Author: Brian Legate

Elie Wiesel’s 2011 Commencement address at Washington University in St. Louis Titled ‘Memory and Ethics’ May 20, 2011

/ Brian Legate / Leave a comment

My selected excerpts from a powerful speech by one my personal heroes…

What else have we learned? That we are not alone in this world. God alone is alone. Human beings are not. We are here to be together with others, and I insist on the others — which means, in some places, in some groups, they are suspicious of the other. Don’t. I see the otherness of the other, which appeals to me. In fact it is the otherness of the other that makes me who I am. I am always to learn from the other. And the other is, to me, not an enemy, but a companion, an ally, and of course, in some cases of grace, a friend. So the other is never to be rejected, and surely not humiliated.

What else? I quote from the Bible, I continue, because after all that is my study — that’s my upbringing. The greatest commandment, to me, in the Bible is not the Ten Commandments. First of all, it’s too difficult to observe. Second, we all pretend to observe them. My commandment is, “Thou shall not stand idly by.” Which means when you witness an injustice, don’t stand idly by. When you hear of a person or a group being persecuted, do not stand idly by. When there is something wrong in the community around you — or far way — do not stand idly by. You must intervene. You must interfere. And that is actually the motto of human rights. Human rights has become a kind of secular religion today. And I applaud it — I am part of it. And therefore wherever something happens, I try to be there as a witness.

———–

What do we know now? A new trend is hanging upon us, and the name is fanaticism. We must do whatever we can to, first of all, unmask. Second, to denounce. And, of course, to oppose fanaticism wherever it is. What is fanaticism? Perversion. You can take a beautiful idea — like religion in the Middle Ages — but fanaticism can turn it into something which is anti-human because a group of human beings decide that they know who is worthy of life, who is worthy of redemption.

————

Now, a story. A man is lost in the forest. And he tries to find the exit and fails. It takes him hours in night and day, and he’s still lost in the forest. On the third day, he notices that someone else is in the forest. He runs to him and he says, “Ah! I’m so glad to meet you. Show me the way out.” And he said, “I am like you — I am lost in the forest. One thing I can tell you: You see that road there? Don’t go there. I have just come from there.”

I belong to a generation that tells you that. Where you now can start your life, and you’ve of course entered a lot of roads, cities, maybe new universities, and remember, there is something that you must remember: Don’t go where I come from.

————

I want you to know, with all that I have gone through in life: I still have faith in humanity. I still have faith in humanity. I have faith in language, although language was perverted by the enemy. I have faith in God, although I quarrel with Him a lot of time. I don’t know whether he feels upset or not, but I do. Why? Because I don’t want to break the chain that links me to my parents and grandparents and theirs, and theirs, and theirs.

And furthermore, I believe that the human being — any human being of any community, any origin, any color — a human being is eternal. Any human being is a challenge. Any human being is worthy of my attention, of my love occasionally. And therefore I say it to you: When you are now going into a world which is hounded, obsessed with so much violence, often so much despair — when you enter this world and you say the world is not good today, good! Correct it! That’s what you have learned here for four years from your great teachers. Go there, and tell them what you remember. Tell them that the nobility of the human being cannot be denied.

I’m sure you have learned French literature. I’m sure you have learned about Albert Camus, the great philosopher and novelist. In his famous novel, The Plague, at the end Dr. Rieux, who was the main character of the novel, sees a devastated city, thousands and thousands of victims from the plague. And this doctor at the end says, it’s true, all that is true.

But nevertheless, I believe, he said, there is more in any human being to celebrate than to denigrate. I repeat: There is more in any human being to celebrate than to denigrate.

Let’s celebrate. Thank you.

###

To view a video of Wiesel’s Commencement address at Washington University in St. Louis, visit youtube.com/watch?v=votSq2u7jFA.

President Obama’s Speech at Cairo University – June 4, 2009

/ Brian Legate / Leave a comment

Note: This is a two part extended excerpt from President Obama’s speech highlighting the introduction and conclusion. I believe these sections included the most powerful statement made during this historic address that was closely watched worldwide.

