Social Concerns of the Church in the World


Counting the cost: War Dead in Iraq.

The Guardian, UK, March 27, By Richard Horton

The "Lancet" figures have now been vindicated by the government's own advisers. It's time we held our leaders to account for the 650,000 Iraqi dead.

Our collective failure has been to take our political leaders at their word. This week, the BBC reported that the government's own scientists advised ministers that the Johns Hopkins study on Iraq civilian mortality was accurate and reliable. This paper was published in the Lancet last October. It estimated that 650,000 Iraqi civilians had died since the American- and British-led invasion in March 2003.

Immediately after publication, the prime minister's official spokesman said that The Lancet's study "was not one we believe to be anywhere near accurate". The foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, said that the Lancet figures were "extrapolated" and a "leap". President Bush said: "I don't consider it a credible report".

Scientists at the UK's Department for International Development thought differently. They concluded that the study's methods were "tried and tested". Indeed, the Hopkins approach would likely lead to an "underestimation of mortality".

The Ministry of Defence's chief scientific advisor said the research was "robust", close to "best practice", and "balanced". He recommended "caution in publicly criticising the study".

When these recommendations went to the prime minister's advisers, they were horrified. One person briefing Tony Blair wrote: "are we really sure that the report is likely to be right? That is certainly what the brief implies?" A Foreign Office official was forced to conclude that the government "should not be rubbishing The Lancet".

The prime minister's adviser finally gave in. He wrote: "the survey methodology used here cannot be rubbished, it is a tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones".

How would the government respond?

Would it welcome the Hopkins study as an important contribution to understanding the military threat to Iraqi civilians? Would it ask for urgent independent verification? Would it invite the Iraqi government to upgrade civilian security?

Of course, our government did none of these things. Tony Blair was advised to say: "the overriding message is that there are no accurate or reliable figures of deaths in Iraq".

His official spokesman went further and rejected the Hopkins report entirely. It was a shameful and cowardly dissembling by a Labour - yes, by a Labour - prime minister.

Indeed, it was even contrary to the Americans' own Iraq Study Group report, which concluded last year that "there is significant underreporting of the violence in Iraq".

This Labour government, which includes Gordon Brown as much as it does Tony Blair, is party to a war crime of monstrous proportions. Yet our political consensus prevents any judicial or civil society response. Britain is paralysed by its own indifference.

At a time when we are celebrating our enlightened abolition of slavery 200 years ago, we are continuing to commit one of the worst international abuses of human rights of the past half-century. It is inexplicable how we allowed this to happen. It is inexplicable why we are not demanding this government's mass resignation.

Two hundred years from now, the Iraq war will be mourned as the moment when Britain violated its delicate democratic constitution and joined the ranks of nations that use extreme pre-emptive killing as a tactic of foreign policy. Some anniversary that will be.

A Muslim perspective on Islamic
and Christian fundamentalism.



ExxonMobil Disinformation Campaign On Global Warming Science


The burning of oil and other fossil fuels results in additional atmospheric carbon dioxide that blankets the Earth and traps heat. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased greatly over the last century and global temperatures are rising as a result. Though solutions are available now that will cut global warming emissions while creating jobs, saving consumers money, and protecting our national security, ExxonMobil has manufactured confusion around climate change science, and these actions have helped to forestall meaningful action that could minimize the impacts of future climate change.

by Staff Writers,
Washington DC (SPX) Jan 05, 2007.

A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.

"ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer," said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' Director of Strategy and Policy. "A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years."

Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to "Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change details how the oil company, like the tobacco industry in previous decades, has

- raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence - funded an array of front organizations to create the appearance of a broad platform for a tight-knit group of vocal climate change contrarians who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings - attempted to portray its opposition to action as a positive quest for "sound science" rather than business self-interest - used its access to the Bush administration to block federal policies and shape government communications on global warming

ExxonMobil-funded organizations consist of an overlapping collection of individuals serving as staff, board members, and scientific advisors that publish and re-publish the works of a small group of climate change contrarians. The George C. Marshall Institute, for instance, which has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil, recently touted a book edited by Patrick Michaels, a long-time climate change contrarian who is affiliated with at least 11 organizations funded by ExxonMobil. Similarly, ExxonMobil funds a number of lesser-known groups such as the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy and Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. Both groups promote the work of several climate change contrarians, including Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist who is affiliated with at least nine ExxonMobil-funded groups.

