Seanad to vote today on adding silent reflection before forced daily prayer

Michael Nugent

Please contact as many Irish Senators as you can this morning and ask them not to vote today for another ‘Irish solution to an Irish problem’, which avoids facing up to the actual issue (in this case, of whether the State should pray and enforce praying), and leaves it to future politicians to address the issue properly.

Senators will be asked today to vote that they must stand for 30 seconds of silent reflection each morning, before they continue the current practice of praying to the Christian God, asking that god to direct their actions so that every word and work of theirs may begin and end with that god through Christ their Lord.

The objection to a daily State prayer is quite simple. Senators as individual citizens are perfectly entitled to pray as much as they want. But when a particular prayer is put on the formal agenda of the Senate, it then becomes the State itself that is both praying and enforcing prayer, and this infringes on the human right to freedom of conscience of both the Senators and the Irish people who they represent.

Surprisingly, the new proposal is being supported by Senator Ivana Bacik and Senator Ronan Mullen, and is being described as a compromise that includes everyone. Actually it is an entrenchment and endorsement of the State both praying and enforcing prayer, as the non-Christian Senators are still obliged to stand for the Christian prayer, which is also the only prayer or reflection that is formally read out publicly.

Senators Bacik and Mullen, as well as Fine Gael Senator Paul Coghlan, believe that the Seanad may adopt the new proposal without a vote, but Independent senator Fiach Mac Conghail has said that there should be respectful and healthy discussion on the recommendation which would reflect the divergent views of members.

Two weeks ago Atheist Ireland wrote this letter to the members of the Seanad Committee on Procedures and Privilege. This is the committee at which the compromise proposal emerged, which is now being put before the full Seanad today.

Please contact as many Senators as you can this morning to let them know your opinions on this issue before they vote today.

You can get a full list of Senators email addresses here.

Peregrinus

Nitpick: Senators are not required to attend for prayers, and many (most?) do not.

If they do attend, they are expected to stand. But I don’t think that amounts to “forced prayer”.

I don’t agree with prayers being part of the Senate’s order of business at all. Like you, I think the practice should stop, rather than being “balanced” with an opportunity for silent and possibly non-theist reflection. But I don’t think the cause is aided by this kind of hyperbole.

Apart from the fact that it’s incorrect and looks slightly hysterical, I think it focuses attention on the wrong issue. If a Senator (or anyone else) were forced to join in prayers, that would be an infringement on the individual rights of the Senator concerned. But isn’t the real issue here not the impact of official Senate prayers on, e.g., Senator Bacik, but the impact of official Senate prayers on the Republic? Even if all the Senators were absolutely delighted to join enthusiastically in fervent prayer, raise their hands and cry “Alleliua”, the practice would still be objectionable, because it would injure the Republic.

This isn’t really about the rights of the individual Senators, and trying to manufacture a not-very-credible case that Senators are being “forced” to do anything is unhelpful.

Michael Nugent

Peregrinus wrote: »

This isn’t really about the rights of the individual Senators, and trying to manufacture a not-very-credible case that Senators are being “forced” to do anything is unhelpful.

It is actually about both, but I agree with you that we have probably put them in the wrong order in terms of emphasis. We'll focus more on the State issue than the Senators issue in future comments.

But they are being forced to stand, not just expected to stand. The relevant standing order (pun not intended) states: "At the commencement of each sitting of the Seanad all Senators present shall stand, and the following Prayer shall be read..."
.

Michael Nugent

As a further analogy, if Senators and TDs were either forced or expected or even invited to stand through a declaration that there is no god, we would never hear the end of it from religious spokespersons.

Peregrinus

Michael Nugent wrote: »

It is actually about both, but I agree with you that we have probably put them in the wrong order in terms of emphasis. We'll focus more on the State issue than the Senators issue in future comments.

But they are being forced to stand, not just expected to stand. The relevant standing order (pun not intended) states: "At the commencement of each sitting of the Seanad all Senators present shall stand, and the following Prayer shall be read...".

They are “forced” to stand in the sense that they are “forced” to vote by passing through lobbies, or “forced” to accept rulings from the Cathaoirleach on points of order, or they are “forced” to deal with questions on notice before questions without notice. These are various rules about how members conduct themselves in the assembly. We don’t normally find it helpful to speak of the members being “forced” to observe them.

