Category: Culture


Featured on NBC’s ‘Chuck’:

Lyrics:

“When I wake up with the morning light I can always breathe
Somehow that never has meant much to me
And I can’t say I am thankful for the things I have
I’m a hell of a guy
Living a hell of a lie

And if I gave it all way I’d expect something back
I’m never sure that I could tell you where my heart is at
Cause every good thing I do is a selfish act
And I’m a hell of a guy
Living a hell of a lie

That’s why I don’t understand where you come in
Showing a son of dirt how to be a man
I tried to refuse your name, still you love the same
Singing hallelujah
Singing hallelujah”

(Mp3 available for purchase on Daniel Zott’s website)

It is as though all life is continually working towards relationship. We are not designed to be individuals co-existing, but individuals co-operating; a symbiosis of free, untethered wills.

Bio: Josiah is a graduate of North Central University in Minneapolis, MN. His thirst for knowledge is only surpassed by his thirst for coffee. Thus, much free time is spent in the quest for the next fix.

Further Reading: Acts of Faith by Eboo Patel

I am not from east or west

not up from the ground

or out of the ocean

my place is placeless

a trace of the traceless

I belong to the beloved

- Rumi

His identity was subdued by crisis common to unnumbered droves of young people across the globe, an unbelonging draped like chains on the motivations and orientation of young lives like his. Where tradition tried to welcome him, he saw first the unoriginality of repetition and the boredom of which “old things”, like religion, often stink in the noses of youth. His name is Eboo Patel, and he began his exit from adolescence with myriad realizations.  One: as a second generation Indian American, from a family of devout Muslims, his youth and ascension toward manhood in America had obeyed the guidance of the privileged, of the white, and somewhere in his growing up he’d been handed the heritage of someone else, to believe it was his.  Two: to have your identity impressed upon you by anyone, let alone a culture that does not understand or appear to want to understand your people’s actual history, is unacceptable if not criminal. Three: radical things happen in the world everyday, and those events are perpetrated by those, and only those, who decide they will be a piece in the machinery of revolution. Somehow, the keystone supporting the edifice of self for Eboo remained service to others – not hatred, not intolerance or cultural totalitarianism – and as a result, Patel was able to write Acts of Faith:  The Story of an American Muslim, the Struggle for the Soul of a Generation.

Patel opens Acts with a recounting of the young and terrible reign of Eric Rudolph, whose accolades include the detonation of a nail bomb in the New Woman All Women Health Care center in Birmingham, Alabama as well as the blast which rocked Atlanta in the ’96 Olympic Games. As a soldier in what he called, “the Army of God”, Rudolph represents the alternative to religious pluralism in Patel’s thesis.  Human’s grow ever better at impoverishing themselves, through the consumption of things that dilute personal identity and a lack of vantage points that gently look outward. Patel argues that, whatever the reason, young people want to be involved with what’s changing the world and so far, the precepts of intolerance and violence have put more effort into recruitment and mentorship than the peaceful and inclusive.

Patel’s chronicle is essentially the story of his Interfaith Youth Corps (also seen as “Core”), a growing movement of religiously diverse youth around the world who gather to learn from and encourage each other’s religions in order to better understand and internalize their own, all while serving their communities. They seek commonality, affirm particularity, and achieve plurality. In reading it, I have no doubt that with the right fiscal fuel and a generation of leaders to follow Patel’s, the IYC can absolutely revolutionize the place of pluralistic relationships in the religious world.  For this reason alone, I encourage anyone interested in the interface of religions or the mobilization of young people or the potential future of religious totalitarianism to read Acts thoughtfully and reflectively.  I tried, and that’s where the rest of this comes from.

——

Frankly, what overwhelmed me as I read through Eboo’s story was envy.  Not for his hardships or the wisdom they later endowed, or for his experiences unto themselves, but the identity that he rediscovered through his religion and its tradition. I am a young atheist, and though I am confident in my atheism, I realize that my fellow non-believers and me belong to a group impoverished in some unique ways. While I hold firm to my nonbelief, and readily defend it, I am not an atheist in the Dawkins/Hitchins/Harris camp. I understand their resentment for the religious world and share their frustrations over the elements of religion that defy unity, tolerance, stability, and too often, logic itself.  But more than I empathize with them over these things, I pity them in their inability to prioritize those things appropriately.

