Do you really think you are helping anyone?

[ChristineES]

i was not calling you a racist...
i was only comparing your idea with the mob mentality of racism...
it's not right.

That's true, you didn't call me a racist. You compared my points to something that is bigoted. I just don't see how prayer at a graduation compares to "white's only" drinking fountains. I doubt I will ever understand it. But this debate has come to a close for me, let's just end it now before it gets ugly. We think differently and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[waitasec]

That's true, you didn't call me a racist. You compared my points to something that is bigoted. I just don't see how prayer at a graduation compares to "white's only" drinking fountains. I doubt I will ever understand it. But this debate has come to a close for me, let's just end it now before it gets ugly. We think differently and there is nothing wrong with that.

:flower2:

 

[blackout]

I personally am far more bothered by the pledge of allegiance,
and the national anthem,
and the whole hand on your heart thing,
than religious people chanting some prayer or another of their own.
I figure, if it is a public or government venue,
if you don't like their little prayer,
you can always recite, invoke, pray, whatever
something of your own, out loud, at the same time.
Could be your favorite poem,
or an invocation, or a "suggestion" to the universe,
or a prayer to your own favored deity/deities.
Lets every individual just do Their Own thing out loud at the same time.
If you're not given a turn of your own? Make it a free for all.
or Turn your back and raise up your arms to the god of protest?
Do something like that during the pledge though.... and watch out.
no. really.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Mob mentality? Is that how you see it?? If 100 people are in a room and 98 want something that the other 2 don't want, you think they should just not do it because they may offend those 2? I am sorry, I just don't agree with that kind of thinking. I do have feelings for those 2, but the 98 have rights too. Or do you think only the minority of a group should have rights?

In your own church, or in an otherwise private setting (i.e. a wedding ceremony held in a location that's not a church), then the majority rules... the two "others" knew what they were getting themselves into, and they just have to deal with it.

In a public audience (i.e. graduation, sporting event), you cater to the lowest common denominator. If that means foregoing prayer at that particular event altogether, then so be it.

Offering a sectarian prayer for a public audience whose members may very well not share your faith is inappropriate. If I go to a high school football game, I'm there to see high school kids play football. Not to go to church.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Most people living in the United States are theists. The majority of those theists are Christians. That may change, but for now that's how it is.

If I lived in Japan (which, in fact, I did) it would be petty of me to get offended whenever an official expressed a Shinto belief at a public event, or if I had to go to a Shinto shrine on a school trip (a very common practice). Would my rights be infringed? Should I become "righteously indignant?" Or should I be tolerant and respectful of the beliefs of others?

By the way, as for the Lord's Prayer, or any other prayer, at any sort of public school graduation, those must be led by STUDENTS, not faculty. At graduation ceremonies, it's not about you. It's about the students.

I disagree. I'm not American, but I am Canadian and Canada is a majority Christian country as well. If Christian people want to publicly pray and go to church and do their religious ceremonies and activities, have at it, Hoss. It's a free country and they should be unrestricted in that.

The problem arises when a government, publicly-funded institution forces other people to engage in religious ceremonies. I was born and raised in Ontario and my Catholic parents forced me to go to a Catholic school despite my atheism. Catholic schools are publicly-funded in Ontario. I was forced to take religion classes and learn about other religions (only in my grade 12 year, the rest was all about Catholicism). I saw it as more of a waste of time, but I didn't even mind that so much. It was an experience, I guess. They were easy classes.

The problem was when we had masses at the school - they'd invite a priest or the bishop to come in and conduct a mass. Now, the Catholic schools in this city perform better than the public, non-religious schools so a lot of non-Catholics send their kids there so they get a better education. There were a lot of non-Catholics there and taking part in these religious ceremonies was MANDATORY.

Of course, being in high school, we tried skipping these masses. The teachers would hunt us down and give us detentions for not going to mass. We were punished for not taking part in a religious ceremony. Now, I understand you're a Christian and that's fine, but put yourself in our shoes. You want your kid to get a good education, so you send him to a good school. That publicly-funded school then imposes their different religion upon your kid. How would you react?

