John Beers, a senior majoring in computer science, argues that since not every graduate practices a religion, the Commencement ceremony should not include prayer.
“I feel that I’ve worked so hard to graduate, only to be excluded at my own graduation. GW includes a diverse body of students from many different faiths – as well as those with no faith, or even anti-faith. We have a special service for students of faith, the interfaith baccalaureate, which kicks off Commencement Weekend. This is a great chance for students to come together in prayer if they so choose. However, the general commencement is for ALL of the graduating students -– not just those of faith.”
As one of many people on campus who does not believe in any gods or other superstitions, I was glad to see someone taking action on this issue. I am about to graduate and am offended by the official involvement of religion in my graduation ceremony. I also know that many others I have talked to feel the same way.
An important thing to note is that John Beers is asking for a secular ceremony, not an athiest one. An athiest ceremony would have some kind of portion talking about how god does not exist, but a secular ceremony would be truly neutral as it would leave issues of religion out of the it all together. I would feel more included if an athiest speaker was allowed to get up there after the priest/rabbi and briefly explain why a god does not exist – but I, like other athiests (and unlike a lot of religious people out there), understand that to make religious people listen to such a ceremony during their graduation would be offensive to them. Forcing me to listen to invocations of god is equally offensive to me.
As far as I’m aware, the university has only allowed clergy from the Abrahamic religions to perform at graduation. One may think that a far more inclusive approach (though as I explained any non-secular approach cannot be inclusive) would be to list every religion in the world, including scientology, wiccans, mormons and other minority religions and have them all speak in turn. The ridiculousness of this would eventually become apparent to devout students of an Abrahamic religion when they are force to listen to a scientology invocation about aliens in volcanos. But a significant issue may still be missed by those in attendance, namely that in all the invoking of god(s) (remember some religions are not monothiestic, so its not just about invoking “god” in the singular sense), still offends those who do not believe in any god or religion.
It is surprising and disappointing that an institution of higher learning would continue to invoke such superstitious nonsense during a ceremony that celebrates knowledge gained by it’s students (many of whom are thankfully rational thinking, non-religious people).
Any change will likely be too late for my graduation (though I intend to bring it up as an alumnus when they ask me for donations – something I encourage others to do), but I hope efforts by John Beers and others can change the ceremony for all future students.
I’m a little confused as to how including an invocation and benediction during the graduation ceremony “excludes” someone. Is the entire ceremony based around religion or faith? From what I have heard, no. Dozens of formal/solemn occasions in American culture call for the use of a brief prayer. I don’t think this in anyway is meant to offend someone; it’s meant to be uplifting and hopeful for the future, particularly during graduation or inductino ceremonies. It isn’t meant to say “everyone must be religious to appreciate this moment.” The swearing in ceremony of the president includes a prayer and blessing, and while some may protest, most view the overall occasion as a moment of celebration and look at the whole picture. I would hope students who are non-religious would be able to view graduation in the same way. The main point of graduation is in fact, graduation; any prayer including is brief and not central to the day.
Beers states that “However, during these formal prayers, Brand and I, united in our achievements, will become divided by our religious beliefs.” That’s certainly one way of looking at it, but I doubt Brand or anyone of religious beliefs is looking around during graduation feeling divided from atheist friends, even during a prayer. How is division created from this? Does someone say only the religious deserve to graduate? Is this brief, probably less than five minutes, prayer really so monumentous and upsetting? Were the entire ceremony presided over by a priest, I would be at the front of protest, but this isn’t a mass, it’s a graduation ceremony. Religion is a brief footnote in the ceremony.
I also take issue with “Rational Thinker at the Law School” saying that invoking god(s) during graduation is offensive, then going on to imply that all religious people are irrational and believe in “superstitious nonsense.” I find this surprising, since most undergraduate students appear to follow one religion or another, particularly Judaism or various sects of Christianity. And whereas a general prayer open to every student to either join in prayer, or not, appears to be the total opposite of offensive, calling all who are religious or spiritual irration and believers of non-sense, is.
This is simply a student trying to gain some attention around graduation time. Perhaps he should have begun this fight well in advance of Commencement when something could have been done or considered, not a few weeks before Commencement where it seems the only intent is to create waves of publicity.
