U.N. warning over Darfur violence
KHARTOUM, Sudan (AP) -- The U.N. envoy for prevention of genocide has warned that violence is increasing in the war-torn region of Darfur and criticized the Sudanese national courts for doing little to try suspects accused of atrocities.
"The situation in Darfur now is disturbing, violence is spreading, and the displaced don't trust the Sudanese police or the Sudanese judiciary system," Juan Mendez told reporters Monday after his second assessment visit to Darfur. His first visit was a year ago.
Mendez also lashed out at the Sudanese national courts for not doing enough to punish those suspected of involvement in the violence in Darfur. He urged Sudan to cooperate with the international court.
"It's in the interest of the Sudanese government to cooperate with the International Criminal Court, by allowing its international interrogators to have access to the country and to have access to documents," he said.
Sudan has refused to turn over any Darfur suspects to the ICC despite U.N. demands.
Darfur's crisis erupted when rebels took up arms against what they saw as years of state neglect and discrimination against Sudanese of African origin. The government is accused of responding with a counterinsurgency campaign in which the ethnic Arab militia, known as Janjaweed, committed wide-scale abuses against ethnic Africans.
Government troops and some rebels have also committed abuses, according to rights groups.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Thursday, August 04, 2005
Article by Jim Wallis - interesting read
This op-ed by Jim Wallis is reprinted from today's edition of The New York Times.
The Message Thing
By JIM WALLIS
Since the 2004 election, there has been much soul-searching and hand-wringing, especially among Democrats, about how to "frame" political messages. The loss to George W. Bush was painful enough, but the Republicans' post-election claims of mandate, and their triumphal promises to relegate the Democrats to permanent minority status, left political liberals in a state of panic.
So the minority party has been searching, some would say desperately, for the right "narrative": the best story line, metaphors, even magic words to bring back electoral success. The operative term among Democratic politicians and strategists has become "framing." How to tell the story has become more important than the story itself. And that could be a bigger mistake for the Democrats than the ones they made during the election.
Language is clearly important in politics, but the message remains more important than the messaging. In the interests of full disclosure, let me note that I have been talking to the Democrats about both. But I believe that first, you must get your message straight. What are your best ideas, and what are you for - as opposed to what you're against in the other party's message? Only when you answer those questions can you figure out how to present your message to the American people.
Because the Republicans, with the help of the religious right, have captured the language of values and religion (narrowly conceived as only abortion and gay marriage), the Democrats have also been asking how to "take back the faith." But that means far more than throwing a few Bible verses into policy discussions, offering candidates some good lines from famous hymns, or teaching them how to clap at the right times in black churches. Democrats need to focus on the content of religious convictions and the values that underlie them.
The discussion that shapes our political future should be one about moral values, but the questions to ask are these: Whose values? Which values? And how broadly and deeply will our political values be defined? Democrats must offer new ideas and a fresh agenda, rather than linguistic strategies to sell an old set of ideologies and interest group demands.
To be specific, I offer five areas in which the Democrats should change their message and then their messaging.
First, somebody must lead on the issue of poverty, and right now neither party is doing so. The Democrats assume the poverty issue belongs to them, but with the exception of John Edwards in his 2004 campaign, they haven't mustered the gumption to oppose a government that habitually favors the wealthy over everyone else. Democrats need new policies to offer the 36 million Americans, including 13 million children, who live below the poverty line, as well as the 9.8 million families one recent study identified as "working hard but falling short."
In fact, the Democrats should draw a line in the sand when it comes to wartime tax cuts for the wealthy, rising deficits, and the slashing of programs for low-income families and children. They need proposals that combine to create a "living family income" for wage-earners, as well as a platform of "fair trade," as opposed to just free trade, in the global economy. Such proposals would cause a break with many of the Democrats' powerful corporate sponsors, but they would open the way for a truly progressive economic agenda. Many Americans, including religious voters who see poverty as a compelling issue of conscience, desire such a platform.
Similarly, a growing number of American Christians speak of the environment as a religious concern - one of stewardship of God's creation. The National Association of Evangelicals recently called global warming a faith issue. But Republicans consistently choose oil and gas interests over a cleaner world. The Democrats need to call for the reversal of these priorities. They must insist that private interests should never obstruct our country's path to a cleaner and more efficient energy future, let alone hold our foreign policy hostage to the dictates of repressive regimes in the Middle East.
On the issues that Republicans have turned into election-winning "wedges," Democrats will win back "values voters" only with fresh ideas. Abortion is one such case. Democrats need to think past catchphrases, like "a woman's right to choose," or the alternative, "safe, legal and rare." More than 1 million abortions are performed every year in this country. The Democrats should set forth proposals that aim to reduce that number by at least half. Such a campaign could emphasize adoption reform, health care, and child care; combating teenage pregnancy and sexual abuse; improving poor and working women's incomes; and supporting reasonable restrictions on abortion, like parental notification for minors (with necessary legal protections against parental abuse). Such a program could help create some much-needed common ground.
