CFI Book Club: "Inventing Human Rights" by Lynn Hunt

So, I have written about an organization in Toronto called the Centre for Inquiry in several posts and am happy to tell you that I am now the Director of their Ontario branch. I am very excited and will continue to write about and analyze the many lectures that we put on year round.

One cool part of this new job is helping organize a book club. I was asked to pick the books for November and December. Everyone is welcome to read the books and then come to the Centre for a discussion. You can find out more info at our website: cfiontario.org


The book for November is: "Inventing Human Rights" by Lynn Hunt.

12 copies at Toronto libraries

This comprehensive work traces the development of human rights from its conceptual roots in the Enlightenment to its full expression in the United Nation's 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Hunt begins with a wonderfully detailed lexicographical survey of 18th century uses of rights language ("rights of man," "natural rights," "rights of humanity") to show the many currents that led to the first modern declaration of human rights, the Bill of Rights.

We will be meeting on Thursday, Nov. 26th at 7 pm at CFI, 216 Beverley Street, Toronto, ON.


The book for December is: "Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking" by Malcolm Gladwell

228 copies at Toronto libraries

In this best-seller, a staff writer for The New Yorker weighs the factors that determine good decision-making. Drawing on recent cognitive research, Gladwell concludes that those who quickly filter out extraneous information generally make better decisions than those who discount their first impressions. The author of The Tipping Point (2000) cites the implications for such areas as emergency situations and marketing, plus some notable exceptions.

We will be meeting on Thursday, Dec. 10th at 7 pm at CFI, 216 Beverley Street, Toronto, ON.

I hope to see you at there!

Quote of the Day!

"The world needs open hearts and open minds, and it is not through rigid systems, whether old or new, that these can be derived."

-Bertrand Russell, from the Preface of "Why I am Not A Christian and Other Essays on Religion" (published in 1957)

Michael Shermer Lecture "Why People Believe Weird Things"

I had the pleasure of attending a lecture by Michael Shermer at the University of Toronto last week and thought I would post the shorter more concise version of the talk that is posted on ted.com. He is a wonderful speaker because he talks like the audience is a group of close friends and brings some passion and life to talks that can sometimes be, well, boring. Click here for a profile on Michael Shermer. Enjoy!

CFI Lecture: Human Rights as a Modern Myth

I went to another CFI lecture back in April called "The Modern Myth of Human Rights" with David Stamos, a professor of Philosophy at York University. The title of this lecture really struck a chord with me as I plan to pursue a career/further education in the specific field of Human Rights. And if, as he suggests in the title of his talk, they do not exist, they are a delusion and a myth, then what am I doing with my life? After thinking about this for awhile, I started to hypothesize what Mr. Stamos would talk about in his lecture and I thought I knew what he would argue. However, as you will see, I left the lecture feeling as though he was just lost in semantics.


Here is a summary of the lecture:

• There are two types of 'rights': conventional rights which are man-made and can be given and taken away, usually by governments and institutions. Since there is no world government or institution there are therefore no universal human conventional rights. The second kind is natural rights which are rights people are born with and which cannot be given or taken away. This is the type of rights people are talking about when they refer to universal human rights (rights one has because they are a human being).


• We see written examples of these natural universal human rights in such documents as the Declaration of Independence (all men are born equal; rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; equal and inalienable rights of the human family) and then later on in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (right to marry, join unions, free education, freedom of religion, etc.). We see an obvious increase in details about what exactly constitutes a human right. So, what is a human right and who decides what is and what is not?


• The idea of universal human rights stems from memetics, meaning the spread of cultural ideas. Ideas have us, we don't have them. One example of a meme complex would be religion as well as universal human rights. Just like religion, human rights are a virus of the mind, a mass delusion.


• To explain this, look at our cultural history. Do we see universal human rights in Plato, Aristotle, the Bible, etc? Not really, in these works men are seen as higher up than women, there was human slavery and on and on. (Here, Mr. Stamos proceeded to give many examples from the Bible illustrating violations of supposed universal human rights - rape, murder, etc.)
  
• We first see the idea of universal human rights in literature during the European Enlightenment of the late 1600's. Thomas Locke was the first to write about life, liberty and property and that men are all born equal (obviously a huge influence on Jefferson). The idea of universal human rights was born (invented) in a particular culture at a particular time: 17th century Europe. However, we somehow all believe that other cultures 'discovered' human rights on their own and this is what is called presentism. Presentism basically means looking at history through a present-day lens and seeing what we want to see. This arises from wishful thinking, ethnocentrism and gerrymandering (picking and choosing certain ideas or passages for a particular purpose).


