Putting Out

A recent comments section on Mercury Rising provoked several thoughts:

Among Communion-taking American Catholics, only a small fraction would count as true believers--the sort who reject contraception, living wills and orgasm-enjoying; those who would instruct a gay child to prepare for lifetime celibacy; people who believe that Jesus monitors their every thought--and that they were born depraved but that another person accepted punishment on their behalf (and in whose debt they today stand); people who believe that Jesus’ authority is expressed through the Pope--and that one should never voluntarily entertain a sexual fantasy.

Almost no one in the pews seriously embraces these positions; a sociological observation becomes apparent:  The Magisterium does not accurately predict the real beliefs of Communion-takers.  Of a random 100 at suburban Twin Cities Catholic churches, you'll find almost no one actually qualified to take the sacrament.  So attending Mass entails briefly pretending to be an uncritical adherent 'out of respect' for the presence of the theoretical true believer sitting next to you. 

IOW:  I honor your feigned belief; you honor mine.  (Within the Rumsfeldian foursquare: the Catholic's Unknown-Known.)

Commenters unironically employ the phrase putting oneself 'out of Communion'.  The phrase implies a flock in lockstep with Catholic doctrine:  This claim is obliterated by empirical research.  Church-going Catholics are already 'out of communion'--but take Communion anyway--and no one seems to care, save for a tiny minority.

In taking Communion, one ceremonially asserts a purity claim about oneself, for significant others' visual benefit.  The Catholic church-goer subconsciously negotiates a 'reasonable range of departure' [from doctrinal orthodoxy], which--since it isn't openly discussed--allows wide elasticity for suitably-discrete straying.  (A Known-Known, I'm aware.)

Putting oneself 'out of Communion' implies the existence of some mass-level, consistent self-adjudication that precedes one's decision to get in line for Communion.  Pshaw!  (When asked to police oneself almost everyone hires a deaf-mute as his cop.)

If a Catholic priest rigorously sermonized on who should not be taking Communion, he could quickly reduce Communion taking by 90%.  But priests are evaluated in part on church attendance:  An obvious conflict of interest incentivizes priests to avoid frank messaging.  As a practical matter priests never seriously review--from the pulpit--who shouldn't be taking Communion.  It's just too expensive.

**

Thanks to Slavoj Žižek for this talk--in which he discusses the philosophical observation in Donald Rumsfeld's well-appreciated 2/12/02 quotation, among other things.

Psychoanalyzing the Star-Tribune

Conventions of news reporting change with the decades, and like many my eyes gravitate to the Metro Section's reliable blood- and inflicted-sex parables. 

This evening I noted a fix-satiatingly lurid example of a man who attracted single-mom girlfriends by posing as 'pious Christian defender of the importance for boys to have an upright adult male presence in their lives'--so as to gain access to boys who he could rape.  (There is an endless supply of this story, we note wistfully.)

Contemplating the hair-raising Jeffrey Iverson Jr. tale initially brings on our 'evaluation of the perpetrator'; we feel obliged to participate in his punishment by mentally embracing his essential 'disgusting evilness' and newly-earned and never-to-be-rescinded pariah status.

But then our minds move on to this charged dialectic: 

1)  There is no way religion can reasonably be expected to weed out every dangerous psychopath.  Religion bears no responsibility for this crime; and

2) If your organization bills itself as having special communicative channels with The Author of the Universe but can't pick out the village pederast, then your god's superhuman powers are suspiciously conveniently-selected. 

For a long time, atheism has been stigmatized in our culture for prejudicial reasons:  Even today middle class American culture instructs participants that decent people shouldn't feel required to contemplate Obvious Inference #2, above.  (While quite persuasive-sounding, accepting OI#2 would require acknowledgement that 'A reasonable person can be an atheist,' which would be 'unfairly offensive' to the church-going.)

Straight news reporting requires the implicit proclaiming of a 'coherent', 'spiritual moderate' stance.  In this community, such 'moderation' means always allowing the expression of OI#1--above--and never giving hint that any sane person might be wrestling with OI#2.

The article continues:

Iverson wanted a plea agreement because he wanted to take responsibility for what he did and try and make it better, said one of the victim's mothers, who didn't want to be identified.

"What he did was unforgivable in a lot of people's eyes," she said. "If you don't forgive, God won't forgive you. But can you be satisfied with any sentence he receives?"

Just once it would be interesting were the parent quoted as saying, 'This tragedy has taught me to view people who claim to have magical powers with greater skepticism than I had previously.'  Or, 'I used to view God as a totally well-intentioned Being, but now I'm getting more in touch with its vicious arbitrariness.'  Or, 'I used to view God as omnipotent, but now I believe Her powers are quite limited--and to that extent I am now I suppose slightly less feminist.' 

Why does the Star-Tribune feel so required to print bland religio-spiritual comments from victims of violent crime?  Why do we assume this minute societal subset uniquely drenched in theological insight?

Will conventional straight crime reporting always be required to defend 'the wisdom of the religious milquetoast'? 

Surely the reporters themselves don't universally hold conventional religious beliefs?

Violently Happy

The sessions follow a set of texts by Marshall Rosenberg; we watch a video in which the author lectures on--and practices--heretofore redundant-sounding non-violent communication.  The group rapport is extremely good; I try not to radiate ideological chafing. 

What is the problem that NVC is attempting to respond to?  When we discuss the practice, participants produce examples involving an inferior--often adult-child interactions.  Our unexamined, inherited communication style is supposedly too brutal and foisting.  We need to be a lot more careful--ostensibly--about what we say and how we say it. 

Does NVC presuppose an prehistoric utopia, before human communication got fucked up?  (Perhaps I will have to read the book.)

IOW, I'm ambivalent with--opposed to, perhaps--both the diagnosis and the prescription, though the sessions are unexpectedly fun and present a rare opportunity to get to know people I'd otherwise never meet.  As with 12-step meetings, you learn a lot just from hearing others tell their anguished, funny stories.

In the wider world, people sometimes engage in rhetorical head-conking; perhaps somewhere off in the fading mists your blogger once perpetrated such a crime.  But one must oppose collective punishment and defend the legitimacy of occasional unadorned verbal exchange.  (Jesus left the jugular vulnerable for a reason.)  Excessive politeness and our culture's current delusion concerning the definition and importance of civility are often deadly impediments to honest intercourse. 

Given the Romish setting, I'm happy to report cosmological dogmatism all but non-existent.  People are mutually-respectful--affectionate, even--and don't assume high orthodoxy or hyper-spiritualism in others.  Lapsed Catholics are often as unaware as observant ones just how heterodox everyone's views are.  The revolution in the ever-sparser pews is going to be continuing, I prophecy.

Livin' On A Prayer

You opened last night's Compassionate Communication group with a biblical passage (or prayer?) whose import confused me.  It requested divine assistance--as I recall--in refraining from judging others. 

One frequently hears this expressed as a goal, among self-help types.  What could they mean by it?

One can't be an adult without judging others:  Evolution, history and culture have equipped us with various capacities and inclinations for evaluating others' abilities, social rank, intelligence, beauty, knowledge, allegiances etc.

During our species' evolution, having ever-more-useful [i.e. not necessarily 'objectively accurate'] abilities in evaluating others--across a variety of metrics--was certainly selected for. 

Learning that a particular human behavior was adaptive does not confer moral wholesomeness upon it, I know. But aspiring to 'never judge others' is simply impossible--and certainly not advisable, or hot.  (It's like asking one to stop liking Doritos, or Jenna Jameson.)

So what do people mean, when they announce their desire to judge others less--or not at all? Perhaps they're feeling judged or rejected and they're attempting to negotiate a bit more breathing room [via guilt-tripping]?  Or they're signaling their own membership among the hyper-considerate?

More often, they're expressing a desire to stop making dumb judgments, I soothsay.

Seeking to refrain from judging others based upon stupid criteria is a laudable aim.  But you're not going to initiate a useful lesson on 'refraining from judging others based on stupid criteria' by announcing a desire to never judge others:  That's the lede to the wrong story.  (See my little gift.)

So I pray Jesus (or PZ Myers or whomever) confers this KASA upon humankind:  that we engage in fewer stupid judgments of other people.  Better yet:  that we engage in more honest discussion concerning the formulation and implementation of said improved criteria--and have the courage to call out those who engage in the most egregious offenses against the sensible assessment of others.

Responding to Kelly

I have asked recently why Spanish was selected as the target language for Eden Prairie's immersion school.  We have learned that the school's principal--Elizabeth Linares--takes no official position on the question.  Ms. Linares has promised further information from the district--and I have just reminded Camie Melton Hanily of Principal Linares' promised response.

A commenter speculates on the districts' reasoning:

Part of it is probably motivated by staffing. I'm an Arabic teacher at a local high school, but I know the job search to fill my position was very difficult. In the end, they asked me to apply. There simply aren't a lot of licensed Arabic teachers in Minnesota. We also have a dearth of Somali speakers with education backgrounds. The Academy of Nations in Minneapolis, a school for immigrants and refugees, has partly staffed with such individuals, but for elementary school teachers you'd likely have a more difficult time finding enough qualified individuals.

The other aspect is probably curriculum. Spanish curriculum for all ages is very well developed - there is a current methodology and plenty of resources, books, and materials. Not so much for Arabic - we have one college level textbook and some religious training materials, but Arabic translations of works for young children are lacking and difficult to obtain. Everyone disagrees on the methodology. I'd suspect Somali language education faces the same difficulties.

If sufficient curriculum and staffing were available, do you think Eden Prairie would have selected Arabic as the target language/culture for its immersion school?  Imagine:  A secular, pan-Arab decor--with a strenuous devotion to gender equity--celebrating various Arab holidays and customs?

I don't think we are capable of creating non-Disneyfied immersive foreign environments.  In response to this difficulty, we have selected the prominent world language/culture least required for our future economic and diplomatic success--as we already have numerous people with this ability.  The school will do nothing to benefit the social advancement of American Hispanics.  Perhaps Camie Melton Hanily will persuade me, once she unveils her promised response (a fortnight's prep-time having already been allotted to her email); as of now, I say mothball Eagle Heights.

Anti-foreign bias is common and bad, both here and elsewhere.  Suggestions for reducing the ethnocentrism prevailing in our community, country and world are ever welcome.  That said, I don't much welcome ill-reasoned, wasteful proposals.  (Disneyfication is not a countermeasure to ethnocentrism; it is ethnocentrism.)

The Eden Prairie school district has produced an excruciating ten-minute propaganda video in support of its own supposed purity--with the standard 'upbeat' New Age musical accompaniment, 'anonymous' African proverbs and tacked-on, base-touching quotations from Colin Powell and Nelson Mandela.  Teachers spew out the expected PC shibboleths, such as:

I love when kids bring in different aspects of their lives and cultures and different things like that and ways that I can figure out my skill of teaching and helping each one of those students be successful.  
Windlan Hall – math

I teach from a multicultural perspective and I oftentimes will bring in things like music and that and comment on the importance of different cultures and I think that draws in a lot of different types of students and makes them interested in learning.  Rob Gordon – social studies

As a liberal I'd rather like to take the integrationist side within the current boundaries dispute.  But the district's dirigiste contempt for honest discussion leaves me cold.

Hastings' Viral Midge

The Rev. Brad Brandon defends the family -- July 2010 

Entering Hastings' Berean Bible Baptist Church for Wednesday Bible Study this evening, I take in the place.  The old building's ceiling might be 40 feet high; the grayish-blue wall-to-wall carpeting, visible ducting and pipes, vertical 'virtue' banners [Self-Control, etc.] alternate with dark stained glass.  A flute and violin accompany a tinny upright piano's homely fat-fingering.  The place isn't one-quarter full:  The forty-five in attendance include many kids.

A woman mentions John Kline to be among the ten right-wing candidates Pastor Brad Brandon endorsed-from-the-pulpit on Oct. 17.  I ask if any church member openly opposes Brandon's picks--and am told no, though members are free to vote as they like.

Brandon--an avid hunter--leads the meeting in a friendly, informal style, often conversing and joking with the flock.  We are asked to pray that Christians will vote 'in a way that honors the Lord.'  As prayer requests are solicited, Brandon mentions that the Catholic chaplain in the local Veterans Home is impeding a Baptist from distributing Bibles; the group decides to try harder to fly under the imperious papist's radar, going forward.

Congregants get called on by Brandon and ask for so-and-so to receive the group's prayers.  Each prayer-recipient is identified by saved or unsaved status.

Brandon luxuriously reviews his recent press clippings, for his followers--and appears happy with his recent depiction 'in the liberal media,' though with occasional exasperation.  ('Even saved people don't get what's going on!')  Andy Birkey receives praise for his recent piece:  'Maybe the Lord's working on his heart,' he allows.  Brandon reprises Channel 4's smooth lead-in to its coverage of him and later mocks Don Shelby's supposed liberal sneer that follows the segment.

The following paragraph faithfully reports Pastor Brad Brandon's account of his interaction--just the other day--with WCCO's reporter.

Brandon speaks very positively of WCCO's Reg Chapman, who was allowed onto the set of the pastor's radio program.  Upon meeting, Chapman informs Brandon, 'I am a student of the word of God.'  While preaching on-air, Chapman frequently mouths the words to the scriptural passages Brandon reads.  'I'm a born-again Christian--and I'm 100% behind you,' Chapman tells Brandon.  'We're going to put this [report] on the air and take on Americans United for Separation of Church and State,' Brandon quotes Chapman as telling him.  Reg Chapman ('A good Christian man'), the WCCO camera crew and Brandon participate in a communal prayer just prior to their departure from Brandon's studio.  Taking leave, Chapman tells Brandon 'Now I've got to go do an unbiased news report'--and winks to the pastor.

Pastor Brad Brandon then speaks about his issues with the IRS.  Like most American churches, his has 501(c)(3) tax status, effectively enjoying a large, ongoing subsidy from his fellow citizens--via a blanket tax exemption.  Society is willing to subsidize collective superstition up to a point--but when pastors seek to have their most blatant political advocacy paid for via the general fund, they exceed their writ.  (They are of course free to persuade people of John Kline's breathtaking resemblance to Jesus on their own dime.)

Brandon informs the congregation that the IRS still hasn't contacted him on the matter, though they've received the liberal organization's complaint.  He expects the IRS to pull his church's tax-exempt status--and his victimhood runneth over. 

He quotes the First Amendment and argues extreme injustice and ideological persecution are being directed his way.  He asks the congregation if they have any questions--and receives effusive support. 

I ask the holy man if the congregation (which appears of modest means) has written him a blank check for his legal struggle.  He says his team of lawyers will not need to be paid.  'Are they representing you for free?'  Not that either, he says--and then declares the topic off-limits.

'To liberals, the truth is an obstacle.' 

'A humanist philosophy says I am the center of the universe; a biblical philosophy says God is the center of the universe.'

So true--Rev. Brandon--so true.

Complacency Insurance

I've posted a couple of times lately on Eden Prairie's public Spanish-immersion school, to wit Why was Spanish selected?  Getting any convincing answer has thus far proved impossible. 

We have learned one thing, however:  The question is quite sensitive--and school management strongly resists producing any rational answer.  Asking this question--quite clearly--identifies one as a justifiably-ignored crank.

(Edina has a French-immersion school--and one can easily appreciate the snob appeal, for Edina yuppies, of little Britney regaling the Coon Rapids contingent with Edith Piaf numbers, at family reunions.)

For Eden Prairie, Spanish was chosen--I divine--to assuage liberal guilt.  Hispanics clean our toilets, roof houses, chop up chickens, chase our shopping carts and wipe the baby's ass.  To demonstrate that we don't look down on them, we'll create a [Disneyfied] Spanish-immersion school.  Won't that be a great kick in the balls to sneering Minneapolis libs?

That gnawing exploiter/exploited feeling--when I make eye contact with the shopping-cart mover at Cub Foods--will then pleasantly vanish.

Large-scale--often illegal--Hispanic immigration has benefited our economy and it has benefited Hispanics, I suppose.  On the other hand, had some pleasant way been found of preventing mass illegal immigration, the people on our economy's bottom rung would likely have gained disproportionately.

Our racial hierarchy ought to be counted as a problem of high moral urgency--don't get me wrong.  But the Spanish-immersion school isn't designed to resolve our society's racial hierarchy problem--it's designed to make us feel less guilty about it.

Diaconate Formation

Attended it, this morning--and was again struck by the contrast between the weird magic-obsessed orthodoxy of Church management and the ultra-heretical rank-and-file. 

Churchgoers are required to present a public image of plausible conformity, but 77% of Catholics agree that 'There is MORE than one true way to interpret the teachings of my religion'.  (Few take transubstantiation seriously.)

A conservative-seeming Edina gentleman--with whom I chatted after the event--tells me he believes humans have always been able to intuit a connection with god--and he specifically affirmed that this option was available to our prehistoric homo sapiens ancestors. 

In other words, you can essentially believe anything you like, provided you're willing to don the mask of meekness and doctrinal submission when interacting with the robed--and contribute enough.

The hypocrisy demands this institution places upon the practitioner would appear excessive--and I predict the institution will largely drop the game-face requirement, over the upcoming decade or two.  Priests of either sex will be elected by secret ballot, and be far more accountable to parishioners.  Wooden orthodoxy will no longer be equated with moral goodness--and they'll allow you to post comments on the website.

How do you say 'Ari Fleischer' in Spanish?

Elizabeth Linares (principal at Eagle Heights, Eden Prairie's Spanish-immersion school) telephoned me today--and we spoke for the first time.

I'd asked Ms. Linares the same question already--three times--via email:  Why was Spanish selected, for the school's target language?  She responded for the first time yesterday, telling me to call her on the telephone if I would like to discuss the Eagle Heights mission statement.

The school's mission statement can be fully digested in 30 seconds--and does not address why Spanish was selected.

When I pick up the phone, I express surprise that she directs me to the Mission Statement, given that it says nothing responsive to my inquiry.  Each time I direct the question to Principal Linares, she disregards my question and begins filibustering on the benefits of bilingual education.

I become mildly frustrated when Ms. Linares brings up her red herring yet again--and I emphasize that I am not asking her whether bilingual education is a good thing.  When I interrupt Ms. Linares--simply to inform her that she is not addressing my question--she becomes irate, announcing that she will not argue or debate with me. 

I tell her that I do not deem it arguing or debating to inform her that she is evading my question.  (Such conduct ought to embarrass an educator, of all people!)

Right after our telephone call, I send Ms. Linares this email:

Subject:  Telephone Call Recap

Hello Elizabeth,

On our telephone call, I asked you why Spanish was selected as the language to be taught at Eden Prairie's language-immersion school.

You said you were hired after that decision had been made, and that in your role as principal you take no position on the question--but that you have several personal reasons for the selection of Spanish:

1) The prevalence of Spanish speakers in the local community is large and growing;

2) The availability of native speakers makes staffing the school easier than if another language had been selected.

You did not list any other reason for the selection. Please correct me if I've overlooked anything you said--or if you would like to add any reason that you didn't provide on our telephone call. If you sense I've in any way misunderstood anything, by all means let me know.

You said that Camie Melton Hanily has been asked to provide me with further information on the actual decision making process that went into the selection, prior to your arrival at the school.

I look forward to receiving Ms. Hanily's information.

Very best wishes,

Gavin Sullivan
Eden Prairie
 
Twenty minutes later, Principal Linares replies:
 
Mr. Sullivan,
Accurate, except that you did not include that I stated several times that I believe bilingual education has great value, regardless of the target language of instruction. My personal interest in Spanish as a language of instruction is mostly due to the fact that I speak Spanish as a second language. As I stated, the decision about the target language for the Eden Prairie immersion school was made before I was hired, and I support that decision. Also, my statement about the growth of the Spanish speaking population did not necessarily refer to the "local community" however that may be defined, but to our state and country in general.

Elizabeth Linares

Hang the DJ

'People are always mindful of what relationship type holds between them and their listener.  And they craft their words to do two things at once:  To get a message across and to make completely clear which of several relationship-types is currently in force.'
Stephen Pinker

** 

A blogger faces a challenge in getting any person of stature to respond to questions.  In the previous two posts, I've directed fair, non-boring questions to two local school principals.  Each school provides a very distinctive educational environment.  Each purports to enthusiastically champion the benefits of its unique academic culture.

Why, then--a reader might ask--do both principals appear so resistant to answering polite, fair questions, on the record?

Ours is a community that puts little pressure on leaders to reply to public inquiry; we enforce social cowardice by stigmatizing those who ask questions.  (The gadfly here is presumed deserving of pariahhood.) 

The local papers are docile and unenquiring--providing the fig leaf of 'appearing to respond to hard questioning' to the local faux genteel.  A norm prevails:  The clean and clubbable parade their subservience to the David Hann class--and observe the shibboleths that earn one continued admittance. 

We're a nation of twelve year olds.

By review:  I asked the Spanish-immersion school's principal why Spanish was selected as the one foreign language to which Eden Prairie devotes a specialized school. 

After sending my fourth email to the principal, I received a terse acknowledgement today--telling me that if I have questions concerning the school's mission statement, I should call.  (I called twice today--and left two messages--without getting through.) 

Problem:  The school's Mission Statement nowhere addresses my question.  (Does any person contest this?)

Classical and Traditional

Eden Prairie has a charter school called Eagle Ridge Academy whose mission is 'to provide students with a traditional, classical education...'  The school's homepage describes the institution as 'A Public, College Preparatory School in the Classical Tradition.'

Two adjectives have pride of place then, at Eagle Ridge:  traditional and classical.  And both words are extremely elastic in meaning--so I emailed Principal John Howitz to try to learn more about what ERA is all about.

'...[O]ur curriculum...focuses on the “classics” of Western Literature,' Howitz promptly replied.  ERA's curriculum 'integrates literature and history starting with Ancient Greece and continuing through the Modern Area [sic].'

It is interesting that Howitz feels the need to wrap classics in quotation marks.

