News

"Neither the wrath of his Catholic mother nor the thousands of e-mails and petitions from the public prove Ontario should cling to the tradition of opening the daily proceedings of the legislature with the Lord's Prayer, Premier Dalton McGuinty said Tuesday," The Canadian Press reported in its article McGuinty holds firm in face of outcry over prayer

"It's the government's job to lead and ensure the daily reading at the legislature reflects the diversity of Ontario," Mr. McGuinty added, according to the CP report.

"It's been said that our job is to represent the future to the present," the premier added. "We continue to change as province, as a society in terms of our make-up and our cultures and our faiths.

"We've got a responsibility to ensure that all people feel truly at home here."

An all-party committee is now studying the fate of the Lord's Prayer, sorting through 5,700 e-mails sent by the public so far — which temporarily crashed the legislature's website — and hearing from at least 50 faith groups in person.

"In some places, they've eliminated all form of prayer entirely and replaced it with something that is seen to be broadly acceptable to everybody," said Mr. McGuinty, adding other legislatures just have a moment of silence.

The last time the Ontario legislature updated its daily prayer was in 1969, when it changed the preamble to the Lord's Prayer. It is one of the few remaining provinces — along with Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick — still reciting the Lord's Prayer.

Both the House of Commons and the Senate recite non-denominational prayers. Quebec's National Assembly has only a daily moment of reflection.

As Mr. McGuinty said, many jurisdictions are struggling to find a balance between the historic intertwining of religion and politics — especially in areas where a majority of the first European settlers and immigrants came to North America for the freedom to practise their different versions of the Christian faith — and the increasingly multicultural nature of Canada.

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

That's why globeandmail.com has invited our semi-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, what does your faith/creed/religion/organization now say about the role, if any, of faith in today's political process?

What do you think of the Ontario proposal?

As usual, the panelists each have written a short essay and have answered questions from our readers. You can read the entire exchange 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.

Lorna Dueck, an Evangelical Christian journalist, writes a monthly column for The Globe. Her latest: What Rev. Wright did wrong

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.

Rabbi Ed Elkin has been the spiritual leader of the First Narayever Congregation in downtown Toronto since 2000.

Born in New York, he graduated from Princeton University and has worked or studied in Canada, the United States and Israel.

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.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Thanks, panel. Let's get right to your opening essays.

Michael Higgins: Roman Catholicism is not shy in asserting the public witness of religion.

The church has been a major player — in some instances, the determinative player — on the political scene throughout the centuries and there are not a few controversies generated by such ecclesiastical activity.

It is important to distinguish among political and public activities and responsibilities in terms of personal commitment, professional duties, and genuine religious feelings.

For instance, the Roman Catholic Church is quite explicit about the leadership in the public square that should and must be exercised by lay persons with appropriate training and qualifications.

The laity have as part of their baptismal vocation a duty to enflesh Christian teaching in their personal behaviour, bear witness to others of the liberating power of the Gospel, and teach by means of praxis rather than by homily.

The distinct roles or vocations of Catholics are in great measure determined by their response to live their lives as laypersons, cloistered religious, active religious, monks, or priests. Such a decision determines the nature and manner of their participation in the political sphere.

Although clerics have been involved in partisan political life — Bob Ogle and Andy Hogan for the New Democratic Party in Canada, Jesuit Robert Drinan for the U.S. Democrats, Ernesto Cardenal for the Sandinistas of Nicaragua (there were in fact four priests involved in the cabinet)and a spattering of others across the planet — under John Paul II there was a concerted, sustained and largely successful effort to impose severe canonical impediments on those clerics who chose to get involved in party politics. In John Paul's mind, and indeed this is true as well for Benedict XVI, there can be no accommodation on this matter.

Interestingly, the recently elected president of Paraguay has broken the stranglehold of the Colorado Party and offered more than a modicum of hope to his beleaguered citizens. His name is Lugo and he is a bishop, although he resigned from active ministry when he chose to run and unseat the corrupt incumbent.

The involvement of Catholic religious leaders in the political process by way of suasion, exhortation, and inspiration is clearly the preferred mode in North America and Europe.

