Blog


About


Books

 Latest Post: Flash!

Agnostic
A Spirited Manifesto
Available April 4, 2016

   Who is the AT?   Books by LH
  • Agnostic

  • The First Muslim

  • After The Prophet

  • Jezebel

  • Mary

  • More from LH

     

Hazleton on Hitchens

Posted February 3rd, 2012 by Lesley Hazleton

Last month, Town Hall Seattle ran a program called ‘Three Lives,’  originally touted as eulogies of three public figures — Christopher Hitchens, Kim Jong-Il, and Vaclav Havel — linked by the sole fact that they’d happened to die within four days of each other in December.  I was asked to speak about Hitchens.  “No way,” I said.  “Not unless you’re ready for an anti-eulogy.”

They were.

Here’s the video, in which I start at about the 4.45 time mark, running to 23.10.

[vodpod id=Video.16043815&w=425&h=350&fv=netstreambasepath%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.seattlechannel.org%252Fvideos%252Fvideo.asp%253FID%253D5201205%26amp%3Bid%3Dplaceholder1%26amp%3Bimage%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.seattlechannel.org%252Fimages%252FvideoImages%252Fampod_hitchensFULL.jpg%26amp%3Btitle%3DAmerican%2520Podium%253A%2520Hitchens%252C%2520Havel%2520and%2520Kim%2520Jong-il%2520Remembered%26amp%3Bplugins%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flp.longtailvideo.com%252F5%252Fsharing%252Fsharing.swf%26amp%3Bskin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.seattlechannel.org%252Fskins%252Fchannel%252Fchannel.xml%26amp%3Bprovider%3Drtmp%26amp%3Bstreamer%3Drtmp%253A%252F%252Fvideo.seattle.gov%252Fvod%252F%26amp%3Bfile%3Dnews%252Fampod_hitchensV.mp4%26amp%3Bcontrolbar.position%3Dbottom%26amp%3Bdock%3Dtrue%26amp%3Bduration%3D0%26amp%3Bstart%3D0%26amp%3Bsharing.code%3D%25253Ciframe%252520src%25253D%252522http%25253A%252F%252Fwww.seattlechannel.org%252Fvideos%252Fvideo.asp%25253Ffile%25253D1%252526ID%25253D5201205%252522%252520width%25253D%252522480%252522%252520height%25253D%252522380%252522%252520frameborder%25253D%2525220%252522%252520scrolling%25253D%252522no%252522%25253E%25253C%252Fiframe%25253E%26amp%3Bsharing.link%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.seattlechannel.org%252Fvideos%252Fvideo.asp%253FID%253D5201205%26amp%3Bsharing.pluginmode%3DHYBRID]

But if you want to see a really great presentation, go back to the video and start at the 57.35 mark, where ACT Theatre artistic director Kurt Beattie and actors Bob Wright and Tom Carrato deliver a stunning tribute to Vaclav Havel, inspiring me to go out and buy a copy of ‘Disturbing the Peace’ the next day, when I also read this moving assessment by his long-time translator, Paul Wilson.  I’m only sorry Havel had to die for me to pay closer attention.  But then that’s kind of Wilson’s point.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: agnosticism, atheism, feminism, fundamentalism, Islam, Judaism | Tagged: Tags: ACT Theatre, antisemitism, Christopher Hitchens, Iraq war, Islamophobia, journalism, Kim Jong-Il, Kurt Beattie, Margaret Thatcher, torture, Town Hall Seattle, Vaclav Havel | 5 Comments
  1. homophilosophicus says:
    February 3, 2012 at 7:56 pm

    Dear Leslie, sycophancy isn’t really what I do best, so I shall keep this brief. Your blog is marvellous. See, that was brief. I have been surfing for this brand of intelligent read for a while, and the reason for this is that I am stuck. Recently ‘homophilosophicus’ (an Irish theology blog) has begun an interfaith project at which I would dearly like you to take a peek. At present we are short on a Jewish voice, female voices in general and a Feminist opinion. You may not have the time, you may not even be interested, but please take a look:
    http://homophilosophicus.wordpress.com/introduction/
    and the contributors so far:
    http://homophilosophicus.wordpress.com/contributors/
    Yes, we run the risk of looking rather pale in your light (there’s that sycophant again!), but this is something we are willing to risk.

