Do you really think you are helping anyone?

[Kathryn]

I agree.
I mean the whole "it is only 30 seconds" argument would also go both ways, right?

If it is only thirty seconds, why not offer a moment of silence that lasts 60 seconds?
Then each person can say their own prayer, if applicable.

I don't have a problem with this. I also don't have a problem with someone from a different religion leading a prayer in their own style.

But then...I'm a very tolerant person.

 

[Kathryn]

I think it would depend how it was presented and how it came about. If it was genuinely out of a desire for reflection, then it might be okay. If it was something that came out of a spirit of "well, since we aren't allowed to have a full-blown prayer here any more, let's have something that's as close to prayer as we can get away with without getting in trouble", then I would still have a problem with it.


Here's the thing: would we even be talking about having a "moment of silence" in a public event if not for the tradition of prayer in these sorts of circumstances?

I think I've already explained why it's inappropriate for a public event to set aside time for your prayer; I think it's also a waste of everyone's time to set aside time for me to think about my grocery list. Whatever we're gathered together for, be it a public meeting, a sporting event, a graduation or whatever, just get on with it, IMO. If the thing is important enough for a big ceremony, then it shouldn't be subject to distractions like this.

So - correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you and Waitasec (and others in and outside of this forum) DO have a problem even with a MOMENT OF SILENCE at public events.

Amazing. Wow, honestly, where is the tolerance? And yet you wonder why so many people of faith feel that their expressions of faith are "under siege."

 

[Kathryn]

I actually can't think of very many public events where opening prayer is common, graduation ceremonies being the main one that comes to mind. I have not been to a sporting event that opened with prayer, but I do not go to car races. I would say prayer, or a moment of silence for reflection, is appropriate at a graduation ceremony because it is a rite of passage and it has a long tradition of having a benediction at the start. Like marriages and funerals, the majority of people in this country still see this as being an event where they wish to thank God for his providence, or, in other traditions, mark the event as a sacred transition in life.

I personally don't feel all that strongly about keeping the benediction or moment of silence at graduations, but I think the moment of silence would be appreciated by the majority of people and it does nothing to hurt people there who are not religious. I would keep it be neighborly.

Amen, sister.

Let's talk about these public events a moment.

To me, there's a difference between, say, a public high school graduation, and a NASCAR race. The public high school graduation is supported by tax dollars - everyone's tax dollars in that particular community, regardless of their religious or irreligious beliefs. A strong case can be made for a moment of silence rather than a prayer to a diety in this scenario, in my opinion, though for the life of me I can't see how a MOMENT OF SILENCE is offensive to anyone. A moment to reflect - or pray - or whatever - surely can't hurt anyone and seems like a very logical thing to do in such a situation. Those who want to see even a moment of silence abolished seem to me to be destroying the credibility of their "tolerance" argument.

Now - NASCAR is a different matter. To me it's more along these lines: This past weekend I went to see Lynard Skynard and ZZ Top in concert. Lynard Skynard did a couple of songs to "honor our troops and their families." The backdrop and the words were very patriotic - and this brought the house down - even more applause and people on their feet than when they played "Sweet Home Alabama," which, frankly, amazed me.

Now - maybe some people were offended by that. But hey, it's a LYNARD SKYNARD concert. The VAST majority of people there are going to be supportive of the troops, and are going to be very patriotic.

Though that concert is open to the public - it doesn't mean that they have to cater to everyone's likes or dislikes. Same with NASCAR - if you go to a NASCAR race, you may as well know that you're going to hear a prayer, and you're going to have a flyover by military jets, and you're going to see some flag waving. If you don't care for that sort of thing, stay home or just shut up and be gracious and then enjoy the race. Or complain to management. If enough people complain, then maybe the format will be changed. But it shouldn't be a LEGAL issue, because NASCAR is not paid for via tax dollars. It's a PRIVATE enterprise and if they want to start each race with a prayer, so be it.

Sure it's open to the public, but so is our locally owned grocery store - and if the owners want to play Christian music over the sound system, it's their right. They may even lose customers by doing so, but it should be their choice. It's not someone's inalienable right to go grocery shopping without "being subjected to Christian music." You don't like it? Complain to management - but the choice is theirs to play it or not, and the choice is yours to shop there or not.

