It surprises not a few visitors to this country that so many official functions, both small and large, begin with a prayer. Some years ago it was three prayers: one spoken by a Christian, one by a Hindu and one by a Muslim. This has now been contracted into a single ‘universal prayer’ recited by someone from any of the religions on a given occasion. Questions about this tradition have now arisen, provoked by concerns express-ed in relation to the use of the prayer in schools.
It is not the first time that objections have been raised in connection with this subject, although some of the earlier ones revolved around the fact that it was Christian prayers which were being delivered in educational institutions which were state run. The response to this, it seems, was not to eliminate prayers altogether in these unequivocally secular contexts, but to create a prayer with which all religions could identify.
Most commentators have deemed our penchant for prayers in inappropriate settings as a colonial hangover, which is undoubtedly the case. The British House of Commons still has prayers, although attendance is not compulsory, and presumably it is from here that our National Assembly, for example, has taken its cue. The tradition dates back, it is thought, to 1558, although the modern form of the invocations originates in the Charles II era in the 17th century.
The British are notoriously reluctant to get rid of long-established traditions, but for all of that there have been calls in the last few years for the abolition of prayers before sittings. More recently there was a cross-party group of MPs which supported a motion saying that parliamentary prayers are “not compatible with a society which respects the principle of freedom of and from religion”.
Where local schools specifically are concerned, prayers became entrenched initially because the colonial authorities in the early days put education into the hands of the churches, and they continued to run a large number of schools even after the act making primary education compulsory in 1876. One suspects that in the historical period, at least, practices of worship in the general assemblies of church-run schools varied according to the denomination involved. Government-run institutions followed the norms of the church schools, although reflecting a Church of England bent, but what is a little surprising, perhaps, is that the practice of holding Christian prayers survived Burnham’s nationalisation of the schools in the 1970s.
To the accusation that Christian prayers had no business in the school system, the Ministry of Education issued a release recently stating that at any function hosted by the Ministry or any of its departments it was the universal prayer or a silent prayer which had to be recited, with the exception of events held in Indigenous communities. “[N]o one religion, ethnicity, gender etc. is or should be made to be seen as dominant over the other,” it said.
This had come in response to a letter in this newspaper from Swami Aksharananda saying that the prayer spoken by the 2020 Most Outstanding CSEC student Bhedesh Persaud at the announcement of CXC results last week was Christian, and that this was discriminatory given the other faiths in the country. The Ministry denied it was a Christian prayer, saying it was the universal one, and was the same as that recited in the National Assembly. The Swami was quick to point out that there were intrusions in the Ministry version which were not found in the one used in the National Assembly, namely, the inclusion of ‘heavenly father’ and ‘amen’, “the signature ending of Christian prayers.” To date the Ministry has not volunteered any explanation of this discrepancy.
Of course the question arises as to whether there can be any meaningful concept of a universal prayer at all. Some letter writers have addressed this issue, including Mr Ferlin F Pedro, who alluded to the fact that the three major religions were not monolithic in terms of their beliefs; they encompassed denominations and sects within them. Furthermore, there were other faiths besides the three main ones, such as Buddhism which was non-theistic, as well as people in the community who subscribed to no religion at all. The government, he wrote, should not seek to be in the position of issuing memoranda prescribing what prayer people should use.
The fundamental point as more than one writer has made clear, is that Guyana is a secular state. In order to fully respect freedom of conscience and worship, of necessity it has to be. As such there should not be religious expressions at any of our state functions, and certainly not in our schools, which are learning institutions for secular subjects, not places of religious instruction. While we can teach children in school about religions, as we would teach them about cultures or social history, we do not teach them religious precepts, even by implication. And what exactly are they learning with a universal prayer? It neither relates to all religions or to any one of them; it is a bureaucratic creation devised in a vacuum by no one knows who. The proper people to decide about religious instruction for children are the parents, not the schools.
The problem is there can be no true freedom of conscience and worship in our circumstances unless Guyana is acknowledged as a secular state, and its institutions reflect that fact. That apart, it is not as if even at a practical level it is apparent exactly what benefit the authorities believe is being conferred by the recital of prayers, universal or otherwise, in any state associated setting. Could anyone demonstrate that it makes any difference to educational outcomes, for example? Or that it has an inhibiting effect on the behaviour of our periodically raucous and even vulgar MPs?
One has to wonder whether our major parties have been reluctant to bring Guyana into line with its supposed secular credentials because they believe there might be a political cost to so doing. The one side does not wish to be accused of atheism because of its association with communism, and the other side does not wish to antagonise the majority of its constituents. As such they both tinker around the edges with universal prayers and the like.
The most succinct letter on this subject came from former President Donald Ramotar, who wrote that it was an issue of freedom of conscience. This, he said, “also means the right not to believe, the atheist. That right should be respected too.”
He went on to comment that the issue should not be confined to schools. “The state as a whole should stop these practices at all government functions and the so-called universal prayer at the National Assembly should be discontinued. This is how we can pay proper respect to the religious convictions or lack of religious convictions of all our people. This is the only truly democratic way.”
If that just about sums things up, it does not mean that the politicians are listening. In order to stop the recital of the universal prayer in the National Assembly, there would have to be agreement on both sides of the divide, and that level of co-operation is not looming on the horizon any time soon. Although the government would not require it in any legislative sense, it would probably prefer to have the backing of the opposition too before it discontinued the saying of the prayer in schools.
Given the rate at which we are able to organize ourselves to act in concert, it may well be that the House of Commons will get there before the National Assembly, ancient tradition notwithstanding.
