The following is an excerpt from an essay by a fellow from the Sikh faith tradition - Ishwar Singh - who is leading the GOP in a prayer today at the GOP National Convention. He said...
I am honored to be the first Sikh American in U.S. history to deliver the invocation at a national convention. On Wednesday, I will offer a prayer at the Republican National Convention from my Sikh faith.
The prayer calls upon the American public to join with us in recognition that we are one family. As an immigrant, a small-business owner and a father, I am humbled by the opportunity to address the nation. When I came to this country over 40 years ago, never in my wildest dreams did I imagine the honor of offering a prayer for the nation. My story is possible only in America.
My prayer will be an opportunity to share the spirit of the Sikh faith with the American people. The tenets of Sikhism – humility, equality, and justice – lie at the heart of the American ethic.
A truly wonderful sentiment. God bless him.
I have a question for my more conservative readers: Yes or no?
Should the GOP allow this fella to lead a prayer for the GOP? Do you have any problem with it, personally? Any reservations?
As a Christian, would you feel comfortable sitting in a room full of mostly other Christians, bowing your head and praying along with this guy? Are you comfortable in general with taking part in interfaith prayers?
Do you think that God does not hear this prayer, so it is a rather silly thing for him to do and for the GOP to allow? Or do you find this to be a good thing, a genuine prayer offered genuinely to the one true God? Or somewhere in between?
What are your thoughts? I have no agenda here, I'm just curious what your opinions are.
61 comments:
I believe that God is pretty clear that He is the only God, but that does not mean that this guy's prayer will be answered by God. He isn't praying to God, but to what he believes is a god. Is it the same thing? God only knows, but we are not taught in a manner that suggests that it is. Being a jealous God, I would not do more than respectfully wait until this guy was done, or, try to pray to the real God at the same time, perhaps even with the same basic message.
I do not think it is appropriate for an American political party to invite anyone other than a Christian to pray on behalf of the party, considering this is a Christian nation (not looking to argue this point at this time). This does not mean that it's that big a deal that the GOP did invite the guy, but I'd hate to see it become a routine.
I'm sure God hears all sorts of prayers to all sorts of imaginary deities. Whether or not He responds is up to Him and I would not try to defend or oppose the notion that He would or wouldn't. All I know is that the Christian faith is specific about how to pray and to Whom and I don't see that a Sikh prayer qualifies.
As this nation is comprised of many religions, it seems natural to suppose that at some point, reps of other faiths would seek and be granted recognition on the national stage. Don't see any "should" as being a rule to which we need adhere.
With a break between three or four project escalations at work, I decided to drop by on a whim. I think it's better for both of us, Dan, if we do give each other a wide berth online, but it may be good for a laugh to bend my commitment not to comment here, if only for a thread or two.
--
Dan, on the matter of public prayer, one can certainly pray inwardly however one chooses, regardless of what's going on around him. I nevertheless believe that the duty to show courtesy toward others and express solidarity with them DOES have its limits, and one's allegiance to one's own faith is a very serious example.
By participating in a prayer to some other deity, a professing Christian is -- AT MINIMUM -- sending very mixed signals about the single-minded devotion he claims.
Matthew 10:33 contains a serious enough warning about denying Christ before others, and praying to a false god strikes me as functionally equivalent to such a denial.
Does God hear the prayers of a pagan, to use the term in a technical and non-derogatory sense? Of course, God is omniscient.
Does he answer those prayers, which I presume is what you meant by the question? Sometimes; God causes sunshine and rain to fall on the just and unjust, and surely in His grace He answers some prayers that unbelievers offer to false gods. All good things come from God, pagans are sometimes the beneficiaries of good things, so it stands to reason.
But am I personally "comfortable in general with taking part in interfaith prayers"? Sure, but ONLY if I agree with the prayer's content, however generalized it is, or if the disagreements I have are minor.
It may be that the one praying believes quite different things than I do -- he may be a deist or a Catholic, he may ultimately believe in salvation by works -- but if his prayer doesn't clearly assert significant doctrines that I strongly reject, I can join it with a clear conscience.
In at least some cases, I can pray with non-Christians, for example, in expressing gratitude to "the Creator."
But if a prayer verges into beliefs that I must oppose, I won't "take part." I'll stand quietly, head up, eyes open and let those who can pray, do so.
I wonder why you pose this question specifically to your "more conservative readers," and I wonder why you don't answer them for yourself.
--
Having answered at least a few of your questions, I have some questions of my own.
1. Would you join a prayer directed to "the Creators," plural?
2. Would you join a prayer to our ancestors?
3. Would you join a prayer to Gaia or Mother Earth?
4. Would you join in an interfaith prayer in which the person giving the prayer turned and bowed toward an idol? If not, why not? What be a hardliner about the second commandment and not the first?
5. How do you reconcile your presumably broad willingness to join interfaith prayer with the command "to have no other gods" before Yahweh?
6. How do you reconcile it with what Christ describes as the greatest commandment, to love God whole-heartedly, a commandment that is presumably an indispensable component of Jesus' Way?
7. Are you personally comfortable taking part in a prayer led by a politically conservative Christian?
I ask this last question because of your old poem written "for W and his spawn," accusing them/us of literal deicide and worshipping a bloodthirsty deity.
I assume that you stand by this poem and that you nevertheless condescend to join politically conservative Christians in prayer.
In which case, you're comfortable joining a prayer directed to a vulgar, hideous, bloodthirsty deity.
Or, barring that, you're comfortable joining in prayer with people you knowingly slander.
Bubba, good to hear from you. I've got time for one note. Where you said...
I have some questions of my own.
Would it suffice if I gave this answer...
I have no problem in participating in the good, the noble, the pure, the sincere, the loving.
Thus, if a Universalist or a Pagan began a prayer, "O Great Creation, teach us to work for a good, clean, healthy world..."
I could say a hearty Amen. You'll recall that Paul affirmed the Athenians who prayed to an "unknown god," saying what they prayed to as "unknown" Paul knew to be "God." Whatsoever things are good, true, pure, noble, etc, these things ARE good things and I can affirm a prayer, a meditation, a reflection, a chant about these things, because the Pure, Noble, True, Loving Things ARE of God, seems to me. That is, someone could not reference a Loving Good thing where, ultimately, that thing was not of God.
Seem reasonable?
On the other hand, if an Amish fella were to pray, "Lord Jesus, son of the Almighty Christian God, give us the strength to keep the women in their place, subservient to men, applying the belt when needed..." Well, I obviously would NOT affirm that prayer and would likely not sit still through that prayer, even if the pray-er was a Christian kin of mine.
This does not sound that different than your answer, actually ( if a prayer verges into beliefs that I must oppose, I won't "take part."). Does this sound reasonable to you? It sounds like we're in agreement.
You also said...
it may be good for a laugh to bend my commitment not to comment here, if only for a thread or two.
If you're interested in polite, respectful conversation, raising questions and reasoning together - even if we disagree - you are welcome to comment, Bubba. If you're only in it for "a laugh" or to mock or belittle, I'd ask that you move on.
Marshall...
I do not think it is appropriate for an American political party to invite anyone other than a Christian to pray on behalf of the party, considering this is a Christian nation (not looking to argue this point at this time).
So, you're saying that if YOU were making the decision, you would say, "No, we won't let this fella pray," but if the GOP folk in charge decided to do it, you wouldn't complain, does that sum up your position?
I wonder if Bubba and others on your "team" would agree with that...
Would you mock the Democrats if they had a Muslim or other non-Christian lead in prayer at their convention? Or would you just quietly disagree, as you appear to want to do with the GOP?
Marshall, as an aside: Given that you don't think that anyone but a Christian should pray at a GOP meeting and that this is (exclusively?) a "Christian nation," do you think that you could successfully "sell" the GOP as a good political choice for the ~3 million Muslims, ~6 million Muslims, and other non-Christian faith traditions (not to mention atheists and agnostics)?
