OWS adopt code of ethics

[Thats my opinion]

Submitted by religious groups.
I have just received word that OWS has adopted the code of ethics proposed by two religious groups: (occupyfaithnyc.org and forusa.org fellowship of reconciliation.) The ten principles are.

1. We will be open and respectful to all.
2. We will exemplify caring and compassion for all.
3. We will ground our actions in our spiritual traditions and practices.
4. We will use no verbal or physical violence toward anyone, including the police and those who disagree with us.
5. We will accept the legal consequences of nonviolent action and if arrested, will behave in an exemplary manner.
6. My attitude will be one of openness, friendliness and respect toward everyone, including police and opponents.
7. If arrested I will behave in an exemplary manner. I will not evaded the legal consequences of my actions.
8. I will no damage property.
9. I will not bring or use drugs or alcohol.
10. I will not carry weapons.

OWS has personnel throughout the group who will see that anyone violating this code of ethics is removed from the site.

[provis99]

1. this is the end of the movement.

Once every interest group with a grudge starts distracting the Occupy cells from their message, they'll lose focus and spin into collapse as every postmodernist on a mission decides his own pet project (save the whales, free the chickens, become a vegan, save the trees, buy hemp clothing, stop harassment, buy USA, stop racism, support the gays, support illegal immigrants, etc.) will be pushing their agenda as being more important than the complaint that the message of Occupy, which was that the rich oppress the rest of us.

It is looking less and less like a mainstream working class movement, and more and more like a bunch of self-righteous, whiny, indulgent limousine liberals who just want to hang out and smoke pot.

[roguevalley]

3. In my opinion, I disagree. This isn't a list of stuff that discusses

issues that matter to small groups. This is a conduct matter of how to treat each other as individuals. Treat each other well, respect each other, take care of each other, you are welcome here. I think it is a good thing. That is a good list to live by for anyone. Its also an in your face to anyone who would think they are anarchists or dipshits.

[starroute]

6. They've been studying tht mistakes that were made in the 60's

And have (I believe rightly) concluded that what spun out of control then was the result of violence, anger, disrespect, and a lack of centeredness.

A list like this won't be easy to stick with when the shit really comes down, but I'm glad to see them enunciate it this early.

The only item I see that might not immediately seem to be of universal applicability is the one that refers to "spiritual traditions." But if the word "spiritual" is taken in the way it's often used these days -- to mean something that encompasses religion but goes well beyond it and also includes humanism and environmentalism -- it is both non-divisive and highly important.

[FirstLight]

2. right on

It's great that universal type ideals keep coming from this movement. I see a UNITY here that we have all been sorely lacking

[Common Sense Party]

4. "We will ground our actions in our spiritual traditions and practices"

a) What does that even MEAN?

b) What if you don't have any "spiritual traditions and practices"?

c) WHY?

[roguevalley]

8. those who have them are as welcome as those who don't

that is what i read. spiritual can mean a lot of things. so can practices. just being kind is a spiritual practice.

[Common Sense Party]

5. Do you have a link for this?

"OWS has personnel throughout the group who will see that anyone violating this code of ethics is removed from the site"

I highly doubt this has happened, been approved, or is in force. What, they're going to forcibly pick somebody up and remove them?

[rrneck]

7. The OP is the only google result

for the phrase "ows code of ethics" that relates to the content presented.

Link?

[Thats my opinion]

16. Last evening I had a personal visit with one of the leaders

of the movement, who is at the site every day. This is a first hand report. Given the consensus model of OWS these matters are agreed to as the message flows through the crowd by the echo procedure. This code was readily adopted. OWS is committed to keeping the demonstration free of violence, drugs and others violations of conduct.The worst thins is for OWS to be invaded by violence or other anti-social disruptive forces. Spiritual traditions and practices doesn't necessarily mean religion--but includes it. There are changes in the wind which will be reported as they come out. I am keeping in direct touch.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rrneck]

18. Ohhhhhhhh.

So YOU'RE the link? Hang on...

