"I'll pray for you." Management Says "Not On My Watch!"

[Thudlow_Boink]

@TroutMan

From a scientific perspective, I think the prayers are useless. And the person is supposedly doing this for me, so why do their desires outweigh mine?

Depends on whether you’re talking about them praying for you, or about them telling you they’re praying for you.

If it’s the former, the only thing that’s relevant is whether they think what they are doing is helpful.

@TroutMan

The reason it would bother me personally is because there’s probably a lot a person could do for me if they really cared.

Praying for you and doing other things for you are not mutually exclusive. Especially if the prayer is something like, "Lord, show me how I can help TroutMan.

I do not deny that there exist people who pray as a way of avoiding doing something else to help while still feeling like they’re helping. I do deny that that is universal of all pray-ers. And I have no idea how common it is.

[TroutMan]

@Thudlow_Boink

Praying for you and doing other things for you are not mutually exclusive. Especially if the prayer is something like, "Lord, show me how I can help TroutMan.

I get it, and I try to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are trying to be helpful. And if they included “what can I do?” along with prayers, I’d probably ignore the prayer statement and not be bothered at all. It’s when prayer is all that’s offered that it starts to appear self-centered. As I said above…

I’d be bothered that they were doing something meaningful to them, and apparently don’t care enough to think about what would be meaningful to me.

[Projammer]

@Aspenglow

I can’t say I’m offended, though. It’s not the most offensive thing I’m likely to encounter regularly. My typical response these days is to simply offer a big smile and say, “Knock yourself out!”

And the best part is that they don’t know you mean that literally.

[thorny_locust]

@Odesio

Is anyone offended when someone says they’ll pray for you?

I’m not offended, exactly. But, unless I know the person well – and sometimes when I do know them well – it can make me anywhere from slightly to very uncomfortable, depending on the tone and the circumstances.

@Odesio

Some people are religious and at times they’re going to express that. To some degree, shouldn’t we accept that?

I’ll happily accept that people wear religious clothing and/or religious symbols at work; and that they perform rituals such as stopping to pray (in a fashion reasonably non-disturbing to those not taking part), saying (silently or quietly) grace before eating, washing before eating; and that they take their particular holy days off work; and that they say ‘if the company’s ordering food for this meeting, can we include among the options something kosher/halal/meeting whatever religious dietary restrictions?’.

Saying they’re going to pray for me is different from saying “'scuse me, I need to go pray now.”

@TriPolar

in ordinary human discourse the presumption should be that it’s a polite gesture without any subtext.

In your experience of “ordinary human discourse” in your area, would that presumption apply if the statement is “I’ll pray to Allah for you” or “I’ll pray to the Goddess for you”?

There is generally a whole lot of subtext to it. There is always, unless it’s explicitly disavowed, at least the subtext “Of course we both believe in God, doesn’t everybody?”

And that does matter. It matters a great deal.

@msmith537

I look at “I’ll pray for you” in the same way. That is to say. I don’t literally expect them to ask an invisible man in the sky on behalf any more that I would expect them to bop themselves on the head with a mallet.

Really? I think a significant number, at least, of the people who’ll say “I’ll pray for you” will do so. Because they really think it works.

People who don’t think it works don’t say that; except, maybe, to people who they individually know will be upset if they don’t.

@susan

members of the Jewish community asked me if I would like to be on the prayer list. That was reasonable and welcome.

Yes. Asking is a different thing. It doesn’t make assumptions.

@Miller

atheism just sucks as a way of offering emotional comfort to people.

As everything which makes up your body remains in the universe and will make up other living things in the future, so do all the work and desire and love that were part of you remain in the universe, and will add to the lives of others in the future.

(Also: no you don’t have to worry about burning in hell! though that doesn’t apply to all religions.)

[Kimstu]

@Odesio

The bullshit part I was referring to was adding a J to DEI.

TBF, I’m not convinced that this was primarily inspired by the desire to turn DEI into the more “cute” acronym JEDI. ISTM that at least as often I see it in the form “JEID” (pronounced “jade”). There’s also the alternative form “DEIB”, or some permutation thereof, where the “B” stands for “belonging”.

