Jan Willis: "Do Something"

I've started working on the blog for UGA's Invisible Children chapter, so expect a few posts from there. Here's one on Jan Willis' visit to UGA.

On Wednesday, Dr. Jan Willis, professor of Relgion at Wesleyan University in Connecticut, was the guest lecturer for my Religion in Literature class, and later that evening, gave a presentation titled “Buddhism, Nonviolence, and Dr. King”.

Dr. Willis is an amazing woman - an accomplished author, but also an accomplished human being. When she was in the tenth grade, she marched with Dr. King in Alabama. Several years later, she traveled to India, looking for answers, and studied under Tibetan lama Thubten Yeshe.

I had the opportunity to ask her a question after her lecture to my class and, trying - and very likely failing - to not make a fool of myself, asked something along the lines of, “What was it like to grow up in such a troubled time, and especially to be traveling abroad as the US tried to tear itself apart?” An average question to be sure, her answer was more poetic than I ever could have hoped for.

She said, in short, that there was a general feeling of hope. Even though the sixties saw, within five years, the assasinations of JFK, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and Bobby Kennedy, she said, there was a great sense that things would get better. Even as she discussed the Vietnam War, she was quick to point out that her generation, the college kids, were working for the world they wanted to live in. She mentioned that she is asked to give lectures to people her own age, people who have seen the world slowly stop to care, and she gives them this advice: “Do something. Build a house with Habitat, do anything. Do something.”

In the later lecture, Dr. Willis devoted a lot of time to what she discussed earlier in the day. She mentioned the great leaders of her time, all devoted to civil rights, but all devoted to peace, too. And then she mentioned Ghandi’s now-famous quote, used as the motto for “Step Up”: Become the change that you want to see in the world.

Our club has an incredible opportunity. We are at a major university with the resources to reach the entire world. We have the professors to guide us, the students to support us, and the world to challenge us. I look at Sanford Stadium on a game day and ask myself, “What would the world be like if those 90,000 people devoted themselves to something other than the Bulldog Nation?

And I say it’s about time we find out. [Originally posted at: Turning Apathy into Activism]

Rock on.

And now for something completely different...

I give you a break from my thoughts on China, Tibet, Iraq, the Olympics, the C PT, and all of those things that are somehow connected in my jumbled head. Instead, I leave you with how I spent my morning off from German class.

TOTO!!!!


And Men at Work:


Both of these bands found me because of the show Scrubs.

Enjoy. Now I'm off to the library to spend a few hours researching the Nephilim. Whee!

Shalom,
Drew

Edit: If you don't get the reference in the title, may the Lord have mercy on your soul.

"Why is it OK to even consider sacrificing athletes' dreams on behalf of making a statement?"

So asks Canadian gymnast Kyle Shewfelt.

The real question is how much would you give to take a stand for human rights? Is personal glory really worth the cost of human rights and dignity?

I've heard three main arguments against boycotting the Olympics.

1. We should not forfeit our athletes' opportunity to shine. Sports and politics don't mix.
As asked above, should we pay for our gold medals in human suffering? Are fame and glory worth giving up the opportunity to do something truly meaningful? Unfortunately, Americans usually answer yest to those questions. And again, I remind you, my faithful readers (ok, who am I kidding - reader), that the US has a history of boycotting competitions to make political points. The best example is the Moscow Olympics. Sixty-two nations followed our lead. The favor was returned in 1984, with fourteen nations following the Soviet Union's lead. UN sanctions led to boycotts of games in Yugoslavia. China had to make several promises concerning human rights to even get the 2008 games. International sporting events are inherently political. For a history of political boycotts of the Olympic games, see here and here.

2. The US is dependent on China. We can't afford to piss them off.
Yes. We get lots of products from Chinese production companies. This means that China SELLS the US lots of products. We can't afford to have China refuse to make our goods. China really can't afford to refuse to make our goods. They need us as much as wee need them. If they are angered by a boycott, they can't lose our business - to take retributive action of this sort would be a bad choice for them.

