idea is to retain a contingent of appointed cross-benchers.

And there's nothing that says it should be fully-elected. It's a revising rather than a legislative chamber - i.e. it doesn't have any authority except that given by the Lower House and serves merely to improve and comment on legislation. As such, it requires expertise rather than electoral mandate and, IMO, should be a meritocratic, appointed chamber.

That's not to say that the current system of patronage is any good. However I shudder to think what would happen if the already-idiotic election circus were to be inflicted upon the Upper House.

That's only a fairly recent phenomena - it only became a revising rather than a legislative chamber because of the Parliament Acts.

I see no reason why the second House can't also have legislative power and have the power to block the Commons - after all we could do with something to stimy the large majorities that tend to be returned in the Commons.

Speaking as a Christian, I see nothing in the bible that says I have to pray out loud, or in public. I also see that we are to respect the laws of the land as long as they do not directly contravene what we are told (not) to do.

Hmmm. You see I'm not so sure. I think that having an Upper House free from the trammels of having to seek popular (i.e. partisan) favour is something to be cherished. I rather think that the large majorities in the HoC would be better counter-acted by introducing proportional representation.


Agreed. I think that Bideford councils making prayers the first item on the agenda is an arrogance of the worst kind.

However, I get the impression that many supporting this decision do so out of a blind hatred of religion, rather than a true desire to promote tolerance.

True, but in the same way, I would question the motives of the people who are outraged by the decision too.

Yes, but that's a given, surely?

They should compromise, and do something nobody likes. Then it's fair.

How about singing the Marseillaise?

That would be a pretty definitive example, although I think "God Save our Gracious Queen" or whatever it's called would be about as popular in reality. Seriously - does anyone ever sing that except under extreme duress?

Just had to explain, very slowly, why an atheist shouldn't have to "just ignore it".

To my normally quite sensible wife.

I still think my idea is better. Eg meeting starts at 0900. Prayers start at 0845 and anyone who wishes to attend may feel free to do so. Everyone who is then in that room at 0900 doesn't have to be miffed at anything.