To Facebook: “We are not the Images of ourselves”

Leave a comment

       Facebook is not merely an accessory to our relationships, it is not merely for sending pictures—we had email. Furthermore, Facebook is not merely a new space to socialize.

Rather Facebook is our means by which we re-create our world and ourselves in our image—it has redefined what it means to relate to one another. The internet, as well expressed by journalist Glenn Greenwald,

“…is the epicenter of our world, the place where virtually everything is done. It is where friends are made, where books and films are chosen, where political activism is organized, where the most private data is created and stored.”[1]

       With this being the case then, there are a great deal many questions as to why anyone would stop using Facebook much like abstaining from alcohol in social settings. Its panorama of ‘sins’ can be presented as a thought experiment, as if Facebook went to confession.

       “I’ve never confessed before. I’m married to venture capitalism; I’m eleven years old. I prefer brevity to thoughtfulness, reaction to patience, image to text, quantity to quality…”

         “What are your sins my son?”

       “First I have my own form of murder—I erase people if they have done something bad, and are serving a sentence for it—they don’t exist for anyone or to anyone.[2] Sorcery? Well, I put people in trances for hours on end, looking into my face like a cauldron. They went looking for something but by the end of it, I could have them enthralled with cats. Being a source of distraction may be my most underestimate personal quality.[3] Avarice is something I’m not prone to myself, but I enable every one of them—Coca-Cola, Verizon, Sony, anyone really… advertisers worship me! Not only do I give them space to advertise, but I also point them to all the right people! Theft is one sin I’ve never had to practice, because everything is given to me, especially information. If I’m the cool kid at the party, and I don’t know you, you may as well not even exist. There is some controversy about my father cheating his best friend out of a fortune,[4] but on this one I’m pretty clean. I’m most subject to glory of myself. Hell, everyone knows about me, and yet I still hang-up posters of myself just to make sure people don’t forget about me, and any time some other new source of attention comes around—well I have to buy them out![5] Hypocrisy and lying, again my father is much more the source of this than I am—there are even rumors that he has lied about being my father.[6] I don’t lie to people ever, I provide an accounting of what they can expect of me on my personal blog—I tell them just how much they can trust me. Though I prefer brevity, my post must be 20-25 pages—heck! I don’t even remember everything in it.[7] Just know that while I tend to enable others in their sins,[8] what I adore to the point of insanity, is how much power I have! I manipulate people into emotional frenzies,[9] I can create revolutions, and I can end revolutions.[10] I have half a billion adherents! I am idol crafter, altar, and inspiration for your face!….I….I Am…”

       The priest then quietly checks his phone for any new notifications—and to write on his Facebook page the troubles he is having in ministry.

       While many would concede that Facebook might have some bad side-effects if over indulged, they would say that at the end of the day, Facebook itself is simply a tool, more like a public utility, than a company. But like alcohol, while Facebook feeds on something natural like human relationships, it is mediated to us through someone else’s power and wisdom. Sure alcohol is a part of God’s world, but who necessitated that it be a social lubricant? So to human relationships are a part of God’s world, but who made it so that they should be mediated and interpreted through Facebook? If the post-modern Christian is to act as a translator of a Christian worldview then the question of virtual reality, and how human relationships are designed to properly function, are vital—if the answers are found in the image of Christ.

       Images, despite the word ‘book’, Facebook is about images. One sin not listed was idolatry, which is worshipping an image. In the biblical narrative, human beings are created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26). Facebook’s message about who a human being is, is what they project, what image they make of themselves. In other words, if the Biblical narrative says that we are made in the image of God, that each and everyone of us represents who God is, the narrative of Facebook is that we are images of ourselves—we are what we imagine ourselves to be. While Facebook is for some merely any accessory to already existing relationships or a new space in which to socialize, what is not to be missed is the power in creating our own image. Greenwald likewise says that the internet is, “…where we develop and express our very personality and sense of self.”[11]

       The prophet Jeremiah calls the power of idols, “a work of delusion” (Jer. 10:15) because even though they have no power in and of themselves, they have the power given to them over and by the very ones who created them. John Calvin described human nature in his Institutes of the Christian Religion as—“a perpetual factory of idols” (I.XI.8). Facebook is but one expression of this, as it has been funded and fueled by one of its first major investors, Peter Thiel, co-founder of Paypal and his futurist libertarian ideology.[12] Thiel essentially believes that, through the advancement of technology by a marketplace unhindered by law or morality, humanity will be able to create its own world, and create its own reality without death or suffering—Facebook is the democratized version of this utopian fantasy. But like any idol, though it promises redemption if you but sacrifice your personal information, and relationships to it—by which Facebook can profit—it has power over you because you have surrendered to a work of delusion, though it is ‘nothing’—by definition a virtual reality. Like all idols, it is an expression worshipping “…the creature rather than the creator…” (Rom. 1:25) with the creature, in this case, being ourselves. With Facebook you have communities without geography, relationships without relating, empathy without touch, knowledge without expertise, gossip without another ear, and connecting no longer requiring anything but an internet connection—because relationships themselves are commodified.

       With Facebook we have not merely a tool to connect, not merely a space to connect, but a very redefinition of what it means to connect. The cost of this redefinition however is our disconnection with what it means to be human—to have our very relationships themselves commodified. So then, if the Biblical narrative tells us that the truth that we are not made in the image of ourselves, but in the image of God, what do human relationships look like in the person of God himself, Jesus? What we find in the Gospels is that Jesus is constantly walking to villages, calling people by name, making public announcements, entering into homes, expressing empathy by tears, not drawing attention to himself, expanding his relationships with people who didn’t share his interests, and we find a Christ who knows people better than they know themselves. What Jesus in his relationships exhibits is a relational ethic of proximity, as opposed to a relational ethic of commodity exhibited by Facebook.

       Proximity requires relating to people as people, not merely as a profile of a product. Proximity requires relating to people you may not like, not merely erasing them. Proximity requires you to have a communal identity, rather than be an isolated monad with your own picture. Proximity requires you to serve and give, not merely ‘share’ and ‘like’. Proximity requires you to keep people in your thoughts and hearts, not merely on your ‘friends’ list. Proximity requires you to gather in public spaces, not merely be online together. Proximity requires you to respond in the moment, not merely take care of people when it’s most convenient. Proximity requires you to take action at imminent disaster, not merely hash-tag prayers. Proximity requires you to rely on the generosity of others, not merely depend on how many people are looking. Proximity requires you to confess and pray to God, not merely rant on some else’s ‘wall’. Finally, proximity in the example of Christ, often requires sacrifice, but in the commodified relationships of our Facebook world sacrifice does not even exist.


[1] Glenn Greenwald, No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State (Metropolitan Books, 2014), 5–6.

[2] Sarah Shourd, Facebook Accused of Censoring Hundreds of Prisoners by Purging Profile Pages Without Cause, interview by Amy Goodman, August 24, 2015, http://www.democracynow.org/2015/8/24/facebook_accused_of_censoring_hundreds_of.

[3] On Facebook as distraction in education: Michael J. Bugeja, “Facing the Facebook,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 23, 2006, http://chronicle.com/article/Facing-the-Facebook/46904.

[4] The origin story of Facebook primarily told by Eduardo Saverin, who was its original business manager: Ben Mezrich, The Accidental Billionaires: The Founding of Facebook: A Tale of Sex, Money, Genius and Betrayal, (New York: Anchor, 2010).

[5] Mark Zuckerberg: Building the Facbeook Empire, YouTube Video (Bloomberg Business, 2013), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WiDIhIkPoM.

[6] Mark Zuckerberg’s, controversy concerning possible “theft” of the idea of Facebook from the Winklevoss twins: Mezrich, The Accidental Billionaires; Bloomberg, Mark Zuckerberg.

[7] On user agreements see: Cullen Hoback, Terms and Conditions May Apply, (Hyrax Films, 2013), http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2084953/.

[8] On Facebook as an enabler of deceit: S.E. Whelan, “Facebook: Friend or Foe?,” Digital News, Life Ivy, (May 15, 2013), http://www.lifeivy.com/post/facebook-friend-or-foe/.

[9] Robert Booth, “Facebook Reveals News Feed Experiment to Control Emotions,” The Guardian, June 30, 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/29/facebook-users-emotions-news-feeds?CMP=fb_gu.

[10] Leonid Bershidsky, “End of the Facebook Revolution,” BloombergView, (December 22, 2014), http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-22/end-of-the-facebook-revolution.

[11] Greenwald, No Place to Hide, 5.

[12] Tom Hodgkinson, “With friends like these…Tom Hodgkinson on the politics of the people behind Facebook,” The Guardian, January 14, 2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook.

On the Recent Canadian Election, and elections in general

Leave a comment

Authorial Note: Most of this was written at my work place [Starbucks] one evening, so properly, this is a musing- meaning all of this is open to correction and reformation. They are more notes, than arguments. 

images   On the night of Canada’s 2015 election of supposedly historic proportions, the only word circling this observer’s thoughts was, ‘cynical’. Not with respect to those not voting whether out of apathy or principle, but for those who propound the importance of voting and either forget to vote or vote out of accord with their principles, and thus out of accord with the very principle of voting itself, in order to achieve the least objectionable outcome. The slogan of ‘#anyonebutharper’ is depressing,  the notion of strategic voting is cynical, and the notion that voting will ultimately affect the make-up of a singular nation in the context of globalization is stupid. Drawing upon the experience of having attended the Munk Debate on Canadian Foreign Policy, and of actually caring about Canadian Politics due to the long present outrage against the out-going Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government, let us address each of these three theses in turn.

      The slogan ‘#anyonebutharper’ is depressing because it doesn’t inspire faith in anything, it only inspires a false equivalence between all the other options. Imagine if a customer at a Starbucks asking her friend what she should have, and her friend says ‘anything but the salted carmel mocha’- it gives the false impression that that has somehow helped her make decision about anything else- not asking about caffeine intake, sugar, nutrition or anything else other than dismay at one option. The same with this election, which has the same vibe as the United States election of 2004 when everyone was saying ‘#anyonebutbush”- Bush deserved to win that election because the other candidate according to the opposition could have been anyone. Harper likewise deserved, deserved not ‘should’ or ‘it would have been desirable’, to win this election only if because he clearly is not posing himself as just anyone- some people actually had faith in him. However the lack of faith in any of the political candidates offered during out most recent election was made abundantly clear at the Munk Debate. For those who watched on TV or online, what you saw was very much a censored debate in terms of screening out the reaction of the audience. During the debate there were moments when each of the candidates were laughed at by the majority of the audience- at Harper when he argued that he had a great relationship with President Obama, at Mulcair when he argued that the NDP had the best record for balanced budgets (keep in mind that the debate took place in Toronto, Ontario, which under the then NDP premier Bob Rae experienced a tremendous deficit), and at Trudeau when he said he would stand up to Vladimir Putin, the ‘bully’. Some of the arguments were so manifestly untrue that the candidates were laughed at. The only time when the leader of your country should be laughed at is when they have done something comedic or purposely made a joke, not when they have been made a joke.

     It is in this ideological depression of going for the least objectionable that we find the death of the idea of liberal democratic institutions, because in it we find  out that the minimum requirement of love and care is only avoiding complete disaster. In this vein it is hard to argue with Slavoj Žižek who at the end of his introduction to his work Living in the End Times (Verso: 2010),

“To engage in this struggle means to endorse Badiou’s formula mieux vault un désastre qu’un desêtre [Better a disaster than a lack of being]…What Badiou rejects is thus the liberal ideology of victimhood, with its reduction of politics to a program of avoiding the worst, to renouncing all positive projects and pursuing the least bad option. Not least since, as Arthur Feldmann, a Viennese Jewish writer, bitterly noted: the price we usually pay for survival is our lives.” (xv)

But of course the opposition will argue that they don’t want just want anyone, they want anyone who can win—which brings us to the utterly cynical phenomenon of strategic voting.

     If you talk to any of our ‘engaged’ political youth, they will tell you all about the importance and power of voting- that it is about having your voice heard, having the ability to change your circumstances, and honour those who defended and fought for our country. But then you ask them who you should vote for, and they will argue that while they would want such and such to win, it’s not going to happen so vote for the opposition most likely to win. Now ponder this for a moment- the very people who argued for the doctrine of voting, are now the very ones undermining the doctrine in order for you to support the institution. The message is, “ya you should vote your values and conscience,  but those aren’t going to win- the goal is to win!” See, the doctrine of voting says you should vote your conscience but the institution of voting and liberal democracy require you to win- voting is not an act of expression of values anymore. Strategic voting is merely the exposure that the notion of representation in democracy has dissipated- the point is not to be represented, the point is win according to the parameters given to you. Look at the case of Ron Paul in the United States- regardless what you think of his political outlook, how he was treated was bizarre. You got the sense that he really represented a lot of people, but because the corporate media and institutions of Liberal Democracy said that he could not win, people who felt represented by him did not vote for him, not because he didn’t represent them but because he couldn’t win- ‘couldn’t win’, not because he would not get the votes, but because the parameters of our institutional liberal democracy, could not allow him to win. The LA Times conducted a poll in the 2012 election which showed that Obama would have beaten Ron Paul, only be a very small margin, and yet Paul was black-balled from the beginning mainly, without any need for speculation, because the military-industrial complex would have been in a moment of crisis with him in office. In our current liberal democratic institutions, the representation is not based entirely on the vote but on who the most powerful and wealthy give us as acceptable candidates. Representational democracy was based on the idea of confidence, that is why there is the option of ‘no confidence’ voting- confidence coming from the Latin fides, meaning faith, except now this fides has nothing to do with the candidate but with the institution. You don’t even have to have any faith in the candidate to represent you, you only have faith that if the candidate wins, that the system did it’s job. But the revolutionary faith of democracy, well embodied by the American Revolution was not faith in the political system of democracy but faith in the people to direct and represent themselves- so if you are voting out of a strategy to win and not represent yourself, you are betraying the very revolutionary faith upon which the institute of Liberal Democracy was based- faith in you.

   But perhaps that is the point of these slogans of “#anyonebut____” that the candidate could be anyone. Perhaps also that is the point of strategic voting, to embrace the notion that representation is lost. Could it be that these depressing and cynical moves merely expose that the fact that the institutions themselves know that they are bankrupt of any idea of leadership or representation, that they are aware of how their myth in reality has been hollowed out, and in need of manipulation to keep itself going?

     Here we are at our third thesis, the stupidity in believing in national elections in a globalized world. It is fashionable now for news commentators to show their international savy by talking about elections in countries other than their own. Take a look at John Oliver, who on his show Last Week Tonight, addressed the Canadian election, all the little while admitting what little he actually cares about Canada. But even on this they are still about a century behind, because what is absent from almost all mainstream media is discussion of the unelected international bodies of power that can either influence governments by private think tanks or sue governments in international courts to change their laws such as the IMF, World Bank, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, and the Bilderberg Group, along with innumerable others. See, behind the adorable notion that deciding upon which millionaire will represent your country to the rest of the world is the hope that at least they have the influence to bring about change within the boarders of the country in which they are elected- however they are limited even in these pursuits. Two basic recent events underline this quite well: (i) If you watched the Munk Debate on foreign policy, you may have noticed that the leaders often reverted back to domestic policy, and the reason is simple, Canada does not have an independent foreign policy, its foreign policy is set by its relationship to the UN, NATO, and most especially, the US. (ii) The Trans-Pacific Partnership will be perhaps the most important economic legislation passed this decade, which will have far and lasting ramifications upon both the Canadian economy and the international economy at large, and yet, its full-text has yet to be released to the public, with even Wikileaks putting up $100, ooo for the rest of the text. Why is this the case with regard to a piece of legislation that could affect up to as much as 40% of the world’s economy? The answer is really quite simple, the legislation, while affecting labor the world overall, is not for ‘regular’ people (you know, the ones that vote and supposedly have the power?), its for multi-national corporations and organizations, and their wealthy clients- it affects us, but we do not get a say. Foreign policy and the economy, two of the most central issues for any nation are not up for debate or vote by the members of the populous- we get to decide on whether a candidate is ‘authentic’.

        The race for the least objectionable outcome, the faith in democracy as opposed to the faith in the demos, and the remains of the joke of national sovereignty- all point to the futility of voting.*

* Now it may be said, as I too thought, that ‘Well if voting is so futile, why have there been recent attempts to suppress it?’ Notice however that the recent attempts to suppress it in both Canada and the United States have been partisan- in 2011, the Conservative Party of Canada was trying to suppress the Liberal and NDP vote, not ‘voting’ as such. In the United States, the rolling back of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is a Republican move to limit the Democrat vote, again not ‘voting’ as such. The phenomenon of voter suppression is partisan bigotry, because the threat to an actual democracy has already taken place. 

Dear Those Who Serve and Protect throughout Toronto


Authorial Note: Having recently preached at Weston Park Baptist church, in which sermon I briefly mentioned the practice of carding throughout the city of Toronto as a form of distrustful control similar to all governments that aspire to achieve God-like status of omniscience in order to control people- I must now admit that I am in a Jonah-like position. I spent some time reflecting on the public institution of the police in our society, my own knowledge of the police force, the concerns of dear colleagues of mine, and finally in meditation over Christian ethics in the example of Christ and I had come to denounce the practice of carding in some public manner. Below is a copy of a letter, a 3000 word essay to be precise, that I personally sent to the Toronto Police Service, and though I have yet to receive a reply, mayor John Tory’s call for an end to the practice of carding may have been just that. While obviously more needs to be done (but does it not always?), I can’t help but feel slightly disappointed at this sight of repentance, not because I want carding to stay in place- God forbid- but because that repentance went against my intellectual expectation. Whatever Tory’s motive, he humbled himself before the will of those who protested, as following his ‘conscience’- something while not completely unexpected, is in great tension with how I perceive the world and the workings of power- but if I’m honest, and not trying to pretend that that did not happen, I have to factor all this in. In light of this, it may appear ungrateful to publish this at all, but vigilance is needed not only in times of great protest but even when things are getting better, however slightly. As has been properly pointed out, though Tory’s announcement is significant, that does not mean the practice will be abolished, or that there will not be push back. Nineveh may repent, but who knows how long that will last. Justice is an on going work, that no election and no decision can ever put to rest. 


          Dear Chief of Police Mark Saunders, and the entire Toronto Police Service,

         In response to the recent twitter campaign, lead by one of my good friends and colleague Jared A. Knight-Walker, to use the hashtag “#PoliceWeekONT” in order to raise important questions concerning your carding policy and much else, Joe Couto, director of government relations and communications for the Ontario Association of Police Chiefs replied that such questions, to quote the piece by Davide Mastracci on May 13th, 2015 from the National Post, “…went unanswered because complex issues can’t be tackled in 140 characters…”* Now while some may object to such a response as inadequate or disingenuous, the figure of Jesus presented in the Gospels of the New Testament advises his disciples, of whom I hope to count myself among, that “…if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles…” (Matt. 5:41, ESV). Fittingly enough this was addressed to a group of marginalized and oppressed people, who dwelt under occupation—a situation much worse than someone as privileged as myself has never had to experience nor hopefully will ever have too. If the Jesus of the Gospels makes such a demand upon a people more oppressed than myself, it is only right that I do my best to follow suit. I will go the ‘extra mile’ as the adage goes, and not only write to you a letter, but something else, which I’ve found I’m quite adept at writing, an essay. It may be longer than you wish to read, it may at times become uncomfortable as while it will strive to be academic, it will also be uncontrollably personal—as already exhibited by my appeal to my religious tradition—but my intentions are much like the intentions of our police force, both good in that I hope to see reform and steps toward reconciliation, but also maybe unknowingly selfish, as a strive for attention and a public voice. The content of this essay will also be much like the attitude many of our police force have toward our public, both praiseworthy and congratulatory, but also critical and condemnatory.

