The C of E's prayer tweet for Richard Dawkins - magnanimous or not?

[OutwiththeOutCrowd]

When Richard Dawkins suffered a stroke earlier this month, the C of E responded with a tweet of ‘prayers for Richard Dawkins and his family’.

Since then, media commentators and tweeters have heatedly debated the rights and wrongs of offering prayers for the most famous atheist in the world.

Amongst the predictable responses on both sides of the divide, there have been a few surprises. For example, Keith Porteous Wood of the National Secular Society has said, somewhat mildly, that it could just be seen as the religious equivalent of saying you’re in our thoughts - although he did also wonder if the tweet was an attempt to court publicity. The Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, on the other hand, said, ‘I think it’s a bit cheap and nasty.’

Rev Arun Arora has robustly defended the tweet, reminding everyone that Jesus urges Christians to pray for their opponents. And plenty of Christians have joined in with and felt good about praying for RD.

Personally, while I don’t think the tweet was mocking or sarcastic, as some on Twitter have asserted, I do feel it was ill-advised. The C of E has behaved as if its worldview is a wonderful one-size-fits-all Procrustean bed.

At a vulnerable and stressful time in his life, the tweet may have left RD feeling jangled. It would certainly not have comforted or heartened him – and that for me is the bottom line and the reason they should have desisted.

At the very least, the C of E could have restrained itself from tweeting. Strictly private prayers that RD need never know about – or even a private message of support in non-religious language sent directly to RD would have been better. A #PrayForDawkins campaign tweeted to the world at large feels wrong to me.

What do others think?

Are adverts for prayer worse and more intrusive than adverts for cars?

"Are adverts for prayer worse and more intrusive than adverts for cars?"

I thought about this before posting. I dislike all ads at the cinema and would happily pay extra not to be force-fed marketing nonsense. I don't mind watching previews for other movies but object to commercials. I actually think it is very cheeky for cinemas to charge entry and also finance their business by forcing silly ads on their customers. Saying that, cinema ads promote goods, I am aware they do this by selling lifestyle myths but I feel there is a massive difference between a diet coke ad and a religion pushed onto me. We live in a religiously diverse society and it is inappropriate to hijack an evening of entertainment to promote any religion.

"Of course the church will pray for RD. Praying is what religious people and organisations do. If there had been a great big fat silence people would immediately have jumped on that as tantamount to being glad he'd had a stroke."

What???? That's a bit of a leap. Why would not tweeting about RD mean the c of e were glad about the stroke that is one of the silliest things i have ever read her. I say this as someone who goes to church quite frequently. why not pray without tweeting about it. the tweeting seems more like PR.

Back to the subject of the tweet - I thought protestations of its genuineness are undermined by the lack of supportive/prayer tweets for other figures of similar stature who have had serious health issues.

Do you follow the Church of England on Twitter, Jassy? Do you know that they haven't encouraged people to pray for others?

RD is not any old public persona; he is someone with whom the CoE has a - sometimes fraught - public relationship; which to my mind makes a public prayer more appropriate than if it were for someone else of 'similar stature' in any case. (I don't follow the CoE on Twitter so I don't know what they've done in other instances).

I notice DioneTheDiabolist hasn't replied to my comment about a 'make your own heaven'. Thank you BigDorrit for explaining that my post wasn't 'bitter', it was as you say, an explanation of the logical fallacies.

"Are adverts for prayer worse and more intrusive than adverts for cars?"
Adverts have to be factually true or the ad can be banned and the company fined. If you allow the C of E to advertise in a cinema then under equality law you have to allow ALL religions (and possibly political groups) to advertise. Would you be happy with allowing the church of scientology or the church of satan to advertise? How exactly are churches going to prove the veracity of their claims? Have you ever heard of Pandora's box?, you really think any church could prove their claims are factual in a court of law? We know about ambulance chasers, how about church chasers suing for the misleading claims made in adverts.

So yes adverts founded on unverifiable claims are not and should never be allowed in cinemas or TV

Just had a scroll through the last months C of E twitter feed. The ONLY specific individual person that prayers are offered for is RD. It the tweet was genuine why do they not offer prayers to other people as well. So why would the church single out this one person, an atheist, to publicly declare as a target for prayers? There is only one possible answer I can see, to court the publicity resulting from the obvious controversy that would ensue. Shameful.

I think that misses the point because the ad didn't claim anything - it promoted a website. Remember it is only in cinemas where there is a ban - churches advertise on buses and billboards all the time. The church of Scientology famously ran an ad a few years ago in the middle of Coronation street - there is no TV ban, and no floodgates.

If anyone tried to run an ad saying 'turn to X or Y religion or you will burn in hell' then it would not be passed under the CAP code anyway.

Do you follow the Church of England on Twitter, Jassy? Do you know that they haven't encouraged people to pray for others

I had a good old look back through their Twitter history before posting. They don't seem to make a habit of praying for poorly celebrity/academic of the day (or the week....)

Which makes Dawkins a curious choice, no?

EdithSimcox, I think you have missed my point. One advert on its own is not a flood but if allowed then any religion would also be allowed to advertise at a cinema. So would you be happy allowing cults, scientology or the church of satan to advertise in cinemas?

Billboards and buses are not the same as I can look away or switch over if I dont want to see them, I am not a captive audience as it would be in a cinema.

And if all religions and cults were allowed into cinemas they might not make claims but they can refer to websites that do make claims and do abuse vulnerable people. And it wouldn't be long before there was a petition/claims of being offened, forcing churches to prove their claims to the ASA.

Bolognese, I notice that you haven't replied to my "unhappy residents" comment.

BTW Bolognese, what "fantasy" of mine were you talking about?

But bolognese if there was a risk of a flood, wouldn't it have happened after the Scientology ad was shown on TV?

As for cults etc, their ads would have to be approved (as the CoE one was) in advance by the Cinema Advertising Authority and would have to comply with the CAP Code - if they pass, then yes, fine.

jassy no it doesn't, see my comment at 16.33

I think you might be reading too much into it. Adversaries often have strong feelings and mutual respect and I think the Church is just extending the hand of prayer. Love thy enemy and forgive them.

jassy no it doesn't, see my comment at 16.33

Honestly, Edith, I think that's quite a charitable interpretation. Possible, but is it the most likely scenario? Not sure based in the past behaviour of the CofE's PR department.

To be candid, I thought the tweet was mischievous at best and point-scoring at worst, and typical of the CofE's head of publicity. I think they too often take the adage 'no publicity is bad publicity' at face value.

On the other hand, who wouldn't want to pray for Richard Dawkins to recover from his stroke? I was certainly happy to do so, and I would have been happy to encourage others to do so too. I feel I have a duty to pray for the sick, the dying, the outcast, the friendless, and those in need - and temporarily (hopefully) Richard Dawkins fell into one of those groups.

That's interesting. What else has he done? Other than the prayer ad debacle I don't know anything else about him. (Arun Arora I mean)

He's a bit of an attack-dog.

After Vicky Beeching came out he tweeted that she would be welcome in church because 'we are all broken'.

Richard Dawkins has a relationship with the Church of England in a way that other public figures/celebrities/academics do not, clearly. It was a mutual respect thing more than a PR stunt (although it was probably a little bit of a PR stunt). The C of E wouldn't tweet about praying for other public figures because there is no relationship there - say the Governor of the Bank of England for example. If they heard that the fine Mr Carney was ill, they might offer up prayers, but it is not newsworthy.

I think it's a bit laughable and try-hard that the C of E is on twitter anyways [old gimmer emoticon]

Oh. That's crap. Who is Vicky Beeching?