The issue of prayers in council meetings

In my experience many (most?) council offices have a multi-faith prayer room. It would not be so difficult for councillors, who wished to pray to whichever god they worship, to meet in the prayer room for 15 minutes prior to the council meeting. They could pray for guidance and honest decision making and then go to the council meeting. Those who did not feel the need for prayer at all or did not want to pray with colleagues would not need to attend. No problem!

I understand what you mean, thatbags, but exposure to other people praying doesn't compromise your health.

Which was exactly my point, ana. If smokers were free to smoke anywhere, as they had been, that impinged on the freedom of non-smokers to breathe smoke-free air, especially indoors. So smoking in indoor public places was made illegal to make sure non-smokers' freedom was preserved, while still allowing smokers the freedom to smoke themselves to death if they so wished. They were only prevented from smoking other people to death as well.

Not having prayers in council meetings as part of business does not impinge on the freedom of people who want to pray to do so whenever they so wish. Having prayers as part of official business in council meetings does impinge on the freedom of people who do not want to pray.

That's how I see it anyhow, and I also see the similarity between the two cases. Just imagine the pro-praying argument with an argument in favour of smoking in council meetings. Allowing some people to smoke in council meetings would impinge on the freedom of non-smokers.

Jings if you have to introduce prayers before council meetings as a way of ensuring Christianity in this country doesn't fade away, it would seem like a poor lookout to me. Any why draw the line at council meetings? I did ask myself how I would feel if the gas man, bus driver, train driver or, even worse, pilot fell to his or her knees before getting on with the job. A bit nervous, to put it mildly.

It's not at all similar to the smoking ban (bags' post of 9.34 this morning which I have just read). That was introduced because of health issues - fears about passive smoking etc.

Oh. So now a labour MP has reiterated her party's support for this (Conservative) Bill. (Bags' post) I wonder, could it be that it is slowly dawning on people that, if Christianity is allowed to fade away in this country, it will soon be replaced with other religions, perhaps ones less favourable to our usual fairly peaceable way of life.

" moreover, methods of prayer and worship differ from one branch of a religion to the next. "

I'll give you that much. But that is not what I was talking about.

And, of course, the God of the Jews is the same God as the Christian one.

And then there is Brahman of the Hindus. (I think he is most like the God I believe in tbh)

"There are many thousands of lesser gods and goddesses in Hinduism. These are all ways of understanding the one true god called Brahman." (from a googled website)

Did the amendment go through?

absent, you don't think that God and Allah are one and the same?

I don't understand why god has to be mentioned at all at council meetings.

I used to like what Dave Allen used to say.

'Thank you, goodnight and may your God go with you'.

I think all that would be necessary would be

'Thank you for turning up (unlike the honourable members of the House of Lords), Have a Nice Day and may your God go with you'.

I think that should cover most things.

jingl This is hardly the place for a survey of the main points of the world's religions. It must be clear to you that the gods prayed to by different religions – and in some cases they are gods in the plural – are not the same. And, moreover, methods of prayer and worship differ from one branch of a religion to the next. So no, they would not all be praying to the one god.

Apparently the bill has been passed in HoC without a vote. That's disgraceful. It will now go to HoL.

Do we detect the pudgy fingers of Pickles, Eric, in all this? He who thought he could just make law up and it would happen?

In fact council members are quite free to meet to pray before the meeting (Although what good they think it will do I don't know). But as an agendum it's a definite no-no, irrelevant to many. This is not a theocracy, I'm happy to report.

anniezzz, a minute of quiet reflection time seems like a good idea to me. I wouldn't regard that as an imposition even though I never pray.

Seems a Labour MP is now "reitereating her party's support" for the bill to introduce compulsory prayer at council meetings.

I worked for the Green Party for a bit, running the local branch, and our monthly business meetings were always prefaced by a minute of silence which was called attunement. It seemed a good idea to me to give the chance for everyone to focus on where they were mentally and to become calm (hopefully) before engaging with the agenda.

However, some people objected to this and I remember one woman in particular raising it for discussion and then stopping coming because she felt it was 'spiritual' and that offended her.

The idea of a quiet time where each pursues his/her personal god would surely sort out the rivalry (!) between religions.

I used to go to Quaker meetings and always felt that their combination of silence and waiting to be moved to speak, along with their principle to listen carefully and always consider that one might be wrong, would be great principles on which to run the world.

Thank you for that pearl of wisdom absent. Very enlightening!

if fairness is the issue.

Why is it 'fair' to make it legal for councillor sto group together if they wish and hold prayers as part of council meetings? They can (legally) meet for a prayer meeting outside of council meetings already, including just before council meetings and probably even in the council building in which they're going to have the council meeting. Why do they need another law to make it legal actually during council meetings when they are free to pray whenever they want already?

I'll answer that with what I think is the answer: they want to impose what they want on other people. They think UK CofE prayers at meetings are, or should be, part of national life. They are wrong on that score. The majority of UK citizens are not members of the CofE.

Nobody is interfering with their freedom to pray singly or together whenever they want, just not always as part of public proceedings. Their idea interferes with other people's freedom not to have to sit through prayers they don't want to be part of.

It's similar to the issue of banning smoking in public places. Smokers are still free to smoke. They are just no longer free to interfere with the smoke-free air that non-smokers choose to breathe. There has to be compromise to accommodate the freedoms/choices of as many people as possible.

No, jingl it's not by any means the one god even under different names.

I'm still waiting to read about this on anything other than the NSS website, but if the report is correct it's obviously (to me) an amazingly stupid move on the part of the MP in question.

To give councils the choice to hold prayers before meetings is fair (which is not the case at the moment, as it's illegal), but to make them compulsory is unfair and would of course be appealed against. The man's an idiot!

'who's' ? That would be it. I think.

Their God. Whose else? (grammar?)

I thought it was all the one God. (not including Jesus of course)

Just different names.

Probaby, jingl, but whose god?