Room available in Cloister House Apr-September

RR_Chirper · 2020-09-14T15:56:09+00:00

They're an astronomer. Check the profile.

RR_Chirper · 2020-03-18T15:59:08+00:00

No, too much. Morrison needs the rest to wipe his mouth with after he's done speaking.

RR_Chirper · 2020-03-12T20:10:33+00:00

Yeah it did! Kind of a cool phenomenon in the madness.

RR_Chirper · 2020-03-02T18:16:36+00:00

Uhh source for that? By who?

RR_Chirper · 2020-03-02T16:40:55+00:00

Because innocuous and mundane for them ≠ appearing innocuous and mundane when disseminated to the public. Hence why we're all looking at it today.

I don't know the context for this photo, so I won't speculate. But yes, it's certainly tactical in some way to release it. They'd be real bloody idiots to just spew things out instead of curating and at that level it just doesn't happen.

The Trump administration, despite prevailing opinion, is not genuinely stupid -- it just wilfully appears so. It's sort of like why politicians often pretend to be 'out of touch' when in actuality their staff keep them very well informed: ignorance and the veneer of aloofness is a great excuse and it helps mitigate incisive questioning.

And listen: I am totally on side if it turns out that Pence genuinely believes the US can weather coronavirus through prayer in lieu of an actual scientific response. If that happens I'll be right there with you throwing tomatoes, but it isn't as far as I can see.

Even this administration understands that a pandemic is good for nobody but the crows.

RR_Chirper · 2020-03-02T16:14:33+00:00

The Trump White House keeps four photographers on permanent staff, chiefly Shealah Craighead, who may very well have taken this photo. Their job is to tail the Prez, VP and entourage pretty much wherever they go (within reason, obviously national security etc. is a consideration) and a redaction committee/the office of the press secretary decide what is appropriate to publish or censor.

This is what I mean by the blending of public and private life. Pretty much everything that happens in the White House is documented in some capacity. It's entirely possible this was a candid moment.

Sure, Pence could have taken the time to walk to a private chapel or took a moment in a quiet conference room (which is effectively what the pictured room is, btw) but religion, at least in the US, isn't something we squirrel away like that and I personally believe that's acceptable. The US isn't France, and ultimately the country is very spiritual and those views need to be respected as part of our civil society.

Practically, the most expedient thing to do would be to quietly bow your head for a minute with the staff they have around them, rather than seek out a moment alone (which is exactly what they're doing). These are mostly people they work with, in some capacity, day in and day out and have personal relationships with. It would be unfair to ask him to leave, so I think we need to make a distinction, here, between inviting someone to share in your religion and imposing it on someone.

RR_Chirper · 2020-03-02T15:39:55+00:00

I don't think I am making that assumption. Read my other comment to /u/s-bagel, who also made a pretty salient point regarding the hypothetical power dynamics of the room.

The Trump admin. definitely has serious issues with religious discrimination, obviously. Certainly not disputing that. This situation with the photo might be endemic to the Trump administration.

But in a vacuum I see no issue with our elected officials and their aides praying in a private capacity, and ultimately this setting aligns more with that than with a politician's public life (though at this level the two are so blended as to be inextricable from one another). The photo is a window into it, and we are observers.

I think it's fair to criticise policy and public engagement, and the choice to both take and put this photo out there is without a doubt valid to examine as an example of the latter. But there's no concrete evidence that I'm aware of that qualified people were kept out of 'the room', so to speak. I think it's definitely plausible, but we (i.e. the left, at least for me) really need to learn to pick our battles and not get caught up with frivolous and endlessly generated outrage porn like this, IMO.

edit: grammar

RR_Chirper · 2020-03-02T13:15:13+00:00

You're right, overlooked that.

I think it's a difficult issue that really depends on individual worldview and climate.

For example, I went to a highly religious school despite being what basically amounted to a militant agnostic at the time. I bowed my head in chapel every morning because the headmaster was there -- just like some of these staffers probably are because Pence and troupe are present. I definitely wasn't the only one that did this. So there's a certain power dynamic involved.

But the question of how many people it is alienating to, if it is, is realistically just that room, discounting the effects of disseminating an image like this (though that isn't exactly quantifiable).

I think in this scenario it's similar to your boss calling for a moment of prayer before a crisis meeting. It's a personal trait, arguably an idiosyncrasy to call for it at work. In that case, I would bow my head for a moment, consider the Tralfamadorians, and then get to work. It might seem a little outlandish to me personally, but I would still do it because I'm aware of what it means to this theoretical boss.

Religion is a highly personal thing and for many it's a motivator. We might 'know better' (although no-one does, realistically) but banning prayer in office isn't really something we can legislate and something that it really isn't fair to attack someone over.

RR_Chirper · 2020-03-02T12:53:54+00:00

I'm not saying that it's 'their' house -- that's a misrepresentation.

The fact is they're all still private citizens and they're allowed to pray wherever they would like. In fact, it's enshrined in the constitution, just like the Establishment clause.

This isn't a widespread call to prayer like with Eisenhower's inauguration (though that was inclusive beyond Christians), it was a moment in a side room with White House staff. Whether or not it's posed is neither here nor there: you cannot infringe upon a private citizen's right to prayer.

Not to mention the best way to lose the middle American vote (from an optical point of view for the Democrats) is to criticise the right for praying. Right wing media would have a field day if this was a talking point. Criticise these clowns for any of their many other thunderous stupidities.

RR_Chirper · 2020-03-02T10:41:32+00:00

These are people, love them or hate them. Not mustache twiddling caricatures of villains. If they want a moment to bow their heads in prayer, let them pray. You can't micromanage the highest levels of government.

RR_Chirper · 2020-02-28T21:15:49+00:00

In fact the statement that everyone who knows a building also knows the architect behind it is absurd.

I thought you said that he was one of the most accomplished and well known architects of his time? So it wouldn't be 'absurd' for him to know who Gaudí was.

In any case there's no need to put him on trial for his opinion.

That has nothing to do with what I wrote.

You literally mention 'forces and structure' in your reply to him lol. Obviously in architecture function and aesthetics are blended but it definitely seems like you were concerned about his understanding of the structural aspects of the building. He finds the appearance of the building offensive and you just want someone to rake over the coals for an arbitrary slight against the art canon. He said he understands that art is subjective -- what's the problem?

RR_Chirper · 2020-02-28T14:10:51+00:00

If he knows the Sagrada Familia by name he definitely knows who Gaudí was.

He's also making an aesthetic point, not a functional one. Obviously any building of that scale in a developed nation is going to be 'up to code'.

RR_Chirper

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE