Over the last month our media has been banging the drums of war suggesting that Kim Jong-un is borderline psychotic and is ready, at any moment, to drop a bomb.

With images of their prison camps, videos of their propaganda, and headlines screaming chaos, we see no other option...War is Coming.

Fifty years ago today, the Vatican addressed the entire world in an encyclical called Pacem in Terris. This was the first encyclical addressed to non-Catholics in the history of the Church. Addressing the whole World, Pope John XXIII lays out a very basic argument for one thing and one thing only: Peace on Earth.

Peace on Earth is practically impossible to imagine right now. If it isn't war with North Korea, it's war with Iran. If it isn't war with Iran, it's war with Wall Street. If it isn't war with Wall Street, it's war against Republicans and the Tea Party. If not them, who? If not now, when? ...but why?!

"War is a drug," Chris Hedges pointedly observed.

It is a drug that some people would like you to believe only Americans are addicted to, but that's just not true. It's a drug human beings throughout the majority of recorded history have been hooked on.

Addiction is something I think about frequently. I have been surrounded by addictions my whole life. They come in many shades and are almost always more complicated than people realize at first glance. It is never something one can just quit.

I was conceived in 1986. This was the year the United Nations deemed the "International Year of Peace." It was also, coincidentally, the same year the Vatican under Pope John Paul II held its first interfaith World Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi.

Since I was born in 1987, there has been no time where there has not been a major conflict of some kind. Maybe not a War in the proper sense, but surely much combat and much killing. Every year since then has been inching us closer and closer to what seems to be another gigantic world conflict. To be clear, I have never seen Peace in my life.

It is not that we the people want this conflict, it is that we the people are addicted to it. We cannot avoid it because the drug has a complete hold on our current world order. As Marilyn Manson famously sang, "I don't like the drugs, but the drugs likes me."

At this point, I am at a loss as to what we can do. Since 2001 we have not seen any alleviation in the conflict. What does it mean when we remove troops from Afghanistan but allow private military contractors to stay? What does it mean when we aren't at war with Pakistan but murder hundreds of their civilians with drones? What does it mean when we have killed Osama bin Laden but the problem with Muslim extremism seems worse, not better?

At this point, the only solution I can think of to this drug addiction is an intervention.

Pacem in Terris, though 50 years old, calls for something poignant. It asks us not to achieve Peace on Earth through arms, but through negotiations. How in the world could we ever do that?

In all seriousness, I really don't know. But I think we ought to try. Last week, Switzerland offered to help with negotiations in the escalating North Korean crisis. South Korea just a few days ago assessed the situation as a vital concern, but there are still basically no talks of peace. Merely, we are told prepare for conflict. War is Coming.

April 11 is the day not only Pacem in Terris was released, but it is also the day Kim Jong-un finally assumed his post in North Korea. I only wish we could all follow the spirit of 50 years ago rather than that of one year ago.

The problem is not one which can just be solved with good sentiments or good vibrations alone. Yes, if we followed the spirit of 50 years ago and, as they said, "give peace a chance," we would all be better off. But that's a dream. It's a dream for people to imagine but not experience. We are stuck in the reality of War and, as it's also said, War is Hell.

Let's pretend for a moment that April 11 doesn't have to be a day where we engage in conflict with Kim Jong-un. Let's pretend for a moment we didn't have this problem.

April 11, 1954 was considered the most boring day in 50 years in its time. April 11, 1970 is the day Apollo 13 was launched. April 11, 1976 is the day the Apple I was created. And above all, April 11, 1968 is the day President Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act.

April 11 can instead be a historic day which preserves the notion of peace over war and instead promotes our development of technology and discover, even in times of turmoil and instability. Why, then, is this April 11 another day like every other where we are threatened with an advancement of war?

Because War is a drug. We are addicted. And like addicts, we always want more. And when we get more, we realize that's not enough. And when we run out of what's not enough, we start to hurt not only ourselves until we figure out how to resolve our fix, but we also start to hurt others.

This needs to stop. Regardless of your nation, regardless of your affiliation, Peace is a goal which all humans desire. It is a universal myth which all cultures wish for. Catholic mystic Raimon Panikkar says Peace is the symbol that all religions, all creeds, and all philosophies are ultimately aimed at. I agree with him.

The question is, then, can we get there? Not without an intervention.

We need to carefully reflect, as all addicts do, on what the cause of our addiction is. It is not out-of-control dictators like Kim Jong-un. It is not terrorist cells like the Taliban. It is not that Russia or China are communists and Americans are capitalists. It is that when we look at our neighbor we do not see ourselves. It is that when we look at ourselves we do not see our God. It is that when we look at our God we do not see Love.

Pacem in Terris is not impossible. We can have Peace on Earth. I am sure of it.

I believe with my whole Heart that we can have Peace not only in some time but in our time. We just have to really want it. The question I ask you, and I ask all addicts, do you really want it? Do you really want restful peace from this addiction? Or do you just like to say you want to stop but actually just want another drop, another squeeze, another hit?

The problem of War is not merely external. The problem of War is also internal. We are in conflict not only with each other, but with ourselves. We hate everything inside and outside our whole being because we have separated ourselves from the Source. Surely, I am not a peaceful person. Like the rest of us, I too am addicted to conflict. My Heart is the battleground of the Apocalypse.

So in order to have Pacem in Terris, we need to also have pax in corde meo, Peace in my Heart.

All one can say, and hopefully you will agree, is if you want to make the world a better place, take a look at yourself and then make that change. Start with the man in the mirror. He is desperately seeking an intervention.

Perhaps someday 1963 and 1986 can repeat themselves, but it seems since 1987 all the way through 2013 we have had nothing but chaos. Hopefully someday we can make that change and intervene, bringing about a new order of the world in which Pacem in Terris is not a fantasy but an established fact. There will come a time, when we heed that certain call. And come together as One.

This April 11, I hate to say, is not that day. Just... one... more... hit...

...then I'll quit. I swear to God.

Last year, Snoop Dogg announced his new persona starting with his own Reincarnation. He was no longer going to be the rabble-rousing gangster rapper, but a Rastafarian with a new message. Snoop Lion is here to spread the message of Love over Hate.

Yeah, it seems funny, doesn't it? What in the world is going on here? Snoop Dogg becoming a Rastafarian and totally changing his image? It's strange at first glance.

But if you want to understand, watch this video. It is the trailer to the film released in New York last week and coming out this week in a few more places. It explains his motivations. And I have to say... I'm with him.

I grew up with Snoop Doggy Dogg. He and I have been acquainted for a long time. Like the rest of you, I was introduced to Snoop through The Chronic. This was, and still is, one of my favorite albums ever made. But rightfully so, it's criticized for glorifying the gangster culture. It glorifies drugs, violence, and death--perhaps in ways that are unbecoming.

My younger self didn't care. I thought it was great. I still do! And so do a lot of others. It's a classic and Snoop Dogg is undoubtedly one of the most influential rappers of all time. So why the change?

Like he says, he needed a new path.

Sure, some are going to criticize him saying this is for attention or to reinvigorate a dying career. Maybe they're right. But what of it? Snoop Dogg is becoming Snoop Lion, with or without your approval.

His first single "LaLa" wasn't much I was in to. Earlier this year, though, he released "Here Comes the King". I found this song significantly better, and also extremely telling. If you listen to the lyrics you will hear some very interesting things. Here is the chorus:

We're at War with an Army of Haters
And When We Kill Them We Just Smoke Them Like Papers
Somebody Get Me My Crown, Cuz I'm Feeling it Now
You Might be a Lord... but Here Comes the King.

The bigger theme of the song is a call to Unity. Beyond all distinction of religion and faith, Snoop calls out to those listening, "so if you hear me come and join the Revolution."

Before we go on, let's dwell a little bit longer on Snoop's transformation. He said last year he is the reincarnation of Bob Marley. Interestingly, Marley died ten years after Snoop was born. How exactly can that work? Obviously it can't. Not in the way we think about reincarnation anyway.

The way Snoop is using the word "reincarnated" is to be born-again. It is a time in a person's life when they shed a shell of an old self and make way for a new self. Though Snoop is sure to acknowledge the fact he is still Snoop Dogg, he is also now Snoop Lion, the new reincarnated self.

This is a very interesting concept because it is basic to many of the world's religions. It is not that you literally die and come back to life in a new body, but that your being can become. It is granting change in process. Allotting a sense of novelty to what already exists. By no means appealing to cheap-tricks and gimmicks, this reincarnation is something of an awakening to the New in you. A power perhaps unknown but surely present within you.

Palingenesia (or Palingenesis) is the Greek term we use for this in Christianity. This concept is one which classifies a spiritual rebirth. The word itself is comprised of two more basic ideas you may already be familiar with. Palin, meaning "again", and Genesia, meaning "birth" or "beginning".

In ancient Athens there was a festival to celebrate the concept of genesia through the Cult of Nemesia (Nemesis). This festival was to 'avert the nemesis of the dead' in order that they could steer away the suffering or punishment of the living. The Cult of Nemesia was later associated with Fortuna in Imperial Rome. The all-powerful Nemesia-Fortuna was worshiped by the Freemen of Hadrian and was considered to have a dual-nature about her.

The goddess Nemesia, very basically, is the Spirit of Retribution against one's own arrogance before the gods. Because she had this dual-nature, being both fortune and retribution, the Cults would celebrate in her honor to make sure they did not face her fury and could indeed have the gifts of fortune bestowed upon them. In many cases, she was worshiped by generals and gladiators who would pray for strength in combat. But surely this was not all.

This dual-nature in Nemesia is something which seems to me symbolic of our human nature. We have this spirit of fortune but also this spirit of retribution within us. At least I do.

Another movie is opening more widely this weekend which has a similar theme: Spring Breakers. Have you heard about it? It's getting a lot of attention. It came out in NYC last weekend and I saw it last Friday. I'll be perfectly honest, it's my favorite movie of the year so far. Why? It looks like "trash for humpers," right?! Wrong.

