I assume

[Thats my opinion]

that no matter what our position regarding faith or no faith, we are all in support of the OWS movement. It is certainly not a religious movement. But neither is it a politically oriented democratic party movement. It probably leans more toward anarchy than anything else. It, however, is in constant fear lest some other persuasion seeks to take it over--principally democrats. Even so, none of us with other perspectives would want to do anything to hinder its aggressive and very effective work. So we stand on the sidelines and if there is something we can do to assist we are ready.

Numerous daily conversations with those inside the movement indicated that perhaps the greatest fear is that the objectives they articulate would be diverted and even dismantled by behavior which has nothing to do with the diverse goals. So they do what they can to secure the movement inside against guns, drugs, and the kind of belligerent behaviors that end in violence. To that end they have been in conversation with anyone with thoughtful ways to control the motion of the group without appearing to dictate conduct from the outside. A few days back they ran across a statement of ten principles of nonviolent witness published in a number of forms by the Fellowship of Reconciliation. They asked for 300 copies of these principles which THEY distributed--not the FOR-- and then for another 500 of a revised list which they got and distributed. if you understand the dynamics by which OWS operates, you will realize that they don't vote on anything, but a consensus on some matters flows through the group, and when something is affirmed or adopted it is witnessed by how the group decides to act. So you won't find minutes, resolutions, websites or rules of action. But you will see flowing through the body how they lean on each other and expect each other to act.
Everyone seems to know that drugs, guns, violence, disrespect are outside the boundaries of group or individual action. It is not that they bow to anybody's laws or ways to act, but in the protection of what they are really about, there are commonly agreed upon ways to work together. To those ends FOR another bodies, religious and not, have been helpful.

I do not expect OWS to turn either religions or political.
That is not who they are.
All we, from the outside, can do is support them in ways THEY tell us are helpful, and that is what has happened in this instance. I do not expect OWS to change its course and lead a political movement toward the left. It is not the obverse of the tea party. But happening all across the country are community efforts looking to a better future through political action. The recent elections in Ohio, Mississippi and Arizona testify to that dynamic. And in places like my 35,000 town, and all over the nation last Saturday, thousands of middle-class folks picketed the big banks, and change their accounts. OWS didn't do that, but it energized others to get active. And that is powerful. And that is really the positive action OWS generates. In the meantime, I assume that all of us will want to support the movement, put sway our rocks and get behind anyone who assists in this great effort.

[laconicsax]

1. So when you said that OWS had adopted those nine principles, you made it up.

So glad you took the time to start a new thread to answer questions asked of you in the last one you started.

[bananas]

9. "Dead agenting"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversies#.22Dead_agenting.22

"Dead agenting"

In the 1970s, Hubbard continued to codify the policy of "attacking the attacker" and assigned a term to it that is used frequently within Scientology: "dead agenting." Used as a verb, "dead agenting" is described by Hubbard as a technique for countering negative accusations against Scientology by diverting the critical statements and making counter-accusations against the accuser (in other words, "attack the attacker"). Hubbard defined the PR (public relations) policy on "dead agenting" in a 1974 bulletin:

<snip>

Fucking cults based on pseudo-science and "dead agenting" can kiss my fucking ass.

[trotsky]

12. Glad to hear your opinion on Scientology.

What do you think about the false statements made by the author of this thread?

[trotsky]

11. This is how someone admits they are completely full of shit...

without admitting they're completely full of shit.

This is what the "best" of Christianity has to offer us? Insults, deceit, power-grabbing, and the desire to control (by force if necessary) various aspects of our lives? Damn.

[skepticscott]

2. Here's what was in the OP you cut and run from

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.

Later in the same thread you stated:

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. This code was readily adopted.

And gee...now we find out that your previous OP was not particularly true at all. And that you purposely avoided admitting that in that thread. Call me unsurprised.

[Thats my opinion]

17. Adopted

In parliamentary or political systems the term "adopted" probably means to be voted through. In the non-political system operating in OWS the term adopted means that is the way we live and how we act. OWS has taken great pains to encourage all who are on the site to operate under the very terms the FOR card describes for the very reasons I have outlined in this post. If a group adopts vegetarianism, for instance, it doesn't mean they voted on it as if they were a formal club. It means they adopted it as a style of eating. Do you really want to force OWS into some arcane outmoded system of rules of procedure? Then you know very little about how OWS operates.

Now, is there any rational comment about the substance of the post, or is the only thing you are interested in is attacking the poster? i support OWS and have been to the site in LA and a similar action right in my community. Any of you out there in support, and if so how do you show it?

