Friday, September 21, 2007
A Christian, A Muslim, and An Atheist
Peace and blessings,
A friend of mine sent me links of the video (posted below) of Bill Maher's 9/7/07 show featuring Cornel West and Mos Def. Aside from a few comedic moments, they discussed some very significant social, political, and moral issues. They talked about perceptions of terrorism, American hypocrisy, three political economic "-isms" - militarism, capitalism, and imperialism, the Jena 6, and the 2008 elections. As you can see from the variety of topics and the nature of the guests, the discussions were very insightful.
What I enjoyed most about the discussions, however, was not necessarily the topics they discussed, but the context in which these topics were discussed. Cornel West is a Christian, Mos Def a Muslim, and Bill Maher an Atheist. Now I don't watch cable tv too often, but as far as I can remember, this was the first time I've watched people from different belief systems engage in a respectful and critical discussion on a variety of topics pertinent to the human condition. Disagreements and emotional responses are common when discussing issues of this magnitude. However, unlike many other televised discussions that are more characterized as confrontational rather than constructive, this discussion was more than fruitful. It provides a good example of how people with different belief systems can achieve common ground by sharing their ideas and views and respecting those of others.
As a Christian, I thought this video was important because it represents a snapshot of the American diversity and demographic. Throughout the world, it seems like two major belief systems are Christianity and Orthodox Islam. Within the U.S., in particular within the African American community, it seems like the two major belief systems are Christianity and the Nation of Islam. Therefore, it is common for family and friend circles to consist of Christians, Muslims, Atheists, and other belief systems. Due to the increases in diversity, technology, and transportation, I believe that more conversations between people from differenent belief systems will start taking place and given times we are living in, these conversations are more than needed.
What do you think? Does anyone close to you (family member or friend) ascribe to a different belief system than you? If so, has any conversations about your belief systems come up? Any conversations about other topics? How did the conversations go? Stay blessed, encouraged, and speekonit...
A friend of mine sent me links of the video (posted below) of Bill Maher's 9/7/07 show featuring Cornel West and Mos Def. Aside from a few comedic moments, they discussed some very significant social, political, and moral issues. They talked about perceptions of terrorism, American hypocrisy, three political economic "-isms" - militarism, capitalism, and imperialism, the Jena 6, and the 2008 elections. As you can see from the variety of topics and the nature of the guests, the discussions were very insightful.
What I enjoyed most about the discussions, however, was not necessarily the topics they discussed, but the context in which these topics were discussed. Cornel West is a Christian, Mos Def a Muslim, and Bill Maher an Atheist. Now I don't watch cable tv too often, but as far as I can remember, this was the first time I've watched people from different belief systems engage in a respectful and critical discussion on a variety of topics pertinent to the human condition. Disagreements and emotional responses are common when discussing issues of this magnitude. However, unlike many other televised discussions that are more characterized as confrontational rather than constructive, this discussion was more than fruitful. It provides a good example of how people with different belief systems can achieve common ground by sharing their ideas and views and respecting those of others.
As a Christian, I thought this video was important because it represents a snapshot of the American diversity and demographic. Throughout the world, it seems like two major belief systems are Christianity and Orthodox Islam. Within the U.S., in particular within the African American community, it seems like the two major belief systems are Christianity and the Nation of Islam. Therefore, it is common for family and friend circles to consist of Christians, Muslims, Atheists, and other belief systems. Due to the increases in diversity, technology, and transportation, I believe that more conversations between people from differenent belief systems will start taking place and given times we are living in, these conversations are more than needed.
What do you think? Does anyone close to you (family member or friend) ascribe to a different belief system than you? If so, has any conversations about your belief systems come up? Any conversations about other topics? How did the conversations go? Stay blessed, encouraged, and speekonit...
