The Åntiwar Movement Gets Religion...Antiwar Rally Jan. 27 in D.C. To Have a Religious Component

[Sapphire Blue]

The Åntiwar Movement Gets Religion...Finally: Antiwar Rally Jan. 27 in D.C. To Have a Religious Component
Posted by Rabbi Michael Lerner (Wednesday, January 17 2007 @ 11:01 AM PST)

The Antiwar Movement has created a real place for religious and spiritual people, but you don't have to be religious to know that the war is wrong. This is the moment to demonstrate in the streets.

Now that the President has made clear that he will ignore the results of the 2006 election when the American people clearly declared their opposition to the war in Iraq, and the Democrats have made clear that they will NOT cut off funding for the war or even for Bush's planned escalation of it, the only step left for Americans is to bring our opposition to the war into non-violent demonstrations. That is what will be happening on Jan. 27th in Washington, D.C.

And this demonstration will begin to have some of what Tikkun has called for--a spiritual dimension to the anti-war movement After decades of what religious people have described as religio-phobia in liberal and progressive circles, the United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) rally and march against the war in Iraq will have a religious component. Working with the Network of Spiritual Progressives, which has been working with a host of religious organizations to plan the event, the UFPJ will commence the morning of Jan. 27th with an interfaith religious service and then the main rally will commence with fifteen minutes of a religious/spiritual focus.

The interfaith service will be held at 9-10:30 on January 27th, immediately before the (Lutheran) Church of the Reformation at 212 E. Capitol Street, NE. It will be led by Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist leaders.

The NSP urges religious and/or spiritual-but-not-religious people who wish to support this development in the anti-war movement to attend the services that morning and then march together with the NSP during the march that will follow the rally. We are NOT claiming that this demonstration will fully embody the spiritual values and vision we have for a peace demonstration--we can't be sure there won't be hateful signs or speeches, there is no place for serious discussion of strategy among the participants (though the next day there will be trainings for the Monday meetings with Congressional representatives), and there is no overt commitment of the anti-war movement to a strategy of atonement and generosity (e.g. backing the Global Marshall Plan). But it is still very important to be there and to have our voices heard. So please get to the service that morning, and if you miss it, find our NSP banner and march with us after the rally.

NSP national chairs: Rabbi Michael Lerner, Benedictine Sister Joan Chittister, Cornel West

For more information and ways you can be involved in strengthening this development in which the anti-war movement opens itself to spiritual and religious consciousness, please contact Nichola Torbett [e-mail] 510 644 1200. Work with us on our ad to place in the major newspapers, which you will find on our website after Jan. 22nd, and with our plans for Generosity Sunday (at www.spiritualprogressives.org).

http://files.tikkun.org/current/article.php?story=20070117110159851

[riderinthestorm]

1. I'm finding myself in a bit of a cringe thinking the left is going "religious"

Too many bad overtones, with that ole slippery slope towards fanaticism that plagues the right.

[Blue_In_AK]

3. "Religious" isn't always bad.

Think of the civil rights movement led by the REV. Martin Luther King and the REV. Jesse Jackson. Not all religious people are right-wing religious nuts.

[Poll_Blind]

4. Agreed. n/t

PB

[LanternWaste]

6. I agree.

I agree. One has to look at the individual(s) leading the particular 'religious' movement rather than applying a broad generality.

Gandhi immediately comes to mind. One of the most progressive-minded individuals of the 20th century yet also one of the most religious oriented.

From Emmanuel Kant and Friedrich Schleiermacher to William Channing and Albert Schweitzer we can easily see how the interpretation of the religion by the individual leading (or among the forefront of) a religious/philosophical movement may so differ from other religious authorities as to appear to be almost diametrically opposed to mainstream fundamentalism if looked at and judged by their secular agenda.

(That's a very awkward sentence upon re-reading it, but I'm on my lunch hour and can't really give time to pretty it up....)

