I move:
That the report of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges on Standing Order 18: Prayer at Commencement of Sitting, be adopted, laid before the House and printed.
Standing Order 18: Motion
Question put and agreed to.
I understand once the matter is agreed we can then have a debate, as the Leader said on the Order of Business. The debate can commence without a Minister present as it is on a report of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, CPP. I welcome the opportunity for the debate. It is the first time a debate has been held on a motion passed unanimously by the CPP. It is quite unprecedented in the House, as the Leader tells me. It shows that we want to be open to debate. It was specifically requested by a Member who said he could not be here today. It is an historic occasion as we have not had a debate on the procedure at the commencement of proceedings in the House since November 1923. Even then there was a brief debate on the introduction of a prayer where formerly there had not been one. I will refer to the history in my contribution.
The Standing Order report, now that it has been passed, will add a new additional phrase into Standing Order 18 which currently provides for the prayer at commencements of sittings. It will provide that instead of simply having the prayer read, as it currently is, all Senators present shall stand for 30 seconds of silent reflection and then the prayer shall be read. It is adding a very short period of silent reflection to the period we currently have set aside for a specifically Christian prayer. I am speaking in favour of the report, which has been adopted unanimously by the CPP and the House. It is not what I would have wanted.
At the CPP last July I initiated a discussion on the prayer and the way in which we commence business. In my original submission to the committee I said I did not believe it was appropriate for a Christian prayer to be used to commence each sitting of the Seanad. I recommended that we replace the prayer with a short period of silent reflection, as is done in Dublin City Council, the Stormont Assembly, the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament.
I made the point to colleagues at the committee that although there has traditionally been a prayer at the commencement of the House of Commons and House of Lords, it is largely a factor of tradition and the particular status of the established church in that jurisdiction, the Church of England. I do not believe it is appropriate for us to follow that tradition.
In addition, when the Seanad was first instituted there was no prayer. It was a more recent development in November 1923 at the insistence of the Earl of Wicklow who was then a Senator. My preferred option was and remains that the Christian prayer be replaced with a short period of silent reflection to enable greater inclusivity of all Members of different faiths and those who, like me, would not have faith.
Having canvassed this view at the CPP, we discussed it further. Senator Mullen provided some observations. One of his suggestions was that instead of replacing the prayer with period of silent reflection we would have a period of silent reflection in addition to the prayer at the beginning of each day's business. I took some time to consider the proposal. We discussed it at the committee last week and I fully supported it as a very fair compromise that accommodates those of non-Christian or no faith, while retaining the existing prayer.
It is not my preferred option. I will still seek to persuade others to replace the prayer altogether. I look forward to hearing the views of others. Somewhat surprisingly, I find myself being accused of selling out by those who would like to see the prayer abolished. I am quite pleased, in a debate on religion, to find myself on the moderate middle ground. I see this change very much as a first step towards greater inclusivity. I will certainly continue to argue for an outright change but I am very happy that the compromise is fair.
The initiative I have taken has allowed us to debate the prayer for the first time since 1923. That, in itself, is interesting and marks some sort of progress. It has also led to a change in the prayer for the first time since 1923 and to recognition of members of a variety of faiths. It is a practical achievement and a step forward. It is a little like having an affirmation alongside a religious oath, as is provided for jurors and which we should provide for those taking up other offices, such as the office of the Presidency. President Michael D. Higgins, at his inauguration, introduced in an initiative whereby a humanist celebrant took part in the proceedings alongside officiators of organised religions. This is inclusive.
Let me refer to the history of the prayer. It is instructive to examine historical debates. In January 1923, the issue of a prayer in the Seanad was first broached by the Earl of Wicklow, who stated he would like to see a prayer commence proceedings. The then Cathaoirleach felt the most simple and dignified solution would be to have a moment's silence in which each Member could make what prayer he thought fit according to his own belief. The Cathaoirleach said it would otherwise be delicate and difficult to frame any sort of procedure that would receive universal acceptance. The Earl of Wicklow did not give up, however, and on 14 November 1923 he managed to have the relevant committee submit a prayer to the Seanad, which was agreed. The only debate was on whether it should be in both Irish and English or in Irish alone. Colleagues may be interested to know that Senator W. B. Yeats stated he would like the prayer to be read in Irish as soon as the majority of the Members know Irish. This might have taken some time.
It is also instructive to note that the Earl of Wicklow stated the words for the prayer were mainly suggested to him by a lay person but that he took them to the archbishops of Dublin, both Catholic and Protestant, who approved the wording. That is how the prayer came about. The wording changed subsequently and the prayer that was adopted in July 1932 by the Dáil is the one we use today in the Seanad. In November 1923, when the Seanad adopted the Earl of Wicklow's phrasing, the Dáil had not by then adopted a prayer. It was being recommended at the time.
The prayer is not with us since the beginning of the Seanad. I am very grateful to Atheist Ireland for pointing that out to me. In checking the record, I was interested to see that the issue of the prayer has been raised on a number of occasions by former colleagues, including Mr. Proinsias De Rossa, who spoke about a petty instance of discrimination. He objected to the prayer being specifically Christian, not to the fact that there was a prayer. He believed it was not in line with the thinking of a pluralist society. He outlined these beliefs in 1999. My colleague and friend, Senator Norris, has raised this matter on a number of occasions since, as have I. This is the first time we have had a debate on the prayer and the first time we are seeing a change to the proceedings to allow them to be more pluralist and inclusive. Therefore, I strongly welcome the introduction of what I believe to be a small and modest change which will, nonetheless, represent an important step forward in recognising the plurality of religious belief and non-religious belief in Ireland. I hope colleagues will embrace the change and that we will see people taking part in a dignified and respectable way in the 30 seconds of silence we will now have.
Thirty minutes would be better than what we had this morning.
