On Saturday morning, National Public Radio’s Weekend Edition Saturday reported on a most unusual art installation in Manhattan – prayer booths, which look like little phone booths, but come decorated with a kneeler and hands folded in prayer. NPR sent reporter Margot Adler – the pagan witch – to address this issue, and she just happened to stumble across the New York City Atheists as she opened the story:
MARGOT ADLER: You couldn't find a place less conducive to meditation than this corner of 60th Street where cars are streaming east toward the 59th Street Bridge or down 2nd Avenue. And yet there are two prayer booths here a block apart. I'm surprised to see Ken Bronstein, the president of New York City Atheists, checking them out.
(To Bronstein): So you just happened to be walking by at this very moment.
KEN BRONSTEIN: I just happened to be walking by at this exact moment. But I always keep my eyes and ears open.
ADLER: And what Bronstein says is "art-schmart," this is prayer in a public place.
BRONSTEIN: As an atheist, when you talk about prayer, you’re talking to a supernatural situation, and we say there is no supernatural. So that definitely puts it in a religious category. That to me is the line. You know, if they want to put it on private property, that's where it should go -- but not in public space.
No one in the story suggests that the atheist has a funny idea of religious freedom, that there is no room for religious speech or action in "public space." But it’s hard for most listeners to buy the argument that Bronstein "just happened to be walking by." If Adler didn’t contact him beforehand, it’s possible he doesn’t just walk by, but monitors or protests the prayer booths.
Here's another reason for skepticism: Adler failed to just discover a protester in August as she delighted in a piece of public art that satirized waterboarding SpongeBob Squarepants.
There’s no spokesman for "organized religion" in the prayer-as-art story, but the booths are an art project, not a church activity. A religious spokesman might have pointed out to NPR that praying to grab earthly attention doesn’t count so much. Adler reported after observing the booth for an hour, "no one prays," but she found a woman and then a seven-year-old boy (whose pet gerbil died) who reported praying there. Then she spoke with the artist:
ADLER: The artist, Dylan Mortimer, who says he is a person of faith, designed these prayer booths as part of the city's Arts in the Park program to start a dialogue about public prayer.
DYLAN MORTIMER: The piece sparks a wide range of reactions from people loving it, to people hating it, to people threatening me and to people -- I mean, it's kind of all over the board.
ADLER: He says prayer is a really difficult topic, especially in a city like New York. It's a loaded topic, causes divisions. But let's face it, he says, people could be praying anywhere, sitting down, standing up, or walking or running. And of course it's true all you have to do is ride the New York City subways to see Jewish men davening over prayer books, Catholic women saying the rosary, and lots of people doing who knows what, eyes closed, hands folded. As Dylan Mortimer puts it...
MORTIMER: Perhaps a scary reality is there could be people praying all around you. And that's sort of the point.
If prayer is a "scary reality," then you must be an atheist, someone who’s opposed to prayer as an act of nonsense. Adler ended her report by repeating the worldview of the atheist protesters: "Although, others would argue that what people do privately is not the same thing as having something out there in public, even if it's art. Margot Adler, NPR News, New York."
And yet others would argue that it's offensive for religious believers to fork over their tax dollars to a public radio news division that mocks or objects to their faith.
The Kansas City Star has a picture of the booth, and added the artist offers a hipster worldview:
Mortimer’s exhibit: Titled "Ble$$ed," the show "explores hip-hop as liberation theology in the transition from poverty to wealth," Mortimer said. Featured works include a diamond-covered crown of thorns and a bulletproof preacher’s robe.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
If I had the same luck as NPR's for finding "things"
November 24, 2008 - 07:30 ET by HeavyChevyI would play the lottery every day...and win!
It's just not fair
November 24, 2008 - 07:51 ET by ThisnThatI wonder how NPR is reacting to all the bailout money going elsewhere? I mean -- all those failures getting so much money, while they are producing such wonderful shows like this -- and they still have to have all those auctions just to make ends meet. Not fair, I tell you. I'm pulling out my wallet now, making that phone call.....
