19 posts tagged with "justice"

Save Darfur Coalition just called me. And thanked me for being so pleasant on the phone. How sad. Its not like it was a cold call — I've supported them in the past and thus have a reasonable expectation that they'll try to contact me in the future. Why are they calling? Because apparently the conditions in Darfur are deteriorating. Do I believe the woman on the phone? Well, the Times reports that Violence Said to Be Rising in Sudan’s Darfur Region (2010-08-05). At this point Sudan is as much a powder-keg as ever, with secession of the south likely next year, renewed civil war equally likely. The Save Darfur Coalition< is helping spread awareness of, and global pressure on, the Sudanese government's grave abuses (killings, rapes, and other human rights violations). My money will not do much to stop the situation. But public pressure does make a difference, and I'll provide a small amount to help keep that pressure steady.

Meanwhile, Pakistan is also calling, though not literally. The flooding has been absolutely terrible, and relief agencies expect that hunger and isolation will be extreme in the coming months. Time to step up and show the love again for Pakistan (dead link removed; SF 2025 removed). Unicef, World Food Programm, International Committee of the Red Cross, Oxfam, etc. — let's all give one of them a cold call, only to give rather than receive.

More to the point, who is human, and what is normal? And, can a computer have "human" rights? These are deep philosophical questions with real-world (or potential real-world) application, as shown in How About Not 'Curing' Us, Some Autistics Are Pleading (NY Times) and in Man and the Machines (dead link removed; SF 2025) (Legal Affairs). And what about animals that possess "theory of mind?"

I have traditionally been an apologist for the United Nations, but lately I have been forced to question my unconditional support. While the U.N.'s mission is entirely laudable, its execution — particularly in regards to peacekeeping — seems to fall short. We have seen U.N. failures in Korea, Vietnam, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and more. What has brought this about? Is the whole system flawed? Who is more to blame — the bureaucracy or the nations that are "united"? Perhaps these are not the questions to ask. Instead, I suggest that we ask — where is the grassroots appeal, and where is the recognition of human spirituality?

Thank God that the U.N. Security Council has chosen to act on the Darfur crisis. The internal conflict has been resolved — with Algeria, China, Pakistan, and Russia abstaining — and specific sanctions, investigations, and new legal obligations have now been imposed on Sudan. Its too bad we can't get this done elsewhere in the world, as Darfur is really just the current poster child of global conflict.

Just as a negotiated-peace began to take hold in southern Sudan, a new crisis arose in the western Darfur region this past winter and spring. Half a year after escalation of the atrocities, estimates of the dead range from 30,000 to 50,000, and well over a million people have been internally or externally displaced. Men and boys have been systematically murdered; worse yet, a conscious effort at genocide has once again turned to mass rape of the remaining women. International response has been harsh yet guarded, and far too slow. We must push our political leaders to appropriate action under international law. [This editorial is specifically focused on religious and interfaith communities].

"The well being of mankind, its peace and security, are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established." ~Bahá'u'lláh

The concept of world peace is surely not new to you. The idea that it just might come about — now that is a revolutionary concept.

"When you look at marriage, it's between a man and a woman," Ms. Goldford said. "Biblically, homosexuality isn't in the plan." (today's New York Times). I'm sorry Ms. Goldford, but we do not live in a theocracy. Please base your vote on secular arguments. Unfortunately I'm too late for my elementary-years-state-of-residence: Missouri voters have approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. And probably based mostly on the simple religious truism above.

As a matter of religious conviction —and standard English language definition (this definition has shifted since the post was originally written) — I have never felt that the term "gay marriage" meant much of anything, and would, perhaps, even call it an oxymoron. When the government, however, tries to step in and reinforce that definition with legal statutes, I immediately react against it as an unwarranted and discriminatory encroachment upon civil rights.

I understand that this is, for many, a large and complex issue that deserves real thought and consideration. I welcome the debate in the Senate, and trust that this august body will realize that a "marriage amendment" is not in keeping with the spirit and text of the Constitution of the United States—the most powerful secular document ever conceived. I acknowledge that there are instances where the federal government must act to protect the public safety and in doing so, moral questions do at times come up. Nevertheless, I cannot see that the banning of "gay marriages" is a matter for federal jurisdiction or concern; I cannot see that it is a matter of such overwhelming importance to the continued functioning of our society that it should be enshrined in our Constitution.