Mayor misses his ceremony

“Danny,

I am happy to change my post and opinion in part. Now that the whole story has developed it would appear to be different to the one as reported.

If Councillor Hall had perhaps spoken to the Leicester Mercury, the full picture would have been reported instead of him 'tweeting' a response that does not mention the main issue of contention.

For the issues to come out in commenters posts is not really ideal is it?

I still maintain that as Lord Mayor, an ancient and honoured position, should be apolitical, non-religious and should attend as tradition dictates.”

“Having, unusually, had responses to this story from several people involved, and therefore finding that there was a lot more to the story than the original article in the Mercury seemed to suggest, I wonder if Andy, David and Kulgan would like to amend their initial posts which were highly critical of our new Lord Mayor, when more of the fault seems to lie with the intransigence of the Cathedral authorities. Not only wouldn't they budge on insisting on a wholly Christian service in what was supposed to be a civic ceremony welcoming the new mayor, but then it seems that their own Bishop also won't be there and is represented by his deputy.”

“As I understand it, the Lord Major originally offered to attend the "Civic Service". However, the church wanted to effectively censor what his Humanist Chaplin (Allan Hayes) said. No other organisation, which invites people to speak, imposes this form of bizarre censorship. I have great respect for the work Allan Hayes does in encouraging understanding between different groups in the city. The Secular Society, of which he is President, invites speakers from all religious and non-religious backgrounds. I think upholding the English tradition of free speech and free thought is more important than appeasing intolerance.”

“I hope that it will help discussion if I put down what led up to the Lord Mayor¿s decision not to attend tomorrow¿s Civic Service.
The service is a Civic occasion and the Lord Mayor asked for some changes to make it more inclusive. He asked for representatives of other faiths to be able to contribute from their own faith background and for the Lady Mayoress to read a Humanist text; he also asked for his Chaplain, myself, to give a short address. The Cathedral objected on the grounds that the service should be a wholly Christian one and added a specific condition that any address by the Lord Mayor¿s Chaplain should be submitted to the Dean in advance for approval.

The discussions were amicable throughout, and I would like to move on. However, it seems clear that we should ask whether a Civic Service in the present form is an appropriate way to celebrate the election of the Lord Mayor. Would it not be better to have a celebration of the city, a celebration in which all could take part, in venue in which we could all feel we belonged? This would be an excellent way to promote the council¿s One Leicester policy.

Allan Hayes, Chaplain to the Lord Mayor”

“Good luck to the Lord Mayor! The real story is that the Church wanted to censor what the Humanist chaplain and Muslim High Bailiff wanted to say about the contributions to Leicester life of other religions and of atheists and Humanists too. It's time the Church of England woke up to the fact that it is a minority faith in Leicester and cannot dictate to others what they can and cannot say.”

“Hang on, I don't think that we've got the whole story here. Like any Lord Mayor, Councillor Hall has the right to pick a 'Chaplain' for the year. Because he's an atheist (like quite a lot of people in Leicester, including me) he's picked Allan Hayes, who is President of Leicester Secular Society. But the Church of England wouldn't let Allan speak at the service - which they would have done had he been a Christian. That's why Councillor Hall has declined to attend.

If the Church of England wants to have a special position in the life the city, they've got to be equally open to all the people in it, not just those who've got religious beliefs.

PS - I'm pretty sure that there's a typo in the story. I don't think that Councillor Hall wrote 'I'm being unreasonable.' It's more likely that he wrote "The Church of England can't argue I'm being unreasonable. "”

“Councillor Hall's conduct on this issue is disgraceful.

To dishonour the traditions of the office is bad enough. He also exacerbates his error by not being available for comment to the local press but can tweet. Councillor is obviously a twit.

Political and religous beliefs should not enter the role of Lord Mayor. If he can't do that, he should resign immediately.”

“Is this breaking with tradition a lowering of standards in local public life?

To my mind, if this is a service which traditionally welcomes him to his new role then he should attend irrespective of what other religious ceremonies he has or has not attended, that is no defence.”

“Could the Lord Mayor please Answer a question for me.
Doesn't the Reining Monarch grant the office of lord Mayor in a Letters Patent? That monarch the Queen is head of the English Church. "The Church of England" So not attending the cathedral which signifies a city and the Queen don't you think you should stand down. By all means involve yourself in other churches including mine I am a Catholic. Also represent the culture of the city which is diverse but firstly and most importantly represent the English country that grants the office.

I am disgusted sir by your stand on this.”