Thread: Freedom from misplaced coercion Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028875
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
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?
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
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.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
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.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
The meeting shouldn't have to move.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
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.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
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).
Posted by Jude (# 3033) on
:
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.
Posted by Jude (# 3033) on
:
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?
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
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.
Posted by LucyP (# 10476) on
:
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.
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
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
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
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.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
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.....
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
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.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
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.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
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.)
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
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?
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
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?
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
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?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
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.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
In other words, minorities should act just like everyone else?
[ 30. January 2015, 19:46: Message edited by: Gwai ]
Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on
:
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.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
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.
Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on
:
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.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
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."
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
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.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
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.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
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.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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..
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
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?
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
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.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Albertus, mate, Christians are NOT entitled to good will. At all. Only to give it.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
I don't think anybody's entitled to good will. I think everybody ought to give it.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
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 ???
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
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.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
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.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
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.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
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.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
I've always thought public prayer, in so far as its useful, is useful to remind people that there are things more important than their own self-interest and money. On that basis, I'd be happy enough with someone reading the universal declaration on human rights as a substitute.
But broadly speaking anything that prompts decision makers think beyond their own interests is worth having.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
DT: quote:
anything that prompts decision makers think beyond their own interests is worth having.
Which makes the point that attempting to force a whole gathering to say exactly one form of partisan groupthink is counter-productive.
Those who don't want to say it are now opposed to the interests of those who do, and those who do want it have revealed that they don't care if the rest of the meeting is now irritated.
Both are the reverse of any evangelistic strategy, BTW.
[ 01. February 2015, 12:01: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
It's this idea that there is an attempt to force people to pray who don't want to that seems to be repeated here. Why I wonder do some who don't want to pray think that there is any coercion? Who is putting any pressure on them? An invitation to pray is not the same thing as being forced to pray.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
Okay, well then, let's start the next council meeting with this chant (no pressure, of course):
quote:
vakratunda mahaakaaya suryakoti samaprabhaa.
nirvighnam kurumedeva sarvakaaryeshu sarvadaa.
quote:
Salutations to the supreme Lord Ganesha, whose curved trunk and massive body shines like a million suns and showers his blessings on everyone. Oh my lord of lords Ganesha, kindly remove all obstacles, always and forever from all my activities and endeavors.
The meeting is now called to order.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
I like the idea of reading from a UN declaration of human rights (except that a lot of loud Christians where I live are deeply opposed to the UN) or from the Declaration or Constitution (or whatever might be equivalent outside USA).
For one thing, it includes everyone present, not only some (even if some is the majority).
For another, it points to the community shared goals and values the committee was formed to focused on. "Is this consistent with human rights (or with life & liberty)" invites open debate; "is this consistent with what God wants" gets overlaid with disagreements about God's values.
For example (to step around dead horses like should homosexuals be allowed the same pursuit of happiness as heteros, to which Christian communities have historically said no in spite of the US declaration and constitution and UN human rights pronouncements),
Take a debate on whether recreational marijuana should be legalized (with perhaps alcohol-like restrictions). If the debate is based on human rights vs public safety concerns, that's a whole other debate than one in which some people - invited to bring God into the discussion via opening prayer - argue about whether God approves or disapproves enjoying mind altering substance, leading to argument about whether Jesus turned water into wine or grape juice,
Do some Christians think that is exactly the direction such a government meeting discussion should take? Even though what God thinks of intoxication has nothing to do with whether allowing recreational marijuana has any impact on public health or public safety in the community?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Okay, well then, let's start the next council meeting with this chant (no pressure, of course):
quote:
vakratunda mahaakaaya suryakoti samaprabhaa.
nirvighnam kurumedeva sarvakaaryeshu sarvadaa.
quote:
Salutations to the supreme Lord Ganesha, whose curved trunk and massive body shines like a million suns and showers his blessings on everyone. Oh my lord of lords Ganesha, kindly remove all obstacles, always and forever from all my activities and endeavors.
The meeting is now called to order.
Quite gorgeous. Let me offer a saying from Zen as a nice warm-up to any social or political gathering:
No guru, no church, no dependency.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Okay, well then, let's start the next council meeting with this chant (no pressure, of course):
quote:
vakratunda mahaakaaya suryakoti samaprabhaa.
nirvighnam kurumedeva sarvakaaryeshu sarvadaa.
quote:
Salutations to the supreme Lord Ganesha, whose curved trunk and massive body shines like a million suns and showers his blessings on everyone. Oh my lord of lords Ganesha, kindly remove all obstacles, always and forever from all my activities and endeavors.
The meeting is now called to order.
More problematic, IMHO, is the very high probability that the prayer time will be used to commandeer the divine in aid of whatever cause the pray-er is wishing to promote (hence my comment about public prayers not always really being directed to the divine).
Let's take the above example re a debate on legalizing marijuana. If the pray-er simply prays something like "Lord, give us wisdom in this debate"-- well, sure.
But I'm willing to bet that more often than not, you'll get something along the lines of:
"Lord, help us to regain the moral foundation of this country, to not give in to the latest trends but to stand firm against all that would seek to undermine our youth..."
Or even, conversely:
"Lord, you made us for freedom. And so let us courageously stand for freedom-- to defend the rights of the minority to live life on their own terms, unhindered by those who would seek to bind them to their own narrow moral choices..."
