NToddcast RSS Feed

Friday, March 27, 2015

Speaking Of Friendly Boycotts

American Friend Service Committee on something dear to my heart:

In the context of Israel and Palestine AFSC supports the the use of boycott and divestment campaigns targeting only companies that support the occupation, settlements, militarism, or any other violations of international humanitarian or human rights law. Our position does not call for a full boycott of Israel nor of companies because they are either Israeli or doing business in Israel.  Our actions also never focus on individuals.

Our support for the use of boycotts and divestments is contextualized by Quakers and AFSC's long support for boycotts, divestment, and sanctions as economic tactics that appeal to human conscience and change behavior. In the 1800s, Quakers helped lead the “Free Produce Movement,” a boycott of goods produced using slave labor. In recent times, AFSC has participated in boycott and divestment campaigns connected to the in the civil rights, anti-apartheid, farm worker, and prison rights struggles.

Since 1948 AFSC has worked with both Palestinians and Israelis to achieving a just and lasting peace and we remain committed to supporting nonviolent activism designed to achieve this end. Taking into account AFSC principles and history, AFSC supports all nonviolent efforts to realize peace and justice in Israel and Palestine including the strategic use of boycott, divestment, and sanctions tactics.

For some reason, lots of Soda Stream crap has been popping up in my feeds, so I felt compelled to remind people that they are very, very bad and should not be supported by all right thinking people.

ntodd

March 27, 2015 in Conscience, Pax Americana, Viva Palestina | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

NToddcast RSS Feed

Thursday, March 26, 2015

A Day Of Prayer And Fasting For Indiana

Bobby is a good friend and Friend, but I think misses the mark here:

I am not a fan of boycotts; they rarely work and harm innocent people who depend on the boycotted industry or place.

Part of the point is to harm people in a nonviolent, recoverable way so they see the impact of their (in)action in the face of grave injustice.  And boycotts enjoy a long, effective history.

Anyway, my buddy continues:

However, it would be very un-Quakerly to embarrass the good religious people of Indiana by giving them my gay business or my gay money, so I will not put them in the awkward position of having to accept it as long as this legalized gay-bashing is in place. I’m sure they will understand that I’m doing them a big favor.

It sort of reminds me of this scene from Gandhi.  Yes, I compared a blogger to the Mahatma.

ntodd

March 26, 2015 in Conscience, Pax Americana | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack

NToddcast RSS Feed

Friday, March 20, 2015

He Rested On The Ninth Day From All His Emoting

Friends Journal asks: "What is the most powerful emotional experience you’ve had in a Meeting for Worship?"

Well, if you really want to know, listen to a podcast from way back in 2007.  Shorter: sitting in Meeting at a war tax resister gathering surrounded by like-minded activists, I wept whilst looking at an empty chair, thinking of my late mother.  Community is important.

ntodd

March 20, 2015 in Conscience | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

NToddcast RSS Feed

The Gospel Of Freedom

They're so cute when they try to co-opt MLK:

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote his famous Letter from Birmingham Jail. “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God,” he argued. “An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.”

He went on to say: “I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’”

Such resistance is the very opposite of lawlessness. Dr. King set forth four steps to resist injustice: (1) gathering of facts, (2) negotiation, (3) self-purification and (4) direct action. We must learn more so we can see more. We have a duty to be informed. We must use all civil means to resolve the conflict. And, we must humbly seek the Lord before taking direct action.

One suspects that if they actually gathered facts as Dr King suggests, they'd find that marriage equality is not a threat to their civil liberties, whilst denying rights to LGBT is unjust.  So any disobedience is not civil in the context, but just another rejection of Romans 13.

ntodd

PS--Civil disobedience is for pikers.  I encourage the bigots to prepare for martyrdom!

March 20, 2015 in Conscience | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

NToddcast RSS Feed

Saturday, March 14, 2015

Holding Juanita Nelson In The Light


Juanita Nelson on Democracy Now! discussing War Tax Resistance, Civil Rights & Simple Living.