Desmond Cole

         Let us begin with even how I came to be involved in Knight-Walker’s campaign, and how my own attitude toward our police force was formed before making my plea. Knight-Walker and I have known each other for years, now while he has been much more devoted to the political realm and to the life of our city than I have, we both strive to possibly too utopian a dream to achieve, which is justice reigning throughout the earth—though we may disagree as to how that may be brought about. He checks my cynicism, I check his optimism—and probably forever we will dance this tug-of-war. However, many may wonder why I would be critical of the police at all—why I would participate in Knight-Walker’s campaign at all? For, as I’m sure you’ll see, I have no criminal record, I’ve only talked to an officer once as a witness to a traffic accident, I myself have never been carded (probably because I’m a white male, but that will come later), neither of my parents have been abused by the police in anyway, I have no vehement defiance against ‘authority’ generally, and most of all, both of my parents have raised me to respect police for the most part and to be thankful for their service. We are grateful whenever we hear that you have caught a pedophile ring, or a drug cartel—and we are thankful that those have been stopped thanks to your intervention and action. My mother and I have even begun our own little Christmas tradition over the past several years to bringing deserts and treats to the police officers of our neighborhood near Islington and Bloor on Christmas day, to thank them for their service and for the fact that they are working even on that one of most sacred of days to us. I say all of this for you to know that I have no personal ‘score-to-settle’ or grievance to address, and that I do not do this of my own accord. Back again to the figure of Jesus, my motivation in becoming concerned about your conduct toward our community has to do with the simple command, taught in a variety of forms, to love our neighbors as ourselves. “But son, the police have been good to you”, yes but have they been good to all? The concern of any Christian, or of any human being concerned with justice should not be whether they have suffered but if others have suffered. With my ears wide open then to the cries of others, I have heard the grievances of those who have felt harassment and unfair treatment by the police—not only south of our boarder, but here in our city. I have participated, and will in no doubt continue to participate in my own small way in whatever campaigns my dear brother Jared, as well as his fellow activist partner Miranda, desire to employ me in—not because I have grievances to settle, or even entirely agree with the philosophy behind it, but because I love them, and desire to be as loving toward others in our city, especially those whom are on the receiving end of abusive power, as they are.

G20 in Toronto

         Two particular events in my life, concerning how others have been mistreated by the abuse of the force’s power, would be dishonest to leave out of this personal account, if I were to aspire to disclose the entirety of my influence in determining my opinion of the police force. One event was the week of riots preceding the 2010 G20 in Toronto, and the response of the police force. You know the statistics and the arrest numbers in much more detail than I need to recount here.But the most surprising of all, was how suddenly it had all come about—“How did we go from tolerant friendly Canadians to virtual police state in downtown Toronto almost overnight?” Many of my friends from my largely immigrant neighbourhood, who were very conspiratorially minded, had long be afraid, thanks to rumours and stories from the United States, but also from the simple lessons of history that their countries of origin taught them, of the police but even more specifically of the ‘police state’.While I had been sympathetic all of my life, it seemed obvious to me and many others that “Well, Canada has to be betterthat’s why they came here”—and truly our land and laws are more stable than those other countries, but then the G20 happened and suddenly the concerns of my friends were as real as the weather. I hope and pray that I will not have to urge the Christian communities of which I am a part of, to be resisters to the police state, and be part of the legacy of those lonely ‘voices in the wilderness’—which while I am not yet panic stricken of the possibility of yet, I am not naïve enough to discount it.

         The second event which has personally affected my view of the police force was the death of Eric Osawe in 2010 by Const. David Cavanagh** Eric was a young man that I knew personally for a brief period of time in my childhood. My aunt was counseling him to get his life together, and my parents hosted him in our apartment for what could not have been more than two weeks to the best of my recollection. We played GameCube together, laughed and slept in the same room. The extent to which I knew him personally again not vast, nor was the time we spent together lengthy but for the first time I knew of someone who was killed by a police officer. In the US there have been a variety of high-profile cases of unarmed black men being shot and killed by police officers or others, and those who committed the crime were found innocent. But now, I knew someone—it is true that his life was troubled, with a past history in drug trading with which I do not dispute, nor I am here to plea for his utter innocence. Nor am I certain of all the details concerning the case, but in the aftermath of the event a short opinion piece was written by Michael Plaxton, an assistant law professor at the University of Saskatchewan,*** in which he showed how this case boiled down to the question of,

“Should we treat Constable Cavanagh like any other citizen who broke into a person’s home and shot him dead, or should we treat him as someone who had the authority to decide whether Osawe should be shot?”

It was Plaxton’s conclusion to this exploration that was most frightful. He argued that if police officers were held accountable in a criminal court, as like any other civilian they might be discouraged “…from doing what they think is necessary…” because they would be “…uncertain as to the limits of their authority…” Plaxton’s conclusion (or implied sympathy) is troubling for two reasons: (1) the idea that accountability might discourage some form of action is undoubtedly true, that is the very purpose of accountability, but the notion that the police force, who come from the civilian population, are now somehow above public scrutiny, because we should be fearful of civilian communities making their own decisions as to how to govern themselves, is not only too high an exultation of the police force but absurdly condescending to civilian populations and their moral judgments; (2) the notion that the police force if held to the same or similar standards as the public would be utterly confused as to the limits of their authority is condescending to those in the force that do know the law, but would even be more troubling if it were true, for it would imply that the officers who serve our city would not be entirely sure as to how to conduct themselves under the same scrutiny as the public—as if they were not entirely knowledgeable about the law themselves. The impression left was the troubling notion that police officers, far from having a greater responsibility to the public because of their power and authority, actually had less responsibility to the public because the power and authority bestowed upon them suggested they knew what was better for the public than the public themselves.

        Having now traced most of the contours of the formation of my own thought concerning the police force, I would now like to make a plea concerning the practice of carding, which, in the spirit of full disclosure, I was not immediately or entirely aware of in detail until just a few months ago, but like any other subject I address in writing, I try to be as best informed about it as I can be, then hopefully offer a perspective that has hitherto gone unexamined. The perspective that is offered here is not that of young black men and others like my colleague Knight-Walker who have continual experience of harassment, for, as previously mentioned, I have had no encounters with the police, being carded or otherwise. Furthermore, the perspective offered here is not from a legal perspective, though the case that the practice goes against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms appears irrefutable, the Canadian legal system and law enforcement are not my most immediate areas of expertise.

         The perspective offered here is one from history, sociology, and motivated by, in the spirit of full disclosure, the notion of love found within the Christian tradition, though it is hoped that the proposal is in no way limited to the Christian community to the exclusion of any others. Hannah Arendt, wrote in her important work The Origins of Totalitarianism, concerning the secret police and the surveillance states she was studying that,

“The task of the totalitarian police is not to discover crimes, but to be on hand when the government decides to arrest a certain category of the population.”+

Learning many of the stories concerning people who have been carded, and learning what is involved in the process of carding, including the collection of information to be stored in police databases, what other conclusion can be drawn other than that the police, while possibly not finding the information they collect all that helpful in the short-term, will find the information helpful in some other manner in the future? “Woah, woah, woah” is the cry, “you are so accusatory! Already claiming that we have some sinister plot against minorities in the collection of their data! The nerve, and yes, while racism in carding may happen, you can’t possibly think all cops are racist, can you?!” If you have felt any ‘over-the-top’ accusation at this point, now hopefully you will understand in some measure the fear imposed upon minorities in our city who are being carded and interrogated, while having done nothing wrong—the very act of being carded is on the surface accusatory.

         In addition, the kind of information being collected by those who are being carded, is neither of the quantity, nor the quality, of simple ‘engagement’ or getting to know the community. Imagine if you will, a young man is at a party in college, and wants to get to know a certain young beautiful woman he sees across the room. If he wants to get her attention, get to know her, and hopefully build some sort of relationship of trust, most certainly he may go over, try to tell a joke, introduce himself, and maybe strike up a conversation. Now if the woman is interested or is enjoying his company, she will engage him and show some outward sign of consent, however if she is not interested and shows implied or explicit desires to be left alone, hopefully, if the young man is acting like any human being should, he will politely withdraw, perhaps slightly disappointed. Now imagine the same college party, with the same man and woman, except this time, the man wants to ‘scout’ the whole room, and sure, why not try to get to know everyone in a spirit of fun? But instead this time he walks up to only certain women, that fit a particular body type in the room, and we clearly begin to see that his motivates are not just to ‘engage’ but to find particular types of women that he is interested in, for some other purpose (wink, wink). Furthermore, it seems clear that his interest is not really in these women at all, for, as he makes his way over, he begins by asking their name (fair enough). Then however he asks about their height, their weight, who they associate with, their ID, their relationship history, where they live, what they are currently doing—now all of this, while very thorough, may come out in the course of a relationship over a period of a few months, but is rather odd to ask within a first 10 minute conversation. Lastly, while possibly appearing just a little ‘creepy’, he has her fill out a card with all this information, repeats the same process with every woman in the room with that particular body type, and then saves that information on his laptop and send it to all his guy friends. Hopefully we would all recognize that this scenario is highly inappropriate, invasive, and would be all the most troubling if the young man was armed in any capacity. What this entire thought-experiment has hopefully shown, is that the simple collection of information is by no means neutral. Can information be collected and learned about through innocent community engagement? Absolutely, and it would be strange if the police did not learn more about the people it was protecting through engagement. But, is the collecting of information an act of community engagement itself? Not in the slightest, for the intention of the collecting, and the process of its’ gathering, can be an enormous hindrance to actual relationship building.

