Epigraph:
There should be no compulsion in religion. Surely, right has become distinct from wrong; so whosoever refuses to be led by those who transgress, and believes in Allah, has surely grasped a strong handle which knows no breaking. And Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing. (Al Quran 2:257)
Supreme Court of Canada. For the Muslim Times’ collection on Separation of Mosque-Church and state, please click here
TORONTO (RNS) Canada’s Supreme Court has ruled that a small town in Quebec may not open its council meetings with prayer.
In a unanimous ruling Wednesday (April 15), Canada’s highest court ruled that the town of Saguenay can no longer publicly recite a Catholic prayer because it infringes on freedom of conscience and religion.
The case dates back to 2007, when a resident of Saguenay complained about public prayer at City Hall.
Just last year, a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled that legislative bodies such as city councils could begin their meetings with prayer, even if it plainly favors a specific religion.
But the Canadian high court ruled that the country’s social mores have “given rise to a concept of neutrality according to which the state must not interfere in religion and beliefs. The state must instead remain neutral in this regard. This neutrality requires that the state neither favor nor hinder any particular belief, and the same holds true for non belief.”
The court said a nondenominational prayer is still religious in nature and would exclude nonbelievers.
In 2011, a human rights tribunal in Quebec ordered an end to the prayers and awarded $30,000 in damages to the complainant.
Quebec’s Court of Appeals overturned that decision two years later, saying the town imposed no religious views on its citizens.
But the high court ruled that it is the state’s “duty to protect every person’s freedom of conscience and religion.” That means it “may not use its powers in such a way as to promote the participation of certain believers or non-believers in public life to the detriment of others.”
The court awarded the complainant $33,500 in damages.
Only hours after the ruling was made public, the city of Ottawa suspended its practice of beginning council meetings with a prayer, saying it needs to review the decision. Other municipalities have also halted the practice, pending a review.
Categories: Agnosticism, Americas, Canada, Secularism, Separation of Church and State
When societies spiritually degenerate, these kinds of decisions are no surprise. The Holy Prophet (saw) has advised his followers to pray to God even when you need as small a thing as shoe laces. And here we have the so called enlightened and finest brains of the nation telling in the name of rights of opposing groups, that no prayers are needed to seek the help of all powerful God in making decisions which can potentially effect the lives of millions of citizens in so many ways. The difference between the approach of divinely guided and so called champions of modern civilization is patently obvious.
Supreme court is not prohibiting prayers. It is only preventing one group from enforcing their point of view and practices on others.
If the Christians start praying to Jesus, the Jews and the Muslims will take offence, the court is trying to prevent such kind of issues.
The Supreme court is trying to promote a secular society where people of all different faiths can prosper.
Does secularism say that majority has no say in decisions and that religion is totally something to just name?
This is a great truth that Almost all states are developed and defended mainly by people of faith or with their overwhelming support, So we can say that there should be a balance and not too much tilt towards secularism or religion or no religion.
And again state and religion are different streets but they do share the Chowk or the crossing and both have to respect each other. One better way wud v been, instead of advising no pray, to devise a prayer which has words of common trust and respect. Thanks
It is a very wise, timely and correct decision. Religiously speaking the court has upheld the secular concept of “Rab-ul-Ala’ameen” without giving it any brand name.
MAV
Sweden
It is to keep the state and religion separate.This will resultst in a secular state where there is no role of religious fanatics to grow. This is to avoid discrimination to promote peace and to protect and respect religious values among different faith groups. However Silent prayer is the best way as in practice in different faith.
This is a step in the wrong direction. Quebec has been vying for the removal of religion from state structures. Which seems a good thing from afar, but the devil is in the details. Tomorrow the issue will be that no single representative of the state should be seen to represent a single faith. Hence the demand of abolishing religious symbols from state representatives will gain more force. The next demand will be to remove from the face of the state, wearers of kippahs, headscarves and turbans. Considering the Quebecois political climate in the recent past, this may well be a dangerous precedent.
@ Rabia Mir : great way to express ditches to come. Today Maulvis are in this ditch tomorrow Murabbis may be. you can sk for secularism for coutries like pakistan but what do yo have for the west then?
Ahmadies are supposed to raise the flag of Islam not secularism as it is posed now. Either we need to call it Islamic Secularism and fine tune the details balancing both or we need to name it as Justisism – not secularism or Atheism or Anti Religiousism as we see it now.
Thanks.
Shariah and Constitution: A Personal Journey:
http://www.themuslimtimes.org/2014/07/countries/united-states/shariah-and-constitution-a-personal-journey-2
For the Muslim Times’ collection on Secularism:
http://www.themuslimtimes.org/category/secularism