County News

Prayer is out

Posted: April 15, 2015 at 4:14 pm   /   by   /   comments (2)

The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the recital of the Lord’s Prayer was inappropriate in the public realm. The decision was based on a challenge by a resident of Saguenay, Quebec who objected to the recital of the Christian prayer before the city’s council meeting.

“A neutral public space free from coercion, pressure and judgment on the part of public authorities in matters of spirituality is intended to protect every person’s freedom and dignity, and it helps preserve and promote the multicultural nature of Canadian society,” the Supreme Court judgement reads.

The decision has already had an impact in Prince Edward County where Mayor Robert Quaiff has announced the municipality will no longer recite the Lord’s Prayer before council meetings.

“The County aims to foster an environment of acceptance and equality,” said Mayor Quaiff in a statement.

Unlike other communities who have a long history of reciting the prayer before meetings Prince Edward County council only began reciting the prayer in January 2008. The matter was raised in 2011 and 2013, and in all three instances council was advised that reciting the prayer was inappropriate in this day and age. It took a Supreme Court ruling to bring an end to the exclusionary practice.

Comments (2)

write a comment

Comment
Name E-mail Website

  • April 20, 2015 at 2:24 pm Wolf Braun

    That councilors are “asking the Lord to watch over what we’re doing and to guide us … to look for spiritual guidance,” is ludicrous. Voters elect their councilors on the assumption that they already possess the “wisdom, knowledge, judgement and understanding,” to make the right decisions for the city. They shouldn’t have to ask for those attributes before every meeting, as if getting a booster shot.

    I’d rather see the Mayor and Council reminds themselves openly before each meeting why they are there (PURPOSE) and the agreed upon PRINCIPLES they will adhere to when making tough decisions on our behalf.

    I hope I have it right that voters evaluate candidates for “wisdom, knowledge, judgement and understanding” before casting their ballot. 🙂

    Reply
  • April 17, 2015 at 12:41 pm Bob L

    So very sad – let us entirely stamp out everything that is spiritual in the name of inclusion and equality. Let us all be equal by being as intolerant as possible to everything that makes us unique or different or we cherish. Ban free speech in case someone is offended.

    I am an atheist – but I am not antitheist. I believe each individual should pause and reflect on life and that reflection for some takes the form of a prayer.

    When I see others praying I don’t feel marginalized, excluded or offended. I don’t swoon when I see a cross around someone’s neck. We each celebrate our lives differently and I am saddened that the Supreme Court feels it necessary to overturn the decision of the Quebec Appeals’ court. Let us not slide down that slippery slope of marginalizing everyone in the name of inclusion.

    In life, if you look to find offence you will find it. If you look to live a full life you often will live it. I am too busy living life to be offended by the practices of others. To me, inclusion means respecting the beliefs and practices of everyone which seems to be the opposite of the result of this ruling.

    The majority of Canadians are not atheists (or antitheists) and is the recital of an opening prayer that onerous of a burden to those who are not Christian? Was the intention of the council to offend? Does this mean we stamp out “religion” at all public events? Or do we find a REAL way to accommodate and respect everyone versus simply providing “lip service/knee jerk” reactions to the perceived offense?

    Maybe the compromise is a moment of silences before each solemn event such as a council meeting. Would that be so terrible? It sure would be more inclusive than the “rights” of the few dictating the freedoms of the many. Maybe this is what our council should be considering?

    One person made a complaint to a human right’s tribunal and now all citizen’s are potentially impacted. So very sad.

    Reply