Neither specifically mentions marijuana, but I think it's pretty clear which side the pray-er is promoting, and s/he will have very effectively gotten their word in w/o having to be bound to the rules of debate-- and has subtley suggested that God and all God-fearing believers are on his/her side as well.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Okay, well then, let's start the next council meeting with this chant (no pressure, of course):
quote:
vakratunda mahaakaaya suryakoti samaprabhaa.
nirvighnam kurumedeva sarvakaaryeshu sarvadaa.
quote:
Salutations to the supreme Lord Ganesha, whose curved trunk and massive body shines like a million suns and showers his blessings on everyone. Oh my lord of lords Ganesha, kindly remove all obstacles, always and forever from all my activities and endeavors.
The meeting is now called to order.
You live in an entirely different America to the one I live in if something similar to this doesn't happen every time people are invited to pray.
Seriously, where do y'all live that's so white and Christian and un-inclusive of both legal and illegal immigrants? I've spent time living in East Bumblefuck West Virginia and it's more diverse and tolerant than the places you apparently live.
Omar is totally winning the next presidential election.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It's this idea that there is an attempt to force people to pray who don't want to that seems to be repeated here. Why I wonder do some who don't want to pray think that there is any coercion? Who is putting any pressure on them? An invitation to pray is not the same thing as being forced to pray.
The pressure is to simulate prayer out of social courtesy. The Greece New York case gives a good example. You're free to not pray as long as you sit still and you don't care how the people praying think of you as you then request a zoning permit. This thread has had people say they can't trust people who don't pray. You're requiring them to spend their time watching you pray. Why should they?
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay: quote:
quote:
vakratunda mahaakaaya suryakoti samaprabhaa.
nirvighnam kurumedeva sarvakaaryeshu sarvadaa.
quote:
Salutations to the supreme Lord Ganesha,...
The meeting is now called to order.
You live in an entirely different America to the one I live in if something similar to this doesn't happen every time people are invited to pray.
Seriously, where do y'all live that's so white and Christian and un-inclusive
Small town Texas. Hear lots of "opening prayers" to Jesus. Haven't yet heard a prayer to lord Ganesha, nor an invocation by a rabbi or iman. And just try reading a newspaper while others pray! "Disruptive."
But it's a puzzling question - are some here insisting public community-meeting prayers to a Christian God ARE appropriate when the community is NOT Christian?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay: quote:
quote:
vakratunda mahaakaaya suryakoti samaprabhaa.
nirvighnam kurumedeva sarvakaaryeshu sarvadaa.
quote:
Salutations to the supreme Lord Ganesha,...
The meeting is now called to order.
You live in an entirely different America to the one I live in if something similar to this doesn't happen every time people are invited to pray.
Seriously, where do y'all live that's so white and Christian and un-inclusive
Small town Texas. Hear lots of "opening prayers" to Jesus. Haven't yet heard a prayer to lord Ganesha, nor an invocation by a rabbi or iman. And just try reading a newspaper while others pray! "Disruptive."
But it's a puzzling question - are some here insisting public community-meeting prayers to a Christian God ARE appropriate when the community is NOT Christian?
I guess most of it just assumed (falsely, perhaps) that that's what people are saying-- because, as Saysay noted, most of us live in far more diverse communities where Christians are often the minority. In my community Buddhist would probably be the majority religion (after the "nones", of course).
But that begs Saysay's question: would you suggest that public meetings in my community begin with a Buddhist chant rather than a prayer?
For myself, the problem lies in treating prayer-- or chanting, or any other religious observance-- as some sort of frivolous act. That it makes no matter if I chant a little, or appeal to Ganesha one week and Jesus the next. That we can go thru these little rituals as a sort of public theater as if there were no spiritual reality at all-- just playacting, with no more meaning than the little flag pins everyone has to wear in the lapel at election time.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The pressure is to simulate prayer out of social courtesy. The Greece New York case gives a good example. You're free to not pray as long as you sit still and you don't care how the people praying think of you as you then request a zoning permit. This thread has had people say they can't trust people who don't pray. You're requiring them to spend their time watching you pray. Why should they?
I agree with Cliffdweller in that prayer should be sincere, it should not be public lip service. I think that the idea that anyone might think they are expected to simulate prayer needs to be counteracted by a few words at the commencement of prayers.
I haven't picked up the idea that some think that those who don't pray can't be trusted. I would suggest that most people are savvy enough to respect the honesty of those who don't join in. The politeness to sit quietly while others pray suggests that respect is due too.
I'm left thinking that the people present should be the ones who decide by majority at each annual meeting whether to pray and if so what form of prayer to use, so that it will be sincere. It can't be expected to reflect the demographic of those they represent, as individuals who are elected don't always fall neatly into those categories. Prayer certainly should be allowed, imv.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The pressure is to simulate prayer out of social courtesy. The Greece New York case gives a good example. You're free to not pray as long as you sit still and you don't care how the people praying think of you as you then request a zoning permit. This thread has had people say they can't trust people who don't pray. You're requiring them to spend their time watching you pray. Why should they?
I agree with Cliffdweller in that prayer should be sincere, it should not be public lip service. I think that the idea that anyone might think they are expected to simulate prayer needs to be counteracted by a few words at the commencement of prayers.
I haven't picked up the idea that some think that those who don't pray can't be trusted. I would suggest that most people are savvy enough to respect the honesty of those who don't join in. The politeness to sit quietly while others pray suggests that respect is due too.
