I realize that this is a larger question than can be examined in one blog post, but I promise we're dealing with a smaller question than what is Hannah supposed to do in her life?
What am I supposed to do today? Right now. Tomorrow. Basically what am I supposed to do from now until Wednesday, which right now I see as the heavenly day of salvation. My guess is it will actually just be another ordinary day...but let me backtrack a bit.
I read a friend's away message just now and it says, "how can you further God's kingdom if you're so caught up in yours?"
And I just looked at it. It's not that I don't understand that that question is supposed to hit you with a punch and re-examine what one's life is focused on at the moment, and how you should change that. And normally, I am simply the kind of person that I take that and feel the Lutheran guilt (even though I'm not Lutheran) and try to make some adjustments. Or at least I just feel bad about it and try to do better the next day.
But instead tonight, I looked at that message and felt like shouting up at the heavens, "WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE ME DO?"
The same away message contained the link: www.ninemillion.org. I'd never heard of it before so of course I go check it out and find yet another organization working on saving various pieces of the world, this time in Uganda, Azerbaijan and and Thailand working with refugee children and raising money to give them education and access to "play" - with the Right to Play organization and UNHCR. Sounds like some amazing work. Definetly a worthy use of money and time. (Definitely an organization that could be subject to the question of how big of a change you can make in far away places...back to Gandhi again.) However, it's definitely a group that is giving refugees the tools to change their futures and I think that's great.
I read in the Indianapolis Star today an article about a man, 90 years old who is starting a community center in a poor area on the west side of Indianapolis. He's been serving the poor in the Indianapolis area for the last 20 years and has some very specific ideas about how to enable the kids and families in the area to bring Stringtown out of poverty. Amazing. Goodness knows he's making a difference.
I give these two snippets of information for the simple reason that I look at them in awe. Two examples of people doing wonderful work to change the lives of others. Something I aspire to do.
However, over the past few days I've been seemingly incapable of doing anything.
I've worked all summer to give 47 students (and the many people working in connection with their program) a positive experience. An experience that in the grand scheme of things will not change the world...and yet is part of the education transformation helps change minds and hearts in a way that does dramatically shape this world. I come to the end exhausted. Things did not work so well. And though it seems that I was set up to fail...it still seems that it is failure and it does not sit well.
I was told by someone wise that I simply cannot try and reflect on this experience yet. I'm trying not too. I've been told by those close enough to this experience that I will have learned many things and that when I look back I'll be able to see that I made a difference. I'm not so sure of that.
As I type these words I look at them and know them, but I'm numb to their meaning. I simply want someone to look over my shoulder for the next 36 hours and tell me what to do, when i'm doing to much, when i'm doing too little, when to smile, laugh, cry, or show anger, when to be mean, when to say, "i really will miss you" and that yes, it really was a good experience.
But that won't happen. And so I'm left feeling numb and exhausted with 36 more hours to work with people who have bartered with me, taken advantage of my flexibility and effort, people who have given me a hard time, people I've laughed with and cried over, people i feel honored to know and yet helpless to deal with. And when they leave I will then face the piles that have been ignored in their absence. Piles of books that contain information that I need to learn if I'm ever to make a difference in this world. Piles of information that needed sort through. Piles of projects that I would love to work on. Piles of phone calls to return.
And none of those piles are actively helping anyone but myself in the short run. All of those piles create this world that I am supposedly too caught up in. But I can't see the line anymore. I don't know how to get out of my world, and I don't know which world I'm supposed to help.
My immediate world is 47 people that I have no energy to be postive about anymore. My immediate world is my friends, my boyfriend and my family who deserve more patience, understanding, and attention that any part of me has to give right now.
And these days I don't care. I want to move to an island by myself and stop caring about all the issues I know the world is facing. I want to stop using the gifts that God gave me, maybe then they will dissapear. I want to be selfish and not aspire to anything more that getting a job, coming home and loving my family. Why is that not enough?
What am I supposed to do? Huh? Tonight, tomorrow, Tuesday? Where do I find the energy to do something more than just survive? And if I'm not supposed to do more than is required then why can't someone flip the switch inside of me and tell me that's okay?