Eric Osawe

         All of this has lead to the final theme and the vocal plea: be sincere in your interest in us, and please stop acting like we are an objectified body to be controlled. The violence in our communities toward minorities, and women is abhorrent, and we know that all of you in your investigations know this in much greater detail then hopefully most of us will have to. But violence, harassment, fear, intimidation, is exercised just as much by the powerful to maintain their power and control, as it is by the powerless over those less powerful then themselves and against structures more powerful than themselves, in the attempt to gain power. The continued militarization of the police force as exhibited in the G20 of 2010, the differentiation of accountability in the use of violence between the police force and civilian populations as in the case of Eric Osawe, and the current practice of carding, are all forms in which the police force continue to try to maintain its power as opposed to exercising it in our interest. The figure of Jesus Christ, by whose example this entire essay was inspired, proclaimed, “everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted” (Luke 14:11, ESV). The more power exults itself, the more apparent it becomes that it will be humbled by others. The more power humbles itself, the more apparent it becomes that others will exult it. We are asking that the Toronto Police Force humble itself before this public plea to repeal the practice of carding, so that we may exult it as a force for which our city can be all the prouder of.

            Thank you for reading through all of this, if I have in anyway persuaded you to repeal the policy of carding then, it is to you and my colleagues that I am grateful for the inspiration.


Caleb David Upton, MTh

*Mastracci, Davide. “Critics overtake Police Week hashtag to condemn carding and demand accountability.” Canadian News Site. National Post, May 13, 2015. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/critics-overtake-police-week-hashtag-to-condemn-carding-and-demand-accountability.

**Blatchford, Christie. “Toronto police officer Const. David Cavanagh exonerated — again — in 2010 shooting of Eric Osawe.” Canadian News Site. National Post, April 2, 2014. http://news.nationalpost.com/toronto/toronto-police-officer-const-david-cavanagh-exonerated-again-in-2010-shooting-of-eric-osawe.

***Plaxton, Michael. “Charging of David Cavanagh in Eric Osawe case highlights conflicting views of police powers.” The Toronto Star, February 28, 2012. http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/2012/02/28/charging_of_david_cavanagh_in_eric_osawe_case_highlights_conflicting_views_of_police_powers.html.

+ Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism, New Edition (USA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Trade & Reference Publishers, 1973), 426.

Openly Serving the Oligarchy: Why is the University of Toronto Squandering its Reputation?

Leave a comment

Authorial Note: While the urgency of this piece is now somewhat dated due to the end of the strikes at the University of Toronto and York University earlier this year, I still felt that the longer form of this piece, of which a shorter version will soon be published in the University of Toronto’s Varsity, would shed some light on the most recent university strikes, and how those relate to a much wider context. This original longer version was finished on March 25th, 2015. 

          The University of Toronto’s Art and Science (A&S) Faculty prides itself as “…a vibrant intellectual community of students and scholars who are deeply committed to excellence, discovery and diversity” and while it may be entirely true that some of the students and some of the scholars are, a more accurate reading would be,

…a vibrant intellectual community of students and scholars who are deeply committed to be paid fairly, while held under a leadership and donor community whose demographic is mostly of the world- renown ‘1%’ that pursue excellence in keeping your money, discovering people are angry, and diversifying the importance and standing of a degree awarded by them.

Responding with anger however, as any member of the alumni of the University of Toronto’s A&S faculty may be, the most recent announcement of the Dean of the faculty, David Cameron, is only the most recent example of the long descendent of universities world-wide from the peak of institutions of immense public importance into diploma mills. ‘Diploma mill’, used of the eccentric community college, Greendale, on the now recently resurrected Yahoo sitcom Community (2009- ), use to be a form of insult toward universities and colleges that merely printed degrees as receipts but clearly did not mean much—for the University of Toronto’s A&S faculty however, being a diploma mill is a heroic endeavor. With Cameron beginning his message by assuring the students who are now missing their classes because the faculty has been “deprived of the benefits of their [Unit 1 members] work” that he understands just what a stressful time it has been for everyone—the rhetorical ploy of assigning the blame to the Unit 1 members in order to identify with the students has been successfully achieved. To those students that are understandably anxious about exams, finals, and finishing their degrees on time, Cameron has now set-up CUPE 3902 as the ‘bad guys’ as he prepares to give them their consolation prize of a degree completed on time. Cameron states that “…it is the goal of the Faculty of Arts & Science to ensure that you will be able to complete your courses and progress in your degree, and that those who are on track to convocate in June will be able to graduate”—‘rest assured students we will not refund your tuition for this semester or make you take more time to finish your degree, is that not the best you could hope for?’ For those students that just want to get in and get out, this might appear to be really great news, because despite those grubby greedy CUPE members (causing all their shenanigans of wanting a livable wage!!!) they will nevertheless be able to finish their degree on time and get on with their lives. But even for those students, what Cameron proposes should make anyone now begin to doubt just how much the University of Toronto actually cares about the standard of their education and what a degree from the University stands for in terms of further employment or further studies.

       Cameron essentially puts forward two separate but equally offensive proposals as to how he will make sure that students graduate on time, and that the university will get to keep the tuition money their students, very many of whom receive their finances through government loans, have paid or are currently paying—‘what’s the problem?’ The problem essentially is that both of these proposals significantly decrease the value of the degree that these students may have had already worked for several years to receive—yes, they will finish on time and the university gets to keep its money, but the value of end result of the degree is so severally compromised that even the students who want their degree purely for motivates concerning economic value for the jobs that they hope to receive because of it, should be outraged. Cameron’s two worrisome proposals consists of: (i) the extension of the date by which a student may drop a class or choose the option of having the course graded credit or no-credit “…until after they have seen their final grades…” and (ii) because of a student vote in which “…in accordance with the University’s Grading Practices Policy…” they have agreed to “alter the marking scheme” the grades in some courses will effectively be strongly influenced by how the students want to be graded whether the class continues to be taught or not. Shaun McKinnon, a 2013 graduate of the University of Toronto’s A&S faculty with high distinction and who is one of those outraged, sums up quite well effectively what these two proposals mean,

…This allows students to bundle their bad grades, unseen, into a pristine AAA University of Toronto degree just like a sub-prime mortgage. And, just like a sub-prime mortgage, that degree may turn out to be a toxic asset. Allowing students to effectively choose their own marking scheme, as well as dictate which courses count for credit and which ones do not (after they have been completed), fundamentally compromises the integrity of a degree from the University of Toronto…

Just to further illustrate just how ridiculous these proposals are, consider another moment from the Yahoo sitcom Community, in its episode “Introduction to Teaching” from the fifth season. When the character Annie Edison, played by Alison Brie, finds out that she got an ‘A minus’ on her assignment because the instructor held a grudge against her, and that all such ‘minus’ grades are fabricated because instructors may not like a particular student, she starts a riot. ‘Minuses are made up!’ is the cry of Greendale, a fictional comedic school, but now the actual worry and cry of hardworking students of the very real University of Toronto is that ‘Pluses are made up!’ Now we could all hope and trust that some of these students will do their best to fairly grade themselves, but the very principle of a self-evaluated student makes the degree bearing the name ‘The University of Toronto’ no different any than other school. For those of us that went to the university specifically because we wanted the best education we could possibly get in our country, the reputation and importance of the value of all of our degrees, and those effected by the strike especially, is brought into grave questioning—and it shouldn’t have to be, for all those of us who appreciated our learning, our degrees, our professors, and the value of our education.

          The decision of Cameron to sacrifice the reputation and standing of a degree from a prestigious institution for no other apparent reason than to simply not pay its employees more or refund tuition money in the midst of this strike however is unfortunately not without precedent. As professor of tax law at Osgoode Hall Law School, Neil Brooks, and op-ed columnist at the Toronto Star, Linda McQuaig, point out in their co-authored work The Trouble with Billionaires (Viking Canada: 2010), the University of Toronto in most recent years has been increasing naming buildings on the campus not after distinguished Canadians like Tommy Douglas, but rather “…after people whose distinctive characteristic is the possession of lots of money” (192). In fact many universities in Canada suffer having to rely on philanthropy for the funding of their institutions, because of the cutting of funds to education in particular in the 1990s. Also without much surprise the need to cut funds to education was due in part because the government was no long collecting as much tax revenue due to cutting the tax levels of corporations and wealthy individuals, upon whom our once valued public institutions of critical inquiry now rely for their funding. The philanthropists save money on tax, the government cuts education spending to get back the money they lost on cutting the philanthropists tax levels, so that in turn our public institutions have become reliant on the ‘generosity’ of their wealthy donors (195). One particular example as to how the University of Toronto’s increasing service to and reliance upon the ‘1%’ of Canada’s elite would aversely affect public education, in addition to Cameron’s recent proposals for the current strike, is the establishing of the Munk School of Global affairs. In April 2010 Peter Munk, the former chairman and founder of Barrick Gold, the world’s largest gold mining company announced with the University of Toronto a donation of $35 million dollars to establish the Munk School of Global Affairs—a Canadian equivalent of the London School of Economics, if you will. Now while Tad Brown, an administrator at the university has assured people that the academic freedom of the school’s students to research will in no way be affected by, overseen, or influenced by Peter Munk and Barrick Gold’s interests, it hardly likely that Munk would be too pleased with any research critical of his company’s environmental practices and treatment towards indigenous groups in Chile, Argentina, Peru, the Philippines and else (195-198).

          Many students may enroll at the University of Toronto just because of its prestige and elite status, now ranking according to some estimate as 4th in international rankings of top universities around the world but at least that prestige had behind it the truth that a student could rely upon getting a solid education there—now it seems as if the prestige may be not much more the glitter of the wealthy funders of it. Cameron’s proposals, while appearing to be on the side of the undergraduate students, and trying to make its own employees and graduate students the ‘bad-guy’, in fact is cheating them out of the value of their own education—a major detriment to their further careers and education. Motivated by the same impulses that established the Munk School of Global Affairs, to keep its exuberant funding protected, the University of Toronto’s A&S faculty in particular is squandering its reputation and effectiveness as a much-needed public institution of critical thought and analysis. Sadly further still to close, this phenomenon of the public institution of the university becoming a servant to oligarchs, is not constricted by Canadian boarders but is a global phenomenon. Pulitzer-prize winning journalists Chris Hedges, writes in his work Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle (Vintage Canada: 2009) that,

…if you determine worth by wealth, as these institutions do, then examining and reforming social and political systems is inherently devalued. The unstated ethic of these elite institutions is to make as much money as you can to sustain the elitist systems. College presidents, many of whom earn salaries that rival those of corporate executives, must often devote their energies to fund-raising rather than to education. They shower honorary degrees and trusteeships on hedge-fund managers and Wall Street titans whose lives are often examples of moral squalor and unchecked greed. The slavish honoring of the rich by elite schools, despite the lofty rhetoric about public service, is clear to the students. The object is to make money. These institutions have an insatiable appetite for donations and constant fund-raising campaigns to boost multibillion-dollar endowments. This constant need can be met only by producing rich alumni. But grabbing what you can, as John Ruskin said, isn’t any less wicked when you grab it with the power of your brains than with the power of your fists (104-105)

Duck Hunting, Platinum Jesus, and Robert H. Schuller’s Passing

Leave a comment

Authorial Note: The following is a small piece inspired by my father’s suggestion that I write a piece about Schuller’s passing, given that we had visited the Crystal Cathedral many years ago. It was submitted to a variety of publications two days after the passing, written under 1,000 words, and, I would like to think, very readable. If anyone while reading this could give me advice as to what it is that I may be doing wrong, please let me know and I would appreciate it very much.  

         It was the summer of 2005, and as a fourteen year old from Toronto, Canada it would have been hard to believe if someone had told me then that this was not the last time I would have seen duck hunting, riches, and Jesus go together as if nothing were amiss. We were in California for a family vacation, and we had found out that our hotel was near the famed Crystal Cathedral, founded by the now recently departed Robert H. Schuller, and decided that we should take a quick visit. jesus walking onw ater.0During our brief visit, as we were admiring the statue of Jesus walking on the water in the midst of a duck pond, we hear a small boy yell out, ‘I wanna go duck shooting! Bang! Bang! Bang!’ My father and I really laughed this off as some American kid just having fun with toy guns and what not—but it is eerily prescient of the rise of the now famous Christian family featured in the A&E hit-show The Duck Dynasty. Also in the midst of our visit there, as my father recalled, while we were impressed by the opulence of the cathedral, we were also astonished at the contrast between the decadence of the cathedral, and the near poverty-level living of the trailer parks and neighborhoods just merely across the street from it. It is this intersection of violence as fun, and the ignorance of riches, that really ought to make Evangelical Christians pause over the legacy of Robert H. Schuller and his peculiar American-positive-thinking brand of the Christian faith. For no matter how doctrinally correct he may have been, or how his television ministry was inspired by the likes of Billy Graham, it still should make one wonder- how is it that such a beloved and celebrated, and seemingly seeker-friendly movement as positive thinking and self-esteem with all the wealth and technology one could possibly hope for at the time, produce a church that colluded with and ignored Jesus’ teaching on such important matters as violence and poverty?

         Now some may say, ‘can duck hunting and opulent building structures really be said to be examples of this church’s love affair with violence and ignorance of poverty?’ to which one need only refer to one of Schuller’s poetic sermons delivered in 1972, I am the American Flag. The sermon is delivered from the perspective of the American flag itself, as if it were God himself speaking to his chosen people and why he is proud to be their God. As if the flag had taken Schuller’s own advice, it had a great self-image. ‘Sure’, it might admit, ‘I’ve had my sins and shames’ and like any evangelical making a humble confession, never state what those would be but only derail against its detractors’ false accusations. In the 2001 rendition of this sermon Schuller in the character of the American flag says that in America, ‘You can do anything you want to!’ while also saying that ‘Freedom depends upon morality’—which may as well be code for, ‘do whatever you like, no matter how immoral, just be sure to make an ethical justification for it’. Schuller then goes on to say that the Sermon on the Mount, has been part of the ethical foundation of the US…really? Does even the most generous account of America’s foreign policy really believe that it stands on the principle of ‘turn the other cheek’? Even with the enormous generosity of the US government’s foreign aid to other countries, does anyone really believe it is based on the principle not to ‘announce it with trumpets’? Or that prayer in the Oval office and elsewhere is really based on the principle not to pray in public? He then proclaims, “I see a new America, for a new century,” perhaps not even knowing that it was the Washington think-tank Project for a New American Century that pushed for regime change in Iraq in the years shortly following ahead of this sermon.

         Make no mistake, that Schuller’s depiction of the American flag’s self-image of itself may truly be the best representation of someone who has fully followed Schuller’s own teaching concerning self-esteem. God is your sponsor, and is there to help you feel better about yourself, and if one continues to say ‘Lord, Lord’ then your conscience can be clear—

         “Repentance’ is a dirty word full of negative energy that fills people with guilt, when people already know their sins!” a disciple of Schuller’s might say.

         The response would be, “Of course people already know their sins, and its not God’s job to just appease your guilty conscience, but to actually get you to strive toward repentance.”

         “But people need to hear about grace!” says the disciple.

         “Of course they do,” replies the respondent, “but God’s grace is what can sustain a life of faith and repentance, not to do away with them!”

         See, Schuller’s legacy may have been pioneering televangelism and bringing pop-psychology into Evangelical churches across America, but for a young Canadian Evangelical man, having visited so many years ago, the legacy of Schuller is that his gospel of self-esteem appeases the consciences not only of individual Christians, who live in lands of poverty-ignorant opulence supported by gun-obsessed military violence, but also, the conscience of his nation at large. Lastly, one more image should suffice to show how the God-like character of the American flag in fact shaped, even in the most subtle of ways, the Crystal Cathedral’s view of Jesus. In the midst of its garden of statues, was a depiction of the holy family, and a Jesus, as platinum looking as the church he’s housed in.


A Flashlight Over My Shoulder- Faith as a Student: A Letter (2nd Version)

Leave a comment

Authorial Note: The following is the published second version of a piece, the first version of which will be posted on this blog shortly. This second version was published in the September 2014 issue of The Newspaper, the University of Toronto’s Independent Paper but due to layout complications it did not turn out as planned. However both myself and The Newspaper look forward to publishing more together. The following was written for the new undergraduates at the University of Toronto who identify with a faith tradition. 

             The Psalmist says of the Hebrew Scriptures, ‘Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path’ (Psalm 119:105). Now while one cannot necessarily reflect the rays of divine light unto your path, one can hope to illumine your divine light with reflections upon one’s own path. It is with this endeavor that a former undergraduate can hope to shine a flashlight over his shoulder to illumine your future by his past. Coming fresh out of high school, I had one goal—get the best education possible. To give you a noble reason for why I wanted to get the best education I possibly could get, would be a masterpiece of deception I hope I will never be capable of. Being raised in Christian apologetic material, scholarship, books, movies etc… that sought to ‘defend’ the Christian faith on historical grounds against the perceived onslaught of secularism, Islam, and post-modernism I had begun to notice that those who were talked about the most, and were taken most seriously in the public court of opinion, were those with high degrees from top universities. They had proven themselves more than capable in the scholarly realm and had wished to make a public defense of the Christian faith, and their status as elite academics only helped the cause. In a rather cynical manner, as I perceive it now, coming out of high-school with the same desire, I sought to get the best education at the top university in Canada, the University of Toronto. If I exposed myself to the harshest criticisms of the Christian faith, studied the New Testament under the ‘liberal’ scholars, and engage at the highest levels of academic debate—I would come out with my Christian faith all the stronger, and a mark of status so that people would have to listen to my opinion.

             As cynical as this endeavor originally began, it did instill a virtue in me that I would now trade for nothing else in the world—the courage to pursue the truth, for the truth has nothing to fear. Throwing my faith in the ‘deep waters’ as it were, while originally beginning as a pursuit of a mark of status, was also a sign in the deep trust that I had in the truth of the Christian faith—reading about the Qu’ran, Karl Marx, New Testament textual criticism, and atheism, did not frighten me in the least, nor should have they. First and foremost then, while I may not know why you wish to pursue your education as you are so doing—be prepared to be transformed, and in the process possibly value your education in a different light. Second, truth has nothing to fear, do not view ‘faith’ as a set of propositions that must be defended at all costs, rather, view ‘faith’ as trust, as a verb, that invites you to throw yourself in, knowing that after all the transformation has been gone through, no matter how painful, that it is worth it.