Do you see how it might sounds like you're saying, "We're willing to take your votes, but we don't want your prayers..." and how that might turn off some potential voters?
Random note before I reply in earnest, Dan.
It appears that you put an unclosed italics tag in the original blog post, and it's putting all subsequent comments in italics.
FYI.
Repaired. Thanks.
"So, you're saying that if YOU were making the decision, you would say, "No, we won't let this fella pray," but if the GOP folk in charge decided to do it, you wouldn't complain, does that sum up your position?"
Not really. But if I were in charge, I don't think it would have even occurred to me to invite a non-Christian to lead the prayer for a Christian nation. There's a big difference between believing God might answer the prayer of a non-Christian and assuming there is no doubt He will.
As to some other person in charge electing to invite a non-Christian, the content is what matters as to whether or not I would object. In this, I run similarly along the same lines as Bubba. BUT, and this is important, you continue to use the following....
"Whatsoever things are good, true, pure, noble, etc,"
...as license to do whatever YOU regard as good, true, pure, etc. I prefer to match what I believe to what Scripture reveals as God's opinion on those words. What things are good to HIM, true to HIM, pure to HIM...not to me or the world. Can't say the same for you.
"do you think that you could successfully "sell" the GOP as a good political choice"
Considering my track record on the blogs, probably not. But in the wider sense, that is, can ANYONE sell it, it would depend largely on how it is articulated, and more importantly, how open the mind of the listener. Law abiding muslims have nothing to fear from a center-right leadership. Never have had anything to fear. Thus, your follow up question...
"Do you see how it might sounds like you're saying..."
Indicates a closed mind unwilling to truly listen to and hear the message being put forth. You seem to have this problem with much of what comes from the right.
Dan,
If a person wondered whether you emphasize ethics while simultaneously downplaying doctrine as inconsequential, the way you addressed my questions would seem to provide more than enough clarity even if you didn't provide direct answers.
Your position, reorganized for clarity, appears to be this.
1) If a pagan prays to "Creation" rather than the Creator, but he affirms environmentalism, you'll join him.
"I could say a hearty Amen."
2) If a Christian prays to God, but he affirms the patriarchy and corporal punishment, you'll refuse to join him and will possibly take some sort of action in protest.
"Well, I obviously would NOT affirm that prayer and would likely not sit still through that prayer, even if the pray-er was a Christian kin of mine."
The subject of one's prayer is crucial, the object is negligble: it doesn't ultimately matter WHO you pray TO, just WHAT you pray FOR -- or at least, it doesn't matter enough to determine what prayers you won't join.
You don't have to go that route, Dan. You could choose to abstain, respectfully, from prayers if you disagree with the underlying ethics OR the theology.
I honestly don't see how any other approach is morally defensible. How does joining a prayer to Creation, Gaia, or anything or anybody else demonstrate faithful devotion to the one true God? How is this compatible with the commands about worshipping no other gods, and loving God with everything that you have?
You mention Paul's sermon on Mars Hill, in Acts 17:22-34, but notice that Paul didn't join the Greeks in worshipping that unknown God.
Paul corrected them.
He corrected them about their idol worship and urged them to repent, suggesting that God has overlooked the ignorance they could not help but WILL NOT overlook the willful ignorance that comes with rejecting God's revealed message to man.
God revealed Himself to His church, so that the church would share that revelation with the world. It strikes me as extremely disrespectful to God AND uncharitable to one's neighbors to downplay that revelation by joining in their prayers to false gods, even if one does so with the very best intentions.
Dan, about my saying that I'm visiting "for laughs," let me make clear that I'm not here to start fires. It's been a way to unwind last night and tonight after some very long days at work: I'll be civil, it's just that I have no expectation that I'm doing much more than passing a few minutes' time.
Above I mention the idea that you "emphasize ethics while simultaneously downplaying doctrine as inconsequential."
I'm being quite honest when I say that that might not go far enough; I'm not trying to be deliberately provocative.
It seems that, when it comes to prayer -- PRAYER, of all things -- you care more about references to your politics than to God Himself.
Just what conclusion are we supposed to draw from that?
So, even when I agree with you, I'm wrong? Does that mean that you're wrong, too?
A couple of clarifications...
If a person wondered whether you emphasize ethics while simultaneously downplaying doctrine as inconsequential, the way you addressed my questions would seem to provide more than enough clarity even if you didn't provide direct answers.
I certainly don't downplay doctrine as inconsequential. What I have said is that if your orthodoxy does not lead you to good orthopraxy, I'm not very impressed with your orthodoxy. Doctrine SHOULD lead to good ethics. Doctrine that does so is vital. Doctrine that does not lead to good ethics, I got no use for.
Hope that clears up that mistake of yours.
Beyond that, you had said...
But am I personally "comfortable in general with taking part in interfaith prayers"? Sure, but ONLY if I agree with the prayer's content
To which I agreed, putting it this way...
Whatsoever things are good, true, pure, noble, etc, these things ARE good things and I can affirm a prayer, a meditation, a reflection, a chant about these things [from whoever might offer them], because the Pure, Noble, True, Loving Things ARE of God, seems to me.
So, do you think I'm wrong for agreeing with you?
And, if so, are you going to give yourself a good tongue-lashing for holding such an awful position?
Bubba...
It seems that, when it comes to prayer -- PRAYER, of all things -- you care more about references to your politics than to God Himself.
Just what conclusion are we supposed to draw from that?
That you aren't very good at drawing right conclusions from my statements?
I care more about politics than God's Self? What a ridiculous assumption to make. And you made that because I said... oh, wait, I didn't say anything like that.
Perhaps you made that poor conclusion because you care more about your politics than God's ways...?
Dan,
"I care more about politics than God's Self? What a ridiculous assumption to make."
Let me emphasize the parts I think you're overlooking in my comment, and include a parallelism that was implicit but I thought easy to infer.
"It seems that, when it comes to prayer... you care more about references to your politics than [references] to God Himself."
I'm not always as precise as I'd like to be in my writing, but that last "to" was deliberate and crucial, it only makes sense with that previously implicit second use of the word "references." Both uses of "to" -- "to your politics" and "to God" -- point back to the word "references."
"I care more about politics than God's Self?"
No, my conclusion is that, IN PRAYER, you care more about REFERENCES TO politics than about REFERENCES TO God.
How could I draw any other conclusion? You "could say a hearty Amen" to prayers DIRECTED TO A FALSE GOD so long as prayers' politics are right.
--
(Hit submit too early)
About doctrine, I do think it's fair to conclude that you emphasize ethics and downplay doctrine when you claim that you're willing to join prayers directed to false gods so long as you agree with the ethics contained in those prayers.
Even in your explanation about how you do care about doctrine, you kept tying it back to ethics, as if doctrine isn't important EXCEPT for its effect on ethics.
"Doctrine that does not lead to good ethics, I got no use for."
Taken at face value, this particular statement is even more restrictive than saying you reject doctrine that leads to bad ethics. You can partition doctrinal claims into three categories based on how (and whether) they effect ethics and behavior.
A. Beneficial doctrine that leads to good ethics.
B. Neutral doctrine that has NO noticeable effect on ethics, good or bad.
C. Detrimental doctrine that leads to bad ethics.
As written, your statement above implies that you have no use for Category B even if the doctrine is the clear, emphatic, and fundamental teaching of the Bible.
--
You misunderstand where we agree and disagree. Earlier, after explaining that you would "likely not sit still" through a a prayer directed to God if its contents included support for the patriarchy and corporal punishment, you wrote:
"This does not sound that different than your answer, actually ( if a prayer verges into beliefs that I must oppose, I won't 'take part.'). Does this sound reasonable to you? It sounds like we're in agreement."
