The Freedom From Religion Foundation, as I understand it, works toward making America more secular--removing the Ten Commandments from courthouses and things like that. I can't say I'm altogether familiar with this particular organization, but I can say that I've read about some things that anti-theists have pushed for and many of them I'm rather disappointed in, such as destroying memorial sites by removing any reference to religion.
This particular story starts somewhere around May. A student wrote to FFRF to complain about the fact that University of Tennessee--Chattanooga had a tradition of reciting a Christian prayer before their football games (and perhaps other events, I'm not sure). FFRF then sent a letter to UTC informing them that this tradition is in fact illegal and they should discontinue. I'm not a legal mind. I'm not a law student, but upon reading this letter and investigating the legal precedent cited, I believe that FFRF has a sound case that the practice of public universities reciting prayers at official university events has been ruled to be a violation of separation of church and state.
Personally, I do not believe that there is any harm in reciting prayers at football games, whether it be at a private or a public university. I think that college should be a time to broaden the mind and expose oneself to many different ideas, including different religions. I don't think it would be bad to see more universities adopt the practice of praying publicly--offering prayers from every religion current and past. I think a bit of culture is good for people. But, I cannot argue with the evidence provided by FFRF. The prayers should stop if the university wishes to prevent a law suit.
Anyway, UTC decided (I believe sometime last week) to discontinue the practice. Now, instead of a prayer, they hold a moment of silence. UTK (the Knoxville main campus, where I attend) is now under fire for the same reason. Just a few days ago, FFRF sent a similar letter to the chancellor of UTK, informing him that the prayers at UTK football games are illegal and should stop.
I signed up for a club here at UTK called the Secular Student Alliance (SSA). It is one chapter of a national organization. The purpose of the organization is, of course, to promote secularism. Its main goal is to establish (or maintain) a separation of church and state. When I first encountered this organization in cyberspace, I was pleased. I was glad to see this kind of movement existing. So, I was happy to join my local chapter. I attended the first meeting of the year, which went fairly well--we basically just all introduced ourselves and that was it.
Well, last Thursday, when I saw that people were posting about the prayers at football games, I spoke up and voiced my opinion--that I saw no harm in allowing the prayers to continue. A quite heated debate ensued. I'm sure that bit doesn't surprise anyone who's familiar with me. I was invited to a meeting last night that was an "open officer's meeting", meaning it was for officers of the club, but that other members of the club were invited. I was under the impression that at this meeting, there would be some discussion about whether or not the club wanted to take any particular action on the issue. When I got to the meeting, it became quite apparent that this was not the case. It was already decided that action would be taken and the meeting was merely to discuss exactly how to carry out that action.
In light of the fact that this was the case--that clearly nothing anyone would say would change the fact that they were determined to go ahead with supporting FFRF, I decided to simply give what input I felt might help. It was apparent that my input was not appreciated. One woman in particular became very angry anytime I said anything, and made it quite clear she would prefer I remained silent.
I was quite disappointed. I was disappointed in the reaction I got from people in the club while discussing the matter on Facebook, and I was disappointed in the treatment I received at the officer's meeting last night. They were talking about holding an open forum, where they would invite religious students and discuss their feelings connected with the discontinuation of public prayers at football games. They had convinced themselves that their motivation was noble--that they were just trying to look out for everyone and what would be best for all students. And I wanted to believe that. But the way they talked to me made it quite clear that they didn't care about other people, they only cared about themselves. They wanted to end the prayers because they don't like prayers.
When asking ideas for what to write in the letter, one person said "suck it". He knew that it would be inevitable that UTK would discontinue the prayers, and he had no qualms with rubbing that in. He was gloating. During the Facebook discussion, one person said " I give zero fucks about offending a huge number of Knoxvillians." another one said "My whole life offends a huge number of Knoxvillians." and another said "I don't want to have a positive image in the eyes of the intolerant." (where "intolerant" was meant as "people who will be upset by discontinuing prayers at football games"). I was stunned at the sheer lack of concern for other people. It was clear to me that these people really don't have everyone's best interest at heart. They're offended because someone's speaking magic words to a wizard they don't believe in and they want to put an end to it. They don't care if they hurt people along the way.
