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.]
33 comments:
It would indeed be nice.
I wasn't at the board meeting so did not see Don's Hopi prayer. However, from what I see and know of him, it's hard for me to picture Don making a conscious effort to be inclusive, especially with a prayer, given his past behavior (at Saddleback's scholarship ceremony, for example). Is it possible that by reciting a Hopi prayer Don is being passive-aggressive, as opposed to inclusive? Could it be that he's doing this to undermine his critics?
"Don is an attorney, and… –well, all day long, he does persuasion, and persuasion ain’t logic. Neither is it scholarship."
Are you sure about that? You seem to take a hegemonic stance with regard to logic. Every scholarly article or book that I've read has a thesis and logical argument (or at least attempts to be logical). But scholars are also persuasive. Rhetoric is legitimate and it can get an audience to accept a position where logic may not. Logic is important of course. But sometimes logic or reason is not enough to change people's minds. Your dismissal of persuasion as non-scholarly is inaccurate. Your point also seems very similar to your characterization of the board of trustees as pursuing a "narrow cultural vision."
This recap by Chunk gave me pause to reflect and consider the Blog. It made me realize that there are a few things about this discourse for which I am truly grateful:
>That Chunk tries earnestly to report what he sees. He certainly has his own bias, as his reportage surrounds issues in the District and is colored by his past. I don't always agree with his conclusions, but I think he also makes an honest effort to provide the data from which he draws his conclusions.
>That there are those who read this blog regularly and do not agree with Chunk. Occasionally those folks are knuckledraggers who resort to name-calling and scatalogical (sp?) behavior. But often enough, they are those that lean more to the right politically and provide an alternative viewpoint that helps keep a sense of balance to the dialogue and give food for thought.
>That there are those who drink the koolaid a little too readily. Those folks tend to temper what would be regarded as the left's more extreme stance, providing their own sense of balance through some sort of "Reductio ad absurdum" - did I use that phrase correctly Chunk?
As a centrist (no, not a fence-sitter - I have definite opinions and beliefs. They just don't all happen to fall neatly to one side or the other on the political spectrum), I read the blog for what it is truly worth. In my mind, that means information otherwise note widely circulated, the prevailing thoughts of the various governance groups of the District, and the potential pitfalls facing all of those groups as they work to move the College forward.
Thanks Chunk. Thanks fellow readers and writers. And thanks also to the Cro-Mags and the koolaid drinkers. This is a neat place to visit because of your contributions (good and bad!).
"I read the blog for what it is truly worth. In my mind, that means information otherwise not widely circulated, the prevailing thoughts of the various governance groups of the District, and the potential pitfalls facing all of those groups as they work to move the College forward."
Precisely. Thank you very much -- my thoughts exactly. Your only failure was to note Chunk's barbed sense of humor...
Thanks for the kind words. ¶ 10:59, Obviously, persuasion is useful and important. In politics, where it can be important to prevail, rhetorical skill is often crucial. But "logic" provides grounds and reasons; persuasion does not. Persuasion, effective, causes agreement independently of the existence of grounds, although, among some audiences, those grounds will be persuasive. (Such people are a distinct minority.) The job of the attorney--insofar as he/she works on behalf of a client in the courts--is to persuade successfully, not to arrive at the most defensible view, logically speaking. They are hired guns. And so successful lawyering is deeply rhetorical, and it cannot be committed to an honest consideration of grounds, though an awareness of such grounds may be rhetorically useful to an extent. ¶ Recently, a friend has been working on a political campaign of sorts, and he is convinced that his cause is right and defensible. Probably is. But he must work with ordinary parents and mediocre politicians, and he is painfully aware that he must persuade, not give good reasons. Indeed, he knows that some good reasons must not be expressed, since they will merely trigger the usual simplistic and ignorant response. ¶ The notion that insistence on logic (with regard to scholarship and science) is "hegemonic" is based on an utter misunderstanding of the role of logic vs. the role of rhetoric and persuasion. For those who seek understanding, logic is everything and rhetoric is nothing. For those who need to persuade, rhetoric is everything and logic is (almost) nothing, people being the logical illiterates that they are. The latter explains how a commercial that presents Tiger Woods putting around a Buick sells Buicks. Logically, the ad is nothing--it gives no reasons. Rhetorically, it is quite successful. It causes boneheads to buy that damned things.