There is a revision of the original ten principles which is now in circulation. I'll produce it in a subsequent post

[skepticscott]

23. Oh, please

The purpose of the responses here and to the post you cut and run from has been to request (over and over and over) that you provide ANY documentation that what you claimed had happened actually DID happen. There is no "substance" to your post; it is merely a weasely way of not quite admitting that your version of events was, to say the least, undocumented and unsupported. Do you have any explanation for why the list you posted has two points that are the same? Or why one point injecting spirituality magically appeared in your version? Or why you subsequently stated that TWO versions had circulated, and are now claiming that a THIRD one is circulating (how are people supposed to know which one to adhere to?). Or why OWS would feel justified in forcibly removing anyone who didn't adhere to a "code of ethics" that they hadn't agreed to and may not even have been informed of, on property that didn't belong to OWS in the first place? Or why my involvement with OWS has anything to do with the truth of your posts?

You continue to insist (ridiculously) that any demand for evidence to back up your claims constitutes a "personal attack" on you, and frankly I'm damn sick and tired of that. And I'm not the only one here.

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. You said it was a 'first hand report'

Technically, that should mean you yourself witnessed it being adopted. Even if you were being loose with your definitions, that means the 'leader' you talked to saw it being adopted - 'readily' (that would really be a second hand report). That implies it was not some gradual agreement as various people at OWS caught sight of a card and said 'sounds good to me', but there was a moment at which it was 'adopted'. The 'leader' implies some leadership process involved in this.

But, most tellingly, you said 'personnel' would throw anyone out who didn't follow it. That really does say that it was an official process, and that there are people who have been appointed to enforce this 9 point agreement (there weren't ten principles; you repeated one, apparently because you've pasted together 2 different lists). Is it any wonder people looked on your post as describing a political process, complete with enforcement personnel?

[skepticscott]

32. And once again, you cut and run

After claiming to want "a dialogue", all you do is come in and monologue, then leave. You refuse to answer substantive questions about your posts, and instead go into another snit about "personal attacks", then take your ball and go home.

Tell us again why you should be taken seriously in any real discussion.

[rrneck]

36. But he never stays home for long dammit. nt

[darkstar3]

3. ...a great many things.

That's all you had to say.

[rrneck]

4. Soooo

if you can't get your self aggrandizing ideology adopted and enforced you'll settle for quietly injecting it and allowing it to "flow" through the crowd.

If it happened at all. What are you trying to inject here? I don't see a clear point.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[EvolveOrConvolve]

6. That's part of your problem

You assume WAY too much.

[Thats my opinion]

18. So we should assume

that you don't support OWS? If not, why don't you just say so?

[rrneck]

22. That's SOP for you.

Attach your faith to a political movement then claim that any question regarding how it got there is an attack on the movement itself.

That's how the right wing fundies operate.

[trotsky]

33. + a brazillion n/t

[EvolveOrConvolve]

29. You may assume whatever you would like to assume

Even if you are wildly incorrect.

This is usually the spot where I point out how embarrassing you are, but you're doing a fine job of demonstrating it all by yourself.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[bananas]

8. ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversies#.22Dead_agenting.22

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[skepticscott]

13. Feel free to avoid it

particularly if you're afraid of open and frank debate or responding substantively to direct questions.

[Thats my opinion]

19. I really want to have a decent dialogue

in what OWS is about and how we democrats can support it without getting in the way. All all may of you want to talk about is a quibble about the word "adopted." I assume all the deleted and ignored bits here are the same thing. Why not talk about the post and how we relates to OWS?

[trotsky]

20. No, we want to talk about why you are wrong.

You, however, don't want to hear that. So you ignore, insult, dodge, and start new threads all to avoid discussing your errors and proselytizing.

[rrneck]

21. Hey slick,

DEMOCRATS represent a POLITICAL PARTY. We need the DEMOCRATIC PARTY of which our current president is a MEMBER to heed the demands of THE PEOPLE who are currently assembling to petition the GOVERNMENT for a redress of grievances - none of which have a good goddamn thing to do with religion.

[skepticscott]

24. Because your sole motivation

all along has been to burnish the reputation of "liberal" and "progressive" religion by trying to associate it with OWS long after the fact. And you've done it by making claims that you can't document or explain. You just can't help trying to inject your version of religion into every political cause you support, can you?

[skepticscott]

31. And why does a discussion

along the lines you describe belong in the Religion and Theology forum? Other than your need to have your particular flavor of "liberal", "progressive" Christianity take credit for as much goodliness as you can find, whether it deserves it or not.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[LeftishBrit]

15. Agree

I trust no one was saying otherwise.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[cleanhippie]

25. IOW, you made up the story in your last OP, and you are trying to get away from it in this one.

Real classy.

[rrneck]

28. And futile. nt

[Iggo]

26. Wow.

Dude.