Also, Mr. Beers, I call your attention to our school’s motto: Deus Nobis Fiducia
(In God Our Trust).
As for Rational Thinker at the Law School, just because you feel religion is superstitious nonsense does not mean you speak for all intelligent people. I am a senior graduating with honors and have been accepted to and will be attending a law school better than GW’s and still consider myself a devout Catholic who attends mass every Sunday and believes in God. Intelligence and faith do not correlate, as you wish to so erroneously purport.
Anonymous,
Having a religious ritual in the graduation program is obnoxious to people who don’t believe in the supernatural. Atheists are a small minority, and yet are the most hated group in America. Every time an atheist stands up and says what she believes, it’s offensive to religious people, but when a religious person stands up to talk God/gods/spirituality (and a lot of them do), it’s totally cool.
Frankly, I tune out whenever someone starts babbling about their (goofy to me) religious beliefs and respect them a little less. Critical thought and religion don’t mix well–objections to empirical science make those doing the objecting sound like rubes. It’s time for people to lose their childish security blankets and get out of the Dark Ages.
“Anonymous”, exactly. It’s simply a tradition. I’m not trying to claim that it was originally put in place to offend someone anymore than the tradition to not allow black or female students to register at this school was to offend them. However, this is a case of religious discrimination and one of the reasons why many public events no longer include a prayer. We live in a diverse society now and the rights of minorities must be protected. I understand how someone of faith may not “get” how a prayer could be uncomfortable or upsetting to someone since it’s something they associate so much with something positive, but I assure you — not everyone feels this way. I agree that the prayer is not why we’re at graduation. I think it’s an insertion of a divisive religious tradition at a time it is not necessary. We should leave the formal prayers to the interfaith baccalaureate service. The general commencement is for ALL students… those of faith as well as those without.
“In God We Trust”, …what motive could I have in gaining some attention around graduation time? I have final projects to work on! The reason why it happened now and not before is because I was alerted to this issue at UMD and I had never considered there might be a prayer here. I was at the Senate-elect meeting the same day. If I had known about this when I got here, it would have happened then. I don’t support the school motto, and find it a strange choice for a non-religiously-afilliated school created by a secular US Congress. Again, just because it has been tradition doesn’t mean it’s right.
I’m really not interested in the discussion about religion or religious people here, only whether or not we should have a formal prayer at a commencement ceremony that is to represent ALL students. I obviously think we should not. I don’t think religious people are stupid and I used to be a Roman Catholic myself. This is just a matter of whether or not prayer is appropriate for this event. I hope the people of faith on campus do not see this any more of an attack on religion than white students should have felt that black students being admitted to the university was an attack on whites — though I’m sure in both cases, people have. For my complete argument, check out the op-ed I wrote also in today’s issue.
I think that religious belief is nonsense and irrational as it has no evidentiary basis, and hence based on belief rather than fact (when someone claims “miracles” or imaginary beings are true, I think it is entirely appropriate to call it like I see it – but I don’t mean it to cause any deliberate offense when I do so). But I, unlike religious people do not insist on pushing my rationalist/athiestic views on others during graduation. All I am asking for is that religious people show me the same decency and not push their religion in my face during graduation. To say prayers are merely a celebration – well I think having someone like Richard Dawkins give a speech, arguing for reason over religion, is a celebration of human rationality over blind faith. But I understand that this offends people and am therefore sensitive and decent enough not to push for such a celebration of rationality at graduation (even if for just the 5 mins mentioned above).
The notion that most GW students are Christian or Jewish is misleading and irrelevant. The Hatchet reported that approximately 40% of GW undergraduates were non-religious. The school also has many other minority-religion students like muslims, hindus, sikhs etc. A major point here is that although there may be a majority of students who are religious, the imposition of a majority religious viewpoint (that god exists, and in this case an Abrahamic god) during an official graduation ceremony is not appropriate as many in the minority (non-religious people, in some from minority religions) find the practice offensive.
What is being requested is not an athiest graduation, it is secular one – they are very different. “In God We Trust” – with all the intelligence you claim to have, I would think you would understand this point. You also might note that I never stated that religious people can’t be intelligent (I know many who are), or that I speak for all intelligent people (another figment of your imagination). Being intelligent and holding an irrational belief are two different things – please don’t confuse the two – an intelligent person who also has good grades etc can still hold completely irrational beliefs (many do).
Your inability to understand the nuances in my earlier post is disappointing, I sincerely hope law school helps you with that.
As for the notion that “this is simply a student trying to gain some attention around graduation time” – that is simply the kind of way a majority often views minorities who rock the boat – like when gays, blacks, women, native americans, muslims, (and in the old days even catholics and jews), etc have tried to assert their rights. It just happens that this time its athiests (one of the most hated minorities in America).
This talk of “rights” is utter nonsense. Why, exactly, do you have a right to not even hear any reference to something that you don’t believe in? So much for tolerance of ideas that are not your own. On top of that, GW is a private institution. It’s amusing to hear students like Mr. Beers and the “Rational Thinker” talk about “rights” as if they are modern day civil rights crusaders in this context. Though you fail to acknowledge it, you are actually not in the public sphere right now. You even agreed to a freedom-limiting student code of conduct when you agreed to attend the University! It is certainly your right to contest policy since you pay tuition to the University, but do not be so arrogant as to claim that GW actually owes you full accommodation of your personal intolerance.
In regard to the ironically named “rational thinker,” it’s quite amusing to me that a professed law student is claiming a right to not be personally offended by speech–by all means, show us exactly where that exists! Prove that GW has an obligation to protect you from speech that you disagree with.
Here’s a thought experiment. Why is Rahm Emmanuel not a “divisive” choice for commencement? He represents a host of political beliefs that a significant portion of students do not believe in, some of whom may well take political ideology as seriously as another might take a belief in God. Unlike the mere moments of prayer, he is giving the main address that will be the highlight of the entire ceremony. Yet a student would be completely absurd to write an opinion piece in the Hatchet claiming that GW is excluding Republicans and endorsing a liberal agenda by inviting him, insisting that only non-ideological speakers should ever be invited to give a commencement address. Why? Because his beliefs are not the focus and are not the point!
Just like religion is not the point.
Finally, please spare us from any and all attempts claim victimhood and the moral high ground by comparing yourselves to a host of minority groups that actually had to fight for real rights in our public society. Blacks and women fought fought for suffrage, civil equality, and their very dignity. You, on the other hand, are doing nothing but insisting that you are entitled to not encounter anything that you do not want to hear.
@ Todd
There is a profound difference between Rahm Emmanuel speaking and a priest. With a prayer it is generally accepted that it will involve some form of diety helping students in some way, wether or not you think there is anyone listening to the prayer is irrelevant. However traditionally commencement speakers do not delve into their political beliefs or agendas, instead trying to give advice to the graduating students. Even television personalities such as Stephen Colbert set aside how they speak and act on tv to give a motivational speech.
@ More or less everyone else
How is a prayer offensive to you? If you do not believe in God, Allah, Vishnu, Buddha, the Galactic Lord Xenu, Odin, Zeus, Osiris, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster then to you the prayer should be meaningless, just a person talking to their invisible friend in front of a couple thousand strangers. If you do not want to be part of the prayer, then do not participate. You can use that time to gaze off into space or think about the last 4 years. It does not hurt you to hear a person give a prayer, it is not structured in a way to try and convert you or change your beliefs. It is just words, words that make some students feel good.
Todd:
No one here has claimed that GW should be legally forced to have a secular graduation. I suggest you read what we actually say before rambling on about things you imagine we say. We are asking the university to change the graduation to a secular ceremony because its the right thing to do. We are not filing law suits – we know the constitutional law regarding private institutions and are not complaining about that.
This is not about hearing different ideas or different types of graduation speakers. Having someone talk about their own personal views as a graduation speaker is very different from the university endorsing a religious ceremony as an official university ceremony. You once again have used your imagination to come up with the incorrect notion that we are complaining about the graduation speaker and their views (which I think can be very varied, and even include a relgious mention if that is what effected the speakers life) as opposed to the official ceremony, which I think should be religiously neutral.
You conveniently forgot to include religious minorities in your list. Athiests are considered a religious minority as they hold a minority religious viewpoint. And they are a hated minority – e.g. presidents like George H.W. Bush have publicly stated that they don’t think that athiests can be patriotic American citizens. Ignoring equal treatment of religious minorities like athiests during common official events like graduations only helps build on this derisive view that many in the public hold.
If you really (and surprisingly) think that this is about not wanting to hear differing points of view, you are completely mistaken. Athiests like John Beers often welcome the opportunity to take part in inter-faith events where various views on religion are discussed. And if you still think that differing viewpoints is all this is about – try and imagine the uproar that would be caused if OUR point of view – that “god does not exist” – became an official part of the graduation ceremony. That uproar would be very different, and far greater, than anything relating to divisive graduation speakers.
Finally, arguing against made up points of view isn’t helping your argument. There are legitimate arguments against what we are advocating for, but instead of focusing on those, several commenters seem insistent on arguing against things they imagine we are saying.
One last thing before I go off to study for exams… I talked about approximately 40% of GW being non-relgious… the number is actually 44% in the undergraduate level according to a survey done by the Hatchet. See the last few paragraphs in http://media.www.gwhatchet.com/media/storage/paper332/news/2008/10/13/News/Poll-Majority.Of.Gw.Students.Support.Obama-3483854.shtml
Also, to clarify, my above discussion about Dawkins was not for him as a graduation speaker, but as some kind of “clergy equivalent” during invocation/benediction to make a point. I think he or some religious person like Bishop Desmond Tutu or the Dalai Lama etc would make great graduation speakers – but when they speak, its their personal views, not an official view endorsed by the university during graduation.
Rational Thinker may make claims of false arguments all he likes, but by doing so he is only missing the point himself. The thrust of my message was that the very moment the issue was talked about in terms of “rights,” he was absolutely–indisputably–implying that he and Mr. Beers had entitlement to what they were arguing for.
So Thinker, if you do not believe this, then you had absolutely no business framing this in terms of “rights.” That is my fundamental issue with what’s been said in this comments section. You have even less business going out of your way to insist that you are a part of an oppressed, persecuted minority.
An idea that is, I’m sorry to say, an absolute joke. This could only be said by someone with a complete lack of appreciation for what real oppression actually means. Incidentally, I look forward to actual statistical data showing that there is a climate of hate toward athiests in the United States. Last I checked, quite a few recent bestselling books have been written advocating the athiestic point of view. Anti-religious thought is given a great deal of respect these days, in case you haven’t noticed.
(an earlier version of this message was submitted prematurely–please disregard it, my apologies)
Rational Thinker may make claims of false arguments all he likes, but by doing so he is only missing the point himself. The thrust of my message was that the very moment this issue was talked about in terms of “rights,” he was absolutely–indisputably–implying that he and Mr. Beers had entitlement to what they were arguing for. Words mean things.
So Thinker, if you do not believe this, you had absolutely no business framing this in terms of “rights” and going out of your way to insist that you are a part of an oppressed, persecuted minority.
An idea which is, I’m sorry to say, an absolute joke. This could only be said by someone with a complete lack of appreciation for what real oppression actually is. Incidentally, I look forward to actual statistical data showing that there is a climate of hate toward athiests in the United States. Last I checked, quite a few recent bestselling books have been written advocating the athiestic point of view. Anti-religious thought is rather well respected these days, and your citation of other religious minorities is a mere distraction given that they have the benefit of the first amendment. So I’m sorry, I will not take your word for it that athiests are the victims of widespread hatred in America.
What? People at GW offended? No way….
Rational Thinker. . . PLEASE ASK SOMEONE OUT ASAP! I mean clearly you are amazing at crunching numbers!
I think GW should focus more on their reputation and helping their students fund their education, help the community AND then worry about prayer.
Ohhhh academia . . . how I love to hear elitists argue. Open your eyes to the bigger problems!
JR. . . I will see you at the ranch! :)
PS. . . there is no way on God’s Green Earth (thought you would like that) Maryland would remove any kind of prayer. Do you know the community law thinker? The stakeholders? The DONORS. C’mon now.