|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Freedom from misplaced coercion
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Recently, my Facebook page was assailed by a post from an ardent Christian, demanding the right to pray in a "Christian" manner in public spaces. A standard "Christian" complaint, despite it being a totally false premise.
My response was that "you have the right to pray in any manner you like, but you do not have the right to be obnoxious about it. And, in any case, Jesus Himself told us not to pray in public like the Pharisees do, making a show in the hope of being noticed". I note that there were no further comments on that post.
Now I see that the City of Brampton, ON, has moved to a non--denominational form of invocation for the opening of its meetings. This was encouraged by the rapid growth in the number of citizens who are not Christian, whether of definable faith or not.
Now, of course, there is a mouth speaking that quote:
“The majority of people that we have spoken to in Brampton are shocked that the Lord’s Prayer was taken out,”
. She may, in fact, be correct: either a majority of the kind of people she would speak to say this, OR an actual majority of the citizens in general may say this.
But the Supreme Court has ruled that forcing the whole assembly to pray to a Deity they do not all believe in (or any Deity at all) is unconstitutional. Plus, at least some of the councillors, asked politely and privately by the Mayor, agreed with the decision. Plus, it is the form used in the Provincial Legislature.
None of this matters. Apparently, "Christian" prayers are necessary for an elected legislative body (I guess you can tell my bias!) and the beliefs of others don't count.
The particular form is so bland as to be inoffensive, BTW: I can't see anyone being upset with the general idea expressed.
Why do Christians have to make themselves look intolerant and inflexible?
Is this the last gasp of complaint as the deck chairs go sliding off the deck? Or are we going to have to live with more of this unsavoury behaviour?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
It's important from a Christian pov to ask for God's presence to be known where decisions are being made that greatly affect people's lives.
There's nothing wrong with expressing that desire. There's nothing wrong with praying with everyone present, whether or not they believe in God, as long as there is no coercion on non-believers to pray too.
Why those non-believers find it so offensive as to try to push out those who are doing it for such good reasons is beyond me.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I find the whole debate about these things silly, and I wish they would stop. They've happened here too. If someone wants to pray about a meeting or other, can't they do it like normal people? At home, on the drive to the meeting, in ways that no-one would ever know. I think often what some people want is to make a point and ensure everyone understands they're making one.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
Some of my friends want mandatory prayer in schools - those who disagree can just be silent. I point out there are Catholics (horrors!) and Mormons (used to be horrors! until they were told all good Christians vote for Romney), Satan worshipers (supposedly), along with a few Islamic or Buddhist students.
I'm fine with prayers to Jesus or his Daddy so long as equally (or at least proportionately) welcome are prayers to Mary, Satan, and the Mormon and Islamic versions of God. (Do Buddhists pray?) I guess atheists could read a paragraph from Dawkins. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) (ETA: Yes I know Catholics don't consider Mary a god; the point is prayers of a sort these friends would NOT like!)
That is my answer to Christian prayers at public government meetings too. Yes some Christians think it's important to invite their God. So do followers of other religions think it's important to invite theirs. Why would Christians have exclusive right to do so? "Because we are right" is unconvincing to followers of all those other religions or none.
[ 29. January 2015, 18:20: Message edited by: Belle Ringer ]
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
It's worse in the United States given the composition of the Supreme Court. They narrowly overruled the lower court and said that the town of Greece , New York was permitted to continue to open town meetings with prayers from a chaplain. I agree with the dissent that says non-believers should not have to sit through a prayer not of their choosing. And the "we'll rotate through the chaplains theory" obviously fails for agnostics or atheists, none of whom want to open a meeting with an excerpt from an atheist author.
There may be a pond difference, but in a state that is officially not a religious state;
it's fine for people to pray on their own time. You can even have pre-meeting prayers of various groups who think it's essential to the functioning of the universe to invoke their personal deity in their particular way. It's an imposition on the rest to insist it's official part of the proceedings. Usually most Christians get the clue when they have to deal with a significant minority religion like Muslims wanting to have their prayer.
As for Raptor Eye's question about why people can't just let this happen, I'd ask about the early Christian Martyrs who were martyred because they declined to participate in the civic prayers to the Roman gods like Jove or Cesar. Why couldn't they just go along with the government religious prayers to deities they didn't believe in?
[ 29. January 2015, 19:13: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Yes, we had something like this here, and AIUI Parliament is even now legislating to make sure that it is legal for local councils to start their meetings with prayer. I am quite sympathetic to this, actually, on cultural grounds, but ISTM nonetheless that the whole fuss could have been avoided by a bit of sensible scheduling e.g.:
Prayers will be said by the Mayor's Chaplain from 2pm to 2.05 pm.
The business of the meeting will begin at 2.10pm.
Simples.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The meeting shouldn't have to move.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
it's fine for people to pray on their own time. You can even have pre-meeting prayers of various groups who think it's essential to the functioning of the universe to invoke their personal deity in their particular way. It's an imposition on the rest to insist it's official part of the proceedings. Usually most Christians get the clue when they have to deal with a significant minority religion like Muslims wanting to have their prayer.
As for Raptor Eye's question about why people can't just let this happen, I'd ask about the early Christian Martyrs who were martyred because they declined to participate in the civic prayers to the Roman gods like Jove or Cesar. Why couldn't they just go along with the government religious prayers to deities they didn't believe in?
It doesn't seem to be other people like Muslims, who also pray, who make objections, but those who don't want to pray at all and don't want to hear any talk of God.
Perhaps you missed the sentence in my post which said that no one should be coerced into praying. I too would refuse to pray aloud to any other than the one living God.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Some of my friends want mandatory prayer in schools - those who disagree can just be silent. I point out there are Catholics (horrors!) and Mormons (used to be horrors! until they were told all good Christians vote for Romney), Satan worshipers (supposedly), along with a few Islamic or Buddhist students.
I'm fine with prayers to Jesus or his Daddy so long as equally (or at least proportionately) welcome are prayers to Mary, Satan, and the Mormon and Islamic versions of God. (Do Buddhists pray?) I guess atheists could read a paragraph from Dawkins. (ETA: Yes I know Catholics don't consider Mary a god; the point is prayers of a sort these friends would NOT like!)
That is my answer to Christian prayers at public government meetings too. Yes some Christians think it's important to invite their God. So do followers of other religions think it's important to invite theirs. Why would Christians have exclusive right to do so? "Because we are right" is unconvincing to followers of all those other religions or none.
That's what a lot of places I've been have done. You can have prayer, but it has to be student-led, and any student from any religion can lead it (Buddhists and Hindus will sometimes ask for a moment of silence).
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jude
Shipmate
# 3033
|
Posted
I think Raptoreye has the right idea.
Being a Christian mysef, I would sympathise with anyone who wants to pray during a meeting. However, I can appreciate that some people go too far. Some people can be really annoying, especially if they don't appreciate other people's beliefs. I have felt coerced by some people's prayers in the past, especially the sort who say that everything would be hunky dory if only we prayed hard enough.
Posts: 233 | From: A town with four parishes | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jude
Shipmate
# 3033
|
Posted
I wonder how I would react if I lived in a place where Christianity was outlawed.
I don't think I could ever renege on my faith. That is, I could maybe go and live in Saudi Arabia (although I have no desire to do so) and secretly continue reading the Bible, etc. But if Christianity was made illegal, although I would not publicise my faith, if I was found out I could not deny being a Christian. Get it?
--------------------
"...But I always want to know the things one shouldn’t do.”
“So as to do them?” asked her aunt.
“So as to choose,” said Isabel.
Henry James - The Portrait of A Lady
Posts: 233 | From: A town with four parishes | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Perhaps you missed the sentence in my post which said that no one should be coerced into praying. I too would refuse to pray aloud to any other than the one living God.
Having to sit in a room for a scheduled meeting which starts with a prayer by a chaplain of a specific religion after which you bring business like a zoning permit request to the board which scheduled the prayer is in fact a coercion to simulate prayer. If instead you use the time to check your email you may incur the ill will of those on the board who believe in coerced prayer.
Also note that the issue is not someone speaking up as a member of the assembly and using their time to speak for prayer. It's a scheduled prayer by the government organization running the meeting on the grounds that "We've always had this peculiar institution here."
[ 30. January 2015, 00:40: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
From my point of view, having public officials pray for guidance prior to doing their work just does not inspire confidence. It makes it look as if they had no clue what they were going to do, but hey, since they arrogated divine sanction for themselves, they must be right.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LucyP
Shipmate
# 10476
|
Posted
I've flown with Air Brunei and Malaysian airlines in the past (some years ago now). From memory, both had Arabic prayers broadcast at the start of each trip. As a non Muslim, I was fine with that, and added my own private versions!
Of course, "Inshah Allah" means that earthly safety is not guaranteed for the flight: it all depends on the will of the Almighty. But acknowledging him and being reminded of both (1) human fragility and (2) where our help come from, does no harm! (IMO). Just because the prayers are not coming from someone whose religion I share, it doesn't stop me from reflecting and praying in my own way.
Posts: 235 | From: my sanctuary | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yes, we had something like this here, and AIUI Parliament is even now legislating to make sure that it is legal for local councils to start their meetings with prayer. I am quite sympathetic to this, actually, on cultural grounds, but ISTM nonetheless that the whole fuss could have been avoided by a bit of sensible scheduling e.g.:
Prayers will be said by the Mayor's Chaplain from 2pm to 2.05 pm.
The business of the meeting will begin at 2.10pm.
Simples.
