News

Yesterday, with perhaps more fervour than usual, many Canadians proudly sang O Canada as we, collectively and individually, reflected upon our national identity and heritage.

But a growing number of Canadians either gritted their teeth and mouthed a line or two, or fell silent when others sang the phrases "God keep our land glorious and free!" or, in the French version, "car ton bras sait porter l'épée, it sait porter la croix."

Reflecting our history, both versions of the anthem have a clear religious, even Christian wording.

Yet, as Canada becomes ever more multinational and pluralistic, are those words still appropriate?

It's a fascinating debate with wide-ranging implications.

That's why globeandmail.com has invited our regular panel from several major faith-based communities and a representative of the atheist/humanist/free thinker groups to debate these questions:

Given Canada's history of intertwined politics and religion, and given Canada's increasing multicultural nature, should all references to "God" be removed from our national anthem, O Canada? What does the inclusion of "God" say about our country? What would its elimination say about our country?

As usual, the panelists each have written a short essay and have answered questions from our readers — all of which you can read at the bottom of this page.

The members of our panel are:

Michael W. Higgins is President of St. Thomas University in Fredericton and past president of St. Jerome's University in the University of Waterloo.

Dr. Higgins is a broadcaster, author and co-author of numerous books and CBC Ideas series, including Heretic Blood, The Muted Voice, Power and Peril and Stalking the Holy.

Jennifer A. Harris is an Anglican Christian. She is assistant professor of Christianity and Culture at the University of Toronto.

Her teaching interests include Christianity and contemporary popular culture, sacred space, and the Bible in medieval society.

Lorna Dueck, an Evangelical Christian journalist, writes a monthly column for The Globe.

She is also executive producer of Listen Up TV , a weekly newsmagazine on spiritual perspectives in current events, seen Sundays on Global TV, and Thursdays on CTS, Salt and Light TV and Christian Channel.

Sheema Khan also writes a monthly column for The Globe. She has a Masters degree in physics and a Ph.D. in chemical physics from Harvard. She has worked in R&D, is an inventor and has worked at law firms in intellectual property law.

Ms. Khan also served as chair of the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-CAN) from 2000-2005.

Justin Trottier is executive director of the Centre for Inquiry Ontario, making him the first full-time paid staff member at the first venue dedicated to humanists and freethinkers in Canada.

He is co-founder of the political advocacy group Canadian Secular Alliance, as well as president of the multimedia outreach group Freethought Association of Canada.

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Michael Higgins: Although in a multicultural, multiracial and multifaith society, one should always be attentive to the particular nuances, needs and sensitivities of all the constituent parts, the temptation to eradicate difference in the interests of a common harmony is a false irenicism.

True harmony — not the ersatz kind preferred by ideologues — is built on the pillars of mutual respect, intelligent discernment of history, and genuine openness to correction.

The erasure, temporary or permanent, of God in our national vocabulary — anthem, Constitution, Charter, etc. — is hardly enlightenment.

The passion to do so has the whiff of Robespierre about it: Temple of the Goddess of Reason, the radical emergence of a new calendar, the extirpation of historical memory.

Not a Canada Day comfort.

God, for me at least, is not a static or single-definition concept. It admits of infinite — well not quite Infinite — variety and resonance.

If we mean by "God" a transcendent reality that attaches greater significance to our life as a community-in-time than historical record alone can guarantee, if we mean by "God" the attendant recognition of our collective dependence on an encompassing power that perudres beyond our numberless "isms" and sovereign entities, and if we mean by "God" a centre or locus of meaning that is trans-historical, then I am for its retention and celebration.

If, however, the inclusion of "God" in our national vocabulary and in the rituals that define us as a people is theologically specific, intolerant of personal interpretation, and invoked by political authorities to validate their judgments and decisions, then I am for its elimination.

God as hostage to political whim is a fearful reality. We know its kind in our time. The identification of God with the state is an invitation to misrule. We have seen the results.