Being absorbed in personal things this week, I failed to notice that Juanita (one of Gram's contemporaries) had died on Monday.  I met her in Deerfield at a WTR gathering several years back, and was very humbled by her life's example.  She blazed with a light that should provide a moral beacon for us all.

ntodd

March 14, 2015 in Conscience, Pax Americana | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

NToddcast RSS Feed

Monday, March 09, 2015

Diane Nash Still Defiant And Heroic

Agree wholeheartedly with Anthony:

It is wonderful to read about and hear one of the great heroines of the Civil Rights struggle,  Diane Nash, continuing to witness for the truth and against those who are trying to co-opt the history of civil rights in the form of George W. Bush.  She refused to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge due to his clearly political participation in it.  

Read the whole thing.  Nash rocks.

ntodd

March 9, 2015 in Conscience, Pax Americana | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

NToddcast RSS Feed

Sunday, February 08, 2015

I Swear Every Goddamned Day

Pinky swear?

Swearing an oath on the Christian Bible is problematic, at best. This is a book, after all, that includes the words of Jesus Christ himself commanding his followers not to swear oaths:

Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, “You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.” 

But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 

Let your word be “Yes, Yes” or “No, No;” anything more than this comes from the evil one.

That’s unambiguous and pretty strongly worded. Swearing by or swearing on something, Jesus said, is “evil.”

Quakers aren't supposed to swear--talking about oaths, of course, as my potty mouth is a separate issue--for the very reason that Jesus says not to do that shit in Matthew 5.  Got us into trouble a lot back in the early days:

The most distinguishing characteristic of Quakerism under all conditions and in all periods of its history has been fidelity to the principle against taking the oath. No other single Quaker "testimony" has caused so much suffering. The Quaker carried most of his contention for justice before the Courts of England, where the test oath of fidelity was always promptly offered him.

Possibly no more embarrassing situation can be imagined than that of a thoroughly loyal subject—for this the Quakers were, to a man—obliged to decline to assert his fidelity to his sovereign because of the form in which he was asked to declare it. The consequence of his refusal—and he always did refuse—was the accusation of disloyalty to the Government.

By the time the Quakers had become well known throughout England, most of the Justices before whom they were arraigned were perfectly well aware of their real loyalty to the sovereign, and put the test oath to such a proverbially truthtelling people merely to furnish an excuse for persecution. It is not too much to say that in England more Quakers were imprisoned for not taking the oath than for any other cause.

The Quakers declared that Christ's command, "Swear not at all," covered all cases, legal and otherwise, that the oath implied a double standard of truth-telling, and that the administration of an oath is an appeal to superstition, in the upraised hand, kissing the book, etc.

Anyway, here's the nut of this post:

 “Judge Rules Pa. Muslim May Not Swear on Koran“:

A Pennsylvania judge forbade a Muslim woman from swearing on the Quran before taking the witness stand in a custody dispute. The ruling upholds a state law that requires witnesses to swear on the Christian Bible or make a non-religious affirmation before offering testimony.

The woman had argued that the state’s law violated her religious liberty rights and exhibited a preference for Christianity over Islam and other religions.

She’s got a strong First Amendment case, I think. The Christian Bible requirement for Pennsylvania courts seems like a clear violation of the Establishment Clause, and as a result this woman’s free exercise rights seem to have been violated.

Pennsylvania’s law seems unconstitutional — which is to say that Pennsylvania’s law seems unlawful.

That’s important, but it’s not my main complaint here. My main complaint is that Pennsylvania’s law is incredibly stupid and counter-productive. The function of the Bible in such oath-swearing is to solemnize the oath by referencing a symbol the witnesses themselves regard with reverence. If the witnesses do not belong to a sect that regards a sectarian text with reverence, then that text cannot function as a symbol to solemnize their oath.

Asking a Muslim or a Jew or an atheist to swear on a Christian Bible undermines the force of the ritual. If there’s any Christian reading this who doesn’t understand that, simply flip the script. Imagine you’re being asked to swear on the Koran. Or on the Bhagavad Gita. Or on any other text that you do not personally revere. Would reference to that text in any way enhance or solemnize your oath?

