A little local difficulty for Christianity?
“Christianity on the rack as Judge bans public prayer” screamed the headline in The Times on Saturday. This in the light of the decision of Mr Justice Ouseley in the High Court to ban prayers being held as part of the formal agenda and business of meetings of the town Council in Bideford Town Council.
The case had been brought by the National Secular Society, a group of utterly committed and faithful non-believers, who argued (inevitably) that the practice infringed the “Human Rights” of those non-believers forced to be involved in such non-sensical “juju”.
And earlier in the week the Court of Appeal refused to overturn a fine imposed upon Christian guest house owners Peter and HazelMary Bull for refusing admission to an openly gay couple.
Is the Christian faith under attack from the forces of aggressive secularism on the one hand, and rival religions such as Islam on the other?
Indeed, is it time to divorce Christianity specifically and indeed religious rite of all forms from the day to day workings of the State on any view?
Clearly there are very sensible grounds for so doing. The fact of it is, society as a whole no longer clings the Christian religion as it once did. There are many reasons, but at the crux of it is this. For the bulk of history mankind has been like a child alone in the jungle; aware that it is alone and vulnerable, but entirely uncomprehending of what to do about its situation. Until the beginnings of the Enlightenment and the development of scientific method mankind suffered an existence which was entirely prone to instant and unexpected death by fire, sword, pestilence, illness or random chance. With this precarious existence and with the advantages of social control that it could offer it is little wonder that mankind was sold and accepted a message of a stark choice between Eternal Damnation and Eternal Bliss, and was willing to die rather than compromise its chances of achieving the latter.
Here it happened by historical accident that the route to this faith system was Christianity.
Christianity is still adhered to in some shape or form by a significant proportion of the population, but without great conviction. Unless and until the Grim Reaper slithers menacingly into view, we place our trust not in the Lord, but in PayPal, the NHS and the Government. There are still some hard core fundamentalists to be sure, but they are nutcases as we all know. We see them preaching the Lord’s word outside “Next” of a Saturday afternoon. “Jesus saves!” they cry.
“Yeah, but [insert footballer of choice] scores on the rebound!” we deride.
These days most of us (unless we live in Derby) do not call for gays to be stoned to death, nor do we burn people at the stake because they dress in shiny robes and like to worship outside, rather than through the medium of a “priest.”
Indeed, I am sure that I could give a litany of the crazy murderous behaviour of those involved in almost all creeds, with the defining characteristic being one shared by all who commit atrocities: the ultimate sense of being “right”, with the carte blanche to do whatever is necessary to correct, or eradicate, whoever is “wrong”.
To put it this way: can it really be right in this day and age there is of the “State Church” or “State Religion”, or even any religion.
When put like that, I am always put in mind of those priests who served the various cults and gods favoured by Roman Emperors. Have we moved no further forward than that in 2000 years? One of latter of those cults being, of course, Christianity itself.
I am quite happy to make the case that organised religion – in this case Christianity – has been used as an instrument of social control for millennia, to the benefit of those at the top of the social pyramid, and the close and usually familial links between political and religious position, particularly strong in the Medieval World, but which still lingers today.
Indeed, can someone please explain why there are 26 Bishops of a Church to which many, including myself, do not adhere sitting in governance upon us?
And can someone explain why the Church in which I grew up – the Catholic Church – has shamefully practiced and covered up cruelty and child abuse for decades, perhaps generations?
In fact, there is good reason why in modern, multicultural Britain, all religions should be strictly divorced from the function of the State or Local Government. It is one thing to have religion and politics entwined when broad consensus, at least in terms of what that religion is. In days gone by that may have been acceptable, even socially useful. But it is no longer fanciful to say that there are areas of the country where Christianity no longer is the majority religion, insofar as the population can drag itself off watching the X Factor and actually care. Would those so horrified by the potential implications of this ruling be quite so horrified if they were a counsellor forced to stand by and hear the call of the Imam on Council time? I would certainly be extremely upset by that.
So what then of the Bideford case?
I should mention that I heard the protagonist from the case argue their point live on radio this week. I am bound to say I found both sides deeply unattractive. A counsellor arguing against the ban appeared to take the view that prayers should be said because (a) what appeared to Evangelical Christianity of a rather zealous kind was just “right” in the natural order of things and (b) it had always been done. Whether these attitudes had anything to do with living in Devon is not clear to me.
On the other hand, the nominal claimant and complainant Clive Bone struck me as a rather po-faced little prig with an equally messianic view that there could be no validity in religious belief.
So before the world goes crazy it might be worthwhile explaining the decision.
I have not been able to obtain a copy of the judgement yet, but I think I can explain it from the various reports that have been available. The Judge appears not to have proceeded on Human Rights grounds, but rather on very narrow grounds that the Council did not have power to hold prayers as part of the agenda.
I think I can explain the actual decision more clearly. In 1972 the whole system of Local Government in England and Wales was reformed. There was a mish-mash of various different bodies: towns with charters royal and ancient, boroughs both rotten and not so rotten, counties with ancient customary rights. A bit of a mess, then.
The Local Government Act 1972 wiped them all out. Parliament (to be precise Her Majesty the Queen in Parliament) is supreme, and by Act of Parliament with effect from midnight on 31st March 1974 all these various councils, towns, boroughs and so forth were deemed to no longer exist. They were no more.
They were replaced with a new statutory created system of various boroughs and councils, but the key point is that these were “creatures of statute”. In legal theory they are like robots; if the “programme” created by the stature does not permit them to do something, they cannot legally do it. In the legal idiom it is “ultra vires” or “beyond their powers”. What the judge seems to be saying is that the relevant 1972 Act gave the Council no power to hold prayers, therefore, it cannot do so. That component is missing, so to speak, from its DNA. So it its unlawful if it did so. That is simply an accurate legal analysis.
Phew! Moral panic over, Daily Mail.
Except of course that is not true. Judges always contextualize. They just don’t admit it to you and me.
For something like the past 1800 years, until at least the mid 20th Century, for all the follies, cruelty and malice of some who follow it, the Christian religion has been ingrained in this Nation State; England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland too of course.
Those of a historical bent will be able to chart the almost seamless bond between Church and State from the gradual conversion of the Roman Empire into what as to become in part the Holy Roman Catholic Empire. Indeed, the battle for control of “Britannia” between the Christian Romano-British and the barbarian Anglo-Saxons was characterised at the time not just in racial terms, but as the fight by one a Christian civilization against pagan aggressors. Ironically when the Saxons prevailed and later themselves converted, much the same could be said of their life and death struggle for control of the English State against the pagan Vikings.
The highest order of thought and mind and every order of historical development of the British State ever since had been inextricably interwoven with Christian thought in some form. Picking from my fading memory at random, I start with the fate of Beckett, hacked down in Canterbury cathedral, was ultimately the result of a clash between Beckett and his former friend Henry II about whether the Church or Monarchy was supreme.
Henry VII approached the problem in a unique and radical way, effectively nationalising the Church and establishing independence from Rome, and the Church of England was born. The Church and State united for the first time.
But the ultimate expression of this battle for control was the English Civil War: in essence a battle for control of the State by those such as Charles I who were rooted in conservative Catholic Absolutism on the one hand, and radical Presbyterian based “democratic” principles on the other.
The settlement achieved post the Civil War matched Church and State until now. Each deferred to the other in the classic English way, with nothing in writing, with no strict boundaries, but a genteel understanding.
For all the faults I have readily outlined above, the best of Judaic- Christian philosophy has informed and guided this Island race or these Island races for the best part of 2,000 years. I cannot deny the follies, murder, rage, torture and cruelty. There has also been enormous good.