Labels: African American, American, Atheist, Christian, diversity, elections, imperialism, issues, Jena 6, moral, Muslim, Nation of Islam, Othodox Islam, political, social, U.S., world
Sunday, July 22, 2007
A Few Thoughtz: The Politics of Jesus, pt. 1
" Rather than taking a literalistic or legalistic approach, the politics of Jesus calls for scrutinizing every political policy and policy proposal by this standard: It is based upon the command to 'love your neighbor as yourself?' That is, does it treat the people and their needs as holy? It is important that this principle not be treated as a law with layers of liturgical and organizational requirements. Rather, it is to be seen as a yardstick that at every point seeks to apply mishpat (justice), sadiqah (righteousness), and hesed (steadfast), continually demonstrated love for our neighbors to every public and private act of consequence. This is the way the politics of Jesus enjoins us to approach every question of politics and social policy (pg. 323)."
"If we look honestly and unflinchingly at the political culture in America today, it becomes clear that Jesus' judgment against the religious and political leaders of his day (in reality, they were the same) is also his judgment against the leaders of our day. America's most vocal and self-described politicians 'of faith' profess biblical beliefs while consistently acting in ways that contradict biblical justice. Worse, they portray themselves to the American masses as the definitive moral voice of America, the righteous, divinely ordained spokespersons for God to us all. Yet there is little question that if Jesus were walking among us now, he would stand against the political leaders of our day--and many of the religious leaders, too--as he stood against them in his own day (pg.329)."
Peace and blessings,
I chose to begin with these quotes, because I think they accurately characterize Dr. Obery Hendricks' position as articulated in his book, "The Politics of Jesus." The following book review will be two fold. First, I will briefly (but then again, do I ever discuss anything "briefly?"LOL) discuss the aspects of Henricks' position that I agree with, and those aspects that I disagree with. Afterwards, I will offer a potential explanation as to what factors may have influenced how he argued his position.
In a nutshell, Hendricks (2006) argues that both historically and currently, leaders (political and religious) have in some form or another misinterpreted Jesus' ministry and/or neglected critical components of His ministry. As a result, Jesus has been, and is currently regarded as a passive Messiah only concerned with our personal piety, righteousness, and salvation. According to Hendricks, this view of Jesus is inaccurate or at best incomplete because it fails to acknowledge Jesus' revolutionary nature and his mission to non-violently dismantle social injustice and economic and oppression. Through closely examining scriptures and the social, economic, and political contexts in which these scriputures were written, Hendricks passionately reminds us that in addition to His divinity and the fact that He came, died, and rose so that through Him we can be saved, He was also dedicated to changing the structures which sought to oppress and marginalize the very people He came to save (which is everyone). Whether it was feeding the five thousand, healing (restoring) the lives of those treated as social outcasts, or constantly opposing the Pharisees' and other leaders' illusions of power and dominance over "the least of these," Jesus was always about meeting people's needs (spiritual, mental, physical, and economic).
I agree with his general arguement, and that Jesus' revolutionary nature is often neglected within most political, social, and economic discourse and policies in the U.S. In addition to some political and religious arenas, I think that the media (movies, etc...) is also partly responsible for the neglect of Jesus' revolutionary nature and His emphasis on social, economic, and political change that lovingly and righteously serves all humanity. My only criticism of the book, however, is that I think that some of Hendricks' arguments that he derives from analyzing certain scriptures are somewhat "far-fetched." One example of this is his analysis of Matthew 20:1-16, which is the parable where Jesus describes the kingdom of heaven using the analogy of a householder going into his vineyard to hire workers. In the parable, the householder ends up paying the workers who were hired last and thus only worked one hour, the same wage as those who were hired first and worked for twelve hours. Hendricks argues that despite the general impression that this parable is about how God's love, grace, and mercy are available to everyone regardless of status or circumstance, the parable is actually about the oppressive condition of the workers, the low wage they were paid, and how they were exploited by the householder who hired them.
Another example has to do with his examination of Mark 5:1-10, which is the passage where a man is possed by a legion of demons and is healed by Jesus. Primarily drawing on the facts that the demons asked Jesus no to send them out of the country (as opposed to being sent out of the man), and that at the time "legion" referred to the Roman legions, which was the Roman army, Hendricks argues that the passage is not about an exorcism, but about Jesus addressing the Roman army "for its role in the upheaval that was devastating the social fabric of Israel (pg. 146)." I am in no way a biblical scholar or theologian, nor do I claim to be. I am simply saying that to me, it seems like these conclusions appear to be somewhat of a stretch. Although it is possible that his interpretations of these passages are correct, I think it is more likely that both interpretations are correct. In other words, the passages are more likely demonstrating Jesus' revolutionary nature and concern for "the least of these" though their illustrations of the equal access to God's kingdom (Matthew 20:1-16) and Jesus healing a possessed man (Mark 5: 1-10), than only demonstrating Jesus' revolutionary nature.