Requiring witnesses to swear by a text they do not personally revere adds nothing. It can even have the opposite of the intended effect — rather than making the oath seem more serious, it can make it seem less so.

Indeed, it does strike me as counterproductive, as well as ignorantly insensitive and arguably unconstitutional.  Both the US Constitution and PA constitution allow for affirmations in a variety of contexts (e.g., binding Federal officers to defend the Constitution; supporting the issuance of search warrants), so it's clear the Framers thought it important to provide an alternative to oaths in the British tradition (even tied it to the ban on religious tests for Federal qualification in the same clause).

However, according to the news report above, affirmation was presented as an option to the witness in question, so she didn't have to swear on a Christian Bible.  With that in mind I'm not sure it really violates Establishment.  It's just annoying and privileged, and unlikely to ever change (leastwise not the biggest battle I care to fight).

ntodd

PS--Franklin Pierce is apparently the only president to ever affirm at his inaugural ceremony.

February 8, 2015 in Conscience, Constitution, Schmonstitution | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

NToddcast RSS Feed

Saturday, December 06, 2014

The Path Of Truth Is The Path Of The Brave

I've been in some discussion about non-violence given the various forms of protest we've seen since the Darren Wilson Exoneration Jury.  I naturally agree that rioting is counterproductive in general, but I both empathize (in the sense I posted about yesterday), and to a certain degree sympathize, with people engaging in such rebellion.

It's particularly important to recognize that people need the "space" to practice NV, and that's not necessarily available to the dispossessed.  By that I mean people need the opportunity to move up Maslow's hierarchy (or however you want to describe it, knowing that model might not be perfect) beyond meeting bare survival needs, be exposed to NV action and strategy, develop connections to others for coordinating NV efforts, etc.

So yeah, NV methods might be the "best" to achieve justice in Ferguson and elsewhere (both from a moral and practical perspective), but that's easy for me to say from my privileged position.  I was raised in the Quaker tradition more or less, spent decades learning about NV movements and how to apply NV tactics in a variety of circumstances, and of course benefit from the current power structures rather than being oppressed by them, so don't really know what it's like to suffer from repeated injustices.

With that as backdrop, I ran into some resistance to what I've expressed here (admittedly a little more thought out than when I'm quickly typing on Facebook).  I don't just mean the usual "that shit'll never work" canard, but also my allowing for even violent (or at least destructive) responses to oppression.

I'll not get into the exchanges' weeds, but merely (re)state my thesis: violence is a natural, human response to negative exogenous developments so engaging in NV can be rather hard, which is why it's a tool of the strong and really has to be learned and practiced.  Yes, even Gandhi and King couldn't get everybody to adopt their philosophy, despite all the charisma they brought to bear--both also understood the reasons for violence by the oppressed, and sought to not only educate but foster the conditions where more people could join them.

I don't have much of a narrative beyond that, but wanted to share some excerpted writings that have long formed the basis for my ideas on NV.

One thing that still surprises me that people are surprised by is that even Gandhi himself didn't expect everybody to follow his path of satyagraha.  One reason he undertook satyagrahic fasts was to interrupt default violent processes and shame people a little so they'd reflect and perhaps do a better job going the NV route, but he also hated the idea of passivity, impotence and cowardice.

For example, he wrote in The Gita and Satyagraha:

I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. 

I don't mean to suggest that he advocated violence per se.  Rather, he decried inaction, and while he practiced NV and wanted others to as well, the Mahatma saw acceptance of evil to be worse than violent resistance to evil.  This was an extremely common theme in his writings.

It seems clear to me that Gandhi understood how non-obvious his form of NV was.  He noted this in Young India (November 5, 1919):

The way of satyagraha is distinct from the beaten track and it is not always easy to discover it. Few have ventured along that path and the footprints on it are few and far between and indistinct, and hence the people's dread of it. And still we clearly find people taking that course, be it ever so slowly.

Ever so slowly, as Dr King still had to observe in Why We Can't Wait (1963):

Man was born into barbarism when killing his fellow man was a normal condition of existence. He became endowed with a conscience. And he has now reached the day when violence toward another human being must become as abhorrent as eating another’s flesh.