We DO agree that we won't particpate in prayers where we object to their content.
Here's where we apparently disagree:
I object to prayers directed to anybody or anything other than God, and you don't.
That's a significant area of disagreement.
Bubba...
my conclusion is that, IN PRAYER, you care more about REFERENCES TO politics than about REFERENCES TO God.
How could I draw any other conclusion? You "could say a hearty Amen" to prayers DIRECTED TO A FALSE GOD so long as prayers' politics are right.
As always, I will point you to my actual words and point out what my actual words mean, rather than this distorted thing you've got out of it.
I said...
I have no problem in participating in the good, the noble, the pure, the sincere, the loving.
and
teach us to work for a clean, healthy world...
You inferred from that, "Dan has no problem saying Amen to a prayer as long as the politics are right."
If you look at my words, perhaps you can see what I meant was I have no problem affirming the Good, the Noble, the Pure, the Loving... and by that, I meant I have no problem saying "Amen" to pleas for God's WAYS. God's Ways, not politics.
Is there some overlap between God's ways and politics? Sure. But what I'm speaking of specifically are God's ways and, by direct implication, about God, NOT politics.
Do you see where you went astray in trying to understand my words now? Is my actual position clear to you now?
And I still wonder: Since I was essentially agreeing with YOUR position.
You said
But am I personally "comfortable in general with taking part in interfaith prayers"? Sure, but ONLY if I agree with the prayer's content
Or, put more succinctly...
I am comfortable taking part in prayers where I agree with their content - even if led by someone from a different faith.
Whereas I said...
I am comfortable taking part in prayers when the prayers are for God's Ways - ie, where I agree with their content - even if led by someone from a different faith.
Since we are saying the same thing (aren't we?), then are all the criticisms you're directing my way ALSO being directed towards yourself?
Bubba...
About doctrine, I do think it's fair to conclude that you emphasize ethics and downplay doctrine when you claim that you're willing to join prayers directed to false gods so long as you agree with the ethics contained in those prayers.
But you said you do the same thing...! That is, you JUST SAID you are comfortable taking part in prayers where you agree with the content.
For my part, I did not say I'm willing to join prayers directed to false gods.
I said that I can gladly affirm prayers offered by whoever that are for the good, the pure, the loving, the just. And WHY do I support such pleas, such prayers, such meditations? Because those seeking the good, the pure, the loving, the just... ARE seeking God, the one True God. There isn't SOME pure, loving, just stuff that is NOT part of our God and other pure, loving, just stuff that IS part of God.
God is love. Those who seek the God of love seek God's love. Those who seek justice, seek God's justice. THAT I can affirm.
And, unless you have changed your mind, you just said that YOU could affirm that, too (or "prayers where you agree with the content" - I'm assuming you can agree with seeking Love, Justice, Peace, etc).
Who are you arguing against here, Bubba?
Bubba...
object to prayers directed to anybody or anything other than God, and you don't.
Okay, let's back up.
My question here was: Do you have any problem personally with participating in a prayer led by someone from a non-Christian faith tradition.
When you answered that question...
am I personally "comfortable in general with taking part in interfaith prayers"? Sure, but ONLY if I agree with the prayer's content,
Are you clarifying that, by your answer ("Sure, as long as I agree with the content") what you REALLY mean is "Sure, as long as I agree with the content, BUT since the content will include a prayer to, for instance, "Allah," I wON'T agree with any of the prayer, so NO, I am NOT comfortable with taking part in interfaith prayers..."?
In other words, are you saying that you are comfortable taking part in interfaith prayers, as long as they pray to a Christian God directly/specifically?
If so, perhaps you are unclear on the concept of interfaith prayers...?
Do you see how your answer is a bit confusing? "Sure, but not really..."??
I guess let me repeat the question for clarification:
Bubba, are you personally comfortable taking part in an interfaith prayer - a prayer for healing, for instance, led by a Jew or by a Muslim or a Sikh, following a tragedy like last month's shooting?
At this point, I'm just not sure what your answer is.
Dan, you skipped the part to which I object so strenuously:
"I have no problem in participating in the good, the noble, the pure, the sincere, the loving.
"Thus, if a Universalist or a Pagan began a prayer, 'O Great Creation, teach us to work for a good, clean, healthy world...'
"I could say a hearty Amen."
In every QUITE LITERALLY EVERY COMMENT since then, I've made clear that my objection to such a prayer would be to its OBJECT, who the prayer addresses.
[For you,] "The subject of one's prayer is crucial, the object is negligble: it doesn't ultimately matter WHO you pray TO, just WHAT you pray FOR -- or at least, it doesn't matter enough to determine what prayers you won't join."
"It seems that, when it comes to prayer -- PRAYER, of all things -- you care more about references to your politics than [references] to God Himself."
"How could I draw any other conclusion? You "could say a hearty Amen" to prayers DIRECTED TO A FALSE GOD so long as prayers' politics are right."
"I object to prayers directed to anybody or anything other than God, and you don't."
Go back to those seven questions I originally asked, the questions you didn't answer directly, and you'll see the common thread is that the object of that prayer is someone other than Yahweh, the God of the Bible. I ran through a list of other possible objects to whom one's prayer is directed.
1. I asked about prayer "The Creators," plural.
2. I asked about prayer to our ancestors.
3. I asked about prayer to Gaia or Mother Earth.
4. I asked about prayer that involved bowing to an idol.
5. I asked about how your attitude can be reconciled to the OT command "to have no other gods."
6. I asked about how your attitude can be reconciled to Christ's command to love God whole-heartedly.
7. I asked about the prayers of a politically conservative Christian when you have previously accused us of worshipping a vulgar, hideous, bloodthirsty, presumably false deity.
In every comment, my main focus has consistently been about your willingness to participate in prayers directed to a deity other than Yahweh.
I do not understand how this fact eludes you.
--
"But you said you do the same thing...! That is, you JUST SAID you are comfortable taking part in prayers where you agree with the content."
Indeed, and I made clear from the very beginning that I consider the prayer's object (its addressee) to be part of its content.
"In at least some cases, I can pray with non-Christians, for example, in expressing gratitude to 'the Creator.'"
To be clear why, a prayer to "the Creator" describes the one true God, albeit in very vague terms. A pagan's prayer that is clearly addressed to some other deity, I adamantly refuse to join.
"For my part, I did not say I'm willing to join prayers directed to false gods."
You did say that you would say "a hearty Amen" to a pagan prayer directed to "O Great Creation." Is that Amen not an act of joining that prayer?
"I said that I can gladly affirm prayers offered by whoever that are for the good, the pure, the loving, the just."
Do you affirm prayers "for" the good regardless of whether those prayers are even arguably addressed "to" the one, true God?
Do you make a distinction between affirming prayers and joining them?
If your indirect way to answer my original questions have nothing to do with the object of a pagan's prayer and not just its subject, perhaps you should try answering the questions.
Or just answer this one:
Yes or no, are you willing to JOIN any prayers that are clearly directed to a deity other than Yahweh?
?
That is exactly the question I'm asking you, Bubba.
Your original answer to the question (Yes, as long as I can agree with the content) appears now to be, "NO. I can not take part or affirm any part of any prayer offered by anyone other than a Christian or a Jew. I can NOT take part in a prayer offered by a Mormon, for instance, no matter what they are praying..." Not only that, but you appear to be belittling anyone who DOES answer with your original answer.
Is that the case? If so, perhaps you should have just said that earlier, rather than saying "Sure," when you mean "No."
As to my answer, I think I've been pretty clear:
IF a person offers a prayer that is Godly (a prayer for God's ways, a prayer for healing, a prayer for the poor, etc, etc), then I can affirm that prayer, I can AGREE with that prayer - "Yes, Lord Jesus, may it be so!".
