cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/19670880
“The 2015 decision by the Supreme Court in Saguenay, (QC), prohibits municipal councils from including prayer in their meetings and in the last two inaugural meetings, in 2018 and 2022, Parksville has included prayers, overtly religious prayers, in their inaugural meetings and that’s a violation of the constitution,” said Teale Phelps Bondaroff, the research coordinator with the BC Humanist Association.
Even if you prove there is a god does not mean I want to be governed by them. Keep your religion in your church or your own home or your own head.
If you watch municipal or provincial news conferences it’s fairly common to hear a First Nation blessing at its start, like a recent one in front of Nanaimo Regional General Hospital on Tuesday.
“The increase in Indigenous content is a good sign. It shows that municipalities are stepping up and, at least symbolically, embracing reconciliation and this is also a category of action that falls outside the Supreme Court ruling in Saguenay,” said Phelps Bondaroff.
Honest question: isn’t having the First Nation blessing violating the same constitution that the prayer is? Obviously the prayer is an obvious violation, but replacing it doesn’t seem to be the answer as far as I can tell.
First Nations blessing is a bit of a gray area because they are not necessarily performed as a religious practice. Instead of a prayer, it’s interpreted (by those present) more like a First Nations representative formally acknowledging that the decisions about to be made are made with their participation.
It’s a cultural complexity that elders are often also seen as religious leaders and they’ll often speak in religious terms, but their blessing is foremost under the guise of a representative - not a cleric.
As for a regular Christian prayer… its sole purpose is a ritual for those in that religion.
Ah thanks, this makes a lot more sense!
I would say it’s because our white-man* laws came after, and the typical indigenous pretext at meetings is acknowledging that we are gathered on the unceded territory. So really they are letting us have a meeting with their blessing/permission.
Also they say unceded as a nice way; instead of juat saying stolen with acts of genocide.
*or woman ~ Monty Python
If you watch municipal or provincial news conferences it’s fairly common to hear a First Nation blessing at its start, like a recent one in front of Nanaimo Regional General Hospital on Tuesday.
What’s weird is the video doesn’t show it, and the article doesn’t quote it. That said, I think if anything, it’s a fantastic compromise. Now not only are we removing direct religious action, we’re replacing it with something that helps with reconciliation.
I would also argue there’s a pretty large difference between people in power using their own religion to open an event like this, and people in power giving space to those without power to open an event.
It’s because it’s not religion, it’s spiritually and culture. Shit bro most of them doing the things are Christians or Catholic
They are butt hurt. This is nothing more than crying over individuals expressing a belief that there is something more important than themself, greater than themself.
It actually is possible to reject someone’s belief while allowing them to pray in a public space. If it’s not in a dedicated reigious building, they are not harming anyone by saying words.
You’re right, it is possible to reject someone’s belief while letting them pray in a public space.
However, when you tangle the prayer into governance you send a signal that the religious practice will, on some level, inform how the people are governed. And that’s not okay in our society.
No, there must be no establishment of religion, abd no restrictions there of. Members of government are free to pratice their faith in office.
If there is restriction on every and all forms of religion while in upblic office, there must restrictions on those who are against religion, they will be denied speech to comment on religion and be denied the ability to express any objection to religion.
Church belongs nowhere near the state.
Should you practice, you are not restricted from being religious in private. You are however restricted from incorporating that religion into the government you run.
That’s all. Quit being unhinged.
It’s not possibke to be in government and someone not push what they believe. Since they are the ones making decisions that affect the lives of other people, then they are ultimately propagating some kind of a message. If you are anti-religion, then the government is run on an anti religion belief system and preaching a government message of anti-religion.
There is zero seperation between being a part of government and personal beliefs for those in government. If members of government practice their religion pulibly in office, in hinders on no one else.
If you are atheist, that is still a religion because you put your faith and belief in there beig ni God. So everybody is pushing sone kind of a message. Your argument is entirely one sided, a demand that the government can only be run in a way that suites you.
It’s revealing how there are religious people who have no concerns about if others are religious or not, they live their own life regardless of others, but someone active avainst all religions seems to demand that others are not allowed to be religious in public. Very childish and self absorbed. It sounds like the issue is you you want zero accountability. You can’t handle anybody criticizing your choices and criticiing your lifestyle.
I don’t put my faith in believing there is no god. I know there is no god.
That said… It is literally the job of a politician in a secular society to enact change not guided by their religious views but by the desires of their constituents backed by the latest studies, research and science at the time. A god has no part in it.
I’m not even going to read your wall of text. Go find yourself a cozy theocracy to live in if you think the government should be influenced by religion.
Looks like you are the one who is but hurt about others not wanting to be ruled by your imaginary friend in the sky.
Are they free to force others to participate in their religious practice? Because that is what happens with prayer in public activities like this.
Holding public prayer does not equate to participating in whatever faith. Allowing something is not endorsement of it.
I am not participating in their faith, but I am participating in the ceremony whether I like it or not. This is an official city meeting and should not be turned, even temporarily, into a church service.
Oh you’re Christian, if religion makes you think churches, you are Christian. Every actively religious person I know has never said the word “church” in our conversations unless it’s specific to those Christian people.
I have no idea what you are talking about but had you watched the video in the article you would see it was clearly a christian prayer being discussed. For the record I am not affiliated with any religion as I find the whole concept of gods ridiculous.