And when accepting the Nobel (1964)

[N]onviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral question of our time - the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to violence and oppression. Civilization and violence are antithetical concepts. Negroes of the United States, following the people of India, have demonstrated that nonviolence is not sterile passivity, but a powerful moral force which makes for social transformation. 

Sooner or later all the people of the world will have to discover a way to live together in peace, and thereby transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. If this is to be achieved, man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. 

I see all of this as acceptance of the immutable fact that humanity's conscience and society have to evolve as much as all other aspects of our existence.  Not unlike MLK (and Thurman) built upon the learning and practice of Gandhi--the former not even admitting the value of violence over impotence as the latter did, yet still understanding why the downtrodden might rise up in less constructive ways.

I'll have more to say about that in a while, following up on King's language of the unheard.  For now digest the offerings above, and consider that if you're judging rioters in the way I've seen people do ("I respected King, not that" or "it doesn't win my sympathy") then you are not being a part of the solution.

ntodd

December 6, 2014 in Conscience, Pax Americana | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

NToddcast RSS Feed

Friday, November 07, 2014

A Matter Of Partisan...er, Conscience

LOL:

Republican members of the Vermont Legislature will be free to vote their consciences in the upcoming balloting to choose the next governor, party leaders said Friday.
...
Even though recent tradition has been for lawmakers to cast their ballots for the top vote-getter, some Republicans are considering backing Milne.

How sweet they get to vote their consciences!  And their consciences just tell them that they should buck tradition and the top vote-getter because, hey, they got $370k in outside money to win a couple seats in the Leg!

ntodd

November 7, 2014 in And Fuck..., Conscience | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

NToddcast RSS Feed

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

The Years Of Rice And Salt

Because learning about something is worshipping it:

An angry father has been banned from a Maryland high school’s campus after he made vague but ominous threats against the school because his daughter’s history homework mentioned the Islamic faith.
...
Charles County School District Superintendent Kimberly Hill met with Wood and his wife to discuss their concerns on Monday. The couple reportedly asked the school to excuse their daughter from world history class for the duration of the segment studying Islam.

After the meeting, Wood told reporters that his daughter, a junior at La Plata High, should not be forced to study a faith that she “does not believe in.”

Morris told the Woods that an alternate curriculum could be created for their daughter, and that any assignments she refused to complete would be given a failing grade.

“I told her straight up ‘you could take that Muslim-loving piece of paper and shove it up your white [expletive],” Wood said on Monday. “If [students] can’t practice Christianity in school, they should not be allowed to practice Islam in school.”

Wood told Superintendent Morris that the school is violating his daughter’s “constitutional rights” and threatened to “bring down a shit-storm on them like they’ve never seen.”

But hey, I'm sure nobody would ever ever ever ever ever force non-Christians to study a faith they don't believe in...

ntodd

October 28, 2014 in Conscience | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

NToddcast RSS Feed

Saturday, October 25, 2014

"Oxford and Cambridge were not necessary to fit men to preach."

[T]he true preaching and ministry are to be in the spirit [1 Cor 14:15]; for the saints were made able ministers of the spirit, and not of the letter [2 Cor 3:6].

 - George Fox, Epistle CCCXII


The other day Anthony posted something about Chris Hedges' ordination, then so did RMJ today:

Suffice to say I have reasons to despise the institutional Church; far better reasons than Chris Hedges sums up in his article on the occasion of his ordination.

Ordination is a tricky thing.  It is determined by each denomination, based on its own determination of what validates an ordination.  I understand that in some Baptist denominations, for example, the congregation can ordain those they deem fit, and the deed is done.  The UCC is supposed to require a seminary education, but that's not the rigid requirement you might expect it to be.  I don't know what standards other denominations impose, but the idea is to determine that you have a calling to ministry and a reason to be set aside as a pastor or priest.  It is not automatic, granted upon your graduation from the right school, or based on your winning personality.  Most churches require some call to ministry; not just the mysterious "inner" call, but an actual offer of employment in what the denomination recognizes as a ministry.  A call to pastor a church is the obvious choice (it was how I was ordained; I couldn't even ask for ordination until a church wanted me to be their pastor), but there can be other calls.  There is always a lot of discernment involved, and a lot of consideration as to whether the candidate can simply handle the job of being a priest or pastor.

