Tag Archives: Civil Rights

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Capital…

(Written 15.January.2012)

Stardate 41153.7. While acquainting himself with the command of his new vessel—the USS Enterprise and its crew, Captain Jean Luke Picard and three members of his crew are abducted and put on trial, representing all of Humanity for charges of “being a grievously savage race.”

In order to prove that our past should not condemn our present and future, the good Captain sets out to show the goodness—and more importantly, the progression, of Mankind to his accuser.

In the end, he proves that Humanity has indeed progressed, and will progress, but to what—as the last episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation will tell, remains to be seen.

A universe where all powerful beings who can shape and reshape the fabric of time and space, who spend all their time toying and testing with the intelligent lifeforms of the universe; a universe with beings such as these, but lacking a God, an all powerful being, and the progress of Mankind appears simply to be progression itself.

1963, a hot August day in our country’s capital, a prominent Doctor and Reverend’s speech explodes into a passionate rant about a dream; of talks of freedom, of justice.

And what was that dream?

An impossible one?

Dr. King stood, a man many believed opposed to racial discrimination. I would disagree. He stood opposed to it only for the fact that he stood for something he believed to be right—an equality of men among our nation.

He believed in an absolute right and wrong, in a manner of being that all men can reach, and he believed in a definitive, absolute, ending point of “progression.”

A right and a wrong.

It seems that the United States themselves could be considered a nation which began with the statement, “This isn’t right.”

In England, in taxation, in slavery, and what should be seen in God’s sight.

Dr. King did not say anything new, but conveyed the original, in a new way. “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.”

Equal in what?

Contemporarily, it seems as if what once was a fight for something right, and a nation which began by saying “This isn’t right,” has had a paradigm shift to which we modernly say, “I’m right.”

Our fight has turned from what is right, to fighting for my rights.

The government and all those disconnected from us can do as they please as long as it doesn’t impede on our rights to pursue our own individual wishes and happiness. As per my own personal feeling about it, I think, is that a nation in which all one’s wishes were fulfilled would—quite apart from disappointments, be an unpleasant nation to live in. The world would be too like a dream, and the dream too like a nightmare.

The dilemma with this has been, and will always be the absent representation of what is right.

Even in the far distant future, if man was put on trial, the only defense of wrong doing would be progression from that wrong doing.

Yet while progression from is quite clear, it the progression towards that gets murky. For if you begin with a void, to fill it with more void will leave you finding yourself fighting straw horses—of windmills, of an infinite array of human evolution, of progress, of onward and upward. And to what? Who defines human perfection when it’s based on the thing evolving itself? Did the Neanderthal expect to evolve into something superior to itself? Or no, of course not, those proponents of this would say that it hadn’t evolved to the point of recognizing progression and evolution.

For those that believe this, I would posit that what’s to keep us from evolving to a place where we recognize a mystery outside of ourselves that judges just when we’ve reached the end of the road? What’s to say we won’t progress right out of progressive thought?

At least under the frame of a Creator God, there is a clear vision that there is something which “ought” to be. Even if by Creator God you mean to say, “Some great mysterious force which can only be known by making itself known.”

But to say there is nothing at all is to say there is nothing to fight for—save for the right to fight, to progress, which—time may prove to be no right at all. To have a hint at something outside, though it may remain a mystery—nay, the mystery, is to say there not only is a purpose, but a right way of things—and by consequence, a wrong way of things, and thus, something to strive for, and to fight against.

Dr. King seemed to understand this fact. His famous speech is riddled with Spiritual references to a Creator God not because he was a Reverend, nor because he thought it would help drive home the point of the movement, but because they were so intertwined that the lines separating them could not be easily discriminated.

I’d love to be in the hope that the reason there has been none like him since is that all the great causes to fight for have been, and been won. But with Gay Rights, Occupations, Ron Pauls, Tea Parties, and the like, I don’t know how verily that can be claimed. So where has this disconnect come? Why are there no more great Civil Rights movements when it still feels as if Civil liberties still have something to be desired?

