Esther-Hicks channels magnetic entities which she calls "Abraham"

Rhonda Byrne, author of the best selling DVD/book "The Secret" is releasing a sequel in August called "The Power."

We must understand that the founder of a cult or new religion has no room for compromise: absolutes are necessary. True believers in mystical psychotherapy will not embrace a gospel with modest claims: it must be all or nothing. – Martin Larson

“He could go to school and daydream.” That was the advice given by positive thinking guru, law of attraction teacher and “channel” Esther Hicks aka “Abraham” to a black woman who asked how her son should approach learning about the difficult history of slavery in school. After telling the curious mother “none of that [slavery] has anything to do with him,” and that “he won’t have to deal with it” Abraham-Hicks proceeded to equate the teaching of African-American history with a family legacy of passing down “bad” feelings. But this is nothing compared to what she said about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. When the woman asked her about a way to interpret his life in an empowering way for her son Esther-Hicks launched into something that can be best described as an ignorant stream of psychobabble. She described his vision in the vaguest of terms and then said, “He lost sight of his dream momentarily…he began to push against. And when one pushes against in a very fast moving stream abrupt things happened…It’s trying to get others to agree with us about our dreams that causes backlash. But when we just dream them ourselves…the resources of the universe come into alignment with us.” Blaming Dr. King for his own death was paired with her instruction to the woman to not tell her son about the unjust things that Dr. King had to struggle against. Her point was that slavery, racism and segregation are all “negative” and so therefore we aren’t supposed to think about them. And if all of this wasn’t bad enough, when responding to a question on Oprah’s radio show about how the law of attraction would lead to a young girl attracting her own rape and murder, Esther-Hicks responded by saying parents don’t teach their children how to think properly and they are influenced by the negative thinking of the adults around them. She told Oprah, “if they are listening to the guidance within they could not comfortably ever settle on the thoughts that would lead them to attract something unwanted.”

Christopher Hitchens’s book God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything is a lengthy and detailed description of what happens when religious people behave badly. And this apparent correlation between religion and bad behavior is perhaps one of the most common reasons cited by the new atheists as to why all religion should be abandoned. But does Hitchens really believe religion causes people to do bad things? As I illustrate his position is unclear.

An interview with Jian Ghomeshi on QTV reveals the double standard that Hitchens has about the cause/effect relationship of religion and human behavior.

Jian Ghomeshi: I think you would be hard pressed to find a religious person to claim that there’s never been any negative implications or violence or wicked deeds that have been done in the name of religion.

Hitchens: They say in the name of. It’s not in the name of. That’s their get out clause. You echo it yourself. It’s explicit; it’s part of the religion. The most celebrated action of the Abrahamic is the willingness of someone to gut and murder his own son because he thinks it will please God…It’s not in the name of. It’s in the word of God himself. The commandments and instructions. These are warrants for genocide, rape, slavery, infant mutilation and worse.

Hitchens has also stated, “Religion kills,” “is violent” and “has caused innumerable people not just to conduct themselves no better than others, but to award themselves permission to behave in ways that would make a brothel-keeper or an ethnic cleanser raise an eyebrow.” He has also said, “The evil things missionaries do are definitely done because of religion.” Hitchens tries to draw a direct correlation between the violent behavior of people and their religion. His book God is Not Great is mostly a chronicle of all of the horrendous things done by people who are religious. And he disagrees with Ghomeshi who says wicked deeds have been done in the name of religion. But if something is not done in the name of religion how else does it occur? According to Hitchens religion has the magical power to make people do things. But for Hitchens religion only has the power to make people do wicked things. Anything good done in the name of religion is strictly due to human nature and nothing else, “Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it.” After discussing some awful acts carried out by people who are religious Hitchens states, “At minimum this makes it impossible to argue that religion causes people to behave in a more kindly or civilized matter.” But in the same interview on QTv he states [emphasis added],

Jian Ghomeshi: Would you agree that there is anything in the world that that has been done in the name of religion that is positive?