3. China wouldn't care if we boycotted. What's one nation?
The US has won more medals than any other nation. We had the most athletes at the 2004 games. A US absence would be noticeable. The hosting of the Olympic games is a chance for a nation to make its mark in the world, to say, "Hey, we're a world power!" A boycott of these games is a chance for a nation to stand up to that power, to call for responsibility. How much more, then, would it mean if the largest delegation were to boycott?

You know, I know nobody will listen to me - there's too much national pride at stake for both sides. I don't know what it would take for the US or other nations to boycott the games, and truthfully, I don't want to know. In all likelihood, it would require something significantly more tragic than the violent crackdown we're now witnessing, and I really don't want it to come to that. As for me, though, I will continue to boycott any and all sponsors of the Olympic games, until either China cleans up its act or until the games are over.

Crap, I'm going to miss Burn Notice. Oh well.

Rock on.

A Challenge

We have passed the five-year mark in Iraq and we still debate over whether or not the war was justified. And sorry to disappoint any readers who were looking for a debate, but I'm not going to get into discussions on justification. Nor will I allow any comments that start such discussions. That's not the point right now.

Instead, I want to look at the actions of Christian Peacemaker Teams and their operations within Iraq. For those who don't know, CPT has been in Iraq since October 2002. Among the team-members was Christian activist and author Shane Claiborne. I'm actually a really big fan of Mr. Claiborne, despite objections I have to some of his teachings. And I applaud CPT's work in Iraq as a means of achieving solidarity with Iraqis. But I can't help but wonder - why did they not go until 2002? CPT has been around since 1984. Why were they not in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was massacring his own people? Were Iraqis not worth saving until the US became the aggressor? Was Saddam Hussein not worth opposing?

No, the skeptic in me thinks it's something a little more logical. Non-violence is not as effective as they claim. Sure, it works when opposing rational nation-states. Non-violence worked (eventually) against racist institutions in the US, South Africa, and India. But did it work in Tiannemen Square? Did it work in Nazi Germany (Bonhoeffer, a pacifist leader, didn't seem to think so)? Did it work in Bosnia? Or Rwanda?

So now we sit here, five years later, and the CPT has a chance to show that they stand up to all evil, not just the violence of Western powers. Tibet is slipping into chaos as China cracks down on civil rights. CPT, according to their own principles, should be "getting in the way" of Chinese soldiers. If they truly think that non-violence always work, then they should be in Tibet.

Rock on.

Edit: Allow me a brief explanation of my stance on war: I, like all people, believe that war is bad, to put it quite simply. I believe that it is not a sustainable foreign policy, nor should it be resulted to in any but the worst situations, to include the prevention of genocides and other massacres and to end mass violence - known by some as peacemaking. I support self-determination until it leads to violence. As a Christian, I believe in forgiveness, but I also believe in helping others and cannot stand by and watch as others suffer.

Stuff I Liked on Stuff Christians Like

I tried to resist. I hadn't even heard of that silly website until this week, when all of sudden, it was mentioned on pretty much every blog I read. Being the Indie kid that I am (you happy, Jeremy, I finally admitted it?), I tried to keep from reading the list. And then, I decided I could read it, I just wouldn't reference it. But then it brought back memories of youth groups and life as a preacher's kid. So, here, I hope you're happy, blag-web-o-sphere. Here are my favorites. In groups!

Popular Christian Culture
#12 - Getting awesome in a certain number of steps
#25 - Jonah, Noah, and David
#26 - Songs that sound Christian, but aren't
#28 - Rob Bell - Rob Bell, if by some chance you're reading my blog, just know that I love you and what you have to say. But I also like paragraphs.
#58 - Calling people "Seekers"
#61 - Being "relevant" - To the publishers of Relevant Magazine - I love you guys, but you really are the indie kids of today's Christianity. Also, can I get a free subscription?
#75 Quoting from The Message when the normal Bible is being disagreeable

Devotionalism
#14 - Dating God instead of me
#31 - Occasionally swearing
#33 - Singing with our hands raised
#63 - Rededicating your life. Again.
# 96 - Using God's favorite word
#105 - Wishing your testimony was more exciting