But even if we do choose to use that language, being “forced” to stand is not the same as being “forced” to pray. Standing is consistent with participation in prayer, but it is also consistent with respect for the fact that others are praying.

I object to the fact that prayers are being said there at all but, given that they are, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have rules of demeanour and decorum which expect members to display respect for the fact that prayers are being said.

Even if the Senators find it burdensome to be expected to stand during the prayer, I really struggle to turn that into an assault on their consciences. Especially as Senators who find it burdensome can avoid the burden by leaving their offices to go to the chamber at 10:01 instead of 10:00.

I don’t think any attention should be paid to the fact that Senators are expected to stand; it’s at best a red herring. The problem is not the standing, but the praying. If the standing is a problem at all, it’s one of such triviality that to bracket it with the praying can only tend to suggest that the praying is also a trivial problem. Which it isn’t.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

As a further analogy, if Senators and TDs were either forced or expected or even invited to stand through a declaration that there is no god, we would never hear the end of it from religious spokespersons.

Indeed, and rightly so. But I very much doubt if the protests would focus on the standing bit. It would be all about the declaration. Now go thou and do likewise!

Michael Nugent

I think we're pretty much close to agreement on most of this, but I would ask you to reconsider this part:

Peregrinus wrote: »

Even if the Senators find it burdensome to be expected to stand during the prayer, I really struggle to turn that into an assault on their consciences. Especially as Senators who find it burdensome can avoid the burden by leaving their offices to go to the chamber at 10:01 instead of 10:00.

The European Court of Human Rights recently ruled on a separate issue, but which involves a similar principle. It was some Greek citizens who had been given the default in a courtroom of swearing on the Bible, but who were given the option of making a secular declaration instead.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled that this was an infringement of their freedom of conscience, because they had been put in a position of having to do or not do something from which the original court could have indirectly implied information about their religious or nonreligious philosophical beliefs.

That was (is) enough to constitute an infringement by the state on their right to freedom of conscience. I know it is easier to accept these type of casual infringements, particularly when the status quo can make challenging them seem petty, but constantly challenging them is the way by which society gradually progresses.

Peregrinus

Fair point. But I don’t think the two situations are precisely analogous.

A witness is required to attend in court (in fact he is forced to do so, in the true sense of “forced”) and he is required to make a choice about how to swear from which an inference about his religious or philosophical beliefs might be drawn.

But senators are not required to attend the first minute of the day’s sitting (or any part of it) and if a Senator isn’t there at the start of business there could be a thousand reasons for that, so no inference can be drawn about his attitude to prayer. And, if he is there, since he is required to stand, no inference can be drawn about his attitude to prayer from the fact that he stands.

The other point is that the witness is about to testify before a court, and necessarily to have a judgment about his credibility and honesty made by a judge and/or a jury who know little or nothing about him, beyond whether he chooses to swear or affirm. I think that’s part of the context in which being required to choose between theist and non-theist oaths amounted to an infringement on his rights.

Senators, by contrast, put themselves in a position in which they invite the public (or, at least, the Senate electorate) to make a judgment about their fitness for office, and they engage in a wide range of public activity - campaigning, parliamentary activities, parliamentary votes, party affiliation - on which people can base that judgment. The question of whether they attend at Senate prayers is in theory something that a voter might take into account. But (a) in practice we know this is not very likely; unless you go regularly to the Senate yourself you won’t know who rocks up for prayers with scrubbed hands and shining face and who hangs around outside the door sucking on a cigarette and looking disreputable; (b) even if people do know this it’s a small drop in a large pool of more relevant information that they will also have; and (c) in a democracy, voters are entitled to make judgments based on irrelevant or improper criteria (whereas courts are not).

If I had a preference for voting for a theist, or a preference for voting for an atheist, I can’t see the EHCR saying that it’s an infringement of the candidate’s human rights to put them in a position where they might have to take a stance from which I might draw an inference of theism or atheism.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

. . . I know it is easier to accept these type of casual infringements, particularly when the status quo can make challenging them seem petty, but constantly challenging them is the way by which society gradually progresses.

Look, I take that point. But it cuts both ways. The more you present this as an offence against the conscience of a non-theist senator, the more the problem goes away if the senator is a theist. Whereas, of course, it doesn’t go away.