When issues of compelling moral consequence arise, it is not unreasonable for informed clerics to remind Catholic voters of the moral priorities that must be maintained. In fact, it is their duty and hardly constitutes an unwarranted intrusion into the political sphere.

Where it becomes complicated is most markedly seen against the backdrop of threatened ecclesiastical censure, withholding of the sacraments, public admonishment, and calls for retaliation at the polls for errant Catholic politicians who are seen to publicly hold positions that compromise Catholic teaching and their conscience.

These matters are rare and require sensible, measured, pastoral and respectful dialogue. In the end, it is the individual Catholic who must make the rightful discernment, ever conscious of the sometimes competing authorities: the ecclesiastical magisterium and his/her own conscience.

We saw this played out during the last federal election with various Catholic politicians conflicted over the same-sex marriage legislation and with various bishops and priests responding in divergent ways depending on the candidate, pastoral strategy, and Vatican sensitivities.

In short, it is complex but not an option: involvement in the public square is a moral and religious imperative for Catholics but the nature of that involvement will depend upon one's vocation.

Lorna Dueck: The greatest commands of Christianity are to love God and love our neighbour, and that is what compels a Christian into the political process. The Bible also asks us to pray for rulers and governments "so that it will go well for us."

Involvement in the political process is a quest to better the lives of humanity, and is a deeply held evangelical expression.

Let me quote a few of our heroes of political activism in Christianity, Dietrich Bonhoeffer who was hanged for his part in trying to assassinate Adolf Hitler. A renowned academic, he fought the idea that there were "Two Kingdoms" — one for the state, one for the soul — and he demanded the "church take its place in the centre of the village." Bonhoeffer wrote: "Obedience to God's will may be a religious experience but it is not an ethical one until it issues in actions that can be socially valued."

Canada's immigration and social welfare system, public education, women's right to vote, the creation of Canada's Charter of Rights were all expressions of political issues informed by Christian faith.

Protecting humanity as worthy of inherent and equal dignity is a worldview shaped by the concept that each individual is created in the image of God.

Today, faith activism is described by Rev. Jim Wallis in God's Politics: "The best contribution of religion is precisely not to be ideologically predictable nor loyally partisan. Both parties, and the nation, must let the prophetic voice of religion be heard. Faith must be free to challenge both right and left from a consistent moral ground."

Ontario's Premier has given us a fresh battle for letting the voice of religion be heard in his suggestion to remove the Lord's Prayer from the Legislature.

When politicians are invited to be present for a prayer seeking God's guidance in their activities, this is a reflection of the diversity of religious expression among citizens they serve.

While there is no need to force participation or exclusively say the Lord's Prayer, it is discriminatory to deny that prayer to citizens whose access point to God is through Jesus.

Likewise, a recent Human Rights Tribunal which advises Christian agencies that they cannot self-define their faith if they intend to serve the public is also discriminatory.

Religion is a protected fundamental freedom and equality right in Canada, and Christianity is compelled to champion that inclusion in society.

Rabbi Ed Elkin: Many sectors of society which were once the exclusive domain of the dominant group are now striving to be inclusive of minorities.

Schools, workplaces, the justice system, law enforcement — all these sectors and more are endeavouring to recognize through their practices that Ontario is a fantastically diverse place.

The effort to accommodate minorities is not always simple, as institutions seek to hold on to the traditions that have always defined them as a way of clarifying their identity in an often confusing world.

If any place in Ontario should represent the potential for all the citizens of the province — of whatever race, religion, socio-economic background, gender, etc. — to feel included and represented, that place is the provincial legislature.

For the government to be perceived as privileging a majority group over any number of minority groups is devastating for the effort to help minorities feel included in our democracy.

Jews who live in democracies like Canada have long held that our rights as a minority are best safeguarded by a strong separation of religion and state.

This separation, we feel, is important not just to safeguard government from religious interference, but also to safeguard religious groups from government interference.

The Lord's Prayer is a specifically Christian prayer, derived from the New Testament. As such, it deserves respect. Christians down through the generations have drawn hope and inspiration and faith from the words of this prayer.

But its place is in church, not in the provincial legislature.

