Interesting Links for 15-02-2012

[andrewducker]

• When will experiences replace movie theaters?
  I think people enjoy passive entertainment a lot, so I don't expect movies to go anywhere. It would be nice to see more "experiences", but I suspect that their cost is going to remain a chunk higher than a movie ticket.
  (tags: movies experience life fun museums culture )
• Some detail on what people who identify as "Christian" in the census actually believe
  (tags: religion uk census poll )
• Dutch government calls for loosening of copyright law. Could the tide be turning?
  (tags: copyright netherlands law government )
• Online RPGs WILL DESTROY YOUR RELATIONSHIP. Unless you play together, of course.
  (tags: relationships mmorpg )
• Some common sense on prayer and councils.
  What occurred to me, when reading someone else's journal, was that atheists are merely going to be irked by compulsory Christian prayers - but think about the effect it has on a Muslim, Sikh, etc. that in order to represent their constituents they have to sit through the prayers of a different religion.
  (tags: religion politics uk )
• Game of Thrones Valentine's Day cards
  (tags: gameofthrones valentines_day )
• The UK devolved rights to Antarctica to Scotland - by mistake. Now they want them back.
  (tags: scotland antarctic uk oil )
• The BBC replaces the word "Palestine" with the sound of breaking glass. No, really.
  (tags: bbc palestine israel censorship )
• Firefox Roadmap for 2012
  (tags: firefox web 2012 )
• This video is genius. Horrific, hilarious, genius. I can't say more than that without spoiling it.
  (tags: horror funny nsfw video )
• What If All the Cats in the World Suddenly Died?
  (tags: cats )
• Chocolate + Apple = best valentine's present evar.
  (tags: valentines_day apple chocolate ipad )
• Shitstorm 'best English gift to German language'
  (tags: english german language )
• Being left/right-handed affects your preferences
  (tags: handedness psychology )
• Game Developer Gives 7-Year-Old Best Birthday Present Ever
  (tags: awesome children computer_games )
• 9 Essential Skills Kids Should Learn
  (tags: children development )

Comments

[steer.livejournal.com]

It depends on whether you see this story as "mandatory prayers have now been made optional" or as "optional prayers have now been banned from happening". Without actually being in the sessions I guess it's pretty hard to tell. Different newspapers covered the story in different ways.

There's a world of difference between a few councillors quietly having a prayer before a meeting and between a few councillors praying and expecting the atheist one to join in.

[andrewducker]

Nobody has been banned from having a prayer session before the council sessions - To quote the original BBC article:
Mr Justice Ouseley ruled the prayers were not lawful under section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972.

However, he said prayers could be said as long as councillors were not formally summoned to attend.

They just can't force others to attend by holding them during the council sessions.

[steer.livejournal.com]

Sure... I'm familiar with the judgement. Now you can see that judgement as being a judgement that councillors are not forced to attend a session where prayers take place (excellent) or you can see that judgement as a judgement that informal prayers cannot now take place during the session but must take place before hand (not, perhaps, so excellent).

What I'm interested in was what was actually happening in that particular council chambers where the original debate took place. I can well see the possibility of pushy over-religious types forcing their prayers or beliefs on someone else. On the other hand, I can equally well see a few harmless people wanting to introduce prayers into the meeting if they take their job extremely seriously and believe it important.

I mean there are loonies on all sides in this debate. Take the lib dem bloke you linked to who, in all seriousness, said "My human rights were infringed" because he was asked to go into the chamber when prayers were being held. (I'd have had sympathy if he'd, say, made his objections clear and seen what happened, but his claim was that his human rights were infringed by simply someone asking him to go into the chamber and him doing it. Even though, we've no indication that, if he'd made clear his objection, the other people wouldn't have gone, "gosh, terribly sorry, how thoughtless of us, you take your time, we'll call you when we finish.")

[andrewducker]

I think that forcing people to engage in religious ceremonies is an infringement of their rights. I don't think it's a major one for most people - but if every morning in work I had to take part in a religious ceremony I'd be feeling really unhappy about it.

