Practicing Spirituality & Citizenship in the Era of Trump

Erected between the Church and the State is a "Wall of Separation."
But within the envelope of my skin, there is no line of demarcation segregating politics and spirituality. 

We do not live in a totalitarian state. As members of a democratic society, we have a civic duty. Our government is held in check by "we the people." In a democratic system of government, politics is just another aspect of daily living.

Spirituality is not an other-worldly affair. It is a principled worldview coupled with a system of practice that orients our whole being to the world in which we live.

Politics is not a distraction from spirituality, but one aspect of daily life with which spirituality is deeply concerned.

Saying that politics is a distraction from spirituality is like saying relationships or work are obstacles to spiritual practice. They aren't obstacles, they are opportunities for our spirituality to be born into the world. Segregating politics and spirituality is an attempt to closet your spirituality—to shield it from things that push your buttons, rather than turning into your struggles and learning to move beyond stress, fear, and anger.

We are not called to hide behind a vapid smile or to look the other way. Any spirituality that hides behind a distraction is not a spirituality but a defense mechanism. It is spiritual bypassing not spiritual practice. This is true regardless of whether our practice is rooted in Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, or lacks religious affiliation.

Gandhi once wrote, "Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is...Indeed, religion should pervade every one of our actions. Here religion does not mean sectarianism. It means a belief in ordered moral government of the universe. It is not less real because it is unseen. This religion transcends Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, etc. It does not supersede them. It harmonizes them and gives them reality."

A living spirituality is politically conscious and engaged but not obsessed. And this is the catch.

It is hard to be mindful and politically engaged at the same time. It is difficult to watch the news or read the papers without getting wrapped up in it, especially this day-and-age with a 24 hr news cycle and a controversial President that dominates every minute of that cycle.

Mindfulness and activism often feel mutually exclusive. But uniting the two is our path. We have to root our politics in mindfulness and silence. If we fail to do this, we will either neglect our civic responsibility or our politics will be tainted with fear and aggression.

You can be present and centered while protesting or voicing concern—Dorthy Day, Gandhi, King, Thich Nhat Hanh, and the Dalai Lama are perfect examples.

While the basic outline of spirituality remains unchanged, the terrain that path must traverse changes with each generation. And it is no accident that these great icons of mindful activism have come before us, showing us the way. They have outlined the path before us. Their activism is rooted in prayer and meditation.

Venturing into the realm of politics without tethering the mind to reality is the way of madness.

Meditation anchors the mind in the present moment. But it is not enough to sit every morning. Mindful activism is meditation in action. We have to bring the principles of meditation—letting go and returning to the simplicity of the present moment—into our daily life. In the presence of injustice, we often feel fear, anger, and aggression. But we must disown the fear, anger, and aggression, not the awareness of injustice, which is grounded in reality.

Our conscience must rise above our fear of confrontation. We have to speak truth to power. Our words must not be weighted down by anger and resentment. 

Politics devoid of compassion is just another way to vent resentment. And our body politic is already saturated with resentment. Prayer connects the mind and the heart, melting away resentment. William James wrote in Varieties of Religious Experience, "Religion is nothing if it be not the vital act by which the entire mind seeks to save itself by clinging to the principle from which it draws its life. This act is prayer." And the heart is the principle from which the mind draws life. But once again it is not enough to pray only in the morning. We have to see aggression as a reminder to pray throughout the day. When are afraid or angry, we have to pray for those that arouse our bitterness. We have to pray for those in need. Prayer gets us out of our head, out of our self-centered mind. It awakens the spirit of selflessness and sanity.

Spirituality reminds us that it is our responsibility to be a voice of sanity, a light unto the world. I say that not with a condescending tone, but with an awareness that I too must work harder to bring mindfulness, compassion, and sanity into my politics. Politics is a sticky subject. It is easy to get caught up in politics. But the spiritual path always cuts through our obstacles. It never goes around them. This is the path we in the era of Trump must trudge and we have to do it together.

Part of doing it together is holding each other accountable. When we see someone with good intentions lash-out or become disrespectful, it is important to point that out to them. We have to remind them that how they say it is every bit as important as what they say. Yes, we are obligated to speak the truth, but we are also obligated to do that in a skillful manner. If we oppose hate, then we have to oppose it even when it is attached to a message that we agree with because hate--in any form--only adds to the problems that we face as a nation. Hate is not the counter-measure for injustice. As Martin Luther King said, "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."

_________________________

Also available on iTunes: http://apple.co/2lK4hb4

Racism by Executive Order

Racism is an evil and corrosive thread with a deep and enduring legacy in America.

This statement to many white Americans is surprising and controversial. The shock and subsequent surge of indignance often sends skeptics hiding behind the familiar refrain of indulgent liberal sensitivities and charges of political correctness.

However, it should come as no surprise: America has a long and vicious history of racism. Under the cruel lash of the whip, millions of slaves were robbed of their humanity. They were taken as property, forced to labor under brutal conditions, often deprived of even the basic right to love and care for the children. This level of barbarism requires an anesthetizing rationalization, a program of indoctrination that subdues the humanity of all those culpable. This program is called white supremacy. It is a doctrine meant to inculcate not only the belief that white people are by virtue of race superior, but that other races are subhuman and therefore deserving of inhumane treatment.  This continued on through Jim Crow. To the conscientious dismay of many white people, the doctrine of white supremacy was not abolished by the Fourteenth Amendment or passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It is part of our cultural inheritance.      

Following this weekend's events in Charlottesville, it should come as no surprise that racism is alive and well. The overt hatred, bigotry, and ignorance chased a climax through a maze of civil unrest, conventional violence, and an act of domestic terrorism to finally arrive at a peak level of disgust with President Donald Trump's "Many Sides" speech.  He said, "We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides. On many sides. It's been going on for a long time in our country."

And with those words America felt a public shame fall over her she has not felt in many years.

In November of 1991, then President George H.W. Bush offered a few choice words for a holocaust denying, white nationalist Klansman seeking the Governorship in my home state of Louisiana:

'When someone asserts the Holocaust never took place, then I don't believe that person ever deserves one iota of public trust. When someone has so recently endorsed Nazism, it is inconceivable that someone can reasonably aspire to a leadership role in a free society. When someone has a long record, an ugly record of racism and of bigotry, that record simply cannot be erased by the glib rhetoric of a political campaign."

Of course the subject of his disgust is David Duke, the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan Donald Trump struggled to disavow during the 2016 campaign. Although Trump did eventually, under public pressure, flippantly distance himself from the anti-Semitic loon, he never forcefully repudiated him as Bush did in '91. Instead, Trump played footsies with Duke and his sympathizers. And in Charlottesville, Duke, who attended the rally, repaid the favor: "This represents a turning point for the people of this country. We are determined to take our country back. We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That's what we believed in. That's why we voted for Donald Trump."

Trump's "Many Sides" speech brought forth a new low for modern America because it failed to clearly denounce the neo-Nazis, KKK, and white supremacists and therefore laid cover for them. The new face of the White Nationalist movement and one of the organizers of this event, Richard Spencer, tweeted Trump's statement as proof of the President's approval:

Did Trump just denounce antifa? (anti-fascists) 

— Richard ☝🏻Spencer (@RichardBSpencer) August 12, 2017

Donald Trump is usually hyperbolic and vicious when attacking someone. His condemnation of the alt-right, White Nationalists, neo-Nazis and Klansmen is so reserved and equivocal that it is impossible to discern which side he stands on, which is precisely the point. This is no accident. Trump has never to my knowledge beat around the bush when attacking someone. In fact, his attacks on his own Attorney General and most loyal surrogate, Jeff Sessions, were more pointed than his rebuke of the swastika-clad terrorists in Charlottesville. When juxtaposed to his sensational and absurd rhetoric regarding Islam and immigrants, it is hard to see either as anything but a dog-whistle to white nationalist xenophobes.  

The President's critics are quick to say he endorses the views of Duke, Spencer, and their fascist brigade of white nationalists. This may or may not be true. But it is beside the point. Donald Trump is not an ideologue. He doesn't appear to even possess ideals or values. He acts purely on the basis of self-interest. So even if he did subscribe to Spencer's worldview, he would still act in his own self-interest. If it was politically advantageous to him, he would have clearly denounced them and their actions. But he didn't. Nor did he praise or defend them. If he had, a chunk of his base would surely have defected. Instead he waxed obscure, enabling both sides to draw their own conclusions about his statement.

I suspect Trump's tepid response is in large part owed to the fact that all he has left is his base, and this group of people represent a significant portion of his base. Sure there were only a few hundred white nationalists marching in the streets, but there are many thousands more at home who identify with their cause. Few want to be labeled a racist in the community of their peers. People want to closet their demons, but they do not want to abolish them. No one wants to be so angry that they lose control and lash out in violence when someone says something they find disagreeable, but few are willing to part ways with the more moderate, socially-acceptable form of anger that manifests as barbed gossip. But in point of fact, both parties are driven by anger. Similarly, few are willing to march down the street bellowing chants of "White Pride," but millions are willing to cast a vote for someone they believe will advance their white nationalist agenda—though they'd likely call it something like, oh, I don't know....Make America Great Again?

Remember, in 2016 David Duke ran for a Senate seat in Louisiana and received 3% of the vote. With a half-dozen other Republicans in the field, 58,581 Louisianians voted for a former Klan leader in 2016. No where near that number would have showed up to a white nationalist rally organized by him, but in the privacy of a voting booth they pulled the lever for him. Trump is the beneficiary of a similar phenomenon, but on a national scale. In the 2016 election 3% of the vote would have equaled roughly 4 million votes, more than enough to tip it in favor of Clinton. Trump's politics prevent him from outright denouncing them, but by failing to do so he lends credibility to their movement. The next "Unite the Right" rally may be attended by thousands, instead of a few hundred.

For reasons of political expediency and self-interest, Donald Trump is using the weight of the Oval Office to legitimize white nationalism. There is an ever-darkening cloud of suspicion parked over his White House. With each day comes news of developments in the Russian investigation that bring Mueller and his team closer to Trump and his family. Don't forget, you can't bring criminal charges against the President of the United States. You move to impeach, which is a political process, not a criminal proceeding. Standing between him and possible impeachment is his base—and that is it!. Therefore, self-interest and political expediency are probably intertwined in the service of survival  for Donald Trump. He is leveraging decades of progress, the dignity and rights of millions, the conscience of all, as well as American prestige to salvage his  name.

By no means do I believe that all or even most white people are sympathetic to the ideas of white supremacy. I do, however, believe that a large swath of decent white people are willing to over look racism because it makes them unconformable, or ignore it in an election year because they want a tax cut and don't see racism as an immediate existential threat. The option to overlook or prioritize racism is a feature of white privilege.

Many well-intentioned white people see their intentions blunted by the unconformable reality of confronting racism in day-to-day life. The apathetic rallying cry of liberal by-standers is "What am I am going to do about it?" In "Dear Theodosia," a popular track from the Hamilton musical, Lin-Manuel Miranda conveys the deep longing of every parent to make the world a better place for their children with the following words: "We'll bleed and fight for you, we'll make it right for you."

Obviously, I am not suggesting we take up our muskets, rather that we have to organize, protest, hold our elected officials accountable, and, yes, our co-workers too. We have to be willing to have those uncomfortable conversations wherever they present themselves. Culture is the vehicle by which our ideas and customs are passed on from one generation to the next, making the water-cooler and the bus stop the front line in the war against racism and courage the weapon of choice.  We have to do whatever we can to draw attention to the horrible truth of racism's enduring presence in the hope that our children will not have to.

Are We Entering an Age of Political Violence?

We Might Be Heading Down a Dangerous Path

The shooting in Alexandria, Virginia targeting the Republican Congressional Baseball Team is a horrific event on its face. Violence is always unwelcome. Being helplessly caught in the cross-hairs of an active shooter with no cover or defense has to be a terrifying situation. I empathize with every person present and their families, and hope for a full recovery of the victims, including staffers, police officers, and Rep. Steve Scalise, the majority whip from my home state, Louisiana.