Baliunas is best known for a 2003 paper alleging the climate had not changed significantly in the past millennia that was rebutted by 13 scientists who stated she had misrepresented their work in her paper. This renunciation did not stop ExxonMobil-funded groups from continuing to promote the paper. Through methods such as these, ExxonMobil has been able to amplify and prop up work that has been discredited by reputable climate scientists.

"When one looks closely, ExxonMobil's underhanded strategy is as clear and indisputable as the scientific research it's meant to discredit," said Seth Shulman, an investigative journalist who wrote the UCS report. "The paper trail shows that, to serve its corporate interests, ExxonMobil has built a vast echo chamber of seemingly independent groups with the express purpose of spreading disinformation about global warming."

ExxonMobil has used the laudable goal of improving scientific understanding of global warming-under the guise of "sound science"-for the pernicious ends of delaying action to reduce heat-trapping emissions indefinitely. ExxonMobil also exerted unprecedented influence over U.S. policy on global warming, from successfully recommending the appointment of key personnel in the Bush administration to funding climate change deniers in Congress.

"As a scientist, I like to think that facts will prevail, and they do eventually," said Dr. James McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography at Harvard University and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's working group on climate change impacts. "It's shameful that ExxonMobil has sought to obscure the facts for so long when the future of our planet depends on the steps we take now and in the coming years."

The burning of oil and other fossil fuels results in additional atmospheric carbon dioxide that blankets the Earth and traps heat. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased greatly over the last century and global temperatures are rising as a result. Though solutions are available now that will cut global warming emissions while creating jobs, saving consumers money, and protecting our national security, ExxonMobil has manufactured confusion around climate change science, and these actions have helped to forestall meaningful action that could minimize the impacts of future climate change.

"ExxonMobil needs to be held accountable for its cynical disinformation campaign on global warming," said Meyer. "Consumers, shareholders and Congress should let the company know loud and clear that its behavior on this issue is unacceptable and must change."

Formed in 1969, the Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.




We cannot afford to maintain these ancient prejudices against Islam

Karen Armstrong
Monday September 18th, 2006
The Guardian Newspaper (UK).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1874653,00.html

In the 12th century, Peter the Venerable, Abbot of Cluny, initiated a dialogue with the Islamic world. "I approach you not with arms, but with words," he wrote to the Muslims whom he imagined reading his book, "not with force, but with reason, not with hatred, but with love." Yet his treatise was entitled Summary of the Whole Heresy of the Diabolical Sect of the Saracens and segued repeatedly into spluttering intransigence. Words failed Peter when he contemplated the "bestial cruelty" of Islam, which, he claimed, had established itself by the sword. Was Muhammad a true prophet? "I shall be worse than a donkey if I agree," he expostulated, "worse than cattle if I assent!"

Peter was writing at the time of the Crusades. Even when Christians were trying to be fair, their entrenched loathing of Islam made it impossible for them to approach it objectively. For Peter, Islam was so self-evidently evil that it did not seem to occur to him that the Muslims he approached with such "love" might be offended by his remarks. This medieval cast of mind is still alive and well.

Last week, Pope Benedict XVI quoted, without qualification and with apparent approval, the words of the 14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." The Vatican seemed bemused by the Muslim outrage occasioned by the Pope's words, claiming that the Holy Father had simply intended "to cultivate an attitude of respect and dialogue toward the other religions and cultures, and obviously also towards Islam".

But the Pope's good intentions seem far from obvious. Hatred of Islam is so ubiquitous and so deeply rooted in western culture that it brings together people who are usually at daggers drawn. Neither the Danish cartoonists, who published the offensive caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad last February, nor the Christian fundamentalists who have called him a paedophile and a terrorist, would ordinarily make common cause with the Pope; yet on the subject of Islam they are in full agreement.