I'm left thinking that the people present should be the ones who decide by majority at each annual meeting whether to pray and if so what form of prayer to use, so that it will be sincere. It can't be expected to reflect the demographic of those they represent, as individuals who are elected don't always fall neatly into those categories. Prayer certainly should be allowed, imv.
I don't see how prayer can be sincere in such a circumstance. No matter what your motives, the medium is just going to work against it. You are on display, in a meeting that in a few moments will be all about "winning" and "losing". And you're making a show of your religious piety. I don't see how, in that circumstance, anything that comes out of your mouth is going to be directed at God and not at those gathered. Which isn't prayer. Theoretically I suppose it's possible, but I can't imagine it myself.
As a Christian I find the use of Christian prayers in this setting to be disrespectful. Prayer to me is a sacred, holy event. To make it a spectacle-- like watching trained bears at a zoo-- is so sacrilegious as to debase the entire act. Similarly, if the meeting were to begin with a Buddhist chant or some other religious ritual, I would be uncomfortable primarily because it would be treating that sacred ritual as some sort of cultural display-- like watching folk dancing.
The fact that this doesn't come up in any other setting suggests this is not about devotion, this is about political theater. No one asks if fast-food employees or janitors or dock workers should gather before their shift to spend time in prayer. One assumes they will do so, if they desire, at home before they head off to work. But somehow a government meeting is different? That works against the whole Christian understanding of vocation.
For those who wish to sincerely seek God's leading before a public meeting, there are all sorts of options. Have a prayer time in another location just before the meeting. Spend however long you'd like in your office, car, nearby Starbucks, whatever-- in silent prayer.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I don't see how prayer can be sincere in such a circumstance. No matter what your motives, the medium is just going to work against it. You are on display, in a meeting that in a few moments will be all about "winning" and "losing". And you're making a show of your religious piety. I don't see how, in that circumstance, anything that comes out of your mouth is going to be directed at God and not at those gathered. Which isn't prayer. Theoretically I suppose it's possible, but I can't imagine it myself.
As a Christian I find the use of Christian prayers in this setting to be disrespectful. Prayer to me is a sacred, holy event. To make it a spectacle-- like watching trained bears at a zoo-- is so sacrilegious as to debase the entire act. Similarly, if the meeting were to begin with a Buddhist chant or some other religious ritual, I would be uncomfortable primarily because it would be treating that sacred ritual as some sort of cultural display-- like watching folk dancing.
The fact that this doesn't come up in any other setting suggests this is not about devotion, this is about political theater. No one asks if fast-food employees or janitors or dock workers should gather before their shift to spend time in prayer. One assumes they will do so, if they desire, at home before they head off to work. But somehow a government meeting is different? That works against the whole Christian understanding of vocation.
For those who wish to sincerely seek God's leading before a public meeting, there are all sorts of options. Have a prayer time in another location just before the meeting. Spend however long you'd like in your office, car, nearby Starbucks, whatever-- in silent prayer.
I disagree that prayer can't be and isn't sincere in such a context. I think it as important to pray with others, especially when the decisions made will greatly affect the lives of others, as it is to pray alone. It's not theatre, nor is it making a show - or it shouldn't be. It's gathering together to invite God's
presence to influence the meeting for the good of all.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I don't see how prayer can be sincere in such a circumstance. No matter what your motives, the medium is just going to work against it. You are on display, in a meeting that in a few moments will be all about "winning" and "losing". And you're making a show of your religious piety. I don't see how, in that circumstance, anything that comes out of your mouth is going to be directed at God and not at those gathered. Which isn't prayer. Theoretically I suppose it's possible, but I can't imagine it myself.
As a Christian I find the use of Christian prayers in this setting to be disrespectful. Prayer to me is a sacred, holy event. To make it a spectacle-- like watching trained bears at a zoo-- is so sacrilegious as to debase the entire act. Similarly, if the meeting were to begin with a Buddhist chant or some other religious ritual, I would be uncomfortable primarily because it would be treating that sacred ritual as some sort of cultural display-- like watching folk dancing.
The fact that this doesn't come up in any other setting suggests this is not about devotion, this is about political theater. No one asks if fast-food employees or janitors or dock workers should gather before their shift to spend time in prayer. One assumes they will do so, if they desire, at home before they head off to work. But somehow a government meeting is different? That works against the whole Christian understanding of vocation.
For those who wish to sincerely seek God's leading before a public meeting, there are all sorts of options. Have a prayer time in another location just before the meeting. Spend however long you'd like in your office, car, nearby Starbucks, whatever-- in silent prayer.
I disagree that prayer can't be and isn't sincere in such a context. I think it as important to pray with others, especially when the decisions made will greatly affect the lives of others, as it is to pray alone. It's not theatre, nor is it making a show - or it shouldn't be. It's gathering together to invite God's
presence to influence the meeting for the good of all.
I definitely agree re the importance of communal prayer, and the importance of taking our work-- our vocation-- seriously, especially so when our work effects so many other people (in which case we really should be calling for corporations to have prayer at the start of their board meetings).
But, like so many others here, I simply have never seen it done in any setting (and here in the US, we've seen it done a LOT) where it wasn't very clearly mere political theater. Where the very act didn't cheapen and trivialize this most holy of acts. And, in a religiously diverse community, I can't envision a way of going about it which is not either idolatrous or disrespectful of those other religions.
