Rudman's city: He'd rather the council didn't have a prayer...

By BRIAN RUDMAN

There's nothing like a bit of cage-rattling by the new boy to stir things up. And tenderfoot North Shore City councillor Andrew Williams has certainly done that with his vigorous objection to the Christian prayer intoned by the mayor before council meetings.

Threatening to trot off to the Human Rights Commission if the prayer is not abandoned, he says that "in this country it's illegal to impose your religious beliefs on others". Councillors who want to pray should do so beforehand in the councillors' lounge.

In an e-mail to all councillors he declared the prayer "offensive and objectionable". People "of any religious persuasion ... are now a very small part of New Zealand society and there simply is no justification in mixing religion with politics or local government".

Mayor George Wood, proclaiming himself "a stickler for tradition and protocol", is defending the prayer - which in its present form dates back all of about eight years - and says Mr Williams hasn't the numbers to win.

But is that really the point?

In this multicultural, post-Christian, secular society is a public prayer of any sort an appropriate way to begin a city council meeting? Particularly the one used by North Shore which reeks of old-fashioned Anglican class system, with God at the top and the rest of us in our proper places.

"O Lord God who has made all things, and who calls people to use their talents in different ways," it begins, "we acknowledge your call on us to manage the affairs of this City of North Shore. We recognise that you have promised to supply whatever is needed to fulfil a calling from you. Give us your Spirit so that we may make decisions with wisdom and maturity ... "

Now as a non-believer I'd be highly irritated if I had to sit through that little incantation before every meeting. As a democrat, I'm of the opinion that it was the people of North Shore who called the council to manage the affairs of their city, not some imported deity.

Councillor Gary Holmes, a firm defender of the prayer, says that Mr Williams is doing what he is accusing others of doing - trying to impose his beliefs on fellow councillors. Mr Holmes suggests that Mr Williams should do what other non-praying councillors have done in the past. They stand back from their chairs until the prayer is over, or make a diplomatically late entry.

But that is hardly fair on them. Every citizen is entitled, if he or she wishes, to preserve his or her religious beliefs or non-beliefs as something private. Part of this freedom of religious expression surely involves keeping one's beliefs to oneself. And you don't do that by having to publicly dissent by withdrawing temporarily every time the council prays.

North Shore is not alone in seeking divine assistance. Manukau City has adapted the parliamentary prayer, asking God to assist in councillors' deliberations. Out west in Waitakere City they adopt an ecumenical approach, inviting religious leaders of different faiths and factions to take turns invoking outside help.

However, in Auckland City feet remain firmly on the ground. The last time a prayer was contemplated as part of council business was in February 1991 when new mayor Les Mills lost his battle to introduce a non-denominational prayer by a narrow 11 votes to 12.

Dame Barbara Goodman, a Jew, argued against it, saying the debating chamber was a neutral place. In the past Jews and other people had had to endure other religions being forced upon them. She said that she did not want to be forced into not taking part. "It is something which will discriminate against me."

Also against it was councillor Bruce Hucker, a Presbyterian minister. He said the council was a political institution, not a church. "You are trying to cover politics with a veneer of piety."

Mr Mills had to make do with invitation-only mayoral prayer breakfasts.

Dr Hucker recalls arguing strongly that if people wanted to pray, they could hold a prayer meeting elsewhere before the meeting as individual councillors.

"The position I've been arguing is also consistent with removing it from Parliament. No person who is elected to public office should be forced by any procedure to violate their personal conscience.

"And because it's not an act of personal prayer but a collective act of public worship if you like, it can exclude councillors who don't share the underlying beliefs associated with it."

He added that in this secular culture, "the prayer can, in fact, be an expression of self-righteousness to cover up an essentially secular proceeding, including getting stuck in to each other".

Mr Williams says he will happily live with a non-religious pre-meeting commitment along the lines of the councillors' swearing-in pledge to perform their duties to the best of their abilities.

Now that does sound like a very sensible 21st-century solution.