Bideford Council Meeting Prayers Banned Following Test Case

Jesus

PA/Huffington Post UK   First Posted: 10/02/2012 10:40 Updated: 10/02/2012 15:13

A test case bid to outlaw prayers before local council meetings has been won by the National Secular Society and an atheist councillor.

They challenged the practice of Bideford town council, Devon, of having religious prayers on meeting agendas.

The ruling could lead the way to prayers being banned in other councils and public meeting places, with one MP already threatening to introduce a private members bill to overturn he decision.

On Friday Mr Justice Ouseley, sitting in London, ruled: "The saying of prayers as part of the formal meeting of a council is not lawful under section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972, and there is no statutory power permitting the practice to continue."

The legal challenge was launched in July 2010 after the society was contacted by Clive Bone - a non-believer who was then a Bideford councillor.

Mr Bone later left the council because of its "refusal to adjust" its prayer policy.


Former councillor Clive Bone

Society lawyers argued that council members who were not religious were being "indirectly discriminated against", in breach of human rights laws.

But the case was not won on human rights grounds, but on a point of statutory construction of local government legislation.

The judge gave the town council permission to appeal against his ruling, acknowledging the case raised issues of general public importance.

The judge made two formal declarations in order to sum up the effect of his landmark ruling which will affect local councils up and down the country.

He said: "A local authority has no power under section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972, or otherwise, to hold prayers as part of a formal local authority meeting, or to summon councillors to such a meeting at which prayers are on the agenda."

But he added in a second declaration: "The saying of prayers in a local authority chamber before a formal meeting of such a body is lawful provided councillors are not formally summoned to attend."

In his ruling, the judge said: "There is no specific power to say prayers or to have any period of quiet reflection as part of the business of the council."

Referring to Bideford, he said: "The council has on two occasions by a majority voted to retain public prayers at its full meetings.

"But that does not give it power to do what it has no power to do."

The judge said the council made attendance at prayers optional "because it recognises that councillors, of whatever religion or none, may not wish to attend prayers as part of a political meeting..."

But this turned a council meeting "into a partial gathering of those councillors who share a particular religious outlook, or are indifferent to it or - as in the case of Mr Bone - too embarrassed to leave in public".

"That cannot satisfy section 111. The same objection does not apply to a few minutes silent reflection on the duties ahead, which each can observe in their own way."

The judge said it was not for the court "to rule upon the likelihood of divine guidance" becoming available to council members through prayer.

Then he added: "I do not think that the 1972 Act dealing with the organisation, management and decision-making of local councils should be interpreted as permitting the religious views of one group of councillors, however sincere or large its number, to exclude or, even to a modest extent, impose burdens on or mark out those who do not share their views and do not wish to participate in their expression.

"They are all equally-elected councillors."

The Bishop of Exeter, the Rt Rev Michael Langrish, condemned the ruling.

He told BBC News: "Every time there is a survey of religious beliefs in this country, around 70% of the population profess a faith and to saying private prayers.

"At the House of Lords we began with prayers this morning. Prayers were said by a considerable amount of peers. I don't think you will find anyone in the House of Lords who will seriously suggest we should end that practice."


The Rt Rev Michael Langrish

Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society (NSS), welcomed the court ruling, saying: "There is no longer a respectable argument that Britain is a solely Christian nation, or even a religious one."

He said: "An increasing proportion of people are not practising any religion, and minority faiths are growing in number and influence."

Prayers had been the cause of tension in a number of local councils and led to difficulties between faiths, underlining the "need for shared civic spaces to be secular and available to believers and non-believers alike on an equal basis".

He said: "This judgment is an important victory for everyone who wants a secular society, one that neither advantages nor disadvantages people because of their religion or lack of it."

Today's ruling would apply to the formal meetings of all councils in England and Wales - "the majority of which are thought to conduct prayers as part of their meetings".

But he stressed the judgment did not extend generally to "religious worship in public places", for example remembrance services, or councillors voluntarily attending them.

Quick Poll

Was the judge right to ban Bideford town council from holding prayers?

VOTE

Mr Porteous Wood said: "Acts of worship in council meetings are key to the separation of religion from politics, so we're very pleased with the judgment, and the clear secular message it sends - particularly the statement made about the 1972 Act.

"The NSS is not seeking to deprive those who wish to pray the opportunity to do so - we fight to retain freedom of religion and belief.