My issue here is not so much that any injury to the senator’s conscience is trivial and fussing about it makes Atheist Ireland look like they have a bad case of OCD (though it does that). My issue is that fussing about the injury to the senator masks the real injury, which is to the republic. That injury is harder to see, but much more important to get across, if society is going to “gradually progress”.

Michael Nugent

Peregrinus wrote: »

Look, I take that point. But it cuts both ways. The more you present this as an offence against the conscience of a non-theist senator, the more the problem goes away if the senator is a theist. Whereas, of course, it doesn’t go away.

My issue here is not so much that any injury to the senator’s conscience is trivial and fussing about it makes Atheist Ireland look like they have a bad case of OCD (though it does that). My issue is that fussing about the injury to the senator masks the real injury, which is to the republic. That injury is harder to see, but much more important to get across, if society is going to “gradually progress”.

I agree with you about that (apart from the OCD bit). I said a while ago that

Michael Nugent wrote:

It is actually about both, but I agree with you that we have probably put them in the wrong order in terms of emphasis. We'll focus more on the State issue than the Senators issue in future comments.

Peregrinus

I'll settle for that!

PS: The OCD comment was mischeivous, I admit!

Michael Nugent

Unless you meant Obsessive Compulsive Discussion, which most people here suffer from

kylith

I would love to sneak in and replace the standard prayer with this (10 points if you recognise it):

Chaplain: Let us praise God. Oh Lord...
Oooh you are so big...
So absolutely huge.
Gosh, we're all really impressed down here I can tell you.
Forgive Us, O Lord, for this dreadful toadying.
Congregation: And barefaced flattery.
Chaplain: But you are so strong and, well, just so super.
Congregation: Fan - tastic.
Chaplain: Amen

goose2005

I wonder, if every session began with chanting "God doesn't exist, all religions are false," would the Christian senators be expected to put up with it, or even to leave the room for the beginning of the session.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

But even if we do choose to use that language, being “forced” to stand is not the same as being “forced” to pray. Standing is consistent with participation in prayer, but it is also consistent with respect for the fact that others are praying...... Especially as Senators who find it burdensome can avoid the burden by leaving their offices to go to the chamber at 10:01 instead of 10:00.

It's perfectly normal to arrive and take your seat 5 or 10 minutes before the start time of a meeting. Why should people have to stand out in the corridor until 10:01?

My policy with regard to standing for prayers is simple; if I am at a church (say a wedding) I observe all procedures with due decorum and respect.
But if the priest/clergyman/stand-in religious nut or whoever, is conducting the prayer as a sideshow in a place where I resent his presence, and I am being "forced" to join in due to my being part of a captive audience, then I remain seated. An example of this is the parent meetings in a VEC school. If only a few people are sitting in a standing crowd, it does make you feel uncomfortable, but you have to make a stand sometimes :pac:
So I would regard the prayers in the Oireactas in that vein; as an unwarranted sideshow.

Michael Nugent wrote: »

The European Court of Human Rights recently ruled on a separate issue, but which involves a similar principle. It was some Greek citizens who had been given the default in a courtroom of swearing on the Bible, but who were given the option of making a secular declaration instead.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled that this was an infringement of their freedom of conscience, because they had been put in a position of having to do or not do something from which the original court could have indirectly implied information about their religious or nonreligious philosophical beliefs.

That was (is) enough to constitute an infringement by the state on their right to freedom of conscience.

Isn't that the situation in an Irish courtroom? What was the remedy in Greece- no oath at all, or just the secular declaration?

kylith

I don't understand why they can't just say "Now, everyone please stand for a moment of prayer or private reflection". It covers all the bases and everyone's happy.

Well, I can understand it. Having something neutral like a moment of private reflection means that they don't get to stand there and feel all smug about how they're guided by the hand of the almighty, and look at all those filthy atheists; we'll make them stand while we pray because we're better than they are...

swampgas

recedite wrote: »

It's perfectly normal to arrive and take your seat 5 or 10 minutes before the start time of a meeting. Why should people have to stand out in the corridor until 10:01?

