Marianne Williamson Should Go For Broke As The Peace Candidate

Readings for the Second Sunday of Lent: Genesis 12: 1-4A; Psalms 33: 4-5, 18-22; 2nd Timothy 1: 8b-10; Matthew 17: 1-9

On this Second Sunday of Lent and in the context of the Ukraine conflict, I want to return to the topic I addressed in last week's homily - Marianne Williamson's alignment with western warmongers in her position paper called "The Tragic Conundrum of Ukraine."

Since then, Ms. Williamson has become the first Democrat to declare her candidacy to unseat Joe Biden as President of the United States. Yes, it's official; she's running again for president.

However in her declaration of candidacy, she makes no mention of our era's defining issue, the war in Ukraine.

My point in what follows is this: Such omission represents a huge error. Instead, for Williamson to have even the least chance of achieving her goal, she must transfigure herself in no uncertain terms into THE PEACE CANDIDATE who stands in opposition to the U.S. proxy war.

Doing so would not only separate Williamson from Biden and the others who will eventually enter the 2024 race. More importantly, it would align her more securely with the principles of her own spiritual guidebook, A Course in Miracles (ACIM).

As well, it would embody the example of Yeshua (the voice ACIM claims to channel) as reflected in today's Gospel reading. There following what we've come to see as his own "transfiguration," Yeshua too decides to go for broke in his opposition to imperialism.

To show what I mean, let me (1) address Williamson's candidacy as it relates to the war in Ukraine on the one hand and to ACIM on the other, (2) recall Yeshua's adoption of a "go for broke" strategy in opposing Roman imperialism, and (3) recommend a similar strategy for Williamson if she truly wants to be a player in 2024.

Williamson & ACIM

First, recall who Marianne Williamson is and how easily she will be dismissed if she continues endorsing business as usual by adopting "the official story" and conventional wisdom about Ukraine as expressed in her "Conundrum" statement: She's the one:

• Dismissed by many as a "vanity candidate" intent only on selling books.
• Characterized as "new agey, soft, and unrealistic."
• Portrayed by SNL's Kate McKinnon as "woo-woo,"
• And as one who would address political problems by burning sage and manipulating crystals.
• Ridiculed for alleging that "a dark psychic force" has made us all victims of collectivized hatred advanced by Donald Trump.

This time around, the same accusations will inevitably surface again unless Williamson does something authentic to distinguish her from Biden and the neocons and their bellicosity on Ukraine.

Instead, however, her statement on the war aligns itself with the largely white "West" (13% of the world's population) as if it rather than the world's mostly non-white majority "knows better." She says, for instance,

"I believe there is legitimate justification for military support for Ukraine from Western allies, including the United States." And ". . . Vladimir Putin's actions today are a threat to which the Western world must now respond." (Emphasis added).

One wonders why this emphasis on the largely white west. Again, does it somehow know better than mostly non-white cultures (e.g., in China and India) that have developed insights, wisdom, and spiritualities based on experiences thousands of years older than our own?

Does this western centrism represent an unconscious hangover from the colonial past that has enriched "the west" and impoverished the rest?

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).