Now sitting still for an hour, listening to some boring old man grumble on about nonsense, isn't exactly like getting waterboarded. I understand that. But it's the principle of a state, publicly-funded institution forcing students to take part in religious ceremonies or face penalties. We shouldn't have to settle for a worse education just to avoid having Christianity imposed on us.

If students want to pray in school, they shouldn't have any restrictions on that. If I DON'T want to pray in school, I shouldn't be punished for it.

 

[Kathryn]

I disagree. I'm not American, but I am Canadian and Canada is a majority Christian country as well. If Christian people want to publicly pray and go to church and do their religious ceremonies and activities, have at it, Hoss. It's a free country and they should be unrestricted in that.

The problem arises when a government, publicly-funded institution forces other people to engage in religious ceremonies. I was born and raised in Ontario and my Catholic parents forced me to go to a Catholic school despite my atheism. Catholic schools are publicly-funded in Ontario. I was forced to take religion classes and learn about other religions (only in my grade 12 year, the rest was all about Catholicism). I saw it as more of a waste of time, but I didn't even mind that so much. It was an experience, I guess. They were easy classes.

The problem was when we had masses at the school - they'd invite a priest or the bishop to come in and conduct a mass. Now, the Catholic schools in this city perform better than the public, non-religious schools so a lot of non-Catholics send their kids there so they get a better education. There were a lot of non-Catholics there and taking part in these religious ceremonies was MANDATORY.

Of course, being in high school, we tried skipping these masses. The teachers would hunt us down and give us detentions for not going to mass. We were punished for not taking part in a religious ceremony. Now, I understand you're a Christian and that's fine, but put yourself in our shoes. You want your kid to get a good education, so you send him to a good school. That publicly-funded school then imposes their different religion upon your kid. How would you react?

Now sitting still for an hour, listening to some boring old man grumble on about nonsense, isn't exactly like getting waterboarded. I understand that. But it's the principle of a state, publicly-funded institution forcing students to take part in religious ceremonies or face penalties. We shouldn't have to settle for a worse education just to avoid having Christianity imposed on us.

If students want to pray in school, they shouldn't have any restrictions on that. If I DON'T want to pray in school, I shouldn't be punished for it.

I'm a US citizen and I was speaking from that perspective. What you are describing would be illegal in a US public school - and well it should be in my opinion.

But student led and student instigated prayers are NOT illegal in public schools, and I am personally fine with that. No one is forced to join in. But the idea that someone is harmed in some way by listening to someone else pray for 30 seconds once in a blue moon seems sort of whiny, and frankly, petty to me.

Like UV pointed out, kids are subjected to the pledge of allegiance every single day, led by a teacher, and that would be a lot harder to stand up against than the very occasional student led prayer.

I wonder, waitasec, are you offended when a student speaker at a graduation talks about their faith? Why or why not?

Honestly, I don't get this "I'm so offended by a prayer" thing. I know it's an overused statement but it does bear repeating at this point - you're guaranteed freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Are you offended when you get Christmas Day off as a paid holiday? Are you offended by Christmas carols in public places?

A few years ago I worked with a Muslim girl. In fact, she worked with me when 9/11 went down. Now, our office had 8 employees at the time and we were all actively religious, including her (the rest were Christians). When she observed Ramadan, we all were right there with her - in fact, those of us who brought our lunch to work quit doing so because we didn't want to eat in front of her or fill the break room up with the scents of food or cooking. Some people even brought special foods or desserts for her to take to her family for their evening meal. Likewise, she brought Christmas desserts and candy for us and for our customers during the Christmas season. When we went caroling to some of our customers' locations, she went right along with us voluntarily, singing Christmas carols. I remember fondly many discussions about religion between her and the rest of the staff, because she and her family were very active religiously and it was very interesting to us. We loved her and would have defended her strongly against anyone who exhibited any prejudice toward her after 9/11.

