Adventures In Missing The Point

By Rod Dreher • December 26, 2012, 5:14 PM

A couple of interesting items:

1. Reader SteveM points to this conservative Catholic cruise retreatset for Lent 2013, featuring a “welcome cocktail reception,” “plush lounges,” “swanky casinos” and “dance clubs.”

“The twisted logic of that cruise gives me vertigo,” says SteveM. Me, I like to contemplate the sort of person for whom “swanky” is not a cheaply ironic term of derision. Anyway, nothing says “season of penitence” like paying thousands for the opportunity to gamble with the swank set.

2. Stanford University has brought onboard a chaplain for its atheist students. He too is an atheist, and a holder of a degree from Harvard Divinity School. A chaplain who doesn’t believe in God to serve the spiritual needs of students who don’t believe in God. Wow. From the story:

But Figdor’s flock already extends beyond Stanford.

“A lot of people go back to religious organizations when they start having children,” whether or not they believe in God, because religion offers community, Figdor said. “What I really want to do is create a vibrant, humanist community here in Silicon Valley, where people can find babysitters for their kids and young people can meet each other.”

An atheist student leader quoted by the paper says he doesn’t see the point. You may not be surprised to learn that the liberal theist (Unitarian Universalist) who runs Stanford’s religious affairs office thought it was important to bring in an atheist chaplain. It turns out that John Figdor, the chaplain, went to Harvard to get a divinity school graduate degree even though he did not believe in God:

He also encountered a homeless shelter that “forced people to pray if they wanted to eat,” he said. “This was a serious problem in American society.”

Figdor planned to become a journalist writing about religion and entered Harvard’s masters program in theological studies. When he switched to the more rigorous masters of divinity and met Greg Epstein, Harvard’s humanist chaplain, Figdor found a new calling.

A private charity requiring the destitute to say a prayer before eating free food is “a serious problem in American society”? Ah, the spiritual life of SWPLs….

UPDATE: At the EWTN-owned National Catholic Register, blogger Simcha Fisher gently mocked the Lenten luxury cruise, calling it “dopey” and suggesting that there are more seasonally appropriate ways to spend your thousands of dollars. Since this blog went up, followers of cruise leaders Fr. Zuhlsdorf and Michael Voris have been leaning heavily on EWTN to fire the blogger.

Posted in Religion. Tagged atheism, Catholicism, chaplain, Christianity, cruise, Stanford, SWPL.

72 Responses to Adventures In Missing The Point

← Older Comments

tennvols87 says:

December 27, 2012 at 12:49 pm

MH and William Burns: I was responding to j_A’s smug fable. I never mentioned atheists so I hardly see what that has to do with anything. Also, I was unaware that you had to use biblical imagery in exactly the way it was initially used. That is an interesting form of fundamentalism. I need to give it some thought. Do you practice this form of literalism in your own life? That would quite a bit of discipline considering how much of the Bible has entered vernacular. I quite admire your devotion to a Biblical originalism and thank you for your correction.

Dux Bellorum, Austinopole
The point is not that the other guy does it too, but that the other guy is ten times worse. This is focus on only that which is in front of your nose is classical solipsism and the standard feature of a drama queen. It inflates one’s personal experience into the only facet of reality that matters. This mindset is built on bodies of gays buried beneath walls in Iran. Political movements only have so much energy and resources. Western Christianity, at large costs to its political strength in the West, has devoted countless dollars and unquantifiable energies to improving the plight of the world. Leftist political movements, highlighting the true parochialism of an ostensibly global movement, devote all their time and resources to attacking “abuses” in their own countries. That’s why the Human Rights Campaign, notice that it doesn’t call itself the American Rights Campaign, can’t lift a finger to help gays being put to death in Iran, but can heckle some decent Mormon restaurant owners in California at the drop at the hat.