For the full transcript and video – click here:

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Cairo,Egypt)
________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 4, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON A NEW BEGINNING
Cairo University
Cairo, Egypt
1:10 P.M. (Local)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning; and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt’s advancement. And together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I’m grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. And I’m also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalaamu alaykum. (Applause.)
We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world — tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.
Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. All this has bred more fear and more mistrust.
So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.
I’ve come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
___________________________

All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.
The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world that we seek — a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God’s children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.
I know there are many — Muslim and non-Muslim — who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn’t worth the effort — that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There’s so much fear, so much mistrust that has built up over the years. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country — you, more than anyone, have the ability to reimagine the world, to remake this world.
All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort — a sustained effort — to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.
It’s easier to start wars than to end them. It’s easier to blame others than to look inward. It’s easier to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There’s one rule that lies at the heart of every religion — that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. (Applause.) This truth transcends nations and peoples — a belief that isn’t new; that isn’t black or white or brown; that isn’t Christian or Muslim or Jew. It’s a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the hearts of billions around the world. It’s a faith in other people, and it’s what brought me here today.
We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.
The Holy Koran tells us: “O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.”
The Talmud tells us: “The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.”
The Holy Bible tells us: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” (Applause.)
The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God’s vision. Now that must be our work here on Earth.
Thank you. And may God’s peace be upon you. Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.)

The Word of God?

/ Brian Legate / Leave a comment

“This is the word of the Lord”

That is the liturgical phrase used in Christian churches to mark the end of a reading from the Bible. It is a strange, even a misleading, phrase. Yet Sunday after Sunday it is repeated, reinforcing in the psyches of worshipers a rather outdated attitude toward Holy Scripture.

In many of its details, the Bible is simply wrong! Epilepsy is not caused by demon possession. David did not write the Psalms. The earth is not the center of the universe. On other issues of great public concern, the Bible is no longer even regarded as moral. Its verses have been used to affirm war, slavery, segregation and apartheid. It defines women as inferior creatures and suggests that homosexual persons be put to death.

Church people try to ignore or suppress these biblical deficiencies, but when the Scriptures are read to a listening congregation the response is increasing incredulity. Still they respond, “This is the word of the Lord.”

Outside the church, this presumed authority of Scripture is generally ignored. Secular people live in a post-religious world where the idea that a literary work, written between 1000 B.C.E. and 135 C.E., can be “the Word of God,” is simply too far-fetched to believe. This obvious ecclesiastical power play is no longer even passively accepted as benign. One has only to chart the evil and pain that many people have endured in history because someone regarded the Bible as the “Word of God.” That claim is no longer regarded as valid.

In a series of essays that will appear periodically over the next few months in this column I will examine some of the more frightening examples of these tragedies. My purpose will be quite specific. I will be seeking to call the Christian Church in all of its forms to look closely at what it is, overtly and covertly, teaching its people about the Bible and at the enormous gap that exists between what biblical scholars know and what the leaders of the churches actually say to their congregations. If our clergy do not really believe what they are saying, and if our liturgies affirm things that the scholars universally reject, then something is clearly amiss in contemporary Christianity that does not augur well for a Christian future.

First, we need to state some basic biblical facts.

The people who wrote the books in the Bible did not think they were writing “The Word of God.” That is a quite elementary but singularly important place to begin.

In regard to the first five books of the Bible, called the Torah or the Books of Moses, scholars have known since the 19th century, that they are not the work of a single hand. They are rather a compilation of at least four strands of Jewish writing that were composed over a period of some 500 years. Those strands were first, the Yahwist document, written in the tenth century B.C.E. and sometimes called the Hebrew Iliad, which reflects the national history of the Southern Kingdom of Judah. The second was the Elohist document, written in the 9th century B.C.E. and sometimes called the Hebrew Odyssey, which reflects the national history of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. After the fall of the Northern Kingdom to the Assyrians in 721 B.C.E., these two national stories were woven together into a single narrative. The third document was the product of one known as the Deuteronomic writer, composed in the late 7th century B.C.E., and consisting of the book of Deuteronomy and a general editing of the newly merged national Jewish story. The fourth source of the Torah was not so much a document as it was an expansive editorial commentary applied to the entire faith story by those called the Priestly Writers and written during the Babylonian Exile somewhere between 586 and 450 B.C.E. That is the process, briefly described, that produced the oldest part of the biblical story.

