Ontario premier orders review of Lord's Prayer recital.

[ollie]

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.

Was that supposed to be in purple? I give people more credit than that. I think only someone with severe insecurities would read that into the prayer. Why not treat it as a test to faith? Aren't religions big on that?

[Birdy]

Amen.

Noone's forcing anything upon anyone. Maybe we should quit playing 'O Canada' before the leaf's game in support of all of those Russian nationals? What about their national anthem? I hope they're not thinking they're not 'good enough' to be part of the 'enforced' national hockey league playing of national anthems committee's selection. Those poor repressed hockey players!!

[Kanada Kev]

Interesting piece in the Star today on this topic. Fascinating that it has its roots in the Jewish faith, and the reference to the Sermon on the Mount (which I have read before regarding the fact that prayer was meant to be private).

http://www.thestar.com/article/306187

The radical truth behind the Lord's prayer

The best-known invocation in Christianity has its roots firmly in Jewish tradition. And, some believe the very public liturgy was meant as a protest against fixed, statutory, public prayer. Maybe McGuinty has a point

Feb 23, 2008 04:30 AM

Ron Csillag

Special to the Star

Lord, what a fuss over a prayer.

"So plainly simple, natural, and spontaneous," the Catholic Encyclopedia lauds the Lord's Prayer, yet, at a mere 57 words (in the original Greek), such a magnet for controversy in Ontario.

The prayer's fall from public grace began in 1988, when the Ontario Court of Appeal, citing the province's multicultural nature, struck down a regulation that required public schools to begin their day with the Lord's Prayer.

Eleven years later, the same court ruled that reciting the prayer before municipal council meetings was unconstitutional because it "imposed a Christian moral tone" on public deliberations.

Now, Premier Dalton McGuinty says it's time to "move beyond" the Lord's Prayer, which has been recited in the Legislature for more than 100 years, because it no longer reflects Ontario's diversity.

McGuinty's move has left more than a few citizens and politicians peeved. Reactions ranged from those advocating that the prayer should be kept not necessarily as a nod to Christianity but in recognition of Ontario's heritage; to those who would outlaw religious expression in the public square altogether; to people who believe Canada is a Christian country that must retain its Christian flavour.

Some would alternate the prayer with invocations from other faiths, while others have wondered whether the Lord's Prayer is ecumenical in spirit. How can anyone object to its universal teachings and ideals?

Known by Roman Catholics as the Our Father, or Pater Noster in Latin, the Lord's Prayer is probably the best-known prayer in Christianity, primarily because it is the only one authorized by Jesus himself.

It appears in two places in the New Testament. In the book of Matthew, it is part of Jesus's Sermon on the Mount, while in Luke's gospel, a disciple comes to Jesus and asks to be taught to pray in the way John the Baptist had taught his followers. Jesus obliges with the now-famous words (from the King James version):

"Our Father, which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil."

Succinct. But where did he get it?

Hamilton's Rabbi Bernard Baskin, who has studied the prayer's roots, offers an explanation. "Jesus wasn't a pagan or a Greek. It came from the Jewish tradition almost phrase by phrase."

The Interpreter's Bible, a well-known Christian source, agrees. The Lord's Prayer "is thoroughly Jewish," it avers, and nearly every phrase is paralleled in the Jewish liturgy. "Thus it is Jesus's inspired and original summary of his own people's piety at its best."

Yet it is seen as a universal Christian prayer, used by Christians of all stripes. What makes it so is not its language, but the fact that it was promulgated by the founder of Christianity, says Father Dan Donovan, a theologian at St. Michael's College. In Luke's version, Jesus himself first prays, and then teaches the Lord's Prayer. "He is drawing us into his prayer," Donovan offers. "The (issue) is not so much the actual words, but the fact that Christians pray it as the prayer that Jesus taught, and in some sense, as a way of sharing in his prayer."

Besides, he adds, the prayer sounds obviously Christian themes like forgiveness, help in time of trial, and addressing God as "Our Father."

But then, plenty of Jewish sources do the same.

In his book Jesus and the Judaism of His Time, University of Toronto scholar Irving Zeitlin cites line-by-line parallels between the Lord's Prayer and the Jewish mourner's prayer, the Kaddish ("May (God) establish His kingdom during our lifetime and during the lifetime of Israel"), the Eighteen Benedictions ("Forgive us our Father, for we have sinned" is the sixth blessing), Talmudic prayer ("Lead me not into sin or iniquity or temptation or contempt," goes one) and other Hebrew scriptures in which we find "Give us this day our daily bread."

