Presently in Victoria a number of those elected to represent the people are pushing for the removal of the Lord's Prayer from council meetings and in State Parliament.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/the-lords-prayer-could-be-dumped-from-victorias-parliament-heres-how/smjidwxv1

I have wondered what the Lord's prayer does in real terms. If it provides a benefit though to the people, why would you want to get rid of it?

On the other hand, I don't believe politics and religion should sit side by side and we need separation between church and state.

Also, is the Lord's Prayer out of date in a modern age? It is something we can all embrace, or should society move forward and accept the fact the Lord's Prayer doesn't resonate with a lot of people anymore?

«I have wondered what the Lord's prayer does in real terms.»

It reminds people of God, some people at least, which implies that what they do in council/parliament is for a higher purpose, not for their personal benefit.

Unfortunately it does not work for everyone, some are even angered because they [mistakenly] associate God with other things, which He is not. If only they could connect with God in some other way.

Some people think that it is right; some think that it is wrong; others don't even know that it exists. As our Western culture is based on Christianity, I think it is right.

The Lord's Prayer is NOT "out of date"; the modern world is out of whack with the Lord's Prayer and Christianity itself. The average life span of Westerners is 83 years. Christianity has been around for more than 2,000 years. Christianity is in the world, but not of the world. When it - or at least it's practitioners - start complying with the secular, post-Christian society, all is lost.

Does it do any harm ?

Why not use a Password instead ?

Hi Nathan J
I think that council and parliament are not churches.
Every persons belief in, or relationship with - a higher power or God is for them alone.
- And I think in some ways it's a little bit of an imposition and coercive to assume that everyone believes in a religion or even the same religion.

- But that doesn't mean we should throw away an idea that reminds people to do good and to be good.
The essence of that is something that probably shouldn't be discarded.

Think about the golden rule.
- Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

What is the non-religious version of this?
- Treat others the way you'd like to be treated.

Therefore I think that somehow we should keep this essence of aspiring to do good and be good,
- without imposing it in a way that assumes everyone is a believer.

Originally the prayer was a Jewish prayer happened to be taught by Jesus to his followers and recorded in the gospels. It should place our minds in the service of a higher power than ourselves. The conflict comes when it calls us to forgive those that have wronged us as the present politicians believe we must get even, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth which most of the atheistic world believes is justice. Forgiveness works as it is based in mercy and is the basis of Western Christianity.
E.g. Abdallah family.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-09/drunk-driver-samuel-davidson-jailed-for-oatlands-crash/100057958

Those assessing laws, and drafting new laws, should remain entirely neutral.
Having preconceived ideas will influence how they vote.
They need to keep an open mind, and evaluate each new law on its merit.
So ideas which are not universal must be kept away from law-making.
Which means the many shades of religion must be kept separate from the 'state'.
To have religious text spoken before meetings, or parliamentary sessions, is absolutely absurd.
As is the idea that there are two australian nations with separate flags.
I seriously wonder what our leaders are thinking.
I worry that they are not thinking at all.
They should be thinking everything through carefully?
Are they really doing that?

Yuyutsu,

<<It reminds people of God, some people at least, which implies that what they do in council/parliament is for a higher purpose, not for their personal benefit.>>

Well, I don't see that working well if we have a whole heap of people elected to parliament who tow the party line. Is there some difference when someone chooses to cross the floor and go against the party line and vote differently?

Ttbn,

<<The Lord's Prayer is not out of date...>>

If that was the case, I think you'd find a lot of people reciting it on a daily basis and I don't know how many do that anymore. We also face politicians in Victoria wanting it removed from parliament. I don't know how many young people recite the Lord's Prayer anymore either in 2023.

Armchair Critic,

Can we find a non-religious version of this? Possibly yes, but as Yuyutsu points out the 'is for a higher purpose, not for their personal benefit' and this has to be taken into account. So, we may need better people who care, not just a prayer or reading at the start of parliament or council meeting.

