next »

[infopri]

Before people start generalizing about all atheists...

With all due respect to bibliothecula, I have no problem with newscasters who say "the prayers of the American people" are with you, even though I do not believe there is anyone listening to the prayers.  I respect that many, many people do believe there is a Listener.  The newscasters are obviously making a generalization--and it's a fact that there are more people in this country who pray (at least on occasion) than those who never do.  I do feel marginalized when "comfort" is offered in terms of a Deity (e.g., "God's plan," etc.).  One or two of the speeches at the VT convocation come to mind, for example.  Such "explanations" do not comfort me at all and make me somewhat uncomfortable, especially coming from our President and other politicians.

That said, there is a difference between prayer and "thoughts."  As an atheist, I find myself unable to say with sincerity, "My prayers are with you" because I have no prayers--but in circumstances such as these, "My thoughts are with you" sometimes feels inadequate, especially when the person being sympathized with does believe.

P.S.  When my beloved cat Jake was in her final days, many wonderful people on these fora posted messages and/or sent me PMs offering their prayers.  Again, because I know they believe in prayer and were sincere, those prayers meant the world to me.  It didn't matter that I don't share their beliefs.

[bibliothecula]

I have to say that I'm just really impressed with how civil we all are!

[husqvarna]

As a resident of the U.S. who sits on the fence between atheism and agnosticism,

Sorry, this is just a side comment... but isn't sitting on the fence agnosticism by definition?

[allbutfoundajob]

Non-believers do not believe that requests made to a deity are rational. They do not believe in deities or supernatural beings of any kind. When someone on the news says that "the prayers of the American people are with the victims," it is offensive to non-believers, who are certainly part of the American people and who do not want to be confused with those out there who harbor beliefs in supernatural beings. A newscaster who carefully omitted the idea of prayer would likely be someone who understands that his or her viewing audience is diverse in its religious belief and non-belief.

So the way to understand and respect diversity of religious belief is by pretending that no one is religious?  Why do you think it is acceptable for a newscaster to say "thought" and omit "prayer" but not acceptable for a newcaster to say "prayer" but omit "thought?"

[husqvarna]

While many Americans would like to think that everyone in the country is Christian or should be Christian, it's simply not true, of course. It's not acceptable to act as if African-Americans, Muslims, Native Americans, Asian Americans, etc. do not exist, so it should also not be acceptable to act as if nonbelievers do not exist.

It's fine that people want to express concern, show their sympathy, mourn losses.  It's fine for them to follow their own religious practices.  But don't assume that just because it is a particularly terrible event that it then becomes permissible to assume what my religious views should be, or what your students' beliefs should be.

I want to be sensitive to all posters, but I'm still at a loss to understand how this has anything to do with the situation.  Maybe drstones will get back on and clarify, but I saw nothing to suggest that hu assumed anything about anyone's beliefs, or forced any beliefs or actions upon anyone.  The only thing that was forced was provision of space for prayer to occur, which is no more oppressive or offensive than any other time a professor might ask hu's class to shut up for a second.  As I've said, and I think as everyone has said who has slightly taken drstones' side, this would not be appropriate in general because it would begin to assume certain things about the nature of the public sphrere.  But on an occasion like this, I just don't see how these worries are at all justified.

[dundee]

hvernon,

You're right, of course. I want to say I'm an atheist, but I'd be lying if I said I was 100% sure that there is no deity. However, I'm 99% sure.

[neutralname]

I only teach on Mondays, back-to-back sections of senior seminar.  Last night, for the second class, for no reason, I asked my class to start with a moment of prayer for the brothers and sisters they lost at VTech.

It's fine that people want to express concern, show their sympathy, mourn losses.  It's fine for them to follow their own religious practices.  But don't assume that just because it is a particularly terrible event that it then becomes permissible to assume what my religious views should be, or what your students' beliefs should be.

I want to be sensitive to all posters, but I'm still at a loss to understand how this has anything to do with the situation.  Maybe drstones will get back on and clarify, but I saw nothing to suggest that hu assumed anything about anyone's beliefs, or forced any beliefs or actions upon anyone.  The only thing that was forced was provision of space for prayer to occur, which is no more oppressive or offensive than any other time a professor might ask hu's class to shut up for a second.  As I've said, and I think as everyone has said who has slightly taken drstones' side, this would not be appropriate in general because it would begin to assume certain things about the nature of the public sphrere.  But on an occasion like this, I just don't see how these worries are at all justified.

Drstones started off saying that hu intentionally violated school policy against prayer in class.  Hu asked students to pray.  Praying is a religious activity.  There were probably students who were non-believers in the class.

My point is that that to choose moments of national crisis or at particularly upsetting events to say that it is okay to violate class rules about no prayer is no justification of rule breaking.  It gives a strong message that when it matters, we can assume people are religious, and the rest of the time, we just give lip service to freedom of (non)-belief.

[trabb]

Were I a student in drstones' class, I would have been personally offended that someone was trying to impart his/her gestures of believe on me. As someone watching the news, I find it offensive that reporters would so blindly assume that their audiences are comprised exclusively of individuals who believe in any kind of religion and who pray.

These seem to me to be two very different things.  If you were a student in that class, I might be sympathetic to your concerns.  Even as someone who is deeply committed to my religious beliefs, I am open to the idea that any enforced (or even requested) display of belief in a publicly funded university is questionable.  (I hope that was vague enough not be passing judgment on drstones - I'm really rather torn on the issue.) 

