Most Commented Posts
Want to Dissent
01/11/07 - 05:35:48 pm
I tell you...a day like today, with increase of troops, an attack on Iran's consulate, the recent implication that 1 Billion dollars of promised money to eradicate extreme poverty will be withheld as usual and many other small things, make me want to be a dissenter. I held out a little bit of hope that politics would at least do something good, but today I'm done with it. Maybe tomorrow I will be healthily skeptical rather than just put off by the whole system.
Well, it is old news by now, but it is important to me to comment on it. The rejoicing of the former dictator's death is appauling. I will not deny that he was a terrible man, but nonetheless his death executes any opportunity for his reconciliation.
In discussing with a friend, what would a Christian president do regarding his enemy Saddam. Well I think it would look something like this:
Bush: Tell Secret Service I'm travelling to Iraq to speak with Mr. Hussein.
Bush: I am here to ask a favor and give you another opportunity at reconciliation with your own people and the global community. I am not offering to pardon you, or even ask the new Iraqi government to renig your punishment. You did horrible things and you must face those consequences. But rather than death, I offer you a chance at new life. It is a life behind walls, cinderblocks and bars with guards and administration bent on keeping your sentence, but it can be a profitable life. I want you to be an honorary Iraqi political advisor to my cabinet. You did horrible things as a leader. Your Machiavelli style rule is contemptible, but you know your people and your country better than I and have some sway with some. You can be rehabilitated, reconciled and given regular opportunity to turn your life around.
Instead his death is celebrated and encouraged, given no more opportunities at social or spiritual reconciliation.
12/01/06 - 05:16:09 pm
Jim Wallis claims to be bi-partisan, which I don't really buy. I believe he truly thinks that God is not a Democrat or Republican, but I don't think his actions speak this way. I received an email that intended to convince me:
I work hard to maintain my independence and non-partisanship, and didn't want to be perceived as supporting one party over the other.
But I'm really not. I like Wallis, generally. I have much criticism about him, but I would side with Wallis over a conservative Right agenda any day. Nonetheless, I am not convinced that Wallis is truly bi-partisan. He is unrelenting against the GOP and has glorified Senators Obama and Clinton many times.
Yet, if Wallis maintains it, from this point now I will give him the benefit of the doubt. I hope to see him working with solid GOP compassionate conservatives on issues of poverty. That would be a good thing for this country.
Anarchists & Libertarians - a lot in common
11/20/06 - 11:53:56 am
No time to write a real post on this (again, I think I posted previously), but reading an article like this just reminds me that Anarchists and Libertarians are pretty similar...both want less interference of the government and often both do not like to be controlled by big business.
Oh and many in each camp seek the legalization of marijuana.
If You are Raped in Pakistan YOU are the Adulteror - That is if you are a woman...
...well maybe not for so much longer.
In Pakistan, Sharia law requires that a rape victim find at least 4 male witnesses to corroborate the violation, otherwise the woman is tried for adultery. So to get it straight, get raped, and the silence of many greedy men causes you to be stoned? Yup.
A law has been introduced, which still needs to be ratified by some that would reverse this 1970's ruling about rape under Sharia Law. This is good news for women in Pakistan.
What is amazing is that religious leaders are against this because it will create a state of "free sex". Really? Is not forced rape already free sex, especially when a woman is raped every 2 hours in Pakistan and that is a conservative estimate.
Dallas Suburb Cracks Down on Illegal Immigration
11/14/06 - 10:19:30 am
I have a hard time sorting between legislation and compassion when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration. Do I think people should be entering illegally - no. Does it cause some problems for people - most likely. But at the same time do we block people out? What is worse, how are legal immigrants, especially from Mexico, going to be treated?
In Dallas they have pressed harsh fines on landlords who house illegal immigrants and they have changed the city's language to English, reports CNN. One thing to mention is that the city refrained from voting on a proposal to fine companies that employ illegal immigrants.
So what does this mean? Well, it means that any Latino person will be viewed with suspicion more than they already may be. It means landlords will be reluctant to house Latinos, and will surely require more paperwork and background checks than they would have initially. Settling an official city language prohibits others, Latino or any other non-native English speaker, from functioning well within the suburb.