Perhaps there is some government body somewhere that manages to pull this off. To pray in a way that neither trivializes prayer, nor excludes nonbelievers, nor becomes an exercise in soapbox preaching to the listeners rather than talking to God. But I've never seen it, and can't really envision how you could get there. If such a thing exists, I'd love to see it, cuz Lord knows, our governments could use a bit of divine guidance. But I think in real-life, the odds of trivialization/ exploitation/ disrespect/ exclusion are far, far greater than the odds of having a genuine, heartfelt act of discernment-seeking.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
cliffdweller:
quote:
As a Christian I find the use of Christian prayers in this setting to be disrespectful. Prayer to me is a sacred, holy event. To make it a spectacle-- like watching trained bears at a zoo-- is so sacrilegious as to debase the entire act. Similarly, if the meeting were to begin with a Buddhist chant or some other religious ritual, I would be uncomfortable primarily because it would be treating that sacred ritual as some sort of cultural display-- like watching folk dancing.
ISTM that Jesus Jesus said quite a few things about public prayer, none of them particularly encouraging of scoring cheap shots in the course of a debate about the common good.
As we can see in this thread, the mere idea of public prayer is unnecessarily divisive and anti-evangelism
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Um, no. Treating religious belief and observance (not the same thing) as a private and individual, rather than public and culturally-anchored, matter is unnecessarily divisive and anti-evangelism.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Um, no. Treating religious belief and observance (not the same thing) as a private and individual, rather than public and culturally-anchored, matter is unnecessarily divisive and anti-evangelism.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
I would say treating religious belief and observance as private and individual is misguided and leads to internal incongruence- through probably not external division. And, again, while public prayers in a secular government setting could theoretically be quite fine, even admirable, in practice it almost never (if ever) turns out that way. It is divisive because it encourages/ enables that very internal incongruence we seek to avoid. It is anti-evangelism because it creates a false view of God.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
No. You see, that's where the cultural issue comes in. In England, for example, the cultural connotations of public prayers in state settings are very different from what they would be in the USA or- even more so- France. We have an anointed head of state. Our (Westminster) parliamentary sessions always begin with prayer and there is an established church which contributes members to our upper house. Our state schools- in theory and sometimes in practice, although less so now than in the past when it was more or less taken for granted- begin their day with a corporate act of mainly Christian worship. And so on. None of these is uncontroversial, and perhaps none of them is fixed in stone, but they are nonetheless there and part of the cultural furniture. You need to consider that. OTOH, if, for example, anyone were to suggest that school children began their day by reciting a pledge of allegiance to the national flag, or even to the Crown, the response would be a mix of outrage and embarrassment and raucous incredulous laughter, in equal parts.
[ 02. February 2015, 16:05: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
No. You see, that's where the cultural issue comes in. In England, for example, the cultural connotations of public prayers in state settings are very different from what they would be in the USA.
Yes, absolutely.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
In my community Buddhist would probably be the majority religion (after the "nones", of course).
But that begs Saysay's question: would you suggest that public meetings in my community begin with a Buddhist chant rather than a prayer?
If as you seem to suggest the majority are not Christian, how can it make sense to open a civic meeting with a prayer the majority regard as empty words (or show of political power by the Christian minority)?
(Where I live minority rights mean majority must NOT run roughshod over everyone else, neither do minorities get that privilege.)
I favor the suggestion up thread - leave the many deities out of it, point the gathering to principles the community is intended to reflect - UN human rights or other political cultural statement of social ideas. "We are here to uphold the founding principles of our community and culture: Liberté, égalité, fraternité! The secretary will now read the minutes."
Isn't that more community building than "we will now open with prayer to a deity 73% of you reject. Please bow your head and pretend to join in the prayer to please the 27%"?
(Appeal to the political ideals of the 100% is more community building than prayer to the majority's god, too.)
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
There are certainly pond differences. But citing "cultural furniture" seems to be pleasing "we've always done this". If I understand it correctly, part of the cultural furniture in the U.K. used to require M.P.'s to swear an oath of office on a new testament bible. That requirement is gone.
It is true that in the United States, belief in God is a political platform issue. The Pledge of Allegiance had the words "under God" added during the 1950's in order to bash godless communism. It continues to this day in the Republican Right.
Oddly enough, I feel like I am being more respectful of prayer by not miming it. I'll also point out that the percentage of the population that does not believe in God is higher in the U.K. than in the U.S.A. That may be an unwillingness to deal with political dislike of atheists, but it may also be a sense that anything associated with the government, be it taxes, politicians, bureaucracy or prayer is not respected by many people. It doesn't speak well for required attendance at communal prayer as an effective form of evangelicalism.
In short, it's not impossible for communal prayer to be useful and inspiring. It rarely is when it's a mandatory social ceremony.
There's a growing number of people who are willing to identify as non-Christians. When t
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I don't see how prayer can be sincere in such a circumstance. No matter what your motives, the medium is just going to work against it. You are on display, in a meeting that in a few moments will be all about "winning" and "losing". And you're making a show of your religious piety. I don't see how, in that circumstance, anything that comes out of your mouth is going to be directed at God and not at those gathered. Which isn't prayer. Theoretically I suppose it's possible, but I can't imagine it myself.
"Before we begin this meeting where we try to convince each other that the other is wronger than a wrong thing that is mistaken and probably possessed of evil motivations, would anyone like to say a few words? You may have no more than a minute."