To add to M_Young’s point about the Hindu prayer. The Hindu’s treated their untouchables and continue to treat their untouchables so badly that foreign Christians have to come in and take care of them. Think about that for a second and you can see that this atheist’s chaplain’s complaint is entirely political.
cermak_rd says:

December 27, 2012 at 12:56 pm

I consider hunger to be a serious problem in America, and more generally, the world. Shelters and food giveaways are bandaids that don’t actually fix the structural problems. Anyway, it sounds like this atheist is going to try to offer a secular alternative anyway.

I consider it wrong for Christian charities especially, to put any conditions on their charity because they have been commanded to be charitable. When you put conditions on the charity, it becomes, IMO, quid pro quo and therefore, not charity anymore.

As for atheist church, the main trouble is there is no way to enjoy the tax privileges of churches without becoming a quasi-religious organization. And people do need help thinking through their options and living their life. The reason the armed services are starting to investigate the possibility of atheist chaplains is because the Christian chaplains won’t behave themselves. Many of them seem to think that conversion is what these atheists need, rather than spiritual care. This is one reason the Rabbis are popular with the secular soldiers, because the Rabbis don’t try to convert people. However, there aren’t enough to serve both the Jews and all the secular folk.
Bryan says:

December 27, 2012 at 1:29 pm

cermak, please don’t take offense at what I say but this issue is very immediate and personal to me. I hope you realize how incredibly condescending and out-of-touch your remarks sound.

When I was living in a shelter it certainly didn’t seem like a band-aid to me. I would not have had a roof over my head, a place to shower, or hot meals if it had not been for the shelter. And cloistered musings on “structural” solutions from the world of social theory weren’t going to provide those things for me or for the dozens of other men and women who were being sheltered. It was a Christian shelter that provided them.

To say that there should be “no conditions” on charity provided in Christian shelters is absurd and is not Scripturally sound. People who somehow have the idea that Jesus and his disciples were a group of anything-goes, fun-lovin’ hippies must not have done much actual reading of the Gospel.

Many, if not most, of the people in shelters have serious personal issues related to addiction, physical abuse, psychological disorders, etc. and many of those factors are also related to poor personal choices on their own part. Imposing conditions like mandatory chores, sobriety, and spiritual reflection is not only helpful but in many cases absolutely essential for recovery and eventual independent living.
tennvols87 says:

December 27, 2012 at 1:44 pm

So according to cermak, Christians should be judged and convicted on the basis of what they are currently in the process of doing for the poor, while the atheist chaplain gets credit for: maybe, someday trying to get around, to brainstorming, oh well his intentions were good.

Hard bigotry of excessive expectations in action. Presumably, in this scenario the Islamists get credit for not razing the pyramids yet. And when they finally do-”the Christians maybe burnt the Library of Alexandria down.”
William Dalton says:

December 27, 2012 at 1:48 pm

Franklin Evans: “Ann, I would venture to say that you would be welcomed to any UUA church you enter and leave with your beliefs and faith intact. Can you say the same for your church if I, a Pagan, wished to visit? After all, at no time in my life can it be even remotely said that I’ve believed in God, the One True God. Please, think about your answer.”

Franklin, I won’t speak for Ann’s church, but you would certainly be welcome at our services, and no one would question your beliefs if you declined to join in the numerous creeds, litanies and prayers. But I won’t vouch for whether your beliefs and faith will remain intact. That’s up to God.

As to the prayer before meals at the homeless shelters – I doubt there is any such instance where those being served are obliged to give voice to or even mouth the words of the thanksgiving given over the meal, as was hypothesized an atheist charity might require their homeless to utter some blasphemy denying the existence of God. (Really? I knew atheists have been getting kookier as of late, but I don’t think any are that bad yet). A homeless person sitting down to table at a Christian shelter should expect to sit quietly while grace is said, just as if he had sat down to table in a Christian home. Why would anyone expect differently?
Dux Bellorum, Austinopole says:

December 27, 2012 at 2:19 pm

tennvols87:

Dux Bellorum, Austinopole
The point is not that the other guy does it too, but that the other guy is ten times worse. This is focus on only that which is in front of your nose is classical solipsism and the standard feature of a drama queen. It inflates one’s personal experience into the only facet of reality that matters. This mindset is built on bodies of gays buried beneath walls in Iran. Political movements only have so much energy and resources. Western Christianity, at large costs to its political strength in the West, has devoted countless dollars and unquantifiable energies to improving the plight of the world. Leftist political movements, highlighting the true parochialism of an ostensibly global movement, devote all their time and resources to attacking “abuses” in their own countries. That’s why the Human Rights Campaign, notice that it doesn’t call itself the American Rights Campaign, can’t lift a finger to help gays being put to death in Iran, but can heckle some decent Mormon restaurant owners in California at the drop at the hat.

1. Shorter tennvols87: The fact that there exists a worse Muslim means that you cannot be outraged about anything a Christian does.

2. You assume a zero-sum view of the world which simply isn’t the case. It has always been the left that has stood for human rights, and there have been many, many conservative thinkers like Burke, Coleridge and Eliot who’ve implicitly argued that the very notion is an implicitly and explicitly leftist idea. I can at the same time condemn the treatment of gay people in Iran, the Chinese crackdown on Falun Gong, the Japanese treatment of the Ainu and the way that apathetic Americans are fine with any number of slights and insults tossed towards the homeless.

3. While one can be outraged equally, the deciding calculus becomes ability to effect change. I can’t do anything about Hindus in India short of giving to HRC and Amnesty International, really, and that ability is highly attenuated. I can, however, do quite a lot about things in my own country that I find repulsive. And, yes, I care more about what’s happening in my country than I do elsewhere. It’s natural. Let me put it this way: we all know that there’s domestic violence out there, but when it’s our brother beating his wife, it matters more to us.

Seems like you’d support this naturally conservative position, no?
MH - Secular Misanthropist says:

December 27, 2012 at 2:57 pm

MH and William Burns: I was responding to j_A’s smug fable. I never mentioned atheists so I hardly see what that has to do with anything.

The context wasn’t clear from your response. I assumed it was about the subject at hand which was the atheist chaplain.

To add to M_Young’s point about the Hindu prayer. The Hindu’s treated their untouchables and continue to treat their untouchables so badly that foreign Christians have to come in and take care of them. Think about that for a second and you can see that this atheist’s chaplain’s complaint is entirely political.

While Hindus treating other Hindus poorly is regrettable, I don’t thinks that justifies treating a guest of the Senate with disrespect. Yes the Christians in the audience can exercise their free speech rights, but they’re still being rude. I also don’t see how that makes the atheist chaplain’s comments political.
cermak_rd says:

December 27, 2012 at 4:42 pm

Bryan,

Yes of course you’re right. I volunteer at a shelter, so I do know mental health issues. What I meant by conditions is conditions of creed or prayer. Certainly behavior is something that must be controlled, otherwise it will impinge on the other people at the shelter!

I simply think that when you condition the soup or the bed on the requirement that the person you are serving prays or listens to the sermon that you are in essence paying that person for the act of religious obeisance and thus it is no longer charitable.
Bryan says:

December 27, 2012 at 5:00 pm

Well thank you for taking my words with grace, cermak. With your clarification I see that for the most part I agree with you.

I sometimes feel like all I do for myself spiritually is dwell on the world’s problems and how much better everything would be if it were all done “my way.”

But as I’m sure you know, when you see or experience real, chronic human poverty up-close and firsthand it becomes heartbreakingly clear that in many cases there really is no “solution.” The idea that any particular method or government policy could turn some people into clock-punching, rent-paying citizens is a fantasy. Some people don’t even want to get off the streets, and not just ones with addiction or psych issues.

