Free Press on opening legislature with prayer

[brian]

So, there has been a recent article in the Free Press on opening the Ontario legislature with the Lord's Prayer.  Of course, it is pretty ridiculous that a legislature is open with a prayer.  A couple other comments:

1. John Tory is the last person you want to talk about religious matters after the election and the faith based school controversy.
2. I think it is worth noting that the NDP is warning that opening the issue could lead to secular pressures.  With this, and back when they sent Svend Robinson to the backbench for a petition to remove the reference to god from the Charter, it seems as though even the NDP is not supportive of secular values.

The original article:

Ontario has Lord's Prayer doubts
Premier wants inclusive recital for legislature
Thu Feb 14 2008

By Jordana Huber

TORONTO -- The Lord's Prayer, recited by the Speaker at the beginning of each Ontario legislative session, doesn't reflect Ontario's diversity, Premier Dalton McGuinty said Wednesday as he called for a new approach to begin daily proceedings.

McGuinty said it was time to "move beyond" the Lord's Prayer to a more inclusive custom that better reflects Ontario's multiculturalism.

In a letter to opposition leaders, the premier called for an all-party legislative committee that would seek input from citizens and religious groups before making recommendations to the legislature.

According to the 2006 census, one-third of Ontario's population was born outside Canada. In the Toronto region, more than half the population was born in another country.

McGuinty said the province has not changed its daily recitation since 1969, while other jurisdictions have moved to adjust their customs to better reflect changing times.

The premier denied the changes were proposed to smooth tensions left over from election rhetoric that saw faith-based school funding hotly debated.

"We're much more than just Protestants and Catholics today," McGuinty said. "We have all the world's faiths represented here. If they're represented outside the legislature, I think we ought to find a way to ensure that their diversity is reflected inside the legislature as well."

Earlier this week, the Liberals proposed to start daily proceedings in the upcoming session at 9:30 a.m. instead of the current 1:30 p.m., while eliminating evening sittings to make the legislature more family friendly.

Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory said his party was open to looking at new morning customs but McGuinty's letter implied the Lord's Prayer would be replaced.

"That is completely unacceptable to us," Tory said. "Part of respecting the tradition of the legislature is keeping the Lord's Prayer. That doesn't mean we wouldn't be open to other prayers being added."

New Democratic House Leader Peter Kormos said the NDP would also take part in the discussions, but warned the premier might see a movement to remove any reference to religion.

"The premier is trying to show how pluralistic he's prepared to be when it comes to faith communities," Kormos said. "But I think he'd better be careful because there are going to be folks from the humanist perspective who are going to argue, 'Well, if you open that box, then let's not have any prayer at all.' "

A federal all-party committee agreed on the wording for a new non-sectarian prayer for the House of Commons in 1994. It was first used in 2004. The Senate formalized rules around prayer in 1991.

Manitoba's politicians have for years stood silent for a short prayer read by the Speaker before question period. It's not as quintessentially Christian as Ontario's Lord's Prayer, but it does end with an "amen" and contains several antiquated phrases, beginning: "O Eternal and Almighty God, from Whom all power and wisdom come..."

-- Canwest News Service

http://winnipegfreepress.com/canada/story/4125843p-4719446c.html


There has also been a pretty bad letter to the editor in today's paper.  I think the letter speaks for itself:

Who's against prayer?


Re: Ontario has Lord's Prayer doubts, Feb. 14.

I recall a rabbi addressing us once and indicating that the Lord's Prayer did not conflict with Jewish tenets. Further, I can find nothing in the Qur'an that is different. Siddhattha Gotama's stuff is rather congruent as are the Vedic writings. That leaves only the humanist-atheists in the major player category. Perhaps it might be instructive to set forth an opposite version to see if this is what they would stand for:

"Our Master, who lives in Sheol, despicable be your name.

Let your rule not come nor your desires be done, on Earth as they are in Gehenna.

Starve us each day, and condemn us for our goodness as we condemn those who are nice to us.

Make us eager to do whatever our pride wants, and bring us to all evil imaginable.

For yours is the cesspool, the rot and the stench.

Forever and ever, amen.

