I listened to Bill Ayers today on Democracy Now! I also happened to notice that people were coming to this website from search-engine results after having searched on "Bill Ayers." Let me say that I was not favorably impressed by Bill's statement that terrorism is exclusively hurting and/or killing people. I'm paraphrasing him but not badly.
Bill engaged in blowing up buildings. I believe he is stating it correctly that none of the bombings in which he engaged resulted in hurting people or killing them. However, even though his actions drew more attention to the disturbance that war causes in general, his approach in the end proves counter-productive.
I remember Bill Ayers hitting the newspapers. I was reading the papers daily by that time in my life. I especially also remember the debate about bombing ROTC buildings on campus. My friends and I were interested and involved in politics and discussions came up about such things at the time.
Recently, due to the arrests of Anarchists at the Republican Convention, I left comments on the site of one of the brothers (Ian Bicking) of one of those arrested (Monica Bicking) and still facing trial I believe. On that site, I advocated for ending property destruction as a means to effectuate desired change. Unfortunately, the brother believes, as does Bill Ayers apparently, that destroying the property of the destroyers doesn't make one wrong when those others are killing people as via war. The war makers are killing the innocent right along with the guilty. They are killing out of their selfish desires for material wealth and power and control (ego). They are killing for Empire's sake. Millions die. Millions are maimed. Millions are orphaned and made homeless and sick. There is no excuse for it. However, using destruction to stop them and assigning a line of physical harm or death as the line where if one stays on one side of it right up to the edge of it, one is somehow not doing wrong is an error. Bill and the brother are engaging in "two wrongs make a right."
There is no line for human beings where they can destroy the property of others and shared property where hypocrisy doesn't enter in or where the line can't be move to totally destroying so much property in the name of "peace" that many would be left more homeless, etc. Also, knowing that bombs could go off wherever on government or other property without warning is a terrorizing thing for many. It does add to the climate of fear. It does stimulate greater wrathfulness among people.
I find no justification for Bill Ayers' position vis-Ã -vis terrorism.
He has many right things to say, but he crosses the line.
Let me add here that Jesus cleaning the Temple is not analogous to the situation. The house that was the Temple building is not the same as the U.S. Capitol or the Pentagon. There is no valid comparison.
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)