God’s Gunner’s, Booty Bandits, & Bad Boys
By R25288 ( c ) 2006-2007
Chapter Twenty-Two
Memories
” ‘Love thy neighbour as thyself’ is a positive precept. But in all Christian communities the man who obeys this precept is persecuted, suffering at least poverty, usually imprisonment, and sometimes death. The world is full of injustice, and those who profit by injustice are in a position to administer rewards and punishments. The rewards go to those who invent ingenious justifications for inequality, the punishments to those who try to remedy it. I do not know of any country where a man who has a genuine love for his neighbour can long avoid obloquy.”
Bertrand Russell, 1928
“It is a wise father that knows his own child.”
Shakespeare
I called him “Dad”, and he called me “Old Kid.” He was a doctor of psychology, and spent the last twenty five years of his life as a peace researcher. He was William Edward Eckhardt.
When he suffered a heart attack in 1983, I moved to Florida to assist him and ma. When he had his testes removed due to prostate cancer, I assisted him. At that time the normal life expectancy after such removal was five years; he enjoyed eight more years.
Fifteen years ago today(3-17-07), brothers Bill, Ed, Steve, and I lost our father, and my mother lost her husband of forty nine years. He was a good father, husband, and teacher.
I gained many things in prison, and I lost many, so I am happy for the Internet. I have love for the Internet. Today, I discovered some of his writings on the Internet that I was unaware of.
This is from his book, Compassion:
1 Compassion vs. Compulsion
The world is dying from lack of compassion. Men are killing one another, sometimes swiftly, sometimes more slowly. We are killing one another by pollution; by making some of us affluent at the expense of others living in poverty; by unjust discriminations on the basis of race, sex, etc.; by crowding ourselves with overpopulation; and by outright slaughter in revolutions and wars. We seem to be more or less unconsciously compelled to engage in those activities and relations which produce overpopulation, pollution, and poverty; which promote prejudice; and which make wars inevitable. For the most part, these effects do not seem to be consciously desired by most human beings. Most people and governments consider them to be undesirable as ends, but seem virtually compelled to act in ways that lead to these ends, almost as if they had no choice in the matter at all…
Historically, compassion has generally been the central concept in most of the world’s great philosophies and religions since about 800 B.C. The concept of one God for all men seemed to usher in this age of compassion. The concept of one God made all men one. In Hinduism, for example, the one God (Brahma) was the one Self (Atman) distributed among all men. Consequently, the self separated from others (Ego) was considered to be the source of all evil in human affairs. Selfishness was sin. Morality consisted of promoting the welfare of others, at least not injuring others, even at the expense of oneself.
This emphasis on duty to others vs. selfish desire was later shifted by “the blessed Lord,” Krishna, who defined himself as “desire not contrary to duty,” suggesting that there was no necessary conflict between duty to self and duty to others. The good man was defined by Krishna as “He who beareth no ill-will to any being, friendly and compassionate, without attachment and egoism, balanced in pleasure and pain, and forgiving, ever content, harmonious with the self controlled, resolute, with mind and reason dedicated to me.” On the other hand, “Hypocrisy, arrogance and deceit, wrath and also harshness and unwisdom are his who is born with demonical properties…. Given over to egoism, power, insolence, lust and wrath, these malicious ones hate me in the bodies of others and in their own.”
Being “born with demonical properties” should not be interpreted here in the Western sense of heredity, but rather in terms of the Hindu doctrine of Karma: “A man is the creator of his own fate…. A man cannot fly from the effects of his own prior deeds.” Fate, from this point of view , was determined by one’s own choices in this or some previous life.
The Hindu scriptures clearly implied at least five standards of judging the value of compassion: (1) Universality, or extent of value (”The good show compassion towards all living beings…. The world is but one family.” (2) Eternity, or duration of value, implied by the doctrine of Karma; (3) Unity, or consistency of values with one another, implies by one God; (4) Honesty, or doing good deeds as well as thinking good thoughts; and (5) Freedom, the source of all values…
The principle of coherence was reiterated by Buddha in his “Noble Eightfold Path” to achieve Nirvana, or advantageous Karma. His noble path called for righteousness in belief, aspiration, speech, action, livelihood, endeavor, love and truth. “To him in whom love dwells, the whole world is but one family.” “Let a man overcome anger by love, let him overcome evil by good; let him overcome the greedy by liberality, the liar by truth!”
