Showing posts with label St. Paul's Delray Beach. Show all posts
Showing posts with label St. Paul's Delray Beach. Show all posts

Monday, October 17, 2011

Occupy Wall Street? What Occupies Your Heart?





A sermon preached at St. Paul's Episcopal Church, Delray Beach.

St. Paul’s Episcopal Church – Delray Beach, Florida
18 Pentecost – Proper 24 – Year A – October 15/16, 2011
1 Thessalonians 1:1- 10; Ps. 96:1-10; Matthew 22:15 – 22
Preacher:  The Reverend Canon William H. Stokes, Rector


Then he said to them, "Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor's, and to God the things that are God's…"  Matthew 22:21

           
            The Occupy Wall Street movement began on September 17 when about 1,000 demonstrators marched on Wall Street and gathered at Zucotti Park, what had been Liberty Square Park.  Media coverage was spotty and the reviews were mostly negative.  A September 23 article titled “Gunning for Wall Street with Faulty Aim,” by N.Y. Times columnist Ginia Bellafante was a pretty typical take.[1]  She wrote: “a diffuse and leaderless convocation of activists against greed, corporate influence, gross social inequality and other nasty byproducts of wayward capitalism not easily extinguishable by street theater, had hoped to see many thousands join its protest and encampment, which began Sept. 17. According to the group, 2,000 marched on the first day; news outlets estimated that the number was closer to several hundred. By Wednesday morning,” she continued. “100 or so stalwarts were making the daily, peaceful trek through the financial district, where their movements were circumscribed by barricades and a heavy police presence. (By Saturday, scores of arrests were made.) By Thursday, the number still sleeping in Zuccotti Park, the central base of operations, appeared to be dwindling further.” 
            She concluded, "The group’s lack of cohesion and its apparent wish to pantomime progressivism rather than practice it knowledgeably is unsettling in the face of the challenges so many of its generation face – finding work, repaying student loans, figuring out ways to finish college when money has run out."[2]  
            But Bellafante’s critique was, perhaps, a little hasty.  Today, the movement has grown to demonstrations in more than 95 cities around the world involving tens of thousands of people.  There are those who are equating it with the Arab Spring up-rising.  We shall see.  Like that uprising, there is no clear leader.  It is a genuinely populist movement being driven, in this social media age, by ordinary people using Twitter, Facebook and Text messaging. 
            Sounding somewhat like Ginia Bellafante, Peggy Noonan of The Wall Street Journal recently wrote, “Occupy Wall Street is not in itself important—it is obvious at this point that it's less a political movement than a be-in. It's unfocused, unserious in its aims.”[3] 
            But Noonan did not completely dismiss the movement, writing, “…it is an early expression, an early iteration, of something that is coming, and that is a rising up against current circumstances and arrangements. OWS is an expression of American discontent, and others will follow. The protests will grow as the economy gets worse.”[4]
            Insightfully she wrote, “A movement that will go nowhere but could do real damage would be ‘We hate the rich, let's stick it to them.’ Movements built on hatred are corrosive, and in the end corrode themselves. Ask Robespierre...”[5] 
            She continued, “A movement that would be helpful and could actually help bring change would be one that said, ‘Enough. Wall Street is selfish and dishonest, and Washington is selfish and dishonest. Together their selfishness and dishonesty, their operating as if they are not part of a whole, not part of a nation of relationships and responsibilities, tanked a great nation's economy. We will reform.’"[6]
            It will be interesting to see how the Occupy Wall Street movement develops.  My guess is that it is not going to dwindle away.  There is too much pain and distress in this country which is being ignored by those in power.  Consequently, those with little power are finding no other outlet.  What began as an easily dismissed movement in this country has become a confrontation that is forcing a clarification of values, challenging us all, and especially our nation’s leadership, Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal,  to consider what’s most important...
            Then the Pharisees went and plotted to entrap Jesus in what he said.  So they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, "Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and teach the way of God in accordance with truth, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard people with partiality. Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?” (Matthew 22:15-17). 
            We are in chapter 22 of Matthew’s Gospel, late in the Gospel…We are in Jerusalem….It is after Palm Sunday, after Jesus’ triumphal entry.  His passion and the cross lie ahead in the shadows…What began as an easily dismissed movement, the Jesus movement, has been growing in popularity and numbers.  It has increasingly captured the attention of the people and resonated with them; resonated with their aches and pains.  It has also captured the attention of the Jerusalem religious leadership.  The leadership finds Jesus and his movement threatening.  His teaching is unorthodox.  It is destabilizing. They don’t like him. They are heavily invested in the status quo.  And in this moment; this moment described in chapter 22, their dislike has forced a confrontation; a confrontation that turns out to be about clarifying values…
            Our reading begins by telling us, “…the Pharisees went and plotted to entrap Jesus in what he said.  So they sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians”(Matthew22:15).  There is no secret about it; the Pharisees are out to get Jesus.  They send people to entrap him.  Among them are the Herodians….Who are the Herodians? 
            We don’t much about them; there is not a lot of information written but, from their name, we can infer that they are supporters of the Herod, the Jewish King who is a puppet of the Roman Empire…Why do they send these Herodians to entrap Jesus?  Well the question they ask of him makes it very clear:  "Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and teach the way of God in accordance with truth, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard people with partiality….” (Matthew 22:16).  We should not take their compliments at face value.  They are not being sincere….They are smarmy….It’s a set-up.  Er, uh Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?  Bang, the trap is sprung!  It’s brilliant.  It’s a darned if you do, darned if you don’t question.