I think immediately of Hobby Lobby, which is owned by a Christian group. They are closed on Sunday, and all week they play only Christian music in their stores (stores which are very successful, by the way, wherever they are opened).

I say more power to 'em. And if another art supply store wants to open up and play nothing but The Black Eyed Peas or Bollywood music or Hindu chants, more power to them as well. If they have good enough merchandise, I may even shop there.

 

[Kathryn]

Imagine for a moment that I walked into your church just before your Sunday morning service was about to begin. I walk right down the isle, step up to the podium, and launch into a 5 minute sermon about Jesus being a false prophet, a sinner, and a deceiver of men.

And if you complained, I told you "If you don't want to hear it, you can just wait in the parking lot. I have a right to free speech. Why don't you just think about something else while I say what I have to say."

Tell me you think that asking you to step outside is a reasonable compromise.

There's a big difference between church, or a mosque, or a synagogue, and a public event supported by tax dollars. That being said, some people attend churches which change over time, and more and more different ideas and beliefs are presented as leadership changes. If the parishioners don't like those beliefs or ideas, they have several options. They can appeal to church authority, they can take a stand publically in the church, or they can leave the church. But it's the right of the church leadership to present what they believe as the truth - and you can make up your own mind as to whether or not you want to support it.

Churches, synagogues, the Lions Club, Rotary, the Sierra Club, your local bookstore book club, your Toastmasters group - those are all open to the public, but it's perfectly acceptable for anyone in any of these scenarios to express their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, and depending on the membership, lead a prayer, discuss a religious topic, whatever. If people in the audience don't like the message, they can complain, or they can change things, or they can leave. But it is not their "right" NOT to be subjected to the beliefs or opinions of those organizations simply because they are "open to the public."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Only if you insist on calling it a prayer hole.

I only call it that because it's an accurate description. It's a time set aside in the schedule where people can either pray or just wait for others to finish praying. You pretty well acknowledged that this is the purpose of the "moment of silence" - your objection so far has be about losing your opportunity to pray.

I don't think this is an issue. We say some of the same prayers at funerals, baptisms, and weddings and it does not impinge on the intent of the different events.

... in acknowledgement of their shared character. If a wedding and a funeral are both Christian in character (as they often are when the couple or deceased is/was Christian), then it makes sense to express this Christian character in a similar way at both events.

In a similar way, having the same ceremony at a memorial service as at a sporting event expresses that the two events have a shared character. If it's not a Christian character (since they're public, secular events), then what is it?

Moments of silence can be used in celebration and contemplation of significant events, as well as in remembrance.

Can you provide me with some examples of this... that occurred before the Supreme Court ruled that government-sanctioned sectarian prayers violated the First Amendment?

 

[waitasec]

And yet you wonder why so many people of faith feel that their expressions of faith are "under siege."

ah, what?


i have no problem with people expressing their faith...
it's absolutely fine with me that people pray ON THEIR OWN TIME

why exclude anyone in a PUBLIC EVENT

this is what i mean about religion causing division...

honestly, do we really need to segregate according to our beliefs...
if we keep PULIC EVENTS NEUTRAL then everyone is happy... well except for those who want to infringe on the rights of others

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So - correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you and Waitasec (and others in and outside of this forum) DO have a problem even with a MOMENT OF SILENCE at public events.

The "prayer hole" - yes, I have a problem with that.

Amazing. Wow, honestly, where is the tolerance? And yet you wonder why so many people of faith feel that their expressions of faith are "under siege."

You are not "under siege". As you reminded us several times in this thread, Christians are in the position of power through sheer weight of numbers. A small minority of people asking that they not be deliberately excluded is not a threat to any legitimate right or interest of yours.

Honestly, I don't understand this martyr complex that so often gets expressed by Christians whenever secularism is discussed.

Amen, sister.

Let's talk about these public events a moment.

To me, there's a difference between, say, a public high school graduation, and a NASCAR race. The public high school graduation is supported by tax dollars - everyone's tax dollars in that particular community, regardless of their religious or irreligious beliefs.