Our Islamophobia dates back to the time of the Crusades, and is entwined with our chronic anti-semitism. Some of the first Crusaders began their journey to the Holy Land by massacring the Jewish communities along the Rhine valley; the Crusaders ended their campaign in 1099 by slaughtering some 30,000 Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem. It is always difficult to forgive people we know we have wronged. Thenceforth Jews and Muslims became the shadow-self of Christendom, the mirror image of everything that we hoped we were not - or feared that we were.
The fearful fantasies created by Europeans at this time endured for centuries and reveal a buried anxiety about Christian identity and behaviour. When the popes called for a Crusade to the Holy Land, Christians often persecuted the local Jewish communities: why march 3,000 miles to Palestine to liberate the tomb of Christ, and leave unscathed the people who had - or so the Crusaders mistakenly assumed - actually killed Jesus. Jews were believed to kill little children and mix their blood with the leavened bread of Passover: this "blood libel" regularly inspired pogroms in Europe, and the image of the Jew as the child slayer laid bare an almost Oedipal terror of the parent faith.

Jesus had told his followers to love their enemies, not to exterminate them. It was when the Christians of Europe were fighting brutal holy wars against Muslims in the Middle East that Islam first became known in the west as the religion of the sword. At this time, when the popes were trying to impose celibacy on the reluctant clergy, Muhammad was portrayed by the scholar monks of Europe as a lecher, and Islam condemned - with ill-concealed envy - as a faith that encouraged Muslims to indulge their basest sexual instincts. At a time when European social order was deeply hierarchical, despite the egalitarian message of the gospel, Islam was condemned for giving too much respect to women and other menials.

In a state of unhealthy denial, Christians were projecting subterranean disquiet about their activities on to the victims of the Crusades, creating fantastic enemies in their own image and likeness. This habit has persisted. The Muslims who have objected so vociferously to the Pope's denigration of Islam have accused him of "hypocrisy", pointing out that the Catholic church is ill-placed to condemn violent jihad when it has itself been guilty of unholy violence in crusades, persecutions and inquisitions and, under Pope Pius XII, tacitly condoned the Nazi Holocaust.
Pope Benedict delivered his controversial speech in Germany the day after the fifth anniversary of September 11. It is difficult to believe that his reference to an inherently violent strain in Islam was entirely accidental. He has, most unfortunately, withdrawn from the interfaith initiatives inaugurated by his predecessor, John Paul II, at a time when they are more desperately needed than ever. Coming on the heels of the Danish cartoon crisis, his remarks were extremely dangerous. They will convince more Muslims that the west is incurably Islamophobic and engaged in a new crusade.

We simply cannot afford this type of bigotry. The trouble is that too many people in the western world unconsciously share this prejudice, convinced that Islam and the Qur'an are addicted to violence. The 9/11 terrorists, who in fact violated essential Islamic principles, have confirmed this deep-rooted western perception and are seen as typical Muslims instead of the deviants they really were.

With disturbing regularity, this medieval conviction surfaces every time there is trouble in the Middle East. Yet until the 20th century, Islam was a far more tolerant and peaceful faith than Christianity. The Qur'an strictly forbids any coercion in religion and regards all rightly guided religion as coming from God; and despite the western belief to the contrary, Muslims did not impose their faith by the sword.

The early conquests in Persia and Byzantium after the Prophet's death were inspired by political rather than religious aspirations. Until the middle of the eighth century, Jews and Christians in the Muslim empire were actively discouraged from conversion to Islam, as, according to Qur'anic teaching, they had received authentic revelations of their own. The extremism and intolerance that have surfaced in the Muslim world in our own day are a response to intractable political problems - oil, Palestine, the occupation of Muslim lands, the prevelance of authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, and the west's perceived "double standards" - and not to an ingrained religious imperative.
But the old myth of Islam as a chronically violent faith persists, and surfaces at the most inappropriate moments. As one of the received ideas of the west, it seems well-nigh impossible to eradicate. Indeed, we may even be strengthening it by falling back into our old habits of projection. As we see the violence - in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon - for which we bear a measure of responsibility, there is a temptation, perhaps, to blame it all on "Islam". But if we are feeding our prejudice in this way, we do so at our peril.