"I'd like to ask the Lord for wisdom and discernment in what we are about to do."
"(Hebrew)"
"Lord, help us to regain the moral foundation of this country, to not give in to the latest trends but to stand firm against all that would seek to undermine our youth..."
"May I remind everyone that we haven't started trying to tear each other limb from limb yet."
"Lord, I just really want to ask that you be here with us today Lord. Lord, I just really want to, I want to ask Lord, I just really want to..."
"Are you..."
"I'm done."
"(Arabic)"
"Lord, you know we all have slightly different agendas here. And we don't always get along as well as we should. Help us to try to do the things we should. And as always, may thy will, not my will, be done."
"And now for a moment of silence."
quote:
The fact that this doesn't come up in any other setting suggests this is not about devotion, this is about political theater. No one asks if fast-food employees or janitors or dock workers should gather before their shift to spend time in prayer. One assumes they will do so, if they desire, at home before they head off to work.
And yet fast food employees and janitors and dock workers and cops and all sorts of people do frequently pray after roll call. I admit it's difficult to be the asshole who doesn't stay and join in, but nobody said life wasn't going to involve a certain amount of sticking out.
quote:
For those who wish to sincerely seek God's leading before a public meeting, there are all sorts of options. Have a prayer time in another location just before the meeting. Spend however long you'd like in your office, car, nearby Starbucks, whatever-- in silent prayer.
Again, kind of misses the communal aspect if you ask me. And the part where you remind each other of your humanity and some of the things you have in common. Also sometimes leads to conspiracy allegations in terms of 'all these politicians get together for a prayer meeting before the Congressional session begins and then they make each other good deals while the non-Christians and the people who didn't hear about the prayer meeting can't get anything out of committee. Maybe I should pretend to be Christian so I can go to this prayer meeting.'
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
ISTM that Jesus Jesus said quite a few things about public prayer, none of them particularly encouraging of scoring cheap shots in the course of a debate about the common good.
Seems to me he also said some things about lights and bushels.
quote:
As we can see in this thread, the mere idea of public prayer is unnecessarily divisive and anti-evangelism
As we can see from Dead Horses, the mere idea of gay marriage is unnecessarily divisive. Christians who support it should either avoid mentioning their support of it or the fact that they're Christian.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I've heard of it being done well, in the case of a Senate chaplain (Peter Marshall). But in that case things were easier because a) he wasn't a senator, so had no conflicting political agenda to push, and b) he was the designated chaplain and pray-er over a considerable length of time, which gave him the responsibility and opportunity to get it right.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
And yet fast food employees and janitors and dock workers and cops and all sorts of people do frequently pray after roll call.
Really? Publicly? I'll admit I've never been a cop or a dock worker, but I've held all sorts of other jobs, including fast-food and janitor, and have never (even in Christian settings) had anyone suggest we begin w/ prayer in any work setting other than pastoral staff meetings.otoh, I frequently prayed silently in pretty much every job I've ever had. Some more than others.
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
me
quote:
For those who wish to sincerely seek God's leading before a public meeting, there are all sorts of options. Have a prayer time in another location just before the meeting. Spend however long you'd like in your office, car, nearby Starbucks, whatever-- in silent prayer.
Again, kind of misses the communal aspect if you ask me. And the part where you remind each other of your humanity and some of the things you have in common.
And honestly, I love that notion, and would love to see it. Just have never ever seen it happen in any of these public meetings, which look a lot more like what I described-- grandstanding get-in-your-shots before the meeting. If they actually looked like what you're suggesting, I doubt there'd be much controversy, even among the most ardent of atheists. But I just don't see that happening very often.
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
me
[QUOTE]Also sometimes leads to conspiracy allegations in terms of 'all these politicians get together for a prayer meeting before the Congressional session begins and then they make each other good deals while the non-Christians and the people who didn't hear about the prayer meeting can't get anything out of committee. Maybe I should pretend to be Christian so I can go to this prayer meeting.'.
How would that happen any LESS with the opening prayer? Wouldn't they feel even MORE pressure to fake participate? Although I suppose having it open and on the record is some comfort, meager though it is.
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
]As we can see from Dead Horses, the mere idea of gay marriage is unnecessarily divisive. Christians who support it should either avoid mentioning their support of it or the fact that they're Christian.
I thought that was what we were doing. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Oddly enough, I feel like I am being more respectful of prayer by not miming it. I'll also point out that the percentage of the population that does not believe in God is higher in the U.K. than in the U.S.A. That may be an unwillingness to deal with political dislike of atheists, but it may also be a sense that anything associated with the government, be it taxes, politicians, bureaucracy or prayer is not respected by many people. It doesn't speak well for required attendance at communal prayer as an effective form of evangelicalism.
In short, it's not impossible for communal prayer to be useful and inspiring. It rarely is when it's a mandatory social ceremony.
This.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
In my community Buddhist would probably be the majority religion (after the "nones", of course).
But that begs Saysay's question: would you suggest that public meetings in my community begin with a Buddhist chant rather than a prayer?
If as you seem to suggest the majority are not Christian, how can it make sense to open a civic meeting with a prayer the majority regard as empty words (or show of political power by the Christian minority)?
(Where I live minority rights mean majority must NOT run roughshod over everyone else, neither do minorities get that privilege.)
I favor the suggestion up thread - leave the many deities out of it, point the gathering to principles the community is intended to reflect - UN human rights or other political cultural statement of social ideas. "We are here to uphold the founding principles of our community and culture: Liberté, égalité, fraternité! The secretary will now read the minutes."
