Civil Disobedience and Social Change

BreakFree2016 is a global movement to keep fossil fuels in the ground.  The group organized protest actions worldwide in May.  Five of these actions were planned for the US.  Over a two week period there were 30 "escalated" actions, involving 30,000 people on 6 continents.

While I had already posted the Disobedience video on the Ethical Society of Austin website so that members could participate in these actions as a digital witness, we watched it together during our Sunday meeting on July 3.  A day before the nation would be celebrating its 240th year of independence, we had an opportunity to revisit social movements of the past through this movie.  We were well aware of July 4 and its meaning.  Indeed we decorated a little with flags and some star-spangled centerpieces for our tables.  But, when we joined hands and sang "We Shall Overcome" with Pete Seeger, we were all in the mode of thinking about how far we had come in 240 years.

Not far enough.

The video provoked discussion of its focus--fossil fuels and the need to keep them in the ground--but also the broader issue of how to bring about social change on the many issues that confront us as a nation, indeed as a planet.  Some took the view that protests of the sort planned by Break Free were not effective, were actually futile; rather the route to social change, they thought, is through education and one-on-one conversations.  Others echoed the images of the film itself--the struggle of migrant workers, the civil rights movement, the non-violent but highly effective actions of Mohandas Ghandi--and brought more social change issues to the dialogue--Mothers Against Drunk Driving, anti-slavery and suffragist movements, all of which involved civil disobedience when dialogue had failed to bring the desired change.

We could all agree that change is hard to see close up.  Many of us also agreed that we may not be able to effect great changes on our own nor even live to see the changes we hope to bring about.  Still we asserted that we can take action in our own lives, making the small changes that are part of the cumulatively greater changes that are needed.  

In his 1876 founding address, Felix Adler issued a clarion call:

The world is dark around us and the prospect seems deepening in gloom, and yet there is light ahead. On the volume of the past in starry characters it is written—the starry legend greets us shining through the misty vistas of the future—that the great and noble shall not perish from among the sons of men, that the truth will triumph in the end, and that even the humblest of her servants may in this become the instrument of unending good. We are aiding in laying the foundations of a mighty edifice, whose completion shall not be seen in our day, no, nor in centuries upon centuries after us. But happy are we, indeed, if we can contribute even the least towards so high a consummation. The time calls for action. Up, then, and let us do our part faithfully and well. And oh, friends, our children’s children will hold our memories dearer for the work which we begin this hour.

Adler was speaking of the founding of ethical culture, yes, but ethical culture was founded for the deeds yet to be undertaken by its members, disregarding creed and working not only to build the literal edifice of the Meeting House but the moral edifice of ethical humanism on a global scale.  Working, to be sure, in the practical everyday world of need and suffering and petty human failures while seeking a better way to treat each other with respect and compassion.  We are a long way from the high goals set at the beginning of our community, but we have the encouragement of our past to buttress our efforts while the future pulls us forward along our path.  Indeed, Adler thought of that, too, when nearly 50 years after giving his founding address, he spoke to English ethical humanists about meeting the challenges still being posed to the moral commitment of ethical culture:

The radiant future stretches forth its arms toward us, and binds us to be willing servants to its work, willingly to accept those limitations of the individual will which are indispensable in the service of a far­off cause, a service which at the same time disciplines and ennobles the individual himself. 

Social change is a struggle.  It demands that we take the long view, that we accept incremental progress as steps on the long path ahead of us.  It also demands commitment to that long path and even some degree of sacrifice, if self-discipline is indeed a sacrifice.

Whether or not civil disobedience is the answer to causing change, it will likely remain one of the options for many.  For ourselves, today, we may consider what the long-term goal is and what actions we can personally take to work toward that goal.  If the goal is to keep fossil fuels in the ground, what can we do to make that happen?

• Educate ourselves about the presence of fossil fuels in our daily lives.
• Reduce our own consumption of fossil fuels.
• Educate and encourage others to do the same.
• Seek ways to influence decisions about fossil fuel extraction (advocacy, public education, divestiture).
• Act up?