What’s lacking before we march on the Capital once more?

What vanished on our way to the Capital?

Could the divine we’ve “fought” to progress past, beyond, be the very thing which progression herein depends?

Here again it seems obvious that all the doubts which legitimately attach to the idea of a progressive humanity are absolutely fatal to the idea of progressive divinity. If the goal, the divine (Kantian humanity) to progress towards is the infinite road of progression itself, you have nothing to judge what is the right road or not.

A man may be progressing from a wrongness to God, provided there’s some faith in the divine, but what is a progressive God progressing towards?

What defined the Civil Rights movement of Dr. Kings contemporary was not just that all men are equal Constitutionally, but all men are equal in a way which far transcends any government document—in that all men are equally created by God, and in the faith of God as Father, none of his children—nor his creation for that matter, has earned the right to be stripped of liberty, of freedom, and of justice.

This is not to say that persecution was something to fight against, but King would say to fight through.

“And some of you have come from areas where your quest — quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive. Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed.”

Dr. King saw persecution—tribulation, as a worthy battle to fight through, all the while resting in the hope of something greater.

It was better for him to admit a limit of freedom in existence, if only to be free to progress towards something true, than it was to have the “freedom” to flounder in whatever way “the progression of mankind” deemed appropriate.

Sometime during the Spanish Inquisition, Miguel De Cervantes stood trial amongst his fellow inmates, merely because—well, because no one enters or leaves this or any prison—without being tried by his fellow prisoners.

His charge: being an idealist, a bad poet, and an honest man.

His plea: guilty of all charges.

Of being an idealist, yes; for he never had the courage to believe in nothing.

His defense, to spin a tale of a knight so daft that he fought what others could not see, for a cause which others did not believe in.



For the sake of itself?


The knight strove to reach the unreachable star.

There was a goal, there was an end; no matter how daft it seemed to reach for it. No matter how hopeless, no matter how far, to fight for the right without question or pause;

to be willing to march into hell for a heavenly cause!

Time may be the only thing to prove man right or wrong. We may progress to a time of starships, and of contact with sentient extra terrestrial beings; of aliens who have progressed themselves to a life of logic and suppression of emotion, to explore new worlds and strange civilizations; yet time will still be the Geiger of measurement if there is no God, if the divine is ever progressing as we are, if the cause is to move past the past, and on toward the future, time will prove man right or wrong. For who knows what mysteries one may discover, come the future of knowledge, of progression?

Will men like Hitler actually be proved right in his actions? Will Gahndi be proved wrong? Will the future’s heroes of the past sift and waver between the moral boundaries we at present hold them in?

Time may be the only thing to prove man right or wrong. But perhaps man—man may become the only thing to prove God right or wrong—or rather, to prove there even is a right and a wrong.

Materialism says that the universe is mindless; and faith says it is ruled by the highest mind. Neither will be satisfied with the new “progressive” creed, which declares hopefully that the universe is half witted.

In the end though, I would rather fight for the right (without question or pause), than for my rights.

For when this happens—when all fight for what is right, external to themselves, I believe,

“…when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

Free at last! Free at last!

Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”

Leave a comment

Filed under God stuff, Political (as such)

‘Occupy’ Manifesto

(Written 3.December.2011)


At the risk of alienating myself from quite a few people I respect (and many I may not, but honor their wisdom), I have decided to go forward with publishing this post. I’ve been very apprehensive about this, not for many reasons—as one might assume, but for just one. Namely, I don’t think anything will come of it, and if I myself feel that way, then it is merely wasted words in a wasted conflict (of sorts).
Yet, I’ve kept coming back to the thought time and time again, and—for the life of me, cannot figure out why there is a passion and desire to post this, up until the moment where I am to, of course.

But someone I do respect very highly once said that the thing you have no desire to publish is more often than not the very thing that ought to be published. So, I shall do so—with some background first, of course, and a bold notation that this is ultimately observation.