In summary, the suburb has just dropped its invisible democratic hand to the plight of people who are more subject to the street or overcrowding, which in turn leads to higher prospects of crime. It also means that the suburb will become a safe haven for white flight.
Like I said, I don't think people should be entering illegally, but I think I want to err on the side of compassion and say that this suburb is using the law despicably.
11/08/06 - 12:40:53 pm
Rumsfeld is out. He is resigning. Robert Gates is succeeding him.
The guy was very committed to Texas A&M, declining nominations for service from this administration in the past. Apparently he was highly sought after, and finally accepted to come back to Washington.
The administration is responding quickly to the voter dissatisfaction of the war in Iraq. I hope that Gates is better liked and wiser in his dealing with the war.
11/08/06 - 10:29:51 am
I have nothing intelligent to say about the election results, more feelings.
I heard the news this morning that the Democrats had taken the house pretty handedly, and that the Senate is still undecided but close. Democrats lead the majority of the states now. I went to bed last night not really sure where I wanted everything to end up. I'm tired of the GOP, but we haven't had a very prominent Democratic party in so long, that I didn't know what to expect and I was a bit apprehensive.
This morning I found myself a little relieved. I am glad that the Senate is close however. I want there to be a solid political struggle. Partisan polemics will soon need to go out the window to get anything done. I fear however that such a close race now will mean for incredible animosity between parties in the next election because each party will want to gain more control.
As for the California governor, I can't say I like Arnold, but Angelides did nothing for me. His rhetoric was sluggish and it did little to win me over, and certainly did not win too many over in this state. Arnie's approval rating took a huge blow with his special elections, but I feel he stepped it up and went pretty bi-partisan over the last year. His speech focused on doing things differently, undivided, but with differences was pretty encouraging for a moderate like myself.
I wish there was a prevalent third party. It is depressing to choose between rocks and hard places. I have no confidence in either party because they have such little competition. Bring in a third or fourth to take some of the fire and money out of these politicians. Give us at least one, if not two parties that will shake up the whole world of politicking so that issues can actually mean something to the constituency. With added prominent parties, there will likely be more integrity, less partisan voting and a return to the people. Republicans who want a small government should be excited about this venture, and Democrats who apparently want to empower the people should also welcome such a proposition...but both parties are more interested in self-preservation.
One more thought after these elections...I find myself agreeing with my Republican friend that we need to leave room to empower the local governments and people. We depart philosophy in that I think that local economies need to be bolstered as well. If we want to give back the power to the people, in ways they feel they can actually hold some responsibility, then we should give back legislation and the economy to the locals. (One potentially bad result of such a proposition comes with the small, bigoted towns that do anything they can to make "outsiders" unwelcome).
Lots of rambling, but that's all I got.
Awaiting Elections, Awaiting a Sentence
11/07/06 - 06:50:55 pm
I feel like waiting on election results are like waiting for sentencing for a crime you did not commit, but the evidence is stacked against you.
I have not been a fan of the GOP the last 6 years. I do not look forward to them retaining either houses, let alone both. Still though I am distrustful of most of the democrats. They have been relatively dormant, and I caution us waking the sleeping bear.
Until tonight, I guess we just sit waiting.
10/17/06 - 01:55:45 pm
So, if I can do my absentee ballot thing (I haven't changed my permanent address and don't want to until my name change goes through), then I get to vote on a governor.
My choices are down to three in the initial summary:
Arnold Schwarzenegger - my liberal friends probably don't like that one.
I have not been too excited with our current governor. I do like his lack of religious rhetoric in his policies and I am excited to see him take an initiative with the environment. That is something many of my fiscal conservative friends still appreciate. I do not like his criminal reform (or lack there of) policies. I do see how he re-managed the budget after Davis' problems. My initial response is probably not my vote.
Angelides on the other hand sounds pretty good. Except one major thing. His goal is to strengthen the middle-class. I fall under this bracket, so I should be excited. I don't believe though that this will trickle down to the poor. The middle-class strives to be the rich, and are typically the most apathetic to the cause of the poor. They often barely have time to pay their morgages, let alone throw some philanthropic donations to the poor. So while they receive their tax cuts (all 4,000,000 families) The remaining 10-15 million poor families are stuck choosing to pay taxes or buy bread. Unfortunately for them, they make just enough to have to pay taxes, but not enough to do that and eat.
Then there is Camejo. Ideally, this guy looks good, but frankly I'm too much of a moderate to vote for an idealist. I have no statement to make to bring my ideals to light. I really do want the pragmatic person. To vote for Camejo is not a waste of a vote, even though he won't win, but to vote for Camejo seems to me like issues that are imperative really will not get addressed with any support - either from the public or the state legislation.
So who should I vote for?
PS Look for other choices off of my ballot.
Feinstein and Human Trafficking
09/19/06 - 02:02:33 pm
I sent a generated email, sponsored by Sojourners I think or something like it that I get a regular email from, to Senator Feinstein regarding human trafficking. I received a response from her (below). I decided to reply and at this point the email bounced back, so I will likely have to find a new site or just let this public letter to her be enough. My letter and her response are below.
Thank you for your response. I signed a petition to join others in your constituency to let you know of an issue of concern. I appreciate the efforts you have made on this issue thus far.
I would encourage you to do more about this than to work it on the Senate level. Policy is an important aspect to eradicating such despicable human abuses; however advocacy goes well beyond policy making. I would encourage you to sit down with those in your state who have been rescued from such a life. Please also sit down with those who are doing something about this issue globally. Your endorsement of organizations seeking to eradicate human trafficking will be powerful.
Please take your efforts beyond pen and pencil if you are not already doing so. Please let the smiles of the rescued and even of the abused bring joy to your heart personally. Please let the pain of mothers and children world-wide strike you as well. Live in solidarity with them.
Thank you again for your efforts and thanks for your time.
Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding sex
tourism and the international trafficking of women and children for
sexual purposes. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the
opportunity to respond.
I share your concerns about this issue. I am shocked and appalled
that the trafficking of women and children continues to this day. As a
country which holds individual liberty and basic human rights as
fundamental principles, the United States should actively take a stand
against and combat the trafficking of women and children.
As a mother and a grandmother, I firmly believe that every child
should have the opportunity to grow up in a safe, healthy, and stable
environment, and like you, I am very concerned about the prevalence of
child pornography both in this country and abroad. Sexual exploitation
of children is simply unacceptable, and those individuals who commit
these acts should be punished to the full extent of the law.
In April 2003, Congress passed the PROTECT Act,
strengthening penalties against sex tourists and outlawing sexual
relations abroad between U.S. citizens and any person under the age of
16, as well as commercial sexual relations with individuals under the age
of 18, even if local laws do not prohibit such acts. In addition, in
December 2005 the Senate passed the Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act of 2005 by unanimous consent, to establish
rehabilitation programs for victims of human trafficking and reinforce
global prevention measures. Please know I will continue to work hard in
the United States Senate to bring an end to human trafficking and the
sexual exploitation of children around the world.
Again, thank you for writing. I hope you will continue to keep
me informed of your views and concerns. If you should have any further
questions, please do not hesitate to call my Washington, D.C. staff at
United States Senator
I am not a protester. I have never demonstrated against anything. I'm not saying that I wouldn't, but I have yet to find anything that I feel would really make an effective stand by doing so. Maybe keeping vigil with the So. LA farmers is the closest I have come so far, but I have not yet stood with them physically.
I do have friends that are part of demonstrations. Some of them and many in their circle of friends wear each march, or sit-in with pride.
I have mixed feelings about demonstrations. Maybe because in America the majority of them are ineffective and they consist of one-sided, polemical folk. There were many anti-Bush protests outside my apartment, and the people were not only pithy in their statements, their rhetoric was not even intelligent.
That is not to say that all demonstrations are bad or unintelligent. Far from it. We have the luxury in our country to protest. Anyone who says that people protesting the war are "unAmerican" are fools. It is the most American thing they can do - in fact it is what makes America, America - free speech and little harm done in protesting.