Karen Armstrong is the author of Islam: A Short History



Our local church supports many deserving causes at home and abroad through the Mission and Service Fund.  Peter Gordon, Chair of the Church's Board of Trustees, shared in leading a major effort to twin the community of Squamish with a small community in south-east Sri Lanka (Wandruppa) where a local family had relatives.  Various fund-raising initiatives collected over $50,000 for what is being termed Humanity Village, and Peter along with three other residents of Squamish has already travelled to Sri Lanka at his personal expense to see how the money could most usefully be spent.  Our church is also concerned about the spread of AIDS in Africa, and has made a substantial donation to overseas AIDS prevention through the United Church's "Beads of Hope" campaign.  Support for homeless youth in Nairobi is provided through donations to Emmanuel Boyz village.   Many breaking initiatives of the United Church overseas are described on the web-site of the United Church office in Toronto
and specific information on work at home and abroad is presented regularly in the course of our morning services.


African Refugees      


For refugees in Kenya, life is very difficult. Some live in organized UN camps, while others migrate to the cities in search of jobs, although they have no rights or legal status. This program follows a group of United Church young people as they get a first-hand look at the work of the National Council of Churches in Kenya and other church agencies, working with and on behalf of refugees in their country.

Related Links

People of Faith Say Stop HIV and AIDS!

AIDS 2006, an international gathering held in Toronto this August, was a time for people living with HIV/AIDS, advocates, community leaders, scientists, health care providers, donors, and policy-makers to focus on the key challenges in collective efforts to provide HIV/AIDS care and treatment and to prevent new infections. Churches play a unique role in these ongoing efforts. At ecumenical meetings a week before the conference, church delegates discussed new opportunities for reaching even the most marginalized with dignity and hope. This program includes interviews with an ecumenical partner and with a United Church representative, who both talk about what this means to congregations.

Related Links





 United Church Urges Ottawa to Call for a Middle East Ceasefire

Thursday, August 3, 2006

Toronto: In a letter sent yesterday to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, The United Church of Canada is urging the Canadian government to call for an immediate ceasefire by all parties involved in the Middle East conflict.

“We deeply mourn the tragic loss of Lebanese, Israeli, and Palestinian lives, and lament the destruction and devastation that has caused the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people,” writes the Rev. Dr. Jim Sinclair, General Secretary of the General Council.

“The long-standing issues that have created conflict and division in the region cannot be resolved militarily. On the contrary, violence will only lead to further suffering and deepening anger on both sides,” says Sinclair in the letter.

Sinclair explains that, “together with Canada, the United Nations, and our partners, The United Church of Canada fully supports a two-state solution as the mechanism to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian issue, and has consistently urged all parties to engage in meaningful dialogue and negotiation as the means to ensuring just and peaceful resolutions of the core concerns that form the basis of the conflict. Negotiations under international supervision, international presence, consequences for failure to respect Security Council resolutions, and strong support for ending acts of terror and victimization of civilians on both sides are the way forward.”

Sinclair says that for three decades, The United Church of Canada has worked on an ecumenical basis, in partnership and solidarity with non-governmental organizations in the region, united in a common commitment to justice and peace. Over the years, he adds, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) has supported this work.

The United Church is therefore now asking the Canadian government to

  • call for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to the conflict, and insist on respect for international law
  • provide a fair share contribution to the humanitarian relief and long-term support that will be required to meet the needs of those affected by the conflict
  • work with others in the international community in diplomatic efforts to bring about a sustainable, negotiated resolution to long-standing issues that form the basis of the conflict, and ensure a long-lasting peace
For further information, please contact:
Mary-Frances DenisContact Mary-Frances Denis
Communications Officer
The United Church of Canada
T: 416-231-7680 ext. 2016




Two ways to help disaster victims...

