What a shame! The message appears to be getting hazey! Let's pray! And hope that commen sense provails. The majority want prayers to continue. Has anyone considered that this town does need praying for? XXX

@swatantra nandanwar - if you are trying to "convert" people you are the fanatic.

Atheism is a belief, same as any other. It should be respected, considered, and scrutinized the same as any other. Asking for it to be accorded higher status than other beliefs, which is basically what the fanatical atheist does, is to turn it into the very thing you claim to despise.

(above is addressed to "Bideford Family Girl").

It's just another crusade born out of middle-class angst at being too wealthy and privileged to suffer real hardship, isn't it? Has any of this actually affected the way the Council serves its people, besides annoying those of an atheist belief-system?

Oh no, some council are saying prayers. Quick, call Stephen Fry!

I don't need any belief-system, be it atheist or theist, so I don't care, but I might start saying prayers just to spite these obnoxious, insecure, pseudo-intellectual internet-atheists. Perhaps they might then get a life, or start wearing those V for Vendetta masks and protest against homeopathy again. That was funny!

Man, I wish the only thing I had to worry about was other people saying prayers

"I might start saying prayers just to spite these obnoxious, insecure, pseudo-intellectual internet-atheists. Perhaps they might then get a life"

yeah, that'll teach them.

well. go on then......

@Sir Michael

where to start with your post.....

rather than stick to the point i was making regarding your misrepresentation of Harris' take on Collins, you throw up links to irrelevances. no thanks, we'll just stick to your initial inaccuracy;

you did state at 11:15; "For example, when Francis Collins was appointed as head of the NIH the atheist fanatic Sam Harris objected, citing the fact he was a Christian as evidence he was unsuitable to work in any scientific department."

and i pointed out that this is not correct, and even unfair. the problem Harris has with Collins is not that he is Christian, but that Collins forces Christian explanations onto scientific discovery and theory. this is a fact, but you say;

"As for what Collins ACTUALLY said about it, you're spouting Harris hate speech and taking it at face value."

nope, just started from the New York Times article, and then reviewed the actual lecture given by Collins in 2008 referred to by Harris. why did i bother to do so? well, because i am not a huge fan of Harris for a start.

so in turn, the NY article;

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/opinion/27harris.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

and then the list of Collins' bizarre forcing of Christian doctrine onto scientific discovery in that article (slides 1 through 5) are found in Collins's own words here;

those slides start around 1 hour 5 minutes into the lecture (yep it's a long lecture, fascinating too!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjJAWuzno9Y

so as you can now see, Harris was being factual. he did not lie, he makes a good argument why Collins as head of the NIS is perhaps a step too far.

but then you get personal and suggest; "I don't think those things will sway you though, given the contents of your post."

gee thanks. i hope you can be honest enough now though to accept that Harris did not think Collins the wrong choice purely because he is Christian, but because of how he wants to see science through the Christian prism.

if you have bothered to read any of the actual words Harris wrote about Collins you will notice he praises him for work done in genetics, and for standing up against Creationism/ID. this also sinks your false claim that Harris thinks " citing the fact he was a Christian as evidence he was unsuitable to work in any scientific department."

nope, this is a patent lie as i've just demonstrated. Harris does think highly of Collins, he just voices his concerns for such an influential position.

and then you have the temerity to accuse all and sundry of fascism of one sort or another. weird behaviour.

and your closing advise is just more of the same;

"My advice - put rationality and humanism before ideology and a dogma to your selected beliefs."

as if i don't? but perhaps what would be good advice for you is to stick to the facts, and build your case on those.

I think we have to ask ourselves a few questions; believer, atheist or otherwise.

1) Do we want to live in a Secular society; where an individual is both free to practice their religion, separate from any official state proceedings, or free FROM any religious observance in official state proceedings?

2) Would we rather live in a specific religious state: whereby members of other religions or unbelievers are often treated as second class citizens; oppressed, or worse and where religious dogma can influence laws on issues such as marriage, sexual orientation, sexual consent, gender equality, democratic process etc. (And to the religious; I'm afraid you cannot pick your preferred religion in this hypothetical scenario: in a non-secular state these decisions are nearly always made for you.)

Though it may seem a minor matter with regard to the Bideford case (and I would agree) it is important to acknowledge the following: Laws regarding separation of religion and state must be observed in all instances in order to be respected and hold water in any case. Otherwise you are inviting any number of possibilities that could ultimately damage our basic freedoms.