[H2O Man]

44. I agree. n/t

[riderinthestorm]

48. I never said religious is "always" bad.

I know my history and understand that religious people have always been a part of these movements (the more people involved the better as far as I'm concerned regardless of religious affiliations or lack thereof.) My point however wasn't dealing with religious individuals but the tone of the OP which seemed to imply that the anti-war movement "needs" religion and spirituality. This is problematic for me on a couple of levels:
1. I believe the anti-war movement shouldn't become a religious movement - I believe it should stay away from that kind of definition for maximum success.
2. There have always been religious people, and even religiosity, at these events. Nobody is excluded or made to feel unwelcome nor are their spiritual contributions ever a problem. The OP makes a specific slur against the anti-war movement as "religio-phobic" which is ridiculous, taking a non-issue and exploiting it for religion's sake.

It's the old "when did you stop beating your wife" canard filled with tired stereotypes that have no place here (when is the atheistic, hostile-to-religion-left going to "allow" religion).

A movement that has been relatively free of the societal battle between secularism and religion - in fact I would state that in my experience at anti-war protests there has been a damn fine beautiful melding of those two ideas - is getting a metaphorical kick in the head by Rabbi Lerner et al.

I don't like it - I think it's a slippery slope the anti-war movement should stay away from.

[iverglas]

10. don't think of it as the left going religious

Think of it as the religious going left!

It's totally common in Canada to see religious groups represented at things like anti-war rallies. And think back to Vietnam, for heaven's sake! The Berrigan brothers (RC priests), the Quakers, churches in Canada that worked with draft resisters.

If you look here:
http://www.acp-cpa.ca/febemergencyresponses.htm
-- the Canadian Peace Alliance schedule of March 2003 actions protesting the war on Iraq -- you will see four of the events being held at United Church venues across Canada.

Here is the Anglican Church's promotion of anti-war events in January 2003:
http://www.anglican.ca/news/news.php?newsItem=2003-01-12_ann3e24416918ca4.fyi

Catholic New Times encourages participation in anti-war events in February 2003:
http://www.catholicnewtimes.org/index.php?module=articles&func=display&ptid=1&aid=1250

Not everyone advocating any particular policy will have the same reasons for doing it. Those whose reasons are connected with their religion may just have a better chance of being heard by people who base their own choices on their religious beliefs.

In fact, one doesn't even have to be left to oppose the war. Common fronts have to focus on the issue at hand -- on solving the problem everyone sees -- and shouldn't be distracted by differences in how people came to recognize the problem and decide it needed to be fixed.

I've worked in politics with some damned fine people over the decades from pretty much every strain of religion you can imagine. I've campaigned and voted for an RC priest (my old city councillor) -- and I know of some RC priests who voted for pro-choice, atheist moi in a couple of elections. ;)

[riderinthestorm]

11. To clarify, my concern is that the anti-war movement becomes a religious movement

I appreciate and applaud the contributions of ALL sectors of our society that join in protesting our occupation of Iraq (and the initial invasion etc.), and I appreciate and recognize that religious groups have always participated I've always been glad however that the anti-war movement hasn't become a religious forum.

Thanks for responding! :hi:

[iverglas]

13. I do understand the trepidation

And I was trusting that the headline -- "gets religion" -- was tongue in cheek. As in: gets religions.

I might also be suspicious reading about "a spiritual dimension to the anti-war movement". A religious component, sure. A spiritual dimension? Not quite the same thing. The movement itself should have no religious dimension ("spiritual" being total bullshit); it should have religious members, just as it has non-religious members.

You know when I get really pissed off? Remembrance Day (Nov. 11) events. I haven't been to any recently -- they became hugely popular in Canada a few years ago, and I'm not into crowds of 100,000 unless it's for a really good cause; I can remember at home, while protesting the war on Iraq at home, e.g., isn't really effective. Anyhow, the ceremonies are always virtually completely religious: prayers by various clerics, Christian hymns. We atheists just don't honour the war dead, I guess; no need to consider our presence. I was one of only a handful of people who attended the ceremony marking the 50th anniversary of The Great Escape a few years back (it was engineered by miners from northern Ontario), and I felt invisible. Every single thing said or read or sung was religious.

So yeah, I'd feel like I was very willing to include them, as long as nobody started excluding me.