DAVID HAGBORG

Carman

http://winnipegfreepress.com/editorial/story/4127142p-4720656c.html

So, anyone up for sending out a letter?  I'll try to get a draft tonight, look for input and if there's no objections we can do what we did for the Sun letter

[brian]

Draft of letter:

Dalton McGuinty is correct to wish to “move beyond” the opening of the Ontario legislature with a recitation of the Lord’s Prayer.  The act of official prayer in a provincial legislature is exclusionary to non-Christians and contrary to important Canadian values such as multiculturalism and secularism. 

We find it slightly disturbing that our legislators in Manitoba believe that “all power and wisdom” comes from an “Eternal and Almighty God”.  The vast majority of our knowledge and wisdom comes from observation, scientific inquiry and rational thought.  Also, as Manitoba is not a theocracy, our representatives should understand that their power is supposed to come from the will of their constituents, not an imaginary god.  The influence of religion on politics often leads to discriminatory policies in areas of our lives which the government has no reason to be involved in, as we have seen during the same-sex marriage debate.

   Letter writer David Hagborg (Feb. 16) clearly does not have any understanding of the beliefs of “humanist-atheists”.  First, we do not believe in any master, whether she lives in Heaven or Sheol.  More importantly, we do not believe in condemning good deeds or encouraging evil.  Humanists believe that we should strive to do good not because of the teachings of an imaginary god or a two thousand year old work of fiction, but because we are all in this world together and should strive to make life better for all of us.  That is a far better reason to be good than fear of punishment in the afterlife.

Sincerely,
The members of the Manitoban Atheists, Skeptics and Humanists at the University of Manitoba
www.ummash.org

I think there are a few parts that could use better and clearer wording.  On the plus side, the Free Press seems to take letters that are a bit longer than the Sun so as long as we don't add too much to it we can probably get it published without any editing.  I think we should send it out by, say, Monday or Tuesday.  Of course, if anyone has objections to sending a letter on this matter I'll just send it in myself not as a representative of MASH.

[trevor]

I think the letter is really good, and I think we should definitely send it in "officially."

My suggestions:
 - In the first paragraph, it would be good to make clear that Canada -does- support the separation of church and state like the US, so to recite the lord's prayer in legislature goes against the bill of rights and the supreme court's decisions.

 - In the second paragraph, omit the word "Also" in the third sentence. I would also change "imaginary god" to "supernatural being;" whether or not god's imaginary isn't the point of the paragraph.

 - In the third paragraph, I think we really need to address this quote:

"I recall a rabbi addressing us once and indicating that the Lord's Prayer did not conflict with Jewish tenets. Further, I can find nothing in the Qur'an that is different. Siddhattha Gotama's stuff is rather congruent as are the Vedic writings."

Like fuck Jews and Muslims and Buddhists and Hinduists (I'm not sure the proper term for those that follow Hindu) are fine with the lord's prayer being recited. From my extensive research (i.e. Wikipedia), it seems that there are similarities between the lord's prayer and some Jewish prayers, but to claim that it is "congruent" with Buddhism and Hinduism is laughable. Buddhism does not necessarily believe in any kind of supernatural being. The lord's prayer implies that there is only one all-providing god, and that is in no way "congruent" with Hinduism.

Anyway, this might be a paragraph on its own or something, but I feel it needs to be addressed. Non-christians will be pissed, and for good reason.

But yeah, overall, a really nice letter.

[brian]

Like fuck Jews and Muslims and Buddhists and Hinduists (I'm not sure the proper term for those that follow Hindu) are fine with the lord's prayer being recited. From my extensive research (i.e. Wikipedia), it seems that there are similarities between the lord's prayer and some Jewish prayers, but to claim that it is "congruent" with Buddhism and Hinduism is laughable. Buddhism does not necessarily believe in any kind of supernatural being. The lord's prayer implies that there is only one all-providing god, and that is in no way "congruent" with Hinduism.

Anyway, this might be a paragraph on its own or something, but I feel it needs to be addressed. Non-christians will be pissed, and for good reason.

I'm pretty sure the proper term is Hindus



I also removed "slightly" in the second paragraph as I am not sure as to exactly how disturbed we are 

If we are removing "imaginary god", should we also change "work of fiction" to "book" in the third paragraph?

