Ontario premier orders review of Lord's Prayer recital.

[Kanada Kev]

Problem is that it is ONE prayer. What did you learn about other religions from saying that prayer every single day at school? Did it get incorporated into the education at all? If not, then what purpose does it serve to start the day at a PUBLIC school?

I also find it odd that for many people who advocate the Lord's Prayer in public school would be the first ones to get in a twist if it was substituted by any prayer from an other religion/belief and their child was made to recite it. Do you thank it would be news if a public school started using prayers from the Koran every once and a while? At least it would be educational in that it would allow some children to experience part of another faith. It doesn't make much sense if it isn't going ot be discussed in the classroom though.

Along those lines, for people who are heavily devoted to their faith, do they not see it as something of a sacrilege to have a bunch of people who are not officially part of their faith reciting something so sacred to them?

I had to say the Lord's Prayer when I was in Grade 4. It was only because the teacher wanted to as it was part of her life. It was never discussed in the class, simply imposed upon all the students to mumble each morning. Since we weren't in Sunday School, there was no education as to why the fuck we were saying it every day.

[ollie]

Problem is that it is ONE prayer. What did you learn about other religions from saying that prayer every single day at school?

You assume that the prayer taught me anything about Christianity in the first place. I think the message in the Lord's Prayer transcends religion.

But I did learn that muslims can't eat pork from the kid who got a special order of beef on hotdog day.

Along those lines, for people who are heavily devoted to their faith, do they not see it as something of a sacrilege to have a bunch of people who are not officially part of their faith reciting something so sacred to them?

I would think that someone heavily devoted to their faith would realize that sharing the message is important regardless of the medium.

[phishtaper]

... there was no education as to why the fuck we were saying it every day.

Excuse me, Miss Johnson?

Yes Kevin?

Why the fuck are we saying this damn prayer every day?

stomp stomp stomp ..... thwackk!!

[Kanada Kev]

LOL .... I sure would ask that if I was in that class now! I'd be damn proud of my kids if they asked questions as to why they had to do it if it happens in their school.

I would think that someone heavily devoted to their faith would realize that sharing the message is important regardless of the medium.

So you don't think that Catholics would be pissed at me for participating in their tradition of taking communion at a service? And I'm not Catholic, let alone confirmed?

I got the message ... shitty cracker and a free shot from a germ riddled cup .

[d_rawk]

What about reciting the prayer in school? Like I said, I had it drilled into my head from grades 1 to 6, at least, and it had no ill effects on me. In fact, I like to think it taught me a little something, even if just about forgiveness. I'm glad to have had that experience.

I certainly wouldn't have expected it to have had any adverse effects, and I am glad that you feel that it was beneficial to you. I just don't think that it has a place as part of the public school day agenda (that's 'agenda' in the the neutral, not the conspiratorial, sense). Different place and different time .. it was a better fit (but already well on its way to being jarringly out of place) back then. I don't resent having said the Lord's prayer every morning either .. although I don't think I ever really thought about the words any. Maybe because it was always in french and I didn't have enough of the language at that stage to interpret what I was saying.

I think when it comes to tradition we're often in danger of mistaking the trappings for the intent. The Lord's prayer served a purpose once - it was unifying in that it brought everyone present back to a shared, separate place. The key to that is being able to rely on the individuals present all having that same cultural and religious background and it is founded in the expectation that they either do, or should. It no longer serves that purpose, and in fact, is increasingly at odds with it. You honour the intent by changing the mechanism when the mechanism begins to fail.

[Esau.]

Why not have a few minutes silence for prayer before or after the national anthem. Leave the religious teachings to the churches & families.

Personally, I think that would better serve Ontario's multiculturalism in the legislature and more importantly (in my opinion), the public school system.

[StaggerLee]

It's who 'we' are' date=' whether you agree with it or not.[/quote']

i'd be willing to bet that my seventh-generation Canadian ass is more "we" than yours.

who are you to decide who is "we" and presumably "them"?

I think this is the reason people get worked up over issues like this. Minority groups, religious and otherwise, have traditionally been excluded from having a voice in defining who "we" are, and the recital of this prayer in government is indicative that this tradition of exclusion is still very much in practice. Using a non-denominational prayer or a moment of silence makes way more sense.