I've certainly been disenchanted with this group of people. They are shallow and false. They put on airs of nobility, claiming to want what is best for everyone, claiming that they're only concerned about making sure people don't feel excluded. And yet their real interests are exclusion and hurting others. They glory in offending people, and take pleasure in injuring others. Frankly, I want no part of it. I'm really upset with myself that I went to the meeting last night, actually expecting these people to be the kind, caring people they claimed to be. I'm quite angry I wasted my time with them.
But, anyway, it is inevitable. The prayers at UTK football games will end. Maybe the chancellor will decide himself to end them. Maybe they'll be forced to end them in a trial. I would think the university would want to avoid going to court over it, though, since they probably know they'd have little chance of winning. Personally, I feel like this kind of activism is more of a witch hunt than anything else, but that's how it is.
I don't view this as an attack on religion, and I don't think it should be viewed as such. Prayers aren't being ended. It is still legal to be Christian and to pray and to worship god. The issue is not with the prayer itself but rather with a public university (one owned and run by the state of Tennessee) favoring one religion (or group of religions). No one's rights are being taken away. You really don't have the right to expect a public university to sponsor a prayer at a football game. I can understand why people will be upset by this, and they will be. I have no sympathy for them, since it's merely the privileged phenomenon--you've thus far been privileged by having your religion favored at the games, and now you're being put on equal grounds by being asked to do a moment of silence instead, where people of all faiths can utter their own silent prayer to whichever god they worship (or atheists can simply think about the beauty of nothingness). I do have empathy for you, but no sympathy. I can understand why you might be upset, but I don't think that you should be.
The way I see it, the fewer confrontations between the religious and the irreligious the better. I'm not affected by prayers at games (I've never been to a football game and I don't plan to ever attend one). I don't believe anyone is harmed by them. I see no reason why they need to stop. I think that there will be religious people for hundreds of years to come, and there will always be irreligious people, so let's try to get along as much as possible and fight as little as possible. I won't step on your toes if you don't step on mine.
This particular story starts somewhere around May. A student wrote to FFRF to complain about the fact that University of Tennessee--Chattanooga had a tradition of reciting a Christian prayer before their football games (and perhaps other events, I'm not sure). FFRF then sent a letter to UTC informing them that this tradition is in fact illegal and they should discontinue. I'm not a legal mind. I'm not a law student, but upon reading this letter and investigating the legal precedent cited, I believe that FFRF has a sound case that the practice of public universities reciting prayers at official university events has been ruled to be a violation of separation of church and state.
Personally, I do not believe that there is any harm in reciting prayers at football games, whether it be at a private or a public university. I think that college should be a time to broaden the mind and expose oneself to many different ideas, including different religions. I don't think it would be bad to see more universities adopt the practice of praying publicly--offering prayers from every religion current and past. I think a bit of culture is good for people. But, I cannot argue with the evidence provided by FFRF. The prayers should stop if the university wishes to prevent a law suit.
Anyway, UTC decided (I believe sometime last week) to discontinue the practice. Now, instead of a prayer, they hold a moment of silence. UTK (the Knoxville main campus, where I attend) is now under fire for the same reason. Just a few days ago, FFRF sent a similar letter to the chancellor of UTK, informing him that the prayers at UTK football games are illegal and should stop.
I signed up for a club here at UTK called the Secular Student Alliance (SSA). It is one chapter of a national organization. The purpose of the organization is, of course, to promote secularism. Its main goal is to establish (or maintain) a separation of church and state. When I first encountered this organization in cyberspace, I was pleased. I was glad to see this kind of movement existing. So, I was happy to join my local chapter. I attended the first meeting of the year, which went fairly well--we basically just all introduced ourselves and that was it.
Well, last Thursday, when I saw that people were posting about the prayers at football games, I spoke up and voiced my opinion--that I saw no harm in allowing the prayers to continue. A quite heated debate ensued. I'm sure that bit doesn't surprise anyone who's familiar with me. I was invited to a meeting last night that was an "open officer's meeting", meaning it was for officers of the club, but that other members of the club were invited. I was under the impression that at this meeting, there would be some discussion about whether or not the club wanted to take any particular action on the issue. When I got to the meeting, it became quite apparent that this was not the case. It was already decided that action would be taken and the meeting was merely to discuss exactly how to carry out that action.
In light of the fact that this was the case--that clearly nothing anyone would say would change the fact that they were determined to go ahead with supporting FFRF, I decided to simply give what input I felt might help. It was apparent that my input was not appreciated. One woman in particular became very angry anytime I said anything, and made it quite clear she would prefer I remained silent.