One can identify the places where these versions of the story were woven rather inexactly together, producing many of the conflicting details in the Torah itself. The Sabbath day law, for example, developed during the Exile, is read back into the manna in the wilderness story to make sure that the miraculous food was not gathered on the seventh day in violation of the Sabbath. The ritualistic laws governing sacrifices were used to alter the Noah story so that during the 150 days on the ark, Noah could offer the proper sacrifices without destroying that species.

Finally, there are three versions of the Ten Commandments in the Torah. The oldest one, from the Yahwist document, is found in Exodus 34. The version with which most of us are familiar, found in Exodus 20, comes from the Elohist document but was significantly doctored by the Priestly Writers. The third version is in Deuteronomy 5 and though close to Exodus 20 has some revealing differences. The Deuteronomic version of the 4th Commandment makes the reason for rest on the Sabbath, not that God rested from the work of creation and thus hallowed that day, but that the Jews should remember that they were once slaves and that even slaves need a day of rest. The seven-day creation story, with which the Bible now opens, was written by the Priestly Writers well after the Deuteronomic document had been completed.

The idea that the Bible came into being in some sort of miraculous way and is either the literal dictation of God or even the “inspired message of God” is simply not supportable on its face. The Bible is a profoundly human, deeply flawed, tribal history that has created as much pain as blessing in our world.

Moving on to the Hebrew prophets, this analysis produces a similar difficulty. The prophets tended to explain every disaster that befell the chosen people as the direct result of their laxity in obeying God’s laws or in their inability to worship God properly. God seemed to have little more to do than to organize the whole universe so as to teach the chosen people how to be faithful or to demonstrate the dreadful price that unfaithful ones would have to pay. When we turn to the first part of the New Testament to be written, we need to register the fact that Paul’s letters were just that, letters. They are time bound and time specific. They express irritation at and praise for the behavior of the actual recipients. They were composed in a dialogical manner in order to address real issues bothering real people in real time. When Paul wrote in anger, “I hope those who bother you will mutilate themselves,” was that the Word of God? Surely it was nothing more than the word of Paul!

Similarly, when Paul suggested that a woman’s head must be covered in public worship, he was expressing a cultural norm not a universal principle. When Paul said, “I forbid a woman to have authority over a man” or when he suggested that those who do not worship God properly would have their sexual identities confused, does one really want to suggest that this badly dated bit of human ignorance is to be reverenced as the voice of God?

Later the Gospel writers would violently twist out of context the writings of the prophets to prove such things as the literal accuracy of the Virgin Birth or to demonstrate that the ancient prophets supported the doctrinal and creedal development of the 4th and 5th Centuries of the Common Era. Jerry Falwell, in a published book, has suggested that the divine nature of Jesus is “proved” by the fact that he fulfilled in a very specific way, the messianic expectations of the prophets. That attitude, however, has been revealed by modern biblical scholarship to be nothing less than profound ignorance. The idea that a God, living somewhere above the sky, would drop hints into the texts of writers, some 800 years before the birth of Christ, determining exactly what Jesus would do in the 1st century, is fanciful enough. But when one adds that God would need to guard these divine hints through the centuries when these texts were copied by hand, protect them from destruction in war and guide the minds of Jewish decision makers centuries later to include these prophetic works in the Jewish Canon of Scripture, the elements of miracle and magic become heightened to incredibly superstitious levels.

Next, one needs to understand, that contrary to the way Christian theology has interpreted the Gospels from the 2nd century on, Jesus did not miraculously live out these prophetic expectations. It was exactly the other way around. The story of Jesus was crafted some 40 – 70 years after that earthly life came to an end, to make it conform to the biblical expectations! Micah, for example, did not predict that the birth of Jesus would occur in Bethlehem. That was the way that later Christians interpreted Micah. Jesus’ birth, which probably occurred in Galilee, was shifted to Bethlehem in order to make the birth of Jesus fulfill this expectation.