[Peace Patriot]

20. Hey, iverglas, I've got an idea for you. How about participating in the

organization of one of these events, and asking to speak for atheists? I think you will find that people into peace and justice, from a religious perspective, are highly tolerant and want to be inclusive. Say, find something inspirational to read, from a secular viewpoint. TELL THEM you feel excluded. Tell them they are excluding others. They have the advantage of known prayers and ceremonial bits that many are familiar with, and that may tend to take over an event, because they have inherent stagecraft, based on long tradition. Figure out some way to represent atheists, non-church members, agnostics, Pagans and others (indigenous, nature-based religions, if those, too, are not represented). Don't sit back and sulk. Speak up! I think you will also find--as others have pointed out here--that many (and I think probably most) religious leaders and religious people support SECULAR government, with no favor to one religion or another, a policy that protects them all, and that preserves them from the disgrace of religious war that so plagued Europe for centuries (--and was one of the main things of concern to the Founders of our Republic). The main religions have made great progress in the 20th century on tolerance toward each other--the great Ecumenical movement of the 1960s--and need to stretch those bounds toward tolerance and respect for all others.

The Bush Junta has, of course, tried to reverse this development, but their success has been pretty much limited to the propaganda of the war profiteering corporate news monopolies, and the more profound trend is progressive and ecumenical. Hatred of Muslims is a setback, but I think that, too, will be healed, once we realize that there is NO WAR. There may be errant individuals and angry militarists, and some organized cells bent on violence, but that does not a war make. That is a matter of civil order.

Anyway, some of the greatest people to walk this earth have been Agnostics, if not Atheists--or have other names (Deists, Pagans, "philosophers," Materialists, Epicureans, some Buddhists)--and secularism itself has a great literature. Go for it! Find parallel symbolism and inspiration for what you believe in, or want to have represented at these events.

[iverglas]

26. nono!

I've never felt excluded at a *political* event! Up here, it's one big happy family. This is Canada, after all. (When I do feel excluded is when the ultraleftists take over, as they tended to do during events against the war on Iraq, and start dragging in issues and their positions on them that I or others present have never signed on to. You'll recognize the problem ...) Political demos typically have groups marching under union banners, church banners, local political party banners, non-party political group banners, ethnicity/country of origin-based political group banners, and so on. And speakers from all of them. And I think it's fine that some of the events are held at / start at churches; after all, they're tax-exempt so they may as well be used for something useful. ;)

No, it was specifically the Remembrance Day things I meant. Of course, there's also the fact that our 1982 Constitution proclaims that Canada "is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God", which doesn't even make any bleeding sense, and that about a decade ago somebody decided that the English words to O! Canada needed to be rewritten to replace one of the interminable "O! Canada"s -- "O! Canada, glorius and free" -- with "God keep our land" (glorius and free) (and of course it still refers to "thy sons" and "native land") ... and I think there's still "prayers" to open sittings of the House of Commons ...

The Remembrance Day thing is a toughie. I'd like it to have *no* religious component -- I mean, let the clerics speak, sure, but none of this praying and hymn-singing crap -- but that ain't gonna happen. So I wouldn't propose an "atheist" component, because that would just be formal recognition of the religion-based nature of the beast, it would seem to me, and that's the very thing I object to. Why base a public event honouring war dead on the religious divisions among the public?

"Speak up", you say? Ha! A few years ago the women's caucus of my party was supposed to be holding some event on the Hill, and when I got the agenda I saw that it was to be opened with some First Nations - "spirituality" - plant-burning crap ritual, and I spoke up loudly. First Nations' religions just ain't no holier than anybody else's, and I don't have any more desire to be subjected to their silliness at a political event than to anybody else's. The entire event got cancelled, but not, I think, because of me.