It is unlikely we will ever have 30 minutes of silence. To incorporate 30 seconds of silence as part of the ritualistic commencement of proceedings is an important step forward in creating more tolerant and inclusive society. I will continue to try to persuade the House to move towards the method used in Stormont, Dublin City Council and other assemblies, where there is simply a silent period of reflection. This is the most inclusive method. What is proposed, however, is a very useful and valuable compromise. Its adoption by the Seanad provides not only a starting point for greater inclusivity in our parliamentary procedures, but also marks an initiative this House has taken that was not taken in the other House, although there have been moves towards change there. It shows we are capable of changing methods not only by having this debate, but also by making the change to procedures.
I very much welcome the report from the CPP and urge colleagues to embrace it and share their views thereon. We very much welcome their views. I urge them to take part in the 30 seconds of silence in a respectful and dignified way in recognition of the very many varieties of beliefs in this Chamber.
On behalf of my party, I support the amendment to Standing Orders to allow for a period of 30 seconds of reflection. It is an acceptable compromise. It is fair to say this is not a burning issue around the country. I received fewer than a dozen e-mails this morning on it. One or two were very insulting but most were very balanced.
In what way were they insulting?
By referring to religion as a fantasy. This is very unfortunate. One hears this view expressed by some of the organisations involved in this area from time to time. It is very important that we have respect for faith and individual faiths. I support the principle of non-denominational Christian prayer at the commencement of proceedings and support the change to introduce the period of reflection.
Prayer is common at the commencement of proceedings in various parliaments and assemblies around the world, be they in the United Kingdom, Australia or the United States. Politicians must tread warily in the area of faith and religion. I will never forget the words of Antonio in the Merchant of Venice, who tells Bassanio the devil can cite scripture for his own purposes. Those with religious beliefs must not use those beliefs for their personal political purposes. This is a very important principle that I try to uphold as best I can, although I acknowledge one’s faith can inform one in one’s approach to issues. It should do so because the values of religious faith are very relevant to the values of today. I refer to the fundamental Christian message of helping the poor.
I support the change being introduced today. We should change to reflect all faiths. Perhaps we could make a further change, such as that implemented in the US House of Representatives. Perhaps we could invite people from various religious faiths and the Humanist Association of Ireland to come to the House at the commencement of proceedings to deliver the prayer or allow for 30 seconds of reflection, perhaps to coincide with particular feast-days of particular religions, be they Catholic, Protestant, Muslim or Jewish. I also include people of the Bahá'í faith. They are very good people and there are a number of them in the country. I also include humanists and others. After allowing members of these groups to say the prayer, for however long it takes, we could then proceed with our business. I do not see how this would interfere with us too much.
We support the change. Let us move on to more important issues. I bet the media will be highlighting this issue and stating the Seanad is doing nothing else but raising it. I assure the people that every Member has been raising very important issues in the Seanad today.
When I was a child, I remember 30 seconds of silence was brought to us on television by Guinness. We are now introducing 30 seconds of silence to the mornings' proceedings. Senator Bacik outlined the background to the proposal before us, which involves a compromise. The Senator proposed to the CPP that the prayer be removed or abolished. Had the proposal come to a vote, it would have been defeated.
It never put it to a vote.
I suspect Senator Coghlan's prediction of the result of such a vote is correct. We had a mature discussion. Senator Mullen proposed a compromise and it was accepted by all. It strikes a balance. Let us call a spade a spade and say it is only a small minority that has had difficulty with the formal recognition of religion. As the most recent census clearly shows, the vast majority of people, who do not consider themselves to be living on a higher ground than the next person or to be holy Joes or Josephines, and who do not describe themselves as saints on earth, described themselves as members of the Christian community. We also have to recognise that group of people. We have a duty to listen, respond and ensure that minority voices are respected. However, we must also listen to the majority voice on occasions. The vast majority of people in this country, who proclaim themselves in some shape or form to be of Christian belief or to hold other religious views, are relatively comfortable with the idea of parliamentarians invoking God in some small way before they set out on their day's work.
Senator Byrne's proposal was interesting and it is something we could consider. In the coming months in the United States, party conventions will be held to select candidates to contest the presidential election. President Obama will be automatically selected. Each evening, at the commencement of the Democratic and Republican conventions, there is a four or five-minute call to prayer. In this country we sometimes believe we are so modern that we are setting all the boundaries, but in America religion plays a much greater role in politics than it does here. We have to recognise that we are probably striking a fair and reasonable balance. I have no difficulty with the prayer as it was, nor do I have a difficulty with this proposal. I hope people will be in the Seanad 30 seconds earlier and will reflect. Those who wish to pray will do so, while others need not pray as there is no such obligation on them. We do need to be respectful, however.
During the week we discussed gender quotas in politics and I said that "respect" is a key word, as it is in this debate. The significant majority must respect the minority viewpoint and vice versa. The only figures we can go on are those in the census which show that the vast majority of people in this country see themselves to be of a Christian ethos. Those people deserve respect also.
I record my support for this proposal to amend Standing Order 18, as recommended by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. As we have heard, it entails 30 seconds of silent reflection prior to the recitation of the Christian prayer at the commencement of Seanad sittings. We know of one person — I suspect there are more — who would prefer to dispense with the Christian prayer completely on the basis that it fails to accord equality, tolerance, respect and recognition to all beliefs. However strongly felt those feelings may be, this would have been a mistake. Equality, tolerance and respect do not requires us to abandon any aspects of our identity or traditions, or even to wash out those things which make us distinct. In fact, it was that kind of either-or thinking which made it so difficult, if not impossible, to find peace on this island for so long. It was only when all traditions were guaranteed respect and felt respected that peace took root and slowly began to grow.
