|
|
Post by channonite on Feb 10, 2012 12:24:06 GMT
The world's gone madJust read through the comments following the story. Are we living in a country full of intolerant atheists, or just plain intolerant people full stop? What a blooming fuss about a storm in the proverbial teacup.
|
|
|
|
Post by simmo70 on Feb 10, 2012 12:40:43 GMT
Yes it is, but I would object strongly to being forced to prey before a meeting at work, object very strongly indeed.
It has no place at work, do what you want in your own time mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Furry Frank The Combat Wombat on Feb 10, 2012 12:41:29 GMT
"Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society (NSS) "
Anything to do with Jack Cork?!
It's fooking ridiculous, the fooking country's falling apart at the seams, and people are wasting time and money on petty nonsense like that. Who cares - they voted that they wanted to pray, let them. If someone doesn't want to, I'm sure they wouldn't force them.
|
|
|
|
Post by channonite on Feb 10, 2012 12:57:05 GMT
Yes it is, but I would object strongly to being forced to prey before a meeting at work, object very strongly indeed. It has no place at work, do what you want in your own time mind. I just can't see what the problem is. Nobody is actually forcing anyone to think something. If he didn't want to pray, he should just have used the time to think about what he wanted to achieve in the meeting instead of being so bloody precious. A single bloody weirdo in Bideford trying to get attention if you ask me. Maybe his mother didn't pay him enough attention as a child.... |
|
|
|
Post by simmo70 on Feb 10, 2012 13:17:48 GMT
I agree with all that, should just let it slide, what does it matter now etc etc...but
how come they're praying in the first place. Someone obviously said 'Before we have this meeting does anyone mind if we all have a pray?' FFS whats that all about,
'er no lets not pray at work, why don't you do that on yer own or at home or at yer desk or at the weekend and lets get on with what we should be doing'...or words to that effect is what should have been they're reply, IMHO.
Not wishing to offend etc etc...
as someone said below the article, couldn't them that wanted to prey arrive a couple of minutes earlier and old matey boy can arrive when they are done. Seems sensible, they are councillors FFFS!
|
|
|
|
Post by backwatersaint on Feb 10, 2012 14:20:40 GMT
What's this all about then?
|
|
|
|
Post by StEtienne on Feb 10, 2012 15:12:21 GMT
Well there is an argument that church and State should never be mixed.
I'm going to join the Council and demand we get naked and sacrifice a hare before each meeting. It's my rightssssss!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Rags on Feb 10, 2012 15:38:00 GMT
Well there is an argument that church and State should never be mixed. I'm going to join the Council and demand we get naked and sacrifice a hare before each meeting. It's my rightssssss!! We're waaay ahead of you in Eastleigh |
|
|
|
Post by StEtienne on Feb 10, 2012 15:44:52 GMT
Well there is an argument that church and State should never be mixed. I'm going to join the Council and demand we get naked and sacrifice a hare before each meeting. It's my rightssssss!! We're waaay ahead of you in Eastleigh Tell me more Grand Wizard... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2012 16:18:03 GMT
Does parliament still have prayers at the start of it's afternoon session? They always used to when I was interested in that kind of thing (parliament, not prayers).
|
|
|
|
Post by Furry Frank The Combat Wombat on Feb 10, 2012 17:21:24 GMT
I agree with all that, should just let it slide, what does it matter now etc etc...but how come they're praying in the first place. Someone obviously said 'Before we have this meeting does anyone mind if we all have a pray?' FFS whats that all about, 'er no lets not pray at work, why don't you do that on yer own or at home or at yer desk or at the weekend and lets get on with what we should be doing'...or words to that effect is what should have been they're reply, IMHO. Not wishing to offend etc etc... as someone said below the article, couldn't them that wanted to prey arrive a couple of minutes earlier and old matey boy can arrive when they are done. Seems sensible, they are councillors FFFS! Pedantry-boy would like to know upon what or whom do you wish to prey before making a decision. |
|
|
|
Post by THE BEAST on Feb 10, 2012 17:41:03 GMT
I think the problem with it is, at least from my point of view, that as someone who is quite anti religion I would find it offensive to be required to take part in something like that.
Separation of religion and state is vital for balanced decision-making, everybody has their own makeup and, in this country certainly, Christianity plays a part in that even if it's only because most of us were forced to take part in that kind of thing when we were at school.
therefore, let us take as read the fact that we are "a Christian country etc etc" and presumed that that earlier indoctrination is probably working as effectively as it ever will whatever meeting we attend and decisions we take.
Also, and a much more serious point than my own particular feelings, don't you think that this kind of thing does point directly at the influence that religion has on the decisions that affect everyone (in so far as the councils powers extend)?
It's deeply unsettling, I don't like it and I don't blame the secularists at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by channonite on Feb 10, 2012 17:52:16 GMT
Although I do not attend church, it does not bother me in the slightest if people choose to do so. I really don't get the "anti" sentiments that go way beyond the church/state thing. Some of the comments on that news story go far, far beyond rational comment. I just ask myself why do they feel like that? After all there are plenty of examples of secular countries that are totally oppressive. You only need to cast a glance in the general direction of China.
I suppose we are lucky that we live in a country where you can express views like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by THE BEAST on Feb 10, 2012 20:08:37 GMT
I don't get bothered by people attending church, what you're talking about is work, that's not Private.
And yes we are lucky that we get to say stuff like that, even if it goes on somebody's files somewhere in stock
Religion, whichever way you feel about it, never provides rational thought, I'd say that was fairly conclusive proof myself but I can see that others would have a different opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by saintpaddy on Feb 10, 2012 21:17:04 GMT
To have governance for any country there need to be a basic structure on which it is built. This and many countries have found their civilization based on Christianity.
A large problem here is that we do not have a written constitution and thereby lies a problem. Traditionally we have had Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Worship and Freedom of Belief. Any fair person (believer or non-believer) should find that a fairly reasonable ground for coexistence.
This set a reasonable standards in which you may have a belief which does not make you a criminal. Recently laws have been introduced here which changes all that. Now to have certain beliefs and voice them can see you in the criminal court. It is a law that empowers the easily offended and those on an agenda.
I have stated on many occasions that we are on a slippery slope. This is a further demonstration of that.
Over the lifetime of most on this board there has been an anti religious move. To be fair happenings involving a minority of those running churches (particularly Catholic) have not helped their cause. That in turn has overshadowed the good done by Christian churches.
When a vacuum gets created that space will eventually be filled by something. The question is that if Christianity disappears what will take it's place?
There are many militant Atheist's operating some in very powerful positions. When studied closely their policies are far less tolerant than what we have grown up with. So before actively dropping the system, which has brought a degree of harmony over the years, one needs to be careful.
One day it may come that we find ourselves with a far less tolerant society than we would wish for.
That is another reason why I find the Suarez and Terry situations concerning. To be a racist may not make you a nice person, but a criminal?
|
|
