On Soros's Payroll?

I spend a lot of time participating on Christian blogs. All of those blogs are religiously conservative Christian blogs and all but one of them are politically conservative blogs too. 

I participated on those blogs despite my now past health problems because it is less taxing to respond to an article than it is to write one from scratch.

One of the best religiously conservative blogs I've seen is Roger Olson's My Evangelical Arminian Theological Musings (click here for the blog). Though we do have some differences of opinion on a couple of important topics, such as I'm a Calvinist and he isn't, his articles are well thought out and I have learned much from them and appreciate how he manages his blog. In addition, Olson is very much an independent thinker both theologically and politically.  Olson's blog is a safe blog to comment on because it is tightly moderated. He does not allow personal attacks to appear in the comments. If only all religiously conservative Christian blogs would follow that example.

On one of the politically conservative blogs on which I comment on, I have received a few comments FALSELY claiming that I am being paid by George Soros. Those comments are derisive and so I am not sure how literal they are being in their accusations. But such comments are directed at me because I have expressed many political views that are not conservative on that blog. I have found that to share non-conservative political views on most religiously conservative Christian blogs invites personal attacks and accusations. Some of the attacks can be described in no other way than abusive. 

Soros seems to be a favorite whipping boy and scapegoat for most of my politically conservative Christian friends. A lot of that is due to Soros's political leanings and philanthropic efforts. Soros believes in democracy with an open society while almost all of my religiously conservative Christian friends are politically conservative. And we should stop here and note the contrast: democracy with an open society vs political conservatism. Btw, his pairing of democracy with an open society is similar to my pairing of democracy with equality except that my pairing sees equality as being inextricably linked to democracy. That is you can't have democracy without equality.

I found that many of the claims about Soros made by my fellow religiously conservative Christian friends are nothing more than false accusations that often stem from conspiracy theories. And so when I saw the documentary Soros on the list of Tube movies, I decided to watch it (click here to see the movie).

The way that Soros has made his fortune did not impress me. Why? It is because he made his fortune as a hedge fund manager. Such an occupation and the values that come with it often, if not always, practice and promote what Martin Luther King Jr. associated with a choosing a thing-oriented society rather than a person-oriented society. A thing-oriented society is where the people value gadgets, profit motives and property rights more than they value people.

However, the combination of Soros's life growing up in Hungary, which included the time of Nazi occupation, and his current approach to philanthropy has given me a great respect for the man. So that the next time I am accused of being on Soros's payroll, I'll take it as a very high compliment, but one that I don't deserve. For his philanthropy consists of more than just charity to relieve an immediate survival needs, it also includes projects that promote education and democracy with an open society. And those projects are designed to produce lasting results.

But here, we need to return to King's statement that was quoted in my last post. In his speech against the Vietnam War, along with his 1967 interview with Xander Vanocur, King said that we need to change from being a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society so that people are more important than our gadgets, profit motives, and property rights. For, according to King, it is only then that we can eliminate racism, economic exploitation, and militarism (click here and proceed to around the 21:17 point in that interview). And though Soros has so generously donated money to financially help groups and communities out of poverty and to promote an open society, we need to change from being a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society for Soros's donations to have lasting effects. 

Though Soros's donations has done much to restore freedom and equality to parts of the world that had been oppressed with tyranny, and though His donations have also helped to improve those nations that claim to lean toward democracy with equality, there is a new threat to Soros's projects, among other things, that has emerged in Europe and the U.S. For just as Putin has undone almost all of Gorbachev's work to establish openness in Russia, so today's Nationalist movements in Europe and America are threatening not just to undo much of what Soros's donations have helped to enable, they are threatening to reverse any nation's leaning toward building a democracy with equality.

Here we should note that those nationalist movements are nothing more than authoritarian ethnocratic movements. Here we should note that the term 'authoritarian ethnocratic' is repetitive. That is because all ethnocracies are authoritarian to varying degrees. For with an ethnocracy, a particular ethnic group, whether the ethnicity of that group is based on race, national origin or language, descent, or religion, has a greater claim to and control over the nation and its society of a multiethnic nation than the people from the other ethnic groups--btw, the list of the ethnic categories comes from from Jeff Halper's book, An Israeli In Palestine: Resisting Dispossession, Redeeming Israel. And that greater claim to and level of control over a multiethnic nation denies, to varying degrees, the equal rights and status of people from the other ethnic groups.

And so it should come as no surprise that authoritarianism in the guise of ethnocratic conservative movements in Europe and here in the U.S. are threatening to undo whatever portion of openness we have as well. That a significant contributing factor to those movements has to do with the distribution of wealth especially in the face of growing refugee problems. 

But those authoritarian ethnocratic movements have cultural concerns to when it comes to refugees. People in those movements are scared that the culture of their society will change with an influx of foreign refugees. Here we should note that there is only one way for a nation to protect its culture from changing: DON'T HAVE CHILDREN. Maybe it is because I am a child of the 1960s when the young people radically changed the culture, but it seems that each new generation here in America has made significant changes to our own culture. And regarding accepting immigrants who are refugees trying to escape poverty and violence, we must ask ourselves if we care more about whatever comfort we have with our culture than we care about human life?

In addition, we Westerners need to admit that much, if not most, of our refugee immigrants problems are due to Western economic and/or militaristic foreign policies. Those authoritarian ethnocratic movements either support or do not oppose those policies that made messes in other parts of the world. They only care about not having to deal with the aftermath of those messes when that aftermath emigrates to where those movements live. And there is often racism in the refusal to deal with those messes. Here note the different response that Ukrainian refugees receive from their European neighbors in contrast to how Middle East refugees are received in Europe and how refugees from south of the border are received here in America.

Soros is understandably troubled and concerned over the rise of these authoritarian ethonocratic movements for at least a couple of reasons. First, he escaped the clutches of such a movement in Hungary during WW II because of his father's daring and wisdom. But he still saw its horrific effects on friends, family, and others. Also, as mentioned before, those authoritarian ethnocratic movements are threatening to undo some of the projects that promote domocracy with open societies which he started and so heavily invested in. 

It is so deeply tragic to acknowledge that most of those in America's religiously conservative Christian community embrace authoritarian ethnocratic movements. Their embracement of those movements  promote varying levels of authoritarianism. And the lower the degree of authoritarianism promoted by a given movement, the more that ethnocratic movement can disguise its character and goals in plain site.

For those of us who want Soros's projects to experience more and  lasting success, we must look to change society. As King said, we need to change from being a thing-oriented society to being a person-oriented society. To do that we must learn to value people over our gadgets and machines, our profit motives, and our proper rights. That does not mean that we can't appreciate our gadgets and machines or that we believe that profit motives and property rights are not important. It means that we must continue to learn to value people, especially those who are vulnerable, more than we value those things. 

Even though America is leaning a little more toward democracy with equality thanks to a not infallible wokeism, there is still more work to be done. There is still a revolution in values that our nation needs to undergo and our structures still need changing. And that revolution and needed change will not occur without everyone's participation.

A Christian Fundamentalist's Reaction To The Book, 'Read And Riot'

The following article is a reaction to Nadya Tolokonnova's (click here for a short biography) book, Read And Riot: A Pussy Riot Guide To Activism, of which the paperback version can be ordered (click here for the book). I will be reacting to the book as a Christian Fundamentalist and I hasten to add that other such Fundamentalists would have reacted differently to the book. In addition, I call this a reaction rather than a review because I will not be going through the book as I would if I was reviewing the it.

But first, we must talk about the state of many of my religiously conservative American Christians. Many of them are in what I call an apologetic panic. Christian Apologetics is about defending the Christian faith. But currently, we are in a panic about what to say in defense of the faith. This panic is evidenced by our tendency to try too hard to say too much either for Christianity or against those whom we regard as rivals to the faith. This apologetic panic is triggered by at least 1 of 2 causes: the past social failures of the Church in history and the success of unbelievers in addressing some of today's relevant issues. 

We can see how this apologetic panic can be caused when we see the failures that the Church has experienced in the past. For example, for the past few centuries, the dominant branch of the Church in several Western nations has sided with wealth and power. We saw that preceding the French and Russian Revolutions as well as before the Spanish Revolution. An unintended consequence of siding with wealth and  power made the Church a favorite target of revolutionaries once they got power. And by branches of the Church, I am referring to the Orthodox Church, the Roman Church and Protestants. And if that wasn't bad enough, the current American Evangelical trend is that of supporting the major political party that grants the most privileges to wealthy corporations in terms of tax breaks and the cutting of social responsibility ties. Of course we are talking about the Republican Party. In addition, the American conservative Church has a rich tradition of supporting racism, sexism, and classism in American history.

The other cause for our apologetic panic are the somewhat successful attempts at identifying and/or producing solutions for social injustices by individuals and groups who are outside of the Church. Many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians are being told by their leaders and influencers that Christians can ignore what these secular sources say because they have not added to what Christians have said or are saying. In addition, these leaders also often believe that even listening to or reading what they groups say can be dangerous our faith. So in essence, many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians are being taught by their leaders and influencers to only listen to or read Christian sources on social justice issues. 

What we are seeing in this second cause is what we see in how many religiously conservative Christian leaders and influencers interact with the social sciences. These leaders and influencers act as if they are in a turf war with the social sciences in explaining the world. Likewise, they act very similarly when interacting with secular individuals and groups whose cause revolves around social justice issues. 

In the past, not seemingly all Christian leaders have reacted to secular social justice movements as if they were in a turf war. For example, when Martin Luther King Jr studied and reflected on Marxism/Communism, he ended with a different approach to it than today's religiously conservative Christians have taken to social justice workers. Now before reporting that, it should be noted that King wrongly conflated Marxism with Soviet Union Communism. 

King called Marxism/Communism evil and yet he also agreed with the late Archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple, who called it a 'Christian Heresy.' They called Marxism/Communism a Christian  heresy because its concern for social justice and its criticisms of 19th century Capitalism should be essential parts of the Christian life. At the same time, they called it heretical because attached to its concerns for social justice and its criticisms of 19th century capitalism were beliefs that no Christian should ever hold. King wrote about his review of Marxism/Communism and how it compares with Capitalism in his book: Stride Toward Freedom (click here and go to pg 92 to find Kings discussion on Marxism. The webpage begins with pg 90 of the book). 

After commenting on both Capitalism and Marxism/Communism, King concluded that we need to take a hybrid approach to our system by combining the best of Marxism with the best of Capitalism. He took that approach because he saw that while Communism forgot that life was individual, Capitalism forgets that life is social. And just perhaps, religiously conservative Christians like myself should take a similar approach to today's social justice movements and forms of wokism. That we need to at least develop hybrid approaches that include what social justice workers and leaders are saying with what we know from the Scriptures.

Such an approach is different from the current turf war approach taken now by the vast majority of religiously conservative American Christian leaders and influencers. It is different because instead of telling us that we can dismiss everything that unbelievers have to say about social justice, King's approach tells us that we should intently listen to and work with social justice concepts that were being promoted by unbelievers, especially by those who are real political leftists. To not do so while believing in evangelizing would be say to the world that they need to listen to us while we have no need to listen to them. Such an attitude can, for what can be inexplicable reasons for many religiously conservative Christians, turn off some people.

And so we come to Nadya Tolokonnikova and here book: Read And Riot: A Pussy Riot Guide To Activism. This book is specifically about being an activist. But in doing so, this book contains a lot of other useful information. 

Because of some of the things that Tolokonnikova practices, stands for, and says, there are some of her ideas that no Christian should ever believe and act on. But when one reads her book and learns about the concerns she has and what she is doing to help people in need, we see a kind of approach to life that all Christians should have. And so just as King and Temple called Marxism a 'Christian heresy,' we could call Tolokonnikova and the Pussy Riot Art Collective 'Christian heretics.' Doing so would not state or imply that she is a Christian however. Seeing how she selectively uses the Scriptures and misses the foundational parts of the Gospel, we can safely conclude that she is not.

Having read her book, followed her Twitter page, and listened to her speak in videos, it is downright easy to underestimate the  kind of person she is when one sees her references to sex work, her use of the word 'pussy' in talking about it beating fascists, and some of her performances with the art collective known as Pussy Riot. But to underestimate her would be to rob oneself of opportunities to learn from her. For Tolokonnikova is an an exceptionally strong person and a woman of great substance.

We can see in her the kind of strength that one would  see in any man who has suffered through and triumphed over the physical and mental grind and torture that she has experienced. She is the founding member of an art collective that practices activism, she has started a prisoner rights group and a media company (click here for Media Zone), she has helped provide contributions to various charities, she has studied philosophy, she is well read, and she has a good analytical grasp of what is going on in parts of the world in addition to her understanding of her home nation. And despite her time in prison, which she used to further her understanding of people, she is speaking out against authoritarianism, oligarchy, and consumerism though some of that could result in her reliving her prison experience or worse.

She has been interviewed numerous times by cable news channels, given a TED talk, spoken to the US Congress as well as the British and European Parliaments, has been a recipient of a LennonOno Grant for peace, and is a co-recipient of the Hannah Arendt Prize for Political Thought.

She understands what real artists are suppose to do. For real artists are not there to use their abilities to entertain in order to anesthetize their audiences from real life. Rather, real artists are the first line of society's secular prophets who tell us where society and the state have gone wrong. And so she uses her art to more vividly expose her audiences to the real world in order to get them to react. She makes a good point in saying that perhaps the anxiety that many people suffer from are signs that the world, not those feeling the pain, needs to change. Her artistic efforts are sometimes silly, gross, or absurd. But she uses the bizarre to illustrate what is ludicrous in the world. She uses what is ridiculous but tolerable stunts to illustrate absurdities that should never be tolerated.

Though much of the world is either impressed or intimidated by Putin, she logically demonstrates what a weak man he is. That he lacks all of the good characteristics that most of us associate with being human. And because of their similarities, she is also able to provide a good analysis of Trump too.

In short, she has suffered much and despite that she has accomplished much more than many people who have not suffered at all have.

But of course her book has some shortcomings. She explicitly states that she is distrustful of experts. This is especially true as it pertains to medicine and the pharmaceutical industry. At the same time, she seems to accept what climate science experts have to say and makes a great point that we must reduce our consumption to address climate change. And what is implied by that is that if we were to downsize our consumption, which strikes at the heart of capitalism, we must share more of our wealth and resources to work against poverty at the same time.