If "affirming" equals "taking part," then, yes, I can take part in that prayer. Of course, by my affirming a holy prayer for Peace, for instance, offered by a Mormon or a Scientologist, this does not mean that I think the Mormon has a good understanding of God or that I believe in martian-gods or whatever it is Scientologists believe. Rather, it means I'm offering up a prayer for peace to God, right alongside the Mormon or Scientologist.
Do you think offering up, for instance, a prayer for peace next to and alongside and simultaneously with a Muslim, for instance, is wrong? Then take it up with the GOP, first, I'd suggest. Then disagree with me, too, all you want to.
Dan, let's get back to the very basic elements of every form of communication.
All efforts of communication have these three relevant components:
1) the addresser
2) the addressee
3) the message
(There's also the medium, and one can further divide the contents along such lines as grammar and syntax, denotation and connotation, etc. Above are the three components relevant to this discussion.)
If it's a modern snail-mail business letter, the addresser is usually at the bottom, the addressee is at the top, the message is in the middle.
--
Dear Mr. Smith,
Pay us your overdue bill for the car repairs.
James Williamson
Williamson Automotive
--
Williamson wrote Smith about an overdue bill. The addresser was Williamson, the addressee was Smith, and the message was a request to pay an overdue bill.
Correspondence in the first-century Roman world usually had the addresser first, the addressee second, and the message last.
--
The Apostle Paul to the Church in Galatia:
There's only one gospel.
--
Since prayer is a form of communication, it has these same three components -- which I would relabel this way:
1) The supplicant: the addresser, the pray-er, the human being who is actually speaking the prayer.
2) The object: the addressee, the person or thing TO WHOM the prayer is being addressed.
3) The subject: the message, the contents of the prayer.
The supplicant prays to the object for or about the subject.
- A Muslim prays to Allah for his father's ailing health.
Or, with your two examples:
- A pagan prays to creation for the wisdom to protect the environment.
- An Amish man prays to Yahweh for the power to lead a patriarchal family and administer corporal punishment as-needed.
In the examples you gave, YOU BEGAN WITH THE OBJECT.
"O Great Creation..."
"Lord Jesus, son of the Almighty Christian God..."
But the questions you raise now focus almost exclusively on the other two components.
You focus on the suplicant:
"Your original answer to the question (Yes, as long as I can agree with the content) appears now to be, 'NO. I can not take part or affirm any part of any prayer offered by anyone other than a Christian or a Jew. I can NOT take part in a prayer offered by a Mormon, for instance, no matter what they are praying...'"
You focus on the subject:
"IF a person offers a prayer that is Godly (a prayer for God's ways, a prayer for healing, a prayer for the poor, etc, etc), then I can affirm that prayer, I can AGREE with that prayer - 'Yes, Lord Jesus, may it be so!'"
Notice that in addressing "Lord Jesus," you may be changing the object of the prayer from whomever it originally addressed.
But you don't seem to realize that the object of a prayer is a very important part.
--
You ask, in conclusion:
"Do you think offering up, for instance, a prayer for peace next to and alongside and simultaneously with a Muslim, for instance, is wrong?"
To whom would we be praying?
You mention the subject of the prayer -- peace -- and its supplicants, a Muslim and me, but NOT its object.
Are we explicitly addressing the prayer to the Creator? To the God of Abraham? Or to the God supremely revealed through the prophet Muhammed?
Do you really not see the difference?
?
I'm sorry, is there an answer to my question in all of that?
Bubba, are you personally comfortable taking part in an interfaith prayer - a prayer for healing, for instance - led by a Mormon or by a Muslim or a Sikh?
As to the bulk of what you've written, I'm wondering if you understand the concept behind "interfaith prayers..."?
You do know, don't you, that interfaith prayers do not seek to get the Christian to pray to Vishnu, nor the Muslim to pray to little baby Jesus, right?
You do know that, in interfaith prayers, what is happening is people are praying together to God-as-they-understand-God.
Thus, the Muslim gets up following an act of violence and says, "Let us pray together... O Allah, bring us peace... Amen..." and the Christian praying with him says, "Oh Lord Jesus, Bring us peace... Amen..." and the Jew prays to Yahweh and so on. In interfaith prayers, the point is not to pray to some god that isn't yours.
Right?
And so, in answering this question...
Are we explicitly addressing the prayer to the Creator? To the God of Abraham? Or to the God supremely revealed through the prophet Muhammed?
Do you really not see the difference?
When I pray, I pray to God. It doesn't matter who else might be praying to God-as-they-understand-God at the same time as I pray, I'm still praying to God.
I think the issue about "who we're praying to" points to a fundamental misunderstanding of interfaith prayer, and hopefully now, that is cleared up for you.
Evidently we disagree about interfaith prayer, but I'm not convinced that it's because I misunderstand the concept.
To me, interfaith prayer means consensus: people across all faiths in the same room, praying to the same deity for the same purpose.
In other words:
- The supplicant is everyone present, represented by a single spokesperson speaking the prayer.
- The subject is a message everyone agrees to.
- AND the object is an addressee to whom everyone can sincerely pray.
That last bit requires a generalized addressee.
An interfaith (actually, ecumenical) prayer involving Catholics and Protestants CAN be addressed to our God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, but if the spokesperson adds "and to Mary and His saints", quite a few Protestants can AND SHOULD decline in joining that particular prayer.
That same formula, praying to "God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (cf. II Cor 1:3), would work between Mormons and Christians, but not if the spokesman mentioned "and to the One who sent Joseph Smith to be His prophet."
Ditto any Muslim who would invoke Muhammed.
Referencing Jesus wouldn't work in an interfaith prayer among Jews, Christians, and Muslims, but "the God of Abraham" would work, even if Muslims would balk at including Isaac and Jacob.
And an interfaith prayer extended to include pagans might STILL work by praying to the Creator, depending on what the pagans actually believe.
The more diverse the crowd, the more generic the phrase used to invoke the addressee, so that everyone CAN sincerely pray the prayer, as stated, both in its object and in its message.
--
What you present doesn't seem like an interfaith prayer.
"Thus, the Muslim gets up following an act of violence and says, 'Let us pray together... O Allah, bring us peace... Amen...' and the Christian praying with him says, 'Oh Lord Jesus, Bring us peace... Amen...' and the Jew prays to Yahweh and so on."
That sounds more like a series of SINGLE-FAITH prayers at an interfaith gathering: all the Muslims (but only the Muslims) could sincerely pray the first prayer, all the Christians could sincerely pray the second prayer, and so on.
"In interfaith prayers, the point is not to pray to some god that isn't yours."
Agreed, but I believe the approach ought to be to try to address God in such a way that everyone can repeat the same words and mean it.
I hope you understand this position even if you evidently disagree with it.
Okay, so maybe we're operating under different presumptions about interfaith prayer.
Choose one presumption and answer the question then:
Are you comfortable taking part in an interfaith (Muslim, Hindu and Christian, for instance) prayer? A prayer led by a Sikh, as in my original example?
Your original answer
"Yes, as long as I agree with the prayers content..."
Actually appears to have been...
"No, since I would not ever agree with a prayer that begins, 'Allah...' so No, I would not feel comfortable being in a room and 'participating' in that prayer..."
Is that right? Your answer is "No..."?
That's okay, I'm just trying to figure out what your answer is.
Marshall appears to think, "Yes, it's okay, but I wouldn't really think to have a prayer together with a person from another religion..." Your answer appears to be No, unless it was a Jewish/Christian interfaith prayer.
Am I right?
No, Dan, you're wrong, and you seem to miss my examples of praying with Jews and Muslims to the God of Abraham or, more generally, praying with an interfaith crowd to the Creator.
Those are examples of interfaith prayer that I DO think a Christian could join with a clear conscience.
I wasn't explicit then, so I'll be explicit now: those are the types of prayers that I PERSONALLY could join with a clear conscience.