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Thoughts from 9.15.05
I found this on my computer today. I thought it was pertinent.
9-15-05
9-15-05
Hannah's thoughts for the day:
How do you achieve that elusive balance between being doing nothing and not doing enough? Between being nice and supportive, yet challenging and honest? Between peace and conflict? Understanding and ignorance? Loyalty and Universality? Truth and the world? Human Life and Life in death? How do you balance it every day without falling apart, without achieving one and failing another? How do you pray enough, not worry, see people, make things happen, but not step on toes...
Tolstoy says that being a Christian is to strive for perfection...an asymptote for life. But how do you do it? Especially when you seem to constantly fail?
Sunday, July 23, 2006
Questions of Responsibility
So, I've been thinking a lot about the nature of responsibility today.
Partly, because the students I'm working with this summer reached new heights in collectively not taking responsibility for their actions this weekend, and therefore I had to do the not-so-fun part of my job and hold them accountable, which neither I nor them enjoyed too much. It makes me wonder whether sometimes we just simply fail to understand what our roles are, or maybe we just lack the communication skills to really convey what each one of us is supposed to do in society, in our jobs, etc. Or maybe it's a cultural gap, or maybe it was just a bad day.
But the question remains...how do we learn to be responsible? Is it something that our parents teach us? Something we learn by intereacting with others? Something that we fail at time and time again until we just simply don't want to feel bad anymore so start doing what we're supposed to? Is it something that comes with adulthood...that we are simply responsible so that we can be seen as professional and successful, to avoid things like getting fired or failing? What is it? Does it come from religion? Ethics? Culture? Fear? A sense of ownership or obligation?
I could probably read up a little on human psychology and sociology and get my answer fairly quickly. But it just seems to be one of those things that triggers so many problems...if people were just responsible than we could fix so many problems...if people were just responsible, would we have crime? ...if people were just responsible, so many jobs would be made easier. if people were more responsible...
But then, my sense of what responsibility may be different than yours. Plenty of people don't feel they are responsible for any of the world ills and therefore have no perogative to make a difference. Others don't feel responsible for anyone but themselves and those they care about...not their neighbors, much less anyone around the world. Most of my students are fully willing to place the blame on someone else, let one of the others fail, or simply not cooperate if they're doing what they think is right. While everyone here sees them as a cohesive group...they certainly are not as they appear. They feel very little responsibility for each other beyond their own little groups. And I'm sure I'm not so different.
*This next part may seem like a bit of a leap, but stay with me.*
I've been reading Patrick Callahan's Logics of American Foreign Policy today. It lays out in clear terms, the various strains of foreign policy that have existed in America since 1776. We're talking isolationism, realism, liberalism, liberal internationalism, and radical anti-imperialism - all movements/strategies/policies that have shaped our nation in one way or another, and serve as the foundational conclusions that all foreign policy players start with when they make decisions about our nation's foreign policies. And these theories all speak profoundly to the question of responsibility in the American government and the world.
If I stood up and said: "the US has a responsibility to be a champion of international cooperation, fair trade, diplomacy rather than war, human rights and aid to third world countries" I would be speaking almost blasphemously to an isolationist or even a realist about what the United States' responsibility is in the world. Simply because their conclusions are radically different than my own about what the US should and should not do. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that each of these deals with the question of how much responsibility the US has for itself in relation to the world in a pretty clear way.
Why not close one nation off from others' problems by fiercely protecting one's own interests, detering war and refusing to get involved in outside conflicts, and only being as friendly as far as to protect yourself? It certainly seems a lot safer. And hey, it's still moral - you're refusing to involve your nation in wars that could be injust! you're refusing to be diplomatic or make treaties with nations or leaders who commit terrible atrocities (mostly because you make very few treaties period to perserve your nation's autonomy). It's also good for the American people, focusing on domestic problems, bringing justice to American towns and cities, keeping American economics strong by keeping out all those pesty agreements that other countries need to have trade.
