Contrary to the theses of this morning's Globe and Mail editorial on the end of prayer at the start of government working sessions, I think the end of prayer, both its terminus and its purpose (for in case you didn't notice, end is ambiguous) was announced by the apostle Paul when he told the believers in Thessalonika (and it was probably him) to 'pray without ceasing'. If these is no ceasing, then the telos of prayer is achieved, and it doesn't matter if you pray standing, sitting, silent, dumb, or filled with words, as long as you continue without ceasing.
So much for 'end'. Now the second thesis of the editorial is the protection of atheists. Atheists definitely need protection, from prayer, maybe even from God, whether existing or not, for anyone who cannot use null values is doomed to have all their programming and programmed systems fail. There is no substitute for the admission that we are ignorant. Of course, in this case, the complainant was an atheist who was offended, but the offence is likely a fear of the effectiveness of prayer.
(and if you are reading the Globe, don't miss Tabitha Southey's diary).
If you want my current opinion, Mike Duffy is a scapegoat and (I pray) that may he have the stamina to outlast those who have set him free into the wilderness.
And for what its worth, I have other opinions: the income splitting option will probably benefit some people I know. That still does not make it a good idea. Increasing the TFSA limit is as bad as lowering the GST, though both may benefit me personally. We must pay for our shared services. Structural poverty and disability among our neighbours is something that those who sit in councils should not ignore, nor should they be allowed to continue when they do ignore it (not to mention ignoring the national corporate responsibility for education and health).