Tom Hayden is mistaken about insiderism (being in and working within the system) and non-spiritual orientation. Only peacefully displacing the worldly system will ever work. The worldly system is an inherently divided house that will always fall no matter how many times or in how many different places the greedy, violent, and depraved try to build it again. Nevertheless, Tom makes some very valid points below.
...the killings of the Kennedy's and King, and by the stolen 2000 election which could have created an environmental presidency. As a result of murders and theft, my generation will never know whether a progressive majority can succeed in winning political power, and what the consequences of that victory might be.
...we will have to work flexibly on the inside and outside to push for rapid troop withdrawals from Iraq, prevent him [Barack Obama] from sending more combat troops to the Afghan quagmire, and have enough protective public support to initiate the talks with Iran recommended in the Baker-Hamilton Report.
The same pressure will be needed to steer him away from pro-corporate trade mechanisms like NAFTA and the WTO. And to move toward economic recovery from the bottom up, by re-regulating Wall Street, canceling the Bush tax breaks, launching an immediate public works initiative and setting bold goals for energy efficiency and renewables.
There always is a cultural underground, of course, and an outlaw culture wherever moral injuries are inflicted on the artists. And there undergrounds of another nature, like the early catacombs, that are created by people who have decided that they must resist the state by methods defined as illegal. The Underground Railroad during slavery times would be an example. During the Sixties, all these various undergrounds existed at different times. The beat cultural underground was first. The thousands who defied the passport laws to visit Cuba. Certain Chicano nationalists fighting to reclaim land grants of the southwestern United States. Many Black Panthers. The Catholic draft and war resisters. Some Vietnam veterans. The Weather Underground was formed in the late Sixties when some young radicals perceived that a police state was unfolding, that electoral politics was hopeless, that community organizing lacked urgency, and that too many people were enjoying their racial privileges while villages and ghettos burned. As one can see, this was a spectrum of disobedience, much of it nonviolent or limited to property damage. Most of it is ignored in memory, especially institutional memory, because the underground represents a profound threat to the democratic image on which American power rests. There is little way to evaluate what was effective and what was counter-productive. What seems clear in retrospect is that when the Vietnam War ended and the post-LBJ Democrats came to power, the basis for an underground was undermined and the various undergrounds surfaced back into the mainstream, with a small number arbitrarily caught in the incarceration system for life. Since a first principle of undergrounds is silence, there will be few to tell the stories.
The Sixties are on trial in this national election. Because of the broad brush of the Republicans and media, all of us who went through that time will be defendants this time. We must stop guilt-by-association techniques. We can denounce or oppose certain methods as we are inclined, but we must defend the idea of the Sixties overall....
By comparison, during my decades in politics I met many Republicans who conspired to illegally raise funds for the Nicaraguan contras who blew up bombs in Managua. I had many Republican colleagues who couldn't speak out against the bombers of abortion clinics and killers of abortion doctors who were elements of their district constituencies. There were Republicans who ran illegal undergrounds of their own, from secret police units to torture chambers, tiger cages and future Abu Ghraibs. I'm not waiting to hear them exposed on FOX News or any time soon.
— Tom Hayden
May 22, 2008
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)