Seriously, I don't want any "symbolism" represented at political/public events. I want to include everyone who oughta be included, and let them speak in their own voices and talk about their own path to where we all are, but I don't want political events to have religious dimensions. That's why I think it's interesting, and a good thing, that the people organizing the event this thread is about have directed it specifically to believers, who will be doing their own thing, and not tried to incorporate their religious stuff into general events, from what I can tell.



just one addition on edit -- I'll tell you one place I did feel excluded. Attended a speech by Desmond Tutu here years ago, held in an Anglican cathedral. Nobody told me it was going to be a bloody church service. There I was during the hymn-singing and prayers, sitting stolidly in my seat ... along side my friend, the head of Defence and Aid for Southern Africa who had organized his tour, a Quaker who also didn't partake in the holy shenanigans. ;) I was really offended that in order to hear an important player on the world political stage, I had to attend a religious service. Pft.

[tavalon]

39. Ah, so you guys are saddled by A.N.S.W.E.R. too

Man, those people give our movement (and the Free Mumia!) movement a bad name.

[iverglas]

29. I should also add

I was reared in the United Church of Canada, which has long been in the forefront of social justice and peace efforts in Canada. (It's a hybrid of Methodist and Presbyterian and a couple of other minor denominations, formed in the 1920s.) These days, its big campaign is against the commodification of water.

I taught Sunday School! I might well not be who I am today were it not for all that. I just finally realized I didn't believe the religion part of it. ;)

The social gospel has always been big in Canada. Tommy Douglas, that old father of Canadian medicare (and grandfather of Kiefer Sutherland) and stalwart of social democracy, was a Baptist minister. Even the Anglican Church, once the bastion of the Family Compact / Tories, is lefty on all these issues. And, like your Episcopalians, on the outs with the worldwide communion, yours over gay bishops and ours over same-sex unions. I keep up on my church news & views!

And since the 60s I've worked in political/community affairs with RC priests and laypeople, Quakers, UCC people, Unitarians, Jews ... and as an immigration lawyer represented Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, a Sikh cleric, and even a Zoroastrian. Everyone had a jolly time when one of my African client families brought their RC priest along and I allowed as how I wouldn't be calling him "Father"; he sent me a Christmas card signed with some kidding reference to that.


I'm also seeing, in later posts in this thread, that people are questioning the need for all this now, and I see their point: the religious have never been excluded to start with.

But I do think putting a more public face on religious anti-war activists and activism can still be a good thing, simply because of the possibility of reaching more people that way.

[Cha]

38. The Universal Unitarians welcome

atheists..I should know.

[tavalon]

40. I'm a pagan but currently without a coven

I suck as a solitary and I love spiritual community so I've been considering UU. They are the only "church" I can imagine that I would care to go to. I put church in quotes because they are way more accepting than any church I've ever been involved with. I love UU. Alas, the drive would be about 30 miles. Maybe I just need to get 12 of my friends together and throw a bonfire and a ritual. The crave for the trappings of my religion is really calling.

[More Than A Feeling]

25. Think of it as a variant of the 50 state strategy

Leave no seat uncontested, leave no cultural front uncontested.

[riderinthestorm]

27. I'm not understanding what you mean.

"...this demonstration will begin to have some of what Tikkun has called for--a spiritual dimension to the anti-war movement After decades of what religious people have described as religio-phobia in liberal and progressive circles, the United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) rally and march against the war in Iraq will have a religious component."

Do you really believe that religious people have been shut out ("religio-phobia") of the anti-war movement? That the Jan 27th protest is the "beginning" of a "spiritual" dimension for the anti-war movement?

[tavalon]

41. No, this is just an angle this media person is playing

This is the angle of the week. They've always been there.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Good, and here's why

I don't think Rabbi Lerner is going to try and take over the peace movement, but rather wishes to be included in it. For many regular Americans, having people of faith in the demonstration gives a moral edge--and Bush can't say it's just a bunch of godless commies, etc. And I think it is time to show that the peace movement is mainstream--and having people of faith there will help with that.

You've got to remember that liberal believers endorse the seperation of church and state.

[riderinthestorm]

21. Has Rabbi Lerner or Tikkun ever been excluded? Made to feel unwelcome?

I'm not getting this. At every protest/march/vigil I've ever participated in there are always religious folks bearing large placards declaring their faith, wearing religious gear (headscarves, priests etc), singing religious songs.... Everyone is welcome - are there protests somewhere where religious folks are excluded?!