But this distrust of experts would go against one of the people whom she reads and learns a lot from: Erich Fromm. In speaking against authoritarianism, Fromm made it a point to distinguish blind loyalty to authoritarian leaders from distrust of experts. It isn't that experts are always right. But they often are and a blind distrust of them can be harmful.

For example, the blind distrust of medical science during the pandemic helped contribute to America having one of the highest death rates from Covid during the pandemic. Believers in conspiracy theories from the Left, Liberals, and the Right chalked up the precautions and/or vaccines as government attempts to gain more control of us. This was especially prominent among Trump-loving Republicans but that dismissal of warning or suggestions from medical experts could be seen in people from all ideological persuasions.

That blind distrust in experts also enabled many people to participate in the January 6th Insurrection. For there, opinions from both experts in law, including judges appointed by Trump, and other government officials were blindly dismissed by those who were convinced, without evidence, that the election of Biden was because of fraud.

The point being made here is that there are times in Tolokonnikova's book where she tends to exercise some types of all-or-nothing thinking. Such think disables from making important distinctions such as which experts we can trust or what parts of the feminism she promotes should be followed and which parts should not. Sometimes, a kind of all-or-nothing thinking is part of a response to suffering trauma and the person employs that thinking so as to avoid making mistakes that could lead to suffering more traumas.

And, of course, we Christians could never accept her sexual mores or suggested alternative to families which came from an early Communist who was a feminist. It at this point that her use of the Scriptures and references to Christianity show a great selectivity. For while she will argue for equality between the sexes using a passage in Galatians where Paul states that there is  no male or female, she neglects passages that talk about sexual purity and about the roles Paul designates for husbands and wives. But here, we Christians also have a distinction to make. We have to be able  to tell the difference between Scriptural rules that just apply to Christians from those Scriptural rules that should also be applied to all in society.

Are there other things in her book that Christians cannot accept? Certainly. Are there ideas that she promotes that would not be good for society? Yes. But over all, Tolokonnikova has not only offered an inside view of the Pussy Riot Art Collective, she has provided an insightful view of as well as challenges to us in the world that would make the world a much better place should we follow some of them. I found it very worthwhile to read the book. And I believe that many religiously conservative Christians would benefit from reading it.

On The 10th Anniversary We Need The Punk Band Pussy Riot More Than Ever

 This year is the 10th anniversary not of Pussy Riot but of their most famous performance art venture: their 2012 performance at Moscow's Cathedral of Christ the Savior. That Cathedral seems to be the headquarters for the Russian Orthodox Church and is where the Patriarch Kirill resides.

Their performance art event there was a protest against a few things such as patriarchy, the ever growing ties between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian government, and the authoritarianism exercised by the government. Their performance was interrupted and they were escorted out of the cathedral. Later on, 3 members of  Pussy Riot were arrested, charged with, convicted of, and were sentenced to prison for hooliganism and religious hatred. Two of those members, Maria Alyokhina (Masha for short) and Nadya Tolokonnikova served a 21 month prison sentence at a penal colony while a third member, Yekaterina Samutsevich, who received the same sentence had her charges reduced and after some time in prison and received a suspended sentence. 

Now obviously as an American Christian Fundamentalist, I have some disagreements with Pussy Riot. For one thing, I not could be in a band with that name. Also, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in me says that I can support a female preacher. I can't support the legalization of elective abortions. And I couldn't participate in one of Pussy Riot's earliest performance art ventures of having sex in public. For one thing, I would be afraid of the laughter. In addition, I couldn't support replacing a patriarchy with a matriarchy. We all need to share power. To refuse to do so will, along with refusing to share wealth, will be our undoing as a species.

But I admire the courage, strength, and insights that members of Pussy Riot have displayed since their beginning almost 11 years ago. After having served prison sentences, Masha and Nadya are willing to risk prison again to battle injustices and authoritarianism. The members mentioned above are stronger and more courageous than I am. I don't know if I could risk going to prison again after having served a prison sentence. In addition, they know more about democracy than any religiously conservative Christian leader with whom I am familiar with.

The two YouTube videos below showing interviews with Masha and Nadya and they let us see their insights into people and democracy. They both see similarities between Trump and Putin as people. As Masha states, Putin is a product of a very authoritarian regime. Both see Putin and Trump as being authoritarian and narcissistic. Both said that Putin prefers people who don't have beliefs, such as in democracy and rights,  and morals.

                                                                Interview with Masha

Both Masha and Nadya see both leaders as threats to democracy. For example, Masha believed that a year after the 2016 election, people would not have the right to protest in public. What Masha didn't realize is that the Courts, especially the Supreme Court, were not dominated by conservatives like they are now. Many of Trump's executive orders were blocked by the courts because of the Constitutionality of his orders.

                                                                     Interview with Nadya

They both see similarities between how both Trump and Putin have treated the press only Putin treated the press that way back in the beginning of his reign and now there is only government controlled press in Russia. Now Trump talks about the press like Putin did.

Both see the need for people to be involved to preserve democracy.  Nadya stated that we must not only receive from the government, we must give back to the government to support its institutions like democracy. Masha too believes that people must get involved to preserve democracy because democracy carries with it no guarantees.  

Pussy Riot opposes authoritarianism and stands for rights and democracy. It promotes full equality for the LGBT community, which is something that religiously conservative Christians can do here without compromising in following biblical sexual morals.

The above is a glimpse of the political side of Pussy Riot. They are, after all, performance artists. The video below was released by Nadya before the 2016 election in anticipation of a Trump victory.

                                                                    A MAGA Video

While the branding, even the fake ones in the above video, of a person is tough to watch, it does capture some of the real effects of the shaming that Trump practiced on different groups. That shaming gives license for some to attack members of those groups and I believe that the hate crime statistics will support that claim.

The video below can also be tough to watch, but such is the nature of performance art. The video below is in response to the police killing of Eric Garner.

                                                      Video for Eric Garner: I Can't Breathe

Why do we need Pussy Riot now more than ever. It is because of the workings of the 2nd pandemic: Authoritarianism. We are seeing a growing authoritarianism throughout the world. And we definitely see the same growing authoritarianism in Russia and the US. And while  Russia has lost any semblance of Glasnost and the democracy that it once had, the US hasn't. But our democracy, besides under constant attack by corporations that seek to buy our elected officials, one of our two major political parties is interested in taking over and ruling our nation. For as long as Trump has a significant influence on the Republican Party, that Party will. be working for an eventual fascist take over. Trump's language and attacks on the media, his lack of self-restraint, his authoritarian nature and vindictiveness, his executive orders that were blocked by the courts, and his participation in the attempt to overthrow a fair election. In fact, Trump stated during both campaigns prior to the 2016 and 2020 elections that the only way he could lose would be if the election was corrupt. 

But now, the courts are more favorable to Trump. The leaked Supreme Court decision on the Mississippi abortion law shows a severe attack on the right of privacy. But not only that, state legislators from several states have passed election laws that make it easier for those legislators to control the next Presidential election.  And finally if we add to that the grumbling and discontent that naturally occurs from the high inflation we are experiencing today, which moves us to seek for overly simplistic causes and solutions, we find that we are not that far from electing leaders who favor a fascist takeover of the nation. We could easily lose whatever democracy we have left during the next 2 elections.

We need to speak out and be involved. But we have major obstacles ahead. The first obstacle is the counterpart of the Republican Party. The Democratic Party is often paid off by wealth-interests almost as much as the Republican Party is. And sometimes the difference between the two parties revolve around public civility.