What else?

This week in Scotusland

The Supreme Court confused me this week.  Not being a lawyer, I can't always follow the nuances of precedent and hair-splitting that goes on.  I pretty much go with what I understand to be "right" and then try to figure out whether we are progressing--or falling deeper into the black hole capitalistic fascism known as oligarchy.

Too much?  Ah, well.  My nuance button short-circuited with the Orlando murders.  That was too much for me to stand still for.

And speaking of which--one small step forward on gun control:  Voisine v. the United States expanded and/or clarified (can't tell which) the definition of reckless domestic violence so that persons convicted of such crimes are no longer eligible to purchase guns.  Not sure whether the Orlando shooter's domestic violence record would have prevented him from from purchasing guns had this ruling been in place before June 13, but the ruling will certainly help keep guns out of the hands of a few more people whose anger needs more management.

More press coverage went to the ruling on Texas' attempts to end legal abortion in this state with increasingly onerous (and medically unnecessary) requirements (link includes full text of ruling on Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt).  The implications of this ruling--against the State of Texas and for women's health, including the choice to end a pregnancy--will have repercussions in other states on these sorts of restrictions.  It won't end the culture war that surrounds a woman's right to control her own body without the interference of a third party.  Muslims (just for a commonly evident example) seek to begin their control of women's bodies on the outside with the requirement to veil.  Americans (dare I say Christians?) are more subtle, allowing the illusion of freedom and self-control in clothing choices (for now) while digging deeper to take over control of the essential female role of reproduction--making it pretty much mandatory every time a sperm can reach an ovum.  Rape, incest, pre-marital sex, marital rape--not important.  What is important is that sperm+ovum=government takeover for whatever uterus happens to be present.  (Well, I'm about to rant.  This is not my point today.  Deep breaths.)  I am personally long removed from this particular battleground--and yet I know it well.  This war isn't over.  More's the pity that we have to keep fighting the battles again and again when there are, frankly, bigger threats to the human race* than a medically safe procedure that some women choose to have for important personal reasons and others don't, also for important personal reasons.

One might think:  "So far so good" for this week's rulings.  What's the problem?  Look at McDonnell V. United States.  In a unanimous ruling, the eight-member Court vacated the conviction of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell for bribery.  The Court agreed that he took the [bribery] money and did some favors (set up meetings) for the CEO of Star Scientific, but that he did nothing official to benefit the company.  Huh?  Take the money, make connections, and then walk out the room--nothing to see here?  $167K is a lot of "nothing"--unless making those connections was "something."  Isn't this what lobbyists do for their clients?  Setting up meetings with decision makers, shining the glow of one's credibility over the meeting, encouraging through that credibility the use of that meeting for some purpose beneficial to the client?  Surely all those lunches weren't held because the chicken salad was good.  Just saying.

I'm old enough to understand that some weeks we win, in others we lose.  In the grand scheme of history, we are winning--climbing down from the trees, walking away from cannibalism and some gross forms of brutality.  We wear clothes, bathe sometimes, use language in place of weapons (sometimes).  What I would like to see is some moral progress.  Or at least some clarification--in progressive steps--that we are making the world a better place.  Let me try:

• We say that ethics begins with a choice.  We are committed to that.
• In Voisine we see the Court saying that recklessness doesn't just happen--one chooses to be reckless.  Taking a gun in your hand and then acting recklessly is choosing to act in a way that endangers others whether or not you intend to cause harm.  From my perspective, this sets a standard for gun owners that should be inherent in gun ownership and use whether or not domestic violence is at issue.  
• In Whole Women's Health, "choice" has another layer of meaning, but the Court's ruling maintains the notion that the law allows women to choose how to manage their bodies--including their uteri--and that other laws should not be made to prevent that choice by reducing access to means to exercise that choice.  (Would that they had done that in Hobby Lobby, but I digress.)  
• In McDonnell, the choice to accept [bribe] money was held as neutral.  It would have become criminal only with a subsequent action that was criminal--or something like that.  I'm not so happy with this outcome, because I think it will have the practical effect of adding more money to the executive side of government when there is already too much money in politics.  It does that because the brake of conscience that exists when one is concerned as much about the appearance of impropriety as the impropriety itself is removed.  If money+action is illegal, how do we allow money and still monitor for the actions that make that money illegal?  If money without action is legal, then why disclose (or monitor) the money? It's all a bit above my knowledge level, but my gut says that this kind of choice will be dangerous for the republic.