This shooting is compounded by the fact that it appears to be an act of political violence. Just before opening fire the shooter, James Hodgkinsin, asked whether this was the Republican congressional team or the Democrats. We are fortunate to live in a country where violence seldom meets politics. Politics and violence come into contact so infrequently that many Americans take it for granted. Incidents like this remind us how fortunate we are to live in a country where the body politic is divorced from violence. There can be no freedom when politics are coerced by violence.

Obviously, the perpetrator, who has since deceased, was deranged. No one in their right mind would take to shooing at unarmed, defenseless people. But in an effort to both curb shooting violence and ensure that our politics remain devoid of violence we must ask ourselves what we can do to deter such acts in the future. Note I said "deter," not eliminate. I understand no measure is full-proof, but active measures can be taken to reduce the likelihood of mass shootings and acts of political violence.

The shooting this morning just outside the Capital is a perfect example of why Kathy Griffin's photo shoot holding the decapitated head of Donald Trump was unacceptable. I am not laying this shooting at her feet. I do not believe she intended any malice. I think she is a comedian who blurred the line between sensationalism and basic decency in an effort to garner attention and to make a buck and a political point.

Perhaps the line she crossed is somewhat elusive, and maybe even more so for a comedian. For example, the Der Spiegel cover depicting Trump holding the decapitated head of the Statue of Liberty is, in my opinion, perfectly acceptable political commentary because it insinuates "acts of violence" against the principles upon which our government rests—political malpractice, if you will. It is symbolic. The Kathy Griffin photo shoot lacks symbolism. It fails to point past its obvious meaning. Griffin's photo shoot, even if it was not her intent, suggests that violence is an appropriate form of recourse against Trump. It indicates that Trump is so bad, so unacceptable that his death is warranted, even welcomed—once again, even if was a tasteless attempt to be shockingly funny. Therefore, the universal and immediate disapproval with which her actions were met and the subsequent consequences were appropriate and absolutely necessary in order to maintain certain levels of decency in public discourse.

The threat of political violence can never be tolerated in a free society. Political violence uses fear to manipulate the civic process. This is the definition of terrorism. Freedom and political violence cannot occupy the same space. One cancels out the other. We must guard the body politic against the threat of violence. To do that we must guard our thoughts and words against violent innuendo.

American government is a two-party system. It has been since its inception. The two party system dates back to the vicious rivalry between Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Party and Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party. In order for a two party system to work, each side has to view the other as the "loyal opposition."  The idea of loyal opposition means that each side recognizes the other as loyal to the democratic principles upon which our government is established, while dissenting to the policies advocated by the opposing side. When the notion of loyal opposition breaks down, political violence ensues, which if left unchecked, may lead to civil war (See 1861 to 1865).

I, for example, disagree with 95% of the policies advocated by the present day Republican Party. However, they represent a constituency that is also enfranchised by the United States Constitution. They are accountable to that constituency. We win these political disagreements at the ballot box. And in a democratic state we win at the ballot box by advancing our arguments in public debate, organizing, and protesting. We must win the war of ideas. As demonstrated by Martin Luther King, this is possible under the most dire of circumstances without prostituting decency or resorting to violent innuendo.

The opposing party is a political adversary and not a physical enemy. They are co-participants in the American experience. Even now, in the most politically charged times of my life, the opposing party is not an enemy of the State. There are accusations circulating through the press and floating around the public arena that the President of the United States or perhaps some of his campaign aides colluded with Russia to meddle with an American election. I am a vociferous Trump critic and remain open to the idea that he or members of his campaign may have colluded with Russia. I also believe public discussion and debate about this, as well as tax reform, healthcare, and foreign policy is a civic duty. Even still, threats of violence against him or his supporters is unacceptable. A Special Prosecutor has been named to answer those questions regarding Russia. We must allow that investigation to administer justice and resist temptations to allow our standards of decency to slip. And even though Trump has himself called for violence at rallies, we can not overcome such callousness by going tit-for-tat, but only by rising above it.

Casual quips on social media about assassination or political violence are not acceptable. It is true that the overwhelming majority of people can issue and receive such tasteless comments without any thought of acting. However, there are those perverse minds that are ratcheted up by violent rhetoric. They see it as an invitation to act or as the normalization of something they have been contemplating, thereby a tacit endorsement of violence. Obviously, no one means it as such. It is careless. Kathy Griffin did not intend for her photo shoot to be taken that way, but it is essential that we reject such images and language because their are those that will take it that way. And since only an unbalanced mind would resort to political violence, we have to consider how such minds interpret our words and actions .              

The other side of the Alexandria shooting is all too familiar. It is another mass shooting. It is another example of a deranged person with easy access to high powered weapons firing into a crowd of defenseless people. America knows all to well the drill that ensues following a mass shooting. Whether it be on a baseball field, in a movie theater, or at a school, prayers poor in. I am not opposed to prayer. But prayer is empty unless it is supplemented by action. Prayer without action divorces spirituality from the world of responsibility, and in the case of gun violence, for reasons of political expediency. 

We can pray to be free of stress or anger, for example. However, there will be no increase of peace, serenity, love, or compassion, unless we are willing to identify and address the causes and conditions that give rise to stress and anger in our daily life. Similarly, we can pray for those affected by the shooting today. And they may even find some consolation in the fact that millions of people are praying for them. But unless we are willing to identify the causes and conditions that gave rise to the events of this morning and arouse the political will to address them, there will continue to be an epidemic of gun violence, as our recent history demonstrates. It is a relapsing cycle of gun violence, prayers, and fatuous debate with no end in sight unless we are willing to make common sense reforms.

Climate Change and Trump's Decision to Leave the Paris Agreement

Climate change is an observable phenomena that can be measured and the data can be collected and analyzed to produce a conclusion. This is the job of scientists, not the host of "The Apprentice."

The overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change is that it is demonstrably real and man contributes to this dangerous warming trend. This view is endorsed by 97% of all scientists that publish in the field.