Youth Group
#35 - Lock ins
#45 - Getting the money's worth out of youth group liability forms - Best example of this - rupturing my eardrum during a mudfight on a camping trip. Or that time my friend Cameron nearly died on the white water rafting retreat. Or the kid who got a concussion on the ski trip. Or...yeah...
#55 - Getting a precise definition of "virgin" from your youth minister
#64 - Fearing the rapture would come before you lost your virginity
#66 - Eating your bodyweight in goldfish in Sunday school - Or at youth group. Or vacation Bible school. Or pretty much anytime. I still do this. The goldfish cracker really is the perfect snack of our faith.
#74 - Youth group vehicles that break down, blow up, and in general, suck - I'm not entirely sure if I've been on a youth trip that didn't have at least one car problem
#93 - Riding on the cool van in youth group - If it's gonna break down, you don't want to be stuck with losers.

Grape Juice
#76 - Grape Juice - 'Nough said.

And now that I've wasted an hour and a half, I can get on with my life.

kthxbai

Rock on.
Wait...why aren't bad Christian rock bands on the list? Stryper's just the tip of the iceberg.

Edit: Ok, yeah, I missed a few. Or new ones came out. Either way, here they are:
#5 - Bootleg Cookies
#110 - Donald Miller - Mr. Miller, if you happen to be reading my blog, please hurry up with more books.
#115 - Kissing dating goodbye - Yeah. I tried it. And by tried it, I mean that I used it as an excuse for my singleness. I highly recommend I Gave Dating a Chance.

Oh, and I forgot this part. Hat-Tip - 'erbody

"I am Yours. Save me."

One of the most powerful scenes in the movie Luther is a dialogue between Martin Luther and his superior. Luther is shown awake late at night, talking to himself and arguing with the Devil. Luther tells Father von Staupitz that he is too full of sin to be a priest and that he fears damnation. Staupitz consoles Luther, telling him to put his faith in Christ, not in his works, saying, "Look to the Cross. Say to God, 'I am Yours. Save me.'"

The modern (or postmodern) Church does a good job of encouraging its followers to do good works. Claiborne's The Irresistible Revolution is almost entirely about working for social justice. This movement has been needed for a long time. Christianity has become to focused on approaching God in a bubble, stressing personal relationships and personal salvation. The communal aspect has been lost and the Emergent movement has done a great job of restoring it.

But sometimes I think that we've gone too far to the communal side. We stress doing good works. Great. Faith without deeds is dead. But maybe we emphasize works too much (I've got to hand it to Don Miller - he does the best job of expressing this). Why am I saying this? Well, another great part of the Emergent movement is the honesty that it has brought. Over the past few weeks and months, I've started to fall into the same place Luther found himself. Too full of sin to be loved by God. Too selfish to embrace Love. It's an incredibly frightening place in which to find one's self. Fear of damnation brings about fear of Death, the very Death which we proclaim Christ to have defeated. So in questioning my salvation, I, by default, question the power of God himself.

So where's the balance? If we emphasize works too much, we fall back into the spiritual trap that was the Middle Ages and start teaching that salvation is to be earned and bought. But if we don't emphasize works, we end up where we were in the the modernist period - Christianity becomes a political tool and Christians don't live their faith.

As I read the works of Thomas Merton (I'm working on New Seeds of Contemplation) I'm starting to see the proper balance. Merton was a monk, but lived in a hermitage. He lived in solitude, but in community. He saw himself living in solitude, but connected to other people living in solitude. Always alone. Always with others. I've been trying to figure out where the balance is, and I think Thomas Merton had it right. A personal relationship with God, trusting in the salvation of Christ, but pushing towards community. Relationships not because we fear damnation, but because we Love. Doing good not because we must earn our salvation, but because we Love.

Rock on.

Updates and Other Trivial Junk

I've updated the links on the side bar. Woohoo! I've only been meaning to do that for about a year now...

Also, I'm in the final month of school, so term papers are coming due and finals are looming. Which, for a normal student - wait, that's a lie - for a good student, means that the apartment and blog would both fall into a state of neglect. For me, though, this means that I'll have plenty of new blog posts and a clean apartment. Or I might actually study.