I don't want to spoil it for you, but if any movie powerfully analyzes the so-called culture of death, it's this one. It stars four young girls (such as Disney Princesses Selena Gomez and Venessa Hudgens), alongside James Franco and Gucci Mane, in a fateful series of events leading them to question their identity, fidelity, and potential for good or evil. I highly suggest you see it without letting the advertising sway you one way or another. In my estimation, it's a lot more like Requiem for a Dream than it is like American Pie.

There's an interesting scene in the movie when Alien (James Franco) is talking about his self-perception growing up. He reflected on how some kids wanted to be doctors, or the President, or do this or that... but he didn't want any of those things. He reveled in being bad, and he says point-blank, "some people would say they want to do the right thing," and with a big smile finishes, "well... I wanted to do the wrong thing."

This struck a powerful chord in me. Like Nemesia-Fortuna, I have always felt this dual split in my own identity. Sometimes I do the right thing, but oftentimes I do the wrong thing. To be perfectly honest, I don't really feel bad about doing the "wrong" thing. In fact, I frequently think about how much I loved doing the wrong thing. Who is the judge of what's right and wrong, anyway? As far as I am concerned, they were just haters.

To most people I talk to, good and evil is black and white. They are really very sure what's right and what's wrong. Things like murder and theft are evil under all circumstances. But I've always had a hard time following this line of thought. I'm almost always occupying the Grey space. I can't help but see the good and evil in all things. And surely, this is not to say I'm right about this, just to say this is how I see it.

But when I heard about Snoop Dogg's reincarnation I couldn't help but feel it was quite similar to the way I think about my own life all of the time. Though I personally see an underlying consistency to my narrative, I'm frequently told by people who know this or that version of "me" how much I've changed over the years. Not always in a good or bad way, just that I'm frequently different than they remember me being. Does this happen to you? I bet for some of you it does. Though surely for some of you it doesn't.

My Mother and Sister made me a photo album when I turned 18 called "The Many Heads of Ted" to highlight the vast difference in appearance I had throughout my life until that point. It's now become something of a metaphor in my thinking of myself. About the many times I have reincarnated over the years. Being this and becoming that.

In 2003 I created two pseudonyms for myself. One I called a Cyborg, the other was a King. This was for various uses online--which are unimportant for this discussion--but this dichotomy is very relevant when I think about Nemesia-Fortuna. One was a created being, never born, never alive... literally, dead. The other was a champion of the good life and well-being. Neither was raised above the other, they were two characters of the same big idea. And I've always felt at various times in my life I am either one or the other, but ultimately I am always both.

Snoop's palingenesia is something you should be mindful of if you are unhappy on your path. You can always reinvent yourself. His latest single is called "No Guns Allowed". He says this is the most powerful song he has because it speaks to right now. He believes his message is to make guns uncool and to hopefully save one or two "crazy" people from doing something stupid. This, as you're probably realizing, is a far cry from the Snoop Dogg of the 90's who was in fact arrested for Murder.

I think, whether you agree or not, this is a noble pursuit. He is letting everyone know that no matter who you are, where you're from, or even what you did, as long as you Love over Hate. Perhaps you cannot relate because all your life you've been one thing and never the other. But if you can relate to Snoop and have been one thing only to become another, then his message should resonate. You should join us.

We live in a World where men like Anders Breivik, Jaimie Holmes, Adam Lanza, and whoever is coming next will murder, on mass, because they feel that's who they are and that's the path they are on. Their message is strong and it is violent. Perhaps you dismiss them as "crazy" (which I don't think Snoop meant) because you personally can't relate. You maybe can't understand that mindset because there's nothing in your life driving your narrative in that way. Surely, you can call them evil and then say we should regulate guns, but it really is not that simple. If you do not know what the darkness feels like, it would be best for you not to Lord it over others.

Regulating evil doesn't change the fact it is present. It's deeply rooted not only in these individuals, but it's present in the wider culture and the spirit of our time--really, in all time. Hate is something you can't just dismiss as something to be avoided. It can't be avoided. It's everywhere, all around us. Just like Love.

Snoop's song says it well, "We're at War with an Army of Haters." Do you understand what he means? He doesn't mean just sit back and hope for the best, he means spread that message of Peace and Love as far and wide as you possibly can. If you can even stop one person from reincarnating as Hate and turn them towards the path of Love you are doing your job. As simple as it may seem, Miley Cyrus' banner answers the call: "An Army of Lovers Cannot Lose".

Ultimately, I really appreciate what Snoop is doing. Being Snoop Dogg and becoming Snoop Lion, his reincarnation or palingenesia is paying mind to both the dead and the living. This isn't asking you to throw away your dark side, it's asking you to own it. To master it. He is playing both sides of the coin and in the end asking us to take up arms against Hate. But to do this, he asks we follow one simple rule: No Guns Allowed. We can win the fight by Love alone and it seems he believes that's true. I know I do. You have to look inside yourself. You have to take the higher path. Become the King or Queen that you are.

I know most of you are fighting the good fight. But in the off-chance you aren't, I hope you will appreciate what's going on here. It can't be stopped. "So if you hear me, come and join the R[evol]ution."

While many feel positively towards the fact Pope Francis I is of Latin American descent, they are disappointed he is still opposed to gay marriage, gay adoption, abortion, and is not totally friendly on contraception. Amongst other things, they were hoping for someone more progressive. A friend of mine said, tongue-in-cheek, to a group of people rabble-rousing about the selection: "yes, it's amazing they'd choose a Catholic as the Pope."

Yesterday was the start of CPAC 2013. Every year for the last forty years the Conservative Political Action Conference brings the rising stars and established voices in the conservative movement.

This year it's an onslaught of all the major characters: Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Allen West, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, Donald Trump, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush and many others (including, maybe unsurprisingly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu).

I bet most of you are reading that list and are horrified. As it has been noted many times in the last news cycle, this is a specifically far-right-of-center group. And, most importantly, it has specifically avoided an invitation to notable "conservative" Republicans like Chris Christie and John McCain. This does not surprise me. If you have been following the conservative movement you should know that the times are changing.

While there are many shades to these speakers coming to CPAC, one thing is consistent: they're all Christians (with the obvious exception). Not only this, they hold many of the same Christian values. Namely, they are pro-life, pro-family, and aren't afraid to use God-talk to fundamentally support their public values. Beyond this, the "American" Love of Liberty is so deeply bound up with these values that it is hard to keep them separated.

Of course, these terms are loaded. Anyone who studies religious behavior and ideology can tell you it is always more nuanced than the generic conversation would have you believe. But over the next two days we are going to see a very present, very vocal hurrah for the "Gospel of Life".

What is that?

Archbishop of New York, Cardinal Timothy Dolan in his book True Freedom: On Protecting Human Dignity and Religious Liberty outlines two broad cultural impulses occurring in America today: the Gospel of Life and the Culture of Death.

He holds that the Culture of Death stands with three legs: pragmatism, utilitarianism, and consumerism. He says these are fancy vocabulary words for "the passionate drives for having and doing". He gives the example of a baby being born. What raw pragmatic, consumerist, or utilitarian use does a baby have? Very little (not withstanding what it develops into). He believes the Culture of Death has rejected the most basic law in Christianity: the Law of Gift, which is the Law of Love.

Against the Culture of Death, he suggests being versus having; solidarity against consumerism; and most importantly, the Law of Gift over the Law of Survival (which he says is synonymous with selfishness). This Culture of Death versus the Gospel of Life is a dialectic which was presented by Pope John Paul II and, according to Cardinal Dolan, is foundational in the American public square today.

Now at this point, I'm wondering what you're thinking. Is what he's saying bothering you?

Many "progressives" I know are appalled by the rhetoric on the right, especially from the noted pundits above. They find them abrasive and, if I might say it like this, flat-out wrong. To them, it's obvious gay marriage is right. It's obvious pro-choice is better than pro-life. As both of these concepts promote equality--in their eyes.

Cardinal Dolan discusses abortion at some length in that book, but even more-so in another booked called A People of Hope. In True Freedom he gives the opinion that under the current laws there is more that threatens an unborn baby than protects it. He gives the information that in the City of New York 40% of all pregnancies end in abortion, and the rate for non-Hispanic blacks is upwards of 60%.

The basic premise in True Freedom is a need for a moral law underlying basic public policy and of course human interaction. In A People of Hope he discusses his position on what's called "Affirmative Orthodoxy". He believes that responding positively in relation to the beliefs of the Catholic tradition is more helpful than defending against the negativity.

What does he mean? An example of this is... "why don't Catholics believe the choice [to abort a baby] should be up to the Mother?" To which an Affirmative Orthodox response would be, "actually, Catholics believe XYZ" on the matter. To reposition and message a response not to appear defensive but actually positive and uplifting.

Now of course, this is a matter of opinion. This is not something that can be said to be objectively positive. But this is precisely what Cardinal Dolan is trying to break into the cultural conversation. A re-framing of the Catholic Mind to know, in fact, what it stands for. To not be afraid to say, against the so-called Culture of Death, that a Catholic does not believe it is morally tenable for 60% of potential  births to end in abortion for XYZ reasons.

He believes the moral law is, in fact, objective. This is how we can stay away from what Ayn Rand called the Cult of Moral Greyness. There is a black and white answer to what is good and evil. To Dolan, the answer is clear: the Gospel of Life is greater than the Culture of Death.

Personally, I don't know what to make of that information. I really don't know how to evaluate the problem of abortion in the world today. I see a lot of problems arising from overpopulation and global poverty, but simultaneously I agree with Dolan that there are major moral crises at work and it isn't merely too many people causing the problem. Generally, I try to stay out of it. I have friends and family who have gotten abortions and while I do not judge them, I am still unsure how it makes me feel. I suppose in a way I am indifferent.

What I'm trying to highlight here is the importance of self-understanding. While so many people I know view this right-wing ideology as anti-progressive they surely do not see themselves this way. They view themselves as, well... progressive! What makes you so sure you are right and they are wrong?

If you are committed to real dialogue across ethical boundaries then you really have to be aware of self-understanding. You cannot project an enemy onto the other no matter how far removed they are from your own worldview. Too many people I am friends or colleagues with do this, especially in relation to those who are opposed to gay marriage or opposed to abortion. They are so sure their position will be the victor in history that it seems to them the other side may as well be vanquished as it's just holding the rest of the world up.

If Pope Francis I's election is any indication, the global conversation is very different than the limitations of American "conservatism" and "progressivism". The African and Latin American Church, according to CNN's Vatican correspondent John L. Allen (and co-author of A People of Hope) describes how the global South is on the Rise. This is not a group nearly as invested in the same tendencies as American progressives as they simply don't have the same access to the same things. Planned Parenthood? Doesn't exist. At least not in the same ways it does here.

Needless to say, their positions may be very different than your own. To assume they are uninformed or unenlightened merely because they do not mirror your position is indeed a fatal flaw of any accurate worldview.

Self-understanding is hugely important in interpreting the world at large. Think about it. How do you understand yourself? Surely, positively! Well, maybe not surely, but usually even when I meet someone morose or self-effacing it is in some sort of egotistical way (and don't get me wrong, I think we are all egotistical). Self-understanding of another requires deep empathy with your own self, as you are the only one you can truly empathize with.

If you are unable to recognize the other is acting with as much surety as you are, then you will be unable to engage them in any way. Affirmative Orthodoxy is actually a very helpful tool for engagement across deep ethical divides. It asks you to define yourself positively rather than defensively. What do you believe? Don't let me put words into your mouth; don't let me frame your worldview for you; tell me and I will listen!

This is a big problem I see in the world today. People, including myself, are often unable to listen because we are too busy talking. G.K. Chesterton was once asked what the worst problem in the world was, and he replied, "I am". Why? Because he wouldn't shut up.

Now I love Chesterton, so I'm quite glad he didn't shut up and left copious amounts of writing so we can sift through his thoughts, but I see his point very well. Too often we fall into the trap of being so sure we have defined the "other" accurately that we create straw-men to set fire to with the flick of a match. Do you have no empathy? Do you like it when someone creates a caricature of your own worldview? If you don't, why do you do that in response?

Ask yourself truly, do you define the other fairly? To Judge is to Know... so I ask you to Judge with a measure of Mercy. All in their highest ideals, look above so you can move below.

Instead of criticizing Pope Francis I for not being this or that, why don't you instead try to understand how he might view himself? Why is he squarely situated in this Gospel of Life against what he believes is the Culture of Death? Are you so sure you understand either of these concepts so that you can say "I am one and not the other"?

The Grey in-between which Ayn Rand wrote against is a space I find myself occupying more often than not. Sadly, this confuses most people I speak to and they make snap judgments about my thinking. Characterizing it as this or that when it is actually this and that! So I can say from my own experience I wish people were more willing to listen, less willing to judge without that measure of mercy, and ready to engage positively like Cardinal Dolan is suggesting.

This is not to say we will all agree, but it is to say we are at least willing to respect each other. I hope you will listen to what Pope Francis I has to say without being so sure you already knows what he means. I also hope when you hear the speakers at CPAC over the next few days you do the same thing. Don't be so sure.

Listen. To me, this is foundational in the true Law which Cardinal Dolan and I agree is Love. There is real freedom in listening and real freedom in being quiet. Sometimes it's best to just sit still and let it be.

Don't you hope people really listen when you speak? I hope you do the same. But in the end, do as you will.

One, a group from the West, and another, a group from the East, answered very differently. The children raised in the West answered by pointing to the sky. The children raised in the East pointed to their Heart.

It is no secret that religious affiliation is changing worldwide.  The media likes to tout the phenomenon being called the Rise of the Nones. The new religion in the room is not a religion at all. It's a lack of one.

While many perceive this to be a rise in atheism, that's a little too simple. The unaffiliated come in as many shades of grey as there are on the spectrum. Ranging from atheist to mystic spiritualist there is a wide variety of new religious experience.

I am a "None" myself. Though culturally Christian, it's hard for me to claim the title. I was baptized in the ultra-liberal United Church of Christ, but my sister and I were raised to be secular. My grandfather is a self-described humanist and frequently claims to be an atheist. My two grandmothers are Congregational and Lutheran respectively. My parents are indifferent. The only one who actually goes to Church is my grandfather... so he can sing.

I stopped attending my Church at age 13. We were Easter-Christmas Christians before that. Sometimes we would go on the occasional Sunday and at various times in my life our attendance ranged from semi-frequent to not at all. But by the time I was to be confirmed, I had practically no interest. I found it to be mostly a waste of time, especially considering the limitations of it being one single religion.

My early education was at a very small Montessori school which had a heavy dose of the history of religion. By first grade I had been taught about Zoroastrianism, the Norse, Egyptian, and Greek pantheons, and the teachings of the Buddha. That is not to say I understood them, just that I was aware they existed. My education in religion was strong in basically everything but Christianity.

When confirmation started I was unruly. I felt like I had to one-up our Pastor and show her that our UCC tradition was limited and confined. Why was she so sure Christianity was the faith for me? Why was she so sure it was the faith for anyone? I was not convinced she had the authority to teach me on matters of faith when it seemed to me she herself was totally unaware of the broader religious proclivities of human beings worldwide.

At age 13, I felt I knew everything there was to know about religion. Though I never doubted the existence of God, I was sure that religion was a tool for human development. It was not ever true in the sense we think of Truth. But rather, it was whatever that culture needed at the time to lift themselves up further and further out of the darkness. I had no interest in Christianity because to me, Christianity was the worst tool of them all.

Myth was the basis of the Christian religion, not true revelation. I did not believe Jesus literally was the Son of God, born of a Virgin, or raised from the dead after the crucifixion. I still don't. But at that point it was not a much studied position, but a reaction to what I saw around me.

Like many in my generation losing their religion, I saw the vast injustices perpetuated in the name of Christianity. The more I learned about history, the more I thought it was prevalent throughout all time. This was not just our generation having to deal with their bigotry, but all generations before us. I thought it was absurd that the Vatican could be so rich while our brothers in the Horn of Africa starve to death daily. I thought it was absurd American politicians could invoke the name of Jesus to spread lies about AIDS. I thought it was absurd that Christians pretended to be friendly to Jews when all throughout history they raped and displaced them. Basically, I was an anti-Christian. And I assure you, I am not the only one.

"My religion" was lost. If it was ever there, I had no intention of keeping it. But before I left my Church, "my religion" was complicated and compromised. In 1999 my grandfather did a genealogy project and it turned out that our Dutch ancestry wasn't Dutch at all, but German Jews. While not "Jews" religiously, we were Jewish enough to have several members of our family killed in the Holocaust just a few generations before me. Needless to say, this was the straw that broke the camel's back. I was not merely Christian, not even culturally.

By 2000 I had sworn off Christianity all together. I was going to begin a new spiritual quest outside the boundaries of tradition. Anything goes. If it exists and I could relate to it, it was mine to claim.

Like I said before, I never doubted the existence of God. This may in fact be the big difference between the multitude of Nones I know personally and myself. Many, with good reason, are going through a spiritual crisis. In fact, many of them doubt the existence of God and more importantly doubt the existence of their own Soul. This is not a crisis I shared. I was more interested in defining myself by what I believe rather than what I disbelieve.

That said, this shift is very real. I would say that the majority of my friends are practical atheists. By this I mean they either are self-defined atheists who, in fact, reject religion (and by extension God) and are adamant about this rejection. Or they are atheistic in that they simply have no religion, no interest, and do not think or talk about it. The former is the kind purported by someone like Richard Dawkins; the latter by someone like Neil deGrasse Tyson. I am indifferent as to which is better or worse. They both seem like reasonable responses given the circumstances and I'm glad both kinds exist.

Many Nones I'm meeting lately, however, are like me. They do not necessarily reject the God-concept. They plausibly follow Francis Bacon and see an essential unity to the world's religions, and find that secondary causes are insufficient in explaining the universe. Materiality is fine, but it doesn't get to the heart of... well, the Soul.

It reminds me of the song Keep the Faith by Michael Jackson. He says:

If You Call Out Loud / Will It Get Inside / Through The Heart Of Your Surrender / To Your Alibis / And You Can Say The Words / Like You Understand / But The Power's In Believing / So Give Yourself A Chance / 'Cause You Can / Climb The Highest Mountain / Swim The Deepest Sea, Hee / All You Need Is The Will To Want It / And Uhh, Little Self-Esteem

So Keep the Faith!

The song has always been one of my favorites. King Michael and I go back as long as I can remember. He has been a hero of mine since I was a small child. Say what you will about his character, but his words are more wise than people realize.

But this particular song is good because it is encouraging you to look at the movement of the Soul inwardly. Many people who want "proof" of God or of the Soul are particularly concerned with external proofs. They want to see evidence that God or the Soul exist by way of justifying the miracles taught in religions, by extreme acts of interference by God (i.e. healing the sick, feeding the poor, etc.), or by some sort of measurable quantity we can define as the "soul" or "God". To me, this misses the point.

In my view, a good way of thinking is the Cartesian one: I am. God is. That's it. I think by looking inwardly at your own personality you recognize that, like Schleiermacher said, you can see a total dependence on being-itself. This whole experience you're having is predicated on something far beyond yourself or humanity or Earthly life. And it's not merely "science" or secondary causes... truly, it's beyond being.

The way in which we can understand something like this, in my opinion, is movement in the Heart. Like the Indian children described in The Sacred Cosmos, I think you have to point yourself in that direction. Don't look at the sky, but look in your Heart.

I've believed this since I was fairly young. This isn't 'wisdom' I'm trying to impart to you; it's simply what I believe and I would say was disposed to believing through my upbringing and education. Surely, not original thinking at all. But to me it always broke my heart that Christianity seemed so far removed from the concepts of inner spirituality. At least... until I started studying it!

