This position is rather untenable, isn't it, as to a religionist it would be equally inconceivable and indeed offensive to undertake any public work without the invocation of the relevant God or gods?
Likewise, however, such an invocation would offend an atheist, and even, as you say, a non-interventionist deist (somehow: I'm not quite convinced that the atheist and the non-interventionist shouldn't just view it as a meaningless exercise that's more than a little humourous and leave it at that. I'm not sure where the offence really lies).
In light of that, doesn't it make the most sense to allow for a state in which the views (and I'm not suggesting this obtains presently in Canada, bear in mind) of the overwhelming majority (say a really, really Catholic country like, oh, Vatican City) are enshrined in law and practiced not simply on a private basis but in civil society and government functions, but which tolerates the freedom of conscience/thought &c. of all the citizens as private citizens?
It just seems unfair to assert that the lack of prayer, the secular position, is somehow the neutral course here, by which no one could be offended. Most well-developed moral casuistry will have some notion of peccatum omissionis, and certainly it would be thought "omiss" and grossly offensive by most of the citizenry for a state comprised mostly, but not exclusively, of religionists to neglect its God or gods at important functions of state.
Froben's comment is indicative of a certain majoritarian arrogance that I find troubling. We don't live by simple "majority rules", and the idea that a position endorsed by an overwhelming majority of the population should be the government's "official stance" is dangerous.
Canada, as a nation, does not simply "tolerate" freedom of conscience and of thought. While these are clearly foundational prerequisites for any free society, we have chosen to specifically protect certain minority rights in this country. Cultural and religious plurality are specific planks of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
A 2008 Canadian Press survey found that no more than 72% of Canadians profess belief in a god, while 23% are atheists. Even if all of those who believed in a god or gods could agree upon a prayer that offended none among them (surely an impossible feat, as I briefly outlined in the article above), 72% certainly does not constitute an overwhelming majority (as Froben himself indicates might be the case).
Froben says that he is "not quite convinced that the atheist and the non-interventionist shouldn't just view it as a meaningless exercise that's more than a little humourous and leave it at that". But the fact that governmental prayer is a meaningless waste of time isn't the salient point. If City Councillors routinely opened their meetings by throwing cream pies at each other (something equally ridiculous, to be sure), I would still be dismayed at the waste, but at least it wouldn't serve to further marginalize minority groups, or to endorse a specific position in a way that runs contrary to the spirit of the Charter.
And finally, I must contest Froben's premise that "to a religionist it would be equally inconceivable and indeed offensive to undertake any public work without the invocation of the relevant God or gods" on two points. First, I never suggested that prayer at public meetings should be forbidden. Far from it! I even mentioned that individual councillors should feel free to pray. However, I maintain that no prayer should be led as a part of the official proceedings. Second, it is hardly uncommon for religious people to carry out their jobs (whatever they may be) without insisting that their coworkers join them in prayer before the work day begins. Froben's assertion to the contrary is absurd.
"Secular" doesn't mean "atheist", and it isn't a dirty word. Secularism doesn't oppose religion; it simply does not address religion. Failure to endorse a specific religion at the outset of a City Council meeting is indeed the neutral course of action, as it neither affirms nor denies any religious position.
I suppose having been pressed in my vagueness I must flesh out my position a bit:
ReplyDelete1: A government cannot afford to be neutral about absolutely everything, and in taking necessary positions will necessarily offend. Further, even when we clearly delineate the actual duties of the government in very limited terms, we find these limited duties demanding that the government take even more positions.
1.1: For an example: It is clearly the duty of the government to provide for the national defence and to wage war, if war be just and necessary. But it is apparent that the waging of war offends certain groups, both secular and religious, who for one reason or another espouse pacificism. Further, though it is now the practice (though it wasn't always) to give these pacificists duties which did not involve combat, nevertheless these pacificists clearly have as citizens in some measure to support the government, and thereby the government's official actions (if only by paying taxes which contributed to defence spending, even prior to the war), even against their conscience.
2: It seems apparent, then, that it is not within the government's power to protect absolutely the conscience of any man, even in matters of great importance.
3: To the question of my advocating a kind of majoritarianism, I plead only that Mr. Newman has convicted himself of the same position! I read that "the idea that a position endorsed by an overwhelming majority of the population should be the government's 'official stance' is dangerous," but in the very next paragraph I read that I should not be a majoritarian because, at some point in the past, a majority of Canadians passed a certain Charter.
3.1: Surely there was opposition to the Charter as it stands, if not among the legislators, at least among the nation at large? But that opposition, however small, undoes Mr. Newman's point: like it or not, we do take the position of the overwhelming majority to be the government's official stance, even as we also protect (read: tolerate) minority opinions to the extent that is possible (as in the case of the pacifists).
4: But, I contend, toleration is itself not a sufficient position from which to make any policy, to enact any law, or to carry out any functions of the government. Banking is out, for Muslims and strict Christians forbid usury. Taxation is out, for there be libertarians amongst us (I took "deists who believe in a non-interventionist god," as well as atheism, as representing philosophical positions rather than religions and so include adherents to various philosophies among those who might be offended). Motorcars are out, for an Amish man or Luddite might (heaven forbid it!) take offence. Consider that the government doesn't just allow motorcars; it builds them roads, provides infrastructure for them; plans cities around them!
4.1: So it is apparent that in many cases the government *must* take a position beyond simply tolerating diverse positions, and that this will offend people. It simply won't offend the majority of the citizenry, and it should make as much provision as possible to respect the consciences of the others.
5: Much can also be said about the philosophical and, yes, often theological baggage (but certainly moral) which underlies and must inform all of these positions.
6: Nevertheless, I am willing to discuss prayer in public meetings as an individual issue; I take issue more with the premises from which it was argued than the conclusion per se.