This is an excellent point - if a meeting is due to start at 10:00, everyone should already be present and ready to begin at that time. I would consider it quite unprofessional to waltz in at the last second. Anyone who takes pride in being on time for meetings would be unfairly penalized by having to wait until the last moment to make their entrance.

Also, a lot of informal networking (and plain old gossip) tends to happen in the 5-10 minutes before a meeting gets started. Insisting that those who don't want to participate in prayer wait outside the door until the meeting is underway is a great way of inflicting a not so subtle social penalty on them.

Galvasean

If God directs the actions of Irish politicians then surely God must be an asshole who hates our country?

Sarky

Maybe He was just sh*t at economics?

Mark Hamill

Galvasean wrote: »

If God directs the actions of Irish politicians then surely God must be an asshole who hates our country?

That would mean that Fred Phelps is right.

Galvasean

Mark Hamill wrote: »

That would mean that Fred Phelps is right.

A stopped clock is right twice a day.

JMJR

I was gobsmacked to find out in the news today the fact that a Christian invocation is part of standing orders proscribing how the State carries out its business of governing and moreover that the exhortation encompasses the whole house.

What I learned today is that upon taking the Chair, each day and before any business is entered, the Ceann Comhairle is to read this prayer:

Direct, we beseech Thee, O Lord, our actions by Thy holy inspirations and carry them on by Thy gracious assistance; that every word and work of ours may always begin from Thee, and by Thee be happily ended; through Christ our Lord. Amen.”

I apologise for the repetition but it really needs to be seen to be appreciated for the monstrosity that it is.

So at the start of every day and before any business, the state asks Our Lord and Jesus Christ to direct every word and work of every member of the house.?

This needs to be removed, not modified. There can be no justification for it at all. I'm not a card carrying atheist, I am a defender of free speech and of the right to practice religion.
I just don't see how the house of government can be partisan to one religion or any religion.
John

UDP

So was the vote had? What was the outcome?

Hotblack Desiato

Michael Nugent wrote: »

I think we're pretty much close to agreement on most of this, but I would ask you to reconsider this part:

The European Court of Human Rights recently ruled on a separate issue, but which involves a similar principle. It was some Greek citizens who had been given the default in a courtroom of swearing on the Bible, but who were given the option of making a secular declaration instead.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled that this was an infringement of their freedom of conscience, because they had been put in a position of having to do or not do something from which the original court could have indirectly implied information about their religious or nonreligious philosophical beliefs.

That was (is) enough to constitute an infringement by the state on their right to freedom of conscience.

I was in exactly that position when serving on a jury, when I chose to affirm rather than swear on the sky fairy.

I know it is easier to accept these type of casual infringements, particularly when the status quo can make challenging them seem petty, but constantly challenging them is the way by which society gradually progresses.

When I'm elected Senator, I'm going to have to make a choice between worshipping the Great God Bølløx or the High Priestess Cûnt. Either way, I will be obliged to repeatedly chant their name at the top of my voice, and anyone who tries to stop me will be interfering in my constitutional right of worship :pac:

Michael Nugent

As expected, the motion was passed.

Here is the debate transcript on the Oireachtas website.

Hotblack Desiato

Typical 'Irish solution to an Irish problem' that doesn't actually address the issue at all and tries very hard not to risk offending anyone (except atheists of course, but we're weirdos who don't count) :mad:

joseph brand

Michael Nugent wrote: »

As expected, the motion was passed.

Here is the debate transcript on the Oireachtas website.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I have had the privilege of introducing Archbishop John Barwa from the province of Orissa in India. He spoke in generous and interesting terms this morning about the challenges his people are facing, where Christians are being persecuted by extremist Hindus in that part of India. He was not asking us to do anything but was coming here to tell us about their Christian hope and love, even for those who persecute them as they try to build a better world there. Thankfully, we are not in that position. It is a long time since people in Ireland had to suffer like that for their faith. We should also hope that we never go to the other extreme either which is that, in seeking to include all traditions and be generous to all the different groups in our society, we lose the ability even to declare our identity.

Did I read that wrong? Sounds a little Fascist.

robindch

joseph brand wrote: »

Senator Rón&#225 wrote: »

We should also hope that we never go to the other extreme either which is that, in seeking to include all traditions and be generous to all the different groups in our society, we lose the ability even to declare our identity.

Sounds a little Fascist.