Is this the most important issue facing Ontario today? No. Many other issues cry out for our attention. Homelessness and poverty. Gang violence. Environmental degradation. The ailing economy. Diminishing sources of energy. These are among the many issues which are more important than the recitation of the Lord's Prayer.

But Premier McGuinty has put the issue on the table, and in this he has my full support.

Symbols do matter. If the legislators want to keep a public prayer component as part of their deliberations, they should look at ways of organizing it so that members of religious minorities don't feel excluded.

Whether it be by allowing the prayers of different religions to be recited on a rotation with the Lord's Prayer, or by composing a new prayer which uses neutral language not derived from one particular religious tradition, or by eliminating prayer and simply allotting a moment for silent reflection before engaging in the important legislative work of our democracy — any of these ways would I think leave most Jews satisfied that the crucially important separation between religion and state is being zealously preserved.

And that's as it should be in our wonderfully diverse province.

Justin Trottier: The Premier should be commended for calling on a re-evaluation of reciting the Lord's Prayer at legislative meetings and inviting comments from everyone spanning atheists to Buddhists.

He understands that — like the tradition of denying voting rights to women or equality rights to non-whites — some exclusionary traditions no longer reflect the values of Ontario.

The Premier acknowledged the changing demographics of Ontario and this includes the fact that atheists and humanists now account for 18 per cent of the population.

The business of running our province is based on MPPs representing the views of constituents in their ridings, including their deep variety of beliefs or lack of belief.

In responding to the numbers game, some have stated that the majority of our province is still Christian.

Yet the Charter protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority. If a majority of the province being Christian justifies the Lord's Prayer, why not allow bosses to call employees to prayers at the start of the workday, bus drivers to welcome travelers on board with a prayer or salespeople to end every sale with a short thanks to the Almighty.

Religious traditions have their time and place, and if they are inappropriate at work, at school, in public transit and public malls, then they surely are in the Legislature, the seat of representative public power where one and all are welcome equally and without prejudice.

According to the Charter, no one should be forced to a religious belief they do not hold. By demanding that parliamentarians participate in prayer or make their minority views public by leaving, they are being forced to make an impossible choice. Stay and be self-aware of their hypocrisy. Leave and risk the prejudice of the parliament.

There is a larger issue here concerning the real meaning of multiculturalism. The assumption that only those who believe in some higher power ought to be included in multicultural considerations is offensive. Rather than finding unity through diversity, this illusion of tolerance is founded on the need to find something we all have in common. This is not true tolerance and any prayer that continues invoking any deity will fail to achieve the noble goal of full inclusion.

What is the solution? It is not keeping the Lord's Prayer but adding a slew of new religious prayers. This is not the meaning of multiculturalism to Ontarians, as indicated by the public's resounding defeat of the Conservative proposal to fund additional faith-based schools.

Polls showed 70 per cent of the public wanting one secular public school system, excluding our anachronistic public Catholic schools.

The same holds true here. We should remove all religious prayers or statements of faith from the legislature.

To mark the significance of the occasion, how about a civic pledge, in the form of a mission statement? This daily reminder of duty could be interpreted individually and anonymously as either a religious oath before god or a secular affirmation, like the choice at the ballot box.

A pledge to the electorate, who truly vest our MPPs with their power and responsibility, would make more sense.

Sheema Khan: The issue of faith in politics is part of the larger issue of the role of faith in daily life.

For Muslims, remembrance of God is paramount. For example, we have the five daily prayers (at dawn, mid-afternoon, forenoon, sunset and evening) during which we take a few minutes to reflect upon our place in this universe.

It reminds us of our human fragility, and provides an opportunity to be grateful, and unburden our soul to our Creator. It also reminds us of our accountability for our actions and thoughts —: moments to refresh one's conscience.

When it comes to an elected legislature in a pluralistic society, the role of faith and prayer can be a tremendous source of strength and guidance for some. Holding a political office is a tremendous responsibility, and as such, should be discharged with integrity.

There is nothing wrong with an individual drawing upon his or her religious tradition to help discharge such a duty towards the body public.

Of course, the issue here is the fact that Ontario is no longer a monolithic Christian province. The legislature, which is supposed to represent the people of Ontario, should be inclusive of all faiths.