• An example of presentism and ethnocentrism in relation to the idea of human rights is the notion that Syrus the Great (539 BC Persian philosopher) was the first real proponent of human rights. However, he was actually a proponent of conventional human rights, ones that can be given and taken away (by a government or institution). This is an example of viewing the past, and historical figures, through a modern day 'universal human rights' lens.


• The meme complex of 'universal human rights' piggybacked on the meme complex of 'democracy' during the Enlightenment.


• What are human rights and how many are there? Anyone can claim anything is their inherent right, for example a bodybuilder saying that using steroids is their innate human right.


• Humans are 1 of millions of species on the planet, so why do we have rights and not the others?


• When did human rights begin? Did neanderthals have human rights? What is a human and what is a person?


• Universal human rights comes from 'creationism' and 'essentialism', the idea that God created everyone equal.


• Basically, universal human rights talk is arbitrary.


• So, what are we to do if we give up the idea of universal human rights? Well, one alternative is "negative utilitarianism". Utilitarianism is the maximization of happiness and pleasure which John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham propounded. These men were social reformers who called the idea of natural human rights "nonsense upon stilts". Peter Singer introduced the idea of "negative utilitarianism" meaning minimizing pain and suffering and not just for humans. He suggests that people can fight for minimizing pain and suffering without claiming universal human rights are being violated (ie. sweatshops, women's oppression, etc.). If you make injustice visible to the world you can fight it, simply based on the ideas of empathy and sympathy.
• All sentient beings are morally equal, meaning humans and animals.
• He is not offering any concrete solutions here, just offering another way of looking at things. The key here is to promote and encourage critical thinking.

Now, admittedly, I came to this lecture already a little upset and prepared to defend 'human rights' to the end. However, as I sat there listening to this man talk I saw the benefit of listening to someone with opinions different from my own. It is true that many lectures at CFI are given by people who think and believe the exact same things as the attendees and it is more of a display of mutual praise and pats on the back. Of all the main tenets of CFI, including secularism and humanism, I think the absolute most important is 'freethought' (a fancier word for critical thinking). This center is the supposed hub of the freethought movement and with this lecture that statement was true. I really enjoyed being challenged and offered a different perspective. That is essentially my main impetus for creating this blog, and for that I thank David Stamos for his lecture.

Here are the things that him and I agree on: universal human rights are a modern invention. They were cemented into modern history with the creation of the United Nations and are continuously adjusted. Universal human rights are a list that a group of people wrote one day and that people have since clung to in order to justify or condemn certain actions or behaviour. People can claim property because it is their 'right', they can claim a woman because it is their 'right', they can sell drugs, beat their kids, walk around naked, etc. because it is their innate human right.

Why are humans so privileged? Who says we are born with any rights at all? When we come out of the womb, is there a letter in our tiny hand informing everyone of our inherent human rights (I will cry as loud and as long as I want, it is my right) ? We are championing and throwing around these words in order to justify anything and everything.

With that said, the human rights movement has been an incredible galvanizer for good (gay rights movement, women's suffrage, etc.). So here is where we come to the points that Mr. Stamos and I disagree on:

Mr. Stamos outlined the many instances in the Bible where obvious human rights were being violated. Passage after passage he read aloud trying to prove a point, however I don't think it was made. Obviously, in that time (2000 years ago) there were many violations of what people today call 'human rights'. And it is those exact instances throughout our history as a people (slavery, imperialism, war, torture) and in the culmination of World War I and World War II that we finally said enough and created a statute that would try and reduce, even stop, the incredible atrocities we have inflicted on each other since the beginning of time. Yes, human rights are a man made invention, but they are a necessary one. It is our way of trying to reduce the pain and suffering in our world. Which is the exact definition of 'negative utilitarism'. This is where I feel Mr. Stamos is simply caught up in semantics. If the main purpose of 'universal human rights' and 'negative utilitarianism' is to reduce pain and suffering, then who cares about the words we use to get to that end? Universal human rights talk may be arbitrary (yes this I agree with), but it is all for the purpose of making this world a better place to live.

The idea and power of 'human rights' is not going anywhere, but the main thing I need to take away from this lecture is to not just accept ideas (memes) at face value. I was a strong proponent of human rights and fought for things simply based on that idea, but I need to look deeper. People are not born with any rights, they are just born. We have created this entire system based on the idea that somehow being born a human we are more righteous than all the other creatures we share this planet with. Maybe we need to start treating each other (animals, plants and all organisms included) simply based on the idea of kindness and love.

It Isn't So Easy

In an earlier post I let everyone know about how to get involved with rallies across Canada protesting our role in the war in Afghanistan. This in no way indicated that I was in support of or opposed to the rallies and their message, I simply went as an observer. Here is what I saw:

To be entirely honest, I went to this rally as a supporter of ending the war in Afghanistan. However, this is very different from being a supporter of the withdrawal of Canadian forces from the country. Let me explain.

A few years ago, after I graduated from University, I was allowed to sit in on a meeting of Professors, Deans and the Minister of Education from Afghanistan (I guess I was representing one of the 'student' voices). The first thing that struck me about the Minister was how eloquent, articulate and calm he was. He addressed many pressing issues with such clarity and seriousness that I was fascinated just listening to him. But, the one part of the entire presentation that really stuck out for me, and that has stayed with me these past few years, is when he said something along these lines:

"Yes, it is true that there is still much violence in Afghanistan, but I wish you knew about the great progress we have made as well. Our education system is improving as is our infrastructure. But, we still need your help. We need the security that Canadians can provide in order for us to achieve our goals. If you leave us, everything will be lost."

And there is the point exactly. Yes, I am against the 'war' in Afghanistan when we are talking about solving a problem with bombs and guns. But, no, I am not in support of 'bringing the troops home' as that would be entirely catastrophic. Not at one point in this rally did someone calmly say that Canadian soldiers are a part of a network, including development and governmental agencies, all with the same goal of trying to rebuild a shattered nation. And yes I know the arguments that it's 'all about oil', arguments about national sovereignty and intervention and creating more terrorists than when the whole thing started. But to be so anti-military doesn't do anyone any good. The military has changed so much in the past few decades and they are, now more than ever, a part of the peacekeeping process. Don't get me wrong, I would throw every weapon in this world into a bottomless pit if I could, but the fact is: we need soldiers to provide security alongside NGOs and government agencies.

This idea is clearly outlined in the incredible memoir about the 1994 Rwandan genocide titled "Shake Hands with the Devil" by Romeo Dallaire. I strongly encourage anyone who is adamantly anti-military (as I was) to read this book. Not only will it provide a different perspective (a conservative, military man's point of view), but it recounts in great detail the atrocities that can occur when the world turns its back on a struggling nation.

When I volunteered in India last year, a fellow volunteer (an older man from New York) said something that stuck with me. He said, "Say there is a special path that you like to take every morning because you love the trees and the rocks and the stream. But then someone decides they want to build a fence through that path, well then it's no longer the path that it once was." He was a little pompous, but basically he was talking about how I tried to 'change' things in India. I organized a group of volunteers to clean up a stream that ran through the community that was full of clothes, garbage, everything. The main impetus for this was that I am a humanist. I don't believe in lines, boundaries, borders, nations. This water comes from the same Earth we all share and as a member of the global family I had a duty to do something.

People will say that that wasn't my place, but here is the question that plagues me, as I am sure it does many Canadian soldiers, every day:

Is it better to do something than to do nothing at all?

Back in Business

Hello friends,

I am SO sorry for the long absence. I was without a computer and/or internet for the past 4 months, so it has been incredibly difficult to maintain my blog. However, I am now in possession of a laptop and access to the interweb and we have many, many things to discuss.

Glad to be back,
Pam

"It Is Better To Light A Candle Than to Curse The Dark" (K'Naan)

skeptic (noun)
1. a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
2. a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.
3. a person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp. Christianity, or of important elements of it.

cynic (noun)
1. a person who believes all people are motivated by selfishness.
2. a person whose outlook is scornfully and often habitually negative.

I look at the world with a pair of critical eyes, but I need to remember not to focus so much on the ugliness that the beauty is forgotten.

Taking a Short Break

Hello friends,

I apologize for not posting in awhile. Things are a little hectic for me right now, so I will be taking a short break from my blog. I hope to be back in full effect by June. For now, please enjoy the many videos and articles I have posted in the past 7 months.

Thanks, take care

Pam

Anti-War Demonstrations Across Canada Tomorrow

Click here to see where protests, rallies and marches against the war in Afghanistan are taking place this Saturday, April 4th 2009.

Let Go Of Your Post-Colonial Guilt

I went to a lecture by Maryam Namazie at the Centre for Inquiry in Toronto this past Monday and felt I should highlight the key points here. Maryam is the spokesperson for One Law For All, a British organization opposed to Sharia law. Sharia is the Islamic law that dictates every aspect of a Muslim's life, offering rules and guidelines for their sexuality, their business, politics, etc. Sharia courts have been set up in the UK, as well as here in Canada, which bypass civil and criminal courts in order to 'deal with' issues within the Muslim community in whatever way they see fit, much to the detriment of Muslim women and children. I will now go through the main points that Maryam made during her talk:

• Freedom of Expression is not a Western value, or a privilege, it is a universal right and it is most important when criticizing religion.
• Freedom of Expression is necessary for the progress of human civilization.
• We hear people in mainstream media criticizing and opposing supposed 'cults', but what is the difference between a 'religion' and a 'cult'?
• Islam is not just a religion that is a part of one's life, it encompasses every aspect of life, it is in the political process and the education system. It is in the public sphere, and that is why we must vehemently criticize it.
• Critics of political Islam are accused of not looking at the full 'reality' of Islam, however the 'reality' of Islam is far more violent than what is even discussed.
• Ideas such as 'feminist Islam' and 'moderate Islam' are oxymorons.
• The real problem here is the dangerous mix of religion and political power. Religion needs to be pushed out of the political sphere. This has happened almost entirely with Christianity, but Islam is still very much a part of the public sphere and that is why it is getting more criticism than the other religions. This is not 'Islamaphobia'. This is a strong opposition to religion and politics being so closely intertwined. Too many lives are at stake to compromise on this.
• Everyone is entitled to believe in whatever they want, but religion is a private matter. It should not be a part of the education system, nor any other part of public life. One should compare freedom of religion to the freedom to smoke. People are allowed to smoke, but there are restrictions on where and how, as well as taxes and warnings that say "Smoking kills". Now, where is the warning that says "Religion kills"?
• Criticizing religion is not the same as condemning an individual. We must see the difference between a person and a person's beliefs. The human being is sacred and human rights are for people, not for religion. Many human rights organizations often get this point wrong.
• Change happens through progressive social movements, we need to mobilise.

At this point, the floor was opened up for questions and a woman went up to the microphone and said "Change within the Muslim community, and particularly Iran and other places where political Islam is a very real thing, has to come from within the community itself. What are we supposed to do here in Canada? We went through many changes to get to where we are today and we can't tell other people how to live and how to change. They need to change their own mindset and push for change on their own."

To which Maryam said "This idea that Iranians and other people who have these rules and restrictions imposed on them every day actually want this is almost offensive. Iran went through a middle-class workers' revolution years ago and great social progress was made, this political Islamic regime has been forced on them and there is great resentment and opposition to it within Iran, as well as other Islamic states. Westerners need to get over their post-colonial guilt and help push for universal rights for everybody, no matter their nationality or geographic location."

Now, this last statement really hit me hard. For years I have been struggling with two opposite worldviews that pull me in different directions. One is that I should help push for social change and progress in the world regardless of where the problems are. This is the humanist perspective where I see all human beings as having value and I want to fight for universal human rights without any regard for lines drawn on a map. Now, the other side is always reminding me that I don't, nor will I ever, fully understand a culture or a people different from my own. That people who live in a certain country have a history, traditions and values that I would need to be a part of in order to push for social change. And what am I even pushing to change? Should things change? Would I just make things worse?

With this one sentence "You must let go of your post-colonial guilt", I was set free. I realized that I have been scared and hesitant to say something or ask something because I know how badly 'westerners' have fucked things up in the world, and particularly Africa. But, what I am fighting for, I realize, are universal rights. People have the same rights, and the same value, no matter what part of the world they are born. I do recognize that particular countries will have political, economic and social situations that I must try to understand as best I can, but sitting back and saying "I'm not going to interfere, that's not my place, who am I to tell someone else how to live their life?" is not an option for me anymore. I am pushing for positive social change, I am fighting for human rights, I am championing the human being.