You keep citing my claim, from my very first comment, that I could join an interfaith prayer if I agree with its content, but you miss an example I gave IN THE VERY SAME REMARK.
"In at least some cases, I can pray with non-Christians, for example, in expressing gratitude to 'the Creator.'"
A prayer to "the Creator" is sufficiently generalized as to be appropriate for many faiths but I also agree with it and can sincerely and with a clear conscience join in a prayer addressing "the Creator."
My position on that hasn't changed.
For what it's worth, "Allah" is merely the Arabic word for "God," and my understanding is that Christians who speak Arabic address their prayers to Allah.
In which case, I could join an interfaith prayer to Allah but NOT one that goes on to assert the second part of the Shahada or Muslim creed, that Muhammed is His prophet.
If the spokesperson for the supposedly interfaith prayer can sufficiently generalize his comments BOTH in its object AND in its subject, I'll join him in that prayer.
If he cannot, I won't, because SOME of things he says (either the object or the subject or both) are things I must oppose. I cannot sincerely give him permission to pray on my behalf.
Okay, so prayers by pagans or Muslims or Sikhs, you COULD take part in, as long as their reference to their God was a generic reference.
Thus, a Sikh who prays, "O God, bring us peace." You could say "Amen" to.
But the Muslim who prays "O Allah, bring us peace," you could not say "amen" to.
Right?
And an arabic Christian who prays "O Allah, bring us peace," you could say "Amen" to, since by "allah," they just mean "God."
But a Catholic prayer that begins "O God and mary, mother of Jesus, hear our prayers and bring us peace..." you could NOT say "amen" to, even though Catholics are Christians (or do you consider them Christians)?
So, you're okay with taking part in just about any "normal" non-Christian prayer, AS LONG AS they use a generic word for God - God, Creator, O Lord, You who are Love (?), Almighty One, Holy Mother and Father(?)... any of these you're okay with and it's all about how generic the title for God is, is that where you draw the line?
Thanks for the clarification, I appreciate it.
Dan, is your difficulty in understanding my position based on my use of the word "content"?
I'm not using the word as a synonym for a prayer's subject alone.
For "content," I mean quite literally everything stated in the prayer.
For most prayers that includes the subject AND the object.
For some prayers that ALSO includes the supplicant, at least the addressee's own description of himself and those he represents.
If he says, "we come to you in submission to the Koran," I'd refuse to join the prayer even if I agree with its object ("the God of Abraham") and its subject.
Or if he says, "we come to you on the basis of our own good works," I'd reject that as well, for obvious Christian reasons.
I didn't mean "content = subject," to exclude the object or the supplicant's self-description.
I meant "content = everything spoken," to exclude what isn't spoken, which is sometimes not known or only supposed.
EVEN WITHN A SINGLE CONGREGATION OF LIKE-MINDED BELIEVERS, the spokesperson for a corporate prayer is probably filling the spoken words with his own private meaning, and that meaning might be quite idiosyncratic. As a rule, it seems fair to evaluate the prayer only on what is actually stated rather than on guesses about what was meant.
Dan, if I understand the word correctly, "Allah" IS a general address. Hence, Arab Christians using the same word to pray to the God who raised Jesus from the dead.
I wrote, "I could join an interfaith prayer to Allah but NOT one that goes on to assert the second part of the Shahada or Muslim creed, that Muhammed is His prophet."
I meant it, and the interfaith prayer could be led by a Muslim or an Arab Christian, either one.
"But a Catholic prayer that begins 'O God and mary, mother of Jesus, hear our prayers and bring us peace...' you could NOT say 'amen' to, even though Catholics are Christians (or do you consider them Christians)?"
I think the disagreements are significant -- and it's no small thing that as a faithful priest Luther was convinced of salvation by good works -- but Catholicism is a small-o orthdox Christian faith.
But, here you understand, I couldn't join that prayer because the object is a deal-breaker, even though I consider the supplicant to be a brother in Christ.
I don't pray to Mary, period, full-stop.
"So, you're okay with taking part in just about any 'normal' non-Christian prayer, AS LONG AS they use a generic word for God - God, Creator, O Lord, You who are Love (?), Almighty One, Holy Mother and Father(?)... any of these you're okay with and it's all about how generic the title for God is, is that where you draw the line?"
"Holy Mother and Father" is hardly generic, and it's less about being generic and more about compatibility with orthodoxy. "God of Abraham" is a more specific address than "Creator," but both plausibly point to God as He is revealed in Scripture.
But, that's in the ballpark. It's not THE place I draw the line -- see my comments above, about self-descriptions about coming to God on the basis of good works -- but it's one of my sticking points.
Let's go back to my last comment about the meaning that the spokesperson might be applying to the words he uses.
It's not really fair (or in some cases possible) to judge a prayer on its meaning in MOST cases, at least if you don't have good reason to suspect the person's being deliberately deceptive.
And while he's speaking his words and applying his private meaning, if I'm joining his prayer, I'M APPLYING MY OWN MEANING TO THOSE SAME WORDS.
The criterion is this:
"Can I apply my own meaning to those words without doing them damage? Can my meaning fit within the/a plain definition of those words?"
If so, I'll join the prayer.
Hence, God and even Allah are fine, Vishnu is not; I cannot pretend that Vishnu references Yahweh in any language.
"The God of Abraham" is fine, but "the God of Muhammed" is not; I believe Jesus is the supreme revelation of God, but He remains the God of Abraham, while Muhammed was a false prophet.
Thanks for the answers and clarifications.
That's very progressive of you, Bubba.
May I assume that our approaches remain fundamentally different, that you remain willing to join a public, ostensibly interfaith prayer to Vishnu, while you internally pray to God?
Is that what this claim means?
"When I pray, I pray to God. It doesn't matter who else might be praying to God-as-they-understand-God at the same time as I pray, I'm still praying to God."
If not, I'm not quite sure I understand your approach.
Yes, if I pray, I always pray to God. If I'm in an interfaith service and a prayer is offered, we are encouraged to pray to God-as-we-understand-God, thus I'm praying to the Christian God.
If the Hindu/Muslim/whatever pray-er says out loud, "O God, thank you for your many blessings..." I pray, "O God, thank you for your many blessings... amen and amen..." and I am in agreement with the sentiment being prayed. If the pray-er says aloud, "My Holy Lord, bring us peace..." I'm praying to God for peace.
If the pray-er were to use their terminology for God-as-they-understand-God and they said, "O vishnu, give us wisdom..." or "God and Mother Mary, grant us patience..." I pray to God for wisdom/patience.
I'm not offended by the fact that they're praying to God-as-they-understand-God, and vice versa. I see no compromise in such a prayer and see no significant difference between what you're comfortable with (which appears to be the same thing, but with generic titles - which most interfaith prayers I've heard use anyway).
I guess, if they were to start praying something somehow specific to their religion, it would depend on what it was.
If a scientologist were to pray for the Holy UFO to come soon and beam us up, I'd probably roll my eyes and shrug it off as a weird religious thing. I wouldn't be praying along with that.
Again, in practice, I don't think it would be that different than what you're saying you do.
I think there's a world of difference in terms of where the line is drawn, even if most real-world examples of inter-faith prayer don't come close to your line OR mine.
You're willing to join a public prayer and mentally swap out different words, at least to some degree, and I'm not.
You do not require the spokesman praying on everyone's behalf to limit himself to words that everyone can affirm, and I do.
You write:
"If a scientologist were to pray for the Holy UFO to come soon and beam us up, I'd probably roll my eyes and shrug it off as a weird religious thing. I wouldn't be praying along with that."
But in the earlier examples, you're not REALLY "praying along" with the Hindu or Catholic, either, so why not substitute the Holy UFO nonsense for something more sensible?