    The pay scale is rubbish (non-existent in fact), but if we could entice you in anyway whatsoever please mail me on:
    homophilosophicus.wordpress@gmail.com

    Jason Michael

  2. snow black says:
    February 13, 2012 at 10:12 am

    Bravo, and thanks for reading Hitchens so I don’t have to, as they say. I’ve always prided myself on having grown out of my taste for his brand of bullshit well before the Iraq war made plain his true nature.

  3. Imraan says:
    May 23, 2012 at 10:08 am

    Reblogged this on Heightened Senses and commented:
    Though I have not read her works (yet, and yes, it is on my to read list; I can’t wait for her biography of the Prophet to be published), Ms Hazelton is one of the most articulate (and astute at that) speakers I have heard, and if that is anything to go by, I cannot wait to get started on her books; this might sound sycophantic but I really love the way her mind seems to work, and how she appropriates words in a nuanced and colourful way, without ever distorting her topic.

    Do watch this eulogy

  4. Imraan says:
    May 23, 2012 at 2:27 pm

    What an excellent presentation; your case was cogent, and very sharply articulated! I’m glad that there are those ‘out there’ in the world who don’t drool over him or his work, or can’t help but fawn because of his ability to produce quotes; I couldn’t help but feel sorry for him whilst listening to him- his life appears to have been wasted, and I pray mine does not go the way of his. As George Galloway wrote, “He wrote like an angel but placed himself in the service of the devils.”

    I hope you don’t mind but I have reblogged this.

    Regards,

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      June 2, 2012 at 9:42 am

      I can just imagine him wincing at that Galloway quote!

Pretty Palin

Posted January 12th, 2011 by Lesley Hazleton

This poster has reportedly been plastered all over San Francisco today:

Not that anyone’s to blame for the massacre in Tucson, mind you.  Least of all Sarah Palin.  It was just one of those things.  A random nutcase.  No connection to words or to hysterical rhetoric.  To images of crosshairs in a rifle sight.  To the absence of any meaningful gun laws.

So on this day when the victims are being mourned, Sarah makes it all about herself again.  She’s the victim, not the dead and wounded.  The victim of a blood libel, no less.

She has no idea what medieval blood libel actually is, of course.  No idea that it was directed at Jews, accused of slaughtering Christian children to bake their blood into matzos, and that it directly inspired pogroms.  No idea that using the term might even be considered just a tad in bad taste given that Gabrielle Giffords is Jewish.  No, Sarah is all innocence.

Put your hand over the poster so that you only see her face from the black maw of her mouth up.  You see it now?  Those dead eyes.  That snarl.   Almost as terrifying as the sight of a Glock 19 pointed in your direction.  Now put your hand over the top of her face, just beneath her nose, and you’ll see she’s enjoying herself — the perfect demagogue.

Be afraid of this pretty woman.  Be very afraid.  The righteousness;  the ignorance;  the absolute conviction;  the total absence of shame — yes, this is indeed the face of American terrorism.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: art, Judaism, ugliness | Tagged: Tags: . Gabrielle Giffords, antisemitism, blood libel, demagogery, righteousness, Sarah Palin, Tucson massacre | 10 Comments
  1. Taha Abbas Kazmi says:
    January 12, 2011 at 12:10 pm

    She called the folks who helped pass Obama’s Health Care package (Gifford being one of them) “fascists”, “socialists”, and people “who are out to destroy our country”. She follows this up by marking their districts with the cross-hairs of a gun-sight and then is shocked when everyone, including the international community is looking at her as an instigator in this madness. If things weren’t bad enough, the crazies over at Westboro Church want to picket the funeral of the poor child who lost her life in the shooting. Their reasoning? According to their “God Hate’s Fags” website, God also hates Catholic’s because their idol worshipers (and the girls family is Catholic). This is craziness… I’m hoping lawmakers can do something to block their protest. If that psychotic 22-year old was a Muslim they would not have been describing him as a “young man with a troubled past”; they would have just come out and called him a Muslim Terrorist. …Sorrow for the times.

  2. Michael Kimt says:
    January 12, 2011 at 1:14 pm

    Interesting things are going on…

  3. Sue says:
    January 12, 2011 at 2:07 pm

    Thank you for such a well-written and articulate summary. It’s very difficult to find anything meaningful to do about this situation and not just throw your arms up in the air in despair.

  4. Lyn Ferrand says:
    January 12, 2011 at 2:38 pm

    Thank you. The voice of sanity!