I began—as many do, viewing the ‘Occupy’ movement as something ridiculous. Just a bunch of Millennialists (post Baby Boomer generation) hopped up on too much Red Bull and V for Vendetta. As I started to read more, though, and talk to people involved—both politically and judicially, my views began to shift.

This is what I see.


Those that believe in something but cannot clearly articulate it are not mad men who do not know what it is they want, feel, think, or believe. The man who truly believes in something will always try to explain that belief, that idea, whether poorly or with great skill. It is the man who does not believe in anything who finds himself content to rationalize his lack of belief as something too subtle or lofty to be explained.


It has always seemed to be the case that what comes easier and more naturally for humanity is to seek and find a villain to fight against, rather than discover a cause to fight for;

it is much easier for us to fight against a villain, than for a cause.

This must not be taken lightly. As is the case with creation, with those artists who create based on creation, and the critics who create (or destroy) the artistic interpretation of creation; that is, that the further away from something tangible you get, the less your point is valid. To critique is to take something already created and either create something new, or create something that is really nothing at all.

There is a fine line when being a critic. One must not stray too far from their own expression, lest they shape emptiness, nothing at all in its stead. If at all possible, create something new in place of what you are against, and persevere in that endeavor.


While I disagree with looking for a scapegoat in the dubbed ‘1%’, rich misers to do battle against, these individuals must be distinguished from the ‘very wealthy;’ and verily, must also be distinguished from what was thought to be an old miser in times past. In those that are very wealthy, there are still good people, for there are still all kinds of people. There can actually be saints among priests. There can actually be heroes among soldiers. There can actually be doctors who have really grown wealthy by curing their patients.

But among the rich misers, the 1%, you will never find a really generous man, even by accident. They may give their money away, but they will never give themselves away.

These are not ‘Ebenezer Scrooges,’ nor are they ‘Scrooge McDucks’ for that matter; these are not men who desire money for the sheer obsession and love of money.
For men like those can be pitied, and one can find themselves doing so.

Ebenezer closed himself off from the world, and pined and pined over his wealth. Scrooge McDuck loved having money because he loved it itself, he swam in the amount of money he had.

These men were like any other mad man with a material obsession, only theirs is wealth, gold.
Today’s miser, the 1%, has a different type of obsession. Theirs is not like the Scrooges of old, but more like the 9 Lords of Men in ‘the Lord of the Rings,’ whose obsession (and ultimately, what consuming) was power.

If absolute power corrupts absolutely, then a desire for absolute power implies absolute corruption heretofore.


“Man is made with one head. Not two or three.”
If a movement wishes to represent the people, namely, the common man, the 99%, then it is to have one head, one purpose, one goal. It is much easier to kill a ferocious giant with multiple heads, for the heads will always argue amongst themselves, leaving the giant vulnerable to attack.

However, the giant with one head is more of a challenge to kill, for its only focus is on devouring its enemy.


The government should restrain the debaucheries allotted for in our country’s ‘freedom;’ the abnormal liberties taken by the few, not the normal.
The cloying humor in it all though, is that these have been reversed. We are free in our abnormalities, but our normal liberties…

“…the normal man, the decent discontented citizen, wants to protest against unfair law courts. He wants to expose the brutalities of the police. He wants to make game of a vulgar pawnbroker who is made a Peer. He wants to publicly warn people against unscrupulous capitalists and suspicious finance.
If he is run in for doing this (as he will be) he wants to proclaim the character or known prejudices of the judge who tries him. If he is sent to prison (as he will be) he wants to have a clear and civilized sentence, telling him when he will come out”… “I can write in some solemn quarterly an elaborate article explaining that God is the devil; I can write in some cultured weekly an aesthetic fancy describing how I would like to eat a boiled [or basted] baby. The thing I must not write is a rational criticism of the men and institutions of my country. I must not write about how never before has it been so easy for those with money and wealth to slip bills through Parliament [Congress, Senate, etc.] for the purpose of locking someone up, bailing someone free, raising someone to power who will in turn keep power where it is desired, to silence those asking the right questions, and to protect high-placed officials. “
-G.K. Chesterton, A Miscellany of Men.

