I have to start by saying that, contrary to some press headlines today, Christians in Britain today are not being persecuted. But yesterday’s High Court ruling seemingly banning the saying of prayers at the start of council meetings is an attack – or more accurately, the most recent attack – on the idea that Britain is a tolerant society.
By definition, tolerance is the acceptance of the differing views and opinions of others. The key word here is ‘differing’. It is not a demonstration of tolerance to allow something with which you agree; tolerance is demonstrated by refusing to suppress something which you find disagreeable.
Yet increasingly we see cases brought before the courts, such as the judicial review brought by atheist former councillor Chris Bone and backed by the National Secular Society, motivated by nothing more than his intolerance of the religious beliefs of others.
If it is not already clear, I profoundly disagree with Chris Bone and his militant atheism. The whole questions of Christianity, of religion, of the existence of God are ones on which he and I are diametrically opposed, and almost certainly intransigently so.
Yet whereas I wouldn't even consider forcing my beliefs and opinions on Mr Bone, and would never seek to suppress his beliefs, unfortunately he feels unable to do the same. Because, we are told, he felt ‘embarrassed’ to be present whilst prayers are being said.
If there is a weaker argument for the banning of prayers in council meetings, I have yet to come across it.
It’s important to recognise that the High Court did not find that councils should not continue to say prayers at the start of meetings because they offend the sensibilities of people such as Mr Bone. It ruled they were unlawful because of a technicality in Local Government Act 1972; a matter which I believe can, and should, be easily remedied through the Localism Act.
But you can bet your bottom dollar that this won’t be the end of the matter. Mr Bone and his ilk will not rest until they have brought their intolerance to bear upon the rest of us.
Unfortunately, this case is indicative of the society in which we now live. The whole idea that we are a tolerant society has been consigned to the dustbin of history, if it was ever anything more than a fiction.
Instead of tolerating the differing views and practices of others, we appeal to the courts and legislators to ban them. Instead of turning the other cheek, we seek legal protection from anybody saying anything that offends us. And God forbid we should be made to feel embarrassed.
In short, Heaven forfend I should need to tolerate anything.
In recognising that the reader may disagree with my argument, I am more than happy for you to post a comment to that effect. I may disagree with you; I may even feel embarrassed by your comment; but, unlike Mr Bone, I will tolerate our differences.
By definition, tolerance is the acceptance of the differing views and opinions of others. The key word here is ‘differing’. It is not a demonstration of tolerance to allow something with which you agree; tolerance is demonstrated by refusing to suppress something which you find disagreeable.
Yet increasingly we see cases brought before the courts, such as the judicial review brought by atheist former councillor Chris Bone and backed by the National Secular Society, motivated by nothing more than his intolerance of the religious beliefs of others.
If it is not already clear, I profoundly disagree with Chris Bone and his militant atheism. The whole questions of Christianity, of religion, of the existence of God are ones on which he and I are diametrically opposed, and almost certainly intransigently so.
Yet whereas I wouldn't even consider forcing my beliefs and opinions on Mr Bone, and would never seek to suppress his beliefs, unfortunately he feels unable to do the same. Because, we are told, he felt ‘embarrassed’ to be present whilst prayers are being said.
If there is a weaker argument for the banning of prayers in council meetings, I have yet to come across it.
It’s important to recognise that the High Court did not find that councils should not continue to say prayers at the start of meetings because they offend the sensibilities of people such as Mr Bone. It ruled they were unlawful because of a technicality in Local Government Act 1972; a matter which I believe can, and should, be easily remedied through the Localism Act.
But you can bet your bottom dollar that this won’t be the end of the matter. Mr Bone and his ilk will not rest until they have brought their intolerance to bear upon the rest of us.
Unfortunately, this case is indicative of the society in which we now live. The whole idea that we are a tolerant society has been consigned to the dustbin of history, if it was ever anything more than a fiction.
Instead of tolerating the differing views and practices of others, we appeal to the courts and legislators to ban them. Instead of turning the other cheek, we seek legal protection from anybody saying anything that offends us. And God forbid we should be made to feel embarrassed.
In short, Heaven forfend I should need to tolerate anything.
In recognising that the reader may disagree with my argument, I am more than happy for you to post a comment to that effect. I may disagree with you; I may even feel embarrassed by your comment; but, unlike Mr Bone, I will tolerate our differences.
No comments:
Post a Comment