"The judgment clearly states that religious freedoms are not hindered, as councillors who wish to do so are free to say prayers before council meetings.

"Our interest in this issue was prompted by a complaint from a Bideford town councillor Clive Bone, who felt uncomfortable at having to sit through prayers, homilies and requests for divine guidance while carrying out his formal duties as an elected councillor.

"The only alternative to this discomfort was to walk out, unbidden by the mayor, which would look discourteous to those in the public gallery.

"We sought the judicial review only after Bideford had rejected compromises made by (now former) councillor Bone and the NSS for prayers before the meeting, or a period of silence during the meeting.

"Prayers have been the cause of tension in a number of local councils. When Portsmouth Council allowed a Muslim imam to say a prayer, one Christian councillor walked out of the meeting, later saying 'I do not believe we are praying to the same god'.

"Meanwhile, councillors in Shropshire called a fellow councillor 'disgusting' when he wore headphones during prayers."

Following its announcement, community Secretary Eric Pickles used Twitter to condemn the decision:


Eric Pickles
Bideford prayer judgement: I believe right to worship is a fundamental and hard fought British liberty

Former Lib Dem MP Evan Harris, a scientist and a spokesman for humanism, called the decision a "victory".


Dr Evan Harris
In court 2 RCourtsJustice. Mr J. Ouseley rules that prayers as part of council business is unlawful. Yay! Partial victory for Nat Sec Soc.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK

A test case bid to outlaw prayers before local council meetings has been won by the National Secular Society and an atheist councillor. They challenged the practice of Bideford town council, Devon,...
A test case bid to outlaw prayers before local council meetings has been won by the National Secular Society and an atheist councillor. They challenged the practice of Bideford town council, Devon,...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 614
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (9 total)
04:00 PM on 02/13/2012
PAUL WAGLAND,

Thanks for useful suggestion regarding Cash Memory,unfortunately it hasn't worked.

In reply. If democracy was that in danger from Christians I would be very surprised, given its doctrine. And why now historically, Bediford council has been around a very long time but, assuming by a long stretch of the imagination this was the case, what greater danger might be a council completely dominated by Atheists?, are these people so much more virtuous because they are not religious,hardly!

That is not to say that those who profess to being religious do not fall short of their own religious standards but, generally there is a higher authority in their doctrine to answer to. No such authority exists in secular law even on (secular oath) to a court, and offenders deny their crime brazenly by playing the secular rules.

I don't think a minute of Prayer or an Oath constitutes a hugh waste of taxpayers money, might even promote more honesty, but given other council wastage on schemes, some political, often hitting the media headlines over the years, costing millions to the taxpayer where's the saving?. In these cases this has been more to do political control, NOT religion, and some of the culprits were Atheists take note.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Raymond Soltysek
12:35 PM on 02/14/2012
"That is not to say that those who profess to being religious do not fall short of their own religious standards but, generally there is a higher authority in their doctrine to answer to. No such authority exists in secular law even on (secular oath) to a court, and offenders deny their crime brazenly by playing the secular rules."

Poppycock. How can a probably non-existent punishment - damnation - in an probably non-existent place - Hell - decided by a probably non-existent judge - God - be a "higher authority" than the tangible laws of the land we live in?
08:58 PM on 02/12/2012
Dear Paul Wagland,

Thank you! my reply button doesn't seem to work unfortunately, must be a Huffington Post problem?.

I do hope the Bideford community finally make THEIR voice heard.

Of course this was always their business,not politicians,not judges who should have enquired as to the communities wishes, and least of all outside Political Pressure Groups, who insidiously construct very costly litigation to disrupt democracy and the fabric of British society.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul Wagland
Resistance is fertile
11:50 AM on 02/13/2012
Try clearing your browser cache?

Anyway, the Secular Society brought the action to protect democracy and society. Why should the community be dominated by a Christian minority? And why should a broadly secular public see its tax ££ be used to pay people to pray?
12:13 PM on 02/12/2012
Hello vicessa,

The electorate voted democratically the councillors into office to represent their needs. Its when people who don't respect this trust they get voted out.

I don't think it is right that a judge can interfere with this process because of one persons angst about prayers, and religious needs are also often part of its business but, thats up to the Bideford electorate to decide, and I'm sure they will, rather than outside pressure groups.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul Wagland
Resistance is fertile
02:10 PM on 02/12/2012
The reply button is your friend.
11:55 AM on 02/12/2012
Hello eloracbmulp,

Well, the only connection I have with the Americans is that one of my ancestors sailed as the Leader on the Mayflower and the rest is history as they say.