The decisions in both these cases show that settlement is under threat, as is nearly 2000 years of Christianity in this nation. Both are political in that they reflect what the courts consider politically adept at the moment. That tells us that we are moving from consensus to a fragmented, unhappy, future.
Oh unhappy Isle!
Gildas the Monk
-
1
February 12, 2012 at 07:20 -
-
2
February 12, 2012 at 16:23 -
I too heard these two muppets argue their respective corners – and I do mean corners. A bigger pair of idiots it would be hard to find. It was on a par with two neighbours fighting over pissing rights ot a hedge.
-
-
4
February 12, 2012 at 07:57 -
Never trust men in frocks
-
5
February 12, 2012 at 09:25 -
The anarchist in me says “Do away with the local institution and the problem goes away because there is nothing to pray before” (neat little double meaning if I do say so myself).
But whilst I am notionally sympathetic to secularists, the very best thing for Christians is to try to ban them and give ‘em a cuase to rally around. Just ignore them and they will fragment, and shrink, and then like Wendy, we leave ‘Peter Pan’behind as we grow up.
-
6
February 12, 2012 at 09:39 -
Is your conclusion then, despite your own lack of belief, that because of tradition, prayers should continue to be said?
For myself I am also an unbeliever and there are many traditions that I am happy to keep if they are mostly meaningless pageant. But I am also keen for traditions to be dropped and forgotten when they actually affect our freedom such as the bishops in the Lords. (Of course it can be debated how much actual effect either house now has on our legislation.)
-
7
February 12, 2012 at 09:49 -
Christianity in Britain is a bit like blacksmiths. For many years they were a central and largely beneficial agent in the society of the time. Trouble is, people learned of other ways to get by, ways which dispensed with the blacksmith’s fiery arts and ways which the people found more effective and appealing.
And as the demand for blacksmiths withered to a rump, they never managed to hang on to their ‘guild’ status or maintain an influence in life or the corridors of power quite unrelated to their relevance.But somehow we still see state occasions polluted with religion, our democratic gatherings preceeded by their utterances, legal activities conducted through the ceremonial swearing of oaths on unread volumes, the list goes on.
But at least the one remaining, now travelling, blacksmith in these parts doesn’t expect his now rarely-demanded service to qualify him for any undue influence in our modern society. He’s glad to get any customers at all and realises that those long-gone days of status and power are indeed long-gone, never to return.
Time for the clergy to wake up and smell the fresh air of 21 st century Britain outside their own sanctified smithy. -
8
February 12, 2012 at 10:06 -
You do, I hope, mean Henry VII’s son, Henry VIII Brother Gildas?
-
10
February 12, 2012 at 10:48 -
Very fine analysis and depressingly accurate prediction.
Mr Mudplugger, what’s all this drivel about blacksmiths?
Of course we still need them and have them, just like we need carpenters and wheelwrights and so on.
The difference is that we think we don’t because we don’t see them at work any more. They have been moved into great groups in factories – often overseas.
But don’t run away with the idea that any of the fundamental truths have changed because of ‘progress’. -
11
February 12, 2012 at 11:18 -
Council business is just that. It has nothing to do with faith or religion.
If some members wish to join in prayer before the meeting, fine, no big deal. If enough councillors wish to drop the practise, also fine. The sky won’t fall in. We might hope there are more important issues needing attention.
Being a councillor is about belonging too. I suspect prayers is part of that and the ‘going native’ process. I’ve never seen prayers at local Parish Council meetings, and I don’t think there would be much support for their introduction.
I wonder what happens in areas with large non C of E faith groups?
-
12
February 12, 2012 at 12:05 -
Like many, I find fundamentalists unpalatable, and I include atheist fundamentalists in that.