There are a number of ways to do this — as many other legislatures have discovered.

The proposal by Premier Dalton McGuinty is quite reasonable, in that it reflects the contemporary make-up of Ontario.

Should the Lord's Prayer be abolished? Personally, I don't believe so, since the majority of MPPs are Christian, and I assume, would find succor in this prayer. However, opportunity should be given to MPPs of other faiths to say offer their supplication as well — if they choose to do so.

Perhaps the solution is to allow a moment of silence for every MPP to say whatever prayers he/she wishes, in his/her own tradition.

On a personal note, as a child in Montreal public school, I would hear the Lord's Prayer daily. While I did not pray along, I thoroughly appreciated the opportunity to reflect upon the bounties of God, ask for guidance, and begin my day in peace and humility.

I also appreciated listening to the religious traditions of a faith different from my own.

Jim Sheppard: Thanks very much, panelists. Let's move on today to the questions from our readers.

Michael B.: How can we require that the Lord's Prayer, a Christian ritual, be read at the opening of the daily proceedings of the legislature? This would seem to be an indirect (but obvious) statement that our government represents the Christians first and everyone else afterward — which I hope is not a stance we would be willing to endorse.

Rabbi Ed Elkin: Michael, I believe that your reasoning is what stands behind Premier McGuinty's decision to take up this issue. I agree with your stance.

Sheema Khan: Hi, Michael: Thanks for the interesting question, which goes to the heart of the issue: How do we maintain our heritage, while entering into the future?

The Lord's Prayer is such an integral part of the Christian heritage of this nation and should not be dismissed lightly. Its reading reflects the religious inclination of the majority of the legislature.

As a member of a "minority," I do not take any offence, nor do I interpret it as a message of "Christians come first."

Most of us are secure in who we are and recognize affirmation of identity [be it religious, racial, linguistic, etc] as such.

Adrian Powell, Vancouver: We have our churches, mosques and synagogues to deal with religious issues, and we have our government to deal with worldly, secular issues. We expect our government to be concerned with our lives today. It is our responsibility to deal with our souls.

My question is this: If we want our government to give us the freedom to practise religions of our choosing, then shouldn't we all support a completely secular government, including the removal of anything which gives the appearance of bias?

Sheema Khan: Hello, Adrian. Thanks for a multi-faceted question.

I agree with you that the role of government is to administer civic affairs, not matters of the soul. However, the role of prayer in the legislature is for the benefit of individual members, and is not meant as a policy issue to be applied to all Ontarians.

Freedom to practice religion is exactly that — freedom to say a prayer, or worship, according to one's own traditions.

Abolishing prayer in the legislature implies the loss of such freedom for people of faith, and for Christians in particular.

If we wish to remove the appearance of bias, then perhaps we should try to be more inclusive by allowing individuals to worship, in silence, according to their own faith tradition.

Michael Higgins: I understand the perspective that insists on the complete separation of matters religious from matters political. After all, we have many unsavoury examples of religion's intervention into the political sphere that have been largely destructive of the commonweal.

However, there are marvellous counter examples we tend to forget that speak of religion's constructive role in the political arena (the Social Gospel, the Antigonish Movement, etc.).

The misguided efforts to expunge the specific memory of specific faiths is a form of collective amnesia. What is it that motivates people to seek faith's careful isolation as if it were a deadly virus?

Why do so many assume that the only reasonable course of action to take about this religious "thing" is to get "it" far out of the way of the healthy body politic?

Religion is not an aberrant phenomenon, a divertissement for sociologists, a tabula rasa for the fanatical, a control mechanism for the masses.

It is constitutive of human and social meaning, a sign of a community's commitment to a genuine mosaic of values and sensibilities, a guarantor of freedom and not its premier eradicator.

To that end, public markers of a determinative religious tradition — a major shaper of the prevailing culture — should be treasured as signatures of connection across the centuries and among peoples rather than as vestigial reminders of an old and homogenizing orthodoxy.

Saying the Lord's Prayer in the legislature at the opening of a session does not privilege Christianity. It acknowledges its formative role, a role that is no longer exclusive, dominant, or intolerant. It only privileges history over ideology, cultural and religious generosity over the new and more deadly arrogance of our time.