That means Jesus "brilliantly" condensed and concentrated important Jewish ethical teachings in a unique manner, and the Lord's Prayer sums up the essence of the Christian faith, says Darrell Johnson, a teacher at Vancouver's evangelical Regent College and author of Fifty-Seven Words That Change the World: A Journey Through the Lord's Prayer.

"The Lord's Prayer gathers up all of life and brings it before God. Jesus brings the wide range of concerns the Jews would bring to prayer and just boils them to these six petitions." (Five in Luke).

Which brings us to the differences between the two New Testament versions, and variances in different editions of the Bible. Though Matthew uses the term "debts" and "debtors," older English versions of the Lord's Prayer use the term "trespasses," while others, such as Luke, use "sins."

"To me, there is no problem," says Donovan.

Johnson says that as a teacher, Jesus probably offered the Lord's Prayer to his discipline "many times, and it may have been worded slightly differently in other cases as well." As for the final line in some texts, known as a doxology, scholars agree it was appended later and was in any case probably lifted from the Book of Chronicles, in which King David is quoted: "Yours, Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the majesty and the splendour."

Johnson feels the Lord's Prayer is "so wonderfully inclusive that any religious orientation could pray this prayer." The "only glitch" he sees is the reference to "Our Father."

"That would be the bigger problem for a number of women who find it hard to address God in male language. If I were in leadership, I think I could nurture a climate that said, `This prayer, minus that problem, includes us all.'"

Baskin feels otherwise, saying it is "inappropriate" for Jews to recite the prayer because of the status it has achieved.

A final irony, so far as the situation in Ontario goes, is that Jesus preferred private prayer.

In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 6:6) he chides "hypocrites" who pray in public in order to be seen and heard, and "pagans" who "babble." Rather, he counsels the faithful: "When you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen."

It's possible, Baskin points out, that the very public Lord's Prayer was meant as a protest against fixed, statutory, public prayer.

Ron Csillag is a freelance writer who lives in Thornhill.

Edited February 23, 2008 by Guest

[Kanada Kev]

Was that supposed to be in purple? I give people more credit than that. I think only someone with severe insecurities would read that into the prayer. Why not treat it as a test to faith? Aren't religions big on that?

That was supposed to be in purple right?? Seriously, why would we have the public school system be a location for 'tests of faith'? Should we not replace the prayer with one from Scientology to use everyday and simply call it a test of faith for all those children who are being confused by religion in the first place?

To me, it's stuff like this that further enforces that it has no place in the public school system.

[ollie]

Was that supposed to be in purple? I give people more credit than that. I think only someone with severe insecurities would read that into the prayer. Why not treat it as a test to faith? Aren't religions big on that?

That was supposed to be in purple right?? Seriously' date=' why would we have the public school system be a location for 'tests of faith'? Should we not replace the prayer with one from Scientology to use everyday and simply call it a test of faith for all those children who are being confused by religion in the first place?

To me, it's stuff like this that further enforces that it has no place in the public school system.

[/quote']

Don't exaggerate what I said! I didn't imply that the purpose behind prayer in school is to test people of other religion's faith... my point is that as an individual you have options on how to handle an uncomfortable situation. Tolerance goes a lot further than legislation.

[phishtaper]

Noone's forcing anything upon anyone.

you dont think having to hear the lord's prayer every morning in a classroom, or being allowed to "leave the room" and feel like a fool is having something forced on you?!

and Ollie, one of those "options" is to have that systematic 'uncomfortable situation' done away with.

[Birdy]

No, I don't think anything's being forced on anyone, but we're not going to get anywhere with that.

Why all the uncomfortableness though? What EXACTLY is it about the lord's prayer that makes YOU, personally, wince when you hear it phishtaper? I'd like to know. Plesae don't say you it's that you care about how it affects others. How does it affect you?

[phishtaper]

Why all the uncomfortableness though? What EXACTLY is it about the lord's prayer that makes YOU, personally, wince when you hear it phishtaper? I'd like to know. Plesae don't say you it's that you care about how it affects others. How does it affect you?

i could care less. it doesnt bother me at all. and yes, my point is that i dont think its right to force an historic remnant of the dominant religion on all school kids. does my concern being for others negate that concern?

and really birdy, "wince"?