Yes - sanctioned prayer at a public high school graduation (at least in the US) is illegal. Sanctioned prayer at a sporting event not associated with the government is merely inappropriate. Both are offensive.

A strong case can be made for a moment of silence rather than a prayer to a diety in this scenario, in my opinion, though for the life of me I can't see how a MOMENT OF SILENCE is offensive to anyone. A moment to reflect - or pray - or whatever - surely can't hurt anyone and seems like a very logical thing to do in such a situation. Those who want to see even a moment of silence abolished seem to me to be destroying the credibility of their "tolerance" argument.

If you want to pray, go ahead and pray - nobody's stopping you. All we ask is that you not impose on others in the process.

Now - NASCAR is a different matter. To me it's more along these lines: This past weekend I went to see Lynard Skynard and ZZ Top in concert. Lynard Skynard did a couple of songs to "honor our troops and their families." The backdrop and the words were very patriotic - and this brought the house down - even more applause and people on their feet than when they played "Sweet Home Alabama," which, frankly, amazed me.

Now - maybe some people were offended by that. But hey, it's a LYNARD SKYNARD concert. The VAST majority of people there are going to be supportive of the troops, and are going to be very patriotic.

Though that concert is open to the public - it doesn't mean that they have to cater to everyone's likes or dislikes. Same with NASCAR - if you go to a NASCAR race, you may as well know that you're going to hear a prayer, and you're going to have a flyover by military jets, and you're going to see some flag waving. If you don't care for that sort of thing, stay home or just shut up and be gracious and then enjoy the race. Or complain to management. If enough people complain, then maybe the format will be changed. But it shouldn't be a LEGAL issue, because NASCAR is not paid for via tax dollars. It's a PRIVATE enterprise and if they want to start each race with a prayer, so be it.

It's not legal issue; it's an issue of ethics and courtesy.

And there's a big difference between the two events: when you go to a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert, you're austensibly there to listen to Lynyrd Skynard songs. It would be bizarre to expect not to hear Lynyrd Skynard songs there.

OTOH, at a car race, the purpose of the event is, well, car racing, not celebrating Jesus. However, if you do want to celebrate Jesus at the event, fine, as long as you don't disturb others.

At a Lynyrd Skynard concert, "Sweet Home Alabama" is part of the main act. At a car race, prayers are a sideshow.

Sure it's open to the public, but so is our locally owned grocery store - and if the owners want to play Christian music over the sound system, it's their right. They may even lose customers by doing so, but it should be their choice. It's not someone's inalienable right to go grocery shopping without "being subjected to Christian music." You don't like it? Complain to management - but the choice is theirs to play it or not, and the choice is yours to shop there or not.

What makes you think this is a matter of legal rights?

Nobody's asking for a legal prohibition on prayer; all I'm asking for is a recognition that slapping Jesus on an event intended for all is going to be offensive and alienating to a portion of your audience, and goes against the idea of inclusivity.

If you're trying to exclude people, then fine - do what you want to exclude people. But I don't get this mentality you seem to be expressing that says that people who are excluded this way should just go along with it and not make a fuss.

 

[ChristineES]

Graduations, sporting events, sessions of congress... it's all the same beast. A public event at which it would be unthinkable to expect or even to ask people to leave the room for a few minutes while you have church time.

9-10ths_Penguin already pointed out just a few examples of how impractical that would be. But even if it were doable with the greatest of ease, it's still incredibly rude to expect them or ask them to leave so you can do something you could easily do anywhere on your own time.

I already said "a moment of silence" and not prayer, as Luna pointed out.

