• Hundreds of Tamils protest outside of White House

• Three UK medics denied entry to Gaza begin hunger strike

• 40 high school students suspended for launching a campus walk-out and protest over the firing of two teachers in Walla Walla, Washington

• London taxi drivers protest £3 parking fee to use bathrooms

• Hundreds of laid-off Cisco janitors plan protest outside supply chain conference where Cisco executives are scheduled to speak

• Days of protest and threat of boycott persuade Edinburgh Film Festival to return a $450 grant from the Israeli Embassy

• A reverend in Chicago is fasting to raise concern about the violence in Chicago

• Thousands of university students in Venezuela marched to protest government budget cuts in education

• Canola farmers in Australia protest the growing of genetically modified canola with a two day fasting vigil

The New York Times ran a piece last Friday on Al Gore with the following lead: “Former Vice President Al Gore has ‘not ruled out’ engaging in civil disobedience against new coal plants.”

That got me briefly excited, as I’ve long been annoyed by Gore’s failure to act in solidarity with the many people across the country and around the world who have been arrested attempting to shut down coal plants, many of whom were likely inspired by his words.

In 2007 Gore told the Times‘ Nicholas Kristoff that he couldn’t understand why there haven’t been “rings of young people blocking bulldozers, preventing them from constructing coal-fired power plants.” Then, in September of last year, he made headlines for saying, “If you’re a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience…”

While I applaud his sentiment and am impressed that someone of his political stature recognizes the power of people working together nonviolently for change, it’s hard to figure why he places the impetus on young people. Those who have taken part in coal-plant protests, including NASA scientist James Hansen (age 65) and writer/farmer Wendell Berry (age 74), seem to realize that the impetus is on everyone who understands the danger of burning more fossil fuels, not just those who may live long enough to become climate refugees.

The Christian Science Monitor ran a piece last year that asked the question, “Does Al Gore think he’s too old for civil disobedience?” The writer went on to make a very keen observation:

At age 71, Ghandi was arrested and served two years in prison. The US labor organizer Mother Jones was still facing charges of sedition in her 80s. Even TV president Martin Sheen, who is eight years older than Gore, managed to get himself arrested at an antinuclear action in Nevada last year, for what he says is the 65th time. Civil disobedience has never been the exclusive province of the young. And, anyway, as these and many other nonviolent resisters have demonstrated, you’re only as old as you feel.

Unfortunately, and back to why the Times piece only got me briefly excited, Gore went on to say last week that he didn’t think civil disobedience would be the best use of his time. I doubt he meant it as a slap in the face to all those who have been moved enough by the evidence highlighted in his film to take a risk for what’s right, but it’s hard to see it any other way.

Donald Rumsfeld took the Lord’s name in vain. Today at Religion Dispatches, I discuss the documents released by GQ this weekend, cover sheets for 2003 intelligence briefings that Rumsfeld delivered to President Bush. On them, Biblical passages sit suggestively alongside scenes of desert warfare.

With only the most cursory bit of investigation, I was able to show that in their original context, many of the passages mean exactly the opposite of what the documents used them to mean—they in fact undermine the wisdom of military might, rather than secure it. I then go on to explore the eerie resemblance between these cover sheets and the propaganda used by Islamist militants.

These pieces of official iconography—at once digital folk art and presidential artifacts—lay bare that as early as 2003 the self-image of American warmakers at the highest levels had become hardly distinguishable from the enemy’s most populist propaganda. Terrorist creations collected by West Point’s Islamic Imagery Project differ only in that they were broadcasted rather than classified.

Most of the coverage of these documents in the media has dealt with their political significance—they are a sign of Rumsfeld’s manipulation and irresponsibility. But I try to take them for their religious meaning. Believers who take these scriptures seriously should be outraged at their flagrant misuse at the highest level of American power.

It was announced yesterday that Dreamworks – the company behind Shrek and the recent comedy blockbuster I Love You, Man – acquired the life rights from the King Estate to make a new biopic on the life of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

“We are all honored that the King Estate is giving us the opportunity to tell the story of these defining, historic events,” said Steven Spielberg, who is set to co-produce the movie. “It is our hope that the creative power of film and the impact of Dr. King’s life can combine to present a story of undeniable power that we can all be proud of.”

But what part of Dr. King’s legacy is Spielberg proud of?

Will the movie give a taste of Dr. King’s famous speech at Riverside Church in New York City where he called the U.S. government “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today?” Seems unlikely.

While Hollywood somehow managed to produce a great film on Gandhi in 1982, it’s hard to imagine that they will get this one right.

The radical side of King – the one that fought not only for civil rights, but also against the Vietnam War and for economic justice – has been consistently downplayed or ignored by the mainstream media since his death, because that King continues to threaten the status quo today.

Since this new film will likely reach an enormous audience and considerably shape how the average American sees Dr. King, the peace community should seek a dialogue with Dreamworks and the producers about the script as this project moves forward.