  5. Mary Sherhart says:
    January 12, 2011 at 4:03 pm

    I believe she knew exactly what she was saying and intended it to be provocative with that horrible blood libel phrase. She has managed to get massive attention from the media in the meantime. I can only hope that the reaction will be so negative that her career will be down the tube.

  6. Lynn Rosen says:
    January 12, 2011 at 11:43 pm

    Yes, thanks for a voice of sanity in the wilderness of just a few. Could we have a “prayer” that the poor victim in Alaska has finally, with her grotesque comment about blood libel, has finally finished her pipeline to any public or political career.

  7. Yusuf says:
    January 13, 2011 at 5:28 am

    Personally, I hope she wins the presidency in 2012, and with apologies to well meaning Americans, here’s why.
    America is, in my opinion, probably the biggest impediment to peace and stability in the world today. A Palin presidency is the best chance I see under the present circumstances to bring about the fall of this “nexus of evil”.
    This could be accomplished by deviding the country so much it falls apart along red and blue
    lines or involving the country in so many “democratizations” overseas that the empire collapses.
    Some are going to say that both scenarios would cause a lot of death and turmoil, and I agree, but let me present a little allegory.
    Many years ago, in my pre Islamic days I lived with a woman who had a young, uncircumcised son. One day, when the boy was about 8, I was summoned by the mother and the loud crying of the son to the washroom, where the boy was standing and screaming in pain with his forskin caught in his zipper. His mother was asking for my advice on what to do and I told her to pull the zipper down quickly, which would relive most of the pain instantly. She forbade me from this action and demanded a less drastic solution, the result of which left her son screaming in pain while I tried to convince her. Eventually either she relented or I ignored her protests. (I can’t quite remember the details, and they are irrelevant ) I pulled the zipper down which immediately stopes the panicked crying of the boy.

  8. Chemical _turk says:
    January 14, 2011 at 10:34 am

    If she were to run for President she wouldn’t win. She would be self served best to remain a talking head, unencumbered by a Presidential office.

    The great American turn around is one the verge of happening, we’re to clever and the rest of the world is to focused on what is always focuses on “sound and fury signifying nothing”.

    No other country will lead because they don’t know how, they all pander to America because that’s all they have known since WWII.

  9. MaryamRazviPadela says:
    January 24, 2011 at 11:00 am

    Thank you for this post Lesley. Speaking of people who have no idea what references they are making, I was infuriated this past weekend by a woman standing in the middle of the city with a poster of Obama with a hitler-esque moustache drawn on chanting ‘let’s get hitler out of office” i told her she has no idea how offensive that is and she gave me a smirk. Maybe her and Palin need a study group. This is getting absurd.

  10. Sunny says:
    February 7, 2011 at 2:28 am

    Oops,
    I thought that your intention was to make peace in the world, after I see you TEDtalk video.
    But after reading your current article on Palin,it is very clear that you are not out there to make peace, because you are very liberal in your criticism for Palin’s instigation for Christian violence against the Jews.
    At the same time, when Mohammad fought his wars and came up with his stories of Mt Hira and Gabriel, you try all your best to associate Mohammad with Mysticism, God and what not.
    It does not matter – whether Mohammad’s open hatred for Jews in the latter part of his life or Palin’s so called hatred – its all the same. No mysticism either with Mohammad nor with Palin. – what is common between the two is – they employed a public God for their political gains, because a Private God cannot be used for Gain.

Hollywood Smarm

Posted November 2nd, 2010 by Lesley Hazleton

When Hollywood goes righteous, it’s a particularly smarmy sight.  What could be more obviously and easily righteous than a stand against anti-Semitism, especially for a town that’s managed to reduce the shattering enormity of the Holocaust to the rah-rah beat-the-Nazis level so brilliantly parodied by Quentin Tarantino in last year’s Inglourious Basterds?  (Please don’t ask why it’s spelled that way – I have no idea, and no idea whether Tarantino has any idea either).

Hollywood ‘s newest bout of righteousness is over the decision to award an honorary Oscar – aka a “governors’ award” —  to legendary French nouvelle vague director Jean-Luc Godard.

To say that this is about time is to be madly anachronistic, since Godard has been working his cinematic brilliance since 1960 — fifty years in which not a single one of his movies has been Oscar-nominated even as best foreign picture.  That in itself is an eloquent condemnation of the essential shallowness of the Oscars.   While Godard was making classics like A Bout de Souffle (Breathless) and Bande à Part (Band of Outsiders), Hollywood was delivering its best-picture laurels to  fluffy romances like Billy Wilder’s “The Apartment” (1960) and  George Cukor’s film adaptation of “My Fair Lady” (1964).