I have to ask; would this debate have gone on for eight days (in terms of the comment board as least) had the proposition of a majority of councillors been to impose Shari a in Bideford or, as existed in the USA before the establishment of secular constitution, a situation whereby members of certain denominations could not hold office in certain states or where only members of certain denominations could hold office? Would anyone here not see the problem with a “Catholic only Council? I suspect not.

This is clearly a less pressing matter that the examples above but if the law does not hold to the letter then it may as well not exist. While it exists it protects ALL secular freedoms that we value so much in this country. It protects the rights of the religious and the non-religious so I do honestly feel it is something we should all get behind and not take for granted.

Julia: "Why are atheists so intolerant in their attitude towards Christians when Christians do not have the same attitude towards them? How does a prayer interfere with their rights?"

I have absolutely no problem with a Christian who wishes to take a moment to make a private prayer. Nor would any other atheist I know.

What is intolerant about Christians who insist on group prayers is their inability to accept that this is not the same as each of those individual Christians privately making a prayer: this is their attempt to enforce prayer on the group, whether or not every individual in the group believes in prayer or feels like praying.

Aside from anything else, Julia, Christians who believe in enforced prayer clearly don't believe that prayer has any spiritual value - if they did, they wouldn't want to force it. For the councillors and others who want forced prayer for the group, prayer is a magic ritual which can include unwilling participants.

I'm an atheist. It doesn't bother me when Christians blaspheme the rituals of their own religion. But it's odd to see Christians defending the blasphemy.

I agree entirely Yonmei, but that works both ways. We want religion (or the lack thereof) to be a choice the individual can make. But that means we must also hold individuals responsible for the way they practice their religion, not the entire religious group. Using this as an attack on Christianity in general rather than going after the individuals responsible is just hypocrisy.

@Des Demona - Yes, and no. There are two sides to that. Religion is a part of the lives of many people, thus has a place in politics as much as any other human activity. A secular society by definition doesn't favour any religious activity or religious disposition of any stripe, that includes atheism. For example, when Francis Collins was appointed as head of the NIH the atheist fanatic Sam Harris objected, citing the fact he was a Christian as evidence he was unsuitable to work in any scientific department. If we allowed that sort of thing the system wouldn't be secular, it would be atheistic fascism. As such politics has to recognize religious freedom, practices, and rights, but not the supposed dieties themselves.

"This is a terrible waste of everyone's time, and a disgraceful abuse of the judicial system."

I agree. The silly people on the council insisting on their right to force prayers on other people, should have quit before they wasted any more time.

Any individual councillor who wishes to say a silent prayer before the council meeting begins is always free to do so. I'm appalled that Nelson blames the NSS for bringing this to the attention of the courts, rather than the councillors who foolishly stuck in their heels and bellowed "PRAY, YOU FOOLS!" at the non-prayers.

"Well, yes, parents have a right to remove their children from assemblies. Just as atheist councillors have a right to remove themselves from prayers. But the assemblies themselves are (in theory at least) mandatory."

So they have a right not to participate in something? That, by definition, means it isn't mandatory. An oxymoron if I've ever seen one.

I am an atheist myself, and I understand completely the principle that we shouldn't have religion shoved down our throats. Nor should religion be a legally required aspect of anyones life. But constant attacks on it, particularly irrational and dishonest comments like this do nothing to help matters. It makes atheists like me feel the need to defend religion.

Let me tell you this Jones - having an atheist equivalent of Glenn Beck is not making things any easier for us rational atheists who want to work with religious moderates to formulate a truly secular system. You're a part of the problems religion may be associated with, not (as you like to think) part of the solution.

"It's not as if -- as with religious school assemblies -- council prayers are compulsory.."

School 'assemblies' are not mandatory: since 1944 parents have had the legal right to withdraw their children from both the 'daily act of collective worship' and Religious Education. It is a point the NSS consistently ignore.

Cranmer: Well, yes, parents have a right to remove their children from assemblies. Just as atheist councillors have a right to remove themselves from prayers. But the assemblies themselves are (in theory at least) mandatory.

David: I don't "support" council prayers, no, but if councillors want to vote such things into existence, then they should be able to control their own proceedings. It might be irritating for councillors who don't want to take part, but it's scarcely a form of oppression.

What I fear the NSS is playing at here is the game of competitive victimhood indulged in by the Christian Institute and others (and of which they are rightly critical when Christians play it). The language they use of being excluded and discriminated against is a bit hysterical, frankly. It's only a couple of prayers.