Can we not get back to the foundation of this discussion--Don giving a Hopi prayer. Why on earth is any sort of prayer, or moment of silence, needed at all?
The board is there to do some sort of work on the public's behalf, so how about if they just showed up, sat down, and started tha agenda without some recognition that some people have requirements based on myth and superstitition that the rest of the rational public apparently has to recognize. In my view. it's a waste of time and somewhat patronizing.
11:23, I think some trustees would argue that the public that they represent is religious (mostly, it is) and it doesn't object to--it likely favors--inclusion of the usual trappings of piety for meetings of its legislative bodies, including city councils and college boards. If you were, say, a Christian, wouldn't you want to start a meeting by hailing the LORD and saying, "Help us to do this right"? It would be odd if you wouldn't. If you respect such fellow-citizens, you gotta consider their perspective about getting the Big Man's okey-dokey or assistance. But they've gotta consider the perspective of those who are left out of the ritual and perhaps marginalized, and, in our community, there are lots of 'em. So there's the issue. You seem to think that the desire for prayer is just silly or unreasonable. I don't see that at all. It's a natural and reasonable desire (leaving aside the question of the rationality of theism). The issue is: how to weigh competing concerns? How best to resolve desires that don't point to one practice? How much should a (shrinking) majority impose on a motley minority that is growing? Somebody get Solomon.
Actually, no, I don't think all Christians want their father figure's approval for a meeting. It's the equivalent of wearing a flag pin, designed to fool the fools again. As long as there is a reliable base of voters who take this stuff seriously and vote with a passion, which they do, we're stuck with it.
There are many governmental meetings in which the participants just get to work. Committee meettings, for example, the gathering of building inspectors to go over new ordinances, the start up of a CalTrans jobsite, e.g.
The prayer routine is saved for public, conspicuous consumption, and designed for nothing other than a feeding of the rubes.
Why you think this deserves respect and support is not clearly stated-- natural and reasonable? Not really.
12:09, you are questioning the sincerity of Christian and other religious politicians, impugning their motives. This will get you precisely nowhere. Less than nowhere. ¶ Obviously, much that occurs in politics should be regarded with some skepticism, but you plainly suggest that all advocacy of prayer for political settings is insincere. If, as you say, the “rubes” are “fed” by “prayer routines,” why are you adamant that religious politicians are not also sometimes fed? Your cynicism is inconsistent. ¶ That the desire for prayer concentrates on public meetings is easily explained sans cynicism. You seem to think that your possible explanation is ipso facto the correct explanation. No. Even if it were the “best” explanation, your conclusion would be at most a likelihood, not a certainty. ¶ Like it or not, modern democracies increasingly comprise multicultural and diverse societies, and, within that setting, it is as impolitic and intolerant to assume the atheist’s perspective (namely, “prayer is nonsense, so we won’t have it”) as it is to assume the theist’s perspective (“prayer is desirable and we must have it”). I, an agnostic, say this with perfect consistency—and with a conservative’s low estimation of the possibility of reasonableness among humankind. Compromise is necessary. Amen.
First, let us discern the differences between cynicism and reality. An objective look at the types who lead prayers at these meetings, especially Wagner and Fuentes, who love to nurture their solid Republican ties with overtures to the almighty (after all, God is a Republican white male) and who are not beyond attacking liberals as those godless commies (or words to that effect) should not be lost on you.
Regardless, even if these folks are sincere, the prayers are still an unnecessary waste of time and certainly violate the spirit of the First Amendment, if not its direct language.
There simply is no need for some sort of prayer before work begins. If they all want to pray over Sunday dinner, fine. They are on their own time. But this time, public board meetings, is ours. Tolerating it is perhaps not the best word choice. Daring to call into question an inappropriate practice that seems to just follow an appeal to tradition fallacy is more precise.
That Wagner and Fuentes are (to varying degrees) demagogic politicians is plain, but it is not relevant to the question at hand--namely, in our place and time, what are we to make of competing desires (re prayer at board meetings) within a diverse community? The judgment that prayer is a "waste of time" presupposes the atheist or agnostic's perspective (i.e., one side's perspective)--precisely what cannot guide us in a diverse democracy. Here, contentment and community are impossible when parties refuse to compromise and respect the perspectives of those with whom they disagree. My point is that Fuentes and Co. are the enemies of healthy democracy, for they seem unwilling to recognize and respect the "others" of their community. (Perhaps Wagner is coming around.) You are like them. No compromise, no cooperation. My way or the highway.