Hitchens: Things done by Jimmy Carter are done by Jimmy Carter. If you’re telling me people wouldn’t help build affordable housing if they weren’t Baptist fundamentalists…

Cross-posted from Common Sense Religion

As one of the most prominent public voices resisting the culture of Christian and religious dominance Christopher Hitchens earns himself a comparison to the freedom fighter who nearly fifty years ago urged the civil rights movement to “stop singing and start swinging.” Responding to a culture of white supremacy, the vicious legacy of colonialism and the hypocrisy of American democracy Malcolm X became one of the strongest voices for black resistance and identity. For much of his life, before his break with the Nation of Islam and his shift toward racial inclusiveness he framed the race problem in an absolutist manner claiming that all white people are devils. He believed that white people could never do any good. Malcolm X publicly made his case by deconstructing the white mindset, analyzing the white power structure and describing the vicious history that has accompanied the Euro-American legacy. It was this fierce resistance against assimilation into white culture that set him apart from the strategy of integration pursued by Dr. King and many others. Despite their shift towards each other’s positions near the end of their lives it is still accurate to describe them as James Cone did: Malcolm X saw America as a nightmare while Dr. King saw it as a dream.

Christopher Hitchens is perhaps the most well known voice amongst the new atheists; Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennet. With books like The God Delusion, The End of Faith, and God is Not Great and with bold personalities they have a reputation for being fierce critics of all things religious. For them religion is most certainly a nightmare. But even amongst a group of vigilant, passionate and hardcore atheists, Hitchens stands out. Perhaps this is because of his prolific career as a journalist, author and popular media commentator on a variety of subjects. But he is also known for being a contrarian; taking unpopular positions and defending them against anyone who will put up a fight. And he claims he has never refused to debate anyone. His God is Not Great book tour presented the opportunity for numerous media appearances, lectures and debates with religious defenders. He even ventured into the Christian Book Expo and debated four well-known evangelical and conservative Christian apologists at the same time. Like X, Hitchens systematically deconstructs the logic of that which he is resisting by pointing out the inconsistencies and hypocrisies within many religious institutions and their texts. He also does a brilliant job of describing the inevitable and disturbing conclusions that must be reached if many of the religious doctrines are taken to be as literally true.

I want your opinion about something. I’m a liberal religious person who doesn’t believe in doctrines, dogma or a supernatural God. 19% of members in my tradition identify as atheist, 30% as agnostic and the rest Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Pagan or otherwise. Many of us have been wounded by the bigotry, homophobia and dogma in the religions we grew up in and find refuge, support and community in my tradition. We come together on Sunday mornings to enjoy music and hear sermons about social justice, the power of community and how to live inspiring and meaningful lives. Some ministers may use the word God in an all-inclusive way but most choose to avoid the term because of its troubled history. Here’s my question for you: Should I abandon my tradition because liberal and moderate religion serves to justify the extremes? Is my participation in this religious institution providing legitimacy and credibility for fundamentalism, violence, oppression and bigotry done in the name of religion? I’m studying to be a minister in this tradition. It’s called Unitarian Universalism. Am I guilty by association? Should I jump ship? What do you think?

I know what Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins would tell me. They are two of the new atheists most responsible for spreading this idea about liberal and moderate religion justifying the extremes. Liberals are “aiding and abetting” the most dangerous religions because they give them credibility by participating in the institution of religion itself. Sam Harris states that moderates are “in large part responsible for the religious conflict in our world” and “Religious tolerance-born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God-is one of the principal forces driving us toward the abyss.” And Richard Dawkins states, “The teachings of “moderate” religion, though not extremist in themselves, are an open invitation to extremism.” And when asked about why he lumps liberal religions like Unitarianism in with fundamentalism Hitchens responded a reference to Camus stating that he believes all religion is comparable to rats and vermin.

Crossposted from Common Sense Religion

God does not answer prayer.

