My speech in response to the Motion:

Why we should not allow prayer in Adur Council

Councillor Privacy

Religious belief, or the lack of it, is very personal and I believe it should not normally be discussed in this context. One of the problems with public worship as proposed in this Motion is that it may require by implication that a Councillor expose their religious beliefs. A member of the public might arrive during the period set aside for prayers and see their Councillor praying and decide that their Councillor’s religious beliefs worry them or, similarly, find their Councillor not in attendance and decide that they cannot vote for an non-believer.

The reason I mention that now is that this debate could do a similar thing. By standing up now I could be exposing myself either as an immoral man, a godless infidel or a heretical heathen or as a devout follower.

Why should that matter? Surely the voting public have the right to know about their Councillors’ beliefs?

No.

Religion and Politics

Religion and politics do not go together and it is when they do that we are fearful. It is the Islamic AK Party in Turkey who yesterday won the general election which some fear could mean the end of secularism in Turkey. And it is religion in US politics which makes the Republican Party so different from the Conservative Party. I’d like to read a passage written by Fred Halliday on the Open Democracy website on 12 January this year:

From the evangelicals of the United States, to the followers of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, to the Islamists of the middle east, the claim about the benefits of religion is one of the great, and all too little challenged, impostures of our time. For centuries, those aspiring to freedom and democracy, be it in Europe or the middle east, fought to push back the influence of religion on public life. Secularism cannot guarantee freedom, but, against the claims of tradition and superstition, and the uses to which religion is put in modern political life, from California to Kuwait, it is an essential bulwark.

I do know that this country has prayers read in the House of Commons before each sitting of the House and that twenty-six unelected, non-democratically appointed Bishops sit in the House of Lords. Nobody ought to think that is unreservedly a good thing. I accept that this is a Christian country, I do not believe it should manifest itself in politics.

Libertarian

English culture is a subject of much debate recently. With the trend for multiculturalism apparently under attack from the former Home Secretary John Reid, the question about what it means to be English has re-started of late. My input to that debate would be to talk of the most obvious of virtues: the ability to tolerate — without trying to — other people’s beliefs. Some people may say that this Motion is something we should welcome as an effort to reassert the English (or in some cases British) cultural values. But if you agree with what I just said then reasserting English culture would not involve reintroducing prayer, in any religion or denomination, into public offices.

In 1906 Evelyn Hall said “I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it” although this is often attributed to Voltaire. That should mean it could be argued, that I could sit out of these prayers and feel warm inside that the libertarian cause was living on. But this is the exact opposite of the case. Using the Council Chamber, or the Council building, for non-Council activities is an abuse of power. I dare say any number of alternative pre-meeting activities would not be considered and this is as personal as any of those.

I like to think of myself as an open minded person. We’ve all read articles in the tabloid press written by a homophobe that start “I have gay friends but…” But I’m going to use that excuse anyway: I have Christian and Hindu friends and Muslim relatives but I don’t believe religion has any relevance to the Council’s proceedings.

Summary

In summary the reasons for refusing this Motion are:
• That it is a violation of each Councillor’s privacy;
• that it is an irrelevant and dangerous melding of Church and State;
• that it does not merit support under libertarian values; and
• that it is a misuse of tax payer’s facilities.