But this is not the Canadian context. The calculated effort to delete God from our national discourse is itself a form of misplaced zeal.

Leave God alone. The alternatives, as George Steiner reminds us, can be quite grisly.

Jennifer Harris: When I was growing up in Toronto, there was no reference to God in O Canada.

The original set of English lyrics, by R. S. Weir, makes no such mention in its opening verse, and this was the version sung in my school, at hockey games, etc. Even the old Anglican hymn book, which includes our national anthem, made no mention of God in the popular first verse. Where we now sing "God keep our land glorious and free," we once sang "O Canada, glorious and free."

I am not exactly sure when the words were changed. No doubt, it had something to do with the creation of O Canada as our official national anthem in the 1980s. The French-language version has always been explicitly Christian.

This reference to "God" in the English-language version is as blandly theistic as possible, allowing for the vast majority of people in Canada to sing our anthem convincingly. There is something quite Canadian about this desire for inclusion.

While the removal of this reference would indeed be even more inclusive, something would be lost. The newer lyric says something significant that the older version, written at the turn of the "Canadian Century," does not: that Canada's glory and freedom needs protecting. And this is a truth worth noting!

Certainly, we can debate about who protects Canada's glory and freedom.

I, for one, believe that this task falls to its citizens. The request that God keep our land free need not (indeed, does not) abrogate our responsibility to an unknown, unseen force.

Rather, it reminds us, every time we sing our national anthem, that there is something very precious about Canada that requires our labour to protect. In an age of increasing fundamentalisms (religious, secular, and otherwise), this particular statement of God's work in our land seems particularly fitting. The "God" we sing about reminds us to keep Canada and Canadians free.

The removal of "God" from the national anthem would be another step in the evacuation of religion from the public sphere.

The so-called separation of church and state is an American invention that has no real place in Canada's heritage. And we have only to look to the United States to see how ineffective such a vision is.

Canada, on the other hand, should continue to maintain a respectful balance where religion is welcomed in the public domain (in schools, etc.), so long as it is not evangelistic and harmful.

This is the kind of freedom that makes Canada the fine country it is and well worth singing about.

Lorna Dueck: I am sorry I'm going to be answering this important debate on my BlackBerry as my husband drives me to Ottawa so I can finally sing O Canada on Parliament Hill.

We've long wanted to co-ordinate summer travel around the ceremonies in the capital, so we're on our way. As the fireworks burst over the Jacques Cartier Park, I will pray that God would keep our land glorious and free.

That would include a freedom which allows people of faith to vocalize their belief in God in our national anthem. Asking, as it were, for help in defending glorious freedom that humanity has shown it is incapable of maintaining.

More than 80% of Canadians profess to believe in God, and the non-specific wording about the deity in the English national anthem can cover all our interpretations of who this God is.

That is freedom, freedom to associate your faith with your expression of what it is to be a Canadian. It is an integrated, respectful reality that acknowledges Canadians who are believers in God.

The French version carries the phrase "car ton bras sait porter l'épée, it sait porter la croix." ("since you can carry the sword, you can carry the cross") and I, too, wish it could be modernized, or replaced with a phrase from the fourth and final stanza of O Canada which reads:

Ruler Supreme, who hearest humble prayer,
Hold our Dominion, in thy loving care.
Help us to find, O God, in thee,
A lasting rich reward.
As waiting for the better day,
We ever stand on guard.
God keep our land, glorious and free.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee!

That old stanza was introduced to me not in Christian schools I attended in Canada but during the revival of grass roots prayer movements that sprung up for the nation around 2000.

It's an interesting question Jennifer raises about how did "God keep our land" make its way into our anthem?

It was the Jesuit-educated Prime Minister Trudeau who proposed that we include a mention of God in our Constitution, an ecumenical group lobbied to help his idea survive, (thus acknowledging the supremacy of God is in our Constitutional preamble) and here we are today, still lobbying to keep a public expression of God in our country's ideals.

