Words of wisdom and encouragement from Jim Wallis of Sojourners to the Occupy Wall Street protesters....
You have awakened the sleeping giant, too long dormant, but ever present, deep in the American democratic spirit. You have given voice and space to the unspoken feelings of countless others about something that has gone terribly wrong in our society. And you have sparked a flame from the embers of both frustration and hope that have been building, steadily, in the hearts of so many of us for quite some time.
Throughout history, often it has been left to the youth of a society to do that, and you boldly have stepped into the role of the emerging generation, which sometimes means saying and doing what others only think. You have articulated, loudly and clearly, the internal monologue of a nation.
Some of you have told me that you expected only to foment a short-lived protest and that you were as surprised by this "movement" as anyone else. Try to listen and learn from those whose feelings and participation you are evoking by encouraging more reflection than certainty.
While there are some among us who may misunderstand your motives and message, know that you are an inspiration to many more.
One of you told me in New York City last week, "This is not a protest, but a think tank." Another of your compatriots wanted me to understand that you are trying to build something in Liberty Square that you aspire to create for our global village -- a more cooperative society.
Most telling to me was the answer to the first question I asked of the first person I talked to at the Wall Street demonstrations. I inquired of one of the non-leaders who helped lead the first days of Occupation what most drew him to get involved in the demonstration, and he replied, "I want to have children someday, and this is becoming a world not good for children."
My 13- and 8-year-old boys came to mind when I heard his answer, and I felt thankful. It is precisely those deepest, most authentic feelings and motivations that should preoccupy you, rather than how best to form and communicate superficial political rhetoric.
You are raising very basic questions about an economy that has become increasingly unfair, unstable, unsustainable, and unhappy for a growing number of people. Those same questions are being asked by many others at the bottom, the middle, and even some at the top of the economic pecking order.
There are ethics to be named here, and the transition from the pseudo-ethic of endless growth to the moral ethics of sustainability is a conversation occurring even now in our nation’s business schools (if, perhaps, secreted inside the official curriculum).
Keep pressing those values questions because they will move people more than a set of demands or policy suggestions. Those can and must come later.
And try not to demonize those you view as opponents, as good people can get trapped in bad systems and we've seen a lot of that. Still, you are right for saying that we all must be held accountable -- both systems and the individuals within them. It is imperative that we hear that message right now.
The new safe spaces you have created to ask fundamental questions, now in hundreds of locations around the country and the world, are helping to carve out fresh societal space to examine ourselves -- who we are, what we value most, and where we want to go from here.
Instead of simply attacking the establishment "economists," you can become the citizen economists, like the young economics major I met at the Wall Street occupation who discussed with me new approaches for society’s investment and innovation. We desperately need new vision like hers to come up with alternative ways of performing essential functions.
Keep asking what a just economy should look like and whom it should be for. They are noble questions. But you’d do well to avoid Utopian dreaming about things that will never happen. Look instead at how we could do things differently, more responsibly, more equitably, and yes, more democratically.
Don’t be afraid to get practical and specific about how we can and must do things better than we have in recent years. One of our best moral economists, Amartya Sen, says that "being against the market is like being against conversation. It's a form of exchange." You have begun such a conversation about what markets could and should be. Keep talking.
Even in forums where business and political leaders meet, they too are asking those questions and using terms like "a moral economy" as a way to interrogate our present and failed practices. I’ve been in such a gathering this week -- just days apart from visiting yours -- where the participants slept on featherbedding in five-star hotels rather than in pup tents on the sidewalk. And yet, surprisingly, they were asking many of the same questions you are.
Keep driving both the moral and practical questions about the economics of our local and global households, for that is what the discipline was supposed to be about in the first place.
I know you believe that the leadership on Wall Street, and Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues have all failed you. Indeed, they have failed us all. But while you feel betrayed by both our business and political leaders, don’t give up on leadership per se.
We need innovative leadership now more than ever. And you are providing some of it.
Think of stewards rather than masters of the universe as the model for leadership.
And remember, non-violence is not just a critical tactic but a necessary commitment to moral and civil discourse that can awaken the best in all of us. There is much to be angry about, but channeling that energy into creative, non-violent action is the only way to prevent dangerous cynicism and nihilism that also can be a human response to the injustice and marginalization many people now feel.
The anarchism of anger has never produced the change that the discipline and constructive program of non-violent movements has done again and again.
I remember what it feels like to see your movement as a lead story on the evening news every night, and the adrenaline rush that being able to muster 10,000 people in two hours' time to march in protest against injustice and inhumanity can bring. I was in your shoes 40 years ago as a student leading demonstrations against the Vietnam War, racism, and nuclear proliferation.
I would advise you to cultivate humility more than overconfidence or self indulgence. This really is not about you. It's about the marginalized masses, the signs of the times, and the profound yearning for lasting change. Take that larger narrative more seriously than you take yourselves.
Finally, do not let go of your hope. Popular movements are the only force that truly brings about change in society. The established order is never as secure and impervious to change as those who preside over it believe it to be.
Remember that re-action is never as powerful as re-construction. And whatever you may think of organized religion, please keep in mind that change requires spiritual as well as political resources, and that invariably any new economy will be accompanied by a new (or very old) spirituality.
So I will say, may God bless you and keep you.
May God be gracious to you and give you -– and all of us -- peace.
Jim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: A Guide for Economic and Moral Recovery, and CEO of Sojourners. He blogs at www.godspolitics.com. Follow Jim on Twitter @JimWallis.
BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
Showing posts with label SOJO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SOJO. Show all posts
15 July 2011
Afghanistan Weekly Digest: Ahmed Wali Karzai. Veterans. NATO. 14JUL11
WE'RE still at war, here is this week's Afghanistan Weekly Digest from SOJO.
[Editors' note: As part of Sojourners' campaign to end the war in Afghanistan, we will run a weekly Afghanistan news digest to educate our readers about the latest news and developments related to the war, the U.S. military's strategy, and the people impacted by our decisions. Read more about our campaign at www.sojo.net/afghanistan.]
Hannah Lythe is policy and outreach associate at Sojourners.
- Afghan president’s half brother killed by a bodyguard: “President Hamid Karzai’s half brother, the most powerful man in southern Afghanistan and a lightning rod for criticism of corruption in the government, was assassinated Tuesday by a close associate.”
- Veterans face high unemployment after military service: “Unemployment among recently returned veterans, already in double digits, is poised to get worse as more soldiers return from Iraq and Afghanistan. The jobless rate for veterans who served at any time since September 2001 — called Gulf War-era II veterans — was 13.3 percent in June, up from 12.1 percent the month before, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In June 2010 it was 11.5 percent.”
- Petraeus confident as he leaves Afghanistan: “Just days away from the end of his tour as the supreme military commander in Afghanistan, and the end of a 37-year military career, Gen. David H. Petraeus said he was leaving in the belief that his plan to turn around the war and hand over security to the Afghans could be achieved.”
- NATO says airstrike in Afghan province killed women and children: “NATO forces said Thursday that they had unwittingly killed several women and children a day earlier during an early morning air attack against militants in a remote corner of eastern Afghanistan. The American-led coalition also said it was investigating separate reports of civilian deaths in a nearby province.”
- White House changes policy on condolence letters for military suicides: “For several administrations at least, the White House has declined to send letters of condolence to families of troops who committed suicide, even if those suicides occurred in combat zones. The policy was based on concerns within military circles that recognizing such deaths would encourage more suicides. But it infuriated many of those families, who felt they should have received the same kinds of letters sent to families of every service member killed in action.”
Hannah Lythe is policy and outreach associate at Sojourners.24 June 2011
The War Must Not Go On! from SOJO 23JUN11
AMEN!!!! A very well thought, well written commentary on the war in Afghanistan from Sojourners....
