The talk today in the more wishful thinking corners of cyberspace is that the Government will legislate to give councils the power to hold prayers if they want to. Dream on. The last time that the Conservative Party was in office, it legalised abortion up to birth, legalised destructive experimentation on embryonic human beings, made divorce legally easier than release from a car hire contract, abolished most of the restrictions protecting lowly shop workers from having to work seven-day weeks, tried to abolish them all, attempted to abolish the restrictions in relation to 25th December, had to be stopped by a Labour-led alliance of peers from removing Christian collective worship and Religious Education from state schools (do "free" schools have to have them?), and devastated the economic base of paternal authority in secure, high-waged, high-skilled, high-status employment.

Since praying in council chambers has graciously been kept legal, local churches should make it their business to hold prayer meetings in or immediately outside them before every council meeting, with councillors expressly invited to attend.

@Peter - these men are councillors, so we are operating under the assumption that they shouldn't be taken seriously anyway.

@Luddite - congratulations on Godwinning the blog comments! Hitler did detest religion, but it had nothing to do with atheism (he had a weird pseudo-pagan religious belief), he wanted to replace a belief in god with a belief in himself. Also, he wasn't a socialist (your own hatred for socialists doesn't effect this historical fact). Stalin and Mao were, but not Mr Hitler, he was far-right.

@Michael - "Mr Justice Ouseley has used a phoney legal argument to ban not prayers but putting prayers on the agenda - usually before the Mayor has sat down so not part of the actual meeting."

If that is true then this isn't a bad thing. The councillors involved should absolutely have their rights to be religious defended. But putting prayers on the agenda, actually compelling atheists or other religious people there to partake (or feel ostracized) is equally unacceptable.

The question comes down to one of professionalism on the part of the councillors. If they were behaving in good faith (if you'll pardon the phrase) with regard to their duties as politicians then I don't see what the fuss is about. If they were putting praying on the list of stuff to do during business hours or making atheist/pagans/buddhists/whateverists feel awkward about working then that is quite simply unacceptable.

But this is a matter of human resources and discipline in the workplace. I don't see why the NSS is going on about human rights.

@Sir M

"And trying to actively prevent people from praying on the grounds that at work they aren't allowed to identify as religious isn't secular, its state-atheistic."

i thought the problem was that Christians prayers were said, out loud, as part of the council's meeting. i do think that this is intrusive, and certainly irrelevant to the political function of the Council. Des Demona hones in on this with his "prayer mats" comparison.

i did think that the previous process of allowing a quiet moment of reflection, thus allowing all & no faith to be expressed, was the best compromise, but it seems this wasn't enough for some?

@Clive

"I am an atheist. However I believe that it is every person's right to practice their religion (or lack of religion) when and where they choose without hindrance."

fair point. but whilst the Christian councillors are busy praying, can the secular councillors have a chat amongst themselves, make a few phone calls etc, or should they be silent?

AMEN ! to the NSS and MJO.

Compare what we have done in Britain to the news of the death of Witney Houston. Prayers were said for her at the BAFTA, and heard worldwide. The world must think we are mad.

"i did think that the previous process of allowing a quiet moment of reflection, thus allowing all & no faith to be expressed, was the best compromise, but it seems this wasn't enough for some?"

Wholeheartedly agree. But this is a matter of unfair employment conditions, or perhaps a matter for anti-bullying legislation. It has nothing at all to do with secularity, or even the religion/atheist thing.

Let me draw an analogy. If all but one councillor were male, and they started each council meeting by handing out a copy of Maxim and grading the various scantily clad ladies that lay within, then discussed the grading over coffee before starting the real business then the lone lady might feel uncomfortable, objectified, whatever. They would certainly be unprofessional in this, and she absolutely should say something about it to the constituents.

But it wouldn't amount to sexual harrassment, sexual misconduct, or any other such behaviour.

There is no indication that these councillors have been using their religion to inform their actual decision making over how the affairs of their borough are handled. This is purely a behavioural matter. Thus it has nothing at all to do with secular values or aims.

@Sir M

"This is purely a behavioural matter. Thus it has nothing at all to do with secular values or aims."

i totally agree, but, it is mighty odd prescriptive behaviour no?

and there's the rub, i am 100% for people being allowed to pray/not pray to their heart's content. but if it's not about specific Council business, then there's no need to include prayer in the running order of business affairs.

and. i do have the suspicion that this is only a 'big' deal because it is a Christian plight, which opens a whole Pandora's Box as far as the media is concerned.

it's a Harry Hills type battle of religions; which is better, Christianity or Islam? FIGHT!!!!