To lose it would be a step away from freedom.

Sheema Khan: On a personal note, my eyes begin to overflow every time I hear it. On Canada Day. At hockey games. At my children's' schools.

Our anthem begin with unassuming dignity and resonates with an expansiveness that parallels our glorious landscape and limitless human potential. O Canada has come to represent so much of what I love of this nation.

La belle province of Quebec figures prominently in the origins of our national anthem. The score was completed in 1880 by Quebec composer Calixa Lavallée, and the French language version soon thereafter by Adolphe-Basile Routhier. That version remains with us today.

In 1908, Robert Weir composed an English language version on the occasion of the 300th anniversary of the founding of Quebec City. A few slight changes were made over the years resulting in the current version.

The reference to "God" in the English version is in harmony with the preamble of our Charter. It reflects a recognition of the sovereignty of God to sustain and protect this land.

Most Canadians, I believe, have no issue with this reference. In fact, a few years ago, when then-MP Svend Robinson attempted to introduce a motion to remove any reference to "God" in the Charter, Canadians responded overwhelmingly against the idea.

If the reference were to be removed, it would signify a sharp departure from the acknowledgement of a spiritual connection that is part and parcel of our past and present.

While many Canadians may not ascribe all that much to organized religion, I believe that many do recognize that spiritual connection within — especially when contemplating our incredible landscape. And, when reflecting upon the many bounties that we have here, such as peace and freedom, let's not forget that this spiritual base serves to lay a moral foundation for many Canadians as well.

Recognition of a greater entity — God — as sovereign, is also a sign of humility.

I do, however, have a problem with the following passage in the French version: "Car ton bras sait porter l épée, il sait porter la croix," which roughly translates as "Since you can carry the sword, you can carry the cross."

It presents a crusading image, that is completely out of synch with the present reality. It also refers exclusively to Christianity — a reflection of the religious landscape of 1880, but not that of the 21st century.

And, it is insensitive to the experience of our aboriginal peoples at the hands of the church and state.

Should the words to our anthem be amended? At some point, yes. Some believe the reference to "all thy sons' command" should be amended to become more inclusive (I agree).

I once came across a t-shirt that said "O Canada, our home on native land." Our anthem was composed without any recognition of the Inuit and First Nations communities.

Given the recent historic apology to our aboriginal communities, we should have an anthem that includes the rich legacy of aboriginal peoples — who are the original inhabitants of this land. This may mean amending the reference to God, to also include reference to aboriginal beliefs.

Hopefully, Canadians will be open to such changes as we learn more about aboriginal history, and from the upcoming Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Justin Trottier: The inclusion of "God" in our national anthem should be removed, as should all reference to a deity (eg. government prayers and our constitutional preamble) that a quarter of Canadians reject and which is offensive, disrespectful and intolerant to those citizens who are non-theistic.

How would the anthem sound if this were done? Why, just like the original.

Forgive the history lesson, but it is crucial to realize that the national anthem has evolved considerably over time. Many English versions were drafted since 1880. One that happened to gain popularity was written in 1908 by Robert Stanley Weir, lawyer and Recorder of the City of Montreal. This version had the line simply "O Canada, glorious and free." That held fast until 1980 when the National Anthem Act officially modified it to "God keep our land glorious and free."

Incidentally, it was around this time that God found its way into the constitutional preamble.

Let me anticipate charges that Canada was founded on the Christian tradition. If we look at our founding values soberly, we might have to admit they include invasion, oppression and genocide, but I trust those are not the values one is referring to here.

Firstly, it seems racist to ignore the contribution of First Nations by instead focusing on a religion that was from the earliest days forced upon them.

Such revisionist history also ignores the complex set of forces that propelled the settling of Canada, including trade, commerce, exploration and imperialism.