Last evening, President Obama made his long-awaited announcement on beginning withdrawal of the 103,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan. The president announced that 10,000 of these troops will be withdrawn by the end of this year, starting in July, and 23,000 more by the end of summer 2012. That will leave approximately 70,000 troops in Afghanistan, roughly double the number of troops (34,000) when he took office in 2008. The president said these remaining troops will be withdrawn “at a steady pace” going into 2014.
But that’s not good enough. President Obama had an opportunity to pivot his policy on the war in Afghanistan -- to focus on the still real threats of terrorism, rather than on failed wars of occupation with massive numbers of troops on the ground. Public opinion polls now consistently show that 50 to 60 percent of the American people want the troops to come home. Two-hundred-four members of the House, from both parties, voted in late May for the McGovern-Jones amendment -- which calls for an accelerated withdrawal and a responsible exit from Afghanistan. Two members of Congress, Jim McGovern and Walter Jones, one Democrat and one Republican, were the authors of that measure and have been the real leaders of political and moral conscience on this war. Twenty-eight bipartisan senators also called for an accelerated withdrawal in a recent letter to the president. A wide array of political leaders, from both parties -- including senators Carl Levin, Max Baucus, and Richard Lugar, and Republican presidential candidates Jon Huntsman, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul -- are expressing reservations about the war strategy. Obama could have built on these changes in public opinion and announced a dramatic change in war policy for Afghanistan. But last night, he did not.
We constantly hear the message, “Support the troops.” It’s on bumper stickers, at ball games, and on banners in airports. As a Christian who opposed the two wars our troops have been fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, I can say that I do support the troops. They are primarily young, from lower-income and working families, who in the current economy have few other options. The military promised them the opportunity for a job, training, and perhaps the chance go to college on their return. But that promise to young people with few other options came at a high price. So far, 1,552 Americans have died in the war in Afghanistan; 11,200 have been wounded. In one study of the 300,000 returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan who sought help from Veterans Affairs health centers, nearly 37 percent of those treated for the first time were suffering from mental health problems such as post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, or alcohol problems. These problems too often result in suicide. During the first half of 2009, more American soldiers committed suicide than were killed in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. In June 2010, an average of one soldier a day committed suicide. Furthermore, 11 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are unemployed.
Of course, there are very few children of members of Congress, or of finance and business executives, in the military. Those who run the country are not sending their children to fight the wars they continue to prolong. Frankly, war is good business for those who run the military-industrial complex that former President Eisenhower warned us about. Generals always recommend more war because it’s their business. It gets them promotions and advances their careers. And they often distort the facts to stay in business -- claiming progress in order to justify continued war -- when there really is no significant progress at all. Meanwhile, more young people get killed or damaged for the rest of their lives, and the cost for so many innocents is even higher. That can simply no longer be justified in Afghanistan.
The president acknowledged and honored the sacrifice of the troops, and said we need to shift from nation-building in Afghanistan to nation-building at home. But the meager reduction of troops he announced last night simply doesn’t support either goal. I heard on Morning Joe this morning that John McCain has more staff on Capitol Hill than the CIA reports al Qaeda now has in Afghanistan. And the threat of Bin Laden was not ended by the war in Afghanistan, but by focused intelligence and counter-terrorism in Pakistan. Yet, after the president’s announcement last night, the United States will still have nearly 100,000 troops in Afghanistan for the rest of this year, and will spend more than $100 billion in the coming year. It seems the war in Afghanistan will go on and on and on.
To truly support the troops who are fighting and dying in Afghanistan, we must commit our resources where they are most needed. We must make the courageous decision to end the war in Afghanistan much faster than the president called for last night. Incremental and gradual drawdowns of troops over many years is not the correct response to a failed war. We needed a pivot to a new policy last night -- but we didn’t get it.
The president’s decision to finish his first term with twice as many U.S. troops in Afghanistan as when he took office is a political and moral mistake. This week, nearly 40 religious leaders delivered a letter to the White House saying “we are united in the belief that it is time to bring the U.S. war in Afghanistan to an end.” We must now build on that to mobilize resistance to the war across the religious community. It’s time for the faith community to help lead the movement that will bring this unnecessary and unjust war to an end. The president’s message last night was “the war goes on.” Our message on Afghanistan must be: War No More.
+Click here for Sojourners’ FREE “War No More” bumper sticker as a gift for your involvement!
Jim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: A Guide for Economic and Moral Recovery, and CEO of Sojourners. He blogs at www.godspolitics.com. Follow Jim on Twitter @JimWallis.
Last evening, President Obama made his long-awaited announcement on beginning withdrawal of the 103,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan. The president announced that 10,000 of these troops will be withdrawn by the end of this year, starting in July, and 23,000 more by the end of summer 2012. That will leave approximately 70,000 troops in Afghanistan, roughly double the number of troops (34,000) when he took office in 2008. The president said these remaining troops will be withdrawn “at a steady pace” going into 2014.
But that’s not good enough. President Obama had an opportunity to pivot his policy on the war in Afghanistan -- to focus on the still real threats of terrorism, rather than on failed wars of occupation with massive numbers of troops on the ground. Public opinion polls now consistently show that 50 to 60 percent of the American people want the troops to come home. Two-hundred-four members of the House, from both parties, voted in late May for the McGovern-Jones amendment -- which calls for an accelerated withdrawal and a responsible exit from Afghanistan. Two members of Congress, Jim McGovern and Walter Jones, one Democrat and one Republican, were the authors of that measure and have been the real leaders of political and moral conscience on this war. Twenty-eight bipartisan senators also called for an accelerated withdrawal in a recent letter to the president. A wide array of political leaders, from both parties -- including senators Carl Levin, Max Baucus, and Richard Lugar, and Republican presidential candidates Jon Huntsman, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul -- are expressing reservations about the war strategy. Obama could have built on these changes in public opinion and announced a dramatic change in war policy for Afghanistan. But last night, he did not.
We constantly hear the message, “Support the troops.” It’s on bumper stickers, at ball games, and on banners in airports. As a Christian who opposed the two wars our troops have been fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, I can say that I do support the troops. They are primarily young, from lower-income and working families, who in the current economy have few other options. The military promised them the opportunity for a job, training, and perhaps the chance go to college on their return. But that promise to young people with few other options came at a high price. So far, 1,552 Americans have died in the war in Afghanistan; 11,200 have been wounded. In one study of the 300,000 returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan who sought help from Veterans Affairs health centers, nearly 37 percent of those treated for the first time were suffering from mental health problems such as post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, or alcohol problems. These problems too often result in suicide. During the first half of 2009, more American soldiers committed suicide than were killed in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. In June 2010, an average of one soldier a day committed suicide. Furthermore, 11 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are unemployed.
Of course, there are very few children of members of Congress, or of finance and business executives, in the military. Those who run the country are not sending their children to fight the wars they continue to prolong. Frankly, war is good business for those who run the military-industrial complex that former President Eisenhower warned us about. Generals always recommend more war because it’s their business. It gets them promotions and advances their careers. And they often distort the facts to stay in business -- claiming progress in order to justify continued war -- when there really is no significant progress at all. Meanwhile, more young people get killed or damaged for the rest of their lives, and the cost for so many innocents is even higher. That can simply no longer be justified in Afghanistan.
The president acknowledged and honored the sacrifice of the troops, and said we need to shift from nation-building in Afghanistan to nation-building at home. But the meager reduction of troops he announced last night simply doesn’t support either goal. I heard on Morning Joe this morning that John McCain has more staff on Capitol Hill than the CIA reports al Qaeda now has in Afghanistan. And the threat of Bin Laden was not ended by the war in Afghanistan, but by focused intelligence and counter-terrorism in Pakistan. Yet, after the president’s announcement last night, the United States will still have nearly 100,000 troops in Afghanistan for the rest of this year, and will spend more than $100 billion in the coming year. It seems the war in Afghanistan will go on and on and on.