In the next couple of days, I will discuss my thoughts as to why I think Hendricks chose to put forth his argument in this way. Until then, stay blessed, encouraged, and speekonit...
Labels: contexts, economic, Israel, Jesus, leaders, Mark, Matthew, oppression, political, Politics of Jesus, power, religious, revolutionary, scriptures, spiritual
Friday, July 06, 2007
On the Immigration Debate, pt. 2
Peace and blessings,
As promised, I wanted to follow up on my previous post regarding the immigration debate. What's interesting to me is that we have a long history in this country of engaging in or allowing certain things to happen as long as those things benefit us economically. However, once these things become a burden on us, we want to do away with them completely. The way I see it, the current immigration debate is no different.
In addition to contributing to the social and cultural fabric of the U.S., most would agree that immigrants (legal and illegal) have contributed most signifcantly to the U.S. economy. Furthermore, economic prosperity (better jobs, wages, schools) is one of the main reasons that people come to the U.S. The argument that the amount of illegal immigrants in the U.S. is becoming "problematic" because they are using services that are intended for U.S. citizens holds weight, but viewing this argument, and the whole debate through a historical lens may shed some light on what should be done to address this issue.
This country was founded on, and is maintained by, capitalism. In other words, America came to be as a result of a minority of people exploiting and gettting wealthy on the backs of the majority. The very first manifestation of this was slavery, which was the most extreme form of capitalism. In contemporary society, capitalism generally refers to the idea of maximizing profit from cheap labor. Slavery was an extreme form of this because slaves (especially those working in the fields) did not get paid anything.
It is my belief that this capitalist mentality, or this notion that there's nothing morally wrong with a few getting extremely wealthy off of the backs of those who are barely making enough for themselves to survive, let alone their families, that is mostly responsible for the large numbers of immigrants (legal and illegal) in the U.S. In other words, the "promise" of jobs and the fact that capitalism requires increasingly cheap labor to increase profits and remain competitive contributed to this widely held belief that America is the place to be if you are looking for a job. As a result, people from other countries, expecially those from countries where they are oppressed and in dire poverty, come to America to seek employment and a better life for themselves and/or their families.
For instance, not to sound stereotypical (and I apologize to my readers if this statement is interpreted as such), but most would agree that there are certain sectors and jobs that appear to be primarily occupied by immigrants. It seems like allowing immigrants to come to America and employing them to work for cheap is "cool" with major corporations and the government (they are actually one in the same) as long as the primary "consequences" of this decision are increased profits, maintenance of vital institutions, and the perpetuation of the capitalist ethos. A "consequence" that America did not expect, however, was the realization that immigrants are not just workers but human beings, and that they felt entitled, citizen or not, to utilize the services of the country that is prospering from their labor.
Now i'm not saying that nothing should be done about immigration in America because there should be. What I am saying is that in order to fully address the issue in a way that values the humanity of each immigrant and of all those involved, America must take a hard look at the cultural ethos which helped create the situation that Americans are complaining about now. Trying to address this issue by only focusing on what to do with the illegal immigrants in this country and prevent more from entering the country will not suffice. Capitalist ideas are a huge part of the problem, and thus addressing these ideas are an integral part of the solution. It's not just a political and economic issue, but a moral one.....
What do you think? What role (if any) do you think America's promotion of capitalism plays in the massive flow of immigration the country has seen in the past 20 or so years? Weigh in and speekonit...
As promised, I wanted to follow up on my previous post regarding the immigration debate. What's interesting to me is that we have a long history in this country of engaging in or allowing certain things to happen as long as those things benefit us economically. However, once these things become a burden on us, we want to do away with them completely. The way I see it, the current immigration debate is no different.