Religion was certainly part of that mix, but it was not instrumental and it was often divisive (consider Protestant Upper Canada and Catholic Lower Canada).

More important, I believe, is our legal framework — provided by British common law, the French civil code and parliamentary government, all based on some form of church-state separation, where religion was up to a citizen's private conscience.

Besides, are all traditions worthy of everlasting life? Consider slavery, atrocious child labour practices, or inhuman public punishments like drawing and quartering. These traditions are all as old as religion, certainly older then Christianity. Does that speak in their favour?

Consider the conclusion we'd reach if every change to our society was seen as counter to Christianity. That would have to imply female suffrage was anti-Christian.

Since I'm already in over my head and as we've seen that traditional can change, let me make the bold suggestion that several passages in our anthem are in need of review. These include the sexism of "in all thy sons' command" and the immigrant-unfriendly "our home and native land!"

Canada needs an anthem that will unite our citizens, regardless of sex, religiosity, spoken language or place of birth.

Let's uphold the traditions of evolving our sphere of equality and of government neutrality with respect to religion and conscience, rather than upholding a single word in a document as young as me.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Thanks very much, panelists. Any thoughts on what the other have written?

Jennifer Harris: I agree heartily with Michael's points about the kind of real harmony that Canada aspires to and sings about in our national anthem. Some of the comments submitted by readers note, however, that such a vision has been hard won, sometimes against the efforts of religious leadership in this country. We must acknowledge that our religious institutions have been responsible for some of the injustice and disunity that exists in Canada today. As well, we have to acknowledge that our personal visions of a true and just Deity who affirms all justice and faith is a piety peculiar to our age. I am all for that vision, but also want to be straightforward about the rather different visions that populate our cultural landscape.

Sheema makes excellent points about the various problems with other parts of the anthem, points made as well by a number of readers. The Christian triumphalism of the French-language anthem is a problem even in a multicultural Canada. But what can be done about it, short of re-writing the whole thing? As one reader suggested, national anthems are poetic creations that reflect the age of their composition. Tinkering with poetry in order to address cultural change is usually disastrous: one has only to read some recent hymn books to see the dire results. My way of dealing with these sorts of problems is to see the anthem (and other, older artifacts) as historical, as well as living documents: sing the old words with gusto, while acknowledging that they have to be interpreted in our own age.

I am pleased that Lorna cleared up the issue of when and how the lyrics were changed. I was living in the U.S. when they were changed so I missed whatever debate may have occurred at the time. Given the number of comments stirred up by our own panel, I suspect that there was considerable controversy over the new words in 1980. I do disagree with Lorna's suggestion concerning the fourth verse of the original national hymn. I think that the oblique mention of God keeping our land is about as much God-talk as any national anthem ought to have. If we move beyond that, we are in danger of evoking a theistic triumphalism about God's protection of our country above all others. This is surely not what Lorna meant, but this is my concern.

At the risk of sounding like an old bigot, let me say that some of my best friends profess no religious affiliation. Like me (and a number of our readers), they are mystified by Justin's absolutist stand on the exclusion of all references to God from the public sphere. That 16% of people in the 2001 census claimed no religious affiliation is no resounding victory for atheism, that is, the kind that would be offended by such a reference to God. In that number (as in the statistics for every other "faith" grouping) there is huge variety of opinion. Given the comments from our readers, it would seem that Justin's remarks occupy an extreme position that few people hold. Of course, the true test of any democracy is the way it treats its minorities. And, as I have argued above, I am committed to a robust multiculturalism that creates room for difference.

My vision of Canada, moreover, is predicated on a reasoned argumentation rooted in history as well as respect for difference. There is no question that tremendous pain has been caused by religious institutions in Canada as elsewhere. This has been and will continue to be acknowledged by the churches. Forgive me, however, if I suggest that the people of faith living in Canada today ought not to be painted with the same brush as those in the past. And to say that our founding legal institutions are rooted in form of religion that is purely private is to misunderstand both legal history and the notion of conscience. A quick look at British (and Canadian) common law will reveal the enormous and very public role of religion in these systems (including the rather comical maintenance of blasphemy laws in England to the present day).