What's more, climate scientists are the only people on the planet taking measurements, collecting and analyzing data about climate change. And yet, the reality TV star we elected President, in his hubris, has decided to disregard their conclusion and go on a hunch. Making policy decisions to the contrary of informed and uniform scientific consensus is arrogant, short-sided, and reckless. It binds future generations to the political whims and personal preferences of an ignorant and sophomoric mind.

The Paris Agreement is not perfect, but it is a giant step in the right direction, and America backing out of the deal will make it nearly impossible to strike another international deal in the future. It deals a decisive blow to both the planet and America's credibility.

You cannot make America great by destroying the planet America is on. "America First" cannot mean America comes before the planet it is a part of—that is like sawing off the branch you are sitting on.

To know the Paris Accord is a necessary step in the right direction, I do not need to understand the intricacies of climate science. Nor do the conclusions of climate scientists need agree with my personal politics. I only need to understand and accept that the epistemology of science—the method of collecting and organizing data in the form of testable explanations about the physical world—is superior to pure speculation.

Trump and His Anonymous Nemeses

There has been a lot of talk about anonymous sourcing, as used by the New York Times, CNN, and the Washington Post in the Trump-Russia scandal.

The leaking of classified information is illegal and the leaking of confidential, administrative information is a fire-able offense. So sources have shared information with the press anonymously for years to avoid the consequences.

There are only two possible motives: un-virtuous and virtuous. So the question is, 'Are the leakers sharing this information with the press for nefarious or virtuous purposes?'

If the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to tilt an American election in their favor, regardless of a quid pro qua, and officials within the government are aware of that and suspect the administration of obstruction, then they are duty bound to see that justice is administered. The most effective means of fulfilling this obligation is to leak information to the press, thereby painting a public picture that cannot be swept under the rug. This is what it would require for me to believe the leakers and the press are acting virtuously. Essentially, they must have good reason to believe the integrity of our system of government is under attack and that they are the last resort.

The magnitude and severity of the information being reported has reached an impeachable level. If this information is falsified or intentionally deceitful, the leakers and the press would be co-conspirators in an unprecedented smear campaign against a duly elected President of the United States that could be fairly described as a coup d'état. If the information is pure fiction, or if the leakers and the press know it to be willfully misleading, their actions amount to a form of insurrection.

This begs the question, 'Is the information being leaked a fair representation of the facts before those doing the leaking?'

The public has no way, at this point, of answering that question with certainty. We can't directly observe the raw intelligence before investigators. Therefore, we cannot measure the accuracy of the information reported in the press. We can, however, infer the validity of the information reported in the press by observing the real world effects of those reports. If something is real, its effects will be observable. So what effects have these articles produced?

In an anonymously sourced article, Michael Flynn was accused of inappropriate and undisclosed communications with Russia, as well as working as a foreign agent for Russia and their newfound friend, Turkey. The result? He was fired. Jeff Sessions was accused of undisclosed communications with the Russian Ambassador and suspected spy, Sergei Kislyak, in another anonymously sourced article. The result? Days after being sworn in as Attorney General, he recused himself from the Russian investigation. The President himself was accused of obstruction of justice by anonymous sources. They claimed that FBI Director James Comey wrote in memos discovered after his firing that Trump tried to get Comey to shut down the Flynn investigation. The Result? The Republican Deputy Attorney General, appointed by Trump himself, named a special prosecutor--and it must be noted that naming a special prosecutor is not a decision to be made lightly and without facts to support the decision.

To my knowledge, none of these stories have been retracted. In fact, the only story that was widely criticized was the dossier published on Buzzfeed, which they acknowledged was unconfirmed information. But none of the anonymously sourced stories have been retracted or debunked.

These anonymously sourced articles are routinely criticized by Trump and his supporters, but the fact is, swirling around the cloud of uncertainty at the center, are observable effects. This does not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are true, but neither does typing in all caps on Facebook, "ALL ANONYMOUS SOURCES ARE LIARS!!! PERIOD."

In fact, judging by the effects produced, it would seem they are credible sources.

The New Republican Party

In Donald Trump, the Republican Party elected a thrice married, serial philanderer who was caught on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women but claimed to be a God fearing born-again Christian, a ridiculous claim endorsed by the spineless likes of Franklin Graham. This same candidate mocked a disabled reporter and has repeatedly maligned "the fake news," itself an adaptation of the tried and true right wing scapegoat, "the liberal mainstream media."

Riding the coat tails of the right's shameful decline of conscience is Greg Gianforte, who last night was elected to serve the people of Montana in the House of Representatives, despite having been charged with assault for physically attacking a reporter the night before, which took place in front of three eyewitnesses and was caught on audio--and both accounts were widely disseminated and clearly incriminating. The truth is, most Republicans did not care. It was an acceptable lapse in judgement triggered, Republicans reason, by the fact that both liberals and the media are intolerable. As far as they are concerned, their is no loyal opposition--and given their fair-weather value system and growing affection for Russia, I'm inclined to agree with them, though I do recognize Senators Burr, McCain, and Graham, as well as a handful of other elected Republicans like John Kasich as a principled bunch of patriotic conservatives. But they are no longer a party. They are now just a moderate and sensible caucus within the party.

The Republican Party has reached a point where there is nothing more shameful and unacceptable, in their minds, than being a liberal. In the name of expediency, they are willing to muffle their conscience, discard morality, part ways with all manner of tradition and custom, and, apparently, elect violent criminals. They will align America and her prestige with authoritarian kleptocrats and despotic tyrants, if it means unseating Democrats.

The new Republican Party--and that is what this is, the dawning of a new right wing political faction--is guided by nothing but expediency. It is morally bankrupt. Any means is justified by the end goal of destroying liberalism for the likes of Trump, Sessions, Hannity, Limbaugh, and Franklin Graham. They are willing to partner with Russia, set aside the constitution, manufacture pure fiction, fear monger, race bait, and mortgage the very soul of their faith to prevent Democrats from winning an election. And that is dangerous. The Republican Party is heading down the road of tyranny.

The rhetoric of Trump and the election of Greg Gianforte in Montana shows us that Republicans have reached a breaking point where they believe it necessary to attack basic American freedoms, like the freedom of the press, in order to preserve their brand of freedom, which upon analysis is revealed to be no freedom at all. It is anarchy and rage.