Isn't that more community building than "we will now open with prayer to a deity 73% of you reject. Please bow your head and pretend to join in the prayer to please the 27%"?
(Appeal to the political ideals of the 100% is more community building than prayer to the majority's god, too.)
Agree. Although this is quite different than what I thought you were arguing. But maybe I got the postings confused-- I do that sometimes.
**shuffles off, mumbling to self something about needing a program to keep the players straight...***
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
point the gathering to principles the community is intended to reflect - UN human rights or other political cultural statement of social ideas.
Communities aren't "intended to reflect a statement of social ideas" except in the case of a commune or other intentionally-formed unit. Mostly, communities just are.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
And yet fast food employees and janitors and dock workers and cops and all sorts of people do frequently pray after roll call.
Really? Publicly? I'll admit I've never been a cop or a dock worker, but I've held all sorts of other jobs, including fast-food and janitor, and have never (even in Christian settings) had anyone suggest we begin w/ prayer in any work setting other than pastoral staff meetings.otoh, I frequently prayed silently in pretty much every job I've ever had. Some more than others.
Yes, really. Thirteen years of public school you start your day with roll call, the Pledge, and a prayer (which became a moment of silence because diversity). It gets to be a habit. People used to praying together pray before meals together. Even the years I spent working in universities.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
For those who wish to sincerely seek God's leading before a public meeting, there are all sorts of options. Have a prayer time in another location just before the meeting. Spend however long you'd like in your office, car, nearby Starbucks, whatever-- in silent prayer.
Again, kind of misses the communal aspect if you ask me. And the part where you remind each other of your humanity and some of the things you have in common.
And honestly, I love that notion, and would love to see it. Just have never ever seen it happen in any of these public meetings, which look a lot more like what I described-- grandstanding get-in-your-shots before the meeting. If they actually looked like what you're suggesting, I doubt there'd be much controversy, even among the most ardent of atheists. But I just don't see that happening very often.
It's not that hard. Someone in the meeting just has to take charge and be willing to cut people off if they start grandstanding.
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Also sometimes leads to conspiracy allegations in terms of 'all these politicians get together for a prayer meeting before the Congressional session begins and then they make each other good deals while the non-Christians and the people who didn't hear about the prayer meeting can't get anything out of committee. Maybe I should pretend to be Christian so I can go to this prayer meeting.'.
How would that happen any LESS with the opening prayer? Wouldn't they feel even MORE pressure to fake participate? Although I suppose having it open and on the record is some comfort, meager though it is.
Because everyone has to be there but not everyone has to participate. Except for the person running it, no one pays attention in opening prayer all the time, and with enough people, no one can remember who participated this time around and who didn't.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
As we can see from Dead Horses, the mere idea of gay marriage is unnecessarily divisive. Christians who support it should either avoid mentioning their support of it or the fact that they're Christian.
I thought that was what we were doing.
Right. That's why the legalization of gay marriage in so many states had so many clergy on the front lines.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
**shuffles off, mumbling to self something about needing a program to keep the players straight...***
LOL! I often feel that way.
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Thirteen years of public school you start your day with roll call, the Pledge, and a prayer (which became a moment of silence because diversity). It gets to be a habit.
In 21st century? Everywhere I've lived in USA starting school day with a prayer died out by the 80s.
I'm amused that my aging brain now forgets to add "under God" to the pledge. It wasn't there when I was first taught it, and I well remember the controversy about inserting it in a wrong place, breaking up the single unified thought "one nation indivisible."
I'm not protesting or making a point of any kind when I say the pledge without "under God," it just comes out that way because the oldest memories are strongest and that's the way the pledge was officially worded when I first learned it, no reference to God. Smithsonian article on the pledge
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
well, clearly you are a godless commie. Good to know. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Re US pledge of allegiance:
When I was a kid, there was a lot of wrangling about prayer in schools; Madeleine Murray O'Hare (think Dawkins at his most angry) vs. talk show host David Frost (preacher's kid, IIRC); and "under God" in the pledge.
Comedian, actor, and painter Red Skelton--who could be very serious--was very much on the "under God" side. He did a passionate "Commentary On The Pledge Of Allegiance". That site has text, audio, and video. I heard a record of it (a little 45 rpm, IIRC) back then--in the '60s, IIRC. It was a big deal, because I was fundamentalist; I was thinking my way through all the "keep God in school" furor; and I was a fan of his variety show.
Anyway, I haven't checked out these recordings, but I remember it as being pretty powerful. I was a kid, however, so YMMV.
And I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. Just giving context.
[ 03. February 2015, 06:06: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
saysay: quote:
It's not that hard. Someone in the meeting just has to take charge and be willing to cut people off if they start grandstanding.
Wow! I can just see the hoo-ra if a self-appointed chairperson decided to cut off a specific person's prayer in midstream because it was too controversial. Even the atheists would be annoyed.
You can be d*mn sure it would make the evening news.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
You actually pledge allegiance to a flag? Is it male or female? Does it have a religious belief which is what we are talking about)? All that coerced religionism was suppose to have been thrown out at about the time of Roger Williams and the Flushing Remonstrance.
I guess these prayer fanatics don't read their own history. Why not just brand all these non-prayerful people with an "N"? That way we could tell who we should listen to or not.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
If I understand it correctly, part of the cultural furniture in the U.K. used to require M.P.'s to swear an oath of office on a new testament bible. That requirement is gone.
