Australian parliament considers changing Lord's Prayer
by Daniel Blake
Posted: Wednesday, October 29, 2008, 6:59 (GMT)
The speaker of Australia's parliament has called for a debate on the practice of reciting the Lord's Prayer at the beginning of parliamentary business.
Since 1901 the Lord's Prayer has been recited at the start of every parliamentary sitting.
Harry Jenkins, speaker of the House of Representatives, said that the debate should focus on whether the prayer should be reworded or replaced completely.
Speaking to the Sunday Telegraph, he said, "One of the most controversial aspects of the parliamentary day I found from practically day two is the prayer."
His comments come shortly after Rob Oakeshott, a new independent MP, expressed his disappointment that there was no acknowledgement of the indigenous people of Australia at the start of each sitting.
In his maiden speech Oakeshott said, "I ask you to revisit this question of daily acknowledgement within this chamber for traditional owners, a simple symbolic but respectful act which will assist in building a better Australia," reports AFP.
Jenkins said that some form of recognition to the indigenous population would be in step with the apology to Aboriginals, made by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in January for injustices during in the last 220 years of white settlement.
Australian Immigration Minister Chris Evans said, however, that it was unlikely things would change. Evans noted that traditional land owners were mentioned every year at the opening of parliament and at other formal Parliament House functions.
Speaking to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Evans said, "We had this debate in the Senate a few years ago when there was talk about having a moment's reflection rather than the Lord's Prayer but the strong view among Senators was that the Lord's Prayer ought to remain - I wouldn't expect any change."
Copyright © 2009 Christian Today. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
The comments below are readers' personal opinions and are in no way intended to reflect the editorial opinion of Christian Today.
Added: Thursday, October 30, 2008, 13:21 (GMT)
Great, lets bring in more degradation to society - more killings, rape, perversion, henious acts, hatred than ever before because we are not accountable for anything! Sooner than later why not have no age limit to underage sex, whats wrong with multiple partners... its great for the society...
Heck I'll throw this in: You know that a wife and husband can never catch STD? and if one partner tries out another, there is a tremedous chance of contracting STD? Animal kingdoms on the other hand have no STD issues with multiple 'partners' - Humans are the only creature that have this problem - surely just this one example out of so many in creation should cause us to stop and think of the conscious we have inside??
The world is getting worse and worse because we are removing God!
Bring in the prayers - we need all we can get!
Noah, Sydney, Australia
Added: Thursday, October 30, 2008, 2:16 (GMT)
I notice that the options to the Lord's Prayer for the Australian Parliament mentioned are focussed on the transiently temporal. They express the religion of secularistic humanism because religion begins with ascribing to something an 'unconditional nondependent' status. Secularists do this as readily as do Christians and Muslims.
Secularists are united in declaring as unconditionally nondependent something temporal, be it human rationality, be it human freedom from all constraints other than those self-imposed. To assert the temporal starting point as the Truth, is no less dogmatic than the so-called religionist.
Speaker Harry Jenkins wants rid of 'Almighty God' and the Lord's Prayer because they reflect an alien religion to his own and other Australians' secularistic religion. However, as a representative of a people whose present parliament is based on Anglo Christianity and whose people still claim, according to census data, to largely describe themselves as Christians, the case for change is weak.
Ian, Montrose, Australia