I then read stories about demonstrations in Zimbabwe. People really have problems there, and the government is oppressive - and effectively so. They are able to squelch unregistered demonstrations with a thwack of the baton. They arrest leaders. They cannot hide behind free-speech laws, because laws are not upheld by the law-makers.
So I reflect - thankful that the people who stood outside my window once a week (before I moved) causing people to honk their horns incessantly, had the right and ability to do so. They as a mob were idiotic at best, with horrible rhetoric that will change nothing but increase silly, apathetic, word-fanaticism, with little action. But they were exercising their rights.
I think one day that I will be involved in a demonstration. A friend of mine who participates in many, and almost ruined his wedding because of an arrest, knows the dangers of protesting. I wish to avoid these and find some of them unnecessary (the future Mrs. Tension Treatises would kill me - forget prison, upsetting a fiance is not a good punishment). I am thankful all my friend would have gotten (which he didn't) was a ruined wedding day, an upset fiance and some time looking through vertical bars. It is nothing like that of the Zimbabweans.
That is my reflection - it spurs many different directions and barely completes any thoughts. To conclude I do not take my freedom and safety in demonstrations lightly. It makes me happy to be an American at this point and makes me recognize my desire for solidarity who do not enjoy even close to the same freedoms as me.
War-torn AND Uneducated
We must focus attentions on war-torn areas around the world.
War is not a new phenomenon and certainly not new to third world countries. War does not occur solely because of Western imperialism. It is in the tribal nature, generations upon generations old.
So war is not from Western influence, but livelihood is. Westerners, for better or worse brought in Western education - a system that lends to Western lifestyles and dominates the arena of success.
Since the West is responsible for the major culture shift the world over, the West must get deeply involved in ending war and resuming childrens' education. We must be selflessly committed to seeing these children survive. War is almost inevitable, but it is certainly probable and frequent when its people do not have the hope that education brings.
It is truly to the benefit of the world to assist in educating the next generations - if they deteriorate, we too will have to deteriorate.
"Sick of You"
I never claim to be a good writer, and passion cannot make up for talent, nonetheless, I do write. Be it bad or good, I don't know.
This poem comes from listening to the news, again and again. I know I'm not the only one with these emotions and I'm thankful I'm not. So maybe at some point I ought to turn off NPR on my morning commute and listen to more George Winston.
So Here it is - "Sick of You"
I’m sick of all you warmongers
Sending brothers, moms, dads and sisters
Cousins, sons, daughters and spouses
Into harm’s way
Show up in a jump suit for a rally on a boat
Hide in caves but holding an A.K. on camera
Your power is no shield
We are not all ignorant
You are no hero, just a human enemy
I’m angered at your rockets and shells
The vile atrocities on innocents
Public enemies are left to the governments to decide
But you are all universal enemies
Enemy of the state, world-wide terrorist
You stir the hatred of many and the applause from few
Why perpetuate the machine
Why keep the other down
You regard humanity, be it enemy or ally as a unit
A cog in the political scheme
Some say economy is to blame
Dollars, pesos, francs or yen
But it is beyond that
It is not oil, or land or even religion
It is just pure blindness
Red revenge, bloody hands
Sending innocents to kill and bomb
The whipping boy to do your dirty work
Stainless skin, but wretched conscious
There is no global terror but war
Which only serves to bolster particle power
But we are one body, one universe
Under God and saved by the blood of the Lamb
It is you who give the orders
That fester the ulcer of humanity
And I’m sick of you.
All and Every - a bad descriptor when shelling
08/08/06 - 10:50:45 am
Israel dropped leaflets warning people of Tyre to not drive today, or they will be shelled, according to CNN. All and every car, regardless they say.
This is obnoxious. Israel seems to be flexing its muscles as the big dog in a pack of rats. But its unilateral and universal arrogance in the matter is probably not winning them too many allies. And it seems quite possible that enough rats will take the dog down...no matter how big.
I'm not at all advocating Hezbollah, or siding with them, but I think Israel's incessant drive is foolhardy. Indiscriminate shelling is obnoxious. At this point, I have a hard time not seeing Israel as an agent of Terror for many Lebanese people.