If a Trump dominated Republican Party regains control of at least one of the two houses of Congress along with the White House,  then the person who showed no restraint in promoting the January 6th insurrection will have much more power and our democratic republic will have been lost. That is why we need groups like Pussy Riot now more than ever. We need them to enlighten us and spur us on to act in ways that defend and protect democracy than destroy democracy. 

Apathy's The Real Enemy

I spent the weekend in D.C. to participate in an action run by Campaign Nonviolence (click here for their website). They had actions that protested for peace elsewhere, but one of my friends wanted to go to the events in D.C. and asked me to go with.

The planned events had their ups and downs. But what is telling is the number of people who didn't attend-- there were many. And that is the problem for those of us who want change. Most people, as indicated by their actions, do not.

The main event started Saturday morning at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial. We gathered there at mid morning to hear some speakers and then go on a silent march through some memorials to the White House. There, a few from our group who were predetermined to get arrested for protesting on park property without a permit. The park police surprised them with noncompliance. Thus, everyone went home on time. But again, there were only a few of us.

And though some of the speakers for Campaign Nonviolence made superficial use of quotes from Martin Luther King, Jr., at least they are quoting him and trying to follow and promote his example and teaching on nonviolence. Thus those in Campaign Nonviolence refrain from both outward violence and verbal violence while demonstrating. And this is breath of fresh air from many of my fellow Leftists who ignore King's teachings in order to feel free to vent against those whom they demonize. If more from the Left would study and incorporate King's teachings, they would find a wider audience. But currently, venting is preferred over protesters exercising reflection and self-criticism.  And perhaps if more from the Left would find their voice by starting with King's messages, our problem with apathy would still be significant, but would be less.

But for those of us who walked with Campaign Nonviolence, we must remember that calling on people to abstain from violence is not enough to promote peace. We must also address the driving motivations for the use of violence: pride and greed--King described greed as being thing-oriented rather than person-oriented. Pride tells us that we promote or defend our supremacy. Greed tells us that self-love is the greatest love. And since we only go around once, we need to get as much for ourselves as we can. And it isn't just those who do not protest with Campaign Nonviolence who are vulnerable to those traits, all of us are. Thus, when we who follow King's teachings protest, we need to protest as fellow sinners of those we protest rather than protesting as judges who are all too eager to pass sentence on an insidious criminal. 

But perhaps, the reason why we are met with a wall of apathy is because we were not appealing to pride and greed.  But if we have to appeal to pride and greed to weaken the grip apathy has on most Americans, it shows that some things never change and we have no hope for the future.

Some Activist Math

I discovered my first activist math formula quite a few years ago. The formula distinguishes between privileges and rights and thus allows us to see if a group that is either struggling to escape marginalization or striving to reach a position of supremacy over other groups. The formula is below:

Rights - Equality = Privilege

What the formula is simply saying is that any set of rights sought by a group which will not be enjoyed by all in society are not rights, they are privileges that will be enjoyed by only some in society. On the other hand, if marriage was denied to the LGBT community, then heterosexuals would have a privileged status in society over the LGBT community. Of course it has been more than obvious that, unfortunately, heterosexuals have a place of supremacy over the LGBT community throughout our nation's history. However, by seeking to enjoy marriage as heterosexuals enjoy it, then that seeking of opportunity to get married illustrates the seeking of equality with heterosexuals regarding marriage.

On the other hand, when some of my fellow religiously conservative Christians tried to legislate what the Bible says about marriage into the laws of the state, they weren't recognizing the religious views of others and thus were seeking a place of supremacy over others.

However, there is another formula that is more timely in the light of the upcoming protests for more gun control. The formula goes like this:

a bought gov't + a lazy electorate = a deaf gov't

What the above simply says is that a lack of participation by the people in the democratic process where the government is controlled by those with wealth results in a government that can no longer hear its people. However, if the people speak up long and loud enough, the electorate no longer is lazy and government starts to hear what people are saying. This is the formula that must be remembered in the March For Our Lives protests (click here for the website) scheduled for different parts of our nation on March 24.
 
One march is not going to get the results that many people want. This has been the problem with the Women's March that started on the day after Trump's inauguration. Sure, the march was massive. But it lost all of its momentum because there were no significantly large marches immediately following that march. And this has been the problem with most protests in the 21^st century. Sure we are some times able to create a march with significant numbers. But such marches are too far and too few between for them to have an effect. One march alone does not change the status of a lazy electorate into a participating electorate.




Here, the anti-war and Civil Rights protests of the 1960s should be regarded as the models for how to protest for better gun control. The protests, though having started small, grew in size and numbers. The protests were many and constant. The protesters were persistent in getting their points across. It showed an involved electorate and that resulted in government reluctantly responding to the people.
 
Momentum is currently on the side of the high school kids from Parkland, Florida. They have started a conversation with our government. And some others are taking their side. Then there is the march on March 24. But these kids should from their experience at Florida's capital where a mere debate on gun control was voted down and replaced with a debate on pornography. They should not be surprised if their march produces no favorable reaction form our government. Thus, they should be planning on what to do after their March 24th protests.

One other point should be made. If these kids want people from other groups to join them in their cause, they must be willing to return the favor. And means that they must admit that it wasn't until a tragic event happened to them that they started taking action. For we need to realize that minority students, their age, have been suffering from gun violence for a long time and their tragedies were not enough to move the kids from Parkland into action. So they need to realize that they have been guilty of a similar apathy that they see in the government officials they are currently challenging. Such a perspective could help fine tune the tone of their protests so that it becomes as effectively loud, without becoming shrill, as possible.

What Makes Activism Work

We should note that within the last few months, activism has won twice and lost once in shifting government policies. The two wins are the cancellation of the TPP and the failure of the American Health Care Act to get off the ground. The loss has to do with renewing the construction of DAPL.

The TPP was activism's first victim. For while activism delayed the passing of the TPP before the election, Trump's election, which was partially the result of conservative populism,  sealed its doom here. But the TPP was not just in trouble in America, other nations started to back away as well (click here). Opposition to the TPP showed that individual issues can bring conservatives and nonconservatives together. I have seen this happen when I have taken the time to talk to counter-protesters at May Day celebrations, I've found that leftists, like myself, and some of the conservatives with whom I've spoken can sometimes agree on what our nation's problems are. Of course, our disagreement comes in what we believed were the solutions. But sharing recognition of the problems again shows that we conservatives and nonconservatives can find some common ground.

As for the Republican replacement of Obamacare, yes, we were told that the Ryan's replacement was dead on arrival. For many groups opposed the replacement though not for the same reasons. We know that some of that opposition was voiced in the angry townhall meetings that Republican legislators had to endure. These legislators saw the rage that people felt about the potential of losing the health insurance they gained through Obamacare. And while the problems caused by the ACA shows that it is not a permanent solution, certain parts, like the increased number of people who now have health insurance, could no longer be sacrificed according. 

Activism's loss mentioned above came with Trump's order to continue DAPL construction. For the protests against DAPL were not widespread enough and did not incorporate enough people to put sufficient pressure on the government. It did delay some of the construction when the Army Corps of Engineers agreed to do more extensive studies of the project. But with Trump's election came a presidential directive to approve the immediate continuation of the construction of the pipeline. BTW,  we should note here that our President is financially invested in the project.