I have a view yes, but not rigid, if you read carefully what I have said you will understand that the rigid thinkers are those that profess to have all the answers when they certainly don't but try to kid the public, and also make a name and money out of it.

Religeous people don't profess to have the answers from a scientific point of view and therefore will always be pilloried for just belief, just like my ancestor. The only difference now in time is the flack its coming from Atheists.

Those who call themselves Atheists are really only parroting theories which cannot be conclusively proven, that are changing like shifting sands. Its why I have said I have more respect for Agnostics / Christians really, and there are eminent free thinking scientists among the later as the former.

Its a case of the "pot calling the kettle black", with this ex councillor who is no better trying to take the moral high ground.
08:45 PM on 02/11/2012
for christians showing that they wear a cross and being banned as it is ofensive to other religions and it looks like non christian too. now a town council which publically supports prayers and guidence before important decisions are made has been told to stop on the say so of an elected council member. who i'm sorry must of known he would be required to attend meetings which had prayers before.

did his supporters know when they voted him in his views on being against prayers. all he needed to do was turn up wait outside for prayers to be said and allowed to take his seat prior to the meeting started. why go to court. he said "i didn't want to make a fuss leaving" now he will have to run the gaunlet of all the other council members resentment and loss of freedom to pray at work.

sorry but where i have worked i have had collegues who need to pray 5 times a day and muslim or other religions are granted this for fear of not repecting their faith.

now christians can't pray at bideford.is this man so narcisistic he has to be "special treatment" like at school. anyone not christian or of another faith could pray elsewhere. i hope they don't offer him laxitive choc biscuts or he'll plenty of time to think on the big white "oh my god phone to god. sorry toilet god who he worships every day. lol.
05:55 PM on 02/11/2012
I am not a relgious person but to blame religion on the wrongs in the past and present in this world is being very naive which seems to be the theme of many comments
Inerpritation has and is still the the biggest disease within ALL religeons and that interpritation is made by the most distuctive force ever to be created Man/woman.
The basic teaching in any religion is to treat others as you would like to be treated give help to those who need help. As a none religiose man I can relate to that as a way to go through Life but if someone needs to worship a stone the moon or a god that is there choice and If that is the way of the land I would not want to chang that. I would suggest to these people if you dont like what is the way of life dont join the club
06:01 PM on 02/11/2012
befor any one else intrepretation
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
viko
Aim high, allow for the wind, land on target.
05:18 PM on 02/11/2012
Jesus prayed and said not my will father but thine.
He did not come to die for your sins . he died challenging the prepared people to listen to new revelation from God or lose His blessing. They did not listen and the Jewish people had no Nation for 2,000 years until 1946. Christianity came to be born with a new Promise . . Jesus had some last words asking God to to forgive you all for not knowing what you do. . He certainly was not God and he never came to die He was Murdered. There was no virgin birth.and the resurrection was not physical. We have a choice this day and if we reject God Himself I would guarantee all people the period before another restoration would be a lot longer than 2000 years. . Jesus was not interested in your relationship with him but only you developing your own relationship with the Living God. We got it wrong now lets get it right .
Lets stop blaming God for everything and take a little responsibility here.
03:31 PM on 02/11/2012
All council meetings take place with the acceptance of the queen as head of state and all she stands for. She is also the head of the Church of England. The judge has turned his back on what he has the right to do and his position as a defender of justice in this country.
04:34 PM on 02/11/2012
Oh dear, here we go...

'The Judge' has actually up-held justice in this case. Maybe the judgement went against your views and you're unable yet to see it? Judges cannot turn their back on anything, they merely apply the legislation pertaining at the time of the case before them. A majority of Councilors in favour of religion against a minority of one, cannot displace the law. Please ponder this for a while before commenting.
07:59 PM on 02/16/2012
I've checked the law and it remains the same as it has for hundreds of years. This is not a view but as the law stands and is clearly written on the text in front of me.
03:30 PM on 02/11/2012
I assume the bishop defends the 'right' of a Council to require christian councillors to observe muslim prayers in a council meeting should the council decide to include them as part of the agenda?
03:17 PM on 02/11/2012
There's another one gone, banished to the scrap heap of past British traditions.