All The Things I Want To Say

My good friend Neil posted this video on his Facebook page and I felt I needed to re-post it here. It shows Severn Suzuki, David Suzuki's daughter, addressing the United Nations back in 1992 and saying the things that I have always wanted to say to world leaders. It has been 17 years since these words were spoken and we still face the same challenges that she outlines. I have asked this in a previous post and will ask it again now, how far have we come? Are we still in the same place?

If you could address the 'decision-makers' of the world, what would you say?

Making Choices

To be entirely honest, I do not have the highest hopes for our civilization. We have caused so much damage and harm to the Earth, as well as to each other, that I feel our days of careless wastefulness and seemingly endless consumerism are numbered. How long can we sit comfortably in our air-conditioned houses, watching our TVs and driving our cars before the Earth finally says Enough. We have raped and pillaged this precious land that gave us life and I fear that this 'eco-revolution' might be too little too late.

However, with that said, we are making great strides in undoing the wrongs that we have committed against each other and our environment (of which we are a part, not which is apart from us). And with increasingly organized and mobile movements across the globe to promote peace, corporate accountability, democracy and the like I feel a new age is upon us. There has been a strong shift in perception among many people who no longer feel war is legitimate, who feel that power should be in the hands of the people rather than with a handful of people and who are tired of being subservient to governments and corporations who refuse to listen to them.

A new time is upon us. Let your voice be heard. We are all members of this global community, none 'higher' than others. All of our thoughts, ideas and opinions have equal value and it is time to let them be known. 

Ray Anderson is the CEO of Interface, the world's largest commercial carpet manufacturer. He has been incredibly profitable and successful according to the capitalist framework. Simultaneously, he has been a huge part of the damage and harm done to our world through the manufacturing of his products. In 1994, he had an awakening after reading the book "The Ecology of Commerce" by Paul Hawken as his eyes were opened to the environmental and social impacts that his corporation was inflicting. Imagine being a 60 year old, multi-millionaire in the U.S. and being confronted with this decision: continue on the path you are on to make unimaginable profits while also continuing to cause immense harm to the world's resources and people or make a huge shift in your life and perspective in order to diminish and reduce your ecological footprint while possibly reducing your profits and perhaps angering your fellow peers and shareholders. 

Ray Anderson chose the second option. 

Everyone has the power to make choices. 

What choices will you make today?

Here is a video of an interview with Ray Anderson from the film The Corporation.

Avaaz - let your voice be heard

I am a member of Avaaz which is a group of online social activists who campaign and petition for global peace. Please read the letter I received from Avaaz a few days ago and learn more about what they are about. This is a great way for people of like minds to organize themselves and to really have our voice heard.


Dear friends,

A shocking new far-right politics is taking hold in Israel and it threatens all we've worked for --let's help progressives in Israel organise and build a fresh new voice for peace: Watch the Shocking Video, Take Action Now

It's a dark day in the Middle East: the right-wing has won the most seats in Israel's elections, and racist extremist Avigdor Lieberman is now the kingmaker in forming the next government.[1] Lieberman and his fellow leaders are promising tobomb Iran, re-invade Gaza and abandon any ceasefire, stop negotiations and crack down on Israel's large Arab minority. This could kill all we've worked for in the Middle East. But many progressives in Israel (both Jews and Arabs) share our feelings -- and they desperately need our solidarity today.

Wherever extremists have triumphed, we have to organise to beat them. Many thought all hope was lost in the USA after the neo-conservatives' victory -- then progressives used the internet to come back from the wilderness, and achieved the unthinkable by putting Barack Obama in the White House.[2] In Israel today, the despair of the old peace camp opens up a powerful moment to build a fresh new voice against hatred and for peace.

Just $10,000 could help two young Israeli activists use the Avaaz model of internet organizing to reach and mobilise tens of thousands of other Israelis this year -- $5000 would buy billboards in Jerusalem to launch their first campaign with a splash. Follow this link to watch our shocking short video of Lieberman's extremist agenda -- and let's donate now to help a new generation in Israel urgently speak out for peace and change:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/change_in_israel

We have a strong network in Israel to work with already, with almost 10,000 Avaaz members and contacts with promising young organisers who are hungry for change. They just need our support to organise across divides, uniting Israel's scattered constituencies for peace and justice. Many Israelis supported our global campaign for a Gaza ceasefire and joined their voices with ours on climate change, Burma, Tibet and Zimbabwe -- now it's time for us to stand with them.