Until someone puts forth a compelling reason for a prayer (and better than the fact we have a "diverse community") you are correct--no prayer.
Compromise is fine, but what is the basis for respecting the need to shove a prayer down the throats of the audience?
How about if Lang sacrifices a chicken at the next meeting? You may scoff at the analogy, but hey, it's a ceremonial practice that reflects how some members of the community feel.
Prayer is something to be done in private, and/or with one's own social peers. It has no place at these meetings.
1:51, one does not respond to points by ignoring them or by presupposing their falsity. If you don't understand a point, identify it and ask for clarification. Don't just ignore it with an air of confidence and victory. Leave that sort of thing to Rush and Sean and Bill and the rest of the logical booboisie.
Another good discussion, Roy. The "watermelon" one was good, too.
ES
Thanks, ES. And thanks for your thoughtful comments in general.
"If you don't understand a point, identify it and ask for clarification."
Someone here completely ignored the request for a rational reason as to his support for the giving of a prayer. The point that ws conveniently ignored was that a group mof grownups asking for guidance from their imaginary friend is childish and a waste of time. God is going to give some form of advice about the new contract? Hell, he can't even do anything about Darfur.
Deal with that, please, without pomposity.
Let me try this without pomposity.
You, 11:08, are the pompous one because you assume the truth of your argument, namely, that the trustees seek the help of an "imaginary friend." That form of "argument" is circular as well as pompous.
Drop the assumption of God's non-existence, leave it that neither side can prove their respective positions, and the irrationality disappears. The trustees may be wrong about the ultimate question but no one knows. So they get to ask for wisdom in dealing with the contract and other issues. Maybe they won't get it, but are we really then any worse off?
Lighten up, 11:08. You're in a really untenable position to accuse others of pomposity.
*rolls out his squeeky-reasoning bike, complete with training wheels*
What about the fact that these ceremonies serve no purpose that a private ceremony couldn’t satisfy? (This seems true to me since I come from a religious background) It seems now to be a conflict amongst the religions to get their voices heard in the public forums which leaves the atheists simply forced to endure some sort of ritual with which they may have perfect reason not to participate in. I mean, since they have NO ritual, their compromise is that they give up their time at the beginning of a meeting, but what small gain do they get? What compromise seems to be being discussed is the compromise between theists – not one between atheists and theists.
Since the theists are in the majority, it's their duty to address that problem. Especially since the atheists have so very little understanding of the whole thing. And, how could they be expected to understand? They have two very different basic belief systems, and again since the theists are in the majority it is their duty to decide how to behave towards the atheists. So, I think all arguments from atheists should be directed as such - i.e. the reasoning should be based on theist beliefs.
So on that note, being raised in a religious family, I was taught that you don’t flaunt or force or impress your religiosity in the faces of others. It’s a private thing. Were my dad a visitor of this site, he would argue that the theists are lacking in humility, because the rest of my family (the Lutherans) would be quite satisfied with no ceremony and they would be more than happy to speak to their God in private, because their personal relationship with God is more important than demonstrating it publicly (which, again, serves no religious purpose that a private ceremony could not satisfy). As per usual I think there is some other psychological issue working in the minds of those who want to demonstrate their beliefs publically – since I have been told I shouldn’t “psychologize” I’ll just stop here (that and I would be forced to endure even more CTR).
However, to reiterate, I think truly religious people would sooner give up the public ritual so as to not offend company. For example, my local family didn't really have a select religion so when we visited my cousins for dinner they did their dinner prayers before we arrived so as to not make us feel awkward. My grandparents though, phew, whole other story.
So, don't get me wrong, I think compromise can be a wonderful thing when everyone is in agreement. But I feel as anon does without all the peeve. That is because their ceremonies are pointless to me. But I care so little for their ceremonies that they can go ahead and do them. As Chunknostic put it, we are all college+ people and the impression they might be having on the minds is minute, and also they are a dying breed.
But I maintain that the question here is, if you theists really are humble people of God, why are you all up in ma face?
Oh, and booboisie; very nice.
Is that the best you've got? I expected better.
The trustees (in your posit) are the ones proposing the existence of a supreme being, who apparently will provide some sort of guidance for their cosmically important board meeting. Is there a scintilla of evidence that this mythological persona exists? If not, then the burden is not on the nonbelievers to prove he/she/it does not exist. You know that, I believe.
