next »

[bibliothecula]

When you ask someone to take a moment for prayer, you are assuming they pray.

I don't care if a newscaster says, "My prayers are with you." What I don't like is when someone says, "The prayers of everyone around the nation are with you." Or, "I'm sure everyone is praying for you."

Why should prayer be part of public discourse in any event? It is not so difficult to say "my/our thoughts are with you," but it makes a world of difference in terms of understanding the diversity of belief and non-belief that is present in the world.

[husqvarna]

I think it's difficult to find an appropriate way to address this, because while many in our society see prayer as a private issue, it has always been a very public action.  There simply has never been a time when prayer has been understood as only a matter of personal meditation- this is a modern myth- and I think this is why actions like drstones' are natural and perfectly acceptable, so long as one is careful of societal sensitivities.

[bibliothecula]

I am not arguing out of historical perspective, but out of the personal viewpoint that I do not want  and do not see any reason for prayer to be accepted as a natural part of the public sphere. And so, hvernon, I think we will have to agree to disagree.

[allbutfoundajob]

I don't care if a newscaster says, "My prayers are with you." What I don't like is when someone says, "The prayers of everyone around the nation are with you." Or, "I'm sure everyone is praying for you."

Why should prayer be part of public discourse in any event? It is not so difficult to say "my/our thoughts are with you," but it makes a world of difference in terms of understanding the diversity of belief and non-belief that is present in the world.

To me, thoughts are meaningless,  while prayers are active requests.  If heard a newscaster say our thoughts are with you, that would not signify that the newscaster understood diversity, as thoughts are not prayers.  I am not sure why you would prefer that newscasters omit the word prayer.

[husqvarna]

I am not arguing out of historical perspective, but out of the personal viewpoint that I do not want  and do not see any reason for prayer to be accepted as a natural part of the public sphere. And so, hvernon, I think we will have to agree to disagree.

Of course, and it's a given that people will disagree in a public sphere.  But we're not talking about your view or my view on the matter... we're talking about what, given that there will be disagreement on the matter, a professor is to do about a situation like this, and whether it is ever appropriate for the professor to "agree to disagree" with hu's students and bring up the boogeyman of prayer.  On this we also seem to disagree.  I just want to clarify that I might personally be offended by drstones' statement but still feel strongly about the fact that hu should be able to say something like that if hu feels it is appropriate, even though offensive to some.

[husqvarna]

Now that I'm reading your post again...

I am not arguing out of historical perspective, but out of the personal viewpoint that I do not want  and do not see any reason for prayer to be accepted as a natural part of the public sphere. And so, hvernon, I think we will have to agree to disagree.

I'd just like to clarify- I'm not arguing for prayer as "a natural part of the public sphere", that's why I said that as a general rule drstones' action would be inappropriate.  I am arguing that prayer is naturally a public action, or that it is natural for prayer to be public.  I think there's a difference between the two, and I think that's why it's so hard (maybe impossible?) to frame the issue in our current culture, which doesn't tend to appreciate that sort of nuance.  But no, I wasn't arguing that prayer should be a part, or is naturally a part, of the "public sphere".

[bibliothecula]

To me, thoughts are meaningless,  while prayers are active requests.  If heard a newscaster say our thoughts are with you, that would not signify that the newscaster understood diversity, as thoughts are not prayers.  I am not sure why you would prefer that newscasters omit the word prayer.

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.

[bibliothecula]

For further discussion on non-believers in the academy, please also see: http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,32067.0.html

My non-believing household is now going to go walk the dogs.

[prytania3]

To me, thoughts are meaningless,  while prayers are active requests.  If heard a newscaster say our thoughts are with you, that would not signify that the newscaster understood diversity, as thoughts are not prayers.  I am not sure why you would prefer that newscasters omit the word prayer.

Non-believers do not believe that requests made to a deity are rational.

What happened at Tech was not 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.

And that's what's important during all of this--NOT offending atheists. Forget that prayers may offer comfort to those poor families.

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.

No offense, but sometimes atheists are just a big pain in the ass.

[dolljepopp]

I believe in God.  I pray more days than not.  When visiting my SO, I attend services with her at her church.  If there were a regular gathering of folks who claim the faith from which I am lapsed that was geographically closer than a forty-five minute, 10-Euro train ride, I might even go on occasion.

I find public -- and by that I mean outside of a specific, private, religious gathering -- prayer to be awkward, embarrassing, maybe even, yes, offensive.

Whether you pray or don't, and what you may or may not say to your God/Goddess/Great Spirit/High Power/etc. is none of my business.  I don't want to hear about your sex life and I don't want to know about your relationship or non-relationship with the infinite or the finite.

That being said, as long as you don't insist that I join you in your observance or non-observance -- and by that I mean that we both keep silent doing or not doing whatever it is that we each do or don't do-- I can probably get past most moments of genuine compassion in which something is offered in language that perhaps would be more neutrally chosen in a less emotional moment.

[prof_viola]

Yes, "moment of silence" probably is best.  But drstones was responding like a compassionate human being to a terrible crisis that had just happened.  My hunch is that the context clarified that he was not trying to force students to their knees to pay homage to any particular creed.  It came out.  It was heartfelt.  I've found that most atheists I know wouldn't want to punish anyone for acting on heartfelt compassion. 

drstones, you spoke to my condition there. . . . and you make me wonder about something else, as well. I wonder if I'd have the presence of mind to react effectively in such a situation.  I know that in theory I'd take a bullet for my students.  God knows how I'd handle a real situation. 

[bibliothecula]

Pry and Dolljepopp, I'm not insisting on anyone's observance or non-observance, and I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass. What I'm saying is that I think drstones' suggesting prayer in class was inappropriate, and that newscasters should keep references to belief out of their commentaries. If you personally want to tell people you're praying for them, by all means do so. Just don't include others or assume everyone feels the same.

[husqvarna]

  It came out.  It was heartfelt.  I've found that most atheists I know wouldn't want to punish anyone for acting on heartfelt compassion. 

This is what I don't understand about the comments of some atheists on this thread.  Thank you for bringing it back to this- the heart of the matter- after I took it in a more societal direction.  My hunch is that even someone who disagrees with drstones' action in the context of a forum post might very well be touched if they were in the classroom.  I think theoretical atheism is what tends to be opposed to these things, because this level of atheism, just like religion discussed on a theoretical level, can easily dehumanize a situation.  What came out in drstones' action was the human act of caring, whatever the consequences.  

[dundee]

bibliothecula,

I'm with you on this issue. As a resident of the U.S. who sits on the fence between atheism and agnosticism, I am tired of the media and others assuming and speaking as if ALL residents of the U.S. believe in some kind of deity. 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.

[neutralname]

Pry and Dolljepopp, I'm not insisting on anyone's observance or non-observance, and I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass. What I'm saying is that I think drstones' suggesting prayer in class was inappropriate, and that newscasters should keep references to belief out of their commentaries. If you personally want to tell people you're praying for them, by all means do so. Just don't include others or assume everyone feels the same.

Well said.  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.