Anyone know about this? (please read)

[u4ic]

Today, our Unitarian minister told us that she had received an invitation to a Prayer Breakfast in Ottawa. It did say it was the 41st, and is specifically geared towards Christianity (so they invite Unitarians :crazy: ).

The invitation states:

The Speaker of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Commons, with members of the Cabinet, Supreme Court and other National Leaders requests the pleasure of your company...(date, time, etc)

"Historically, the leadership of our nation has turned to Almighty God for strength and guidance.

In this spirit, the Parliamentary Prayer Breakfast Group, which meets to deepen friendships and to pray together, inaugurated the National Prayer Breakfast to specifically seek the Lord's guidance and strength as well as to celebrate our faith and renew the dedication of our nation and ourselves to God and His purposes.

This event in our nation's capital seeks to encourage men and women to recognize their priviledges and responsibilies under God"

With the desire to deepen the spiritual lives of individuals through a leadership led by God, in most provinces there have been similar breakfasts inaugurated by premiers, mayors and other leaders.

As a natural outgrowth of such gatherings, people are finding, through meeting in the spirit of Christ, a fellowship that is helping to build true community in Canada.

I can gladly email the pdf of it to anyone who requests it...I'll most certainly be contacting my MP about this. Why the hell are they still holding this relic - I could possibly support a multi faith approach, but not the crap that was written.

[iverglas]

1. it stinks

and what stinks even more is how the whole thing was pretty much lifted from its yankee model:

http://www.reamscomputer.com/Press%20Releases/2006/2006%20January/PrayerBreakfast011606.htm

Historically the leadership of our nation has turned to Almighty God for strength and guidance. In this spirit, the National Prayer Breakfast, inaugurated by the United State Senate and the House of Representatives, was created to specifically seek Divine guidance and strength as well as reaffirm our faith and the dedication of our Nation and ourselves to God, His plan and His purpose.

You'll note the difference, though.

The US version was inaugurated by the houses of Congress.

The Cdn version was inaugurated by the "Parliamentary Prayer Breakfast Group" -- a private outfit, not a governmental one.

The individuals involved are free to do what they want, and to identify themselves by their titles when they do it. A Supreme Court judge who attends is attending in his/her private capacity, however, not as a representative of the Court, etc.

So it's still ignorant, in the Canadian context, but just one of those freedom to do as you like things.

[u4ic]

2. Their invitation is so misleading

It names all those with titles, inviting on behalf of the PPBG...however...who is paying for this? They are expecting about 500 people.

And - why would it be held in a room in the House of Commons? Why wouldn't it be held elsewhere? I wouldn't think the HofC rents rooms to every Tom Dick and Harry that requests it?

(not refuting what you are saying, just concerned about a few issues, and looking for answers)

I'm also concerned about the role (esp evangelical) Christianity is going to play with the new gov't. (I realize it's not a new thing, after some reading...however, there is definitely a resurgence of it)

Interestingly, I kept on reading the PPBG is non-denominational...all from Christian websites. Yet they also get together and study the bible. :wtf: Meaning? All denominations of Christianity?

[iverglas]

3. rooms

Any MP may use a room in the parlt buildings for meetings, celebrations, etc.

I dislike the entire idea of this at least as much as you do. But I dislike that it exists, just like I dislike the idea that any religion and religious doings exist.

We couldn't actually forbid the use of rooms in the parlt buildings for this purpose, and allow an MP to use a room for anything else! Like, say, celebrating international atheism day or what have you. ;)

I imagine that "non-denominational" does mean "regardless of Christian denomination".

I'll try and find out for you whether the "Red Mass" to open the courts at the beginning of the season still happens in Ottawa. Now that one was enough to make you puke -- it wasn't just private people doing their private thing, it was judges doing a public thing as judges. The Ottawa judiciary, bar and police were for a long time very heavily Irish RC, and so this was just one manifestation of their grip on the levers of judicial power. If we're lucky, it's gone the way of the exclusionary, offensive dodo it was.

[u4ic]

4. I'm still wondering who's paying for it...

sure as hell hope it's privately funded.

Thanks :hi:

[iverglas]

5. my understanding

The rooms are available free of charge to MPs (and Senators), but refreshments would be at the expense of the organizers. That's how I've always assumed it worked, anyhoo.

It would not be appropriate for religious events to be held at public expense here, and I can't even imagine that happening. And I can't imagine people like Bill Blaikey, who I'm sure is part of this, wanting it to happen!

[CHIMO]

6. I Guess

That Bill should be allowed to speak on this issue?

[iverglas]

7. hmm

Not catching your drift.

I'd been kind of assuming that because of Bill's great interest in the religion/politics interface (nope, won't call it "faith"), he'd be involved. However, it seems that the outfit in question may really be just a fundie/Reform thing after all. There isn't much about it on the net, but I don't find Blaikie mentioned in any of what there is.

http://www3.sympatico.ca/gord.walford/pscf/history.html

I have just skimmed it, but it contains some info about this group. At a quick glance, nobody who helps the Gideons do anything at all has any claim to ecumenism of any sort, for starters, or even simple respect for other people's religious beliefs. (I've just read about the objection recently made by a parent in BC to a school's acceptance of the Gideons' offer to distribute bibles to students through the school administration. Go, parent.)

Not quite so non-denominational as it says, it seems.

I finally had to open the danged pdf file when this was all I could find about private use of room on the Hill:

http://www.bibliotheque.assnat.qc.ca/01/mono/2004/04/768412.pdf
SURVEY OF FACILITIES AND SERVICES AVAILABLE TO COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARIANS, 2002 - 2003

... and then it turns out to be about New South Wales:

All members of Parliament are able to book rooms within the Parliament for meetings with constituency and other groups. Bookings must be made under the Member’s name and the Member or one of their staff must be in attendance at the meeting.

