homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Freedom from misplaced coercion (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Freedom from misplaced coercion
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649

 - Posted      Profile for Raptor Eye     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10

Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379

 - Posted      Profile for Belle Ringer   Email Belle Ringer   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
saysay

Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645

 - Posted      Profile for saysay   Email saysay   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."

Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772

 - Posted      Profile for Palimpsest   Email Palimpsest   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379

 - Posted      Profile for Belle Ringer   Email Belle Ringer   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649

 - Posted      Profile for Raptor Eye     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10

Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649

 - Posted      Profile for Raptor Eye     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10

Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379

 - Posted      Profile for Belle Ringer   Email Belle Ringer   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.)

Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772

 - Posted      Profile for Palimpsest   Email Palimpsest   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged
saysay

Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645

 - Posted      Profile for saysay   Email saysay   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."

Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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]

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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...***

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
saysay

Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645

 - Posted      Profile for saysay   Email saysay   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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. [Roll Eyes]
Right. That's why the legalization of gay marriage in so many states had so many clergy on the front lines.

--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."

Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379

 - Posted      Profile for Belle Ringer   Email Belle Ringer   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
well, clearly you are a godless commie. Good to know. [Biased]

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with 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)? 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.

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772

 - Posted      Profile for Palimpsest   Email Palimpsest   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
saysay

Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645

 - Posted      Profile for saysay   Email saysay   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."

Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772

 - Posted      Profile for Palimpsest   Email Palimpsest   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772

 - Posted      Profile for Palimpsest   Email Palimpsest   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379

 - Posted      Profile for Belle Ringer   Email Belle Ringer   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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!

Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290

 - Posted      Profile for Horseman Bree   Email Horseman Bree   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
It's Not That Simple

Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772

 - Posted      Profile for Palimpsest   Email Palimpsest   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[Biased]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools