Sometimes, I just know that if there is a God up there looking down on us then he's just pissing himself laughing...
Last week's antics in the High Court about the opening prayers at Biddeford Council meetings really does take the biscuit. The action was brought by the Secular Society who objected to prayers being the opening item on the agenda because they "infringed the human rights of non-Christians" by forcing them to take place in what they rather disrespectfully described as "juju" - an unfortunate turn of phrase in the light of recent furore about racist remarks, I thought.
Amazingly, the judge, Mr Justice Ouseley, agreed and upheld the complaint so if the council carries on as it has since time immemorial it could now be held in contempt of court although, frankly, decisions like this are contemptuous.
Fast forward now to the BBC Breakfast program last Sunday mornng. The Beeb managed to get two hypocritical dogmatic bastards together to debate the issue, and an unsightly spectacle it was, too! On the one side, the representative of the Secular Society saying that his view was the only correct one and that this 'religious nonsense' shouldn't be forced on non-believers; on the other side a religious zealot saying that his view was the only correct one and that people shoud be forced to acknowledge Christ as the one true saviour.
Amazingly, neither side could grasp that by insisting the other be forced to accept their view they were being mutually hypocritical by effectively saying the same thing...
As you will know by now, I am not a believer. I do however defend to the death your right to believe whatever you like for your own personal consumption. I don't really care whether prayers are said at the start of meetings or not. If you don't want to join in, then just sit quietly whilst the others do their thing.
It's a great British tradition. It's called tolerance...
...which is why this action should never have been bought and why the judge was totally wrong not to dismiss it out of hand.
3 comments:
I think the fact that the Judge didn't dismiss the case out of hand clearly demonstrates that he's highly attuned to the fact that if he had .. then people might just begin to question how many other cases could be similarly resolved ..
Which might then beg the questions ..
Why do we need so many Judges ?
Do we in fact need Judges at all ?
They are, when all's said & done, very expensive people to employ and have a proven track record of giving a less than value-for-money performance, relative to their cost ..
In short, I reckon the old Judge was indulging in a bit of self-protectionism (whilst at the same time, looking after his mates)..
#God must be pissing himself at the antics in #Biddeford about #prayers!
I was raised as the son of a Church of England priest and have my own ideas of the role of the state church : insulation from the Papacy being only part of the ploy.
I would say that since the Bible itself puts the idea of sworn testimony beyond the pale,the Court should be quite used to hypocrisy. That does not excuse the judge from his duty to come down hard on people who think they have a right to their own opinions unencumbered by edicts requiring them to perjure themselves.
BTW somehow your antispambot images seem particularly obscure even for mere mortals.
Post a Comment