Personally, I'd prefer if they read a statement about their responsibilities to their constituents and then a had a moment of silence to reflect upon that.

[ollie]

So you don't think that Catholics would be pissed at me for participating in their tradition of taking communion at a service? And I'm not Catholic, let alone confirmed?

I don't know, you'd have to ask a Catholic. I've been to Catholic weddings where they hold communion and it appears to be open to anyone who wishes to participate. I've never seen anyone refused even though I've never participated myself.

[Birdy]

It's who 'we' are' date=' whether you agree with it or not.[/quote']

i'd be willing to bet that my seventh-generation Canadian ass is more "we" than yours.

who are you to decide who is "we" and presumably "them"?

I think this is the reason people get worked up over issues like this. Minority groups, religious and otherwise, have traditionally been excluded from having a voice in defining who "we" are, and the recital of this prayer in government is indicative that this tradition of exclusion is still very much in practice. Using a non-denominational prayer or a moment of silence makes way more sense.

Personally, I'd prefer if they read a statement about their responsibilities to their constituents and then a had a moment of silence to reflect upon that.

From what I can see, Canada is more willing than most countries to continue redefining who we are in order to be accepting to all peoples and faiths. So much so that beer commercials are probably the closest thing to patriotism that i've ever witnessed.

I love this about Canada, but I also respect how our country came about and upon what principles it was founded on. If it were these Christian principles that created such a kick ass country, than that's a big point in favour of Christianity for me. If our government can recognize various groups of people and various faiths and accept them, with their Christian foundation, than that's another big point in favour of Christianity for me. We shouldn't have to erase our history (as a nation state) to prove that we can all peacefully co-exist and respect each other. I think doing so shows a certain level of volatility in our individual beliefs and in a way limits just how accepting any religion can ever be, if in a position of power.

[Esau.]

Christianity in this country took 1st Nations children away from their families (in the name of god) & sent them to be "saved & educated", I for one, have no interest (as a father of a Cree/Canadian) in perserving that part of our "heritage". Nor am I proud of it.

[color:red][edit to add]

Just to clarify, as I wrote the above after a few drinks last night, I don't fear, hate or even dismiss religion. I believe a person should embrace what gives them strength or solace. But, it should be of their own choosing, not something forced upon or expected of them. Personally, I just feel christianity's impact in our country's history has not been something overly positive, especially concerning our First Nations & Inuit people.

Edited February 21, 2008 by Guest

[hamilton]

It's who 'we' are' date=' whether you agree with it or not.[/quote']

i'd be willing to bet that my seventh-generation Canadian ass is more "we" than yours.

who are you to decide who is "we" and presumably "them"?

I think this is the reason people get worked up over issues like this. Minority groups, religious and otherwise, have traditionally been excluded from having a voice in defining who "we" are, and the recital of this prayer in government is indicative that this tradition of exclusion is still very much in practice. Using a non-denominational prayer or a moment of silence makes way more sense.

Personally, I'd prefer if they read a statement about their responsibilities to their constituents and then a had a moment of silence to reflect upon that.

From what I can see, Canada is more willing than most countries to continue redefining who we are in order to be accepting to all peoples and faiths. So much so that beer commercials are probably the closest thing to patriotism that i've ever witnessed.

I love this about Canada, but I also respect how our country came about and upon what principles it was founded on. If it were these Christian principles that created such a kick ass country, than that's a big point in favour of Christianity for me. If our government can recognize various groups of people and various faiths and accept them, with their Christian foundation, than that's another big point in favour of Christianity for me. We shouldn't have to erase our history (as a nation state) to prove that we can all peacefully co-exist and respect each other. I think doing so shows a certain level of volatility in our individual beliefs and in a way limits just how accepting any religion can ever be, if in a position of power.

That's assuming, of course, that Canada achieved the accomplishments that you mention because of Christianity. The argument could be made that Canada achieved those things in spite of Christianity - if, in fact, we have truly achieved them. The argument could also be made that in continuing to play favourites with religion in an official capacity such as the provincial legislature, we haven't truly been as open and accepting as we like to think we are.