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
ThisnThat...
November 24, 2008 - 08:59 ET by HeavyChevyI will take that challange sir and I too shall make that call and match you penny for penny!!! :-)
Atheism Creeping Into Public Space
November 24, 2008 - 09:15 ET by Gothampc"You know, if they want to put it on private property, that's where it should go -- but not in public space."
Notice how the place for no religious activity has broadened. It used to be no religious activity on government property. Now it's in "public space".
Maybe the Atheists forgot what the word...
November 24, 2008 - 10:13 ET by HeavyChevyPUBLIC means....just saying.
"9 out of 10 doctors agree that flag burning is the number one killer of liberals."
exactly chevy
November 24, 2008 - 10:20 ET by candanceIn their minds all public space means their public space where they get to decide what it fair and what is not. Just for kicks, we should request that atheistic assertions be banned in public too since that is offensive to believers. Why can't they just keep their opinions to themselves on private property? The cries of indignation would be hilarious.
I'm a typical white person.
Public space
November 24, 2008 - 09:27 ET by KC MulvilleI'd like to second the point about how these atheists blur the line between government space and public space. Either they're doing it deliberately, or their zeal for own their point of view has pushed them to intellectual blindness, unable to make obvious and simple distinctions.
If praying in public is considered objectionable, then are all public expressions of faith unacceptable? If the church displays a cross, is that a public offense? If a teenager wears a crucifix on a chain, is that a public nuisance? Pretty soon, all we'll be allowed to display publicly are the signs for the nearest sex shop.
By sprinting to the absurd, these atheists cheapen their influence. Media hacks like Adler are trying to start a whisper campaign, undermining faith wherever they see it. But nobody falls for that trick anymore.
Invoking an emotion.
November 24, 2008 - 09:52 ET byJust as the bus goes by the prayer booth, one will see the advertisement on the side of the bus-
"Don't believe in God? You're not alone!"...or...
What would be fun is hooking up a small speaker inside the prayer booth and having "God" speak directly to the faithful and watching their reaction on a video feed down the street...or...
Entering a prayer booth and yelling out, "Hey, where's the TOILET PAPER?!?"...or...
Waiting for the right moment just as someone enters, locking the door behind them and to see how long they survive on prayer alone...or...
Walking by without ever noticing it...
Übercon
Waiting for the right
November 24, 2008 - 14:17 ET by dvdaughtryWaiting for the right moment just as someone enters, locking the door behind them and to see how long they survive on prayer alone...or...
You have it wrong (as usual). It's man shall not live by bread alone.
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
No, I meant it...
November 24, 2008 - 14:56 ET bydvd,
Could you educate me on transubstantiation?
It always seemed odd.
Übercon
→ Transubstantiation
November 24, 2008 - 15:03 ET by Cool ArrowI thought it was consubstantiation. But I guess there is a transitive state that exists during the mystical change.
Like Cool mentions below,
November 24, 2008 - 15:20 ET by dvdaughtryLike Cool mentions [edit] above (not below), its sounds like you mean consubstantiation. However, I was not referring to the Lord's Supper. But if you really want to know, I would be more than happy to share.
Anyway, I was merely pointing out that your joke that was backwards (like most of what I have seen of your posts).
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
No, Transubstantiation.
November 24, 2008 - 15:35 ET bydvd and Cool,
You do know the difference, correct?
Übercon
→ Correct
November 24, 2008 - 15:39 ET by Cool ArrowI understand the difference.
You're the one who wanted an explanation, and now you're trying to school me on the meaning?
I always found it to be odd.
November 24, 2008 - 15:48 ET byCoolA,
So...what's the difference and why should I not find it to be odd?
Educate me, since, according to a number of posters, I'm not as knowledgeable on all things religious in manner...
