No atheists in foxholes -- or at memorial services for children?

[rug]

By Michael McGough
December 17, 2012, 12:38 p.m.

Three things struck me about Sunday night’s interfaith vigil for the victims of the school shootings in Newtown, Conn.:

1) The program was amazingly ecumenical, with Hebrew chants, invocations of Jesus and contributions from Muslim and Baha'i speakers, along with syncretistic references of the “whether we call him God or the Great Spirit” variety. Is this the face of the new civil religion in America? It would seem so. Especially in affluent communities, limiting the clergy onstage to a Christian minister and a rabbi is (as the lawyers say) under-inclusive of the range of religious affiliations in the audience.

2) Ecumenical and irenic as it was, the Newtown memorial was still a religious ceremony, and the featured speaker, President Obama, was careful to quote from (Christian) Scripture. I suppose one could devise a memorial service for the pupils killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School that didn't include prayer or any reference to what one speaker called the “divine realm." But it would strike most Americans as arid and inadequate -- especially when those being mourned are children. Notwithstanding the advent of the “New Atheism" and the decline in church affiliation, the connection between communal mourning and religion remains strong in this country. Partly this is because many of the families of the victims of any tragedy are likely to be religious; but even many atheists and agnostics would probably be put off by a rigidly non-theistic memorial.

3) The memorial was held at a public high school, but without church-state controversy. In 1999, after the shootings at Columbine High School, the U.S. Senate approved a nonbinding amendment saying that Congress found no constitutional bar to “the saying of a prayer, the reading of a Scripture or the performance of religious music as part of a memorial service that is held on the campus of a public school in order to honor the memory of any person slain” at a school. At the time, a spokesman for Americans United for Separation of Church and State criticized the amendment, saying: “The students who did the shooting felt isolated from their peers. Erecting memorials and holding services which contain religious matter only adds to the divisiveness.... Such things should be turned over to the churches and synagogues.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-newtown-massacre-religion-20121217,0,214987.story

[still_one]

1. Perhaps it represented the faiths of those killed

[enlightenment]

7. One would hope that that was the case.

Because if there was even one family of one child that was lost last week does not hold belief in a higher power - in some form or fashion - then it sounds like the memorial fell short.

I didn't watch it - memorials do not resonate with me in any way - so I won't comment beyond the hope that it represented ALL those who are grieving the loss of their children.

[cbayer]

2. I thought it tried very hard to be inclusive and was truly "inter-faith".

At any rate, I was torn up as I watched and could care less what religions it did or did not speak to.

[rexcat]

11. The first speaker did mention the "non-religious"...

in a neutral to positive way toward the end of his speech so for the most part I think it was all inclusive or as much as they could do for the community. It is a conservative community where the majority vote republican per one interview I heard prior to the memorial, not that makes any difference in this situation. I thought it was odd for someone being interviewed from the town would even mention the political flavor of the town since it did not add any useful information to the tragedy other than they like their guns in the community per the person being interviewed. I can't remember which news outlet I heard the interview. I was flipping from MSMBC to CNN to FOX and back. MSNBC was cutting into their regular commercials but CNN and FOX were not. Go figure.

It was a very sad memorial considering 20 young children were being memorialized along with the 6 teachers who were trying to protect the children. One of the more moving prayers came from the Rabbi. I had no idea what he was saying (singing) since I don't understand Hebrew but his intonation was moving. Some of the prayers were a little off putting to me but my opinion on this is of little consequence. As long as comfort was being given to those who where grieving that is all that matters.

I am staying away from the news channels at this point. I am still having a hard time emotionally as to what happened. Unfortunately I have heard the screams of a mother and father in two separate situations when they have been told their child had died. That is something I wish I could forget.

[cbayer]

12. The Rabbi also moved me tremendously.

I had seen him interviewed before the service. He was very nervous, very sad and very, very concerned that he get it right and gave the most amount of comfort that he could.

Some of it was a little off putting, I agree, but I felt it was all an attempt to reach out to as many people as possible.

I have watched absolutely no network news, but I have watched BBC, SoCal Connected and NewsHour. They are not showing the sensationalist footage that others may be, but are very focused on the the myriad of important issues this raises.

Finally looked at the children last night when NewsHour did an "in remembrance" at the end, much as they do everytime an american dies in the middle east. Had to force myself, but I felt I needed to do it.

So, so very sad, isn't it. Heartbreaking in a way I have only experienced a few other times in my life.

Hope you are OK. Take care of you and yours and seek comfort and solace where you can, rexcat.

[madrchsod]

3. sometimes it`s better not to say anything at all

i have no idea what the hell michael was trying to say or what point he was trying to make. maybe i missed it but is this really the time?

[okasha]

4. I think the point is this:

But beyond that nuance of constitutional law, now is not the time to worry about prayers being offered in a school building, and Newtown is not the place.

Perhaps the writer was thinking about the fellow who was terribly offended and filed suit because he wouldn't be allowed to work on Christmas Day.

[Fumesucker]

5. "but even many atheists and agnostics would probably be put off by a rigidly non-theistic memorial"

Nice mind reading exercise there, kind of ruins the rest of the piece for me.

I remember after 9/11 we had to wait for Tony Fucking Bliar to even mention that non-theists might possibly be having some negative emotions surrounding the event.

[cbayer]

6. I think this is a time for crossing barriers, not enforcing them.

Recognition of all involved seems the right way to go to me, including recognition of believers and non-believers.

To rigidly exclude believers and what is providing them with solace right now would make no sense at all. By being as inclusive as possible, I would hope that believers and non-believers could find a place.

[Fumesucker]

8. Eh, I felt very excluded after 9/11

Watching all the the American politicians talk about how Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and so on were hurting so much and needing comfort.

It took me a couple of days before I started consciously watching to see if those without religion were going to get mentioned, they didn't until Tony Poodle said something about "people of no religion at all", no American politician acknowledged us at all, we were like lepers.

I keep reiterating that most atheists in America understand theists far better then they understand us because most of us were theists at one time or another. It's really irksome to have someone pull a mind reading stunt like that when I know the person doesn't have a fucking clue.

[cbayer]

9. I hear you. There was a tremendous amount of religious talk after 9/11,

driven at least in part because the event itself was seen by so many as religiously driven.

I heard a lot of people trying to quell any possible anti-muslim furor and protect those among us who might be targets of a backlash.

At any rate, it wasn't even entirely clear to me during this service who might be religious and who might not be. It just seemed to speak to everyone without designating anyone.

But I also found the author's statement about atheists awkward, at the very least, and unecessary.

[cbayer]

10. Here is an organization and cause you might be interested in.

I think increasing visibility through things like this could really help the cause of recognition and acceptance.

http://www.weareatheism.com/donate/nonbelievers-giving-aid-support-sandy-hook-elementary/