QUOTE: Killing Errors

“To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact.”

– Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, Chapter 21

Letter to God (Where?)

Dear God,

Where are you?


Me

Letter to God # 3: Founders & Followers

Dear God,

It seems that, throughout human history, certain individuals have experienced what they consider to be special epiphanies about the nature of reality and- in their enthusiasm- have felt compelled to share their insights with other people. These individuals have pioneered progress in a variety of fields including philosophy, religion, science, ethics and politics. Some have called such individuals innovators, philosophers, founders, geniuses, mystics, witchdoctors, prophets and sages.

I find it interesting that such individuals have existed in nearly every human society across the globe. These individuals always seem to be counter-cultural nonconformists who view life differently than most others. These individuals tend to gain a hearing and attract a considerable following of devotees (many of whom take their leaders at their word yet have neither seen nor experienced what the leader claims to have seen and experienced).

These charismatic leaders often make a considerable impact on the times in which they have lived and then they die- like every other human being who has ever existed. But unlike every other human being who has ever existed, many of these individuals continue to live on in the memories of their followers who seek to both observe and propagate the ideas of their founders.

It seems that many of these followers attempt to recapture the lost presence of their leaders by deifying the individual and reducing their essence, ideas and actions into a formalized ideology. At this point, the tangible human leader who once lived and acted upon the earth is transformed into an abstract system of thought based upon what their followers remember about them. Monuments are constructed; guidelines are formalized; writings are canonized; doctrines are established; denominations become inevitable and diverse opinions about what the originators really intended begin to sprout unrelentingly.

Some of these belief systems endure the passing of generations and survive by adapting themselves to the fluctuating dynamics of a growing civilization. When this happens, you find adherents devoting themselves to ideas, rules, principles and commands that are likely to be very different from what the originator intended.

This is where it gets muddy. This is where I struggle.

I don’t place a lot of confidence in human subjectivity considering what modern psychology and neuroscience teaches us about the cloudiness of human memory. Perhaps I’m wasting my time telling You something You already know, but, as I understand it, we human beings tend to reconstruct narratives from our selective and ever-changing memories- which are largely shaped and determined by our personal interests, cultural contexts and limited perspectives.

I am troubled by the thought that most, if not all, of these systems of thought are based primarily on the transient memories of devoted adherents. It seems the kindergarten game of telephone has now been magnified on a massive scale, but carrying far more serious implications for human life.

Some, but not all, of these originators and their adherents have even made the claim that their insights were given to them from some divine, otherworldly source. Which makes me wonder: Are You speaking through such individuals? How should we respond to those people who claim that they have heard directly from You, are found in Your favor and are the most faithful representatives of Your holy will?

Pardon my skepticism, but what do You really expect us to think considering how many pious individuals propagate messages that they claim were sent to them by You, but which conflict and contradict those messages propagated by others who also claim Your divine endorsement and approval?

On top of that, how else should we respond considering how many charismatic leaders have misled sincere and faithful people to destructive ends? Haven’t You noticed how faithful, committed and sincere individuals- when misled by destructive ideas- often become the most dangerous types of people; those having the most potential to unleash evil because they have greatest amount of incentives to justify their actions and the least amount of reasons to suspect that there is anything wrong with their guiding ideology? Hasn’t this insight served as a recurring theme throughout human history and mythology?

I am told that You are a fan of the faithful types who confess to a simple, child-like trust in what they believe that You have told them. I am constantly reminded by students of the Christian scriptures that You have hidden your insights from the wise and have revealed them to the child-like.

But, in a world where human gullibility is so often exploited for destructive ends, how could any sane or sensitive human being not be skeptical and seek to use their intelligence to discern between truth and error? I realize that I may also be an unintentional propagator of my own form of destructive self-deception but I pray and hope that this is not the case.

At this point in my life, I find skepticism and investigation to be far more humble responses in the wake of all that we have learned and in the face of all the mystery yet to be explored.

Write back when You get a chance,

Me

Letter to God # 2: Studying God, Studying Humankind

Dear God,

Call it blasphemous, but I am unable and unwilling to cast aside my growing suspicions that those lofty claims that so many pious believers, prophets, shamans, ministers, preachers and evangelists declare about You and Your will actually reveal more about their minds than Yours.

Could it be that silent gods speak loudly about the lives of the people who seek them?

Perhaps Ludwig Feuerbach was right in saying that theology (the study of God) is really anthropology (the study of humankind).

Nevertheless, as you may know, despite my persistent doubts I continue to accompany my wife and daughter in observing worship services at a predominantly African-American Missionary Baptist congregation. My wife truly enjoys these services and, while I am still sorting out my own theological and philosophical views, I willingly participate until I can devise some mutually satisfactory alternative that would satisfy our needs in this area.

Although I disagree with almost all of the theological ideas and doctrinal affirmations upon which this particular church is based, I am intrigued by the human behavior that I witness in this setting. I watch closely as the choir and musicians who, like magicians, use their instrumental mastery to construct layers of worship-inspiring sounds and melodies- inducing many of those gathered into a virtual explosion of cathartic emotional release. I also find it particularly interesting that such music is played during those parts of the service where critical, life-changing decisions are being weighed (i.e. altar calls, calls to conversion, etc.).

I sit in the pews and listen attentively as the speaker of the hour describes the contemporary social problems facing our generation and the specific congregation. I admire the preachers who use clever analogies to explain profound ideas of religious wisdom, but I begin to lose interest as they rouse the weekly gathering with encouraging and heartening ideas about the supernatural powers and miraculous capabilities belonging to God the Father, Jesus the Christ and the Holy Spirit.

The three (or is it the one?) of You are branded as the solution to all that which afflicts the people and a relationship with You all is presented as the only thing worth seeking in this earthly life.

I find such approaches to be inadequate and enabling as they merely shift the responsibility for dealing with human problems away from the human beings- who I believe to be the originators and solvers of such problems- and instead seek to place the burden of progress upon supernatural shoulders.

But I try to be patient in my attempts to understand this response.

While listening, I challenge myself to hear the practical applications behind the sermon’s theology, the cry for stability beneath each claim of scriptural inerrancy and infallibility, the heartfelt concerns beneath each prayer invoking supernatural assistance and the unmet needs that can be found behind each description of those divine entities expected to intercede on behalf of the believers.

So often I have heard well-intentioned counselors offer clichéd phrases like, “God is in control,” “God knows best,” and “Everything happens for a reason” to the broken-hearted in the wake of a senseless tragedy. I’m not saying it is wrong to offer such consolations to those who grieve, but I just find it interesting that this is how many humans tend to respond to such events. I wish I could offer a more consoling thought, but at present I'm afraid that have no better alternative that would be considered helpful to individuals who are dealing with that kind of hurt. But I hope to find such an alternative if such claims are not true.

But surely You are more than a losing team’s half-time, locker room speech- a grand idea told to either encourage those who face the inevitable or to inspire those who need to believe that someone is looking out for them and will sustain them through life’s difficulties.

Surely, you are more than that.

But maybe that is what people need to keep going. And perhaps I need to make room for that...even if I find myself decreasing in my desire for You.

Sincerely,

Me

Letter to God # 1: Prayer

Dear God,

Pardon me for the ramblings, but I thought it best to reach out to You through the form of a letter since I seem to think best when I am writing. As You may know, It’s been nearly two years since we last talked; and when I say talk, I mean it’s been two years since I tried to communicate with You through the form of a heartfelt prayer.

In that span of two years, prayer took on a whole new meaning for me- more akin to an active meditation on those persons and things that I want to keep at the forefront of my attention than any appeal for your intervention. I have “prayed” (as most would understand the term) only on those rare occasions where I felt compelled by the social pressure to conform. In such times, I have concluded my wishful appeals with rote phrases like “these things we ask in Jesus’ name” mainly because they were the expected norms in my social circles- not because I believed that any such phrase would make any difference in the outcome. To me, such phrases have become hollow and such appeals have become pointless.

The only value I find in prayer- besides serving as an opportunity to focus one's mind on matters of value and importance- is that it enables one to hear the deepest concerns of their fellow human beings; heartfelt concerns that they may never share if they did not believe that You were somehow listening and willing to help.

Over the past few years, I noticed that those rare mornings when I woke up not believing became more frequent and I gradually became more comfortable with the idea that You may not be “present” in any way that makes a significant difference in the lives of humans. Some have said that You are a mysterious, invisible, inactive and silent entity that might as well be nonexistent. And, to be honest, it’s hard for me not to agree with them.

But I remain hesitant to proclaim this publicly for dread that my current views may be the expression of some sort of immature and rebellious phase instead of any sort of insightful wisdom. I hope this is not the case, but I have not ruled out the possibility that I may one day regret these very words which I now write to You.

I am fully aware that these very musings may one day prove to be the seeds of my liberation or the evidence of my condemnation. Yet I fear being wrong on such an important matter far more than I fear any idea of Hell. But I risk being wrong and embark on this scary and uncertain path because, as far as I know, we only have one life to live and I don’t want to waste my energies on a vain pursuit.