:rofl:

What's next, are you going to declare yourself the official DemocraticUnderground liaison to the OWS movement? I'm sorry, wait just a minute...

:rofl:

Hey playa, I've got news for you. This sentence - "We will ground our actions in our spiritual traditions and practices." - coupled with this sentence - "OWS has personnel throughout the group who will see that anyone violating this code of ethics is removed from the site." is exactly the same underhanded political insider parasitic sanctimonious sectarian bullshit that Christianaty has been doing since, well, Nicaea.

The Abrahamic religions have owned the copyright to the term "spiritual" for about two thousand years. Almost nobody in the United States hears the word "spiritual" without thinking "Christianity". So please spare us the condescending tripe about how "Spiritual traditions and practices doesn't necessarily mean religion--but includes it." This is just another in a long history of people trying to insinuate their faith into the prevailing power structure and enforce it at the first opportunity. Christianity is the Wal Mart of religions in this country and there is no doubt that if you can just get some sort of "spirituality" into the power to compel people to do what you want you will be able to crush the competition with no trouble at all.

Listen playa, I have no interest whatsoever in playing Cat's paw to your petty ambitions. I don't want my spirituality associated with such underhanded insider politics because I have respect for the interior lives of other people. Get your religion the fuck out of our politics and read the goddamn first amendment, you might learn something.

[Thats my opinion]

20. Don't know where you have been

but I deal with a large number of very astute young adults who despise religion but who are attracted to what they call spirituality. For them that may be just sitting quietly, or meditating, or doing yoga, or feeding the hungry, or listening to music. on and on and on.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

44. +1.

[bananas]

34. Thanks for sharing that.

You appear to be who you say you are,
and there doesn't seem to be any valid reason to doubt your statement.

[Goblinmonger]

35. Other than the fact that if you search for his claim

it is NOWHERE to be found. Even on Twitter. So you are telling me that the OWS organization, which has adopted this religiously offered code of ethics by having EVERYONE look at it, is keeping it quiet? Really? Nobody on Twitter is sharing how the great religious forces of the world have come to bring ethics to this group?

You don't see any reason to think perhaps this is bullshit? Thousands on Twitter breathe not a word of it, but we have the one and only oracle right here.

Yeah, I got a bridge to sell you.

[trotsky]

37. It's not even on the websites of the organizations he *specifically* mentions...

as having put this together and promoted it.

Nope, no valid reason to doubt his statement about how important religion (HIS religion, natch) is to the OWS movement. None whatsoever.

[beam me up scottie]

9. Says who?

You got a link for that?

[skepticscott]

10. So why does this story

say that OWS members devised their own code of ethics, with no mention of "religious groups" at all?

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/occupy-wall-street-protesters-security-detail-sets-standards-conduct-zuccotti-park-article-1.970254

[bananas]

11. The NY Daily News is a right-wing version of the National Enquirer. nt

[skepticscott]

14. Sure...And your point is what?

That this implies that the story isn't true? If they were going to make something up about OWS, don't you think it would be something UNfavorable?

[ChadwickHenryWard]

12. Why should I have to do what religious people tell me?

[Thats my opinion]

19. Two types of replies to this posting

First there are a number which evaluate the need and implementation of the ten points, and see both sanity and solid discernment in what the OWS group is doing. Or they disagree with the implications. Fair game.

And then there are others who blast it, and the OP, because this was instituted by religious groups who have the audacity to include the word "spiritual." It is as if the only thing they can celebrate is something which totally leaves out any dimension of religion or spirituality.
Well folks, they are part of life. There are those who don't want anything positive about religion on r/t. If only r/t were reserved for atheists--who no one dares attack. So atheists really own the forum and anyone with a religious motive is an invader who must be cut down.. And you wonder why this forum is such a pariah among so many thinking people--many of them sincere atheists. I have respect for atheism and atheists. I have no respect for fundamentalists be they religious or irreligious.

If you think the ten points are misplaced and unhelpful, that's one thing we can talk about and perhaps agree or disagree about. If you slam them because they were somehow produced by religious organizations, that is something quite different.