To truly support the troops who are fighting and dying in Afghanistan, we must commit our resources where they are most needed. We must make the courageous decision to end the war in Afghanistan much faster than the president called for last night. Incremental and gradual drawdowns of troops over many years is not the correct response to a failed war. We needed a pivot to a new policy last night -- but we didn’t get it.
The president’s decision to finish his first term with twice as many U.S. troops in Afghanistan as when he took office is a political and moral mistake. This week, nearly 40 religious leaders delivered a letter to the White House saying “we are united in the belief that it is time to bring the U.S. war in Afghanistan to an end.” We must now build on that to mobilize resistance to the war across the religious community. It’s time for the faith community to help lead the movement that will bring this unnecessary and unjust war to an end. The president’s message last night was “the war goes on.” Our message on Afghanistan must be: War No More.
+Click here for Sojourners’ FREE “War No More” bumper sticker as a gift for your involvement!
Jim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: A Guide for Economic and Moral Recovery, and CEO of Sojourners. He blogs at www.godspolitics.com. Follow Jim on Twitter @JimWallis.
14 April 2011
A WARNING TO THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS ON THE BUDGET & 30,000 people fasting 12APR11
"Ah, you who make iniquitous decrees, who write oppressive statutes, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be your spoil, and that you may make the orphans your prey!"
- Isaiah 2:1-2
Doom to you who legislate evil, who make laws that make victims — laws that make misery for the poor, that rob my destitute people of dignity, exploiting defenseless widows, taking advantage of homeless children. What will you have to say on Judgment Day, when Doomsday arrives out of the blue? Who will you get to help you? What good will your money do you? (Isaiah 10:1-3, The Message)
So far, more than 30,000 people are participating in a rolling fast to protest the immoral budget cuts Republicans are pushing in Washington. We never imagined this would spread so far, so quickly. In fact, 28 progressive members of Congress have now joined in.
With some help from Grammy-nominated recording artist Moby, we've put together a short, powerful video about this fast. Please check it out and then help spread the message by passing it on: http://www.moveon.org/r?r=
Watch the videoThis is about sending the message that balancing the budget on the back of the most vulnerable is simply immoral—and the need for that message has never been greater.
Last week's budget agreement—now public—contains cuts to critical programs but does little to make corporations and the rich pay their fair share.1
More than half of the $38 billion in cuts target education, labor, and health programs.2
The worst cuts and riders didn't make it into the budget—but that was the Republican plan all along: propose the unthinkable, threaten to shut down the government, and then walk away with cuts that would have been beyond the pale just a few months ago.
Now Republicans are pushing a new round of proposals to abolish Medicare and make far deeper cuts to education, nutrition, health care, and other essential programs—while giving even bigger tax breaks to millionaires and corporations. And this time, after winning so much in the last round, the Republicans actually have a shot at getting every last cut they want.
We need to restore a moral dimension to the warped debate going on in Washington. Sharing this video is a simple way to start.
Thanks for all you do.
–Daniel, Michael, Tate, Sarah, and the rest of the teamSources:
1. "Historic Spending Cuts the Centerpiece for Final Continuing Resolution (CR) for Fiscal Year 2011," House Committee on Appropriations, April 12, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=
2. "Budget deal: Cuts of $38 billion include accounting gimmicks, target Obama priorities," the Washington Post, April 12, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=
Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 5 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.
PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
07 April 2011
The Spiritually Viral Hunger Fast (For a Moral Budget) 7APR11
The hunger fast for a moral budget has gone spiritually viral. Ten days ago, we announced at the National Press Club that the budget debate had become a moral crisis. Prayer, fasting, and radical action are now required. Sojourners, the Alliance to End Hunger, and Bread for the World spearheaded this effort, but many more organizations, churches, and individuals have joined each day. We now have more than 30,000 participants and are still growing.From large Christian groups such as World Vision and Opportunity International, to secular groups such as Women Thrive Worldwide and the ONE campaign; from labor unions such as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which represents the poorest workers in the country, to MoveOn.org, involvement in this fast is amazingly broad. Twenty-five members of Congress will join the fast, and this work is now referenced constantly on the House floor. More members continue to join, and they plan to have at least one member fasting every day until Easter by "passing the baton" on to their colleagues.We are keeping the pressure on Congress through emails and phone calls as well as media coverage. CNN, Fox News, PBS, NPR, and many print and online outlets have highlighted the hunger fast. Every story is another opportunity to raise awareness about what is happening in Washington, D.C., and how it will affect the poor across our country and the world. Others are spreading the word by connecting with us on Facebook and Twitter.My favorite thing about these first 10 days of the fast has been the stories. For example, a doctor friend, calling with concerns about my health, said, "Well, I walked into church today and our youth group announced a 30-hour fast for the poor and a moral budget, and said they were inspired by your fast." Also, a Jewish activist joining our water fast told me he was re-reading the biblical story of Esther, who called the people to a public fast to change the king's mind. He spoke about the emotions he felt when he imagined his 2-year-old daughter having the hunger pangs he was now experiencing. Low-income workers from my hometown of Detroit, Michigan came to one of our congressional events to thank us for fasting, and to say they were joining us.Finally, we were given a very generous gift from Christ House, a 24-hour residential medical facility for homeless men and women in Washington, D.C., founded by the Church of the Savior. Gordon Cosby, the 94-year-old founder of the church who now lives at Christ House, told me that the homeless men and women had raised the money themselves. And when Gordon said, "I am praying for you every hour," I felt ready to take on the giants of Washington for another day.The message of the fast gets clearer each day -- fasting tends to focus you, and the message is that a budget is about the choices we make. This fast is not just about cutting spending, but about the values that will determine our priorities and decisions. Should we cut $8.5 billion for low-income housing, or $8.5 billion in mortgage tax deductions for second vacation homes? Should we cut $11.2 billion in early childhood programs for poor kids, or $11.5 billion in tax cuts for millionaires' estates? Should we cut $2.5 billion in home heating assistance in winter months, or $2.5 billion in tax breaks for oil companies and off-shore drilling? This debate isn't about scarcity as much as it is about choices.This battle over a moral budget will be with us for a while, but it is bringing more and more Christians together -- from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to the Salvation Army, from the National Association of Evangelicals to the National Council of Churches, from Sojourners and Bread for the World to a growing number of other denominations and groups -- a vision and strategy is coalescing to form a "circle of protection" around the most critical and life-saving programs for the poorest and most vulnerable people in our communities.The fast has energized the faith community, poverty and hunger organizations, and secular social change groups, and has helped to spark a broad and united movement for a moral budget. With 17 days left until Easter, we are continuing to create a spiritually empowered community ready to engage in the moral battle for a better budget, a better country, and a better world in the huge political fights that lie ahead. Join the hunger fast for a moral budget, and let's make this fast spiritually viral!Jim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: A Guide for Economic and Moral Recovery, and CEO of Sojourners. He blogs at www.godspolitics.com. Follow Jim on Twitter @JimWallis.
| "These critical funds enable millions around the world to have access to food and clean water, the very basics needed for human survival. I am proud to join my colleague, friends, and over 30,000 Americans in this fast to call attention to the drastic cuts being proposed by House Republicans to critical programs and services." - Rep. Rosa DeLauro on why she and other members of Congress are joining the hunger fast for a moral budget. (Source: CNN) |
02 February 2011
An Urgent Appeal for Egypt from SOJOURNERS 2FEB11
A CALL TO ACTION FROM SOJOURNERS, CLICK THE LINK TO PARTICIPATE AND SUPPORT THE NON VIOLENT PRO DEMOCRACY FORCES IN EGYPT....
I have to admit, I’m angry. In the past few days, we have all watched the nonviolent protest in Egypt with prayer and anticipation. We have seen the hope of a young generation trying to bring democratic change to their country. We have watched with excitement to see what their efforts could mean to all those suffering from oppressive governments in the Middle East.