Übercon
Sounds like you don't need
November 24, 2008 - 15:48 ET by dvdaughtrySounds like you don't need me to explain anything after all.
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
Transubstantiation
November 24, 2008 - 15:56 ET by moderncommentaries83Okay - I'll start at the beginning. The Catholic Mass is divided into two parts: the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist.
The Liturgy of the Word is the “first half” of the Mass and consists of the First Reading (Old Testament), a responsorial Psalm, the Second Reading (Old Testament) and the Gospel. It also consists of prayers and the homily (a/k/a sermon).
The Liturgy of the Eucharist is the “second half” of the Mass and consists of the consecration of the bread and wine and Communion.
During the Liturgy of the Eucharist, the priest takes the chalice of wine and the Host, recites Christ’s word from the Last Supper, and blesses the wine and bread.
Catholics believe that the Biblical account of the Last Supper is to be taken literally. That is, when Christ said “This is my body…this is my blood” in respect to the bread and wine, that it actually becomes the body and blood of Christ. This is transubstantiation.
This happens through divine grace, the priest acting in persona Christi (“in the person of Christ”), and the miraculous nature of God and Christ. We believe that only an ordained priest (a male priest, orthodox and faithful to the teaching of the Church) can consecrate the bread and wine because they have to act in the place of Christ (who was a man) during the Liturgy of the Eucharist. We believe that because Christ said the bread and wine are His body and blood that they are His Body and Blood…just as Christ changed the water to wine at the Wedding in Cana. We believe the Liturgy of the Eucharist, and especially the consecration is a miracle.
This belief is supported by other things Christ says throughout His earthly ministry – especially John 6:31-71 (http://www.usccb.org...), where Christ explicitly says, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day…” Christ lost many followers when He said this, as they were appalled by what they perceived (and many non-Christians in early days of Christianity perceived) as “cannibalism” (it wasn’t.).
Catholicism reveres the Eucharist. It is reserved in the tabernacle at Church and tabernacles should be secure, locked, fire retardant boxes that protect the Eucharist from harm. When the Eucharist is displayed, it is placed in a monstrance, a radiant and beautiful device that protects and glorifies Christ’s body for adoration.
It’s really a miraculous, faith-affirming blessing to be able to partake in the Eucharist at Mass and this is why Catholics are deeply hurt and aggrieved when someone desecrates or mocks the Eucharist. It is not a cracker and some grape juice to us, it is the Body and Blood of Christ, more sacred and precious than anything.
I could tell you many stories – most recently Prof. PZ Myers – of people who’ve intentionally desecrated the Eucharist to intentionally hurt and offend the sensibilities and faith of Catholics.
Hope that helps.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
how old are you? member
November 24, 2008 - 14:20 ET by katainkenthow old are you?
member of the Conservative Independant Witness Protection Program since Nov. 5, 2008
Old enough to...
November 24, 2008 - 14:53 ET by...spell "Independent" correctly if I were to use it in my tagline...
ROTFFLMFAO!!!
"member of the Conservative Independant Witness Protection Program since Nov. 5, 2008"-NICE!
Übercon
Ok it's mispelled.
November 24, 2008 - 14:57 ET by katainkentOk it's mispelled. Everyone suffers from typlexia at one point or another... I'll get around to changing it.
it's ok if you dont care to answer, was just curious.
member of the Conservative Independant Witness Protection Program since Nov. 5, 2008
Older than a third grader...
November 24, 2008 - 15:28 ET bykent,
...and just as smart to catch your mistake. It's still misspelled!
Übercon
"Art" cannot be religious except...
November 24, 2008 - 10:01 ET by moderncommentaries83"Art" cannot be religious in nature except when it receives public funds and trashes traditional religion. I can think of no better example of this than "Piss Christ" (and you have no idea how digusted I am to even type that), a crucifix submerged in a jar of the "artist's" urine and blood.
But remember, people, it's religious folk who are irrational, immature, and unhinged. Good gracious - the liberal indoctrination of schools has really worked, hasn't it? People no longer see the First Amendment as the great protector of religious freedom, but as this scary thing that allows people to - gasp! - pray in public.
I get into debates on religious freedom ALOT with liberals, and the language does shift. "Government property" is now "public space" - so where does it stop? It doesn't. People like this won't rest until the First Amendment PROHIBITS free expression of religion in public, and perhaps even not until they can tell us we can/can't pray or worship in our own homes.
Any liberal who tells me this isn't an all-out culture war is full of it. And any conservative who says it isn't needs to get a clue.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
I'll either find a way or I'll make one
of course tim
November 24, 2008 - 10:12 ET by candanceThis is what the hard left has been planning for decades.
Conservies know what the real goal is and warn about it all the time. Five years ago we warned that the line would start to blur between government property vs anywhere in public. Lefties called us paranoid and insisted the "slippery slope" theory was extreme.
Give it a few more years and they'll say we shouldn't have the right to wear cross pendants or put fish stickers on our cars. No one should be forced to look at those horrible symbols! It's like hanging a confederate flag outside your house!
Then the lefties here will move the goalpost a little more and keep calling us paranoid.
I'm a typical white person.
Schools have already done that
November 24, 2008 - 10:29 ET by moderncommentaries83Some schools are already trying to forbid religious jewelry as gang symbols, etc.
They will stop at nothing. No idea, however outlandish it may seem, is beyond their thinking when it comes to destroying religious freedom.
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Godwin's law.
November 24, 2008 - 12:45 ET byThe Nazis thought the Jews enjoyed wearing those stars on their clothes.
By the way, you should know as a female that there are plenty of people who think you do not have the right to do what you want with your body. So, if they believe you are violating and desecrating their property they will want you to remove the pendant. Your private property, though, is still okay as long as there are no liens or debt owed on the property you think you own. Couldn't the Gov't Bank who owns your car & house institute a rule on not displaying items i.e. fish stickers & flags on their property...? Slippery slope indeed! Your socialist Gov't at work...
Übercon
sorry ubercon
November 24, 2008 - 13:39 ET by candanceBy the way, you should know as a female that there are plenty of people who think you do not have the right to do what you want with your body. So, if they believe you are violating and desecrating their property they will want you to remove the pendant.
I can only guess you're talking about abortion here, but I fail to see how a baby's body is the same as my body. Abortion says babies don't have the right to their own bodies simply because they are at the mercy of a woman. Some right to privacy that is.
And I don't see anyone on the right running around screaming that Jews desecrate their bodies by wearing a star or that Wiccans desecrate theirs by carrying rune stones.
I'm a typical white person.
You missed it...
November 24, 2008 - 13:49 ET bycandance,
If the government can tell you what you can and can't do with your own body...you do not "own" the rights to it. Just as we bailout the banks with taxpayer money, the government will "own" the loans and mortgages on cars & homes. The government could decide as a rule not to allow you the right to display items on their property. The Nazi reference was a reverse on the theme...the government labelling and attaching items onto their property...your body, car and/or house.
Übercon
no uber
November 24, 2008 - 13:54 ET by candanceYou missed it.
Let me say it once more, a bit slower....
A baby's body is not my body!
For your point about the government owning our homes and cars, we've seen that coming and tried to stop the bailout for that precise reason. Welcome to where I was six weeks ago.
I'm a typical white person.
The difference...
November 24, 2008 - 13:54 ET by...one can live without the other and not vice-versa.
At least you still have a choice.
Übercon
ah
November 24, 2008 - 13:59 ET by candanceSo since a baby is at my mercy to survive that means it's okay to let it die? Great logic!
I'm a typical white person.
'At least you still have a choice'
November 24, 2008 - 14:30 ET by choselife3x?? Does a baby have a 'choice' about being concieved? Your statement doesn't make sense to me. Do I understand you correctly Uber?
