When my teacher and mentor at the Jewish Theological Seminary Abraham Joshua Heschel told me and others that he had been "praying with his feet" when he participated in the Selma Freedom march in 1965, he confirmed for many a way of overcoming the dichotomy between my religious practice and my radical politics. In many ways, the anti-war movements of the '60s and early '70s of the last century felt like that kind of community prayer.
I had that experience again at my various visits to Occupy Oakland, most intensely this past Wednesday, November 2, 2011. It was a strong protest of the class war that has been waged by the wealthiest 1 percent of the population -- and their hired guns in the media, political world, and educational institutions -- against the 99 percent of the population who have suffered both materially and spiritually in the past four decades. But it was also a powerful reaffirmation, celebration, and manifestation of the life and love energy of the universe that we in the religious community call God, Spirit, Unity of All Being, Source, Creator, Allah, YHVH, Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Mother, Father, Elohim, Yah, Goddess, and much more.
The tens of thousands of people who streamed through the various parts of the day were there to affirm life, to manifest love, and to challenge the injustice and unrighteousness of our economic and political system. And they did so with remarkable energy, creativity, beauty, and intelligence.
Some of the scenes I liked best:
And, like the '60s, there were also problems.
I offer these thoughts in a collaborative spirit, not in an attempt to undermine all that is good in the movement. No movement is perfect -- we all have our problems and distorted views of reality. I'm hoping that more people committed to nonviolence will show up at the General Assembly meetings held by Occupy Oakland and change the vibe from one which prioritizes "unity" (meaning a refusal to "impose" nonviolence) to one in which people understand that nonviolence is the best strategy, as well as the only morally coherent approach to a struggle for human rights.
It was very disheartening to me Wednesday night to listen as a speaker in favor of non-violence for Occupy Oakland was roundly booed at the Occupy Oakland General Assembly when he mentioned the names of Gandhi and King; and when another person who had introduced a call for non-violence withdrew it in favor of "unity" because he could see that many, if not most, of the people on hand at that time (only about five hundred, less than 5% of those who had marches the week before) rejected the idea of an explicit commitment to non-violence and to creating a group of monitors who would use non-violent techniques, hopefully supported by most everyone else, to restrain those who prioritized acts of destruction of property over the goal of creating a sense of safety for the 99% who this movement often claims to be speaking for.
But the key is to have compassion for everyone. This includes compassion for those decent (but in my view, misguided) young people who believe that "a diversity of tactics" should include tolerance of vandalism). It includes compassion for those who right now don't support us (and including those in the 1 percent who have a desire to rectify the injustice of our social order), and use this moment to thank the universe for the opportunity to overcome cynicism and fight for the world most people really want.
That compassion, however, need not include tolerance of violence committed by either the police or by our fellow demonstrators (who should, in my opinion, be nonviolently restrained from breaking random windows, engaging in provocative actions designed to incite the police, or carrying weapons to smash windows). I believe those engaged in these tactics should be publicly repudiated by the rest of the 99 percent who want fundamental change but do not want it achieved in a violent way. I do not mean to equate the destruction of property with the violence of the police against people, but I do understand and want the demonstrators to understand that the public representation of our movement is critical to its public effectiveness. When its message is seen as being primarily in favor of the rights of the 99%, it opens people's minds in creative and important ways. When it is seen as a turf war for the alleged right to sleep on public property or the right of some people to smash windows, it loses its appeal and allows the 1% to use its media to marginalize the movement, jail its activists, and switch the conversation away from our telling critique of their wealth and power.
So acts of property destruction and the violence it elicits from the police, while inappropriate and self-destructive, should not be allowed to distract us from the central demand for a caring society and justice for the 99 percent. Most people want a world of peace, justice, democracy, human rights, ecological sanity, and an end to poverty and oppression. The problem is, most people don't yet realize that they are not alone in this yearning, so they compromise with an existing social, political, and economic order that they don't really believe in but believe is the only realistic option.
It is time for us to embrace our highest vision of the good, even if it is dismissed by some as utopian. These utopian plans are far more "realistic" than the mush being generated by the realists in the media and in Washington, D.C. -- realists who have given us a society that is growing in its inequality and suffering.
Rabbi Michael Lerner is editor of Tikkun, national chair of the Network of Spiritual Progressives, and author of eleven books including the forthcoming (at the end of November) Embracing Israel/Palestine (published by North Atlantic Books and distributed by Random House.) He is the rabbi of Beyt Tikkun Synagogue in Berkeley, Ca. RabbiLerner@Tikkun.org
Follow Rabbi Michael Lerner on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rabbilerner