MLK Jr and Malcolm X

 

How does the contrast between the sacred and the holy, or morality and ethics, appear in Martin Luther King, Jr.’s ethic as expressed in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail”? 

          King’s understanding of the interdependence of people is what inspired the content of his letter in response to the white clergy who believed the civil rights movement was ‘unwise and untimely’.  In the letter, King states, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.  We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.  Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly”.  
          King’s statement questioned the ‘sacred society’ of the white clergy and their morals; instead, he brought up ethics and the idea that humanity is not comprised of white individuals, but is actually a collective of different individuals that should be treated justly.  His inclusion of all humanity instead of just a specific society is what makes this a ‘holy’ act.  King’s audacity to question just laws is summed up in the following:  “An unjust law is a code that a majority inflicts on a minority that is not binding on itself”.  In this, he maintains that unjust laws are begging to be broken and a law that begs disobedience must be corrected to reinstate justice for all. 

 Describe Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “kitchen experience” and explain its significance for his spirituality and ethics.     

          Martin Luther King, Jr.’s  “kitchen experience” occurred in the early days of the Montgomery bus strike.  This event that occurred as his public career was burgeoning was a poignant experience in his life where he was finally able to overcome the fear of death.  Overcoming fear of mortality is an event vital to the life of a religious figure.
          In the story, it is recounted that King came home late from a boycott meeting and received a phone call:  “N*gger . . . we are tired of you and your mess now, and if you are not out of this town in three days, we’re going to blow your brains out and blow up your house”.  He had received many phone calls of this nature before, but this one in particular struck at his core for some reason that night; it made him think of losing his family or vice versa.  These thoughts left him restless and he decided to go to the kitchen for coffee; his rationale, his principles, and everything he used to make sense of the world around him was no longer comforting him.  
          In his desperation, he did what he knew best–he bowed down and prayed.  In a moment of vulnerability, he expressed his weakness to God and his belief in what he thought right.  God spoke back to him and told him to rise and stand for truth and if he did so, He would be with him and remain with him until the very end.  This self-induced salvation for King is what provided a direct experience with God that he would take with him for the rest of his life.  King’s spirituality and ethics were deeply rooted in his religion because of his “kitchen experience”–this example fits well with Masao Abe’s model for Christianity because his religious experience leads to ethics. 

Comment on the differences between the speeches made by Umar and Abu Bekr when Muhammad died.  What makes Bekr’s speech the more appropriate Islamic response?

          In his speech, Umar stated, “Some of the disaffected will allege that the Messenger is dead, but by God, he is not dead: he has gone to his Lord as Moses son of Imran went and was hidden [on Sinai] from his people for forty days.  By God, the Messenger will return as Moses returned and will cut off the hands and feet of men who allege that the Messenger is dead”.  Umar was making appeals to sacralize Muhammad in a way that should have only been reserved for Allah (from an Islamic perspective).  
          To clarify to the congregation inside the Mosque that Muhammad was not a deity to be worshipped or expected to return, Abu Bekr followed with a statement of his own:  “O men, if anyone worships Muhammad, Muhammad is dead; if anyone worships God, God is alive, immortal”.  In this address, Fasching and deChant claim, “the true essence of Islam was reaffirmed, the very core of the first pillar, the shahada (confession) – there is no God but God”.  
          Bekr’s speech conveys the proper understanding of Islamic belief.  Muhammad is to be remembered as a special man among men who was chosen by Allah to be his messenger – the Messenger of his will, but not as an equal of God.  Likening him to a similar like a saint or lesser god would be considered shirk, or idolatry, and that would be going against Islam’s first pillar. 

What is the hajj, and why was it so important to Malcolm X?  What made Malcolm’s experience different from that of the Muslims he met during the hajj?
         
One of the Islamic pillars requires all Muslims to make a pilgrimage, or hajj, to the holy city of Mecca once in their lifetime if possible.  Fasching and deChant claim that this pilgrimage was “his own flight (hijra) from the sacred society of the Nation of Islam to the traditional Islam and a new vision of a holy community, open to all races and religions”.  
          Malcolm X, who once identified as a member of the sacred society of the Nation of Islam, was converted to a member of the holy community and no longer promoting black separatism, but seeking justice for the human collective instead of just the specific group he belonged to.  
          Malcolm’s experience was different than that of the Muslims he encountered during the hajj because his perspective was that of a member of the Nation of Islam.  It was on the hajj that he first learned to pray and posture himself.  Most importantly, he learned that Islam means “submission, peace, and unity of all peoples of the world”.  One could think being ignorant of these Islamic staples originally had him at a disadvantage, but Malcolm’s receptiveness to the holy event allowed him to absorb many universal and spiritual elements that made the hajj a priceless experience during his life journey.

Gilgamesh and Gandhi

 

How does ”wrestling with the stranger” function as an ethical theme in the story of Gilgamesh, so as to illustrate the positive side of “doubling”?
         
           Fasching and deChant claim that doubling most likely first occurred during humanity’s move from tribal communities to urban civilizations because of the extreme changes in social environment that went on during that time.  The Epic of Gilgamesh provides an example of a person who no longer identifies with the tribal collective, but is finding himself as an individual among other individuals and
coming to grips with mortality.        
          Gilgamesh embarks on an ethical journey when instead of understanding his identity from his perspective as a prince, he views himself with the eyes of his double, Enkidu.  Enkido becomes the ‘mirror for Gilgamesh’s soul’ and his reflection through Enkido allows him to “see and understand himself and his relationships to others”.  Through this relationship, Gilgamesh attains what Fasching and deChant call ‘reflexive self-awareness’ which allows him to obtain much needed humility and wisdom.     
          Gilgamesh’s doubling is thought to be positive because it permits him to reflect upon himself honestly through the eyes of another.  Fasching and deChant state, “doubling becomes demonic only when this capacity for self-reflection is avoided through self-deception, so that responsibility for the actions of the self in particular circumstances are denied”.  Gilgamesh’s doubling led to the transformation of an individual from egocentric to compassionate.  In losing his arrogance, he was motivated to pursue justice not only for himself, but for his kingdom as well.      

In what ways does the story of Socrates express an ethic of the holy?

          Socrates resided within the ‘holy community,’ though, he passed back and forth from the sacred to the holy because he also identified as a citizen of Athens.  He resided within the holy community because of his belief that recognizing ignorance is the beginning of wisdom, this being a characteristic of the ‘holy’.  Socrates’ teaching his students to question everything created a feeling of discomfort within the citizens of Athens because they felt he was threatening their sacred order.  
          The Athenians’ focus on the ‘cosmos writ small’ had them caged within the ‘little picture’.  They desired to maintain order as they knew it because they valued what was familiar and of ‘this world’.  They had all the answers they needed and were comfortable with the way things were because they believed it
was the way things should be.  Their understanding was sacred because the knowledge was passed on through customs and traditions and anyone who questioned it received a hostile reaction and became the ‘enemy’.  This is what eventually happened to Socrates.  He was accused of being an atheist because
Athenians were blinded by their sacred-centric views in such a way that they could not fathom the idea of an internal god because it was too different and other worldly.  As Fasching and deChant claim, “[Socrates] invented ethics as we now understand it, namely, ethics not as observance of the ”sacred customs” but rather as the questioning of sacred customs and sacred order”.

In what ways does Gandhi’s ethic violate the modernist paradigm of the privatization of religion?  
          
           With the emergence of secularization brought about by the Enlightenment, western civilization put God on the back burner to make way for scientific explanation.  Religion’s answers were no longer satisfactory in comparison to the scientific method’s appeal to reason and logic.  This event downgraded religion for westerners—their beliefs were removed from the holy sphere and placed within a sacred sphere.  Those who chose to maintain their beliefs had to do so within a private realm.            
          When Western society was promoting the marginalization of religion, Gandhi instead promoted his belief that religion and politics are intertwined:  “I can say without the slightest hesitation, and yet in all humility, that those who say that religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion means”.  Religion and politics were one and the same for Gandhi.
          The merging of politics and religion Fasching and deChant state as follows, “For Gandhi, religion and politics became one through the practice of brahmacharya.  For only selfless compassion for the well-being of others can inspire the trust that makes political leadership possible”.  Gandhi’s aim was to
be selfless and live life for others.  He was not satisfied with the ‘cynicism of politics-as-usual;’ he desires to turn politics into a ‘spiritual and ethical enterprise’.  Gandhi found his ethics through his religion and believed if politics was to truly be honest and ethical as well, it would have to do it with the involvement of religion.  

Does the concept of human dignity play a role in Gandhi’s thought?  If so, how?
         
          The concept of human dignity does play a role in Gandhi’s thought because his drive for justice was sparked by experiences of humiliation that compromised his human dignity.  “Any conduct that is contrary to truth and ahimsa is to be eschewed and any book that violates these principles is not a shastra [sacred scripture]“.  
          The two experiences that changed Gandhi’s direction in life occurred when he was fresh out of law school.  They both involve him being physically thrown out of a place because of prejudice.  In the first situation, he tried to use his weight as a British-trained attorney with a British political agent, but it failed him, and in the second, he attempted to ride first-class in a train and was ordered to the baggage compartment, but when he refused he was thrown off the train.  
          These experiences coupled with his interpretation of the Gita allowed for Gandhi to move forward with his teachings of non-violence through soul force.  It was those brushes with humiliation that led him to understand the plight of the ‘untouchable’ or the ‘other’.  Because of this knowledge, he came to a new
understanding of what his life objective would be—to seek justice for all people through non-violent means.  His promotion of self-suffering over inflicting suffering on others was the way he believed justice could be reached.  

Thich Naht Hanh and Abraham Joshua Heschel

 

How does the contrast between the sacred and the holy, or morality and ethics, appear in Thich Nhat Hanh’s life and thought?