God, if you are there, and if you care to answer, then I ask you to please make yourself known to me. I ask for a clear and direct sign because I don't want to play mindgames on myself. I ask, because I take the idea of You seriously. I will try to be patient and wait for your answer. How long? I'm not sure. But, I fear that if you fail to respond, I may take your silence as all the proof I need to continue on my path towards the ever-elusive, iconoclastic and liberating thing we call truth.

With all due respect,

Me

When Explanation Meets Mystery

This is a post by Gordon Atkinson, author of one of my favorite blogs, Real Live Preacher. I resonate deeply with his hopeful attempts to draw meaning from the ongoing and creative tension between scientific explanation, on one hand, and what he calls "dark mystery," on the other. Along a similar line of thought, I've recently been reading the late psychologist Carl Jung's book Man and His Symbols which explores this tension throughout the collective human experience- affirming the human impulses to worship and explore while also critiquing materialistic movements that seek dismiss or devalue humanity's perpetual obsession with the unknown.

In January 2008, Atkinson wrote an essay for The Christian Century magazine exploring this theme. The essay was entitled "Brother Scientist."

"Life has always been most interesting for me at the rolling boundary between scientific explanation and dark mystery. Science is always moving forward, rolling up more data and triumphantly explaining old mysteries. At times it seems as though the ancient world of myth and dream has turned tail and fled. Not so. For every acre of forest that science paves over, myth and legend giggle and reveal ten more acres of untamed wilderness behind them. As our ability to understand the universe grows, so does our capacity for looking outward and upward and seeing all that we do not know. There is more mystery to explore now than ever before in the history of humanity.

Some people see the boundary between mystery and science as a battleground with barbed wire and trenches on either side. But I think that the place where our searching and empirical minds meet the mysteries of the world is the realm of worship and poetry. Before Adam and Eve, the world was chaos, like a vast unconscious mind with no boundaries and no definitions. The world itself hasn't changed, but our human perspective is continually solving mysteries and creating new ones as fast as we can.

Our love of answers has always been nicely balanced against our penchant for awe and worship. Reality is both a thing to be conquered and also something to be worshiped. This is the human way. I wonder when it was that science and religion stopped seeing each other as ancient twins of the human mind and started seeing each other as competitors.

While I and others like me slog it out in the worshiping world of mystery, brother scientist is observing, collating and solving mysteries as fast as he can. I don't want him to stop. I like the way he slays ancient gods. What I want is for us to embrace each other and walk though life together. He can solve old mysteries and I can celebrate the new ones."

Gay Rights and The Bible

This afternoon, I was reading an interesting and controversial article, written by Newsweek religion reporter Lisa Miller, about the biblical arguments both for and against gay marriage. In less than a few days, Miller’s insightful and enlightening cover story has already become one of the most-viewed and most-emailed articles on the Newsweek website- amassing an overwhelming number of comments from individuals representing a wide spectrum of theological, ethical, political and philosophical subscriptions.

But after reading through Miller’s article and some of the readers’ responses to it, I noticed that a question dealing with the same topic was also being discussed on the Newsweek/Washington Post On Faith website, an online forum where some of the world’s leading experts in philosophy and religion share their responses to a weekly questions of a controversial nature.

While perusing through many of the panelists responses to the question “Is there a religious and/or scriptural case for gay marriage?”, I was refreshed to come across one rabbi’s sobering commentary on the entire enterprise of using the sacred scriptures of one’s religious tradition to justify one’s preexisting psychological and philosophical positions. In his commentary, New York-based rabbi, Irwin Kula, addresses the selectively and self-justifying ways in which many (if not all) of us interpret our religious literature and explores the weaknesses of such approaches. In doing so, Rabbi Kula challenges both liberals and conservatives to be honest in acknowledging their own biases and gracious in seeking to understand the concerns and values of their ideological opponents.

Here are some highlights that I took from Rabbi Kula’s response:

In analyzing the drawbacks of the divisive and unproductive ways in which liberals and conservatives engage in debates over the interpretation of scriptural passages, he says:

“Here is the sad truth about the unimportant, uninteresting, irrelevant, add no
value and unfortunately polarizing and divisive way in which religion and
scripture is used in contemporary culture. Everyone simply brings their
religious views and their scriptural passages to prove, legitimate, and affirm
their already held political and psychological positions. This is religion as
apologetics and proof texting. No one learns anything about their own view or
the opposing view. In fact, the very use of religion and scripture to simply
buttress one's opinions often hides a deep unconscious uncertainty about the
very view one is so fiercely holding and is often a way to avoid dealing with
the uncomfortable uncertainty of divisive social issues which are inevitably a
consequence of our ever changing and hopefully growing psychological, moral, and
spiritual evolution. And it is not difficult to use religion and scripture this
way, as any religion that has knocked around the planet for a long time has said
just about everything - from wipe out every man woman and child of your enemy to
turn the other cheek, from love your neighbor and love the stranger to certain
sexual relations being abominations - and therefore can be used to prove almost
anything. So of course, there is a religious and scriptural case that can be
made with passion for gay marriage and a religious and spiritual case that can
be made with just as much passion against gay marriage which basically makes
contemporary religion a whore for political positions whether liberal or
conservative.”

In examining the different ways in which liberals and conservatives approach scriptural passages, he says:

“Moreover, traditionalists and liberals tend to use different aspects of scripture and religion to support their views. Liberals use principles, broad moral generalizations, and narratives which tend to be open ended and dynamic and which invite ever new content. While conservatives tend to focus on laws and rules that are fixed and set. And so liberals invoke lofty and noble ethical intuitions that reflect and express their new sense of what is right and wrong while conservatives invoke established norms that reflect and express their belief in a stable inherited order.

Of course, both are legitimate ways of experiencing reality - one reflecting a conservative predisposition that values stability, precedent, and the past and one reflecting a liberal predisposition that values change, innovation, and the future. And we need to maintain a healthy tension between these two impulses to insure a healthy society. Liberals will always see conservatives' use of religion as literalist, preservationist, reactionary, and restrictive while conservatives will always see liberals' use of religion as anarchic, rebellious, made up, and destabilizing.”

Rabbi Kula then suggests a more productive and honest way for liberals and conservatives to address divisive moral, cultural issues.

Addressing the liberals, he says:

"How refreshing it would be if liberals said we know that the changes we are advocating (in this case permitting gay marriage but which includes just about every advance we have favored in human rights since the beginning of modernity) are discontinuous with the past. We know that they are indeed breaks with specific inherited/traditional norms, laws, and rules but norms, laws, and rules are temporary attempts to make real in our society larger moral and ethical intuitions. They are necessary steps but never a final resting place for our society's moral unfolding. As religious people, we are compelled to constantly be widening and expanding our understanding of profound truths like, "all human beings are Images of God", or "justice justice shall you pursue", or "love your neighbor as yourself" and orienting grand narratives like the Exodus - and to constantly be creating norms that can capture and concretize our new understandings of these religious truths. And yes, we know we are innovating. But innovating actually preserves what we see are the deepest impulses of our traditions and anyway in the end a tradition is just an innovation that made it."

Addressing the conservatives, he says:

"And it would be so refreshing if conservatives said we know that change is inevitable but we highly value stability and incremental change because human beings and societies are complex and so easily unravel. They change best when they change slowly; when they are given time to assess the consequences, often unintended, of even the best motivated and ultimately good changes. Noble principles are elevating but the rule of law and precedent insure order and a moral unfolding of society that rather than undermining people can be integrated. And yes, we know that at times we wind up on the wrong side of history but as religious people we are compelled to honor the established law and to move slowly on historic social and cultural issues so as to avoid faddish, slavish, and impulsive changes thereby preserving over the long haul a morally upright and stable society.”

Rabbi Kula concludes by acknowledging the value to be found in both the liberal and conservative perspectives and insists that these two perspectives must be held in a constant and progressive tension in order to maintain a healthy society.

“Liberals will always feel change is not happening fast enough and conservatives will always feel change is happening too fast and both will make the religious and scriptural case for their positions. It would be better for our public discourse if people at least knew where they were on the continuum and how they will tend to use religion and scripture. But it would be transformative for our public conversations and debates about divisive issues if we tried to understand the hopes and fears of the side with which we disagree and to use our religion and scripture not simply to affirm our positions but to better understand the partial truth of the other side.

After all, while a religious and scriptural case can be made for and against every serious societal moral change, we all can agree, on whatever side we find ourselves, that a genuine religious orientation should serve as a constant reminder that every human view - whether conservative or liberal, especially one's own, is a finite, partial, fragment of an infinite whole. Ultimately, the specific case we make invoking scripture, whether pro or con, ought to be far less important than using religion to foster humility, modesty, and a capacity to appreciate paradox, contradiction, and ambiguity - to help us understand each other and embrace the sacred messiness of life.”

LITMUS TESTS?

While reading this, I thought back to some of my own initial questions regarding the issue of gay marriage. How do I feel about it? Why should the general public be concerned about who chooses to marry whom? Why is this particular issue given such special treatment as opposed to the many other dilemmas facing our modern society? Why does this issue evoke such a visceral response from both religious and non-religious people alike? Why does this issue attract such volatile and explosive commentary? Why does one’s stance on this issue seem to be the defining, litmus test of one’s religious faith, value system and/or ethical practice?