There exists a magnificent beauty in the development of true community, no matter the name under which that community gathers.  Patel’s exploration of spirituality, society, and self as a young man led him dangerously close to the doctrines of ugly theology, theology which violently rejects the prophets at the heart of so many religions and the central tenets of selflessness and community they ushered into the world. To the apostle’s of such ugly theology, the camps of Dawkins and Harris emphatically raise a single finger, and I completely understand why.

But there is a reason that Patel’s volume is not dominated by accounts of violence or repulsive transgression by zealots, but of his own religious enlightenment and the progress of others along side him. As I see it, the reason is this: if people, atheists included, focus on the inferiority of other groups and expend most of their energy scoffing at their ignorance, they have resigned themselves to the lesser treasures of our mortality. What drives my envy is that my community has yet to reach for our greater treasures, my community has yet to witness and experience the relentless desire for the betterment of others on the scale that Hindus witnessed in Ghandi, that Muslims still observe in the Aga Khan, that Christians treasure in figures as timeless as Christ or as contemporary as King. I certainly don’t mean to insinuate that atheists can’t admire or emulate these people – by no means – but the question is posed to us, can a devotion to others as radical as Christ’s exist and proliferate without a distinctly religious identity? I want our answer to be yes.  And like belief in any god, I think it is entirely a matter of choice.  But in reading about the mobilization of young people who readily pile their religious differences on the table, discuss them, learn from them, reshoulder them, and get to work transforming a broken world, I feel as though atheists risk missing the boat by writing and rearticulating The God Delusion.

On the flip-side, I’ve started asking some of my theist friends, mostly Christians, what they talk about in church, if their pastors ever mention other sects of their own religion. The answer, so far, is unanimously in the sentiment of silence toward their religion’s violent appendages: the Christian Identity movement is unmentioned; the Church’s missionaries continue to preach profoundly bigoted agendas which have started to grow roots within the law in places like Uganda; Pat Robertson continues to make an ignorant fool of the evangelical masses and the most serious response he receives from centrist believers is an eye-roll and a channel change. Movements as revolutionary as the Interfaith Youth Corps demand that those who desire peace and cooperation commit to their vision of the future as adamantly as the young men and, increasingly, young women, strapping bomb-belts to themselves and wandering into Marine bases or London subways. Bombs must be dismantled from the inside; and so must the doctrines of explosive religious sects be refuted by voices within the fold.

I see Patel & Co.’s project as a contender for the most hopeful idea currently circulating worldwide. It represents a vital dialogue, a summit on peace to which young people can be invited before the sewers of jihad or crusade can begin their demagoguery and the escalation of our parents’ wars. One might go so far as to say that its model, the heart of its existence, provides insight to possible solutions for calamities as serious as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (whose solution or mitigation certainly depends on the young generations) and hope for countries whose international political relations have reached an impasse, like Iran and the United States. Theirs is a revolutionary idea, one that no person should pass over light-heartedly.

Bio: J. Erik Peterson is a graduate of Saint John’s University and the College of Saint Benedict’s Biology department. Samples of his writing can be found at jonerikpeterson.blogspot.com and beholdthesky.blogspot.com

The Question of Violence Pt. 1

This morning, as I was sitting at my local Starbucks, staring groggily at my computer screen, and attempting to sift through a torrent of emails, I came across a message from Christian Peacemaker Teams giving me an update on the ongoing violence between Israeli settlers and Palestinians. Over the past two years, I’ve grown more interested and concerned over the situation in the West Bank over Israeli settlements.

The focus of this particular update was on the struggle between the small town in the South Hebron hills of At-Tuwani, Israeli outpost of Havat Ma’on, and the settlement of Ma’on. (For a brief history of the conflict and CPT’s involvement, please visit this website here.)

http://www.cpt.org/hebron/documents/Tuwani_media_packet.htm

Throughout the conflict, Palestinian natives have generally responded through nonviolent means, despite the constant harassment, violence, and crop burning that has occurred over the years. Unfortunately, let’s be honest here, in spite of the international outrage at these events the violence continues.

