I wrote: “No person or group of and established organisation will not be allowed to co-opt them.”

Which is a mistake, of course.

Try, No person or group of an established organisation will be allowed to co-opt them.

These only are generalities, as one would need to write a few hundred words (if not more), to start to “get OWS right.” Language is tough sometimes. We are never “exact” and many times not even clear, even though we may think we are when we are writing.

Luckily, though, there are dozens of sources, original sources if you will, for us to work with.

I’d put some references up (as many of us should do more often), but it’s late.

I assume people read OWS websites. Right?

Try reading Adbusters at least; and search for what OWS is supposed to be like.

“So you would refuse support from leftist, inclusive Christians but will accept support from fatcat celebrities?”

You are putting words in my mouth. Naughty, naughty.

You also take my words too literally. My statements about OWS, or anything, are never 100% “right on” because language is so flimsy. Especially hastily first drafts.

You too have “generalized.”

I said politicians and religous leaders. “Leaders.” There are no leaders in OWS—although things are changing fast and OWS-like “groups” are spinning off.

Anyone person can join. Any group can support. No person or group of and established organisation will not be allowed to co-opt them. These are basic, core, ideals. Is it perfectly implemented all the time? No. But they try.

***

OWS is Anarchism in many ways. But read what Anarchy is first; Wikipedia is a good place to start.

Interesting to wander in and find a string full of intellectual thumb wrestling about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  Religion is, at its base, emotional satisfaction.  Therein lies the problem, invoking the Flying Spaghetti Monster to justify your position is meaningless, as history, and I’m sure the future, will show again and again that it is on all sides of every issue.

Is there anyone here who finds themselves surprised that Mr. Hedges would release a statement (essentially an ows.org statement) mimicking an issues brought to public attention by original truthDig contributor, Rev. Shockley?

On a separate yet related matter

I have a bit of a problem with both Hedges and Rev. Shockley in that they have each once insisted that the actions of a few in any protest reflected on the intentions of the whole. - Today they both insist that is no longer true.

Many contend OWS is, at it’s nature, anarchistic. I now include myself in that assessment.

Occupy followers, not unlike Hedges, Shockley and several here, have deployed a brilliant strategy to deflect charges of anarchism by using a form of the legislative provision known as severability. Whenever a Occupy group or person is “caught” destroying property, beating or harassing local businesses, throwing feces, blood and urine, or blocking the free movements of others going about their daily business, or explicitly calling for a “French Style Revolution”, they simply “sever” that person from the movement by saying, “That person does not represent the Occupy demonstrations.” They get away with it because they claim the status of a “movement” with no structure, leadership or cohesive identity except allegiance to the three magic phrases: “Income Inequality,” “We are The 99 Percent” and “We want my country back!”

I submit that their defense, while clever, is inadequate.

“Rather, should “religionists” be motivated to embrace OWS aims for these arguments - let it be thus! However, as JUSTIFICATION for these aims, it CANNOT be - ignoring the separation of Church and State invites the “evil” role that religion has played in our history.”

Again, a very cluttered response to the article. For a Christian, the roots of their faith or church ARE the JUSTIFICATION for their support of OWS, and how are they in danger of ignoring the separation of church and state? In fact, the Reformation established the basic idea of separation of churc and state. Also, OWS itself seems to promote the separation of activism and the state since it refuses to outline any clear, political alternatives to the current system, so nowhere is there even the danger of Christians who support OWS of blurring the established division.

A good article, albeit one that painfully scratches a swollen infection in our society. From the outset, religion has always assumed more than just the role of chorus in the Greek tragedies that OUR country has witnessed, but an active agent on its stage (I mean to set aside “post-Columbian” atrocities religion motivated during its entrance into the Carribean world - read Las Casas for that).

At times, religion has assumed the role of noble hero: from Deist in our past, we have inherited such doctrines as religious tolerance, the separation of Church and State, the separation of powers (Legislative, Executive, Judicial), abolitionism, civil disobedience, self reliance, doctrines of our intrinsic goodness, peace activism (eg, Quakers and Transcendentalists), environmentalism, species of multiculturalism, a rebirth of our civil rights (Reverend King was inspired by - as so many of those who walked with him were - and “driven” by Christian, “interior monologue,” as was the Minister El-Shabazz (Malcolm X) in his devotion to Islam).

