"Empire resurrected and unapologetic, war without end, an undefined enemy that's supposed to be a rallying point for a new kind of energized jingoistic patriotism, unprecedented and unapologetic military expansion, white supremacy changing its form, but essentially intact, attacks on women and girls, violent attacks, growing surveillance in every sphere of our lives, on and on and on, the targeting of gay and lesbian people as a kind of a scapegoating gesture to keep our minds off of what's really happening." — William Ayers, self-described anarchist, former Weatherman bomber, friend and supporter of Sen. Barack Obama, describing his view of America in a 2007 speech. Audio at Powerline.
In the 60's, William Ayers and his current wife Bernardine Dohrn were leaders in the Weathermen, an ultra-radical group that preached revolution — the overthrow of the US government and its replacement by a communist society. They declared war on the United States and planted numerous homemade bombs against government facilities and police stations. Three of their own members died in an accidental explosion while building bombs.
Though Ayers and Dohrn willingly, even proudly, admit what they did, they were never prosecuted. The FBI used illegal wire taps to gain evidence against the Weathermen, evidence which was later ruled inadmissible.
Today Ayers and Dohrn are well-to-do college professors, "respectable" and still politically active. They sponsored the first fundraising efforts for Barack Obama's entry into Illinois politics and have continued to be close friends with the Obamas.
The question being asked by some on the right, a question my fellow Democrats are ducking, is this: What sort of influence has the Ayers-Dohrn radicalism had on Barack Obama's thinking? How will the radical ideas espoused by these former domestic terrorists shape Obama's presidency if he is elected? What payback has Obama promised Ayers-Dohrn for all their support over the years?
Put another way, who is influencing whom? Have Ayers and Dohrn convinced Obama that we are living today, in Dohrn's words "in the belly of the beast" and "inside the heart of the monster"? Or has Obama, an avowed Christian and church-goer, attempted to convince friends like Ayers and Dohrn that love, not violence, is the way to right society's wrongs?
Jesus was also friendly with people who had unsavory pasts. It was, in fact, one of the criticisms made against him, that he must be a sinner because he spent so much time with sinners.
You can tell a person by their friends, as the popular saying goes.
One of the twelve men Jesus chose to be his disciple was Simon the Zealot. We know very little about Simon, except that he stayed true to the commitment he made to Jesus. He was there in the upper room with the rest of the disciples in Acts 1:13, after Jesus had died and risen, waiting to be filled with the Holy Spirit, waiting for God to show him what was next. His life became subsumed in Jesus' life.
He is presumed to have been called Simon the Zealot because he was a member of a radical group just like the Weathermen. The Zealots were religious radicals, vehemently opposed to the presence of Roman authority in Jerusalem and committed to a violent remedy to the problem of Roman occupation.
Indeed, it is ironic that in one of the final scenes during Jesus' trial, Pontius Pilate offers to pardon Jesus, as it was his custom to free a political prisoner during the Passover observance. The crowd insisted that Pilate free Barabbas, instead. Barabbas was a prominent member of the Zealot movement and in prison for leading an insurrection against Roman authority.
If Simon joined Jesus' band of followers with thoughts of co-opting Jesus and persuading him to join in the Zealot's rebellion, Jesus ultimately turned the tables on Simon. By all accounts, Jesus persuaded Simon to abandon domestic terrorism and embrace a life of self-emptying service — a life centered in love, a love so powerful and inclusive that it transformed the lives of Jews and Romans alike.
Whose words move you? Whose philosophy guides you? To whom do you owe your allegiance?
The principles we live by, the political philosophy that guides us and sets our priorities, both in the voting booth and during the long seasons of real life in between, these ideas are never original.
We borrow everything we believe from someone else. All of us are persuaded by the words and actions of others, and once we are persuaded, we build our lives around their beliefs. It's as true for the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints in Texas as for privileged college professors in the mid-west. As I said in my last post, we each create a framing story that we use to judge truth and error, a story that guides not only our thinking, but every decision and action we take — as well as every alternative we reject out of hand.
According to Christian thought, we all influence others. Those of us who follow Christ influence society as much as those who reject Jesus' authority. Jesus used the metaphor of yeast, a very tiny organism that spreads through a batch of dough and transforms it from something inedible to something sweet — bread.
Like yeast, Christians are to be agents of change, agents of influence, people with counter-cultural ideas about the nature of the world we live in, ideas that have practical consequences and real benefits in our culture.
It's a fair question for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain: "Who influences and shapes your political philosophy?" All three candidates claim to be Christians. How has that devotion to Christ transformed them, and their political views?
It's a fair question for us, too. Jesus transformed Simon the Zealot and his politics. How has Jesus shaped your political goals and the means you use to achieve them? How has he shaped your values, your principles and the framing stories that guide your life?
Who influences you? Jesus the Son of the living God, or someone else?
Art credit: SDS/Weathermen anti-war poster.
]]>
In a dusty pueblo not far from Gallup, New Mexico, the Zunis were noisily celebrating the end of winter. Costumed dancers wearing animal-skin cloaks, feathers and shells hurried through the dark streets, their faces hidden behind colorful masks, their bodies painted in ancient designs. The dancers crowded into houses where they performed to the driving beat of drums, mimicking the movements and stories they had seen acted out year after year after year, since they were children.
Before Easter could come, he passed through betrayal, abandonment, false accusations, humiliation, mob rule and a judicial system disfigured by the lust for power, a system that mocked truth.
Politics is fueled by discontent. In every election season, we Americans — the world's most prosperous and pampered people — take our complaints to the ballot box.
It turns out that it's all in my head. The ringing in my ears, that is.
When Jane Austen's father submitted her first novel to a publisher, she had named it "First Impressions." The publisher rejected it, but she continued to write — thankfully — and some seventeen years later found a publisher for the book we now know as Pride and Prejudice.
A couple of days into my recent trip to Mexico I developed a toothache. Not a please shoot me now! toothache, but the sort that makes you start avoiding one side of your mouth, like that neighborhood you stay out of after dark because it'll be trouble.
The movie opens with a young woman standing in her front yard chugging down a gallon jug of Sunny Delight. She makes a disparaging remark about a frumpy Lazy-Boy recliner sitting on the grass, then walks off down the sidewalk. As she strolls through a working class pre-war suburban neighborhood sipping Sunny-D, the cartoonish opening credits make us wonder if this young woman might be walking to the local library.
Heath Ledger was an adequate actor. Not great, not bad, about average for an industry that churns out boatloads of pretty new faces every year, all looking for a shot at fame and immortality.
