THE Scottish Green Party yesterday entered the controversy over whether or not the proceedings of the Scottish Parliament should include any form of daily worship, writes Frances Horsburgh.
The party lent support to the Most Rev Richard Holloway, head of Scotland's Episcopal Church, who has been roundly criticised by other church leaders for proposing that the Parliament should avoid daily prayers and be careful to separate church and state.
The Greens said the Bishop had been right to spot the potential minefield that prayers could open up. They suggested that prayers for one religion should mean open access for all persuasions, no matter how obscure or offensive to others.
They also called for more debate about the wording of the oath which Scottish Parliamentarians would swear on taking their seats, saying it should include a promise to serve the people of Scotland.
Spokesperson Dr Nina Baker said: ''Our Parliament is rightly expected to contain members from the widest possible range of the Scottish community. If this turns out to include Muslims, Hindus, Buddists, and atheists, not to mention anything odder, how do they propose to accommodate their 'prayers' without giving offence to other groups.
''What if a Satanist happened to get a seat?''
Dr Baker added that if prayers were felt necessary by individuals, it was reasonable that a quiet space be made available for contem- plation outwith the formal programme of the Parliamentary day.
She also called for more debate on the form of oath which new MSPs will take. Instead of simply swearing allegiance to the Queen, as at Westminster, she said Green Party members intended to add the words ''and faithfully to serve the people of Scotland without fear or favour''.
The ultimate decision over worship at the Parliament is expected to be left to the MSPs themselves, but a wide range of church leaders hope to reach agreement on recommendations for a multi-faith approach.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article