Orwell Predicting Mugabe in Zimbabwe
I have been reading Animal Farm by George Orwell lately. I don't think I would have picked it up if it wasn't free, but it is a fantastic book thus far. I usually tool through one chapter a day, but it could be read in a short afternoon.
Orwell narrates a story of an animal overthrow, giving the slave-driving humans the boot. This utopian paradise has its political issues and Orwell does a fantastic job explicating them in a humorous but cynical manner.
I am at a part now where the rebellion has become history and the animals have held their farm for some time. A dictatorship of some-sorts has emerged. Then I read this article from the BBC and it sounded vaguely familiar - oh, that sounds just like the chapter in Orwell's book that I read about an hour an a half ago.
Apparently Orwell was a socialist with a strong distaste for communism and a critical eye against capitalism. The political situations that have occurred in Animal Farm thus far have all been negative portrayals, conotating an incredible distaste for power and leadership. With people like Mugabe, it is no wonder why Orwell would have saw it like this.
al-Zarqawi - Should I Be Sad?
06/08/06 - 11:42:02 am
The title of this post poses the question, should I be sad about al-Zarqawi's death. I think I should be. Not the kind of sad that I would feel for a family or even somebody I relate to. In fact, I am sure that I would be sadder at some politician in the states than I am about Zarqawi's death.
Yet, I do not think we should be happily hailing this man's death. No doubt he is an atrocious man. No doubt it might aid some sort of mission. Maybe even viewing it as a victory on some realm is acceptable, but to be happy about it, well that's pretty sinister.
As a Christian, I should be praying for my enemy as well as my friend. I should mourn the death of all, and with that, I mourn the joy surrounding this man's death.
Rise of Christendom in Zambia
The Times of Zambia reports that the Lands Minister of Zambia finds the government and church important allies who are to work together because they have the same constituency.
Interesting. It helps that the induction ceremony was for a Reformed pastor in Zambia, a theology that traditionally enjoys linking church and state.
Come to think of it, I don't remember interacting with any Mennonite churches in Zambia...not to say they aren't there, but there seems to be a lot of blending of church and state there.
What to Look For in a UN Leader
05/30/06 - 11:15:31 am
Democracy Arsenal has a good list of things to look for in the UN Secretary General to replace Kofi Annan.
Pretty good insights.
US Slashing Aid Money - NY Times Editorial
New York Times has an editorial about the shortfall in aid money that the US promised. I like that the article does not attack Bush on this, but does hold strongly on those who voted to slash Bush's proposal. I am also encouraged that the article calls for Bush to have the guts to stand up for it.
I do hope that the US will increase its aid immensely. Some propose doing it through private means, such as businesses and so forth. I don't really care how it gets done, just that it does.
Value Life or Justice: Looking at Joseph Kony
I read that Uganda has offered Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord's Resistance Army in Northern Uganda, amnesty if he agrees to cease the rebellion.
First the background. The guy is a sick man, under the influence of a witch doctor. He is power-hungry and for the last 20 years has tried to lead an unsuccessful rebellion against the government. The rebellion has just turned into child kidnapping and killing. It is anarchy of violence. The man is a very wicked, insane and brutal person.
So do we value life or justice more. Let me put my thought into perspective. At risk of sinning, I could care less about Kony's life. Frankly, I think him a devil and deserves the brutality that he has forced upon others. If I had my way, Kony would not be happy. If I knew the man, I would truly hate him, regardless of my conviction to love...honestly, I would hate him.
But, to stop rebellion now, is it worth it? Are we willing to forego justice for the sake of life? I think it is worth it. I think if children will be spared, then we ought to let him go, have amnesty and pray for his reconciliation, redemption as a human being, and rehabilitation.
I struggle as a Christian to know what to think. Pray for your enemies...that's fine...I can pray for him to stop. Can I honestly pray in earnest for his salvation? Well I'll have to keep working on that one. Overall, after much deliberation, I think it worth it to forego justice for the sake of life.