While Buddha was reforming Hinduism in India, the Hebrew prophets were active in Israel, Zarathustra in Persia, and Confucius and Lao Tze in China. Like Buddha, Confucius did not use the concept of God but emphasized the basic goodness of man and the principle of reciprocity found in all great religions: “What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.” Although he found no justice in turning the other cheek, he emphasized that justice should be administered more by good example than by punishment, and capital punishment was prohibited. The function of government was the welfare of the people. Following Confucius, Mencius also believed that it was better to rule by compassion than by compulsion, but some other Chinese teachers believed otherwise: “Men become naturally spoiled by love but submissive to authority…”
Lao Tze was more mystical than Confucius, his concept of Tao coming close to the concept of God, although the two should probably not be strictly equated with each other: “When Tao is lost, out come all the differences in things.” Tao did not use force, but carried out relief of human suffering and returned “love for great hatred.” Tao was clearly on the side of compassion vs. compulsion.
Some of the Hebrew prophets (such as Isaiah, Micah, and Hosea) made a universal god out of the tribal god Yahweh. The tribal god of war became a merciful father of all men who required them to be just and merciful in relation to one another. Like the other great religions, the prophetic religion of the Hebrews emphasized the basic goodness of man and tried to replace the Mosaic law of retaliation (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and the death penalty for almost everything if you were poor) with a more coherent principle of tempering justice with mercy. They constantly criticized their governments (judges and kings) for neglecting the people, the poor, the suffering, the orphan, the widow, the foreigner, etc. A wave of compassion swept across Israel in the time of these prophets, who called themselves the mouthpiece of God or the voice of the Lord, but it may be wondered how many were listening. The more nationalist (tribal) prophets seem to have got a better hearing than the internationalist (universal) prophets, judging from the subsequent history of the Hebrews.
The Hindus and Buddhists in India, Confucius and Lao Tze in China, and the great prophets in Israel never mention the Devil. Bad behavior was not the work of the Devil, but a function of lack of faith in human nature or in God. Where there was a God, faith in God meant loving others as well as oneself, so that loving God meant loving man. Separation from God, or the noble path, or the Tao, or the principle of reciprocity all meant the same thing: Egoism, the source of all evil…
Then came Zarathustra in Persia at about the same time as the other great religious leaders in China, India, and Israel. Like them Zarathustra encouraged men to relieve the poor and love the righteous. He also emphasized the absolute freedom of man to choose between good and evil. God was the source of all good or value, while Satan was introduced on the great religious scene for the first time as the source of all evil and violence…
During their Babylonian exile in the 4th century B.C., the Jews may have come into contact wth the teachings of Zarathustra. At least, when they returned from this exile they brought back the concept of the Devil wth them, as recorded in the so-called apocryphal books of the Old Testament writings from about 300 B.C. to the time of Christ. In this manner the Devil became a part of both the Christian and Mohammedan offshoots of Judasm. The Devil may have lost some of his force in the later developments of Islam and Judaism, but he became a more and more powerful force in the later developments of Christianity, where the stronger the Devil became the weaker became the concept of human freedom.
At the time of Krishna in India, Christ came to Israel (as the great prophets came before him) to replace the Mosaic law of retaliaton with compassion, forgiveness, and love. While the prophets carried their message primarly to the rulers of the people, Jesus carried his message directly to the people. Practicing what he preached, he cured many forms of mental illness, proving that the Devil and even “death” itself were no match against the power of forgiveness. He drove out “devils” and restored the ”dead” from the “tombs” (places for the dead to which the mentally ill were confined in those days to separate them from the rest of society. There were no insane asylums nor mental hospitals in those days).
On the basis of his own insightful experience, Paul found that love overcame the “death” (wages of sin) in him which the Mosaic law never did. In his conversion from the law (compulsion) to love (compassion), Paul found a new sense of freedom in his new belief. The “truth” about forgiveness made men free from compulsion. Augustine had so much faith in the righteousness of love that he could say at one time: “Love, and do what you will.” By the time of Aquinas, the law had returned to power. Following Aquinas, Dante believed that free will implied responsibility, and that injustice was the greatest social sin. Kant’s categorical imperative implied both universal and eternal standards of value: It was right to do what every one else could do and keep on doing. Throughout the development of Christianity, the morality of doing one’s duty presupposed individual freedom, and freedom meant choosing between good and evil. But orthodox Christianity in its Catholic, Calvinist, Puritan, and Fundmentalist forms promoted the belief that man is basically evil and therefore must be socially controlled. Compulsion has triumphed over compassion in the most fashionable Christian circles today, where compassion ends nailed to a cross more often than not. Compassion is honored in practice other than preaching only in a few small Christian sects such as the Quakers, Religious Society of Friends, for example.