And so…

The Occupy Manifesto

“The one case for Revolution is that it is the only quite clean and complete road to anything—even to restoration. Revolution alone can be not merely a revolt of the living, but also a resurrection of the dead.” –G.K.C.

There was a time when our country stood on the most basic of principles—One Nation, Under God; that is, to be equal under God. This did not (does not) entail equal distributions of what God had blessed some with and not others, but an equality that transcended (transcends) class, race, gender, age, amount of talents allotted, or lastly, one being made of ‘gold’ and another ‘clay.’

We call for a return to the beginning. A return to being equal in something far bigger and greater than any one person, government, or people.

We do not–nor cannot, adhere to an Atheistic, Secularist, Darwinist view. For a call to the equality we seek supposes that the ‘survival of the fittest’ mode of thinking only hinders our cause, not helps it. If this were truly the case, then the 1% would be considered ‘the fittest’ and the 99% are doomed for annihilation.

Someone who I wish to give no credit to once said more or less, “God is dead.”

It’s time to resurrect (awaken) God.

In Christendom, the theology of what is known as “the Kingdom” is pivotal in maintaining a foundation, and as our country was founded on these core theologies, they must be understood in order to be called upon.

This Kingdom calls for all to be treated as equals, in freedom, liberty, and government, regardless of giftings–or lack thereof, given. To recognize that those made of ‘gold’ and those made of ‘clay’ are equal on the level that they are still both ‘made.’ (rf. 2 Timothy 2:20)
This equality is not contingent on the substance that one is made from, be it gold, clay, or any other fancy the creator chooses. The equality lay solely in the purpose given to each.
That each has a purpose and each is made for a reason.
And let us be equal in this.
Let not the gold look down on the clay. Let not the clay despise the gold.

So, inequality based on wealth, class, and so forth, can be kept: for who are we to question what God has assigned to each?

But security,
a voice,
these things should not be allotted solely to those given much; but to all based on equality of creation.

Simply put, those given ‘one talent’ should not be forced into a system of usage of that talent based on terms and conditions that those with ‘many talents’ may choose to impose. (rf. Matthew 25: 14-30)

This does not say that those placed in authority over us should not be adhered to, for without respect for authority, comes a descent into chaos.
But authority claiming to be by the people, for the people, but without any regard of the people is not a genuine authority, and as darkness must be brought to light, and lies to truth, this falsity must be as well.

The equality in which we seek cannot be achieved by what we currently view as our ‘democracy.’
A democracy is a government of the people. Yet we have what? A government of two party politics; both claiming to have the genuine interests of the people in mind and heart. “There is a real danger in two parties with two policies: they unduly limit the outlook of the ordinary citizen. They make the ordinary citizen barren instead of creative, because he is never allowed to do anything except prefer one existing policy to another.

We have not got real Democracy when the decision depends upon the people.

We shall have real Democracy when the problem depends upon the people.

When the ordinary man will decide not only how he will vote, but what he is going to vote about.” –G.K.C.

Our democracy holds that the people have the right to answer questions (though only by choosing one of the two ways offered), but the people have no right to ask them.

“For the powerful class [1%] will choose two courses of action, both of them safe for itself, and then give the democracy the gratification of taking one course or the other.”-G.K.C.
The government is truly so far distanced from the people that the people’s voice is not verily heard. Yet it is hidden under the guise that without the people, the government would crumble.

No, this democracy is one where the people vote on preconceived solutions to problems chosen not by us.
It’s claimed to be our vote, but how is it our vote when the choices for solutions weren’t chosen by us? If it is all out of our hands, then what is the point of voting?

Equality, and our voice–everyman’s voice, cannot be truly heard when we are only allowed to shout one way or another.