But now, protesters are dead. Soon, many more could die.
The streets have turned violent, with armed thugs attacking peaceful protesters. The thugs -- who credible news stories report were sent and funded by the Egyptian government -- are trying to send a message to the democratic and nonviolent protesters: You have no power, you will never win, no one cares.
We know these lies of injustice will not win in the end, but right now the situation is urgent: Something has to change. As people of faith, we must speak up on behalf of peace and democracy. The truth is that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is a thug himself, one whom the U.S. government has supported for far too long. It’s time for him to resign.
Tell President Obama: Now is the time for you to call for the immediate resignation of President Mubarak, and to support all efforts to keep the protesters safe.
The faith community in the United States needs to support our brothers and sisters standing up for their rights and their freedoms in Egypt.
And we must pray.
Pray for peace and protection in the streets. Pray for leaders who will stand up for democracy and call for nonviolence.
In solidarity,
Jim Wallis
Sojourners
 |
But now, protesters are dead. Soon, many more could die.
The streets have turned violent, with armed thugs attacking peaceful protesters. The thugs -- who credible news stories report were sent and funded by the Egyptian government -- are trying to send a message to the democratic and nonviolent protesters: You have no power, you will never win, no one cares.
We know these lies of injustice will not win in the end, but right now the situation is urgent: Something has to change. As people of faith, we must speak up on behalf of peace and democracy. The truth is that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is a thug himself, one whom the U.S. government has supported for far too long. It’s time for him to resign.
Tell President Obama: Now is the time for you to call for the immediate resignation of President Mubarak, and to support all efforts to keep the protesters safe.
The faith community in the United States needs to support our brothers and sisters standing up for their rights and their freedoms in Egypt.
And we must pray.
Pray for peace and protection in the streets. Pray for leaders who will stand up for democracy and call for nonviolence.
In solidarity,
Jim Wallis
Sojourners
29 January 2011
Our Military Spending and Spiritual Death from SOJO 27JAN 11
FROM SOJO, a honest statement on what our government must do to address the budgetary and economic crisis we are facing....
In Tuesday evening’s generally well-received State of the Union speech, President Obama appealed to the center with talk of reducing the deficit and controlling federal spending. He had many good ideas about investing in education, innovation, and clean energy. But while all of that is important, one concrete proposal raises problems.
The president urged that annual domestic spending be frozen for the next five years, even though, as he noted, domestic spending is only about 12 percent of the budget (or about $400 billion per year). There are 44 million people still in poverty and the number is increasing. There are 14.5 million people unemployed and another 11.5 million working part-time because they can’t find a full time job, or who have given up on looking for work. The U.S. population growth is about 2.5 million per year; five years from now there will 12.5 million additional people. A “freeze” in reality will mean drastic reductions in what will be necessary to meet the basic expenses of government and the needs of people. It has been said here before, but is worth saying again: Domestic spending is not the cause of our deficit.
The annual military budget, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is about $725 billion, $3 billion per week. Including the related costs of veterans benefits, other security-related spending, nuclear weapons spending, intelligence spending; the total exceeds $1 trillion per year. Yet all that was mentioned in the State of the Union about that was, “The Secretary of Defense has also agreed to cut tens of billions of dollars in spending that he and his generals believe our military can do without.” No specific cuts, not even a commitment to a freeze.
More than 40 years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. warned us that, “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” With the trajectory we’re on, we will be more than just approaching spiritual death in 2015 — we’ll be almost there. And proposals to cut government spending that do not include significant cuts in military spending are contributing to that death.
Duane Shank is senior policy advisor at Sojourners.
The president urged that annual domestic spending be frozen for the next five years, even though, as he noted, domestic spending is only about 12 percent of the budget (or about $400 billion per year). There are 44 million people still in poverty and the number is increasing. There are 14.5 million people unemployed and another 11.5 million working part-time because they can’t find a full time job, or who have given up on looking for work. The U.S. population growth is about 2.5 million per year; five years from now there will 12.5 million additional people. A “freeze” in reality will mean drastic reductions in what will be necessary to meet the basic expenses of government and the needs of people. It has been said here before, but is worth saying again: Domestic spending is not the cause of our deficit.
The annual military budget, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is about $725 billion, $3 billion per week. Including the related costs of veterans benefits, other security-related spending, nuclear weapons spending, intelligence spending; the total exceeds $1 trillion per year. Yet all that was mentioned in the State of the Union about that was, “The Secretary of Defense has also agreed to cut tens of billions of dollars in spending that he and his generals believe our military can do without.” No specific cuts, not even a commitment to a freeze.
More than 40 years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. warned us that, “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” With the trajectory we’re on, we will be more than just approaching spiritual death in 2015 — we’ll be almost there. And proposals to cut government spending that do not include significant cuts in military spending are contributing to that death.
Duane Shank is senior policy advisor at Sojourners.
21 January 2011
After Tucson, the State of the Union from SOJOURNERS 20JAN11
WELL said, and I have to try harder to be more civil in my speech as well as my postings on this blog. This from Sojourners.......
"So let us begin anew -- remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate. Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us."
- John F. Kennedy's inaugural address, January 20, 1961. (Source: American Rhetoric)
After Tucson, the State of the Union
In Tucson, Arizona, President Obama spoke to the state of the nation's soul. Next Tuesday, January 25, he will speak to the state of the union. But these two topics are not as separate as they might seem. Presidents often use the State of the Union as a moment to talk about who we are, who we are not, and who we can be as a nation. Democratic Senator Charles Schumer and Republican Senator Tom Coburn will sit next to one another during the president's State of the Union as a testament to where both of these senators -- who have significant disagreements -- hope our nation's soul will come to rest. I share their hope for our nation.
The speech Barack Obama gave in Tucson was a memorial to the victims of a horrible tragedy, but the spirit of his speech could also shape Tuesday's State of the Union address by calling us to be worthy of each victim's sacrifice. The political leaders of the nation have shown signs of wanting a more civil discourse, and there have even been signs of reflection and re-examination in some of our media forums. The president should continue to build on this fresh, but still frail, desire for less rancor and a more democratic conversation.
The State of the Union could be a good time to call us to move beyond the exaggeration, caricature, misinformation, and demonization that occur too often in our public discourse today. Instead, President Obama could call us to clarify honest disagreements and identify potential points of unity.
Wouldn't we all rather see the end of a recession defined by more jobs on Main Street, rather than by more profit on Wall Street? Wouldn't we all like to create jobs using methods favored by both liberals and conservatives?
Couldn't now be a time to reaffirm a national commitment to care for the widow, the orphan, and the marginalized? Couldn't we agree that Social Security is good for society, and discuss the best means to make sure it is strengthened and available for today's seniors who need it, and for generations to come?
Can't we agree to hold our biggest banks and corporations accountable to simple standards of fairness and decency, without being anti-business in ways that hurt our economy?
Wouldn't we all like to see a broken immigration system (that both parties are responsible for neglecting) reformed in a humane way, rather than hear fruitless debates over extreme views on deportation versus amnesty?
Can't we all agree that we want more people covered by health care; the most egregious practices of health-care industry reformed; and the costs of health care better controlled? Can't we work to mend the health-care reform bill, rather than participate in the partisan, symbolic, shrill, and inconsequential battles over repealing it?
Can we agree that the deficit is a moral issue, but so are the ways we choose to reduce it? Can we agree not to resolve our deficit by making our most vulnerable citizens even more vulnerable? Can we agree that powerful special interest groups should not be allowed to keep their interests off the table of scrutiny?
Can't we see that the costs of the war in Afghanistan fall on too few families; that 10 years of the same policy is enough; and that in a time of deficit, an endless war is simply unsustainable? Instead, can we talk about our responsibility to the people of Afghanistan, to our own over-stretched veterans, and to our need for "nation-building" at home?