            If Jesus says yes, it’s lawful to pay the taxes, the tribute to the emperor, meaning lawful under Jewish law, under the Torah, Jesus will lose credibility and popular standing with the people who are visceral in their opposition to Rome and its occupation of their country, who find the poll tax an oppressive burden to support the occupying power and also find it blasphemous and wrong under the law as the land belongs to God and not Caesar.  If Jesus supports paying the tax, he risks losing popular support.
            If, on the other hand, Jesus says it is unlawful to pay the taxes, then he risks being charged with sedition and Rome was very hard on seditionists, as Jesus’ later crucifixion clearly illustrates.  The question posed by the disciples of the Pharisees and the Herodians appears to offer him no good choice….He appears to face a dilemma…
            But Jesus is not a simpleton or fool.  He knows what they are up to.  He is also not afraid of confrontation.  This is a battle of wits and they came unprepared.  Jesus, aware of their malice, said, "Why are you putting me to the test, you hypocrites?  Show me the coin used for the tax." And they brought him a denarius (Matthew 22:18 – 19).   The denarius was a silver Roman coin that represented a day’s wage.  Note well, Jesus does not pull the coin out of his own pocket, he asks them to produce it. 
            He said to them, "Whose head is this, and whose title?"  They answered, "The emperor's."(Matthew 22:20)  The Oxford Bible Commentary observes, “…the coin being in the possession of Jesus’ opponents highlights their insincerity:  they have no qualms about using pagan money -- and even bring a coin with the emperor’s image and blasphemous inscription into the holy precincts of the temple.”[7] 
            Jesus said to them, "Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor's, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21). 
            It is a brilliant, the perfect response.  The Oxford Bible Commentary is helpful in making clear what has happened in this exchange.  It states, “Instead of trapping Jesus, the Pharisees and Herodians are trapped by him.  Jesus’ words distance him from those who oppose supporting Rome.  At the same time, the inclusion of giving to God what is God’s relativizes the political obligation.  There is here, no firm principle of loyal submission to the state.  Implied, rather, is a reservation regarding the state and a lack of reservation regarding God.  While obedience to God can…coexist with doing what the state requires, obligation to the former overshadows obligation to the latter.  So there is no simple or straightforward rule, but the imperative to the weigh the demands of two (very unequal) authorities.  When those demands are not at odds, obligations to both can be met….In cases of conflict, however, it is manifest which authority requires allegiance”[8] which brings us back to the Occupy Wall Street movement and its concerns.  
            What are the demands God makes of us in our current political and economic climate?  Are there moral and religious values at stake?  To be sure, there are.  Just as there was no coin, no person, or anything else in Caesar’s reign that did not first belong to God, so in our realm all belongs to God as well, and all is of concern to God, including how each and every person is treated.  The common good is not merely a political value, it is a Christian imperative!  We cannot compartmentalize our religious convictions and beliefs from our political and economic life.  Our baptismal covenant calls upon us to seek and serve Christ in all persons loving our neighbor as our self; and to strive for justice and peace among all people and respect the dignity of every human being (Book of Common Prayer, p. 305).
            Jim Wallis of Sojourners Magazine visited the Occupy Wall Street movement earlier this month…He asked one of the non-leaders participating about what had drawn him to the protest.  The person answered him, “"I want to have children someday, and this is becoming a world not good for children."[9]
            In a thoughtful and reflective “Open Letter” sent out on-line this past week, Jim Wallis wrote to those participating in the Occupy Wall Street movement about that response from the person concerning the world “not being good for children.”  Wallis wrote to the demonstrators, “My 13- and 8-year-old boys came to mind when I heard his answer, and I felt thankful. It is precisely those deepest, most authentic feelings and motivations that should preoccupy you, rather than how best to form and communicate superficial political rhetoric.  You are raising very basic questions about an economy that has become increasingly unfair, unstable, unsustainable, and unhappy for a growing number of people. Those same questions are being asked by many others at the bottom, the middle, and even some at the top of the economic pecking order. There are ethics to be named here, and the transition from the pseudo-ethic of endless growth to the moral ethics of sustainability is a conversation occurring even now in our nation’s business schools (if, perhaps, secreted inside the official curriculum).”[10]
            “Keep pressing those values questions,” Wallis urged the demonstrators, “because they will move people more than a set of demands or policy suggestions.” “Those can and must,” he observed, “come later.”[11]
            He continued, “And try not to demonize those you view as opponents, as good people can get trapped in bad systems and we've seen a lot of that. Still, you are right for saying that we all must be held accountable -- both systems and the individuals within them. It is imperative that we hear that message right now.  The new safe spaces you have created to ask fundamental questions, now in hundreds of locations around the country and the world, are helping to carve out fresh societal space to examine ourselves -- who we are, what we value most, and where we want to go from here.”[12] Who we are, what do we value most, and where we want to go from here.
            And they brought him a denarius.  Then he said to them, "Whose head is this, and whose title?"   They answered, "The emperor's." Then he said to them, "Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor's, and to God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:19 – 21). 
            Who are you? Jesus was asking those disciples of the Pharisees and Herodians.  Who are you? Jesus asks us through today’s Gospel reading….What do you value most?   Where do you want to go from here? 
            Jesus once said, “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Matthew 6:21).   As we continue to struggle with the questions that confront us in our society and around the world; questions about justice and fairness and especially about human dignity, it is important to ask, what belongs to Caesar and Caesar’s kingdom that does not first belong to God and God’s kingdom?  Which are we serving?  Which ought we to serve?  Who, what, occupies our hearts?




