Militant secularists taking over Britain.Oh noes!!:hairfire:

[Rum]

Pickles the pig has had his way and added the 'power of prayer' to the localism bill. The bill is full of hypocrisy to begin with as it is about creating the appearance of more local control to local councils and people, something central government fears in its bones. The man is a cunt.

Here's a link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17082136

[JimC]

And just wait until the militant sexularists take over...

No one will know whether they're cummin' or goin'...

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

Here comes another court case!

Eric Pickles may well be right in saying that the new act allows councils to become a place of worship - but my bet is that a challenge can be made under other legislation, which may well trump the Localism Act............which may well have greater implications than simply affecting prayers as a part of Council meetings.

I have no problem with prayers being said before a meeting, as long as not part of the formal meeting (and therefore is not on the Agenda) - OR same time be allowed for other faiths (and non-faiths) to conduct an act of worship as part of the Council Meeting. Me would be slaughtering a chicken in the name of Atheism.

[Pappa]

Maybe that councillor should start wearing pirate regalia to council meetings.

[FBM]

Maybe that councillor should start wearing pirate regalia to council meetings.

Yes. That's the only real solution, and I'm sure they know it. How long must they spend in denial of the obvious?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Maybe that councillor should start wearing pirate regalia to council meetings.

Yes. That's the only real solution, and I'm sure they know it. How long must they spend in denial of the obvious?

They arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr thinking about it.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2012/ ... the-nation

Baroness Warsi and her gang of pious politicos are out of step with the nation

I'm sure Baroness Warsi's speech to the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy in Rome today will please its audience. She promised to support the Pope in his desire to return Christianity to the centre of public life in Britain.

It also seemed to chime with the mood in this country — at least the mood of the media — which was, apparently, fizzing with fury at the modest High Court judgment that ruled that it was not legal to include prayers on a council agenda – because they are not council business.

Under extreme bombardment from the press, we at the National Secular Society were preparing to barricade the doors – until we noticed a sudden and unprecedented upsurge in people joining us.

Something very strange was happening. The media was almost unanimous in its disapproval — or, in some cases, hysterical condemnation — of the ruling. Strangely, it was the Sunday Times alone that gave unequivocal support to the ruling – and in an editorial even suggested that it should be extended to cover prayers in Parliament.

Another strange phenomenon is the disparity between what newspapers are writing above the line and what their readers are writing below it. As an example, look at the reaction to Baroness Warsi's courting of the Pope in the Daily Telegraph – thousands of reader responses and a vast majority of them hostile to what she is doing.

Then this morning comes the result of an Ipsos Mori poll commissioned by the Richard Dawkins Foundation which shows that overwhelmingly, those people who ticked the 'Christian' box in the last census don't want religion to have any influence over public policy. That's 74% of self-defined Christians who do not agree with Baroness Warsi.

She may be an enthusiast for religion, but her enthusiasm is not shared by the nation. The Ipsos poll also revealed that the 72% of people who said they were Christian in the 2001 census are nothing of the kind. They ticked the box because they thought they were good people or because their parents were Christian – very few of them actually believe in the precepts of Christianity, and even fewer actively practice it.

So, who is out of step here? If you read the newspaper commentators it is most definitely the National Secular Society. But if you listen to the people, you'll find that it is the pious politicians who seem to be threatening us with theocracy.

Baroness Warsi led a delegation of senior British Government Ministers to the Vatican to have a 20 minute chat with the Pope. She wants to assure him that religion will be returned to the centre of public life, just as he called for on his recent trip to this country. She will assure him that his visit was highly successful and its success must be built on.

Unfortunately, it was not highly successful; it was not even slightly successful. A year after the visit, the Catholic Church commissioned a poll to see what lasting impact it had had on the nation. According to the research, hardly anyone remembers that it actually happened. And 91% said it made no difference to their moral outlook at all. Strangely, the Church doesn't seem anxious to draw attention to the results of this poll, which was carried out by Opinion Research Business among 2,049 adults.

In fact, 29% of those who were questioned said they couldn't remember hearing or seeing anything about the visit. 6% of those who say they did recall that the visit happened say they can't remember a thing about it.

Of the individual events — meeting the Queen, speaking in Parliament, meeting the Prime Minister — typically only 1% — or less — of those who had any memory of the visit recalled them. (A few were up to 5%.)

The biggest proportion of those who recalled anything about the visit (albeit only 11%) remembered our protest campaign about the enormous cost of the jamboree to the taxpayer.

And as for the impact it had – 91% of respondents said the Pope's visit made no difference whatsoever to their personal or spiritual values.

You hadn't heard of this poll? I wonder why.

So given this, why is the British Government courting the Holy See in this way? Why should the last absolute theocracy in Europe be invited to participate in the affairs of the British Government?

Well, it might be argued, the Holy See participates — indeed in some cases, interferes — in every other Government's affairs. Only last week it succeeded in forcing President Obama to compromise his health reforms and in Britain it is gearing up to give the Cameron plan for gay marriage a real kicking.

Lady Warsi talks of "militant secularism" with some distaste. But secularism's militancy is as nothing compared with the aggressive tactics of the Catholic Church when it is not getting its way.

And besides, as the Dawkins poll illustrates quite plainly, secularisation is a process that people choose for themselves. Taken together with the Church's own plummeting attendance figures, it clearly shows that people are voting with their feet. If they do not believe the precepts of a religion, why should a Government try to force it upon them? Religion only has value if it is freely chosen. Coercion kills it stone dead.