All of this may be far too hopeful, and I certainly don't want to be simplistic. But in the field of conflict resolution, there is a common and very effective technique that is often employed: You have to state the opinion of your adversary repeatedly until they agree that you understand their position, and that they have been heard correctly. Continuing to exaggerate, distort, misrepresent, and attack the other's position or opinions will not help resolve conflicts.
I often wonder if this same discipline needs to be used in solving the nation's biggest problems. Until we have listened long enough, carefully enough, and respectfully enough to the legitimate concerns of the other side, we will never accurately understand the issues, problems, disagreements, and ways we can find possible common ground -- or, at least, the necessary compromises. Even when there are clear clashes of interests that must be debated, won, or lost, it is still helpful to understand what those differences really are.
On Tuesday, the president can help call us to a new and better national discourse. He can, and should, state his own visions, goals, and priorities, and then invite the other side to offer their own in the days ahead. Maybe, just maybe, Tucson will help us change the terms, tactics, and tenor of our political battles. And the president has the opportunity to lead the way.
Jim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street -- A Moral Compass for the New Economy, and CEO of Sojourners. He blogs at www.godspolitics.com. Follow Jim on Twitter @JimWallis.
"So let us begin anew -- remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate. Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us."
- John F. Kennedy's inaugural address, January 20, 1961. (Source: American Rhetoric)
After Tucson, the State of the Union
The speech Barack Obama gave in Tucson was a memorial to the victims of a horrible tragedy, but the spirit of his speech could also shape Tuesday's State of the Union address by calling us to be worthy of each victim's sacrifice. The political leaders of the nation have shown signs of wanting a more civil discourse, and there have even been signs of reflection and re-examination in some of our media forums. The president should continue to build on this fresh, but still frail, desire for less rancor and a more democratic conversation.
The State of the Union could be a good time to call us to move beyond the exaggeration, caricature, misinformation, and demonization that occur too often in our public discourse today. Instead, President Obama could call us to clarify honest disagreements and identify potential points of unity.
Wouldn't we all rather see the end of a recession defined by more jobs on Main Street, rather than by more profit on Wall Street? Wouldn't we all like to create jobs using methods favored by both liberals and conservatives?
Couldn't now be a time to reaffirm a national commitment to care for the widow, the orphan, and the marginalized? Couldn't we agree that Social Security is good for society, and discuss the best means to make sure it is strengthened and available for today's seniors who need it, and for generations to come?
Can't we agree to hold our biggest banks and corporations accountable to simple standards of fairness and decency, without being anti-business in ways that hurt our economy?
Wouldn't we all like to see a broken immigration system (that both parties are responsible for neglecting) reformed in a humane way, rather than hear fruitless debates over extreme views on deportation versus amnesty?
Can't we all agree that we want more people covered by health care; the most egregious practices of health-care industry reformed; and the costs of health care better controlled? Can't we work to mend the health-care reform bill, rather than participate in the partisan, symbolic, shrill, and inconsequential battles over repealing it?
Can we agree that the deficit is a moral issue, but so are the ways we choose to reduce it? Can we agree not to resolve our deficit by making our most vulnerable citizens even more vulnerable? Can we agree that powerful special interest groups should not be allowed to keep their interests off the table of scrutiny?
Can't we see that the costs of the war in Afghanistan fall on too few families; that 10 years of the same policy is enough; and that in a time of deficit, an endless war is simply unsustainable? Instead, can we talk about our responsibility to the people of Afghanistan, to our own over-stretched veterans, and to our need for "nation-building" at home?
All of this may be far too hopeful, and I certainly don't want to be simplistic. But in the field of conflict resolution, there is a common and very effective technique that is often employed: You have to state the opinion of your adversary repeatedly until they agree that you understand their position, and that they have been heard correctly. Continuing to exaggerate, distort, misrepresent, and attack the other's position or opinions will not help resolve conflicts.
I often wonder if this same discipline needs to be used in solving the nation's biggest problems. Until we have listened long enough, carefully enough, and respectfully enough to the legitimate concerns of the other side, we will never accurately understand the issues, problems, disagreements, and ways we can find possible common ground -- or, at least, the necessary compromises. Even when there are clear clashes of interests that must be debated, won, or lost, it is still helpful to understand what those differences really are.
On Tuesday, the president can help call us to a new and better national discourse. He can, and should, state his own visions, goals, and priorities, and then invite the other side to offer their own in the days ahead. Maybe, just maybe, Tucson will help us change the terms, tactics, and tenor of our political battles. And the president has the opportunity to lead the way.
Jim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street -- A Moral Compass for the New Economy, and CEO of Sojourners. He blogs at www.godspolitics.com. Follow Jim on Twitter @JimWallis.
14 January 2011
Guantanamo: When Will It Get Foreclosed? from SOJO 14JAN11
WHILE Pres Obama prepares to meet with the prc's pres hu, (see my earlier post AHEAD OF VISIT BY CHINA'S HU, OBAMA MEETS WITH ADVOCATES FOR HUMAN RIGHTS 14JAN11) and plans to raise the issue of human rights in the prc the U.S. government has one of it's own glaring, hypocritical human rights issue, GUANTANAMO, or GITMO if you prefer. Our own government is guilty of violations of human rights and civil rights as provided by our own constitution as well as by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention. This travesty of justice has to end, the government has to stop kow-towing to those right wing fanatics who use the alleged terrorist held at Gitmo to spread fear and resolve this problem by bringing these people to the U.S. mainland and grant them trials to face the charges against them. The federal court system has already convicted over 440 terrorist without incident in U.S. civilian courts, there is no reason not to trust our judicial system to hold fair trials for these other detainees. From SOJO......
photo © 2005 Peter Burgess | more info
Please keep in your prayers those who are fasting and praying at the U.S. capitol between January 11 to 21, keeping vigil for the closing of the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo. As an opening to their prayer vigil Wednesday, they engaged in a little prophetic street theater in front of the Justice Department.
In August 2007, candidate Obama promised to close Guantanamo, saying, “As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists.”
In January 2009, one of President Obama’s first official acts was to sign an executive order promising to close Guantanamo within one year. “This is me following through on not just a commitment I made during the campaign, but I think an understanding that dates back to our founding fathers, that we are willing to observe core standards of conduct, not just when it’s easy, but also when it’s hard,” he said.
Christians and others are taking the lead in holding President Obama accountable for his pledge.
Rose Marie Berger, an associate editor at Sojourners, blogs at www.rosemarieberger.com. She’s the author of Who Killed Donte Manning? The Story of an American Neighborhood available at store.sojo.net.
photo © 2005 Peter Burgess | more info Please keep in your prayers those who are fasting and praying at the U.S. capitol between January 11 to 21, keeping vigil for the closing of the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo. As an opening to their prayer vigil Wednesday, they engaged in a little prophetic street theater in front of the Justice Department.
In August 2007, candidate Obama promised to close Guantanamo, saying, “As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists.”
In January 2009, one of President Obama’s first official acts was to sign an executive order promising to close Guantanamo within one year. “This is me following through on not just a commitment I made during the campaign, but I think an understanding that dates back to our founding fathers, that we are willing to observe core standards of conduct, not just when it’s easy, but also when it’s hard,” he said.
Christians and others are taking the lead in holding President Obama accountable for his pledge.
A group of 173 human rights activists, each wearing an orange jumpsuit and a black hood and representing the remaining 173 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, rallied in front of the White House on Tuesday to mark the ninth anniversary of the detention center’s opening and to protest the Obama administration’s inability to close it.Last January 2010 passed and we now move into a second year of with 173 men and boys still held in an extrajudicial setting. Obama has learned that the issue “is complicated.” Indeed it is. But it must be done. America’s democracy requires that we “observe core standards of conduct, not just when it’s easy, but also when it’s hard.”
“Detainees, halt!” yelled Carmen Trotta, a volunteer with the group Witness Against Torture, who wore military fatigues as he gathered the protesters in Lafayette Park. “Turn left. Face the home of your captor.”