I was quite disappointed. I was disappointed in the reaction I got from people in the club while discussing the matter on Facebook, and I was disappointed in the treatment I received at the officer's meeting last night. They were talking about holding an open forum, where they would invite religious students and discuss their feelings connected with the discontinuation of public prayers at football games. They had convinced themselves that their motivation was noble--that they were just trying to look out for everyone and what would be best for all students. And I wanted to believe that. But the way they talked to me made it quite clear that they didn't care about other people, they only cared about themselves. They wanted to end the prayers because they don't like prayers.
When asking ideas for what to write in the letter, one person said "suck it". He knew that it would be inevitable that UTK would discontinue the prayers, and he had no qualms with rubbing that in. He was gloating. During the Facebook discussion, one person said " I give zero fucks about offending a huge number of Knoxvillians." another one said "My whole life offends a huge number of Knoxvillians." and another said "I don't want to have a positive image in the eyes of the intolerant." (where "intolerant" was meant as "people who will be upset by discontinuing prayers at football games"). I was stunned at the sheer lack of concern for other people. It was clear to me that these people really don't have everyone's best interest at heart. They're offended because someone's speaking magic words to a wizard they don't believe in and they want to put an end to it. They don't care if they hurt people along the way.
I've certainly been disenchanted with this group of people. They are shallow and false. They put on airs of nobility, claiming to want what is best for everyone, claiming that they're only concerned about making sure people don't feel excluded. And yet their real interests are exclusion and hurting others. They glory in offending people, and take pleasure in injuring others. Frankly, I want no part of it. I'm really upset with myself that I went to the meeting last night, actually expecting these people to be the kind, caring people they claimed to be. I'm quite angry I wasted my time with them.
But, anyway, it is inevitable. The prayers at UTK football games will end. Maybe the chancellor will decide himself to end them. Maybe they'll be forced to end them in a trial. I would think the university would want to avoid going to court over it, though, since they probably know they'd have little chance of winning. Personally, I feel like this kind of activism is more of a witch hunt than anything else, but that's how it is.
I don't view this as an attack on religion, and I don't think it should be viewed as such. Prayers aren't being ended. It is still legal to be Christian and to pray and to worship god. The issue is not with the prayer itself but rather with a public university (one owned and run by the state of Tennessee) favoring one religion (or group of religions). No one's rights are being taken away. You really don't have the right to expect a public university to sponsor a prayer at a football game. I can understand why people will be upset by this, and they will be. I have no sympathy for them, since it's merely the privileged phenomenon--you've thus far been privileged by having your religion favored at the games, and now you're being put on equal grounds by being asked to do a moment of silence instead, where people of all faiths can utter their own silent prayer to whichever god they worship (or atheists can simply think about the beauty of nothingness). I do have empathy for you, but no sympathy. I can understand why you might be upset, but I don't think that you should be.
The way I see it, the fewer confrontations between the religious and the irreligious the better. I'm not affected by prayers at games (I've never been to a football game and I don't plan to ever attend one). I don't believe anyone is harmed by them. I see no reason why they need to stop. I think that there will be religious people for hundreds of years to come, and there will always be irreligious people, so let's try to get along as much as possible and fight as little as possible. I won't step on your toes if you don't step on mine.
Hi, Keith! Elisabeth from SSA here. I'd just like point out that it was said multiple times that the meeting's purpose was to decide if the club was going to take a public stance. Several officers, if you will recall, hesitated on that point, and they were encouraged to speak up. We discussed for a few more minutes, and then the VOTED on whether to take a public stance. All officers were ultimately in favor, yes, but your accusation that the meeting was under false pretenses and that this had already been decided just confuses the hell out of me. You clearly saw that discussion and decision happen, and you were invited to take part.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry you feel that way about our group. I would be lying if I said I didn't also occasionally feel that way about our group. But the group is called the Secular Student Alliance. We are here to serve a secular purpose, and our members all share that goal. Variations in personalities and background are inevitable, however. Some are more tactful than others. Some are quite angsty about the role religion plays in their lives. Some are the most tolerant people in the world. Some aren't. But we cannot control the personalities or thoughts or opinions of our group members, and we don't want to! Our meetings, as far as I'm concerned, serve as a place for people to say their true opinions. And you're right, I think some of the opinions spoken last night were a bit extreme (though I will mention that some of your quotes were totally, 100% NOT serious, like the "suck it" comment. We can all use some jesting every now and then!). But that's where you speak up, and you say, "Hang on, don't you think you're being a little intolerant?" And if you come to our meetings in the future, I think you'll find that this literally happens ALL THE TIME! I personally, as well as like half our officers, have run people off not by being too intolerant, as you say, but by being "too accepting" of religion. I like to think that the disagreement in our club is productive, and being critical of each other's opinions is and always has been part of our club dynamic.