This guy makes it sound as if it were a full length mosque/church service.

I've never had a problem with it, it was called respect and consideration for everyone present. Can usally be found within an elected committee's constitution (or like), I would have thought.
02:28 PM on 02/11/2012
Raymond Saltysek,

I never said Christians have all the answers. Atheists certainly don't, as Science is rapidly changing to new sub Atomic theories of Anti Matter. The Hadron projects are now revealing and proving this fact,...so lets not be to hasty to say there's no God!. Just because you cant see something it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The Judge was wrong to have made this silly wasteful interpretation of the law.

Will committee business get done any faster with prayers in or out of the council chamber, if the role reversal is made and the committee prays outside the chamber (whatever the faith), Mr Bone would have to wait for democratic reasons for the members to return to start business.

There's now a counter case for the committee under the Human Rights Act, because if council business doesn't allow for prayer time before business,and discriminates by refusing time and thus forces (elected) members to resign on principle, that flouts the Human Rights Act under religious freedom of expression, or otherwise, as Mr Bone has done.

So he's achieved nothing!!!.
03:02 PM on 02/11/2012
You have to be American. Only our cousins across the pond have this rigid view.
05:07 PM on 02/11/2012
Re: The Judge was wrong to have made this silly wasteful interpreta­tion of the law.

Are you being serious?
The Judge was 'at work' with a case before him/her! How can a Judge make a silly interpretation of the Law. If it's silly, blame the legislators for coming up with the law in the first place!

'Will committee business get done any faster ..'.

Why introduce time into the debate? The council meeting has a start time. If the prayers, or any other activity countinues past this time, the councilors are late!

'The Hadron projects are now revealing'... True. But scientists are looking into the physics of our world, not simply accepting what has been written. Many areas of science and knowledge have been re-visited and re-written in light of new discoveries. A good practice, you would agree?

'Just because you can't see something it doesn't mean it doesn't exist'

Again true.
But do you want the weight of your argument to the existance of something (God) hinging on the fact it cannot be proven to not exist? Pretty paltry, wouldn't you agree? What is the mechanism you are using to investigate the existance of your God? Scientists are at least looking into accepted facts.

You end with., council business not allowing time for prayers .. simply shows your stupidity and inability to string together a logical process of thought. Take out ' prayers' and insert ' a game of bowls' and re-read.
concodtob
16 stone athlete and intellectual
11:47 PM on 02/12/2012
Judges particularly British ones do make silly interpretations of the Law as the Human rights act shows.Even Lord Irvine has gone on record and said that British judges misinterpret this legislation.Although this ruling is not as a result of the human rights act,the fact is that judges do misinterpret legislation.
01:53 PM on 02/11/2012
Absurd and pointless, How about replacing it with an oath ' I swear that I shall endeavour to perform my duties as a Councillor with honesty and integrity for the betterment of my community.' No God in this just a reaffirmation and reminder of their role and what we expect from them.
01:43 PM on 02/11/2012
All this kerfuffle could have been avoided by saying in the agenda notice 'There will be prayers before the meeting'. Those not wishing to do so could delay attending until the prayers are over. If necessary this could be inserted into local government legislation.
Southern law girl
Researching my viewpoint....
02:15 PM on 02/11/2012
Yes I agree, you should consider becoming a judicial advisor!
01:53 PM on 02/12/2012
Maybe I am already!
photo
rabidrightwatch
Green lefty & active environmentalist
02:26 PM on 02/11/2012
...a very sensible suggestion.. but hang on, this perhaps is too sensible a suggestion...
01:16 PM on 02/11/2012
To, Walnut, Crack, Sledgehammer, A.

Rearrange into a well known phrase or saying.
12:58 PM on 02/11/2012
A P.S view of a long-standing Evangelical and former Goverment research analyst who has had a history/reality check. Before the so-called British Church (the CofE and Catholics) start bleating about having traditional faith given priority as a tradition, let us not forget that role these churches - so-called 'called of God' in centuries of religious persecution, mass slaughter of 'unbelievers', genocide, systematic persecution of minority groups, particularly Jews... We are happy to focus on Islam and their intolerance .. conveniently forgetting the role the mainstream church has played in using religion to subjugate unpopular groups for political and financial purposes....... Pot and black...... To quote Paul the Apostle ..... """Faith without works is dead""""...... !!!