[phishtaper]

That's assuming, of course, that Canada achieved the accomplishments that you mention because of Christianity. The argument could be made that Canada achieved those things in spite of Christianity - if, in fact, we have truly achieved them. The argument could also be made that in continuing to play favourites with religion in an official capacity such as the provincial legislature, we haven't truly been as open and accepting as we like to think we are.

I agree. The role of "religion" in the developmental fabric of Canada is neither clear nor conclusive. For every example of the Salvation Army providing genuine assistance to Canadians in need, there's another example of a horrid cover-up of sexual abuse at the hands of church officials. And that's just at the micro-level.

Im also struck by the casual use (myself guilty as well) of the term "minority". It suggests that the "majority" is somehow more justified or rightful in calling the shots.

Neat discussion.

[MarcO]

There is nothing of any value that religion can offer us, not morally, certainly not factually. Now that the average Grade 12 student knows more about the nature of the natural world and the universe than most 19th century academics, it is absurd to draw upon the insidious and hypocritical tents of any strain of religion in order to better ourselves as individuals or as a nation. Religion and the fallacy of "God" are manmade products well past their due dates.

Forgiveness, empathy, charity...... take religion out of the picture and all these principles still stand strong. If anything, the absence of religion make these principles easier to access.

Therefore, we shouldn't even think twice about excising the Lord's Prayer not only from the Ontario Legislature but also remove the very hint of "God" from all public institutions, especially schools, where it ultimately borders on child abuse. The argument that "hey, it didn't do me any harm so why not?" is subjective to the point of insanity.

[Kanada Kev]

MarcO ... I owe you a beer!

[Birdy]

Religion provides a means for people to exercise forgiveness, to act morally and to empathize with others for the sake of being good alone. Unfortunately not everyone walks around on the earth opening doors for others, saying please and thank you and generally doing their best to make the world a better place, so if there's a group of people that want to organize themselves, act like good people and believe in something greater than what science can prove, LET THEM! Who/what really is the reciting of the lord's prayer hurting, other than the pride of those who don't have their own religious/spiritual mantra read out before the proceeding? I'm sorry but I can't help but equate this to the culture of entitlement, the 'whaaaaaaaaa, what about me?' attitudes that people are increasingly adopting and that our government, through motions like this, seem to continue to say is okay.

How REALLY is the reciting of the lord's prayer stopping us or hindering us from being a multi-cultural society? Doesn't change come from the individual??

[d_rawk]

I can't help but equate this to the culture of entitlement

HHeeeeyyyyy ... isn't that an old Conservative Party of Canada talking point?

attitudes that people are increasingly adopting and that our government, through motions like this, seem to continue to say is okay

I actually see these actions as a rejection of a 'culture of entitlement' and a correction to it. But potato, potahto.

[MarcO]

Religion provides a means for people to exercise forgiveness, to act morally and to empathize with others for the sake of being good alone.

I disagree. Religion doesn't provide a doorway to decent and just behaviour(s) for the sake of being good in and of itself but for the sake of either entering the imagined kingdom of Heaven or avoiding the imagined cauldron of Hell (replace with parallel beliefs accordingly). If anything, religion allows a whole set of prejudices, injustices and hatred that too often stand in the way of these good and decent acts.

Who/what really is the reciting of the lord's prayer hurting, other than the pride of those who don't have their own religious/spiritual mantra read out before the proceeding?

On the other hand, who/what would the elimination of the Lord's Prayer hurt? It certainly wouldn't evoke a complete breakdown of society and has already been suggested, those who wish to recite it can still do so. It's not so much indicative of a "culture of entitlement" as it is reflecting a culture in perpetual progress.

[d_rawk]

I disagree. Religion doesn't provide a doorway to decent and just behaviour(s) for the sake of being good in and of itself but for the sake of either entering the imagined kingdom of Heaven or avoiding the imagined cauldron of Hell (replace with parallel beliefs accordingly)

Well, that's a subset - albeit the most vocal subset you'll find in this country (and most, for that matter). There is no shortage of Christians who see no precedent (biblical or otherwise) for a heaven, hell, or afterlife in the literal sense, for example. No risk of punishment, no dangling reward. (And I'm not just speaking for myself here, by a lot I mean a lot, and it isn't some new phenomenon. The uber-literalist craze is newer than it is older and probably indicative of our general failure to be able to read a text and of our distance from the Judaic conventions from which it all originates). Is it possible that you are catching too many fish with that net?