Dalton McGuinty is correct to wish to “move beyond” the opening of the Ontario legislature with a recitation of the Lord’s Prayer.  The act of official prayer in a provincial legislature is exclusionary to non-Christians and contrary to important Canadian values such as multiculturalism and secularism.  In cases such as Zylberberg v. Sudbury Board of Education (Director) and Russow v. British Columbia (Attorney General), our courts have interpreted that s. 2(a) of the Charter implies a seperation of church and state.

We find it disturbing that our legislators in Manitoba believe that “all power and wisdom” comes from an “Eternal and Almighty God”.  The vast majority of our knowledge and wisdom comes from observation, scientific inquiry and rational thought.  As Manitoba is a democracy and not a theocracy, our representatives should understand that their power is supposed to come from the will of their constituents, not a supernatural being.  The influence of religion on politics often leads to discriminatory policies in areas of our lives which the government has no reason to be involved in, as we have seen during the same-sex marriage debate.

Letter writer David Hagborg (Feb. 16) clearly does not have any understanding of the beliefs of “humanist-atheists” or any other non-Christians.  Although there are some similarities between the Lord's Prayer and some Jewish prayers, to claim that it is "congruent" with Buddhism and Hinduism is laughable.  Buddhists do not necessarily believe in any kind of supernatural being.  The Lord's Prayer implies that there is only one all-providing god, and that is in no way "congruent" with Hinduism.  Atheists do not believe in any supernatural master, whether she lives in Heaven or Sheol.  More importantly, we do not believe in condemning good deeds or encouraging evil.  Humanists believe that we should strive to do good not because of the teachings of a supernatural being or a two thousand year old work of fiction, but because we are all in this world together and should strive to make life better for all of us.  That is a far better reason to be good than fear of punishment in the afterlife.

Sincerely,
The members of the Manitoban Atheists, Skeptics and Humanists at the University of Manitoba
www.ummash.org

This is a bit long (376 words, including signature, so no room for references to Matthew 6:6 ), but I've seen longer get published.  Worst case scenario they edit out all the good parts like the Sun did to our other letter... but maybe I should do something constructive on reading week and use it as the basis for an article in the Manitoban... I figure I should at least get one article published before I graduate 

[brian]

Shit... I just looked at the Sun (or the fascist papers as I call them) online...

If this is going on at the Free Press, you can just imagine what is going on at the Sun.  And you'd probably be right.

Here's the comments from Winnipeg's favourite fascist columnist:  http://winnipegsun.com/News/Columnists/Brodbeck_Tom/2008/02/15/4848023.html

And from the peanut gallery:
http://winnipegsun.com/Comment/Letters/2008/02/15/4851021.html

Note that Chris Buors is also a marijuana activist, which answers the question of "what was he smoking when he wrote that?"


Should we maybe also send them a copy, only without the last paragraph?


Also, could someone double check that I'm interpreting those court cases right?

[trevor]

If we're going to send one, the Free Press one is much more important. But no harm in sending it to the Sun as well.

In the second paragraph, is there a better example to use of religion's influence on the law other than same sex marriage? Since that is legal in Canada. As is abortion. Hmm... I can't think of anything really, same sex marriage might be our best bet regardless.

And yeah, I would say change "work of fiction" to "book" just to be somewhat diplomatic.

I can't comment on the court cases much other than googling them; perhaps Jason can give us a hand.

[X]

Send it to both, and omit the direct reference to Hagborg in the one you submit to the Sun.
I was actually about to post regarding the same thing.  And as far as same-sex marriage is concerned, Alberta still hasn't made a ruling, and Anglicans in B.C. are warring over it.

I don't suppose there is room to add a section about how seperating church and state is the only way to protect the religion they so value?
Perhaps:

Having the government officially support any one religion over another is a form of discrimination.  The only way to have religious equality, and therefore freedom, is to not have any one religion supported over any other religion at an the government level.

p.s. I laughed at Hagborg's prayer.  But only because of the sheer bigoted ignorant of it.


edit:  regarding Canada's Seperation Laws
(I apologize that it is a Google Cache, but the site's been down for a few months now.  It might be a good idea to paraphrase/copy this somewhere on our site.)

edit 2:  You know what would be cool?  If we could get a weekly column in the Sun's Life Section (Sundays) and have them get rid of Pat Robertson's diatribes.  Stupid offensive oaf.
It would be a lot of work, but anythings better than having people read Robertson.