Either way, I will at some point be researching the Nephilim and Edgar Allan Poe for my religion classes, so there is some potential for interesting materials.

Also, click on the Dr. McNinja link. It's pretty awesome.

Shalom,
Drew

This is why...

Batman: The Animated Series was so great. Not the best video ever, but considering it's a cartoon from nearly a decade ago, it's flat impressive.

Without any further ado, BlockoVision's The Dark Knight trailer presented in a TAS format.




Edit: You can tell that there was a rather drastic change in animation - the Joker's face is a little more round and even gentler, and the ears on Batman's cowl are a little longer. This was about the time (1997) they introduced the new Robin and the series was called The New Batman Adventures and they used a few different styles, none of which held a candle to the original. There were a few major changes between the '95 end of TAS and the start of TNBA which are hard to track down. I stopped watching around that time (I was living in Germany and TAS was the only version broadcast), so I'm a little lacking in trivia, though my friend James might be able to offer a better explanation. Am I rambling? Yeah. But it's just because I miss TAS so much.

An Argument for Acting on Climate Change (Even if you don't believe in it).

I've thought for some time that even if "global warming" (though I believe a better title to be "Accelerated Climate Change Due to Human Interactions") isn't true, we should still act on it - even if pollution isn't going to change global weather patterns, it still poses massive health risks and destroys the beauty of Nature (I miss being able to see stars!). Not to mention the ever-present need for renewable energy.

As for the argument - I think it's pretty strong - however, it's not true in all cases, such as when applied to God - or Zeus for that matter - which is why it shouldn't be used in apologetics, but never mind that. The major problem it is pushing epistemological boundaries. For the sake of argument, the host assumes a complete lack of knowledge - a "veil of ignorance" if you will, and from their makes it a matter of choosing between the four possible outcomes. From there, he states that two outcomes are good, one is bad, and the other is worse.

It would look something like this:
Let "A" represent the two "happy" outcomes - the bottom left and upper right corners.
Let "B" represent the one bad outcome - the upper left corner.
Let "C" represent the worst outcome - the lower right corner.
Let "D" represent the economic downfall of the world.
Let "E" represent the environmental and health hazards.
Now B = D, while C = D+E.
Therefore, A is preferable to both B and C. And B is preferable to C, because C includes more bad stuff.
And of course, if we face the choice of facing D alone or facing both D and E, E is preferable.

Simple enough.

The problem is that he suggests we are playing by luck. I often get mad about economics because it makes broad assumptions - perfect knowledge chief among them. But when you assume no knowledge, you fall into just as much of a trap. Knowledge allows us to reconsider the probabilities. Before, we were operating under an assumption that for a given action (in this case, applying "green" practices or maintaining the status quo), we had a 50% chance of getting it right and a 50% chance of getting it wrong (in statistical terms, 1:1). With an informed decision, though, we see it differently. With current evidence (I'm not getting into what the evidence suggests, as too many people read it differently), we can go greatly increase our odds (9:1, or 90% to 10%). Because why would we run the risk of scenario B if scenario C had a ten percent chance of occurring? Or why would we risk C if scenario B had a five percent chance of occurring? There is also a point at which we must ask ourselves, "Is the risk worth it?" How likely does C have to be before B becomes preferable? No matter what a political scientist tells you, this point will vary from person to person.

Now, all of this is to say this: I have had no fewer than four classes that have devoted several lectures to climate change - International Affairs, Political Science, Geology, Biology - and I've had many more in which the topic has been addressed. And I would imagine that I'll have a few more before my Bachelor's is complete. Out of all of the classes, they all urged for some type of action. And I have become quite convinced that something is occurring, though I'm still skeptical about how drastic it will be (It's bad, but how bad? I don't think anyone truly knows, but a lot of people claim to...). But this short video still presents the argument better.

Rock on.

A Move Towards Censuring China

Steve Spielberg and I are still pretty much alone in boycotting the Beijing Olympics, but recent events in Tibet are pushing more people in that direction.

Granted, discussing boycotting the opening ceremony is a far cry from an out-right boycott of the games, but I think it's a good step, and would be very pleased to see the representatives from the US skip the ceremony.

Rock on.