As for "family values," the Democrats can become the truly pro-family party by supporting parents in doing the most important and difficult job in America: raising children. They need to adopt serious pro-family policies, including some that defend children against Hollywood sleaze and Internet pornography. That's an issue that has come to be identified with the religious right. But when I say in public lectures that being a parent is now a countercultural activity, I've found that liberal and conservative parents agree. Rather than fighting over gay marriage, the Democrats must show that it is indeed possible to be "pro-family" and in favor of gay civil rights at the same time.
Finally, on national security, Democrats should argue that the safety of the United States depends on the credibility of its international leadership. We can secure that credibility in Iraq only when we renounce any claim to oil or future military bases - something Democrats should advocate as the first step toward bringing other countries to our side. While Republicans have argued that international institutions are too weak to be relied upon in the age of terrorism, Democrats should suggest reforming them, creating a real International Criminal Court with an enforcement body, for example, as well as an international force capable of intervening in places like Darfur. Stronger American leadership in reducing global poverty would also go a long way toward improving the country's image around the world.
Until Democrats are willing to be honest about the need for new social policy and compelling political vision, they will never get the message right. Find the vision first, and the language will follow.
Jim Wallis, the editor of Sojourners magazine, is the author of "God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It."
The Message Thing
By JIM WALLIS
Since the 2004 election, there has been much soul-searching and hand-wringing, especially among Democrats, about how to "frame" political messages. The loss to George W. Bush was painful enough, but the Republicans' post-election claims of mandate, and their triumphal promises to relegate the Democrats to permanent minority status, left political liberals in a state of panic.
So the minority party has been searching, some would say desperately, for the right "narrative": the best story line, metaphors, even magic words to bring back electoral success. The operative term among Democratic politicians and strategists has become "framing." How to tell the story has become more important than the story itself. And that could be a bigger mistake for the Democrats than the ones they made during the election.
Language is clearly important in politics, but the message remains more important than the messaging. In the interests of full disclosure, let me note that I have been talking to the Democrats about both. But I believe that first, you must get your message straight. What are your best ideas, and what are you for - as opposed to what you're against in the other party's message? Only when you answer those questions can you figure out how to present your message to the American people.
Because the Republicans, with the help of the religious right, have captured the language of values and religion (narrowly conceived as only abortion and gay marriage), the Democrats have also been asking how to "take back the faith." But that means far more than throwing a few Bible verses into policy discussions, offering candidates some good lines from famous hymns, or teaching them how to clap at the right times in black churches. Democrats need to focus on the content of religious convictions and the values that underlie them.
The discussion that shapes our political future should be one about moral values, but the questions to ask are these: Whose values? Which values? And how broadly and deeply will our political values be defined? Democrats must offer new ideas and a fresh agenda, rather than linguistic strategies to sell an old set of ideologies and interest group demands.
To be specific, I offer five areas in which the Democrats should change their message and then their messaging.
First, somebody must lead on the issue of poverty, and right now neither party is doing so. The Democrats assume the poverty issue belongs to them, but with the exception of John Edwards in his 2004 campaign, they haven't mustered the gumption to oppose a government that habitually favors the wealthy over everyone else. Democrats need new policies to offer the 36 million Americans, including 13 million children, who live below the poverty line, as well as the 9.8 million families one recent study identified as "working hard but falling short."
In fact, the Democrats should draw a line in the sand when it comes to wartime tax cuts for the wealthy, rising deficits, and the slashing of programs for low-income families and children. They need proposals that combine to create a "living family income" for wage-earners, as well as a platform of "fair trade," as opposed to just free trade, in the global economy. Such proposals would cause a break with many of the Democrats' powerful corporate sponsors, but they would open the way for a truly progressive economic agenda. Many Americans, including religious voters who see poverty as a compelling issue of conscience, desire such a platform.
Similarly, a growing number of American Christians speak of the environment as a religious concern - one of stewardship of God's creation. The National Association of Evangelicals recently called global warming a faith issue. But Republicans consistently choose oil and gas interests over a cleaner world. The Democrats need to call for the reversal of these priorities. They must insist that private interests should never obstruct our country's path to a cleaner and more efficient energy future, let alone hold our foreign policy hostage to the dictates of repressive regimes in the Middle East.