Looking at what happens in other parliaments, we can find examples to argue both for and against opening prayers. Therefore, we cannot really look outside own experience and judgment for guidance. We have a Christian tradition on this island that stretches back almost 1,600 years. It is part of what has defined us and it is stitched into our very language with every greeting in the Irish language, and often too in English, still referencing this Christian heritage. Similarly, placenames throughout Ireland abound with references to saints, as well as to churches and other Christian landmarks. At home and abroad the Christian faith has sustained many generations through life's capricious ups and downs.
I want to make it absolutely clear, however, that my reference to our Christian tradition embraces all the Christian denominations which have created and enriched our heritage, and not simply the majority tradition. We should always be proud and should certainly not be ashamed or afraid to express that rich Christian tradition in any place and particularly here in the national Parliament. However, in a spirit of respect and equality, I fully support the addition of 30 seconds of silent reflection prior to the prayer. While reflecting our tradition, this allows us to make space for those who are not Christians, but of other faiths or indeed of no faith. What is being proposed allows us to advance the inclusivity of this Chamber.
I agree with Senator Byrne that we could go further and indeed I think we should. We could become leaders in tolerance by, for example, as Senator Byrne suggested, exploring with generosity ways of incorporating prayers from other faith traditions from time to time, perhaps on occasions of special moment to those traditions. The prayer said here to date was never designed to offend but rather to conscientiously dedicate our best efforts each day to the service of the people. Today's proposal will enhance this Chamber simply by having more of that dedication. It offers the prospect both of respecting tradition and creating a new tradition alongside in order that in the end this House is truly a place where all are respected.
Should the Cathaoirleach not be responsible for reading the prayer, as is the case in the other House where the Ceann Comhairle does so?
I commend the Committee on Procedure and Privileges for the sensitive way in which it has dealt with this issue.
I also welcome the compromise that has been reached. I heard with great interest what other speakers have had to say. I was listening to Senator Byrne quoting from The Merchant of Venice and was reminded of the agreement that Senator Bacik and myself had arrived at. I was wondering how we might shape another quote from a Shakespeare play. To misquote Hamlet, perhaps we have become “a little more than kind, yet still less than kin” in our views on this issue.
That just about sums it up.
I have had the privilege of introducing Archbishop John Barwa from the province of Orissa in India. He spoke in generous and interesting terms this morning about the challenges his people are facing, where Christians are being persecuted by extremist Hindus in that part of India. He was not asking us to do anything but was coming here to tell us about their Christian hope and love, even for those who persecute them as they try to build a better world there. Thankfully, we are not in that position. It is a long time since people in Ireland had to suffer like that for their faith. We should also hope that we never go to the other extreme either which is that, in seeking to include all traditions and be generous to all the different groups in our society, we lose the ability even to declare our identity. That is essentially what is at stake in this particular debate. I note and support everything Senator McAleese said.
Senator Byrne is right to hope that the media will not focus exclusively on this matter. If I were to strike one note of disagreement, however, it would be to invite the media and colleagues to consider that we should never be afraid or ashamed about having a debate on the deeper values that animate us individually or collectively. We have had many important debates in Ireland over the past ten or 15 years and we made a lot of mistakes. Perhaps one of the reasons we made those mistakes was because we failed to reflect on the higher spiritual and moral values. Had they been followed more closely, they could have led to less selfish acts in banks and the marketplace. Scripture says that "Without a vision, the people perish", so we should always be willing to get back to the reflective space and never be ashamed of it. There will be plenty of time for the important bread and butter discussions as well.
If there was ever a time when Christianity was compulsory in Ireland it has certainly gone now, and thank goodness for that. If there was ever a time when Christianity was the fashion and many adhered to it for that purpose, then arguably that moment has also passed. As people, however, we still find ourselves searching for the truth about life and its meaning. We all need to be able to bring our deepest understanding of reality to important everyday business. That means that if we are people with a distinctive religious perspective, we need to be able to let that inspire what we propose as the common good, just as others with different philosophical perspectives need the freedom and respect to be able to articulate their views.
Senator Bacik proposed that since the Constitution recognised the separation of church and State, this somehow meant that we should not have a specifically religious prayer. I agree about the importance of separation between church and State, but we must always remember that it is for the protection of both from undue influence by the other. The Constitution affirms the most Holy Trinity and our divine Lord Jesus Christ. It would be a misunderstanding of church and state separation to say that it is contravened by all public acknowledge of God, for example, the American Declaration of Independence clearly mentions God, the creator. The separation of church and state means that the state should not interfere with religious freedom and teaching and the church should not interfere with state powers, such as the legislative or judicial processes. It does not mean that the state cannot require church clergy to pay taxes, and by the same token, it does not prevent the state from enshrining an acknowledgement of God within its constitution or a prayer within its democratic processes. Like the prayer at the beginning of the proceedings at the House of Lords and the House of Commons, our prayer is a factor of tradition, specifically the Christian tradition to which a clear majority of Irish people still adhere. It should be noted that there is nothing exclusive to the Catholic tradition in the language of the prayer we use in these Houses. I agree with the comments on whether the Cathaoirleach should read it. I have on occasion taken up the prayer and shown it to guests who are visiting the Houses. There is a little instruction, in pencil, in spidery writing, saying, "Read Slowly".
A Senator said to me that it would be nice if the prayer was read with a greater degree of solemnity. I wonder if there is a psychological embarrassment about the prayer, in a sense that we need to compromise with those of no belief and other traditions, which means that if we have to say it, we will say it quickly. We need to invite ourselves to return to a solemn and reflective place. This compromise allows it because we will already be called into a reflective space, whether we have a faith tradition or none and the prayer of the majority can be said, hopefully in a reflective way. It is true that no prayer is said at the commencement of proceedings in other jurisdictions. There is a time for reflection in the Scottish Parliament as Senator Bacik has pointed out. As I said, the United States, Canada, the UK and Australia, all provide for the saying of prayers before parliamentary proceedings commence.