In the end it’s really about learning to accept people for who they are and help them anyway, which in itself is very spiritually enriching, but in a very bittersweet way when it comes to the destitute and homeless.
tennvols87 says:

December 27, 2012 at 5:15 pm

Simple because as an atheist chaplain he is under no “Christian” duty to be harder on himself, or in the form this most often takes in liberal Christianity one’s own culture, and can simply target the world’s worst behavior. That’s what I find most disgusting in the misuse of the mote and beam parable. Jesus was not talking in cultural terms. He directed it at a personal level. Too often liberals want to redirect the scope of this teaching into a license to assail “their” culture, in fact a culture that most liberals despise, while ignoring the larger problems in the word. In effect, the mote and beam parable serves to justify the odious parochialism that Dux preaches. It becomes in explicit terms the bigotry of excessive expectations. Non-Christians evoke the mote and beam as political justification for focusing on “first-world problems” like gay marriage while leaving the gays of Iran and untouchables of India to suffer in their fate.
MH - Secular Misanthropist says:

December 27, 2012 at 8:09 pm

Non-Christians evoke the mote and beam as political justification for focusing on “first-world problems” like gay marriage while leaving the gays of Iran and untouchables of India to suffer in their fate.

People tend to focus on the problems which effect them, which they can have some possibility of changing. So obviously they’ll focus on their culture. It effects them and they might be able to change it.

Is Iran going to listen to someone in San Francisco complain about their treatment of homosexuals? Unlikely. Should they do nothing until Iran does listen to them? That would be silly.

Now I personally think the chaplain’s concerns about the soup kitchen prayers are overblown. But he was obviously concerned so if he wants to try and set up a prayer free soup kitchen then that’s his right.
Franklin Evans says:

December 27, 2012 at 8:52 pm

William D.: I doubt there is any such instance where those being served are obliged to give voice to or even mouth the words of the thanksgiving given over the meal…

You must have missed my first post on the 1st-50 page: I have witnessed something very similar, and I asserted that some of the people present for that “free” meal mouthed the words with neither belief nor respect. It was just the final obstacle to not being hungry for a short time.

William, I have no doubt of your church’s welcome, nor of many other churches. Indeed, as a child in the Religious Education curriculum of the Unitarian church of which my family were members, we had (at an appropriate age of maturity) several formal, pre-arranged attendances at worship services at a synagogue, Catholic church and (as I recall) both Methodist and Lutheran churches. You see, the UUA believes children should understand religion from the inside. That was my religious “conditioning”, and when I was producing a Winter Solstice ritual performance, that church was first on my list with which to share.

Only Ann can answer for the implications behind her post, and while I don’t mean it as a personal attack, I certainly do mean to challenge her words.

I have the highest respect for Catholics, if not an equally high one for its leadership from time to time. Regardless of which sect’s church I am in, and equally so in any synagogue, I show my respect in giving active attention to the proceedings, and refraining from any specific practice for which I have neither the beliefs nor the education to perform them properly. I would never offer confession or ask for communion, and when I was married in a reform synagogue I accepted all instructions and admonitions with my sincerest consent despite being a Jew only by the most minimum standard.

At no point would I permit the forced attendance of anyone to any ritual for which I was responsible. Indeed, the circles I join make it very clear that anyone not comfortable with any aspect of the ritual — always clearly summarized for them — were most welcome to sit and watch from outside the circle, or to leave at any point during the ritual. For me and my siblings-in-faith, respect is two-way, or it doesn’t exist.
tennvols87 says:

December 27, 2012 at 10:08 pm

MH most likely you won’t convince any “homophone” who lives in San Fran either yet I’m sure you applaud gay activists efforts. Of course this also assumes that the goal of mass participation political activity is to persuade rather than demoralize. Certainly efforts to stamp out the “public health hazard” of smoking leaned far more to the intimidate and shun direction as opposed to the persuasion attitude. If demoralization is the goal of activist political activity then it’s quite clear why liberals pick the targets they do. I guess they should just stop hiding behind the I can only make a difference here fig leaf. I should point out that yes I know that Adam wasn’t hiding specious arguments behind those fig leaves.
MH - Secular Misanthropist says:

December 27, 2012 at 11:13 pm

… yet I’m sure you applaud gay activists efforts

You’re inferring too much. I’m actually somewhat indifferent to most culture war issues.
tennvols87 says:

December 27, 2012 at 11:31 pm

Fair enough I just used the example of San Fran you used in your comment.
William Dalton says:

December 28, 2012 at 2:27 am

Here perhaps lies the future of atheist chaplaincy -

“Satanists masquerade evil with ‘festive potluck’”

http://uncgatheists.blogspot.com/2011/11/our-potluck-was-great-success-everyone.html
pilgrim says:

December 28, 2012 at 11:54 am

Thanks to Fisher for including Reece’s Rainbow in her list of alternative ways to channel money during Lent.
Joseph D'Hippolito says:

December 28, 2012 at 1:59 pm

The whole “kertuffle” between Simcha Fisher, EWTN and the Voris-Fr. Z cruise demonstrates how fractured American Catholicism is. Mark Shea weighs in with his own uniquely charitable style, here:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2012/12/more-poisonous-fruit-from-the-cult-of-voris.html

This dispute is one of the “fruits” of Vatican II, though not in the way people think. Vatican II was the Catholic equivalent of Gorbachev’s glasnost and perestroika: an attempt to make a calcified institution more accountable and accessible. But the calcified institution could not tolerate the change; as a result, chaos ensued. “Liberals” equated openness and accountability with full-fledged acceptance of liberal politics; “conservatives” harkened back to the days when the Church taught the faithful not only how to think, but what to think. The split has alienated many Catholics who, frankly, don’t know what it means to be “Catholic,” anymore.

So people wind up defining Catholicism for themselves, with little (if any) serious guidance from the hierarchy, outside of the latter’s self-serving attempts to maintain its power.

Somebody once spoke a long time ago about putting new wine into old wineskins. What you’ve seen happen with the Catholic Church in the past 50 years is a prime example.

Rod, what are your thoughts on this?
Turmarion says:

December 28, 2012 at 3:49 pm

A private organization might legally be able to compel participation in prayer as the “price” of a meal, but that’s never right morally, IMO. I don’t recall Jesus or the disciples healing people only if said people prayed, nor does the Bible record that the five thousand were asked to pray before Jesus performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes.

Roland de Chanson, completely and heartily agreed on all counts! I especially share your concerns and the concerns of others here regarding Father Z.

Dux Bellorum, Austinopole at 5:02 PM, I’d pretty much agree with you here.

M_Young: All those who criticize the Christians for ‘requiring’ a prayer before a meal have an obvious option — simply match the Christian’s efforts with your own, entirely secular efforts.

As I pointed out above, the Founder—whom we’re supposed to emulate, right?–had no such requirements for those he helped. And hey, if atheist or pagan or humanist or secularist or Wiccan or Ásatrú or even (ugh) Scientological organizations organize to help the poor, then I’m all for it. Mark 9:40, and all that.

You mean actual Americans exercising their right to free speech — the horror, the horror!

Basically I agree with MH at 10:03 AM, but if it’s given that we’re going to have such invocations, then in a pluralistic society, Christians ought not to get special treatment. Even First Amendment absolutists recognize the difference between “free speech” and “public disorder”. Taking another tack, would it be OK for a Catholic to disrupt a Protestant benediction in Congress, or vice versa? Or Methodists to disrupt a Presbyterian? Respect for someone with whom one does not necessarily agree, especially on an occasion that’s essentially ceremonial, isn’t suppressing free speech—it’s a matter of not being a fanatical jerk.

tennvols87: To add to M_Young’s point about the Hindu prayer. The Hindu’s treated their untouchables and continue to treat their untouchables so badly that foreign Christians have to come in and take care of them.