I think there is good reason to keep the tradition of prayers before council meetings and parliamentary business. It’s to try and remind those involved that they are mere humans, not all-powerful beings, and that the purpose of their business is to serve, as best they can, the wider population. A reminder of humility and a request for wisdom in their deliberations may be both a comfort and a check on hubris. I’m quite sure that there’s a way of wording such prayers that resonates with followers of most religions and even none; those who genuinely do not wish to participate may, of course, step aside.
As you rightly say, Gildas, the moral and spiritual teachings of the Church(es) has guided the state for the best part of two millenia, generally for the better in recent centuries. I think there are deep dangers in forgetting history and ingrained tradition – it is those that have made us the nation we are.
-
13
February 12, 2012 at 12:53 -
Please define the term ‘fundamentalist aetheist’
I know what an Islamic fundamentalist is more or less, but I don’t see Dawkins crashing a plane into something in the name of “No God”
-
14
February 12, 2012 at 13:25 -
I don’t hear Dawkins being tolerant of other views, either. Dawkins makes a excellent example of ‘fundamentalist atheist’.
-
15
February 12, 2012 at 16:31 -
That would be the Richard Dawkins who wrote:
” I would be intolerant if I advocated the banning of religion, but of course I never have. I merely give robust expression to views about the cosmos and morality with which you happen to disagree. You interpret that as ‘intolerance’ because of the weirdly privileged status of religion, which expects to get a free ride and not have to defend itself. If I wrote a book called The Socialist Delusion or The Monetarist Delusion, you would never use a word like intolerance. But The God Delusion sounds automatically intolerant. Why? What’s the difference?
I have a (you might say fanatical) desire for people to use their own minds and make their own choices, based upon publicly available evidence. Religious fanatics want people to switch off their own minds, ignore the evidence, and blindly follow a holy book based upon private ‘revelation’. There is a huge difference.”-
16
February 12, 2012 at 23:26 -
I base my opinion on what I hear with my own ears. Whenever I have been unfortunate enough to hear Dawkins, I have found him to posess a far larger mouth than he does ears; his readiness to interrupt and shout down anybody with whom he debates is on a par with a BBC interviewer questioning a Conservative minister.
I consider the man to be an arrogant, opinionated bigot. Should you hold a different opinion, then, Sir, we must agree to disagree.
-
17
February 13, 2012 at 07:37 -
Right, so some religous fundamentalists want to kill you if you disagree with them, whereas Dawkins is (in your view) rude, they are thus on the same page and worthy of the same label?
-
-
-
-
18
February 13, 2012 at 00:01 -
“I’m quite sure that there’s a way of wording such prayers that resonates with followers of most religions and even none”
In theory, yes, except that the “faith community”sticks together and steadfastly refuses to allow parity of esteem for the atheist point of view. For example, Radio 4′s “Thought for the Day” is a religious closed shop barred to atheist thinkers. I wonder why the Amalgamated Union of Clergy & Ancillary Workers believes its subscribers’ faith is so threatened by a few minutes of contrary opinion?
-
19
February 13, 2012 at 06:19
-
-
-
20
February 12, 2012 at 12:35 -
I can hardly believe that anyone would go to such lengths to avoid what would be to them, merely a short period of good manners.
-
21
February 12, 2012 at 13:26 -
Excellent point.
-
22
February 13, 2012 at 05:48 -
Ah, but ‘good manners’ are passée now, as is ‘going along to get along’.
This is the ages of ‘My rights!’, and the ostentatious application of ‘My right!’ is paramount. Otherwise, how will other people know that you have it, if you don’t shout about it?
-
23
February 13, 2012 at 15:53 -
The prayer time normally takes about 2-3 minutes. After the prayers have been said and the person leading the prayers has left the Chamber, apologies are taken. For those who do not wish to stay in the Chamber during prayers they are able to come back into the Chamber during the time prayers have finished and apologies are taken.”
Barely time to boil an egg.
-
-
-
24
February 12, 2012 at 13:47 -
The problem here, isn’t with pre-meeting prayers, it’s that A) they are compulsory, because if they are part of the agenda, then they are compulsory and B) who selects the god prayed to? And what happens if some of the prayees selects a different god? And what happens if one of the gods selected is anathema to one of the prayees?