But while the decision to finally honor Godard reveals an interestingly new awareness of Oscarite limitations,  it’s by no means incidental that the honor is to be bestowed not in the orgy of sentimentality telecast as the Awards Ceremony in February, but well away from all the red-carpet brouhaha, in the Hollywood equivalent of privacy:  a black-tie banquet on November 13.

Godard has already said he won’t be there.   It’s hardly surprising that he has no great regard for Hollywood.    And no surprise either that as a French intellectual, he’s outspokenly anti-Zionist and an advocate of Palestinian independence.   The issue is that infamous overlap between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.

In a 1985 newspaper interview, for example, Godard spoke of Hollywood in terms echoing the old anti-Semitic stereotype of Jews as usurers:  “What I find interesting in the cinema is that, from the beginning, there is the idea of debt.  The real producer is the image of the Central European Jew.  They’re the ones who invented the cinema, they brought it to Hollywood…   Making a film is visibly producing debts.”

Hmm.   Overlookable, perhaps, except that four years earlier, on French television, he’d made what at first seemed an amusingly quirky remark:  “Moses is my principal enemy…  Moses, when he received the commandments, he saw images and translated them.   Then when he brought the texts, he didn’t show what he had seen.”   I’m not quite sure what this meant, but it could have been funny – the man of images railing against the man of words – until the man of images added the kicker:  “That’s why the Jewish people are accursed.”

Yup, anti-Semitic for sure.   The same old stale stereotypes dating back to the Middle Ages.  But does that mean I should view Godard’s work differently?

One of my favorite poets – a man whose work I go back to again and again for reflection, consolation, sheer beauty, and complexity –  was also an anti-Semite.   I can’t imagine living without T.S. Eliot on my bookshelf – The Four Quartets above all – even though I wince when I come across lines like “the Jew squats on the windowsill” in “Gerontion” (the squatting Jew being a rapacious landlord),  or “The rats are underneath the piles/ The Jew is underneath the lot” from “Burbank with a Baedeker.”    Or statements like this, in a lecture:  “Reasons of race and religion make any large number of free-thinking Jews undesirable.”

So as one of a large number of free-thinking Jews, should I be boycotting T.S. Eliot?

The trouble is, if I did, I’d have to boycott most of the canon of English literature, including Shakespeare.  In fact if I were to apply the litmus test of anti-Semitism, I’d be so poorly read I’d have a mind the size of a walnut and a soul the size of a shriveled dried pea.

The same goes for the idea of using feminism as a litmus test.  Or any “ism.”   I can live with the fact that those whose work I admire are flawed, even prejudiced – all of us are, one way or another.   But to toss out the brilliance with the bathwater?  That’s plain stupid.  Or perhaps just smarmily righteous.

So I’m a rapacious, accursed rat?  Bite me.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: art, Judaism, ugliness | Tagged: Tags: antisemitism, Hollywood, Jean-Luc Godard, Oscar awards, Quentin Tarantino, Shakespeare, T.S.Eliot | 2 Comments
  1. Nancy McClelland says:
    November 3, 2010 at 10:06 am

    Excellent post, Lesley!

  2. Richard (RJ) Eskow says:
    December 12, 2010 at 8:52 am

    I didn’t know about Godard’s antisemitism (although I knew of TS Eliot’s – and Joseph Campbell’s, too.)

    I understand their revulsion. But I’m struck by the contrast between Hollywood’s rejection of Godard and its embrace of Roman Polanski. Apparently raping a 13-year-old is not as offensive as bigotry. That’s a curious moral calculus.

    The difference couldn’t have something to do with the box office receipts for their films, could it?

Too Many Jews?

Posted May 15th, 2010 by Lesley Hazleton

If the headline read “Pat Buchanan:  Not Enough Muslims on the Supreme Court,” that’d be something.   Instead, what we get is the utterly predictable:  “Pat Buchanan:  Too Many Jews on the Supreme Court.”