With this current record, what we should note is that when enough of us make our voices heard, we can still make our government listen. We can still gain victories. Sometimes those victories are small and temporary while there are a few times when those victories decisive and final. The point here is that despite the increased authoritarian nature of our government, we can still put limits on it and change some of its policies. We just have to get enough people to speak as loud and as often as possible. One thing we can be sure of, though we might have a shortage of activists from time to time, there will be no shortage of issues to address during Trump's Presidency.





 

The Day After The People Strike Back

Whatever we want to call the election, the Women's March On Washington, and on other cities, was the people striking back. Not that this March was above criticism, it wasn't. The prohibiting of pro-life groups from participating as groups was wrong and shortsighted even though it was also understandable. It showed an example of how leaders often do not want their members to associate and find common ground with those from different groups. When their people do that, then the leaders lose control. 

As a pro-lifer, I was more than happy to join the March. Why? It was because I agreed with all but one of the positions taken by those organizing the March (click here for those positions). Thus, I saw no need to keep myself from celebrating what I had in common with those orchestrating and those participating in the March.  In addition, it was very refreshing to see that many people, I went to the NYC March,  joining together in a family safe environment with hundreds of thousands of people. In addition, the relationship between the police and the protesters was friendly and positive--something I always appreciate.

Trump moderated his usual response to criticism in how he responded to the March. He knew that the March was a rejection of his Presidency. But he also probably realized that too negative a response would only inspire more participation in the future. So he asked why those who marched didn't vote. His question was based on a false assumption. But then he acknowledged that protesting was part of Democracy.

The real question after the March becomes this: Where do we go from here? The people I spoke with at the March and afterwards were unanimous in saying that we have to march again. But they were also unanimous in saying something else that was contradicted by some of the chants heard at the March. Our target should not be Trump. Our target should be those conservatives who supported him. But how should we target those conservatives? We should make it our aim to persuade them. That is we should talk with them with the hopes of at least partially changing their minds.

To accomplish our goal, we can't afford to practice the same old self-isolation within the comfortable surroundings of our ideological ghettos. We need to meet people where they are, listen to them, try to identify common concerns, and then share what we believe is right as we allow them to do the same. This is part of what democracy looks like.

I know that there are some on the Left who abstained from the protest because it was a liberal Democratic Party event. This, again, follows the same  tactics of self-isolation that leaders of many groups hope for. This staying within our ideological ghettos adds to the problem our nation has with tribalism. With tribalism,  we only listen to accepted authority figures who give us the party line. We are taught to show antagonism toward those with different views. And we are taught to become highly offended when others reject what our own group has to say. Thus, because of tribalism, we are always at each others' throats because we are competing to conquer.

But, at the same time, what tribalism also does is to become Democracy's auto-immune disease. This constant infighting and attempts to conquer rather than to share and collaborate is what is destroying our Democracy. Thus, it seems that we don't need Russia's help to destroy our democracy.

Where do we go from here? On a personal level, we should listen and talk to people from other groups. We must try to find common ground which is more easily done when identifying problems than when proposing solutions. Then perhaps we should consider hybrid solutions that combine the ideas of different groups rather than forcing the will of our own group on others.

On an activist level, we need to march again and we must try to do so in greater numbers. Sporadic marches, regardless of their sizes, accomplish nothing. Constant marches of significant size puts pressure on our elected officials. Constant marches force our elected officials to listen and even moderate their tone and work. And these marches must be inclusive rather than exclusive.

That is where we go from here. Should we sit back and be content with and proud of a single march, we will find that we have accomplished nothing except to give ourselves a brief moment in the sun.


 

It's Time To Return To A King

One of the first two people I read while converting to a political leftist was Martin Luther King Jr. And one of the first lessons I learned from him came from observing his passion for winning people over to his side. Perhaps that passion was one of the reasons why he refrained from verbally attacking opponents--something he would call 'internal violence' or violence of the spirit. Though I don't expect conservatives to share his passion, seeing fellow leftists ignore it can be a source for disillusionment.

Since we are celebrating Martin Luther King's birthday this week, this blog is reviewing a part of a speech made by King. In particular, this blog will for the most part review the latter part of his speech against the Vietnam War made in the Spring of 1967 (click here for text and video/audio link). 

We should note that as King voices his opposition to the Vietnam War, he best shows us how disagree with others. He first does this by trying understand the concerns of those who disagree. He also states his view with humility as he acknowledges the difficulty of having to disagree with his own government about a war it is fighting. And he tries to steer all from using all-or-nothing thinking in how he regard others such as the Viet Cong. All of these lessons have been long forgotten in American political discourse.

However, it is at the 40:34 mark on the YouTube presentation, the text part of the transcription starts with the phrase 'In 1957,' where King starts to broaden the scope of his concerns to that of a world revolution. Here, King first tells us of how suppression of local people in other nations for the sake of our business interests started to require US troop involvement on a consistent basis. He listed nations like Venezuela, Columbia, Guatemala and Peru as places where US troops were being sent for maintaining stability.

After that, King says something that every leftist revolutionary should recite to themselves everyday. That for us to conquer enemies such as racism, militarism, and materialism, materialism was simply one of the sides of a multisided object that included poverty, our society, not just churchgoers, must have a higher regard for people than they do for gadgets, profits, and property rights. We should note that King, in a previous work, had explicitly stated that the trio of racism, militarism, and materialism are inseparable so that we cannot just attack one of these problems. So here, King challenges everyone, since all of us tend to be thing and power oriented, as one friend has said to me, to have a higher regard for people than things. And here, conservatives who claim to honor Martin Luther King should note that King included property rights as one of those items that we should count as less important than people.

In the next paragraph, King attacks American Capitalism. He implicitly refers to it when talking about the need to change our current economic structure because of how it contributes to, as on the road to Jericho during biblical times, robbery and assault and how it is an 'edifice' that creates 'beggars.' He then explicitly criticizes capitalists who invest in continents like Asia, Africa, and South America for the sole purpose of extracting profits while having no interest in bettering the lives of the people who live there. In addition, King reminds us of what arrogance is. Arrogance, as demonstrated by the West, is believing that one has 'everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them.' He pronounces such arrogance as being unjust.

Two paragraphs later King tells us that the USSR's Communism will not be defeated through military means, for such does not teach people to abandon it. Rather, King states that promoting Democracy and justice as the way to beat Communism. We should note here that King is contrasting Democracy, not Capitalism, with Communism. And perhaps the reason why is because he had already strongly criticized the dictatorship that existed in the then USSR in a previous work. In addition, his previous criticisms of Capitalism show that its distribution of wealth does not lend itself to contrasting Communism with justice. This theme is continued in the next paragraph.

At this point we should note that today's enemy is now Islamic terrorism and tyranny, not Communism. And though it is difficult for some of us to believe this, one of its primary concerns is justice. If not that, at least the injustices visited on those in the Middle East by the West and its proxies are a driving force in the spread of Islamic terrorism and tyranny--note that most Muslims disavow and oppose ISIS's terrorism and tyranny. So perhaps, what will truly defeat enemies such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda is working for justice more than looking for wars to fight. And we cannot work for justice so long as we are seeking profits over the welfare of people regardless of who the people are.

