andrewducker: (Default)
andrewducker ([personal profile] andrewducker) wrote2012-02-15 11:00 am
  • Add Memory
  • Share This Entry
Entry tags:

Interesting Links for 15-02-2012

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[identity profile] steer.livejournal.com 2012-02-16 10:12 am (UTC)(link)
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: (Default)

[personal profile] andrewducker 2012-02-16 10:46 am (UTC)(link)
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.

[identity profile] steer.livejournal.com 2012-02-16 11:26 am (UTC)(link)
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: (Default)

[personal profile] andrewducker 2012-02-16 11:29 am (UTC)(link)
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.

[identity profile] steer.livejournal.com 2012-02-16 11:52 am (UTC)(link)
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: (Default)

[personal profile] andrewducker 2012-02-16 12:09 pm (UTC)(link)
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 :->

[identity profile] steer.livejournal.com 2012-02-16 12:27 pm (UTC)(link)
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: (Default)

[personal profile] andrewducker 2012-02-16 12:46 pm (UTC)(link)
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 :->
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only