When we had staff meetings which included meals (a pretty common event because we worked long hours) we would pray before the meal, and she prayed along with us. Sometimes she led the prayer.

Later, our staff included a non religious person. In spite of her agnostic beliefs, she was always gracious during our prayers or discussions about religion. We did not suspend our prayer before group meals when she joined our staff, and she never seemed offended during those prayers either.

That's the way it should be in my opinion. Like my earlier example of life in Japan - when I was the religious minority, it honestly never occurred to me to be offended by the expression of Shinto beliefs. It never OCCURRED to me because I respected the rights of the Japanese people and culture.

Respect goes both ways.

 

[waitasec]

I personally am far more bothered by the pledge of allegiance,
and the national anthem,
and the whole hand on your heart thing,
than religious people chanting some prayer or another of their own.
I figure, if it is a public or government venue,
if you don't like their little prayer,
you can always recite, invoke, pray, whatever
something of your own, out loud, at the same time.
Could be your favorite poem,
or an invocation, or a "suggestion" to the universe,
or a prayer to your own favored deity/deities.
Lets every individual just do Their Own thing out loud at the same time.
If you're not given a turn of your own? Make it a free for all.
or Turn your back and raise up your arms to the god of protest?
Do something like that during the pledge though.... and watch out.
no. really.

i see what you mean
but by simply doing that separates you...from them
it's the insistence of involving religion where religion has no place.
think about it, it was a graduation ceremony which should be the focus not the prayer...and the prayer is what separated people, otherwise, people would have been unified for the purpose of the graduation.

 

[waitasec]

In your own church, or in an otherwise private setting (i.e. a wedding ceremony held in a location that's not a church), then the majority rules... the two "others" knew what they were getting themselves into, and they just have to deal with it.

In a public audience (i.e. graduation, sporting event), you cater to the lowest common denominator. If that means foregoing prayer at that particular event altogether, then so be it.

Offering a sectarian prayer for a public audience whose members may very well not share your faith is inappropriate. If I go to a high school football game, I'm there to see high school kids play football. Not to go to church.

i fully agree...
the purpose for public events is to unify not separate.

 

[blackout]

i see what you mean
but by simply doing that separates you...from them
it's the insistence of involving religion where religion has no place.
think about it, it was a graduation ceremony which should be the focus not the prayer...and the prayer is what separated people, otherwise, people would have been unified for the purpose of the graduation.

I agree.
Religious PRACTICE really has no place
at a non religious event,
where people have gathered
for some other unified reason.

I feel the same way about patriotic PRACTICE
at non-political events,
where people have gathered
for some other unified reason.

If there is a key note speaker,
however, I see no reason why they cannot
mention their own faith
while telling their RELEVANT story.
If the valadictorian is speaking partially
of his or her own journey as a student
and that journey included some religion, god, philosophy or another,
I see no reason why that cannot be mentioned,
as it is a PERSONAL story.
To force their own personal PRACTICE on everyone though,
simply because they were the one with the highest grades,
is dis-unifying, disrespectful, opportunistic, and irrelavent.
That's why I suggested the things I did
in the other post.
That way, at least people are unified in their disunity.

 

[waitasec]

I agree.
Religious PRACTICE really has no place
at a non religious event,
where people have gathered
for some other unified reason.

I feel the same way about patriotic PRACTICE
at non-political events,
where people have gathered
for some other unified reason.

If there is a key note speaker,
however, I see no reason why they cannot
mention their own faith
while telling their RELEVANT story.
If the valadictorian is speaking partially
of his or her own journey as a student
and that journey included some religion, god, philosophy or another,
I see no reason why that cannot be mentioned,
as it is a PERSONAL story.
To force their own personal PRACTICE on everyone though,
is dis-unifying, and disrespectful.
That's why I suggested the things I did
in the other post.
That way, at least people are unified in their disunity.

i love it
unified in their disunity...brilliant!
absolutely....
there is a time and place for everything...
it's the OCD in me...