Not gone: but you can choose to swear on another sacred text, or make a solemn (non-religious) affrimation. Same goes, I believe, for the Privy Council (in the UK: don't know what the Canadian procedure is). These are alternatives to the oath on the NT, which were brought in at different times to accommodate social and cultural change: but they are an expansion or evolution of the principle of the NT oath, not an abolition of it.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Communities aren't "intended to reflect a statement of social ideas" ...
Looks like someone forgot to tell the writers of your (unilateral) Declaration of Independence and of your constitution that, then, doesn't it?
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Not gone: but you can choose to swear on another sacred text, or make a solemn (non-religious) affrimation. Same goes, I believe, for the Privy Council (in the UK: don't know what the Canadian procedure is). These are alternatives to the oath on the NT, which were brought in at different times to accommodate social and cultural change: but they are an expansion or evolution of the principle of the NT oath, not an abolition of it.
M.P. are no longer required to swear an oath on the New Testament. That requirement kept certain non Christians from serving. What you describe as an expansion is in fact removing a specific requirement.
Similarly not having an official prayer by a Christian Chaplain at the beginning of a government meeting does not mean you are not allowed to pray in any fashion you please elsewhere. It's removing the requirement that other people have to sit through your preferred form of prayer. If you like, consider that an expansion of options.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Having to swear an oath on the NT was not what kept non-Christains from serving: there were laws in place to preent people who were non-Christians in the sense of being followers of other faiths from serving. then when those laws were changed the rules allowign non-Christain oaths followed as a matter of course. Where there was a big issue because of the oath was the Bradlaugh case. That is what led to the introduction of affirmation as an alternative. But note that Parliament has not abolished the oath and replaced it with affirmation for all, which is what would be consistent with the line that you are advocating: it retained the oath and added affirmation as an alternative for those who could not in conscience take it. And both Houses, btw, still begin each days' session with (Church of England) prayers. That's the way we do things. It's not the way you like to do things, which is presumably why your ancestors abjured their lawful sovereigns and moved to where you are now. But it is how we do things here, now. You stick with your customs and we'll stick with ours.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
Belle Ringer - we had prayer in schools up until the late 80s. I'm fairly sure it continued at my elementary school even after I left. By the early 90s I was above the Mason-Dixon line and it had transformed into a moment of silence.
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
saysay: quote:
It's not that hard. Someone in the meeting just has to take charge and be willing to cut people off if they start grandstanding.
Wow! I can just see the hoo-ra if a self-appointed chairperson decided to cut off a specific person's prayer in midstream because it was too controversial. Even the atheists would be annoyed.
You can be d*mn sure it would make the evening news.
Who said the chairperson (generally called a moderator) was self-appointed? (I suppose it is implied by saying someone should take charge but generally speaking the moderator is appointed).
I've seen two basic approaches: one is the 'let's try to keep prayers more to the I-pray-I'm-on-G-d's-side' rather than implying G-d is on our side,' interruption. The other is the 'oh yeah, preach it brother, we all know G-d's a Democrat/Republican' type comment.
IME there's been a lot less tolerance for that kind of conflation of religious and political grandstanding since Bush blatantly used people's religious beliefs to get us into a moronic war. Your experience may be different.
And everyone who ever attends public meetings knows that sometimes people get cut off, frequently simply for time.
quote:
You actually pledge allegiance to a flag? Is it male or female? Does it have a religious belief which is what we are talking about)?
I was explaining to cliffdweller how and why it seems normal to some people in my generation to pray after certain activities. I already know you hate everything about the US and our traditions.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
You actually pledge allegiance to a flag? Is it male or female? Does it have a religious belief which is what we are talking about)?
I was explaining to cliffdweller how and why it seems normal to some people in my generation to pray after certain activities. I already know you hate everything about the US and our traditions.
As an older American, it seems common. It's what I grew up with. It is not necessarily "normal" however, and certainly not always-- or even often-- helpful.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
Prayer in Schools was ruled a violation of the first amendment by the Supreme Court in 1962. The ruling was unpopular with many and was ignored or flouted for a long time. A moment of silence for personal prayer or meditation is under many circumstances considered constitutional. Since school attendance is largely involuntary, there's added requirements to not require state sponsored prayer which don't apply to voluntary assemblies.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Having to swear an oath on the NT was not what kept non-Christains from serving: there were laws in place to preent people who were non-Christians in the sense of being followers of other faiths from serving. then when those laws were changed the rules allowign non-Christain oaths followed as a matter of course. Where there was a big issue because of the oath was the Bradlaugh case. That is what led to the introduction of affirmation as an alternative. But note that Parliament has not abolished the oath and replaced it with affirmation for all, which is what would be consistent with the line that you are advocating: it retained the oath and added affirmation as an alternative for those who could not in conscience take it. And both Houses, btw, still begin each days' session with (Church of England) prayers. That's the way we do things. It's not the way you like to do things, which is presumably why your ancestors abjured their lawful sovereigns and moved to where you are now. But it is how we do things here, now. You stick with your customs and we'll stick with ours.
My ancestors didn't particularly have any lawful sovereigns to abjure, unless you want to count Napoleon III, the Kaiser or the Czar of Russia, none of whom have sovereign descendants. (The latter two did give my great grandmother some nice watches, which is probably why she went back but I digress...)