--
"If the pray-er were to use their terminology for God-as-they-understand-God and they said, 'O vishnu, give us wisdom...' or 'God and Mother Mary, grant us patience...' I pray to God for wisdom/patience."
That's striking.
I wonder about where you draw the line: why permit yourself to mentally substitute the object but not the subject of the prayer?
I go back to this.
"On the other hand, if an Amish fella were to pray, 'Lord Jesus, son of the Almighty Christian God, give us the strength to keep the women in their place, subservient to men, applying the belt when needed...' Well, I obviously would NOT affirm that prayer and would likely not sit still through that prayer, even if the pray-er was a Christian kin of mine."
Why not sit still and keep praying along?
The man is obviously just praying for God's will regarding family and society AS HE UNDERSTANDS GOD'S WILL. He thinks God's will involves patriarchy and corporal punishment, and you don't, but why not substitute his words about patriarchy with your own words about egalitarianism?
That really is remarkable.
A man can lead a group prayer and prays to Vishnu, and you'll externally go along while, internally, you substitute his beliefs with your own.
But if a man leads a group prayer and prays for patriarchy, you're completely unwilling to participate, and you may even protest.
You must make it known that you oppose patriarchy, but you seem okay giving the impression that you pray to Vishnu.
That's no small thing.
--
More than that, I question the morality of this approach.
In Isaiah 29:13, God rebukes Israel, "Because this people draw near with their mouth and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me."
Is the reverse okay? To draw near to God with your heart but honor other gods with your lips -- or, at least, to allow others to honor other gods on your behalf?
This doesn't seem to be a million miles away from the warning in Matthew 10:32-33.
"Everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven."
Is it really honoring to Yahweh to participate in public prayers that CANNOT be credibly applied to Him?
I wonder about where you draw the line: why permit yourself to mentally substitute the object but not the subject of the prayer?
The object of the prayer remains the same: God-as-we-understand-God.
The Hindu is praying to God as they understand God and so am I. Where's the problem in that?
Why not sit still and keep praying along?
The man is obviously just praying for God's will regarding family and society AS HE UNDERSTANDS GOD'S WILL.
I will always strive to stand opposed to violence and oppression. I'm perfectly willing to remain silent on most religious differences UP TO THE POINT where actual, physical, direct harm is being done.
You want to believe in a Sabbath-only-on-Saturday? Okay, no problem, go for it. You want to believe that God created the world in six literal 24 hour days? Knock yourself out.
You want to believe that God wants us to beat women to keep them in their place, or stone to death gay people, or mutilate genitalia and you've crossed a line that decent people should stand against.
"The Hindu is praying to God as they understand God and so am I. Where's the problem in that?"
Why not say something similar for the guy who believes in patriarchy? He's praying for God's will as he understands it, and so are you.
OR why not abstain from joining any prayer that you couldn't personally repeat verbatim?
One advantage to my approach (the latter) is that it's consistent. Whether the issue involves the prayer's subject OR object, I try to join in prayers only when I actually agree with the plain meaning of the words spoken.
--
Or let's put all this another way.
"I will always strive to stand opposed to violence and oppression."
Good for you, Dan.
Why don't you always strive to stand FOR the God to whom you claim allegiance?
"You want to believe that God wants us to beat women to keep them in their place, or stone to death gay people, or mutilate genitalia and you've crossed a line that decent people should stand against."
And if one believes in a false deity and invites you to join him in a "interfaith" prayer to this deity, he doesn't cross any line, and you feel no obligation as a Christian to respectfully decline to join him.
You'll just play-act (which is the meaning the word "hypocrisy"). You'll pretend to join the man's prayer to Vishnu while you secretly pray to the God whom you really believe.
Drawing the line at "actual, physical, direct harm" is a fine way to show that you love your neighbor as you love yourself.
(Never mind it's hard to imagine your standing up to a prayer asking God to protect a woman's legal right to choose to dismember her child in utero, a very brutal example of actual, physical, direct harm.)
It's good to stand up in obedience to the Second Great Commandment.
What about the first?
Why don't you always strive to stand FOR the God to whom you claim allegiance?
Who says that saying Amen to a prayer as I've suggested is NOT standing up for God?
The thing is, IF I thought you were on the right track with your thinking, then of course, I would "stand up for God" in the way you're speaking of.
I just don't think harrumphing someone else's prayer is not what God is just waiting around for us to do. Nor do I find "I'm just gonna sit here and NOT pray... THAT'LL show 'em!" to be an especially heroic stand for God.
You are, as always, free to disagree.
You'll pretend to join the man's prayer to Vishnu while you secretly pray to the God whom you really believe.
Again, I just don't think you're getting the concept of interfaith prayer. There're no "secrets" involved. No one is expecting that I'm praying to Vishnu, that would be silly. Of course I'm praying to God-as-I-understand-God, that is to be expected.
Where is the harm in that or the heroism in refusing to say "amen..."?
There's one thing I failed to address:
"The object of the prayer remains the same: God-as-we-understand-God."
Could you not say the same thing aboud worship, that the object of one's worship remains the same: God-as-we-understand-God?
Wouldn't that mean that, for those of us who do worship, quite literally all of us worship the same God?
And yet, God forbade worshipping other gods.
"You shall have no other gods before me."
That kind of implies that it's possible to worship other gods, even if they're false, non-existent gods; it implies that a person can MOST CERTAINLY direct his prayers to an object other than the one, true God.
That other object may be God-as-he-understands-God, but that doesn't make the object God in any real sense. If there's no real relationship between God-as-he-understands-God and God-as-he-is, then he's not worshipping God. And if two people's understanding of God is different enough, it's not really plausible that they're worshipping the same God.
Look, the first commandment ONLY makes sense if it's possible to worship gods other than Yahweh, and if it's possible to worship different gods, it's possible to pray to different gods.
The idea that, ultimately, we're all praying to the same deity is not only unsupported by Scripture, it's contrary to Scripture.
God forbade worshipping other gods.
And this is true. We ought not bow to the gods of war, to the gods of consumerism, greed, hatred or evil. I'd be opposed to all of that.
And, Dan, you're quite right that, in a pluralistic and tolerant society, it's not an especially heroic stand for God to refuse to join in a prayer to Vishnu.
It's not heroic, it should go without saying that someone who worships Yahweh wouldn't participate in a prayer addressed to any other deity, even if that prayer is ostensibly interfaith, and even if that person's really praying to Yahweh in his heart.
Refusing to join prayers to other gods isn't a very high hurdle to clear at all, which is why your willingness to join such prayers strikes me as particularly craven.
You shouldn't take this personally: I would understand it if a Hindu refused to join an ostensibly interfaith prayer that was made explicitly in Jesus' name.
Such a prayer isn't really an interfaith prayer, it's a Christian prayer being made on behalf of an interfaith group, and it's an imposition on those who hold other faiths. The speaker is oblivious at best, and the Hindus and Muslims who play along aren't evidently committed to making absolutely clear their allegience to whoever it is they claim to worship.
Take some supposedly interfaith prayer to Vishnu, and transcribe it. Could you read the text out loud and mean every word, applying to each word a plain and obvious meaning?
If you couldn't, then you shouldn't pretend to join the speaker in prayer, as he prays on your behalf.
"We ought not bow to the gods of war, to the gods of consumerism, greed, hatred or evil. I'd be opposed to all of that."
Why's that? After all, by your logic, the object of worship is always the same: God-as-we-understand-God.
If "Vishnu" and "Yahweh" are interchangeable, why in the world don't you consider the God of love interchangeable with a god of hatred?
AGAIN there's the emphasis of ethics to the exclusion of pretty much everything else -- even doctrine EXCEPT when it has a direct impact on ethics.
"Doctrine that does not lead to good ethics, I got no use for."
Well, then, I'd suggest finding a belief system that doesn't emphasize only those doctrines that have a direct impact on ethics.