Republicans are blinded by hate, not driven by principled conviction. They are a mob, not a political party. Republicans do not want compromise; they want a single party system or a white, despotic state characterized by Dixieland Christianity and the conspicuous absence of a welfare state.

This is the New Republican Party.

How Trump Became the L. Ron Hubbard of the Republican Party

Politics Begins with the Maintenance of our Spiritual Condition

I find the above quote from Finding God in the Body particularly relevant, given the current political environment. 

I am not promoting political quietism. Politics is an aspect of daily life, one that those fortunate enough to live in a democratic society should be grateful for. We must be not only present and engaged but always informed, well-intentioned and open-minded. 

The above quote reminds us that however well-informed or articulate our argument might be, it will fall on deaf ears, if we fail to express ourselves in an honest and respectful manner. Our actions blot out our words. 

Our politics must begin with the maintenance of our spiritual condition, lest our politics become just another channel through which we vent fear and resentment. Political discourse must begin with prayer and meditation, personal reflection and self-examination.

Finding God in the Body offers in-depth instruction in the practice of body-based meditation, contemplative prayer, and self-examination. 

Finding God in the Body is available on Amazon in paperback and Kindle formats. 

Politics and Spirituality

Erected between the Church and the State is a "Wall of Separation."
But within the envelope of my skin, there is no line of demarcation segregating politics and spirituality. 

We do not live in a totalitarian state. As members of a democratic society, we have a civic duty. Our government is held in check by "we the people." In a democratic system of government, politics is just another aspect of daily living.

Spirituality is not an other-worldly affair. It is a principled worldview coupled with a system of practice that orients our whole being to the world in which we live.

Politics is not a distraction from spirituality, but one aspect of daily life with which spirituality is deeply concerned.

Saying that politics is a distraction from spirituality is like saying relationships or work are obstacles to spiritual practice. They aren't obstacles, they are opportunities for our spirituality to be born into the world. Segregating politics and spirituality is an attempt to closet your spirituality—to shield it from things that push your buttons, rather than turning into your struggles and learning to move beyond stress, fear, and anger.

We are not called to hide behind a vapid smile or to look the other way. Any spirituality that hides behind a distraction is not a spirituality but a defense mechanism. It is spiritual bypassing not spiritual practice. This is true regardless of whether our practice is rooted in Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, or lacks religious affiliation.

Gandhi once wrote, "Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is...Indeed, religion should pervade every one of our actions. Here religion does not mean sectarianism. It means a belief in ordered moral government of the universe. It is not less real because it is unseen. This religion transcends Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, etc. It does not supersede them. It harmonizes them and gives them reality."

A living spirituality is politically conscious and engaged but not obsessed. And this is the catch.

It is hard to be mindful and politically engaged at the same time. It is difficult to watch the news or read the papers without getting wrapped up in it, especially this day-and-age with a 24 hr news cycle and a controversial President that dominates every minute of that cycle.

Mindfulness and activism often feel mutually exclusive. But uniting the two is our path. We have to root our politics in mindfulness and silence. If we fail to do this, we will either neglect our civic responsibility or our politics will be tainted with fear and aggression.

You can be present and centered while protesting or voicing concern—Dorthy Day, Gandhi, King, Thich Nhat Hanh, and the Dalai Lama are perfect examples.

While the basic outline of spirituality remains unchanged, the terrain that path must traverse changes with each generation. And it is no accident that these great icons of mindful activism have come before us, showing us the way. They have outlined the path before us. Their activism is rooted in prayer and meditation.

Venturing into the realm of politics without tethering the mind to reality is the way of madness.

Meditation anchors the mind in the present moment. But it is not enough to sit every morning. Mindful activism is meditation in action. We have to bring the principles of meditation—letting go and returning to the simplicity of the present moment—into our daily life. In the presence of injustice, we often feel fear, anger, and aggression. But we must disown the fear, anger, and aggression, not the awareness of injustice, which is grounded in reality.

Our conscience must rise above our fear of confrontation. We have to speak truth to power. Our words must not be weighted down by anger and resentment. 

Politics devoid of compassion is just another way to vent resentment. And our body politic is already saturated with resentment. Prayer connects the mind and the heart, melting away resentment. William James wrote in Varieties of Religious Experience, "Religion is nothing if it be not the vital act by which the entire mind seeks to save itself by clinging to the principle from which it draws its life. This act is prayer." And the heart is the principle from which the mind draws life. But once again it is not enough to pray only in the morning. We have to see aggression as a reminder to pray throughout the day. When are afraid or angry, we have to pray for those that arouse our bitterness. We have to pray for those in need. Prayer gets us out of our head, out of our self-centered mind. It awakens the spirit of selflessness and sanity.

Spirituality reminds us that it is our responsibility to be a voice of sanity, a light unto the world. I say that not with a condescending tone, but with an awareness that I too must work harder to bring mindfulness, compassion, and sanity into my politics. Politics is a sticky subject. It is easy to get caught up in politics. But the spiritual path always cuts through our obstacles. It never goes around them. This is the path we in the era of Trump must trudge and we have to do it together.

Part of doing it together is holding each other accountable. When we see someone with good intentions lash-out or become disrespectful, it is important to point that out to them. We have to remind them that how they say it is every bit as important as what they say. Yes, we are obligated to speak the truth, but we are also obligated to do that in a skillful manner. If we oppose hate, then we have to oppose it even when it is attached to a message that we agree with because hate--in any form--only adds to the problems that we face as a nation. Hate is not the counter-measure for injustice. As Martin Luther King said, "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."

_________________________

Also available on iTunes: http://apple.co/2lK4hb4

Donald Trump's State Sponsored Islamaphobia

My favorite TV show is The Office.

In the “Gettysburg” episode, the CEO of Dunder Mifflin, Robert California, pays a surprise visit to the Scranton branch. He is looking to discuss new ideas with the regional manager, Andy Bernard. But Andy is out of the office on a company retreat to Gettysburg. So Robert California settles for a brain-storming session with a handful of employees who stayed behind.