It ain't no golden staircase.

I'm not one who gets institutional religion generally, particularly the concept of ordination.  Probably due in large part to my Quaker upbringing, but perhaps also because I'm not one who feels compelled to listen to authority when I can just as easily have my own ideas about such matters.

Anyway, it brought to mind George Fox's distrust of the priestly class and overall thoughts on ministry, which he wrote about in his Journal.  From The First Years of Ministry (1648-1649):

The earthly spirit of the priests wounded my life; and when I heard the bell toll to call people together to the steeple-house, it struck at my life; for it was just like a market-bell, to gather people together, that the priest might set forth his ware for sale. Oh, the vast sums of money that are gotten by the trade they make of selling the Scriptures, and by their preaching, from the highest bishop to the lowest priest! What one trade else in the world is comparable to it? notwithstanding the Scriptures were given forth freely, and Christ commanded His ministers to preach freely, and the prophets and apostles denounced judgment against all covetous hirelings and diviners for money.

But in this free Spirit of the Lord Jesus was I sent forth to declare the Word of life and reconciliation freely...

A Year in Derby Prison (1650-1651):

[C]oming to Derby, I lay at the house of a doctor, whose wife was convinced; and so were several more in the town. As I was walking in my chamber, the [steeple-house] bell rang, and it struck at my life at the very hearing of it; so I asked the woman of the house what the bell rang for. She said there was to be a great lecture there that day, and many of the officers of the army, and priests, and preachers were to be there, and a colonel, that was a preacher.

Then was I moved of the Lord to go up to them; and when they had done I spoke to them what the Lord commanded me, and they were pretty quiet. But there came an officer and took me by the hand, and said that I and the other two that were with me must go before the magistrates. It was about the first hour after noon that we came before them.

They asked me why we came thither. I said God moved us so to do; and I told them, "God dwells not in temples made with hands." I told them also that all their preaching, baptism and sacrifices would never sanctify them, and bade them look unto Christ within them, and not unto men; for it is Christ that sanctifies. Then they ran into many words; but I told them they were not to dispute of God and Christ, but to obey Him.

One Man May Shake the Country for Ten Miles (1651-1652):

I went to a steeple-house hard by, where the priest and people were in a great rage. This priest had threatened Friends what he would do; but when I came he fled; for the Lord's power came over him and them...

I was sent of the Lord God of heaven and earth to preach freely, and to bring people off from these outward temples made with hands, which God dwelleth not in; that they might know their bodies to become the temples of God and of Christ; and to draw people off from all...the world's hireling teachers, that take tithes and great wages, preaching for hire, and divining for money, whom God and Christ never sent...I exhorted the people to come off from all these things, directing them to the Spirit and grace of God in themselves, and to the Light of Jesus in their own hearts; that they might come to know Christ, their free teacher, to bring them salvation, and to open the Scriptures to them.

Thus the Lord gave me a good opportunity to open things largely unto them. All was quiet, and many were convinced; blessed be the Lord.

At the Work of Organizing (1667-1670):

[W]e passed to a province meeting, which lasted two days, there being one about the poor, and another meeting more general; in which a mighty power of the Lord appeared. Truth was livingly declared, and Friends were much refreshed therein.

Passing thence about four and twenty miles, we came to another place, where we had a very good, refreshing meeting; but after it some Papists that were there were angry, and raged very much. When I heard of it, I sent for one of them, who was a schoolmaster; but he would not come.

Thereupon I sent a challenge to him, with all the friars and monks, priests and Jesuits, to come forth, and "try their God and their Christ, which they had made of bread and wine," but no answer could I get from them. I told them they were worse than the priests of Baal; for Baal's priests tried their wooden god, but these durst not try their god of bread and wine; and Baal's priests and people did not eat their god as these did, and then make another.