There is one important point that Senator Bacik's proposal highlighted, namely, a democratic state should always ensure that freedom of conscience and freedom of religion are protected. We do not want the prayer to impinge upon the freedom of conscience of Oireachtas Members who are atheist, agnostic or non-Christian. There would be a problem, if a Member were required to take an oath and that is the reason there is a possibility of an affirmation in court proceedings.
It applies only to some people, but not to the President.
There is a strong argument that an affirmation should be possible because nobody's personal convictions should be violated.
Once again Senator Mullen and I find ourselves in agreement.
A sure sign the Senator is wrong.
Some in this Chamber will be getting very worried. I think the fact that Oireachtas Members are not required to say the prayer or be present when it is said clinches the issue. That is the reason I supported a more inclusive and equal acknowledgement of both religious tradition and freedom of conscience and we have managed to do that.
It was Senator McAleese who reminded me that so many things associated with Christianity are stitched into our tradition. It was the late great Václav Havel, former President of the Czech Republic and the great dissident, who pointed out at the time of the debate on the inclusion of God in the European Constitution, that it simply made no sense to try to write Christianity out of the equation when every great city had a cathedral that was built to the glory of God. It will take another day to discuss the historical errors of religion and religious leadership, but we should always acknowledge that among the philosophies that have inspired people to greatness down through the centuries, those who have been inspired by a loving God and what that means in terms of how we should treat others, have contributed significantly to the development of our cultures and our civilisation. It is the fact that a large number of people still adhere to the faith that is being reflected in the fact that we continue with a Christian element at the beginning of the proceedings of the House each day.
I am proud of the fact every day that I am a citizen, not a subject, of a republic, which increasingly is becoming a more inclusive, understanding and tolerant place to live. There are many things that need to be improved and there are many things we will try to improve in Parliament and outside it. What is important to me is that I am a citizen and proud of it and we share the Republic with other citizens. We are all shaped by what we believe, whatever that belief system is. In a more equal and tolerant republic, this new way of starting our day in the Chamber reflects the change and growth that is happening in our republic. We have reached an understanding that we can be more tolerant and that we can live side by side and respect, understand and appreciate them. In respecting our tradition of saying a prayer and allowing a time for reflection, to encompass all the other beliefs, systems and value, it creates a perfect reflection of what we are trying to do in the Republic. I am delighted to support the amendment.
I recall what the very well known rosary priest, Fr. Peyton, used to say, that the family who prays together stays together. I wonder if there is a message we can send to the Taoiseach, that the Seanad that reflects together may stay together after the next referendum. I compliment those responsible for what we are now discussing. It lifts my spirits that common sense and self-respect have coalesced in this resolution. While it may not be an issue that will get wide media coverage, I firmly believe there is something in what is being achieved that can be transposed into many other aspects of life outside.
We need to get away from tags, because sometimes the word "tolerance" is used but it has so many different meanings. When it comes to individual faith, there is no doubt that tolerance has to be part of it. I believe that faith is very private, whereas in other parts of the world we see that religion and politics are very closely connected. We see some terrible things being done and we are never sure if it is done in the name of politics or in the name of religion.
I have always found a sense of compassion in Ireland. In all aspects of life we must start with compassion and understanding. We must endeavour to see how we can expand on that understanding because the Ireland of today is not the Ireland of 50 years ago, it is changing. People are trying to come to grips with that change. I am reminded of the debate about the Angelus bells on the radio. There were several moves to remove the Angelus. The person who played the most significant role in ensuring the Angelus would not be removed was the Church of Ireland archbishop. In his contribution to the debate at the time, he used the same word that is being used in the report of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges on Standing Order 18. He asked what was wrong with stopping twice a day to reflect for a minute or two. That put an end to the debate about removing the Angelus. I admired him ever since, and I have mentioned him in the House on several occasions. It might have been an intervention of only ten sentences, but the rest of the debate was lost when something as simple as that from that source was brought into play. We are doing exactly the same in this House. We are endeavouring not to score points, not to be sensationalist and not to create negative headlines. If we were being asked to remove that prayer which is so much tied to tradition one can imagine the message that would be going from this House — a message that would not remain in Ireland but would go from our shores. It would be another argument against the retention of the Seanad. It was an issue that could have been handled with reason and compassion and through dialogue with each other, whatever our beliefs, and by doing it in that way we have not allowed the opportunity to reflect badly on the Seanad. I compliment those whose idea it was and the Committee on Procedure and Privileges because this is a way forward on other issues also.
I used to be very sad when I heard that a certain hospital was not allowed have a crib at Christmas. When we visit patients in hospital and they are at their most vulnerable the very symbolism is taken away from them at that particular time. We have heard of a statue which has been in a particular public institution and the big debate that took place about removing it. In future when these debates arise, let us come back to what we have done and show that we can respect all traditions but, above all else, we should not be pushed into a position where our own tradition is viewed in some way as negative. We must keep that tradition positive into the future. To all involved in the Seanad I say, well done, and please God it will benefit everyone.
I thank the Leader for allowing time for the House to participate in debate on this critical issue of the most appropriate and acceptable way to begin our work together each day as we sit as Senators. I see this as yet another way in which the Leader and members of the 24th Seanad are committed to ensuring reform of the practices in order that we are more effective, relevant, representative and inclusive. Perhaps our colleagues in the Lower House ought to take note. I shall, however, be a lone voice, with the greatest of respect to all the colleagues who have spoken and yet to speak. I agree with much of what virtually everybody has said, especially Senator Bacik, and some of what Senator Mullen has said. I wonder about the lone voice, I guess I am just so very different, therefore, I will be true to my difference.