Baroness Warsi may be a woman of principle, but she is swimming against a very strong tide that is not controlled by the National Secular Society or by the Church of England or the Holy See or anyone else. Turning away from religion is a choice that the people have made of their own volition and using their own conscience. It is not the Government's job to tell them that they are wrong.

Lady Warsi risks starting a culture war that she cannot win, and neither can the Conservative Party. If religion is given too much of a say in our day to day life, then there will be a reaction that David Cameron will not like. It will take place at the ballot box.

http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/987

Baroness Warsi wrong again

At a speech to be given during a visit to the Vatican, Baroness Warsi will once again criticise 'militant secularisation' as 'intolerant' and 'illiberal' and call for Christianity and 'Christian values' to be reaffirmed in Europe. It is not the first time that the minister has called secularism ‘intolerant and illiberal’. She has also said that religious people contribute more to society than the non-religious, has championed religious groups as being at the heart of the ‘Big Society’, and even tried to amend the Equality Bill in a way which would leave humanists unprotected against discrimination and unequal treatment in the provision of, and access to, public services, employment, education, funding, and elsewhere.

The British Humanist Association (BHA) has expressed its dismay that the minister continues to misrepresent the nature of secularism and has condemned her call for a greater role for Christianity as outdated, unwarranted and divisive.

BHA Chief Executive Andrew Copson said, 'With government proposing to hand ever more schools and other public services to religious groups with only limited protections for the rights of staff and service users of the "wrong" or no religion, the need for an inclusive and secular approach to our public institutions has never been greater. At such a time it is surreal to hear secularism being condemned as intolerant - it is not secular schools that select pupils according to their parents' beliefs, it is not secular agencies that reserve employment opportunities for staff according to their beliefs, and it is not secular organisations which lobby to maintain privilege and have exemption from laws - like equality laws - that should affect everyone equally.

'Constant talk of the Christian nature of Britain denies the fact that most British people today are not Christians, and ignores for no good reason the many pre-Christian and non-Christian influences that have shaped our society for the good, sometimes in opposition to Christianity. What is Lady Warsi's point in constantly repeating this theme? As a factual claim it is ahistorical and plainly untrue of contemporary society; as policy it is chauvinist and unnecessarily divisive. In an increasingly non-religious and at the same time diverse society, we need policies that will emphasise what we have in common as citizens rather than what divides us.'

BHA Head of Public Affairs, Pavan Dhaliwal said, 'There is a deep irony that Lady Warsi's latest comments come on the same day that new research shows that many self-described "Christians" in fact are not Christian in a religious but only in a residual inherited cultural sense, and have the same social and political attitudes as the liberal mainstream of British society. Research like this demonstrates that government policies constructed on the false assumption that Britain is in fact a Christian country are doomed from the start - we really do need better from government ministers than that.'

[klr]

Here comes another court case!

Eric Pickles may well be right in saying that the new act allows councils to become a place of worship - but my bet is that a challenge can be made under other legislation, which may well trump the Localism Act............which may well have greater implications than simply affecting prayers as a part of Council meetings.

I have no problem with prayers being said before a meeting, as long as not part of the formal meeting (and therefore is not on the Agenda) - OR same time be allowed for other faiths (and non-faiths) to conduct an act of worship as part of the Council Meeting. Me would be slaughtering a chicken in the name of Atheism.

That was my first reaction - "see you in court".

Meanwhile, I look forward to devotees of Thor, Zeus, the Sith, the FSM, and Uncle Tom Cobley and all performing their preferred rituals at council meetings,

According to Pickles:

"By effectively reversing that illiberal ruling, we are striking a blow for localism over central interference, for freedom to worship over intolerant secularism, for Parliamentary sovereignty over judicial activism, and for long-standing British liberties over modern-day political correctness."

So what will happen when individual councils by themselves start to ban prayers? Will he then be praising "localism over central interference"?

[Svartalf]

Maybe that councillor should start wearing pirate regalia to council meetings.

But would that help with GW or do we need more actualy plundering pirates?

[klr]

Maybe that councillor should start wearing pirate regalia to council meetings.

But would that help with GW or do we need more actualy plundering pirates?

You can never have enough pirates.

[Pappa]

Maybe that councillor should start wearing pirate regalia to council meetings.

But would that help with GW or do we need more actualy plundering pirates?

That just reminded me of something. According the Julius Caesar, the Celts used to capture the womenfolk of their vanquished foes and take them home as wives. They'd cut out their tongues so they couldn't pass on their language (and by extension their culture) to their kids. Maybe we should take a leaf out of their book.

[FBM]

Maybe that councillor should start wearing pirate regalia to council meetings.

But would that help with GW or do we need more actualy plundering pirates?

That just reminded me of something. According the Julius Caesar, the Celts used to capture the womenfolk of their vanquished foes and take them home as wives. They'd cut out their tongues so they couldn't pass on their language (and by extension their culture) to their kids. Maybe we should take a leaf out of their book.

Rachel! Run!!! Run for your life tongue!!1 You've been plundered!1!! Or perhaps pillaged!! Or probably both!!!

[Seabass]

"Baroness Warsi"

Nobility ranks are funny and silly.

I wish I was a Viscount. Or an Archduke.

[Svartalf]

My mom's cousin is a viscount (or maybe even a Marquess:... that doesn't make him any less of an arsehole.
As for archdukes, those exist only in big empires like the Autro Hungarian or Russian Ones... But even if you eat enough cock to go from the earth to the sun, you'll still be more likely to get 12g of lead from Czar Vladimir than any titles.

[JimC]

My full title is Baron James of Melbourne.