Look, I won’t give examples, since it’s fish in a barrel, but despite being a Christian, I am well aware—as I’m sure many here are also—of plenty of nasty things done in the name of Christ over the millennia. If that’s going to be a criterion for appropriate disruption, then we might as well ditch chaplaincies and benedictions altogether.

Btw, re your post at 10:08 PM, I have to say I fully promote the “homophone” agenda. I like words that sound alike!
Siarlys Jenkins says:

December 28, 2012 at 10:14 pm

Turmarion speaks in the spirit of Samuel Adams, who heard some discussion at the Continental Congress about opening with a prayer. Many delegates said that coming from so many very different colonies and religious faiths, it would be impossible to agree on a prayer. Adams said ‘I am no bigot, and I can listen to a prayer offered by a man of faith and virtue who is also a friend to his country.’ In short, let the prayer be said, and let those who are not in full accord doctrinally listen with respect, without feeling compromised in their own beliefs.

There is a principled way to take the opposite tack. A Wisconsin Synod Lutheran pastor observed once that if he was in a meeting with people of differing faiths, he would object to offering a prayer “unless we are of one accord.” (He also told me, Lutherans don’t expect to control the state like the Calvinists do).
Franklin Evans says:

December 29, 2012 at 11:18 am

I approach Turmarion’s “fish in a barrel” (nice turn there) from a different angle: Too many of my siblings-in-faith place that obstacle first in any interactions with Christians, and one consequence of my being disgusted and tired of it is that I just don’t have more than superficial discussions with them any more.

There is, however, a grain of truth in there. We who directly honor some of the many non-Christians of past and present who have hindsight hostility towards Christians cannot escape that underlying tension. We need something to reassure us — and I will immediately concede that our need does not oblige anyone to fulfill it — in situations where power, especially governmental power, is at stake.

We can point to common ground. We can cite things like anti-Catholic sentiment so strong and embedded that John F. Kennedy had to campaign on denying any ties to or influence from the Vatican. We can point to the accelerated rise of the Catholic/parochial school system from Protestant dominated public schools and mandatory prayers that violated Catholic doctrine. There are other things to list, some that were mostly “local” to many.

I do not like the idea of any sort of religious invocation at a government session, proceeding or official action. That is my personal take on the First Amendment. I am not, however, so paranoid (any more!) that I cannot at least tolerate sincere and heartfelt religious expressions by government officials.

Where is the balance point? I’m not convinced there is one, except a Zen sort of acknowledgement that sometimes doing nothing is the best action. It is not out of some PC-driven fear of offending someone. It is more out of a desire to honor the spirit of the First Amendment, and to respectfully point out that for some egos, being in power also means being free to utter arrogant statements that at least imply a rubbing of faces of those not in power. Do we really want to lump that under “free speech”?
Franklin Evans says:

December 29, 2012 at 5:26 pm

The bourgeoisie so concerned with freedom of religion they would let men starve to death.

So adoption agencies have to grant gays adoptions, but homeless shelters can’t mandate prayer. What is the logic behind this.

I was going to be glib and use the tired, old cliche “The ends do not justify the means…” but I agree with your isolated point: where is the ordinary concern and compassion for those hungry and homeless?

A more nuanced answer is a challenge: Would those homeless shelters and meal providers deny their services to any homeless or hungry person who stands up and says “No, I will not say your prayer”? Answer that, and we will have some sort of common ground on which to conduct this debate.

Personally, I don’t know of any religious service to the homeless or hungry who would deny non-believers, let alone “mandate” their saying a prayer in which they do not believe. It begs my second question: Is your God so willing to ignore the hypocrisy of non-believers on the off chance that they will later become converts? Is His approval so clear to those who would use even gentle coercion in this context? Does your God want you to blackmail hungry people with food?

I don’t see a middle ground here, not theologically, not morally, and not ethically. If you think you can show me one, by all means try.