I have been having very vivid daydreams about the imminent assasination of Barack Obama.  He is about to be vowed in in a glass building.  He has recieved the most death threats of any previous presient-elect.  This isn’t exactly  fictional.

Clearly, his assasination is the worst thing that could possibly happen to America - today certainly, this year most probably, indefinately possibly.  As such, it is fantastic stomping groud for impressive ‘what if’ scenarios.  What if Washington burns again?  What if the riots don’t stop?  What if the black urbanites declare the cities annexed from the United States and vow to kill any white people who dare remain within them?  What if liberal shame leads the white to step down?  And they all move to the rural areas?  Industry breaks down; officies close; transportation becomes color coded - with no means of moving supplies between the two areas.  The black urbanites would begin to starve.  Pride would fall to the basic survival instinct.  Those white urbanites who had been liberally guilted into leaving would try to help, would want to help, but the rural whites would stop them.  The resources being theirs.  The rural whites being angry at the expullsion, allowing the black urbanites to starve to death, thinking they deserved it.  Would the UN intervene?  Would the races decide they could never live in harmony?  War over the land?  One group expelling the other.  Would Britain take American refugees?  Would it matter which race won and which race was in refuge?

Would it be possible to repair race relations in America following this event?  Ever?

What do you guys think?  What if he was assassinated?

So, once again I was confronted with a choice.  I could go to Burger King or McDonald’s to purchase a normal sized cheeseburger for just over a dollar or I could go to Baja Fresh or Chipotle’s and get a ridiculous amount of fake Mexican food.

Now, to put this in context, I have had nothing but cheap cheeseburgers for lunch for over a week now.  I had to do it.  I knew it was wrong, but I had to do it.

I went to Baja Fresh.  I ordered the Chicken Fajitas with a side of sour cream and a coke - ELEVEN DOLLARS!  Then I took my newly acquired meal outside to demolish it.  Three tortillas, sour cream, guacamole, chicken.  Lots of chicken.  I put together my first masterpiece.  I ate it.  I realized that I was no longer hungry . . . there was hardly a dent in my meal.

At this point I would casually slide the plate over to WEF3 and he would look at me with amazement as if to say - you can’t possibly be done already - and then eat the whole thing in under 60 seconds.

WEF3 did not happen to be with me this afternoon.  So I had to make a decision.  Let eleven dollars go to waste . . . or eat the damn food.

Now let’s acknowledge that I have taken basic economics.  I know that having already paid for the food, the eleven dollars is sunk costs and I should be making a choice anwew.  This choice should be based upon actual facts - such as the fact that I wasn’t hungry and clearly don’t need the extra calories.

Economics failed me;  I ate the whole damn place.

Really a miserable experience - I have committed some sort of treason against my credit card balance, my health and my outward appearance all in one swift blow.

And thus, fine citizens of World WEF, the question is this:  Where have all the Taco Bells Gone???

So WEF6 was over today, and told me to write something about the new course I’m leading at my high school next semester. It is called “peacemaking”, and I am effectively creating the curriculum out of thin air. I have complete control as well as complete support from the administration (well, currently). I say ‘currently’, because God only knows how this thing is going to turn out. WEF6 describes the course as a guerilla take-over of my school, which isn’t quite right. If all goes well, I’ll be training a group of student-leaders who will organize the student-body, empowering the student-body to take responsibility for their education. It may be messy.

This idea of student leadership isn’t anything new. What might be a little new about what I’m doing is that this leadership is not given from the administration. It is built from the ground-up. These student-leaders will not be powerful because they fill positions created by the adults. They will be powerful because they fill positions created by the students. (With a little help from me, naturally.)

“Peacemaking” covers a lot of things, but the most basic peace that we experience is in relationships - relationships with one another, with God, with ourselves. Are we at peace with our neighbors, with God, with ourselves? What does that peace look like? What leads to such a peace?

There are five units to the course:

1) A Vision of Peace: What does peace look like? What do men and women of peace look like, act like? Is peace possible, for ourselves, for our world? YES!

2) The Seeds of Peace: Peace begins in our own heart. We need hope. We need compassion. And we need forgiveness. We need redemption, rebirth, to become new men and women building a new world. “Be the change you wish to see in the world.”

3) The Roots of Peace: Truth, Justice, Freedom - where these thrive, peace forms. Dialogue replaces debate. Development replaces competition. Discernment replaces opinion.

4) The Cultivators of Peace: Facilitators, Organizers, and Counselors - cultivating consensus, coordination, and conscience. A bottom-up approach to social action, where powerless individuals become self-empowered communities.

5) The Culture of Peace: Taking action. Making a world (a school) where it is easier to be good, where we have voices and choices, rights and responsibilities, where the law of reason prevails over the law of power, where we are family.

A lot to work out, and too theoretical at this point. Turning this into a concrete plan will take most of the summer. Right now I am envisioning a different system of grading. They will receive a binder, and each unit will have “missions”. If they successfully complete a mission, they will earn points. They will know what they have to do to earn the grade they desire. These missions will not be things like, “read chapter 11.” Rather, it will be something like, “Write a letter of apology to someone you have hurt. Share this letter, and their response, with the class.”

Most of class will be them sharing their experiences about these missions. There isn’t a whole lot to learn. There is a whole lot to grow. We all know what we have to do already.

I have to go cook dinner. Hope you enjoyed this. Pray for me!

Referring to Obama’s “Obama’s Afrocentric, America-Hating Church” . . .

I guess the general complaint is, “why is a ‘white church’ racist, but not a ‘black church’, why is ‘white entertainment television’ racist, but not ‘black entertainment television’?”

But why don’t we consider “greek orthodox” churches to be racist, why don’t we find “russian television” racist, why don’t we find spanish speaking Catholic parishes racist, why don’t we find most tightly-knit ethnic communites as racist, but as normal? We might express a desire for them to “join the melting pot”, but we don’t call them racist. They just aren’t very “American”, even if they are citizens!

It is clear that there are people living in the united states from different ethnic, national, or language groups, and they come together to form their own communities - not only for worship, but for just about everything involving community. We see this as normal. They coome from a different culture, they have their own language, they have their own forms of worship, they have their own history, and it is natural for them to stick together and form community, to pass on their heritage, to pass on their identity. This is not considered racist, even when it involves different races. Africans from Ethopia, for example, who congregate together in their ethnic communites, aren’t considered racists.

When it comes to the descendants of African slaves (black, african-america, or whatever word we want to use), however, society seem to react differently. To the extent that one sees African-Americans as a distinct culture, with their own history, their own religion, even their own language, one will probably be more accepting of things like BET, of things like black history month.

Obama is black. That doesn’t mean he has black skin - he doesn’t. That doens’t mean that he grew up in the ghetto, he didn’t. It means that he belongs to a culture of Americans who have a distinct culture shaped by a history of slavery, jim crow, and modern prejudice. Every person wants to know their heritage, wants to know: “who am I?”

What does it mean to be White? What does it mean to be Black? It means far more than skin color. It relates to culture. Racism occurs when one race claims superiority. But what happens when one culture claims superiority, or both? Behind the idea of the idea of the “melting pot” seems to be a fear that cultures cannot live together in peace. Perhaps history favors fear, but we are not doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. Our future will be whatever we make it. I have seen Black culture up front and personal, and I know this - we are not as different as people think. Whether White or Black, both belong to a culture of death - a culture that rejects freedom, justice, truth, and love. That’s the battle we need to fight - a battle for a true culture, that is neither black nor white, a culture of life.

Hey WEF1:

One of my tutors has a theory that I’d like you to comment on. He says that if we pulled out of Iraq then Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria would all want the country, due to its oil, and that each of the above countries would not allow the other countries to control Iraq. Thus, the Middle East would handle itself and the threat of terrorism would go down because they’d be warring/dealing with each other and their own country’s interests.

Thoughts?

And be nice, because this particular tutor occasionally reads this blog. ‘Cause I share. ‘Cause I’m like that

(This may seem a little impersonal for wexforce, but I wrote it for a larger audience, as part of my reflections on life. I hope all is well, family, and can’t wait to see you again. Life is very good to me here.)

Over the past three days, I’ve had my 1000% daily recommended dose of ‘Pope’: waving “hi” and “bye” at the National Shrine, attending the mass at Nationals Stadium, reading his flurry of speeches/addresses/homilies over and over again, and most importantly - praying that the Holy Spirit will open my heart to learning from our Church and its leader. But I wasn’t quite prepared for the opening salvo of our Holy Spirit, coming in the Pope’s words at the White House:

“Freedom is not only a gift, but also a summons to personal responsibility. Americans know this from experience — almost every town in this country has its monuments honoring those who sacrificed their lives in defense of freedom, both at home and abroad.”

These words crushed me.

How could the Pope repeat United States propaganda, and express admiration for US bloodshed? I racked my mind for ways to interpret his words in another way, but I couldn’t. Not in that context. Not at the White House with the President standing next to him. Not as the Iraq war rages on. The Pope meant what he said, but not as propaganda. He spoke sincerely. He marvels at American monuments and sees those who “sacrificed their lives defense of freedom”. Pope Benedict looks at our country and sees . . . goodness. When I look at our country, I see . . . evil. I want the Pope to condemn war and abortion, not to call our country ‘great’ and ‘religious’. I want brimstone and fire and words of fury! But from the mouth and heart of our Pope come nothing but goodness.

I have so much to learn.

After a great deal of reflection and prayer, my heart has moved, my neck has bent. I have seen something startling: we live in a society where “defense of life” and “nonviolence” are mostly mutually exclusive, and because the defense of life must take priority over a commitment to nonviolence, most Christians are duty-bound to defend life with the least amount of violence possible.

Did I just write that? I did. But only after three days of gut-wrenching prayer!

I am not suggesting that violence is good, or even Christian. I am suggesting, however, that the circumstances of our society require us to choose defense of life over nonviolence. In other words - if the only way I can defend life is to use a gun, then I must use a gun.

Those familiar with nonviolence and theology will hear echos of the “fallen world” defense of violence in my thoughts. But here’s where I depart from such thinking: Jesus Christ has redeemed the world, and has sent us into the world with his Holy Spirit. This fallen world can be transformed. And we are the ones called to transform it.

But at present, our fallen society has few practical, concrete, and readily available means of nonviolently defending life. Boycotts will not save us from a bullet to the head. Strikes will not stop robbers from breaking into our homes. Nonviolent communication will not stop those who do not wish to communicate. We have no nonviolent alternatives to police forces or militaries. We have no nonviolent alternatives to courts and prisons. Nonviolent means of defending life are mostly confined to idealistic exhortations to “love your enemy and trust in God’s grace to work miracles.”

Nonviolent means of defending life must be reasonable, passing the common sense rule, being as readily available as the gun in Target, or a call to 911. To criticize those who use violence to defend life when there are no other ways to defend life is . . . well . . . possibly scandalous.

To summarize, Gandhi said:

I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by nonviolently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.

Instead of offering concrete ways of defending home and family without violence, I have condemned all violence in every situation. I forced people into a corner - demanding they renounce violence while giving them nothing in its place - asking them to be “like a worm at the bidding of a bully.” I have fought to show violence as wrong in every situation, but never considered that violence could be wrong yet relatively legitimate. In a not-yet-redeemed society, the evil of violence may be the least wrong choice, and our duty.

My advocacy of nonviolence has consisted in saying, “no, no, no!” to America. But our Pope tells us that Christianity is not “no, no, no,” but is “yes, yes, yes!” All his words and actions reverberate within the great “yes” that is Christ our hope. Not one word of “no” passed through his lips over the past three days, even as he spoke of evil. Instead, he proposed solutions aimed at transforming our society into one of peace and justice - a world where men and women can finally embrace nonviolence, “a world where it is easier to be good.”

It is time for me to do the same.

It’s amazing what a Pope can do. I feel like I’ve been through a war, and that this little reflection is but a brief respite. But thank God, and praise Him. He is GOOD.

Updated clarification:  I don’t feel like I’ve turned 180, even if it might seem that way from what I’ve written.   The development of my thought isn’t a 180 turn. It’s more like a 360. I am not saying that bloodshed will always be necessary. Just the opposite.

I believe in nonviolence. I hate violence. I think it is evil. But I understand now why it is legitimate for many (if not most) in our not-yet-redeemed society, where violence is the only option (or so it seems). It puts the burden on me, and others who have taken to heart “love of enemy” as the nucleus of the Christian revolution, to help build a society where nonviolence is available as a concrete solution to the fight against evil.  More than anything, I feel free to pursue and promote nonviolence in ways I never could before.

So I went to a peace protest too.  It sort of made me a little sick, angry, and frustrated.  Am I really the only normal (okay, semi-normal) person who is against the war?  Then I realized - well, these are the people against the war who refuse to operate in the normal political realm (for whatever reason).  Most people who are against the war will simply vote Democrat in the election, or if they are really fiesty, they might even work on a political campaign, put up some posters, go door-to-door, or whatever people do to get their candidates elected.

The crazies that showed up at the protests yesterday are the people who have no intention of working through the political process.  They would rather block street intersections and stop traffic.  Does stopping traffic actually affect the political situation (which in turn might stop the war)?  Well, they don’t care.  They just want to be against the war.  Whether their actions have any affect on stopping the war is irrelevent.  They are having too much fun to care, too much self-righteous anger to care.  They got what they wanted - getting arrested, making some noise, feeling like they did ’something’, even if it was admittedly counter-productive.

I’m in the strange position of being a Catholic who wants to vote according to Catholic Social Teaching.  I don’t think that Catholics ought to be voting for either a pro-choice or pro-war candidate -i.e., for any of the presidential candidates.  And so I find myself walking along with anarchists and the like, and hating it.

More to come.