There, I’ve said it. I know for some my assertion is scandalous, while for others it is mere common sense. But before you summon the inquisitor to prepare the rack or brand me a heretic or rush to my defense, hear me out.

I used to believe that God answered prayer. Being raised a Christian I was taught that I had an invisible, magical and wish-granting friend named Jesus who cared about all of my problems, however big or small. All I had to do was pray in his name. And if I didn’t get what I asked for there was a good chance it was because I wasn’t praying hard enough. This idea was so central to the Christian faith I was taught that never was I allowed to question the presupposition that God played favorites via a divine competition for “his” attention.

It took many years before I began wondering about the implications of God intervening in the world to answer prayer. I must admit, however, that in my youth I never had made an earnest effort to understand the logic behind prayer. Like many Christians I had a superficial understanding of my religion. I never read the Bible or studied the history of my tradition. And in high school I was too busy skipping Sunday school and getting high behind the Church to care about theology. One of the few times I did attend I remember listening to former WWF wrestler Jake the Snake Roberts with boa constrictor in hand give his testimony about how Jesus saved him. With an old spandex clad wrestler as a primary source of my understanding about the Christian faith I definitely had some learning to do.

Being an atheist in America means being less than human. I know from personal experience, not from being an atheist but from being raised Christian in a conservative Christian town and holding negative biases about atheists. Like many others I thought that a belief in God was the foundation of morality, that Christians were superior to others and that atheists were a threat to believers. I didn’t, however, reach this conclusion consciously after weighing the facts and examining the issue independently. But rather it was something so ingrained within the culture that it permeated the social conscience. And of course atheists were just one group among many targeted by some Christians. But for several years now there have been movements both religious and secular that have championed the rights of other marginalized groups such as gays, people of color and women. Now it’s time for religious and spiritual people to take a stand for non-believers of all varieties.

Recent years have seen the spread of whats called the new atheism. Led by Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennet who are dubbed the “four horsemen” they are known for their fiery rhetoric and passionate critique of all things religious. While they certainly don’t represent all atheists-some prefer a more moderate approach-they have provided an important voice of resistance and identity for a group that has remained painfully silent for to long. And atheism is one of the fastest growing identities in America. It’s now the third largest group behind Catholics and Baptists. People are fed up with the abuse scandals, hypocrisy, violence and rejection of scientific progress that is associated with so many religions and their teachings. Now that atheism has a renewed interest in the public sphere it is an excellent opportunity for religious people of all sorts to show kindness, compassion and understanding to atheists-all things which are central to their traditions.

I’m both a fan and a critic of the new atheists. I agree with much of what they say but disagree when they indict all of religion or reduce it to its most distasteful elements. I believe religion can serve a useful purpose in our world. It can offer a place of resistance, refuge, healing and renewal. But even as I support critiquing the new atheists I treat atheism like I do any other marginalized group that is targeted by a dominant culture. I liken their cause to other struggles for liberation and freedom. And that is why despite my disagreements I believe their response is just.

I’m really excited to announce that my website has a new design and now features more content than it ever has before.

God Bless the Whole World is a free online educational resource that provides tools for personal and social transformation. The site feature hundreds of videos, audio files, articles and courses on social justice, spiritual activism, nonviolence, counter oppression, environmentalism and self care among many other subjects. For example you can watch a full length course on the African American Freedom Struggle taught by Stanford University professor Clayborne Carson or a class called Science, Magic and Religion from UCLA among many others. There are over 50 documentary films about Julia Butterfly Hill, Nietzsche, Nelson Mandela, Helen Keller, Buddha and Muhammad to name a few. And don’t miss great titles like Fog of War, Sicko and Guns, Germs and Steel. You can also watch talks by Van Jones, Michael Lerner, Arundhati Roy, Marianne Williamson, Thich Nhat Hanh, Dr. King, James Baldwin and Malcolm X in addition to hundreds more. In total there are well over 500 videos for your viewing pleasure. And I’m adding more every day. You can also read articles and speeches, explore podcasts, watch debates and listen to audio files.