Also, I know you probably didn't mean this but atheists can be, and ARE, as moral (cough - more so in my experience) as anyone else - I'm not sure why you allude to the anti-war movement as NOW having some kind of "moral edge" if religious people are "finally" participating as opposed to just a bunch of "godless commies".... :eyes:

[tavalon]

42. Perceived moral edge

It's all spin. Bill O'Reilly morality would fit in the pinkie finger of many atheists I've met. Alas, to a certain sector, the sector we need to pull to our cause, Billo is the more moral person. Now mind you, I'm not willing to sully my war effort with Billo no matter how much it might sway grandma and grampa Faux viewer.

[demnan]

5. This is good

I joined this local peace group that is associated with a church and some of the members are religious. They've been working out there for 2 years doing protest marches in my area, as well as the national ones. I'm sure there are groups like mine all over the country that have some religious, some non-religious members but the core organization is a Peace based church.

Also did you hear why Southern Methodists faculty don't want Bush's library? Because an unprevoked war is against the tenets of the Methodist church. I heard that this morning on NPR on the way into work.

[madhoosier]

7. The peace churches

The peace churches, the Church of the Brethren, the Mennonites and Amish and the Quakers were all very important in the opposition to the Vietnam War and served as the moral backbone of the opposition.

I attended a college affiliated with the Church of the Brethren from 71 through 75 and the combination of the intellectual case against the war and the religious case against the needless death and destruction makes a powerful argument. Too bad it didn't have a lasting impact.

[etherealtruth]

19. Don't forget their significant role ...

... in abolition.

[Blue_In_AK]

23. Madhoosier, I was born a Quaker and raised in

the Church of the Brethren. Was that Manchester College by chance? I remember back in the Vietnam days when I was a teenager in Houston, I met several Brethren conscientious objectors who were doing alternative service with Church World Service. They worked in a big warehouse bundling up clothes and other things to be sent for overseas relief. My folks would always invite them over to our house for Sunday dinner after church because they were far from home.

[Peace Patriot]

8. The antiwar movement has ALWAYS had a religious component, and not just

a component, but major leaders. Rev. Daniel Berrigan and Rev. Phil Berrigan--Catholic priests who went to jail for burning Draft records in the 1960s--were the spiritual leaders of the movement, along with Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, and many other clergymen and clergywomen. Rev. King's amazing speech on the Vietnam War was delivered at the Riverside CHURCH in New York.

"Jamais plus la guerre! Jamais plus la guerre!" --Pope Paul VI, UN speech, 1965.

-----------------

This is an odd document (the OP), and I've read through it several times trying to figure out what it's saying. Okay, what I'm remembering is that group of priests, ministers and nuns leading the march on the Selma bridge, with Dr. King. King had committed the civil rights movement to non-violent civil disobedience, in the spirit of Mahatma Gandhi. And that commitment covered ALL behavior. No "hateful signs." No punching back. This is the "strategy of atonement and generosity" that Rabbi Lerner is talking about. He's saying that there has been no general commitment to that strategy for this peace march. And so, if some CIA plant shows up with a sign that says, "Fuck Bush!," nobody is going to remove him, and the war profiteering corporate news monopolies will surely find him, focus on him, and try their best to get a picture of somebody in clerical clothing standing nearby. It's a warning about agents provocateur and the uses to which they are put by war profiteers.

I think it's STILL TRUE that the antiwar movement is deeply grounded in religion, both specific religions, and a broad-based spirituality that includes reverence for human life--and for all life on earth. It is the scandal of the world that three of its biggest religions are being used by war profiteers and demagogues to inspire killing, and to promote and cover for greed. I know, from long experience of antiwar, civil rights and other social movements, that MOST of the leaders of these religions are acutely uncomfortable, if not outraged, by this perverse twist to their teachings. They have not been silent. I remember the many religious petitions to the Bush Junta, and the pleas of the Pope, on Iraq. But they have been ignored and marginalized. So I think it is a great thing, indeed, that an organized, inter-faith religious group has decided to participate in this peace march. They represent a VERY BIG portion of the American people who are members of organized religions. That there is ANY controversy about this, or that ANY committed secularists would be in the least uncomfortable with it (--which the OP hints at--reading between the lines) is a measure of how far the Bush Junta and others have tainted the very name of religion.

The OP may also be an indication of the wild revolutionary energies that are running through the country. People are very angry. And who knows what they will do? (--quite apart from planted agents). I think Rabbi Lerner is feeling just a tiny bit of trepidation. It is a legitimate fear, given the state of our media. But I also know, from past experience, that 99.9% of the people who will attend this march have already pledged to peaceful protest, in affinity groups or other gatherings, and that large events like this are actually the safest places in the world (--barring a police riot, which can never be ruled out). Also, in so pledging to peaceful protest--in pre-meetings of all kinds--and in view of the formal participation of this religious contingent--I expect that a general attitude of civility and consciousness of imagery will prevail. These kinds of marches are very well monitored--and in fact I think that the "Fuck Bush!" signs will be asked to go away. (There is also quite a lot of self-monitoring that occurs in large protests like this, by the participants of potential provocateurs.)

And here's something I want to explore. Whether you are formally religious, or not--or even anti-religious--if you are against this war, and this Junta, you are a religious person; that is, you believe, with Thomas Jefferson, that "all men are created equal and are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Jefferson also said: "I swear upon THE ALTAR OF GOD eternal vigilance against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."* (It's inscribed around his statue in Washington DC.)

The altar of God. Whether you worship at any altar, or merely believe in Higher Laws that stand above the rule of individual men, and that call us to noble action beyond our own self-interest, you are more than yourself, and the more selfless you become, the more you become a manifestation of God in this world. Whether you believe in God or not. It doesn't matter. That is who God really is. You, in your adherence to Higher Laws that don't come from you. Only don't get any inflated, Bushite ideas about it. There lies the error. The word is selfless. Against tyranny. For those "inalienable rights" --which are not granted by you and me. They are granted by "'God," which I will venture to describe as our collective desire to be better people.


----------


*(And don't tell me that Jefferson was a slaveholder and a racist, because I will wrestle you to the ground on our collective desire to be better people and how that desire battles its way through human history, ever trying to transcend our individual failures as selfish, weak, flawed, ignoble, compromising human beings, trapped in time.)

[riderinthestorm]

12. I found it odd also. It seems to be implying that there has never been any kind of religious

component to anti-war protests, and that NOW there will be - or even that "spirituality" has somehow been missing. WTF is that all about? Anyone who has ever gone to even a candlelight vigil knows that there is/are many representatives from every religion, praying, singing, being spiritual - no problem for me as long as the event didn't turn into a religious event.

But now the OP seems to be indicating that they will "finally' be providing this "missing" element - it just struck an off-note with me, like the anti-war movement "needs" this or was missing this or was somehow even blocking religious folks from participation..... And by extension the anti-war movement needs some kind of organized force to ensure "religion" and "spirituality" are represented - it just came off as heavy-handed and unnecessary to me. The religious have always been at these protests, even "spirituality", so why this press release? Wierd.

:shrug:

[Lance_Boyle]

15. Jeebus got jealous

of all the coverage Mumia was getting at anti-war rallies, so his minions had to shoehorn his name in there, too.

This particular rally seems designed to single my atheist ass out as "not welcome." So fuck them and the worthless mythologies they rode in on.

[Blue_In_AK]

24. Uh, that seems to be a bit of an overreaction, IMO

[kineneb]

28. If the Buddhists are represented,

then there should be no need to worry. In truth, Buddhism's position on deities is- maybe yes, maybe no, but they won't help you become enlightened, so they don't matter.

Go, enjoy. Don't worry about the god or gods stuff.

[tavalon]

45. See reply number 43

Athiests are more than welcome as always. Just as the religious folks and even the communists and the socialists. Ours really is a big tent and you just ought not let some yokel who came up with a story angle rankle you.

[tavalon]

43. It's just media spin

They find an angle and they spin it. Different day, same ol' shit. Religious folks have been there all along just in the same numbers doing the same damn thing they're going to be doing this time. Somebody decided to talk up an angle, that's all. You should see the angle the media does on my religion every fucking Halloween. Spin, spin, spin till you puke!

Great storm and fury, signifying nothing. Except good copy.

[Peace Patriot]

22. Edit: "...AMONG them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Not

"including." Yikes! It's been bugging me, in the back of my mind, for over an hour. Finally came to consciousness. Can't edit it.

[Warren DeMontague]

32. Regarding Jefferson, you should read the *context* of the "Altar of God" quote.

"The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they (the clergy) believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion..

Get it? He was calling the Clergy, and by extension, religion, the "tyranny over the mind of man". They left that part out of the memorial.

http://nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

And please don't tell people they are religious simply because they're against this war. The reason I have my own brain inside my own head is because I, not you, get to decide what definitions mean what and whether they apply to me. Thanks.

[iverglas]

50. hey, I missed that bit, and I'm offended too!

Whether you are formally religious, or not--or even anti-religious--if you are against this war, and this Junta, you are a religious person; that is, you believe, with Thomas Jefferson, that "all men are created equal and are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

I believe no such thing! Those are just some words written on parchment by some people who lived in a particular time and place and in particular circumstances. They have nothing to do with me.

I won't get into a long discourse on the nature and source of rights. I'll just say that I believe (on what I think is good grounds) they have nothing to do with non-existent supernatural beings, and that my firm commitment to defending rights has nothing religious about it.

I don't especially care whether someone else thinks rights come from the sky, as long as s/he agrees with me on what they are and believes everybody's got 'em and is as firmly committed to defending them.

Whether you believe in God or not. It doesn't matter. That is who God really is. You, in your adherence to Higher Laws that don't come from you. ... The word is selfless. Against tyranny. For those "inalienable rights" --which are not granted by you and me. They are granted by "'God," which I will venture to describe as our collective desire to be better people.

I'll go with that "collective desire", absolutely and defintely, but not with the word you choose to describe it, which really doesn't make any sense.

I won't deny that the idea of a "god" that loves everyone equally was probably a necessary evolutionary step, it's just that its time has now passed, or at least the time for claiming exclusivity for that idea as the foundation for anything and everything is up. It is now a matter of private belief -- and again, I have no objection to anyone stating that this belief is the reason for his/her policy positions, and inviting others who share the belief to support the same policies for that reason -- but it is not a proper basis for public policy, and I don't want to have what *I* believe subsumed into this belief system that I don't share.

[greenman3610]

9. Thoreau, Gandhi, King, Dorothy Day,

the Berrigans, Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
Religious resistance to war and tyrany has a proud history.

[Peace Patriot]

14. Yup! Who are the people who have been burning the candle of peace, and

have never stopped doing so, throughout the '70s, '80s, '90s, through today? The Catholic Workers! They work all week cooking and serving food to thousands on Skid Row, and spend their weekends protesting at nuclear weapons facilities, and objecting to a bloated military budget that has drained services to the poor, and has dumped millions of people onto the streets in abject poverty, and has also been a standing temptation to fascist warmongers. I remember one of the Catholic Workers, Jeff Dietrich, doing a mock digging of a nuclear bomb shelter under City Hall in Pasadena, way back in the early '70s, even before that TV show "The Day After" (Lawrence, Kansas, obliterated). He's still around, a senior member of the Catholic Worker community in L.A., still serving food, still getting arrested and thrown in jail, from time to time, for advocating peace and justice in a country that has taken a 180 in the other direction. And they ARE Catholics. Devout Catholics--but the kind of Catholics you don't read much about in the war profiteering corporate news monopoly press.

(Note: Dorothy Day founded the Catholic Worker movement back in the 1920s, but it had a rebirth in 1970, with the founding of the L.A. Catholic Worker hospitality kitchen and houses, by Jeff Dietrich and his partner, Catherine Morris, a former nun, and other folks. They are the best of the best of social revolutionaries, who actually live their religion, in its most authentic form, every minute of the livelong day. Not just talkers. Doers.) (And they'll talk your head off, too.) (They publish a great paper, The Catholic Agitator, which I don't think has ever been put online.**)

**WRONG! HERE IT IS! The Los Angeles Catholic Agitator, online: http://lacatholicworker.org/category/agitator-archives/

Los Angeles Catholic Worker
632 N. Brittania St.
Los Angeles, CA 90033
[phone]

Hospitality Kitchen
aka Hippie Kitchen
821 E. 6th St.
Los Angeles, CA 90021
[phone]

[Peace Patriot]

17. Wow! I HIGHLY RECOMMEND you go to this web page...

http://lacatholicworker.org/category/agitator-archives/

and just look at the cover art work. It is an amazingly beautiful radical publication! And it is produced and distributed on donations! (--they refuse tax-deductible status; you gotta give with no benefit--and no okay--from the government.)

[pberq]

51. thanks for posting, Peace Patriot

It's good to see that the work of Dorothy Day is being carried on in this way.

[riderinthestorm]

18. Absolutely and this time isn't any different that's why I'm mystified at the OP

It seems to be implying that religious people aren't already a part of this movement. They are. So why this?

[tavalon]

46. At the risk of repeating myself

It's a spin made to sell the article. Media folks, even our own, find an angle and they work it. And in the working of it, they don't pay attention to the details that don't support their spin and play up the ones that do. Same ol', same ol'

[riderinthestorm]

49. You are right of course.

The cheap shot by Rabbi Lerner et al just irks me since it cheapens (marginalizes?) past anti-war protests as just a bunch of "godless commies" or old hippies when they have been anything but. Exploiting religion for political gamesmanship is something the right does and it's the wrong thing for the left imho.

[porphyrian]

16. I have no problem with tolerant people and religions.

I do have a problem with people and religions that proselytize unbidden or who are self-righteously hypocritical. My favorite religious people are those who spend their time trying to be good people rather than those who spend their time telling other people how they should behave.

[Warren DeMontague]

30. It'd be nice if Rabbi Lerner could get through one of these announcements w/o the potshots.

"After decades of what religious people have described as religio-phobia in liberal and progressive circles"

This is the guy who spouts Barton-esque crap regarding how Secularism, along with a made-up word called "Scientism", is the root problem on the left, and can't we just get the atheists to shuuuuuuut up?

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060424&s=lerner


Rabbi Lerner, couldn't you just have the service for the folks who want it, and not turn it into another attack on the supposed mean-ol' atheist whackjobs who are allegedly driving religion from the "left"?

Buddy, give it a rest with the axe-grinding. You want to pray at the rally, do it. I've seen religious people at peace rallies before. There is no atheist mafia keeping religious people away. :eyes:

[brettdale]

31. So how many people are actually expected?

At this March, what numbers are they hoping for?

[Blue_In_AK]

36. At least one - ME! :)

[tavalon]

47. They got 600,000 + on Sept 24 2005 (I was at that one)

They reported it as "thousands". I suspect they will once again have about 600 of those thousands. You won't get a straight story on it, but if you go, you'll be amazed. Hell, with as pissed off as the electorate is, there may even be a 1000 of those thousands there (I hope I did my math right - that was Faux newsspeak for one million).

[Zhade]

33. So they gave in to the LIE that liberals hate religion.

Wow.

[babsbunny]

34. They should have called it a Peace Rally instead of Anti-War: Mother Teresa said......

Mother Teresa said: I will never attend an anti-war rally; if you have a peace rally, invite me.
I am learning that if you focus on what you want, (peace) instead of what you don't want, (war) you will receive it in abundance! Let's focus, pray, rally, preach Peace, and we will have it! Don't focus on what we don't want, (Bush, Cheney, etc.) focus on what we want, (Gore, Obama, Kerry, Clinton) There is a movie called The Secret, I highly recommend it! http://www.thesecret.tv/

[kickysnana]

35. MN Churches organized antiwar March in Nov 2002

It began on the steps of the St Paul Cathedral and there were hundreds of churches represented as well as non-church protesters of the 10,000 there. Distortion of the media that religious people were all for Bush.

I do not practice organized religion and had bought the media lie that all church people were for Bush.

[Cha]

37. Good for them! I have nothing against

people of faith who believe in peace.

It's the religious terrorists that I abhor.