On the other hand, who/what would the elimination of the Lord's Prayer hurt? It certainly wouldn't evoke a complete breakdown of society and has already been suggested, those who wish to recite it can still do so. It's not so much indicative of a "culture of entitlement" as it is reflecting a culture in perpetual progress

Amen.

[Kanada Kev]

Who/what really is the reciting of the lord's prayer hurting' date=' other than the pride of those who don't have their own religious/spiritual mantra read out before the proceeding?[/quote']

On the other hand, who/what would the elimination of the Lord's Prayer hurt? It certainly wouldn't evoke a complete breakdown of society and has already been suggested, those who wish to recite it can still do so. It's not so much indicative of a "culture of entitlement" as it is reflecting a culture in perpetual progress.

Well put. Why is it that those who want to defend what is currently there never want to see that side of the issue? Why can't people make these things private/personal?

Other than the one year where my class was made to recite the prayer, every other year we always had a "moment of silence" after the anthem. This way people could think/pray/etc whatever they wanted to themselves. Nobody excluded, nobody having anything forced upon them = everybody happy. It's so damn simple.

[Birdy]

On the other hand, who/what would the elimination of the Lord's Prayer hurt? It certainly wouldn't evoke a complete breakdown of society and has already been suggested, those who wish to recite it can still do so.

Having the lord's prayer recited certainly wouldn't evoke a complete breakdown of society either, now would it? has it? if anything the only people who it seems to hurt are the people that *seem* to move from issue to issue until every part of cultural or religious heritage is stricken from all facets of government, as if we should hang our heads in shame or something. For me it has absolutely nothing to do with how our government views the existence of other religions, nor does it give any more weight to Christianity, it's simply recognizing that Canada was founded on the principles of Christianity.

It's not so much indicative of a "culture of entitlement" as it is reflecting a culture in perpetual progress.

Zing!

Why is it that those who want to defend what is currently there never want to see that side of the issue? Why can't people make these things private/personal?

I fully understand this side of the issue, I just don't agree with it. I don't think we should have to erase who we are in order to make ourselves 'progress'. If you think revoking the lord's prayer is going to solve the world's problems, or even in the least bring people not inclined to accept other religions closer to each other, than I'd say you don't have your head screwed on tight enough.

There's waaaaaaaaaaay bigger problems out there, and yet here we are focusing all of our thoughts and attentions on this one. What does that say?

[phishtaper]

Why is it that those who want to defend what is currently there never want to see that side of the issue? Why can't people make these things private/personal?

I fully understand this side of the issue' date=' I just don't agree with it. I don't think we should have to erase who we are in order to make ourselves 'progress'. If you think revoking the lord's prayer is going to solve the world's problems, or even in the least bring people not inclined to accept other religions closer to each other, than I'd say you don't have your head screwed on tight enough.[/quote']

to be fair, Birdy, noone is saying getting rid of the prayer is going to solve the world's problems. they are saying its offensive to a lot of people and should stop.

and as you indicate, if we must pay homage to where we came from, even if its out of step with where we are now, then we should also "celebrate" imprisoning people because of their race, not allowing women to vote, and hiding away the mentally ill - because they too are part of our proud heritage and also represent some of the principles upon which this country was founded.

[Birdy]

I find it reaaaaally interesting how you can equate the reciting of prayer to imprisonment and repression.

Let's talk apples and oranges phishtaper.

[phishtaper]

I find it reaaaaally interesting how you can equate the reciting of prayer to imprisonment and repression.

Let's talk apples and oranges phishtaper.

oh come on Birdy, you dont see how these two can be equated??!! then you clearly dont get it.

[Birdy]

No, I do get it. Hence my participation in this thread.

[phishtaper]

to force a jewish kid to listen to everyone else recite a christian prayer in a public school is repressive to that kid's judaism. it tells him that he is not normal and that his jewish religion is not good enough to be part of the enforced public school system.

so, yes, the lord's prayer is repressive to all those who do not believe in it.