Nonsense on stilts

[Gob]

Human rights laws are being interpreted in a way that is ‘thoroughly bonkers’ – according to Britain’s own human rights chief.

Trevor Phillips, head of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, said the laws had ‘fallen into disrepute’ and were seen as protecting criminals, terror suspects and illegal immigrants at the expense of everyone else. These rights should not be ‘the exclusive property of minorities’. Mr Phillips said: ‘Almost every morning I am confronted with examples of how the Human Rights Act is being used which any reasonable person would describe as thoroughly bonkers. ‘Prison service vans that travel 90 miles to take a prisoner 90 yards; paedophiles freed to leer at children in the very parks where they have committed horrific crimes.’

Mr Phillips also attacked plans by secularists to use the Human Rights Act to stop Christian prayers being said before council meetings. Mr Phillips said he ‘dropped his coffee’ when he heard Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, saying on the radio that he wanted to use the act to prosecute councillors in Devon. He said the move was ‘nonsense on stilts’.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1gHlPZQU4

[loCAtek]

Right, and if we agree with that, we're racist

[Scooter]

There's nothing nonsensical about wanting to get religion out of the operation of government. If a councillor got up and wanted to offer Satanic prayers, would that have been allowed?

[loCAtek]

Not the point, while '‘Prison service vans that travel 90 miles to take a prisoner 90 yards; paedophiles freed to leer at children in the very parks where they have committed horrific crimes.’ was legitimately brought up.

[Scooter]

Very much the point when this

plans by secularists to use the Human Rights Act to stop Christian prayers being said before council meetings

is specifically referred to as "nonsense" by someone quoted in the article.

I repeat, would the person objecting have been willing to have Satanic prayers read at Council meetings? Somehow I doubt it.

[loCAtek]

Meaning Satanic, Christian or otherwise religious was their target? ...as nonsense?

[Scooter]

Meaning that trying to prevent Christian prayers from being said at council meetings was nonsense, in the opinion of the man quoted in the article. It was that statement to which I was specifically responding.

[loCAtek]

while they attempted to protect terrorists, which I see as bonkers.

[Scooter]

Ok, she's completely crocked, obviously no longer capable of absorbing what has been written.

[Gob]

There's nothing nonsensical about wanting to get religion out of the operation of government. If a councillor got up and wanted to offer Satanic prayers, would that have been allowed?

Probably, the way the UK is going!

[thestoat]

I love listening to Radio 4 in the mornings - reasonable political comment and current affairs. BUT.

At around 7:50 every morning they have "thought for the day" where some religious type spouts their stuff and tries to make their religion relevant in a modern context. They have Jews, Sikhs, Hindis, etc. Never atheists. If I wanted to listen to a fairy story about someone I don't believe existed I'd listen to children's hour. A lot of people complain about this but so far, the minorities rule. Still, it gives me a chance to listen to Planet Rock for a while ...

[dgs49]

While I realize that there is no "First Amendment" in Britain, which can be misconstrued to mandate the removal of all religious sentiments from government activities, last time I checked, the British sovereign was also the head of the Church of England. Does this not make it entirely appropriate to, for example, begin a government meeting with a Christian prayer?

Just wondering.

[Scooter]

The Test Act is no longer in force, last time I checked.

[Andrew D]

It's an entirely titular position.

Interestingly, the Compact Oxford English Dictionary gives this definition, example and all, of "titular":

holding a formal position or title without any real authority: the queen is titular head of the Church of England.

... last time I checked, the British sovereign was also the head of the Church of England. Does this not make it entirely appropriate to, for example, begin a government meeting with a Christian prayer?

Should the person saying the prayer announce that, just like the Queen's title as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the prayer actually amounts to nothing?

[loCAtek]

I love listening to Radio 4 in the mornings - reasonable political comment and current affairs. BUT.

At around 7:50 every morning they have "thought for the day" where some religious type spouts their stuff and tries to make their religion relevant in a modern context. They have Jews, Sikhs, Hindis, etc. Never atheists. If I wanted to listen to a fairy story about someone I don't believe existed I'd listen to children's hour. A lot of people complain about this but so far, the minorities rule. Still, it gives me a chance to listen to Planet Rock for a while ...

While there's no set schedule, NPR does have religious and philosophical segments at various times; That does include agnostic, or atheist viewpoints. I have noticed the non-theist listeners will call in and complain about religious views being broadcast; more often than religious folks will complain about the atheist views. That is: the religious may not agree with the program, which is why public radio allow callers to ask questions on air; but they not do call for censorship of the atheist opinion because they disagree with it.

Our democratic freedoms are meant to equalize; our Declaration of Independence says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

'The Creator' is not specified, but I think it's a great choice of words; whether your Creator is science, or God, then it is your right, in this country, to find your happiness as you see fit. IMHO A government should uphold ALL people's rights and freedoms, not just some who agree with the majority.

[Sue U]

IMHO A government should uphold ALL people's rights and freedoms, not just some who agree with the majority.

So you think the Devon Council should stop beginning its meetings with Christian prayers?

[loCAtek]

I agree with Trevor Phillips, and believe the Devon council should make that decision.

[loCAtek]

Trevor Phillips wades into debate on religion in modern society

Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, has made a wide-ranging intervention into the growing debate on the place of religion in modern society.

By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent

7:30AM BST 19 Jun 2011



In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph before the publication of a landmark report into religious discrimination over the last decade, he attacks "fashionable" views mocking and marginalising religion and say his Equality and Human Rights Commission will stand up for believers.

But he also warns religious groups of the danger of extremism, saying some Christian activists are not fighting for their religion but for political influence - and says that his own background as the son of immigrants from Guyana means he fears "undiluted" attitudes to homosexuality risk Afro-Carribean communities not integrating into the mainstream.

FASHIONABLE ATHEISM

Mr Phillips today becomes one of the first and most high-profile figures in public life to warn people of faith feel "under siege" from "fashionable" anti-religious views - which he admitted the Equality and Human Rights Commission had been wrongly identified with.

"The thing I've become anxious about in recent times is this – there is certainly a feeling amongst some people of belief that they are under siege, that they are often disadvantaged, that they are looked at and considered in some way different and their faith makes them less worthy of regard," he said.

"There is a view that says religion is a private matter and it's entirely a choice. I think that's entirely not right. "Faith identity is part of what makes life richer and more meaningful for the individual. It is a fundamental part of what makes some societies better than others in my view.

"I understand why a lot of people in faith groups feel a bit under siege. They're in a world where there are a lot of very clever people who have a lot of access to the airwaves and write endlessly in the newspapers knocking religion and mocking God. The people who want to drive religion underground are much more active, much more vocal.

There is no doubt there's quite a lot of intolerance towards people of faith and towards belief.

"There's a great deal of polemic which is anti-religious, which is quite fashionable. People can sometimes think we're part of that fashionable mocking and knocking brigade. We're not that."


More from The Telegraph

[Scooter]

So it's ok to cater to the whims of the majority at the expense of the minority so long as you agree.

[Sue U]

IMHO A government should uphold ALL people's rights and freedoms, not just some who agree with the majority.

I agree with Trevor Phillips, and believe the Devon council should make that decision.

"There is a view that says religion is a private matter and it's entirely a choice. I think that's entirely not right. ... It is a fundamental part of what makes some societies better than others in my view.

There seems to be some significant inconsistency in your reasoning, loCAtek. You say you think that government should uphold rights and freedoms of all, not just the majority; yet you think Devon Council is perfectly fine in conducting the government of all its citizens with an explicitly religious and sepcifically Christian invocation. In the first instance, why does a local government need some sort of religious observance to conduct its business at all? Does Jesus need to bless the trash hauling contract? Does God need to oversee the road repair crews? Devon is 98.7% "White British," the overwhelming majority of them belonging to some Protestant denomination. How is government "uphold[ing] ALL people's rights and freedoms" with this practice of Christian prayers? Moreover, you say you "agree with Trevor Phillips," who thinks religion is not a private matter but something that makes one society "better" than another. So England is a Protestant Christian country that is therefore better than other societies? How does this view "uphold ALL people's rights and freedoms"?