Christians who don't make my skin crawl!

[Gonnagle]

Dear Whatever,

A question, why should I not pray for guidance on very serious issues?

Gonnagle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners,

Dear Whatever,

A question, why should I not pray for guidance on very serious issues?

Gonnagle.

Because you might act on it.

[ekim]

Dear Whatever,

A question, why should I not pray for guidance on very serious issues?

Gonnagle.

If you can be inwardly still enough for the answer, why not?

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

If you can be inwardly still enough for the answer, why not?

Erm, because people who listen to the voices in their heads are not known for obtaining better or more reliable answers than those who listen to people who know what they're talking about.

[ProfessorDavey]

Practically though all the roles available only take the secular into account. In other words unless there are positions based on spirituality as there are say for LGBTQ issues in local government only atheist, materialistic interests will be served.

But that is a different question - whether a priest might find the role (for example local councillor) attractive and important, rather than whether they should be permitted to hold that public office.

That said, I'm struggling to see why serving the public in the role of a councillor wouldn't be appropriate or relevant to a priest - indeed many of the skills and roles necessary are rather similar to that of a local priest - interactions with and supporting a community, which in the case of a councillor would just be somewhat wider than in the case of the role of priest.

And I can't see how the primary functions of the council - e.g. housing, social care, planning, service delivery wouldn't be seen as important and relevant to a priest.

And by the way I doubt you will find a portfolio holder function for LGBT issues most local councils - there certainly isn't on mine -

http://www.stalbans.gov.uk/Images/FINAL%20AGREED%20Portfolio%20Grid%20July%20onwards%202017-18_tcm15-54142.pdf

It is true that the council needs to take account of its legal obligations on equality and diversity, and has a section on its website for this:

http://www.stalbans.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/equalities-diversity/

In which all protected characteristics are covered, with none are given any more prominence than another:

'The Council is committed to promoting equality and diversity and meeting its duties as a community leader, service provider and local employer.

Equality Act 2010

The Equality Act 2010 replaced a large number of previous equality laws with a single Act.  This has helped to simplify the law, remove inconsistencies and make it a lot easier for organisations and individuals to understand.  It strengthens the law tacking discrimination and inequality across all of the ‘protected characteristics’ set out in the Act.
The Council must have due regard to the need to:

Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct prohibited by the Act.
Improve equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it.
Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it.

Protected Characteristics
The ‘protected characteristics’ set out in the Act are:

age
disability
gender reassignment
pregnancy and maternity
race – this includes ethnic or national origins, colour or nationality
religion or belief – this includes lack of belief
sex (men, women, boys, girls and transgender)
sexual orientation

The duty applies to marriage and civil partnership too, but only in relation to the first aim (to eliminate unlawful discrimination).'

So religion is just as important and prominent in the equality and diversity agenda as sexuality.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

How are you old son, I hope and pray that you and yours are thriving and in good health

Voices in my head!! You never listen to voices in your head, I think we all do that.

Dear ekim,

Thank you, deep meditation on serious issues is a very useful tool.

Gonnagle.

[ekim]

ekim,

Erm, because people who listen to the voices in their heads are not known for obtaining better or more reliable answers than those who listen to people who know what they're talking about.

Then they are not inwardly still until the voices subside.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Gonners,

Dear Blue,

How are you old son, I hope and pray that you and yours are thriving and in good health 

Voices in my head!! You never listen to voices in your head, I think we all do that.

Very well my friend, and I hope the same for you and yours. Always a pleasure to hear from you.

Voices in your head? Well, you know the old saying: one man hears a voice in his head and it’s madness; a hundred people hear voices in their heads and it’s a religion…

I don’t know whether being a doctor counts as public office, but I just remembered a story. Decades ago my then girlfriend (now my wife) had a scare that she might be pregnant long before we could have provided for a baby as we’d wish. She went to our GP to ask about the options and was given a lecture on the sanctity of life and some leaflets for adoption agencies by the (as it turned out) staunch RC doctor.

To my mind this was completely inappropriate. The doctor was there to give professional medical advice, not to try to browbeat someone into her ethical position. As it happened the scare was a false alarm but I’ve occasionally wondered how often she did that with others and what the consequences were.