The rally and street theater were organized by a coalition of groups — including Amnesty International, the Center for Constitutional Rights and September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows — that are calling on the administration to either try Guantanamo Bay detainees in federal court or release them.
“We believe in and promote the rule of law,” said Valerie Lucznikowska, whose nephew was killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and who described the military detention center in Cuba as a “living stain on America.”
Rose Marie Berger, an associate editor at Sojourners, blogs at www.rosemarieberger.com. She’s the author of Who Killed Donte Manning? The Story of an American Neighborhood available at store.sojo.net.
11 January 2011
SIGN THE PEACE AND CIVILITY PLEDGE from SOJOURNERS 11JAN11
The mission of Sojourners is to articulate the biblical call to social justice, inspiring hope and building a movement to transform individuals, communities, the church, and the world. |
 | |||||||||
| |||||||||
10 December 2010
What Does God Think of Economic Equality? from SOJO 6DEZ10
THE only disagreement I have with this article is the statement that early Christians practiced an early form of socialism.....ACTUALLY they were practicing Christianity, socialism is the humanist adaptation of Christian principles and teachings.
In American evangelical circles, there’s an idea that goes something like this: progressive taxation = socialism, and socialism = satanic. Never mind the fact that both Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith (the founder of modern capitalism) favored progressive taxation, I’m wondering where we got the idea that political structures aiming for economic equality — or at least some semblance of economic equality — are a bad thing?
One of the reasons that many evangelicals believe the apostles never attacked the institution of slavery directly is because they wanted slavery to lose its grip in the community of the church first so that society would eventually follow suit. Might the same principle also apply to economic equality? We know that early Christians in the book of Acts practiced a form of voluntary socialism, but how much have we pondered what the apostle Paul says in 2 Corinthians 8:13-14?
Think about it.
Aaron D. Taylor is the author of Alone with A Jihadist: A Biblical Response to Holy War. To learn more about Aaron’s ministry, go to www.aarondtaylor.com. To follow Aaron on Twitter, go to www.twitter.com/aarondtaylor. Aaron can be contacted at fromdeathtolife@gmail.com. If you would like the contact information of the aid worker that wrote this report, please contact Aaron Taylor at fromdeathtolife@gmail.com
In American evangelical circles, there’s an idea that goes something like this: progressive taxation = socialism, and socialism = satanic. Never mind the fact that both Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith (the founder of modern capitalism) favored progressive taxation, I’m wondering where we got the idea that political structures aiming for economic equality — or at least some semblance of economic equality — are a bad thing?
One of the reasons that many evangelicals believe the apostles never attacked the institution of slavery directly is because they wanted slavery to lose its grip in the community of the church first so that society would eventually follow suit. Might the same principle also apply to economic equality? We know that early Christians in the book of Acts practiced a form of voluntary socialism, but how much have we pondered what the apostle Paul says in 2 Corinthians 8:13-14?
“Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality. At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in turn their plenty will supply what you need. The goal is equality … ” (italics emphasis mine)I think it’s a devastating indictment on the way things are today that we don’t even aim for this in our churches — but I digress. Here’s my question: If God’s vision for the body of Christ is economic equality, then what does that say about God’s vision for society at large?
Think about it.
Aaron D. Taylor is the author of Alone with A Jihadist: A Biblical Response to Holy War. To learn more about Aaron’s ministry, go to www.aarondtaylor.com. To follow Aaron on Twitter, go to www.twitter.com/aarondtaylor. Aaron can be contacted at fromdeathtolife@gmail.com. If you would like the contact information of the aid worker that wrote this report, please contact Aaron Taylor at fromdeathtolife@gmail.com
19 November 2010
Entitlement Hypocrisy & GOP frosh: Where's my health care? from SOJO 18NOV10 & POLITICO 16NOV10
ANOTHER example of the hypocrisy of the gop elect and how the tea-baggers were played by politicians who are out for themselves. The blatant hypocrisy of Dr. Harris is galling, but not surprising....we can only expect more of the same in the next session of Congress.
You might think that those who spent their campaigns telling their constituents that they would work to appeal “Obamacare” — just another government entitlement – would either think that health care isn’t important, or that it’s okay for people to be uninsured, or that they clearly would not accept government subsidized health care for themselves or their families.
Well, that apparently that is not the case for Dr. Andy Harris, a newly elected Congressman from Maryland’s Eastern Shore. According to Politico, Dr. Harris, “an anesthesiologist, reacted incredulously when he was informed that federal law mandated that his government-subsidized health care policy would take effect on Feb 1 — 28 days after his January 3 swearing in.”
Okay, so I don’t know about you, but I think I’m pretty sure that I am like most Americans who have had to go without health insurance at one time or another. Most folks like me who have been without insurance, did so because there was a waiting period between their hire date and when insurance kicks in. (While I was permitted to purchase insurance from my previous employer through COBRA — I couldn’t afford it.)
Apparently, though, Dr. Harris has never needed to purchase insurance, at least until now. He wasn’t aware that COBRA allows him to purchase insurance for himself and his family so that they won’t be without insurance until the new policy kicks in. Because of that, he apparently went ballistic when he found out that his new government subsidized health insurance would not kick in until February 1st. He, like all of us, does not want his family to go without health care insurance coverage. I’m guessing he is intimately aware of what surgery and anesthesiology services cost to people who don’t have insurance — or how difficult it is for people without insurance to get care if they have an accident, injury, or illness while they are uninsured.
Well, lucky for you, Dr. Harris — if you or a member of your family has an illness or injury while you are uninsured (which fortunately for you, your family won’t need to be) or insured by a different health insurance provider, you will still be able to get coverage because “Obamacare” prevents health care providers from denying you coverage because of a “pre-existing condition.”
Know what else Dr. Harris? “Obamacare” ensures that all health care insurance cannot be canceled or terminated because you or your wife or your children get seriously ill and the cost of care exceeds what the health insurance provider is willing to cover. Did you know, Dr. Harris, that many people prior to this have had their insurance canceled simply because they got seriously ill?
So which part of government-subsidized health care don’t you like? You seem to like it so much that you don’t think you should have to do what every other federal employee who receives federal health care has to do — wait for your health care to kick in until the first day of the first full month of your employment. You know, we could probably convince the health insurance companies to insure all federal workers the day their employment commences, but at what cost to American taxpayers?
So I’m not sure which part of “Obamacare” you don’t like. If you are like most in your party, you probably don’t think that employers should have to cover their employees or pay a tax to cover the cost of their health care that is passed on to the U.S. taxpayers. And another argument is that the government should not tell health care insurance providers what they must or must not do. But apparently, you want the government to require health insurance providers to cover you and your family immediately.
Call me clairvoyant, but I’m also guessing that you’ll be voting to cut Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare in order to address the federal deficit, but voting to extend tax cuts to people (like you) who are in the top 2 percent of wage earners in this country. (No conflict of interest there.) You’ll be interested in making sure that widows living on $25,000 per year are not taking advantage of entitlements. Because you know, we need to cut “entitlement” spending. But I’m guessing that you would not want us to cut the health care insurance coverage to which you are entitled as a member of Congress.
Rev. Jennifer Kottler is the Director of Policy and Advocacy at Sojourners. A long-time advocate for justice, Jennifer has served in advocacy ministry for more than eight years through her work at Protestants for the Common Good (Chicago, IL), the Let Justice Roll Living Wage Campaign, and the Chicago Jobs Council.
You might think that those who spent their campaigns telling their constituents that they would work to appeal “Obamacare” — just another government entitlement – would either think that health care isn’t important, or that it’s okay for people to be uninsured, or that they clearly would not accept government subsidized health care for themselves or their families.