Senator Bacik has already offered the House something of an historical analysis on the practice of saying a Christian prayer. My view is that it reflects a time in history where there was not a clear separation of church and state and that the prayer is a manifestation of the interweaving of Roman Catholicism with the politics of a new republic. In my view, this reflects an historical period where the people were not as conscious of the importance of separating religion from the business of politics in a republic. This was an error that has now gone by. We have heard some of that in the contributions. This was an exclusionist adherence to one world religion and no longer reflects our history, nor does it reflect the contemporary thinking of theologians and theorists of religion and the ways in which religion and meaning-making are studied and practised today. There exists a growing pluralism of the membership in the five great world religions within Ireland today and a growing number of people who lead ethical and spiritual leaves, outside the context of any world religion.
The last census of population demonstrates that 186,000 people ticked the "no religion" box, up 34% from 2002 and several thousand others opted not to answer the religion question. There also exists a growing number of people who hold an attentiveness to the "beyond in our midst"— those are words taken from the great thinker Paul Tilley and I count myself within this number — as well as those who attempt to lead ethical lives through reflection on the meaning of the best ways to be human and to practice the good, both the personal good and the good of the common. Consequently, it makes good sense to reform the practice by moving away from the practice of what is a bygone era to choosing a practice that respects the pluralism of belief of members and between and among the people we represent. I am in favour, therefore, of a moment of silence at the beginning of our work where we can each draw on the inspiration, meaning and ethical values of that which we believe, and as Senator Mullen said, of the reflective space.
I see no good reason to maintain a prayer from one world religion even if it is combined with a moment of silence. Such a combination would form a practice that does not adequately represent the diversity of Irish people because it still emphasises an element of the predominance of one religion's value at the expense of other ways of making meaning.
I conclude with a cautionary note — any argument that the belief of the majority dictates practice in the House is not wise counsel and, I submit, will not build a society of inclusivity and equality. Therefore, I am not in favour of the amendment. Most members are calling it a compromise — I appreciate and respect that — but I do not agree. I view it as maintaining an exclusivist practice and it is not a practice towards inclusivity.
What we are debating reflects the evolution of Irish society. We have moved away from dreadful events such as the penal laws and insulting 12 July marches and so on. We have emerged from that sectarianism and we are tolerant in our religious beliefs. On reflection, people engaged in prayer are not a threat to anybody else. The prayer encompasses some very beautiful language. As a new member I welcome it when we come here and pray every day and it is not incompatible with the period of silence recommended by Senator Bacik. That is part of a life, leaving aside dreadful events, the abuse of children and abusive and sectarian marches on 12 July, but we must reflect on many of the worthwhile things that happen. I come from a college where a Latin grace is said twice daily, where the college chapel is at the centre of much of what we do and provides much of our inspiration, where we pray on Trinity Monday that we will neglect no part of our manifold inheritance.
Does the Senator pray for Queen Elizabeth?
I do and for her successors. I thought her visit to Ireland was extremely important in the development of this country.
I meant Queen Elizabeth I.
The founding by her ancestor at Trinity College Dublin was a major contribution to education not only in this country but worldwide and I am proud to represent it. I share that with Senator Norris.
There is no doubt the mixture of religion and politics has been toxic in Ireland. I recall when a former member, Dr. Maurice Hayes, was conferred with a honorary degree in Trinity College on 12 July. At the dinner afterwards he thanked the provost, fellows and scholars for allowing him to wear regalia to march in a procession on 12 July and he was glad the procession did not cause offence and did not have to be rerouted. Therefore, one can redefine traditions in a more inclusive manner.
Recently, I prayed with Senator Zappone when she preached in college chapel. One can practise as successfully as she does, religion and her membership of the House. I see nothing sinister about people at prayer and do not think people at prayer are a threat. One might say to those who sent the e-mails to Senator Byrne that if those of a religious belief are correct, they are harmless when at prayer. If they are wrong they will not do atheists any harm because nothing will result. However, I worry that as we set aside some forms of bitterness and sectarianism an intolerance is developing in society among those who sent Senator Byrne and others the e-mails. I recall Senator Norris saying on one occasion, and Senator Ó Murchú referred to an intervention by the archbishop of Dublin, that if one does not like the Angelus just leave the room, make a cup of tea and it will be all over when one gets back. There must be tolerance on both sides.
There is an intolerance in some of the e-mails that have been circulated on this issue. In an attempt to appear modern and so on, we might have the rather strange result that, while we might succeed in banning the Angelus twice a day on RTE, people may turn over to the morning service on BBC which operates for a full 15 minutes. It would be ironic that a country which thought of itself as religious when the United Kingdom had ceased to be had to rely on the United Kingdom to supply it with its religious broadcasting. It requires a balance on the other side to see that people engaged in religious practice are not a threat to others. We believe in that inclusiveness that requires a compromise which is in the motion and which I support.
Listening to learned colleagues, I feel like the simple believer among the theologians.
Yet we are all equally good souls.
I hope so.
We are all on the road to Damascus.
It could be that too.
Yesterday on the Order of Business, I did not know why there was such a fuss about this recommendation from the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, which had been reached unanimously and harmoniously. I also did not see why there was a need for a debate on it. However, being a parliamentary Chamber——
Being an inclusive and tolerant one.
I thank the Senator. She took the words out of my mouth.
On a point of order, I am not calling for a quorum but is one required for a prayer?
I will defer to the Chair on that point.
I cannot rule on it as it is a hypothetical question. I will allow Senator Coghlan to proceed.
I am a simple traditionalist who loves the idea of the prayer. At the CPP, Senator Bacik acknowledged the majority of Members love or feel attached to it.
I acknowledged that many Members love the prayer not the majority.
I do not see anything offensive whatsoever in the words of the prayer but I also support the idea of a silent reflection. It will include everyone because we are tolerant, patient, kind, understanding and respectful here. We all get along well with one another, apart from an odd flap on the Order of Business about something or other, as we had this morning. I defer to Senator Byrne on that point.