I created the site because I’ve been extremely fortunate to have studied with, been mentored by and worked alongside some pioneers in the fields of social justice, spirituality, religion and counter oppression. I’ve invested a lot of time and money into my education and realize that many do not have the privileges that I have had to gain access to these opportunities. Thus, the goal of my site is to bring together the various people, ideas, resources and insights that have influenced me into an easy to use format that is free for the public. And the beautiful thing is that all of the material on my site is already available on the internet in some form or another. Universities are increasingly placing their full length courses on YouTube and in ItunesU. Organizations like TED have provided fascinating lectures by today’s leading thinkers. Full length documentary films are available online in addition to hundreds of talks, lectures and speeches by spiritual teachers, activists and visionaries.

Each week I will be posting to Tikkun a video with a short commentary that I’ve added to my website so be on the lookout. Additionally the site is always “under construction” so please feel free to send suggestions, ideas, links, design insights, resources…etc that you would like to see on the site. You can email them to godblessthewholeworld@gmail.com.

I don’t read the Onion very frequently but this recent headline story captured my attention and sparked my imagination as a powerful way to reflect upon U.S. Imperialism and Nationalism. However, the article with its suggestion to discontinue the use of the flag may stir up some questions even for progressives as many seek a balance between what they love and dislike about America. But at the end of the day the story is a creative use of satire to get people thinking about the U.S. flag, patriotism and nationalism – especially in the age of Obama, drones and Apache helicopters used to gun down journalists. And just to add a little fuel to the fire I will end with a quote from Leo Tolstoy from his essay “Patriotism and Government” which was the first thing I read at age 19 that introduced me to something other than the nationalistic fervor that surrounded me at the time. He wrote, “I have already several times expressed the thought that in our day the feeling of patriotism is an unnatural, irrational, and harmful feeling, and a cause of a great part of the ills from which mankind is suffering, and that, consequently, this feeling–should not be cultivated, as is now being done, but should, on the contrary, be suppressed and eradicated by all means available to rational men.”

The Onion – April 13th, “U.S. Flag Recalled After Causing 143 Million Deaths”

WASHINGTON—Citing a series of fatal malfunctions dating back to 1777, flag manufacturer Annin & Company announced Monday that it would be recalling all makes and models of its popular American flag from both foreign and domestic markets.

Representatives from the nation’s leading flag producer claimed that as many as 143 million deaths in the past two centuries can be attributed directly to the faulty U.S. models, which have been utilized extensively since the 18th century in sectors as diverse as government, the military, and public education.

“It has come to our attention that, due to the inherent risks and hazards it poses, the American flag is simply unfit for general use,” said Annin & Company president Ronald Burman, who confirmed that the number of flag-related deaths had noticeably spiked since 2003. “I would like to strongly urge all U.S. citizens: If you have an American flag hanging in your home or place of business, please discontinue using it immediately.”

If you like the most recent issue of Tikkun Magazine “God and the 21st Century” you might enjoy watching this recent debate called “Does God have a Future?” While heavyweights Deepak Chopra and Jean Houston make the case for God and religion Sam Harris and Michael Shermer try and deconstruct Chopra’s “woo-woo” language to quote Shermer.

While you probably know that Chopra and Houston are not defending the God of Pat Robertson or any particular religion, for Harris and Shermer any talk of God and religion is problematic. They take aim at Chopra when he conflates terms like non-locality and infinity with spirituality. On the other hand sparks fly when Chopra-fueled by a long standing feud with Shermer accuses him of being an extreme scientific reductionist. Houston for the most part avoids the God question and speaks about wisdom, healing and spirituality.

I never get tired of these sorts of engagements as I think they prove useful to furthering the discourse between religion and science. And I often find myself wanting to chime in here and there on both positions, thinking of how each side could challenge the other more. Who do you think won?

