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
6 Comments:
Have you seen this news?
http://www.nationalpost.com/story-printer.html?id=583154
The article doesn't say when the vote took place, so I don't know whether your blog post refers to the same fiasco.
BTW, how can a practice (municipal assembly prayer) go on if it has been ruled unconstitutional? Couldn't a law suit put an end to it?
Anyway, while this "inclusive" prayer practice is going on, it should be taken advantage of. After all, the "no religion" segment of the population outnumbers all of the denominations put together whose prayers have been adopted as secondary after the lord's prayer.
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/highlight/Religion/Page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo=PR&View=1a&Code=35&Table=1&StartRec=1&Sort=2&B1=Canada&B2=1
I'm sure there's a "no religion" sermon that could be recited in place of a prayer to tell the MPPs what idiots they are. I'm sure an appropriate short, poignant piece has already been written by the likes of Huxley, Ingersol, Hitchens or Dawkings, or any number of reasonable people.
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.
Your LTTE was very good, succinct. I haven't listened to the radio show yet.
BTW, what is the text that CFI proposed for recitation?
I was wondering about the municipal assembly prayers. Has that practice stopped since the court ruling?
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.
I listened to the radio show. I guess great minds think alike! I wonder if the Speaker guy was serious about considering other "prayers" to be included in the rotation. Even if he weren't, he gave you an out: submit a request to the committee. Even if he wasn't serious, this angle may provide some leverage if pursued publicly.
How about using the Agnostic's Prayer? :-)
Insofar as I may be heard by anything, which may or may not care what I say, I ask, if it matters, that you be forgiven for anything you may have done or failed to do which requires forgiveness. Conversely, if not forgiveness but something else may be required to insure any possible benefit for which you may be eligible after the destruction of your body, I ask that this, whatever it may be, be granted or withheld, as the case may be, in such a manner as to insure your receiving said benefit. I ask this in my capacity as your elected intermediary between yourself and that which may not be yourself, but which may have an interest in the matter of your receiving as much as it is possible for you to receive of this thing, and which may in some way be influenced by this ceremony. Amen. (Roger Zelazny)
I haven't yet found anything that's not simply humorous. But, something that would underline the idiocy of keeping the prayers at all would be best.
Some more links:
http://mwillett.org/atheism/atheist-prayer.htm
http://elbourne.org/sermons/index.mv?illustration+4661
http://www.nobeliefs.com/GAMOW/GAMOW24.htm
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/30/Hillsborough/Council_splits_on_ath.shtml (bottom of page)
Post a Comment
<< Home