On the issues that Republicans have turned into election-winning "wedges," Democrats will win back "values voters" only with fresh ideas. Abortion is one such case. Democrats need to think past catchphrases, like "a woman's right to choose," or the alternative, "safe, legal and rare." More than 1 million abortions are performed every year in this country. The Democrats should set forth proposals that aim to reduce that number by at least half. Such a campaign could emphasize adoption reform, health care, and child care; combating teenage pregnancy and sexual abuse; improving poor and working women's incomes; and supporting reasonable restrictions on abortion, like parental notification for minors (with necessary legal protections against parental abuse). Such a program could help create some much-needed common ground.
As for "family values," the Democrats can become the truly pro-family party by supporting parents in doing the most important and difficult job in America: raising children. They need to adopt serious pro-family policies, including some that defend children against Hollywood sleaze and Internet pornography. That's an issue that has come to be identified with the religious right. But when I say in public lectures that being a parent is now a countercultural activity, I've found that liberal and conservative parents agree. Rather than fighting over gay marriage, the Democrats must show that it is indeed possible to be "pro-family" and in favor of gay civil rights at the same time.
Finally, on national security, Democrats should argue that the safety of the United States depends on the credibility of its international leadership. We can secure that credibility in Iraq only when we renounce any claim to oil or future military bases - something Democrats should advocate as the first step toward bringing other countries to our side. While Republicans have argued that international institutions are too weak to be relied upon in the age of terrorism, Democrats should suggest reforming them, creating a real International Criminal Court with an enforcement body, for example, as well as an international force capable of intervening in places like Darfur. Stronger American leadership in reducing global poverty would also go a long way toward improving the country's image around the world.
Until Democrats are willing to be honest about the need for new social policy and compelling political vision, they will never get the message right. Find the vision first, and the language will follow.
Jim Wallis, the editor of Sojourners magazine, is the author of "God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It."
Friday, July 15, 2005
Save Darfur
This weekend is a national weekend of prayer for the western region of Darfur, Sudan. The region has been in the midst of genecide for the past few years. Over 400,000 people have died and over 2 million people have been displaced and are now without food and water. If you saw Hotel Rwanda then you can just imagine that same story except in a different African country. The government sponsered genecide must stop and we can do something to make it end. Please go to www.savedarfur.org and read and learn about how to contact your local representatives and our President urging them to stop this awful thing from continueing.
I am not sure if you guys kept up with the G8 and what happened. There was some amazing things that resulted from the conference. America has pledged to double aid to Africa by 2010. How much do you think America spends on foreign aid? I was watching an interview with Diane Sawyer and Brad Bitt and that question was asked to people on the street. Most people either said they didn't know or said things like 40% or 30%. The truth is we spend less than 1%. Less than a penny for every dollar goes to help those in need around the world. So may say, well we have so much need here in America...and i agree this is true, however we have no idea the amount of suffering and the extreme need in placed like Africa and India. We also have just pledged to spend $400 BILLION dollars on the war. We can get into the war conversation later on... UBC is starting to look into ways to help and I would love some ideas. I keep struggling with the thought of "should we take a trip to Africa" or should we just "raise money" and send over to Africa? Which is going to make the biggest impact. So please pray for UBC as we decide the best way to reach out to help our fellow brothers and sisters.
Saturday, July 02, 2005
Make Poverty History!
width="468" height="60" border="0">
Today has been dedicated to watching Live 8. What an awesome day! Seriously, today will go down as the day people decided to get serious and make poverty history. Our generation could be the generation to see extreme poverty end. I am preaching tommorow at UBC and a large portion of my sermon will be about Live 8 but more about the G8 summit coming up this week. I have always had an interest in politics but things like this for me are what really get me fueled up. This is where I can see my faith, which shapes my politic, and my politic collide in full harmony. I truly believe that we as the church should be doing everything we can to help make global poverty history. We should be the ones that are putting on global concerts rallying millions of people to speak up to their governments to cancel debt, make trade fair, and send money to countries that need our help.
So the question I would like for us to discuss is one of an evangelistic/missions nature. Should Mission trips in 2005 look different than they did in the past decade? I know that it is easy to say, "yes, we shouldn't go give people Jesus tracks and tell them they are going to hell if they don't believe, get them to say a prayer and then leave, " but , what about the alternative...what if we just go to these countries like Africa and India and simply meet their most basic needs...is that enough? What about taking groups to DC to lobby senators and congressman to help make trade fair, or lobby against gun manufactors that are making guns made for kids. they make these guns in america, send them to africa where children are kidnapped and forced to become soldiers or be killed. Isn't that doing God's work? and if it is then why do so many people freak out when you share the idea of doing this sort of "missions"? any thoughts?
please be praying for the G8 summit this wednesday. and for the love sign the www.one.org campaign letter to Bush!