Verily though, a government this far removed from the people is not the government’s fault.

It is the people.

As such, the government cannot be held to fix a problem with itself.

For the people to correct the problem, the people must take the reigns of control back from the government. We must hold ourselves responsible for the monster we created.

But just as you retrain an animal who has gone wild how to be submissive, and who is in control, the people must do the same to the government.

For the government to be afraid of its people (and not the other way around), the people must give the government something to fear.

This is not an extremist call to acts of terrorism; but it is not a passive and placid call as to write a letter to your local congressman or woman who you have no knowledge of or relationship with.

So what does it look like for the people to cause/create fear in their government?

How do the people attain an equal say in things when they are constantly and consistently being forced out of the room?

How do the voiceless attain a voice?

Is it by shouting when they are shouting at you?

All that is attained there is that both parties become hoarse, and there is victory for none.

Is it by remaining silent (or worse, a cacophony of different thoughts vocalized) when the other is asking what is desired?

This only achieves a blind eye being turned your way, and ignorance of your plight when your voice, your cause is finally found.

It must be noted that there is no such thing as an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object.

There may exist an unstoppable force in this universe, or an immovable object (in fact, they may more than likely very well be one and the same); but to say that an impass will only be reached with conflict, is to say that both sides are too limp, too placid to stand firm.

When a person (or people) is pushed around, until they’ve had enough, what are the options? Push back?

Or become strong enough as to not be able to be pushed, immovable.

Real strength does not come from standing over the body your beaten, bloody opponent in battle.

Real strength lay in being beaten, broken, bloody, yet remaining immovable.
For one may think that it takes all your strength to remain standing when you are being beaten, but I say that there is a hidden strength somewhere deep inside the one who stands firm.
And while they may very well become exhausted and near unable to stand, when that person sees their aggressor weak, exhausted, unable to throw another fist: it is then that that strength arises from deep within, and when the aggressor cannot lift another finger to torment, then the man–beaten and bloody, yet unmoved, will have the strength to carry on,
to stand victorious,
to build and to do as they ought to be done, not merely as they are desired to be.

And the world will be better for this, that one man (or the 99% of unified one mans) scorned and covered with scars, still strove with their last ounce of courage to reach the unreachable star!

So what shall we say then?
Are we to remain voiceless, a cacophony of sound like the chatter of geese, fighting against an unknown villain of alleged tyranny disguised as government, and big business, and the 1% who influence it all, or are we going to rise a unified front based not on race, gender, class, or status, but unified in fighting for one cause, one purpose, one goal:
to take the reigns of the government back into the hands of those it affects–us, the people;
to stand firm when we are pushed around, pepper sprayed, arrested based on laws and regulations they control to their favor and gain;
not for equal standing, or a socialistic redistribution of wealth, (for some are made of gold and some of clay, some are given many talents while others merely one; and who are we to question the purpose of it all?) but to fight for the right of equality;
to have a say in the running of our home, our country;
to take the reigns of the government out of the hands of only those who can pay to hold them, and put them back in to the hands where they belong,
a government of the people,
Fighting for that right, without question or pause!

Willing to march in to Hell for this heavenly cause!

What do we desire?
Our voices heard.
Equality in government—a government in the hands of the people it serves.

How shall we fight?
Standing firm.

How shall we win?
By giving the government a reason to fear the people.

I leave the rest up to the people. Though I have always been one whom the notion of a coup has appealed to, a revolt is something I am ill trained in. Nor am I versed in just how this particular course of action should be. I can only say that to revolt is to not do what they expect us as the people to do. What that is, I cannot say, for I am not political. I would imagine that one would not participate in voting, but even if the masses did not vote, I have a guttural feeling that laws would still be passed, and the government would still find a way to run and make ill decisions.

So I leave with more a question than a statement:

How do we give those who control government something to fear, causing them to drop the reigns for the people to pick up?


Filed under Political (as such)