On the other hand, religion has assumed a role of genocidal monster and white-supremacists Nazi in our society: sons-of-Ham defenses of slavery and racism and Jim-Crow segregation, defenses for unbridled exploitation of Earth, sexual exploitation of children, and, more recently, the mercenary murder of countless thousands of children throughout the Middle East - the 21st-century crusades of armed filth).

Thus, OUR country has been an agent for both the “good” and “evil” that religion brings to Earth.

On my reading, the article aims to argue for the fundamental equivalence between, on the one hand, the “general aims” of OWS - which I see as partially articulated in the opening paragraphs of the US Constitution - and, on the other, the “general aims” of the “good” - as mentioned above - that religion has effected in our country over its short lifespan. From this position, however, a further consequence seems to be advanced: an ethical responsibility that “religionists” have to support OWS.

These are, I think, views that the “religionists” should argue among themselves. Be that as it may, whatever the consequence of the argument, “religionists” should NOT proffer it either as motivation for or against participation in OWS or as justification for or against OWS aims.

Rather, should “religionists” be motivated to embrace OWS aims for these arguments - let it be thus! However, as JUSTIFICATION for these aims, it CANNOT be - ignoring the separation of Church and State invites the “evil” role that religion has played in our history.

The well-spring of “religionist” support of OWS aims SHOULD ultimately be rooted in a reawakened sense of what it means to be American, NOT in some view concerning what it means to be a good Christian.

Supporting the aims of OWS it is enough to be devoted to the social and political ideals for which our Constitution is a living argument.

It pains me to give Robespierre credit, but he has the historically correct approach which radicals have used before. I should let those of you who dont get it keep arguing with him, but it isnt my way to play games. I prefer the truth to falsehood even if it helps my opponents.

It isnt that Robespierre wants the Christians(Leftist Christians) to run things or influence decisions, he just wants their support. You need a certain number of supporters to reach critical mass, that tipping point where society has to capitulate. There is a rather large number of Leftist Christians, and it makes sense to get their support without promising them anything. Robespierre just encourages their radicalism without buying into their beliefs. Otherwise it appears that Leftists are just doing an atheism vs religion thing and that will turn some (but not all!) Leftist Christians off.

Also, it really helps if you have some believers in your pocket. You can show them off to all the other Christians and say, “Here are some of your Christian brothers and sisters and look how much they like us and look how much we like them. So dont be afraid of us. Let the revolution happen and you will be fine.”

Those Christians in your pocket can be morons, in fact they probably will be. They are in your pocket to smile at the rest of us and give a blessing to your cause. Of course the blessing is useless and meaningless to Robespierre, but he understands the concept of ‘useful idiots’.

Robespierre knows what power is. What he does with that power after the revolution is, if past performance an indicator, something like killing your grandma to get her inheritance. He will put the religious folks in their place, never fear(well, i would fear it but if you think religion is a bad thing you can look forward to it)

Just to make it clear, Robespierre doesnt have a soft spot for religion, its just revolution that counts, and that is why he encourages whatever swells those ranks and brings that day closer. So for now, its all part of the agitprop, folks.

A good article, Mr. Shockley.  It’s nice to know clergy are seriously wrestling with these issues. 
I was arrested in Oakland with 18 clergy and they GOT IT.  This atheist was proud to cast his lot in with such fine, fearless folk.

The take away line for me:
Occupy Wall Street’s message to the church is, “If you were doing your job we wouldn’t be necessary.”
Truer words have never been spoken.

Mainline churches are fading because they have forgotten their purpose.  Feed. Clothe. Welcome the other.  Show mercy.  Make peace.
Stand against corruption and exploitation.  Stand for those who cannot or will not stand.  Empower.

Perhaps OWS can remind the church of its high calling.  Shame can be a powerful motivator.

Chris Hedges right on time addresses this topic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I3CtdyuzD8

Religion has been called the opiate of the masses. Jesus himself is purported to have said,“render unto Caesar that which is his”. The original Catholicism, born among slaves, promised only a heaven after death and no rectification of evils or redress of grievances.

I think the Occupy movement is fine with a political message and those to whom religion is important can carry on as they choose.