And you took my other response wrong so please chill out. I apologize if I offended you, but I already said I didn't even mean what I said as 9-10ths_Penguin didn't mean what he said, either. It was a response to what he said, and I didn't take his personally so maybe you shouldn't take mine personally either. On top of that, that part of the debate was between 9-10s_Penguin and myself. I admire and like 9-10s_Penguin and this has only been a difference of opinion- he seems to respect my opinion and I respect his, we just disagree on it. I also respect your opinion. Try not to take a debate to personally, even if it gets a bit spirited- I meant no harm and I apologize again if you saw any, but remember I did not mean harm.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Churches, synagogues, the Lions Club, Rotary, the Sierra Club, your local bookstore book club, your Toastmasters group - those are all open to the public, but it's perfectly acceptable for anyone in any of these scenarios to express their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, and depending on the membership, lead a prayer, discuss a religious topic, whatever. If people in the audience don't like the message, they can complain, or they can change things, or they can leave. But it is not their "right" NOT to be subjected to the beliefs or opinions of those organizations simply because they are "open to the public."

Funny you mention these groups, because apart from churches and synagogues, all such groups I've ever been involved with have had no problem conducting themselves without having prayers or moments of silence before meetings.

And speaking of Toastmasters, I know that some Toastmasters clubs have "invocations", but the vast majority don't have this. Not around here, anyhow. Speaking as a former club president, I wouldn't want to have an invocation for any club that's supposed to be catering to the general public. In a church's Toastmasters club, sure. In a specialty club that has a specific mission to cater to religious Toastmasters, okay. For a regular public club, it's inappropriate.

And I've never heard of the Sierra Club opening their meetings with prayers; are you trying to suggest that they do?

But again: it's not a matter of legal rights. It's often legal to be a jerk to other people; this doesn't mean that it's appropriate to be a jerk.

 

[ChristineES]

I just don't see a 60 second silence for people to pray, reflect, think about their lives, wonder what they forgot to do, or about what they want for dinner as a "prayer hole". And even if it is a prayer hole, I still don't see the problem. If it is not a organized prayer that people would have to listen to, I see it as a compromise. And as I said earlier, I am not talking about sporting events, just things like graduation where some people would want to have a quick prayer. At sporting events I agree, people can pray on their own.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Honestly, I don't understand this martyr complex that so often gets expressed by Christians whenever secularism is discussed.

Unfortunately, being oppressed seems to be an integral component of Christianity - regardless of whether it's real or not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I already said "a moment of silence" and not prayer, as Luna pointed out.

And you took my other response wrong so please chill out. I apologize if I offended you, but I already said I didn't even mean what I said as 9-10ths_Penguin didn't mean what he said, either.

No, I did mean what I said: if a person wants to commemorate an event with prayer, there's always some opportunity for this even if the MC doesn't stop the whole program and say "okay - everyone who wants to pray, go ahead and pray now."

Reasonable accommodation of religion is fine, but no special accommodation is required when the religious activity in question can happen just fine all by itself. You've already got an avenue for free expression of your religious beliefs: if you want to pray, then pray. Even if there isn't a special time set aside in the event schedule for prayer, nobody's stopping you.

I really don't see what the issue is with this idea. Again: how is it unreasonable? What rights of yours - legal or otherwise - would be infringed if some public event doesn't have an invocation or a minute of silence? AFAICT, the only thing that would be different is that the event would no longer be implicitly declaring your beliefs and practices as more important than the beliefs of the people present who don't pray (or who do pray, but not in that context).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I just don't see a 60 second silence for people to pray, reflect, think about their lives, wonder what they forgot to do, or about what they want for dinner as a "prayer hole".

You don't? Then why have you been basing your objections to not having a moment of silence on the fact that you'd be losing an opportunity for prayer?

BTW - how does me wondering about what I forgot to do or what I want for dinner contribute to the event? IMO, it diminishes it if anything.

And even if it is a prayer hole, I still don't see the problem. If it is not a organized prayer that people would have to listen to, I see it as a compromise.

But it's a compromise from the compromise: the one extreme would be "nobody gets to pray at all". The other extreme would be "everyone must pray". The happy medium - what I'm advocating and what I consider to be the real compromise - is "nobody gets prayer or lack of prayer imposed upong them". What you're arguing for is "everyone who wants to prays while everyone else waits"... IOW, something leaning more toward the extreme end.

And as I said earlier, I am not talking about sporting events, just things like graduation where some people would want to have a quick prayer. At sporting events I agree, people can pray on their own.

