It wasn't until I started reading the history of religion that I understood that the definition of Christianity has shifted in many different directions over time, and the mainstream view today certainly doesn't have any exclusive ownership of what being a Christian means. Realizing that freed me to use the terminology without needing to be tied down to it.

We think we have no power when in fact we have more than enough power.

With a nonviolent movement we are still inviting a strong reaction from the government or ruling authorities. We are inviting a powerful reaction against ourselves. But it undermines the moral legitimacy of our current government. That is the path we need to pursue. Rather than reinforcing their legitimacy we need to undermine their legitimacy.

My spiritual path has largely been Christianity - a label that I embraced and then rejected and have partially embraced again, as my understanding of Christianity has changed over time. When I accepted the mainstream, dogmatic definition of Christianity there came a point when I had to say, "Well, if that's what a Christian is, I'm not one."

My values are primarily motivated by love for other people. I value the non-human world in large part because it's so vital to human beings. Even my appreciation for wilderness grows out of an understanding of how important wilderness can be for people.

The reality is not that I lack respect for the law; it's that I have greater respect for justice.

Our security doesn't come from turning away from the hard stuff; it comes from the knowledge that we can handle it.