 

[waitasec]

But the idea that someone is harmed in some way by listening to someone else pray for 30 seconds once in a blue moon seems sort of whiny, and frankly, petty to me.

but at the same time kathryn, this isn't the only time when religion is forced on anyone...it's one of the many other ways religion seeks to infiltrate our lives...
sure, if this was the only thing to complain about, i would agree... but it's not

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've been away for a few days, so I'm a bit late to the party...

How is it at all arrogant to think you have an answer, perhaps if you believe others cannot understand it, but just the thought of having an answer in and of itself? Is it arrogant to tell a flat-earther that the world is an oblate spheroid?

I don't think that's a fair analogy.

IMO, the correctness or incorrectness of a religion isn't such an obvious, straightforward, factual matter as looking to see whether the Earth is flat or round.

I could put together some simple experiments that could demonstrate to a flat-earther that the Earth really is round. OTOH, you wouldn't be able to do the same to show the correctness of your religion to me; I mean, you wouldn't be able to set up a telescope in the backyard and have me look through it to see both God and the "I (heart) Catholics" lapel pin he's wearing, would you?

Could you demonstrate that your religion is correct as easily as I can demonstrate that the Earth is round? Could you actually demonstrate that your religion is correct, period?

Since I don't think that religious choice is based on factual determinations, I think it's more a matter of personal, aesthetic preference... and in that regard, yes, proselytizing is arrogant. It'd be the same sort of arrogance as coming to my door and telling me that I listen to the wrong kind of music.

We ALL believe what we believe because we think it's true - and therefore, we think that others who do not believe as we do hold untrue ideas as truth - and therefore they are wrong and we are right. Whether we admit that or not, that's what our strong beliefs imply. So - call that arrogance if you will, but if that's the right word for it, we're all arrogant.

I think that's a bit simplistic. For factual matters, sure: thinking "I'm right" implies "you're wrong" if we disagree. However, factual opinions, if they're worth anything at all, can be defended: they're based in fact, so we can provide those facts if need be.

OTOH, aesthetic preferences don't have to be based in fact. They don't need to be defended... but they also aren't mutually exclusive: my opinion that Eric Clapton is the best guitarist alive today doesn't mean that you're "wrong" if you think that it's really Mark Knopfler.

In your own church, or in an otherwise private setting (i.e. a wedding ceremony held in a location that's not a church), then the majority rules... the two "others" knew what they were getting themselves into, and they just have to deal with it.

In a public audience (i.e. graduation, sporting event), you cater to the lowest common denominator. If that means foregoing prayer at that particular event altogether, then so be it.

Offering a sectarian prayer for a public audience whose members may very well not share your faith is inappropriate. If I go to a high school football game, I'm there to see high school kids play football. Not to go to church.

I agree. I'm an auto racing nut, and one of my pet peeves is how religion pervades many forms of the sport.

I've known drivers who will cross themselves or say a quick prayer before a race... and that's fine. But I think that minister-led (because it's invariably a Protestant minister) invocations only serve to exclude those who don't believe in what's being preached.

I used to bow my head at those sorts of things as to not stand out; now, I keep my head raised and actually hope that people will see that I'm refusing to participate in what's going on.

That's the way it should be in my opinion. Like my earlier example of life in Japan - when I was the religious minority, it honestly never occurred to me to be offended by the expression of Shinto beliefs. It never OCCURRED to me because I respected the rights of the Japanese people and culture.

Respect goes both ways.

As I've mentioned before, I come from a long line of Belfast Orangemen. My religious tradition isn't just a particular faith, but outright antagonism to other faiths, Catholicism in particular.

And speaking of Orangemen, at one time, the Province of Ontario was effectively run by the Orange Order. The province was a Protestant playground. Catholics couldn't be elected to office. Until even the 1920s and 1930s, some public parks in Toronto had "gentiles only" signs on their gates.