I have much more respect for Christians reconnecting with their roots and fighting for social justice than atheist blowhards spreading paranoia about Muslims and behaving with an attitude just as bigoted as Puritan witch burners.

“OWS does not ask for anyone’s support, but will not refuse anyone’s support, except from politicians and religious leaders.”

So you would refuse support from leftist, inclusive Christians but will accept support from fatcat celebrities?

Again, it seems like the current trend of disliking religion in general because denominations have been perverted by megachurch and reactionary clowns is creating confusion when an article like the one above is posted. You’re only doing harm by generalizing people the way some generalize Muslims with Saudi Salafists.

OWS is, on one hand, non-political and non-religious in their goals and beliefs.

OWS is, on the other, all inclusive, non-discriminatory, in their goals and beliefs.

OWS does not ask for anyone’s support, but will not refuse anyone’s support, except from politicians and religious leaders.

Contadictory, it seems, but if one reads the source materials located at Adbusters and the many Occupy websites—it’ll take many days, btw—and the many first hand accounts at what goes on in GA’s one will find some clarity.

OWS is more Anarchist than anything else.

Go to any Occupy Camp and they will say:

“If you are hungry, wee will feed you. If you are cold, we will clothe you. If you are tired, we will give you space.” (Gee, just like a church is supposed to.)

The only people turned away are thieves and the violent. (Even agitators, provocateurs, infiltrators, and Ron Paul supporters, are allowed to stay I have heard.)

Most importantly, they will say:

“If you have something to say, we will give you a voice.” (Unlike many organisations.)

Are we talking about the same “good christians” that have stood idley by while despot after despot have ravaged their people in Jesus name?

While the OWS movement should welcome any and all participants of conscience to their movement, the belief in invisible, mythical beings should not be required.

The very oligarchs that OWS is trying to bring down have long used the name of Jesus to hold the masses at bay.

While most are asking ‘what would Jesus do’ I say ‘what would Satan do’ - it’s a greedy, selfish, devious world we live in - Jesus wouldn’t be up to it.

Powerful stories Joseph Couture. You should have your own column.

“There is an ally in the liberal progressive Christian community, and not all Christians are on the right.”

-

Amen, brother.

Only the most closed-off (bigoted) mind can imagine a nation which finds nearly 70% of it’s population describing themselves as Christian would believe that Christianity is a “conservative” trait.

Yes, the clergy should support making an issue of income inequality. That support should probably end when Occupy encampments begin renaming streets in Washington D.C. to ?Che Guevara Avenue and Angela Davis Avenue.

Some people seem to allow their general hostility towards religion overpower any rational understanding of this article. Christianity has always seen divisions between those who take the Gospels seriously and promote social equality and the corrupt, hostile clergy who lick the boots of power. I referenced the Anabaptists in an earlier post, it’s interesting to note that they were persecuted by both the Catholics and Lutherans. The Vatican in the 1980s stayed quiet while Liberation Theology priests and nuns were killed by US-trained death squads in El Salvador. Today Thomas Muntzer is remembered and discussed more by secular scholars than his own Christian descendants. I don’t see what good it does the movement to slam a religious group for trying to participate in the conversation on the side of social justice. Our postmodern age truly is a mess. Someone pointed out the unions as a counter example. Really? The unions? The unions run by Democratic Party stooges who have done little to respond to the violent assault by the state?

while the head projects fate…
it’s the heart that participates…

(christ’s path and the christian religion…
are quite distinctly two different things…

