Those wacky fundamentalistic atheists

Post Reply New Topic

Please know I am not defending public prayer being offered by religious people who happen to be elected or appointed officials. And personally, I turn away in embarrassment from such seeming "advertisements" or displays. Yet as others have said, there is no law saying those people cannot do that within a society at least allegedly protecting the religious freedom of all.

Nor does it constitute the establishment of a religion. Prayer is one of the things that people sometimes do in public. Sometimes people fart in public too.

ruveyn

I don't get why Christians pray in public considering how Jesus' teachings specifically say to do it in private.

Ah! You noticed that.

Get into a private room and pray to your father in heaven.

Actually that verse is really trying to tell folks not to make a big deal of prayer in public.

ruveyn

Yes ... and much like a PM should not be publicly posted here.

The bible is Schrodinger's holy book. No matter what's written, it always means what the guy reading it wants it to mean.

I do not know who Schrodinger is/was, but I do know extrapolation can block many people from seeing the "why" (or the principles) *behind* things written.

People who pray in public typically do so for a wide variety of reasons even though no such reasons are actually prescribed in Scripture. Even the so-called "Lord's Prayer" was but a training outline or whatever and was likely never intended to ever become some kind of hand-holdin', circle-round-the-table kind of thing.

Exactly.

The whole praying in private thing was not an instruction to ONLY pray in private. All Jesus meant was that those who pray should not make a spectacle of themselves. It is not a universal prohibition against public prayer.

I think in practice too many people make the Bible out to mean whatever they want it to mean. The problem there is twisting scripture, taking it out of order and context destroys the intended meaning. If you aren't concerned with what was originally meant by the Biblical authors, taking into account figures of speech, cultural/societal attitudes of the time, and so on, then perhaps you should move on to a different book. That's like all those people who disagree with the Bible quoting "Judge not" when everyone knows that all people have a duty to discern what is right from what is wrong. That's like if my son misbehaves, should I just let him run free into a busy parking lot? But too many people just think "Well, the Bible says 'judge not,' so I have the right to do whatever I want and everyone else should just mind their own business." If you know someone with self-destructive behavior, by all means JUDGE THEM by confronting them with their wrongdoing and force them to get help! You see judging happening in American politics all the time--and if you care about who represents your interests and who is in authority over you at any given time, you BETTER be a good judge of what is best, speak your opinions, and vote your conscience.

The "judge not" simply means looking at someone and making false assumptions based on socioeconomic status, disability, and other superficial aspects of life. It means don't condemn someone for something without recognizing the same faults within yourself. It's a call for self-examination and avoidance of hypocrisy. Given the example of Jesus and His disciples when they themselves judged others, you have to understand that simply "calling a spade a spade" is acceptable and we should always seek to do what is right and expect the same from others.

Same principle with public prayer. You can twist what Jesus said about public prayer to excuse a general prohibition against it, but you can't legitimately make a case for that being the intended meaning.

Jesus words seem to really say that it was made in private. I also think that everyone twists his words to settle what he thinks they should mean.

That's not indeed a reason to forbid public prayer and that's not even what the atheists are asking about in this case.

The topic at hand is about prayer in official events such as council events. If you think it is fine, well, I have to disagree as it strikes me as a civil rights issue, the atheists elaborate it well:

But of course, for an atheist it is easy to pick option #1, it is harder for a Christian who believes that what Jesus meant is that prayer should be done in private, and much harder for a Muslim, whom, in his belief system would go to hell for praying in that case.

so, let those people pick option #2, you may say, but then we are forcing people of beliefs different to the majority to disclose them, I don't think the intended use of city council meetings is to catch those freaks that have odd beliefs and expose them but to... have a city council meeting...

Are atheists afraid of being outed?

Quite the contrary. It's NOT easy to pick option #1. It's no less a betrayal of one's beliefs than for a Muslim- I'm participating in something I find to be horrifically wrong, in order to spare myself from being ostracized.

Whatever the "intent" of the city council meeting, the effect of conducting prayer IS that those who are skeptics or of different denominations are forced to participate in a ritual they do not agree with,
or else abstain and in so doing ostracize themselves.