Even if they are in a minority at first, a strong progressive voice in Israel should make our efforts for the right kind of US and international diplomacy much more effective. We know the forces we're up against. But beneath the surface we often find Israeli majorities for peace, social justice and pragmatism. Before these elections, when Israel's government broke off talks and launched the Gaza offensive, a majority polled wanted to renew the ceasefire with Hamas instead, and we've seen broad support for a wider peace at many times.[3]

Lieberman's rise itself demonstrates how effective, targeted organising can shape Israel's path for ill -- now a new generation of Israelis need solidarity from us to mobilise against this extremism, and to advance the values and causes we share. Everyone who donates to help fund this Israeli organising effort will be kept informed with reports on its progress. Watch the short video of Lieberman's savage campaign now at the link below, and help support a new generation in Israel to organise for change:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/change_in_israel

With hope and determination,

Paul, Graziela, Ricken, Ben, Alice, Paula, Iain, Pascal, Milena, Brett and the whole Avaaz team

Sources:

1. "Key to who will govern Israel: Avigdor Lieberman", Christian Science Monitor (12 February 2009):
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0212/p01s04-wome.html

Ha'aretz: "Unite to block Lieberman's march on Jerusalem" (1 February 2009)
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1060124.html

2. See this report from MoveOn.org on the impact of the online organising efforts they pioneered: http://s3.moveon.org/pdfs/moveon_postelectionreport_ah14.pdf

3. See this Hebrew University poll published in December 2008:
http://www.bicom.org.uk/background/opinion-polls/truman-psr-poll--16-december-2008

--------------------------------------------------------------




ABOUT AVAAZ Avaaz.org is an independent, not-for-profit global campaigning organization that works to ensure that the views and values of the world's people inform global decision-making. (Avaaz means "voice" in many languages.) Avaaz receives no money from governments or corporations, and is staffed by a global team based in Ottawa, London, Rio de Janeiro, New York, Buenos Aires, and Geneva. Call us at: +1 888 922 8229 or +55 21 2509 0368 Click here to learn more about our largest campaigns. Don't forget to check out our Facebook and Myspace and Bebo pages!


To contact Avaaz, please do not reply to this email. Instead, write to info@avaaz.org. You can also call us at +1-888-922-8229 (US) or +55 21 2509 0368 (Brazil) If you have technical problems, please go to http://www.avaaz.org

Quote of the Day!

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."

 

-George Bernard Shaw

"I Believe In Kindness" June Callwood's Last Interview

Enjoy This Blog?

Then become a Follower! Just click on the Follow This Blog link on the right hand column.

Thanks for your support!

"I Think Of Love As Something Strong And That Organizes Itself Into Powerful Direct Action"

Martin Luther King Jr. responding to Malcolm X's criticism of his non-violent approach to change.

Love is the most powerful force.

"A Time Comes When Silence Is Betrayal"

"Flags Are Bits Of Coloured Cloth"

Click here to watch a beautiful speech given by the writer Arundhati Roy called "Come September". I strongly encourage you to listen to her speak, it's wonderful.

Click here for the transcript of the speech.

Holy Shit

George Carlin (1937-2008), an American comedian, gives his take on Religion.

"We Should Have Always Love For Every One"

Last Spring, I met an Indian man named Praveen on the train going from Agra to Delhi. Everyone talks to everyone in India, especially when you're a foreigner. So Praveen and I talked for the whole trip while my friend Jodi slept. Many topics were brought up on the 2 hour journey, one of them being God. Praveen told me he didn't believe in a god, he believed in Love. I gave him my email when the train pulled up to the station in Delhi, hoping the conversation would continue. Since then we have kept in touch and it has turned into a great correspondence covering a wide variety of issues. His emails are very insightful and so I would like to share some of his words with you.

Pam,
Once again marry cristmas.you are correct,I don`t beleive on god till
today.but i pray to great soul,and jesus is great soul.and he always helps us.I
was associated with various churchs for a long time.so many cristcian are in
india and my city also.even opposite of my home.not only my city but whole
country celebrating cristmas from last five days.
IN MY VEIW GOD IS-
"LOVE,KIND,HELP,EMOTION,FRIEND MOTHER,FATHER AND ALL NATURE WHICH WE CAN
SEE AND FEEL.who are not having these thing that is null.so my dear pam we
should have always love for every one.

HAVE A GREAT DAY AND GREAT YEAR

PRAVEEN