Following the emphasis on promoting Democrcy and justice in order to beat Communism, King finishes by talking about changing our ultimate allegiances from being based on the tribe, class, race, or nation we belong to the human race first. That these divisions must never erase a higher bond we should have with all people. Such a view would certainly oppose Donald Trump's theme of trying to restore America's greatness. In fact, King's view here would be at odds with the views of all presidential candidates who would rally us around the flag. For why should a person from another country have less importance to us than a fellow citizen. This is King's point.

King finishes with exhortations to love and be active. And when we look at King's whole speech here, we see so many lessons for revolutionaries both in terms of what they should work for as well as how they should struggle. Unfortunately, most of us have shown that not only have we not learned those lessons from King, we are not interested enough in even listening to or reading them. Such will hasten the demise of us all as necessary revolutions further the toxicity of the regimes and systems they seek to replace.

What Can NonViolent Activists Learn From The Movie Suffragette

The movie Suffragette (click here for official website) became an instant favorite movie of mine. It deals with the important issue of women's rights, which should not be limited to just voting. It shows oppression, struggle, and activism. The end of the movie basicaly punches you in the gut, but in a good way--for a movie that is. If you haven't seen it, then either try to find where it is playing or look for the release date of the DVD version.

The purpose of this blogpost is not necessarily to review the movie. One of the better attempts at doing that was written Linda Gordon (click here for one of the sites where her review was posted). Rather, the purpose of this review is to examine the activism practiced by the Suffragettes to see what we can learn. And a challenge here for those of us whose activism is marked and limited by nonviolence is that, from what we see in both the movie and history, the Suffragettes were basically a milder form of the Weather Underground movement from the 1960s and 1970s. This is especially true of the latter movement after an accident occurred in their bombmaking factory which cost the lives of 3 of its members. After that, the Weathermen, that is what the members of the group were called, tried, for the most part, to not injure or kill people when they set off their explosives (click here). 

Like the members of the Weather Underground, the Suffragettes believed that the times dictated action, not mere words. For the Weathermen, it was the severity of issue, the war in Vietnam which was killing an unconscionable numbers of Vietnamese, that demanded action. For the Suffragettes, it was the prolonged inaction, and apparent deafness exercised, by their government to their constant demands that made it necessary for them to act. According to their leader, Emmeline Pankhurst, it was 'deeds, not words' that counted.

So the Suffragettes included committing violence against property as a tactic to get their point across. That violence ranged from the simple throwing stones at windows to the use of explosives on some infrastructure. And like those from the Weather Underground, the goal of their violence was not to terrify the average citizen, it was to get the attention of, or perhaps even terrify, those in power. And like what was practiced by the Weather Underground, though the intent was not to kill or injure, their activities ran the risk of doing just that.

And though no peace activist should practice the violent tactics of those practiced by the Weathermen or the Suffragettes, there is still much we can learn from them.

For the Suffragettes, they wanted to accomplish the following: gain the ear, hopefully a sympathetic one, of the media, draw attention to the issue, garner support from the people, gain more members, and motivate the those in government to acquiesce to their demands. And if we can separate their tactics from these goals, then learning about their struggles can help us think about what new and effective tactics we could employ today that would get our messages out. For it is in our failure to distinguish tactics from goals that has caused past activism to doom current activism to failure. Today's activist tactics that have more-less sabotaged our movements. These counterproductive tactics include civil disobedience and provoking the police. And our problem is that we have regarded such tactics as goals rather than tools much like as when a musical composer regards following the rules of music when composing as a goal rather than telling the story. For the rules in music are only helpful when they allow us to tell the story we want to tell and otherwise distracting, that is at best. And as a result, we've lost the forest for the trees and we've become unable to approach the accomplishing of our goals because we've become unable to both distinguish tactics from goals and discern which tactics are effective. After all, shouting "the whole world is watching" to the police as they arrest a protester, as I witnessed during the last May Day march in NYC, made little sense since not even C-SPAN was covering the event.

Our connection with the past can be found more in our causes and our goals than our tactics. That is because times have changed since the 1960s and 1970s. Heck, times have changed since before Occupy Wall Street started. I remember that the police in NYC were friendlier to us protesters before Occupy occurred than afterwards. And our approach to the police during Occupy, though, for the most part, was physically nonviolent, played a role in the premature end of our encampments.

So rather than posing the silly threat of shutting down the system or even trying to, as the Suffragettes tried to do, we need to examine and think about what we can do to create productive media interest in our causes? What can we do to inspire people to become fellow activists? What can we do to gain the ear of the general public and the people in our neighborhood? And finally, what can we do that would inspire or pressure our government into consenting to our demands? There are no tactics utilizing force or violence that can be on the table for us. Why? Because if we are nonviolent activists who believe in democracy, we know that using force or violence only causes us to become like those we oppose. If we resort to violence or force, we''ve become our opponent.

What new legitimate tactics can we create and practice today that will advance our causes? That is the question one needs to ask oneself when watching the movie Suffragette--we should note that even though the Suffragettes did finally realize their prize, not all of their tactics, even back then, were productive. What can we do that will get the interest of the media and the general public? What can we do to  attract new members and participation from the general public? And what can we do that will either cause those in government to agree with us or feel the pressure to give in to our demands? These are the questions to ask when watching the movie Suffragette. But if you are going to do that, watch the movie multiple times. That is because as a movie, it is well worth watching simply as a movie goer. Then afterwards, one can watch the movie as a critic of the Suffragette movement and of today's activism in general.

Another Birthday For Occupy Wall Street

Last Thursday, September 17 was Occupy Wall Street's 4th birthday and it was celebrated at Zuccotti Park, site of the original Occupy Wall Street. The movement has splintered off and some of it is now under new multiple managements. The group I was with last Thursday calls itself Occu-Evolve. As with many name changes, there is some differences between the past and the present groups. The present group has brought more light to bear on racial issues than the original Occupy Wall Street did. 

I cannot make the planning meetings because of travel time and costs so it would be difficult for me to say whether it is using the same kind of decision making in the planning meetings. But like its predecessor, getting adequate participation is still a struggle. Such implies nothing about Occu-Evolve. We know from the Old Testament and the treatment of Jesus, rejection of our message implies nothing negative about either us or what we are saying.

There were a number of speakers there and they spoke on a variety of topics. Most, if not all of the topics, however, dealt with domestic issue. Some of the issues discussed included social justice, healthcare and insurance, Staples and its attempts to replace, at least in part, the Federal Post Office, and police brutality and the incarceration of minorities. There was also a time where there was an open mic.

The group started very small and then grew somewhat as the day went on. That also happened at the original Occupy Wall Street only the the first Occupy grew faster and larger during the day. However, the Occu-Evolve protesters better represented minorities in terms of percentages and numbers than Occupy Wall Street's first day did.

We finished the gathering with a march toward City Hall and there was suppose to be the creation of an encampment, but that most likely did not take place. I cannot say that for sure though because I left as it was getting dark.

Where is the Occupy Movement right now? It isn't as strong in America as it is in some European nations That might be because we Americans tend to be a more compliant people than what we would like to think. As long as we are getting enough material goodies in life, we tend to live and let live. Of course the let live does not ask if others are getting enough material things.

The biggest challenge that faces Occupy today is the same that faced it back in 2011. That challenge is that of getting enough people to participate. And here, I would like to borrow a world model used by the movie The Hunger Games. In that movie, the world was divided into two parts: the Capitol and the Districts. The Capitol consisted of those who benefited from the status quo while the districts were made up of those who paid the highest price for the upkeep of the Capitol with its escapist and luxurious lifestyles. A real life illustration of this could be to show us as we shop for the lowest prices of the fashionable clothes we desire and then show textile laborers who work in local and foreign sweatshops to make our clothes.

See, it is understandable to not see too many residents of the Capitol who are enjoying life's bounty at Occupy events. The same cannot be said when the Districts of our society go underrepresented at Occupy protests. And here we should note that even when Occupy was at its height, the attendance and participation at Occupy was always low relative to the size of the population who were living in the Districts.

Before we can expect society to change, we must change first. There must be more people participating in groups like Occu-Evolve. That there are relatively so few people participating from the Districts says that while not blaming ourselves for inadequate attendance and participation, we need to find new kinds of activism that might inspire them to join our ranks.

That there are even fewer people participating in groups like Occu-Evolve from the Capitol says two things about those of us who are enjoying the good life. First, it says that we don't care enough about others. Second, it says that we live in denial of where the analogy between the Occupy movement and the world according to The Hunger Games movie falls short. For in the movies, if memory serves, there was no significant transfer of people from the Capitol to the Districts. But that has occurred in real life such as in the 2008 financial crisis and could happen again. 

Thus, groups like Occu-Evolve must also discover how to appeal to those who live in the Capitol. I write that because for any significant change to take place in our society and nation, we need many people from both those who are well served by the status quo and those who are neglected or exploited by the status quo. Without a very significant increase in numbers and participation, groups like Occu-Evolve can exist, but they cannot effectively work for change. 


 

What A Difference A Year Makes In Protesting

For the past couple of months, I have been attending protests against the use of drones. I have attended these protests before such as last year. The difference between the protests this year and the ones from last year can be summed up in one word: attendance.

The number of protestors participating this year was less than half of those I saw last year. In particular, the age of the protestors involved also changed. While many of the protestors from before were old, the only ones protesting in the past couple of months are old. In fact, I said to a couple of fellow activists that I felt that the protest was a retirement home activity.

This isn't the first time I've seen a drop off in the number of demonstrators. Each of the first two protests I ever took part in, the years were 2005 and 2006, saw around 300,000 people in attendance. Now it would be unrealistic for anyone to expect that number of people at each protest, but the number of demonstrators attending dropped dramatically after the Democrats gained control of Congress in Fall of 2006. Since then, though there were occasionally well attended demonstrations, such as the last one concerning our environmental problems, the number of activists involved never approached the number of people again.

Now there are two points to make here after reflecting on what I just experienced. The first point regards the protesting against drones. In one way, the use of drones produces the same effect as conducting tax-free wars. That is because practices shield the public from some of war's effects. For example, when Bush conducted the unfunded wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, life went on pretty much the same for those of us who did not have family or close friends fighting in the battles. There was neither a draft nor rationing of goods, both of which have occurred in past wars. In addition, we saw no increase in our taxes because of the wars we were conducting.

Likewise, the use of drones shields us from another effect of war: casualties. Yes, there is an immediate benefit here to using drones both for those who serve and their families. But how does conducting wars without consequences stop our use of war or even reduce the number of them?

In the end, conducting unfunded wars and using drones allows us to win the immediate battles while losing our biggest challenge. The biggest battles consist of maintaining public support for the wars. Our biggest challenge is to end war. And while the realists legitimately point out that history teaches that ending war is only a pipe dream, present and future technology lecture us on a harsher reality. That is our continued dependence on wars will eventually lead to the use of WMDs. And once the use of WMDs are introduced into a conflict, there is little, if any, chance that we will survive because the use of WMDs will simply continue until there is no one left to use them. This is not just my opinion, it that of some well-known intellectuals and some retired military leaders since the 1950s.

The second point that the last 2 protests brings up is persistence. Occasional protests, regardless of how well-attended, produce few, if any, results. Unless we persist in activism, the status quo will remain secure. And that status quo consists of manipulating society and its systems for the benefit of those with wealth and power. It isn't the everyday person who benefits from war. Rather, they are usually the ones who pay the highest price for it. It is those who profit from the sale of weapons, other goods and services who benefit from war. 

Making the public believe that they are shielded from the pain of war, as what occurs when either wars go unfunded or using drones, results in fewer people being interested in demonstrating and resisting the wars. In addition, fewer people feel the urgency to to even investigate our policies and reconsider their current personal positions on war. After all, when life is good, don't fix it is the attitude of many. Thus, the shielding of the public from the effects of war has given too many of us a servere case of myopia.  

Simply put, if we are to survive, we must put aside any feelings of hopelessness in order to continue to publicly voice our concerns. Personally, I myself haven't been able to consistently participate in activism for a while because of multiple issues. So, on the one hand, we must not rush to judge those whom we no longer see at the demonstratios. On the other hand, we must see the need to make activism a way of life rather than just a hobby. Democracy demands that we constantly do what we can to control our government. For if we don't control our government, someone else will. And as the Occupy Movement has shown, that someone else who now controls our government are those with wealth and power.

To make activism a way of life, we need to follow what Martin Luther King Jr. said while speaking against the Vietnam War. He stated that when we make profits, gadgets, and property rights more important than people, we are a thing-oriented society. And for as long as we are a thing-oriented society we will not just continue to fight wars, we will be enabling racism. So those of us who oppose war must change from being thing-oriented to being person-oriented if we are going to show others what to do.

Everyone Must See The Movie Selma Because

Some movies are must see movies because of how they tell a story.  Other movies, however, are must see movies because of the story they tell. The movie Selma (click here) fits the latter category. 

Please don't misunderstand, Selma is fictionalized for dramatic purposes, but it is based on the historical battle for voting rights as this battle took place in the city of Selma. It is a well-made movie. The scenes blend together appropriately and the actors and actresses performed well. But the most important part about this movie is the story, or really the stories, it tells.

The primary story here is about the march through the city of Selma to Montgomery to protest for voting rights. The city was picked because of the anticipated resistance and resorting to violence expected from the local police department. Such a government reaction to a legitimate cause would help move the American public off their couches to support the mission. And that support was needed in order to move the federal government to write and pass legislation that would guarantee Blacks the right to vote.

This primary story revolved around the work, words, and person of Martin Luther King Jr. But we should not misunderstand the focus on him. His spotlight wasn't meant to imply that he did the bulk of the work. A great deal of groundwork had been laid by organizations like the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC, pronounced 'snik'). And there were confrontations to be had between King and his organization, the Southern Christian Leadership Committee (SCLC), and SNCC. History tells that that was not the first time. King's refusal to take part in the Freedom Rides of 1961 caused some disillusionment for participating activists. 

Some of King's faults, weaknesses, struggles, and strengths were on display in this movie. So too were the internal struggles within SNCC regarding the continued reliance on nonviolence. Now whether this battle took place during the Selma protests, I don't know. But its reliance on nonviolence was debated within the group. So just as with King, this movie showed some of SNCC's faults, weaknesses, struggles, and strengths. That more focus had not been put on SNCC by this movie is a bone of contention for some leftist reviewers of the movie.

And as with the display of different parts of King's personhood and behaviors, so the same applied to President Johnson or LBJ. For LBJ was displayed as being conflicted during this time in the battle for voting rights. Those who have high esteem of LBJ heavily criticized the movie because of that portrayal. However, there is at least one source that can document the internal battle LBJ went through during this time (click here). For while he did have a measure of concern for the plight of Blacks, he also had his own political agenda and priorities and so there were battles between the President and King over the timing for progress.