christianity became a brand name for various manmade versions…
and it still remains that today)...

~~~

(render unto god the truth…
and unto man the illusion…
lest some first hand might get tied…
by second-hand conclusions!)...

“Try to understand that as part of its propaganda message, Truthdig occasionally tries to co-opt Christians. That rare attempt to attract Christians has several of you upset, but you need to see it as part of agitprop.”

Thanks OM, I have been trying to find the word “agitprop”, which seems to describe what you do here as some others on these here threads!

“Truthdig occasionally tries to co-opt Christians?”  Is that like going on a blind date and occasionally trying to get lucky?  As Fox News states in their own Foxy way alluding to something they know little of ‘facts’  by starting a sentience with; “some People say….........”!

@ Ozark Michael

It is EmileZ

No space between the “e” and the “Z”.

Ignorant of history huh???

Well I can’t say I am an expert, but I do care ever so much. How about you???

Please fill me in on the details which you believe I may be missing out on.

I am not one who likes to be accused of being (or is in fact) ignorant.

I await your enlightenment (trembling, like all good leftists I love to tremble).....

I find this article myopic in scope, religion as a whole can do what it pleases, just do not tell me what I should do or believe! Shockley’s question seems to be like some posters here, laying an egg which turns out to be a red herring. 

Unions jumped right in supporting Occupy without any false pretenses or notions of belief and deluded expectations.  The simple fact Occupy has a message and it is clear disenfranchisement of the many the 99 percent vs choreographed inequality by the few the 1 percent seems very straight forward.

I would probably find any Religious leader doing as Shockley seems to be doing, hedging in this article as a political manipulation, he seems to be under the illusion occupy should be about him and his religion not about the 99 percent? 

In all fairness, I will reread his article, maybe I missed something? Far as I can tell Occupy is a social issue not a religious one!

One church here where I live offered “sanctuary” to the Occupiers only to withdraw the offer and ask them to leave when they found out their insurance didn’t cover them for liability.  The message: Jesus loves you as long as you can’t sue his ass.

You can read that story “How to Blow a Revolution: The London Model” at http://www.josephcouture.com

It’s precisely because of this kind of thing that some people see no point in trying to “fix the system.”  They prefer to remain outside of it and live independent of the conventional structures.  One former homeless man tells the story of how he found freedom in dropping out and doing it his own way.

Read “The Revolutionary Act of Simple Survival” at http://www.josephcouture.com

Emile Z

I thank you on behalf of all good Leftists who wish to remain ignorant of history, events which everyone should already know or at least care enough to find out about.

@ OzarkMichael

I don’t know who you are trying to convince… I assume it is yourself, but thank you on behalf of all good christians.

We like to give thanks.

Try to understand that as part of its propaganda message, Truthdig occasionally tries to co-opt Christians. That rare attempt to attract Christians has several of you upset, but you need to see it as part of agitprop.

Every Leftist movement succeeds with the help of what Lenin called “useful idiots.”

It is part of the old Leftist playbook since 1919, where the Bolsheviks appealed for support from the very Christians who they would later shoot in the back of the head once the Bolsheviks seized power.

reverend shockley, eh. i wonder what the “reverend” is doing there. just that
one thing, the title, contradicts everything OWS stands, or shld, stand for.
please shockley discard first of all that mantle or cover up and only then i
wld accept u as my equal and trust u.

and jesus self was never one of us. he even implied [or an editor did after
his death] that he was a rabbi, prophet, and even son of god.
i also believe that the protestant clergy [probably others also] often warns
their mental serfs to be with THEM, but not of THEM. THEM meaning
godless, less worthy/civiliozed people.

so, clearly, jesus was not of the poor people. another quote attributed to
jesus negates everything he had said [or scribes later said it for him];: ye
shall always have poor amongst u. now, why wld god want to have rich and
poor people??? and for an eternity???
either jesus or others have also said: i came to uphold the law and the
prophets.
this means that he approved of mosheic cult [one of the worst ever] and
genocide of the cannaanites [provided it occurred as described in torah by
said prophets and other not-ones-of-us, but with us: us, the useful idiots]

if OWS had delivered the message to the sacerdotal class [islamic, christian,
talmudic-torahic, hindi, buddhist] shockley speaks of, then i am glad it did.
tnx

@ BrilliantBill

I looked at the webpage and I liked what I saw.

Does the Catholic Worker movement have any advice for the vatican??? I think it would be nice if it did.

Anyhow…

I’m not trying to be a dick.

In that regard (regarding the vatican) I see you folks kind of like the Progressive Democratic Caucus.

I guess what I am asking is…

Any plans to go Green??? (if you know what I mean).

Proverbs 11:3

“The integrity of the upright shall guide them: but the
perverseness of transgressors shall destroy them.”