[Walter]

But that is a different question - whether a priest might find the role (for example local councillor) attractive and important, rather than whether they should be permitted to hold that public office.

That said, I'm struggling to see why serving the public in the role of a councillor wouldn't be appropriate or relevant to a priest - indeed many of the skills and roles necessary are rather similar to that of a local priest - interactions with and supporting a community, which in the case of a councillor would just be somewhat wider than in the case of the role of priest.

And I can't see how the primary functions of the council - e.g. housing, social care, planning, service delivery wouldn't be seen as important and relevant to a priest.

And by the way I doubt you will find a portfolio holder function for LGBT issues most local councils - there certainly isn't on mine -

http://www.stalbans.gov.uk/Images/FINAL%20AGREED%20Portfolio%20Grid%20July%20onwards%202017-18_tcm15-54142.pdf

It is true that the council needs to take account of its legal obligations on equality and diversity, and has a section on its website for this:

http://www.stalbans.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/equalities-diversity/

In which all protected characteristics are covered, with none are given any more prominence than another:

'The Council is committed to promoting equality and diversity and meeting its duties as a community leader, service provider and local employer.

Equality Act 2010

The Equality Act 2010 replaced a large number of previous equality laws with a single Act.  This has helped to simplify the law, remove inconsistencies and make it a lot easier for organisations and individuals to understand.  It strengthens the law tacking discrimination and inequality across all of the ‘protected characteristics’ set out in the Act.
The Council must have due regard to the need to:

Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct prohibited by the Act.
Improve equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it.
Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it.

Protected Characteristics
The ‘protected characteristics’ set out in the Act are:

age
disability
gender reassignment
pregnancy and maternity
race – this includes ethnic or national origins, colour or nationality
religion or belief – this includes lack of belief
sex (men, women, boys, girls and transgender)
sexual orientation

The duty applies to marriage and civil partnership too, but only in relation to the first aim (to eliminate unlawful discrimination).'

So religion is just as important and prominent in the equality and diversity agenda as sexuality.

oh dear , can you not see the conflict ? Laws won't eliminate that

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

Thank you but the question was about prayer and I think ekim has answered my question.

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

oh dear , can you not see the conflict ? Laws won't eliminate that

Not really, please explain.

When in a role you need to function appropriately according to the requirements of that role. When I am functioning as a Governor I have to meet the obligations under the law of that role. If I don't feel that I can, in conscience, fulfil that role, then it isn't the role for me. What I cannot do it take the role but not take the obligations and responsibilities.

However I'm struggling to see why most priests or vicars would have the slightest problem with those local government obligations, which effectively just mean acting within the law. There will be some on the more extreme evangelical side who would struggle, but no one is forcing them to hold this public office if is doesn't feel right to them. What I am talking about is whether a priest should be permitted to hold such office - I think they should on the understanding that their appointment or election is the same as for anyone else and that they are required to uphold the obligations of that office just like anyone else.

[Walter]

Hi Gonners,

Very well my friend, and I hope the same for you and yours. Always a pleasure to hear from you.

Voices in your head? Well, you know the old saying: one man hears voices in his head and it’s madness; a hundred people hear voices in their heads and it’s a religion…
I don’t know whether being a doctor counts as public office, but I just remembered a story. Decades ago my then girlfriend (now my wife) had a scare that she might be pregnant long before we could have provided for a baby as we’d wish. She went to our GP to ask about the options and was given a lecture on the sanctity of life and some leaflets for adoption agencies by the (as it turned out) staunch RC doctor.

To my mind this was completely inappropriate. The doctor was there to give professional medical advice, not to try to browbeat someone into her ethical position. As it happened the scare was a false alarm but I’ve occasionally wondered how often she did that with others and what the consequences were.

on a hospital visit to see a very close friend (from boyhood) who had MS and was very poorly , I was disgusted by the attitude of one of the nurses who was looking after him . In a private conversation with her she told me ' God is looking after him and will do what is necessary '
My reaction was , never mind god what the hell are you doing ? She became a little upset .

 I reported this incident to her superiors and was told not to worry , she is very religious  and that was it. As far as I'm aware nothing more was done about it

This should not be allowed to happen in a modern NHS hospital . It has played on my mind ever since .