Every graduation I've been to has had a procession where the teachers/professors and VIPs take several minutes to solemnly enter the venue and make their way up to the stage. While it might not be done in complete silence, it's usually accompanied by quiet, dignified music. Why can't you pray then?

 

[lunamoth]

I only call it that because it's an accurate description. It's a time set aside in the schedule where people can either pray or just wait for others to finish praying. You pretty well acknowledged that this is the purpose of the "moment of silence" - your objection so far has be about losing your opportunity to pray.


... in acknowledgement of their shared character. If a wedding and a funeral are both Christian in character (as they often are when the couple or deceased is/was Christian), then it makes sense to express this Christian character in a similar way at both events.

In a similar way, having the same ceremony at a memorial service as at a sporting event expresses that the two events have a shared character. If it's not a Christian character (since they're public, secular events), then what is it?


Can you provide me with some examples of this... that occurred before the Supreme Court ruled that government-sanctioned sectarian prayers violated the First Amendment?

For the reasons I've already stated I think that a moment of silence is a good compromise in place of a benediction or invocation at graduations or other public events. Even if this has never been done before, and everyone knows that it is a change being made because no one wants to offend others, it seems quite reasonable.

However, if I learned that people in my community were deeply offended or felt excluded by a moment of silence, I'd suggest it be dropped from the program. Good will between neighbors is important to me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For the reasons I've already stated I think that a moment of silence is a good compromise in place of a benediction or invocation at graduations or other public events. Even if this has never been done before, and everyone knows that it is a change being made because no one wants to offend others, it seems quite reasonable.

OTOH, leaving prayer up to the individuals as they see fit seems reasonable to me.

However, if I learned that people in my community were deeply offended or felt excluded by a moment of silence, I'd suggest it be dropped from the program. Good will between neighbors is important to me.

Well, that's all I'm asking for.

 

[ChristineES]

I have think this time I really will bow out of the debate, it's been a good one and nearly everyone has made great points but I have spoken my peace and now I am talking in circles. Thanks, everyone, this is one debate I learned a lot in. Now I have to go and rethink everyone's points. My mind is never made up in stone.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I've re-read the last few pages of the thread. I always find myself on the fence in this thread.

I see 9/10ths' point and I do agree with it in principle. It seems everyone agrees that having one particular prayer at the beginning of whatever ceremony or event is wrong, whether or not it's explicitly illegal to do so. That's good, at least.

My sole objection to 9/10ths' point (even though I agree with it in principle) is this:

Reasonable accommodation of religion is fine, but no special accommodation is required when the religious activity in question can happen just fine all by itself.

What constitutes "reasonable"? The problem with this from a legal standpoint is that "reasonable" has no solid legal definition. To you, a moment of silence before a ceremony or event is unreasonable. We hold very similar religious views and despite this, I think that stopping the event for 30-60 seconds is entirely reasonable and not a bother at all.

I agree with the principle the event shouldn't be stopped to accomodate that because other opportunities are afforded to pray and worship or whatever. If you go to a NASCAR race, you go there for the car racing, not for Jesus. At the same time, I don't see stopping the program for 30-60 seconds as bothersome or unreasonable. Nobody is compelling you to pray. You can do whatever you wish during that alloted time. You can pray to Jesus or you can play your GameBoy. Who cares? While someone is asking Jesus for Jeff Gordon to win the race (is he even still racing? I hope so, because he's one of...three racers I know....), you could just as easily be catching Pokemen on your Nintendo GameBoy or twidling your thumbs and whistling Dixie.

For me, it's not unreasonable to stop for 30-60 seconds and I see no ethical problems with it because nobody is compelling you to pray.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Good will between neighbors is important to me.

If everyone felt this way, there'd be a lot less animosity on all fronts.

 

[Vile Atheist]

If everyone felt this way, there'd be a lot less animosity on all fronts.

You damn kids are always throwing balls into my yard! Good will, my foot!

But seriously...I agree...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You damn kids are always throwing balls into my yard! Good will, my foot!

But seriously...I agree...

Yeah, allowances always have to be made for underdeveloped humans with poor coordination and judgement. Then again, this is why I avoid churches.