Surprise surprise, Pat’s been Jew-counting.  Those damn Jews are taking over our most sacred institutions.  When all else fails — and the lesbian “smear” campaign against Elena Kagan is clearly faltering (amazing that it’s 2010 and we still talk of “accusations” of lesbianism) — there’s always good old antisemitism to fall back on.   As Jean-Paul Sartre put it:  “If Jews didn’t exist, antisemites would have had to invent them.”

Count ’em, says Buchanan from his current perch as a commentator on MSNBC.  Three of ’em if Kagan gets the nod!  Out of nine.  It’s a calamity for Christian America — a separate little cabal there on the bench, out to corrupt the purity of Christian values.  What do you mean, Judeo-Christian?  Nobody pays any attention to that Judeo bit.  That’s just another sop to the Jews, adulterating Christianity.  We have to put a stop to them.  We have to stand up to this canker in our society.  Who the hell do they think they are?

None of the three are religious?  Ha, you don’t believe that, do you?  It’s in their blood — the stain, as Philip Roth put it, the fatal flaw, as bad as being black.  And hey, if they’re not religious, that makes it even worse.  What do they believe in?  Abortion?  Gay marriage?  Civil rights?  The Antichrist?

Thank God (as it were) we have no less an authority than Richard Nixon’s assurance that Buchanan is neither an antisemite nor a Jew-hater (the precise distinction clear only to Nixon), but “a good patriotic American.”  The Nixon seal of approval is always reassuring.

Is it worth pointing out that only four Jews have sat on the Supreme Court before?  That a third of all justices have been Episcopalians, who are 1.7% of all Americans?   That the Constitution upheld by the court forbids discrimination on the basis of religion?   No — that’s only stooping to the level of Buchanan demagogery.

Come on, Obama:   rock Buchanan’s world and  nominate a Muslim next time.

Or even — gasp! — an atheist.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: atheism, Islam, Judaism | Tagged: Tags: antisemitism, demagogery, Elena Kagan, Jean-Paul Sartre, Jews, Muslims, Pat Buchanan, Philip Roth, Supreme Court | 5 Comments
  1. Steve Giordano says:
    May 15, 2010 at 11:11 pm

    Wasn’t someone counting Catholics on the Court recently? Some astronomical number, like four or five, I forget.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      May 16, 2010 at 10:24 am

      I think it’s six. Feeling Waspish, anyone?

  2. Lynn Rosen says:
    May 16, 2010 at 8:32 am

    Gasp, indeed! They’ve had to really scrape the dregs to find this hook! Gasp and grrrrrrrrrrrrr.

  3. Pietra says:
    May 17, 2010 at 11:08 am

    Little is more feared or reviled in this country than those of us who either don’t believe in god or are unable to accept organized religions’ versions of a “higher being.” And, yes, the other justices are Catholic (I wish more of them were catholic LC).

  4. Jennifer Reed says:
    May 17, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    It points to the fact that maybe status as a robust democracy should not keep out people whose views it found offensive.

    In particular reguard to Israel barring Mr. Chomsky today he said: “There were two basic points,” he told the interviewer. “One was that the government of Israel does not like the kinds of things I say — which puts them into the category of I suppose every other government in the world.”

Just How Kosher Does a Muslim Intellectual Have To Be?

Posted May 3rd, 2010 by Lesley Hazleton

A bonfire of vanities is breaking out in the American political punditry about one single Muslim.   Not a terrorist, but a European intellectual — scholar and activist Tariq Ramadan, the Oxford professor who argues that Islam has a positive, ethical contribution to make to Western culture, and who was named one of the top innovators of the 21st century on the impeccably non-radical Time.com.

Fresh fuel for the fire comes from The Flight of the Intellectuals, a new book accusing American and European intellectuals of pandering to Islam, specifically to Ramadan, while ignoring signs of his extremism.

It will appear to be a splendidly principled debate, with everyone taking impassioned positions in defense of liberte, egalite, and if not fraternite, certainly sororite.   Women in Islam, that is.   As usual, male Western intellectuals get most worked up about “the question of women” in Islamic societies, thus presenting themselves as comfortably situated white knights in shining armor, armchair warriors protecting the innocent from barbarism.

It will also be a peculiarly sophomoric debate, essentially asking “who’s our Muslim intellectual?”  Is it Ayaan Hirsi Ali, whose book Infidel rejected Islam outright and led to her flight for safety to the US, where she’s now at the American Enterprise Institute?  Or is it Tariq Ramadan, who has consistently argued for a “third way” blending traditional Islamic values with western democratic ones?

In books like What I Believe, Ramadan advocates greater democratic political involvement by western Muslims.  This may seem reasonable enough, but reason, for his critics, is just a mask.   His hidden agenda is an extremist one, they say;  see how he refuses to outright condemn punishing women for adultery (he only says he opposes it)  or antisemitism (oops, strike that one, he did).

In fact the language used about Ramadan has a distinctly antisemitic tint.   He’s shifty, they say;  he’s two-faced;  he hides his true loyalties — all the sort of things said about Jews in 1930s Germany.   They point to Ramadan’s “connections” (his grandfather founded the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, so obviously the grandson is carrying out the grandfather’s program).   So what if Ramadan is a charming and sophisticated European intellectual?  That very charm and sophistication make him suspicious.   (There’s a strong tint here of “who does he think he is?  he’s just a Muslim putting on airs”).  He has to be a fifth columnist in the ranks of naive post-Enlightenment scholars who have no idea of the treacherous and devious depths of Islamic thinking.

The ultimate insult for such critics seems to be that Ramadan is a religious man.   A pious Muslim, as they see it, cannot possibly be a liberal intellectual;  his whole argument that Islam and social democracy are not necessarily opposed can thus, ipso facto, only be false.

What they’re really saying is that the only kind of Muslim intellectual who’s acceptable is one who’s absolutely kosher.  One who, like Hirsi Ali, has renounced all ties with the demon Islam.  One who has repented, seen the error of his/her ways, and accepted the superiority of the secular.

Perhaps that’s why the bonfire:  the language, attitudes, and assumptions behind this debate all seem to me to bear the distinctly pious fervor of  Inquisition.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: Islam, US politics | Tagged: Tags: accidental theologist, antisemitism, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Muslim intellectuals, Tariq Ramadan, women in Islam | 2 Comments
  1. Kitty Hoffman says:
    May 3, 2010 at 5:02 pm

    Here’s who would get my vote: Irshad Manji, young brilliant progressive intellectual Muslim…also happens to be lesbian, which led to a few death threats, or perhaps it was the combination of Muslim and feminist…
    Her very traditional Ugandan Moslem mother is one of her staunchest supporters.
    Canadian (of course, Canadians are good at combining the seemingly un-combine-able), now lives and works in the US.
    If you don’t yet know the name, you will soon; check out her writing.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      May 4, 2010 at 8:48 am

      Thanks Kitty. Yes, Manji’s book “The Trouble With Islam Today,” conversationally written and subtitled “a Muslim’s call for reform in her faith,” is wonderfully spirited. Ditto her website, http://www.muslim-refusenik.com. I see her as part of a western Muslim movement to liberalize Islam — one that includes, on a different level, people like Tariq Ramadan. Meanwhile very interesting work is being done by several feminist Muslim scholars, including the amazing Fatima Mernissi (“The Veil and the Male Elite”) in Morocco. Am reading Mernissi again right now, and will post on her soon.

Order the Book

Available online from:
  • Amazon.com
  • Barnes & Noble
  • IndieBound
  • Powell's
Or from your favorite bookseller.

Tag Cloud

absurd agnosticism art atheism Christianity ecology existence feminism fundamentalism Islam Judaism light Middle East sanity science technology ugliness US politics war women

Recent Posts

  • Flash! September 1, 2019
  • “What’s Wrong With Dying?” February 9, 2017
  • The Poem That Stopped Me Crying December 30, 2016
  • Talking About Soul at TED December 5, 2016
  • ‘Healing’? No Way. November 10, 2016
  • Psychopath, Defined August 2, 2016
  • Lovely NYT Review of ‘Agnostic’! July 14, 2016
  • Playing With Stillness June 22, 2016
  • Inside Palestine June 20, 2016
  • Virtual Unreality June 6, 2016
  • The Free-Speech Challenge May 23, 2016
  • Category-Free April 20, 2016
  • Staring At The Void April 13, 2016
  • Sherlock And Me April 3, 2016
  • Hard-Wired? Really? March 22, 2016
  • A Quantum Novel March 9, 2016
  • This Pre-Order Thing March 4, 2016
  • The Agnostic Celebration February 29, 2016
  • The First Two Pages February 23, 2016
  • Two Thumbs-Up For “Agnostic” February 10, 2016
Skip to toolbar
  • About WordPress
    • WordPress.org
    • Documentation
    • Support Forums
    • Feedback