@Graham Goldsmith
10 February 2012 at 22:08
"Surely this is a matter for local democracy. The council should be able to set their own agenda."

No; that's the point of the judgment. Bideford voted twice to retain prayers but councils do not have the right or the powers to do anything they want, even by voting on whatever it is they want. They only have powers laid out in the parliamentary Act that gives them those powers. If they could vote on anything they wanted, anarchy would reign. This is explained here http://wp.me/pfo1I-a3 with a link to the judgment

Praying is like racism - if required it should be thought not uttered.

Didn't Hitler, Stalin, Pol-pot. Try banning Christianity and Buddhism? What makes these atheists so enlightened? Militant atheists don't have a very good track record of tolerance. Would the political-left be rejoicing if this court had banned ritually slaughtered meat? Of course not; they’d be screaming Islamophobia.

@luddite

I think you're conflating the 'millitant' atheist (and logical positivist) left with the more prevalent postmodernist new labourey left. The former would be very pleased with the banning of ritually-slaughtered meat.

Sir Michael. Hitler was a National Socialist. Massive public works, total state control, bread and work. Socialism? The only difference between Hitler’s Socialism and your socialism is this monster, unlike your monsters wanted to create socialism in one country using one race.

If the left, and it is the left, wish to ban religion. Ban Islam first; than work down the list to the least offensive.

"Didn't Hitler, Stalin, Pol-pot. Try banning Christianity and Buddhism?"

If they had tried to ban illiterate punctuation then they might have been on to something.

The answer in Hitler's case, incidentally, is "no".

I'm a secularist. I wasn't allowed to receive an a-level education, without attending religious worship at my college. It wasn't a religious college, just that the state required students to have a set quota of religious education a week. I used to hide in a fellow secularists car, in the adjoining car park to avoid being seen as skiving from religious assembly and have my a-level education taken away.

I've tried reading the bible. I have numerous copies that various family members or ancestors have owned. I've never destroyed them. I don't disagree with everything i have read in them, but i've found about 80% of it, total rubbish in my opinion.

I'm not homophobic.
I'm not in to infanticide.
Two important points, that make the bible totally irrelevant to me.

What people do in their own time in the form of worship is up to them. many brave soldiers, Jewish, Muslim, aetheist and hindu have fought for this country.

Councils should represent everybody, not a clique of interests.

Therefore, there is no need for christian prayer before meetings. This excludes many other beliefs and faiths.

Christians are strong enough to keep their faith and indeed what makes it quite refreshing is the Christian belief of equality and reason. Jesus wouldn't have required prayers before council meetings. Just a true faith in his believers hearts, that nobody can take away.

Otherwise, equate christianity with american evangelism and get your credit cards and backhanders ready boys!

Why do we make simple things difficult?

Strathclyde Regional Council had the same problem in the 1970s. The chair, a clergyman himself by the way, proposed that those of any denomination who wished to pray should do so in a side room before the meeting. This worked to everyone's satisfaction for many years.

Let us be careful to distinguish between two things, the right of everyone to express their religious feelings, which must be supported, and the wish of some bigots (Pickles?) to impose their own beliefs on an unwilling majority.

Mr Justice Ouseley has used a phoney legal argument to ban not prayers but putting prayers on the agenda - usually before the Mayor has sat down so not part of the actual meeting.
If Councillors were invited to attend conference and the first item on the agenda was registration and the second item was coffee and the third item was a talk and then a coffee break, he would say that because there is nothing in the Local Government Act to say that Councils have power to drink coffee, it is illegal to put coffee should not be on the agenda and the police may be called to stop coffee drinking. It is really that ridiculous. Idiots like this bring the law into total disrepute.

Typical Town 'toy' Council behaviour. It is this kind of 'Vicar of Dibley' silly power games that give parish and town councils a bad name. No wonder so few people turn out to vote in local elections.
Stick to real issues that effect ordinary folk. Rural poverty and isolation - would be something to tackle - you numb nuts!

Surely the answer is that prayers to be said by recognised clergy whose flocks worship locally in the area.
Representatives of Protestantism and its offshoots, Catholicism, Islam and other religious groupings should all be available for these prayer meetings.
Prayers appropriate to each religion can then be said. To be equitable, the religion with the largest congregation should be allowed to pray first. Second largest next and so on. Nobody need attend these religious services if they do not wish to do so.

True Believer

I am an atheist. However I believe that it is every person's right to practice their religion (or lack of religion) when and where they choose without hindrance.

This ruling will simply strengthen the prejudice that is inherent in every religion.