Christopher Hitchens critiques the Ten Commandments and updates them for the 21st century. What do you think? What would your Ten Commandments look like?

Christopher Hitchens has an interesting praiseworthy comment for Stephen Batchelor’s new book “Confession of a Buddhist Atheist:”

“The human thirst for the transcendent, the numinous – even the ecstatic – is too universal and too important to be entrusted to the cultish and the archaic and the superstitious. In this honest and serious book of self-examination and critical scrutiny, Stephen Batchelor adds the universe of Buddhism to the many fields in which received truth and blind faith are now giving way to ethical and scientific humanism, in which lies our only real hope.”

Mark Vernon reviews Batchelors new book and reflects on Hitchens statement.

In God is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens writes of Buddhism as the sleep of reason, and of Buddhists as discarding their minds as well as their sandals. His passionate diatribe appeared in 2007. So what’s he doing now, just three years later, endorsing a book on Buddhism written by a Buddhist?

The new publication is Confession of a Buddhist Atheist. Its author, Stephen Batchelor, is at the vanguard of attempts to forge an authentically western Buddhism. He is probably best known for Buddhism Without Beliefs, in which he describes himself as an agnostic. Now he has decided on atheism, the significance of which is not just that he doesn’t believe in transcendent deities, but is also found in his stripping down of Buddhism to the basics.

Reincarnation and karma are rejected as Indian accretions: his study of the historical Siddhartha Gautama – one element in the new book – suggests the Buddha himself was probably indifferent to these doctrines. What Batchelor believes the Buddha did preach were four essentials. First, the conditioned nature of existence, which is to say everything continually comes and goes. Second, the practice of mindfulness, as the way to be awake to what is and what is not. Third, the tasks of knowing suffering, letting go of craving, experiencing cessation and the “noble path”. Fourth, the self-reliance of the individual, so that nothing is taken on authority, and everything is found through experience.

I lived in Naples, FL for over eight years and never realized that there were human slaves toiling in the agricultural fields less than 45 minutes away. This is the case for much of the population of Naples, one of the wealthiest towns in America and the only city in the world that has two Ritz Carltons in it — the beach and golf resorts. Furthermore, it is the case for much of America. While the trendy green movement has led us to scrutinize trans fats and demand hybrid cars we haven’t paid enough attention to where our food comes from.

When I was 21 years old I visited Immokalee for the first time and began volunteering with a local organization that provided much needed goods and services to the community. I saw first hand the living conditions that many farm workers live in. Numerous families will often share one trailer home in terrible conditions and pay high rents due to greedy landlords and fear of being deported. I formed relationships with residents, listened to their stories and met people who had been slaves. I learned about the working conditions and injustice in the fields. But my education took a few years and very well may not have ever happened had I not visited Immokalee one day with my mother.

That’s why the latest project from the Coalition of Immokalee Workers is an important contribution to our understanding and awareness of food justice issues. After many successful campaigns to reform the agricultural industry resulted in a victories over some of the largest fast food giants-Taco Bell, McDonalds and Burger King the CIW has now launched a traveling modern day slavery museum. Perhaps with efforts like this more people will grow up in Naples knowing about how issues of justice are related to our food. Barry Estabrook recently visited the museum and wrote about it for the Atlantic Monthly:

Since the mid-1990s, more than 1,000 slaves have been freed in at least six cases in Florida…

Fittingly, the museum is housed in a 24-foot box truck once used to haul produce. The truck is a replica of one in which several men were kept locked up for as long as two and a half years until the slavery ring that held them was broken in 2007. They slept in the truck, urinated and defecated in one corner, and were driven in the truck daily to fields where they were forced to pick tomatoes, often for no pay. Some of the men who were imprisoned acted as “consultants” on the project to assure authenticity. In late 2008, several members of a family were sentenced to jail terms in the case.