[1]   Bellafante, Ginia “Gunning for Wall Street, with Faulty Aim”  - New York Times On-Line – Published September 23, 2011 at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/nyregion/protesters-are-gunning-for-wall-street-with-faulty-aim.html
[2]   Bellafante
[3]   Noonan, Peggy “This is No Time for Moderation”  The Wall Street Journal On-Line, October 15, 2011 at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204002304576629460239286474.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_BelowLEFTSecond
[4]  Noonan
[5]  Noonan
[6]  Noonan
[7]   The Oxford Bible Commentary edited by John Barton and John Muddiman (Oxford:  Oxford University Press,          2001), 873.
[8]  The Oxford Bible Commentary
[9]  Wallis, Jim “An Open Letter to the Occupiers from a Veteran Troublemaker” October 13, 2011 found on God’s Politics blog at http://blog.sojo.net/2011/10/13/an-open-letter-to-the-occupiers-from-a-veteran-troublemaker/
[10]  Wallis
[11]  Wallis
[12]  Wallis

Thursday, August 23, 2007

A Sermon Preached in Response to Christopher Hitchens and god is not Great

St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, Delray Beach, Florida
11 Pentecost - Proper 14 - Year C - August 11/12, 2007
Genesis 15: 1-6; Ps. 33; Hebrews 11:1-3, (4-7), 8-16; Luke 12:32-40
Preacher: The Reverend William H. Stokes, Rector


Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen... Hebrews 11:1

If you go into a Borders Book Store or a Barnes and Noble, you will, no doubt see, prominently displayed, a book with a yellow dust jacket titled god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.1 Lots of people are reading it. This book is currently number three on The New York Times Best Seller List for non-fiction hardcover books.2
The author of god is Not Great is a Washington D.C. based intellectual and writer named Christopher Hitchens. Christopher Hitchens’s book god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything is a rant against organized religion. It bristles with anger....Let me add, that in many ways I share this anger and that there are many parts of Hitchens’s rant with which I agree. It is clear to me, and I think to us all, that religion can be poisonous and oppressive and even dangerous; history has proven that over and over again.
Still, in the end, while I have some sympathy with a lot of his critique of religion and some empathy with his anger about many of the things that are done by and in the name of religion, I found Hitchens’s book philosophically weak and intellectually unsatisfying.
To begin with, he spends very little time in his book actually wrestling with the question of God per se. When he does attempt to address the question and matter of the existence of God, he assumes only the most primitive and simplistic arguments so that he can easily dismiss them.3
Generally he has written a lampoon, which caricatures believers and their beliefs. When he comes across religious figures for whom he has some admiration, such as the 14th century theologian William of Ockham,4 German pastor Deitrich Bonhoeffer5 or American preacher and Civil Rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr.6 he crudely twists and turns their lives in an attempt to separate the people and their actions from the faith and beliefs which animated them....It is a clear exercise in reductionism.
At other times he simply takes cheap shots, as he does, for example with Mother Theresa, whom he skewers for taking a trip to Ireland to oppose that nation’s consideration of amending the divorce law while neglecting to say anything at all about her work with the world’s poorest of the poor.
In his book, Hitchens makes many arguments. For example, he argues that "religious faith wholly misrepresents the origin of man and the cosmos…”7 When, in his intellectual “trash talking” Hitchens makes the sweeping statement that religious faith, “wholly misrepresents the origin of man and the cosmos,”8 we need to ask what he means? Is he lumping together the creation myths of all the world’s religions and just dismissing them? Is he speaking specifically of the creation myth in the early chapters of Genesis?
If he is dismissing the creation myths of all of the world’s religions, is he being so literal in his approach that he is blind to the truths they attempt to convey through story? If he is referring specifically to the first chapter of Genesis, in what ways does he feel this misrepresents the origin of man and the cosmos? How does he read it?
I understand the opening of Genesis to be a poetic story told to assert a theological truth: a truth which holds that at one time there was chaos and disorder in the universe; that out of this chaos and disorder was brought order and behind this order there is an Orderer who people of faith refer to as God.
Hitchens says of himself and his co-thinkers, “Our belief is not belief. Our principles are not faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason.”9 There are a lot of flaws in his argument....To begin with, despite his protests to the contrary, he does uphold science as an object of faith and he assumes that science is capable of absolute objectivity. This is problematic.
A couple of years ago, I went to The National Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. They were running a special exhibit about the collusion of science and medicine and the Nazi’s final solution to exterminate the Jews. Throughout the exhibit, countless examples were given of the scientific and medical community’s use of science to prove the superiority of the Aryan race and the inferiority of the Jews to justify the Jewish extermination.10
I celebrate science.....I believe God gave us brains and calls upon us to use them but, as with all forms of human knowing and knowledge, science and scientific knowledge has its limits. When it fails to acknowledge this, and when society fails to acknowledge this, science can be dangerous, just as religion can be dangerous. Let’s face it, religion may have declared the Crusade, but it was science that invented the nuclear missile.
Yes, there are Christians, lots of Christians, who are absolute literalists about the Bible and believe that the Genesis account is a factual, historical account of what happened at the origin of the universe. I am not one of them. I can both read Genesis for the truths it offers and also accept the Big Bang Theory of the Origins of the Universe and also Darwin and his theory of evolution and be open to all forms of knowledge and knowing, scientific and artistic. As one of our Episcopal Church ads once stated, “there’s a difference between being baptized and brainwashed!”11
It is my conviction that religion is about the pursuit of truths and truth – absolute truth....One problem for Hitchens and anyone who holds a similar position, is that they cannot definitely account for what is behind all that is....What is the absolute cause?.... To them, it has all happened by chance. There is no cause or design or purpose....Though it is of a different type, it takes an enormous amount of faith to uphold and sustain this belief.
Attempting to characterize the position he and his co-thinkers hold, Hitchens writes, “We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, open-mindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.”12
It is striking to me that Hitchens cannot hear his own internal contradictions. He respects free inquiry, open-mindeness and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake, but his respect and openness is qualified....It ends at respect and open-mindedness where religion and religious inquiry are concerned.
In his younger years, Hitchens was strongly influenced by the thinking of Karl Marx and aspects of this show throughout his book.13 When I was in college I took a course in modern philosophy and read a lot of Karl Marx’s work. A short, but very memorable article of Marx’s that I remember reading was one he titled, “For a Ruthless Criticism of Everything Existing.”
In this article, written in 1844, Marx was trying to imagine a new future for European society. He wrote that current intellectuals did not have any idea what the new future should be. In Marx’s words, the advantage of the new trend was “that we do not attempt dogmatically to prefigure the future, but want to find the new world only through criticism of the old....a ruthless criticism of everything existing, and that this criticism would be ruthless in two senses - that it must not be afraid of its own conclusions, nor of conflict with the powers that be.”14
Marx’s thought here is really quite intriguing but, as history has proved, and especially with respect to Marx and Marxism: it is much easier to criticize and tear down, than it is to propose and build up.
The same holds true for Hitchens. It is easy to offer a ruthless criticism of religion and attack it; it is much more difficult to propose a framework for values and understanding and build a civilization on it.
After Hitchens has a 275 page temper tantrum, he gets to his last chapter which is 7 pages long in which he proposes his solution to the problem of the “poison of religion.” In this last chapter Hitchens calls upon human beings to choose “doubt and experiment, skepticism and inquiry” over “faith and dogma” Again, I find myself puzzled at his need to understand these ideas and concepts as exclusive of one another.
Traditional religions are communities of revelation....That is, it is our belief that God has revealed God at particular times and places to and through particular people and events. In these particular times, places, people and events we believe sacred and timeless truths have been revealed. But these revelations have never been understood as frozen and static. Moreover, the timeless truths of the infinite God have been revealed to very finite human beings.
Theology has, as a consequence, always been a living and on-going conversation and argument. Often, the best and most lively thinking about the nature of God have come when we have questioned and doubted old assumptions and been led to a new understanding about the nature of God and the nature of God’s creation. Our reading of the Scriptures today has been richly informed by a spirit of skepticism and inquiry that have led us to see the old texts in new ways.
In his 7 page grand summary, which makes up the final chapter of the book, Hitchens calls for “a renewed Enlightenment” which will base itself “on the proposition that the proper study of mankind is man and woman?”15 It calls for, “The pursuit of unfettered scientific inquiry, and the availability of new findings to masses of people by easy electronic means, will revolutionize our concepts of research and development.”16
“Very importantly,” he writes, “the divorce between the sexual life and fear, and the sexual life and disease, and the sexual life and tyranny, can now at last be attempted, on the sole condition that we banish all religions from the discourse”17 and here we discover both that Hitchens is not for openness and free inquiry at all, and we also discover that his primary problem with religion has been with its attitudes toward sex! How Freudian!
He concludes his book with these words, “Only the most naive utopian can believe that this new humane civilization will develop like some dream of ‘progress,’ in a straight line. We have first to transcend our prehistory, and escape the gnarled hands which reach out to drag us back to the catacombs and the reeking altars and the guilty pleasures of subjection and abjection. ‘Know yourself,’ said the Greeks, gently suggesting the consolations of philosophy.”18
And in the last sentence of the book, Hitchens writes, “To clear the mind for this project, it has become necessary to know the enemy and to prepare to fight it.”19 In these last angry and inflammatory words Hitchens betrays that he is as narrow minded and dangerous as any religious ideologue he criticizes and this, I think, is regrettable. I think it is regrettable because, as I indicated earlier, I am sympathetic with a lot of what Hitchens has to say and with a lot of his critique of the world’s religious....I believe religious extremism or fundamentalism in any form - Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist – is dangerous and oppressive. I feel threatened by any person or groups - religious or not – who claim they have an absolute corner on truth.
Again, I am thankful that I am part of a church, the Episcopal Church, that is open-minded and upholds scientific knowledge and free inquiry. The late Paul Moore, former bishop of New York and one of my heroes in the faith, once described the Episcopal Church as a “catholic church in love with freedom.”20 It is an apt description and one I completely agree with.... It is also why I am saddened by those who are working now to undermine our openness and freedom...
In today’s Gospel, Jesus says to those around him, “Do not be afraid little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom” (Luke 12:32). In Jesus’ preaching, the kingdom is the realization of God’s purpose, of God’s hopes and dreams for creation and the kingdom is intended to be realized in this world.
In the Lord’s Prayer, we constantly pray, “thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” It is a prayer that God’s hopes and dreams might be realized by us in our world today and with our participation in helping to bring it about.....We are not there yet....And as Christopher Hitchens and many others make clear, religions and the religious are too often a part of the problem rather than the solution.....
Nonetheless, human beings are religious by nature....Religions are not man-made as Hitchens mistakenly argues21 ....While the form of religions have been shaped and constructed by human beings, religions are first and foremost a human response to the holy, to the divine....They are a human response to revelation, the revelation of Truth - upper case “T”....They are a response to that ineffable mystery we call God, whom we can only know because God stirs in us a desire to know him.
Following Freud, Hitchens reduces this to mere “wish thinking and projection”22 and perhaps he is right, but this dismisses the experience of hundred of millions of people over thousands of years. And how is he so certain that all of this does not have an external source or cause by design? Hitchens conclusions require a leap.....
“Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1) it says in today’s reading from the letter to the Hebrews. How true this is....It is often not easy to see signs of the kingdom in our world...our world which so often seems threatening and dangerous....We need to hear Jesus words over and over again, “Do not be afraid little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom” (Luke 12:32). More important, we need to work with God to bring help bring the kingdom, the peaceable kingdom, the kingdom of love, about.....It is not easy work....
Like Abraham of old, God calls us to journey together to a place we long for but do not know (See Hebrews 11:8)...We are not yet there and so we obey and continue to journey because a promise has been planted in our hearts and a longing in our souls....We desire a better country (Hebrews 11:16), a better world....We yearn for that state of existence promised as our inheritance...the heavenly city that God has prepared for us and for all people....We yearn for the kingdom, that it is God’s good pleasure to give us, if we will only continue to have faith and the will to persevere and see the journey through.....


1. Hitchens, Christopher god is not Great: How Religions Poison Everything (Boston and New York: Twelve Books – Hachette Book Groups, 2007)
2. See Best-Sellers – Non-Fiction in The New York Times Book Review- August 12, 2007
3. Chapter Six, “Arguments from Design” provides an array of examples of Hitchens addressing only the most simplistic silliness, but failing to grapple with serious contemporary systematic theologians such as Karl Rahner, David Tracy or Paul Tillich to name a few. Hitchens also fails to acknowledge that critical approaches to the Scriptures are a part of mainstream Judaism and Christianity and that the “historical-critical method” is taught as normative in today’s mainline seminaries.
4. See Hitchens pp. 68-71, 85-87 – Hitchens adapts “Ockham’s Razor” for his own purposes even as he diminishes Ockham’s own Christian faith and beliefs. Even though Ockham opposed the Avignon papacy, he was a faithful Franciscan throughout his life and was first and foremost a “theologian” which would necessarily puts him in opposition to Hitchens’ thinking.
5. See Hitchens p. 7 and 241. Here, in a clear display of arrogance, Hitchens dismisses Bonhoeffer’s Christian faith and understanding of “costly grace” and reduces his actions as something that was only in accordance with “the dictates of conscience” (see page 241).
6. See Hitchens, pp. 173-176,179-184. Hitchens where after his own peculiar summary of the New Testament, Hitchens declares of King that “In no real, as opposed to nominal sense…was he a Christian” (p. 176). In instances where he approves of a Christian for their actions, Hitchens separates the person’s actions from their Christian faith. This is clearly convenient for his argument but misrepresents both the individuals and presents an extremely prejudiced view of the Christian faith and other faiths.
7. Hitchens p. 4
8. Hitchens p. 4
9. Hitchens p. 5
10. The exhibit was titled “Deadly Medicine: Creating the Master Race” – An on-line version of the exhibit can be found at http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/deadlymedicine/
11. This ad was developed by the Church-Ad Project in Green Bay, Wisconsin
12. Hitchens p. 5
13. See Hitchens p. 151 - 152
14. Marx, Karl “For a Ruthless Criticism of Everything Existing” in The Marx-Engels Reader 2nd Edition ed. Robert Tucker (New York and London: W.W. Norton and Company, 1978) pp.12-15.
15. Hitchens p. 283
16. Hitchens p. 283
17. Hitchens p. 283
18. Hitchens p. 283
19. Hitchens p. 283
20. Moore is quoted saying this in a two-part video “The Story of the Episcopal Church.”
21. Hitchens p. 54
22. See Hitchens p. 4