In addition to the go-around between the President and King, the movie told about the FBI efforts to not only monitor, but to sabotage some of King's work. One way in which this attempted sabotage took place was to target the stressed relationship King had with his wife, Coretta Scott King. This leads into the movie's story about the trials she had to face. From threatening phone calls to phone calls trying to discredit her husband to her husband's constant traveling to his husband's affairs and to the everyday rigors of raising kids, the movie clearly shows some of what Coretta had to endure while still providing invaluable support for her husband. 

We also got to see a little of how life was for Blacks during that time. From their targeted exclusion from voter registers to the verbal and physical violence forced on them what was shown was horrible to see. And yet, as horrendous as the treatment of Blacks was as depicted in the movie, it was even much more important to include it in the telling of the story.

Finally, the movie told stories about those who opposed to voting rights and other civil rights. Those opposed included politicians, law enforcement officers, and regular citizens. Unlike the other characters in the movie, these people were shown as only being dark. What they did to Blacks was inhumane and simply without excuse. And we should learn with regard to the laws back then and the past behaviors of government officials and law enforcement officers is that we can never afford to equate what is legal with what is moral.

This movie Selma is a must see movie. In fact, it is a must see multiple times movie. But it isn't a movie to watch for entertainment's sake. Rather, it is a movie to watch for morality's sake. Just as Germany's Holocaust provided a 'never again' event, so too has America's treatment of people of color. This movie covers only one small part of our nation's deplorable history of how it has abused Blacks; it does not include those stories of how other races were abused. We should note that with today's incarceration rates and the numerous shootings of unarmed Blacks, our sad history here is not yet finished. Therefore, whatever the weaknesses of this movie, it is one of those movies which we must all watch over and over again--that is if we want to see a change.

ONIM For December 1, 2014

Christian News

• Hobby Lobby's Bible Course Is Cancelled By Oklahoma School District -- Christian Today (UK)
• Pope Francis Prays In Mosque During Trip To Turkey -- Christian Today (UK)
• Church Member Denied Funeral Due To Non-Payment Of Tithes -- Christian Today (UK)
• Read Why David Robertson Is Wishing For A "White Christmas" -- Christian Today (UK)
• Can Wheaton College Require ROTC Program Be Run By Christians? -- Christianity Today
• The End Times Are Here And Began With The Reestablishment Of Israel, Says David Jeremiah -- The Christian Post
• Happy Progressive Thanksgiving: How 'Gospel Progressives' Transformed American Culture -- The Christian Post
• America's Racist God Meets Miss Celie: Darren Wilson Not Indicted -- Religion Dispatches
• Hagee Calls Obama "The Most Anti-Semitic President Ever" -- Religion Dispatches
• What Ferguson Protests Mean For Religious Progressive Activism -- Religion Dispatches

World News

• Here's What Happens To Police Officers Who Shoot Unarmed Black Men -- Mother Jones
• No Indictment For Darren Wilson Is No Surprise -- The Guardian
• Protesters Shut Down New York Bridges Over Ferguson Decision -- Business Insider
• 41 Men Targeted But 1,147 Killed: US Drone Strikes--The Facts On The Ground -- The Guardian
• US Increases Number Of Troops In Afghanistan Yet Again -- RT
• My Struggle With Black Rage And Fear After Ferguson -- Salon
• Darren Wilson Tells ABC He Has A 'Clean Conscience,' And He Would Shoot Michael Brown Again -- Raw Story
• Employers Keep Shifting Costs Under Affordable Care Act -- ZNet
• US To Send 3,000 Smart Bombs To Israel -- Middle East Monitor
• Guiliani: Michael Brown Death Should Have Never Gone To A Grand Jury -- Yahoo News
• Cleveland Police Officers Waited Minutes To Give First Aid To Tamir Rice -- Cleveland.Com
• Report: Walmart Workers Cost Tax Payers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance -- Forbes
• White Supremacy So Deeply American That We Don't Even See It -- Raw Story
• JP Morgan CFO Admits $7 Billion Of DOJ Settlement Is Tax-Deductable -- Buzz Flash
• Did Police Set Autos On Fire During Ferguson Protests? -- Popular Resistance
• America The Beautiful, America The Violent -- Christianity Today

Pick(s) Of The Litter

• Why It's So Hard For Whites To Understand Ferguson -- ZNet
• Black Reality And White Denial In America -- ZNet
• Against Thanksgiving -- ZNet

Can Attitudes Be Heretical?

There are a number of places in the Bible which declare that the kind of relationship we have with God is often revealed more by how we regard others than how we address God. The Old Testament prophets stated this over and over as they rebuked Israel for its pretentious acts of worship while they freely practiced injustice against fellow chosen people. Jesus's parable of the two men praying showed how the object of one's faith can be revealed by how one compares oneself with another. And Paul tells us not to judge lest we condemn ourselves. We have another such example in the parable of the Prodigal Son (click here for the scriptures) and Brad Johnson wrote an article about it which appeared in The Christian Post.

What does Johnson say about this parable. Though he notes that father and the prodigal son get back together as the son repents, he insists that the parable is primarily about the older brother. I don't agree with him here but our differences do not interfere with the points he tries to make.  So Johnson focuses on the kind of person the older brother is and how the father shows his love for the older brother as well. 

Johnson wrote that he was happy that the prodigal son saw the father first. That is because, he reasoned, if the prodigal son had seen the older brother instead, he would have been rejected and sent away. According to Johnson this has to do with presumption of having merit and how he did not understand his father's graciousness. Johnson attributes this to the older brother's rationality. Because he had stayed with his father and did not waste what his father had given him, the older brother assumed that he was getting what he deserved, that is until he saw a banquet being thrown for his brother. This upset him because his father never celebrated the older brother's faithfulness while he throws a big party and feast for the son whose only redeeming quality was that he returned. 

According to Johnson, the older brother's unhappiness over the grace being shown his brother in the form of the celebration revealed that the he did not realize that his position with his father also relied on grace. And this is where we get to what was first written. That more can be revealed about how we regard God by how we regard others than how we talk to or about God. Do we want those whose sins offend us the most to repent and enjoy the welcome home celebration or do we prefer that they stay as they are so that we can look down on them both in the here and now and forever? One attitude reveals an encounter with God's grace while the other shows a reliance on one's own merit. And we know how relying on one's own merit is regarded by God's Word, it isn't. In fact, it can be seen something that shows our faith to be false.

The message of this parable does not have to be restricted to us Christians only. It can easily apply to those of us who are activists.  As we protest against certain practices and the people who perform them, are we protesting as the older brother or do we wish for our opponents to change? The older brother wanted to see his brother get what was coming to him. Such would be a natural reaction but it doesn't help activists when working for certain causes. And here, all we need to do is to review how Martin Luther King Jr. approached activism. He did it not want his opponents to be punished; rather, he wanted to win them over. And while those who could not be won over exercised power, he appealed to democratic controls so that progress could continue and their power abated. This is what those who do not want to hear about God's grace, as shown to the prodigal son, can take away from this parable. 

In either case, having the attitude of the older brother doesn't help. In fact, it might show that those of us who are like the older brother are prodigals too.