In addition to contributing to the social and cultural fabric of the U.S., most would agree that immigrants (legal and illegal) have contributed most signifcantly to the U.S. economy. Furthermore, economic prosperity (better jobs, wages, schools) is one of the main reasons that people come to the U.S. The argument that the amount of illegal immigrants in the U.S. is becoming "problematic" because they are using services that are intended for U.S. citizens holds weight, but viewing this argument, and the whole debate through a historical lens may shed some light on what should be done to address this issue.
This country was founded on, and is maintained by, capitalism. In other words, America came to be as a result of a minority of people exploiting and gettting wealthy on the backs of the majority. The very first manifestation of this was slavery, which was the most extreme form of capitalism. In contemporary society, capitalism generally refers to the idea of maximizing profit from cheap labor. Slavery was an extreme form of this because slaves (especially those working in the fields) did not get paid anything.
It is my belief that this capitalist mentality, or this notion that there's nothing morally wrong with a few getting extremely wealthy off of the backs of those who are barely making enough for themselves to survive, let alone their families, that is mostly responsible for the large numbers of immigrants (legal and illegal) in the U.S. In other words, the "promise" of jobs and the fact that capitalism requires increasingly cheap labor to increase profits and remain competitive contributed to this widely held belief that America is the place to be if you are looking for a job. As a result, people from other countries, expecially those from countries where they are oppressed and in dire poverty, come to America to seek employment and a better life for themselves and/or their families.
For instance, not to sound stereotypical (and I apologize to my readers if this statement is interpreted as such), but most would agree that there are certain sectors and jobs that appear to be primarily occupied by immigrants. It seems like allowing immigrants to come to America and employing them to work for cheap is "cool" with major corporations and the government (they are actually one in the same) as long as the primary "consequences" of this decision are increased profits, maintenance of vital institutions, and the perpetuation of the capitalist ethos. A "consequence" that America did not expect, however, was the realization that immigrants are not just workers but human beings, and that they felt entitled, citizen or not, to utilize the services of the country that is prospering from their labor.
Now i'm not saying that nothing should be done about immigration in America because there should be. What I am saying is that in order to fully address the issue in a way that values the humanity of each immigrant and of all those involved, America must take a hard look at the cultural ethos which helped create the situation that Americans are complaining about now. Trying to address this issue by only focusing on what to do with the illegal immigrants in this country and prevent more from entering the country will not suffice. Capitalist ideas are a huge part of the problem, and thus addressing these ideas are an integral part of the solution. It's not just a political and economic issue, but a moral one.....
What do you think? What role (if any) do you think America's promotion of capitalism plays in the massive flow of immigration the country has seen in the past 20 or so years? Weigh in and speekonit...
Labels: America, capitalist, citizens, cultural, debate, economic, employment, government, humanity, illegal, immigration, institutions, legal, minority, moral, political, slavery, social, U.S.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Holding it Down: MLK Reloaded
Peace and blessings,
"THE SPIRIT of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed and qualified me to preach the Gospel of good tidings to the meek, the poor, and afflicted; He has sent me to bind up and heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the [physical and spiritual] captives and the opening of the prison and of the eyes to those who are bound,"
- Isaiah 61:1 (NKJ AMP)
Out of all of of the justice fighters that are recognized within the U.S. as well as internationally, MLK, through his sermons, speeches, and activism is one of the most widely known and referenced. He was someone who embodied the type of love for and activism on behalf of others mentioned in this scripture. Despite the many issues he addressed and methods he used to address them, it is interesting how mainstream media has "selective memory" in terms of determining which aspects of MLK's activism to emphasize, and which aspects to downplay or even negelct. We are constantly told of the movement he helped lead in the name of achieving racial harmony. However, we are less often reminded of his concerns for the poor. We are often told of his dream of black and white children playing together in a racist-free climate. However, we are told less often about his discontent with the economic and political decisions made by those in power that are to the detrimental of the powerless. Despite the various ways in which MLK's life and service is celebrated, there still appears to be
Towards the last few years of his life, he seeemed to experiene a shift from focusing primarily with race relations to focusing on class divisions as well. In addition, he was more critical of the U.S.' capitalism as well as
What do you think? How do you remember the life and service of MLK? Are there any aspects of MLK's life that are not adequately addressed in textbooks or in the media? Weigh in and speekonit...