I'm sure I once heard of a council who had a brief prayer for those who wished to be involved before the meeting's starting time. After which the others entered.
And a two minutes' silence sounds like another good alternative; you could talk to your deity, meditate, or marshal your thoughts for the business ahead.
GG
--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113
Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
I'd suggest some silent time. (Which should also work for public/state schools that want prayer time.)
Either that, or have representatives of all sorts of belief systems. Maybe have some everyday people, of all ages, make brief statements to remind the legislators who, exactly, they're working for.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I'd suggest some silent time. (Which should also work for public/state schools that want prayer time.)
Either that, or have representatives of all sorts of belief systems. Maybe have some everyday people, of all ages, make brief statements to remind the legislators who, exactly, they're working for.
That's perhaps where the greatest differences lie. Some are working for God first, some for those who voted for them first, some for the whole community first, some for themselves first.....
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I'd suggest some silent time. (Which should also work for public/state schools that want prayer time.)
Either that, or have representatives of all sorts of belief systems. Maybe have some everyday people, of all ages, make brief statements to remind the legislators who, exactly, they're working for.
That's perhaps where the greatest differences lie. Some are working for God first, some for those who voted for them first, some for the whole community first, some for themselves first.....
And that's the problem with any sort of public prayer prior to such a meeting (well, not the only problem)... it's going to quickly devolve into grandstanding for your favorite soapbox, but with your favorite deity roped in as an unwilling proxy.
Prayer is good. I'm a huge fan. I believe prayer changes things. But, as Jesus reminded us, public prayer can far too easily become a conversation with someone other than God.
Go to your office, sit in your car, lock yourself in a bathroom stall for 5 minutes before the meeting and ask for guidance then. And mean it.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I thought that the argument wasn't just that non-Christians could feel insulted by prayer in government meetings, but more that government shouldn't be seen to endorse a single religion.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The meeting shouldn't have to move.
Oh sod it, prayers at 1.50 and meeting at 2, then, if it bothers you so much. So what? The point is that with a bit of goodwill all round it can be fixed, and the motives of people who are not prepared to contribute a bit of goodwill are, I'd suggest, rather suspect.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
One problem with such things is that without some care those who don't come for the prayer part of the meeting can miss part of the business of the meeting. For one thing, it's hard to time one's arrival very precisely, so they may walk in during a prayer (disrespectful) unless they have a way of knowing when the prayer is to be over. Or they may miss the first minute or two of the real meeting, particularly if the prayer happens to run short. And they are guaranteed to miss the networking beforehand, which can truly be valuable. (For those who wish to poo-poo that last bit, try being the only female in a male group, and those the only one not in the guy's changing area. I do TKD with a great group of guys, but I do notice that even so I am occasionally left out of some discussions I'd otherwise like to be part of. It can be a thing that separates, fine if you are not otherwise left out as in my martial arts group, but more problematic in some other situations as perhaps in politics.)
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
From my point of view, having public officials pray for guidance prior to doing their work just does not inspire confidence. It makes it look as if they had no clue what they were going to do, but hey, since they arrogated divine sanction for themselves, they must be right.
Tangent Alert
For me, it is the complete opposite. Indeed I can hardly imagine a weirder statement than the above. How can one possibly prefer, or even respect, public officials who have total unmitigated confidence in themselves and who deplore any recognition that in all that they do, they are accountable to God?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
I view any politician who feels a need to pray in public before a speech or meeting as putting on an insincere show to win votes.
But then, I don't regard 30 second prayers as real praying. If you want God's guidance for a meeting, spend an hour alone (or with two or three) in prayer with God an afternoon or day beforehand. How else can God get through to you with any changes in understanding or direction God wants you to adopt?
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And that's the problem with any sort of public prayer prior to such a meeting (well, not the only problem)... it's going to quickly devolve into grandstanding for your favorite soapbox, but with your favorite deity roped in as an unwilling proxy.
Prayer is good. I'm a huge fan. I believe prayer changes things. But, as Jesus reminded us, public prayer can far too easily become a conversation with someone other than God.
Go to your office, sit in your car, lock yourself in a bathroom stall for 5 minutes before the meeting and ask for guidance then. And mean it.
That personal prayer is surely as well as, not instead of, public prayer, which has the intention of being the community together asking for God's presence and guidance during the meeting, and to join in with the Lord's prayer, with the expressed intention for God's will to be done, for the good of all. God willingly responds to our genuine invitation.
Naturally, those who pray in other ways or who don't believe at all may not join in, but there should surely be no offence taken by these prayers. They don't imply inadequacy or insincerity. They don't imply that the participants are calling attention to themselves in a Pharasaical way. I value the concept of such prayers before all meetings where the lives of others will be affected by the decisions made.
If goodwill, generosity of spirit, falls at this first hurdle, what hope have we that those meeting will come together in a positive way?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
One problem with such things is that without some care those who don't come for the prayer part of the meeting can miss part of the business of the meeting. For one thing, it's hard to time one's arrival very precisely, so they may walk in during a prayer (disrespectful) unless they have a way of knowing when the prayer is to be over. Or they may miss the first minute or two of the real meeting, particularly if the prayer happens to run short...
Oh FFS. You know what? Sometimes it behoves the person who is the only one out of step to bite their lip and put up with it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
One problem with such things is that without some care those who don't come for the prayer part of the meeting can miss part of the business of the meeting. For one thing, it's hard to time one's arrival very precisely, so they may walk in during a prayer (disrespectful) unless they have a way of knowing when the prayer is to be over. Or they may miss the first minute or two of the real meeting, particularly if the prayer happens to run short...
Oh FFS. You know what? Sometimes it behoves the person who is the only one out of step to bite their lip and put up with it.
That might make sense if its just an exception.
But if it is a matter of public policy to routinely exclude part of the people with legitimate business at those meetings its not such a good idea.
And it is a declaration that the state endorses a particular religion.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Tangent Alert
For me, it is the complete opposite. Indeed I can hardly imagine a weirder statement than the above. How can one possibly prefer, or even respect, public officials who have total unmitigated confidence in themselves and who deplore any recognition that in all that they do, they are accountable to God?
So you can't prefer or even respect an atheist or agnostic public official who does not recognize they are accountable to god? Do you feel the same about atheist citizens attending the meeting?
That attitude explains why said atheists aren't thrilled with opening the meeting with an official insult to them and don't just let it pass as a matter of courtesy.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Naturally, those who pray in other ways or who don't believe at all may not join in, but there should surely be no offense taken by these prayers. They don't imply inadequacy or insincerity. They don't imply that the participants are calling attention to themselves in a Pharisaical way. I value the concept of such prayers before all meetings where the lives of others will be affected by the decisions made.
If goodwill, generosity of spirit, falls at this first hurdle, what hope have we that those meeting will come together in a positive way?
The message from that sort of explicitly Christian prayer is this:
It implies that most of the people present will engage in an activity that excludes part of the group and will do so routinely. At every meeting if you are not Christian you are excluded from a Public activity.
It implies that the local government endorses that religion.
I find that offensive and questioning the "generosity of spirit" of those who find it offensive does not make it better.
But I guess that being a majority its easier to expect the minority to have to be generous in a way the majority for some reason is not expected to be.
Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
I have a friend whose taxpayer supported school had daily prayers over the intercom (back in the day when it was normal).
He said he got awful tired of Baptist prayers!
Within Christianity there are some striking differences about how to pray - to saints, always include an "altar call", in tongues, using gender neutral language for the trinity's persons?
Most people who want public prayer imposed on everyone would be horrified at some, most, or all of those 4 Christian approaches to prayer! They don't really mean "Christian prayer" they mean a much narrower "only my kind of Christian prayer."
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Palimpsest: quote:
So you can't prefer or even respect an atheist or agnostic public official who does not recognize they are accountable to god? Do you feel the same about atheist citizens attending the meeting?
That attitude explains why said atheists aren't thrilled with opening the meeting with an official insult to them and don't just let it pass as a matter of courtesy.
I understand that atheists are the group most likely to be distrusted or actively disdained in the US. This could easily turn into doing anything that said atheist might not want as part of "Christian love", which does not recognise the right of unbelievers/infidels to unbelieve/be infidel.
For the kind of Christian that can't handle differing prayers, this would have nothing to do with whether the person was elected to his position by members of the larger community: he would automatically be wrong. His views on prayer (or not having such) would be taken as heretical and unbecoming of a citizen - part of that ghostly gang of people who are destroying our "traditional values", as pointed out in Brampton in the OP.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
...And it is a declaration that the state endorses a particular religion.
But in England and (in a different way AIUI) Scotland, there's no disputing the fact that it does.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And that's the problem with any sort of public prayer prior to such a meeting (well, not the only problem)... it's going to quickly devolve into grandstanding for your favorite soapbox, but with your favorite deity roped in as an unwilling proxy.
Prayer is good. I'm a huge fan. I believe prayer changes things. But, as Jesus reminded us, public prayer can far too easily become a conversation with someone other than God.
Go to your office, sit in your car, lock yourself in a bathroom stall for 5 minutes before the meeting and ask for guidance then. And mean it.
That personal prayer is surely as well as, not instead of, public prayer, which has the intention of being the community together asking for God's presence and guidance during the meeting, and to join in with the Lord's prayer, with the expressed intention for God's will to be done, for the good of all. God willingly responds to our genuine invitation.
Naturally, those who pray in other ways or who don't believe at all may not join in, but there should surely be no offence taken by these prayers. They don't imply inadequacy or insincerity. They don't imply that the participants are calling attention to themselves in a Pharasaical way. I value the concept of such prayers before all meetings where the lives of others will be affected by the decisions made.
If goodwill, generosity of spirit, falls at this first hurdle, what hope have we that those meeting will come together in a positive way?
I would certainly agree that public prayer does not imply (as another poster suggested) inadequacy or insincerity. Whether or not they demonstrate a Pharasaical display, well, only God himself could know for sure.
But, while I appreciate your concern to bring the community together, I can't think of anything more guaranteed to do quite the opposite. Even your comment about "good will and generosity of spirit" seems culturally insensitive (it reminds me of similar discussions re: "invisible culture" and racial privilege). It seems to be saying "I mean this well, why can't you see it the way I do?" rather than attempting to see it from another's perspective.
By all means, encourage all gathered to take the matters before them seriously and, if so inclined, to pray or whatever religious ritual seems appropriate to them. Perhaps, as others suggested, a moment of silence to do so. But anything more that seems to be far more divisive than unifying.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I have a friend whose taxpayer supported school had daily prayers over the intercom (back in the day when it was normal).
He said he got awful tired of Baptist prayers!
Within Christianity there are some striking differences about how to pray - to saints, always include an "altar call", in tongues, using gender neutral language for the trinity's persons?
Most people who want public prayer imposed on everyone would be horrified at some, most, or all of those 4 Christian approaches to prayer! They don't really mean "Christian prayer" they mean a much narrower "only my kind of Christian prayer."
Maybe. But that hasn't been the case in my tail-end-of-GenX experience. People pray the way they pray (and not just different varieties of Christian prayer - Muslims and Jews etc.) and ask G-d for guidance, whatever. Since we all believe in the same G-d who may have manifested himself differently to different people in different places in different times with different cultures, it's not a big deal if someone prays differently than you do. I also grew up with school prayer in class - and yes it could get tiresome if most of the people in your class were snakehandlers. (OK, the snakehandling is a joke. No one had us handle poisonous snakes as a form of prayer in class.)
The only people excluded are the atheists and agnosticts. And mostly I'm OK if they feel uncomfortable for a couple minutes since they're wrong and they tend to spend a lot of time insulting poor, stupid, deluded religious dupes.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
The only people excluded are the atheists and agnosticts. And mostly I'm OK if they feel uncomfortable for a couple minutes since they're wrong and they tend to spend a lot of time insulting poor, stupid, deluded religious dupes.
I think we can now correctly identify the problem here..
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Yup, cliffdweller.
saysay, are atheists and agnostics somewhow less important or worthwhile than monotheists? Religiously, existentially, politically? Shouldn't we treat them decently, as we'd want to be treated?
And what about people who worship different individual deities? Or polytheists? Or those who honor nature? Lots and lots of beliefs out there.
Loathing them is one thing. But you're talking about treating them as "less than", in a situation where everyone is supposed to be equal.
Even if the US were an officially Christian country, would it hurt us to be gracious?
Your profile, saysay, states that you're a "Lapsed Agnostic (TEC)"--which I presume means that you were an agnostic (and maybe still have leanings), but are currently in the Episcopal church. So you're saying people who are like you were should be treated badly?
How did people treat you when you were an agnostic?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
People pray the way they pray (and not just different varieties of Christian prayer - Muslims and Jews etc.) and ask G-d for guidance, whatever. Since we all believe in the same G-d who may have manifested himself differently to different people in different places in different times with different cultures,...
Actually, quite a few people disagree with your assertion "We all believe in the same G-d."
And when we move beyond the Abraham-sourced religions, the claim becomes peculiar especially when looking to, for example, Buddhism, a religion with no god.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
saysay: quote:
poor, stupid, deluded religious dupes.
OK, how about starting by not insulting "poor, stupid people who think"?
and why are any of these people necessarily
"poor"? Poor in spirit ("blessed are they")? poor in cash (Koch brothers)? poor in relationship Princess Diana)? or just poor in not belonging to your group (me)?
[ 31. January 2015, 12:07: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
The message from that sort of explicitly Christian prayer is this:
It implies that most of the people present will engage in an activity that excludes part of the group and will do so routinely. At every meeting if you are not Christian you are excluded from a Public activity.
It implies that the local government endorses that religion.
I find that offensive and questioning the "generosity of spirit" of those who find it offensive does not make it better.
But I guess that being a majority its easier to expect the minority to have to be generous in a way the majority for some reason is not expected to be.
It does not mean that part of the group will be excluded, rather it gives people leave to exclude themselves. There is a difference. The op speaks of coercion, and I agree that there should be no coercion.
Generosity of spirit from all who attend is surely one of the requisites of democracy. We accept majority rule, while providing protection for minorities. Sometimes the majority agree with our views on any one issue, sometimes we're in the minority.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Albertus, mate, Christians are NOT entitled to good will. At all. Only to give it.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I don't think anybody's entitled to good will. I think everybody ought to give it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Yup, cliffdweller.
saysay, are atheists and agnostics somewhow less important or worthwhile than monotheists? Religiously, existentially, politically? Shouldn't we treat them decently, as we'd want to be treated?
Who said anything about not treating them decently?
Seriously, is there anyone in the world who doesn't occasionally feel mild discomfort because someone else is doing something they wouldn't do? Are ya'll trying to achieve Stepford-like levels of conformity?
quote:
And what about people who worship different individual deities? Or polytheists? Or those who honor nature? Lots and lots of beliefs out there.
No kidding. My madre went through a Wiccan phase and my father and step are UU ministers. I've sat through more prayers to the "universal spirit" and fictional tree gods than I care to think about. But if liberals are going to constantly tell me what I really think and feel, then I'm going to tell them that in spite of what they may think they're all praying to the same G-d.
quote:
Loathing them is one thing. But you're talking about treating them as "less than", in a situation where everyone is supposed to be equal.
Who said anything about loathing them? I admit, I could do without sitting through another obviously mocking prayer to the Flying Spaghetti Monster who has touched us all with his noodley appendage, but the reality is simply that they don't believe in a deity and therefore they don't pray so they're not going to have a lot to say when someone says "if anyone would like to offer any prayers, please do so."
Saying someone is wrong about something does not imply hatred.
quote:
Even if the US were an officially Christian country, would it hurt us to be gracious?
Your profile, saysay, states that you're a "Lapsed Agnostic (TEC)"--which I presume means that you were an agnostic (and maybe still have leanings), but are currently in the Episcopal church. So you're saying people who are like you were should be treated badly?
How did people treat you when you were an agnostic?
Amazingly enough I lived through my elementary school praying as a class even though by fifth grade I was becoming a militant agnostic. I didn't join in, but generally speaking in a democracy you're living under majority rule, and the majority prayed.
In high school I joined the prayer group that formed after we got the news that one of our classmates had been shot and killed the night before even though I didn't believe in G-d because I thought it might make me feel better. I got pissed off when a particular teacher told us we couldn't pray in school because we were a public school, and was glad when she was overruled by the district. I didn't join every prayer group I was invited to join because I didn't believe in G-d, much less the Mormon or Hindu or Whatever G-d the prayer group was praying to. I didn't feel excluded because other people wanted to do something I didn't want to do any more than I felt excluded that other people wanted to play field hockey and I didn't. Nor did I feel like the fact that I wanted to audition for the school play and other people didn't was something I should feel guilty about.
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Actually, quite a few people disagree with your assertion "We all believe in the same G-d."
And when we move beyond the Abraham-sourced religions, the claim becomes peculiar especially when looking to, for example, Buddhism, a religion with no god.
Oh dear lord do I not have the energy for a debate on the different strands of Buddhism, pratityasamuptpada, an-atman and its proper interpretation, and whether or not Buddhism is a religion or an ethical system. Like I said, they tend to call for a moment of silence.
Can't see how a bland watered-down generic prayer is more inclusive than a bunch of specific prayers. At a certain point blandness itself becomes offensive.
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
saysay: quote:
poor, stupid, deluded religious dupes.
OK, how about starting by not insulting "poor, stupid people who think"?
and why are any of these people necessarily
"poor"? Poor in spirit ("blessed are they")? poor in cash (Koch brothers)? poor in relationship Princess Diana)? or just poor in not belonging to your group (me)?
WTF? I admit my earlier responses were more to Belle Ringer than the OP and were about the US rather than Brampton, ON. but ???
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
yes, clearly Horseman Bree missed the context of what you were saying.
To the rest, however: I don't think Western Christians gain anything by adopting this facade of persecution. At best it looks churlish and infantile; at worst it is a slap in the face to the millions of Christians (and other faiths) who have suffered real persecution. Even if atheists and agnostics did all collectively as a group think Christians were "poor deluded dupes", it's not persecution. Heck, it's nice just to be noticed.
Mostly though, I don't think we have anything to gain by spouting our prayers intrusively in the public square. And I don't think Jesus did either.
We have much to be gained by prayer-- honest, genuine, heartfelt prayer for our world and our nations and the people in it. And God knows we (or at least I) could be more forthcoming in talking about my faith with my neighbors, even offering to pray for them when they seem (as we all do sooner or later) at wit's end. But there are ways to do that that are winsome and caring, that imitate the character of Jesus. There is nothing about a perfunctory ceremonial prayer foisted on a mostly disinterested audience that speaks to me of Jesus. And I can't envision much good coming of it.
[ 31. January 2015, 17:45: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
...
It does not mean that part of the group will be excluded, rather it gives people leave to exclude themselves. There is a difference. The op speaks of coercion, and I agree that there should be no coercion.
Generosity of spirit from all who attend is surely one of the requisites of democracy. We accept majority rule, while providing protection for minorities. Sometimes the majority agree with our views on any one issue, sometimes we're in the minority.
Generosity of spirit is surely not the requisite of a Democracy. Democracy at its best works as a way to compromise in the absence of generosity of spirit.
It's your "requisite generosity" is about other people giving you the public space for your devotions rather than you generously refraining from demanding this from others and holding your devotions privately in your own space and time.
Apparently this required generosity is only to be imposed on others. You could at least propose a compromise of starting by having someone give an official prayer that is of a religion that nobody in the room other than the chaplain belongs to. Then you all would et a chance to demonstrate this requisite generosity.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
And why is the "requisite generosity" only extended to religious rituals? Perhaps it would be generous to allow space at the beginning of public meetings for someone to fold their laundry or clean the wax out of their ears? Trim their toenails?
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
To introduce another angle, here, in some communities where there's a substantial First Nations population, some meetings begin with smudging (basically burning some fragrant plant matter) which is passed around and everyone gets some smoke toward themselves. Here's PM of Canada doing it.
But it seems that some practices, like smudging, are considered cultural versus religious.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
yes, clearly Horseman Bree missed the context of what you were saying.
To the rest, however: I don't think Western Christians gain anything by adopting this facade of persecution. At best it looks churlish and infantile; at worst it is a slap in the face to the millions of Christians (and other faiths) who have suffered real persecution.
I don't have a television, and I've realized this causes me to miss out on understanding how some of the things I say are going to be interpreted (because people link certain phrasings with entire belief systems and whatnot).
I'm sure that someone somewhere is claiming to have suffered the most horrible religious persecution ever because of something the rest of us would consider a minor slight. Just as some would consider most lefty media as doing the same thing on behalf of whatever cause they’ve selected of the day.
But most of the Christians I know IRL who complain about mistreatment are, in fact, being mistreated*. They have the same right to complain about it as anyone else, and pretending they don't because they're in the majority and historically have held power simply drives people away from liberalism.
*Though mostly I hear about things like the frustration of having to say the same generic (not-agreed-upon-corporate) script over and over. But there are the occasional stories of more extreme mistreatment including spitting or violence or whatever. And there is of course the constant struggle between the right to freedom of religion and the right to not have a religion imposed on you and where the line should be drawn in public institutions; sometimes I think officials draw the line in the wrong place and I think I should be allowed to say so without fear of legal reprisal. The legal system disagrees.
quote:
Even if atheists and agnostics did all collectively as a group think Christians were "poor deluded dupes", it's not persecution. Heck, it's nice just to be noticed.
I’m not sure atheists and agnostics collectively as a group think anything. However, I have been told more than once by more than one person that I am a poor deluded dupe for believing in G-d.
It's not nice.
quote:
Mostly though, I don't think we have anything to gain by spouting our prayers intrusively in the public square. And I don't think Jesus did either.
I agree. But you have to define intrusive.
quote:
We have much to be gained by prayer-- honest, genuine, heartfelt prayer for our world and our nations and the people in it. And God knows we (or at least I) could be more forthcoming in talking about my faith with my neighbors, even offering to pray for them when they seem (as we all do sooner or later) at wit's end. But there are ways to do that that are winsome and caring, that imitate the character of Jesus. There is nothing about a perfunctory ceremonial prayer foisted on a mostly disinterested audience that speaks to me of Jesus. And I can't envision much good coming of it.
I agree that there’s nothing about perfunctory ceremonial prayer foisted on a mostly disinterested audience that speaks of Jesus. And for all I know that could be true of any number of public meetings that you attend. It is not true where I live, where most people at least believe in G-d even if they don’t practice any particular religion. If nothing else, most people pray the prayer that always works.
It’s tradition. And I have not yet been persuaded that it’s a tradition that needs to change.
quote:
And why is the "requisite generosity" only extended to religious rituals? Perhaps it would be generous to allow space at the beginning of public meetings for someone to fold their laundry or clean the wax out of their ears? Trim their toenails?
It’s never been tradition to fold one’s laundry, clean the wax out of their ears, or trim their toenails at the beginning of public meetings. Those are all private events, made public by some law fearing terrorism or somesuch. It has been tradition to pray. Yes, the tradition needs to change as the community changes, and we can have a legitimate debate about the best ways to do so. But while one doesn’t want to be a hypocrite who prays in public but is completely un-ethical in private, religion is also communal and about community.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
To the rest, however: I don't think Western Christians gain anything by adopting this facade of persecution. At best it looks churlish and infantile; at worst it is a slap in the face to the millions of Christians (and other faiths) who have suffered real persecution.
I don't have a television, and I've realized this causes me to miss out on understanding how some of the things I say are going to be interpreted (because people link certain phrasings with entire belief systems and whatnot).