            Speaking of painful transformation, let me tell you a story from my first year that should reassure you in two respects—one, your education will be challenging, and two, your professors are not your enemies, despite all appearances. My program was a specialization in Christian Origins, so I was required to take two years of classical Greek—if you’ve ever studied another language you know how difficult it is, let alone how difficult it is when the language is considered as dead as you feel after you’ve learned it!!! During our first day of class, our professor, invited us to read a passage of Homer’s The Odyssey…in Greek. Most of us were not sure we knew the entire alphabet of the Greek language. Needless to say, near the end of the first semester the class had dwindled from 40 people to 12, and before our first exam I was considering to be numbered among the 28 that dropped out. I had never struggled so much learning anything as I had classical Greek, I had come out of high-school with a 92% average with little to no difficulty—to be unable to grasp the complex grammar of classical Greek was an embarrassment to whatever ego I had, and brought me to tears, as I was failing the class miserably for nearly four months. I asked our professor repeatedly how I could do better, she gave the same answer each time—‘memorize, everyday’, ‘memorize, everyday’ almost like a mantra. I decided that I would take her up on her challenge and prove her wrong that even with such studying, the class was far too difficult. Sure enough however, my pride went before the fall (Prov. 16:18), and she was right. I memorized and studied everyday, and ended the course with an A.

            However, this does not mean that your professors are always right about everything that they may advise or teach. It is here where we must come to the straight-forward reality of the campus of the University of Toronto, that will you meet people not only with different beliefs but conflicting beliefs to your own. The question then is how will one interact with the ‘other’. When it comes to your professors, the first thing that I can advise you, for I had seen it in many of my friends throughout my undergrad, is that when you encounter a professor who appears to be challenging your particular beliefs about something is- do not panic. Many Christian friends had continually asked throughout the course of my study—‘how has studying under liberal professors affected your faith?’, ‘how did you manage to keep your faith in the midst of all the criticism of the Bible you had learned?’ While, these questions were greatly appreciated, it is important to note that they came from a place of timidity and fear and what I always reminded them was, the professors were not out to destroy my faith. To be quite honest, most professors could probably care less about what you actually ‘believe’, what is important for them is that you understand the teaching material, not that you yourself subscribe to their point of view. I myself most assuredly changed some of my beliefs because of what I had been taught by professors, but, as equally important, I was all the more enriched and confirmed in some of my beliefs because of what professors had taught. The key was that at the end of the day I had to trust that I could engage 100% with the thoughts and worldviews presented to me, without my entire world falling apart. You may study something, and come out believing exactly as you did before, or you may study something and be utterly transformed, as all good education would do. But either of those outcomes must come from a willingness and courage to step out of your comfort zone.

            The question and challenge of the ‘other’, when it comes to your peers, can be best exemplified by my interaction with a Yugoslavian acquaintance of mine. In my pursuit of understanding science (and fulfilling my science distribution requirement, of course) I took a history and philosophy of science course. Unexpectedly, I had seen another guy who I knew from my middle school days in the same class—we were not on the best of terms. Whenever the topic of ‘religion’ came up amongst our mutual friends on Facebook or whatnot, inevitably we’d get caught up in those utterly time-consuming and ineffective internet-debates. He would accuse me of being an idiot, a Biblical literalist, and what not, where as I had overtly made the point that I was much more well-read than him and that because I felt that I was smarter than him, he should back-down. Well, this course in the history and philosophy of science could not have been a better situation to put an angry atheist and a proud Christian together in to see what would happen. Throughout our conversations and studying, I don’t think either of us actually persuaded one another about the truth of our particular stances but we did manage to laugh, interact, and even become friends. He became convinced that I was not a ‘religious’ idiot to be ignored, and I became convinced that his anger came from a real anguish over the conflicts between Muslims and Christians in the Balkans. I learned not to use an intellectual status to clobber people into agreeing with me, and I’m sure that he learned that insults were not arguments.

            The reason that I relate this story to you is because in your new environment, if you walk, live, and study with your peers with a posture of trust towards that with which you have been brought to trust in, you can treat those ‘others’ in: (1) a hostile manner, imagining them your enemy, (2) an indifferent manner, imagining them as other objects essentially in your world to be tolerated, or (3) in love toward them, imagining them as, while fully being the mysterious ‘other’ as, nevertheless, like you—fragile, scared, anxious, and a whole other host of issues that afflict students today. The interaction between my Yugoslavian friend and myself, is a great example of the third. We were enemies, at first we tolerated each other, but the more that we saw that though we were an ‘other’ to each other, that if we did really trust our beliefs, trust in that which we believed to be the ground of our being—then there was no fear needed to be had.

            Lastly, however, I must tell you about my extremely traumatic encounter with an issue every student faces, anxiety. During the summer after the third year of my undergrad, I had a GPA of 3.6 and I had been awarded a student award of excellence scholarship, for which I would work on a research project with my one of favorite professors, Dr. John S. Kloppenborg, throughout this summer. During the summer however, I had a very unexpected onset of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) as a result of guilt over sexual-related anxieties, and isolation due to the research project. The aspect of myself that I had most trust in, and had relied upon for my entire university career, my brain, had begun to fail me. In OCD the brain alerts you of your worst fears, no matter how irrational and the more one tries to get rid of those fears with every little practice the worse it gets because you have now alerted and taught your brain that there really is something to fear. My fearful obsessions had me hospitalized for a week due to sleep and food deprivation to the point of thoughts of suicide. In a matter of weeks I had went from viewing myself as a top scholar to the psychiatric ward at St. Joseph’s hospital, in the company of those who were much more mentally afflicted than I. During my time in the ward, my grades, my scholarship, my learning meant nothing, for at the end of the day I was as fragile and weak as anyone else there who I may have considered myself as having an advantage over before. Through a process of medication, therapy, and an understanding of the deep love of God that I could trust no matter what, I recovered in time to bring the research to a close and start my final year of university, not knowing whether I would be able to handle it. The most important lesson then that I have to offer you is, that as a student of a particular ‘religious’ faith, you can boldly trust that while you may not always have it together, there is a love in the universe that cares for you. That may sound sentimental to anyone that has not had their ‘life’s-breakdown’ moment yet, but, to those who are keenly aware of their own fragility and anxiety ridden nature, the news that one can trust that there is a love greater than you and whatever broken things you may have relied upon, is good.

            Hopefully, now having helped you initially navigate what it means to be a student of faith, and how you should interact with your peers and professors in how you hold your beliefs, I’d like to leave you with some helpful tips to take full advantage of the resources available to you at the University of Toronto, as you grow, learn new things, possibly change some of your beliefs, while holding others in even a more trustful manner than before. One of the most wonderful attributes about the campus (and, not to mention, something which McGill has nothing like, haha) is the Multi-Faith centre (https://www.multifaith.utoronto.ca) , located at the Koffler House (569 Spadina Ave), which hold various events and conversations intentionally so that students from different faith traditions can meet, interact, and grow. On their website you can find the Campus Chaplains Association to find leaders of various faith traditions, as well as lists of the various faith communities on campus, with whom you can feel at home with. Another tremendous resource available to you at the University of Toronto for students of faith, is the immense library catalogue that the university is home to (http://onesearch.library.utoronto.ca). If you encounter an issue with which you have had not dealt with before, i.e. the textual history of the Qu’ran, Immanuel Kant’s philosophy of religion, transgender people, chances are there is someone from one’s particular tradition that has written on the subject that can help you react to that as you navigate and enjoy your life as a student.  While much more could have been said or advised, it is the hope of this writer that you will have enough trust to take the next steps yourself, and to share the light you encounter with others as I have endeavor to do so here. May you be blessed by the reading of this reflection. May you trust that the ground of your being can handle any question or trouble you may encounter. May you treat others as sites of love and not battle-grounds. Finally, may you find home in community as you engage, explore, endure, ponder, question, and live life as the gift that it is at the University of Toronto.


Caleb Upton


The Necessity of Charity in Criticism: A Review of Michael Coren’s “Hatred: Islam’s War on Christianity” (McClelland & Stewart: 2014)

1 Comment

Authorial Note: My father and Michael Coren have been friends for a number of years, and with such being the case, my father, whom I love and respect, invited Coren to speak on his most recent book, Hatred: Islam’s War on Christianity” (McClelland & Stewart: 2014). 51A86Et6KwL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_ My father and myself came to varying opinions on the work after having both read it. Having myself grown up in a largely Muslim immigrant community, having a number of good friends and acquaintances who are Muslims, having studied the Qur’an for a semester at the University of Toronto, and being extremely concerned with the relationship between Muslims and Christians in Canada and throughout the world- I felt a strong conviction to write a review of this work. While critical of the work in the most important matters, my review will nevertheless attempt to be more charitable concerning the argument in the work than Coren was toward Islam within it to illustrate a much larger lesson concerning public dialogue and criticism, that, as Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote in The Sorrow’s of Young Werther (1774), “…misunderstandings and neglect create more confusion in this world than trickery and malice. At any rate, the last two are certainly much less frequent.” [daß Mißverständnisse und Trägheit vielleicht mehr Irrungen in der Welt machen als List und Bosheit. Wenigstens sind die beiden letzteren gewiß seltener.] It is in that spirit that I will approach Mr. Coren’s work, its criticism, and perhaps try to illumine both sides of this discussion, as someone who is an intellectual Christian much like Mr. Coren himself, but will argue that i) because Mr. Coren’s work misunderstands, social location in determining ‘religion’, the nature of violence, and Islamic, as well as Christian, theology Mr. Coren’s work is deeply flawed and in some respects, even if unintentionally, dangerous, and that ii) his misunderstandings should not be attributed to any deep racism, but rather just to that- misunderstandings, that were most likely the result of legitimate outrage over the suffering of those around the world, whom we call brothers and sisters. Lastly, much reference will also be made to the panel discussion concerning this work- ‘Who Speak for Islam?’ on The Agenda with Steve Paikin on Nov. 5th, 2014, because in many respects Coren is more concise in this discussion and the criticism of his work poignant. 