Yeah, we win some, we lose some.  Progress is hard to see close up.

---------------
*It's the action, not the location, that I see as imperiling us.  Middle East, Southeast Asia, Africa in my lifetime; Europe and the rest of Asia in living memory.

Things that need to be said

After Orlando, there are few things that need to be said.

About the LGBT community.  The massacre at Pulse in Orlando was a hate crime.  It came as a shock to the LBGT community, which includes not only those who identify as LGBT, but also those who care about that community, whether because of family and friendship ties or because of their desire to live in an inclusive and ethical society.  The attempt to co-opt the grief and suffering that comes out of such an evil act for political purposes is despicable.  So, too, are the false flag condolences from those who helped create a climate of hate against the LGBT community. Thoughts, prayers, moments of silence are, at best, disingenuous from those who, in the days before Orlando sought to deprive the LGBT community of its civil rights and protections in this life while condemning them to horrors in the afterlife.

About gun violence.  

• Guns kill people.  
• Assault weapons are called that for a reason.  
• On the day of the Orlando murders, an additional 38 Americans lost their lives to gun violence and 8 more were wounded.  So far in 2016, there have been 24,087 "incidents" of gun violence which led to a total of 6,186 deaths and 12,616 injuries.  
• Here's a look at 330 mass shootings in 2015:

I am ignoring the voiceover at the end.  This isn't about politics.  It is about thinking that there is one "gun problem," one "solution," that the problem is only guns.  We need to broaden our thinking to look at all the issues with who has guns and why, not just the kinds of guns they have.

About extreme Islamic terrorism.  Is there a difference between the terrorism of one religious group over another?  Is there a difference between extreme terrorism and ordinary terrorism?  Did the men and women in the Pulse suffer more than the men and women of Emmanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church?  Was their suffering less or more than the victims and survivors of the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting?  These were all acts of terrorism.  I am not intending to downplay one event to highlight another.  I am not denying the role that Islam seems to have played in the Orlando shooter's motives--or justifications.  I am not in any way meaning to be flippant or casual about the terrible crimes that have been committed.

I am, however, interested in the concept of terrorism as a tool to influence behaviors and attitudes, as a weapon of war.  The goal of terrorism is not just to kill or maim; it is first and foremost intended to create terror.  To instill a fear in those who survive, who witness, who somehow become aware of the event--and its justification--so that they become wary of doing anything that might bring such a horror down on their own heads.  LGBT men and women would then stop being who they are--or at least acting openly in any manner that might seem authentic to their identities.  Rather they will go back in the closet, stop demanding outrageous "rights," straighten up.  Black people cannot change the color of their skin, but they can certainly stop making such a nuisance of themselves, again demanding outrageous "rights."  They need to "know their place" and stay there.  Women must stop seeking to gain control of their own bodies and lives, become once more subservient to men, and take up their proper roles as baby makers and sex objects.  No more "women's rights" nonsense.

We have heard the response from the LGBT community:  "In hope and defiance, we dance."  We see from Mother Emmanuel Church days of commemoration and positive action with the reminder: "Let all that you do be done in love."  From Planned Parenthood--well, they're still busy fighting all those politicians to keep the doors open.  I'll just say for them:  "Oh, hell, no!"  

And leave it there for now.  There's more.  I missed my self-imposed deadline for a post this week, but I have certainly been puzzling my way through recent events.  Yes, there'll be more.

Do we need a poster for religious freedom?

Dunno.  Really reluctant to enter the religious freedom wars as they are currently being fought in the US.  It's always something, isn't it?  But this little image has popped up in my email a couple of times,

and someone in the chain of discussion quipped that "it looks like we have a poster!"  Mebbe so, mebbe not so much, but I--of course--have a thing or two to say about that.

First, I'd like to look at what "freedom of religion" covers.  And, first, I'd like to point out that freedom of whatever passes for religion in one's belief system ought to include a belief system.  If we support freedom of religion (as I do), then there's got to be something there to have any freedom of [it].  So I'd make the first bullet:

• Believing in any being(s) or ideal(s) as a focus of religious feelings and behaviors

This would allow for religious freedom for people who choose to believe in one or more gods/higher powers/deities or who choose not to believe in such beings but rather in one or more central idea(l)(s) which allows them to experience and express the functional benefits that are associated with "religion."  Whatever those benefits might be, I'm not going to speculate here (although I probably will do another day).  I'm just pointing out that freedom of religion should actually include religion.

Taking the counterpoint, consider the last bullet in the first section:  "Choosing not to participate in religion at all."  That could be a nice way to say that it's OK to be a "None" and not affiliate with any religious group or belief system.  But what about the "Nones" who flat out disbelieve in any being as a focus of religious belief, the so-called "atheists, agnostics, and skeptics"?  They are not "participating."  Is their lack of participation what is protected by religious freedom while their lack of belief is not?   Can freedom of religion include freedom from religion?

Personally, I think it should.  Rationally, I'm hung up on language a bit.  Those prepositions--"of," "from"--have distinct meanings which should not be conflated.  So how do we get "of" to include "from" here?  

"Atheism" is, I would say, part of the spectrum of religious belief.  Religious belief is something of a continuum.  On one end there is an extreme of belief (in whatever) that thoroughly consumes the believer in all aspects of life and attention.  The stereotype of the ascetic hermit who meditates or prays almost unendingly, leaving as much as physically and mentally possible the present world, in order to focus on/join with the object of belief (whether being or ideal) seems to fit the one extreme.  In this case behavior is reflective of belief--that a focus exists and that acting in such a manner is the best way to worship/experience/achieve the desired state in relation to that focus.  On the other end of the continuum, there is an affirmative disbelief, a denial, that any being exists that can or should serve as a focus of religious feelings and behaviors. That may be reflected in behavior that simply ignores--by word and deed--any being of religious focus.  It may be reflected in both word and deed that denies the existence of such beings and, moreover, demands that expressions of belief in their existence be removed from the secular environment.  The latter is more extreme than the former, I think, but both still can be considered--no doubt under great protest by those who find themselves on this end of the continuum--as religious beliefs.

Yup.  I'm actually saying that atheists actually have religion (just as they have some really fine music, the blues included).  They have looked at other belief systems, rejected them, and hold their own (varied) beliefs about the nature of the universe (including its origin), the nature of humankind (including its origin), their personal values, future, end-of-life--and on and on through the gamut of issues that are explained (or not) by assorted religious belief systems.  Their beliefs don't--won't--look like the beliefs of other more organized religions, but they are religious beliefs because they focus on the issues that religions try to resolve.  "Religion" is, after all, merely a word that labels a category of human behavior and thought, just as "kinship" is a word that labels a category of human behavior and thought.  

So I'm thinking I'd modify the new first bullet by adding a new second:

• Believing in a(ny) being(s) or ideal(s) as a focus of religious feelings and behaviors
• Believing that no being exists to serve as a focus of religious feelings and behaviors

I need to think about the "ideal" part a little more, so I'm leaving it out of the negative end of the religious continuum, for the time being anyway.

What do you think?  Are atheists on the religious continuum?  If so, does our "of/from" problem disappear, since I'm basically saying that freedom of religion should make the affirmative disbelief in a supreme being a protected religious belief?  Religious practice is another subject altogether--about which more another day.