[Birdy]

Wow, you really went to bat in this thread for someone who 'could care less'. I have a feeling most people who oppose this, oppose it in the name of someone other than themselves. Excluding Mr. McGuinty of course, but i think his motive stems entirely on the political side of things.

It would be interesting to remove the bleeding hearts from these equations, remove all of the people who through their own insecurity of some sort face a fear of Christianity and see what's left. I'd be willing to listen to these people. I just have a hard time listening to someone who cares less tell me what other people do care about. And that's nothing personal.

Edited February 23, 2008 by Guest

[djmelbatoast]

How anyone can defend prayer in government is beyond me.

This country is so fucked.

[Birdy]

[color:purple]

Yep, fucked.

I'm going to sleep tonight with one eye open.

[AD]

Xenu is very disappointed in all of you. Death to Teegeeack.

[MarcO]

I am picturing all of you butt naked.

[phishtaper]

Wow, you really went to bat in this thread for someone who 'could care less'. I have a feeling most people who oppose this, oppose it in the name of someone other than themselves. Excluding Mr. McGuinty of course, but i think his motive stems entirely on the political side of things.

It would be interesting to remove the bleeding hearts from these equations, remove all of the people who through their own insecurity of some sort face a fear of Christianity and see what's left. I'd be willing to listen to these people. I just have a hard time listening to someone who cares less tell me what other people do care about. And that's nothing personal.

birdy, you project your own insecurities about religion on others by suggesting that anyone who opposes some action on a matter of principle, not expereince, has no right to do so.

i admire your passion, but to insist that someone must have a personal stake in something in order to have an opinion on whether it is right or wrong is just plain stupid. what's your opinion on abortion and capital punishment? [color:purple]oh no, wait, you have never had an abortion or been executed, so im sorry, your opinion is invalid.

religious prayers shouldnt be mandated in public schools. i dont know how much clearer i can be.

[hamilton]

Wow, you really went to bat in this thread for someone who 'could care less'. I have a feeling most people who oppose this, oppose it in the name of someone other than themselves. Excluding Mr. McGuinty of course, but i think his motive stems entirely on the political side of things.

It would be interesting to remove the bleeding hearts from these equations, remove all of the people who through their own insecurity of some sort face a fear of Christianity and see what's left. I'd be willing to listen to these people. I just have a hard time listening to someone who cares less tell me what other people do care about. And that's nothing personal.

With all due respect and without trying to sound offensive, your own rationale for this hasn't been much more than, "We should keep doing this because we have always done it," which I don't find particularly compelling.

[Birdy]

Tradition isn't about doing something for the sake of always doing it at all, and i'm sorry that you *appear* to think so. It's about giving the future an understanding of the past and of where, in this particular instance, our country came from. As a student of history and a big fan of family traditions, i place a lot of emphasis on their importance.

i admire your passion, but to insist that someone must have a personal stake in something in order to have an opinion on whether it is right or wrong is just plain stupid.

I never insisted this at all. I simply wondered what the reaction to this was from the people who do have some sort of invested care in the subject. (You admitted you could care less.)

You are more than entitled to your opinion, care or not. I just think in debates like this, even outside of the jambands world, we rarely ever hear from those it truly affects and that's the opinion (at least to me, and it should be for everyone) that really matters.

[d_rawk]

In fairness to Phishtaper, he/she said "I could care less" in response to a specific question that you posed ('why do you feel so offended to hear/recite the Lord's prayer', to paraphrase). Phishtaper did not - unless I missed it - state that he/she did not have any invested care in the subject or was not affected by it. Your assumption here is that one needs be offended somehow by the prayer in order to be opposed to its institutionalization in this context. That assumption is clearly misguided, given how many in the thread here do not seem offended by the prayer but are opposed, with conviction, to its reading as part of official legislative proceedings.

It reads as though you are insisting on an emotional response as the only valid justification for favouring the prayer's removal. But why?

[allison]

I too read phishtaper's response as only pointing to the fact the hearing a recital of the Lord's prayer had no effect upon him personally...not that the larger issue in debate didn't concern him.I'm the same way.The rote recital of it doesn't even usually register with me.

