Tradition: the last refuge of the defeated
In Ontario there is a debate about whether the Lord' prayer should continue to be said at the start of every legislature session. But of course the the only arguement for keeping it is tradition. It seems clear to myself (and probably and intellectually honest person) that tradition is not a reason but an excuse.
Clearly if tradition was a sound logical argument, women shouldn't vote, homosexuality should be illegal, anal sex (between any two adults, straight or otherwise) should be illegal, slave ownership should be legal and oh yeah we should still be in a Monarchy!
The simplest argument is imagine a company had a morning Scientology seance (or whatever they do). Now imagine in this company 70% of the people where scientologists so if anyone of the other 30% backs out they get noticed and will clearly be noted. Would it be ok if the company had a tradition of this practice (1 year, 5 years, 100 years)? No.
It's kinda odd that the moral absolutists (religious people) become relativists when the principle of fairness is against them. The truth is very simple. Tradition is a way for the people with power to argue against the people who have reason(s). In the end, appeals to the tradition arguments are only there to protect those in power and deny fairness to everyone else.
Clearly if tradition was a sound logical argument, women shouldn't vote, homosexuality should be illegal, anal sex (between any two adults, straight or otherwise) should be illegal, slave ownership should be legal and oh yeah we should still be in a Monarchy!
The simplest argument is imagine a company had a morning Scientology seance (or whatever they do). Now imagine in this company 70% of the people where scientologists so if anyone of the other 30% backs out they get noticed and will clearly be noted. Would it be ok if the company had a tradition of this practice (1 year, 5 years, 100 years)? No.
It's kinda odd that the moral absolutists (religious people) become relativists when the principle of fairness is against them. The truth is very simple. Tradition is a way for the people with power to argue against the people who have reason(s). In the end, appeals to the tradition arguments are only there to protect those in power and deny fairness to everyone else.
Labels: Religionish
posted by Eddie | 10:43 PM
2 Comments:
The resultant vote and "compromise" was both insulting and ridiculous. The non-religious were given a moment of silence. Even putting aside the fact that CFI was invited to the hearing and specifically said we don't want a moment of silence (preferring a pledge to the constituents or humanist reading) they non the less assigned one to us! Imagine the uproar if they had picked the Jewish or Muslim prayer!
To top it off since we are 16% of the population (a figure that has gone up to over 20% in the previews from the new data). Muslims are the next non-Christian highest at 3% and all others total under 8% so at worst we should get 3/5 of the days of the week since the law says it should reflect the demographics. See here for my LTTE.
Also, it isn't unconstitutional since Canada doesn't have a separation of Church and state, the Queen (head of the Anglican Church) is our head of state. A court has said it is illegal for cities to do it but the federal court has not and we'd probably lose that case thanks to our silly Charter of rights.
The one ray of hope is what a religious studies prof at Western said about the decision. He said (on a radio show I participated in) parading religions like this, prayer rotation, trivializes the religions. But this is a silver lining because I'm an optimist.
Thanks.
We didn't (as for the last draft I saw) propose a specific one. Just with the requirements of only talking about the constituents that gave them power not a god.
They are all suppose to stop but some continue and other pray before the official opening.
Here is a response letter from the Municipal affairs office:
Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
December 14, 2006
Mr. Henry Beissel
President, Secular Ontario
Dear Mr. Beissel
Thank you for your letter of November 17, 2006, regarding recitation of the Lord's Prayer at the opening of municipal council meetings.
I am aware of the 1999 court decision affecting the practice of reciting the Lord's Prayer at local council meetings in the Town of Penetanguishene.
Municipalities are responsible and accountable locally for interpreting and complying with court decisions. Out of respect for the local level of government, it has not been the practice of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to advise municipalities of court decisions or to comment on them. I am aware of the 1999 court decision affecting the practice of reciting the Lord's Prayer at local council meetings in the Town of Penetanguishene.
Thank you for taking the time to share your views with me.
Sincerely,
(signature)
John Gerretsen Minister
Secular Ontario is the group spearheading most of that. You can find them here. It's all an uphill battle... luckily our demographics are growing much faster than our influence so eventually the political will will have to stop kiss religious ass and govern according to fairness.
Post a Comment
<< Home