please remove these fucking idiots from our fucking lawn. they were standing outside last night trying to entice people into their house of prayer. are you going to let any and every religion dirty our lawn with a fuckin tent? who the fuck thought this was okay? fuck jesus, fuck christians, and fuck every single person involved in this. dear god, student philadelphia

You are loved. Prayed For, Reader Off-Campus

Ah....there's nothing like seeing such comments as 'dear god' promoting tolerance and progressiveness from our Liberal friends! Shenandoah, Medical Pittsburgh Pa

Shenandoah shows what a hypocrite he truly is. In one post today he critiques dear god for lack of tolerance, and in another he calls two lesbians sluts. Typical conservative, hiding their prejudice behind the cloak of christianity. The fact of the matter is if these people ran the country the way they wanted, they'd make the taliban look tolerant. By the way Shenandoah, this is the University of Pennsylvania newspaper website - your kids go to Penn State. A

The house of prayer is full of compassion and love for ALL members of the Penn community. It's not for the purpose of making attacks on sexuality or political persuasion. We have no intention of promoting conservative or liberal lifestyles. In fact, it's not about politics at all. May the Lord's will be done, not America's. My prayer Shenandoah is that the Lord would touch your life and show you His true, awesome love so that you will love as He loves. but the greatest of these is love, Student Philadelphia

sounds like a cult 2ct7

Religion only divides people. Religion can unite people only within the same religious group, with other groups there are only deep differences. It is very bad idea to have factor extremely dividing people in the middle of the campus. All the prayers must behind closed doors of the churches and congregations. proudwhartondad, engineer michigan

Let them pray if they want to. It's fine when people are religious, deeply religious at times. What strikes me though is when religious people try to convert other people or impose their beliefs on others. This tent hints at that, but Christian conservative Republicans are experts at trying to intrude their beliefs in other people's lives. So let people pray, its their constitutional right, but the constitution doesn't say, "all must pray." Jeff, Student Philadelphia

Why can't Satan worshippers pray in this prayer tent. If this is a public prayer tent, and all are welcome, why can it exclude Satanists just because they don't honor your particular diety? What about Pagans, and Wiccans? What right do you have to exclude people from your prayer tent? Devil's Advocate

I just want to say that I think the Prayer Tent is a wonderful idea. To be sure, it is specifically intended for Christian students at Penn, but I stepped in for a few minutes to see what it was like and found a supportive, welcoming environment that was not judgmental or threatening in the least. No one forced me into the Tent or tried to impose their beliefs on me -- it was a meditative, peaceful, and spiritual experience, and I for one am glad that the opportunity exists for Penn students to take advantage of silent, thoughtful prayer. Bravo, Penn for Jesus! This was an excellent idea and others may mock what you are doing, but it was a great, non-intrusive way to witness for your faith. It would be cool to see other religious groups at Penn offer similar opportunities. Jessica Haralson, C'08

Sounds more like a hippie drum circle to me. Cartman: Ma'am, I need to clear out your giggling stoners and your drum-circle hippies RIGHT NOW, or soon they're gonna attract something much worse! Elderly Woman: Ooooo.what's that? Cartman: The college know-it-all hippies. Alum, Hippie hunter Hiptown

I'm glad to see students standing up for what they believe despite what others think. The Prayer Tent is a great way to get students to think about spiritual issues - something I think is important in today's society. There are a lot of stereotypes associated with Christianity and I hope that this will help to abolish some of them. K, Student

The pride embodied by this Prayer Tent reminds me in one sense of the fabled emperor without clothes, who is blissfully unaware of his own ridiculousness. I am rather dismayed by the oft-made assertion that faith is something to be proud of. In reality, a reliance upon faith is the rejection of honest inquiry. As such it is also the embrace of tremendous intellectual arrogance. Individuals who justify their beliefs about the world/universe by faith often describe this as a strength of their position. In fact, nothing could be weaker. Christian belief, for instance, is fundamentally and obviously justified by circular means: 1) The Christian Bible is the word of God. 2) The Christian Bible is therefore accurate. 3) The Christian Bible says it is the word of God. 4) Therefore, the Christian Bible is the word of God. One could assert absolutely anything at all in this fashion. Without regard for the rules of logic or empirical inquiry whatsoever, anything at all would be permissable. (For fun, try inserting the wildest worldviews and the wildest deities you can imagine, and you'll see that it still works... You might try other prominent religions as well, since this fallacy is by no means limited to Christianity.) In principle, such a system lacks the robustness that a believer would need to justify itself as being true on grounds beyond mere belief. Why do so many believe? Particular individuals' reasons aside, faith is after all very simplistic. One need not put a lot of uncommon effort into having it; no non-elementary education required, no real openness is required, and thus no serious inquiry is required (where "serious inquiry" precludes a) the seeking of a particular conclusion from the outset and b) the even more egregious assumption of the conclusion one seeks). I have heard Christians say that they "grow in their love of Christ," or that they "expand their knowledge of God;" but these statements entail severely unjustified metaphysical commitments. Saying that such a system captures truth better than another is arbitrary and self-indulgent; no wonder it is so attractive and resilient to some, who, when being challenged, need do nothing more than rigidly adhere to what their heart desires. There are many more points to be made, and much more to be elucidated about the points that have been made, but somehow I think it a fruitless endeavor to continue. That is what faith accomplishes: *unwavering* belief even in that which may reasonably be shown unjustified or false. Those who use faith have removed themselves from a place of serious inquiry. Is it any wonder that religion is so persistent? How else could justification through non-justification (i.e. faith) be so successful? Faith is strong in that it persists; however, it persists not through reason but through self-indulgence and refusal to engage in serious inquiry that might diminish it. These are the marks of a weak position indeed. Daniel Mims, Student