The blindfolded lady with the two scales...I painfully want to embrace you, but in actuality wish for your blindfold to be removed and for you to put the scales down. I choose life over justice.
Embracing Homosexuals in Education
This post is admittedly a premature reflection stemmed from an unfinished article and headline news.
I heard on NPR this morning of a proposed California legislation about the mention of historical figures' sexual identities, particularly the homosexual heroes. Those against of course hide their distaste poorly by saying, "I think it important to study historical figures, but I don't need to know who they slept with." And its true, unless it is pertinent to the historical story, we do not need to know who any of our historical heroes slept with. So then we do not need to know if they are gay or not...right?
I do think it is important for our historical figures to be mentioned for their heroic work and I do think that better circulation for who homosexual historical figures were is important for the homosexual community. Demonization is illegitimate way to deal with our uncomfortabilities. A silent demonization is to not make mention of a hero's sexual preference, leading many to believe (at least at present) that the here was a heterosexual. I think it will go a long way in recognizing that homosexuals are not licentious buffoons who only care about sex and stuff.
A question was asked by an interviewer if it was exotifying homosexuality. The answer was a "no". I would disagree. In some respects it may actually exotify homosexuality as something new. But exotic soon fades away. It was exotic at one point to have actual Black men acting. It was exotic to have women running companies. Both are less exotic now.
So does that mean we are encouraging homosexuality. I admit, it is a possibility, but I believe it is strongly promoting reality. I do believe homosexuality in practice (as opposed to celibate) is sinful, and an aberration from the intended creation, but this does not mean I discourage homosexuality by villanization. In fact I believe that you encourage truth and thus the Gospel by recognizing historical fact as it stands.
Volf writes something pertinent in an article titled, A Vision of Embrace:
There are many reasons why "others" are excluded, driven out of our world. To start with the most innocent, we strive to get rid of that which blurs accepted boundaries, disturbs our social identity and disarranges our symbolic cultural maps. Often, however, dehumanization and consequent destruction of "others" are a projection of our own individual or collective hatred of ourselves. "Others" become scapegoats, concocted from our own shadows as repositories of our sins so we can relish the illusion of our sinless superiority.
I think I will rest this premature reflection there.
Religion and Peacebuilding - book review
Harold Coward and Gordon S. Smith, co-editors for the book, Religion and Peacebuilding endorse a project incredibly helpful to anybody looking to do some sort of cultural reconciliation, which inevitably implies some religious reconciliation.
The book highlights many of the major world religions, finding strategies in each to foster peace. In response to the media, which covers the warring aspect of religion, this book seeks to counter the false premise and explicitly provides religious practice and theology that fosters reconciliation and peace.
Some of the articles find these peace-making processes at the margins of the religion. I could have my own religious biases, however, the language surrounding some of the theology in different religions seems to provide weak, at best, processes for reconciliation. Some religions are pointed out to have such a miniscule history of promoting peace, that the practices mentioned by the author seem diminished.
The book speaks highly of Christians, which for a religious tolerance book, seems quite odd. As a Christian reading this book, it was quite appreciated. I do think that the article could have been a bit more critical, in order to gain a full appreciation of the struggles of peacemaking within Christianity.
Despite the somewhat short comings and marginal opportunities for fostering peace within some of the religions, the book is very helpful and very hopeful. Though some of the strategies are peripheral, it is not worth chucking them to the curb. In fact, if they are indeed the only tools within the religious context, they should certainly be used and used often.
Preemptive action is necessary in peacebuilding and the strategies that this book contains must be practiced now - in conflict situations, tense situations or even blissful situations. Religious violence may realistically not be curbed in its entirety, however, preemptively building a culture of peace with contextual religious practices can help make conflict so distasteful that it is only the aberration who engages in it.
Most importantly, active peacemaking is necessary to keep people from being apathetic. Apathy is silent permission for conflict to occur. Eventually, as conflict encompasses public emotion, sympathies will err on the side of the violence. This is detrimental to peacemaking.
I will use this book in whatever religious context I will be serving in and look forward to the basic tools that will propel me to explore deeper, the specific tools within that context.