Or heck, why not go with the realist strain...why be responsible to the UN, the UN isn't effective, powerful, or ultimately helpful in most matters why should we put our work into building it up when it works against us and brushes up against our sovereignty most of the time anyway? We'll just keep up the balance of power in this world ourselves, through whatever means we deem necessacary - whether it be negotiating specific diplomatic or economic agreements, building up our nuclear arsenal, or going to war. We are responsible for our nation and protecting our people and that is all, and whatever it takes to get to that end is our obligation.
Or maybe, the US is instead responsible for everything in the world. Maybe, whether we like it or not, we simply have to take on the job of world policeman to stop conflicts that the corrupt, selfish, and violent simply wouldn't stop. We have to be the ones to set the example economically because otherwise it wouldn't work right, and obviously we have to do all of this stuff so that we as Americans can continue to live and work as we like - with all of the economic, military, and cultural security that we hold dear. And plus, we're the modern world's first democracy, who better to do this? Any allegations of bullying or heavy-handeness or injustice are simply not taking into account that we are working for the common good of everyone! The world just can't see the truth.
Or maybe our first job is simply to promote liberty whether the world likes it not Free trade, Democracy and Human Rights are good for everyone...and even if it hurts our nation at times, as long as we maintain enough power we must do our job. And hey, we can definitely maintain power for a good cause such as saving the world from itself.
Or maybe, we're supposed to promote liberty in a way that it is congenial to the international community. Because international law has been created in conversation with the nations of the world, our policies must be in line with those treaties and guidelines. We must also be an active about international cooperation through the UN and other international institutions. And we must always remember that we must lead without dominating, but that we must contribute postively to the world our power affords us signifcant leadership around the globe. Oh, and when the American people ask why we have to do all this stuff, we obviously just have to appeal to their sense of responsibility to humanity and the world...
And as long as the American people's starting conclusions are the same as ours, we have no problem right?
I think I have a headache.
Partly, because the students I'm working with this summer reached new heights in collectively not taking responsibility for their actions this weekend, and therefore I had to do the not-so-fun part of my job and hold them accountable, which neither I nor them enjoyed too much. It makes me wonder whether sometimes we just simply fail to understand what our roles are, or maybe we just lack the communication skills to really convey what each one of us is supposed to do in society, in our jobs, etc. Or maybe it's a cultural gap, or maybe it was just a bad day.
But the question remains...how do we learn to be responsible? Is it something that our parents teach us? Something we learn by intereacting with others? Something that we fail at time and time again until we just simply don't want to feel bad anymore so start doing what we're supposed to? Is it something that comes with adulthood...that we are simply responsible so that we can be seen as professional and successful, to avoid things like getting fired or failing? What is it? Does it come from religion? Ethics? Culture? Fear? A sense of ownership or obligation?
I could probably read up a little on human psychology and sociology and get my answer fairly quickly. But it just seems to be one of those things that triggers so many problems...if people were just responsible than we could fix so many problems...if people were just responsible, would we have crime? ...if people were just responsible, so many jobs would be made easier. if people were more responsible...
But then, my sense of what responsibility may be different than yours. Plenty of people don't feel they are responsible for any of the world ills and therefore have no perogative to make a difference. Others don't feel responsible for anyone but themselves and those they care about...not their neighbors, much less anyone around the world. Most of my students are fully willing to place the blame on someone else, let one of the others fail, or simply not cooperate if they're doing what they think is right. While everyone here sees them as a cohesive group...they certainly are not as they appear. They feel very little responsibility for each other beyond their own little groups. And I'm sure I'm not so different.
I've been reading Patrick Callahan's Logics of American Foreign Policy today. It lays out in clear terms, the various strains of foreign policy that have existed in America since 1776. We're talking isolationism, realism, liberalism, liberal internationalism, and radical anti-imperialism - all movements/strategies/policies that have shaped our nation in one way or another, and serve as the foundational conclusions that all foreign policy players start with when they make decisions about our nation's foreign policies. And these theories all speak profoundly to the question of responsibility in the American government and the world.
If I stood up and said: "the US has a responsibility to be a champion of international cooperation, fair trade, diplomacy rather than war, human rights and aid to third world countries" I would be speaking almost blasphemously to an isolationist or even a realist about what the United States' responsibility is in the world. Simply because their conclusions are radically different than my own about what the US should and should not do. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that each of these deals with the question of how much responsibility the US has for itself in relation to the world in a pretty clear way.