Friends can be a harsh toke.

ntodd

October 25, 2014 in Conscience | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

NToddcast RSS Feed

Thursday, October 16, 2014

Quakers Fighting Slavery

Violence is any day preferable to impotence.

 - MK Gandhi

I read in Friends Journal:

In John Brown, Abolitionist, Reynolds writes of two of Brown’s volunteers: “the brothers Barclay and Edwin Coppoc were examples of that oxymoronic type, the fighting Quaker.” He explains further: “Quakers had a long history of opposition to slavery and an even longer one of pacifism. . . . The Coppoc brothers . . . had no qualms about taking up arms against slavery.”

Yeah, Quakers ain't monolithic, and plenty carried a musket in war, including that unpleasantness over sacred states' rights.  We all make our own theological, moral and political calculations when deciding to act.  One thing you can't say is that Quakers just sit around, wringing their hands...

ntodd

October 16, 2014 in Conscience | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

NToddcast RSS Feed

Saturday, September 27, 2014

Live Your Life As Light

One hopes this is done many places:

October 2, 2014 marks the 145th anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi’s birth. Schools over the United States will be reading the Grandfather Gandhi “Live Your Life as Light” Pledge over morning announcements to celebrate his contributions to the world.

Educator tools and whatnot at the link.

ntodd

September 27, 2014 in Conscience | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

NToddcast RSS Feed

Friday, September 26, 2014

"Without justice, what kind of God are we worshipping?"

Rabbis and others struggle with Rosh Hashanah After Gaza.

ntodd

September 26, 2014 in Conscience | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

NToddcast RSS Feed

Sunday, August 31, 2014

Fit for Freedom, not for Friendship

I've blogged about Quaker abolitionism and military service quite a bit.  One must always be reminded that Friends tend to be privileged, and not at all monolithic:

As a person with privilege, I often mis-calculate how hard real change will be and overestimate the power I have to make change...It’s my sense that the killing of Mike Brown, Eric Garner, Palestinian children and families or the inclination to turn refugee children away would be far harder if not for the dehumanization and lies of racism. What will it take to undo this spiritual deformation that stands in the way of just and lasting peace?

I had the honor of working closely with the co-authors, Vanessa Julye and Donna McDaniel, of Fit for Freedom, not for Friendship: Quakers, African Americans and the Myth of Racial Justice toward the conclusion of its publication. The book breaks apart the myth that all Quakers were abolitionists or active in working for Civil Rights and demonstrates that most Quakers were not that involved, had hesitations about the Friends that were involved in these efforts, and often resisted change.
  
Though we like to believe we were counter-cultural and exceptional, throughout our history most American Quakers, in the end, weren’t all that different from the dominant Euro-centric and racist culture we have inhabited and inhabit today. 
 
There were, though, a courageous few among us, both white and Friends of color: Lucretia Mott, John Woolman, William Boen, Benjamin Lay, Thomas Garrett, Anthony Benezet, Sarah Mapps Douglass, the Grimke sisters, Paul Cuffee, Barrington Dunbar, Rufus Jones, Prudence Crandall, Bayard Rustin, Rachel Davis DuBois, George Sawyer, Kathie O’Hara and quite a number of others who struggled with Friends and the wider society for racial justice.
 
Donna and Vanessa wondered about publishing a companion book about these courageous few, these spiritual ancestors willing to stand in the gap between who we say we are and who we are and try to help us cross the chasm.

Unfortunate that the book is not available in electronic format, since that's the only kind I have the luxury to read these days...

ntodd

August 31, 2014 in Conscience | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

NToddcast RSS Feed

Sunday, July 20, 2014

Speaking Of Nixon

He was no Al Gore.  And no Friend (certainly not the type who would run an underground railroad to rescue LGBT Ugandans).

ntodd

July 20, 2014 in Conscience | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

NToddcast RSS Feed

Thursday, July 03, 2014

Conscientious Objector +1

Remember when Sotomayor threw women under the bus?  Well go over the LGM and see how she's clearly redeemed herself.  Expect no other context from me.