Pertaining to the last question, I recall an after-class conversation I had with a professor and an exchange student a little over a year ago when I was still in seminary. We got into a discussion about the ways in which we would describe our religious affiliations. When giving my answer, I said “Though I attend a conservative Christian church, I probably would describe myself more as an ‘almost-Unitarian Universalist’ who is hesitant to make the full commitment.” The professor chuckled to himself at hearing my answer. But, what was most interesting is that the exchange student’s eyes opened wide with interest. It was he who then asked me, “Unitarians? So…what do they believe about gays?”

I was startled that this was his first question about a denomination with which he was not familiar. In attempting to answer, I said that the Unitarian Universalists seem to be an inclusive community that welcomes all sexualities. I then admitted my own struggle with how to best address the issue of homosexuality, especially when it comes to carving out a biblical position on the subjects of whether gays should be permitted to adopt, marry or serve as religious leaders.

Movie Review: Bill Maher's "Religulous"

I found Religulous to be funny and entertaining for what it is: an audio-visual package explaining Bill Maher’s views and opinions about the absurd and dangerous aspects of religion in general, giving a special focus on a handful of religious sects such as Christianity (specifically Western Christianity), Mormonism, Islam, Judaism and Scientology. During the course of the film, he also explores Egyptian folklore, Mesopotamian mythology, Creationism and interesting parallels between many of history’s mythological and historical figures. The film provides on-screen scripture references and attributions for the various experts with whom he engages (which is very helpful for follow-up and fact-checking).

I thought it was interesting though, that with a few choice exceptions, Maher tends to overlook the more moderate and mainline expressions of popular belief systems and spends most of his time examining and interrogating those who hold more radical (dare to even say “extremist”) religious views. In a way, many of his interactions seemed like Jay Leno’s “man on the street” interviews with people (who, but for a few exceptions, embarrassed themselves). With his sharp wit and comedic talent, Maher is successful in exposing some of the clumsy ways that educated and less-educated people rationalize their particular religious views and explain away inconsistencies.

However, one should maintain a high level of skepticism knowing that the filmmakers and editors can also manipulate footage (with the tools of dramatic music, sudden splices, and abrupt cutaways) to distort the exchanges between Maher and his subjects so that Maher appears to be the victor (Note: I also noticed that the makers of Expelled, a recent documentary starring Ben Stein that advocated for the cause of Intelligent Design, employed many- if not all- of the same techniques- i.e., subjects not being fully aware of the kind of film being made, including sudden splices of provocative images over the opponents explanations, dramatic or satirical music choices being played beneath the opponents words, etc.).

No doubt, some folks made their ignorance obvious and didn’t need “Hollywood magic” to make them look bad, but I do think there were some examples where Maher was clearly unfair in presenting the other points of view. The medium of film can convey a point, but due to such techniques, it’s hard to convert those who aren’t already convinced. I also found Maher to be somewhat deceptive in assuming the role of a doubtful and humble agnostic in the beginning of the film and then inserting his bold, unquestioning sermonettes and assertions about what he believes about reality towards the end.

But, despite his presentation (which often comes off as abrasive and antagonistic), I admire Maher’s courage and believe that he brings up some serious issues for believers and non-believers to take to heart- and I hope that many would accept that challenge. Maher challenges people- especially believers who are willing and able to look past Maher’s offensive presentation- to ask themselves: What are the moral, political and ethical implications of our belief systems? What defenses and rationalizations no longer make sense? What do our doctrines say about the “God” we claim to worship? In what ways do we apply double standards to our own belief systems? What elements do we critique/ridicule in other belief systems that we seem to accept in our own? What aspects of our faith merit significant reappraisal?

These, I think, are the enduring questions that should not be avoided.

While I think a public forum or a panel would have had more potential to display more integrity and provide a more fruitful discussion, there is still something to be said for the power of film. I think Religulous is a film that is worth seeing and discussing all in the hopes that such discussion will help us to prune outdated and hollow rationalizations from our most cherished beliefs and to look closely at our own ideas and consider how ridiculous they may sound to others who do not share them. In an odd way, such films challenge both the skeptic and the believer.

Labeling people

Extremists. Terrorists. Socialists. Centrists. Leftists. Rightists. Communists. Capitalists. Secularists. Rationalists. Atheists. Fundamentalists. Literalists. Creationists. Evolutionists.

The list of descriptives is as endless as the many ways humans can describe their philosophical, ethical and political positions. And I’ll be the first to admit that such terms have their purpose in effective communication. In our day and age, we see these popular terms sprinkled throughout our communications as they are typically used to refer to our ideological opponents.

But, while such terminology can be helpful in identifying and categorizing ourselves and others, I find that using such labels can also make it all easy to overlook the actual humanity of those who subscribe to such different perspectives of life. Could it be that such labels (which are often used in a derogatory fashion) only sabotage sincere efforts to build bridges of understanding with respectful dialogue? Could it be that the label, while helpful in many ways, can run the risk of dehumanizing the person?

While this could be judged as a mere matter of semantics, I personally find it more helpful to remind myself of the humanity of those who subscribe to a certain views- especially if their views differ from my own.

For example, I find that people with whom I interact react defensively when I offhandedly refer to them as being “biblical literalists;” whereas, these same individuals seem to respond in a more positive manner when I refer to them (and those who share their perspective) as “people who read and understand their sacred scriptures literally." Merely inserting the word “people” into my description of various ideological positions does a lot to remind me that people who subscribe to various philosophies are still just that...people; and despite the various ways people may differ in how they understand reality, their humanity remains the constant and common denominator.

With a mindless usage of blanket terms and categorical labels, I think that one can easily lose sight of the fact that a “socialist”, to use an example, is essentially “a person who supports the theory and practice of socialism;” or that a "homosexual" is essentially "a person whose sexual orientation inclines them to be sexually attracted to people of the same gender." Yes, it’s a slightly nuanced way of saying the same thing, but one that I feel has more potential to foster understanding between individuals who hold contrary opinions.

I am in the process of incorporating these insights into a shift in my own communication when describing myself and others. And while it takes longer to express myself and get my points across, I’d like to think that the extra time is worth it if it leads to other people feeling comfortable enough to respectfully engage with me in a conversational encounter about issues that concern us.

Melvin B. Tolson (The Radical)

Melvin B. Tolson (February 6, 1898–August 29, 1966) was an American Modernist poet, educator, columnist, Trade Unionist, politician and (some say) a rationalist. Tolson was recently portrayed by Denzel Washington in the 2007 film, The Great Debaters, which tells the story of Tolson’s personal life, his private causes and his work in developing an award-winning debate team at Texas’ Wiley College.

His public work displays both his perceptive intellect and his sharp, comical edge. Perhaps this speaks more of his legend, but it has been said that Tolson was so proficient at argumentation and debate that he would often anticipate the arguments and counterarguments of his opponents and memorize his responses to each potential counterargument in order to lessen the chances that his opponents would ever catch him by surprise. Impressive.

But I was even more impressed by the fact that, while Tolson was known a public intellectual, he still maintained a sense of connection with the people in his community. His contemporary, Langston Hughes, once said that Tolson was “no highbrow. Students revere him and love him. Kids from the cotton fields like him. Cow punchers understand him ... He’s a great talker.”

Here a few excerpts from Tolson’s column Caviar and Cabbage, a regular column that appeared in The Washington Tribune newspaper from 1937- 1944.

On being prepared for debates:
"It seems that I am always in the objective case. But the records show that Aristotle, Columbus, Pasteur, Socrates, and Jesus were in the same classification. So I’m in good company. I am not a yes-man nor an amen-brother. In fact, the only reason I can endure this worst of all possible worlds is this: I have a supply or brickbats and there are plenty of glass houses to throw at. The Big Boys have tried to buy me off and some of them have tried to cut off my meal ticket in this Christian Country, but I go on my way hurling my rocks at superstitions and prejudices and cruelties. If I think a thing is right, I'm ready to debate any man, anywhere, and at any time…I myself meet all comers in the arena of argumentation. A.B.s, A.M.s, and Ph.D.s are not barred. I admit I do have some fear of D.D.s, for they may call upon me the wrath of an angry God."

A Warning to Black People
"Black folk are too easily deluded by superficial facts. Call a man an infidel or a radical and you can hoodwink us to death. Why should a black man fear a radical? The abolitionists were radicals in their day. At one time it was radical in America to say 'I believe the black man has a soul; I believe a black man can be educated.' If it had not been for the radicals, every black man would be in a cotton patch with a white man standing over him with a forty-four and a horsewhip three yards long. And whenever you hear anybody denounce radicals, remember this: persecuted races get their rights only through the agitation of radicals. The man who denies the truth of this is as dumb as Balaam’s jackass. Amen!"


- Excerpts taken from Melvin B. Tolson's article, "The Death of An Infidel" featured in the April 2, 1938 issue of The Washington Tribune. Click here to read more of his work.

