Today's ruling against prayers at council meetings only exacerbates a "religious people vs atheists" mentality
Two cases this week reveal what a muddle we’ve got into about the role of religion in public life. New York City this week ruled that churches are no longer allowed to meet in public school buildings. A judge has ruled that because “a worship service is an act of organized religion that consecrates the place in which it is performed, making it a church.” No major Christian denomination believes this, so it is an odd personal theological interpretation on which to rest the fate of more than 100 congregations.
Here in the UK, the National Secular Society’s (NSS) campaign to end a council in Devon conducting prayers before their meetings has been successful. A majority in the council had voted to continue the practice, and believes that they have a democratic right to continue.
Dan
\Here in the UK, the National Secular Society’s (NSS) campaign to end a council in Devon conducting prayers before their meetings has been successful. \
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire case. The case concerned prayers that were held as part of the formal business meetings of the council. The judge ruled – and the complainants had always agreed – that prayers held before the meetings would be lawful.
If you can’t get that basic point about the case right, I wonder what store we should put in the rest of the article?
Alrich
Dan is absolutely right, and to conflate the Bideford story with New York banning religion in public buildings is quite wrong. The judge was happy for people to say prayers in the council building, even in the chamber, as long as it was not part of the meeting. This is because a council has no powers to vote for prayers at its meeting just as it has no powers to do all sorts of other things, as explained here http://wp.me/pfo1I-a3 with salient quotes from the judgment and link to the judgment in full
John Ellis
“In the end the most sensible part of the judge’s ruling was something that could and should have been worked out amongst the councilors: that prayers could be said as long as councillors were not formally summoned to attend”
Probably best. However, it seems to be that the good old-fashioned (and long fought for) division of state and church should apply here. Why do they need prayers – can’t they make a decision themselves? Or are they praying that noone will criticize their decisions?