Category Archives: Current Events

The Man of Steel and the Man of Love

Posted on by

Note: I wrote this in early fall and tried to submit it to the Huffington Post, but to no avail. 

If the flag wasn't enough, the 7-11 behind Superman really makes this patriotic!

If the flag wasn’t enough, the 7-11 behind Superman really makes this patriotic!

This summer’s movie, The Man of Steel, deeply and beautifully focused on Clark Kent’s (Superman’s) struggles and moral development. Christian pastors were invited to free advance screenings and were provided with sermon notes titled “Jesus as the First Superhero”. Was Jesus like an American superhero? Did he endorse violence as a way to fight evil and bring about righteousness?

The Man of Steel and Jesus, the Man of Love, are not the same. Instead of Superman, Jonathan Kent (Clark or Superman’s father) was actually the Jesus figure, and Superman’s task was to deeply learn and embody his father’s spirit.

Accordingly, the Christian Church is like Superman not because it’s the hero that saved the day but because its most fundamental task is to deeply learn, imbibe, and embody Jesus’ spirit. The Superman of this movie did a much better job of it than the Christian Church as a whole.

Clark was different, so he was bullied as a young child. His x-ray vision and super hearing led to panic attacks and he’d run out of class desperately searching for peace from his overwhelming senses. He seemed weak, especially because Jonathan taught him never to fight back. As Clark got older, Jonathan emphasized that how he responded to the hatred, fear, and arrogance of others was his choice and would determine what kind of a man he would grow up to be.

Jonathan was real with Clark about the difficulties of nonviolence. He wanted the bullies to get what was coming to them but knew this was a dangerous path for anyone and especially for Clark. When those with overwhelming power retaliate, it only creates more fear, mistrust, and alienation. Clark would never gain the trust and admiration of humanity this way.

Jesus’ disciples also struggled with issues of violence, retributive justice, and power. They (and their culture) expected the Messiah to be a king who would inflict vengeance upon Israel’s enemies. They wanted Jesus to zap people who failed to show them hospitality and to defend Jesus with the sword. Peter couldn’t bear to have his feet washed by Jesus because he so strongly thought only servants should wash their master’s feet and not vice versa. Jesus rebuked the disciples each time.

Jesus represented a different relationship to power, violence, and status; he likened his way to a narrow gate that few enter but leads to life. The gate that leads to destruction (violence, control, and power over others) is a wide gate that many enter (Matt. 7:13-14).

In the movie, Jonathan risked his life to help others during a tornado. He knew it was dangerous but felt the risk of Clark revealing his powers was too great. Jonathan saved the people but died in the process, teaching Clark what love looks like and that true strength comes from within.

Jesus also seemed to think that his best hope of getting through to the disciples – of showing them once and for all who he was and what he stood for – was to accept his death at the hands of the religious and political authorities. His death would shock them out of their old ways of thinking, making room for a new Spirit to thrive within them. For a few centuries Christianity held on to the spirit of Jesus, represented a radically different way of life based on love, and refused to take part in violence.

Although there’s been a push to equate Jesus and Superman, the movie provides a much stronger case for Jonathan as Jesus, with Superman being similar to Christianity because they share the fundamental task of becoming like Jonathan or Jesus.

Nonviolence and kicking some alien butt
Kryptonians – people from Clark’s planet – arrived at Earth and wanted vengeance on Clark for the past actions of his parents. They broke their promise to spare humanity if Clark turned himself over. Clark, now Superman, fought back and killed the Kryptonian leader with his own hands.

To create the violent plot and justify the massive destruction caused by Superman (his fighting leveled several towns), the Kryptonians had to be portrayed as purely evil, possessing no conscience, and having technology that could quickly and easily wipe out the human race. It reminds me of how war is often framed and justified in public debate…

Superman was nonviolent toward humanity and turned to violence only as a last resort against genocidal invading aliens: a far-fetched occurrence. What would the world be like if Christianity was committed to justice and righteousness based on nonviolence?

Superman’s real strength was reflected in his refusal to retaliate against the arrogance and evil inside humanity. He had imbibed his father’s vision to be a beacon of hope and light. Without this, he could never win the hearts and minds of the whole human race.

Nonviolence and its foundation, radical love, at first make us weak but invite us into the knowledge and experience of a power that gives us strength, passion, purpose, and hope even in the midst of suffering.

Moral training and spiritual practices fuel and nourish us. Deep reflection and contemplation of the life, teaching, and spirit of Jesus is one such practice. Gandhi studied the New Testament daily and was further transformed by Jesus’ love, spirituality, and power despite (or because of?) his rejection of dogmatic Christianity.

Jesus told a parable of two sons that should challenge the traditional dogma of salvation for Christians alone. A father told his two sons to work in his vineyard. The first said yes, but didn’t do it. The second said no, but changed his mind and worked. Jesus used this parable to point out that the religious leaders – those who said the right things and acted righteous – were actually far less righteous than the tax collectors and prostitutes they considered outcasts (Matt. 21:28-32). Gandhi was like the second son because he rejected Christian doctrine but imbibed and lived out the radical love of Jesus.

Jesus also told a parable in which he is the vine and the disciples are the branches drawing life and energy from him. He warns them that if they aren’t truly attached to the vine they “cannot bear fruit” and “cannot do anything” (John 15) – essentially that they would make a mess of the world, as Christianity has often done.

We can still embrace the worldview of a cosmic battle of good versus evil so prevalent in human cultures and religions, but we have to fight in a way that’s pure and increases the goodness in the world. Nonviolence is good, life-giving, and with discipline and creativity it’s practical. In this way, we can all see Jesus as a savior of the world.

Trayvon Martin Revisited

Posted on by

When the verdict for the George Zimmerman trial came out several weeks ago on the killing of Trayvon Martin, I passionately hopped onto the bandwagon of anger and frustration. Previously, I had signed the petitions calling for federal investigation into the case, I was shocked at the backwardness of the Stand Your Ground law, and I was flabbergasted at how long it took for Zimmerman to be arrested in the first place.

At some point, I realized I knew very little about Zimmerman himself and about the trial other than the media’s short media segments. I did a little research and that research has led me to change my mind on the case and question the media’s biased handling of it. This is extremely controversial and puts me at odds with many progressives (a label I’m usually happy to associate with), but I feel it’s important to lay out some of the facts and context.

The picture of Zimmerman often used on TV is several years old, and he looks more thuggish and overweight than his current picture (seen further below when I discuss the actual confrontation of George and Trayvon). Trayvon is shown a few years younger as a super innocent looking kid. http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Old-Photos-May-Have-Shaped-Public-Reaction-In-Trayvon-Martin-Case-145223895.html

First off, what do we know about Zimmerman before the shooting? Was he a racist bigot? I was at the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington in which Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his “I Have a Dream” speech and there were many signs about Zimmerman saying he was.

We know that he was a leader/captain of the Neighborhood Watch for his neighborhood. What I didn’t see in TV media coverage was that there had been a string of thefts in his neighborhood, and that residents were concerned. As a leader of the Neighborhood Watch, it would make sense for him to keep an eye on things. And, a couple of years back, there was an incident where the son of a white policeman had beaten up a black homeless man and went largely unpunished because of his ties to the police establishment. There was a public meeting about the incident, which Zimmerman apparently put major effort into organizing and informing the black community about, and Zimmerman spoke boldly at it, criticizing the police and their actions in covering it up (accusing them of trying to be above the law). This leads me to think, no, he probably wasn’t a racist bigot.

In general, Zimmerman seemed to have a positive relationship with the police because he worked with them in conjunction with the Neighborhood Watch, sent them positive emails, and even received advice from them to “report suspicious persons”. I also don’t think he was so angry at the police that he felt he had to completely take matters into his own hands. He showed he could cooperate with them.