You have written about the words of a few as if they were the general club consensus. Do you not recall Ashley saying multiple times that we should take care in this decision not to be assholes? Or Ethan saying multiple times that perhaps we shouldn't take a public stance or reach out to the religious community? Or Shaun saying multiple times that he's not doing this for atheists, but for all religious minorities who are not represented by the prayer? And those of us who were in favor of reaching out to the religious community want to foster a better relationship with this community, similar to our efforts to volunteer with Campus Crusade for Christ, NOT rub anything in their faces. We were asking each other last night, "How do we communicate with them and ensure they can communicate with us?" I am saddened that you have interpreted our actions as something the leadership of our club and many members did not mean.
No, Elisabeth, I did not see what you described. What you're saying here only further indicates to me the level of lying you'll stoop to. I was there at the meeting. What I saw was several people discussing what course of action to take--already assuming that the club would take action. After several minutes of discussion, one person asked (as an afterthought), which of the officers supported taking action. I wouldn't really call that a vote and it certainly wasn't at the beginning of the discussion.
ReplyDeleteI can't say I know what Ethan was saying. He spoke so softly I couldn't hear anything he said. I did catch that he was unaware of any court decisions where a ruling had been made concerning prayers at public universities. This is something you may want to consider--that many people in the club (including me, since I didn't know about any such case prior to Saturday) need to be educated on the matter.
As you may recall, Elisabeth, I did speak up when the "suck it" comment was made. I pointed out that I thought that such sentiment was harmful to the cause. And I was met with fury from the scribe whose name I don't recall. Why should I speak up when that's the kind of response I get? I think it's great for people to disagree. I have no problem with people disagreeing, but what I have a problem with is how rude some people are when you disagree with them. My honest impression is that the group is just too young and immature.
I'm Chris Coppola from UTK. I was the one that said "suck it," and you are the only person there who didn't know that was intended as a joke. No one thought that was a serious comment.
ReplyDeleteI find private discussion to be more conducive to honest debate. If you would like to take it up with me, I would be happy to address your complaints. I don't speak for SSA officially, but my position represents hard-line Atheism well and I think I can explain a lot of that to you.
Yes, Chris, I know you said that in jest. But I also know that you actually feel that way. Judging by the things you said on Facebook and at the meeting yesterday, I know how you feel. You are in the right and Christians are in the wrong--they're breaking the law and they need to change. You have no sympathy for them. I doubt that you would actually say "suck it" in an email to every Christian club on campus, but I have very little doubt that you actually feel it.
ReplyDeleteJudging by the comments you made on Facebook the other day, I felt that you neither wished to have a rational discussion with me nor that you were capable of it. I have thus far been unimpressed with your attitude. I would be happy to be proved wrong in this matter. I can be reached through my Google+ account or Facebook if you wish to initiate a private conversation.
There is something scary about people who think they can read minds. You wouldn't know what I thought or felt until you asked. Your "debate" on facebook was little more than irrational trolling on a topic you knew you were wrong about. I couldn't tell if you were serious at any point in that discussion. Likewise, the things you are saying about our meeting and our club are so disconnected from reality that it is hard to tell if you are serious. Judging by this post it seems likely that you are serious, in which case you have a long way to go in understanding both issues of secularism and non-religious people in general. It is you that has failed to be rational, not us, and we are waiting for YOU to change. Our club is not going to suffer by losing someone with your attitude.
ReplyDeleteI can't feel good about thanking you for it, but you certainly have proven me right. You have no interest other than insulting me and continuing to believe that you are always in the right. Go ahead and label me as a troll, you wouldn't be the first one. If you see no value in conversing with me, I will not make any effort to entice you to continue. Anytime you have something of value to say, I welcome the input. As long as you continue to spew meaningless drivel such as this, I will disregard it.
ReplyDelete