ROTHENBURGER — Court’s ban on Lord’s Prayer not a big deal

COLUMN — I read this week about Saguenay, Quebec where the council has been told to stop reciting the Lord’s Prayer at its meetings. The Supreme Court has ruled it violates religious liberties.

It isn’t a concern to me that the Saguenay council can’t read the Lord’s Prayer any more — I haven’t been a fan of the prayer since my school days when I was forced to say it or stand out in the hallway, even though it was against my beliefs.

Reciting the Lord’s Prayer is out of fashion in schools. It’s been banned in Ontario for 25 years, and in BC. (where “no religious dogma or creed shall be taught”) and Manitoba for about as long, ever since the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was adopted, but it still creates controversy every once in awhile. It’s a favourite subject of lawsuits by atheists. In the case of Saguenay, a man named Alain Simoneau was awarded more than $30,000 in damages.

“Sponsorship of one religious tradition by the state in breach of its duty of neutrality amounts to discrimination against all other such traditions,” the court’s decision said.

Saguenay Mayor Jean Tremblay, who fought hard to keep the prayer, expressed surprise and disappointment at the decision.

News coverage of the decision has suggested that city councils across the country are scrambling to figure out what to do about the practice of reading the Lord’s Prayer at meetings. Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson said prayers at council meetings will be stopped.

In Kamloops, I doubt there will be much scrambling — the Lord’s Prayer hasn’t been read at council meetings in decades.

Instead, random passages are chosen, sometimes from one religion, sometimes from another, sometimes from no religion at all. Something from Henry David Thoreau or Mother Theresa does the job as well. It usually takes about 20 seconds. Of course, the Kamloops Centre for Rational Thought — the local atheists club — might try to piggyback on the Supreme Court decision and make a point by claiming nothing at all should be read before council meetings.

While I’d agree with that sentiment (Thompson-Nicola Regional District meetings, for example, bypass the philosophical pleasantries and get right down to business) I doubt a court challenge against Kamloops council would get very far. The council readings there are totally without bias to one religion or another. I don’t know that the writings of atheist leader Richard Dawkins are ever read at council meetings, but that’s no great loss.

I don’t mind religions or Henry Thoreau being allowed a few seconds at the start of a meeting, as long as I’m not expected to take part. In school, I had the words to the Lord’s Prayer drilled into me so deep that I can still recite them to you word for word. “Our Father, who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name….” etc. etc.

Every once in awhile somebody will complain about one of the phrases or sentences, just as they do with O Canada. “Lead us not into temptation” has been rewritten in some places on the theory that God is perfect and has no intention of leading us into temptation.

I was forced to say “…forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us” but other versions refer to debts and debtors and sinners.

Whatever the words, there are those rebels who fight the good fight for the Lord’s Prayer. At a Texas school, cheerleaders recited the Lord’s Prayer, and were joined by the crowd, even though the rule was to observe a moment of silence instead. It happened again in Tennessee. In South Carolina, a high school valedictorian ripped up his approved speech and recited the Lord’s Prayer, to thunderous applause.

Those who defend reciting the prayer insist the prayer is inclusive, which is, of course, nonsense — it’s about Christianity. In public settings, it’s an intrusion into the religious freedom we’re supposed to enjoy, and should really be kept in the context of other, equally worthy religions. That’s why I think the Kamloops approach, or, alternatively, the TNRD approach, is a good one.

The fact that the poor old Lord’s Prayer is still cause for occasional disagreement and is still helping fatten the wallets of lawyers is a sign that the debate over religion remains at an immature stage. But whereas it used to be big news if someone suggested the Lord’s Prayer should be banned, nowadays it’s bigger news when somebody tries to keep it.

Mel rothenburger can be contacted at armchairmayor@gmail.com. He tweets @MelRothenburger and is on Facebook.com/mrothenburger.7.