September 26, 1999
The Ontario Supreme Court has released a decision today saying that reciting the Lord’s prayer at the opening of Council meetings infringes on the freedom of religion. Thus such a prayer has been banned.
How can BANNING the prayer can enhance the freedom of religion entrenched in our Charter of Rights?
How can SAYING the prayer infringe on that right?
Is this not the reverse of common sense?
I know the argument: One person in Ontario complained. Thus saying the prayer infringes on his right to… to… … to… … … (I am thinking very hard, but which right do you infringe by praying to YOUR God with your own prayer while someone else is listening?).
So here we have on one side the right to freedom of religion entrenched in our Charter, where most of the assembly wants to say the prayer, and on the other side one person that is annoyed by it.
No rights are in my opinion infringed. The only reason why a person can recur to the courts is (or used to be) when physical force or offensive or hateful language was used against some specific person or group.
Seen the string of Supreme Court decisions against common moral and Christian values, is it possible that judges are following an anti-religion agenda to emancipate society from Christianity?
Would they then have achieved “freedom of religion”?
Just the opposite: Freedom from religion.