The Supreme Court of Canada began hearing a case on Oct. 14, about whether voluntary prayers at city council meetings as well as displaying religious symbols in city buildings infringe on a person’s freedom of religion.

The court will examine whether Mayor Jean Tremblay and the City of Saguenay, Quebec, discriminated against Alain Simoneau, a non-Christian, when he prayed at city council meetings eight years ago.

Prior to the complaint, the mayor had routinely opened city hall meetings with the sign of the cross accompanied by the words “In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” This would be followed by a prayer in which Tremblay thanked God for the “many favors” He has granted Sageunay, and asked for “wisdom, knowledge and understanding” during the council’s deliberations.

Simoneau originally requested to no avail that the recitation of the prayer be halted. He filed a complaint with the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal in 2007 on behalf of the Mouvement laïque québécois (Quebec Secular Movement) arguing the prayer forced him to “embrace a concept recognizing a form of divine supremacy.”

The mayor took Simoneau’s complaint as a direct attack against Christianity.

“I’m in this battle because I worship Christ. When I get to the hereafter, I’m going to be able to be a little proud. I’ll be able to say to Him: ‘I fought for You; I even went to trial for You.’ There’s no better argument. It’s extraordinary … it is the most noble fight of my entire life,” he told reporters at that time.

The Tribunal ruled in Simoneau’s favor, stating that the prayer demonstrated favoritism towards one religion over others. The state has a duty to refrain from exercising a religious preference, it argued, adding that citizens who did not share Christian values would be stigmatized in a more than trivial manner.

But the Quebec Court of Appeal overturned the Tribunal’s ruling, stating that reciting a prayer, and the presence of religious symbols in city hall, does not violate governmental religious neutrality. Neutrality, the appeal court ruled, does not require “that society be cleansed of all denominational reality, including that which falls within its cultural history,”

The Supreme Court will now decide, with ramifications for the entire country, whether prayer has any place in public life.

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada presented oral arguments as an intervener in the case. The EFC argued it is not contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for elected bodies to choose to begin their deliberations with prayer.

“Prohibiting all religious expression like a prayer is not neutral, but imposes one of many possible options of dealing with religious observance in a religiously plural society” said Bruce Clemenger, president of the EFC, in a press release. “The decision is best left to the elected and accountable body to decide how to proceed.

“The true test of the neutrality of the state is not whether a prayer is offered before the meeting, but whether in conducting the affairs of the government the elected representative are guided by public principles and serve the common good.”

Clemenger continued: “If the argument is that no government resources should benefit any religious expression, does this extend to the provision of chapels and chaplains in the military, penitentiaries or in hospitals? What about public prayers at Remembrance Day ceremonies or state funerals?”

The Catholic Civil Rights League was also an intervener in the case, arguing that “multi-faith and non-denominational prayers and religious symbols do not discriminate against non-believers.”

In a press release, the CCRL said, “any exclusion of an inclusive prayer, which is not coercive or a constraint on non-believers, would offend state neutrality because it would amount to a preference for non-belief over belief.”

The Supreme Court decision is not expected until 2015.

A version of this article originally appeared Oct. 14 at LifeSite.com and is reprinted with permission.