Zimmerman’s call to the police also provides insights. (This call and all of the 911 calls reporting the actual fight and gunshot are on the Wikipedia page. The page in general is excellent). In his call, Zimmerman is calm and collected. He expresses some frustration that the robbers in his neighborhood always get away (“these assholes always get away”) and didn’t say anything bad about black people. He only mentioned Trayvon’s skin color when asked, and responded very simply with “black” and had no malice or other intonations (that I heard…you can listen yourself). He also said that Trayvon was watching him and approaching him. Then Zimmerman says that Trayvon starts running, and you can hear Zimmerman get out of his car, and Zimmerman starts running as well. You hear noise and wind in the recording – which seems to correspond with Zimmerman running – and the dispatcher asks if he’s following the person. Zimmerman says yes, and the dispatcher says “Ok, we don’t need you to do that”. Zimmerman says “ok”. The noise/wind stops and Zimmerman catches his breath, with the dispatcher asking him more questions for another 90 seconds. It’s clear that Zimmerman isn’t pursuing Trayvon (there is no wind sound and his voice is just like at the beginning). The dispatcher says police are on the way, and Zimmerman asked that he be called directly by the arriving cop and the dispatcher said he had Zimmerman’s phone number and would make sure that happened. It is not proveable, but it seemed like Zimmerman was dutifully following the advice of the dispatcher and was waiting for the police officer to arrive.

As for what happened next, Zimmerman’s testimony was that he was returning to his vehicle when Trayvon approached him from the left rear (unseen), punched him in the face (knocking him down), then Trayvon got on top and began hitting him. But in media coverage of the case, it seemed like it was unclear who was on top. The evidence – no injuries on Trayvon other than the shot and a small slash on his knuckle consistent with hitting someone – and Zimmerman’s broken nose and gashes on the back of his head – to me shows that clearly Trayvon was on top.

George Zimmerman immediately after being taken in for questioning on the night of Trayvon Martin’s shooting. Notice also that he looks significantly older and slimmer than the previous picture which was mostly used on TV.

If Zimmerman instigated the confrontation, how would they even end up in a close-range fight on the ground with Trayvon on top, especially if Zimmerman could have drawn his gun before this happened?  Zimmerman was bigger than Trayvon and had practiced mixed martial arts fighting (although he wasn’t very good at it: he started in 2010 mainly for weight loss and was successful in that regard) so overall I think it seems unlikely that Trayvon would end up on top with no injuries at all if Zimmerman was the person who started the fight. These to me show that he was taken by surprise by a punch to the face, which is consistent with the medical record and his story. Zimmerman also testified that he only went for his gun when Trayvon saw it and started to reach for it. Then all of a sudden the confrontation was of lethal proportions for Zimmerman and he grabbed his gun first and shot Trayvon.  The sad thing is that without the gun present, the confrontation might have ended only with injuries (even if very serious ones) as opposed to death. (Also, the Stand Your Ground law wasn’t actually used in Zimmerman’s defense or by the police in their decision not to arrest him initially. It’s clear, of course, he was taken in for questioning. It’s not like they just let him walk away from the scene after killing someone.)

Conclusions
So to me, the evidence gives Zimmerman a lot of credibility. I have a hard time piecing together the story portrayed on TV of Zimmerman pursuing and confronting Trayvon as a vigilante and/or racist but ending up on the bottom with injuries while Trayvon had none other than the bullet wound and the knuckle cut. The police also stated that with the evidence and story they had, they believed Zimmerman and that he also passed a stress or lie-detector test. (I don’t necessarily give lie detector tests any credibility). But what’s clear is that they didn’t arrest him because they believed him, not because it was a huge conspiracy or cover-up.

One lesson from this, as Sam Harris’ post on guns and gun violence also shows, is that the presence of a gun in any confrontation actually increases the overall chances of fatal injuries. Once it’s known that a deadly weapon is present in a confrontation, usually both people instinctively “click” into the psychology of a battle to the death.

The other lesson is that we need to carefully weigh evidence and not jump to conclusions. I certainly jumped to conclusions because the only coverage of this I saw on TV was biased toward Zimmerman as a racist who pursued Trayvon with ill-will and shot him down in cold blood.