Dunder Mifflin is a paper company, so as you might imagine, the employees struggle to produce ideas that might change a centuries old industry. But I find one employee’s efforts relevant to our present situation.

Stanley Hudson, the disgruntled but lovable middle-aged paper salesman, pitches the idea of “Papyr.” But Papyr is a needless product. So Stanley promotes “Papyr” by depreciating “paper.” He says, “If your woman is like mine, I bet you come home to hear the same thing all the time. ‘This paper is so hard. It scratches. Why can’t there be a paper just for me?’ Well now there is. Papyr: Paper for Women. It’s pink, scented and silky soft. Now, you can watch the game and she can write a letter to her sister.” The CEO immediately responds, “The situation you described, returning home to a wife complaining about her paper being too masculine, is not one I’m familiar with.”

Donald Trump’s pitch to the American people is similar.

Trump painted a dystopian picture of America, one where crime, violence, and terrorism are ubiquitous. And he did this by scapegoating Latinos, African-Americans, and Muslims. Then he inserted himself as the only solution to these problems. Trump said, time and time again, “I alone can fix it. I will restore law and order.”

This is propaganda 101. Don’t try to solve real problems. Rather, invent problems that only you can solve.

Have you ever seen someone wrestling their water hose in the front yard? I haven’t. But if you watch infomercials that show terrorized gardeners tangled up in their water hoses enough times, you will begin to believe that this is a real problem, and the product offered is the only solution to that problem.

Donald Trump is like an infomercial for White-Nationalism.

For example, Donald Trump took the gun violence in Chicago and blanketed it across the entire country, claiming “African Americans and Hispanics are living in hell.” He said that, “You walk down the street and you get shot.” He did this, not because he believed it to be true, but in order to insert himself as the solution. In the same breath he said, “We need law and order. If we don’t have it, we’re not going to have a country.” Then he called himself the “law and order candidate.”

Trump peddled the meme that America has descended into lawless chaos, day in and day out for months. It might not be true, but as Joseph Goebbels said, propaganda “must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.” So Trump repeated the claim that America is a lawless country until people believed it—even though they saw no evidence to support the claim in their daily lives. And the media unwittingly helped him establish the meme by replaying it ad infinitum.

Once the first meme was established, he inserted the second, “I am the law and order candidate,” along with some tough rhetoric to demonstrate the claim. And he repeated this over and over again. This one-two punch left people believing two things: (a) America has descended into lawlessness and (b) Trump is the law and order candidate, which gives birth to the third meme: America needs Donald Trump.

Donald Trump did the same thing with Muslims. He scapegoated them, so he could insert himself as the authoritarian solution to the Muslim problem. America has no Muslim problem. Donald Trump invented it—well, to be fair, he capitalized on pre-existing xenophobic sentiments about Muslims, establishing them as facts in the minds of his supporters.

Trump described Muslims as violent, anti-American people that reject our values. He failed to flesh out the differences between terrorism and Islam, just as he failed to differentiate between those who had committed crimes and the overwhelming majority of Latino immigrants that are productive members of our society.

Donald Trump propagated lies—not alternative facts, untruths, or half-truths, but flat-out lies. He said thousands and thousands of Muslims in New Jersey cheered on the 9/11 attacks. He also took isolated, lone-wolf attacks in America and connected them to coordinated terrorist attacks across Europe—failing to mention the geographical and historical differences between Europe and United States. And worst of all, Trump took refugees from Syria and Iraq—men, women, and children desperately fleeing the carnage in their homelands—and lumped them in with the very people they were fleeing. He said, “They could be ISIS—I don’t know… They’re all men, and they’re all strong-looking guys… There are so many men; there aren’t that many women. And I’m saying to myself: Why aren’t they fighting to save Syria? Why are they migrating all over Europe?”

Donald Trump repeatedly planted the meme that Muslims hate America, insinuating that every Muslim, even those Syrians fleeing Assad and ISIS want to do harm to America—even though no Syrian refugee has ever carried out a fatal attack on U.S. soil. Finally, he said I will ban Muslims from immigrating to the United States, which led those who had been infected by his propaganda to the unavoidable conclusion that Donald Trump will make America great (safe) again.

Donald Trump’s motivations are not security. He is not trying to keep America safe. Even if I bought into his logic—even if I believed that Muslims were inherently violent and anti-American—by that very logic his actions are still illogical. Saudi Arabia should top any immigration blacklist meant to prevent terrorism or radical ideology from infiltrating the country. Fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia (none of them were from the seven countries banned). The Saudi royal family spends billions financing the ideology that often morphs into Salafi-jihadism (terrorism), yet Saudi Arabia was conspicuously absent from the list of countries Trump banned.

No one from any of the seven countries banned (Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Libya) has carried out a fatal attack on American soil in over 30 years. In fact, according to CNN, “No person accepted to the United States as a refugee, Syrian or otherwise, has been implicated in a major fatal terrorist attack since the Refugee Act of 1980 set up systematic procedures for accepting refugees into the United States.”

Our vetting procedures for refugees have successfully weeded out dangerous people. This simply is not a problem. And even if it was, Trump’s ban would not have prevented 9/11 (which included people from Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Lebannon), San Bernadino (U.S. born Pakistani), or Orlando (U.S. born). Trump’s motivation is not safety and security, but personal power. He is not trying to solve an actual problem, but present himself as a solution.

There is a problem within the Muslim world.

But the situation Donald Trump has described, waking up every day and seeing Muslim immigrants carrying out acts of violence on American soil, is not one I’m familiar with.

Islam is not an inherently violent religion as Trump insinuates and the fact that verses with violent denotations can be cherry-picked from the Quran is not evidence to the contrary. There are violent verses in the Bible and yet Judaism and Christianity are not inherently violent either. If you can differentiate between peaceful Christians and those who attack abortion clinics, then you are capable of differentiating between Muslims and terrorists. The problem I see within Islam is a political problem.

Two weeks ago I was talking to a Sunni Imam. I asked him about the separation between Islam and politics. He said, “There is no separation between Islam and the state like you see in the American political system.” That is the fundamental problem facing Islam.