Lorna Dueck: Hi, Michael and Adrian. Allowing prayer into a legislature is reflection of the diversity of the constituency served. It is a neutral acknowledgement that some citizens shape their identity by their faith.

Just as ethnicity, colour, sex, physical or mental disability and sexual orientation are all Charter rights we protect in Canada, religion is in that list too. We would not think of banishing expression of those other qualities, so why religion?

We accommodate and welcome our diversity, and religion is one of those elements in that diversity. Just because we have a prayer to God in our process of government does not mean we have a theocracy or a non-secular state.

We should invite all faiths to be expressed in a prayer that opens the legislature, their prayers, along with the Lord's Prayer could be said in a rotation, or frame a daily prayer that allows all faiths to be acknowledged.

There is a lot of confusion, Adrian, about your phrase "completely secular government." The meaning of the word secular in its origin and as defined by Supreme Court Justice Beverly McLaughlin (Surrey School Board ruling) is a state not dominated by God, but not exclusive of it either.

I'd recommend further reading on how to understand what secularism is at Centre For Cultural Renewal.

Rabbi Ed Elkin: Adrian, yes, I agree with you.

Some of the other panelists responded to the issue of whether and how our elected representatives should incorporate their own faith into their work.

There is no way that we can expect the human beings we elect to forget about their most fundamental beliefs as soon as they walk through the doors of the legislature. Their beliefs will inevitably influence their judgments on the issues of the day.

It is their responsibility, however, to remember that they are elected to serve all Ontarians and to uphold the constitutional principles of our democracy, and not to implement the principles of the particular religious faith to which they belong.

This is not easy to separate, but that is what our legislators must do because, ultimately you are right — the foundations of our government are secular and not religious.

Justin Trottier: I am glad to see that most questioners understand the crucial importance of the separation of church and state as a bulwark against the tyranny of the majority or the tyranny of influential religious institutions.

Secularism as a political goal first realized in the United States and then many western democracies was the result of a long struggle by coalitions of atheists, deists, freethinkers and religious believers based on a keen understanding of the history of persecution and religious wars.

Eric, Windsor: Why is it that the historical fabric on which this amazing country was founded needs to be changed?

Biblical scripture is carved into the rock archways and facia of the Parliament Buildings as a testament to what the founders of this country believed.

A general prayer, a moment of silence to appease immigrants [and other faiths] is nothing more than political pandering, bowing, and giving up our heritage as a Christian nation.

Justin Trottier: This country was in no sense founded as a Christian nation.

From its historic compromises between English and French, and Catholics and Protestants, it was founded as a secular nation with a deep respect for religious and cultural plurality, and this was further developed in the Charter and Constitution which grant equality rights to those of all religious persuasions.

But even if we were to accept your thesis, this country continues to evolve.

At the time of its founding, the right to vote was exclusive to men and homosexuality was a sin. Those are examples of traditions that many are glad to have changed.

In any case, the true question is what kind of country we want to live in, moving forward with our changing demographics and our heightened awareness of the crucial importance of church-state separation as the best way to accommodate such pluralism.

Do we want to maximize political liberty for all citizens equally or do we want religious minorities to be tolerated but treated as second-class? Any tradition which keeps us tied to the latter must be severed.

Lorna Dueck: Hello, Eric. I have some bad news about those Scriptures over the archways of the Center Block entrance to Parliament. They were not a testament to the founders of our country. It was a personal reflection of architect John Pearson, who expressed his freedom to love God and show it publicly in his work and the historic record of 1921 shows he got in trouble for it.

Pearson's papers were all destroyed in a fire, so we don't know his take on this.

But after debate in Parliament it was decided it would diminish the facia to take the verses out of the stone, so Pearson's expression of faith stayed, and reflected the diversity of our country.

Of the thousands of carvings in Parliament, 12 are explicitly Christian and I think that story is instructive of where we are at now.

Christians of decades past were visible and reasoned with their ideas and values as our nation was being formed, and they will need to continue in that tradition.