That last sentence had an unnecessary and confusing extra negatve. Drop the "doesn't."
It should read, I'd suggest finding a belief system that emphasizes only those doctrines that have a direct impact on ethics.
Bubba, the problem with conversations with you is that you reach conclusions about my opinions that I've never said and that I don't believe. You reach erroneous conclusions, over and over and over.
And if I correct them, then you reach three other erroneous conclusions based upon my clarification. Then I have to spend the time correcting THOSE erroneous conclusions which, in turn, lead to MORE erroneous conclusions, over and over and it's hard to keep up with all the clarifications.
My point would be not dissimilar to YOUR POINT: That I can say "Amen" to a prayer when I don't disagree with its content. Thus, if a Muslim says, "O Allah, bring us peace..." I have no problem agreeing with that prayer.
As is true for you.
I don't think we're disagreeing practically, and yet you spend an awful lot of effort working to twist and re-image my words so that we DO disagree.
Relax, we're in agreement on this one. Where you think I've suggested X, Y or Z, just know that, no, those are NOT my actual positions, you've just misunderstood.
Which is to say, for instance, where you conclude...
If "Vishnu" and "Yahweh" are interchangeable
THAT is not a conclusion I have reached, nor is it one I have suggested (which you can see by looking at my actual words) nor is it anything I believe.
We probably have enough real disagreements that you really don't need to invent false ones.
By the way: I just realized that this is my 1,000th blog post. Thanks to Marshall and Bubba for kicking up the comment count to celebrate this momentous occasion.
Dan, I just wrote close to TWO THOUSAND WORDS trying to explain to you that, when I evaluate an ostensibly interfaith prayer's content, I include its object.
I wrote so much, including an explanation about the basic components of prayer and communication in general, because you REPEATEDLY drew the wrong conclusions about what I wrote.
[begin quote]
Your original answer
"Yes, as long as I agree with the prayers content..."
Actually appears to have been...
"No, since I would not ever agree with a prayer that begins, 'Allah...' so No, I would not feel comfortable being in a room and 'participating' in that prayer..."
[end quote]
Now you write:
"Bubba, the problem with conversations with you is that you reach conclusions about my opinions that I've never said and that I don't believe. You reach erroneous conclusions, over and over and over.
"And if I correct them, then you reach three other erroneous conclusions based upon my clarification. Then I have to spend the time correcting THOSE erroneous conclusions which, in turn, lead to MORE erroneous conclusions, over and over and it's hard to keep up with all the clarifications."
You are guilty of the EXACT behavior you attribute to me.
...and so, I face the dilemma of, "Do I keep on correcting his misunderstandings or do I just write it off...?"
When I have time, I try to correct misunderstandings, but when they get piled on and on over and over so repeatedly - including, for instance, your latest misunderstanding - I eventually just run out of time to deal with them all.
Thanks for making my 1,000th post at least have comments and conversation.
Peace.
Dan, I would say that we disagree practically in at least one important respect.
I am unwilling to participate in an ostensibly interfaith prayer directed to Vishnu or Gaia, and you are quite willing to do so; tolerant individual that you are, you go so far as to denigrate those who are uncomfortable doing so; their refusal isn't "especially heroic."
Note that here I'm mentioning Vishnu and not Allah because of a distinction I've already made clear.
- "Allah" is merely the Arabic word for "God." My understanding is that Arab-speaking Christians address "Allah" in prayer. It's a word that is generalizable enough that its plain meaning CAN be applied to the Christian God.
- "Vishnu" is a the specific name of another deity entirely, and I don't believe Christians in India ever direct their prayer or worship to "Vishnu."
HERE IS WHERE WE AGREE: each of us can join a prayer "when I don't disagree with its content."
HERE IS WHERE WE DISAGREE: I object to a prayer's contents if it invokes an addressee that cannot be reasonably understood to be the one, true God.
You don't.
--
Consider these three short prayers, and assume that they were given as ostensibly interfaith prayers, probably at some conference about family stability and the ravages of broken homes.
1) "Yahweh, our God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, we pray for the sanctity of the patriarchy as your will for society and the family."
2) "Yahweh, our God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, we pray for the goal of egalitarianism as your will for society and the family."
3) "Blessed Vishnu, we pray for the goal of egalitarianism as your will for society and the family."
(Never mind that it many Hindus would probably not pray that prayer, given the Hindu caste system and the practice of arranged marriages.)
Going from everything that you've written here, it seems like this would be your response to such prayers:
You would AT LEAST abstain from Prayer #1.
You would join Prayer #2.
You would join Prayer #3.
I have NO PROBLEM AT ALL with the entirely correct recognition that the subjects of #1 and #2 are at cross purposes.
But I also recognize that the OBJECTS of #2 and #3 are entirely different and irreconcilable.
You don't, and THAT is the very significant ground where we disagree.
"...and so, I face the dilemma of, 'Do I keep on correcting his misunderstandings or do I just write it off...?'"
That's a pretty passive-aggressive way to avoid even addressing my point that I've written almost 2,000 words correcting your misunderstandings.
There was a time when you seemed to recognize, repeatedly, that I had expended some effort to explain what I believe.
"Thanks for the clarification, I appreciate it."
"Thanks for the answers and clarifications."
But that was so very long ago: yesterday afternoon.
To continue to recognize that effort would mean giving up your pose that you're poor widdle Dan, uniquely misunderstood and unable to cope with it all -- a pose that you're invoking to cut the conversations short -- and that's a dilemma that's apparently easy for you to solve.
--
For what it's worth, I stand by my use of the word "interchangeable," and there are two quotes of yours that are especially germane as to why.
NUMBER ONE:
"If the Hindu/Muslim/whatever pray-er says out loud, 'O God, thank you for your many blessings...' I pray, 'O God, thank you for your many blessings... amen and amen...' and I am in agreement with the sentiment being prayed. If the pray-er says aloud, 'My Holy Lord, bring us peace...' I'm praying to God for peace.
"If the pray-er were to use their terminology for God-as-they-understand-God and they said, 'O vishnu, give us wisdom...' or 'God and Mother Mary, grant us patience...' I pray to God for wisdom/patience."
In this case, your behavior wouldn't change if the supplicant replaced the generalizable "God" with the very specific "Vishnu" -- or replaced a prayer to God alone with a prayer to God AND Mary.
In either case, you would join the prayer, at least outwardly. At least as far as your behavior goes, it seems that "God" and "Vishnu" are indeed interchangeable as appropriate objects for corporate, ostensibly interfaith prayer.
--
NUMBER TWO:
I asked you, "why permit yourself to mentally substitute the object but not the subject of the prayer?"
You answered:
"The object of the prayer remains the same: God-as-we-understand-God.
"The Hindu is praying to God as they understand God and so am I. Where's the problem in that?"
This answer suggests that, if a Hindu leads a corporate, ostensibly interfaith prayer to "Vishnu," that reference to Vishnu is INDEED interchangeable with a Christian's reference to Yahweh: they're both praying to the same deity as they understand Him.
If the two very different terms of "Vishnu" and "Yahweh" refer to the same object -- "THE OBJECT OF THE PRAYER REMAINS THE SAME: GOD-AS-WE-UNDERSTAND-GOD" -- then those terms are logically interchangeable in at least some respects, including your evident willingness to join a prayer addressed to one or the other.
Your actual words point to the conclusion I have drawn.
--
At least in terms of EXTERNAL BEHAVIOR if not your private thoughts, and for ostensibly INTERFAITH PRAYERS if not prayers explicitly meant for one particular religion, you can join prayers to addressed to Yahweh OR to Vishnu.
In that respect if not in any other respect, you treat them as interchangeable.
Do you still dispute my drawing this conclusion?
You're more than welcome to explain where I go astray.