Well, that apparently that is not the case for Dr. Andy Harris, a newly elected Congressman from Maryland’s Eastern Shore. According to Politico, Dr. Harris, “an anesthesiologist, reacted incredulously when he was informed that federal law mandated that his government-subsidized health care policy would take effect on Feb 1 — 28 days after his January 3 swearing in.”
Okay, so I don’t know about you, but I think I’m pretty sure that I am like most Americans who have had to go without health insurance at one time or another. Most folks like me who have been without insurance, did so because there was a waiting period between their hire date and when insurance kicks in. (While I was permitted to purchase insurance from my previous employer through COBRA — I couldn’t afford it.)
Apparently, though, Dr. Harris has never needed to purchase insurance, at least until now. He wasn’t aware that COBRA allows him to purchase insurance for himself and his family so that they won’t be without insurance until the new policy kicks in. Because of that, he apparently went ballistic when he found out that his new government subsidized health insurance would not kick in until February 1st. He, like all of us, does not want his family to go without health care insurance coverage. I’m guessing he is intimately aware of what surgery and anesthesiology services cost to people who don’t have insurance — or how difficult it is for people without insurance to get care if they have an accident, injury, or illness while they are uninsured.
Well, lucky for you, Dr. Harris — if you or a member of your family has an illness or injury while you are uninsured (which fortunately for you, your family won’t need to be) or insured by a different health insurance provider, you will still be able to get coverage because “Obamacare” prevents health care providers from denying you coverage because of a “pre-existing condition.”
Know what else Dr. Harris? “Obamacare” ensures that all health care insurance cannot be canceled or terminated because you or your wife or your children get seriously ill and the cost of care exceeds what the health insurance provider is willing to cover. Did you know, Dr. Harris, that many people prior to this have had their insurance canceled simply because they got seriously ill?
So which part of government-subsidized health care don’t you like? You seem to like it so much that you don’t think you should have to do what every other federal employee who receives federal health care has to do — wait for your health care to kick in until the first day of the first full month of your employment. You know, we could probably convince the health insurance companies to insure all federal workers the day their employment commences, but at what cost to American taxpayers?
So I’m not sure which part of “Obamacare” you don’t like. If you are like most in your party, you probably don’t think that employers should have to cover their employees or pay a tax to cover the cost of their health care that is passed on to the U.S. taxpayers. And another argument is that the government should not tell health care insurance providers what they must or must not do. But apparently, you want the government to require health insurance providers to cover you and your family immediately.
Call me clairvoyant, but I’m also guessing that you’ll be voting to cut Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare in order to address the federal deficit, but voting to extend tax cuts to people (like you) who are in the top 2 percent of wage earners in this country. (No conflict of interest there.) You’ll be interested in making sure that widows living on $25,000 per year are not taking advantage of entitlements. Because you know, we need to cut “entitlement” spending. But I’m guessing that you would not want us to cut the health care insurance coverage to which you are entitled as a member of Congress.
Rev. Jennifer Kottler is the Director of Policy and Advocacy at Sojourners. A long-time advocate for justice, Jennifer has served in advocacy ministry for more than eight years through her work at Protestants for the Common Good (Chicago, IL), the Let Justice Roll Living Wage Campaign, and the Chicago Jobs Council.
Listen13 November 2010
Christians and Bullying: Standing with Gays and Lesbians from SOJO 21SEP10
My mother used to give us kids two instructions:
1. If there is a kid on the playground that nobody else is playing with -- you play with them.
2. If there is a bully picking on other kids -- you be the one to stand up to him or her.
Those two principles have served me well. And I can almost hear my mother's voice sometimes … like now.
On Wednesday, I wore purple. I was speaking at North Park University, an evangelical Christian college, with Tim King, my colleague and a former student there. I was pleased to see them passing out purple ribbons and announcing why just before chapel.
So I joined thousands of others across the country who believe that bullying should never be tolerated at any time, at any place, or for any reason. I wore purple to commemorate "Spirit Day," in memory of the many young people who have taken their own lives as a result of harassment and bullying inflicted on them because they are gay. I wore purple because I am a follower of Christ.
A bully is a person who habitually intimidates, harasses, or commits violence against those who are smaller, weaker, or more vulnerable because of their "outsider" status. A bully stands in opposition to all of what Christ taught and lived. There is broad opposition within the Christian community to bullying, especially the sort that leads to the deaths we have seen as of late. This sort of harassment is indefensible. And the stories of young kids being so bullied that they take their own lives has been heartbreaking to hear.
But, to paraphrase Christ, if you oppose bullying, what reward will you get? Isn't everybody against it? If all you do is say that you shouldn't harass someone until they kill themselves, are you really doing more than others?
The fact that bullies target gay and lesbian people should mean that Christians give extra attention to protecting and standing up for them. The fact that any community or group of people is regularly the target of harassment and hate means Christians should be on the front line of defense against any who would attack.
But, most bullies don't know that they are bullies. A bully might think that his or her words don't matter that much or affect others that greatly. A bully might think that he or she is being funny or just kidding around. A bully might think that he or she is just saying what everyone is thinking or speaking out about what everyone thinks.
There is disagreement within the Christian community when it comes to issues of human sexuality. But, there should be a united front against all who would disrespect, disparage, or denigrate anyone created in the image of God.
I hope you will join me in prayer for the family and friends of every young person who has taken their own lives. I hope you will join me in a message of hope for any person who has been teased, harassed, or bullied by another because of his or her sexual orientation. More than that, no matter what your views of homosexuality are, I hope you will join with me in standing in the way between bullies and their victims.
At an evangelical Christian college in the Midwest, there was a lot of purple yesterday. And the airline security official who checked my boarding pass saw my purple ribbon and said, "I see you're wearing purple today, that's a good thing."
Last week, I was taking my boys to school and raised the issue of the bullying and gay teen suicides to see what they had heard about it. My 12-year-old Luke, of course, knew all about it; while 7-year-old Jack hadn't heard yet. But Jack spoke of a boy on the playground of his school who was sometimes a bully to others. Before I could say a word, Luke said to his little brother, "Now Jack, you need to talk to him. He will respect and listen to you because you are an athlete, a good student, and very popular. Kids who are strong need to be the ones who stand up for those who get bullied. Jack, part of our job is to make sure nobody gets bullied at our school. Understand?" Jack said, "Yes," and I could just feel his grandmother smiling.
In God-fearing USA, where is the decency? from USA TODAY 25OKT10
A call for civility during the mid-term election campaigning, a valid reflection after the election and something to be considered when the new congress is sworn in......
Thank goodness we have the DeMoss-Davis duo and people like Jim Wallis, leader of the progressive evangelical group Sojourners, to remind us that politics should be dedicated to the common good, not one's own party, and that civility lines the path to a higher place.
Wallis, in announcing Sojourners' civility campaign this month, laced his declaration with biblical references that show how civility should be a special calling of Christians active in the public square. Among them: James 1:19 ("Be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry"), Ephesians 4:31 ("Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice"), and Ephesians 4:25 ("Put off falsehood and speak truthfully"). Wallis also invoked the Sojourners motto: "No permanent friends, no permanent enemies, only permanent issues."
Thank goodness we have the DeMoss-Davis duo and people like Jim Wallis, leader of the progressive evangelical group Sojourners, to remind us that politics should be dedicated to the common good, not one's own party, and that civility lines the path to a higher place.
Wallis, in announcing Sojourners' civility campaign this month, laced his declaration with biblical references that show how civility should be a special calling of Christians active in the public square. Among them: James 1:19 ("Be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry"), Ephesians 4:31 ("Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice"), and Ephesians 4:25 ("Put off falsehood and speak truthfully"). Wallis also invoked the Sojourners motto: "No permanent friends, no permanent enemies, only permanent issues."