The theological notion of conscience is not, as Justin suggests, a private matter alone, but the sensed integration of one's own understanding of a situation in the light of the communal understanding of same matter. Conscience is, therefore, a public matter, and, no doubt, drives a number of important changes in law. It was, after all, a matter of conscience that prompted a minister of religion to perform the first same-sex marriage in Canada. Change is part of our religious tradition as much as it is about our national identity.

Michael Higgins: Jennifer is incontestably right in my view when she observes that "change is part of our religious tradition as much as it is about our national identity."

But then so too — in some instances — is continuity. God fits the bill.

Lorna Dueck: For my fellow panellists, I would like Jennifer to explain further her comment that in Canada religion should be public but not "evangelistic." What are your thoughts on that, Jennifer?

Jennifer Harris: The distinction I see between public and evangelistic faith is the one I envision operating in a religion classroom in a public school.

Faith is "on the table," it is studied from an insider and outside perspective, and is taken seriously. Its rituals and creeds are discussed, they are analyzed, even observed, the impact they may (and do) have on public life grappled with.

In short, the reality of religious faith (in all its variety) is part of the curriculum, and is understood as a widely occurring phenomenon in human life.

But (and this is a big one), those who teach religion are scrupulous in their neutrality: all religions are taught, none are professed or promoted.

Justin Trottier: I feel as though I've been misunderstood and so I want to make one comment on the concept of secularism, and religion and conscience in the public square.

Jennifer speaks against keeping religious debate and beliefs out of the public space, saying: "The theological notion of conscience is not, as Justin suggests, a private matter alone." I could not agree more and I'm unsure how she got some other impression.

She goes on to explain her ideal society in which "faith is 'on the table' … all religions are taught, none are professed or promoted" so that we can "create a reasonable place for the diversity of faiths to be acknowledged and understood."

But she fails to make one important distinction. Religious belief and secular conscience should be debated with complete freedom and openness in the public square.

But how is that possible if the government decides for us that theism is the correct worldview, enshrining it in our constitution and in our anthem, effectively biasing the ensuing discussion on such issues.

Many who fail to understand this distinction would do well to read The Secular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life, a new book by my colleague at the Centre for Inquiry, Austin Dacey. Dacey argues that it is precisely by keeping government officially neutral with respect to religion that we can have a truly open square in which decisions are not already made for us.

Now let's explore whether the public square really is open to the whole spectrum of ideas by looking at the case of former MP Svend Robinson. You may recall that Sheema discussed him in reference to his introducing a motion to remove reference to "God" in the charter. Robinson merely had to introduce a petition from another organization, and one he stated he was not personally supporting, to have his opinion mocked and to be back-benched by his party.

Seems like that square is open so long as your point of view falls within the acceptable banner of theism.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Let's move on now to the questions.

To our readers: We will be posting the panelists' answers as they arrive.

Michael Banner, Norway: Thank you in advance for reading my question.

It is this: The line is "God keep our land" but what is the definition of "God" in this context? Many religions have the same god with different pretenses on what God represents — Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim.

It is my personal belief that religion is the "fraud of the age," but I still do not forsake God in that same statement. God and religion are separate to me personally. I believe in my heart that while I don't know who God is, I know what he isn't ... and that is the face of religion, in any facet.

Jennifer Harris: Like you, I am not a fan of religion, which I understand to be the human and institutional side of faith. Religion, understood in this way, is certainly responsible for many misguided and tragic occurrences in history.

And, like you, I don't know who God is. As a Christ-follower, I believe that the God of the universe was known in the person of Jesus. But that is just the beginning of my understanding of who God is.

As I noted in my original essay, the reference to God in the national anthem is quite generic, and speaks to a huge portion of contemporary Canadian society, as well as to the traditions on which the land was founded.

