Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

In our recent discussions, many people were voicing concern over how to "act" as a pacifist. In his address, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. states it beautifully: "We [King and followers] had to make it clear that nonviolent resistance is not a method of cowardice. It does resist. It is not a method of stagnant passivity and deadening complacency. THe nonviolent resister is just as opposed to the evil that he is standing against as the violent resister but he resists without violence. This method is nonaggressive physically but strongly aggressive spiritually," (12). "And so at the center of our movement stood the philosophy of love," (13). You cannot fight love. It stands inside of all of us. And, why, would you ever want to fight something so powerful? So good?

The other question that Dr. King brings to us is in "Love, Law, and Civil Disobedience": "How can you be logically consistent when you advocate obeying some laws and disobeying other laws?" (48). 

In the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America, it is written that: "Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." 

It is destructive not only to those oppressed, but to the oppressor. The foundation of Safety and Happiness is not oppression, it is not hate. It is love. The agape love that Dr. King talks about. The love that will cross all boundaries. The love that, I believe, we are all capable of.

Pacifism

I have always been a pacifist. Since I can remember, I've thought that causing harm to others has been wrong, and I still feel this way. In fact, I remember many, many, years back, when for a homework assignment we were told to ask our parents how they felt about war. So I asked my mother, and she responded (how, I don't remember, but she is not a pacifist), and then asked me how I felt. I looked at her, and very quietly said, "I don't think war is ever justified." This turned into a very big thing (because my mom LOVES to argue), and ended in her and my father (very jokingly, and I am sure somehow lovingly) calling me: "A Pink Commy Pig."

And I sat there and said okay because I still didn't think that killing was right. I don't find this on religious grounds, because I myself am not religious, but merely on a moral level. How can we, as human beings, find it okay to kill one another? To me, it's just never made sense. 

I, though many people laugh at me upon hearing this (while others get legitimately upset), believe that every person is good, or at least has the capacity to be good. I think we have a conscious for a reason, and that is to make us feel bad when we have done wrong. And there can be no worse action than killing another. 

And I think that this can be taken to the governmental level as well: a government is merely a system made up on people, to whom we put moral standards to, and therefore we should be able to put governments to the same standards. If we could pull out all of the good within us, and share it with others, as sometimes happens, then there would be no need for war. If we could find the good that is within us inside other people, there would be no need for hate or killing. 

I know that this sound utopian and most likely far-fetched, but I believe it is possible. And with such a simple concept, LOVE, I believe it can happen. 

Charles Strobel

     I think that the "Room In The Inn" is a fantastic place. All over the country, homelessness is a terrible problem. Growing up near L.A., I saw a lot of this. The homeless are already poor, then kicked out of homes or shelters, cannot find a job to help them get a new place to live (sometimes because they don't have a place to live). It gets worse as they can't buy food or keep themselves clean. As well, homelessness and mental illness often go together, though no one knows which causes which, really. 

     It's sad that in a society so affluent that there are so many people without a place to stay, without anything to eat. I remember living in Boston, and seeing the mass amounts of homeless who fell asleep on church steps every night. I remember walking past them, quietly so as not to wake them, and wonder how they got there. I remember the people begging for my money in the subways. I also remember the man on the corner of my school, sitting on a milk crate, who shines shoes for a living, though I never saw him shine anyone's shoes.

     I can't imagine the troubles that these people go through. I know (or at least hope) that if I ever got into a position like that, that my family would help me back up. But, the problem is, that poverty is cyclical. Most of the homeless we see grew up in a poor household, if there even was a household. 

     Charlie made a good point in his speech: we spend billions upon billions on our "national security", yet we still don't feel safe. It would take $30 billion to end WORLD hunger. We spend $540 billion on defense (http://www.borgenproject.org/Cost_of_Ending_Poverty.html)

     We spend so much, and we still don't feel safe. Most of those people living in poverty, especially in such war-stricken places as Africa, will NEVER feel safe. Most certainly without our help.

Prospectus

For my project, I want to do something with music and justice. I feel that musicians have always been able to point out injustices in society, and get their fans excited about it. From U2 with their endless help towards the ONE campaign and the like, to Green Day speaking out against George W. Bush (whether you agree with them or not!), to Pink Floyd singing about the unfairness that they see. There are endless examples. 

I hope to merge some of these songs together, and make a "music collage". Whether it be actually merge them together to make a new song, or take lyrics or make a picture representing the lyrics, this is initially my plan. 

The Prophets

Abraham Heschel's book "The Prophets" brings an interesting outlook to the prophets. I can not imagine the troubles that would go along with having to bring such "weighted" news to the world. Constantly having to tell people how terrible they are, how they are screwing with God's creations and that we are not living up to what He wanted. 

But on the same hand, I can't imagine how the people the prophets were talking to felt, either. To hear that, after all of your trials and tribulations, that you are STILL not doing what God wants: 

"What to Me is the multitude of your sacrifices?

Says the Lord;

I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams" 

-Isaiah 1:11

When all that you have been told to do is to sacrifice to your God, to offer him things, I would not know how to respond either. 

I do not know what time would is more difficult to follow faith in: Back in the days of the prophets, when the outlines of "good faith" were so easily drawn out for you (as in sacrifices and religious wars); or now, where there are so many denominations, and each one tells you that "their way is the only way to God". 

Pre: Rabbi Flip

     I will admit, I do not have an extensive background in religion. Prior to this class, I had not really ever thought about studying the bible. Genesis 1:1-16 seems simple enough. God creates the world, the light, the dark, plants and the world. I don't know if it could have been done in seven days or not, considering its taking us months to just build a new parking garage... but hey, I won't argue. 

     I am, however, confused about Genesis 37. I must be missing something. I read past 37:17 (for the first time), and could not understand why Joseph's brothers would want to kill him. "'Here comes this dreamer. COme now, let us kill him and throw him into one of the pits; then we shall say that a wild animal has devoured him, and we shall see what will become of his dreams,'" (Genesis 37:19-20). 

     In reading this, I was utterly confused. I couldn't help but thinking of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It may seem a little of topic, but we will be reading "A Testament of Hope" in this class. The thought of killing a dreamer, of killing a dream, lead me straight to the thought of Dr. King. His was a dream that led to his death, and I'm sure many others. A beautiful dream. Now, I don't know what Joseph's dream was, but I don't think that dreams, no matter what they, should ever be the demise of the dreamer. 

     I think that we are all dreamers. We all have hopes, thoughts, prayers, dreams. These are the things that make life beautiful. They give us life. For without them, there would be no substance to existence. So why kill them?

     Continuing through the readings, reading Ester did not confuse me. I liked the twist that it gave. Throughout millennia, the people of Jewish faith have been persecuted. Now, not only does a woman hold extensive power, but a Jewish woman. I liked that, because to me it seems as though women often times get overlooked, especially in religion. However, Ester kind of throws a spin on things. 

     We ended with Ecclesiastes. Which seemed like an odd choice. In my mind, the teacher is constantly battling with himself. He says that God's word is the ultimate word, that God is the ultimate power, and who am I to argue with that. But he then almost contradicts himself: "Whatever my eyes desired I did not keep from them; I kept m heart from no pleasure, for my heart found pleasure in all my toil, and this was my reward for all my toil," (Ecclesiastes 2:10). We are supposed to give all we have away, to the poor, and that is that word of God. God controls everything. Yet here our teacher is, living life to its fullest material meaning. 

    These were just some of my thoughts upon reading. I'm not looking for answers, for I have heard that if you ever think that you have an answer to the Bible, that you're probably wrong. And I think it's probably good to have questions. So, question some more!