Labels: activism, attention, capitalism, economic, Isaiah, love, mainstream, media, MLK, movement, political, race relations, sermons, U.S., Vietnam war
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Movie Preview
Peace and blessings,
I pray all is well. Below is the trailer for the movie "The Nativity Story," which is basically the prequel to the life of Jesus. It chronicles the lives of Mary and Joseph, and the social, political, and spiritual climate of the times leading up to the birth of Jesus. It looks promising. I think it comes out December 1st. Check it out and let me know what you think. Speekonit...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Wrs3KJMZ34
I pray all is well. Below is the trailer for the movie "The Nativity Story," which is basically the prequel to the life of Jesus. It chronicles the lives of Mary and Joseph, and the social, political, and spiritual climate of the times leading up to the birth of Jesus. It looks promising. I think it comes out December 1st. Check it out and let me know what you think. Speekonit...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Wrs3KJMZ34
Labels: Jesus Christ, Joseph, Mary, movie, Nativity Story, political, social, spiritual
Sunday, February 19, 2006
More than meets the eye?
Peace and blessings,
Ever since I can remember, I have always been a fan of superheroes. It started with Voltron and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoons. Around 9 or 10 years old, I also became interested in comic books, more specifically marvel comics. My all time favorite superhero group by far is the X-men, and my favorite solo superhero is Spiderman. It has since been over a decade later, and I still find myself buying comic books and watching classic superhero cartoons. As I get older, one of my goals is to become more purposeful in all I do, business and recreational. Therefore, the question arises: why am I just as, if not more interested in superheroes now than I was back when I would have had the costumes to match? Not surprisingly, the answer to this question led to more questions. I realized that my current fascination with superheroes stems from the fact that I actually learn from them. More specifically, when I watch an episode of X-men or Spiderman, I see more than just action-packed characters. I see individuals who struggle with complex issues of identity, relationships, and moral agency within a socio-political context. The following pics are courtesy ofMarvel .
For example, I argue that the life of Peter Parker (a.k.a. Spiderman) somewhat mirrors the Christian Walk. Once he received his powers, he struggled with whether or not to use his powers for self-ish reasons or to help others. Similarly, as Christians God has entrusted us with wisdom, discenrment, and spiritual authority over Satan, but it's up to us to decide whether we are going to use what God has blessed us with to bless others. It may sound Cliche-ish, but it's on that "to whom much is given, much is required" steez.
On more of a social level, the X-men are a group of mutants who've dedicated their lives to working towards unity between humans and mutants. I believe that the X-men's decision to protect those who fear and hate them (i.e. humans) and their strivings for unity resemble the civil rights movement and the ills of racisim. This idea of racism and societal outcasts was made more clear to me while learning about the plight of a group of mutants known as the Morlocks in an episode of X-men. Like the X-men, they are feared and hated by humans. Unlike the X-men, however, their mutant characteristics are more visible (i.e. they have more physcial and facial deformities), therefore they cannot "pass" as human. As a result, they live underground, and have to steal food to survive. This dynamic of having one group of mutants who are more marginalized in society than another group relates to past and contemporary divisions bewteen people with darker skin and those with lighter-skin, and how "light-skin" black and brown people appear more acceptible in mainstream American media.
In terms of superheroes' political relevance, the Black Panther's name should speak for itself. The Black Panther is the first prominent Black superhero. He lives in an African nation that was unaffected by European colonization. He protects his nation from colonization and other countries' attempts to exploit his nation's resources. Sound familiar? He first appeared in issue #52 of the Fantastic Four in 1966, the same year that the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense was formed in Oakland, Ca by Bobby Seale and Huey Newton. Coincidence? Hardly. It doesn't take deep analysis to see there's a connection. In a recent Black Panther comic (part of a four-part crossover series with the X-men), the Black Panther addresses the issue of the death penalty in Texas. Such a comment would not have been necessary if he was simply an action-packed character, suggesting that there's more to many superheroes than what meets the eye.
