I wrote this ages ago, and forgot about it but thought I would share. It makes reference to things in the news that were current at the time of my writing it.
So do we batten down the hatches for Armageddon? Do we follow the example of the Puritans and flee this 'godless country' and set up our Christian ghettos? Possibly we should stand up for our rights and embark on a civil disobedience campaign whereby we have public demonstrations, setting up monuments to the Ten Commandments and Nativity scenes in the public square, or on private land but within plain sight of the general public.
Perhaps it is time to slow down, and calmly take stock of the situation. My opinion is that the newspapers and some public figures have clearly over-reacted and that the High Court ruling does not threaten our individual rights to freedom of religion or that we are being "marginalised" as suggested by Lord Carey of Clifton the former Archbishop of Cantebury. The principle of separation of "church" and "state" - or more properly religion and government, is an idea that is more often associated with the United States than the United Kingdom, but nevertheless, there is a principle, based on Human Rights, that says that a government cannot make rules that impact on an individual's right to freedom of religion.
This right to freedom of religion is often stated in connection with atheistic governments that threaten citizens with sanctions if they practice their religion. So that in the former communist states, like the USSR, where people were forced to practice their religion in secret, or in countries where Islam is the majority religion, Christians and other minority religions are discriminated against, and have many religious liberties denied them. However, when one belongs to the dominant religion of a community, it is easy to be blinded to the ways in which other groups (including Atheists) are denied their rights.
With regard to the ruling on council meetings, even though the UK's established religion is Church of England, the judge has ruled that prayers as a formal part of the meeting is an imposition on those who do not wish to participate. One might say that those who do not believe in them should keep respectfully silent during that time and let those who do have their prayer time. However, let us consider how one might react as a Christian, if you were asked to remain "respectfully silent" while a Muslim, a Hindu, or a Buddhist said prayers. Christians who take matters of faith seriously, for whom this matter is of the gravest concern, would be uncomfortable being in the same room during this time. So, surely, the imposition of Christian prayer on those who are not Christian, would surely make them feel equally uncomfortable.
We might argue that since Christianity is the religion of the majority (a hotly contested claim) that the minorities should simply put up with the status quo, and provided they are not compelled to participate, accept that this is a ceremonial aspect that needs to be respected. The thing is, when we use this majority vs. minority argument, we need to accept that when the numbers change and Christianity is no longer the majority religion, then we have to accede that these practices should be changed to reflect these demographic shifts.
Also, and I think this is key - that where human rights are concerned, the "majority rules" argument is not valid. Human rights are about the rights of the individual regardless of whether they are part of the majority or minority. While those arguing for the status quo would point out that no-one is compelled to participate in these prayers, it may well be suggested that one's presence while prayers are said, is participation, and thus the requirement to remove prayers from the agenda, since a councillor's presence is required at a council meeting. Also, it may be argued that the unbelieving chairperson is placed in a very invidious position of having to lead such a prayer or at the very least call on a councillor to lead it. It is not, as may have been the case a few generations ago, a moral expectation for every member of council to be a member of a local Christian congregation, attending regular services, and people of any faith or no faith background may seek to be elected, and if favoured by the electorate, take their seat on the council. However, this ruling will not exclude Christians from being elected and taking an active role in council.
I am not in favour of prayers being said, merely because it is customary to say prayers. As a Christian, Praying is communing with God; it is real and it is purposeful. In formal settings such as the opening of a council meeting, the opening of parliament, or prayers in school assemblies, the pray-er has very strict guidelines as to what he or she may or may not say as a part of that prayer. Ironically it is the very "political correctness" that Christians are now uptight about that limited what could be said in these circumstances in the form of a prayer. Again, I see no point in going through the motions of prayer, simply because it apears on an agenda. I would further argue that this charade of prayer is in itself a mockery of my religion, and as Christians, I think we should be requesting that it be removed from the agenda. Instead, let the local congregations, whose lives would be impacted by that council meetings set up prayer meetings that will take place before, during and after the meeting, on going prayer meetings, where the councillors, whatever their politics or personal faith, are prayed for as well as for the community which will be affected by the meetings. As Christians, we believe in the ministry of Intercession -and we also believe there are those called to be intercessors, as there are those, I believe who are called to be councillors. Has the local Church been interceding for their local council? Are they aware of any of the other items on the council agendas? We bleat loud enough when prayer is taken off the agenda, but did we show any interest on what there was on the agenda when there was prayer. When I have been taught about prayer in the past, one of the words that invariably comes up, with effective prayer is that they should be specific - "Oh God, please bless the council meeting" is like asking God to rubber stamp (or endorse) decisions about which He was not consulted. Were the decisions taken at these meetings preceded by a spoken prayer always glorifying to God?
Everything I read in Scripture, militates against the notion of "mere form" or ritualistic prayer. We read how Jesus mocked the showing-off prayers of the Pharisees who stood in the Temple Courts and intoned loud prayers to impress the passers by - and Jesus said that God was NOT impressed by such prayers. On the contrary, far more valuable, in God's sight were those who enter their private space, and pray silently to God. No-one- apart from God needs to know you are praying. I am not saying that we should be ashamed of praying, but we do not need to turn prayer into a sideshow. I used to laugh at how some people, when called on to pray in public, would start speaking in "King James English" with all it's thees and thous. Did they really believe that God did not understand their everyday speech? Perhaps they did? Is that how they talked to God in private?
I want to address the notion that the ruling and other court rulings that seem to go against Christians or belief necessarily mean that Christianity is under attack. When we do not get it all our own way, does that mean that we are being attacked? It may be that these rulings "marginalize" Chritianity in specific contexts, but are we not just getting a taste of our own medicine? Hasn't the Church for many years marginalized, not only those of other religions, but those within the Church who did not agree with them on their points of doctrine - or is that dogma?
I have to confess that I am running out of patience with people who have this "persecution complex" - where they believe that because they are not permitted behave as they want to no matter how their behaviours impact other members of the community. For centuries, people have faced real persecution, where they risk physical violence, deprivation, imprisonment and even death on account of their faith. In the face of this extreme opposition, they continue to hold on. In the UK and most of the Western World, we are free to be believers, we can worship in a church of our choice (In China, you can go to church, if it is the officially recognised Church). We can stand on any street and hand out religious tracts or preach. Chaplains can go into any hospital and pray with and for the sick, and I could go on. We have these freedoms but it seems that we are being persecuted because prayer is being removed from Council meeting agendas?