It is not always Senator Byrne.
Yes, in fairness it is not always Senator Byrne. As he knows well, he makes relevant good points also.
Can we stick to the prayer?
I do my best. I was looking for the truth this morning.
Just as the Ceann Comhairle reads the prayer in the other House, I have always thought the Cathaoirleach, or the Leas-Chathaoirleach in his absence, should read it here. That would be more in accord with parliamentary practice in the US Congress, the Houses of Commons and the House of Lords in which the bishops sit.
I found myself in agreement with many of the sincerely held points made so far. It was lovely to hear the history of prayer given by Senator Bacik. I congratulate all Members on how we are going forward in a very respectful and tolerant manner. We are being inclusive and acknowledge our differences, in so far as we have any. There are some with regard to beliefs perhaps but I do not believe we are going to get hung up on them. This matter was adjudicated on wisely and a decision on it reached harmoniously with which I favour.
Tá mé fíor-bhuíoch go bhfuil deis agam labhairt ar an rún tábhachtach agus práinneach seo. Molaim an Ceannaire as ucht an rúin seo a chur os comhair an Tí le deifir ionas gur féidir linn é a phlé.
I welcome this important debate and the urgency with which the Leader has dealt with it in that it was suggested yesterday and today we are having this debate. I do not concur with the cynics who claim this is just a ploy because no Minister was available to attend the House.
Far from it.
It is not true that this was to use up the time in the Seanad when we have other important issues to debate.
I also welcome the inclusivity, tolerance and democracy of taking all viewpoints on board in the Seanad. That is the way we should and need to go. However, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact the CPP itself is not inclusive. The three Sinn Féin Senators are not represented on it and were not consulted on this decision on Standing Orders. While we support this decision, we would like our favour not to be taken for granted at any stage. We recommend we are given representation on the CPP at some stage.
I congratulate the Leader on the decisiveness he showed in taking up this issue. I hope he will be as decisive in some of the other calls we have had for important debates. For example, I have called for a debate on Galway transport but the Leader does not see it as a national issue or indeed one for the Seanad. I believe it does and is equally important as this debate.
We have called for debates on other issues such as regional development which we have not had yet. I hope they can be dealt with the same urgency, reverence and importance as this debate has been. In the call for inclusivity, tolerance, democracy and of listening to all opinions, I hope the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister of the Assembly in Northern Ireland will be invited to attend the Seanad as soon as possible for an equally important debate. A Thursday afternoon might be a good time as it appears the best time to get Members into the Chamber for these types of debate.
I also welcome the allocation of five minutes to speak on this topic. Yesterday, I was given two minutes to speak on media standards when I would have liked to have had three more minutes to debate.
This is a prayerful session.
It is fantastically prayerful.
I would also have liked to have had five minutes speaking time during the debate on natural resources. During an important debate on foreign affairs, we were only allowed to ask a question and not make a statement. The CPP might take these thoughts on board when examining the nature of debates here to ensure they are inclusive, tolerant and democratic and to give more time to ensure a real debate.
I also want to welcome the presence of the media. I know there is no one in the Press Gallery but I am sure people in the media are listening online now or will read the Official Report. I do not agree with the claims this debate will not get much notice in the media. It probably will get much more notice than many of the other important debates that have gone on here which is disappointing. I welcome anything the media have to say about this debate.
Again, coming back to the point about inclusivity, tolerance and democracy and the CPP taking all thoughts on board, maybe we should consider removing the Whip in the Seanad.
The Senator has not a prayer.
I know some Senators in particular parties have had difficulties in following the Whip, with all due respect to you, a Leas-Chathaoirligh. If we are to allow full and free expression of what Members really think on certain issues, perhaps we should remove the Whip for certain debates.
Taking on board the shenanigans that went on this morning on the Order of Business, we should perhaps take a leaf from soccer players who before every match line-up to shake hands with each other to ensure we are all amicable to and respectful of each other before we start our day's work. Fáiltíonn muid roimh an chomhshocrú seo atá déanta ag an gCoiste um Nós Imeachta agus Pribhléidí. Ba mhaith liom go dtógfadh an coiste ar bord cuid de na pointí fíorthábhachtacha atá déanta againn anseo. Ó thaobh na Gaeilge de, ba cheart go dtógfaí ar bord an Ghaeilge sna díospóireachtaí ar fad a bhíonn againn. Is maith an rud é go bhfuil an Ghaeilge coinnithe sa phaidir. Tá súil agam go mbeidh daoine ag smaoineamh trí Ghaeilge i rith an 30 soicind smaointeoireachta a bheidh againn ag tús an lae.
For the first time in a debate on a motion in the House Senator Ó Clochartaigh managed to mention everything with the exception of the motion. In case those outside the House might think Sinn Féin Members are victims, they received everything they requested and negotiated in terms of speaking time in the House. I assure the House they are no victims in that regard.
What about membership of the CPP?
The motion, as tabled by the Deputy Leader, was agreed unanimously by the House already. I understand that this is the first time in the House——
On that point, at the conclusion of the debate the Chair will put the question.
I understand that the question was already put and unanimously accepted, but it may need to be put again.
It certainly was.
At the beginning the Chair asked me to put the question, which I did. Then we had the debate following the agreement.
That is completely wrong.
I am advised that the motion was moved. We will make sure at the end.
I demand a vote.
We will make sure there is one at the end. Members should not worry.
That is not a matter for me. It is a matter for the Chair to provide clarity. I understand the motion was put and it was unanimously accepted.