That's wrong,
if not legally then morally.

Of course many of us are! It can spell harassment, ostracization, and getting FIRED in many parts of the US.

Even were that not the case, it is still wrong to force someone to be identified as a dissenter if they don't participate in X religious ritual.

when "outed" becomes "ousted," disenfranchisement is a real concern.

....wait, you're right. that's crazy. it's not like this is a thread about a city council trying to eject a group of atheists for wearing shirts that said "one nation, indivisible" when the council was deciding to open each session with a specific religion's prayer....

it would be nice if people who believe in magic were a little less hostile toward those who don't. maybe then, some of us would be more open about it. until then, yes. many atheists are "afraid of being outed."

if i were to open every reply to one of your comments with "do you believe in quija boards?" i think you might begin to sympathize with these atheists.

or do you not have a problem being "outed?"

i doubt the atheists wearing "one nation, indivisible" shirts are so concerned with being "outed." wearing the identifying shirts, however, was their choice. the comment you responded to is referring to people who may not, necessarily, feel safe "coming out" as "other." i can't imagine why they would feel that way..... i mean... it's not like those guys in the shirts were threatened with forcible ejection from their own city council meeting for wearing a shirt that said "one nation, indivisible."

personally, i don't agree with the shirts. i don't think we should remove "under god" from the pledge. i think we should just change "indivisible" to the more accurate "divisible."

"divisible, under god" is much more appropriate, obviously.

I have the same dilemma even on the very rare occasion I might be inside a church for a funeral or whatever, but the difference there is this: It would be completely unreasonable to expect anything else in that kind of setting.

Personally, I do not typically even join in on standing ovations.

FFS, Leejosepho, do you not see the difference between being in a church and being in a city council meeting?

On that note, not all people who attend church are believers, either. They might be attending for different reasons--perhaps a friend/love interest invited them, perhaps they're genuinely curious, perhaps their trailer burned down/dog ran away/spouse dumped them for their best friend/pickup truck broke down/they ran out of whiskey and beer and somehow church seems to be the only place where they can find peace, at least for that point in time. They're there for their own reasons, not because they share those beliefs. To those people, I say attend, listen to the sermons, sing the hymns if you want to, but occupying a place in a pew does not obligate you to observe any particular practice. The churches I've always attended always say that things like communion and baptism are NOT for unbelievers. I've always been told that it's ok NOT to participate, especially where communion is concerned, and there might even be reason why believers themselves can't in good conscience take part themselves.

The thing is, at least in every church I've personally attended, no one is going to look down on you for not participating. They understand that you have your reasons and that's the end of it.

I think it's sad that atheists anticipate only negative consequences for being "outed." Frankly, I don't ordinarily see how its anyone's business what you do/do not believe. If you choose to or not to "pretend" to pray or sit/stand at key moments, I don't see how anything can happen to you. I know Jehovah's Witnesses also take exception to certain kinds of expressions. I may have my own objections to JW teachings, but it doesn't make any difference in how I relate to them as people. On the other hand, if a JW ambushes me in the McDonald's parking lot while I'm trying to put my kids in their car seats, I'm going to quote key Bible verses and I may unintentionally come across as being rude--it's nothing personal, I just don't have time to get into it right at that moment! One of my students, actually, is not necessarily an atheist or agnostic strictly speaking, but I happen to know she has a negative perception of religion in general. I might prefer otherwise, but I treat her no less than I do other students--she's quite talented and I may even invest more in teaching her than some of my more average kids. I have a couple of other kids who come from a Hindu family. I might mention church because it does carve out a huge chunk in my evening schedule at least one night a week, making it relevant if we have to find alternate lesson times. Otherwise differences in religion are a non-issue, and I give those two kids the best possible side of me as a teacher.

I could be wrong, but I at least like to think more of us are respectful enough that people who believe differently ought not feel threatened.

The only thing I can see that might be problematic in a real sense is that when religion becomes a point of debate, there is nothing that prevents the expression of views from either side. Expressing your belief opens that door for dialogue, and any opponent has the right to express feelings to the contrary. But expressing an opposing viewpoint does not equal persecution.