I suspect that in the statistics that have been bandied about in this debate, someone like you would be included in the less than 20% of Canadians who profess no religion. And as you illustrate so well, this is not the same as being atheist.

Lorna Dueck: Hi, Michael. As a Christian, I don't believe I can limit God to my own understanding but rather I accept the Biblical record to define the name of God. That culminates in the specific revelation of Jesus as the identity of God.

When Jesus left us the prayer "Our Father, Hallowed be thy name . . . " it is an indicator to me that the identity of God is something I shouldn't mess around with and I have nothing beyond the Biblical record that allows for progress in redefining God.

In this kind of debate we're having online, that sounds ludicrous and narrow-minded but it does allow me to address your contentious point where you describe religion as the "fraud of the age."

Here's what I've come to appreciate about that contentious word — religion: I like religion's Latin meaning — ligare, which we take the word "ligament" from as well. Re-ligare, which tells me that religion, when working well, is like a ligament constantly reconnecting to source.

So for me, my religious community, services, traditions, education, creed, doctrines, all help me connect to my spiritual life.

Yes, I have encountered fraud in it, but the "re" before "ligare" means repeat — and that's how I approach my faith. I do go back to source material on my Christian truth repeatedly.

Despite disappointment with people, including myself, who claim to be "religious," I repeat or reconnect the "ligare" to the Bible, and the community, and church that grows, guards and celebrates a Christian identity of connecting God to be as a life-giving source.

Sheema Khan: Hi, Michael: Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I believe the answer to your question lies in your comments, and in the essays of Michael Higgins and Jennifer Harris.

You make a distinction between God and religion. Doesn't our national anthem — in English at least — refer only to God and not to any particular religion?

The French-language version, on the other hand, refers exclusively to Christianity, and does not mention "Dieu" ("God") once.

Furthermore, as Jennifer Harris states, the reference to God is as "blandly theistic as possible" — i.e., not tied to any one particular faith. As such, Canadians from diverse backgrounds and faiths would understand the meaning of God according to their own understanding and belief.

It's as though the reference to God is a Rorscach blot, open to interpretation according to the inclination of the beholder.

As to context, Michael Higgins points out that the Canadian context is not one of intolerance, exclusivity or state propaganda.

If anything, attempting to pigeon-hole the reference to God, is akin to limiting the attributes of God. Beseeching God to keep "our land glorious and free" is a humble acknowledgement of the bounties that we have here, an acknowledgement of the past efforts of countless women and men who have struggled to keep this land "glorious and free," and a desire to continue the same. Not through passive efforts, but by striving with our God-given conscience and efforts to continuously improve our society.

Justin Trottier: While it's fine for Michael to separate god from religion and continue his belief in the former, he and others must realize that lots of people have rejected both.

Jennifer insists that only 16% of people are non-religious and that that includes lots of spiritual variety. That survey is 7 years old. The newest Harris/Decima poll from a couple of months ago shows 23% of Canadians (36% of those under 25) avowedly atheists and agnostics.

Keep those stats in mind as we discuss inclusion. Jennifer describes the current anthem as "blandly theistic" and says there is "something quite Canadian about this desire for inclusion."

Similarly, Lorna describes this as "an integrated, respectful reality that acknowledges Canadians who are believers in God."

Sheema speaks in favour of a national anthem in which "Canadians from diverse backgrounds and faiths would understand the meaning of God according to their own understanding and belief."

Why are we focusing only on "diverse backgrounds and faiths" when the combined number of adherents of all non-Christian believers in this country is less then 10%?

While our spirit of multiculturalism pushes us to open our traditions to some select others, in diluting Judeo-Christianity to the more open but limited "theistic club," we actually further reinforce the marginalization of a constituency that is at least twice as big.

Geoffrey Sigalet: There is no value-neutral option here.