Why not close one nation off from others' problems by fiercely protecting one's own interests, detering war and refusing to get involved in outside conflicts, and only being as friendly as far as to protect yourself? It certainly seems a lot safer. And hey, it's still moral - you're refusing to involve your nation in wars that could be injust! you're refusing to be diplomatic or make treaties with nations or leaders who commit terrible atrocities (mostly because you make very few treaties period to perserve your nation's autonomy). It's also good for the American people, focusing on domestic problems, bringing justice to American towns and cities, keeping American economics strong by keeping out all those pesty agreements that other countries need to have trade.
Or heck, why not go with the realist strain...why be responsible to the UN, the UN isn't effective, powerful, or ultimately helpful in most matters why should we put our work into building it up when it works against us and brushes up against our sovereignty most of the time anyway? We'll just keep up the balance of power in this world ourselves, through whatever means we deem necessacary - whether it be negotiating specific diplomatic or economic agreements, building up our nuclear arsenal, or going to war. We are responsible for our nation and protecting our people and that is all, and whatever it takes to get to that end is our obligation.
Or maybe, the US is instead responsible for everything in the world. Maybe, whether we like it or not, we simply have to take on the job of world policeman to stop conflicts that the corrupt, selfish, and violent simply wouldn't stop. We have to be the ones to set the example economically because otherwise it wouldn't work right, and obviously we have to do all of this stuff so that we as Americans can continue to live and work as we like - with all of the economic, military, and cultural security that we hold dear. And plus, we're the modern world's first democracy, who better to do this? Any allegations of bullying or heavy-handeness or injustice are simply not taking into account that we are working for the common good of everyone! The world just can't see the truth.
Or maybe our first job is simply to promote liberty whether the world likes it not Free trade, Democracy and Human Rights are good for everyone...and even if it hurts our nation at times, as long as we maintain enough power we must do our job. And hey, we can definitely maintain power for a good cause such as saving the world from itself.
Or maybe, we're supposed to promote liberty in a way that it is congenial to the international community. Because international law has been created in conversation with the nations of the world, our policies must be in line with those treaties and guidelines. We must also be an active about international cooperation through the UN and other international institutions. And we must always remember that we must lead without dominating, but that we must contribute postively to the world our power affords us signifcant leadership around the globe. Oh, and when the American people ask why we have to do all this stuff, we obviously just have to appeal to their sense of responsibility to humanity and the world...
And as long as the American people's starting conclusions are the same as ours, we have no problem right?
I think I have a headache.
Friday, July 21, 2006
Thoughts on Godly politics...
So, about a month and a half ago someone highly recommended Jim Wallis' God's Politics to me. Wallis' "vision for faith and politics in America" basically argues that both the Left and the Right have got it wrong, and that we need to reinfuse American politics with the values of our faith and our yearning for social justice.
In a way this book is right up my alley. I could not agree more that the rhetoric of "moral values" and "faith" in the political arena very often gets skewed and that the theologies that come out of campaigning are not often the most intriguing ones. I do long for the day when there is a consistent ethic on life and politicans actually reach into to tackle the problems of the environment and poverty. And indeed, I would be excited if the just war principles got more than just lip service in foreign policy circles, or if there were more leaders in the current administration who saw conflict resolution, international cooperation, and innovative human rights campaigns as a viable way to work in our 21st Century world.
However, Wallis' book is a lot of complaining to the his own crowd. He talks about all the wrong moves the Bush Administration has made. He gives us detailed timelines about all the social movements and groups (including his own magazine Sojourners) that worked to stop the War in Iraq from happening. He talks to the liberals by hitting all their right buttons, bringing up everything from New American Century to up-and-coming leaders like Barack Obama. Now, I'm no fan of the Bush Administration, but when you're coming out to criticize both the right and the left...you should do it.
But, that being said, he did pull from some of the good contemporary movements within the church and people of faith who are attempting to enter the political world in a thoughtful way. For example, this statement signed by many, many church leaders:
Wallis also made some decent recommendations:
The issues that really need to be dealt with in this world arn't easy ones and no one (even Jim Wallis who has been involved in the world of faith and politics for a long time) can give an easy answer about how to let religion guide our attempts at solutions. And sometimes even the most faithful people who truly attempt to live good, moral lives and promote peace and justice disagree about the best way to solve problems like poverty, international conflict, etc.