“You’re either with us or against us.” – from Matthew 12:30

“Language is the perfect instrument of empire.”- Antonia De Nebrija

I recommend checking out the latest booklet from Paul Kivel called “The Language of Dominant Christianity” (available as a downloadable PDF for only $3.50 or as a book for $4.95.) It is a short (85 page) A-Z dictionary of common vocabulary words in the English language that reveal how Christianity has influenced our thinking. In addition to defining a comprehensive list of words (64 pages) Kivel provides a section on “word groups” and points out how certain terms are found within our criminal/legal system, notions of morality, racial understandings, educational ideals and political ideology. And in the first part Kivel provides the context of why it is important to analyze and examine the Christian roots of our language.

This booklet is one part of Kivel’s latest project to name Christian dominance as one of the many systems of oppression. Kivel is a well respected violence prevention educator who wrote “Uprooting Racism: How White People Can Work for Social Justice” among many other books on oppression. If you haven’t heard of him or want to know more about Paul’s work including his videos and interviews you can visit his website.

And in the spirit of my post last week where I pointed out how atheists are studying to be religious leaders at Starr King I want to emphasize that there are Christians who are equally concerned about Christian hegemony and are dedicating time and resources to ending it.

Paul Kivel describes Christian hegemony:

From www.christianhegemony.org

I define Christian hegemony as the everyday, pervasive, and systematic set of Christian values and beliefs, individuals and institutions that dominate all aspects of our society through the social, political, economic, and cultural power they wield. Nothing is unaffected by Christian hegemony (whether we are Christian or not) including our personal beliefs and values, our relationships to other people and to the natural environment, and our economic, political, education, health care, criminal/legal, housing, and other social systems.

Christian hegemony as a system of domination is complex, shifting, and operates through the agency of individuals, families, church communities, denominations, parachurch organizations, civil institutions, and through decisions made by members of the ruling class and power elite.

The idea “to be religious is to be a theist” as Christopher Hitchens stated in his debate with Lorenzo Albacete is a quite ethnocentric claim. It is true that in the West we have often associated a theistic God with religion, but this neglects Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Jainism and numerous religious traditions which have adopted a deistic, pantheistic, panentheistic or other understanding of God. And as I pointed out in my critique of Hitchens last week, Unitarian Universalism contains 19% of people who identify as atheist/agnostic.

In the over 140 comments I received from my post “Christopher Hitchens: The Orthodox Protestant Atheist” both on the Tikkun site and in the version crossposted on Alternet.org there was both surprise and disbelief that atheists could be religious leaders. I described how I am in seminary at Starr King School for the Minstry studying alongside atheists and agnostics who are in training to become religious leaders and ministers. This seemed to be an oxymoron as for some of the respondents all religion is evil and always associated with God. So I thought it would be helpful to include a few statements from atheist students in seminary studying to be religious leaders.

From a fellow atheist seminarian at Starr King:

First, I think there is a difference between being an atheist and being anti-religious. They are orthogonal. There is also a difference between being anti-religious and being opposed to the effects of particular religious traditions. These terms should not be conflated. Since when did not believing in God mean that you are opposed to other people believing in God and or practicing religion regardless of whether they believe? I am an atheist. Just to be clear, by that I mean I don’t believe that there is a god, a higher consciousness, or a spirit. I am also opposed to the effects of certain religious traditions. But I am not by any means anti-religious. I don’t deny the value that religion or religious practice, (whether actual belief in god and the afterlife, or simply liking the pretty candles at mass and multiple opportunities for community) brings to people including myself. Religion has a lot to offer and to deny that is to deny the complexity of the human condition.

