We've GOT to pray

My last post touched on the change in attitude people undergo when the status of a behavior moves from privilege to responsibility, and in giving relevant examples, I mention the challenge of getting students to pray in school. That specific example calls forth a substantial number of other dimensions of thinking and is a difficult subject because student reluctance stems from much more than the simple nature of obligation.

Students at a young age want to please authority figures. They engage in prayer whether or not they understand because they don't generally question their teachers and parents. Some do recognize that prayer can be boring or tedious so (when they are still young enough) we inject song into the process hoping that they will enjoy the experience more.

But as they age, they get pulled aside by all those other societal influences. At any given moment, young people, especially those brought up to embrace the trappings of the modern, secular world, are enticed by sensory inputs, experiences and interactions that are important in that moment. That fear of missing out is intense and time allocated for prayer becomes an unwelcome interruption. Even those with nothing better to do might be reluctant for a variety of reasons:

1. Faith begins to be reconsidered and uncomfortable questions beg to be asked. Many have no answer and this makes certain aspects of prayer empty.
2. Students start to celebrate their own individuality and rebel against the conformity of any group activity.
3. There is less and less urge to please the adults.
4. A common tendency is to reject anything that is imposed regardless of its nature.
5. Especially in a school setting, prayer times show little in terms of return. Classes lead to grades. Prayer isn't always obviously answered and one cannot be graded on one's performance.
6. Prayer in a foreign language is difficult and even in translation the references and concepts are alien. The topics aren't relevant or current.
7. Institutionalized prayer is repetitive with the same text said every day. This leads to boredom.
8. Prayer requires sustained attention and focus, neither of which is especially valued by teenagers.
9. Teenagers sleep less and less so prayer services which rely on silent reading or individual worship become nap times.

So when we try to solve the issue of prayer we are fighting against a large number of challenges. This is what drives many (myself included) to rely on the "fear of negative consequences" angle I mentioned in the previous post. If this fear is of local response (within the school), in the short term it will have the most direct effect on controlling behavior, but it might also be incredibly corrosive in most cases. A larger fear such as an existential threat outside the school can work but once that threat is resolved, the status quo ante resumes, and one should never hope that there will be some calamitous situation just so that students can see the value of prayer. There are stop gaps, such as making personal connections with students so that they will feel a sense of personal responsibility to an authority figure. This works when the student has the moral core to care about what someone else thinks but sadly this is often not the case. Additionally, it is difficult to carry this technique forward for any larger number of students. In the school setting, the ratio of teacher to student makes this practice hard to work on with any meaningful percentage of a group. Smaller prayer groupings would also help though this is contraindicated if one purpose is to foster a unified community, or if one lacks the man power and/or physical space to make it work. Education regarding the words and ideas is useful but cannot overcome the problems of faith which cannot be taught.

So what's the bottom line? We can acknowledge how difficult it is and help the students by admitting our own struggles. We can banish outside influences (in the community, the school or the prayer room) and hope that with no other pressures, students will allow themselves to engage. We can see ourselves as spiritually warehousing them and hope that through a gap year program, time and maturation, they will start to choose for themselves to become more involved in the process of prayer. We could make prayer optional, or attenuate the content. We could provide appropriate positive reinforcement and consequences to reward engagement. Each of these (or any other) options has serious risk and potential benefit and any combination has to be implemented keeping in mind the possible damage.

I'm open to other ideas and discussion. Thanks for listening to me rant.

Some thoughts about Reluctance

One of the things we wrestle with is the resistance we encounter from people when they are tasked with the performance of a particular responsibility. And yes, I’m speaking in vague generalities. This thought was inspired by very specific realities but I’m trying to allow my argument to take root all over the place.

So what is it that breeds such reluctance and how can it be addressed and remediated? It dawned on me that one approach would be to isolate the source of refusal. Why do things stop being appealing? The fact is, the biggest drain on someone’s zeal is obligation. Tell a 15 year old that he “gets” to drive the car on errands and he’ll do whatever you ask. Tell a seventeen year old who has had his license that he “has” to drive those errands and the eyes will roll. Talk to an 8 year old about the privilege of voting and compare that to the conversation with the 38 year old – the sense you get will be different. In the world of Jewish education, we struggle with getting students to focus on prayer. When they are 10, they seem excited but by 14, many have started to drift away. What changed? The idea that they are getting to pray becomes the notion that they are obligated to pray. Yes, there are intervening pressures, influences and variables but that same 14 year old will still sparkle with anticipation if he is told that he “gets” to sit at the adult table. The unusual, the unexpected and the unique are enticing and attractive.

So how can we make those things that develop into obligation remain as interesting and worth the effort as they were when they were perks? One way, historically, has been when external pressures threatened to take the ability to perform the responsibility away. The possible loss of an earned right has inspired people to stop taking what they have for granted and return to the level of appreciation which they had. Existential threats work wonders against the specter of apathy or assimilation. Take a child’s access to a car away and when he is again allowed to drive (and knows that the potential for loss continues to exist) he will be more excited at the opportunities afforded. Refuse to grant tenure and no professor can rest on his laurels (I am not necessarily advocating an abandoning of the tenure system, just a recognition of one of the dimensions which might be negative) – the fear of loss will keep him sharp, theoretically.

Can we aim to live in a world inspired by fear? If we told people that they will lose the right to vote if they don’t exercise that right to a specific degree, would that make them better citizens? Would the threat of expulsion based on non-engagement with prayer make students more connected to prayer? Wouldn’t these fears fail to encourage an honest sense of investment? Maybe we should rely on the negative consequences as a catch-all and supplement with the other ideas to try and catch the fancy of those who are at least committed for other reasons. But none of these will necessarily bring about excitement along with the engagement. In fact, might they instead breed resentment and foment rebellion even in the face of dire consequences? Do we need to find a way to progressively add on those perks that continue to make the activity constantly the milieu of the select, thus making participants feel special at every stage? Would some sort of concurrent, required continuing education reinvigorate people or would it, too, be an imposition unappreciated by the masses? Maybe we just need the repeated reminder that what we can do is different from what others are allowed, and should be appreciated not as a given, but as an accomplishment, though I don’t know how this would be communicated. No answers right now, but I’m hoping that if we recontextualize the discussion and consider the real source of tension, we might be able to brainstorm alternatives which might lead to more positive results than any of the approaches which we are relying on now have thus far engendered.

Sparky

You may or may not know this but I live with a dog. He is a little ball of cuteness who is named Sparky. We rescued him from his life of solitary wandering on the mean streets of Newark and now he lives with us. We feed him, walk him and basically cater  to his every need.

There is nothing wrong with this set up. Pets are a responsibility and we have to take this seriously. We treat them like part of the family, talking to them and training them, the way we might engage with a baby. Their survival is our job; their growth is our goal.

But through all of our hard work and after all of our sacrifice I still find it disheartening that Sparky has never once said "thank you. " I just figured that by now he would have realized that simple rules of decency dictate that a small show of appreciation is called for: a nice word in return for all we have done. But to date, nothing. And I'm saddened by it. I give him a bowl of food and even some of my food. Nothing. I play with him. Nothing. We snuggle on the couch. Nothing.

It just seems wrong to me that he withholds this basic courtesy and refuses to acknowledge all I do with those two simple words.

Please dear reader, understand the importance of recognizing what people do for you and say something. I still hold out hope that Sparky will eventually get the memo.

I'm seriously sickened by what I see in the Mid East

So yeah, I’m a little bit angry. I (and I have said this before) don’t like to wade into politics because it undermines the casual silliness of this blog. But there comes a time when one cannot just sit on one’s hands. I reached my limit so I’m taking a sitting stand on current events. I apologize if I offend, but not that much. If you wish to engage me on this topic, feel free to post a comment.

First, to clear the air, I am an ardent Zionist. That’s a very complex concept and term but it boils down to my belief that Israel has a right to exist and to determine its future and policies. This doesn’t mean that it is always right in its decisions, but it means it can exist like any other country and has to be held to similar standards.

These days, along with the stale trend of vilifying the state of Israel, there is a series of protests at the border of the Gaza strip. The Gaza strip – a piece of land repeatedly given away by Israel and then taken back when those who move in insist on attacking Israel. Now the attack isn’t by tunnels or rockets, but by simply overrunning the border. Let me just say this – Israel has a border with Gaza. For all those people holding fast to a multi-state solution, states have borders and part of being your own country is not walking into the other guy’s country. That’s how borders work.

The videos have been clear. This isn’t about some sort of protest, because what are they protesting? That the border is closed? Two things – one, it is closed because Israel is another country (and even with closed borders, Israel sends in truckloads of humanitarian aid…yes, references available…) and two, it is closed with Egypt also but no one is burning tires there. This is about not wanting a separate country in Gaza, but about “from the river to the sea” – taking all of what is Israel. And this isn’t some hidden agenda. It is overt and stated outright. Israel is supposed to sit by and let another country invade?

The fence has been attacked. People have made it into Israel. Guns have been fired into Israel, explosives thrown. Tires are being burned (forget the ecological nightmare for a second) creating a smokescreen under which who knows what kind of demolition is being attempted on the fences. So here’s what I see as the possible ways this plays out:

1. Israel does nothing and the fence is breached. People stream in. Some are just looking for a better way of life and are illegal immigrants. Some have more violent goals, but one cannot see that thing from a distance so they all just move in and violence ensues. The world excoriates Israel, saying it caused this by having a border and when Israelis die, the world (a it has historically done) counsels Israel’s forbearance, reminding them not only of the higher standard to which they are held, but also of their also being the author of their own suffering by “occupying” a land they have no right to.

2. Israel does something and it causes a loss of life. Israel is to blame. How dare it fire on what could very well be civilians? The right to protest is really important. And if a couple of bad apples use the guise of protest to starm the gates and throw Molotov cocktails, what right does Israel have to respond?

The Arab government of the area doesn’t caution anyone or recommend staying away, quite the opposite – it encourages participation; it seems to be seeking casualties! If people die, it earns the world’s sympathy. It cannot be expected to exert any control over its people because Israel is going to be to blame no matter what. So if people get in, the Arab government wins. If people are kept out, the Arab government wins. If people die, Israel looks bad. If people don’t die, Israel suffers.

Sorry about this rant, but this all just sickens me. It sickens me that Israel is being put into this ridiculous and impossible spot but it also sickens me that the world turns a blind eye here. I mean, it often does, but this is just so egregious.

-------------

palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=25414

https://www.algemeiner.com/2018/04/08/what-the-new-york-times-isnt-telling-you-about-israels-gaza-blockade/