QUOTE (Lazarus Long)
Struct, these are semantic and linguistic distinctions that have importance when looked at in terms of communications theory but your visceral response to religious aspects really does belong more in a different area of discussion than here.
Your perspective is valid too and that is why I think it is relevant for you to start the topic in the religious forum.
I think it would have been more appropriate if you were to advise wonder to post her poster in the religious forum rather than me who was puzzled by the religious poster.
Why? It does however demonstrate how you are completely missing the point. She was not expressing a particularly religious idea. She was demonstrating "sympathy"
through the normal language for it. *Why* it is the normal language form for such and
*should* it be the normal linguistic form for it are valid topics for discussion, just not here.
QUOTE
I am confident that you feel some sympathy for the victims; so I ask instead how would you express that so that they understand it rather than how it is just PC for you to say it in your mind?
I don't understand 'sympathy for the victims' part. Do you mean: am I sympathetic about them because they are wounded or dead?
I realize that you perhaps perceive yourself as being intellectually challenging and not simply callous and insensitive but what you are really being is intentionally obtuse and attacking the wrong target. Sympathy is not for the dead, it is for the living. What you don't seem to understand is that the families of victims are victims too. The wounded are victims, the friends and even the emergency responders in a situation like this are a type of victim; even many who just witness the events in person or through media exposure are a category of victim depending on how they experience the psychology of their *trauma*.
The dead feel no pain but religion in our species evolved directly out of the experience of shared grief (which goes toward my first response) and reflects the social action of providing mutual comfort in times of suffering. You can look at it like the cliche of saying misery loves company, but it is true nonetheless that humans benefit from being able to *come together* psychologically and share grief. Like I said you can ask why this is so but what you should not be doing is attacking her for trying to do so. Please show why you think she was being religious? Because she used the word "prayer?
She is not advocating any particular faith and prayer as she has offered is just a form of meditation. The phrase refers to being in the *heart* and *thoughts* of another's focus. However such intellectualism's have less of an impact on most people who do not understand the act in this fashion and the proper linguistic phrase is to suggest that *you are in a person's prayers,* which refers to the sharing of mourning and not merely the *show* of sympathy but the tangible act of shared grieving. This state of sharing grief is a powerful one and really does contribute to the healing of psychological wounds. It is not only good for the recipient it is god, oops I mean *good* for the giver.
QUOTE
What is more important about sympathetic expression; how it is intended or how it is received?
The dead victims do not receive anything besides some transportation.
Caring and 'sympathy' expression have to be done when they are alive and not just to them (if we want to be thorough about it) and then call ourselves carers and sympathetizers. I agree that it is nice to support the victims' families but in a more beneficial/healthful way (praying from far away or closer is not one of the ways).
I just pointed out that you are misunderstanding (whether intentionally or not) the relevance of her *offering* and also the stages of grief, which I suggest you are demonstrating as well without fully grasping them. Rage and anger are also examples of the early stages of grief. A person who is in touch with their own psyches will more rapidly pass through the stages of grief in a healthy manner and someone that is unable to assimilate and appreciate their own emotional states will be trapped in them through denial and an inability to express them.
As I have already suggested this is a valid avenue of inquiry, it just is inappropriate here in this particular thread. It is certainly inappropriate to attack Wonder. It would serve in its own topic, and that topic is not only about religion but the social psych aspects of sympathy, ritualization and so on but please try and better understand, and more importantly *tolerate*, the sincere expressions of others even if you have issues with the expression. Look to intent. If the desire on her part to sympathize with your (and others) anger, frustration, pain and grief for these unjust actions that have happened offends you then perhaps you are in need of even more sympathy. Like I said; sympathy is for the living.
BTW here are some links about the stages of grief. A subject worth examining as well in terms of depression and human behavior, as well as the evolutionary psychology for why religion developed as a response to them and other related psychological states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefhttp://www.counselin...om/article8.htm