I've chosen to reject all of that. I want nothing to do with sectarianism or the divisiveness that often results when religion pervades public life. Would you prefer that I take up the tradition of my ancestors? If so, I think that would be a lot less pleasant for many of the people of faith who complain about secularism.

If you're arguing for something else, i.e. that all religions should have a place in public life and government, then you should realize that this is something brand new that has never really existed. In general, religious societies are ones where the denomination in power is free, but other denominations are repressed. I think the only way to avoid this is to ensure that no religion is granted a position of power or status.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

but at the same time kathryn, this isn't the only time when religion is forced on anyone...it's one of the many other ways religion seeks to infiltrate our lives...
sure, if this was the only thing to complain about, i would agree... but it's not

I wonder if she'd be as dismissive if she had to hear someone talk about the non-existence of God every time she had a family meal or went to participate in her pastime. I think that sometimes, people don't recognize exclusionary behaviour until they're the ones being excluded.

 

[waitasec]

I wonder if she'd be as dismissive if she had to hear someone talk about the non-existence of God every time she had a family meal or went to participate in her pastime. I think that sometimes, people don't recognize exclusionary behaviour until they're the ones being excluded.

i was just thinking of how many ways this exclusionary behavior is manifested
especially in the US..i understand you live in canada...so i can only speak from my perspective.
it's on our money
our pledge of allegiance
even our school holidays revolve around the christian tradition...
like christmas and easter?
"i promise to tell the truth and nothing but the truth so help me god"
as if this oath makes a persons word more valid...
it is ingrained in many aspects of our daily lives thereby solidifying the justification for it.
and because 8 out of 10 people adhere to these things it justifies the notion that it is normal not realizing it is exclusionary....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's on our money, too, but many people don't realize it because it's in Latin and it's abbreviated. Around the image of the Queen, the inscription on the head of all our coins reads "D. G. REGINA", which stands for "Dei Gratia Regina", meaning "By the grace of God, Queen".

And our Charter of Rights and Freedoms (our equivalent to your Bill of Rights, roughly) begins with "Whereas Canada is founded upon the supremacy of God and the rule of law..."

Edit - There's a fair bit of religious nonsense in our national anthem, too... especially the French version: "car ton bras se portait l'epee/Il sait porter la croix"... "As your arm has carried the sword/so it carries the cross"; "Et ta valeur, de foi trempée/Protégera nos foyers et nos droits."... "And your valour, steeped in faith/Will protect our homes and our rights."

 

[Willamena]

Sky dancer, I'm afraid you have misjudged. Kathryn is asking you a simple question: how can you believe that all religions are as valid as each other while they can have such opposite beliefs?

Because they can have similar, or even identical, beliefs as well.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I'm a US citizen and I was speaking from that perspective. What you are describing would be illegal in a US public school - and well it should be in my opinion.

But student led and student instigated prayers are NOT illegal in public schools, and I am personally fine with that. No one is forced to join in. But the idea that someone is harmed in some way by listening to someone else pray for 30 seconds once in a blue moon seems sort of whiny, and frankly, petty to me.

Like UV pointed out, kids are subjected to the pledge of allegiance every single day, led by a teacher, and that would be a lot harder to stand up against than the very occasional student led prayer.

I wonder, waitasec, are you offended when a student speaker at a graduation talks about their faith? Why or why not?

Honestly, I don't get this "I'm so offended by a prayer" thing. I know it's an overused statement but it does bear repeating at this point - you're guaranteed freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Are you offended when you get Christmas Day off as a paid holiday? Are you offended by Christmas carols in public places?

A few years ago I worked with a Muslim girl. In fact, she worked with me when 9/11 went down. Now, our office had 8 employees at the time and we were all actively religious, including her (the rest were Christians). When she observed Ramadan, we all were right there with her - in fact, those of us who brought our lunch to work quit doing so because we didn't want to eat in front of her or fill the break room up with the scents of food or cooking. Some people even brought special foods or desserts for her to take to her family for their evening meal. Likewise, she brought Christmas desserts and candy for us and for our customers during the Christmas season. When we went caroling to some of our customers' locations, she went right along with us voluntarily, singing Christmas carols. I remember fondly many discussions about religion between her and the rest of the staff, because she and her family were very active religiously and it was very interesting to us. We loved her and would have defended her strongly against anyone who exhibited any prejudice toward her after 9/11.

When we had staff meetings which included meals (a pretty common event because we worked long hours) we would pray before the meal, and she prayed along with us. Sometimes she led the prayer.

Later, our staff included a non religious person. In spite of her agnostic beliefs, she was always gracious during our prayers or discussions about religion. We did not suspend our prayer before group meals when she joined our staff, and she never seemed offended during those prayers either.

That's the way it should be in my opinion. Like my earlier example of life in Japan - when I was the religious minority, it honestly never occurred to me to be offended by the expression of Shinto beliefs. It never OCCURRED to me because I respected the rights of the Japanese people and culture.

Respect goes both ways.

I understand. What I described before is legal here because we don't have official separation of church and state. Our head of state (Queen Elizabeth II) is also head of the Church of England. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of religious expression, though. The distinction is, in practice, our society is very secular while in theory, it's not. There is huge opposition to publicly funded Catholic schools, especially ones that force people to take part in religious ceremonies.

In the example of the workplace you mentioned, that's awesome. There should be no compulsion to engage anyone else in religious ceremonies who doesn't want to partake in them. We shouldn't need old pieces of paper to tell us that's how we should live. If you want to pray wherever, I have no problem with that. I'm atheist, so I obviously disagree with your views, but Canada and the US are supposedly free countries, so have at it. You don't need my permission to pray, just as I shouldn't need anyone else's permission not to pray.

It's all about respect for others and I'm glad you see it that way too.

 

[Kathryn]

I wonder if she'd be as dismissive if she had to hear someone talk about the non-existence of God every time she had a family meal or went to participate in her pastime. I think that sometimes, people don't recognize exclusionary behaviour until they're the ones being excluded.

If it bothered me, I wouldn't voluntarily hang out in RF so much of the time!

As for it being mentioned at my favorite pasttime - they can have at it. If enough people are offended, the pasttime will be affected, as well as the probable economic consequences of such pasttime.

That's called freedom of speech and free enterprise - two concepts that I support whole heartedly.

 

[Kathryn]

i was just thinking of how many ways this exclusionary behavior is manifested
especially in the US..i understand you live in canada...so i can only speak from my perspective.
it's on our money
our pledge of allegiance
even our school holidays revolve around the christian tradition...
like christmas and easter?
"i promise to tell the truth and nothing but the truth so help me god"
as if this oath makes a persons word more valid...
it is ingrained in many aspects of our daily lives thereby solidifying the justification for it.
and because 8 out of 10 people adhere to these things it justifies the notion that it is normal not realizing it is exclusionary....

I don't know where you live but through five kids in public schools, spring break and Easter have NEVER lined up. As for Christmas break - you want to dismantle a winter holiday that also lines up with so many other traditions?

I believe that you can refrain from saying all or part of the pledge. I know that if you are in a court of law you are not required to use a bible to swear upon. There are many, many ways in which non religious people's rights are protected.

However, since 8 out of 10 people in the US are religious, I think it's a bit unrealistic to expect to live a life free of any religious influence.

 

[darkendless]

However, since 8 out of 10 people in the US are religious, I think it's a bit unrealistic to expect to live a life free of any religious influence.

I wouldn't have thought it would be unreasonable though. You Yanks are very good at making a big song and dance out of separation of church and state but it doesnt appear to work so well in practice.

I sometimes feel freedom of religion and freedom from religion should be one in the same to cater for all beliefs given that many people consider non-belief a belief in itself. When I have kids I will be ensuring they are free from indoctrination until they're of sufficient age.