Torbay Humanists welcome the end of Council Prayers
Torbay Humanists have welcomed the High Court ruling that Council Prayers are unlawful, a decision that will effect many councils across Devon including Torbay.
-
The High Court has ruled that "The saying of prayers as part of the formal meeting of a Council is not lawful under s111 of the Local Government Act 1972, and there is no statutory power permitting the practice to continue". The judgement follows a Judicial Review initiated by the National Secular Society.
In passing judgement, the Head of the Administrative Court, Mr. Justice Ouseley, directed: "I do not think the 1972 Act [...] should be interpreted as permitting the religious views of one group of councillors, however sincere or large in number, to exclude, or even to a modest extent, to impose burdens on or even to mark out those who do not share their views and do not wish to participate in their expression of them. They are all equally elected councillors".
Humanists across the Bay have long campaigned against Prayers in the Council Chamber and contributed to the fund to take the issue to the High Court.
A spokesman for Torbay's Humanists said, "Many local people believe that the insistence on prayers in the Council Chamber is a barrier to involvement in our democracy. Around half of the Bay's population are not Christians. We are a society of many faiths and - increasingly - of no religion at all. We all pay for the Council, so we should all feel that the Council represents us equally."
"Indeed, some local Christians were uneasy about such a close relationship between councillors and the established Church."
"We believe that anything that contributes to an impression that local government is centered on a particular gender, age, ethnicity, social class or faith should be challenged."
"This isn't about banning or rejecting Christianity, but in embracing all beliefs across our community. Understandably, there will be some who resent how Torbay is changing. They may also react with hostility, hurt or bemusement when asked to give up a privilege they have held for many years. But times move on."
"We are now moving towards a level playing field for all faiths and beliefs across our three towns. The High Court decision ending prayers in the Council Chamber should be welcomed by all those who embrace change and who wish to dismantle barriers to involvement in our local democracy."
24 Comments
View all
by SlobberDan
Tuesday, February 14 2012, 10:15PM
“Well she would be better than that fool who is there now.”
by magpie8
Tuesday, February 14 2012, 7:12PM
“These professional atheists are such a pompous lot.
Let us not take them seriously.
Baroness Warsi for Archbishop I say!”
by SlobberDan
Monday, February 13 2012, 7:13PM
“The Parliament Act will never be repealed. It would take a vote in the house of commons to do so. They are highly unlikely to give away the power that it (rightly) gives them over the house of Lords. The Lords my want it repealed but that un elected body don't make the laws. The only chance the Parliament act has of ever being repealed is if the house of lords becomes an elected chamber with repeal of the Parliament act as part of the process.”
by ivanovski
Monday, February 13 2012, 4:54PM
“I was not expecting my warning in this Forum to be vindicated quite so soon but Keith Porteous of the NSS has already said " we will not give up on this" and is challenging the authority of the speaker of the House of Commons. Porteous and his unelected pressure group wants to overturn the Parliament Act which gives authority to the Speaker of the House of Commons to determine these matters in parliament. So, there might soon be a choice between an elected House of Commons or lawyers representing an unelected pressure group. This is aggressive secularism writ large and will continue to attack people with religious belief or those like me who are prepared to show some tolerance.”
by SlobberDan
Monday, February 13 2012, 3:53PM
“ivanovski - just because it is a democratically elected body doesn't mean it should be allowed to break the law, or make the law. The laws are made by democratically elected bodies that are elected to make the laws - MPs, they are not made by judges, judges are there to enforce the laws. As for the House of Lords, well they are not elected are they.”
by stagedoor
Monday, February 13 2012, 3:32PM
“"IMAGINE NO RELIGION, ITS EASY IF YOU TRY"
( john winston lennon 1940 - 1980 )”
by nicold
Monday, February 13 2012, 3:03PM
“No I'm not missing the point ivanovski....Prayers shouldn't even be put up for a democratic vote, as they are nothing to do with local politics! Primitive rituals don't belong in the 21st Century!
And a judge ruled it was illegal, so get over it....”
by ivanovski
Monday, February 13 2012, 2:47PM
“Nicold, I think you are missing the point. If an elected council wants to include prayers on its agenda, and in Bideford that seems to be the case, in a democracy they should be able to do so and not have their agenda determined by unelected lobby groups and unelected lawyers.”
by nicold
Monday, February 13 2012, 2:28PM
“Ivanovski
"Local authorities are democratic institutions, people elect them and they should therefore reflect a majority view, including the conduct of their own affairs."
I'm afraid prayers (or as I call it...talking to yourself) is nothing to do with council affairs! They are there to discuss political matters....the council chamber is not a church!
As to the Bishop of Exeter saying prayers were said by a considerable amount of peers in the House Of Lords....I'm afraid he is wrong....they are actually asleep!”
by ivanovski
Monday, February 13 2012, 1:35PM
“I am not trying to defend the Christian religion or any religion. I am against any new form of intolerance, we have enough already. This is not so simple as just being what is on the agenda at Bideford Council, there are wider issues in play.
Local authorities are democratic institutions, people elect them and they should therefore reflect a majority view, including the conduct of their own affairs. There is no evidence that the majority of people in Bideford are against the tradition of starting the Council's business with prayers. The guy who bought this legal action had choices. If he is so convinced that he represents the majority view he could stand for election and have in his manifesto the ending prayers of at the start of council meetings. Or he could be elected and then advice the chair of the council that, rather than appear to be hypocritical, he will join the meeting after the prayers which are always the first item - sensible compromise - job done. But no, he prefers to push other people around by mounting a legal action backed by an unelected organisation so that unelected people could overrule the elected council's wishes and a tradition going back for hundreds of years. Please don't ask me to believe that there is not another agenda in play here and that it will all end here.”