So, for example, if four of the prayees want to petition Jesus, and three of them want to appeal to Satan, what happens then? Do they vote and all pray to the god selected by the majority (as is normal committee practice)? Or split into separate praying groups?
-
25
February 12, 2012 at 16:39 -
I am reminded of this Emo Phillips joke when I imagine the agenda-setting meeting when the question of which flavour of religion to use in the council meeting.
-
26
February 12, 2012 at 17:22 -
The Agenda is in law the council business to be transacted, e.g. approve minutes, receive a report, make decision. All according to statute and Standing Orders. Presumably prayers would be an historic part of the non-statutory bit of S.O.s and therefore could be revised away.
Pedantry over.
Still think any councillor worrying much about prayers needs to get out more. But then being a councillor attracts some odd people.-
27
February 13, 2012 at 05:51 -
“But then being a councillor attracts some odd people.”
And that is, I suspect, the problem.
I’ve a funeral to go to tomorrow, and no doubt prayers will be said. Will I object, or make a fuss and walk out? Of course not! Unbeliever though I am, I know what the ritual is for, and I’m not the star attraction (yet!); but I suspect, for councillors, everything is always and forever about them.
They are the world’s greatest divas, in truth, not poor departed Whitney…
-
-
-
29
February 12, 2012 at 15:02 -
The superstitious adherance to skypixies is a private matter. The state should get out of religion and vice versa. How much easier would relations between communities be on these islands if everyone adhered strongly to public secularism. No religious schooling, no tax breaks for faiths, no beardy guys telling everyone else what to do just because they hear voices in their heads. No kow towing to minorities because of the need to keep the C of E position in our constitution unchallenged.
Believe anything you like, but superstition has no place in a modern civil society. The Lords Temporal should be elected, and no bishops ( or rabiis ) need apply.
-
30
February 12, 2012 at 15:39 -
Although notionally an agnostic myself, it feels like another rivet being removed from the ship we called England, and what held it together.
Malthebof
Fornerly of Manor Road Woolton 1953-1961 -
31
February 12, 2012 at 15:53 -
drsolly,
God is the prayee.
Those that pray to Him are prayers, as are what they say. -
32
February 12, 2012 at 17:19 -
I believe that while the Queen remains ‘Defender of the faith’ there will always be a religious element to proceedings. Charles has floated the idea of being crowned ‘Defender of faiths’ should he be crowned, but that is for the future, should he ever become King.
I believe Gildas called the judgement made by Ousley correctly – being based upon the issue that the council did not have the power to hold prayers as part of the agenda. I am sad to see that there is meddling with something that, as Malthebof says, that feels wrong, somehow.
Only someone with an agenda would have bothered to ‘rock the boat’ in the first place. Neither party were particularly attractive but Clive Bone was particularly repugnant. As he is, moreover, no longer a Councillor, what on earth does it have to do with him and why bring the case in the first place. What a pilchard…
Finally, Gildas asks whether ve we moved no further forward in 2000 years. Some of us may have, but cling to the comforting traditions that remind us of times past, but ask your average bomb-wearing Muslim fundamentalist and you may get a different reply.
-
33
February 12, 2012 at 17:36 -
And the ruling is out of date already. A new law has come into being which allows prayers to be made.
Eric Pickles says “The Localism Act now gives councils a general power of competence – which allows them to undertake any general action that an individual could do unless it is specifically prohibited by law. Logically, this includes prayers before meetings.”
So rather than the Local Government Act 1972 which was Napolean in nature, forbidding anything not explcitly allowed, the new Localism Act 2011 allows anything that is not illegal.
Since there is no law banning prayers councils can now pray. The ruling is on the LGA1972 which is now gone so there is no ruling either against prayers. And rulings don’t set precedent either.