Contact Canadian Red Cross
 
or World Vision at:

http://www.worldvision.org/

Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow

 

          Published January 30th, 2005

 

One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the

delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington.

 

Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues

hold stoutly to a worldview despite being contradicted by what is

generally accepted as reality. When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind. And there is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts.

 

Remember James Watt, President Ronald Reagan's first secretary of the interior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever-engaging Grist, reminded us recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the <>imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, "after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back."

 

Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn't know what he was

talking about. But James Watt was serious. So were his compatriots out across the country. They are the people who believe the Bible is literally true -- one-third of the American electorate, if a recent Gallup poll is accurate. In this past election several million good and decent citizens went to the polls believing in the rapture index.

 

That's right -- the rapture index. Google it and you will find that the best-selling books in America today are the 12 volumes of the "Left Behind" series written by the Christian fundamentalist and religious-right warrior Timothy LaHaye. These true believers subscribe to a fantastical theology concocted in the 19th century by a couple of immigrant preachers who took disparate passages from the Bible and wove them into a narrative that has captivated the imagination of millions of Americans.

 

Its outline is rather simple, if bizarre (the British writer George

Monbiot recently did a brilliant dissection of it and I am indebted to him for adding to my own understanding): Once Israel has occupied the rest of its "biblical lands," legions of the antichrist will attack it, triggering a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon.

 

As the Jews who have not been converted are burned, the messiah will return for the rapture. True believers will be lifted out of their clothes and transported to Heaven, where, seated next to the right hand of God, they will watch their political and religious opponents suffer plagues of boils, sores, locusts and frogs during the several years of tribulation that follow.

 

I'm not making this up. Like Monbiot, I've read the literature. I've reported on these people, following some of them from Texas to the West Bank. They are sincere, serious and polite as they tell you they feel called to help bring the rapture on as fulfillment of biblical prophecy. That's why they have declared solidarity with Israel and the Jewish settlements and backed up their support with money and volunteers. It's why the invasion of Iraq for them was a warm-up act, predicted in the Book of Revelations where four angels "which are bound in the great river Euphrates will be released to slay the third part of man." A war with Islam in the Middle East is not something to be feared but welcomed -- an essential conflagration on the road to redemption. The last time I Googled it, the rapture index stood at 144 -- just one point below the critical threshold when the whole thing will blow, the son of God will return, the righteous will enter Heaven and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire.

 

So what does this mean for public policy and the environment? Go to Grist to read a remarkable work of reporting by the journalist Glenn Scherer -- "The Road to Environmental Apocalypse." Read it and you will see how millions of Christian fundamentalists may believe that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed -- even hastened -- as a sign of the coming apocalypse.

 

As Grist makes clear, we're not talking about a handful of fringe =

lawmakers who hold or are beholden to these beliefs. Nearly half the U.S. Congress before the recent election -- 231 legislators in total and more since the election -- are backed by the religious right.

 

Forty-five senators and 186 members of the 108th Congress earned 80 to 100 percent approval ratings from the three most influential Christian right advocacy groups. They include Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Assistant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Conference Chair Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Policy Chair Jon Kyl of Arizona, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Whip Roy Blunt. The only Democrat to score 100 percent with the Christian coalition was Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia, who recently quoted from the biblical book of Amos on the Senate floor: "The days will come, sayeth the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land." He seemed to be relishing the thought.

 

And why not? There's a constituency for it. A 2002 Time-CNN poll found that 59 percent of Americans believe that the prophecies found in the book of Revelations are going to come true. Nearly one-quarter think the Bible predicted the 9/11 attacks. Drive across the country with your radio tuned to the more than 1,600 Christian radio stations, or in the motel turn on some of the 250 Christian TV stations, and you can hear some of this end-time gospel. And you will come to understand why people under the spell of such potent prophecies cannot be expected, as Grist puts it, "to worry about the environment. Why care about the earth, when the droughts, floods, famine and pestilence brought by ecological collapse are signs of the apocalypse foretold in the Bible? Why care about global climate change when you and yours will be rescued in the rapture? And why care about converting from oil to solar when the same God who performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes can whip up a few billion barrels of light crude with a word?"