Our heritage has always included people who lived out a Christian worldview in creation of public policy, justice, health care, science, art, entertainment, even The Globe and Mail has a glorious Christian origin.

Since the 1960s, organized Christianity has struggled to express itself within the ethos of multiculturalism in nation building. That's a call for the Church to be a more helpful mobilizer of the faithful.

Rabbi Ed Elkin: Eric, we disagree on the fundamental point of the identity of our country. You believe it is a "Christian nation." I believe it is a nation for all its citizens, most of whom are Christian but more and more of whom are not.

I don't feel that the moment of silence represents "appeasement" or "pandering" or "bowing" to me and my community. I believe it is a potential solution which recognizes the wonderfully diverse nature of our society and our democracy.

Non-Christian Canadians either are equal citizens, or we're not. If we're not, then it's fine to keep the Lord's Prayer. But I believe most Canadians do not share your perspective. Most believe this is a country for all its citizens.

This also happens to be the approach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We all have something to contribute, and we all have an equal claim on both the rights and responsibilities of our shared public space.

Sheema Khan: Hello, Eric. Thank you for your heartfelt perspective.

I don't believe anyone is asking for Ontario to give up its Christian heritage. The suggested changes by Dalton McGuinty merely reflect the changing nature of our population.

When Ontario was 100 per cent Christian, and all its MPPs were Christian, it made perfect sense to open with the Lord's Prayer.

Now, there are MPPs of different faiths and, more importantly, Ontarians of different faiths who are represented by their MPPs.

I believe the Christian faith is generous enough to be inclusive of all people — including those who do not ascribe to the faith.

Tony Matthews, Kingston, N.S.: Why is it that the very groups who demand freedom of religion are also the first to try to impose their religious beliefs on others?

Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion.

Why should the government impose a religious practice upon its members and its citizens when religion should be a private affair between your family, your place of worship and your choice of god/s?

Rabbi Ed Elkin: Tony, there is nothing in the recitation of the Lords Prayer in the provincial legislature which entails an imposition of religious practice on citizens.

As a member of a religious group which represents about 1 per cent of the country's population, I have never felt majority religious beliefs or practices to be imposed on me. For that I am very grateful, because there have been many times in Jewish history when that has not been true, and sadly there are many places in the world even today where that is not true.

Even at the legislature, I'm quite sure none of our elected representatives has been required to recite the Lord's Prayer.

However, its public recitation does set a certain tone which represents a very different time in the history of our province, and that is why, I believe, it is now being addressed.

Sheema Khan: Thanks for your question, Tony.

The current practice of reciting The Lord's Prayer at the Ontario legislature is not an imposition of religious practice upon the residents of Ontario. No one is demanding Ontarians to recite a prayer. It is a custom for MPPs.

Perhaps those MPPs who do not profess Christianity, may feel a little alienated, perhaps not. I do not know.

As for religion being a private affair, yes, it is intensely private. However, many people of faith do not check their values [often based on religious traditions] at the door. There is a continuum.

And as I mentioned in the opening essay, public office is a tremendous trust. There is nothing wrong in asking for guidance from a higher power in order to discharge this trust dutifully.

A Canadian Girl: I went to an all girls' high school with connections to the Anglican Church. We had regular chapel services and everyone — regardless of religion — was required to attend.

Most of the students never really had a problem with it, so I fail to understand why the government would (artificially) believe that most people will [have a problem with the Lord's Prayer in the legislature]. Maybe someone can explain to me? Thanks.

Lorna Dueck: Hey Canadian Girl; I think there are political waters being tested in this current debate. Perhaps, the Premier is trying to gauge how deeply held is the Christian view. He won't know unless people inform him.

Sheema Khan: Interesting question, Ms. Canadian. I can relate to the experience that you describe. For years, at my public elementary school in Montreal, I sang "God Save the Queen" and listened to [though did not recite] the Lord's Prayer every morning. I had no problem with that.

However, some children and their parents did, and they were often singled out because they did not participate in the morning ritual. In some cases, the children minded. This created unnecessary tension. Of course, the situation may be different for adults.

However, since religious prayer is something intensely personal, there should be an opportunity given to MPPs of different faiths to recite from their own faith tradition — without taking away from the majority who are Christian.