The point is not that every country should not have an established religion, but that even in places that do, the requirements on those not of the established faith usually change and wither. If atheism and agnosticism in the U.K. continue to grow, the Parliament will be faced with the edifying spectacle of conducting prayers for a group largely not members of the religion before they sit down and pass some brisk laws about the conduct of the established church. It does have an ironic overtone like the Christian celebration of Passover. Will there be a religious equivalent of the West Lothian question?
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Belle Ringer - we had prayer in schools up until the late 80s. I'm fairly sure it continued at my elementary school even after I left. By the early 90s I was above the Mason-Dixon line and it had transformed into a moment of silence.
Thanks for the info. I grew up north, school prayer was dead and gone by mid 60s. So I've been puzzled ever since moving to Texas why people harangue about how terrible it is to not have prayer in school, when the issue was decided two generations ago!
You've given me a better understanding of where some of my friends' peculiar complaints come from, why they talk about removal of prayers from schools as if it happened recently, and why they regard public equal treatment of Christians and others as "persecution of Christianity." They are used to a highly privileged position for Christianity as the norm.
Personally, from reading church history, seems that whenever Christianity becomes politically endorsed, it suffers watering down and distortion. That's good reason to NOT give Christianity unique privilege!
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Personally, from reading church history, seems that whenever Christianity becomes politically endorsed, it suffers watering down and distortion. That's good reason to NOT give Christianity unique privilege!
Absolutely true. Greg Boyd talks about this at length in his book The Myth of a Christian Nation. He points out that when we try to impose our faith from the "top down" (e.g. legislating it) we are using the "weapons of the world"-- manipulation, coercion, oppression-- what Boyd calls "power over." He shows how this always end up corrupting and damaging not just the society/culture but the church itself. Rather we are called to emulate Christ in using "the weapons or the Spirit"-- or exerting "power under"-- coming as a servant in love and finding our power and influence through that.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Having to swear an oath on the NT was not what kept non-Christains from serving: there were laws in place to preent people who were non-Christians in the sense of being followers of other faiths from serving. then when those laws were changed the rules allowign non-Christain oaths followed as a matter of course. Where there was a big issue because of the oath was the Bradlaugh case. That is what led to the introduction of affirmation as an alternative. But note that Parliament has not abolished the oath and replaced it with affirmation for all, which is what would be consistent with the line that you are advocating: it retained the oath and added affirmation as an alternative for those who could not in conscience take it. And both Houses, btw, still begin each days' session with (Church of England) prayers. That's the way we do things. It's not the way you like to do things, which is presumably why your ancestors abjured their lawful sovereigns and moved to where you are now. But it is how we do things here, now. You stick with your customs and we'll stick with ours.
My ancestors didn't particularly have any lawful sovereigns to abjure, unless you want to count Napoleon III, the Kaiser or the Czar of Russia, none of whom have sovereign descendants. (The latter two did give my great grandmother some nice watches, which is probably why she went back but I digress...)
The point is not that every country should not have an established religion, but that even in places that do, the requirements on those not of the established faith usually change and wither. If atheism and agnosticism in the U.K. continue to grow, the Parliament will be faced with the edifying spectacle of conducting prayers for a group largely not members of the religion before they sit down and pass some brisk laws about the conduct of the established church. It does have an ironic overtone like the Christian celebration of Passover. Will there be a religious equivalent of the West Lothian question?
Reached that point decades ago. Most people in the UK are agnostic, verging on atheist, IME, inasmuch as they don't actually sign up to full blown atheism on grounds of apathy, and our politicians naturally follow the same demographic. Religious belief and observance are a rarity in the UK; I'm a member of a cycling club with about 50 regular folks on the Sunday morning ride and I'm the only one I'm aware of who has to miss some rides because of Church.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
My ancestors didn't particularly have any lawful sovereigns to abjure, unless you want to count Napoleon III, the Kaiser or the Czar of Russia, none of whom have sovereign descendants.
Oh no, I don't think one could count Napoleon III as lawful, do you? I think my own preferences would be for the Orleanists, although even there I have doubts about legitimacy. Still, that's for the French to decide- none of my business. The Kaiser and the Czar, unsatisfactory though they were, were undoubtedly lawful (the Kaiser in Prussia, at least).
[ 04. February 2015, 09:45: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Cliffdweller:
quote:
He points out that when we try to impose our faith from the "top down" (e.g. legislating it) we are using the "weapons of the world"-- manipulation, coercion, oppression-- what Boyd calls "power over." He shows how this always end up corrupting and damaging not just the society/culture but the church itself. Rather we are called to emulate Christ in using "the weapons or the Spirit"-- or exerting "power under"-- coming as a servant in love and finding our power and influence through that.
Thank you. That would be the POV that I hold.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
]Oh no, I don't think one could count Napoleon III as lawful, do you? I think my own preferences would be for the Orleanists, although even there I have doubts about legitimacy. Still, that's for the French to decide- none of my business. The Kaiser and the Czar, unsatisfactory though they were, were undoubtedly lawful (the Kaiser in Prussia, at least).
I don't count them as sovereigns. Fleeing a country where the government encourages massacres for a more hospital country is not what I call "abjuring your sovereign".
I do note that while you believe that the French should decide and describe what is legitimate French government you do seem to feel entitled to characterize Americans as owing sovereignty to some European royalty. That's a very rare view in the United States.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0