@Lafayette, your stance is a bit cluttered. Should Christians who sympathize with the popular movement stand aside? These guys are not calling for a theocracy, they are simply examining how their belief system justifies the fight on the side of the poor and unequal. Culturally the prime religion in the US has been Christianity, particularly of the Protestant variety, so it isn’t strange to see a Christian group comment on the need to fight on the side of the poor. As for atheists, who’s excluding them from the conversation? It’s not like Dawkins, Hitchens etc. are openly choosing to take any part in the fight for social justice.

gerard said:

Every time an OWS protester is jailed, the moral poverty of the State and its politico-social-economic organizations is revealed.

Even when the OWS protester was breaking windows with a hammer?

Even when the OWS protester steals something?

Even when the OWS protester assaults someone?

Now think of this for a moment: every time that an OWS protester breaks the law, what does that reveal about OWS?

And more: every time that an OWS protester breaks the law and is not arrested, what signal does that give to OWS?

It’s time to also rediscover the spirit and ideals of th Radical Reformation and movements like the Anabaptists, who preached social equality, the smashing of the feudal order and formed ideas about communal societies that even Marx and Engels referenced later in history. Christianity has produced brilliant, powerful revolutionary figures such as Thomas Munzter, one of the leaderrs of the 1525 Peasant’s War.

STAY AWAY FROM THE FRAY

Religion should stay out of politics. It is just another belief system, like so many others - except that it confuses public purpose with sanctimony.

Why not have agnostics and atheists offer their opinion as well? After all, don’t we want balance in our journalistic content?

Religion has been employed as a political tool by the Religous-Right sufficiently in this country to have done enough damage to our system of governance.

The Religious-Left should stay out of the fray.

The separation of belief and state is a major cornerstone of any truly democratic nation.

Although everybody knows it already, nobody admits it, so it needs to be said:  Religious beliefs have very little to do with the way things are done in politics, though all politicians spin endlessly in circles trying to convince their “constituencies” (code for supporters, victims, citizens, people we are supposed to protect and provide for)that they are sincerely interested in us, which they are not.
  As a matter of fact, a vast gulf yawns between righteousness (morality, ethical justice, honesty, etc.) and politics. What’s more, that gulf is taken for granted, and anyone trying to bridge that gap is generally regarded as a fool, more or less.
  OWS is “leaderless”, by the way, not to save itself from being beheaded but to enable the largest possible number of “ordinary” people have room to learn, grow, be active, make creative suggestions, and cooperate on widely agreed goals. This is something quite new to religions which are almost always as heirarchical as any other political organization.
  At the same time OWS manifests both in word and act the most important ethical values of the “best” religions—freedom of thought and speech, and a reasonable degree of economic and political equality, love, understanding and voluntary cooperation. 
  Every time an OWS protester is jailed, the moral poverty of the State and its politico-social-economic organizations is revealed.
  Everybody knows that religions, along with every other organization in the country,should have done much more much sooner.  If so, there would be no need for OWS, would there? 
  Religion, therefore, has nothing to “teach” OWS, and everything to learn. So listen up!

That’s all nice, but one of the few remnants of genuine Christianity that have survived to this day is the Catholic Worker movement. Here are a couple of points to think about from their Aims & Means, created many years ago:

When we examine our society, which is generally called capitalist (because of its methods of producing and controlling wealth) and is bourgeois (because of prevailing concern for acquisition and material interests, and its emphasis on respectability and mediocrity), we find it far from God’s justice.

—In economics, private and state capitalism bring about an unjust distribution of wealth, for the profit motive guides decisions. Those in power live off the sweat of others’ brows, while those without power are robbed of a just return for their work. Usury (the charging of interest above administrative costs) is a major contributor to the wrongdoing intrinsic to this system. We note, especially, how the world debt crisis leads poor countries into greater deprivation and a dependency from which there is no foreseeable escape. Here at home, the number of hungry and homeless and unemployed people rises in the midst of increasing affluence.

—In politics, the state functions to control and regulate life. Its power has burgeoned hand in hand with growth in technology, so that military, scientific and corporate interests get the highest priority when concrete political policies are formulated. Because of the sheer size of institutions, we tend towards government by bureaucracy—that is, government by nobody. Bureaucracy, in all areas of life, is not only impersonal, but also makes accountability, and, therefore, an effective political forum for redressing grievances, next to impossible.

For the complete statement, see:

http://www.catholicworker.org/aimsandmeanstext.cfm?Number=5