I've begun reading John Howard Yoder's, The Politics of Jesus and right away he hits on the inherent conflict in determining the ethics of the divine. This is how Yoder labels six strains of mainstream ethics that all point towards the idea that the Jesus is not the norm (pg 4-8).
But it's interesting to me that in the context of Wallis' book, it is simply understood that the New Testament offers a guide for ethical action and that it is our job as Christians to go forward and shape the political debate as such. Yet, if the Christian views are as diverse as Yoder describes (those above not including the many ways people view how Jesus' teachings impact our political choices and policies), then it becomes a lot more understandable why too often we try to steer away from intersecting faith with politics.
I think the important thing to realize though (and maybe Wallis said it and I just missed it) is that the tension between views is important for both faith and politics. It's important to talk about how God calls us to act and then act upon what we believe, even if sometimes we differ about the semantics. It's important to gather together and be a strong voice in our society and make our differences our strength. For after, all it's that disagreement, that tension that is so incredibly important for both faith and democracy. It keeps us challenged and more faithful. It helps us try new avenues and be open to compromise. It makes our policies better and makes it easier to help the most people...even though sometimes it doesn't feel that way.
I think the challenge simply is remembering that and not letting the egos, corruption, or power-hungry getting in the way of faithful, well-meaning people who are truly trying to do God's work in the political arena. And if they do, well simply going on without them. God is stronger than the Left and the Right, and he will do his work through (and despite) people on both sides. Of course, it'll help him out a lot if we the people do a little work too.
In a way this book is right up my alley. I could not agree more that the rhetoric of "moral values" and "faith" in the political arena very often gets skewed and that the theologies that come out of campaigning are not often the most intriguing ones. I do long for the day when there is a consistent ethic on life and politicans actually reach into to tackle the problems of the environment and poverty. And indeed, I would be excited if the just war principles got more than just lip service in foreign policy circles, or if there were more leaders in the current administration who saw conflict resolution, international cooperation, and innovative human rights campaigns as a viable way to work in our 21st Century world.
However, Wallis' book is a lot of complaining to the his own crowd. He talks about all the wrong moves the Bush Administration has made. He gives us detailed timelines about all the social movements and groups (including his own magazine Sojourners) that worked to stop the War in Iraq from happening. He talks to the liberals by hitting all their right buttons, bringing up everything from New American Century to up-and-coming leaders like Barack Obama. Now, I'm no fan of the Bush Administration, but when you're coming out to criticize both the right and the left...you should do it.
But, that being said, he did pull from some of the good contemporary movements within the church and people of faith who are attempting to enter the political world in a thoughtful way. For example, this statement signed by many, many church leaders:
God is Not A Republican. Or a Democrat.
We believe all candidates should be examined by measuring their policies against the complete range of Christian ethics and values. We will measure the candidates by whether they enhance human life, human dignity, and human rights; whether they strengthen family life and protect children; whether they promote racial reconciliation and support gender equality; whether they serve peace and social justice; and whether they advance the common good rather than only individual, national, and special interests. We also admonish both parties and candidates to avoid the exploitation of religion or our congregations for partisan political purposes.
We believe that the environment–caring for God’s earth–is a religious issue. Do the candidates’ policies protect the creation or serve corporate interests that damage it? (Genesis 2:15, Psalm 24:1)
We believe that war–and our call to be peacemakers –is a religious issue. Do the candidates’ policies pursue “wars of choice” or respect international law and cooperation in responding to real global threats? (Matthew 5:9)
We believe that truth-telling is a religious issue. Do the candidates tell the truth in justifying war and in other foreign and domestic policies? (John 8:32)
We believe that human rights–respecting the image of God in every person–is a religious issue. How do the candidates propose to change the attitudes and policies that led to the abuse and torture of Iraqi prisoners? (Genesis 1:27)
We believe that our response to terrorism is a religious issue. Do the candidates adopt the dangerous language of righteous empire in the war on terrorism and confuse the roles of God, church, and nation? Do the candidates see evil only in our enemies but never in our own policies? (Matthew 6:33, Proverbs 8:12-13)
We believe that a consistent ethic of human life is a religious issue. Do the candidates’ positions on abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, weapons of mass destruction, HIV/AIDS—and other pandemics—and genocide around the world obey the biblical injunction to choose life? (Deuteronomy 30:19)
We are not single-issue voters.