[Walter]

Not really, please explain.

When in a role you need to function appropriately according to the requirements of that role. When I am functioning as a Governor I have to meet the obligations under the law of that role. If I don't feel that I can, in conscience, fulfil that role, then it isn't the role for me. What I cannot do it take the role but not take the obligations and responsibilities.

However I'm struggling to see why most priests or vicars would have the slightest problem with those local government obligations, which effectively just mean acting within the law. There will be some on the more extreme evangelical side who would struggle, but no one is forcing them to hold this public office if is doesn't feel right to them. What I am talking about is whether a priest should be permitted to hold such office - I think they should on the understanding that their appointment or election is the same as for anyone else and that they are required to uphold the obligations of that office just like anyone else.

you seem to be projecting your undeniable integrity onto others . Not everyone would act as you do .

[Walt Zingmatilder]

ekim,

Erm, because people who listen to the voices in their heads are not known for obtaining better or more reliable answers than those who listen to people who know what they're talking about.

I feel you are building up another ''oi nutter'' argument here.
As it happens part and parcel of our humanity is what we call self talk. Which is OK when put like that but in other hands could be portrayed as ''Talking to yourself'' which is quite something else entirely.
Of course when making decisions we replay past ones, invoke the memory of peers and mentors or even read a book, get on the internet, do a wwmdd (What would Matt Dillahunty do).
 
Again in terms of world leadership when we look to those who definitely did not pray ''The French revolutionaries'',Stalin, Mr P.Pot the track record seems less Rosy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There's none so blind as those that don't want to see Vlad.

You're determined to not understand and reject secularism, no matter how even handed or fair minded the secular approach, after this set of posts even the thickest among us would have got it by now, you're not that thick so it must be some kind of misguided determination you have driving you to reject secularism, just put up your hands and admit secularism is an ideal, it would be putting everyone on a level pegging as you must know by now, secularism has been fully explained to you.

Regards ippy

Even a great, reasonable, consiliatory atheist like Julian Baggini cannot haul himself away from the atheist paradigm that dominates secularism at this time. There is even in his scheme of things the neutrality he recommends which IMHO is not good enough since he insists on an atheistic language framework for it. In other words even for Baggini atheist ignorance is what has to be pandered to. When secularism worked sensibly, what was recognised was a bit of plurality and respect that people come from things in a different way. What Dawkins introduced was notions of atheist purity, a one size fits all caricature of what he wanted us to see now as the opposition, and disrespect to those not holding his vision of atheist purity.

[ProfessorDavey]

you seem to be projecting your undeniable integrity onto others . Not everyone would act as you do .

I'm not saying all people would. But plenty will and if they don't meet their obligations within public office they can be removed.

But I don't think there is any reason to suspect that religious people (as a group) nor people holding religious offices (e.g. a priest) would be less likely to uphold the requirements for public office than non religious people. Certain individuals might (just as we often see in the christian martyr type cases brought by the christian institute) but these cases are very few and far between. We should not tar the majority on the basis of a minority.

[Walter]

I'm not saying all people would. But plenty will and if they don't meet their obligations within public office they can be removed.

But I don't think there is any reason to suspect that religious people (as a group) nor people holding religious offices (e.g. a priest) would be less likely to uphold the requirements for public office than non religious people. Certain individuals might (just as we often see in the christian martyr type cases brought by the christian institute) but these cases are very few and far between. We should not tar the majority on the basis of a minority.

danger lay in that kind of liberal thinking . You are far more accepting of people than I.

Perhaps it has something to do with the nature of our differing careers . I made a living in an atmosphere of 'trust no one '

[ippy]

Even a great, reasonable, consiliatory atheist like Julian Baggini cannot haul himself away from the atheist paradigm that dominates secularism at this time. There is even in his scheme of things the neutrality he recommends which IMHO is not good enough since he insists on an atheistic language framework for it. In other words even for Baggini atheist ignorance is what has to be pandered to. When secularism worked sensibly, what was recognised was a bit of plurality and respect that people come from things in a different way. What Dawkins introduced was notions of atheist purity, a one size fits all caricature of what he wanted us to see now as the opposition, and disrespect to those not holding his vision of atheist purity.