Will Durant on Religion and Human Longing

Earlier this year, I had a private e-mail correspondence with Mary Jean Irion, a now eighty-something poet and author of the 1968 book, From the Ashes of Christianity (a little-known text that I just so happened to come across while I was in seminary gathering sources for a research paper). During our e-mail exchanges about faith and reason, Ms. Irion referred me to Will and Ariel Durant's mutli-volume work, The Story of Civilization- more specifically the volume entitled The Age of Voltaire.

The Durants were gifted writers and popularizers of history and philosophy who set out to construct an unprecedented overview of recorded history that would be published for the benefit of the common reader instead of purely academic audiences. I found the Durants' assessment of history to contain the sobriety of age-tested wisdom and have found their work on the strengths and weaknesses of both religion and secular philosophy to be very helpful. Their work keeps my mind sharp and my heart soft as I ponder the cyclical and interconnected nature of life, the successes and failures of various social movements and the limits of human comprehension.

But I was intrigued by learning that Will Durant, a very reverent man, was also, by his own definition, an agnostic when it came to the question of "God." In his Dual Autobiography, written a few years before his death, Durant offered the following credo expressing his personal views:

"I am still an agnostic, with pantheistic overtones. The sight of plants and children growing inclines me to define divinity as creative power, and to reverence this in all its manifestations, even when they injure me. I cannot reconcile the existence of consciousness with a deterministic and mechanistic philososphy. I am skeptical not only of theology but also of philosophy, science, history, and myself. I recognize supersensory possibilities but not supernatural powers."

But while Will Durant himself remained agnostic throughout his life, he also nurtured a sincere respect for the role that constructive religion served in the lives of human beings. I couldn't help but to hear the sympathy in the following passage where Durant comments on the timeless appeal of religious belief:

"These church steeples, everywhere pointing upward, ignoring despair and lifting hope, these lofty city spires, or simple chapels in the hills -- they rise at every step from the earth toward the sky; in every village of every nation they challenge doubt and invite weary hearts to consolation. Is it all a vain delusion? Is there nothing beyond life but death, and nothing beyond death but decay? We cannot know. But as long as man suffers, these steeples will remain."

Think about that. "As long as man suffers, these steeples will remain." That sentence just blew my mind.

Suppression breeds reformation (and sometimes revolution)

I believe that, as a species, human beings have evolved with natural impulses that require sufficient avenues for expression. I also believe that, when it comes to human affairs, we often frustrate ourselves with vain attempts to suppress or eradicate our intrinsic impulses and primal instincts.

However, it seems to me that if these hard-wired impulses are left unchecked without a system of accountability or the expectation of responsibility, then anarchic and chaotic impulses are likely to emerge with the potential to tear our civilization apart. But on the other hand, if these impulses are ineradicable and are then aggressively suppressed without sufficient avenues for creative and healthy expression, it is likely that these same impulses will eventually assume more destructive and detrimental forms of expression.

Both tactics (anarchy and suppression) would seem to lead to similar and undesirable ends.

This is why I think that the antitheists will ultimately fail in their attempts to rid society of its need for religion. I am of the opinion that, despite their more harmful and extremist manifestations, humankind’s various religious traditions have offered much to meet the intrinsic human need for solace, hope, purpose and meaning. It seems to me that those who seek to bring about change in this realm must take into serious consideration creative and constructive ways to address or satisfy this innate human need, or else they will continue to be met with the fiercest resistance.

Likewise, I expect that those puritanical attempts to eradicate the influence of Enlightenment values (individual freedom, democracy, higher criticism, scientific investigation, etc.) will also prove unsuccessful. I am of the opinion that humankind’s ever-developing tradition of critical inquiry and investigation has yielded many benefits and has led to unprecedented progress in a variety of scientific fields. This tradition seems to reflect the intense power of curiosity, the defining impulse of humanity whose strength is attested to by countless examples of ancient folklore and religious myth. Those who seek to bring about change in this realm must take into serious consideration the notion that human curiosity about the nature of reality is not going anywhere and has already witnessed too much to retreat back into a state of blissful unawareness and uncritical obedience to an indisputable authority- be it religious or political.

But sadly, humanity as a whole has yet to learn from history's failed attempts at suppression, as many who find themselves in positions of power and influence continue to pursue ways to deny human beings the means to think, live and express themselves in healthy, creative and responsible ways.

In conclusion, I think human history would testify to the idea that those attempts to actively suppress intrinsic human impulses only serve to speed along radical responses to such suppression. Because of this, I maintain confidence that wherever one finds suppression, one will find the seeds of a new reformation- if not a revolution.

Courage to be contrary

"If you care about the points of agreement and civility, then, you had better be well-equipped with points of argument and combativity, because if you are not then the 'center' will be occupied and defined without your having helped to define it, or determine what and where it is... Conflict may be painful, but the painless solution does not exist in any case and the pursuit of it leads to the painful outcome of mindlessness and pointlessness; the apotheosis of the ostrich."

Just yesterday, a good friend of mine forwarded me the above excerpt from author Christopher Hitchens' 2001 book, Letters to a Young Contrarian. I find Hitchens' well-phrased words to be helpful because I often find myself surrendering my true views and silently yielding my intellectual and moral stances for fear of causing conflict with other people. Such a habitual reflex has begun to erode my credibility, my integrity and my sanity.

Perhaps it is indeed naive to believe that any significant or worthwhile progress can be made without taking unpopular stances, making painful decisions or paying costly prices. And perhaps I am getting too old to expect growth to come about by another other way.

I suspect that much of my hesitancy to engage in conflict or debate is caused by intense feelings of inadequacy. But, in light of Hitchens' advice, this insecurity can be largely remedied by taking advantage of those times when I am not actively engaged in a debate or discussion about controversial matters and committing myself to sufficient preparation and articulation of my ideas.

If anything, even if I am unable to provide a conclusive answer to a dilemma, I can at least master my ability to understand other perspectives and articulate my own series of challenging questions that seek to dismantle falsehoods and provoke a thoughtful reappraisal and reexamination of facts, personal prejudices, philosophical underpinnings and ethical implications. But even this feels less than sufficient as I also need to take steps to honestly affirm that which I hold to be true and that which I understand to be of value- even when I feel the bounds of my own limited vision and partial knowledge.

I feel less need to provide conclusive answers to stifle any disagreement with my ideas, but I can at least articulate the view from where I stand- knowing that we all have so much more to learn.

This is the challenge. This is my goal.

Turning 30

I was born 30 years ago today. Initially, I felt somewhat disappointed. While in my twenties, I always considered turning 30 to be a major milestone that separated the Age of Excitement/Enlightenment (the teens and twenties) from the Age of Responsibility (30 and beyond).

I always thought that, by the time I turned 30, I would have already earned a graduate degree, attained a Grammy, completed my first nationwide music tour or released a biography. Amusing, I know. I woke up this morning with conflicted thoughts of both gratitude and regret. Part of me feels like I haven’t really taken advantage of the opportunities made available to me.

But yet I retain a hope that, in the coming years, I will continue to grow in my understanding of myself and others; that I will be able to take advantage of opportunities with a fearless tenacity; that I will be able to engage more fully in the lives of those I come in contact with; that I will grow in the wisdom and confidence to overcome the snares of fear, self-centeredness and insecurity that I have allowed myself to be entangled by in years past; that I will grow in my dedication to those things I believe in, expressing my ideas creatively and sharing them publicly.

However, in the midst of all this, I try to keep in mind that I have seen and done many things that are worthwhile and important to me and that my life is a unique experience in its own right. Perhaps the most rewarding thing I could’ve witnessed as I marked the third decade of my life was the sight and sound of my 3-year old daughter running into my bedroom to wish me "Happy Birthday"(of course, forgetting her lines on the way and having to have my wife shout a reminder to her from the other room).

Blacks and Homosexuality (part 1)

The fact that 70% of Black voters in California voted to pass Proposition 8 struck me as odd considering the fact that this same population turned out in droves to vote in the first Black president of the United States. How ironic that the same night that brought forth a history-making civil rights victory for one minority group also brought forth a crushing defeat for another. The fact that millions of dollars were raised by religious groups to both encourage and scare voters to support this legislation raises a variety of concerns in my mind. One wonders if such efforts were rooted in attempts to educate and understand, or if such efforts were driven mainly by fear-based ideology.

For context: I am a straight, married, African-American male and I struggle with how best to approach the issue of homosexuality and how best to treat those people who self-identify as either gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered. And to be honest, I'd have to identify myself as a person in the process of recovering from heterosexism.

I know that I am not alone as many of my people have long struggled with this topic. Homosexuality is an issue that evokes a visceral, gut-level reaction from many of us Black folks, especially in discussions of whether it should be legal for gay people to marry or adopt. Discussing such matters brings forth strong opinions and deep feelings, largely because many of us have close friends, co-workers and relatives who would classify themselves as such. In addition to our familiarity with those who classify as gay, feelings run high also because many Blacks in America have been under the influence of churches and pastors that condemn homosexual lifestyles- basing their views on more conservative interpretations of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures.

Add to those factors, the notion that we, as Black people, have been dehumanized and degraded for centuries in this country due to biological factors that are beyond our control. As Black people, we have long been discriminated against by well-meaning individuals who also quoted their scriptures to condemn our existence. Therein lies most of the tension for Blacks regarding the issue of homosexuality.

My views about homosexuality we largely influenced by the fact that I grew up with a parent who was very accepting of gay people. My younger brother and I both have vivid childhood memories of our mother's closest friends being gay men (R.I.P. Anthony "Ding Deets" and Frederick). For us, it was weird (especially considering that I was in my early teens at the time), but our mother provided us with an early example of how to establish long-lasting and intimate friendships with those who have different sexual orientations. For me, having these early experiences and close relationships with gay people played a large part in humanizing the issue of homosexuality and serving as a necessary counter to the blatantly heterosexist attitudes that I would embrace in my early twenties (believing that I had to take a firm stand against all things homosexual in order to be faithful to my understanding of the Christian faith).

In addition to these early experiences, my wife and I have some close friends and relatives that self-identify as gay. Their examples arouse a wide range of mixed feelings for us and illustrate how issues take on a whole new meaning when they are connected to people we are familiar with.

One of them my wife has known since he was in grade school. Like all of us, he has his personal faults and foibles, but he has been a good friend to us and, over time, I'd like to think that we consider him as being "our friend" instead of referring to him derogatively as being "our gay friend." However, I have mixed feelings because I know that sexuality is an issue that our friend struggles with since he also identifies as a Christian and has regularly attended congregations that condemn and seek to "correct" homosexuality.

In addition to this friend, we have a mutual friend that we have known since he was a little boy and who recently "came out" to the surprise and disgust of his family. I am torn as I wonder who is in more need of correction: the boy, his family or both?

To bring it even closer to home, just last night, my wife informed me that her younger and only sister just “came out” to her during a phone conversation (This only a week after my wife and I engaged in a minor debate as to whether being gay is morally wrong and whether gay people should be allowed to adopt children). Surprisingly, my wife had little to say when I asked her how she felt about her own sister's announcement. I'm speculating, but I reckon my wife's lack of commentary reflects the notion that while it is easy to judge a distant stranger it is far more difficult to issue that same judgment towards ourselves and/or those we know and love.

In recent years, I have worked hard to examine and uproot my own prejudices, but regrettably, I feel that I have been too much of a closet supporter of gay rights and have not been vocal enough in publicly advocating for the fair treatment of people who self-identify as being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered.

I am aware of my moral inconsistency on gay rights and admit that heterosexist thoughts still crop up in my mind on occasion. I have noticed my hypocrisy in the many occasions where my mouth expresses my support for their equal treatment, but my actions reflect my discomfort and half-hearted support. I have noticed my silent cowardice in the company of religious friends who boldly contrast their moral rightness in condemning homosexuality with the so-called "distorted" and "ungodly" perceptions of those who defend it.

I know that I'm not completely comfortable with the issue of homosexuality, but I am willing to wrestle with my prejudices, primarily because I have had positive personal experiences with people who identify as homosexual.

But how do we feel about all of this? In thinking about the issue of sexuality, several common questions instantly rush to the forefront of our thoughts. Are people born that way or do people choose a homosexual lifestyle? What do religious authorities and texts say about homosexuals and/or homosexual behavior? What does the most credible science say? Should gay people marry? Should they adopt? Should they be denied the rights that heterosexuals demand for themselves? Will churches who preach against homosexuality be forced by law to permit gay marriage? Will pastors be jailed for preaching against gay lifestyles? Is across-the-board acceptance of gay rights just a matter of time and persistence?

Many of us have asked ourselves these questions, but how far have we gone in pursuing their answers?

(To be continued...)

An attempt at affirmation

I am aware that I have long struggled with insecurity, a lack of confidence and "toxic" thinking. I realize that those qualities can only hinder one who aspires to be their best and work gradually to make things better for others. Here is my attempt at affirming those things about myself that my insecurities often seek to deny. Maybe I will repeat this to myself on a regular basis.

I am a creative person.
I am a gifted communicator and artist.
I am an excellent writer.
I am a good listener.
I am a great storyteller.
I have a voice.
I have something valuable to offer.
I am a critical thinker.
I am a compassionate presence.
I am an attentive father.
I am a faithful husband.
I am a dependable friend.
I am a grateful child.
I am a thoughtful scholar.
I am helpful to others.
I am fair.
I am a constant and strategic agitator against injustice and dehumanization.
I am careful.
I am courageous.

Death's Gift to the Living

I work at a Midwestern hospital and I am often pained by the tragedies that I witness in my line of work. Seven years of frequent exposure to the suffering of others has impacted me deeply- whether I am listening to a story of a family recovering from a sudden and dreadful interruption into their lives or whether I am checking on the conditions of patients in our critical care areas. Sometimes I have to report to the local media that someone’s friend or family has died. I share the news with reporters with no idea of how that news sounds to the ears of those who pace the hospital waiting rooms praying and hoping for miracles- even if they don’t believe in them.

In addition to this, I am impacted by the media's countless news reports of kidnapped children, senseless murders, stray bullets and civilian casualties. Though not paralyzed by fear, I am often frightened by the seemingly uncontrollable and unpredictable nature of those events that either take or disfigure the lives of living beings. But with practice, I have learned to let go of the naïve assumption that such events could not also happen to myself or to those whom I love and cherish. I see myself in the husbands, fathers, uncles, sons, nephews and brothers who hover above the hospital beds and graves of their loved ones. I cringe at the thought of my family (especially my wife and daughter) losing me in such a tragic turn of events. My goal is to always make it home to them. Yet, I am aware of our mortality. 

But this awareness, instead of driving me to anxious despair, compels me to appreciate the time I spend with people, to invest myself fully in the moment and to force myself to observe the miniscule details of my experiences with them and flood my memories with the peculiarities that make each individual who they uniquely are. Suffering provides this perspective. This is Death’s indirect gift to the living.

Former right-wing evangelical imagines Obama will become one of the best and most loved American Presidents

A co-worker of mine recently forwarded me a powerful essay predicting the state of America and the world both during and after the presidency of Barack Obama. This (hopefully) prophetic piece was written over a month before the 2008 election by author Frank Schaeffer, a “white, former life-long Republican,” “proud father of a Marine” and son of the late evangelist and Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer.

The following is an excerpt of Schaeffer’s October 8 essay “Obama Will Be One of the Best (And Most Loved) American Presidents”:

"Great presidents are made great by horrible circumstances combined with character, temperament and intelligence. Like firemen, cops, doctors or soldiers, presidents need a crisis to shine.

Obama is one of the most intelligent presidential aspirants to ever step forward in American history. The likes of his intellectual capabilities have not been surpassed in public life since the Founding Fathers put pen to paper. His personal character is also
solid gold. Take heart, America: we have the leader for our times.

I say this as a white, former life-long Republican. I say this as the proud father of a Marine. I say this as just another American watching his pension evaporate along with the stock market! I speak as someone who knows it's time to forget party loyalty, ideology and pride and put the country first. I say this as someone happy to be called a fool for going out on a limb and declaring that, 1) Obama will win, and 2) he is going to be amongst the greatest of American presidents..."

Read the full essay here. Click here for the Huffington Post's archive of Frank Schaeffer’s insightful columns.

Barack Obama: Elected President of the United States

It was a few minutes shy of 11 p.m. on Election Night when CNN announced that Democratic Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama had been projected to win the state of Virginia. Moments later, my wife and I watched our television screen in speechless amazement as the election results from California poured in leading CNN host Wolf Blitzer to announce that Barack Obama had received well over the 270 electoral votes needed for him to become the 1st African-American president elect of the United States of America.

Phone calls and text messages from friends and family members started flooding our phones shortly thereafter as we all shared our unbelief that we were actually witnessing this event. History had been made. And it would be made many times over as states that had traditionally gone to Republican candidates processed results showing that they were now going to a Democratic majority. One of such states was our home state of Indiana.

Our jaws dropped as we watched live footage of the respectful concession speech of Senator John McCain and the awe-inspiring acceptance speech of President-elect Barack Obama. Our three-year-old daughter played on the floor in front of us as we pushed the record button on our DVR so that we could share this moment with her when she grows older.

We then called our parents and our grandparents who were born during the Depression and who had experienced racism all throughout their lives. We knew that these moments were especially significant for them. My grandmother told me how my grandfather laughed and then later cried at the thought of a Black man finally being elected President in the United States.

My paternal grandfather always believed that such a day would come and had hoped that I would have such opportunities available to me as a young, educated Black man. It was my grandfather who forced me to watch the inauguration of President Bill Clinton in 1993 when I was fourteen years old. When I said I didn’t want to watch it, he responded by saying “You should watch this. Who knows? One day you might be the President.” No sooner did I reply, “I don’t want to be President,” when he sternly countered, “Don’t ever say that. You don’t know what all you can become! You can be whatever you want to be!” Powerful words spoken by one who shined shoes as a boy growing up in a racist society during the Great Depression; Impactful words spoken to a privileged and talented teenager struggling with insecurity and his own ability to realize his dreams.

I realize that Barack Obama is a fallible human being; he is no savior and he is no saint. But his presidential victory was meaningful for me mainly because of its symbolism. It was proof that an overwhelming majority of the American people were willing to look past negative campaign tactics, personal prejudices and to vote for a candidate of an ethnic minority. It was also encouraging to see someone of an ethnic minority step into such a prominent leadership role. It was moving to see tearful, on-screen images of Reverend Jesse Jackson, Oprah Winfrey and countless others.

I watched the coverage of this election night and imagined the clouds of inferiority evaporating from the minds of both minority and underprivileged children all across the globe. I envisioned seeds of hope being planted by the on-screen images of those of different cultures and classes coming together with tears and joy.

Last night expanded the boundaries of what was possible. A long time coming. Truly a sight to behold.

Fearless truth-telling

"The moment we begin to fear the opinions of others and hesitate to tell the truth that is in us, and from motives of policy are silent when we should speak, the divine floods of light and life flow no longer in our souls."

- Elizabeth Cady Stanton (November 12, 1815 – October 26, 1902) in her speech to the National American Woman Suffrage Association, 1890.

Election Eve

Here we are, on the eve of a general election that will be the culminating moment of nearly two years worth of campaigns that have already made United States’ history. Luckily, I voted early in my home state and will be able to avoid the long lines, relax and watch as the election results pour in. But while I will take joy in the fact that Election Day will bring a much-needed end to all the campaign and attack ads (which often seem to either deify or dehumanize the candidates), I do not believe that our voting excuses us from all of the other work that needs to be done for our society to progress.

To be clear, I do not believe that any particular candidate or political party has a panacea to resolve all of our economic inequalities, social complexities or moral dilemmas. However, I am convinced that, regardless of which representatives are elected into public office, we, as responsible citizens who participate in the democratic process, must bring our best to bear in holding our leaders accountable and making them aware of those issues we consider worthwhile. The principles of democracy and our common humanity both demand that citizens get involved in their societies and make informed decisions about matters that affect both themselves and their fellow inhabitants of this ecosystem we call Earth.

It may mean that we send thoughtful and timely letters to both our legislators and the editors of our favorite publications expressing our concern about an issue. It may mean that we represent our causes by volunteering to sit in on the committee meetings and voting sessions that take place at our local statehouse. It may mean that we organize and/or attend the rallies, protests and vigils that take place in our communities. It may also require that we volunteer at a nearby shelter and/or make connections with others who feel strongly about the issues that matter to us. Nevertheless, we as citizens should, in some significant capacity, involve ourselves in the issues affecting our lives and our world. While it remains every individual’s decision as to their level of involvement, we cannot abdicate our responsibilities and leave them solely in the hands of our elected officials. To do so would inevitably bring ruin to both them and ourselves.

My personal studies and the variety of discussions I have shared with co-workers, family and friends during this exciting election year have served to reinforce my conviction that human society progresses, develops and evolves through the constant tension of contradictory impulses and opposing forces that agitate each other until improvements are made. This is a long process that requires a commitment to valuing tradition and learning from past mistakes and a willingness to experiment with new ideas. But I am reminded that our country was founded on such a process.

Because lasting change is often a long-term process, I have no expectation that all wrongs can be righted in the solitary term of any particular administration. Change may occur in one executive decision or one legislative session, but it may also take generations for the words and actions of committed and courageous individuals to eventually bear fruit.

I consider it an act of faith to believe that change can come. I also consider it an act of faith to work to bring about such change, especially when faced with obstacles. Though I am often tempted to dismiss opinions that run contrary to my own, I try to remind myself that the tension of healthy and respectful conversations between concerned individuals who may differ in opinion on the issues that matter to them can often yield new insights into complex problems that affect us all.

I choose to place my faith in that process instead of any lone individual, administration or political party.

Activism

“I always tell people: use your passion. Does your mom have Alzheimer's? Can your brother not afford school? Has an uncle come back from the war hurt? Are you afraid that you don't have health care? Is the neighborhood around you in shambles? Those are the things to invest yourself in politically because then you have something that's personally feeding you. If you have something that makes you filled up, that you're already caring about, that you're already talking about, then you'll actually see progress. You're just feeding off that energy. If we all listened to that little voice and we all worked to help that little thing that we know, then the whole world would be a different place, and we all would be doing our part.”

~ Rosario Dawson

Tavis' unsettling observations

Have you ever wished you could be two places at the same time? I recently experienced that feeling in a profound way. Earlier this afternoon, I had the privilege to go to a well-attended luncheon featuring renowned journalist and commentator, Tavis Smiley as the keynote speaker. But during that exact hour, just a few blocks away, there was another prominent African-American speaking before a large crowd. That individual was Sen. Barack Obama. Of course, three weeks after I accept my invitation to a corporate luncheon sponsored by the Diversity Roundtable of Central Indiana, Obama announces that he’s making a surprise campaign stop at the American Legion Mall in Downtown Indianapolis- just a short walk from where I work.

But I do not regret being where I was and listening to what Tavis had to say. Tavis is known to be a rousing orator and lived up to his reputation by giving us a powerful and provocative lecture. He expressed his disdain of the now overused terms: diversity, inclusion and tolerance. He noted that many organizations and individuals make efforts to be diverse, but suspects that many often do so out of convenience and expedience. He also made a point that “loving our neighbors as ourselves” demands far more from us than mere tolerance (putting up with each other) and that tolerance should never be the standard by which we measure ourselves.

The fact that Barack Obama was speaking just a few blocks away was also not lost on Tavis. He began his lecture by joking that those who decided to stay to listen to him must have not been able to get tickets to the Obama event.

Tavis, criticized by many African-Americans for being an early critic of Barack Obama, explained that it is entirely possible for African-Americans to be both proud and supportive of a Black candidate and to also express one’s support by being critical and holding that candidate accountable if and when they gets off of their “pivot” and principles. He cautioned us to never give our uncritical acceptance to an individual and noted that there are too many African-Americans who seem willing to allow Barack Obama to escape scrutiny for fear of hindering his chance to be President of the United States. Tavis exclaimed, “No other special interest group waits until a candidate is in office to then begin holding them accountable!” I don't know how accurate that statement is, but I think I understand his underlying point.

Tavis admitted to being upset by the fact that the issue of racism was never addressed and the word “poverty” was not uttered during any of the three presidential debates between Barack Obama and John McCain. Although Barack Obama gave a memorable speech on racism in America early in his campaign, Tavis took Obama to task for only addressing the issue of racism “when his hand was forced” due to the controversy surrounding his relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright. He also went on to describe many points throughout the Obama campaign where Barack changed his stance- specifically on issues of campaign finance reform, the death penalty and gun control.

Towards the end of his speech, Tavis warned us all to be watchful of patterns in media coverage and the attempts to suppress the ideas and issues that affect us, specifically racism and poverty.

After Tavis delivered his insights and observations, he assured us that he does not consider his work to be done until he knows that he has “unsettled” us by challenging us to “reexamine our assumptions.”

My co-worker, who also attended the luncheon, leaned over to me and joked that Tavis “doesn’t have any solutions, so he just stirs up shit.” That may be true, but I think I would rather pay attention to someone with unsettling and challenging questions that encourage me to be more aware and make progress than to listen to 30 minutes of lofty campaign promises.

Feeling trapped, yearning for freedom

I’m depressed. I feel trapped between two worlds- the natural one I see with my eyes and the invisible realm that believers put their faith in. I see the suffering in the former, but I'm told to be concerned most about the latter. I feel stuck and confused at a crossroads where so many paths seem inviting, but I remain fearful. I’m afraid to commit to those adventures and callings which beckon me to come near because, while they may provide me with meaningful avenues through which I can express my sincere convictions, I suspect they will take me even farther from those I know, love and cherish. But I also realize that my procrastination does not help anyone.

I'm living a dual existence: the hidden one where I express my true thoughts in a psychological exile of anonymity and the public one where I amiably pretend to believe what I now consider incredible. I’m torn. Mainly because I don’t want anyone to suffer- especially because of something I’ve said, done, neglected to do or refused to accept as true. I feel a burning and all-consuming anxiety over what I imagine to be an oncoming and inevitable source of conflict- knowing that a decision must be made soon. I understand that my elusive ambiguity serves only to frustrate and destabilize those closest to me. Yet I am afraid to commit. When I do commit, I fear rejection. I fear rejection, knowing it is the price of speaking honestly and living proactively.

How can one be honest and not be, in some way, agnostic and uncertain about ultimate matters like "God" and eternity? How can we know anything for sure? Why do we seem to prefer comforting and illusory speculations instead of embracing painful and observable facts? I began my journey searching for a more perfect understanding of the ultimate; a trustworthy method to make sure that I was devoting my life and energy to something credible, powerful and real. In the process, I have learned just how deceptive the human mind can be- especially my own. Realizing my own tendency to fool myself makes me suspicious off all others with the capacity to think. Above all, I do not want to delude myself or anyone else.

But no matter how much I try to separate facts from falsehood my humanity seems to get in the way. Seemingly cursed, I feverishly examine endless articles, rabbit-eared books and online resources as I hunt for satisfying answers to enlighten my mind, shed my prejudices, confirm my intuitions and validate the expense of my journey. But I am constantly reminded that my cognitive capacity has limits and I can’t know it all. I just can’t remember everything I come across in my studies. Like heat, the profound insights of underappreciated authors evaporate and become forgotten memories. My prayer is that I can retain what I need for the times when I will need it. That I will be flexible enough to deal with whatever challenges I encounter.

But, despite my limitations, I am left with reality: issues that I have delayed addressing; painful discussions that I try my best to evade; real people whose lives and destinies are intertwined with my own and which are affected by my choices. I try to manage the complexity as gently and as skillfully as I know how. Elusive humor is helpful in cloaking to my honest thoughts. But at some point the uncomfortable laughter needs to stop.

I know that no one is safe from suffering and I have learned to appreciate the small joys of living and to be content and mindful of our mortality. Sadly, I have only grasped this while I have put off dealing with the old burdens that continue to haunt my waking moments.

I don’t fear an apocalyptic end to this life. Instead, I am horrified by the idea that my final breath will escape my body and leave behind a gross misrepresentation of my authentic self before I can summon the nerve to boldly share with all the full view of my soul and thought. I am equally horrified by the notion that expressing my true opinions will disappoint those I adore. This is amplified by the incessant fear that should I decide to publicize my unpopular opinions they may one day prove to be wrong and misguided and I will have done irrevocable damage to minds and hearts.

But this is the risk we must take as fallible beings.

Heaven is no consolation for living a lie. I admire all who have had the courage to come out publicly as their true selves. My heroes are those who refuse to masquerade in forms that cater to the preferences of others. I do not want to die like those considerate and cowardly Enlightenment-era parish priests who masqueraded as defenders of orthodoxy while leaving behind secret diaries confessing their heretical opinions. I want to be known and remembered for who I truly am. Not as a label, but as a honest man.

But I hold on because I believe that freedom will come if I press towards it. Until then, I walk carefully and advance gradually- summoning the spirits of patience, sensitivity and wisdom. Praying that they guide my words and actions because this feels like the fight of my life. .

Writing helps. But only living will bring fulfillment.

The Free Thoughts of Zora Neale Hurston

A few weeks ago, I picked up a copy of African-American Humanism: An Anthology (1991) edited by Norm R. Allen Jr. It is a fascinating collection of essays and works written by some famous (and some lesser-known) Black humanists, rationalists and free-thinkers such as Langston Hughes, W.E.B. DuBois, Frederick Douglas, Melvin Tolson, Hubert Harrison, Joel Augustus Rogers, Richard Wright and Emmanuel Kofi Mensah. In this anthology, renowned humanist Norm Allen Jr. hoped to counter the popular modern perception of the Black religious community being the primary proponent of significant social change from the turn of the century until the Civil Rights Era by showcasing the significant contributions of Black free-thinkers and humanists (who are often overshadowed by their Caucasian contemporaries).

Norm Allen Jr. shares the work of dozens of African-American and African individuals who refused to subscribe to traditional ideas about God and morality, yet who were also driven by a deep, “this-worldly” desire to improve living conditions for themselves and others for the betterment of humanity.

As a young African-American male with humanist sympathies, I have been both enlightened and inspired by reading about the heroic accomplishments of these exemplary individuals- especially considering the fact that they were outspoken and active in a cultural context which rendered them unpopular in most religious, social and political circles.

Among these individuals, I rediscovered Zora Neale Hurston, an author, folklorist and anthropologist who, along with Langston Hughes, became one of the literary forerunners of the Harlem Renaissance. Although raised in a Missionary Baptist Church as a preacher’s daughter, Hurston chose not to subscribe to the faith of her forbears and tells how her doubts regarding organized religion led her into a different understanding of reality. Among its many offerings, African-American Humanism includes Hurston's essay, “Religion” (taken from her 1942 autobiography Dust Tracks on a Road), in which she further articulates her most personal thoughts about God, faith and spirituality.

Towards the end of her essay, Hurston shares her understanding of the role of religion in the lives of human beings:

"The unreachable and therefore the unknowable always seem divine- hence, religion. People need religion because the great masses fear life and its consequences. Its responsibilities weigh heavy. Feeling a weakness in the face of great forces, men seek an alliance with omnipotence to bolster up their feeling of weakness, even though the omnipotence they rely upon is a creature of their own minds. It gives them a feeling of security…"

She then delves into her thoughts regarding the topic of prayer:

"…As for me, I do not pretend to read God’s mind. If He has a plan of the universe worked out to the smallest detail, it would be folly for me to presume to get down on my knees and attempt to revise it. That, to me, seems the highest form of sacrilege. So I do not pray. I accept the means at my disposal for working out my destiny. It seems to me that I have been given a mind and willpower for that very purpose. I do not expect God to single me out and grant me advantages over my fellow men. Prayer is for those who need it. Prayer seems to me a cry of weakness, and an attempt to avoid, by trickery, the rules of the game as laid down. I do not choose to admit weakness. I accept the challenge of responsibility."

Hurston begins the conclusion of her essay by explaining how she finds meaning and purpose in life outside of organized religion while recognizing its importance to those who subscribe to more traditional notions of divinity. I love the portion of the passage below where she says, in reference to religious creeds, "I feel no need for such. However, I would not, by word or deed, attempt to deprive another of the consolation it affords. It is simply not for me." I wholeheartedly share her sentiments here and appreciate the fact that she has not attempted to belittle those who find meaning in creed-based religion.

In the closing passage, Hurston advocates a fearless view of reality that expertly assuages existential fear and anxiety with bold, poetic language capturing the majesty of science's most credible insights and findings about chemistry, astronomy, biology and physics.

"Life, as it is, does not frighten me, since I have made my peace with the universe as I find it, and bow to its laws. The ever-sleepless sea in its bed, crying out 'How long?' to Time; million-formed and never motionless flame; the contemplation of these two aspects alone, affords me sufficient food for ten spans of my expected lifetime.

It seems to me that organized creeds are collections of words around a wish. I feel no need for such. However, I would not, by word or deed, attempt to deprive another of the consolation it affords. It is simply not for me. Somebody else may have my rapturous glance at the archangels. The springing of the yellow line of morning out of the misty deep of dawn, is glory enough for me.

I know that nothing is destructible; things merely change forms. When the consciousness we know as life ceases, I know that I shall still be part and parcel of the world. I was a part before the sun rolled into shape and burst forth in the glory of change. I was, when the earth was hurled out from its fiery rim. I shall return with the earth to Father Sun, and still exist in substance when the sun has lost its fire, and disintegrated into infinity to perhaps become a part of the whirling rubble of space.

Why fear? The stuff of my being is matter, ever changing, ever moving, but never lost; so what need of denominations and creeds to deny myself the comfort of all my fellow men? The wide belt of the universe has no need for finger-rings. I am one with the infinite and need no other assurance.”

Opinions in Exile

The following passage is a reflection on the Hebrew Bible's Psalm 137 written by Reverend John Nichols, a Unitarian Universalist minister and author of A Wind Swept Over the Waters: Reflections on Sixty Favorite Bible Passages (Skinner House Books, 2007). In this excerpt from his 2007 book, Nichols imagines the experience of Israel’s people as they endured being exiled as a minority in Babylon during the 6th century B.C.E. The piece also describes the difficulty of living, speaking and sharing one's unpopular convictions when they run counter to the prevailing worldviews of one's cultural surroundings. Click here to read the full passage.

Many situations make us feel that we have been exiled to a “foreign land.” We might have moved to a culture so different that it was hard to get adjusted. We may have discovered that suddenly our most cherished beliefs are so radically at odds with those of the people around us that we must keep quiet about them, or if we speak, we must be prepared to defend ourselves…

Many people live in some kind of Babylon [exile] They live where they cannot speak some thoughts without criticism. To survive in such a negative culture, it is tempting to negate our own convictions as being finally not that important. It is tempting as well to keep quiet, walking away from conversations that might expose our differences. Either temptation sacrifices something of our integrity in order to maintain relationships that will be “safe” though always slightly dishonest. One of the most important spiritual strengths we have is the ability to be honest about who we are…

Recognizing that what was at stake was nothing less than the integrity of their souls, the Jews of Babylon formed communities in which their heritage and their ethical convictions became vastly more important to them in exile than they had been before. They sought one another’s support to affirm their differences from Babylonians and to raise their children as if those differences really mattered. Because they chose community rather than safety and anonymity, their convictions survived to make a lasting impression on the world. May we all seek and find the communities we most need in the foreign lands through which we must travel.

Restraining the monsters we feed

Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin have been catching some serious criticism from all sides for neither challenging nor calming the angry crowds at the campaign rallies held for them earlier this week.

But just last night, I saw recent clips of John McCain working to calm down the angry crowds at his rallies and to counter their inflammatory remarks about Barack Obama with clarifying assurances that he knows Obama to be a "decent, family man" who just happens to disagree with him on "fundamental issues." McCain also made clear that, contrary to popular belief, Obama is not "an Arab" (a term that some are using in a derogatory tone as if there is something inherently wrong in being of Arabic descent).