Cranmer: disingenuous. I have no objection to - indeed I'd very much like for - my children to be able to participate in a daily act of collective something or other in their school but I don't see why it should be Christian in nature. The law as it stands tells parents to exclude their children from what ought to be a valuable event.

It's worse pedantry than that. They actually (seriously and with a straight face) offered a compromise, that prayers be said before meetings as a non-agenda item before formal proceedings begin. So a high court judicial review procedure is being brought over whether prayers are an agenda item or a non-agenda item at Bideford Council. The law being used is European Human Rights legislation - human rights legislation is not there to prevent elected councillors from feeling slightly annoyed.

This is a terrible waste of everyone's time, and a disgraceful abuse of the judicial system.

@Jankaas - First of, Collins. You are just wrong about his views.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_0qy6U-Rtk

It isn't difficult to make Harris sound like an unreasonable fool. Indeed that bastion of religious zealotry known as the New Humanist has already done it...

http://newhumanist.org.uk/973/spirited-away

...of course there are also the words of the man himself. The man who called for us to make a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the Muslim world should really not be thought of as anything but a loon...

http://www.alternet.org/rights/80449/

As for what Collins ACTUALLY said about it, you're spouting Harris hate speech and taking it at face value. Collins, the former head of the Human Genome Project and a man with more medical research under his belt than almost any man currently alive, is qualified for that position. Harris, a man with barely 3 research papers to his name (the vast majority of rank and file university lecturers have more than him), frankly isn't qualified to comment.... at least when we look at their scientific crudentials.

When we look at their beliefs, see that one is an atheist and one a Christian, then hold the atheist higher because he is an atheist, ignoring the actual science aspect, we can of course support Harris. But that would, of course, be intellectually idiotic and be the actions only of a fanatical atheist.

I don't think those things will sway you though, given the contents of your post. You interpreted a call for tolerance of other beliefs as a statement of religious intent, talking about my "eternal soul", even though I've not made any assertions to religious beliefs at all. You've just done precisely what Sean Hannity does with the "liberals". People who disagree with him are the "liberal elite" and therefore are "lying" to push their agenda, as you accused me of doing. This is clear fascism. You're either in the camp with the superior ideology or you're an dishonest enemy of a better world.

My advice - put rationality and humanism before ideology and a dogma to your selected beliefs.

Sir Michael
"Why are you afraid to admit it is a belief? Is there a genuine fear of admitting any sort of faith on the part of fanatical atheist?

Isn't the knee jerk reaction of the fanatical atheist to the statement "yours is a belief also" rather revealing?"

Afraid isn't the word, it's more irritation at an obvious and oft-repeated inacurracy. Not adhering to a belief is not a belief - unless of course we jump through tortuous linguistic and logical hoops like you do. The knee-jerk reaction reveals irritation at this persistent misrepresentation, nothing more.

Are you really an atheist? Your comments tend to look more like those of a religious troll disguised as an atheist using all the usual terms "fundamental atheism", "atheist belief" etc etc.

And by the way, this judgement is excellent. Now if only we could get rid of that ridiculous law calling for daily acts of worship in schools.

Parents can withdraw children from the collective act of worship. But children cannot withdraw themselves, unless they are old enough and at sixth form. So a 14 year old atheist with religious parents might not be lucky enough to be excused.

And if you are withdrawn, what then? Where do you go? What do you do? What will be the reaction of others? Such considerations are one reason why lots of people who oppose the legal requirement for a daily act of worship nevertheless decline to withdraw their children from it.

The NSS wants separation of church and state. It should be no surprise that it wants prayers removed from official council proceedings. This is, or ought to be, a common sense secularist stance. Although someone might well be made uncomfortable - made to feel a second class citizen - by a collective prayer prior to official business - this case should not be reduced to the embarassment felt by an individual. This is about what it means to say that all citizens are equal. For a council to hold official prayers says that at least some citizens are not equal.

I wonder what the reaction would be if Tower Hamlets council voted for prayer mats and facing Mecca before every meeting?

I suspect the outcry would be deafening!

For myself it is not a question of intolerance of Christians or any other group. It is that no-one should force their religious practices on others. By holding prayers as part of a council meeting, the religious believers force all present to participate (or to pointedly refuse to participate, thereby appearing to insult the preacher and also requiring a declaration of their religious affiliation in violation of the principle outlined in Alexandridis v Greece).

Des Demona - on the contrary - multi-faith prayers are said by many councils already.