Islamic fundamentalists believe that the Quran is the inerrant word of God (much like Christian fundamentalists believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God). From their point of view, democracy is an attempt to put the laws of man before the laws of God. It is also worth mentioning that this position is held by these clerics for self-serving, rather than theological reasons. Arguing that sovereignty must rest with God is essentially arguing, as Reza Aslan points out, “that sovereignty should rest in the hands of the clergy.” And within this group of fundamentalists there is an even smaller group that is willing to use violence to seize political control.

Acknowledging this problem does not make you Islamaphobic any more than acknowledging dominionism or New-Earth creationism makes you Christaphobic. In fact, it is the way in which you differentiate between fundamentalists, extremists, and moderates within any given ideological system. And the lack of such nuance in American discourse about Islam is what enables demagogues like Donald Trump to successfully generalize and demonize all Muslims.

Many of these fundamentalist clerics have a great deal of political persuasion in the Middle East because they promote the ruthless ideologies that enable the ruling classes of these countries to maintain power. They are more often than not part of the ruling class. This is, for example, the symbiotic relationship between the Saudi Royal family and Wahhabism.

But it is important to note that the majority of people immigrating to America from that part of the world are fleeing those despotic, theocratic governments.

The majority of Muslims worldwide do not agree with these radical clerics. And in the Western world, even fewer Muslims support theocratic institutions. The fact that Western Muslims by and large reject theocracy tells me two very important things. First, Muslims who immigrate to Western countries are doing so because they want the freedoms a secular, egalitarian democracy affords. Second, egalitarianism, secularism, pluralism, and democracy are cultural memes on par with the spoked-wheel—they spread like wildfire when people are introduced to their benefits.

So I can think of no better way to stem the rise of Islamic fundamentalism than to allow Muslims to immigrate to Western countries where they have the freedom to become reformers within Islam. Of course it is important to vet immigrants. But as I have stated, we already have a successful system in place for vetting immigrants and refugees. Eighty percent of terrorist attacks in the United States are carried out by American citizens.

We also have an ethical responsibility to aid refugees in the search of asylum. My fear is that Donald Trump’s propaganda has, for his supporters, justified an authoritarianism that is thoroughly un-American. He has created a dystopian illusion of such grand proportions that, in their minds, tyranny is justified.

Consenting to Trump’s fear mongering will fundamentally change America’s character. So we have a responsibility to speak out against Donald Trump’s authoritarianism and xenophobic rhetoric.

To stand up, not only for those in need of refuge, but for the principles that make America a place of refuge. If we go down the path paved by Trump, I fear we will quickly become a country from which people seek refuge.

Letter From a Birmingham Jail by Martin Luther King, Jr.

Perhaps it is a few days late, but it is nevertheless timely. 

Dr. King's letter to white, moderate clergyman serves as an urgent reminder for our time. It is a reminder that, yes, it is easy to avoid confrontation, to smile and change the subject, to segregate politics and morality and hide behind the vacuous platitudes of an unearthly religion. But as King reminds us, "Only a dry-as-dust religion prompts a minister to extol the glories of Heaven while ignoring the social conditions that cause men an Earthly hell." It is in this spirit that King addresses his fellow clergyman from his jail cell.

King clearly states "that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends." But the central thrust of his letter is "that it is just as wrong, or even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends." 

The Letter from a Birmingham Jail also demonstrates the socio-political dimension of a vibrant religious life. King doesn't try to advance his theological concerns within the political arena, but rather the morality to which that theology binds him. He is concerned with universal principles, not articles of faith. King defends and promotes love, dignity, truth and justice for all. As he so eloquently states in the letter, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly."

"Just as King {original text: Socrates} felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood." 

With the dawn of Trump upon us we must hold fast to our values and principles, remembering that those values and principles live through us. They live through our voice and our actions, not as abstractions. 

We must speak truth to power and hold our leaders to account. Note, I did not say we must speak to power. There is no progress to be made by raising unfounded claims or advancing senseless arguments. It is not about opposing him, but about affirming truth, justice, and equality. 

With that, I give you The Letter from a Birmingham Jail

16 April 1963
My Dear Fellow Clergymen:

While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities "unwise and untimely." Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.

I think I should indicate why I am here in Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the view which argues against "outsiders coming in." I have the honor of serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization operating in every southern state, with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. We have some eighty five affiliated organizations across the South, and one of them is the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Frequently we share staff, educational and financial resources with our affiliates. Several months ago the affiliate here in Birmingham asked us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct action program if such were deemed necessary. We readily consented, and when the hour came we lived up to our promise. So I, along with several members of my staff, am here because I was invited here. I am here because I have organizational ties here.

But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.

Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.

You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.

In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action. We have gone through all these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good faith negotiation.

Then, last September, came the opportunity to talk with leaders of Birmingham's economic community. In the course of the negotiations, certain promises were made by the merchants--for example, to remove the stores' humiliating racial signs. On the basis of these promises, the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights agreed to a moratorium on all demonstrations. As the weeks and months went by, we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise. A few signs, briefly removed, returned; the others remained. As in so many past experiences, our hopes had been blasted, and the shadow of deep disappointment settled upon us. We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community. Mindful of the difficulties involved, we decided to undertake a process of self purification. We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves: "Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?" "Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?" We decided to schedule our direct action program for the Easter season, realizing that except for Christmas, this is the main shopping period of the year. Knowing that a strong economic-withdrawal program would be the by product of direct action, we felt that this would be the best time to bring pressure to bear on the merchants for the needed change.

Then it occurred to us that Birmingham's mayoral election was coming up in March, and we speedily decided to postpone action until after election day. When we discovered that the Commissioner of Public Safety, Eugene "Bull" Connor, had piled up enough votes to be in the run off, we decided again to postpone action until the day after the run off so that the demonstrations could not be used to cloud the issues. Like many others, we waited to see Mr. Connor defeated, and to this end we endured postponement after postponement. Having aided in this community need, we felt that our direct action program could be delayed no longer.

You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: "Why didn't you give the new city administration time to act?" The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six year old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness"--then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First-Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber. I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.

You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self respect and a sense of "somebodiness" that they have adjusted to segregation; and in part of a few middle-class Negroes who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. Nourished by the Negro's frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible "devil."