Not quite fascist, but certainly in that direction -- Mullen appears to be declaring that catholicism (or perhaps christianity) is the defining characteristic of Irish identity, and that by giving less prominence to prayer, the Seanad is demoting the characteristic and essential "Irishness" of what goes on there.

The idea that religion defines a large part of one's identity is an old religious trope, and an unhelpful one, as Northern Ireland can testify.

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

Not quite fascist, but certainly in that direction -- Mullen appears to be declaring that catholicism (or perhaps christianity) is the defining characteristic of Irish identity, and that by giving less prominence to prayer, the Seanad is demoting the characteristic and essential "Irishness" of what goes on there.

The idea that religion defines a large part of one's identity is an old religious trope, and an unhelpful one, as Northern Ireland can testify.

"I'm a Catholic atheist and proud!" :pac:

recedite

Michael Nugent wrote: »

As expected, the motion was passed.

Here is the debate transcript on the Oireachtas website.

It seems Sen. Bacik knew the kind of mindset she was up against and decided to go for a pointless victory rather than an honourable defeat.

This guy here typifies their attitude;

Sen. Bradford wrote:

As the most recent census clearly shows, the vast majority of people, who do not consider themselves to be living on a higher ground than the next person or to be holy Joes or Josephines, and who do not describe themselves as saints on earth, described themselves as members of the Christian community.

which does not understand that a Republic is based on rule by fair, inclusive and just laws, as opposed to simple majority or mob rule.

Most of that Seanad discussion was about procedure and other nitpicking.
The sooner this shower of wasters is abolished and consigned to history the better.

Adamas

Galvasean wrote: »

A stopped clock is right twice a day.

Well, it is only 'right' by proxy for two minutes per day (assuming it has only two hands, the hour hand and the minute one), and even then by virtue of no power of its own.

There are 1,440 minutes in a day, so if a clock is 'right' twice a day then it is only so for approx. 1/10th of 1% of the time (2/1440 = 0.0013888888888889). Not exactly the most reliable of things. Would you rely on this kind of clock?

If it has a second hand (one that counts the seconds), then it is 'right' only (2/86460), which is pretty abysmal. It's hardly a good example of how faith on God should work, as he is supposedly always right all the time, and not just hit and miss.

Imagine if your TV remote only operated on those percentages? I think I'd throw it at my stopped clock....;)

Adamas

ninja900 wrote: »

I was in exactly that position when serving on a jury, when I chose to affirm rather than swear on the sky fairy.



When I'm elected Senator, I'm going to have to make a choice between worshipping the Great God Bølløx or the High Priestess Cûnt. Either way, I will be obliged to repeatedly chant their name at the top of my voice, and anyone who tries to stop me will be interfering in my constitutional right of worship :pac:

....good idea...but there's only one snag...I've already copyrighted them, so you can go online to my website www.rentagod.com and sign up for a lease contract. Religion is a business,... kerchingggg! Peace be with you!

recedite

Adamas wrote: »

you can go online to my website www.rentagod.com and sign up for a lease contract. Religion is a business,... kerchingggg!

Meh.. nothing there except adds, but I did like this one
Mostly overpriced pieces of crap, but I thought the pair of Ionic columns might look good in my kitchen, and the "large wooden cross with hand carved corpse" might fit in the tree in the back garden. Far too dear though.

sonicthebadger*

recedite wrote: »

Meh.. nothing there except adds, but I did like this one
Mostly overpriced pieces of crap, but I thought the pair of Ionic columns might look good in my kitchen, and the "large wooden cross with hand carved corpse" might fit in the tree in the back garden. Far too dear though.

I see they sell the jerseys on that site too http://thecrypt.ie/24-framed

recedite

Yes, those are ideal jerseys for the fashion concious Crusader Knight to wear over his armour, whilst slaying the infidel.

Adamas

recedite wrote: »

Meh.. nothing there except adds, but I did like this one
Mostly overpriced pieces of crap, but I thought the pair of Ionic columns might look good in my kitchen, and the "large wooden cross with hand carved corpse" might fit in the tree in the back garden. Far too dear though.

Yeah, nice work if you can get it. Joseph and his sons must have a big franchise going, and maybe called it judaea-ikea. I thought that large knob was interesting....quite a handful.