Despite having engaged in numerous debates with Christians, Muslims and Jews across the liberal/conservative spectrum Christopher Hitchens still holds to an amazingly ignorant understanding of the liberal religious heritage. His understanding of who is and who isn’t a Christian is perhaps the most disappointing and surprising piece of evidence for his myopic interpretation of religion. While rejecting conservative Christians’ theological claims about God, the Bible and Jesus, he accepts their understanding of who is and is not able to be considered a Christian. In a recent interview with Marilyn Sewell, a Unitarian Universalist minister and self-professed liberal Christian, Christopher Hitchens paraphrased C.S. Lewis to explain the boundaries of who constitutes a Christian. It’s not surprising then that a recent blog post by Dr. Ray Pritchard of “Keep Believing Ministries” for a conservative Christian site called Crosswalk was entitled, “Christopher Hitchens Gets it Exactly Right.”

During a recent trip to Portland, Oregon, noted atheist Christopher Hitchens laid down some seriously good theology… In one of the delicious ironies of our time, an outspoken atheist grasps the central tenet of Christianity better than many Christians do. What you believe about Jesus Christ really does make a difference.

What did Hitchens say?

Sewell: The religion you cite in your book is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make any distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?

Hitchens: I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.

Why is Hitchens so quick to accept such an orthodox interpretation of the boundaries of Christianity? His brain seems to short-circuit when he has to think about religion in complex ways. He wants to hold firmly to an either/or dichotomy–the very same one which he is critiquing fundamentalism for. In debates he has stated that he is “Protestant atheist” meaning that he recognizes the validity of the various reformation movements which liberalized, expanded and diversified Christianity. But which denomination of protestant atheist is he? This isn’t clear but it is apparently not one which falls outside of his or C.S. Lewis’s orthodox boundaries of inclusion/exclusion. Isn’t is shocking that of all people, Christopher Hitchens is in agreement with the many forces in history which have led to the extermination, torture and destruction of “heretics” for simply believing the “wrong” form of Christianity? Since when is Hitchens so concerned about who is and isn’t a Christian?

Pat Robertson’s latest claim that God punished Haiti for making a pact with the devil was rightly condemned by religious and political leaders across the spectrum. However, there is an irony here in that many of those leaders or religious laypeople who saw the cruelty in Robertson’s remark actually share his same underlying theology which is as equally disturbing. The disagreement lies in the timing and particular expression of the theology, but the essence of Robertson’s cruel statement is shared by many of those religious people who condemned it. The problem for many was not Robertson’s God–one that is insensitive, cruel and sadistic but rather it was the specific reason he posited for God allowing or commanding what “he” did. But let’s be clear–many people believe that God did have a reason for allowing the quake–albeit different than Robertson’s.

Anyone who believes in an omnipotent God who could have intervened to stop the Haiti earthquake is making the same moral claim about God as Robertson did. He gave his reason as to why God allowed the earthquake while others simply say that God is too awesome for us to know “his” true reasons. But ultimately the premise is the same–God makes conscious choices on a daily basis and allows (for whatever reason) people to suffer and die but has the power to save them if “he” wanted. Additionally as in the recent case of the man who was pulled from the rubble 11 days after the quake, some believe that this was a “miracle” of God as one of French rescue workers claimed. It is mind boggling to me to imagine how a God could have allowed perhaps over 100,000 people to suffer and die–in some cases being buried alive but yet choose to use “his” power to save a few people a week or so after. It is even more troubling to me how this God could be in any way, shape or form be considered good. It would seem more ethically consistent to posit a God that makes choices to allow people to die but to be able to accurately name this as bad. If a man allowed his child to be buried alive in a building no one in their right mind would excuse this by saying “he is too awesome for us to understand his reasons.” And this person certainly wouldn’t be called good, yet this is what many claim about God. Our sense of morality must apply to God because it is the only one that we have. We don’t have some extra worldly, supernatural way to say that in some cases the act of allowing someone to be buried alive is good. But yet this is the foundational theology of many religious people. God is good even if “he” is killing people or allowing others to die.

Below are some of my favorite quotes on a variety of different spiritual themes. I find it useful to reflect upon them as I think about the upcoming year. May you find wisdom and inspiration.