I am told that it is the first time ever in the House that a unanimous decision of the CPP was debated. We have had a good debate that was inclusive and tolerant, which is in keeping with this House. The motion, as put by the CPP is also in keeping with inclusivity and tolerance. We had a good discussion in the CPP. We decided that we would retain the prayer and that we would also have 30 seconds of reflection, which we thought would suit everybody. I will not call it a compromise; it is a proposal that was made by the CPP.
I had no problem in allowing a debate when it was requested. I was surprised that a debate was sought but now that we have had it, I see it was constructive. People have had their say. Let us get on with our business given that we have decided what to do on the prayer and 30 seconds of silence.
I recognise the presence of some distinguished visitors, including Bishop John Barwa of Cuttack-Bhubaneswar, Orissa in India, at the invitation of Senator Mullen. There is a country where one has a real problem, where one has both the guarantee of freedom of conscience and an anti-conversion law. That is where one has a problem with tolerance that gives rise to difficulty.
I wish to correct the historical record slightly. It was not in deference to the Roman Catholic Church that the prayer was introduced; it was the Protestant element in the first Seanad.
The Earl of Wicklow.
It was Billy Wicklow's father, who himself became Roman Catholic when he married Eleanor Butler but his father was Church of Ireland. The supporters were people such as Colonel Moore and Mr. Benjamin Haughton. First, they ran it past the Anglican archbishop and then as they could not find the Roman Catholic one, they ran it past the administrator of the Pro-Cathedral. They more or less got the okay, but there was also a proposal to introduce a chaplain. Frankly, that is daft.
The one thing that the Earl of Wicklow said that was sensible is that surely there has seldom been a parliament in the history of the world that finds itself more in need of divine guidance than ours. There may not have been then but there is now and it is this one. I object strongly to the prayer. Others have talked about respect for the conscience of atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and others. I am a believer and it is because of my belief that I object. I find it insulting to my belief that every day we go through a rigmarole, which I regard as a piece of humbug, because the prayer says:
Direct, we beseech thee, O Lord, our actions by thy holy inspirations and carry them on by thy gracious assistance; that every word and work of ours may always begin from thee and by thee be happily ended; through Christ our Lord. Amen.
Do we seriously want to lump the responsibility for some of the nonsense that goes on in this House on God? Was it not enough that they crucified Jesus Christ without sticking him with the responsibility for this? I really do not agree with it at all.
Senator Yeats took up a similar position with regard to the Irish language. He said it was all histrionics, because they wanted it in Irish as well. That was all playing to the gallery. It was nonsense. He exposed it by saying it was histrionics and saying that he was going to move an amendment that they should not do it until a majority of Members of the Seanad could speak Irish. Approximately two of them could at that stage. That was more grandstanding.
I respect the cultural traditions. I was one of those who spoke out in favour of the Angelus. I do not agree with tearing away our cultural heritage, but I was alarmed to hear that we should almost be grateful that we were not required to say the prayer. What kind of country would we be in if we were required to say the prayer? I object strongly to the Constitution. I am a believer; I go to St. Patrick's Cathedral every Sunday. In my family I have people who suffered during the penal laws, including a Roman Catholic bishop who founded an order of nuns and an order of monks. The Constitution begins:
In the name of the most holy trinity, from whom is all authority and to whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and states must be referred,
we the people of Éire, humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our divine Lord, Jesus Christ . . .
Do they? This is a legally enforceable instrument, as I found in a case before the High Court where a Protestant judge, the late Herbie McWilliam, found that although all the evidence I had introduced was accurate and correct, nevertheless, he had to find against me because of what he called the Christian and democratic nature of the State, referring to the Constitution. It is effective in law when it suits them to persecute minorities but not when it comes to foreign policy. If people are serious about the Constitution, they should act on it.
Let us have an ethical foreign policy. I have always spoken on behalf of an ethical foreign policy. I was the only person to vote against a beef deal with Iraq and sucking up to Saddam Hussein. I was told from the then Government benches that what I was suggesting might be the morally correct thing to do but I was asked whether we could afford it. We now see exactly the same thing with regard to the Chinese. We were afraid to mention Tibet, or as Senator Zappone said, to list the political prisoners. We sucked up to the Americans when they had rendition flights through Shannon Airport. How Christian is that?
On the document that Senator Mullen produced, I do not always agree with Pope Benedict, but I was moved by what he said about the power of weakness and the power of love. I genuinely dislike this prayer because I do not believe that it is altogether sincere. I am on a number of boards where they say prayers and as a Christian I am disgusted by the fact that they recite those prayers and then they set into each other and hack lumps out of each other. Let us be consistent.
I hate to interrupt the Senator but the time is up.
That is virtually all I have to say. I am not against the Angelus, the crib or our tradition but as a believing, practising, church-going Christian I find the prayer deeply offensive. I find it very undemocratic that the time for the debate was changed. It was supposed to start at 1.30 p.m. and a vote taken beforehand——
On a point of order, the business of the House was not changed. The Order of Business stated that it would be taken immediately after No. 1, which is exactly what happened. I would like the Senator to correct that reference.
In that case I withdraw my remark but I understood the business was to be taken at 1.30 p.m. There was confusion. I will vote on the matter, but I want Members to understand that my decision is not anti-Catholic, anti-Christian or anti-religious. Rather, I respect those precious values. Unpleasant notes were sent. I received seven or eight notes, but none was unpleasant. Some were a bit silly. Sending unpleasant notes was wrong.
Point taken.
I will be brief. I support the change to Standing Order 18. The amendment should not be regarded as a compromise, but as evidence that Senators are a tolerant and inclusive group of parliamentarians. Senator Bacik referred to the background to the prayer and its introduction in the House in the 1930s when a compromise on the prayer's wording was reached. Some traditions are worth retaining and it is appropriate that we retain the prayer at the start of our business and start the day with a period of reflection. I take Senator Norris's point on board, in that it sometimes appears hypocritical to say a prayer before taking lumps out of one another on the Order of Business or during proceedings, but we should reflect on whether we should be much more Christian or tolerant towards one another. We should be more inclusive in how we deal with particular issues.