Thich Nhat Hanh appears to move in and out of both realms.  To maintain his roots in his sacred tradition of Buddhism, he shares beliefs in non-dualism and mindfulness.  His expression of omnipartiality can be found in his poem “Call Me By My True Names”.  He rids himself of polarized assumptions and attains an elevated, enlightened perspective.  Fasching and deChant quote Kierkegaard to better explain what enlightenment brings about “a kind of ‘teleological suspension of the ethical’.   The expression of interdependence of all things in the poem conveys the Mahayana Buddhist focus of ‘no self’ or anatman.

But Nhat Hanh’s Bodhisattva abilities are showcased in his ability to pass over to another realm, that of social justice for all.  In an effort to keep thousands of Vietnamese refugees from death in 1976, he participated in a boat rescue operation.  He and his partners manned boats, fought with government officials, and gave the international press notice so that the world at large would be cognizant of the injustice occurring against those trying to escape persecution.  “During those days, we practiced sitting and walking meditation, and eating out meals in silence in a very concentrated way.  We knew that without this kind of discipline, we would fail in our work.  The lives of many people depended on our mindfulness”.

Thich Nhat Hanh was able to simultaneously take part in the sacred and the holy and because of that he is a physical representation of the Buddhist concept of omnipartiality.

How is the postmodern spirituality of “passing over” and “coming back” illustrated in Thich Nhat Hanh’s life story, and what is its ethical significance?

It is the practice within the Mahayana tradition of Buddhism that the Bodhisattva maintains one foot within the realm of enlightenment and one within the world of samsara.  Out of compassion, the Bodhisattva refuses the final stage of enlightenment to help all those who have yet to reach it.  Knowing that there are so many still stuck within the wheel of desire (samsara), the Bodhisattva cannot move on without them because it would go against his or her understanding of interdependence—it would be selfish.

Thich Nhat Hanh went about “passing over” and “coming back” when he went on an international tour practicing socially engaged Buddhism.  He approached the Bodhisattva ideal, not through a spiritualized understanding of compassion, but through a socially conscious approach in search of justice.  Fasching and deChant claim, “it is only with the transformation of our understanding of the socially constructed nature of the social order that emerged with the social sciences in the modern postmodern period that religious compassion has been channeled into the reform of societies and their institutions as an essential task of ethics”.

Nhat Hanh became a proactive monk who published socially conscious books, took part in peace agreements, and also shared in the religious traditions of the other.  He recognized that there are elements of other religions in his own and his own religion in others and because of that he was able to connect with the other for a greater good.  But it was his understanding that sharing another’s tradition does not mean abandoning one’s own that allowed him to pass back.

What is the key spiritual practice in Abraham Joshua Heschel’s ethic, and how does it function ethically in his life?

Heschel puts himself in the position of the other when he prays.  He states, “Prayer is a radical commitment, a dangerous involvement in the life of God … I pray because God, the shekinah, is an outcast … God is in search of man, in search of a home in the soul and deeds of man.  God is not at home in our world.  Our task is to hallow time, to enable Him to enter our moments, to be at home in our time, in what we do with time”.

Praying to God put Heschel in the position of the stranger.  In doing so, he can understand the others’ plight and once that plight is understood, the only thing to do is to behave in accordance with the “divine imperative – the demand for justice”.  The practice of prayer is an ethical one because it is done on behalf of the stranger—to understand the stranger.

Prayer is not about approaching God with selfish requests, but about knowing what it is to feel like an outcast and through that understanding, arriving at a solution to remedy the problem.  It is only when one truly understands the place of the stranger, when one experiences life as he or she does, that one can commit to the responsibility of fighting injustice.  Heschel understood this and believed “true prayer and prejudice cannot coexist in the same heart” if one honestly partakes in true prayer.

How are the Hasidic practices of self-annihilation and audacity reconciled and expressed in Heschel’s life?

Self-annihilation has an important part in Hasidism.  “Mystical experience is often described as a death of the self experienced as ‘the kiss of God’ – a kind of spiritual ecstasy that comes with cleaving to God”.  In the face of the Holocaust, Heschel clung to God through his writings and passion for God and everything involving God.  Heschel was willing to sacrifice himself for God and others in regard to just matters, but when he believed injustice occurred, no one is exempt from criticism, including God.

Heschel expressed an example of audacity in 1944:  “Where is God?  Why dost Thou not halt the trains loaded with Jews being led to slaughter?”. The audacity  found within Judaism is summed up eloquently by Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor:  “I . . . remember my Master . . . telling me, ‘Only the Jew knows that he may oppose God as long as he does so in defense of His creation’ . . . What is Jewish history if not an endless quarrel with God?”.

The most poignant of all statements made by Heschel is made when he clarifies holiness:  “holiness is not the monopoly of any particular religion or tradition“.  In a post-colonial world, this reverberates in a way that cannot be shaken.  What would the world be like if instead of negotiating with the other based on predetermined terms, negotiations were put off until both parties meditated on what the plight of the other is until there was a breakthrough or realization of the stranger’s experience?  I imagine those predetermined terms and their definitions would go through a fair amount of editing.