 

Because these people believe that until Christ does return, the Lord will provide. One of their texts is a high school history book, "America's Providential History." You'll find there these words: "The secular or socialist has a limited-resource mentality and views the world as a pie ... that needs to be cut up so everyone can get a piece." However, "[t]he Christian knows that the potential in God is unlimited and that there is no shortage of resources in God's earth ... while many secularists view the world as overpopulated, Christians know that God has made the earth sufficiently large with plenty of resources to accommodate all of the people."

 

No wonder Karl Rove goes around the White House whistling that militant hymn, "Onward Christian Soldiers." He turned out millions of the foot soldiers on Nov. 2, including many who have made the apocalypse a powerful driving force in modern American politics.

 

It is hard for the journalist to report a story like this with any

credibility. So let me put it on a personal level. I myself don't know how to be in this world without expecting a confident future and getting up every morning to do what I can to bring it about. So I have always been an optimist. Now, however, I think of my friend on Wall Street whom I once asked: "What do you think of the market?"I'm optimistic," he answered. "Then why do you look so worried?" And he answered: "Because I am not sure my optimism is justified."

 

I'm not, either. Once upon a time I agreed with Eric Chivian and the Center for Health and the Global Environment that people will protect the natural environment when they realize its importance to their health and to the health and lives of their children. Now I am not so sure. It's not that I don't want to believe that -- it's just that I read the news and connect the dots.

 

I read that the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency has declared the election a mandate for President Bush on the environment. This for an administration:

 

  • That wants to rewrite the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act protecting rare plant and animal species and their habitats, as well as the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires the government to judge beforehand whether actions might damage natural resources.

 

  • That wants to relax pollution limits for ozone; eliminate vehicle tailpipe inspections, and ease pollution standards for cars, sport-utility vehicles and diesel-powered big trucks and heavy equipment.

 

  • That wants a new international audit law to allow corporations to keep certain information about environmental problems secret from the public.

 

  • That wants to drop all its new-source review suits against polluting, coal-fired power plants and weaken consent decrees reached earlier with coal companies.

 

  • That wants to open the Arctic [National] Wildlife Refuge to drilling and increase drilling in Padre Island National Seashore, the longest stretch of undeveloped barrier island in the world and the last great coastal wild land in America.

 

I read the news just this week and learned how the Environmental

Protection Agency had planned to spend $9 million -- $2 million of it from the administration's friends at the American Chemistry Council -- to pay poor families to continue to use pesticides in their homes. These pesticides have been linked to neurological damage in children, but instead of ordering an end to their use, the government and the industry were going to offer the families $970 each, as well as a camcorder and children's clothing, to serve as guinea pigs for the study.

 

I read all this in the news.

 

I read the news just last night and learned that the administration's friends at the International Policy Network, which is supported by Exxon Mobil and others of like mind, have issued a new report that climate change is "a myth, sea levels are not rising" [and] scientists who believe catastrophe is possible are "an embarrassment."

 

I not only read the news but the fine print of the recent appropriations bill passed by Congress, with the obscure (and obscene) riders attached to it: a clause removing all endangered species protections from pesticides; language prohibiting judicial review for a forest in Oregon; a waiver of environmental review for grazing permits on public lands; a rider pressed by developers to weaken protection for crucial habitats in California.

 

I read all this and look up at the pictures on my desk, next to the

computer -- pictures of my grandchildren. I see the future looking back at me from those photographs and I say, "Father, forgive us, for we know not what we do." And then I am stopped short by the thought: "That's not right. We do know what we are doing. We are stealing their future. Betraying their trust. Despoiling their world."

 

And I ask myself: Why? Is it because we don't care? Because we are

greedy? Because we have lost our capacity for outrage, our ability to sustain indignation at injustice?

 

What has happened to our moral imagination?

 

On the heath Lear asks Gloucester: "How do you see the world?" And

Gloucester, who is blind, answers: "I see it feelingly.'"