There are some radical rumblings, however, which have emerged in some Catholic and protestant churches during the last ten years, which may make the future different from the past. But don’t hold your breath while you are listening for these rumblings. They are still rather faint and faraway. Some of these radicals have been murdered, and some of them are in prison charged, of course with treason. It is treacherous now, as it was two thousand years ago, to practice and preach compassion in a compulsive society. Wherever treason is defined as “loving one’s enemies,” compassion is a crime.
Compassion is surely there in the sacred writings of the great religious teachers, but how to get it out of the book into the world, how to get its will done on earth as well as in heaven, remains a question in search of an answer…
That was my dad, and I am his son. He taught me about courage and justice; giving and forgiving.
Also under www.rightsmatter.org, I just discovered the following speech that I gave to students in Boston, on December 3rd, 1991, and printed in Bill of Rights Network in the winter 1991:
The Day I Wore A Black Armband to school:
By Christopher Eckhardt
In November, 1965, I was one of the 60 people who made the trip from Iowa to Washington, DC, to protest-along with 20,000 other Americans-the war in Vietnam. It took us a further eight years to bring that war to an end.
The following month, in December, a group of peace lovers in Des Moines, Iowa, decided to wear black armbands from December 16, to January 1, to mourn the dead on both sides in Vietnam and support Senator Robert Kennedy’s call for a Christmas ceasefire. When the Des Moines School Board got wind of the plan they passed a rule that anyone wearing an armband would be suspended for upsetting the educational atmosphere of the schools.
Impending disruption
This was a good example of the use of prior restraint. The school board pretended to know that the future school environment would be endangered by wearing a black armband, and made up a rule to deal with the situatuion. I and four other students were, they believed, going to disrupt the educational atmosphere of 18,000 students in the school system.
But just the year before, students were asked to wear black armbands to school to mourn the loss of school spirit at basketball games. Wasn’t there more than a hint here of double-standards and hypocrisy?
In December, 1965, the Vietnam War was at its peak. We had 500,000 over there. To challenge the black armband rule in school was considered un-American and even communistic. It was a time when many Americans forgot our Bill or Rights. My suspension form was to state simply that I was suspended because of my “refusal to comply with a school request.”
I should at this stage give you a bit of personal history. I had been the president of two separate school student councils, a Boy Scout, an honor roll student and youth church leader. I was on the track team and had fishing and weight lifting trophies. I had two newspaper routes, a lawn mowing and snow removal service. I was voted most likely to succeed by my class and also voted the student with the cleanest locker. What can I say-I was Mr. Clean. I had girlfriends and close male friends. I was an All-American boy.
Civil disobedience
But on December 16, 1965, I followed the path of Henry David Thoreau, who advocated breaking unjust rules or laws by the practice of civil disobedience. Like Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr, they too broke rules and the law when their consciences said that breaking a rule was more important than following one.
Adolph Eichmann was a Nazi who was partly responsible for killing over six million Jews and millions of gays, gypsies, the handicapped and socially “undesirable.” His defense was, “I only followed orders.”
After careful thought, I independently decided that the School Board had crossed the line of our Bill of Rights, and was infringing on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by our First Amendment.
My father, a doctor in Des Moines, who was active in the movement for peace and civil rights, dropped me off at Theodore Roosevelt High School on the morning of December 16th, with my black armband attached with a safety pin to my camel jacket. It was snowy and cold and my exterior courage was tempered by my dry throat and butterfly stomach.
When I was turning myself in that morning, I was threatened by fellow students on the way to the principal’s office. I heard one say to another-”Go ahead, do what you said you were going to do to anyone wearing a black armband.”
When the assistant vice-principal of the school finally saw me, he asked me to remove my armband. I refused and attempted to explain the First Amendment to him, to which he replied, “Do you want a busted nose?” To which I replied, “No.” He then called my mother to get her to remove my black armband. My mother was president of the local chapter of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. He obviously did not know my mother.
