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.