And we know that some people weren't happy about it, because they'd already had a vote on it, in which the prayer people had won. One assumes there was a debate involved in that.

[steer.livejournal.com]

OK -- there's a risk of two things getting mixed up here:

(1) The lib dem "oh my human rights, I am so wounded" guy from your here:
http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-time-to-talk-about-things-that-dont-matter-27109.html#comment-196855
He was as far as we can tell from that column just asked to go into the chamber -- or rather someone expressed concern that he wasn't in the chamber. That's as far from being "forced" as I can possibly imagine. That's a pretty poor level of debate. Unless there's another part of that story he seems to be just being a bit of a dick. (Maybe, giving him the benefit of the doubt, it's wholly possible that he knew the other people were really awkward types and he would have been forced to attend had he kicked up a fuss... but he can't mention it here because...)

(2) The council over which the ruling was made.
I didn't know that detail that they'd voted on it. But was the debate "should prayers be included" or "should everybody take part in prayers". That is if it was "should we have prayers" and the guys who liked prayers voted yes, that's a different prospect from "I find it uncomfortable to be forced to go to these prayers can I be excused" and the guys who liked prayers voted "no".

I guess what I'd like to know is who was being intolerant here. I'm sort of 66% inclined to say it was the religious types being intolerant...

[kerrypolka.livejournal.com]

a judgement that informal prayers cannot now take place during the session but must take place before hand (not, perhaps, so excellent).

Would you mind elucidating a bit on why? I don't see why this is a problem.

[steer.livejournal.com]

Well, for example, you and I might see it as a bit odd but I can see someone fervently believing that being allowed to quietly pray for guidance on some important decision might be quite important to them. Perhaps neither of us would particularly want to be have someone with such a belief in a position of even minor power. Nonetheless, I'm not sure it's quite such a good thing to forbid them to do so (assuming that is what is forbidden).

As an example, perhaps more comprehensible, I quite often think decisions are best informed with the internet as a look up tool for facts. If a ruling was made I were not allowed to consult this during those meetings where I took my most important decisions... I might find that ruling a bit upsetting.

[andrewducker]

If someone wants a minute of silent contemplation while they do whatever they like in their own head in order to come to a conclusion, then that's fine by me.

[steer.livejournal.com]

But not apparently by the letter of this law (well, it is unclear, I guess if it was "silent" some people could claim they would not be "said" but that would seem like weasel words) -- and I'm guessing these would be people to stick to that letter of the law.

[andrewducker]

I'm not actually sure what the letter of the law is here - it seems to be saying that they can't make "Prayer" an item on the agenda, not that an individual can't pray while the meeting is going on.

Which would match the case in US schools and suchlike, where schools cannot have prayer sessions, but individuals can pray if they feel like.

IANAL, of course.

[steer.livejournal.com]

I guess I interpreted from "prayers can be said as long as councillors are not made formally to attend" (the ruling I think) that prayers could not be said when councillors were formally made to attend -- that is prayers could not be said in that part of the meeting at which was compulsory. Perhaps that is too strong an interpretation.

[andrewducker]

Yeah, I dunno either. And banning "the saying of prayers" could be taken either way - and hopefully wouldn't cover people saying them silently in their heads. But lots of things I hope turn out to not be true :->

[steer.livejournal.com]

Indeed, we can only hope it has found the correct balance between forcing others to attend (or worse participate) in ceremonies they find offensive on the one hand and, on the other hand, allowing a non-disruptive freedom to pursue beliefs.

[andrewducker]

Yeah - it's a hard line to walk. And I don't like some of the decisions made recently (I object to people getting in trouble over expressing opinions, even if they are ones I find disgusting). But I can hope :->

[naath.livejournal.com]

I read the actual judgement; prayers have certainly not been banned.

Having not attend this council I am unclear on whether the prayers were previous optional or compulsory but they were on the official agenda. Now they must not be on the official agenda; but can happen pre-meeting (or post-meeting, or whenever else people like); they are even allowed to use the council chamber to hold them in.

[steer.livejournal.com]

Well, prayers have been banned during the council session itself but can take place before. See above. Whether you see that as a ban or not is really a matter of perspective.