He then brought in the girl’s advisor who told me that I would never get into college because colleges didn’t take protesters. She also told me I should use my suspension time to look for another school. I informed her I would be coming back to my same school. And I did attend college.
The legal battle
The School Board voted 5-2 against us. Finally, three out of five of us who wore black armbands decided to sue the School Board-John Tinker, his sister Mary Beth Tinker and myself. The US District Court ruled against us. Our attorney testified before three members of the Eighth US Circuit Court of Appeals, who thought it important enough to be heard by all eight judges. They split 4-4, which was another loss for us.
Finally, the US Supreme Court heard our case and in February, 1969, ruled 7-2 in our favor. The court said the School Board had indeed violated our First Amendment rights. I was grateful to the Iowa Civil Liberties Union, and the ACLU for supporting us, and helping set a precedent for student rights.
I later went on to become a Conscientious Objector on moral and ethical grounds. I’m not sure exactly why we are here, but I do believe we are not put here to kill one another, and I refuse to play that game.
I have not been hurt by my opposition to the Vietnam War. The US Department of Justice went on to train me as a Mediator-a position I held for five years. I obtained FBI and Secret Service clearance to cover the Wounded Knee uprising in South Dakota, as a publisher and reporter for my own newspaper. I also hosted my own prime time public affairs TV show.
I hope that if you have learned just one thing during our short time together, it is that you as one person can make a difference, just as I did. It was one person after another that finally ended the Vietnam War.
I am a patriot, and I ask you to stand up for what’s right, whenever anyone challenges our Bill of Rights. I hope that in another 25 years one of you will be up here, telling your story of struggle to keep the Bill of Rights alive. Unless you guard, and fight for it, and use it, we will surely lose it.
If you think your school, administration, or rules are violating your rights, stand up and fight for what you believe in. When you can register to vote, vote. Fight for peace not war.
I leave you with one of my favorite quotes from Justice Abe Fortas’ opinion in my case: “School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school as well as out of school are ‘persons’ under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights, which the State must respect…In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views.”
Join the struggle, and keep our Bill of Rights healthy. Thank you!
This week I received the following emails:
“Hi Mr. Eckhardt-I am doing a story on a free speech suit against an Alaska High School that will be heard by the Supreme Court on Monday. Would you have time to talk to me about your own landmark case in 1969-Tinker v. Des Moines.”
Susan James
ABC News
“Would you have some time to talk to me tomorrow about school free speech issues and your famous court case?”
Mike Pesca
National Public Radio
Day to Day
I spoke with Mike, and emailed them both the following statement:
If the United States Supreme Court rules against the least among us, our own children, our students, then none of us are safe anymore. Next we’ll send women back into the kitchen, pregnant and barefoot; we’ll send Hispanics south of the boarder; we’ll send African Americans back to the back of the bus; we”ll send gays back to the closet; and we’ll send the homeless to jail. I pray it doesn’t happen, because mourning the death of freedom in America is truly unAmerican in the beginning of the 21st century.
Student Fredericks’ symbolic speech was not disruptive; it was not on school grounds; it was not at a school sponsored event. Mr. Fredericks peacefully exercised his 1st Amendment rights, and our Constitution guarantees him that right, whether we like what he said or not. That is the greatness of America.
I have personally experienced judicial extremism after 9-11-01, and spent 4 years, 3 months, and 2 weeks in Florida prisons, from 2001-2006, on my first lifetime felony charge, for an alleged crime that did not involve drugs, sex, or violence. No one in America has ever received a sentence like mine for my alleged crime, with no criminal intent, and not profiting one dime.
My real crime was being a Conscientious Objector, Vietnam War protester, U.S. Supreme Court winner, liberal Democrat, in a Vietnam Veteran, Republican courtroom, shortly after 9-11. I was not charged with treason, and I am an American patriot.
These are perilous times. However, the fact that I may post my story week after week , month after month, on the Internet, for the whole world to read for free, at www.r25288.com, and John may post his material at www.schema-root.org also is evidence that we live in precious times, in a precious country.
Over 40 years ago, John, Mary Beth, and I crossed the line, and stood up against war, and stood up for Student Rights. I hope for the sake of our children, and ourselves, that our U.S. Supreme Court maintains our democratic principles and rights. God bless America!
Christopher Eckhardt/R25288
“The cost of liberty is less than the price of repression.”
W.E.B. Du Bois