Now here's the kicker... I never really gave Christianity a fair shake. And I suspect many of my fellow Nones haven't either. It seemed that everything else, including atheism, was fair game and a valid approach to the "Problem of God". Christianity was the one religion with which I had serious problems and it was because I felt like it was forced upon me. Honestly, it really wasn't. It was merely the circumstances to which I was born and I was disposed to it in only one facility, namely the Church.

But I think I've made it clear, Church isn't the limit or end of Christian religious activity. Especially if you believe in the motion of the Soul. If every human is naturally endowed with a Soul and that Soul has the potential for growth towards and away from its own divine perfection, surely Church is not the key to its salvation or justification or development or anything like that. King Michael says is it's the power of belief. I agree with him.

Of course you can be a skeptic and look for external proofs of measurement and that's fine by me, but I don't look at it like that. Some may say that's wishful thinking, or not using "reason" (surely, you've heard that one before), but I disagree.

Christianity, as I began to study it more seriously, was just as rich and involved as every other faith tradition in the world. In fact, all of the things I loved about the Egyptian myths, the teachings of the Buddha, or the cosmology of the ancients, I could find right there in Christianity if I looked hard enough. That isn't to conflate any of their elements, or disregard any of the unique characteristics of the Christian tradition, but to say that I saw more of what I "believe" in Christianity than what I disbelieved for the very first time.

I fell in love with Origen of Alexandria, Empress Theodora of Byzantium, Hildegarde de Bingen, Albertus Magnus, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and many, many others. They were exactly what I was looking for. They had rich theologies, rich histories involved in the development of the tradition and the faith. I realized that I had been looking at the religion in the wrong light. There is more to Christianity than meets the eye. Appearances can be deceiving.

Recently, in a class I am taking on St. Paul the Apostle and the Buddha our teaching fellow reflected on a comment she had heard from the Dalai Lama some time ago. He said that Christians should remain Christians "if they can stomach it." Of course, this is paraphrased, but his point was that we in the West have incarnated this way because of our Karmic disposition. It was not something to be rejected in favor of what's more exotic, but to be embraced as our cultural basis.

This was a striking comment because it is exactly how I've been feeling over the last 7 years as I study Christian theology in the Academy or Seminary.  And historically it's precisely characters like the Dalai Lama (who I actually got to see speak on Mother's Day 2011) that helped me reconcile and create a new accountancy of "my religion". I agree with him. I am who I am, and Christianity is a big part of that. I hate to say it, but there's really no such thing as a "None".

Ultimately, all I want to say is the same thing as King Michael: Keep the Faith. You really don't know where it will lead you. You might find yourself a Buddhist, you might find yourself an atheist, or perhaps you'll find yourself exactly where you started: a Christian. The spiritual quest is a life-long love affair with faith, the ultimate concern. To be sure, I believe there is no one religion higher than Truth.

For many, it's precisely where you start that ends up being the problem. If you want to begin solving the Mystery, turn your eyes away from the sky and as Albertus says, "fix thy gaze upon thy Heart." You might be surprised as you begin to find what you lost in the first place.

I had only just turned five years old some weeks before this. It was before I had entered kindergarten, which occurred the next Fall. Still in pre-school, I was not really taught much about the outside world. We were taught lessons about numbers, letters, sharing, and most importantly, caring. But we weren't taught much about the social structures or problems which faced us in the years to come.

All that said, there is one particular issue that definitely caught my attention: Rodney King and the 1992 L.A. Riots.

On March 3, 1991, the world caught a glimpse of multiple LAPD officers brutally beating King nearly to a pulp. This grisly attack was terrifying to watch and, at that age, wholly confusing.

While the media frequently portrayed young black men as terrorizing hoodlums, they simultaneously cast cops as heroes. The show COPS was an early influence. Launching in 1989 the show has been syndicated worldwide presenting a caricature of American criminality. Be it from drug addicts, wife abusers, or general disturbers of the peace, the Cops are always here to stop, frisk, and capture the bad boys.

But Rodney King proved that situation wrong. Very clearly, in fact. I remember hearing the news stations talking about it but not really minding the facts, I was more concerned about the video. Many cops beating an unarmed man nearly to death. Why?

The incident itself began the night before. It started with a high-speed chase, resulted in a confrontation, ultimately leading to what we saw on the video. There is no denying that King had provoked the incident in some ways, as he was trying to escape from the police. In fact, King provoked them further when he got out of his car and made provocative gestures not only to the immediate officers but the chopper flying in the sky.

What followed, and was recorded, was the beating of an unarmed man. He was struck 33 times, including six swift kicks to the body, by a swarm of police officers both men and women. This is what sparked an outrage nationwide shedding light on a very real problem: police brutality.

While we are led to believe that the police are here to protect us, it's hard not to be intimidated by the force when you know exactly what they're capable of. Corruption in the LAPD is not much of a secret anymore. I'm sure you followed the situation we had last month with Christopher Dorner, who was willing to sacrifice his life and the life of other cops specifically to bring more light to this big problem. Sadly, he was burned out of his hide-out, Waco style.

Corruption, in 2013, is obvious. We hear about it all of the time. It's really no secret. But in 1991 it was far less known. And that is precisely why in 1992 there were gigantic riots on the street of Los Angeles. Bradley Nowell of Sublime, from the song first referred to above, says it well: "it wasn't about Rodney King. It was about this [X] situation and these [X] police." Like the LAPD, he wanted to let it burn.

Rodney King was, like Trayvon Martin, a symbol of a bigger problem. Racial profiling, police brutality, the corruption in the LAPD and other large police units, and of course broader injustices found in impoverished areas that simply don't take place otherwise. To me, however, the problem was trust.

Like I said, I was only 5 years old when the riots in Los Angeles broke out. But I was 4 when the tape was released. I was just a very young boy. And it forever imprinted on my mind that the police are not to be trusted. In fact, I remember most of my life not only feeling distrust but a deeply rooted anger towards them. Anyone I ever saw, regardless of their position.

When I went to Kindergarten the following Fall I was introduced to someone you may also know: Officer Friendly. He came to our school to tell us all about how the police protected us and how we should be friends with them, help them as much as we can, and obey the law because it is good for us. Basically, he wanted us to trust him. He took our fingerprints and let us ask him questions. I remember wanting to ask him about King but I didn't. Needless to say, the whole time he was there I could not help but feel angry. Why was he lying to us? I knew the truth. He was violent and not to be trusted.

The sad fact is that Officer Friendly in Saint Paul, Minnesota actually is quite friendly. Especially at the predominately white school I went to. Chances are, if something ever happened to me Officer Friendly would probably be there to help me. In time I learned that I was casting the same shadow on the cops that I thought the cops were casting on my fellow citizens.

The problem of trust is theological. Because trust is, in my estimation, deeply connected to the problem of Love and of Justice. Reinhold Niebuhr says that Justice is the public form of Love. He does not believe an over-ideal or over-ethic like Love can ever be attained in the social sphere without Justice first. Personally, I don't believe we can have justice without trust.

What exactly is Justice without trust? To me, it seems like another form of violence. Someone's justice is most certainly another's injustice. Justice seems to be aimed at a restitution of differences. Someone feels something has happened which deserves compensation of some kind and, in their eyes, reconciliation is to be found through the arm of Justice. But I am unsure if that's really the best way of approaching it. I think a more basic form of trust is necessary to the equation, or else the difference will perpetuate itself.

What do I mean by this? When we cast an enemy, be it Cop or Hood, we set them as someone we simply do not trust. Not only should they be brought to justice, but they should be punished. We want to punish them because we want them never to forget their mistake and, in effect, never do it again. It isn't really even about 'injustice' per se, but about a deep mistrust of that social stereotype. Sometimes we are on the receiving end and other times we are on the giving end.

Sadly, in King's situation we did not see anyone brought to justice and the situation of distrust has been perpetuated even further. The cops all got off basically scot-free. This is precisely what set off the 1992 riots in the City of Los Angeles. People were outraged that after such clear evidence of injustice the cops could play the justice system like a violin.

I see this problem growing since 1992, not getting better. Not only is Dorner's escapade a perfect example, but so is the Occupy Movement. Living in New York, and particularly at Union Seminary, our dose of Occupy Wall Street is heavy. While there are certainly those who want reconciliation, see the police's life struggle as one in the same, there are also those who would rather sing the gangster national anthem: [X] the Police.

To be honest, this is one of my all-time favorite songs.

It's hard not to feel this way when arrests happen in droves, when there are examples of cops beating protesters just like King, when there is evidence that cops have planted scandalous devices amongst the crew to stir up trouble, and other things of this nature. Not only this, but the FBI has recently come out saying they treated Occupy like an internal terrorist organization. As someone who has in fact been to these protests, I find that all quite silly and probably unnecessary. But only time will tell on that front...

Joseph Campbell used to say the myth of our time is Man versus the Machine. We portray this story all of the time in our various movies, music, art, books, etc. It is deeply ingrained in our minds. The myth, I think, is a positive one. It usually results in Man overcoming the Machine and ultimately fulfilling his destiny as being free and good. In reality, however, it seems like this is far from the case.

People look at the police as an extension of the Machine. They do not look at the police as real men and women who, themselves, are also part of the battle against the Machine. But there is one difference that needs to be observed and made clear: Officer Friendly has a license to Kill. You don't.

I recall Morpheus' wise words:

The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

Ultimately, how can we trust someone who has just cause to kill you should you present yourself hostile or threatening in their eyes? You simply cannot. They will always be someone you cannot trust under most circumstances. Eazy-E said it well: "My identity by itself causes violence."

Personally, I think Chris Dorner went about it the wrong way. Though I deeply sympathize with his position against the corrupt LAPD forces, he broke the one rule: No guns, no killing. This automatically discredits and disgraces him, in spite of his just cause. Because of this, we could not trust his words and it was easy to paint him as a maniac and a villain.

Instead, I really wish people would take more seriously what King himself had to say in response to the riots in 1992: "can we all just get along?"

He himself reflected he would always be a poster child for police brutality, but thought perhaps we could use his image as a positive force geared towards 'healing' and 'restraint'.  But he also wanted people to know that this sort of brutality is "happening right now... it's just not on film, it's not being recorded." It's happening all of the time.

But time, precisely, is the measurement of healing. He believes that time does in fact heal everything. Sadly, 22 years after the release of the video, I hate to say that it seems he is wrong. At least not yet.

King recalls wisdom he received from his mother, saying: "Vengeance belongs to God. It's up to him to wreak vengeance." At the end of his life he said, "I sometimes feel like I'm caught in a vice. Some people feel like I'm some kind of hero. Others hate me. They say I deserved it. Other people, I can hear them mocking me for when I called for an end to the destruction, like I'm a fool for believing in peace."

It's very sad that one could be mocked for believing in peace. But from my encounters with those who do not see Peace as a viable option not just in time but in OUR time, it's usually because they are not trusting of each other and the ultimate plan.

King's death, like Martin's, will not be forgotten any time soon. We are forced to remember because we have to. We are not yet at the point of Peace because we do not trust each other. We do not see justice as universal reconciliation, but instead a mode of punishment. That is not our place to decide. I agree with King, it's God's alone.

Above all: Who's the Man with the Master Plan?

February is a month dedicated to black history, black pride, and black liberation. It was chosen because it contains the birthdays of both Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass.

This is an interesting point on first glance. Why is a white man one of the sole causes for black history month? Commonly, the answer is related to the Emancipation Proclamation and the broader victory of the Grand Union over the Rebel Confederates. In a way, Lincoln is viewed as a founder of the second chapter of our Republic. He turned the slaves into freedmen and stopped the Southern rebellion.

Last weekend, you may or may not have seen the Academy Awards. Every year, the Oscars attempts to display some of Hollywood's best and brightest films. The most lauded, with twelve nominations, was Stephen Spielberg's Lincoln. This was put out by Participant Media, responsible for some of the best in edutainment, such as An Inconvenient Truth, North Country, and Waiting for Superman.

The studio makes a particular point of finding pictures which are educational or informative yet also commercially viable, or, better put, entertaining. Lincoln is undoubtedly their biggest hit yet. Grossing over $244 million dollars worldwide, it has reached a wide audience. Further than this, Spielberg has recently announced that he will be sending copies of the DVD to middle schools nationwide. This may very well become the most viewed biopic in decades.

This just leaves me with one question: where is Frederick Douglass? It is commonly accepted that Frederick Douglass had an enormous impact on Lincoln. So why is it that Douglass is he who shall not be named?

Friends and fellow citizens, would you kindly allow me to draw your attention to something Douglass said on 14 April 1876? This was a speech given as the memorial for Lincoln's assassination on the same date in 1865. While it is a long, block quote, I think it is worth your time to gain some historical context on both characters:

It must be admitted, truth compels me to admit, even here in the presence of the monument we have erected to his memory, Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man.

He was preeminently the white man’s President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country. In all his education and feeling he was an American of the Americans. He came into the Presidential chair upon one principle alone, namely, opposition to the extension of slavery. His arguments in furtherance of this policy had their motive and mainspring in his patriotic devotion to the interests of his own race. To protect, defend, and perpetuate slavery in the states where it existed Abraham Lincoln was not less ready than any other President to draw the sword of the nation. He was ready to execute all the supposed guarantees of the United States Constitution in favor of the slave system anywhere inside the slave states. He was willing to pursue, recapture, and send back the fugitive slave to his master, and to suppress a slave rising for liberty, though his guilty master were already in arms against the Government. The race to which we belong were not the special objects of his consideration. Knowing this, I concede to you, my white fellow-citizens, a pre-eminence in this worship at once full and supreme. First, midst, and last, you and yours were the objects of his deepest affection and his most earnest solicitude. You are the children of Abraham Lincoln. We are at best only his step-children; children by adoption, children by forces of circumstances and necessity. To you it especially belongs to sound his praises, to preserve and perpetuate his memory, to multiply his statues, to hang his pictures high upon your walls, and commend his example, for to you he was a great and glorious friend and benefactor.

Strangely, this sentiment reminds me of a strong theme coursing through Union's Systematic Theology 103 (ST103). Taught by James Cone, it is an imperative of the class to highlight the character and nature of the broader traditions informing liberation theology. Moving from Immanuel Kant's What is Enlightenment? it follows the line to look at many diverse perspectives in relation to the broad category of liberation. Ultimately, there were two points I took from the course, one of which was from Kant and one of which was from Cone. So what is enlightenment? To Kant, it is to think for one's self. To Cone, it is that, and it is to mind your blindside.

During the course of that semester, someone asked me if I thought 'thinking' was one of the hardest jobs in the world. I said no. I think it's one of the easiest jobs in the world. In fact, it's one of those jobs that only the enormously privileged can ever undertake. And further than this, it seems that many people take this job specifically because of its ease. To me, Kant's point was obvious. As a white male I had been raised all my life to think for myself. That was my birthright. In fact, thinking for one's self is practically synonymous with thinking only about one's self.

The second point, to mind our blindside, is significantly more complicated. What exactly is my blindside? What about my own thinking am I unaware of? If I was aware of what I was unaware of I would be aware of it. It is a hard concept simply because it is dealing exclusively in what you don't know. It is asking you to conceptualize something very difficult: freedom from the known.

To give an example, here is what Cone's blindside was. Throughout his tenure, Cone developed what is famously called "Black Liberation Theology". I am not going to classify exactly what that is, but it historically used African American males as its protagonists and the White Man and, particularly, White Supremacy, as its antagonist. You may remember this from the controversy surrounding Jeremiah Wright and President Barack Obama. What Cone found, however, was that his theology was not necessarily exclusive to white people, but was to African American women!

Very humble and honest about this, Cone acknowledges his theology failed to paint a protagonist of a kind which had been completely unheard from so far. It was not until 1995 when his own student Delores Williams challenged his narrative and wrote Sisters in the Wilderness that we saw a shift towards something completely different: Survival Theology.

This focuses on the simple fact that not only does so-called white theology not address the values of the oppressed people, but it simply isn't speaking to their realities at all. Their reality is not one in which we can 'contemplate' ourselves to higher frames of being, becoming one with reality and so on, but one that is rooted in a deep existential crisis in which people are prey in a hostile and threatening environment. Their only call is to survive.

This theology doesn't speak to my reality. Mine is, in fact, privileged enough where doing theology is about contemplation (read: beatific vision) and directed practice. It is not truly engaged in this sort of crisis of circumstances. But let me tell you this, I see it clear as day.

During that same class there was an interesting question posed to us by Cone: when you leave the front doors of Union, which way do you turn?

To the right we move downtown. First stop, Columbia's main campus. Next stop, Lincoln Center. The stop after that, Time's Square. Head on down Broadway for a good ol' New York night on the town. To the left, however, is Harlem. Increasingly gentrified yet still impoverished and certainly riddled with crime which just isn't seen in the same ways when you take a right. Union is located in what comedian George Carlin famously called "White Harlem," which is also known as Morningside Heights. Hey, at least there's a popular song named after it! Do the Harlem Shake... Con los Terroristas!  As Carlin says, sounds bad!

To be perfectly honest, I usually go right.

But when I don't, there is one thing that stands in my mind the entire time I haunt the streets of Harlem: I am safe. People ask me frequently if I feel safe living in New York. Coming from Minnesota, people have a mental construct of the city in which white people everywhere are getting mugged, pick-pocketed, or worse yet. But that simply isn't the case, at least not to my experience so far. In fact, I feel quite the opposite. I feel as if the NYPD are explicitly looking out for me. Fortunately, the NYPD works for people like me.

Treyvon Martin's death was a tragedy. It is largely being discussed along racial lines and I think ultimately that is a good thing. The problem here, however, is his assailant is not white. That said, he executed Martin while standing guard over a neighborhood of predominantly white people. Why is this important? Because it implicates all white people in a broader problem of racism.

In my estimation, I can sympathize with Zimmerman. It is commonly noted that our media paints a stereotype of the young black male and certainly makes him look threatening. Conditioned over a long period of time, engaged in a culture of protecting white people from this imaginary villain, I can see how someone could make an antagonistic gesture which may have escalated the problem further than it needed to go. Sadly, Martin's life was the Iron price. For our gross manipulation of the dignity of real human beings we sacrificed, once again, another young black child on the altar of racism.

In response to his death, people in New York and other places nationwide protested as the One Million Hoodies. Named after the fact that as Martin was buying Skittles at a convenient store, he was wearing a hooded sweatshirt and that seemed to be enough to start the altercation. Whether that's true to the facts doesn't really matter. Martin's death is not an isolated incident. It is the death of a particular child but it is also a symbol of the One Million Hoodies murdered before him.

Some people are quick to point out the fact that Martin had been in trouble at school, even suspended, and also that he had smoked marijuana recently enough for it to be in his system. I guess my only question in response is: so what? This is ultimately the biggest difference for a young white or black man. For one, this is enough to end their life. For the other, maybe it's just a fun day in high school. How terribly bizarre.

I don't want to put the blame on Zimmerman because I don't think he's exclusively at fault. Yes, he shot Martin but he's a dead man himself. His life will never recover from this. If he is not seriously punished by the coming court trial (which he very well may not be), he will surely be condemned by what is an already made-up cultural verdict. Ultimately, people have already decided he's guilty. To me, the real guilt is on the broader white culture for perpetually allowing these incidents and for perpetuating false images which directly inform this nonsense and hatred.

Liberation theology is one which is meant to be, simply, liberating. It is one which is to set people free from bondage. Frederick Douglass is America's patron saint of liberating Freedom. He points out an immortal truth about the myth of progress: no one man has gotten us there. We need to remember the women, the children, and anyone else who remains invisible on the quest.

Historian David W. Blight paraphrases Douglass when he says, "We are not to be saved by the captain... but by the crew. We are not to be saved by Abraham Lincoln, but by the power behind the throne, greater than the throne itself." I think Martin's death needs to be remembered as broadly as possible. Not as one particular child but as all children who have to worry about what many white people don't even think of: Survival.

There's a level of reality which simply doesn't resonate with the privileged. That is exactly why Martin's death needs to be used as a wake-up call.

So, without further adieu: wake up white people!

You need to know that this is a daily struggle. Not one which just happened this one time in February. It's all times in February. It's every day in every month. And as Biggie says, "if you don't know, now you know..."

Now, Frederick Douglass was not totally opposed to Lincoln. Do not get me wrong. In fact they had a very fruitful relationship and had mutual respect for each other. But at the end of the day, Lincoln did not free the slaves. To perpetuate this great lie limits the reality of not only the rest of the people involved broadly but also the particular heroes of that narrative like Douglass himself.

When the trial finally comes about, don't get tricked by talking points of Martin's drug use or adolescent aggression. Don't mind that Zimmerman looks lighter or was in a position of power. Mind the bigger idea: this happens all of the time. Racial oppression happens constantly in a plurality of forms. This is just one example of it.

But most of all, mind false narratives. Mind the history: Lincoln was not alone in his endeavor and would have plausibly never accomplished anything had Douglass not pushed him from the side. Mind your blindside. Do not get tricked into thinking Sandra Bullock saved the poor, helpless black child and put him through college so he could play for her alma mater. Is that Charity? That's The Blind Side.

Zimmerman was just looking at Martin with his blindside. He saw someone who wasn't really there. In reality, it was a just a young kid in a hooded sweatshirt getting some skittles. And probably, Martin saw Zimmerman from his blindside thinking this guy is in a power position and a threat. In reality, what I see is a scared man who made a terrible mistake.

What I want to see from this situation is more Frederick Douglass and less Abraham Lincoln. This kind of racism is a white person's problem but it's a black person's burden. It's going to take people to own up to the facts. To recognize what sorts of systems they perpetuate and what sort images they hold in their heads unfairly. But I tell you, if you think of the Civil War and fall into the trap of imagining Lincoln as the white savior of black people... time to wake up.

So here are some final words from our sponsor: "Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them."

Do the Right Thing. Put on the Hood.

I was sitting in class the other day and I glanced over at a fellow student's daily planner. She was looking at the following week and on the 14th there was a big headline which said: "GROSS."

Is it?

I know why she thinks this. The criticisms against Valentine's Day are fair. That it has become a corporate holiday, even that it is a Hallmark holiday, is a legitimate concern. Also that it perpetuates misogynistic stereotypes, that's true too. Frequently it's portrayed as a day in which everyone except you is doing something wildly romantic. They are having their praise sung from mountaintops while you sit all alone on the internet and watch... bored, on the sidelines.

In elementary school you remember people passing Valentine's cards out to each other. They usually had some pithy lovey-dovey phrase. They were maybe themed with this or that celebrity or this or that cartoon character, attached with some generic (and probably "GROSS") candy. As far as holidays went, there wasn't much to it. What was the point. Love? Love of what?

If anything, as a little boy, Valentine's Day was a pretty big waste of time. There didn't seem to be any point. Over time, I came to love this day.

It is sometimes credited that Chaucer and his Parlement of the Foules is the primary inspiration for this holiday. The poem was written for the wedding of King Richard II and Anne of Bohemia. This was in a larger theme of poetry regarding Valentines. It was to express a kind of romantic and courtly love between two people.

In the middle of February, ancient Romans celebrated Lupercalia. Young boys would draw the names of young girls and the two would be paired. Supposedly, this was celebrated to symbolize the pairing of the birds and the early blossoming of plant-life at this time. Lupercalia, the Festival of the Wolf, was in honor of the Mother she-wolf who nursed and reared little Romulus and Remus before they were men. This was not merely the pairing of young lovers for fun, but also a fertility ritual. Young women, after the ritual of Luperci, would line up to be whipped by Sacerdotes. As this, in their minds, was a stimulant for good fertility.

Maybe it is true, there is historical reason to look at Valentine's Day as a day for romantic love. Maybe that is proper after all. But why should a day especially designated to celebrate love stop there? Might we look at Valentine's Day in an even bigger way?

Memories of giving Valentines throughout my life are interesting. I remember not particularly caring about any of the Valentines that I myself received, but always wondered if someone might misinterpret one I sent. My intention was never to use a Valentine as a message of romantic love, but more as a kind gesture as it was generally accustomed to be. But it always made me think there is power in the message.

February 14th is Valentine's Day, but it's also a day like any other. Things happen on this day. Perhaps you are aware of the Saint Valentine's Day Massacre, or even the basic fact that the holiday is named after a martyr (or three!) who died for Christianity. But did you know that on February 14th, 1778 the United States Flag was formally recognized for the very first time? The USS Ranger, captained by John Paul Jones, received a nine gun salute by Admiral Toussaint-Guillaume Picquet de la Motte of the French Navy. That is a Valentine worth sending.

The broader history of this day shows there is, if nothing more than coincidentally, a theme of communication. Valentines of all kinds have been sent in a variety of ways.

In 1849 James Polk becomes the first President to have his photograph taken. In 1855 Texas is formally connected by telegraph to the rest of the United States via New Orleans. In 1876 both Elisha Gray and Alexander Graham Bell apply for the patent to make the first telephone. In 1899 the first voting machines are approved by the United States Congress for federal elections. In 1924 we have the birth of IBM (International Business Machines). In 1945 Franklin Roosevelt aboard the USS Quincy establishes the first Saudi-US relationship with King Ibn Saud. And more recently, in 1962 Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis brought American viewers on a personal, televised tour of the White House.

Consider a Valentine to be a message. A message that needs to be communicated.

What are some Valentines sent recently?

There is an example that comes to my mind as the perfect Valentine. Though it has nothing to do with the date, it is that Israel loves Iran and Iran loves Israel. Perhaps you have seen the picture which went viral last fall. Maybe you have seen the TEDTalk in which Ronny Edry discusses its creation. He says, "this is the courageous thing to do: to try to reach to the other side before it's too late." Edry had a message to send: "Iranians... we [heart] you." A Valentine all the way to its heart-shaped form.

Secondly, on February 14, 2011, just a short while after the beginning of the Arab Spring, the Bahraini people joined in. This is known now as the Day of Rage. Following government crackdowns and alleged Shia discrimination, the Bahraini people called for revolutionary measures to lead them towards a more just Constitutional Monarchy. This movement, broadly, could not have happened without some of the aforementioned February 14th advancements.

Thirdly, and possibly most importantly, Eve Ensler along with her project V-Day have created a women's movement which holds their mission is "a world where women live safely and freely." Why is this so important? On a day where we are to celebrate romantic love, we ought to celebrate one of the fundamental components making it possible.

Now there is some criticism against this movement. Some say it further divides the sexes but I disagree. I think, if anything, it sheds light on the apparent divide in hopes there may be real reconciliation, real unity. We do not live in a world where women are equal to men. Even in supposedly progressive countries like ours women are paid less and work more.

How do they work more? By lovingly raising children. Feeding them, teaching them, clothing them, caring for them in every way that men commonly do not. Just like Mother she-wolf rearing little Romulus and Remus when abandoned by their caretakers. Mother's work is the most undervalued market in the world. Worldwide, the oppressed person may as well be cast as a female because statistically she is!

V-Day seeks to raise awareness about not merely injustice but reality itself. It is real to say the way things are simply are not the same for the two genders. In fact, this year, because of it being the 15th anniversary there is a special occasion in which all around the world people will gather in support of gender equality and nonviolence. Happening today, they are calling this event "One Billion Rising".

So let's recount some of the basic facts. It's true that Valentine's Day has a history rooted deeply in two traditions of romance and courtship. The first being the ancient tradition of Lupercalia and the second being Chaucer's Cult of the Birds. By looking at the day itself, and the actual exchange of Valentines, I think we see a good reason to consider this day in a broader context.

But what's Love got to do with it?

In the 1954 book Love, Power, and Justice, Paul Tillich describes Love to be the "reunion of the estranged." What he means by this is the very nature of being-itself is one, essentially united, in that all perceived 'others' are merely estrangements. They are fundamentally connected to you as they are all contained within the same reality. Now of course, there are many theories all throughout history which say very similar things, so Tillich is only representative of a broader idea.

I am reminded of the introduction to Love Actually in which Hugh Grant as the English Prime Minister says:

"Whenever I get gloomy with the state of the world, I think about the arrivals gate at Heathrow Airport. General opinion's starting to make out that we live in a world of hatred and greed, but I don't see that. It seems to me that love is everywhere. Often, it's not particularly dignified or newsworthy, but it's always there - fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, husbands and wives, boyfriends, girlfriends, old friends. When the planes hit the Twin Towers, as far as I know, none of the phone calls from the people on board were messages of hate or revenge - they were all messages of love. If you look for it, I've got a sneaky feeling you'll find that love actually is all around."

I don't even particularly like this movie, but the point stuck. Love actually is... everywhere. And if Valentine's Day is a day to celebrate Love as-such, not merely romantic, but Love-itself, can't we find a good reason to make this Hallmark holiday into something high and holy?

It's like when France recognized the American flag, basically confirming our Sovereignty from England... I feel that recognition of the 'other' is important. To recognize that our Revolutions were interconnected, to recognize that we are all in this together. Acknowledging that our Declaration of Independence was real. To me, this was an act of Love.

We receive news every day of the looming conflict in Israel and the broader Middle East. But do we really want that? Ask the people. You might find out what's true: Israel loves Iran and Iran loves Israel. Because you've got to wonder... Iran and Israel: A Love Story?

We also hear about corruption in many governments all around the world. The Arab Spring, including Bahrain's Day of Rage, leads me to believe something more clearly over time: all our grievances are connected. If it is true that you and are I bound together in reality--which I assure you, we are--then your problems are my problems.

We see, clear as day, how women are treated differently than men. We want that world where women are free and they are safe. We all want that. Why can't we have it? What are our obstacles? Globally women suffer by economic difference, and they are completely undervalued as our Mothers. Perhaps I am wrong. Maybe we don't all want that. And that must be discussed.

Ultimately, I want to highlight that Valentine's Day is a good day. It is not just mushy-gushy corporate romance but it is rooted in a great human drama. One bound up directly with the advancements in our technology and our ability to communicate. It is important to me that we celebrate Love in a way which communicates to us that Love actually is... everywhere.

Not merely emotions. But true to the nature of reality.

Because when you look at it like Tillich, or Prime Minister Hugh Grant, you start to see that the 'other' is not so other. Do you know why? You and the other are in Love.

If you believe that then go tell someone. Tell them you love them. Give them a Valentine. It's really not so gross after all.

Happy V-Day

Image via wikimedia Commons

In Belgium, like many other countries in Europe, there has been an increase in the Muslim population. This rise has created cultural distinctions which have, for better or worse, caused conflict. Tomatosauce says, "most religions and most cultures are compatible with Belgian culture and law, and just fit in. Islam however, is not just a religion as how we here define 'religion.' Islam is a whole package. Islam contains a political system, economic system, justice, education, culture and religion."

Without discounting the very real feelings Tomatosauce and many others around the world are having, let's talk about this problem for a minute.

In America, especially since 9/11, there has been a marked increase in hostility towards non-Christian religions. Well, this is not to say it is new, but it is to say it is more apparent. Where the idea of the "Freedom of Religion" has more or less been taken for granted as a matter of fact, lately it seems to be a freedom to be non-Christian so long as you fit in our traditional Christian context. Just ask Rick Perry.

It goes without saying, not all Muslims fit the package described here. There are many Muslims in Europe and America, and of course all around the world, who are more or less secular. By this I do not mean non-religious, I mean they are able to engage in public discourse without their religion's supremacy being the central motivation to their concept of the common good. This does not mean they do not have religious morals or even a religiously-motivated philosophical structure which informs their politics, but that they recognize the plurality of individual opinions and, by varying degree, respect and appreciate this.

This is not the case with all Muslims, however. As you probably know, in the last week and a half there has been a major increase in violent protest in the Middle-East (including, or specifically, North Africa). It has resulted in many deaths, including the death of Americans. Obviously, this is a no-no. You do not kill a Roman under the Pax. We saw rebellions against American embassies in Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia, and Libya as well as against British and German embassies in Sudan. All supposedly motivated by the creation of a movie which criticizes Islam and the Prophet Mohammad.

This caricature of the problem seems entirely misleading. The protests surely cannot be from this alone, as hostility in Muslim-dominated countries against Western culture is not new. But then you have to ask, why?

I do not want to paint a picture of the entire political-cultural situation in the Middle-East because I am not nearly informed enough to do this. But surely much of it comes from our occupation of their countries, our meddling in their politics, our treatment of Islam by our media, and our apparent distrust of their religion as being genuine or valid. This is not what Tomatosauce is doing, however. In fact, I found this article to be a refreshing take on the problem that steers clear of the blaming "Muslim Extremism" rhetoric and also the more-forgiving notion that the problem is greatly overstated and that it's merely a small minority so we should not bother calling a spade a spade.

There is a cultural shift happening all around the world and Islam is a big part of it. The problem exists. In many ways, Islamic culture is incompatible with liberal Western culture. That is not to say many Muslims have not found a happy medium, as I said earlier, but when two objects collide there is always damage. Greater tolerance of homosexuality, our theory on women's rights, and of course our separation of Church and State are in fact major problems for many Muslim people.

In history this has not always been the case, as many countries, including Iran, have been more aligned with these things in times-past. Look at England, where the common convert to Islam is a 27 year-old white female. Our way is not necessarily better, it is just different.

I had the opportunity to have dinner with Muslim interfaith activist Eboo Patel last week while he was here at Union Theological Seminary and I appreciate his approach to this problem. It is not only about dialogue, per se. It is about bridging the gap of multiple faith traditions through one common goal: service.

He told us of experiences where they would work with many people who had divergent views and simply never dealt with this because, well, it did not exactly matter. They had houses to build. That is not to say it is an unimportant aspect of his work, because it is. It is central, in fact. But it is important to recognize not all difference can just be settled fair and square, especially not in an immediate way.

Moving from this, what do we do? Here at State of Formation I would wager most of us know Islam is not a problem in the way it is often presented to us. Many Muslims are model citizens both in Europe and in America. We know that as Prince Charles says, "extremism is, by definition, the exception."

But we also know that there is an apparent rise in extremism, and extremist tendencies. Not only in Europe and the Middle-East, but here in America as well. And, more importantly, not only in Islam, but also in Christianity and other ideological forms.

The Sword of Cleavage is separating us even further than any force uniting us. Or so it seems.

When our "best television series" of 2011, Homeland, is about a Muslim infiltrating our government, and many more conservative voices call President Barack Obama a Manchurian Candidate and secret-Muslim, what are we to do? How can we move past the sort of fear-mongering which causes us to act irrationally?

I strongly suspect Homeland's tagline "It Hits Home" is not all that far off from the truth. One of last week's "attacks" was a threat to college institutions around the country, causing evacuations. But interestingly, it is not only Muslims I am concerned about. Radical Christian extremists, like in the case of the Sikh Temple shooting recently, are probably going to increase too. Do not be surprised if, once again, it hits home.

Tomatosauce's survey of Islam in Belgian culture is an interesting one. Because it assumes that Belgium, like America, is actually secular. That we actually allow for a true Freedom of Religion. But the truth is we don't.

Ask yourself, when is the last President we had who isn't a Christian? Ask yourself, who is the first Muslim elected to the House of Representatives? Tomatosauce is pointing out that Islam, as it is being practiced, is incompatible with their culture. And maybe it is! But that does not mean that "Islam" is necessarily the problem.

The thing that interests me most of all is that it seems Christianity in America is making some of the same ideological shifts that Islam is in Europe and the Middle-East. It is moving towards "extremism" in the sense that it is opposed to the shifts occurring and is, in a death-throw, trying to cling on to their God and their Sword (or guns, if you will).

I would say that Islam is not exactly an exception. The version of Islam Tomatosauce is talking about is as true as the extremist Christianity which is on the rise in America. It is real. People who are absolutely sure their way is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. There is no God but God and our Prophet is its Prophet! Or something to that effect...

So, what do we do? What is the answer? I like Patel on this. Let's stop competing and start cooperating. Let's integrate as best as we can and recognize that differences are what they are. As Tomatosauce said, "Islam is a whole package. Islam contains a political system, economic system, justice, education, culture and religion," but let's not forget that so is Christianity. Every one of those categories is just as developed and implemented in Christianity. Let's serve the World together.

Afterall, what would Jesus do? "Thou shalt Love the Lord thy God with all thy Heart, and with all thy Soul, and with all thy Mind" And remember the Qur'an when it says, "do not argue with the People of the Book except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them and say, 'we believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our God and your God is One; and we are in submission to Him.'"

So Love thy Neighbor as Thyself. And even if these tendencies are indeed on the rise, Remember, Remember the Eleventh of September. Where there was once the Two Towers, there will be only One.

Image via Wikimedia Commons

The film stars Daniel Day-Lewis as an oil tycoon named Daniel Plainview and Paul Dano as a church minister named Paul/Eli Sunday. Without getting into the particulars of the plot, it sets Plainview against Sunday as community rivals with the tagline, "When Ambition Meets Faith... There Will be Blood."

Director P. T. Anderson has a new movie coming out this weekend called The Master. It is another character study, this time looking at a pair named Lancaster Dodd, played by Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Freddie Quell, played by Joaquin Phoenix. I do not know exactly what it is about, outside of the brief plot descriptions and the trailers available.  But like There Will be Blood being loosely compared to the life of John Rockefeller, The Master is supposedly a parallel of L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology.

The idea of The Master seems to be asking the question of what constitutes true authority in the religious environment. The concept of a "Master" in the theological sense seems to imply some sort of heightened spiritual evolution, or, at minimum, the strength to lead another towards that goal. In history, the concept of a yogi, a guru, or anything else like this has been treated with high esteem and rightfully so. Many people feel that these characters are helpful on their spiritual quest.

The Church of Scientology is, among other things, frequently called a cult. Seen by some as an "abusive business" pretending to be a religion, there is an initiative to ban it in Germany. Whether the allegation is true or false is not a matter of import at the moment, but it is important to the idea of a Master. The movie deals largely, it would seem, with the idea that the religious system in the movie, the theological framework that Lancaster Dodd has brought forth, is in fact a creation of his own imagination. Reportedly, the relationship with Hubbard, and this particular characteristic of Dodd, has caused some problems with the Church of Scientology, or at least some Scientologists. But why?

The problem from their perspective is not that it falsifies their beliefs, but that it falsifies the system they have been given by their Master. If the system that Dodd, and by extension Hubbard, has given us is actually a creation of the human imagination, and a particular human imagination at that, then it may not hold the same sort of metaphysical weight to non-believers. If this is so, conversion or proselytizing may be significantly more difficult. If it is just a Myth it may be hard to convince as being Truth.

I am not concerned whether Scientology is true or whether Hubbard did indeed invent his religion. I for one find much to appreciate about Scientology and its theological system. What I am concerned about is the idea of one man making broad theological claims without allowing for dissenting views or information. As it is said in the trailer, "that is the basis of a cult."

People often feel strongly about their conviction to an ideal, a system, or a Master. Even I do. I feel strongly towards the ideals of Love or Freedom, I feel strongly towards the system of Origen or Aquinas, but when it comes to a Master I am lost. I have no Master and, for better or worse, it shows. My theology is wild and so are my beliefs about statements of faith. One to another, it may seem inconsistent to someone who has hardly gotten to know me. But my point is that even if we do not have a particularly strong identity to a person, we may indeed still relate to other things.

Hubbard died in 1986, leaving behind a large organized body and one of the fastest growing religions in reputation and size. With interesting recruiting tactics as a strong public presence, it was bound to catch the attention of not just the obscurities of spiritual seekers.

That same year, another Master died, only this one was not the leader of an organized body, but in fact a self-inflicted exile of one. Jiddu Krishnamurti, the would-be World Teacher of a New Age movement, passed on from our world around the same time. Krishnamurti is a complicated character, like Hubbard, because he was also met with extreme loyalty by his adherents, but unlike Hubbard, he felt uncomfortable accepting his position.

Picked at a young age as the vessel for the World Teacher, Krishnamurti was raised with the intention of bestowing Light upon the Darkened world. He was given a strong education but raised within the confines of his tradition. At one point, he was given a castle by a Netherlander noble so that he would have a base for his operations.  But just as he was to begin his quest to teach the World all they needed to know, he dissolved his order saying:

I maintain that truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organized; nor should any organization be formed to lead or coerce people along a particular path. ... This is no magnificent deed, because I do not want followers, and I mean this. The moment you follow someone you cease to follow Truth. I am not concerned whether you pay attention to what I say or not. I want to do a certain thing in the world and I am going to do it with unwavering concentration. I am concerning myself with only one essential thing: to set man free. I desire to free him from all cages, from all fears, and not to found religions, new sects, nor to establish new theories and new philosophies.

The problem, in Krishnamurti's mind, is that the very concept of a Master is the antithesis of the spiritual quest. That is not to say we cannot move together, learn together, and live together, but that when, as he said, you follow someone else you cease to follow Truth.

Now comparing Krishnamurti to Hubbard is not particularly fruitful, in that their lives are significantly different. But the point remains. A strong attachment to a Master may in fact lead you down the wrong path. One encumbered and not free.

The movie coming out this week should be exploring some of these same basic ideas.  I hope, and with considerably high expectations, this will be a very good film. I think often on the themes played out in Anderson's movies and I think this one will maintain the same premise of the last one, "When Ambition Meets Faith... There Will be Blood."

The very idea that the ambition of a single man can be melded with the devotion which arises in Faith and statements or beliefs around it can be incredibly dangerous. Throughout time we have seen many examples of this being true.

Like I said before, I have no Master. Though Krishnamurti argues you should not have one at all, I am not totally convinced. I have seen many people grow by their relationship with a spiritual significant, especially if that person is in a position beyond the student. That said, I think it is important to approach this relationship with extreme prejudice and utmost caution.  If you open yourself up too far, it could be dangerous for you.

I often think about the coming of a new Master. One like Gandhi, or Martin, or Teresa, or maybe even like Krishnamurti and Hubbard, provided they actually were. I have no doubt this will happen in time. When it does, what will they be like? If they are, how will we know? And once declared, how might we serve them?

A Master is Coming. Let the Right One In.

Image via Wikimedia Commons.

Appearances can be deceiving.  There is Evil Rising from where we tried to bury it.

On 22 July 2011, Anders Behring Breivik (b. 13 Feb 1979) orchestrated a terrorist bomb-plot in his hometown of Oslo, Norway resulting in 8 deaths. This fatal explosion would have been bad enough on its own but, simultaneously, he went to a camp for Norway's Workers' Youth League of their Labour Party and murdered 69 people, mostly teens.

Why did Anders commit the greatest of all mass murders in our modern era? It is because of the changes he sees. Everywhere around him, foreign cultural forces like Islam are changing the political landscape around him, introducing other communities. No longer is Norway the same religious nation it was in the past. He sees a rapid decline in the moral fiber of his nation and he thinks it is largely to do with foreign forces. Cultural Marxism, Islam, and various fringes or sympathizers have decayed an idealized Norway of the past which he must now defend for the future. Is he wrong? Since then, Norway has abandoned Anders's own Church, the Church of Norway. The changes Anders observes are very real.

This event has little to do with Nazi Germany or Adolf Hitler in any direct way. The institution of Adolf Hitler was destroyed at the end of the Second World War, but the ideology seems to remain. The myth of Aryan supremacy, in its ideological, economic, and cultural manifestations, never left. It just went underground. Hitler's struggle, where the Aryan is compromised on all sides by barbarian foreign hordes, and needing defending from impurity, is alive this very day.

Anders' struggle is the same as Hitler's. He believes, truly, with his heart of hearts, that European culture has a privilege in the World. Or, at minimum, it has a privilege in the Caucasian-majority nations. Anders and Hitler do not agree on everything.  For one, Anders is allegedly positive towards Zionism. Also, Anders is explicitly Christian, whereas Hitler's religion is largely contested. Beyond this, the entire Nazi Empire's approach to religion is vastly different than that of modern day Norway. However, Anders and Hitler do seem to agree that the culture is threatened by foreign and hostile forces.  They both believe what they did was right. "I did this out of goodness, not Evil," Breivik said. "I acted in self-defense on behalf of my people, my city, my country."

The financial crisis in the European Union has also set off extreme measures. Austerity debates have lately been focused around two competing visions of the future: the examples of Greece and Germany. How does Europe move from here? Divided or United? There are compelling cases on both sides. Poverty, unemployment, and massive debt are big problems in the European Union. Their manifestation, however, is mostly geographical.

The burden of debt, and as a result poverty and unemployment, comes largely from Greece. Germany is one of Europe's strongest economies. It includes globally competitive producers with a strong middle class. Their population is split on what to do about Greece. They are sympathetic to the plight of Greece but, of course, do not want to pay for it. Why would they? Even Greeks are split on the deal. Many want a financial bailout, but there is a strong force rising calling for extreme austerity measures: The Golden Dawn.

On 6 May 2012, the Golden Dawn claimed 7% of the Greek Parliament. The Golden Dawn itself is merely a political organization rallied around the idea of Austerity. But the actual manifestation in the country has had much more of an impact than simply an ideological or economic position. There have been numerous attacks on minorities of all kinds, including religious, economic, ethnic, and gendered, all allegedly related to the Golden Dawn. According to The Independent's Laurie Penny these extremists have in the recent weeks issued flyers in the gay clubbing district of Athens saying, "after the immigrants, you're next."

The Golden Dawn has had many parallels drawn to Nazism, Fascism, or any form of White Supremacy or Nationalism. In their defense, it has been suggested that this is extreme branding and that while some members may hold radical ideologies, it does not represent the fullness of the group or the idea of Austerity. Penny argues further: it is not merely rhetoric to draw parallels with Nazism. In fact, "actual fascists in actual black shirts are waving swastikas and murdering ethnic minorities in Athens."  What is going on in Greece?

Actually, it is the same thing that is going on in Germany.

On 14 August 2012 we saw the Rise of the Immortals.  A flash-mob orchestrated by social media blitzed Bauzen, Germany on May Day 2012. They carried torches and wore white masks allegedly in remembrance of torch rallies of the Third Reich. They are openly sympathetic to Nazism and carry with them extremist nationalistic signs and slogans. The clips reported in August's news cycle ended with the saying, "make your short life Immortal."

Tensions are running high in Germany. Higher than you might think.  On 04 June, a couple months back, a Muslim man beheaded his wife on his roof-top while screaming "Allahu Akbar." Just a month after this, the unrelated circumcision ban set off a religious controversy, deeming the new law in Germany to be an attack on religious freedom. The Guardian's Giles Fraser says it is an affront to Jewish and Muslim identity. He believes the "German court has rejected identity and history in favor of a liberal concept of choice, but there's more to right and wrong." This debate is still raging on and is not settled, one Jewish group says a ban on circumcision would be "dangerous".  On 31 August, no more than a few days ago, a group of what is suspected to be Arab men attacked a Rabbi in broad daylight, brutally beating him. This reduction of events can hardly even begin to describe the complexities.

Though these are all unrelated events, the happenings themselves are symptoms of a broader problem--culture clinging on to its traditional identity in the midst of change. Anders has rightly observed the changes around him. In his Manifesto Anders predicts there will be War between Nationalists and Internationalists in our near future. This brand of hatred is not limited to Nazis in Greece or Germany or Muslim extremists or even to the character of Anders Breivik. It is everywhere. There is Evil Rising from where we tried to bury it.

On 06 January 1941, American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt gave what is commonly known as the Four Freedoms speech. He says every individual everywhere in the world ought to enjoy four particular freedoms: Freedom of Expression and Belief as well as Freedom from Want and Fear. This set of freedoms is without distinction of class or creed, race or nation. It later became the basis for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for the United Nations, which claims to uphold the virtue of Freedom globally.

From the time Adolf Hitler and Franklin Roosevelt both assumed office in 1933, to the time they both died in 1945, the War between Light and Darkness raged onward. The Master Race of Men against the Nation of Mongrels. The Empire of Love against the Empire of Hate.

Of course it is not actually this Black and White, but in our mythic history, it can seem this way. The Second World War's end culminated in the creation of the United Nations and the founding of Zion, the state of Israel. Global borders were redrawn and wealth, power, and populations were greatly shifted. It was thought Israel should be founded in response to Hitler's Holocaust against Jews. This was to be some atonement for the Evil endured.

Remember this much, it is not gone. The spirit of Hatred is Rising every day. We cannot allow the Grammar of Hell to return in its full form. Evil can only be stopped when it is acknowledged and named. In Harry Potter it was the denial of HIM which allowed for his manifestation in the Shadows. It was the belief he had been defeated. Potter named Voldemort and announced his return even when few realized the Reality.

Let us do what we can. Let us prove Anders wrong. Just because the times are changing against our will does not mean we should Hate. Anders seeks to provoke our Hatred but we remember Adolf Hitler was wrong in the first place. We do not need World War to prove once and for all that Hate belongs in Hell. Never Forget. Never Again.

On 24 August 2012 an amazing thing happened. In exchange for the total 77 souls Anders took from this Earth, he was judged sane and given 21 years in prison. Though controversial, this is being heralded as a "victory for the Rule of Law." Norway chose to Love Anders rather than Hate him. They want to understand Anders and offer him another path. They act to maintain the Freedom from Fear. In Remembrance of our Labourers murdered by Anders Breivik, let us do what he could not: Love Our Enemies. It is the Law.

This is the only way Light will shine in the Darkness. This will make your short life Immortal.

Image via Wikimedia Commons.