Prayer sets a tone for debate
The subject of prayer has been at the centre of public debate in recent times.
Mr Mike Simpson joins in by declaring that prayer has no place prior to a meeting, debate or other such forums. He even proposes that the Leicester city councillors who did, and still do, engage in this very human act of sharing are not fit for office and should step down. I'll leave the reader to consider the ridiculous implications of his radical, secular view.
It is correct to say that the absence of prayer prior to a meeting may not change the order of who sits where, the agenda items or outcomes. What a short prayer does do, however, is set the tone at the very start by everyone silently declaring that no matter how heated the debate or polarising the views, all will treat others with respect. Mr Simpson may say this is unnecessary as it is taken for granted due respect will be given, not in my extensive experience of meetings Mr Simpson. When people are left to set their own level of respect standards, too many seem to fall well short of a reasonable standard.
A prayer at the start of a gathering for whatever reason, if conducted properly, can provide a benchmark of respect that has a tangible effect. As an example, consider the House of Commons. In debates, MPs consistently refer to each other as "Honorable friend''. This was introduced many, many years ago to remind MPs that during debate, a level of decorum and respect is expected. For the rest of us, a short prayer often suffices.
Whilst I have no doubt most secularists strive to be decent people, I suspect the active secularists would rejoice if prayers were generally dispensed with outside of religious services.
I say the world would be a much poorer place for it. I would implore all who follow a faith to firmly resist this attempt by secularists to deprive our children of the personal and collective benefits of sharing daily communal prayer as they grow. We need to reverse this secular fashion of individualism, disrespect and irresponsibility. Abandoning daily communal prayer is precisely what we do not need to do.
Stephen A Warden, Leicester.
6 Comments
by Steve, Notts
Thursday, July 29 2010, 3:41AM
“I am an athiest. I do not believe. I feel most uncomfortable at weddings and funerals when I don't know the words to songs, or feel i can bow my head to praying to the impossibly present. To expect me to do this at work is unacceptable. I will pray to neither god, buddha or Allah as I know that none exists. This sort of nonesense has no place in business. Even in court one can affirm, rather than swear on a big book of lies and fiction.”
by Kulgan, Crydee
Wednesday, July 28 2010, 2:59PM
“Ross,
I didn't say I believed it so you can tell me to pray all you like. Also, if the Lord Mayor has the right to stop the prayers before meetings then I fully support his right to do so. What I do not support is the way it was done which showed that this Lord Mayor holds no respect for others.”
by Ross, leicester
Wednesday, July 28 2010, 2:26PM
“"They will probably realise that when those 'secularist' stop disrespecting other people's faith/believe for example calling prayers before a meeting "outdated, unnecessary and intrusive practice". I wonder who took much delight in saying that?"
Prayers for everyone are outdated, unneccessary and intrusive, especially for those who don't believe in any gods. People are free to pray before a meeting if they want to, but to force everyone to take part is showing disrespect for those who don't.”
by John, Loughborough
Wednesday, July 28 2010, 2:11PM
“What Mike Simpson said was "They should not need divine intervention. Any councillor who does not firmly believe that they can make the right decisions in council meetings without the help of the Almighty should step down".
This is not saying as Stephen Warden puts it "He even proposes that the Leicester city councillors who did, and still do, engage in this very human act of sharing are not fit for office and should step down".
Does Stephen Warden believe that "god" intervenes personally when councillors are making decisions? If so which one? We have councillors of many faiths and denominations. They don't all accept the same god, so a prayer to the wrong one will be irrelevant surely?
SAW: "What a short prayer does do, however, is set the tone at the very start by everyone silently declaring that no matter how heated the debate or polarising the views, all will treat others with respect".
I fail to see why a prayer is necessary for this. A short pause before the meeting would have the same effect together with a reminder of the Council's code of conduct would, I suggest, be more effective.
SAW: "Whilst I have no doubt most secularists strive to be decent people, I suspect the active secularists would rejoice if prayers were generally dispensed with outside of religious services".
As a secularist I believe all should be free to pray if they so wish. I am quite happy for Stephen to wander around saying prayers all the time so long as he does not create noise pollution for others. What I do object to is his expecting others, not of his faith or with no beliefs, to join in prayers that are linked to government activities. Secularism is all about keeping religion and the state separate for the good of all.
SAW: "We need to reverse this secular fashion of individualism, disrespect and irresponsibility".
My interpretation of secularism is that it means respect for the individual, accepting responsibility for your own actions (without blaming bad behaviour on temptation by the devil) but having the freedom to question and mock daft ideas that are not worthy of respect. This of course may include our own ideas. For a free society and freedom of speech we must be prepared to tolerate being offended.
To quote from Leicester Secular Society's website www.lsec.org.uk:
"As Freethinkers we can't be dogmatic in our definition of Secularism. Something along these lines has been proposed:
* believes in practical humanity (the need for us to help each other);
* advocates free speech and the need to keep religion and the state apart;
* enjoys rational argument based on reality and the company of likeminded people;
* supports an open society based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights".”
by Kulgan, Crydee
Wednesday, July 28 2010, 1:56PM
“DB,
They will probably realise that when those 'secularist' stop disrespecting other people's faith/believe for example calling prayers before a meeting "outdated, unnecessary and intrusive practice". I wonder who took much delight in saying that?
That does not show respect for other people's beliefs.”
by D.B., Leicester
Wednesday, July 28 2010, 12:18PM
“When will people of faith learn that Secular does not mean disrespect or irresponsable. It just means people have different ideas. Something that people with "faith2 can never comprehend It's not a fashion either”