You're also free to act as if providing such an explanation is a uniquely onerous burden.
I know which choice is the more mature, considering that just yesterday you recognized my efforts in correcting your misunderstandings.
I think the more interesting issue here, the issue actually addressed in the blog post, is that if the Democrats had a non-Christian offer a prayer at the DNC, Republican hypocrites would loose their collective sh*t over it.
That's odd. I see no mention of the Democrats, the DNC or how the right would view such action by Dems. Frankly, I doubt my response would be any different if it was done at the DNC, except that I wouldn't have found it out of character for Dems to have had a non-Christian offer a prayer. It is for the RNC. Thus, any outcry would reflect that. Typical of the Dems and not so typcial of the Reps.
However, in regards to Alan's lame characterization of Reps being hypocrites, this prayer thing is more an act of capitulation that is also typical of the left, and that is a problem for conservatives. I haven't heard the reason for having this dude offer the prayer, though I would assume it is to show that we aren't opposed to other religions in America. But that shouldn't have to be, and wouldn't be, were it not for the incessant false accusations by the left.
Lol. False accusations. Yeah right. And it must be my imagination that the Republicans are constantly trying to claim that Obama is a Muslim.
MA reminds me of Jon Lovits' old SNL character, The Pathological Liar. The Republicans keep making the claim that Obama is a Musim *because* they're so tolerant! Yeah, that's the ticket! LOL
Why don't you run with the "not born in America" line, Alan? That one is also pushed by the vast majority of right-wingers, isn't it? Wait. No. It's not. Few people on the right bother with either charge, since there are so many legitimate shortcomings about which we can complain. But I can see you need to really scrape the barrel in order to demonize the right if the "he's a muslim" complaint is the deal breaker for you.
Yeah, birtherism is so marginalized by Republicans that they asked prominant birther, Donald Trump to speak at their convention. Yeah! And then to show how it is even more of a fringe idea, their presidential candidate makes birther remarks and uses KKK slogans like "Keep America American". So totally marginalized! Yeah, that's the ticket!
BTW, MA, if you think your imbecile birther friends were the "deal breaker", you *clearly* haven't been paying attention. ROFL. Yes, MA, I was *totally going to vote Republican this year until that birther stuff showed up. Total deal breaker. Keep telling yourself that. LOL.
Anyway, back to the topic, before MA's attempts to derail it...
I think, Dan, that the question you ask in this post proceeds from a faulty assumption: that Republicans care about prayers offered by a Sikh or anyone else at the RNC. I doubt they really care. I doubt more than a small proportion represented in the comments here are naive enough to mistake these sorts of political displays of phony piety for anything having real meaning. One would have to be monumentally stupid to believe that this choice was about anything other than first and foremost a political decision about stagecraft (just as having Cardinal Dolan offer prayers at the DNC will be.) If people expect expressions of faith from politicians, they're just begging to be lied to, and they deserve what they get.
And those naive few who do actually take it seriously and who also don't agree with it? Clearly that's not going to be enough to sway their feelings about the Republican Party in any way, because nothing would be.
That's why we haven't seen much anger from Republicans about this prayer...most of them know, like all such stagecraft, that it doesn't really matter. (Well, that and the fact that more people were watching "Honey Boo Boo" than the Republican convention.)
BTW, just to remind the trolls of my consistency, I said exactly the same thing when Gene Robinson and Rick Warren were chosen to lead prayers prior to Obama's inauguration. Some Republicans lost their minds about Robinson, and some Democrats lost their minds about Warren, and a fair number of hypocrites from both groups lost their minds about the other side's opposition.
(BTW, the Robinson example does demonstrate how the real issue for the politically naive isn't actually about whether the person offering prayers is Christian or not.)
Meanwhile, we realists just shrugged.
I derailed the conversation? Who brought up this irrelevant and incredibly off topic crap?
"...if the Democrats had a non-Christian offer a prayer at the DNC, Republican hypocrites would loose their collective sh*t over it."
You force yourself in the conversation with a lame and totally subjective opinion about the party I support and my defense is the derailment? Wow! You DO live in a fantasy world! Such as...
...you imagine that you know with certainty that Republicans care little about prayers offered at the RNC. I'd like to see your polling statistics that back this up. It's not even a fair generalization. It is typical lefty projection, however. And few project like you.
Alan also apparently likes to believe that all on the right are one issue voters. Most on the right are less than pleased with the GOP for a number of far more legitimate reasons than Alan is capable of guessing, fixated as he is on nonsense. But most on the right are fully aware of what is most important right now, what is the greatest threat right now, and that of course is another four years of Obama and the economic disaster another four years of him will bring about.
Alan also likes to believe there is significance in Trump's selection to speak that indicates birtherism is rampant among the right. More fantasy. Well, the Dems will have Biden speak, so I guess that means abject stupidity is important to the left.
Moreover, how perfectly Alan-like to push the nonsense that Romney parroted the KKK. This is the same Alan that chided me over misstated his positions and my failure to fact check my accusations about him. It's always a different standard for the lefty.
And the "realist" speaks of others being naive.
BTW, by "deal breaker", I was referring to your attempt to put forth your nonsense about Republican mentality. The birther complaint and the "he's a muslim" complaint have no legitimate support by Republicans, but to you, paint the whole party and their supporters with this brush. Again, how incredibly typical.
MA, you're welcome to take such displays seriously if you wish, nothing to get piss about.
I'd ask you to provide a quote demonstrating that I think Republicans (or Democrats) are one issue voters, but I know you can't do so, just like any other time I've asked you to provide evidence for one of your lies. As I've written enough times for even you to understand, I am not a one issue voter, and so I don't think most other voters are either. I've done some more reading now about the KKK slogan, and it does seem that there is some question about it. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong, but we know you'll never provide evidence for the lies you tell, like the one above. Hypocrite. LOL
Gotta love it when he contradicts himself in one comment like that. Typical, MA.
Seriously though, if you want to think this prayer offered by a Sikh was something other than pandering, feel free. I couldn't care less. And clearly, neither do any Republicans, based on the total non-reaction to it. Why you care so much that I think it is just phony piety and posturing is your problem, but I'd think you would have more interesting things to worry about than the opinions of someone you clearly disagree with so much about absolutely everything. ;)
" It is typical lefty projection"
ROFL. Well, it's a pretty strange thing to say, in that case, since I clearly stated that this political theater is something that both the DNC and RNC do.
But I guess you missed that part where I included both sides. Not surprising, given that I didn't write it in crayon for you. ;)
"I'd ask you to provide a quote demonstrating that I think Republicans (or Democrats) are one issue voters..."
"Apparently" you're not paying attention. As in...
"Alan also apparently likes to believe that all on the right are one issue voters."
...a statement provoked by this...
"...birtherism is so marginalized by Republicans that they asked prominant birther, Donald Trump to speak at their convention. Yeah! And then to show how it is even more of a fringe idea, their presidential candidate makes birther remarks..."
This suggests that somehow birtherism is so widely accepted by the right-wingers in general that Trump was selected based on his position on Obama's birth. More likely is the possibility that Trump's selection provoked indigestion in the guts of most right-wingers because of his birther position.
But, OH! the fact that you didn't state specifically that you think Reps are one issue voters, NOR the fact that I didn't state specifically that you did...well...that's just your way, isn't it? What's more, to date, you have yet to prove I've lied about anything. All you do is accuse. Typical.
As to pandering with this Sikh selection, I don't think Dan's question had anything to do with that. Looks again like it is you who is derailing the conversation.
Actually, MA, my comment about pandering was made to Dan. You can tell because it says, "I think, Dan..."
Is your name Dan? No.
Again, I can only repeat that I have no idea why you're so pissy about my opinion, nor why you even care. That's your problem. My problem was once again engaging you when I should know better.
I'm "pissy"? More projection.
Post a Comment