Will the McCain/Palin campaign be able to restrain this xenophobic and racist monstrosity they have been feeding?

When leaders thrive on the fear and ignorance of their supporters

Fear-mongering

In December 2007, Newsweek featured a cover story about the roots of fear which shed light on just how effectively fear can be used to get people’s attention. According to the article, "the evolutionary primacy of the brain's fear circuitry makes it more powerful than reasoning circuits." In light of such knowledge, Is it any wonder why fear-mongering remains an effective and persuasive tactic to rally public support?

Fear-mongering has worked for centuries as countless leaders have campaigned for positions of power and the public support it takes to preserve such positions. Leaders throughout history have propagated messages and imaged themselves as saviors who will usher in the prosperity, security and peace that their people crave; all the while imaging their political opponents as dangerous alternatives that would undoubtedly ruin the people's way of life.

I personally detest this kind of campaigning and lament that we, the people, still play into this tempting trap largely because we are uninformed, unaware or unwilling to break the cycle.

Recently, I’ve been pretty disgusted lately by the McCain/Palin campaign’s persistent efforts to link Senator Barack Obama with domestic terrorism all the while refusing to challenge the underlying racist and outwardly ethnocentric impulses of some of their own supporters. Such tactics seem to capitalize on human ignorance and, what’s even sadder, is that such tactics seem to work.

The McCain/Palin campaign’s recent push to excite the groundless fears of their supporters reminds me of the popular NBC TV show Heroes' recent introduction of a new villain who has the ability to grow stronger by feeding off of the fear of others; which is precisely what it seems like the presidential candidates of all parties have been doing throughout this election season. But the trend seems to have reached fever pitch with the latest push by the McCain/Palin campaign to brand Obama as a mysterious, shifty figure who has been “palling around with terrorists.”

Living in the “post-9/11” United States of America, there are certain words that reasonable people use sparingly and wisely due to their powerful connotation and emotional weight. The word “terrorist” falls into such a category.

Earlier this week, at a recent rally of Republican supporters, Governor Sarah Palin referred to Barack Obama as “someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.” Palin went on to proclaim, “One of [Obama’s] earliest supporters is a man named Bill Ayers, and according to the New York Times, [Ayers] was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, ‘launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol’.” Palin's words were echoed by a chorus of boos and threatening invectives directed at both Obama and Ayers.

Hold it right there, Sarah. You mean to tell me that this whole time Barack Obama has been an unpatriotic trickster who maintains relationships with terrorists? That is a very serious claim, Mrs. Palin. Surely, one would not cast such a sharp stone unless they had the most credible evidence to substantiate this bold claim. Right?

Checking the facts

Let’s examine the validity of this accusation. According to the nonpartisan, nonprofit organization FactCheck.org, “William Ayers [is] a Chicago professor of education, who in the 1960s was part of a radical antiwar group that set off pipe bombs in lavatories in the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon.” William Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, were leaders of the Weather Underground, an ill fated antiwar group. According to the New York Times, “most of the bombings attributed to the Weathermen were meant to damage only property, but a 1970 pipe bombing in San Francisco attributed to the group killed a police officer and severely hurt another.”

A bombing of any kind is nothing to take lightly and I understand the curiosity of those, like myself, who seek to find out the truth about any possible connection between Mr. Obama and the activities of Mr. Ayers. But let's continue our investigation.

According to the Oct. 5 edition of CNN Fact Check, the claim that Obama is “palling around with terrorists” is false. CNN reports “False. There is no indication that Ayers and Obama are now ‘palling around,’ or that they have had an ongoing relationship in the past three years. Also, there is nothing to suggest that Ayers is now involved in terrorist activity or that other Obama associates are.” This clarification is in line with what FactCheck.org discovered back on April 17, 2008, soon after Sen. Hillary Clinton mentioned a possible connection between Obama and Ayers during a Democratic debate. Clinton said "people died" in some of the 1960s and 1970s bombings by a radical group of which an Obama acquaintance was a member. According to FactCheck.org, “the deaths were of three members of the Weather Underground itself, who died when their own bombs accidentally exploded.”

Factcheck.org goes on to note that nobody died as a result of bombings in which Ayers said he participated as part of the Weather Underground “at the New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, in a men's lavatory in the Capitol building in 1971 and in a women's restroom in the Pentagon in 1972.” The site reports, “The deaths to which Clinton referred were of three Weather Underground members who died when their own ‘bomb factory’ exploded in a Greenwich Village townhouse on March 6, 1970. Ayers was not present. Also, two police officers were murdered in connection with the robbery of a Brinks armored car by Weather Underground members in 1981. That was about a year after Ayers had turned himself in and after all charges against him had been dropped.”Obama responded to Hillary Clinton's accusations last spring by noting that President Bill Clinton “had pardoned or commuted the sentences of two Weather Underground members, who had, unlike Ayers, been convicted and sentenced to long prison terms. Bill Clinton indeed pardoned one and commuted the sentence of another.”

Obama visited Ayer's home in 1995 at the invitation of an Illinois state senator, according to a February 22 story in Politico.com. But Politico concluded, "There’s no evidence their relationship is more than the casual friendship of two men who occupy overlapping Chicago political circles and who served together on the board of a Chicago foundation."

William Ayers is now a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago and lives in the same neighborhood as the Obama family. Ayers is an associate of Obama’s who has worked with him on a schools project and on at least two community boards such as The Woods Fund of Chicago, an antipoverty charity. Ayers graciously hosted a “meet-the-candidate” house party for Obama when he first ran for state Senate in 1995 and contributed $200 to Obama's campaign for the Illinois state Senate on March 2, 2001.

I think it’s reasonable for citizens to be informed about and to explore any genuine connection that may exist between Barack Obama and domestic terrorism, but you’d better be sure that there is a definite connection, otherwise, you quickly find yourself advancing false and harmful propaganda that could incite fear and hatred of an individual.

In light of the information I’ve seen, it seems a far cry to imply that Barack Obama would approve or endorse any of Weather Underground’s activities or that Ayers himself has even been remotely involved with any such activities over the last 30 years. Neither Obama nor Ayers appear to be a pair of domestic terrorists conspiring ways to usurp the country because there is far more evidence to the contrary.

But, regardless of the facts, McCain and his campaign have aggressively sought to raise skepticism about Obama’s personal character. In the last week, McCain campaign has released a 90-second web advertisement that attempts to link Obama with Ayers that says, “Barack Obama and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. Friends. They’ve worked together for years.” According to an October 9 article in the Detroit Free Press, “the ad also claimed that one of the nonprofits on which Obama and Ayers worked was a radical education foundation.” The same article points out that “[t]hat educational foundation was the Annenberg Challenge…funded by the Annenberg Foundation, a charity set up by longtime Republican backer and newspaper publisher Walter Annenberg. Annenberg has since died, but his wife has endorsed McCain this year.” The article also includes the interesting fact that “The city of Chicago gave Ayers its Citizen of the Year award in 1997 for work on the educational project.”

Just when you thought such moves were played out, some McCain supporters have continued to use Obama’s middle name (Hussein) during introductions of McCain and Palin this week in the attempt to invoke negative connotations associating Obama with memories of the defeated Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

In my opinion, only the ignorant would consider someone's birth name (of which that person had no control over) as a strike against that individual's character. But again, it is one more example of how our instinct fear can overpower our powers to reason.

The cost of fear-mongering

Human history has shown that fear and hatred are cancerous conditions that can blind minds and warp souls. That’s why I find it chilling to watch footage of political rallies where fiercely partisan crowds boo and hurl invectives at the competing party’s candidates and characters. Sadly, it seems that candidates are banking on the notion that their base supporters are too ignorant to research these matters themselves and to discover that many of their candidate's claims are either groundless accusations and carefully packaged lies.

I also wonder why some leaders who profess integrity would dare provoke their crowds with tribalistic “us-and-them” rhetoric instead of counseling the masses to think soberly and rationally during these difficult times. As we all know, these are troubling times for voters and there is a lot of anxiety and worry out there concerning how our lives will be affected by the dynamics of the global economy, our costly involvement in a perpetual war and the next occupants of the White House. But advancing the idea that Barack Obama is a militant, anti-American traitor with a hidden terrorist agenda is a reckless, dangerous and desperate move.

Exploring a legitimate connection between a Presidential candidate and the activities of a domestic terrorist group is one thing, but to demonize an individual by over-exaggerating the facts and provoking fanatical crowds with false information is morally reprehensible. History has shown us that demonization eventually breeds dehumanization; and once you dehumanize someone, there is no limit to the damage that you will inflict and justify in the name of self-righteousness.

I find much to admire about Senator John McCain’s political record, but his approval of reckless tactics like this seems to reflect a frenzied panic that becomes yet another reason why I don’t consider him fit for the job as President of the United States. Maybe capitalizing on fear will make him popular enough to become President; but it is a weak leader who thrives on the ignorance and fear of their people.