Against Official Prayers

An extremely good letter from Lawrence Woolf on the recent action by Advocate Falle. Here is the bulk of his argument:

I ALWAYS thought that Jersey was a civilised and tolerant place to live. Maybe I was wrong. A recent news item in the JEP told us that an acting magistrate had threatened to send a man to prison for not standing for prayers in the court. The full circumstances were not explained but it does seem strange that compulsory prayers were demanded in a location that is not designated as a place of worship. We do not know if the man followed another religion that forbids him from taking part in such a service or maybe he was not religious at all. Either way, the demand from the magistrate could have been seen as a personal insult. It could also be seen as an insult to those who do follow the religion that was invoked by insisting that someone who is not a member of that faith should participate. If there is actually a law that demands such a practice it must be time that it was repealed so that people can follow their own conscience. Any person, such as that acting magistrate, who demands that others follow their own choice of religious practice would seem to be very insecure in their own belief.

It is interesting that a recent Court case in America has ruled that while prayers are allowed, they must be non-sectarian. In the ruling of the Court case, this was the definition given:

"Sectarian" is defined as relating to or characteristic of a sect. A "sect" is defined as an organized ecclesiastical body, or a religious denomination. The trial court's characterization of the invocation as "sectarian" was merely a definitional determination that the invocation unconstitutionally communicated a preference for one religious faith (or sect) over another. Returning again to the Marsh test, in concluding that the prayer was sectarian, the trial court determined that the prayer opportunity had been exploited to advance one faith, Christianity, over another.

It would be interesting to note the contents of the Jersey prayers and see if they do in fact prefer one religious faith over others. The general advice given (and ignored, hence the Court case) was that the prayers were as follows:

"The invocation is to be a short prayer asking for guidance and help in the matters that come before the members. We ask that you strive for an ecumenical prayer as our members, staff and constituents come from different faith backgrounds."

Some of the prayers offered from the Speaker's podium in the House of Representatives avoided endorsing particular sects or beliefs. They included a broad spectrum of faith and belief and avoided sending the message to many that they are "outsiders" and to others that they are "insiders." The substantial majority, however, were different. After reviewing all available transcripts of prayers from the House sessions in 2005, the court finds that, the actual practice amounts on the whole to a clear endorsement of Christianity, sending the message to others that they are outsiders and the message to Christians that they are favored insiders. No other specific religious faith was endorsed or invoked

It is interesting, given the current demonology of Islam that the report noted that "The only available transcript of a prayer led by anyone not professing the Christian faith, by a Muslim imam on March 8th, was inclusive and was not identifiable as distinctly Muslim from its content."

While Jersey has its own customs and traditions, it is I think, time to re-think this custom to allow either an "opt out" by anyone who has strong objections to being forced into a religious ceremony against their will - after all, we no longer live in a theocracy - or the prayers in question should be, as in in Tulsa, Oklahoma City, where:

Counselors voted to move from a "generic" prayer format to allowing prayers to be in the name of any organized religion.

It is interesting to note that in the USA also:

Judges have ruled that witches must be allowed to lead prayers at local government meetings, and that Wiccan convicts must be provided with requested "sacred objects" so they can perform spells in their cells. Witches in the armed services have even formed covens and routinely "worship" on U.S. military bases.

And why not? Why should one religious group be privileged purely on the basis that it is the "established Church"? While I think it is right that the ancient Parish churches should be maintained, purely as a matter of historical heritage, I think that should be equally true of magnificent pieces of architecture like St Thomas Church. I'm also not so sure about the upkeep of all the Rectories by the Parish either, and wonder if this should be removed from Parish expenses.

And no, I am not a humanist, and have no anti-religious agenda, except that I would like to see the last parts of theocracy disentangled from the State. I think that to force people to comply with a particular religion is in fact hugely detrimental to that religion. As the Muslim's are fond of quoting "let there be no compulsion in religion" (although I would also like that to apply to Muslims who want to leave Islam, where curiously it often does not apply).

http://www.insd.uscourts.gov/News/1-05-cv-0813%20Opinion.pdf
http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2005/11/ind_decisions_f_6.html
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59488
http://ffrf.org/fttoday/1995/november95/harris.html