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Communial Sin
As I start to think through the different topics I am wanting to bring up on this blog i started to realize that so many of the topics have to do with "things being bad and our attempts to try to fix them" I believe in order for us to be able to honestly look at the state of things, we first must confess our weaknesses, inadiquiencys, and our sins. Everytime that I try to clear things up with God the only things that I confess are the things that I do, my sins. I think about how "I, Ben Dudley" have caused problems, gone against God's desire and didn't love my neighbor first etc. Something that never comes to mind when I go to confess my sin is the sins that I commit in my community. I have been reading some articles about the idea of "communial sin" and it really has me thinking. What is communial sin? I do know this...in an article I read from Sojourners, written by Dale W. Brown, he says that it is easy for us to think of individual sins and name those because we are able to find abunch that we don't do and point at others who do these sins and it makes us feel better about ourselves. But communial sins are ones that we do as communities and so in order to confess these sins it takes a realization that we are guilty of these sins and admitting that we play apart and we can't point the finger at others and feel good...because they are our sins.
This concept is kinda new to me, maybe some of you have thought about this more extensively than I and can share some insight. I would like to throw out a few communial sins that I feel like we need to ask God to forgive. If you connect with any of these please share your thoughts. If there are others that you know of that I didn't share, please share those. If you see something that I write that you don't see as a communial sin, please share you thoughts on these as well.
-Father forgive us for what we have done to the environment that you left us to care for...
-Father forgive us for exploiting the poor to gain more wealth
-Father forgive us for using the Bible as a weapon to "prove" points
-Father forgive us for the sins we commit as a nation in this time of war
-Father forgive us for not caring for "the least of these"
-Father forgive us for not having unity amongst the body of Believers
-Father forgive us for standing by and allowing the AIDS epidemic get out of control
Again, this is just a start...i may add some more in the comment section but I would love for you guys to share some as well.
This concept is kinda new to me, maybe some of you have thought about this more extensively than I and can share some insight. I would like to throw out a few communial sins that I feel like we need to ask God to forgive. If you connect with any of these please share your thoughts. If there are others that you know of that I didn't share, please share those. If you see something that I write that you don't see as a communial sin, please share you thoughts on these as well.
-Father forgive us for what we have done to the environment that you left us to care for...
-Father forgive us for exploiting the poor to gain more wealth
-Father forgive us for using the Bible as a weapon to "prove" points
-Father forgive us for the sins we commit as a nation in this time of war
-Father forgive us for not caring for "the least of these"
-Father forgive us for not having unity amongst the body of Believers
-Father forgive us for standing by and allowing the AIDS epidemic get out of control
Again, this is just a start...i may add some more in the comment section but I would love for you guys to share some as well.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Welcome
Let me start by saying, "Welcome to the new blog." Over the past 4 years I have been on a spiritual, political, intellectual journey that has lead me down some very different paths. The road that I have been on is called "Deconstruction Ave" and I have started to see road signs saying only a few more miles until I merge onto "Reconstruction Trail." In order to prepare for the merge I feel it necessary to try and journal/vent/rant/rave/question/share/dialogue my thoughts and feelings about all that I have been considering over this time of my life. I am currently reading "The Last Word and the Word After That" by Brian McClaren. In the book there is the most beautiful description of deconstruction that I want to share with you.
"It's like taking apart a cheesy billboard that somebody built along the highway so that people can see the beautiful view the billboard was hiding...if you deconstruct a theory, you're doing it in the hope that a greater understanding of justice can come."
This blog will stay on topic at all times. I have another blog for journaling life's adventures and such, but this one will be on topic. Now with that said, the topics could be wide ranging from politics to religion, war and peace, from Liberals to conservatives, right to left, wrong and right, black and white to color. All to say, this is my space to share my thoughts and hopefully if you read this blog you will participate with me in these discussions. There is a comment section that I ask you to use. In fact, I wish there was a way to make it a requirement of you the reader to share feedback. I am a firm believer that the only way to truly find answers is through community. So if you want to go on this journey with me in search of the onramp of "reconstruction" then you are committing to participate via the comment section or the starting of your own blog.
For those willing to take the journey with me...here are the rules!
Courage is being scared to death - but saddling up anyway.
John Wayne (1907 - 1979)
Let us be courageous in our efforts to deconstruct!
Wisdom is what's left after we've run out of personal opinions.
Cullen Hightower
In our efforts to seek Truth, let us not hold to our pride
Cynicism is an unpleasant way of saying the truth.
Lillian Hellman (1905 - 1984), The Little Foxes, 1939
Let us be willing to share the truth with one another, even when it hurts...but in doing so keep the spirit of LOVE above all else.
I hope that while so many people are out smelling the flowers, someone is taking the time to plant some.
Herbert Rappaport
Let us talk this out but not stop living it out, for that is where it will truly manifest itself!
So once again, welcome and let's get started!
cheers, ben
Monday, June 20, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)