In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.
Only 6 weeks ago...
November 24, 2008 - 13:58 ET byThat's not very long...
I'm glad to see you coming over to this side of the fence.
Übercon
yawn
November 24, 2008 - 14:01 ET by candanceSince I don't recall you speaking about this in detail six weeks ago I'm not impressed with you bringing it up now so you can pretend to be smarter than me.
I'm a typical white person.
Okay...how about 9 weeks ago...?
November 25, 2008 - 09:58 ET bycandance,
You must believe in me, sweetheart!
Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity. Don't
assign to stupidity what might be due to ignorance. And try not to
assume your opponent is the ignorant one -- until you can show it isn't
you. - M. L. Plano
Übercon
Ubers fence
November 24, 2008 - 14:12 ET by upcountrywaterDon't fence me in uber's yard
DEMOCRAT
Aclu</
Good afternoon candance
November 24, 2008 - 14:01 ET by cocodrieYou won't get a pro-death person to admit that an unborn baby is a live human being. Their blinders are permanently attached.
Terminology
November 25, 2008 - 10:07 ET byCoco,
You should try "fetus".
That's a term that sets everything on fire!
Übercon
The stars didn't serve that purpose...
November 24, 2008 - 13:50 ET by andophiroxiaThe Nazis thought the Jews enjoyed wearing those stars on their clothes.
Actually, the Nazis used that to separate the Jews into groups and to establish them from the other citizenry into second-class citizenship. Basically, it gave people free license to abuse the European Jewry any way they wanted. If you shot, hurt, abused or killed a Jew, you were doing the world a favor according to their sick ideology. It was a form of dehumanization. Also, the tattooing in the camps was for that purpose. All this, because it was to fufill their idea of eugenics to a logical end.
I find it interesting that with the homosexual community has adopted the upside down triangle...apparently that is what Hitler used to separate and define the homosexuals so that he could kill them off easier. Ironic, because the man who introduced Hitler into the Nazi party was a practicing homosexual. Oh yes, Hitler killed him off at the beginnning too.
“You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.” ~ Winston Churchill
Correct...
November 24, 2008 - 13:51 ET byA,
It's a small step from disallowing to allowing items to be displayed on government property.
Übercon
Religious Freedom
November 24, 2008 - 11:32 ET by PopularTechIt is in the constitution and everyone should be able to wear or practice whatever religious beliefs they want, including atheists.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Censored Global Warming Videos
dude - we know Dominate
November 24, 2008 - 11:35 ET by TruthMongerdude - we know
Dominate education now
RELIGIOUS PROBLEM
November 24, 2008 - 11:50 ET by cocodrieThe road is open to practice any religion as long as it's god is allah, buddah, the thousands from India or Irving Gonfurcoughie.
The government however has thrown up roadblocks on the road to Jesus.
funny - but i believe any
November 24, 2008 - 12:03 ET by TruthMongerfunny - but i believe any religion can use these prayer booths - government was designed to be very small, meek, and unable to hinder religion IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN - not just the private
Dominate education now
What's the point?
November 24, 2008 - 16:11 ET by HillbillyKingI would greatly appreciate it if someone would take the time explain to me WHY this was included in Mr. Graham's piece;
– the pagan witch –
I noticed it was also included in Mr. Graham's SpongeBob piece.
What relevance does this have on the story Mr. Graham wrote about?
Does it it have as much relevance as what Mr. Graham left out of his piece. You know, the fact that the artist in question, Dylan Mortimer, is a Pastor at a Church that states their belief as such;
We believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy universal Christian Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.
As an aside, what constitutes a spokesperson for organized religion? The Pope? This Guy? I ask, because I wonder if being President of the New York City Atheists would be consider being a spokesperson for these people.
Your thoughts?
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
In case anyone
November 26, 2008 - 14:02 ET by HillbillyKingis interested, here's the New York City Atheists website
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937