Wallis also made some decent recommendations:
- We as people of faith do need to help "change the wind" or transform the debates that go on in Washington so that the issues of justice are looked at as important. That is part of our call as Christians (and good citizens) and too often we do get caught up in our daily lives, our comfert zones, and the "politics" of it all and forget that is part of our job.
- The Democrats do need to learn how to integrate the rhetoric of faith into politics, and get more comfertable with letting moral values inside the Beltway debate. And the Republicans need to stop manipulating the "moral values" vote in ways that are dangerously undemocratic and immoral. [Hannah's opinion] More than either of those things - we need more dialogue about the ISSUES. Politics aside, there are important policies at stake. Policies that Republicans and Democrats have important disagreements about...but the emphasis should be ON THE DEBATE and DIALOGUE within the American community. Our leaders in the Administration and Congress should respond to the wider dialogue within the country and let moral values be a part of that dialogue on an issue-by-issue basis.
- The divide in this country over the "culture wars" only keep expanding. Wallis highlighted some important statistics that make this scarier than ever. Faith communities have to be a part of bridging those divides and letting the values and goals of our faith guide us.
- As Christians (or Jews, Muslims, or just moral people), we need to step up and make action a part of our political lives. It's not enough to complain about our leaders and write a letter to our senator once or twice a leader. We have to be an integral part of changing and shaping our communities. Only then can we transform the debate and build more capable leaders.
The issues that really need to be dealt with in this world arn't easy ones and no one (even Jim Wallis who has been involved in the world of faith and politics for a long time) can give an easy answer about how to let religion guide our attempts at solutions. And sometimes even the most faithful people who truly attempt to live good, moral lives and promote peace and justice disagree about the best way to solve problems like poverty, international conflict, etc.
I've begun reading John Howard Yoder's, The Politics of Jesus and right away he hits on the inherent conflict in determining the ethics of the divine. This is how Yoder labels six strains of mainstream ethics that all point towards the idea that the Jesus is not the norm (pg 4-8).
- Some think it's hard to know what Jesus' ethics would be because of the apocalyptic nature of his message: "His ethical teachings therefore appropriately pay no attention to society's need for survival and for the patient construction of permanent institutions...[His teachings] make sense only if it be assumed tha those values are coming to an imminent end."
- Jesus was a simple rural figure. "His radical personalization of all ethical problems is only possible in a village sociology where knowing everyone and having time to treat everyone as aperosn is culturally an available possibilty."
- Jesus and the Disciples lived in a time when they had little control over anything; now that Christians are in a place of power/privledge, etc they have to take on more responsibility.
- Jesus dealt with spiritual matters not social ones..."Whatever he said and did of a social and ethical character must be understood not for its own sake but as the symbolic or mythical clothing of his spiritual message."
- The impact of Christ's message presents a disconnect between God and humanity and between God's values and human values, therefor "relativizing all human values."
- "How the death of Jesus works our justification is a divine miracle and mystery; how he died, or the kind of life which led to the kind of deaht he died is therefore ethically immaterial."
But it's interesting to me that in the context of Wallis' book, it is simply understood that the New Testament offers a guide for ethical action and that it is our job as Christians to go forward and shape the political debate as such. Yet, if the Christian views are as diverse as Yoder describes (those above not including the many ways people view how Jesus' teachings impact our political choices and policies), then it becomes a lot more understandable why too often we try to steer away from intersecting faith with politics.
I think the important thing to realize though (and maybe Wallis said it and I just missed it) is that the tension between views is important for both faith and politics. It's important to talk about how God calls us to act and then act upon what we believe, even if sometimes we differ about the semantics. It's important to gather together and be a strong voice in our society and make our differences our strength. For after, all it's that disagreement, that tension that is so incredibly important for both faith and democracy. It keeps us challenged and more faithful. It helps us try new avenues and be open to compromise. It makes our policies better and makes it easier to help the most people...even though sometimes it doesn't feel that way.