Perhaps belatedly noted: I don’t mean to downplay or dismiss anybody’s not unreasonable recognition of the fact that the current climate of moral earnestness about equality and inclusion etc. sometimes diffuses into what feels like pointless or frivolous nitpicking. It does not make anybody a bad person to wonder if we really need to devise yet another category of gender identity or gender-neutral pronouns, or to tweak the wording of official documents for the hundredth time to avoid exclusionary language.

Personally, I’m often reminded of the similar tsunami of moral earnestness in Victorian Christianity that saturates so much of 19th-century English literature. There is no denying that a pervasive climate of moral earnestness, in any form, inevitably produces a lot of unhelpful purist hairsplitting and performative lip service, as well as outright cant and hypocrisy.

However, moral earnestness also often accomplishes a hell of a lot in the way of genuine social reform. So I try to roll with the punches of “wokeist” enthusiasm, trusting in the churn of time to separate out the petty quibbles from the profound changes.

[Czarcasm]

A single “How can I help?” is worth a thousand prayers in my opinion. Even if the answer is “You can’t…but thank you”, I’m not left wondering about that person’s sincerity.

[Saint_Cad]

@Odesio

Is anyone offended when someone says they’ll pray for you?

Nah. They’re doing what they think is the best thing to help me. It doesn’t matter if Jeebus does the Real or not or even cares enough about me to listen to my prayers for the intention to be there.

[Czarcasm]

@Saint_Cad

Nah. They’re doing what they think is the best thing to help me.

Are they? Out of all the ways they could be of assistance, they chose the one way that takes no time, effort, or money, and makes them look good. After a while it becomes the go-to response instead of the fall back when they can’t offer any help. I liken it to all those insipid Facebook posts where someone says “If you are sincere about wanting to help out all those that died in that horrible earthquake, like my post then repost it!” Fuck that! If I want to help victims of an earthquake I’m going to contribute goods and/or/ money and/or effort.

[TriPolar]

@thorny_locust

In your experience of “ordinary human discourse” in your area, would that presumption apply if the statement is “I’ll pray to Allah for you” or “I’ll pray to the Goddess for you”?

There is generally a whole lot of subtext to it. There is always, unless it’s explicitly disavowed, at least the subtext “Of course we both believe in God, doesn’t everybody?”

And that does matter. It matters a great deal.

I wouldn’t care if they said “I’ll pray to Satan for you” or even “I’ll pray to Trump for you”. But that’s not what the OP is about. If someone says “I’ll pray for you” it is a polite gesture and the polite response is “Thank you” unless you have a specific reason to think that individual means something else.

[Kimstu]

@Czarcasm

Out of all the ways they could be of assistance, they chose the one way that takes no time, effort, or money, and makes them look good.

Not sure all of that is true; I certainly know people who spend more time and effort on praying for others than it takes me to make a GoFundMe donation, for example. And I don’t know that they think praying makes them “look good” more than giving a donation or doing a favor; it’s just what feels meaningful to them.

@TriPolar

“I’ll pray for you” it is a polite gesture and the polite response is “Thank you” unless you have a specific reason to think that individual means something else.

That’s the problem. Using the phrase sort of demands an endorsement of the practice, in the name of good manners. Acknowledging the phrase, which its user views as a gesture of kindness and support, in any non-rude way ends up implying to some extent that I think prayer is a good thing too.

If I were a vegetarian and somebody said “I’ll bake one of my sausage casseroles for you”, I could politely say “Oh, no thank you, I don’t eat meat and can’t use it, but how very kind of you to offer.” But if somebody says “I’ll pray for you”, I can’t say “Oh, no thank you, I can’t use it, but how very kind of you to offer”; I have to say just “Thank you”, which implies that I am grateful to them not only for their kind intention but for their action of prayer itself.

That’s the subtext-microagression problem that thorny_locust and others have been pointing out. Traditional etiquette has long accorded some degree of privileged status to religious beliefs, especially majority ones, so that expressions of such belief get coded as mere neutral “politeness”. Which forces respondents, as I said, into a form of tacit endorsement of those beliefs, because it’s considered rude to state or suggest direct disagreement with somebody else’s beliefs, however gratuitously or inappropriately asserted.