[beam me up scottie]

21. Um, you have yet to prove that it "was instituted by religious groups".

Your credibility seems to be the issue here.

If only r/t were reserved for atheists--who no one dares attack. So atheists really own the forum and anyone with a religious motive is an invader who must be cut down.. And you wonder why this forum is such a pariah among so many thinking people--many of them sincere atheists.

And it will always be an issue until you stop questioning the motives of the atheists who have the audacity to ask you to back up your claims.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Deep13]

26. Ten, I'm sure that's a coincidence. nt

[skepticscott]

28. You also have yet to prove that

any of this was unachievable by non-religious means, even if it was instituted by religious groups (who seem to be nothing but hangers-on through all of this, in any case), or that "spirituality" is necessary for any kind of ethical code.

[Goblinmonger]

29. Calling bullshit on your making this something dependent on religion

ISN't the same as atheists attacking you, as much as you might want it to be.

Remember Jason Leopold? I called bullshit on him and his "24 business hours" line of crap, too. It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with a source that seems to be talking out its ass in order to look like a playa.

Get me a link that says what you say and then we'll talk.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trotsky]

13. If someone does not have any "spiritual traditions and practices", are they violating the code?

Will they be removed from the site?

Why does religion have to step in and be divisive all the time? Oh, sorry, my bad, that's just what it does.

[cleanhippie]

15. Unrec. No link and both of your sources make NO MENTION OF THIS WHATSOEVER.

[Deep13]

27. +1 nt

[rrneck]

24. This code

would be just as effective without item number three.

It would also be much less divisive and much more effective in building a cohesive coalition of people without the potential for sectarian infighting.

But as usual there are hangers on willing to slide the proboscis of disaster capitalism into the enthusiasm of others and feed off it.

[Deep13]

25. I object to 3, 5, 7 and depending on how things develop...

...may object to 4, 8 and 10. 9 is too broad as it does not create exceptions for medically necessary and lawful drugs.

Do you have a source for these new commandments?

3 is most relevant to this forum and essentially takes the Enlightenment traditions and pisses them away in an ally. By conceding the authoritarian, patriarchal structure of traditional religious "ethics," they have essentially surrendered before the fight started. It is also highly divisive in that it automatically excludes anyone whose sense of ethics are not derived from a "spiritual tradition," a euphemism for religion. Further, different religions have different codes of ethics. How are GLTB members supposed to interact with participants whose spiritual traditions include the story of Sodom? How are Black participants supposed to deal the ethics of Mormon racism? How are supporters of women's autonomy supposed to deal with R. Catholic and Muslim ethical traditions?

As to legal consequences, again by accepting the legitimacy of the capitalist legal system, they have conceded the argument. The whole point of a defense is to evade punishment. If participating in this movement means waiving all legal rights in court, then I strongly suggest we all avoid this movement. This idea may be fine for Christians and Muslims who follow the reprehensible ideology of martyrdom and the virtue of suffering, but for people who are not self-loathing, it sucks.

Not clear what "verbal violence" is. By definition violence is physical. The only real exception are threats of physical violence.

By conceding nonviolence/nondamage in advance, they are taking away a source of anxiety for politicians and their owners. Frankly, the whole labor movement is built on the threat of violence and damage. Disabling company property was standard procedure before unions had legal protection. It was a way to fight and to cost the enemy money without actually fighting. And when the enemy behaves in a lawless way as enforcers (cops, soldiers and hired thugs) for the bosses, working people were forced to resort to similar tactics just to survive. Federal labor laws regulating and protecting organizing and strikes exist as an institutional alternative to rioting. So while I hope we can remain nonviolent on our end (the police have already drawn first blood), I'm not willing to concede the matter in advance.

Finally, I don't believe anyone with influence is behind this idiotic list. Anyone involved knows that OWS is not a specific group, but simply citizens and residents who decide to show up. They don't need to sign onto this tablet of rules to show up on a public street.

