Perhaps there is a philosophy of prayer, though despite the claims of various religions it is far from being a systematic organization of thoughts. Many of us as children were taught the prayer “Now I lay me down to sleep.” A pulpit joke I used to tell was about a little boy’s parents who found the prayer as a beautifully embroidered sampler in a store. Thinking to please him they bought it and hung it above the little boy’s bed. That night as he kneeled to say his prayer he looked up at the sampler on the wall, thought for a moment and said “Never mind Lord, there it is,” and without further ado hopped into bed.

No matter the religion, much of prayer falls into the category of mere form. The liturgies of various religions have evolved over the centuries and it defies either reason or logic why anyone can believe the mere repetition of such religious incantations, counting beads, burning incense or prayer papers, genuflecting and prostrating one’s self can catch the attention of any deity. Well, maybe such things catch the attention of a tyrant like Satan? I take it he likes to be flattered.

An honest Jew like Tevye would admit asking God whether the Almighty couldn’t choose some other people once in a while to represent him. There is no doubt in my mind that if Jews at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem were really honest when asked about it would reply they felt like they were talking to a wall. And, if most Americans were asked the question they would respond the same way concerning trying to get the attention of the White House and Congress.

However, calling out to God, especially in extremis, is for most of us as natural as breathing whether we feel like we are only talking to a wall or not; but for such talking to God being formalized by some ritual incantation really doesn’t impress me, nor do I believe it impresses God. So if you continue as a child saying your prayers at night before you hop into bed I hope it isn’t taking the form of the sampler the little boy found so convenient. If you are going to talk to God, then talk to God. I will continue talking to him along with my departed loved ones and friends and it isn’t anyone’s place to tell you whether you are only talking to a wall or not. But if talking to God takes the form of Caesar Bush or Iran’s mad mullah’s “privileged communication” with the Deity I will take issue with you.

While I do not believe in prayer as most consider it, no longer asking God for anything or to do anything, I find the Bible a fascinating source book concerning the subject. For example, why did Eli the priest think Hannah was drunk because she prayed silently though her lips were moving? No doubt Eli was familiar with drunkenness, including that of his own sons, but why pick on Hannah because her lips moved but no words were heard by the priest? I’ve never seen any drunks praying silently in church while their lips moved emitting no sound, but no doubt such things do happen. Still, it remains a curious story. Even more so when we read Eli was convinced of Hannah’s sincerity, blessed her and her prayer for a son was answered.

The story of Hannah has to do with the concept of Original Sin, in which women were cursed with childbearing and being dominated by men. To have a barren womb was a shame to women like Hannah; they were believed throughout their society to be found in disfavor with God. But to her husband’s credit he did not hold this against Hannah; in fact the story reads he loved her very much. As I continue to work on my book “Hey God! What went wrong and when are you going to fix it?” I never think of the subject of prayer that I do not think of Hannah; and I do not think of Hannah but I also think of the ignoble position of women in so many cases throughout human history. For example, Harvard’s president at the time didn’t think women have the brains for math and science. Suppose L. H. Summers had said women did not possess the higher faculties of mental processes required to be included in the King of Disciplines: Philosophy. Suppose he had said, “Women do not possess the mental requirements to be included in The Great Conversation!”

Why didn’t Harvard’s president call attention to the fact that women have failed to make their way into the most exclusive “Men’s Club” of all, the King of Disciplines: Philosophy? Since this omission of women from the King of Disciplines is the thorniest of all issues among all nations, it is not one that anyone of prominence wants to address. Even so, over the years I have come to realize that even among those of great prominence in the universities some have failed to note this Missing Half of Philosophy: Women!

Had Summers even been aware of this, it is not something to which he would have wanted to call attention. In my own experience of addressing this issue, invariably women have acted as though I were insulting them by calling this exclusion of women from the King of Disciplines to their attention. This despite the fact that it accounts for the failure of women to achieve the status of equal value to men resulting in their subjugation to men in the religion of Islam and others and their exclusion from leadership roles, an exclusion so sorely reflected in the United Nations.

But consider this: If Summers were aware of this omission of women from the King of Disciplines, and yet felt he could safely broach his opinion of the omission of women from the fields of math and science while ignoring the larger omission of their exclusion from Philosophy, it would speak volumes of his actual opinion concerning the higher mental processes accorded men as opposed to women.

A few, short years ago when I began to publicize the fact that women had confused “equal rights” for “equal value” and could not hope to be accepted on the basis of equal value to men until they had earned their place in the King of Disciplines, Philosophy, this generated heated responses from some prominent women. But there were others who understood and agreed, some even acknowledging the incongruity of women in the universities teaching courses in Philosophy seeming oblivious of the paucity of their own sex in this discipline. They were, in short, teaching the philosophies of men largely to the exclusion of women.

Whatever, it would have been well for Summers to frame his remarks concerning his opinion of why so few women achieve prominence in math and science within the larger context of their omission from the King of Disciplines. But men are notorious for their failure to address this issue. Why? I long ago came to the conclusion that even should men be aware of this, men in general do not want to invite women into this most exclusive of all male domains, the one discipline that more than any other emphasizes male dominance throughout the world and directs the course of history and nations, and as a result Philosophy remains far and away the most exclusive “Men’s Club” of all; and one against which women cannot bring suit claiming “discrimination.”

But when the first edition of The Great Books of The Western World came out over fifty years ago, I noted not one woman was included in the 54 volumes! It was then I realized something of great significance was at the basis of this glaring, and what had to be purposeful exclusion of women from philosophy.

On April 21, 2002 I wrote about the recent find in England of a 370-year-old book entitled “Woman’s Worth” proclaiming women to “excel men in virtues and rare endowments of the minde, and I think we shall finde that herein also women doe farre outstrip men.” I added this remark: “I can only hope Mortimer Adler will read this book before any new edition of the Great Books of the Western World is offered.”

Well, bowing to enormous pressure Austen, Cather, Elliot, and Woolf were added to the second edition of The Great Books. But if you read the history of this enormous undertaking of producing this set of books, if you read Mortimer Adler’s opinions of what constitutes the values he and the committee felt justified the inclusion of the various writers represented in this monumental literary achievement, you quickly realize the opinion of the men involved had not changed from the publication of the first edition to that of the second.

However, until women are included in The Great Conversation based on equal value to men, so long will Wisdom fail to be a part of any kind of attempts at peace in the world. The fact is that the barbarism of men makes wars, and the civilizing influence of women makes homes.

Somehow, the sop to women on the part of the committee and Adler adding Austen, Cather, Elliot, and Woolf to the second edition of the Great Books does not go nearly far enough. Honoring the “compatibility of differences” is not seen at the U. N., nor is it seen in America as the kind of relationship that honors and dignifies the compatibility of differences.