Faith in the Council Chamber
Comments. Considerations. Questions.
by Kenneth Bagnell
The small, treed city of Saguenay in northern Quebec, has about 143,000 citizens. Recently it became the focus of a high controversy it never expected: every member of Canada’s Supreme Court, nine in all, ruled against a practice by Saguenay’s 20-member city council. It’s a practice countless thousands of Canadians respect as an historic part of our history: the act of either brief prayer or other ritual at the opening of a city council or civic session.
In doing so, the Supreme Court helped turn a page in our national tradition: the days are now passing when a man or woman may open a civic gathering with a ritual that, in one form or another, has been part of our tradition a long time: a mayor, a principal, a youth leader, may makes the gesture of the cross or murmur a brief prayer, then the gathering tends to its business. The origin of this ritual is deep in Christian-Judeo tradition. But that’s enough to make it discriminatory in today’s multicultural and socially diverse Canada. In brief, opening a civic gathering with a few seconds that offer thanks to God and invite God’s blessing on the assembly is offensive to some. Nonetheless they speak up and have influence. Thus in today’s Canada, the minute of ritual, drawing on Judaism or Christianity, can offend members of such faith groups or no faith group at all. I don’t mean new-to-Canada faith groups. I mean most of all the rapidly growing and aggressive population of unbelievers: atheists, agnostics, secularists and so on. The Supreme Court, with its nine wise judges, wants a council chamber with opening public rituals to be “a neutral public space free from coercion, pressure and judgement on the part of public authorities in the matters of spirituality…” This presents problems that are sensitive matters.
At first glance, this devotional act, given the very diverse Canadian faith groups – from doctrinaire evangelicals to deeply devout Catholics – seems totally unacceptable, a doorway to trouble, a perfect fulfillment of a telling quotation of Herbert Swope, the witty member of the Algonquin Roundtable: “I can’t give you a formula for success but I can give you a formula for failure: try to please everybody…” So where do we go from here? This will not go over with the aforementioned groups, especially the more doctrinaire. In fact the Mayor of Saguenay, Jean Tremblay, is one of the strongest –- or should I say strident? – advocates for Christian prayer at the opening of his council. To understate his commitment to a pre-meeting prayer, I include one of his recent statements: “I’m in this battle because I worship Christ,” he says, as he fights the battle for his city hall prayers. “When I get to the hereafter,” says Mayor Tremblay of meeting his God, “I’m going to be able to say to Him: ‘I fought for You… I want to go to heaven and it’s the noblest fight of my entire life…” This slightly over the top rhetoric isn’t quite as calm, cool and collected as I’d advise. In short it’s not what’s now needed. (Attention Mayor Tremblay: please remember a favorite saying of Richard Nixon: “When the action is hot keep the rhetoric cool.”)
No example is more revealing of the opposition to Christian prayers in council chambers, than is the growing, articulate viewpoints of the secularists. (Secular is a nicer word than the one I could use: atheists.) In the United States such people are becoming a growing and influential presence, to be explored in one of my forthcoming blogs. But in Canada, they are much smaller in number, but as expected, they are speaking up, in the mild mannered Canadian way.
One is Alain Simoneau, an atheistic activist, who actually lives in Saguenay and took offense at Mayor Tremblay’s attitude and action. He spoke up. Then, in 2006, Simoneau filed an official complaint against the Mayor. (Professional surveys claim a quarter of Canada’s population declare themselves atheistic. There is no doubt it will grow.) He alleged that the Mayor’s rigorous religious views and his brash public expression of them infringed on his (Simoneau’s) conscience. Eventually in 2015, Simoneau’s complaint was taken up by The Supreme Court of Canada. He won. He was awarded $27,000. So it was one man’s action that led to the Supreme Court case and its unanimous judgement that prayers be banned inside council chambers. But there’s more: that single court decision has led several other mayors – including the mayor of Ottawa — to seek or explore the prohibiting of prayers in their own council chambers. It’s an obvious and telling example of what a single person with strong conviction and much patience can do.
Overtime, I predict that what happened in Saguenay may well happen all over Canada. It will be driven by our multicultural future but also the rising tides of secularism and its people like Alain Simoneau. That said, those of us who are Judaic or Christian, should prepare not to resist but to participate, in the hope – indeed the conviction – that the public square will not forbid a spiritual dimension, one that includes the transcendent in whatever form. We are citizens with a right to be included. In what way is to be seen. I can’t help mentioning a principle I came across years ago, spoken or written, by a women named Mary Parker Follett.
She had degrees in social work, and much experience in management. (Sadly, since she was a woman, she was denied a doctorate by Harvard !) In any case, in the somewhat early 1900s, she’d become a renowned management guru, and her words of wisdom still apply, particularly as we face this issue of so many dimensions: “There are,” said Ms. Follett, “three ways of dealing with difference: domination, compromise, and integration. By domination, only one side gets what it wants; by compromise neither side gets what it wants; but by integration we find a way all sides may get what they seek.” Integration calls for cooperation, nowhere more than in our governance, specifically in our governmental chambers. In the end, the only broadly acceptable and fully applicable solution may well be a minute of sincere silence and honest meditation.
30
All my past blogs are archived on my website: your comments are welcome here: www.kennethbagnell.com.
Secularity is my spirituality. However, I don’t deny others of any faith the right to their convictions and, if they wish, prayer — wherever they may be. In public gatherings such as city council meetings or in a classroom at the start of a school day, there can be a moment of reflection (including whispered prayer) that’s inclusive to everyone: all religions and atheist alike. Funny how, in matters like these, a little tolerance goes such a long way. Then you wouldn’t need the Supreme Court weighing in.
A moment of silence may be our best answer.
One thing that bothers me in these kinds of discussions is that a minority opinion – in the name of protecting minority “rights” – becomes the tail that wags the dog. If Canada were a country with a majority of people who were atheistic, I would not expect to find prayers in a government meeting. However, we are a country with a majority who identify as Christian. No harm is done in asking those who don’t want prayer simply to abstain, to dream, to read a book while prayer is offered. Are Christians and other religious people perhaps “offended” by the ruling that they are not allowed to pray?
Another similar issue. I can recall when there were still Christian religious exercises and instruction in Ontario schools. When these were outlawed, one of the reasons given was that those who (because they were not Christian) absented themselves from the classroom during such exercises would feel ostracized – not fully included or accepted. So, out went the Christian prayers and instruction so that this minority would not feel excluded. Now, the Ontario government is leaning on just this idea – absent yourself from the classroom – for children whose parents don’t agree with the new sex ed curriculum (conservative religious parents of several faiths). Strange how the tables turn for the benefit of those whose opinions happen to be dominant at the moment.
As ever, thanks for keeping us thinking.
As always, a thoughtful piece. As it happens, I disagree with some of your arguments, not so much on a civil libertarian ground but rather BECAUSE OF my Christian faith. I have squirmed for years as I sit through yet another perfunctory, pseudo-Christian prayer at a public gathering, and worried that the core of our radical faith is compromised every time this happens.
Then, with my urging, at an organization I belonged to , we switched to a moment of silence where each person was invited, “in their own way, to give thanks.” I thought it worked well, but some did not, and now we have a generic prayer. In any case, as you can see, I like the way you end up, and I do not feel that anything vital to Christian faith is lost by abandoning those boring, formal, generic prayers in public places. To quote my usually sedate wife, on such occasions, “Jesus would have puked!” Amen to that.