Bush, nukes and Iran
04/11/06 - 08:50:40 pm
The BBC reports that Iran has claimed the enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons. This is incredibly scary. I also heard somewhere (I don't remember where) that it is possible Bush has been setting operations in motion to "smart" nuke these nuclear facilities in Iran.
I don't know if I would be such a good Mennonite, as I don't think it would be wrong, pending drastic circumstances, to use force to disable Iran's opportunity for weapons of this caliber. If we do use force, however, it is a sure bet that we would incur a world-wide $#!& storm.
I do have qualms with the possibility of using U.S. nukes to take out Iranian nukes. The irony of such a thing is almost so striking that I could almost gloss over the fact that we would be hypocrites. I don't endorse such weapons on any circumstance, but to use nukes to prevent another country from having them...well that seems odd.
The implications of such an action reach farther than Iran or the entire middle-east. It comes down to Pakistan and North Korea. China, a fellow arms bearer may be iffy at best as to which side they will jump on when things get really scary.
Maybe I could justify it, if we were a police state. We sure act like one at times. However, we only act as a police state to preserve our own intentions. Thus, we are not agents of justice or keeping the peace. We are non-neutral and thus instigators. We move into Iraq quickly, but we let genocide reign on and on...and on some more in Sudan. We let Mugabe starve his people. We let other such atrocities occur world-wide, but they do not have much implication on our country's interests, so we don't care.
Not only that, but the precedence our current administration has set does not give much confidence to the wavering supporter to occupying Iran. No doubt the rhetoric will have to be chosen a bit more wisely this time around, but it will be there. We have a history of blood-thirstiness and in desperate times, we get even more salivated.
I do not know where exactly to come down. I certainly do not agree with using nuclear weapons, no matter how "sophisticated" they are. Bombs, maybe. I certainly would endorse a global effort at peaceful resolution. I also endorse a resolution that keeps nuclear weapons out of the hands of country that wishes to obliterate completely, another country.
So where do we go? What do we do? Bush Administration - you are getting yourself into a pickle with unforeseen consequences. You are not neutral and you are no world protector, so you are an instigator in some way, shape or form. I will pray for you. I will pray for peaceful resolutions, that are in the interests of the global population and I will pray for God's wisdom to truly encompass you all.
I will also be praying for the Iranian leadership, though I do, indeed, consider them enemies if they are such agitators, I am to pray for my enemies, and for them I shall.
03/27/06 - 01:34:43 pm
I am a very interested in these recent protests. Late last week, in Phoenix, where I was travelling through, and in Los Angeles, many people spoke out against the criminalization of illegal immigrants. I am very interested in the momentum from about a third of the Roman Catholic Dioceses and their push.
I get excited to see the poor, the marginalized, the hated of this country, receiving support. I am amazed to see such a turn-out on behalf of these folk. I am also conflicted, because illegal immigration is still illegal, and though it is not all black and white (they are all criminals from Mexico escaping from their crimes or they are all oppressed people who the world has completely forgotten - thus demonizing or angelizing these people), I do not know where to stand.
I do think that helping people is important, and the sacrificial help of family, friends and Christians is impressive. I do think however that each of these folk need to take responsibility for their actions and own up to the punishment. In fact, I think owning up to the punishment speaks a great deal for the cause of assisting illegal immigrants.
Redemption is possible and adding more people to our criminal justice system, especially people who worked hard and stayed out of trouble need not be villanized. But I do believe the government needs to enforce the laws that it has in place currently. I support the protests because people are embracing their democratic rights to effect the laws of the country.
To make this a partisan issue is immoral, and I condemn such a use by Republicans or Democrats.
I heard a complaint by some folk in Phoenix about how bad the traffic was and how it pissed them off. I do say, FINALLY!!!, you noticed. Get over your bad day in traffic and understand the issues surrounding these people and the citizens that this upcoming law effects or assists.
Where do I stand on illegal immigration, frankly, it is illegal. Where do I stand on supporters of illegal immigrants-advocacy and compassion-good stuff. Where do I stand on partisanship over immigration; despicable. What do I do about it; I have no fricking clue.
the mindful mission