Remove God and you have taken a significant part of many Canadians' ethical topography/identity out of the conversation.

Leave God in and you support a generic, at least Judeo-Christian-Islamic, pillar of self-understanding . . .

How could anyone who believes in the desire for recognition that lies at the heart of the multiculturalist ideal not champion the recognition of a word that amounts to an object of ethical importance and reverence for the majority of Canadians?

To oppose mentioning "God" in the anthem, you have to be more than an atheist — you must be opposed to recognizing the traditions that matter most to Canadians and you must oppose the abstract spirit of multiculturalism.

Lorna Dueck: Hello, Geoffrey. Yes, I agree, we should all be free to define God to our own beliefs.

Sheema Khan: Thank you, Geoffrey, for sharing your thoughtful perspective. Perhaps you have keyed in the essence of "political correctness," in that, when we try not to offend the minority, we often forget that which is important to the majority.

Of course, others might describe this as the "tyranny of the majority." But that is another topic.

As you point out, the majority of Canadians have reverence for God (to varying degrees) in some form or another.

Canadians showed their true colours when they overwhelmingly rejected Svend Robinson's motion to delete the mention of God in the preamble of our Charter. I suspect the same would happen if reference to God were to be removed from our anthem.

Justin Trottier: The implication that it is anti-multicultural to oppose the anthem or the equating of freedom with preservation of the current anthem is unfair.

If one person's freedom or sense of belonging comes at the expense of someone else feeling like less then a citizen, that hardly seems Canadian.

One of our commentators said it best: "Pick something you firmly don't believe in and then try singing the line from our national anthem asking for it to keep your land."

I also want to comment here on the repeated insistence that the vast majority of Canadians support the current anthem, which is reflected in the questioner Geoffrey's insistence that removing God takes away a significant part of a huge number of people's ethical identity (to which I must wonder that if environmentalism is the centre of my identity is that diminished if environmentalism is not represented in the anthem?).

Sheema said "Most Canadians, I believe, have no issue with this reference" and Jennifer went so far as to say "given the comments from our readers, it would seem that Justin's remarks occupy an extreme position that few people hold."

In other words, only radical atheists could support my position and certainly no religious person would. But far from it. If you read through the last 50 comments, about half were opposed to the current anthem, and many very passionately, pointing out how they are made to feel like second-class citizens because of the prevalence of god in governmental places.

Statistically speaking, this might imply that it's more than just the 23% of Canadians who are atheists or agnostics who line up on this church-state issue.

Some examples? Joel Freeman says "you are asking us to bow down (ever so slightly) to something we equate with the tooth fairy." Lloyd Fear explained: "As an atheist, I refused to sing them or stand for what I considered an 'illegal' anthem. For my crimes, I was harrassed by teachers, VP and Principal." Dorrie Ratzlaff said "those who are complaining about their religious sensitivities being 'offended' should consider how much it offends people who do not believe in 'god' to have 'god' foisted upon them in their national anthem." Finally, Stephen Hansen describes the current anthem as "causing one in five Canadians to cringe when they sing the anthem with the current words."

These individuals are not just academically opposed to the current anthem — for them it is a matter of a deep feeling of emotional disconnect from their country and a feeling of being a second-class citizen forced to participate in someone else's religious ritual.

Jennifer Harris: Geoffrey, you have articulated quite well the principle of multiculturalism that should be at the heart of this debate. Recognition and acceptance of difference is central to this principle.

The elimination of religion from the public sphere is about the annihilation of difference in a misguided effort to make everyone the same.

If the only way we can live together is to pretend that we are all the same, then we are not truly living together. My colleague on the panel, Michael Higgins, spoke to this point quite well, I think.

Religious issues are going to play a greater and greater role in Canadian society in the coming years. The most recent census in which such numbers were tabulated (2001) suggests that religious diversity is growing at a tremendous rate.

One option for dealing with this diversity is, of course, to curb all reference to religion in public. But, I suggest, that a far better option is to create a reasonable place for the diversity of faiths to be acknowledged and understood.