I'm far, far less sympathetic to your claims of being offended by the newscasters appeal to a collective sense of belief.  They're appealing to - and speaking for - their broadest audience, and I can't for the life of me imagine why they should censor themselves to avoid offending a non-religious minority audience.  I may be woefully ignorant of how network and cable news operations run, but are they not a for-profit venture?  If so, vote with your remote and try to convince others to do the same.  If public calls to prayer start to cost the networks, they'll stop.  We saw a similar case just last week, didn't we?

I guess when it comes down to it, I can support your right to be offended by prayer in a public university, and I probably could be persuaded that that kind of speech should not be allowed.  When it comes to newscasts, I only support your right to be offended unless you can show me that real damage is being done by the newscasters speech (other than to your personal feelings).

[neutralname]

As far as the newscasters goes, I guess it depends on what you see their role as.  But it is pretty clear that the news divisions of cable and network news are there to make money for their corporations, so everything they do is aimed at maximizing numbers of viewers and getting advertising revenue.  Maybe a few individuals they employ have their own personal standards, but the corporations care only about money.

I haven't watched a TV news broadcast about the shootings since they happened, and I don't intend to.  I get the information from other sources that command more trust.

[infopri]

As I've said, and I think as everyone has said who has slightly taken drstones' side, this would not be appropriate in general because it would begin to assume certain things about the nature of the public sphrere.  But on an occasion like this, I just don't see how these worries are at all justified.

I have to agree.  As I said in my first post on this thread, yesterday's events were so horrific that it's understandable that people think in terms of offering prayers.

My point is that that to choose moments of national crisis or at particularly upsetting events to say that it is okay to violate class rules about no prayer is no justification of rule breaking.  It gives a strong message that when it matters, we can assume people are religious, and the rest of the time, we just give lip service to freedom of (non)-belief.

First, many people who do not normally consider themselves religious do in fact turn to prayer in moments of national crisis or at particularly upsetting events.  You and I may not be among them, but they exist.  Second, let's give drstones a little break:  The name of the thread acknowledges the departure from policy, which, together with the drstones's original post, I read to mean that drstones knows that it was inappropriate to ask the students to pray; I suspect that the good doctor was caught up in emotion, as we all are.

I don't think drstones would have started this thread unless he or she was feeling some ambivalence or regret.  I didn't read the post as a boast of a good deed, but rather as an admission of doing something inappropriate but heartfelt.  I assume drstones would never ordinarily suggest that students pray in class.

We atheists may not believe in a Deity or an afterlife, but we still need to show forgiveness.

[husqvarna]

I agree with infopri.  drstones did not seem to be justifying rule-breaking, at most hu was justifying hu's particular decision to break the rule while recognizing that "rule-breaking" itself is inappropriate (I feel like a kindergarten teacher talking to my class about do's and don't's!)

My point is that that to choose moments of national crisis or at particularly upsetting events to say that it is okay to violate class rules about no prayer is no justification of rule breaking.  It gives a strong message that when it matters, we can assume people are religious, and the rest of the time, we just give lip service to freedom of (non)-belief.

I'm still not seeing how people are jumping to the conclusion of neutralname's last sentence.  I don't think drstones assumed or demanded anything about the religious demographics of hu's class... hu cared about the VTech students and professors.  This has nothing to do with freedom of belief, either! 


As much as we talk about the danger of fundamentalists in our post-9/11 world, I think what's just as dangerous is hyper-sensitivity in "tolerant" societies.  If we are so on-edge and ready to cry "persecution" (writ small as "offensiveness" on this thread) at something like this, how do we expect to address marginalization- perceived or actual- in a peaceful manner?

[neutralname]

Infopri, drstones wasn't asking for forgiveness.  I certainly didn't see any ambivalence in the post.  Hu wrote:

Public university, probably violated several policies, but I really could give a rat's ass. 

I give a rat's ass.  I realize drstones just cared about the suffering of those who had lost loved ones and those who had died.  I certainly don't think drstones did a terrible thing.  But as I've been saying, it's at times of crisis and tragedy that we show what our most highest priorities are.  Drstones showed at the time, and said in the original post, that hu didn't care about the policies. 

[dr_stones]

Thanks for all the thoughtful feedback. 

[infopri]

Infopri, drstones wasn't asking for forgiveness.  I certainly didn't see any ambivalence in the post.  Hu wrote:

Public university, probably violated several policies, but I really could give a rat's ass. 

I give a rat's ass.  I realize drstones just cared about the suffering of those who had lost loved ones and those who had died.  I certainly don't think drstones did a terrible thing.  But as I've been saying, it's at times of crisis and tragedy that we show what our most highest priorities are.  Drstones showed at the time, and said in the original post, that hu didn't care about the policies. 

Okay, I will concede this point; you are right.  I somehow missed or forgot the second paragraph in the original post.  Thank you for pointing it out.  And, as I said up front (in my first post), I would have been more comfortable had drstones used the phrase "moment of silence" (or something similar).  But I'm still willing to forgive, if drstones promises never to do it again.

And I stand by everything else I said.

[scienceprof]

I think drstones heart wasa in the right place.  But asking for a moment of silence would have been more appropriate at a public university.

I also think that it is fine for newscasters to say things like "everyone's prayers are with you", because we all understand that it doesn't literally mean EVERYONE, it just means a lot of people.  (Or before reading this thread, I thought we all understood that).

It would also come out weird if the newscasters said "everyone's prayers are with you, except of course for the atheists, who are not praying for you", don't you think?