Lord’s Prayer at Queen’s Park
Centre for Inquiry Ontario Position Paper
The Premiere should be commended for calling on a re-evaluation of reciting the
Lord’s Prayer at legislative meetings and inviting comments from everyone spanning
atheists to Buddhists. It is unfortunate that Peter Kormos, House Leader for the Ontario
NDP Caucus, fails to understand the need for such a wide range of diverse opinions,
making the insulting remark that by opening this can of worms those from the humanist
persuasion will be calling for an end to all prayers.
The Premiere acknowledged the changing demographics of Ontario and Mr.
Kormos seems to have little problem accepting opinions from the growing Jewish,
Muslim and Hindu communities. Despite the fact that the non-religious are one of the
fastest growing groups, and that atheists and agnostics make up 18% of the population
somehow such numbers count for nothing.
In today’s society atheists and secular humanists are the last demographic group
to whom it is still acceptable to call into question their morality, to keep them out of
debates in the media and to ignore and sideline their political opinions. Consider the lack
of such secular humanist spokespeople among the plethora of religious columnists in all
major Canadian press.
But if prayers are being evaluated to further multiculturalism, diversity and
inclusion, should not the views of 18% be included? The business of running our
province is based on MPPs representing the views and wishes of constituents in their
ridings, including their deep variety of beliefs or lack of belief.
But let’s not play the numbers game. The argument from majority is irrelevant
and that’s good since we would not want our laws and values breezing rudderless with
the winds of demographic change. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects
minorities from the tyranny of the majority. If a majority of the province being Christian
justifies the Lord’s Prayer, why not allow bosses to call employees to prayers at the start
of the workday, bus drivers to welcome travellers on board with a prayer or salespeople
to end every sale with a short thanks to the Almighty. Religious traditions have their
time and place, and if they are inappropriate at work, at school, in public transit and
public malls, then they surely are in the Legislature, the seat of representative public
power where one and all are welcome equally and without prejudice.
According to the Charter, and according to the UN Human Rights charter, no one
should be forced to a religious belief they do not hold. Yet, by demanding that
parliamentarians participate in prayer or make their contrarian views public by leaving,
they are being forced to make an impossible choice. Stay and be self-aware of their
hypocrisy. Leave and risk the prejudice of the parliament.
There is a larger issue here concerning the real meaning of multiculturalism and
diversity. Many, like Mr.Kormos, draw a line in the sand – on one side are those who
believe, and on the other those who disbelieve. This is deeply simplistic. Note the range
of beliefs between a Christian monotheist, a Hindu polytheist, a Native American
animist, a Wiccan pantheist, and an agnostic Buddhist. It sets up a false dichotomy to
draw an arbitrary line between all these groups and atheists.
The assumption that only those who believe in some higher power ought to be
included in so-called multicultural discussions is offensive. Rather than finding unity
through diversity, this illusion of tolerance is founded on the need to find something we
all have in common. This does not represent true tolerance and any prayer that continues
invoking any kind of deity will fail to achieve the noble goal of full inclusion.
Rabbi Dow Marmur, in an editorial some time ago, stated removing the Lords
Prayer is “secular indifference masquerading as religious tolerance”. Those who value
secularism should be offended that deeply held and passionately defended views on
church state separation are seen as indifference rather than the result of a careful reading
of the history of religious persecution and the importance of neutrality in a pluralistic
democracy. History has shown that in order to preserve religious freedom our state must
be secular and like our Supreme Court, recognize the importance of freedom from
religion.
What is the solution to this debacle? It certainly is not keeping the Lord’s Prayer
but adding a slew of new religious prayers. This is unworkable and not keeping with the
meaning of multiculturalism to most Ontarians, as indicated by the public’s resounding
defeat of the Conservative proposal to fund additional faith-based schools. Instead, polls
consistently showed 70% of the public wanting one secular public school system,
excluding even public Roman Catholic schools. The same holds true here. We should
remove all religious prayers or statements of faith.
If one wishes to mark the significance of the occasion, how about a secular
pledge? A pledge could be interpreted as either a religious oath before god or a secular
affirmation, depending on the person, like the procedure at the ballot box. Since the rest
of the legislature has no idea how it is being interpreted, there is no chance of being
marginalized for a belief or lack thereof. The brilliance of a well worded pledge is that it
could be recited together by all parliamentarians, indicating a binding of humans to each
other, and it could be worded as a pledge to the electorate, those who truly vest our MPPs
with their power and responsibility.