        “Some radical Muslims do see a place for ancient Christian communities…” is half a sentence one would not expect to see in a book titled Hatred: Islam’s War on Christianity (McClelland & Stewart: 2014) while the second half of the same sentence, “but few if any will allow and tolerate Muslims leaving their faith for another” (80), most certainly is. It is this confused, and half-answered questioning nature of Michael Coren’s work that leaves the reader either angry at the argument presented in it, or sympathetic to the general outlook of the work because it does seem well moderated.  The only entirely clear aspect of the work perhaps is that it is not a scholarly work, nor simple objective journalism- it is a work of advocacy on behalf of persecuted Christians around the world- an issue which most can agree does not get enough coverage in the media for reasons of either outright anti-Christian bigotry or simply because, as well expressed by Ron Csillag in the Toronto Star,* “Persecution of Christians just doesn’t compute. After all, it’s the faith of record in the world’s richest and most powerful countries, where Christians have been ensconced for centuries.” However, when advocating for a cause there must be three things entirely clear and reasonable/desirable, none of which, unfortunately, are in Coren’s work: (1) on whose account one is advocating, (2) for what cause is one advocating or what problem one is trying to address, and (3) what are the proposed solutions to the problem. To give a simple illustration as to why it is vitally important to get these three aspects correct: imagine if you will someone wanted to advocate (1) on behalf of the minority Muslim community in Myanmar, (2) to address the violence and genocidal-like policies implement against them by the largely Theravada Buddhist population and government,** and (3) to eradicate Buddhism from the region through counter-terrorism operations and forced conversion to Hinduism. Now immediately we can see the problematic nature of having not defined and made reasonable/desirable any one of the three aspects here. In this example, defining the group for whom one is advocating solely on the basis of religious affiliation misses entire strands of ethnic conflict and makes it appear as if the Islamic identity of this group is the sole sufficient factor to explain this phenomenon.*** If the second aspect of the problem is not made clarified by reference to the nationalist pride many have against this population, then the problem will be construed as a problem of ‘religious’ ideology and not one also based in problematic state power and governance. Lastly, the solution was construed as a response to the problem of ‘Buddhism’, and it would be a terrible solution because it would create more problems than it solved in trying to eradicate it. We can see then that it is vitally important that in a work of journalistic advocacy such as Coren’s book, that the three aspects of who one is advocating for, what problem is being addressed, and what solutions to the problem are being proposed, are clearly defined and reasonable/desirable.

        On whose account Coren is advocating for, one would think that it is a fairly straightforward answer: Christian populations persecuted by Muslims throughout the world. To Coren’s credit he is quite critical even of US foreign policy with regards to the Middle East, writing in relation to the 2003 Iraq war that it was, “A war fought ostensibly to keep Christians safe in Ohio and Alabama” but “has made the lives of Christians living in Baghdad and Mosul completely unbearable” (56). However, even with regards to this first aspect, it is not entirely clear. Towards the end of this work Coren tries to argue that Islamic persecution of Christians occurs even throughout North America and Europe in the form of recent attacks such as The Fort Hood massacre in 2009, the Boston Marathon bombings, and much more. Coren puts these attacks in essentially the same category as all the other attacks mentioned throughout the work because they “All evince a total contempt for Christian values…the perpetrators refer to the need for Islam to dominate and conquer Christianity” (160). It is here where Coren’s problem lies because his work is not merely a work of advocacy in defence of persecuted Christian populations, it is a work in defence of the Christian tradition and ‘Western Civilization’ in general. Despite being critical of US foreign policy, Coren’s work begins with a minimizing of the cruelty and importance of the medieval Crusades (27-41). The discussion of this history should not be at all necessary in a work that desires to stand on behalf of persecuted Christians of the present time- it would however be necessary in a work that sought to portray Christians as inherently peaceful and Muslims as inherently violent- something which, despite Coren’s constant protesting on Steve Paikin’s The Agenda, is something which this work constantly engages in. The question Coren consistently asks throughout this work is,

“…whether the persecution of Christians by Muslims is a modern aberration, an abuse of the Koran, a misunderstanding of the teachings of Mohammad, or something intrinsic and integral to the Muslim faith. In other words, are moderate Muslims the true believers or is it the fundamentalists who have properly understood the message correctly?” (80)

While this is an interesting question, it is a dangerous question for someone who is not an adherent of the Islamic faith to answer in a work concerning advocacy. It is dangerous precisely because it should not be left up to an English Catholic to decide what is orthodox Islam and what is heretical, for this is a properly theo-ethical question that should be left to those of the Islamic faith to decide for themselves concerning their tradition, not a question that can be answered by an appeal to the ‘essence’ of Islam, as discerned by someone who does not privilege the truth value of Islam in the first place. Coren himself would immediately recognize the inappropriateness of someone who is not a Catholic to tell a Catholic, such as Coren, what he should believe and what he should not believe according to Catholic teaching- the question of what is orthodox and what is heretical according to a faith tradition is a essential theo-ethical question that should be left to the adherents, not to an outside tribunal.+

        To Coren’s credit he quotes a number of different people who all give various answers to the question posed, but it is the very fact that he feels its a question that could be decided by everyone is a form of cultural imposition that engages in a colonial discourse of the worst kind. american_sniperNot only does Coren highly suggest that Islam is inherently violent, but according to his reading of Christian theology and Christian history, one would think that the Christian faith has seldom ever been used to justify violence. Coren has a seeming complete lack of awareness (or admittance) to the fact that Christian Dominionism is currently one strong component in the ideological justification for US militarism. The recent film American Sniper (Warner Bros, 2015)depicts but one example of how the Cross of Christian theology was turned into an emblem of war for the justification of violence in our most recent military conflicts. Now while any Christian is free to rejoice in Coren’s estimation that “…Christians behave violently in spite and not because of the teachings of Jesus Christ” (20), it does take a special form of historical privilege to ignore and underplay, as much as Mr. Coren has, the role that some forms of Christian theology have played in justifying militarism and violence.++

        As for the second aspect of advocacy, that of what problem one is trying to address, again, one would think that the answer would be quite clear: the persecution of Christian populations by Muslims around the world. With regards to this, it must be clearly said that Coren is to be commended for drawing more attention to this reality- any attention that is given to any persecuted and discriminated minority around the world is a step-forward. Despite Shabir Ally’s protestations on Paikin’s panel and his improper invocation of Candida Moss’s work The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom (Harperone: 2014), the reality of Christians being persecuted throughout the world is not a paranoid dream of the Christian right in the United States- the paranoid dream of the Christian Right in the United States is that they themselves are being persecuted. In addition, what we cannot do in this instance is protest that Coren should have addressed in full manner other instances of Christians being persecuted by non-Muslims such as in China or North Korea- books of a popular nature need to be limited in scope. What then is the confusion with regard to this second aspect? It simply comes down to what is the nature of the ‘persecution’ of which Coren writes about? Coren gives an impressive litany of instances of Christians being discriminated against, injured, raped, and killed throughout the world in a panorama of violence only differentiated significantly by geography. He has one simple purpose in presenting it in this manner, in order to show that “…the notion that Islamic hatred toward Christianity is purely a geographical or politically local phenomenon is simply untrue” (13). Framing it in this manner then signifies the problem as Islam itself- the problem then Coren is addressing is not simply Christians being persecuted by Muslims, but the fact that in Coren’s estimation there appears to be something inherent in Islam, which when fully imbibed by the adherent, would compel them to commit violence against Christians, and that therefore, its not simply that some Muslims use Islamic theology and rhetoric as part of their ideological defence for their violence, its that Islam itself creates and not merely supports the very violence that these people commit. Coren’s perspective is not only problematic in terms of its strong idealism (in the philosophical sense) but also in terms of Christian theology. In terms of the strong idealism, as Mohammad Fadel, the associate Professor and Canada Research Chair for the Law and Economics of Islamic Law at the University of Toronto on Paikin’s panel rightfully points out, its doubtful how much Islamic theology really has to do with this issue because most people frankly are rather ignorant concerning theology, and furthermore, in addition to Fadel’s point, it is doubtful how much a person’s study of theology would impact their behaviour at all- just because one reads the Qur’an daily does not mean one will more likely persecute Christians then does one reading the Sermon on the Mount everyday mean that one will more likely ‘turn the other cheek’.

        From the perspective of Christian theology, there are two extremely odd aspects in Coren’s work, the first of which is related to this second aspect of advocacy. One would think that Coren is advocating for these persecuted Christians as a Christian himself, but while Coren is a Christian it does not appear as if Coren is arguing within a Christian theological framework at all. For Coren to centralize the problem of the persecution of Christians by the hand of Muslims at the feet of Islam  betrays a profound ignorance, whether intentional or unintentional, of the nature of evil as well expounded by in Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, with strong resonance in Christian theology, that ““If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.” (The Gulag Archipelago, Part 1, “The Bluecaps”). What Solzhenitsyn saw was the same truth articulated by the Apostle Paul that “…there is no distinction; since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…” (Romans 3:22-23, RSV). For Coren to effectively argue that Islam is the problem is actually not only necessarily ‘off the mark’ according to ‘secular’ reasoning but even dangerously confines of the problem of the manifestation of this evil to Islamic ideology rather than to human sin and rebellion against God, which much of Christian theology would teach and suggest.