For Canada:

Members in Canada, Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec can have functions catered for at any time. Meals are provided at a fair market rate in these Branches.

so I guess by implication they may use rooms for those functions. My understanding has always been that things work the same way they do in NSW.

MPs use rooms on the Hill for party (i.e. political party) functions all the time, and I think just for private functions as well. The Parliamentary Prayer Breakfast people are just a private association whose membership is open to MPs and Senators (and, I would assume, people who work on the Hill). The Parliamentary Feral Cat Lovers would get the same privileges.

Like I said, what *I* find offensive is that these people and their religion exist. Given that they do, they're entitled to the same perks as any other group of parliamentarians.

[CHIMO]

8. Thanks for The Reply

Awhile ago I responded to an item about our census being counted or controlled by a company outside of Canada. It was an e-mail sent to someone in parliament.
Well lo and behold I received a thank you from Bill for my interest and a follow up later when the topic reappeared. So the point I was putting forth was that I would trust Bill would be able to aptly bring the question forth if it was appropriate and all, providing he was not restricted by party lines.

Thanks for your digging on the topic. Never knew about these things before.

[iverglas]

9. as promised

http://www.ecclesia-ottawa.org/dio-news/dn020905.html

RED MASS – OPENING OF THE FALL SESSION OF THE LAW COURTS <2005>: All Catholic judges & lawyers are invited to attend and to gown for the procession. Notre Dame Cathedral.
Sun., Sept. 18, 12 noon. Confirm attendance: Jean Rhéaume (565-0762, after 6:30 p.m.) or Michael Collins (824-4114). Sponsored by the Thomas More Lawyers’ Guild.

Now that is where it seems like we could use a little of that church & state separation stuff. This makes me absolutely puke.

Oh well, it doesn't seem to work anyhow:

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/1997/September97/404ag.html

TENTATIVE PUBLIC SCHEDULE FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL JANET RENO
THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 29, 1997

Sunday, October 5
* Attend Red Mass; 10:00 a.m., Cathedral of St. Matthew, 1725
Rhode Island, NW, Washington, D.C.

(That showed up because she was in Ottawa a few days before.)

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/Communications_Office/Press_Releases/2005/lawday_042905.asp

Chief Justice Moyer and Justice Maureen O'Connor will participate in the Akron Red Mass celebration at noon on Friday, May 6, at St. Bernard Church, 44 University Avenue, downtown Akron. The Red Mass is a tradition for lawyers and judges dating to 13 th Century Europe. In modern times, judges and lawyers of all faiths gather to renew their commitment of service to the rule of law.

http://marriagelaw.cua.edu/News/news2004/011204.cfm

A call to fight the legalization of gay marriage was issued by several prominent voices yesterday, including Boston Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley and former US Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork, who strongly urged the state's Catholic lawyers and judges to oppose last year's historic decision by the state Supreme Judicial Court.

O'Malley made his remarks during the annual Red Mass at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross, an event named for the scarlet vestments worn during a service to bless the work of lawyers and judges.

At least that recent notice for the Ottawa one seems to indicate that they've given up the sham of "all faiths" and acknowledge that it is an event for RC lawyers and judges. As long as we don't have any elected types attending, judges can play whatever silly games they might want. One does just has to wonder how appropriate it is for them to be mixing their office with their church in public, though. This really is different from a parliamentary prayer group, and more offensive.

http://www.travel-net.com/~thomasmore/report1.html

The Red Mass, 2002

Planning is well under underway for the Red Mass. ... Last year the judges of all the courts in the city including Justice Gonthier from the Supreme Court of Canada, and judges from the Federal and Tax Courts, the Superior Court of Justice and the Ontario Court of Justice attended both the Red Mass and the reception that followed.

Just to illustrate: the grossly offensive Archbishop Marcel Gervais delivered the homily in 2002 (I forget the details, but I once had to contact his office to obtain the exact wording of some really filthy thing he'd said, I think it was about gay men, and embarrassed his secretary, probably a nun to boot, by making her tell me). Herewith:

http://www.travel-net.com/~thomasmore/homily2002.htm

Jesus sees through their plot and turns the argument around. What he says, "Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's." It is not an answer to their question. It is a statement which makes it clear that the relationship to public authority (that is Caesar), only covers a part of life, but the relationship to God covers all of it, especially one's heart and inner-self. What belongs to God is the whole person (Mark 12:30ff). If the public authority does not interfere with one's total dedication to God's will, there is no reason to refuse to give what it can legitimately claim (e.g. taxes); but if the public authority interferes with one's total dedication to God's will, then the public authority is not to be obeyed.

Yeah, that's appropriate for a bunch of judges to be nodding obsequeously at.



Oh, this one's a gas. I shall close my rant with it:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marb17.htm

2003-JUL-28: Request to stay JUN-10 decision: Darrel Reid, of Focus on the Family, Canada, filed an affidavit with the Supreme Court of Canada on behalf of the Association for Marriage and the Family in Ontario. It seeks a stay of the JUN-10 decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario decision which legalized SSM (same-sex marriage), in the event that the Supreme Court allows an appeal (i.e. granted leave to appeal). ...

However, they argued that they felt that they could not receive an "impartial hearing" before a panel of that court. That is an unusually serious charge -- almost unprecedented. They cited the presence of two Justices of the court at the Law Society of Upper Canada's annual Pride Week reception as proof of bias.

... Doug Elliot, a lawyer for the Metropolitan Community Church, commented: "When a judge attends black history month, he is showing his commitment to equality. When he attends the Red Mass, he is showing respect for Catholics. When he attends Pride Week, he is making a political statement and is biased.

ha. ha. ha.