Recently (
Don Wagner's prayer), I noted board president
Don Wagner’s unusual invocation, a “Hopi prayer for peace,” which, he said, illustrated the surprising similarities in prayer among different religious traditions.
I suggested that Don’s “Hopi prayer” was a step in the right direction, although I also noted the obvious: that it will be viewed as inadequate among critics of prayer at public institutions, since the latter tend to object to prayers generally and not just to Judeo-Christian prayers in particular.
I liked Don’s effort, though I think it is clear that he edited the original prayer too much to warrant citing the result as an example of “surprising similarity” among deity-invocations of different religious traditions.
Silly man. He could have simply read the original prayer. There’s enough similarity revealed (between Judeo-Christian prayer and Hopi prayer) in the unexpurgated version to make his point. Undeniably, his deletions were designed to minimize differences. That’s bad scholarship, but maybe it passes as sufficiently honest for politics.
Some readers accused Don of
plagiarism. One plagiarizes when one passes off others’ work as one’s own. Clearly, Don did no such thing, since he described the prayer as that of the “Hopi nation” not the Wagner nation.
But Don (or someone) edited the prayer. Of course editing prayers is not itself a sin or error. Like blues lyrics, prayers are in part about borrowing from others. The problem here is that Don was making a point about similarity, and his alleged example of similarity involved modifying the Hopi prayer to maximize (and thus exaggerate) the similarity.
I’m not inclined to make a big deal of this lapse, since there are enough actual similarities (pre-book-cooking) that Don’s thesis is probably reasonably valid even in the case of this prayer.
I know, that’s a pretty low standard.
Irvine bean packing plant (near Sand Canyon?)
Besides, you gotta remember that Don is an
attorney, and… –well, all day long, he does
persuasion, and persuasion ain’t logic. Neither is it scholarship.
Still, maybe Don should remember that colleges comprise (among others!) people trained in scholarship. There, except for some fans of
Carol Gilligan, playing games with evidence just won’t do.
One reader suggested that Don’s edits were unobjectionable because they merely shortened the prayer. An examination of his edits refutes that interpretation. As some
Dissent readers duly noted, Don engaged in a kind of expurgation (and addition!) to make his case stronger than it is. No biggie, maybe, but it is what it is. (It is possible, of course, that Don received the “edited” version without realizing its nature. He didn’t explain how he found it. Maybe
Fuentes gave it to 'im!)
One reader seemed to say that I was creating a Straw Man, for there is no correct version of the Hopi prayer, just lots of vaguely similar versions. Don just picked one of 'em.
The hill above my house makes me think of you, ST.
In fact, however, I was careful to visit numerous sources that offer the Prayer, and, as it happens, all of them had versions that are either identical to or very similar to the version I described as “standard.” (For instance, see
1,
2, and
3.)
As near as I can tell, this so-called Hopi “prayer for peace” was originally written to be read, as I quoted it, before the UN General Assembly and to the UN People’s Assembly by a Hopi. (It appears to be associated with the “traditionalist” [“one-hearted”] camp of the divided Hopi nation.) It actually makes reference to the UN (“House of Glass”). So it appears that there really is an original—and “correct”—version, namely, the one I cited.
As I said, I think Don’s effort is a step in the right direction. He’s trying to reach out to people beyond the Judeo-Christian crowd. That’s good. He’s clearly smart enough to know that this “multicultural” moment won’t satisfy his critics. And he’s smart enough to know that, nevertheless, it will be viewed as positive, politically. I think it is.
For once, the law makes sense, for it prohibits prayers (by teachers, et al.) in the public K-12 system on the grounds that students of that system are young and impressionable, and so it won’t do to present, say,
Christian prayer as the norm.
But surely those old enough to go to college are much less impressionable.
For me, the real issue here concerns the larger picture: the
many ways—that is, the
consistency—with which our board pursues a narrow cultural vision with little respect for the many outside it. Consciously or unconsciously, they’re pretty hegemonic (as they say).
They’re not exactly a diverse group, are they? The board runs the gamut from A to B: well-off, white Republicans of the male and female variety. Mostly, they proceed as though everyone is like them.
Some of ‘em (Lang, Milchiker) sometimes make an effort to “include” others outside their group. Some of ‘em (Fuentes)
never do.
As a group, they sure could do better.
I do hope Don’s little effort is a genuine reaching out to the non-Judeo-Christian community. I’m gonna assume that it is.
Keep going, Don. Maybe next time invite a Muslim to do a prayer. Then, on another occasion, have Karla Westphal do a moment of godless silence. That would be nice.
* * * * *
P.S.:
Although Americans have been attached strongly to privacy and private rights, they also have been a people conspicuous for a successful spirit of community. In a genuine community, the decisions most directly affecting the lives of citizens are made locally and voluntarily. Some of these functions are carried out by local political bodies, others by private associations: so long as they are kept local, and are marked by the general agreement of those affected, they constitute healthy community. But when these functions pass by default or usurpation to centralized authority, then community is in serious danger. Whatever is beneficent and prudent in modern democracy is made possible through cooperative volition. [My emphases.]
It's been awhile.
.jpg)