        Lastly, concerning the third aspect of advocacy, that of what are the proposed solutions to the problem, it is here where Coren is most obscure, and once again where Coren does not seem to argue within a Christian theological framework though he is a Christian advocating on behalf of persecuted Christians. Near the very end of the work Coren writes, “Christian forgiveness is vital in all this but the new equation has to begin with the cessation by Muslims throughout the world of their hateful campaign against innocent Christians.” (176) One cannot help but wonder what the ‘new equation’ is. For the sake of being charitable we shall refrain from speculating as to what Coren might mean by the ‘new equation’ and why it, as opposed to the older equations, requires more than just forgiveness, but all the same it seems as if part of the solution in Coren’s view is not only do Muslims need to speak out more, but for North American and European governments to overcome their guilt-complex of their Christian past and in some manner intervene on the behalf of the Christian minorities throughout the world whether through boycott or sanctions (quoting approvingly Farzana Hassan, 166-167). If Coren thought that Muslims throughout the world were falsely accusing the ‘West’ of conducting crusades in the Middle East before, it can be said with absolute certainty that if North American and European governments were to begin to explicitly advocate and intervene on behalf of Christian minorities in the Middle East that not a single soul would be mistaken in labelling the campaign a crusade. In Fulcher of Chartres’ account of Pope Urban II’s speech at the council of Clermont in advocating for the first of the crusade campaign in 1095, the Pope argues that,

“…you must apply the strength of your righteousness to another matter which concerns you as well as God. For your brethren who live in the east are in urgent need of your help, and you must hasten to give them the aid which has often been promised them. For, as the most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George. They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire.”+++

It is not too much of a stretch to say that much of the discourse in which Coren and others engage in replicates a similar call for action with little difference other than the use of less explicit ‘religious’ language and without an explicit call to military action- though, in the only moment of speculation of Coren’s views we shall engage in here, that call cannot be too far from the surface.

        The second of the odd aspects of Coren’s work in relation to Christian theology aforementioned in relation to this third aspect of advocacy, is the complete absence of any thought that Muslims could be converted out of Islam by missionary activity  or that Islamic theology could be reformed. The call to proselytize or evangelize the Islamic world is exactly what Coren does not advocate for, and that is extremely interesting because in spite of his defence of the Christian faith he does not argue for the most easily associable Christian proposition that Muslims need to be converted to Christianity through preaching and persuasion. Instead, it would seem, that Coren, in desiring to cater to the values of ‘Western civilization’, appeals to human rights and other such values of the ‘Enlightenment’  while at the same time despising the ‘liberalism’ to which he is appealing to! The call to missionary activity and conversion, it could be argue, would be actually more controversial than proposed military action or sanctions, as it would be called a form of cultural imperialism by those who despise ethnocentrism and a denigrating of Islamic culture, and yet Coren does not appeal to this despite his own distain for aspects of Islamic culture. If the common rallying cry in relation to ‘terrorism’- that the ideology of Islamism must be fought with an ideology be true, as Coren does seem to agree to some extent- then the Christian tradition, which as Coren acknowledges has produced a strong pacifist stream of thought and adherents (18-19), can be but one of many bases to be appeal to in order to counter-act the ideology of Islamism- instead Coren appeals to and wants to employ secular state power in the service of the Christian tradition rather than appeal to the God and the call of the great commission, which the Christian tradition by-and-large argues one should appeal to. Even in a secular ideological framework, there should be no argument against the right of people from various ‘religious’ traditions to evangelize and share their faith through speech and persuasion, rather than coercion and state-power, in order to convert people from one tradition to another- no matter how much you yourself may disagree with that tradition.

        More than this however, Coren seems to display an utter willingly ignorance of Islamic history and theology, if he truly believes that, in quoting approvingly of the Roman Catholic priest Fr. Samir Khalil Samir, that “The absolute nature of the Qu’ran makes dialogue all the more difficult, because there is very little room for interpretation, if at all.” (174) In the spirit of charity one cannot fault Coren for not knowing Arabic, for not giving an exhaustive history of Islam, for not quoting every passage in the Qu’ran or the Hadith and much else in such a brief and limited-in-scope work- however, one can fault Coren for not looking to basic authorities on Islam and its history of interpretation in those instances in which Coren does wish to make authoritative and argumentative statements concerning those topics. To appeal to a Roman Catholic priest to make an authoritative statement concerning Islamic theology is as grave an insult and stupidity as ‘new atheists’ who appeal to the historical myths propagated by Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code as authoritative in discussion of Church history.  Jane Dammen McAuliffe’s (Ed.) The Cambride Companion to the Qur’an (Cambridge University press: 2006), an introductory scholarly text often given to undergraduate students, would more than suffice to show that Islamic history and interpretation is much more complex than many in the ‘mainstream’ media, including Coren himself, appear to think. For instance, it may come as a great surprise to Coren and others that one of the most influential works of Islamic exegesis of the past century, namely In the Shadow of the Qur’an of the Egyptian Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966), which influenced the Iranian revolution (1979), the Shi’i Hezbollah (hizb Allah, ‘party of God’) in Lebanon, and the Hamas in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, explicitly appeals to western concepts such as ‘revolution’, ‘social justice’, and ‘democracy’.^ It is Coren’s nihilism about the potential for future Islamic theological reform, ignorance about current Islamic theological reform, and ignorance about past Islamic theological reform that lead to views such as Coren’s which see Islam and its adherents as irredeemably violent and in need of quelling and control by Western intervention.

        We have striven to critique Coren’s work in the most charitable and fair manner possible, treating it as a work of journalistic advocacy, not as a scholarly tome- and it is in this vein that we very carefully discerned and found wanting all three aspects of advocacy in Coren’s work, namely: (1) on whose account one is advocating, (2) for what cause is one advocating or what problem one is trying to address, and (3) what are the proposed solutions to the problem. However rather than delving into much more that could have been discussed concerning this work, it is proposed here that the principle of charity, especially as expressed in the Sermon on the Mount of “…whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them…” (Matt. 7:12, RSV), is a necessity in criticism. Coren’s work, if it had been conducted in this manner would have treated Islam with the same fairness, respect, and knowledgeableness that Coren would expect critics of Catholicism to have when they speak on Catholicism- it obviously did not. Advocacy is difficult to navigate not because there is not enough to be angry about, but because our own anger is inevitably entangled in the process of perpetuating the very problems we seek to resolve. Coren is extremely sincere in his advocacy for those whom we consider brothers and sisters. Christians around the world are being discriminated against, persecuted, and killed because of their ‘religious’ affiliation, and it is something which much of our media simply ignores out of cowardice or simple disbelief. In advocating for the relief of their suffering however it is extremely important that we do not become merely those who advocate for the ‘other side’ of the struggle, but that we become the type of people who see the struggle entirely differently- that we do not become merely those who advocate that we need to be more assertive in the imposition of our values, but instead seek ourselves to be more faithful to our values- and finally, that we do not merely become those who will implement the cross as a weapon, but those who would be willing to die upon it.


Csillag, Ron. “Christianity arguably the most persecuted religion in the world.” The Toronto Star, December 4, 2010, sec. News/ Insight. http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2010/12/04/christianity_arguably_the_most_persecuted_religion_in_the_world.html#.

** For more on this see: Ellick, Adam B., and Nicholas Kristof. “Myanmar’s Persecuted Minority.” The New York Times. June 16, 2014, sec. Opinion. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/16/opinion/nicholas-kristof-myanmar-documentary.html.

*** Not to say that it is not ‘a’ important part of the account. In Kristof’s reporting we can see how these genocidal-like policies of the Myanmar government are in part ‘justified’ by appeal to the fear that this Muslim minority will become violent because Islam is inherently violent. An important appeal and set of policies to look out for when we survey our own North American context, and something which we can only pray will not be advocated for or occur here. 

+ The principle equally applies to those politicians who are not Muslims that nevertheless designate ISIS as ‘monsters’ not Muslims. The fact is that as to whether or not ISIS and groups like them are Muslims or not is an issue that the Muslim community should decide for itself. The Muslim community does not need the guidance of western Christians to determine who is a ‘true’ follower of THEIR faith. We can only go off the basis of their own self-proclaimation, and ISIS claims to be Muslim, and therefore we should take them at their word- it is up to the rest of the Muslims community to judge ISIS’s claim. 

++ For more on Christian Dominionism in the United States and Canada see: Hedges, Chris. American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. (Free Press: 2007); McDonald, Marci. The Armageddon Factor: The Rise of Christian Nationalism in Canada (Vintage Canada: 2011); Phillips, Kevin. American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century. (Penguin Books: 2007).

+++ Halsall, Paul, ed. “Medieval Sourcebook:  Urban II (1088-1099):  Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095,  Five versions of the Speech.” Fordham University Press, December 1997. Internet Medieval Source Book. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html.

^ Wild, Stefan. “Political interpretation of the Qur’an.” in The Cambridge Companion to the Qur’an edited by Jane Dammen McAuliffe (Cambridge University Press: 2006), 282-283.; For more on ISIS’s modern influences in particular see: McDonald, Kevin. “Isis jihadis aren’t medieval – they are shaped by modern western philosophy.” the Guardian, September 9, 2014, sec. Comment is Free. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/09/isis-jihadi-shaped-by-modern-western-philosophy.

Older Entries

Political Theology Today

A forum for interdisciplinary and interreligious dialogue


Your One-Stop Shop for Politics, Media, Social Finance & (Not) Funny Memes About Those Things

Centre for the Study of Christian Origins

School of Divinity (New College), University of Edinburgh

Larry Hurtado's Blog

Comments on the New Testament and Early Christianity (and related matters)


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 45 other followers