Bournemouth Liberal Democrats

Town Council Prayers Ruled Unlawful by the High Court

It was held by the High Court that Bideford town council acted unlawfully by allowing prayers to be said before meetings.

The action was brought by the National Secular Society (NSS), Mr Justice Ouseley ruled that where councillors were formally summoned to attend council meetings prayers were not lawful under s111 of the Local Government Act 1972.[1] The judgement is a test case for all councils across England and Wales.

Bournemouth Borough Council has seen prayers by Jewish and Spiritualist chaplains as well as Anglican clergy at council meetings.

The Rev Dr Peter Mullen described secularists and atheists as 'aggressive' and 'totalitarian'.[2]

Liberal Democrat Roger West, a member of Dorset Humanists, said he was sensing growing support for the abolition of prayers, he continued "I come from a Christian background and my father thought it was extremely important that when you pray, that you were sincere about that prayer. To be in a council chamber where people are being asked to pray but have no faith I think is wrong"[3]

Breaker.co.uk article:http://www.thebreaker.co.uk/2012/02/16/bournemouth-cllr-i-dont-want-to-pray/

Many consider this issue to be one of pedantic political correctness, this is however a gross misrepresentation, from the perspective of the secular it is a matter of civil liberties best put by Thomas Jefferson in The Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom:

Of all Thomas Jefferson's achievements the only three that he wanted on his memorial were the authorship of the American Declaration of Independance, the Virginia Statute of religious freedom and his fatherhood of the University of Virginia

"An Act for establishing religious Freedom.Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;

That all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do,

That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;

That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;

That even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind;

That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry,

That therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right,

That it tends only to corrupt the principles of that very Religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it;

That though indeed, these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way;

That to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;

That it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order;

And finally, that Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:

Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know that this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of Legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right" - 1777