The above examples have led me to the following theory: Although superheroes are often known for their special powers, they provide insight into moral, political, and societal issues. Moreover, I argue that because children are often fascinated with superheores, adults and educators should atleast consider the potential educational import of superheroes such as Spiderman, X-men, and The Black Panther as tools to promote critical thinking and the awareness of social and political issues among children. I am really interested in this issue, so I'm looking forward to hearing what others think about it. Peace, Blessings, and speekonit...
Ever since I can remember, I have always been a fan of superheroes. It started with Voltron and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoons. Around 9 or 10 years old, I also became interested in comic books, more specifically marvel comics. My all time favorite superhero group by far is the X-men, and my favorite solo superhero is Spiderman. It has since been over a decade later, and I still find myself buying comic books and watching classic superhero cartoons. As I get older, one of my goals is to become more purposeful in all I do, business and recreational. Therefore, the question arises: why am I just as, if not more interested in superheroes now than I was back when I would have had the costumes to match? Not surprisingly, the answer to this question led to more questions. I realized that my current fascination with superheroes stems from the fact that I actually learn from them. More specifically, when I watch an episode of X-men or Spiderman, I see more than just action-packed characters. I see individuals who struggle with complex issues of identity, relationships, and moral agency within a socio-political context. The following pics are courtesy of
For example, I argue that the life of Peter Parker (a.k.a. Spiderman) somewhat mirrors the Christian Walk. Once he received his powers, he struggled with whether or not to use his powers for self-ish reasons or to help others. Similarly, as Christians God has entrusted us with wisdom, discenrment, and spiritual authority over Satan, but it's up to us to decide whether we are going to use what God has blessed us with to bless others. It may sound Cliche-ish, but it's on that "to whom much is given, much is required" steez.
On more of a social level, the X-men are a group of mutants who've dedicated their lives to working towards unity between humans and mutants. I believe that the X-men's decision to protect those who fear and hate them (i.e. humans) and their strivings for unity resemble the civil rights movement and the ills of racisim. This idea of racism and societal outcasts was made more clear to me while learning about the plight of a group of mutants known as the Morlocks in an episode of X-men. Like the X-men, they are feared and hated by humans. Unlike the X-men, however, their mutant characteristics are more visible (i.e. they have more physcial and facial deformities), therefore they cannot "pass" as human. As a result, they live underground, and have to steal food to survive. This dynamic of having one group of mutants who are more marginalized in society than another group relates to past and contemporary divisions bewteen people with darker skin and those with lighter-skin, and how "light-skin" black and brown people appear more acceptible in mainstream American media.
In terms of superheroes' political relevance, the Black Panther's name should speak for itself. The Black Panther is the first prominent Black superhero. He lives in an African nation that was unaffected by European colonization. He protects his nation from colonization and other countries' attempts to exploit his nation's resources. Sound familiar? He first appeared in issue #52 of the Fantastic Four in 1966, the same year that the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense was formed in Oakland, Ca by Bobby Seale and Huey Newton. Coincidence? Hardly. It doesn't take deep analysis to see there's a connection. In a recent Black Panther comic (part of a four-part crossover series with the X-men), the Black Panther addresses the issue of the death penalty in Texas. Such a comment would not have been necessary if he was simply an action-packed character, suggesting that there's more to many superheroes than what meets the eye.
The above examples have led me to the following theory: Although superheroes are often known for their special powers, they provide insight into moral, political, and societal issues. Moreover, I argue that because children are often fascinated with superheores, adults and educators should atleast consider the potential educational import of superheroes such as Spiderman, X-men, and The Black Panther as tools to promote critical thinking and the awareness of social and political issues among children. I am really interested in this issue, so I'm looking forward to hearing what others think about it. Peace, Blessings, and speekonit...
Labels: African, Black Panther, Black Panther Party, cartoons, children, comic book, education, moral, political, social, Spiderman, Superheroes, Voltron, X-men, youth
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