 

I see it feelingly.

 

The news is not good these days. I can tell you, though, that as a

journalist I know the news is never the end of the story. The news can be the truth that sets us free -- not only to feel but to fight for the future we want. And the will to fight is the antidote to despair, the cure for cynicism, and the answer to those faces looking back at me from those photographs on my desk. What we need is what the ancient Israelites called hochma -- the science of the heart ... the capacity to see, to feel and then to act as if the future depended on you.

 

Believe me, it does.

 

Bill Moyers was host until recently of the weekly public affairs series "NOW with Bill Moyers" on PBS. This article is adapted from AlterNet, where it first appeared. The text is taken from Moyers' remarks upon receiving the Global Environmental Citizen Award from the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School.

The AFRICA FILES

The Africa Files provide alternative news and analysis on African issues, with a particular focus on Zimbabwe, Sudan and Uganda.  Read more about such issues as HIV/AIDS, Youth and Children, and Gender Issues.

Visit Site



The Hunger Site

Last year, visitors to The Hunger Site funded 47,919,670 cups of food for those in need -- that's equal to about 2,717 metric tons! Together we can do even more in 2003.  More than a cup of food is donated each time you click on their site via this linkage.
 

God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.  (Psalm 46:1)

Today we drink deeply of God’s strength and pour it into the rawness of our horror and grief. The peace that so many of us have pleaded, worked and prayed for so passionately has resulted in war. Sadness and sorrow envelop thousands and thousands of people in God’s world. Surely God’s heart is broken as well as our own.
The writer of Deuteronomy hears God speak: “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life so that you and your descendants may live,” (30:19). Alas, by choosing war, I fear that we have chosen “death and curses”, rather than “life and blessings”.
I offer on your behalf and on my own, our prayers for all who will be affected by this war. I pray for innocent boys and girls, women and men of Iraq and other countries who will suffer and die trough no fault of their own. I pray for soldiers on both sides, who will be spiritually, psychologically and physically wounded by violence. I pray for those who will die and for their families who will suffer their loss. I pray for the chaplains serving in the military who minister in the midst of extreme stressful situations.
Let us pray for our world and the aftermath of this war. Let us pray that the barriers which war will create through communities of faith will not overwhelm the mutual understand that has been so hard won. And let us pray for an end to the language of enemy. Let us pray that as global citizens sharing a common humanity we will recognize that “enemy” language serves evil purposes and needs to be rejected whenever and wherever it is used.
In this time of waiting for God’s will for peace and justice to finally emerge, let us remember that this is also a time for renewed efforts and continued hope. As the bombs fall, let us not cease from faithful resistance to everything that would sustain this war. Let us persist in hope-in-action believing that “hope does not disappoint us because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that has been given to us” Romans 5:5).
I encourage you to pray with me for peace.

Marion Pardy (The Right Rev. Dr.)


Former Moderator, United Church of Canada.

 
 

O God, 
you are our rock and our fortress
our strong refuge in time of trouble
Your anger is but for a moment, your favor for a lifetime.
Bind together the children of Abraham
• Jews, Muslims and Christians ?
And give us your shalom, your salaam, your peace.
Blessed be your name, O God, 
for you have wondrously shown us your steadfast love.
Into your hands we commit our spirits; 
into your hands we place our trust.
Amen.



CLICK HERE for details of the United Church Beads of Hope Campaign to help those suffering from HIV/AIDS and their dependents in Central Africa.


Vicki Haberl gave an excellent presentation on "The World has HIV/AIDS" in our Minute for Mission series.  If you missed it, you can find the text by clicking here.


If you like the English spy story writer John Le Carré ("Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor..."), why not try his recent book "The Constant Gardener" (in the Squamish Library).  This gives a fascinating sidelight on the complicity of multinational drug companies, Canadian Universities (Dawes University is a code name for my Alma Mater!) and the North American Medical Press in perpetuating the HIV/AIDS pandemic.


 
Minister's Page
Spiritual Resources
Home Page