I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the "do nothingism" of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle. If this philosophy had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies--a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare.

Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides -and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: "Get rid of your discontent." Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed extremist. But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal . . ." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime--the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.

I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action. I am thankful, however, that some of our white brothers in the South have grasped the meaning of this social revolution and committed themselves to it. They are still all too few in quantity, but they are big in quality. Some -such as Ralph McGill, Lillian Smith, Harry Golden, James McBride Dabbs, Ann Braden and Sarah Patton Boyle--have written about our struggle in eloquent and prophetic terms. Others have marched with us down nameless streets of the South. They have languished in filthy, roach infested jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of policemen who view them as "dirty nigger-lovers." Unlike so many of their moderate brothers and sisters, they have recognized the urgency of the moment and sensed the need for powerful "action" antidotes to combat the disease of segregation. Let me take note of my other major disappointment. I have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and its leadership. Of course, there are some notable exceptions. I am not unmindful of the fact that each of you has taken some significant stands on this issue. I commend you, Reverend Stallings, for your Christian stand on this past Sunday, in welcoming Negroes to your worship service on a nonsegregated basis. I commend the Catholic leaders of this state for integrating Spring Hill College several years ago.

But despite these notable exceptions, I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do not say this as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the church. I say this as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church; who was nurtured in its bosom; who has been sustained by its spiritual blessings and who will remain true to it as long as the cord of life shall lengthen.
When I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery, Alabama, a few years ago, I felt we would be supported by the white church. I felt that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained glass windows.

In spite of my shattered dreams, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause and, with deep moral concern, would serve as the channel through which our just grievances could reach the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed.

I have heard numerous southern religious leaders admonish their worshipers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers declare: "Follow this decree because integration is morally right and because the Negro is your brother." In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: "Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern." And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, un-Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.

I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi and all the other southern states. On sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the South's beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: "What kind of people worship here? Who is their God? Where were their voices when the lips of Governor Barnett dripped with words of interposition and nullification? Where were they when Governor Wallace gave a clarion call for defiance and hatred? Where were their voices of support when bruised and weary Negro men and women decided to rise from the dark dungeons of complacency to the bright hills of creative protest?"

Yes, these questions are still in my mind. In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church. How could I do otherwise? I am in the rather unique position of being the son, the grandson and the great grandson of preachers. Yes, I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.

There was a time when the church was very powerful--in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators."' But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven," called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests. Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent--and often even vocal--sanction of things as they are.

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.

Perhaps I have once again been too optimistic. Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and the world? Perhaps I must turn my faith to the inner spiritual church, the church within the church, as the true ekklesia and the hope of the world. But again I am thankful to God that some noble souls from the ranks of organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing chains of conformity and joined us as active partners in the struggle for freedom. They have left their secure congregations and walked the streets of Albany, Georgia, with us. They have gone down the highways of the South on tortuous rides for freedom. Yes, they have gone to jail with us. Some have been dismissed from their churches, have lost the support of their bishops and fellow ministers. But they have acted in the faith that right defeated is stronger than evil triumphant. Their witness has been the spiritual salt that has preserved the true meaning of the gospel in these troubled times. They have carved a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain of disappointment. I hope the church as a whole will meet the challenge of this decisive hour. But even if the church does not come to the aid of justice, I have no despair about the future. I have no fear about the outcome of our struggle in Birmingham, even if our motives are at present misunderstood. We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with America's destiny. Before the pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen of Jefferson etched the majestic words of the Declaration of Independence across the pages of history, we were here. For more than two centuries our forebears labored in this country without wages; they made cotton king; they built the homes of their masters while suffering gross injustice and shameful humiliation -and yet out of a bottomless vitality they continued to thrive and develop. If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands.

Before closing I feel impelled to mention one other point in your statement that has troubled me profoundly. You warmly commended the Birmingham police force for keeping "order" and "preventing violence." I doubt that you would have so warmly commended the police force if you had seen its dogs sinking their teeth into unarmed, nonviolent Negroes. I doubt that you would so quickly commend the policemen if you were to observe their ugly and inhumane treatment of Negroes here in the city jail; if you were to watch them push and curse old Negro women and young Negro girls; if you were to see them slap and kick old Negro men and young boys; if you were to observe them, as they did on two occasions, refuse to give us food because we wanted to sing our grace together. I cannot join you in your praise of the Birmingham police department.

It is true that the police have exercised a degree of discipline in handling the demonstrators. In this sense they have conducted themselves rather "nonviolently" in public. But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of segregation. Over the past few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. Perhaps Mr. Connor and his policemen have been rather nonviolent in public, as was Chief Pritchett in Albany, Georgia, but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to maintain the immoral end of racial injustice. As T. S. Eliot has said: "The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason."

I wish you had commended the Negro sit inners and demonstrators of Birmingham for their sublime courage, their willingness to suffer and their amazing discipline in the midst of great provocation. One day the South will recognize its real heroes. They will be the James Merediths, with the noble sense of purpose that enables them to face jeering and hostile mobs, and with the agonizing loneliness that characterizes the life of the pioneer. They will be old, oppressed, battered Negro women, symbolized in a seventy two year old woman in Montgomery, Alabama, who rose up with a sense of dignity and with her people decided not to ride segregated buses, and who responded with ungrammatical profundity to one who inquired about her weariness: "My feets is tired, but my soul is at rest." They will be the young high school and college students, the young ministers of the gospel and a host of their elders, courageously and nonviolently sitting in at lunch counters and willingly going to jail for conscience' sake. One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Never before have I written so long a letter. I'm afraid it is much too long to take your precious time. I can assure you that it would have been much shorter if I had been writing from a comfortable desk, but what else can one do when he is alone in a narrow jail cell, other than write long letters, think long thoughts and pray long prayers?

If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.

I hope this letter finds you strong in the faith. I also hope that circumstances will soon make it possible for me to meet each of you, not as an integrationist or a civil-rights leader but as a fellow clergyman and a Christian brother. Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.

Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood, Martin Luther King, Jr.