In our June 6 issue we published an editorial agreeing with Pembina Hills Public Schools (PHPS) trustee’s decision to stop the practice of reciting the Lord’s Prayer in three of its schools, Dunstable, Busby and Pembina North Community School.
Trustees made the decision, May 24, stating PHPS wasn’t prepared to shoulder the legal costs after a parent complaint was filed against the division under the Alberta Human Rights Act. Although a date had not been set, the matter was scheduled to proceed to a hearing before a Tribunal of the Alberta Human Rights Commission.
As you will see, elsewhere in this issue, we received a letter from a reader who disagrees with the board’s decision and suggests people should lobby trustees to reinstate the practice at these three schools. The main basis of her argument being that the board’s final decision was undemocratic as the majority of parents who were polled in the three schools were in favour of the practice. The reader argues that school boards have the legal right to allow prayer in schools alluding to Section 17 of the Alberta Act. Although we encourage people to write in on this and other subjects, we want to add another viewpoint to the discussion.
First point is whether trustees have the authority to decide whether prayer is allowed in school. Yes the Alberta Act, enacted in the early 1900s, says school boards can allow school prayer in certain circumstances, if directed to do so by trustees.
Whether it does or not is a moot point, because the Supreme Court of Canada (SCOC), which from our understanding is the final say when it comes to legal matters, ruled in 2015 that public institutions could not open with a prayer.
In their ruling the court said that Canadian society has evolved to where “the state must not interfere in religion and beliefs.”
The ruling stated it is not the text or content of the invocation that is the issue, but the very act of prayer that violates that neutrality.
Prayer, itself is a religious practice, “even if it is said to be inclusive, it may nevertheless exclude non-believers,” the SCOC judgment said.
We are also not sure making a decision against public opinion is an affront to democracy. When PHPS polled asked parents for their opinion if the practice should be continued, it was not meant to be binding, but used as a tool to help trustees make their decision.
We also want to pose this question to those who take up the challenge and lobby the trustees to reinstate reciting the Lord’s Prayer, and the board reverses its decision are they willing to back their actions up with their wallets? Going to court is expensive, especially if you are on the losing end, which, if the SCOC ruling is any indication, would be the likely outcome.
It is something to think about.