It’s all nice and dandy for us to discuss non-violent resistance to oppressors, celebrate the lives of the leaders of such movements, maybe even to show videos to elementary school students of members of different races and socio-economic backgrounds marching together. It’s uncomfortable to discuss the plight of the colonized in today’s age of liberal democracy; especially when the occupiers are seen as a bastion of said democracy in a land of religious fundamentalism. I’ll let you figure out the irony in the fact we are talking about Israel.

What is one to do when non-violence really just doesn’t work? Did the revolutionary message of Jesus really overthrow the Roman Empire? What about the nonviolent revolution in India? What of the bloody separation of Pakistan resulting from the new found freedom?

It’s legitimate to ask the question whether or not the Palestinians should heroically go on the offensive against the Israeli settlers, especially after the devastating Gaza Strip invasion.

As a Christian, I want to so badly identify with Christ. I want to believe that the best way to overcome violence is through love and self-sacrifice. Unfortunately, I know that some people simply do not care whether or not they are called out in there violence. The system is for them. In the case of a dictator, there are times when the country they oppress has no strategic value in the long run; therefore, no real reason for the heroic powers to intervene. I refer here to the crisis in Sudan in which there is, at this point, an arrest warrant for the current president, Omar al-Bashir, as well as to the atrocities committed by Hitler and Stalin in the mid-20th century. It was not until we in the United States were threatened that action was taken.

The topic of non-violence is not an easy one. It is not a topic that can be based off of an abstract ethical code of sorts and applied to any situation.

I am a Pacifist. I do affirm that using violence to overcome conflict is not a good idea. However as Richard Beck pointed out “If I saw a man raping a child and I had a baseball bat in my hand I know I’d hit him with it. And if I had to hit him in the head to get him to stop I’d hit him in the head. And if I had to kill him to get him to stop then I would kill him. I know myself, despite my intellectual sentiments and pontifications I know how I’d act in that situation.”

Unfortunately, this is counter to the teachings of Christ to love one’s enemy. I want to see restoration, wholeness, and salvation in the life of even the most evil of men. However at what cost does it come? Should there be limits to violence? How can one empower and affirm the humanity in the oppressed people of At-Tuwani as well as bring reconciliation with the Israeli settlers?

While researching the conflict I came across an article written about the conflict which described an event where the possibility of Israeli forces seizing Palestinian land, declaring state property, and then handing it over to the settlers was imminent. What did the villagers do? They found a non-violent solution. A way around the seizure. They could plant trees and declare the land agricultural. So they went out and planted trees in the area under threat. The risk here is that the trees will probably go to waste seeing as the Israeli settlers have repeatedly burned crops. Yet, I believe that it is a start.

Walter Wink points out in his monumental work “The Powers that Be” that Christ’s command ‘turn the other cheek’ does not mean to simply submit to the violence that is being inflicted. The interpretation that Wink points to in this passage is that Christ is specifically referring to a strike on one deemed to be of a lower class’s face. Essentially this was a back handed slap across one’s face to remind them of their lesser standing within the social sphere. To turn the other cheek was to invite another blow, this time openhanded, as a challenge, countering the social domination and forcing the the one who struck the blow to admit the equality of the one struck. The choice one would face in this situation is pick a fight or back down, either way admitting the humanity of the one receiving the blow.

Today it might be planting trees.

These solutions start us on a journey to counter the subjective violence threatening individuals and communities; yet, what of the systemic violence of racism or global captialism? How are Christians, or human beings in general, to respond to such unsympathetic systems and dictators?

This brings us back to the question “what about Hitler?” What does one do when faced with no other choice but violence in order to save lives? Does one hope for a magical way out? I cannot offer a passive solution to the dilemma of a bully . Here I am left haunted by the words of Marxist philosopher Slavoj Zizek.

“The true ethical test is not only the readiness to save the victims, but also – even more, perhaps – the ruthless dedication to annihilating those who made them victims.”

Bio: Nate is an aspiring science fiction writer and Starbucks Barista typically found on his off time at his Starbucks reading, writing poetry, and talking with various passerbyers.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.