Another reason for the suggested change is that Premier McGuinty wishes the legislature to reflect the diversity of Ontario.

Rabbi Ed Elkin: As I said in my piece, I don't think this is the most urgent matter before our society at this time. And I'm quite sure the premier would agree.

Nevertheless, it's not nothing either. If you choose to send your kids to an Anglican school, in the full knowledge that chapel services are required, then that is a choice you are free to make.

If you decide that your religious beliefs simply won't allow for your child to attend Anglican services because that is not your faith and your tradition, then you won't send your child to that school.

You'll either send your child to a school which practices your own religion, or you'll send your child to a public school, where no one religion is promoted as the official religion.

As I see it, the provincial legislature is much more parallel to a public school than to an Anglican school.

Justin Trottier: Well, lots of people do have a problem with it, like myself, the many organizations of secular humanists and non-believers with whom I am affiliated like the Centre for Inquiry and the Humanist Association of Canada, and in fact many secular-minded religious organizations too, who strongly stand up for church-state separation, so there is no artificiality in McGuinty's concerns.

It is nice that for a change that the views of atheists are actually being solicited. Just because no one has vocally complained does not mean there are not lots of people who feel personally slighted and offended.

There are lots of good reasons MPPs might not make their minority views public knowledge, including the disrespect and scorn they might receive at the hands of the rest of the legislature.

Have you never kept your personal beliefs private because they clashed with many of your peers?

When the Supreme Court struck down the Lord's Day Act, it was done because there was an understanding that imposing or establishing religious practices or requirements of any kind on the general populace is unacceptable in a secular society.

Similarly, public schools (including the Catholic school system) or public legislature meetings which mandate that everyone either attend or abstain conspicuously offer an unacceptably impossible choice.

Pupils or MPPs must either stay and pretend to a religious conviction they do not harbor or leave and risk the prejudice of the legislature.

Furthermore, to your comments that no one complained regarding the mandated chapel services and presumably that no one has complained about the use of prayers until now, it is also the case that after my university organization successfully lobbied to have graduation prayers removed from the University of Toronto, no complaints were registered regarding their absence.

In fact, in researching the issue, no university which had removed graduation prayers decades ago had registered any complaints about their absence.

So if the lack of complaints means anything, perhaps we should have removed prayers from all public institutions long ago.

In general, people have a hypocritical view of respect and tolerance, as exemplified by public displays at Christmas or York University's closure for Jewish holidays.

It is not enough for many people's religious beliefs and rituals to be tolerated and accepted. Many need to have others participate in them as well.

No one is saying MPPs cannot pray individually. What I am calling into question is having the Speaker of the House in an official governmental capacity reciting prayers that all must stand for — as if there were not diversity represented in the legislature.

Sean L., Toronto: I believe religion has no place in any government-funded function.

Even if you could revise the content to be so non-denominational that it was inclusive of most religious beliefs, it would still be incompatible with the beliefs of those who exercise their constitutional right to have no belief in any religion.

Inclusion of religion, in any form, within a government organ is both a tacit acknowledgement and promotion of those religious beliefs, and is an assault on the constitutional rights of those who choose no religion.

Lorna Dueck: Hello, Sean. Why should your constitutional right to have no belief in any religion trump my constitutional right to embrace Christianity?

We can co-exist, and inclusion of religion in the process of public life such as an opening prayer at the legislature, or a statement of faith for a group serving the public should not be considered an assault on the public.

For you to promote your belief in no religion as superior to my belief is not an expression of equality rights.

Rabbi Ed Elkin: I agree that the public space of the government should be equally comfortable for all citizens, including those who are not believers in God.

Perhaps then the moment of silence would be the best solution.

Sheema Khan: Hi, Sean. Those are interesting arguments.

How about the converse? If we were to do away with all acknowledgement of religious beliefs, out of deference to those who choose no religion, then we would be violating the rights of religious freedom/expression of those who do choose a religion.

The key is to find the balance. Why should it be a zero-sum proposition, wherein one person's religious expression is taken as a threat to those who have a totally different form of expression [including none at all]?

There is ample room for everyone.