The story of Jesus’ crucifixion was, likewise, deliberately and liturgically shaped by their authors who had Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 in front of them as they wrote the passion narrative. We forget, conveniently I would suggest, that the earliest Gospel, Mark, says that when Jesus was arrested, all of the disciples “forsook him and fled.” Jesus died alone with no eyewitnesses. The Gospel writers later wrote the story of his death to “reveal the fulfillment of Scripture.” A great part of the crisis in faith today derives from the fact that the authority once claimed for the Bible cannot and should not be sustained in the light of modern knowledge. How important then is this traditional view of the Bible to the future of Christianity. Can this view of Scripture be abandoned without Christianity, as we have known it, not also collapsing? That question remains to be answered but it will be the present in the background of many columns written during the coming year. Stay tuned!

– Bishop John Shelby Spong
www.johnshelbyspong.com

How to discern between charity and justice – Means and ends are not the same

/ Brian Legate / Leave a comment

By Bishop Peggy Johnson

“I will tell you, O human, what is good and what the Lord demands of you. To do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with your God.”
(Micah 6:8)

Charity is an act of kindness. There are times when charity can be an appropriate and necessary response to people in crisis. It can become a lifeline to people on the verge of drowning.
Bishop Johnson

There are also limitations, however, associated with the giving of charity: Limitations that must not be ignored; limitations that challenge us to move beyond Charity to Justice.

What are these limitations?

With charity the life of the receiver does not change for the long term. Charity gives a momentary reprieve but it does not provide a lasting solution to the problems of life.
Charity is seductive: It makes the giver feel good about helping someone in need. This “high” can actually help preserve the unjust system that makes the giving of charity necessary.
Charity can also cause shame. This results as receivers find themselves in a vulnerable situation, dependent on others for help.
Charity also leads to fatigue in the giver. After responding a few times with help, people are often eager to help someone else. This is why food closets often have a limit to how much and how often they will help one individual. When they have used up their services from us, then they will have to go without.
With charity the giver feels good, relieved of guilt, but the recipient soon feels the same old hunger pains. In fact, the giving of charity can actually makes a bad situation worse as the root cause continues to exist but the motivation to solve the problem is alleviated.

Charity not enough

Surely, there has to be a better way! Charity is not enough.

Where charity addresses the symptoms of life problems, justice digs down to deal with the sins that are the root causes of injustice in the world. Justice calls for systemic change in society itself, and such change does not come without a real battle.

Someone has to say: ‘Enough! This has to stop!’

John Wesley caused riots with his preaching against the slave trade in Bristol, England. People were becoming rich through the forced servitude of others. It took fervent political action to bring about a change. Laws had to be passed. Someone had to speak out for change.

This is the cry of justice. Someone has to say: “Enough! This has to stop!”

Is this not what we celebrate as we remember the courage of the prophets, women and men called by God, unafraid to speak truth in the halls of power? The work of justice requires a commitment to solidarity, to join our voices to the cries of the exploited, the abused, the neglected, the disenfranchised, the tortured and the invisible.

Not behind closed doors

This is why Methodism worked for prohibition, child labor laws, and the right to unionize. This is why Methodists have boycotted lettuce, baby formula, Taco Bell and FedEx.

This is why Methodists marched against Jim Crow laws, integrated their churches, and registered people to vote.

This is why Methodists provide sanctuary to the undocumented people and march on Washington for humane, comprehensive immigration reform.

Justice does not work behind closed doors. Justice opens up the doors so all the world can see the dirty little secrets that dehumanize the lives of so many. Justice tells the truth and refuses to be ignored.

The difference between charity and justice could be seen in the example of someone helping a blind person across the street. The person who is helping the blind person is giving an act of charity.

Justice, though, would involve asking deeper questions. How did the person become blind?

Perhaps it was River Blindness? There is a lot of this in Africa. It is a disease caused by a virus that comes from exposure to a particular insect. With a simple medication it can be prevented, but the medicines are expensive and the distribution system is difficult.

Justice would call us to find ways to make this medicine affordable and available to the many people now being stricken by horrible illness.