Presence
The miracle is not to walk on water. The miracle is to walk on the green earth in the present moment, to appreciate the peace and beauty that are available now.
-Thich Nhat Hanh

Embodiment
The Church says: The body is a sin.
Science says: The body is a machine.
Advertising says: The body is a business.
The body says: I am a fiesta.
- Eduardo Galeano

Paying Attention
Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity.
- Simone Weil

Play
The truly great advances of this generation will be made by those who can make outrageous connections, and only a mind which knows how to play can do that.
- Nagle Jackson

The curse of poverty has no justification in our age. It is socially as cruel and blind as the practice of cannibalism at the dawn of civilization, when men ate each other because they had not yet learned to take food from the soil or to consume the abundant animal life around them. The time has come for us to civilize ourselves by the total, direct and immediate abolition of poverty. – Dr. King

If Americans permit thought-control, business control, and freedom control to continue, we shall surely move within the shadows of fascism. – Dr. King

Video interview with Dr. King (apologies for the 30 second ad at the start, it’s worth waiting it out):

We don’t talk about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. enough. When we do speak about him–on the few days surrounding the national holiday–the public discourse is a watered down, misleading and shallow version of his life. Like so much of our current news we will learn about Dr. King this holiday in repeatable soundbites deemed acceptable by the mainstream media. The “I Have a Dream” speech will be played, his civil rights legacy will be reflected upon and presidents and preachers will encourage us to engage in service from his grave site in Atlanta. Yes the King Holiday is a day to “serve”–a day on, not off as the King Center states. And yes of course Dr. King was a courageous champion for civil rights. But the true Dr. King is deeper, more complex and much more radical than you will ever hear about in mainstream press or will be taught about in school.

King resisted the many systems of domination of his day-war, capitalism, U.S. Imperialism, fundamentalism and racism. For this in addition to his progressive synthesis of faith and reason he is extremely relevant to us. But understanding his vision requires more than I can convey in one blog post and more than alternative media outlets can provide. Ultimately we must engage him through reading his own words, listening to his speeches and sermons and watching him being interviewed. In this post I am providing links to a number of interesting writings, interviews, speeches, papers and books that shed light on his radical views on war, Imperialism, Religion, poverty and capitalism.

I have yet to see Avatar so I can’t offer a review. But as someone interested in the subtleties of how racism and oppression operate in society I found this review “When Will White People Stop Making Movies Like ‘Avatar’?” by Annalee Newitz interesting:

Critics have called alien epic Avatar a version of Dances With Wolves because it’s about a white guy going native and becoming a great leader. But Avatar is just the latest scifi rehash of an old white guilt fantasy. Spoilers…

Whether Avatar is racist is a matter for debate. Regardless of where you come down on that question, it’s undeniable that the film – like alien apartheid flick District 9, released earlier this year – is emphatically a fantasy about race. Specifically, it’s a fantasy about race told from the point of view of white people. Avatar and scifi films like it give us the opportunity to answer the question: What do white people fantasize about when they fantasize about racial identity?

Did you know that seven states have laws barring atheists from holding political office? I learned this while reading about newly elected Asheville, NC councilman and atheist Cecil Bothwell — both he and the city may face a lawsuit because of his lack of belief in God. Article 6, section 8 of the NC state constitution reads, “The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the Almighty God.” While constitutional experts say the law is not enforceable Bothwell may have to defend himself from civil lawsuits.

Bothwell is a Unitarian Universalist who celebrates Christmas and is not opposed to the council praying before its meetings. He even said he would join in by reading a quote or passage from a meaningful book. Yet the newly elected councilman is still facing criticism:

When Mr. Bothwell was sworn into office on Monday, he used an alternate oath that does not require officials to swear on a Bible or refer to “Almighty God.”

That has riled conservative advocates, who cite a little-noticed quirk in North Carolina’s Constitution that disqualifies officeholders “who shall deny the being of Almighty God.” The provision was included when the document was drafted in 1868 and was not revised when North Carolina amended its Constitution in 1971.