I'm sure that someone somewhere is claiming to have suffered the most horrible religious persecution ever because of something the rest of us would consider a minor slight.
Yes, I may have jumped to that conclusion-- in part because there are far more than just one "someone somewhere" making such claims. At least here in the US it is a constant refrain from certain segments of conservative Christianity-- that "they" are persecuting us-- as evidenced by such egregious acts as wishing someone "happy holidays". (the horror!)
But...
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
But most of the Christians I know IRL who complain about mistreatment are, in fact, being mistreated*. They have the same right to complain about it as anyone else, and pretending they don't because they're in the majority and historically have held power simply drives people away from liberalism.
*Though mostly I hear about things like the frustration of having to say the same generic (not-agreed-upon-corporate) script over and over. But there are the occasional stories of more extreme mistreatment including spitting or violence or whatever. And there is of course the constant struggle between the right to freedom of religion and the right to not have a religion imposed on you and where the line should be drawn in public institutions; sometimes I think officials draw the line in the wrong place and I think I should be allowed to say so without fear of legal reprisal. The legal system disagrees.
See, most of what you said here, with the exception of the "occasional stories" is not persecution. It is not persecution to have to say the same script (by which I assume you mean someone's stock answer to some uncomfortable question) over and over. That can be frustrating and discouraging, but it's not persecution. The public discussions of "freedom from" vs. "freedom of" religion is not persecution-- it is a public discussion of how to balance the needs and rights of the various members of a diverse community.
And I'm sorry, your last statement is rather incredible. Do you have any evidence of anyone in the US or UK facing "legal reprisals" for publicly disagreeing with where the government "drew the lines" on that discussion of diversity. In the US anyway, people on both sides of the aisle (and Christians sadly as much as non-Christians) say absolutely horrific things about the "other side" (aka enemy) all the time-- no legal reprisals.
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Even if atheists and agnostics did all collectively as a group think Christians were "poor deluded dupes", it's not persecution. Heck, it's nice just to be noticed.
I’m not sure atheists and agnostics collectively as a group think anything. However, I have been told more than once by more than one person that I am a poor deluded dupe for believing in G-d.
It's not nice.
Oh, lighten up. We've probably all been told that at some point or another. Just like someone will tell you you're an idiot or a racist or a commie because of who you voted for. Or because of the car you drive or the breakfast cereal you eat. The best way to combat that is not with an intrusive display of public piety (which I'm sorry, ANY public prayer at a government meeting would be pretty much by definition) but rather by not acting like a poor deluded dupe. Have a conversation with your narrow-minded friend and show them what an intelligent Christian looks like.
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
It’s tradition. And I have not yet been persuaded that it’s a tradition that needs to change.
It has been tradition to pray. Yes, the tradition needs to change as the community changes, and we can have a legitimate debate about the best ways to do so. But while one doesn’t want to be a hypocrite who prays in public but is completely un-ethical in private, religion is also communal and about community.
The community changed a long, long time ago. So it's time for the tradition to change.
otoh, I appreciate what you say about religion being communal and about community. But it is about the Christian community, not the American (or British, or whatever) community. In fact, as a "green card wife" that's one of the things I find most offensive about the sort of public prayers we run into all the time at PTA, boy scouts, school board, etc. It's not just the assumption that "we're all Christians" it's that if we're Christian, "we're all Americans". My husband has chosen not to become a citizen, he does not identify as an American. But he does identify as a Christian. And yet sometimes when these "persecution" discussions get going, the Christians sound more like the community is "us Americans" than it is about us followers of Christ. Our efforts to impose our faith on our fellow nationals disconnects us from our global community of fellow believers.
That may not translate the same cross-pond. If not, consider yourselves fortunate.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It's not just the assumption that "we're all Christians" it's that if we're Christian, "we're all Americans".
I find the pervasive use of "Americans" to mean "people" mildly irritating at times (so, it's the Americans with Disabilities Act - it's fine to discriminate against disabled green card holders, then?), although mostly it just seems like a local oddity (like bread that's sweet, or referring to the brown product of the Hershey company as "chocolate").
I did once get yelled at by some guy wanting to know what kind of commie I was not to salute the flag that real Americans died for. When I told him that I wasn't American, owed allegiance nether to his flag nor to the republic for which it stands, and whilst I was standing out of respect, I didn't intend to lie about it to make him happy, he went off muttering.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
The only people excluded are the atheists and agnosticts. And mostly I'm OK if they feel uncomfortable for a couple minutes since they're wrong and they tend to spend a lot of time insulting poor, stupid, deluded religious dupes.
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I’m not sure atheists and agnostics collectively as a group think anything. However, I have been told more than once by more than one person that I am a poor deluded dupe for believing in G-d.
It's not nice.
[ 01. February 2015, 05:43: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