Matthew 6:5-6: "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men....when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret...." matthew, student Penn

Daniel, why do you care so much to make a straw man argument (the STRUCTURE of your argument in addition to your PREMISES of what the Christianså« PREMISES are)? Yay, you dont believe in christianity. Yay, you think theyre idiots. Slow day for Daniel Mims? FMB Madrid

I seriously disagree with several of Daniel Mim's claims. I haven't had the opportunity to see the prayer tent but from the pictures and from students' statements it doesn't seem to be the bastion of pride that Daniel makes it out to be. Daniel is right that the Christian argument is circular, but his claim that "nothing could be a weaker stance than a position of faith" is hardly plausible. The argument is circular because it MUST be. A person of faith believes in God because Bible/God's word says so but if one believes in God because "X", or another premise says so, then "X" becomes a higher source of authority than God. So yes, admittedly this one aspect of faith is circular. But in no way is having faith anti-intellectual or anything close to "the weakest stance" someone can take. No where does the Bible ever place faith and thinking/reason to be in opposition; it only sometimes places faith and sight in opposition. And it is often the case that we believe or trust things and facts that we do not experience in everyday life. We put our faith in our own abilities and our own beliefs whatever they may be. For the Christian, reason and the intellect take their seats on a foundation of faith (God) rather than being replaced by faith. From here, does it seems plausible that people who believe in God (i.e. Descartes, Newton, and these Penn students) are taking the "weakest possible stance"? No. In fact it is hardly the case that a person of faith never struggles with their beliefs or is challenged by inquiry. People come to faith not because it is the simple way out (it's hardly "simple" for those students to get in that tent in front of on college green), but because they understand the folly in trusting wholly in their own abilities- mental and physical. And from this humble position, accepting that their exists a God, people of faith exercise their faculties of reason and rationale in their search for truth. Faith is not the simple position that you make it out to be and it does not preclude further inquiry. You seem to have a an *unwavering* belief in your own intellectual prowess. At worst the two positions, no faith and yes faith, are on an equal setting where the only difference is whereas the former has human mental capabilities as its foundation, the latter has the premise of an existing God as its foundation; from these foundations the search for truth follows using reason and the Bible. But I would claim that the position of faith is in fact a stronger position than that of having no faith. Have you ever seriously inquired the claims of the Bible or the reason these students are doing what they are doing instead of making generalized claims about their pride, self indulgence, and irrationality? From this side, it doesn't seem so, and I urge you to check it out. Peter, student UK kimpeters@gmail.com