Yes I've got that, don't really know what you're getting on about, anyway none of that lot's got anthing to do with the post I made to you this morning?

How about telling me that finally you've got it you now understand how secularism is support for all points of view and no privileges for any one school of thought whoever they might be?

Regards ippy

[ProfessorDavey]

danger lay in that kind of liberal thinking . You are far more accepting of people than I.

But the point about public office/roles is that they are usually massively constrained by rules etc as to what an individual can and cannot do. So if someone looks to be going beyond that which is consistent with their role then that will readily be seen. And there are always others there for checks and balances.

Perhaps it has something to do with the nature of our differing careers . I made a living in an atmosphere of 'trust no one '

No idea - my career is quite closely linked to public sector roles and public offices, so perhaps my experience is more relevant. My experiences is that the kind of people to put themselves forward for such public office tend to have integrity - I may disagree on politics etc, but I rarely have concerns regarding their integrity and their commitment to the obligations of the role.

[Walter]

My experiences is that the kind of people to put themselves forward for such public office tend to have integrity - I may disagree on politics etc, but I rarely have concerns regarding their integrity and their commitment to the obligations of the role.

fair enough . Although I have a trust problem , in general , of anyone who would put themselves forward for that kind of role in the first place

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes I've got that, don't really know what you're getting on about, anyway none of that lot's got anthing to do with the post I made to you this morning?

How about telling me that finally you've got it you now understand how secularism is support for all points of view and no privileges for any one school of thought whoever they might be?

Regards ippy

If you really got that you might have some inkling on why I am not happy with contemporary secularism. Because the language of secularism is atheist. It also rejects previous definitions and understanding of what secularism actually meant and that this rejection is being done by the atheists who have hijacked the agenda.

To give Baggini his due he does hark back to a time when nobody saw a real problem with the HOL either because there was an extravagant/underwhelming 3.3% of Lords spiritual or say the labour party ''not doing religion'' as that was taken as read.

To me that there are Lords spiritual at parliament could remind us that we are more than just a number, an elector, an acquisitive materialist demographic. That is why we should be getting more world viewers of a different stripe into the lords spiritual rather than abolish it.

[Enki]

If you can be inwardly still enough for the answer, why not?

Isn't this just a different way of saying that you need to take time to pause and reflect on the issue at hand so that you give yourself an even chance of making a sound and equitable judgement as far as you are able?

Or, does it mean that you are asking for guidance from some sort of outside agency which you have already decided may make its presence felt when you pray when you are 'inwardly still', and that you will be prepared to act on the answer that comes to you without necessarily taking into account any other reasoning?  If so, this seems to me to be a decidedly hit or miss approach.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Isn't this just a different way of saying that you need to take time to pause and reflect on the issue at hand so that you give yourself an even chance of making a sound and equitable judgement as far as you are able?

Or, does it mean that you are asking for guidance from some sort of outside agency which you have already decided may make its presence felt when you pray when you are 'inwardly still', and that you will be prepared to act on the answer that comes to you without necessarily taking into account any other reasoning?  If so, this seems to me to be a decidedly hit or miss approach.

It certainly brings upthe question of the experience of prayer.
When Hillside for example talks about hearing voices. Is that his own experience or is he making one of his own caricatures of the process of prayer?

[Walter]

If you really got that you might have some inkling on why I am not happy with contemporary secularism. Because the language of secularism is atheist. It also rejects previous definitions and understanding of what secularism actually meant and that this rejection is being done by the atheists who have hijacked the agenda.

To give Baggini his due he does hark back to a time when nobody saw a real problem with the HOL either because there was an extravagant/underwhelming 3.3% of Lords spiritual or say the labour party ''not doing religion'' as that was taken as read.

To me that there are Lords spiritual at parliament could remind us that we are more than just a number, an elector, an acquisitive materialist demographic. That is why we should be getting more world viewers of a different stripe into the lords spiritual rather than abolish it.

your mixed-up and confused thinking is very evident in that post . Why don't you step back for a while and try to understand some very basic principles . Atheists (I don't like that term) are human too you know .

[Gonnagle]

Dear enki,

Outside agency???

Gonnagle.