[skepticscott]

31. Two days later, you still seem to be the only one

who has heard anything about this. No links, no news stories, nothing on the web sites you mention. Why would that be, I wonder?

And why would a groups adopt a list where 5 and 7 were the same thing?

[Nihil]

33. There's probably a good reason for the lack of media coverage ...

In addition to your (correct) point about items 5 & 7 being the same thing
and the earlier (correct) points about the unnecessary & divisive item 3,
I find it interesting that items 1 to 5 are phrases as plural ("we will")
whereas from 6 onwards, it's down to the singular ("I will").

Did someone's pet mouse die part way through thinking this lot up?

:shrug:

[skepticscott]

38. Well, the list is borrowed in large part

From the forusa.org website

http://forusa.org/blogs/matthew-arlyck/resources-for-occupy-movement/9653

How the changes came about remains to be seen, but the duplication of 5 and 7 and the rather silly #3 are not present in the original, nor are the plurals.

[trotsky]

39. Nice work.

Finally, some documentation. Why did the author of this thread have to make things so difficult? And as you note, why the differences in the lists, especially when the OP made it sound like there was universal agreement on his list? Why the edit to promote religion?

[skepticscott]

40. Well, it remains undocumented

whether any such thing has actually been adopted by OWS, or whether our OP simply took a little poetic license with the facts and extrapolated from what already existed to what he wished for to promote his agenda.

[Goblinmonger]

36. Nothing on Twitter, either.

Of course we know how OWS people are so shy of putting the word out on Twitter.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[deacon_sephiroth]

32. #3 is a load n/t

[skepticscott]

45. And still nothing anywhere about this

No news stories reporting what you claim, and nothing on the web sites you refer to.

Wonder why that is?

[muriel_volestrangler]

46. #5 and #7 are the same

I hope whoever is really doing this can be more organised. If you just want 9 principles, then use 9. Or bring back one of the ones you dropped from what appears to be the original) pledge (one that seems to be voluntary, to me):
[br />6. We will follow directions of designated coordinators and peacekeepers.
and
9. We will not run or make gestures that might appear threatening.

(For those keeping count, "My attitude will be one of openness, friendliness and respect toward everyone, including police and opponents" seems to come from here: http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=239178121718&topic=14632 )

I think that 'verbal violence toward anyone' is a highly subjective standard, and that any 'personnel' trying to expel people because of it are going to cause far more trouble. Some might say that verbal violence against out-of-control capitalists is actually a key principle of OWS.

Given the controversy we see here on DU, OWS could adopt the forusa.org suggestion instead: http://forusa.org/blogs/matthew-arlyck/resources-for-occupy-movement/9653 , which manages without any mention of 'spiritual' at all.

[skepticscott]

47. Want to explain why

you're STILL the only human on the planet who has heard about this? Why should anyone believe that you didn't just make this up out of thin air?

[skepticscott]

48. Are you ever going to provide evidence of this

or are you ever going to admit that you made the whole thing up, and then ducked out (as you always do) when your falsehood was challenged?

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[skepticscott]

50. Still waiting for your documentation

showing that this actually happened. Will you be writing a book about it?

[cleanhippie]

51. .

wrong place.

[skepticscott]

53. Nothing wrong with highlighting both

This OP is SO deserving of being brought back to the top, as I'm sure the OPer himself would agree. If he were here. Ever.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rrneck]

54. Kick

These two threads should be together.

[rrneck]

55. kick

[skepticscott]

56. And STILL nothing anywhere else about this

no evidence that it ever happened, other than in your imagination.

[Goblinmonger]

57. You sure your not Jason Leopold? n/t

[skepticscott]

58. And STILL nothing anywhere else about this

An honest Xstian interested in "meaningful" discussion would either back up their claim or admit that they had borne false witness. Not holding my breath on either here, though.

[MarkCharles]

59. Would be nice if the police adopted a code of ethics at OWS..you know...

like not trashing books, not destroying tents and other private property, not spraying crowds with chemicals, not arresting peaceful protesters.