'Our goal is to not only help each student achieve his highest academic potential, but also to develop strong character, with the intent of creating not just smarter students, but better people, prepared to lead abundant and responsible lives as contributing members of our great country,' the school's website proclaims.

Traditional is also a question-begging adjective--given that even many traditions associated with Greece-Rome-Europe-America are today universally rejected.  Have no fear:  When ERA uses traditional to describe itself, it merely means sequential.  I have already informed Howitz that I find this usage to be stunningly non-obvious.  (What would non-sequential education look like, Mr. Howitz?)

'One interpretation of ERA's educational philosophy occurs to me,' I replied to Howitz, 'and I want to get your reaction to it. (I grant you it may be a simple misinterpretation--I invite your comment, criticism, agreement or denunciation):

ERA is an unapologetically ethnocentric institution--courageously swimming against the current--proudly embracing Eurocentrism.'

I await the school's response.

Curiosity On Eagle Heights

Eden Prairie has a Spanish immersion elementary school called Eagle Heights.  I've read the school's FAQ and don't see any answer to what seems to me an obvious question:  Why was the Spanish language selected, for our city's foreign language elementary school?

I've emailed Elizabeth Linares--the school's principal--twice (once in July and once a few days ago), but have not received any acknowledgment.  An article in the current Eden Prairie News specifically directs residents to email Ms. Linares if they have questions concerning her institution.  So I look forward to her response.

If Eden Prairie had no language immersion elementary school and someone suggested the idea (over coffee, say), I might suggest Somali, since that's certainly an underappreciated foreign culture, to most non-Somali Eden Prairians.  (Then again, I'd somewhat fear any possible negative impact on English language acquisition, among Somali-American kids.)  Or perhaps we ought to concentrate on a language whose study has been unjustifiably neglected in American education, historically, like Arabic.  Or perhaps the language should be different, from cohort to cohort.

In any case, I'm curious to hear the case for making Spanish the single, permanent foreign language immersion option for Eden Prairie kids.

Bill Arnold's Vicarious Redemption

This evening I attended The Gathering, a 'hip' rock-n-roll religious service at Wooddale Church. 

Wooddale ministers and markets to the local middlebrow; it is led by Leith Anderson, professorial manqué--the cloyingly scratchy, crackling tenor.  This evening's Gathering is packed and goes forth with the organization and produced feeling of a television program--featuring local comic Bill Arnold as guest star.  The young, hottie-heavy crowd exhibits good grooming, swaying hands-in-the-air [as Jesus seems to appreciate]--and heel-and-toe beat-keeping.

When he was 13 Arnold's pals sought to introduce him to beer and weed; he responded by breaking off from his posse and--on Sept. 25, 1970--'turning his life over' 'to Jesus'.  For several years he had no friends, he says.  (He remains intensely proud of having refused that Nixon-era doobie.)

Arnold represents conversationally and makes a number of points.  He appears friendly and likeable and goes through a PowerPoint Top Ten list with occasional wry humor.  He descends here and there to Dr. Phil-speak, as 'I was in my perception zone and needed to spend more time in my reality zone.'  His points are mostly light-hearted, and to my reality zone, morally unserious.  One example:

Arnold--making his uplift-through-humor presentation at a New Hampshire women's prison--tells the inmates he senses they've been mistreated by men--and he would like to apologize to them on behalf of his sex.  After the talk a convict tells him she's been in the clink for nine years without having received a single visitor--with one coincidental exception:  On this very day, her father just paid a visit.  And her old man--who'd been abusive to her, growing up--did not express any hoped-for contrition.  (His visit has only intensified old wounds.)  So Arnold asks if he can apologize to her on behalf of her father.  She accepts Arnold's vicarious apology and we are led to believe a life has been transformed.

Notice anything?  I mean, let's say your still-living father abused you as a child, but can't man up to issuing any apology--and I tell you I'd like to apologize to you on his behalf. 

To make such an offer would be cretinous, no? 

After the service Arnold forms a receiving line outside of the worship hall--and I ask him if he views Christianity as the one true religion.  No--he tells me--he won't make that statement.  It merely works for him, he says.  (High Dogmatism has itself been hyper-relativized, in 2010 America.)  So if a person believes in Hinduism and prays to Hindu gods, is this any less worthwhile than accepting a Christian perspective?  Arnold replies reciting John 14:6:  Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

So Bill Arnold believes Christianity to be an especially believable religion because its founder explicitly promises that he is telling the truth. 

Now that's a clever religion!