Josephus,

<<The conflict comes when it calls us to forgive those that have wronged us as the present politicians believe we must get even, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth which most of the atheistic world believes is justice.>>

There have been plenty of religious people over the years wanting 'an eye for an eye', it can filter into anyone's system sadly at any time.

Nathan,

The reading of the Lord's prayer is as irrelevant as the phoney welcoming of the attendees to their own country.

Do not pray in parliament. And we won't think in your churches.
We the people pay these people to do what we elected them to do.
Praying has been proved over and over again to be a waste of time.
If it important to any particular representative, then they can say or pray whatever they like before or after the session has ended but not while in session when we are paying their wages.

Nathan

No, the Lord's Prayer is not out of date. About half of Australians still identify as Christians. And, the fact that some other Australians have rejected Christianity does not mean that the faith or the prayers are "out of date"; they just don't mean anything to those people. Fair enough. Christianity is not compulsory.

In the meantime, there are no plans to drop the Lord's Prayer in Parliament. The last whinge about it was made about 25 years ago by Bob Brown. Nothing happened. Now, another Leftist atheist has had another go. She was slapped down by the Labor government.

The whole thing seems to be a fixation of the Greens and other extreme Leftists.

I think that the country would need to go down the toilet much further than it is now to see the Lord's Prayer discontinued, and then it really wouldn't matter because there wouldn't be a democratic parliament.

If I had my way I would do away with all this hypocritical nonsense of Prayer etc. in anything to do with Courts & Govt.
What I would like to see is swearing Allegiance & compliance to Law & Order & Integrity !
Let's be real & face it that once Religion & Culture are involved division is inevitable.
In my suggestion religious & cultural differences don't even get a foot in the door & everyone is bound to basic human decency !

The existence of "basic human decency" is debatable. It is now over 40 years since all school children received religious instruction. Society has gradually deteriorated over that time. Some people believe in 'original sin'; others believe that a baby is 'decent' at birth.

I believe the latter position is wrong, and that life was much better when everyone was exposed to Christianity until they were mature enough to make up their own minds. After all, there is nothing bad about the teachings of Jesus Christ, who was an historical figure, no matter what we think about some of the things written after his death by other people.

Christianity is on the wane in Australian (as it is in much of the West), but are you prepared for the other 'religions' that will rush in to fill the void? Climate change worship is only the beginning. One thing is certain: human beings need something to believe in.

human beings need something to believe in.
ttbn,
Precisely, so to believe in human decency, Law & Order would put humanity on track for a less bleak future & much improved presence !

Indyvidual

Human decency is not a belief: it's a condition that you have or don't have. And, sadly, there is less of it about these days because, I strongly believe, we have turned our backs on Christianity.

Now, not everyone believes that, but I do and, the older I get, the more I believe it.

I am not a Bible-basher. I haven't been in a church for anything but funerals and weddings for more than 60 years. In fact, I think the organised church and its ministers and priests bear a lot of the responsibility for people giving Christianity away. When the churches start sounding like secular society, they might as well not exist. One theologian whose name I can't immediately recall said that there is no church where Christians are safe.

I have my own personal Christian beliefs, which I believe are necessary for me to know right from wrong. But, I'm still a sinner like everyone else. Nobody is perfect. I'll leave that belief to the non-religious, who think that they know everything - about Christianity itself, and things that none of us can possibly know in this world.

Human decency is not a belief:
ttbn,
I know, I'm simply suggesting it could be made one instead of the hypocrisy of religion !

The "hypocrisy of religion"? Two things about that Indyvidual. It's not 'religion' we are talking about: it is Christianity. In this one-time Christian country it is Christianity that is the most maligned, not other religions. Just imagine people in the Middle East and India maligning Islam and Hinduism, and getting away with it like the cowardly little oiks do with Christianity in Australia!

The second point is that Christianity is not "hypocritical". Any hypocrisy there is lies firmly with with human beings using and misusing Christianity for their own ends. Think the old 'singer not song' adage.