I have received a number of e-mails from people who believe it is not appropriate in this day and age to start our proceedings with a prayer, but a 30-second period of reflection allows non-Christians an opportunity to think about their version of religion or non-religion, as the case may be. It allows us to reflect on how we can do better, be more tolerant of one another and make decisions in the best interests of the people we represent as well as others.
I welcome the Archbishop, who is in the audience. I was moved to hear him speak in such a tolerant, Christian and forgiving manner about people who carried out terrible atrocities against his people. I almost asked whether he was for real. Had any of us been subjected to such injustice and discrimination, would we have been as tolerant or as forgiving as him?
I support the prayer and period of reflection. As Senator Bradford mentioned, the recent census showed that a large majority of people indicated that they were from a Christian tradition. The prayer reflects this fact and the 30 seconds of reflection afford people who do not subscribe to the Christian tradition time to pay respect or homage to their own beliefs.
I acknowledge the confusion created when I put the question while in the Chair. Like a pause for prayer, a few seconds passed before anyone indicated a desire to speak. I never envisaged that 12 or 13 Senators wanted to contribute on this issue, but that is their entitlement. I ask the Acting Chairman to use his discretion to put the question again. It would be the fairest way to proceed. I respect people's right to ask for a vote on this issue, but we should be careful about what it is we are voting on. Were we to vote against the 30 seconds of silence, we would also be abolishing the prayer. Sin scéal eile.
I support the decision of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. I was not one of its members who were in favour of abolishing the prayer. It is important that we have a prayer. I am often present for the Order of Business and, like most Senators, I stand and reflect on the words uttered. I will respect the additional 30 seconds of silence. It is a good idea.
I ask the House to reflect on a comment by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Coveney. During the recent boating tragedy in Glandore Harbour, five lives were lost. Thankfully, all of the bodies were recovered. I asked people to pray for their recovery, etc. I visited the scene twice throughout. Every evening on the pier as night fell and the search was called off, the Catholic priest prayed for the recovery of the bodies and for tolerance. Sometimes, 200 or 300 people were present. Immediately after that, members of the Muslim Egyptian community said their own prayers. The Christians and those of no denomination who were present respected those prayers. It was beautiful to see Muslims and Christians praying together because of a tragedy. It was a wonderful blend.
We should take a look at Muslim and Christian history. Christ is seen as a prophet in the Muslim religion, not the redeemer or saviour. There are links, but there have been several holy wars and, of course, internal Christian wars. I had a chat about faith with a religious person in America. I do not know whether the person was Muslim or Buddhist, as it was a while ago. The person could not understand the holy row between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. We were all Christians and the person could see no difference or understand for what we were fighting.
It is important that we retain the prayer and add 30 seconds of silence. I am not an overly religious person. I am a practising Catholic, albeit not daily. I am also a spiritual person. In addition to the prayer, the 30 seconds will cater for those who want the prayer and for those who want time to stand in reflection. It is a catch-all amendment and has been agreed by the CPP.
Members can vote on it if they prefer, but we should reflect about what it is we are voting on. I have been in the House for a long time and am probably one of the elders in the Chamber. I first became a Senator in 1989. This is a sensitive issue and the majority of members of the CPP as well as a majority of Senators would like to retain the prayer. By including 30 seconds of silence prior to that, we will accommodate those who do not have the same religious beliefs as others.
Belt and braces. I thank the Senator.
This is an interesting debate, although I am surprised that the CPP took this decision without consulting Members.
I was not aware of this extra reflection. I genuinely believed that the prayer was a reflection and I had not heard it was offensive to people. There was a time in my life when I taught in America. I respected the traditions of that country, which included pledging the oath of allegiance before the flag every morning along with the children I was teaching. I did not regard that as offensive because I was living there.
We came into this House and its traditions. Perhaps I have not parsed each and every word of the prayer but I did not find it offensive by any means. I respect the traditions of the House. Why do we need another reflection if the prayer was itself a reflection? I can only presume the issue pertains to the prayer's wording.
It is specifically a Christian prayer.
If we are to provide an opportunity to reflect in silence to suit some Members of this House while maintaining the prayer to suit others, all we are doing is sticking together two pieces to keep people happy. It is a bit phony to act in that way. Would it not be preferable to reflect on what Senators have said today and craft a new formula of words that brings together all traditions and reflects the diversity of the House? We have clearly arrived at a point in our history where we are being challenged to do this. In the Christian tradition there is nothing wrong with allowing a moment of silence. We often observe silence in our religious practice. Sticking it all together is a phony solution, however. We have to consider the formula of words before we proceed further.
Does Senator Bacik wish to reply?
I would be delighted to say more but I am sure I have used up my time.
I shall make a brief comment if I may.
On a point of order, did the Acting Chairman indicate that the Committee on Procedure and Privileges voted unanimously for this proposal? I understand our group leader abstained from the vote.
There was no vote.
I misunderstood the Acting Chairman's remark.
It was unanimous.
There was no vote.
A debate on this matter was provided for on the Order of Business. The Chair understands that as no other Senator appeared to offer when the motion was initially moved, the question was put and declared carried. Members then indicated that they wished to speak on the motion. The debate that ensued can only have taken place on the basis that there was a genuine misunderstanding on the part of Members and that no decision had in fact been arrived at. The Chair therefore proposes to exercise its discretion to put the question again in order to remove doubt. To do otherwise would deny Senators who wish to oppose the motion their right to do so.
Question, "That the report of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges on Standing Order 18: Prayer at Commencement of Sitting, be adopted, laid before the House and printed," again put and declared carried.
When is it proposed to sit again?
At 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 28 February 2012.