-
34
February 12, 2012 at 21:59 -
Section 1 of the Localism Act 2011 which enables local authorities to “do anything that individuals generally may do” has not yet come into force (see S.240). One wonders how long before local authorities make citizens’ arrests or get married, for example. Will local authorities be subject to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to prevent 1980s Liverpool-like governance?
Lord Denning said “The House of Commons starts its proceedings with a prayer. The chaplain looks at the assembled members with their varied intelligence and then prays for the country.” That will apply to councils even more so after S.1 comes into force.
-
-
36
February 12, 2012 at 19:31 -
@SadbutMadLad: We shall see if this is correct… hope so… one in the eye for the meddling fools like Clive Bone.
-
37
February 12, 2012 at 19:58 -
This is just excellent forward planning. Imagine the screaming and death threats if religion was chucked off the Council Agendas after the arselifters have taken over completely. Simples.
-
38
February 12, 2012 at 20:07 -
I am with you on this one. Religion should be removed from all State functions. Start with getting rid of the Bishops in the Lords.
-
39
February 12, 2012 at 20:10 -
“..The case had been brought by the National Secular Society, a group of utterly committed and faithful non-believers, who argued (inevitably) that the practice infringed the “Human Rights” of those non-believers forced to be involved in such non-sensical “juju”. ..”
~~~
I can’t think that it is more sensible for the National Secular Society to bring the case before a judge than for members of the N.S.S. to remain seated, eyes wide open, hands folded in laps and ignoring the next 5 minutes if ever and whenever they find themselves invited to pray. I have actually mumbled ‘rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb” under my breath during a christening and no-one has been any the wiser. But I suppose that would be just too easy and much less likely to get the National Secular Society into the papers.-
40
February 12, 2012 at 22:11 -
Gloria, “rhubarb-rhubarb”, even during these questions and answers?
Do you reject the devil and all rebellion against God?
I reject them.Do you renounce the deceit and corruption of evil?
I renounce them.As an baptised at four months atheist I was happy with three of the answers I was meant to give, but as a member of the loyal opposition I had qualms about the rejecting all rebellion bit. I considered 75% was enough of a majority to agree to everything.
-
-
41
February 12, 2012 at 21:16 -
Who paid for this Case, by the way?
-
43
February 12, 2012 at 22:49 -
Little by little the customs of the land are eroded. Often with weighty arguments or fashionable impatience.
Till what hold the people together is a vacuum waiting for the strong to take over.
You might not like what happens next but it will be too late. Far too late.
Or if it ain’t broke don’t mend it.-
44
February 13, 2012 at 01:20 -
Since when has it been customary to say prayers at a Council meeting?
If you want to pray go to church or do it in your own home, it shouldn’t be inflicted on others.
I don’ t like some of the changes taking place in this country but this one is not defendable.-
45
February 13, 2012 at 12:06 -
Apparently it was customary in Bideford; that’s why the case was brought.
They are thought by some to have been said at the Town Council’s meetings since the era of Queen Elizabeth the First. Minutes first record prayers at Council meetings in 1941. Prayers are not recorded in the minutes in the 1970s; but they are recorded again in 1988, and have continued to be said at the full Council meetings ever since. There are a number of other Councils in Devon and probably elsewhere which hold prayers at the start of their Council meetings.
-
-
-
46
February 13, 2012 at 10:03 -
Single Acts of Tyranny, fundamentlists aren’t necessarily those who want to fly planes into buildings. Or do other acts that forces their belief on others. They are anyone who believes in something to the nth degree without swaying in any way from their core principles. Dawkins meets that criteria.
The act of forcing a belief on others requires fundamentalism but is not a tenet of it.
-
47
February 13, 2012 at 12:03 -
There is a copy of the judgment here:
http://www.secularism.org.uk/uploads/bideford-judgment-final.pdf
{ 48 comments… read them below or add one }