http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-16980025

I'd be interested in your thoughts on that, you'd certainly have hoped they could have sorted it out amongst themselves...

I don't really see much of an issue. Reminds me of assembly at school. Those who didn't want to attend the religious part just stood outside and came in after the hymns had finished.

Something I've noticed about myself is that in the past few years my tolerance levels have dropped significantly over three issues.

1. General old age. I have no idea why but I get stressed around old people.

2. "Hippy" types. For me that word covers anyone who believes in "energy" and whatever other sh*t they label it. This comes in the form of alternative healers, psychics and people who believe in things like divining for water. (There was someone on Radio 2 the other day talking about the 'science' of divining for water and I had to switch over when he started talking about energy from the earth moving the divining rods etc... What a load of b*ll*cks).

3. Religion. I read a quote somewhere recently that seems to sum up what I feel. It went something like... "I will fight to the death, your right to have a religion. But I will fight to YOUR death, my right to not have a religion". I'm not really bothered if people want to delude themselves into believing that some sort of 'higher power' exists but please keep it to yourself.

No.

I'm not bothered that people want to delude themselves into believing that some sort of 'higher power' doesn't exist. However, my faith demands that I don't keep it to myself.

It shouldn't be part of official council business or on the agenda, at all. Local authorities should be secular bodies which serve the local community in a blind, impartial manner. This should include council meetings.

If certain councillors wish to pray before council meetings, then they can do so in the prayer room or in a church, not in the council chamber.

Religion has no business in government. It's bad enough that we still have Bishops in the Lords.

Fixed.

Why should a minority of Christians be able to use the machinery of government to lord it over the rest of us?

Christianity and the responsibilities of local authorities are fundamentally incompatible.

The English told told Rome where to go, next it's Canterbury and York.

No.

I don't try to convert you into thinking what I think.

I don't stand in the street shouting into a megaphone about what I do or do not believe.

I do not go around knocking on people's doors interrupting their day to talk at them about how they should or shouldn't live their lives.

Having a religion does not give anyone a right to try and enforce their opinions onto someone else. If you want to have a religion then that is one thing. If you want others to have that religion then that is something entirely different.

It is the latter that leads to wars, terrorism and people being given the death penalty for posting on Twitter.


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=53.842681,-1.532464

I agree with you. All I was saying was that you were presenting as fact that which is opinion.


Balls, frankly.


Again, not true.

The English King told Rome where to go, but the Church of England remains Catholic to this day.

I don't have a religion - I have a faith. And that faith demands that I tell others. It is not an option.

And as long as I don't oppress or harass others, I can tell who I like.


No - that's natural human intolerance and xenophobia.

Neither of which is restricted to religion.

+1 to religion not being the cause of terrorism or wars. I still maintain that if you removed religion from the world, all of the wars would not suddenly stop. Instead the reasons behind them would change to something else.

Strip it down and it is man and his ego/greed/lust etc that is the cause of all the problems in this world.

Besides, given that this is going to descend into another religion/atheist bashing thread, should we not merge it with the other one?

Why? Because we are a "christian country". If I lived in a Muslim country, I would accept that they stop meetings and turn towards Mecca and start praying at the approriate times, why shouldn't a Christian have the same right?

On the other hand, I also believe that religion and politics should never be mixed.

I sit somewhere in the middle on this one, where is the fuss, if they want to have a prayer - as long as they don't force those of other beliefs to take part or treat them differently (passed over for promotion, ostracised etc.)


Erm, but aren't those who were praying now having the right to freedom of conscience and not to face discrimination breached?

In my opinion, religion is bunk. I formed that opinion when sitting through what they called Religious Education at my secondary school. I had an epiphany that everything they were trying to teach me was just stories, and had no more validity than the stuff the Erik Von Daniken coughed up.

Having got that out of my system, I think it should be a personal and private matter. If you have faith of any way, shape or form, go to it. Enjoy. But don't try to convince me your faith is worth my time.

In the case of the council, they were found to be breaking rules. Banged to rights. It's got nothing to do with discrimination as far as I can see. If they wanted some form of prayer or something before a meeting, they can do it if they want, but not on official business.

I'm all for personal religious beliefs if you find it helpful.
I am, however, all for the separation of church and state.
Prayers shouldn't be a formal part of the council process, but if you'd like to show up ten minutes early to do it off the books, then what's the issue?

Here's the thing though - Britain is not in law a secular state. France (for example) is. They have strict laws that keep religion out of all the workings of government and the state.

We don't. We never have. The head of state is also the head of the nationally recognised church. Many religious leaders sit in the second house of our government. Our laws are effectively based upon judeo-christian traditions.

There are arguments for the separation (some of which I heartily agree with) however I also see the argument that if you make a state amoral, you make it closer to being immoral. So I think having a spiritual aspect to how we decide we should all behave is not necessarily a bad thing. I don't see it as the affront some people seem to - the basic justification as to why these people come to the decisions they do may be fantasy, but that doesn't change the fact most of the the decisions (if made according to the basic tenants of religion) would be good decisions. There are things they get wrong too, but is anyone going to stand up and claim a purely secular leadership would always make rational and good decisions? They'd still be people after all.

I don't want to live in a theocracy. They are almost always bad. However to make the statement that religion cannot make a positive contribution to our lives and culture is equally dogmatic and unjust. If someone wants to put a short spiritual message on the agenda of an event and the majority of attendants find that acceptable, what difference does it make? If you believe in the religion, you may assume it will help. It you don't believe is religion by definition, it will make no difference at all. Why campaign to prevent something you by definition believe has absolutely no effect whatsoever?

In the main, It seems to me some people are intolerant. Some of them are religious, some of them are atheists. It does us no good to give them what they want, regardless of which side of the divide they are on.