I will, however, highlight this:

“Suppose it is wartime, there is a draft, and a Quaker is called up. Many Quakers are pacifists, and their pacifism is a tenet of their religion. Suppose the Quaker who’s been called up tells the selective service system that he’s a conscientious objector. The selective service officer to whom he makes this pitch accepts the sincerity of his refusal to bear arms and excuses him. But as the Quaker leaves the selective service office, he’s told: ‘you know this means we’ll have to draft someone in place of you’—and the Quaker replies indignantly that if the government does that, it will be violating his religious beliefs. Because his religion teaches that no one should bear arms, drafting another person in his place would make him responsible for the military activities of his replacement, and by doing so would substantially burden his own sincere religious beliefs. Would this mean that by exempting him the government had forced him to ‘trigger’ the drafting of a replacement who was not a conscientious objector, and that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act would require a draft exemption for both the Quaker and his non‐Quaker replacement?”

This is so great.  Wish I'd thought of it.

ntodd

July 3, 2014 in Conscience | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

NToddcast RSS Feed

Sunday, June 29, 2014

The Marvelous Sugar Baby

Denise Oliver Velez writes over at Orange Satan:

When we describe and think of sugar, it is a white crystal sweet, ubiquitous in our daily diets. "Refined" is a word we associate with behavior and social class, and we forget that white sugar starts out a dark brown, with a molasses as a byproduct of a process called "refining" of sugarcane, "the world's largest crop by production quantity." It is hard to imagine a world, not so very long ago, when only elites could afford refined sugar, or eat the subtleties crafted for their dining pleasure. Nor when we buy confections or liberally dump spoonfuls of sugar into our coffee or tea do we think of slavery, death and blood.  

It is this history, so intimately entwined with the peculiar institution that was slavery and the slave trade, that artist Kara Walker has evoked in her towering and disturbing art exhibit in the old Domino Sugar Factory in Brooklyn, New York.  

Thanks to the likes of John Woolman and others, I do thinking of slavery, death and blood on a regular basis when using sugar, in contrast to editors at Slate and other folks.  I'm weird that way.

Regardless, Walker's art installation looks really amazing.

ntodd

June 29, 2014 in Conscience | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

NToddcast RSS Feed

Saturday, June 14, 2014

Struggling For Any Justice Somewhere Is Struggling For Justice Everywhere

I have long advocated for fighting against bad stuff, though there's no requirement for loincloth and goats' milk.  So I wholly endorse what Loomis says here about activist snobbery.

I admonish people to get engaged.  Don't have to do what I do, or for the reasons I do it, just fucking do something.  Even frisbee revolutions have value.

ntodd


Contribute to the Eleventh Blegiversary *

June 14, 2014 in Conscience, Pax Americana | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

NToddcast RSS Feed

Thursday, June 12, 2014

Kokesh Advocates Pre-emptive Cop Killing

Wow, stay classy:

On his Wednesday Internet show, Adam Kokesh blasted the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for noting that Jerad and Amanda Miller had been inspired by his gun activism.

“You’re not going to get away with it this time USA Today and SPLC,” Kokesh insisted, arguing that the shooters had acted because “authority has become a homicidal institution against freedom.”

Kokesh asserted that the slaying of the two officers was not “murder” because police are likely to kill people.

“Let’s say someone is going around stabbing people, like just stabbing people,” he opined. “It’s not murder to kill someone in that situation. And has been pointed out about the Vegas shooting, when you have police officers that are going around and doing violent things all day long, and then they take a break for lunch, well, it doesn’t mean all of the sudden they’re innocent or they’re being peaceful because they’re taking a break from all of their other anti-freedom, rights-violating violence.”

“Think of how many lives might have been saved by this incident. How many people would these cops have killed had they not been killed?” he asked

But hey, Washington crossed the Delaware to attack lunching Hessians, so it's all good.  Although I guess Adam's no longer claiming that his little revolution is non-violent and Gandhian.

ntodd


Contribute to the Eleventh Blegiversary *

June 12, 2014 in Conscience | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack