The Speaker of Parliament has called for public debate on the relevance or use of the Lords Prayer at the opening of Parliament sessions.

Some are opposed to it, and various suggestions are offered to replace it.

-Acknowledgement of Indigenous ownership (4% support)
-The Anthem (around 19%)

There are others. But importantly, the support FOR the Lords prayer is a clear 63% at the time of writing. (Sky poll)

It was argued by one former Priest/historian that it is one of our major traditions, which looks back to the foundations of the nation during European settlement.

I tend to agree on that. Traditions are important for the feeling of framework and social values.

Perhaps we can explore the following:

Benefits of retaining the prayer.
Problems with retaining the prayer.
Benefits of replacing it with....?
Problems with replacing it with...?

We should also ask how strongly we believe in the separation of Church and State not only in principle but in action.

We should also seek to explore whether secularism is paid lip service or is a sincere principle for our politicians no matter their own spiritual beliefs.

The answers to these questions will assist in determing the relevance of the Lord's Prayer in today's parliamentary proceedings.

Personally, I like Senator Bob Brown's idea of replacing the Lords Prayer with a silent time for reflection.

For me personally, a recognition of traditional owners would be more appropriate and less alienating for non-Christian Australians. In a secular society, it would be equally inappropriate to replace the Lords Prayer with alternating prayers as was suggested in Victoria some time ago.

While tradition or ritual can be important for a nation's sense of identity it might be pertinent to recognise that nation's change and in a multi-cultural Australia comes a greater variation of religious and spiritual beliefs.

Religion and spirituality is a personal choice and not something to be forced on everyone at the beckoning of strong Chrisitan lobbies.

There are significant numbers of politicians on both sides of the fence who pander to the Christian lobby so I can't see the removal of the Lords Prayer anytime soon.

Last time I looked, parliament was full of people without scruples, who thought nothing of raiding the public purse for their own purposes, who would happily leave ethics at the door in favour of short-term gain or political spin, and whose entire lives are spent in the pursuit of their own heavily-superannuated and freebie-laden retirement.

In my view, the recitation of the Lords Prayer at the beginning of each session is entirely consistent with their attitudes, behaviour and accomplishments.

The recitation of the Lord's Prayer at he commencement of Parliament sessions is an anachronistic affront to the millions of Australians who are not Christians. If they have to begin parliamentary sessions with some kind of ritualistic incantation, I'd suggest that our elected representatives recite some kind of secular oath that affirms their democratic purpose for being there.

Hi Pericles and Pelican.

I see both your points of view.

Pericles.. sounds like we need a boistrous Isaiah to preach a sermon in addition to the prayer to sort out those attitudes.

Ah, sinful nation,
a people loaded with guilt,
a brood of evildoers,
children given to corruption!
They have forsaken the LORD;
they have spurned the Holy One of Israel
and turned their backs on him.

This rather ancient scenario does raise an interesting question. In the absense of an Ethical/Moral God who gives specific commandments, where, (other than the prophetic) could such a critical and credible "voice" be found?

What you mentioned about unprincipled people inhabiting the corridors of government simply means it takes more than the recitation of a formulated prayer to change their hearts.

I think it would be much more effective in countering the erosion of ethics if each member of parliament was in turn required to bring a devotional talk for 5 minutes from the Words of Christ.

It's not easy to harbour ill feeling, moral compromise or ethical breakdown when one knows that is looming close.

Pelican... yes, alas.. 'reasonably' it would seem that non Christians would be less alienated by simply having a time of reflection. One wonders though about 'what' people might reflect on :)

Finally, the unprincipled people in Government were voted there by us.
Generally, the process is
-'Politicians promise'
-We do our sums.. "more benefit/less benefit" (selfishness/greed)
-Then we vote.

If only this were so, Boaz.

>>'Politicians promise'
-We do our sums.. "more benefit/less benefit" (selfishness/greed)
-Then we vote.<<

What happens is:

- Politicians promise
- We elect on those promises
- We are thereafter totally ignored until the next time they need to capture our vote

You identify the key issue, but draw exactly the wrong conclusion from it.

>>In the absense of an Ethical/Moral God who gives specific commandments, where, (other than the prophetic) could such a critical and credible "voice" be found?<<

The recitation every morning gives the politician a warm feeling of sanctimony, and permits the assumption that what they are doing there is somehow OK, because they have invoked God.

If, on the other hand, they were forced to confront their own dishonesty with a personal affirmation of the purpose of their presence in the House, as CJ suggests, the responsibility for their decisions would clearly be their own alone.

As for your laughable suggestion that

>>it would be much more effective in countering the erosion of ethics if each member of parliament was in turn required to bring a devotional talk for 5 minutes from the Words of Christ<<

I can only point out that a daily dose of "the Words of Christ" has so far had a negative effect on their performance, with each successive generation of politicians more venal and greedy than the last.

Clearly, the morning ritual has failed its purpose, and needs replacing with something a little more binding.