As a first step toward fixing this problem, I think it’s not necessary to say “Thank you” in response to “I’ll pray for you”, although of course it’s still necessary to be polite. I recommend a neutral and very fleeting “Mm” or “Mm-hm”, immediately followed by a warm expression of appreciation of the part of the behavior you actually do appreciate, such as “It was so kind of you to stop by to offer condolences, that means a lot to me”. Just tactfully pass over the TMI part where they are telling you about their personal prayer habits and their intention to make you a subject of them.

[kayaker]

@Miller

My point is there’s no way to express condolences in a way that’s explicitly atheistic that’s socially acceptable.

What about, “wow, that sucks, if you need help with anything, let me know”?

[DavidNRockies]

I read some book years ago – maybe about grief and loss – where I saw the line,

I’ll be over with a casserole and all the time in the world to listen.

Particularly when the situation is grief, loss, horrible news about a serious illness, that sort of thing, I’ve found that line (delivered sincerely and backed up if accepted) to be pretty much nothing but upside.

One thing you always hear when the circumstances are That Kind of Dire is that offering generically (eg, “Let me know if you need anything”) still puts the burden on the reeling person to make executive decisions and assess their needs – maybe something they’re truly struggling to manage.

Things like the above, or

I’d like to bring dinner by. Would Monday or Wednesday be better for you?

Tend to truly relieve the person In The Middle Of of even having to make that decision. They can still express their gratitude but decline, but …

Also, as to what TO say … “I’m so very sorry” seems to land pretty well, particularly if we’re not talking about a situation where you want to vounteer.

[Jasmine]

@Odesio

Me personally, I don’t care. If you tell me you’re going to pray for me I’m going to take it in the same spirit as you telling me “good luck” or “I’m sorry.” You could tell me you’ll pray to Apollo and Aesclepius that my gout goes away and I’ll be perfectly comfortable with that.

I really believe that is the sensible approach. In terms of personal interaction. Militant atheists annoy me just as much as aggressive evangelists although, on an organizational level, I feel the religious right is actually dangerous. The sad fact is that we have too many people whose hobby seems to be getting offended by things that are really innocuous in nature.

[kayaker]

@Jasmine

Militant atheists annoy me just as much as aggressive evangelists

I wasn’t a militant atheist (in fact nobody knew my religious beliefs) until the religious movement fired upon me.

[Jasmine]

@kayaker

I wasn’t a militant atheist (in fact nobody knew my religious beliefs) until the religious movement fired upon me.

I can certainly understand that, and it happens in far too many cases. The best advertisement for what we believe is how we behave and treat others, not a fanatical dogmatic diatribe.

[Odesio]

@Czarcasm

Are they? Out of all the ways they could be of assistance, they chose the one way that takes no time, effort, or money, and makes them look good.

I’m with you here, I don’t really think they’re offering to help. To me, it’s akin to saying “I’m sorry for you loss.” It’s not really helpful save for maybe making me feel a tiny bit better. But I’m also not so cynical as you. Barring evidence to suggest otherwise, I tend to take people at face value. I don’t think I’ve heard someone just say “You’ll be in my prayers” without offering some other form of condolences.

[Czarcasm]

“Militant atheists”?? What an ugly and inaccurate term.

[Jasmine]

That statement in and of itself is aggressive and hostile. Anyone who has been talked to in a haughty and condescending manner because they have spiritual beliefs knows exactly what I’m saying.

[hogarth]

“Hey, buddy! I heard you have cancer, so I’m going to do 37 jumping jacks and then eat a McDonald’s hamburger. I hope that helps with the cancer. No need to thank me, I’m glad to do it!”

[Cheesesteak]

@Jasmine

The sad fact is that we have too many people whose hobby seems to be getting offended by things that are really innocuous in nature.

There was a time when “innocuous” was used to describe a fair number of acts that are now seen as racist, misogynist, homophobic or otherwise simply unacceptable.

You know what’s actually innocuous? Keeping me out of your religious rituals.