Here's my latest comment there:
I have a difficult time envisioning a group of people deciding on a name with someone proposing "The Audacity of Hope" without someone there saying that while it brings to mind Obama's hypocrisy, it just feels wrong to bring him up at all in this case.
The name will get more spin (free publicity?) that will actually be a distraction. To me, it's a lost opportunity to educate people about something they don't already know. Who doesn't know that Obama's a hypocrite? There are some, but who will be swayed by naming the boat "The Audacity of Hope" relative to the "Deir Yassin" or something that will raise an issue in history that the common news follower may very likely have never heard of that could/should shock the complacent/ignorant. Look at how few people know of Mordechai Vanunu. Just think of the mainstream corporate news media having to address the question "Who's Mordechai Vanunu" rather than why "The Audacity of Hope"? I think it's hand down "Mordechai Vanunu," but I don't own the boat.
Oh well, maybe there's too much pride of authorship/naming involved. I don't know. I would hope not, but someone would have to address that internally.
I thought the "Rachel Corrie" was a phenomenal choice. Rachel Corrie still isn't a household name though largely because of the nine dead and some thirty+ more wounded (some say up to 60) on the Mavi Marmara. I wish they would not have fought back. I wish the Movement would have remained 100% non-violent. Then each sailing would have held its own suspense but garnered more momentum on subject (the Gazans/Palestinians versus Zionism) rather than just the issue of whether or not passengers will fight back when the Israelis board and otherwise abuse the totally peaceful from around the world. That is blown now to some measure. I hope it can be regained.
If I had been there, I'd have argued against the name "The Audacity of Hope" for the reasons I've given here.
Prior to that, I had this to say:
I didn't join willingly. I didn't read the URL before clicking: http://apps.facebook.com/causes/causes/503994/ welcome?flow=join
The bit on the end "joined" me to the Cause, even though I clicked simply to take a look.
[I need to update that info. It says thank you for joining, but you may not actually be joined at that point. I found out later that I wasn't. In fact, when I went back and actually stepped through it, there was about a 30 minute delay before the servers were indicating that I had joined. I was already done with an email to the Causes administrator when I clicked on another link for something when the system finally was indicating I had joined some 40 minutes earlier.]
[This one should let you look first. Either that or there's a bug in the software: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.causes.com%2Fcauses%2F503994%3Fm%3D9e4cc0c7%26recruiter_id%3D13875729&h=51445]
Well, here's my feeling anyway:
Please encourage whomever to change the name of the boat from "THE AUDACITY OF HOPE." I simply do not want to see the boat associated with Barack Obama, whether as a gibe or anything else.
I suggested to the Jewish boat group to name theirs the "Mordechai Vanunu," but I never received a reply. If they won't do it, would the US Gaza Freedom flotilla group please change the name of its first boat from "THE AUDACITY OF HOPE" to the "Mordechai Vanunu"?
Now that's a connection I can support and which actually will raise his issue, which is directly associated with the whole Palestinian issue, in the mainstream media. It will help to educate people about the Zionist atomic bomb(s) and their abuse of Mordechai Vanunu, (with all due respect to Daniel Ellsberg, Julian Assange, Sibel Edmonds, Bradley Manning, and the like) the great but all but forgotten whistleblower of whistleblowers to date.
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)