FMB, a straw man argument is one that represents an opponent's position as weaker than it really is. The circular argument I gave to represent the reasoning behind faith in the Bible is totally accurate; hence, it is not weaker than the position in reality, and does not constitute a straw man argument. And there is really no need to capitalize 'structure' and 'premises'; I understand what the words mean. Perhaps you should look them up yourself. Peter, you try to diffuse my claim that obvious circularity makes faith a very weak place from which to assert things about the world by admitting as much. I'm glad we are in agreement about the fact that circularity is present. But your explanation of why you think it is circular is both incorrect and revealing. It is not circular because having it any other way would diminish God's supposed authority; it is circular because of the form it does and must take. The fact that you've gotten this wrong in the way you have edifies my point about the non-intellectual nature of faith by showing that you are unable to step outside your faith even when appraising a simple argument. You say that having faith is not the weakest stance possible; but in fact it is the weakest possible, if weakness is measured according to valid standards of justification such as physical evidence, explanatory power/necessity, predictive success, and logical entailment. Faith is entirely unconcerned with these things; faith is the antithesis of reason. That is why it is faith; that is why you admit that faith "MUST" be circular. You say that "in no way is having faith anti-intellectual." You are clearly wrong on this; faith is admittedly an unjustified justifier. It is a placeholder that admits of no further intellectual (properly reasoned) inquiry to one who accepts it. At one point you use "faith in our own abilities" as though this is the same kind of faith that is employed in religion. This is an unacceptable conflation. The everyday "faith" to which you refer entails no extraordinary metaphysical commitments and would indeed be unjustified if there were no previous experience that your abilities had brought you success in the past. You would be better off calling this "ordinary faith." Of course, religious faith is "extraordinary faith" of a kind that entails all sorts of unjustified and in fact unjustifiable metaphysical commitments. That is the kind I have argued against, so your points about "ordinary faith" are in fact completely irrelevant. The point isn't that the Bible does or does not say that faith and reason are in opposition (which, incidentally, I am almost certain that it does); the point is that faith and reason *are* in opposition regardless of what the Bible has to say on the matter. One can of course take a few starting premises on faith and derive conclusions through reason from those premises; but faith-based premises do oppose reason, and to say that conclusions drawn from them have legitimacy because they are faith-based is entirely unreasonable. But that is precisely what is going on when someone decides to believe in the Bible or whatever other intellectual poison they choose. As for Descartes and Newton, they were not stupid men. But their intellectual greatness had little to do with their religions. I don't know if Newton wrote much about his faith, but Descartes did indeed attempt to intellectualize it. You might be interested to know that he failed (his argument for the existence of God is indeed circular). In any case, you commit an obvious 'appeal to authority' fallacy in saying that something those two figures believed could not have been tremendously weak. Argue the substance, please. I never said that the faithful don't struggle with their faith, although I often wonder what that means. (In fact, I would be totally surprised if they didn't, given the ridiculous things that are often entailed by it.) Does it mean that they temporarily suspend their faith so that they can honestly inquire as to whether something does indeed pose a real problem for it, or does it mean that they try to accommodate their faith with ad hoc addenda that allow problems to be magically absorbed? If their "struggles" lead them to remain faithful time and again, it is obvious what they are really doing when they "struggle with their faith," and it has nothing to do with earnestly question *whether or not faith is itself justified.* Furthermore, in describing the nature of faith, I didn't say "simple;" I said "simplistic." The general Christian faith represents an extremely simplistic worldview given the sheer multitude of possible answers regarding the questions of the universe. Faith in this simplistic system precludes "serious inquiry" (to use my own terminology) into those other possibilities. As for calling me intellectually arrogant, have I justified anything on the basis that it was coming out of *my* mouth? Absolutely not. The sentiments I express today are the result of what I called in my first post "serious inquiry." I really do care about describing the world accurately, in as objective a manner as possible. That is, I don't argue for things because *I* *want* them to be true. People of religious faith may think they share this quality, but they are deceived; they do not take the steps that will lead them to a remotely plausible version of reality (namely, education in reason). Also, belief in mental capabilities is no different than belief in my own existence, but it is very different than belief in God. This is again the difference between ordinary and extraordinary faith. Finally, you say you "would argue that [extraordinary] faith is in fact a stronger position than that of having no faith." Come again? You WOULD argue it? Well, what's keeping you? Where is the argument? I would love to see such an attempt; I suspect it would further strengthen my case, not that it needs it. And why the heck should I heed your urging to read the Bible, especially when it leads to the sort of mental mash you and FMB have thrown my way? In fact I've read some of the Bible, though my brain always revolts before long. I've also read some of what is supposed to be intellectual Christian philosophy. As you may or may not be able to imagine, since I am interested in defensible versions of truth and since I do not already believe in the Bible, I find both the Bible itself and Bible-based philosophy entirely ludicrous and pseudo-intellectual (at best). I wonder why? Daniel Mims, Student dmims@sas.upenn.edu

And by the way, having a prayer tent on college green does smack of pride. Even the Bible says so! (See earlier post quoting book of Matthew.) Daniel Mims, Student dmims@sas.upenn.edu

