If one cannot focus one's prayers powerfully enough in the privacy of one's own home, then one is indulging in a performative public display and not much focused on communicating with the god one purports to believe in.
It's human nature to attach certain behaviors and rituals to worship. See, e, g. altars, lighting candles, lighting incense, creating statuary and icons, laying-on of hands, joining hands, anointing with oils, making offerings, scattering ashes, laying flowers, making bonfires, dancing sky-clad, prayer wheels, stained glass windows, song, bells, drums, body postures, water immersion, special clothing, special foods, sex in the cornfields.....
To select one particular behavior--praying in public, near the people for whom one is praying--and state that this method of praying is just out of bounds and makes no sense, seems....overly particular?? That's how they pray, and to me, it makes no more or less objective sense than the countless other ways in which people connect to their understanding of the Divine.
I'm stuck on the issue of, is this behavior in a different category of "performative" as opposed to the literally endless cross-cultural examples of worship/prayer types of activities that are also symbolic acts performed in public? And doesn't every such public worship activity demand/command/invite the attention of others?
First of all, thank you for your on-going willingness to engage in respectful back-and-forth.
Now I am wondering if you object to anti-abortionists praying at a reasonable distance, especially if they are quiet? NB you may find it relevant that, when I was young, I accessed birth control for a time through local Planned Parenthood. I did not like having loud protesters near me at that time; I don't like such things no matter what the cause. But I am also a huge (you could say religious) believer in preserving individual civil rights and liberties such as freedom of speech and assembly. I think that establishing a safety zone around abortion facilities and enforcing noise limits is a reasonable compromise.
My essential point is this: If one absolutely believes in the god one is praying to, then that prayer need not be a performative display of your sacred devotion to impeding the liberty of women to decide whether to remain pregnant or not as best suits them.
Laws as we know are very imperfect and no law suits all circumstances. That's why human decency and common sense must also come into play. And of course "human decency" and "common sense" have no universal definition.
All public demonstrations are coercive in nature. That's their point. To encourage or to stop an action or policy that the mob wishes to impede.
Didn't Jesus have something to say about all that? Matthew 6:1-18
If one cannot focus one's prayers powerfully enough in the privacy of one's own home, then one is indulging in a performative public display and not much focused on communicating with the god one purports to believe in.
It's human nature to attach certain behaviors and rituals to worship. See, e, g. altars, lighting candles, lighting incense, creating statuary and icons, laying-on of hands, joining hands, anointing with oils, making offerings, scattering ashes, laying flowers, making bonfires, dancing sky-clad, prayer wheels, stained glass windows, song, bells, drums, body postures, water immersion, special clothing, special foods, sex in the cornfields.....
To select one particular behavior--praying in public, near the people for whom one is praying--and state that this method of praying is just out of bounds and makes no sense, seems....overly particular?? That's how they pray, and to me, it makes no more or less objective sense than the countless other ways in which people connect to their understanding of the Divine.
I didn't say it was out of bounds, though it certainly is performative and demanding the attention of anyone other than the Divine.
I'm stuck on the issue of, is this behavior in a different category of "performative" as opposed to the literally endless cross-cultural examples of worship/prayer types of activities that are also symbolic acts performed in public? And doesn't every such public worship activity demand/command/invite the attention of others?
Yes, all of those acts are performative and often quite coercive and not infrequently lead to public hysterias that can be dangerous to non-hysterics.
First of all, thank you for your on-going willingness to engage in respectful back-and-forth.
Now I am wondering if you object to anti-abortionists praying at a reasonable distance, especially if they are quiet? NB you may find it relevant that, when I was young, I accessed birth control for a time through local Planned Parenthood. I did not like having loud protesters near me at that time; I don't like such things no matter what the cause. But I am also a huge (you could say religious) believer in preserving individual civil rights and liberties such as freedom of speech and assembly. I think that establishing a safety zone around abortion facilities and enforcing noise limits is a reasonable compromise.
My essential point is this: If one absolutely believes in the god one is praying to, then that prayer need not be a performative display of your sacred devotion to impeding the liberty of women to decide whether to remain pregnant or not as best suits them.
Laws as we know are very imperfect and no law suits all circumstances. That's why human decency and common sense must also come into play. And of course "human decency" and "common sense" have no universal definition.
All public demonstrations are coercive in nature. That's their point. To encourage or to stop an action or policy that the mob wishes to impede.
Didn't Jesus have something to say about all that? Matthew 6:1-18