[trevor]

I write biweekly for the Manitoban, and even that is a shit-ton of work sometimes - for no monetary compensation. I agree that it would be quite awesome, but only if we get paid for it

I like that though, the notion that the separation between church and state is the only way to protect religion. Here's my revision:

Dalton McGuinty is correct to wish to “move beyond” the opening of the Ontario legislature with a recitation of the Lord’s Prayer.  The act of official prayer in a provincial legislature is exclusionary to non-Christians and contrary to important Canadian values such as multiculturalism and secularism.

The support of one religion over another is a form of discrimination. The only way to have religious equality and freedom is to abstain from supporting any one religion over another at the government level. Our courts have interpreted s. 2(a) of the Charter to imply a separation of church and state (e.g. cases such as Zylberberg v. Sudbury Board of Education (Director) and Russow v. British Columbia (Attorney General)); that separation is the only way to protect whatever religion our citizens choose to practice.

We find it disturbing that our legislators in Manitoba believe that “all power and wisdom” comes from an “Eternal and Almighty God”.  The vast majority of our knowledge and wisdom comes from observation, scientific inquiry and rational thought.  As Manitoba is a democracy and not a theocracy, our representatives should understand that their power is supposed to come from the will of their constituents, not a supernatural being.  The influence of religion on politics often leads to discriminatory policies in areas of our lives which the government has no reason to be involved in, as we have seen during the same-sex marriage debate.

Letter writer David Hagborg (Feb. 16) clearly does not have any understanding of the beliefs of “humanist-atheists” or any other non-Christians.

Although there are some similarities between the Lord's Prayer and some Jewish prayers, to claim that it is "congruent" with Buddhism and Hinduism is laughable. The Lord's Prayer implies that there is only one all-providing god. Buddhism is a complicated set of philosophies influenced by the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, many of which do not advocate belief in any kind of supernatural being. Hinduism is similarly hard to generalize; Hindu beliefs span monotheism, polytheism, panentheism, pantheism, monism and atheism. Neither of these religions accept the implications of the Lord's Prayer.

Atheists do not believe in any supernatural master, whether she lives in Heaven or Sheol.  More importantly, we do not believe in condemning good deeds or encouraging evil.  Humanists believe that we should strive to do good not because of the teachings of a supernatural being or a two thousand year old book, but because we are all in this world together and should strive to make life better for all of us.  That is a far better reason to be good than fear of punishment in the afterlife.

Sincerely,
The members of the Manitoban Atheists, Skeptics and Humanists at the University of Manitoba
http://ummash.org

I've noticed that journalistic articles tend to use lots of short paragraphs, so I broke our up into more paragraphs as well. *shrug*

The letter's now at 450-ish words; perhaps it's too long. I'm not sure what to cut though; I think the letter's great, and the paper would be foolish not to publish it in its entirety.

[X]

It depends on the paper's agenda, too.

I think the latest revision sounds good.
It's long, but short sentences without wasted words count for something.  And they have printed long letters in the past.

[trevor]

Agreed, any paper who wants to show both sides of the argument would be remiss not to print this, as they get plenty of letters for the other side.

[X]

One more point that catches my eye:
Hinduism has 3 gods.  Shiva, Krishna, and Brahma.  All the additional gods that locals worship (including Jesus, in their eyes), are avatars of one of the three gods.  In short, Hindus are polytheistic and more than willing to accept another avatar.

[trevor]

The passage I wrote about Hinduism comes from Wikipedia and a class I took in Japan. You may be correct that some denominations worship those three and see other gods as avatars, but that can't be said for all of them.

The relevant sections in the Wikipedia article:

Vaishnavas worship Vishnu as the supreme God; Shaivites worship Shiva as the supreme; Shaktas worship Shakti (power) personified through a female divinity or Mother Goddess, Devi; while Smartists believe in the essential oneness of five deities Shanmata as personifications of the Supreme.

Other denominations like Ganapatya (the cult of Ganesha) and Saura (Sun worship) are not so widespread.

Hinduism is a diverse system of thought with beliefs spanning monotheism, polytheism, panentheism, pantheism, monism and atheism. It is sometimes referred to as henotheistic (devotion to a single God while accepting the existence of other gods), but any such term is an oversimplification of the complexities and variations of belief.

Most Hindus believe that the spirit or soul—the true "self" of every person, called the ātman—is eternal. The goal of life according to the Advaita school is to realize that one's ātman is identical to Brahman, the supreme soul. Other dualistic schools (see Dvaita and Bhakti) understand Brahman as a Supreme Being who possesses personality and worship Him or Her thus, as Vishnu, Brahma, Shiva or Shakti depending on the sect. When God is viewed as the supreme personal being (rather than as the infinite principle) God is called Ishvara ("The Lord"), Bhagavan ("The Auspicious One"), or Parameshwara ("The Supreme Lord"). However, interpretations of Ishvara vary—ranging from non-belief such as followers of Mimamsakas, in Ishvara to identifying Brahman and Ishvara as one as in Advaita. There are also schools like the Samkhya which have atheistic leanings.

And yes, these passages have cited sources. If we're going to generalize a religion into a few sentences, we should be all-encompassing.

But you're right, perhaps we should change this sentence: "Neither of these religions accept the implications of the Lord's Prayer" to

The fundamental tenets of these religions are not reflected in the Lord's Prayer.

Is that better? Seems better... hard to say. We should send this off soon, though.

[brian]

Dalton McGuinty is correct to wish to “move beyond” the opening of the Ontario legislature with a recitation of the Lord’s Prayer.  The act of official prayer in a provincial legislature is exclusionary to non-Christians and contrary to important Canadian values such as multiculturalism and secularism.

The support of one religion over another is a form of discrimination. The only way to have religious equality and freedom is to abstain from supporting any one religion over another at the government level. Our courts have interpreted s. 2(a) of the Charter to imply freedom from religion and a separation of church and state (e.g. cases such as Zylberberg v. Sudbury Board of Education (Director) and Russow v. British Columbia (Attorney General)); that separation is the only way to protect whatever religion our citizens choose to practice.

We find it disturbing that our legislators in Manitoba believe that “all power and wisdom” comes from an “Eternal and Almighty God”.  The vast majority of our knowledge and wisdom comes from observation, scientific inquiry and rational thought.  As Manitoba is a democracy and not a theocracy, our representatives should understand that their power is supposed to come from the will of their constituents, not a supernatural being.  The influence of religion on politics often leads to discriminatory policies in areas of our lives which the government has no reason to be involved in, as we have seen during the same-sex marriage debate.

Letter writer David Hagborg (Feb. 16) clearly does not have any understanding of the beliefs of “humanist-atheists” or any other non-Christians.

Although there are some similarities between the Lord's Prayer and some Jewish prayers, to claim that it is "congruent" with Buddhism and Hinduism is laughable. The Lord's Prayer implies that there is only one all-providing god. Buddhism is a complicated set of philosophies influenced by the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, many of which do not advocate belief in any kind of supernatural being. Hinduism is similarly hard to generalize; Hindu beliefs span monotheism, polytheism, panentheism, pantheism, monism and atheism. The fundamental tenets of these religions are not reflected in the Lord's Prayer.

Atheists do not believe in any supernatural master, whether she lives in Heaven or Sheol.  More importantly, we do not believe in condemning good deeds or encouraging evil.  Humanists believe that we should strive to do good not because of the teachings of a supernatural being or a two thousand year old book, but because we are all in this world together and should strive to make life better for all of us.  That is a far better reason to be good than fear of punishment in the afterlife.

Sincerely,
The members of the Manitoban Atheists, Skeptics and Humanists at the University of Manitoba
http://ummash.org

I think this is good... I added freedom from religion in the 2nd paragraph, because it is closer to the original wording of Zylberberg.  How about, if there are no objections I send it in around midnight tonight or approximately when I go to bed?

[trevor]

Agreed, tonight sounds good.

Oh yeah, I sort of didn't think about this around the time of the last letter to the editor, but we really need to keep records of these things to show at open houses and on the website and whatnot. Does anyone have a copy of the Sun that our last letter was printed in? It would be great to scan that in and put it up. Otherwise, the digital copy will have to do.

[Steven]

I have a copy of the Sun article...I will try to scan it in or something.