In response to Devil's Advocate's comment on the remark about satan worshippers not being welcome... that was actually a misquote. Someone had passed the tent a few days ago and jokingly said "What do you think they would do if I went in there and started praying to satan?" I think I mentioned that comment to the reporter when he was asking me what some of the responses from people on the campus to the tent, and I think I said that it probably wouldn't be something we would be thrilled with if it happened (or something along those lines), but never did I say that satan worshippers weren't welcome. Honestly... anyone from ANY faith background is welcome, even satan worshippers, but the tent is a place designed for the Christian tradition of prayer. It is open for anyone to check out, We wanted the tent to be a central place for Christians to be able to come and pray, and while being in a central place, also give others the opportunity to see, experience, or participate in Christian prayer done in a non-traditional, non-church setting, with no pressure to conform or convert whatsoever. Like Jessica said, the environment inside is completely pressure free. There is no schedule, no set protocols that people need to follow when they come in. If anything, we only ask people to be respectful of each other and the tent while in there, thats all. There are a lot of misconceptions towards Christianity... most of which is admittedly due to a poor representation of Christianity that Christians over history have made. Our hope is to try to represent and express Christianity in a manner that also comes against the wrong representations shown in the past. And along those lines we hope that one of the things this prayer tent might do is help to come against wrong perceptions and past misrepresentations of what prayer is and what Christianity is. If you haven't taken the time to take a good look around in the tent, I encourage you to do so before you criticize its purpose, relevance, or manner in which it is being done. Once again, there is no pressure to participate, and no attempts to force Christianity on anyone in the tent. We will be open until Wednesday evening. Hope to see some of you there. Michael Hu, P4J Director, Director, PennforJesus Philadelphia, PA

You know, Daniel Mims actually makes some good points although he does protest a bit too much. Faith, by its very nature and definition, is not an intellectual entity. Religion is a "belief", based on "faith". We can attempt to justify our beliefs by intellectual means, however, this is often uncomfortable and ultimately impossible. I suppose we suspend our disbelief (yes, in a child-like manner) as we seek community and meaning in our lives. I don't see this as a bad thing. Religion, at its best, can give us comfort. At its worst, it can definitely be evil and coercive. I do believe it is important to use our intellect to temper the occasional obsessiveness that organized religion can engender. Each person must come to his own conclusion regarding "faith" and it will not be decided through strict reasoning. I would venture to guess that the conclusion is based on their personal needs, life experiences, and how they answer the question:"is this all there is?". And that is how it should be. B.L.H

Prideful Prayer Tent...? The Matthew 6 passage is addressing those who try to make themselves look better and more righteous by doing "righteous" looking things out in public to improve their own self image for selfish gain. And it is specifically labeled as being done by the "hypocrites" it doesn't say anything about public prayer being wrong, just done wrong by those who have the wrong motives. The passage does not automatically equate public prayer with hypocricy or pride. You also have to look at the broader context. We ALL know the danger of taking things out of context. The whole chapter is not on where the right environment to pray is, but instead is addressing the motives behind religious things we do. In this passage those things are: giving, prayer, and fasting. And besides... it is a prayer ROOM. The tent itself is in a public place, but the room itself is a private place for prayer. Those passing by the tent don't see the people praying inside, and those inside aren't praying to be seen by those outside... how can that be prideful? Well... then there's the simple fact that if something isn't done pridefully... it just isn't done pridefully no matter how it looks or sounds. And if it is... its more a problem they will have to deal with personally. Chippers Philadelphia, PA

Re: Matthew 6:5-6 "Some have concluded that Jesus' directions about private prayer call into question all public prayer. Jesus' own practice indicates this wasn't his intention. The Gospels record Jesus at prayer both privately (Matt 14:23) and publicly (Matt 14:18,19). Again, Jesus was drawing attention to the motives behind actions. The point really wasn't a choice between public and private prayer but between heartfelt and hypocritical prayer. When asked to pray in public, focus on addressing God, not on how you're coming across to others." Life Application Study Bible Notes on Matthew 6:5-6 Dan and Matt, maybe you guys should ask those who have visited the tent about their motives. I'm sure your find that it's not about pride at all, but about humbleness and love. David, Student Philadelphia

while having a serious prayer tent on college green is all good and fine, these people are morons. "Nursing senior Esther Kim, the worship leader, strums her guitar as she sings "Jesus" over and over in a song of prayer." what?? what kind of new age hippie ass bullshit is this? "sings jesus over and over"?? i think i saw that on an episode of south park once. a "sin bin"?? a guitar and bongo drum? come on. this shit is hilarious. just a thought

daniel mimms, i assume you believe that the universe as we know it came to be by totally natural processes. this requires great faith as well. the chances that one of the 400 or so proteins that are most important in the human body could come to be by natural process is 10 with enough zeros on the end to fill an average length magazine from front to back. im sure you're a proponent of forensic evolution, which is as much of a religion as christianity is. you believe in a history that was made up to explain the unseen past based on little evidence from the present. you worship nature, and are at heart a materialist, christians worship the God of Jacob and Jesus Christ, and are at heart Son's of God. chaz, student philadelphia

David, the pride I am primarily concerned with is not about assessing the prayers or operational attitudes of the people in the tent; the pride I am concerned with is deeper and precedes interest in praying in the tent. Please look back to my comments about intellectual arrogance. And to "just a thought," let us not group hippies with the Jesus singer. At least to me, the silly part is not the simple fact that she was singing or playing but rather the content of the song. Daniel Mims, Student dmims@sas.upenn.edu