The recent debate about funding faith-based schools revealed a great deal of intolerance that lurks in our midst. Even the comments in response to this panel suggests this.

Saying that we can excise such an important element from the public sphere is, is my view, impractical.

Edgar Rogalski, Hamilton, Ont.: I think the debate about changing the lyrics to O Canada would be better served by a discussion about some of the other lyrics.

For example, "all our sons command" is not inclusive and leaves out more than 50% of the population whereas less than 20% of the population are opposed to God.

Also how many times can you repeat "we stand on guard for thee"? And what does that mean? Is that a militaristic sentiment? If so, then it should say "we stand on guard for the U.S.A. way over there".

I am glad that so many people in Canada are not so arrogant to assert that they are the origin and creators of Canada. Surely most of us need to depend on some power greater than ourselves. The word "God" will do in the English language for words in other languages and other faiths.

Michael Higgins: It does seem to me that Geoffrey and Edgar are right in identifying the inherent problem of selecting one "variable" — if you can call God a variable — in the anthem and in similar cultural-political statements that speak to our national reality.

In light of the gender-insensitive, militaristic and imperialistic sentiments redolent of an earlier time to be found in some of our national discourse about heritage and unity, God seems pretty anodyne.

Sheema Khan: Hi, Ed. Those are very interesting questions, that all reflect the fact that words used to convey meaning in one historical context, ay not adequately reflect the evolution of society.

For sure, reference to "sons command" excludes females, and, as such, should be amended to reflect gender equality that is enshrined in our Charter (although not yet in paycheques as women continue to fight for pay equity).

As for "standing on guard for Thee," I don't believe it is meant in a militaristic manner, but rather, as a statement of principle, that Canadians may wish to relfect upon more. "What do we stand for?" is a much better way to define identity than "Who are we?"

Repetition of phrases is a means for emphasizing a point, and the anthem reminds Canadians to be vigilant in protecting our collective cherished values.

Nonetheless, I strongly believe that our anthem must be amended to incorporate the rich legacy of our aboriginal peoples, for they are part and parcel of this land. Our complete lack of acknowledgement of their efforts, let alone their presence, in our anthem is a disgrace.

If we pride ourselves on inclusiveness, shouldn't we begin at home — by restoring mutual dignity through sincere reconciliation?

Justin Trottier: Yes, I agree that the anthem is in need of multiple changes. Curiously, this is one area where I am not alone on the panel. Some, Sheema in particular, agree that we need changes to reflect sexism and discrimination against First Nations people.

But if traditions can and thankfully do change, I must ask again why so many are fighting so strongly to keep non-theists from being able to sing the anthem with equal pride and respect.

Jennifer Harris: There is much to say about problems in the language of the national anthem, as many of our commentators note.

Short of rewriting the whole thing, it seems that we must all make peace with these problems.

I suspect that many folks sing "in all of us command" to deal with the sexism, just as some use the older lyrics to leave mention of God out.

I sing "we stand on guard for thee" as a collective responsibility to protect and fight for what we value in this country. This may involve military action abroad, but far more importantly it calls us to action here at home. For me, such action includes voting, paying taxes, engaging in social activism, staying informed on issues, protesting injustice and curbs on free speech.

Standing on guard is what all Canadians ought to do as a matter of the privilege of living in this fine country.

Lorna Dueck: Hi, Edgar. Now, I'm starting to feel old. I love the tradition of singing the national anthem as it is and I don't want to make any changes.

Last night, after the amazing fireworks on Parliament Hill, the crowd was too thick to walk in so we pulled out of the fray, stood along the railing at the Chateau Laurier and watched thousands of young people swarm past in red and white. It was an enormously rowdy, boisterous and youthful crowd. I saw kids spontaneously gathered whooping out O Canada in full verse.

A stunning memory of what makes this nation great!