And, as we are not "worse off" by being put through this charade, it's thus acceptable to you? Astounding. At the next meeting let's all join hands and sing "ring around the rosie" in testament to the Spanish Inquisition. Why not? What's the harm?
My husband loved your "Somebody get Solomon." comment. I think he called it "... perfect..." while we were both in stitches laughing!
ES
BS, "Booboisie" is H.L. Mencken's famous term of the uneducated and unsophisticated common man, putty in the hands of demagogues such as Huey Long in his own time and the "leaders" of the "conservative base" today. Be careful cozying up too much to Mencken (despite his many achievements and virtues), 'cause he's been tagged as anti-Semitic. Beware of toxicity! On the other hand, M is well worth reading and reading about.
I want to be Solomon.
Thanks Chunkarian.
Anti-Semetic you say? Oy Vay.
I shan't get too comfortable.
Don't we all...
ES
Dissent is too distracting - now I'm reading about H.L. Mencken instead of Utilitarianism...
ES
ES this site is terrible, at times, for productivity. I am supposed to be studying for an exam next Wednesday (and I am), but the efficiency is greatly hampered because I am interested in this ongoing debate, so I find myself refreshing the page every 20-30 minutes or so. It's a great little community that appears to be growing.
I'll take this opportunity to correct my misspelling of "Vey" though.
Did you see the Russell Kirk quotation I added? Some of you seem unaware of the (for lack of a better term) communitarian tradition--the historically important manner of thinking according to which coherent communities are valued as such. You can find versions of communitarian (or "importance-of-community") thought in the anarchist tradition (with its emphasis on small human groupings and horror at large, impersonal institutions) and the conservative tradition (with its emphasis on tradition, the maintenance and valuing of a way of life, skepticism of progressive and utopian visions, especially those imposed by an authoritative parent/state). ¶ Some of you seem to have no regard for community whatsoever. That's fine, I suppose, as long as you are aware of that notion (as a possible value), you've considered it, and have rejected it on plausible grounds. ¶ In my view (a view I share with conservatism [though, evidently, not with contemporary adherents of today's often coarse and ugly and incoherent Republicanism]), community matters, and you don't maintain and preserve (and value) community by uninhibitedly calling a substantial portion of your community "stupid" or "irrational." ¶ And there are, of course, different kinds of irrationality. We all know theists who are highly intelligent and are perfectly capable of reasoning as long as one steers clear of their theistic perspective--something that I am inclined to regard as "foundational," just as the very idea of "right" and "wrong" are foundational (and just as wanting of uncontroversial rational grounds). Obviously, a great many Christians and Jews and Muslims (et al.) are as reasonable and capable of reflection and wisdom as are atheists/agnostics. Human beings are complex creatures, and this bit of complexity (re rationality) has passed unnoticed by some of you. A person who reasons well and reliably all week long but who speaks of wine-turned-to-blood on Sundays is not at all like the incorrigible knucklehead who seems (every day of the week) unable to tell the difference between science and New Age blather. ¶ Sure, theists are in some sense "irrational" (in my view), but, with regard to most theists, their irrationality is manifestly consistent with rationality in the sphere beyond the metaphysical. And if it is important to them to invoke their God during the process of communal decision-making, then I'm pleased to step back and let 'em have it. I only hope that they are willing to make concessions for my kind of person too, to the extent available to them. ¶ My point has been that some of our trustees are unwilling to reciprocate. They are thus enemies of community and obstacles to healthy democracy, as are those who point at theists as though they were pointing at toad-sucking, glossolalic underwater basketweavers.
It appears that this lively debate is wearing down, so I will graciously sit back awhile--I do very much like this turn of phrase, though:
"toad-sucking, glossolalic underwater basketweavers." That is exactly how I see folks like W and F, with more than a touch of nefarious opportunism mixed in.
"verbiage"
ES
Bohrstein,
I hear ya. Between this and Facebook - huge time suck. But I love them both. Before Facebook I was horrible at keeping up w/ friends but now I actually do. And Dissent, well the value is obvious.
ES
Boy, do I sound like a suck-up!!
ES
Hmmm...I'm wondering,if anybody out there is actually hearing what Don had to say? If we lay down our scholarly, analytical, political swords and set aside the entire "prayer" issue, what is he saying? What is the plain meaning of what he said? Perhaps we could read and reread what he said. I wonder what could happen if we listen and hear him? Who out there is hearing his message?
Post a Comment