Click here to see this article at its original site: USA Today
Veterans’ Suicides and Selective Conscientious Objection from SOJO 8NOV10
NOT being a vet, I appreciate the elloquence of Logan Mehl-Laituri
This is the fourth installment of a series Logan Mehl-Laituri is writing for God’s Politics focusing on selective conscientious objection. Read his first, second, and third installments here.This week we celebrate Veterans Day. For me, it is a tragic holiday. I know many do not share that perspective. Sometimes it is easy to overlook the fact that veterans are a troubled minority, living sometimes in heartbreaking silence about the pain we bear for the things we have done or left undone in combat. When I came home in February of 2005, I was bombarded by banners thanking me for my service; service which, just days prior in the streets of Mosul, had left people dead or wounded. What was I being thanked for?
That moral ambiguity has left me and other veterans with deep moral questions about our service. Some of my compatriots, even my own team leader (a non commissioned officer) would go on to attempt suicide because the ambiguity was so overpowering. Another NCO on my team turned to crystal methamphetamine, but lower enlisted guys could only afford alcohol. We were not given the opportunity to grieve what we had done; our moral consciences were as scarred as our minds and our bodies. We were not allowed to heal properly, and society does not know how to deal with us.
The moral injury I experienced in my own unit was a mere fraction of what was then only an epidemic-to-be. That year, in 2005, CBS acquired suicide data from 45 States regarding the numbers of suicides among veterans. (The Veterans Administration lied about tracking the data.) The results were, and remain, staggering; 17 veterans successfully committed suicide every single calendar day. That is worse than any other demographic on record, and was the worst rate in our nation’s history.
Since then, we have consistently broken national records for soldier and veteran suicides. For active duty troops, more have killed themselves this year than have been killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. The rate of suicide among veterans increased 26 percent for veterans ages 18 to 29. I am certainly no statistician, but that seems to suggest that something like 21 OIF and OEF veterans killed themselves yesterday. And will do so today. And tomorrow. And the next day ….
That is no reason to celebrate. This is a reason to change the way we engage in war fighting, and how we treat those who fight in our name. Instead of trying to merely treat the symptom of suicide, we need to practice preventative care. We need to ensure that service members are provided with the opportunity to respond genuinely to their God-given consciences. We need to amend military regulations to allow those who want to serve their country honorably to do so conscientiously.
Most importantly, we need to be able to have meaningful national conversations about war’s consequence on the individual combatant. Pastors need to preach about the war, friends and family need to prepare themselves to hear about its effects, and the church needs to create the space for congregants to respond genuinely to it’s moral challenges. This Veterans Day, consider mourning the deplorable situation veterans face before celebrating our service. There is a time for joy, and there is a time for grief, but until we can curb the epidemic of suicide, I see little cause for celebration.
Logan Mehl-Laituri is an Army veteran with combatant service in Iraq during OIF II and has experience with Christian Peacemaker Teams in Israel and the West Bank. He blogs sporadically and is a co-founder of Centurion’s Guild. The second public hearing for the Truth Commission on Conscience in War will be held November 11-12, 2010, in Washington, D.C. Learn more at www.conscienceinwar.org.F.B.I. Busts Child Prostitution Rings. You Can Help from SOJO 11NOV10
LOOK AT YOUR CHILDREN, YOUR GRANDCHILDREN, NIECES, NEPHEWS, COUSINS, AND IMAGINE THEM BEING FORCED TO WORK AS SEX SLAVES, ABUSED AND NEGLECTED. THEN JUSTIFY NOT PARTICIPATING IN THIS CAMPAIGN TO COMBAT CHILD TRAFFICKING.
On Monday, a U.S. federal crackdown on prostitution resulted in 884 arrests and the emancipation of 69 children who were forced to work in sex trafficking. Of the estimated 27 million people in modern slavery worldwide, more than half are women or children. At least 2 million children are trafficked into sexual servitude or bonded labor every year.
We are not powerless to fight human trafficking -- you can help make a difference by supporting the Child Protection Compact Act (H.R.2737; S.3184), which was specifically written to combat child slavery.
+Ask your member of Congress to combat child trafficking around the world by supporting this legislation.
On Monday, a U.S. federal crackdown on prostitution resulted in 884 arrests and the emancipation of 69 children who were forced to work in sex trafficking. Of the estimated 27 million people in modern slavery worldwide, more than half are women or children. At least 2 million children are trafficked into sexual servitude or bonded labor every year.
We are not powerless to fight human trafficking -- you can help make a difference by supporting the Child Protection Compact Act (H.R.2737; S.3184), which was specifically written to combat child slavery.
+Ask your member of Congress to combat child trafficking around the world by supporting this legislation.
14 October 2010
Patriotism and Idolatry 11OKT10 from SOJO & PATHEOS
AN interesting post on patriotism and idolatry, mainly regarding Christianity and patriotism and the U.S.A.
This meditation is part of a dialog on Patheos.com about the question, “So, when does patriotism pass over into idolatry?”
Idolatry is often subtle. I’ve never walked into a Church to see the cross replaced with a golden calf. It’s not that blatant. Idolatry replaces God with anything that is less than God, even if that thing is pretty good.
I would define patriotism as the love of country and to desire and work for its good. It is a good thing. Patriotism passes into idolatry if Christianity is reduced to a means of achieving the good of country, or love of country comes to mean the same thing as love of God and neighbor.
There are two primary ways we can slip into idolatry: through theology or fervor. Our theology, for starters, needs to distinguish between what it means to be an American citizen and a Christian; between the hope of Christ and the will of God for America. It needs to say how we love God and neighbor first and still love country.
When it comes to fervor, we can’t allow our political passions to cloud Christian discernment. For example, Christians should be concerned about our national security. But, that does not mean anything our country does in the name of national security is Christian or moral. Christians should be concerned about the poor. But, that does not mean anything our country does in the name of helping the poor is right. God desires America to be secure and just (as God does of the whole world), but Christianity is not to be reduced to something useful merely to these ends.
Idolatry can creep up on you. For personal accountability, I try to be in regular contact and relationship with Christians who share different political opinions, especially Christians living in different countries. Having close friends and family who passionately disagree with my politics has helped me discern between my political fervor and Christian conviction. Having friends whose patriotism is directed at a different nation-state, but who still share my faith, has helped me distinguish between my love of God and my love of country.
Tim King is communications manager and special assistant to the CEO at Sojourners. Follow Tim on Twitter @TMKing. See other entries in this debate at Patheos.com.
This meditation is part of a dialog on Patheos.com about the question, “So, when does patriotism pass over into idolatry?”
Idolatry is often subtle. I’ve never walked into a Church to see the cross replaced with a golden calf. It’s not that blatant. Idolatry replaces God with anything that is less than God, even if that thing is pretty good.
I would define patriotism as the love of country and to desire and work for its good. It is a good thing. Patriotism passes into idolatry if Christianity is reduced to a means of achieving the good of country, or love of country comes to mean the same thing as love of God and neighbor.
There are two primary ways we can slip into idolatry: through theology or fervor. Our theology, for starters, needs to distinguish between what it means to be an American citizen and a Christian; between the hope of Christ and the will of God for America. It needs to say how we love God and neighbor first and still love country.
When it comes to fervor, we can’t allow our political passions to cloud Christian discernment. For example, Christians should be concerned about our national security. But, that does not mean anything our country does in the name of national security is Christian or moral. Christians should be concerned about the poor. But, that does not mean anything our country does in the name of helping the poor is right. God desires America to be secure and just (as God does of the whole world), but Christianity is not to be reduced to something useful merely to these ends.
Idolatry can creep up on you. For personal accountability, I try to be in regular contact and relationship with Christians who share different political opinions, especially Christians living in different countries. Having close friends and family who passionately disagree with my politics has helped me discern between my political fervor and Christian conviction. Having friends whose patriotism is directed at a different nation-state, but who still share my faith, has helped me distinguish between my love of God and my love of country.
Tim King is communications manager and special assistant to the CEO at Sojourners. Follow Tim on Twitter @TMKing. See other entries in this debate at Patheos.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)