Another question would be: “What is wrong with the street lights?” The Americans with Disabilities Act requires that street signs have “blind-friendly” pedestrian talking features that tell when it is safe to cross. Justice would call us to require the state to install these signs as the federal law requires.

How about the educational background of the blind person? Was he or she given an opportunity to learn mobility and the use of a cane? Has he or she been given the benefit of rehabilitation training that teaches the blind how to cross a street safely without requiring help? Justice would call upon the state to provide these services.

Charity, without justice, leaves the blind person dependent on more and more charity. Justice, on the other hand, makes it possible for them to move beyond dependency to self sufficiency.

Dependency vs. liberation

While charity creates dependency, justice restores and liberates.

What then does justice look like?

Justice is relational, it takes personal involvement.
Justice is not done by writing a check — even though a check may be written.
Justice takes personal interaction, not only with those who are struggling, but also with those you are struggling against. They have to see your face. They need to witness your commitment and feel your passion. They need to know that you care and that you will not stop until change happens.
The doing of justice means you will make new friends and establish new enemies. It means the “mountains are brought low and the valleys are raised up”; there is a leveling of life, and equality is established for everyone, no exceptions.
Justice is transformative, it changes lives. It is a process of education and revelation. It brings about new understandings and changes how we look at the world. What once was accepted is now unthinkable. What was once unthinkable, is now becoming the only way forward.
Justice changes the heart as well as the mind. When a vision of God’s justice takes hold in our hearts there is no turning back, no matter the cost.
Justice is restorative, it changes lives. It builds bridges between people, creating new understandings. It frees people from hatred and bitterness, and fosters forgiveness, opening doors to a new way forward. In South Africa justice meant telling the truth.
As long as lines continue to be drawn and divisions made, justice will not happen and peace will not come.
Justice is revolutionary, it changes society. Rights are protected. People are set free and their dignity is recognized and affirmed.
The goal of justice is not for me to win and for you to lose, but for us to find a way forward together. The goal of justice is not to continue to punish yourself or others, but to find a new freedom that energizes all of life.

Charity is nice. It makes us feel good, but in the long run it accomplishes little: It is a Band-Aid.

Justice, on the other hand, is the real deal: the radical surgery that creates real healing. It demands our total involvement. And God is using it every day to change the world.

Editor’s note: Bishop Peggy Johnson is Episcopal leader of the Eastern Pennsylvania Conference. This article is based on her remarks last month at “United Methodists Uniting: Pennsylvania Anti-Poverty Summit” in Harrisburg, Pa., sponsored by “United Methodist Advocacy PA” (formerly “UM Witness”). All three of the Pennsylvania annual conferences participated in the summit.

Date: 11/9/2010
©2010

Viva la (Nonviolent) Revolución – Bono – New York Times

/ Brian Legate / Leave a comment

Excerpt from today’s guest commentary by Bono – “Ten for the Next Ten” – http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/opinion/03bono.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=all

“As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life work,” President Obama said in his Nobel acceptance speech, “I am living testimony to the moral force of nonviolence.”

So, he might have added, are the Germans and Eastern Europeans who came out a couple of months ago to celebrate the anniversary of the fall of the Wall. And so are the brave Iranians who continue to take to the streets despite the certainty of brutal repression. Like Neda Agha Soltan, they are living (and bleeding and dying) testimony.

The start of the decade ought to be a time for a little bit of hope — not the wispy stuff, but battle-hardened hope, forged in the grim, purposeful spirit of the times. So I’ll place my hopes on the possibility — however remote at the moment — that the regimes in North Korea, Myanmar and elsewhere are taking note of the trouble an aroused citizenry can give to tyrants, and that people in places filled with rage and despair, places like the Palestinian territories, will in the days ahead find among them their Gandhi, their King, their Aung San Suu Kyi.

Social Networking and Political Action

/ Brian Legate / Leave a comment

Facebook founder Chris Hughes delivered the keynote address at the 2009 annual National Association for Multi-Ethnicity in Communications conference. He spoke about the use of computers and technology, the importance of information, and information technology as a means to break down traditional social barriers.
Watch it here – http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/289669-1

Read more about Chris Hughes and his work with the Obama election in this Fast Company cover story – http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/134/boy-wonder.html