Tradition is a funny thing...by no means blanketly good.We tend to nostalgically embrace tradition as the warm fuzzy things we equate with our own lives/experiences...with little thought of the fact that traditions change from culture to culture..and outside our own cultural communities,our own homes even...what is one person's valued tradition is at best another's trivia.If we force other's to participate in our own traditions it becomes an unfathomable infringement of their own cultural values.

Religion and state should be separate.That being said..we shouldn't fear INDIVIDUALS in STATE having faith based personal practices.A different topic though.

I suppose the middle road solution in both legislature and in schools would be to recite one holy scripture from each major faith in a rotating fashion.Then each group is able to marry their personal faith to the public lives inclusiveley.But then..how do you decide which make the roster?

More importantly..when can you say "I'm sorry but your faith community is not large enough to have representation in public recital."

To say that recital of the Lord's Prayer in legislature is a needed to preserve our Christian heritage is absolute crap.Who is "our" anyway? The framework of Christianity,imagery, in some cases scars, is not even close to being excised from the public consciousness.It's not an endangered culture.

Legislature is not really the place I want to see religious tradition enshrined..ideally it should be an adaptive mechansim that responds to the needs of governing it's people.It's people are not all Christian.

[color:purple]Maybe we should just have a Christian province.

[Birdy]

So then it seems like the only viable alternative, if we choose to go down this route, is to completely abolish all prayer all together from parliamentary proceedings. Seems kind of contradictory to the efforts of those who oppose it in the name of those un-represented religions. Is it the interest of other religions to have no prayer read, or their prayer read? Are we really being more multi-cultural by silencing all voices? I don't think so. Seems more like appeasement than a culture in progress.

I'm all for your middle road solution Allison, hiccups it may present and all. And while some traditions are better left in the dark ages, I don't agree the lord's prayer reading is one of them. If we advocate representation of our people than we should recongize that a large number amongst us are Christian and that Canada of yesterday was founded on Christian principles and we should look to how we can incorporate that in the Canada of the future (this is not about 'preservation'). And (apologies to phishtaper) as I've yet to find out exactly what it is about these words that people find so offensive to their ears when read out, I find it hard to imagine how it's elimination is really going to change anything, at all, other than give those people who prefer not to hear reference to God the opportunity to not hear reference to God. And where's the representation then? After all, if you're not a believer, these are just words being brought together. Noone's forcing a gun to your head ordering you to interpret the reading and pay homage. We're simply recognizing that to some of our fellow citizens, these words do have meaning and significance, and isn't that much more open-minded and liberal than it's alternative?

I think so.

Edited February 25, 2008 by Guest

[Kanada Kev]

I think i'd prefer this to be recited instead. It's only words strung together, so alcoholics and anti-liquor folk shouldn't feel uncomfortable with this being spoken before they start school/gov't every day.

http://scribalterror.blogs.com/scribal_terror/2008/02/the-religious-h.html

Bless, O Lord, this creature beer, that Thou hast been pleased to bring forth from the sweetness of the grain: that it might be a salutary remedy for the human race: and grant by the invocation of Thy holy name, that, whosoever drinks of it may obtain health of body and a sure safeguard for the soul. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

[phishtaper]

i do not find the prayer offensive. i find the reading of any religious prayer in a public school system to be offensive.

so yes, birdy, there should be no prayers read.

[Birdy]

if it's a public school system, isn't part of the public religious? don't they get a say?

[phishtaper]

no

[Kanada Kev]

if it's a public school system, isn't part of the public religious? don't they get a say?

Sure, if there's a unit being taught on religious knowledge (which is allowable based on the Ontario Curriculum). Apart from that, no, prayers should not be included in the public school system. After the playing of O'Canada there is a moment of "silent meditation" ... pray away to your heart's content at that moment.

Aside from the Roman Catholic School Board in Ontario, the funding of religous schools is private. That allows them to include prayer wherever and whenver they want. The only reason the RC Board is still funded by the gov't is due to the makeup of the population (primarily Quebec at 85%) being RC at the time of Confederation. The BNA Act guarantees the funding of the RC Board even though it is declared discriminatory by the UN.

Nope, religion in public school causes absolutely no problems or friction ....

[MarcO]

So then it seems like the only viable alternative, if we choose to go down this route, is to completely abolish all prayer all together from parliamentary proceedings.

Absolutely. I'm not dismissing the rest of your post but this is precisely the direction we should be heading in.