[beam me up scottie]

30. Who are "they"? The leaders you claim confided in you?

Numerous daily conversations with THOSE INSIDE THE MOVEMENT indicated that perhaps the greatest fear is that the objectives THEY articulate would be diverted and even dismantled by behavior which has nothing to do with the diverse goals

So THEY do what they can to secure the movement inside against guns, drugs, and the kind of belligerent behaviors that end in violence.

THEY have been in conversation with anyone with thoughtful ways to control the motion of the group without appearing to dictate conduct from the outside

THEY ran across a statement of ten principles of nonviolent witness published in a number of forms by the Fellowship of Reconciliation

THEY asked for 300 copies of these principles which THEY distributed--not the FOR-- and then for another 500 of a revised list which THEY got and distributed.

All we, from the outside, can do is support them in ways THEY tell us are helpful, and that is what has happened in this instance

You didn't answer questions in your first OWS thread and started another one, why?

Why are you ignoring the other members who post in this forum?


If you refuse to acknowledge the opinions and concerns of others, can we assume that you are using this forum as your personal pulpit?

[Thats my opinion]

35. Let me tell you why I ignore

many of those who post here. I am interested in supporting OWS. I have no truck with those who only want to attack anything that has to do with religion, and who have not said one word about what is going on in OWS. That is how this all got started when i posted a positive item about how a religious group is responding to a need OWS articulated. They come after me because I have the audacity to introduce positive aspects of religion in a forum titled religion and theology. They are just interested in chopping down anyone who dares raise a religious idea. I will not mention any names you asked about so that the attackers can go after them and what they represent. I have put on ignore several of the attackers, and am only interested in what we can do to support things like Democratic policies and values, and in this case the OWS. if people want to talk about the substance of the relationship between OWS and other supporting groups, fine. But if they just want to snipe, it is no longer my interest to respond.

[rrneck]

38. Here y'go.

Here are discussions of OWS and "supporting groups".

Begin:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=316608&mesg_id=316798

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=316608&mesg_id=316801

When I get ready to hand out a personal attack you'll know it. But read It quick the mods work pretty fast around here.

[beam me up scottie]

40. DUers have every right to question your credibility, and it has nothing to do with religion.

Anyone who repeatedly uses fallacious arguments to validate biased opinions should expect nothing less.

Non sequiturs, ad homs, strawmen, begging the question, appeals to pity, arguments from authority, appeals to anonymous authority, red herrings, arguments ad nauseam, etc, are the only "substance" I see in your posts.

They come after me because I have the audacity to introduce positive aspects of religion in a forum titled religion and theology. They are just interested in chopping down anyone who dares raise a religious idea.

The denial and hypocrisy is staggering.

[Thats my opinion]

41. Let's make a deal

Quit reading my terrible stuff and I'll quit reading yours and we will both be happier.

[beam me up scottie]

42. This isn't a church.

You do know that christians have a group where you can post if you don't want to be challenged, right?

When the religious stop interfering in the private lives of citizens I'll sit down and stfu.

Deal.

[skepticscott]

44. Yes, except that

none of the "liberal" or "progressive Xstians there have anything to say to each other. Despite coming in here and whining that they really, really want to have a meaningful and serious discussion of "faith", but can't because of the mean ol' atheists.

He's tried posting there, and his entreaties pretty much fall on deaf ears (except when the threads get locked, no easy feat in that group).

[rrneck]

43. No deal.

Assuming you can read this I will continue to bust you until I get a straight answer out of you.

You may not believe it but others are as passionate about their beliefs as you pretend to be, we're just not trying to pad our resume with it. Ignoring us just makes it easier.

[Thats my opinion]

45. Bye nt

[rrneck]

46. Thank you for greasing the skids. nt

[Deep13]

34. Anarchy? Hardly.

They want lawless elements of our financial system brought under control.

[Thats my opinion]

37. Thanks.

While I believe that major elements in the OWS movement are in fact anarchistic, yours is one of the few responses that really talked about OWS, even if you disagree with what I said. Most all of the responses have tried to attack me because I first mentioned how a religious group was supporting OWS. I no longer have time for that sort of vindictiveness.

OWS is deeply suspicious that politically motivated groups will infiltrate the movement. So they will not jell into anything specifically able to deal with controlling the financial system. They seem to distrust all systems. To that extent I think the anarchist label is accurate.

[trotsky]

39. Others have "attacked" you because you evidently told a falsehood.

The honest thing would be to admit that yes, indeed, you at least embellished a conversation you had, or mistook a small gathering for a meeting of group leaders.

But instead you claim you are being "attacked." Do you really believe you are contributing to discussion?