Some Pretty Music

Jonsi of Sigur Ros is coming out with a solo album. He is putting up videos of the making of his album on his site, and he also played a brief acoustic set on this radio station. I like it.

Please Sir, can I have some more?-?

Yesterday I watched a German film that came out in 2006 called Requiem. It’s based on the same real-life events that inspired The Exorcism of Emily Rose. It isn’t however, anything like the latter film, (at least not from what I’ve read, I haven’t actually seen it)- there’s no dramatic music, no special effects, no scary faces, no bloody imagery, etc. That said, it is nevertheless more than a little disturbing. The movie depicts the struggles of a young woman, Michaela who suffers from what is either a severe mental illness or demon possession. She hears voices, sees faces, loses control of her speech, and is prey to epileptic fits. While she ultimately sides with her family and her spiritual mentor in firmly believing that her suffering is strictly due to spiritual warfare, her friends try to pressure her into finding psychiatric help. The truth of her affliction is never spelled out, and Sandra Huller’s performance as Michaela is so harrowing and persuasive that the film leaves the viewer completely at a loss as to whether or not her demons are real. 

Though tragic whatever way, the film would be especially difficult to watch for those who believe in spiritual warfare- or even just those who believe in God at all. While the scientist could point at the distance of her cold mother as the catalyst to her  psychological deterioration, the christian cannot come up with as easy of an answer. It would be easy for us to follow her boyfriend’s suit, and to just try to forget her- to just walk away from the incomprehensibleness of such a life. Michaela, a devout catholic, wonders why she is suffering, when she tries so hard to be a good person. And why, when her situation is so obviously beyond her control, does God not cast out her demons when she pleads Him to? And even if it is merely a psychological disorder, why does God not heal her? Her faith is much greater than a mustard seed-why does He not answer? Didn’t Jesus promise to give whatever we ask in His name? Is there a greater purpose to her tortured mind? In the face of such tribulation, “God tests those He loves” just doesn’t cut it.

Not really new photography

Inspired by The Wings of a Falcon. 

Watercolor, gouache, and pencil

 

(Larger size)

This morning I finished Blue Like Jazz

My thoughts? 

It was nice. I guess I was a little disappointed. I know a lot of people who think it’s the greatest book out there. So I guess by the time I finally got around to reading it, I was expecting something very inspiring or profound, and it wasn’t really either of those things to me. Maybe it was just over-hyped and I just had the same reaction I did to the the Shack. Except that I liked Blue Like Jazz a whole lot better than The Shack, which was poorly written, and completely failed to say anything half as insightful as it wanted to. But the point is, Miller isn’t all that challenging and it isn’t very clear what the message is that he’s trying to convey. I guess it was just kinda chatty and nice, when I was expecting the book to be more of the likes of the Irresistible Revolution or Jesus For President. It was enjoyable though. Donald Miller seems like a pretty neat guy, and not too full of himself. He makes you feel good. Calm. And in a way it’s kinda cool to hear about someone who isn’t out to change the world or wow everyone with a life-changing point. I liked it a lot, so maybe I shouldn’t say I was disappointed. It just wasn’t very urgent, or persuasive. Which might’ve been the point. I just wasn’t expecting that, even though I should’ve known given that “Searching For God Knows What” is the same.

So I guess if Shane Claiborne is radically spiritually challenging, Donald Miller is gently poignant and hopeful. I guess they both have their place.

My thoughts on ‘Avatar’

Yesterday I watched the much hyped Avatar. I was on the whole, more impressed than I thought I would be.  

1.  The visual side of things. Avatar is the first 3D movie I’ve seen (apart from a deep-sea educational film), and I have mixed feelings. I was mostly only impressed with the 3D in the really intricate and delicate scenes, such as those in the jungle, (and they were impressive). Some of the fast paced and chaotic scenes didn’t seem to work with the 3D so well. I definitely don’t think every movie should be done in 3D, and I think we’re going to see a lot of movies coming out in 3D that shouldn’t be in 3D. I kinda feel like 3D is better suited for the more fantastical or introspective movies where the feel of the film is heavily reliant on visual playfulness and intentionality. Anyhow, I  also thought some of the different camera focuses seemed to conflict with the purpose of the 3D. When a scene is shot so that the background, or something, is blurry and out of focus, it is to manipulate and further the depth of field. 3D creates that same perception of depth of field, only without having to make things blurry. When the film had both the 3D and obvious focus of the camera, the two techniques didn’t always seem to compliment each other. Sometimes they did, but sometimes it just didn’t work. That said the 3D was pretty neat in a few shots. Especially the ones with stuff floating in the air.

I thought that the imagination that went into the creation of Pandora and its inhabitants was pretty cool, (I’m a sucker for fantasy). In fact, the fantasy was probably the main driving force of the film, at least for me. However I also thought the CGI looked more like a video game than real-life much of the time, and thought they could’ve done a better job perhaps making things a bit less… pristine, or something. On the other hand, given the nature of the world of Pandora, it was fairly fitting. 

2. The story. Every sci-fi has a good degree of cheesiness to it. It must be an unwritten requirement of science fiction, or something. So whenever you watch a sci-fi, you have to be a little bit lenient and forgive the cheese. Surprisingly, halfway through Avatar I found myself thinking there really wasn’t that much cheesiness, at least not anything that wasn’t bearable. Unfortunately, apparently they saved the cheese for the last half or third of the film. That said, by then I was drawn enough into the film to find the tackiness to be, on the whole, forgivable.

As far as the actual plot goes, it delves into the motifs of the political exploitation and destruction of innocents, xenophobia, and educated liberal guilt-  all washed with a dose of new-agey spirituality. The story is a little bit weak  really. Not enough meat to it, and definitely wouldn’t have been able to stand on its own feet without the help of the visual spectacles and imagination. That said, I didn’t think that it was a poor story- just that it wasn’t executed with too much depth or intelligence. I actually think it had a lot of potential- that potential just wasn’t developed, or explored in profound ways. The world of the Na’vi’s is a bit of a hippie, innocent, peaceful, eco-friendly, sustainable utopia that is living happily until the evil greedy humans come along. I thought it was a bit unrealistic to portray the Na’vi as an untroubled people without any real issues amongst themselves or with their neighbors. Were it not a fantasy, and had it been dealing instead with say, the story of the Native Americans, it definitely would’ve been over the top with cheesiness, shallowness, and cliches, and would’ve have failed to make me feel any empathy. That said it IS a fantasy, and the whole big mean invaders coming to ruin the paradisal lives of the indigenous people somehow didn’t seem too juvenile. However, I still think the story would’ve been infinitely better had it been in the hands of someone like Miyazaki. Miyazaki is wonderfully optimistic. Many people think him terribly unrealistic that way. However I think his movies are pretty great. Miyazaki’s films always weave an intricate and deep story depicting moral complexities in ways most Hollywood films never come near to accomplishing. In Miyazaki’s films, no one is completely innocent, and no one is completely evil. This leads to unconventional conflict and resolution. So even though Avatar deals with a lot of the same seemingly “unrealistic” ideals of a Miyazaki film,  (pacifism, environmentalism, spirituality, etc), its story comes off as a bit immature. By the end of Avatar I found myself somewhat bored and disappointed as it became clear the resolution of the story rested on the same thing every other Hollywood film climaxes to- one side destroying the other. Psh.

Despite my issues with the script and story and some of the visual aspects of the film, I did enjoy it a good deal. It’s one of those movies you watch “for the experience”. It’ll probably amount to nothing more than a pop-corn movie, because there’s not much there other than what’s on the surface, but it’s still enjoyable. Also the primitive hippiness of the aliens kinda resonated with me. I mean, let’s be honest, who doesn’t want to be a B-A blue elvish man with dreads-ish hair who lives in a giant tree and can fly on pterodactyl like creatures?

Anarcho-Primitivism Pt. 5- Money

What are the hardest-hitting scriptures in the bible- as in the hardest for us to take an honest look at? Maybe the ones about loving your enemies? Or that say speaking in anger is murder? There’s a bunch, really. But I think that maybe the hardest scriptures are, arguably, those that deal with money. Especially these two: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 10:25), and “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.” (Matthew 6:24). These are the two scriptures that are possibly the most compromised in the church today. There isn’t really any way around them. Of course that doesn’t stop us from coming up with lots of different crafty responses to these verses. We say things like, “Being rich isn’t bad,” or, “God wants to bless us,” and most commonly, “It’s not the money itself that’s evil, it’s the love of money.”

Daniel Suelo, made this very acute observation: “…If only they believe what has just come out of their own mouths.   People get emphatic about defending what they most love. Alcoholics in denial are quick to emphatically tell you that alcohol isn’t the problem, it is dependence on alcohol that is the problem.  They assure you they can quit any time.  Same with a heroin addict in denial or any other addict in denial. No, heroin is not evil.  The problem truly is addiction to heroin.  But, I ask you this: do you know of anybody who shoots heroin who isn’t addicted?  And I also ask you this, what is more addictive, heroin or money?“

So are we addicted to money? Am I addicted to money? I don’t really have any desire to be rich. I’d like to have the ability to be rich, but I don’t want to actually be rich. Except I already am. Compared to most non-westerners, and even a considerably large chunk of the westerners. So I guess I just don’t want to be Bill Gates-rich. But where is the line drawn? Is being part of the top 3% wealthiest okay, but not the top 2%? Maybe numbers aren’t the the best thing to evaluate, but a lifestyle. Am I living for money or other things? Well… So far I’m on a course that could very well possibly be headed dangerously into an obsession with money. You know, going to college, paying off debts, obtaining a steady income, buying a house and a car and saving for my retirement… This is what’s expected of you. But should it be? In a world of loneliness and a million other pains, is being unemployed really the first thing we should be afraid of? What if being unemployed isn’t such a bad thing after all- what if we found it freeing? Jesus was unemployed, and never once said we should spend all of our lives working for ourselves. In fact, he suggested the opposite. Is it possible to break from the lifeless cycle that is dictated by money?

In a country whose greatest pride is its freedom to satisfy its greed, in a society where you’re a failure if you don’t have more than ‘most everyone else, in a church that has adopted a self-help form of christianity, I am  desperately wanting to believe another world is possible. Is there?

“Non-possession is allied to non-stealing. A thing not originally stolen must nevertheless be classified as stolen property, if we possess it without needing it. Possession implies provision for the future. A seeker after Truth, a follower of the law of Love, cannot hold anything against tomorrow. God never stores for the morrow.  He never creates more than what is strictly needed for the moment. If, therefore, we repose faith in His Providence, we should rest assured that He will give us every day our daily bread, meaning everything that we require…. Our ignorance or negligence of the Divine Law, which gives to man from day to day his daily bread and no more, has given rise to inequalities with all the miseries attendant upon them. The rich have superfluous store of things which they do not need and which are, therefore, neglected and wasted, while millions are starved to death for want of sustenance.” – Gandhi

 ”Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat; or about your body, what you will wear. 23Life is more than food, and the body more than clothes. 24Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn; yet God feeds them. And how much more valuable you are than birds! 25Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? 26Since you cannot do this very little thing, why do you worry about the rest?” (Luke 12)

 ”But woe to you who are rich, for you are receiving your comfort in full.”(Luke 6:24.)

 ”Those who love money never have enough; those who love wealth is never satisfied with their income. This too is meaningless.” (Ecclesiastes)

Good News

So I just read this on BBC and had to share it, especially seeing as how it applies to some of the things I’ve been discussing.

While everyone else’s approval ratings of Obama seem to be dropping, my own respect for him is probably increasing.

Anarcho-primitivism pt. 4 – The earth and human exploitation

Without a doubt, the funniest thing that happened at my anarcho-primitivist conference I went to was when a very earnest young lady urged us with the utmost sincerity to… talk to plants. I stifled a laugh (only half-successfully), and thanked God that none of my friends back home were there with me, ’cause that comment alone would’ve automatically discredited whatever else was said. I mean, let’s be honest here, the only people who really care about the earth that much are loony hippies, crazy science teachers, and politicians with faulty science and a not-so-hidden political agenda nursing their grudges. However, I have (over the past couple of years) been learning to re-examine my relationship with the earth, and what God has to say about it. I’m not quite at the Tom Bombadil-stage, and I don’t know if I’ll ever be. But I am learning.

A couple of years ago, I wrote a research paper on global warming. I went into my assignment, planning on disproving what I deemed to be, “a bunch of fear-mongering”. It wasn’t that I didn’t care about the environment. I did. It was just that I always associated climate change with the likes of Y2K- 95% rubbish. This task proved to be harder than I anticipated. There was much more evidence pointing to global warming than not. A year later, I did a research paper on Lake Erie and water-pollution. It was scary. In short, all of my scientific education revealed to me this fact: mankind has essentially raped the earth.

Environmentalism is at the heart of anarcho-primitivism. The vast majority of scientists agree, that unless something changes, we’re all gonna be in a rude awakening sometime in the not-so-distant future (some people say ten years, other people say fifty, and others not quite twice that). Regardless of the controversy surrounding global warming, it is evident that oceans are dying, forests are being chopped down faster than they’re growing, the human population is multiplying faster than civilization can sustain, ice caps are melting, and oil reserves are running low. Unless something changes drastically we’ll be facing problems we won’t know how to deal with, or that simply can’t be dealt with. 

I don’t feel any need to talk a whole lot about the specifics regarding how man’s exploitation of the earth has increased over the years. I think it’s pretty obvious. At the conference they showed clips from the movie, Home. I just watched all of it online. If you can get past the typical faults of the evolution background they give in the beginning (it states theory as fact), and get past the cheesy-voice over and melodrama, the movie has some really good points, and some really scary facts, (scary facts like the fact that 40% of arable land has been damaged, 13 million hectars of forests disappear per year, species are dying 1000 times faster than natural, 3 quarters of fishing grounds are depleted or are near depletion, etc.) (Also the film has beautiful cinematography.) To briefly sum up the over all point of the film- all of creation is interconnected, and humans have falsely assumed that we can do whatever we want with the earth without facing any serious consequences. It is now staggeringly evident that we were wrong.

All right, let’s rewind a bit to the start of the present crisis. From what I understand, anarcho-primitivism says that things started to get bad with the agricultural revolution, (note: horticulture and agriculture aren’t the same thing). Agriculture introduced civilization, and with it, the ills of civilization. Problems like social stratification, coercion and alienation, the idea that land is ours to own, thus ours to exploit and ours to fight over, money

and debt, health problems, etc. Now, I am not romantic enough to think that prior to the agricultural-revolution everything was fine and dandy, like the anarcho primtivists do. Nor would I be so pretentious as to declare that civilization as we know it was a complete mistake. Nevertheless, I think all of anarcho-primitivism’s criticisms of civilization are valid.

Today we see scientists reaching the zenith of human advancement- genetically altering plants and animals to manufacture products for human consumption. This is the epitome of a primitivist’s critique of civilization. What is seemingly a great “advancement” has numerous unforeseen or ignored complications that all laugh at “progress”. Biogenetic engineering is a consumerist scientific “accomplishment” that has led to the extinction of much food variety and a dramatic increase in health problems in both animals and humans. This Green Revolution is merely another step in the backward progress that began with the Agricultural Revolution and then continued with the Industrial Revolution. Of course our society has shaped itself around this basic system of supplying food, thus what cracks are in the foundation only proliferate in other aspects of our social structure. We can keep putting band-aids on the bruises, or we could do something about what’s causing the problems, (or both). Either way, we can’t continue as we are. And man’s relationship with the earth is at the heart of all the problems we face today. 

About a year ago I was at a youth bible-study where they were preaching dominion theology. I walked away rather… agitated. The pastor-guy was leading the group in cracking jokes about going after Satan and his evil dominion with our spiritual machine-guns. Maybe it was just my pacifist side reacting, but in my mind this pastor was quite possibly the biggest idiot I’d seen yet to hold a Bible, and I was extremely disturbed about the views he was indoctrinating all these kids with. There’s a whole lot about what this guy was talking about that bothered me, not the least of which was the fact that if Satan’s power is as much of a reality as this guy was preaching, it

 definitely is not something that should be taken lightly. Furthermore, he was basically brainwashing everyone into the Christian-warrior phenomena depicted in Jesus Camp. (On a side note, the christianity being preached in this bible study was exactly what I was talking about in my last post- believing christians should be trained as spirit-filled American patriots off to conquer whatever.) Anyways, I suspect dominion theology is possibly responsible for the absurd fact that Christians have been among the first to dismiss “environmentalism”. To exploit the the earth. In fact, many dominion-ists believe that the destruction of the earth is actually a good thing. They believe the destruction of the environment is prerequisite for Jesus’ return, so we should, by all means, hurry the process, as it were.  Again, going back to my last post, American Christianity twisted the Bible with Manifest Destiny to go and conquer the wild west. Today, groups like “Wise Us” continue to use dominion theology to exploit and seek political power. Apparently these days, a christian steward is to declare all environmentalists as dangerous liberals and new-age unitarians, and to continue to explore way that we might continue to use the earth with selfish recklessness. Christianity has failed with its responsibility toward the earth. We should be the first to care, not the first to dismiss.

The Bible is no stranger to environmentalism. All of the environmental issues we face today could have been and could still be avoided, were it not for our disobedience and blindness towards the truth. There are several biblical reasons to make a conscious effort to be in proper community with God’s creation.

1. God said that the earth and everything He made was good. 

2. Not only did He say it was good, He said that all of nature was created for the worship of God, thus our destruction of nature impacts God’s due honor. 

“You will go out in joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and hills will burst into song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands.” (Isaiah 55:12)

3. We are commanded to care for the earth. 

“The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.” (Genesis 2:15)

4. There are commandments and warnings about exploiting the earth.

“Do not reap what grows of itself or harvest the grapes of your untended vines. The land is to have a year of rest.” (Leviticus 25:5)

4. God cares for the earth, thus our exploitation of the earth undermines His providence. 

“He makes springs pour water into the ravines; it flows between the mountains. They give water to all the beasts of the field; the wild donkeys quench their thirst. The birds of the air nest by the waters; they sing among the branches. He waters the mountains from his upper chambers; the earth is satisfied by the fruit of his work. He makes grass grow for the cattle, and plants for man to cultivate-bringing forth food from the earth.” (Psalm 104:10-14)

5. God is in solidarity with nature. Abusing the earth is abusing that which is His.

6. All exploitation of the earth is done out of greed and selfishness.

“Is it not enough for you to feed on the good pasture? Must you also trample the rest of your pasture with your feet? Is it not enough for you to drink clear water? Must you also muddy the rest with your feet?” (Ezekiel 34:17-18)

“Woe to you who add house to house and join field to field till no space is left and you live alone in the land. The LORD almighty has declared in my hearing: ‘Surely the great houses will become desolate, the fine mansions left without occupants. A ten-acre vineyard will produce only a bath of wine, a homer of seed only an ephah of grain.’” (Isaiah 5:8-10)

7. I believe humanity to be a part of Creation- not separate. 

8. God gets pissed when we defile His land.

“You shall not pollute the land in which you live…. You shall not defile the land in which you live, in which I also dwell; for I the LORD dwell among the Israelites.” (Numbers 35:33-34)

“If you besiege a town for a long time, making war against it in order to take it, you must not destroy its trees by wielding an ax against them. Although you may take food from them, you must not cut them down. Are trees in the field human beings that they should come under siege from you?” (Deuteronomy 20:19)

“I brought you into a plentiful land to eat its fruits and its good things. But when you entered you defiled my land, and made my heritage an abomination.” (Jeremiah 2:7)

“You must keep my decrees and my laws…. And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.” (Leviticus 18:26, 28)

9. There are consequences for our irresponsibility.

“There is no faithfulness, no love, no acknowledgment of God in the land. There is only cursing, lying and murder, stealing and adultery; they break all bounds, and bloodshed follows bloodshed. Because of this the land mourns, and all who live in it waste away; the beasts of the field and the birds of the air and the fish of the sea are dying.” (Hosea 4:1-3)

“You have polluted the land with your whoring and wickedness. Therefore the showers have been withheld, and the spring rain has not come.” (Jeremiah 3:2-3)

“The nations were angry; and your wrath has come. The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great-and for destroying those who destroy the earth.” (Revelation 11:18)

And finally, 10. God intended man to have perfect communion with the earth. Such a relationship was manifested in Eden and will come about again.

“Through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.” (Colossians 1:20; cf. Ephesians 1:10)

So in conclusion, it’s time for Christians to start getting green. For those of you who’ve been following this series of posts and who are probably wondering- in the concluding post I will be doing (which will probably not be the next one, but the one after that), I will talk a bit about what we can do differently with our lives in practical terms, in reaction to all the things I’ve been talking about, both on the individual level and the communal level.

Anarcho-primitivism pt. 3(a?)- the Founding Fathers- Laying down the foundation for an empire?

With this post I’m gonna be getting a bit more controversial. I titled this 3(a?) because I think there will be a follow-up. 

While I was growing up, my family’s idea of a fun activity on vacation was going to a museum. And most of the museums had something to do with American history. In (home)school, for some reason I was stuck on American history for about 10 years, and only got past world war one a couple of times. I greatly enjoyed my Civil War and Revolutionary War coloring books. When I watched Gettysburg, I threw myself onto the living room couch, pretending I was one of the rebs getting blown up in Pickett’s charge. One of my favorite beginner reading books was Sam the Minuteman. And I was very proud of my grandpa who fought in WWII and won several medals. But somewhere along the line I started to look at America differently.

I don’t know what it was. Maybe it was 9/11. And Bush. Or just Bush. But I started to see the patriotic fervor in people’s eyes as a bit of a glazed look. And I started to hear the patriotic zeal in people’s voices as a snake’s rattle- charmed. Eventually I realized- I was not patriotic. In fact I started to feel downright un-American. Now, the average citizen, christian or not, is supposed to feel patriotic. If you’re not, you’re spoiled, naive, asinine, disgusting, rebellious, immature and… unAmerican! And maybe I am a bit of all those things, but now it’s like I’ve put on a different pair of sunglasses- ones that aren’t red, blue, and white, (or maybe now I’m looking at things with my naked eye?). And now I see America differently.

When historians write history, they write it from the point of the conquerors. If you haven’t conquered something, you’re a nobody. I am trying to learn to look at history from the perspective of the conquered peoples whose stories are forever buried.

America is everything people love it for- the richest, proudest, most powerful nation in modern history. But whenever I try to feel pride for my country, in a way I feel like I am trying to deceive myself. To ignore or bury the guilt and suspicion. To cheat the scales.

I admit, the founding fathers had a lot of great ideals. But I have a few major problems with the founding of America.

#1. The founding fathers were mostly fighting over money (at the root of every war is money). Sure they were fighting for freedom, but it was economic freedom. This would not have been following “Give to Caesar’s what is Caesar’s.” Also even if the taxes laid on the colonists were unfair in comparison to other British citizens, it should be remembered that the taxes were to pay for Britain’s huge debt after the 7 Years War. And it was because of that war that the colonists were in America in the first place, so basically from an economic standpoint, we just wanted to live happily in the land Britain paid for, and not have to repay the mother nation. In general, I don’t understand what it was that was so bad that the colonists had to rebel. The French Revolution I can understand, but not the American.

#2. They could’ve gained independence peacefully. Like Canada did. Sure, it might’ve taken longer, but especially if they claimed to be christians, then that’s what they should’ve done. It seems like America is the rebellious, haughty teenager who rebels against their parents- and never pays for it. 

#3. Slavery. America’s economy was built on the backs of slaves. Huzzah for capitalism. Also, the Civil War wasn’t fought for the freedom of slaves from a moral stand-point. If it was, the North wouldn’t have soldescaping slaves back to their owners and Martin Luther would never have had to have led his civil rights movement. The Civil War, like all wars, was fought over money.

#4. America took its land from the indigenous people. And raped and killed them. And broke every one of its treaties with the American Indians. Initially America as a nation adopted the policy under Thomas Jefferson that American Indians would be allowed to stay east of the Mississippi as long as they assimilated or became civilized, (we still see this mindset towards different races and cultures today). This reminds me of a conversation about racism I had with a friend at the anarcho-primitivism conference. He told me that as an Asian, one of the worst things you can tell him is that you don’t even notice his being Asian. Saying that he’s just like a white person. This basically is saying that his culture, his history, who he is, is unimportant. This is just more evidence of white supremacy- veiled unconsciously in well-meaning. Anyhow, in the 19th century America abandoned the assimilation policy and under Andrew Jackson, we began “relocating” and killing Native 

Americans. This article discusses what is referred to as “The American Indian Holocaust”. An excerpt: “…according to Ward Churchill, a professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado, the reduction of the North American Indian population from an estimated 12 million in 1500 to barely 237,000 in 1900 represents a ‘vast genocide . . . , the most sustained on record.’ ” The devastating effects of whites’ attitudes towards American Indians more than lingers today. I heard Richard Twiss, a native american christian preacher and speaker, talk at Cornerstone about his own personal difficulties as a Native American christian. His people were basically told by the white christian society that everything about them was a sin. Their music, their dress, their rituals, their way of life, etc. As a result, their loss of identity has led to severe depression. To the American Indians, we are essentially the permanent, or at least indefinite hostile occupiers of their land. Unfortunately America still hasn’t been reconciled with its natives. This is probably the biggest reason I feel as much, if not more, shame as pride in my government’s foundation. I am only beginning to see the tip of the iceberg, but the more I learn, the more ashamed I feel.

For, lo, I raise up the Chaldeans,
that bitter and hasty nation,
which shall march through the breadth of the land, to possess the dwelling places
that are not their’s
(Habakkuk 1:6)

#5. “America is a Christian nation.” I don’t think the founding fathers really claimed this. They may have thought they were divinely inspired, but I don’t think they were setting out to create a christian nation. This article does a pretty good job saying such. If we were, we’d be a democratic theocracy which would be idolatrous, hypocritical, and just plain wrong. That said, I think America’s christian religious views have been twisted to meet its political agenda. The epitome of which is the idea of “Manifest Destiny” (…a term that was used in the 19th century to designate the belief that the United States was destined, even divinely ordained, to expand across the North American continent, from the Atlantic seaboard to the Pacific Ocean. Sometimes Manifest Destiny was interpreted so broadly as to include the eventual absorption of all North America: Canada, Mexico, Cuba and Central America.-Wikipedia). America has used religion as a political tool. For example, going back to the native americans- the Europeans and Americans always portrayed native americans as unchristian, sinful, uncivilized, savages. This is the first step in developing racial prejudice to justify inhuman atrocities. White people claimed the blacks were inferior and used them as slaves for years. Hitler (who claimed to be divinely inspired) used this tactic to demonize jews. At my conference, I heard a woman from the Philippines talk about how America did it to her people when we colonized her country. And today I have seen America do the same with the “Hajis”. Such manufactured hatred can be produced when you get governmental about your spiritual beliefs and when you get spiritual about your government. There simply is no such thing as a christian government.

 I have begun to see America as an Imperial nation. This is, of course, a rather rash statement. But I stand by it, (Is it coincidence that Washington DC looks so much like Rome?). America as a nation is empirical, and American Christianity is empirical. The two don’t claim to be one with the other, but they definitely have a relationship. And I think that relationship is dangerous. 

I believe the Bible is filled with warnings about power and mighty nations. Capitalism, democracy, American, European- whatever, they’re all part of  “Babylon”, (This link is especially important.)

So what is my relationship with America? I enjoy its privileges, but I am learning they were bought by, and still are being bought by, the blood of innocents, and its ideals are two-faced and hypocritical.Frankly, I don’t know what to do. I feel two knee jerk responses to my American heritage- 1, a desire to distance myself from it, and 2, a sense of responsibility to make things up to those who we persecuted and exploited. It’s as though America is a rapist. As a male, I can’t distance myself from my gender in effort to distance myself from the men who sexually abuse women. And neither can I make up for the harm they did. That’s the way I feel about America.

So to bring this all back to anarcho-primitivism- a lot of the thoughts I just expressed were shared by those at the anarcho-primitivism conference I went to. However we’re not exactly on the same page. From what I can tell, if America is a sinking ship, an anarcho-primitivist would be saying, “We should learn how to swim, ’cause that’s what God intended for us in the first place.” (Not to say they would want to abandon everyone and go off and do their own thing. That’s definitely not their goal.) At this point in my life, I have more of a mindset of, “I’m in this mess and it doesn’t matter if it shouldn’t've been built in the first place, I’m going to do my best to fix things up. Even if, in the end, we sink.”

My dad told me several times- “Jesse, the thing about following Jesus is, there’s no moderation. The world thinks it’s best to be moderate. But the Bible says, you can either be cold, or you can be hot. You can’t be luke warm.” That said I’m going to end on a bit of what could be taken as moderation. I’ve felt a bit of American pride when I’ve seen her act nobly. I felt pride when Obama “reached out” to the Muslim world, and when he apologized on behalf of America. I am glad he’s pursuing nuclear disarmament. I’ve wondered if working with or supporting political movements whose ideals I agree with is hypocritical to my beliefs. I don’t think it is. The bottom line is, don’t give America what isn’t hers, not to let my christian convictions be compromised for the sake of America, or be used for the sake of America. I support certain political efforts, not for the sake of my nation, but for the sake of humanity.

“You said, ‘I will continue forever— the eternal queen!’

But you did not consider these things or reflect on what might happen.” (-Isa 47: 7 )