I think the challenge simply is remembering that and not letting the egos, corruption, or power-hungry getting in the way of faithful, well-meaning people who are truly trying to do God's work in the political arena. And if they do, well simply going on without them. God is stronger than the Left and the Right, and he will do his work through (and despite) people on both sides. Of course, it'll help him out a lot if we the people do a little work too.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Introduction & Inspiration
Well, I created this blog a little over a week ago and have had many thoughts that I've wanted to post, but have lacked the time and will...so thus, let me introduce this little thought forum I have begun.
I have titled this blog, "Thoughts of an emerging academic/activist/adult" for a number of reasons, some of which follow...
Academic: because beginning last fall I have embarked on a number of writing projects that seem endlessly linked themeatically and I am in need of a place to jot down intial thoughts and questions not only to help my writing, but also to track how my thoughts change about the world, politics, people, etc. I am currently working on a 5-paper project on foreign policy that will tie together some of my research last fall on the downfall of the Ottoman Empire with my research on democracy in the Middle East this past spring. I am also gathering thoughts for what I hope will be my honors thesis which will hopefully bring into focus questions I've struggled with since taking a class on Peace and Social Justice last fall.
Activist: I am and will always be concerned with the problems facing this world. For better or worse, I seem incapable of not committing my life to doing what I can to alleviate some of the hardships that this world bears. I'm still discerning how best I can do that. Hopefully this blog will let me track this journey a little better. If nothing else, I hope it will 1) remind me of the issues that have confronted, inspired, and confounded me, 2) keep me hopeful that change can occur, and 3) remind me that this issues will always be bigger than my own, and that God is even bigger than the problems this world faces.
Adult: this may be the most controversial part of this title...Certainly, age 20 is the in-between world between childhood and adulthood. In many ways, I've learned the ways of adulthood - I can act professionally, communicate better than some adults I know, be nice, polite and respectful. I am cautious, organized, and I follow through...sometimes to an extreme. And yet at the same time, I constantly find myself in an imbalance between finding ways to help, do my job (whatever that may be at the time), learn, grow, do what is right, and still get some sleep and free time at the end of the day. I know I am often too quick to judge, and I am quick to anger when something isn't been done as well as it could be. I'm still learning to remember that my ideas arn't always right and that not everything has to be perfect. I am also constantly learning that when I am "grown up," I do want to have a good job, be professional, have a family and friends, help others the best way that I can...but I want to do that without becoming cynical or jaded, or so tired that I cannot live the life that God gave me. It's certainly going to be a trick.
Now that you (whoever this audience is...and please I encourage you to show yourselves in the forms of comments when you would like) understand the point of this...let me tell you about a fascinating event I witnessed tonight!
I have titled this blog, "Thoughts of an emerging academic/activist/adult" for a number of reasons, some of which follow...
Academic: because beginning last fall I have embarked on a number of writing projects that seem endlessly linked themeatically and I am in need of a place to jot down intial thoughts and questions not only to help my writing, but also to track how my thoughts change about the world, politics, people, etc. I am currently working on a 5-paper project on foreign policy that will tie together some of my research last fall on the downfall of the Ottoman Empire with my research on democracy in the Middle East this past spring. I am also gathering thoughts for what I hope will be my honors thesis which will hopefully bring into focus questions I've struggled with since taking a class on Peace and Social Justice last fall.
Activist: I am and will always be concerned with the problems facing this world. For better or worse, I seem incapable of not committing my life to doing what I can to alleviate some of the hardships that this world bears. I'm still discerning how best I can do that. Hopefully this blog will let me track this journey a little better. If nothing else, I hope it will 1) remind me of the issues that have confronted, inspired, and confounded me, 2) keep me hopeful that change can occur, and 3) remind me that this issues will always be bigger than my own, and that God is even bigger than the problems this world faces.
Adult: this may be the most controversial part of this title...Certainly, age 20 is the in-between world between childhood and adulthood. In many ways, I've learned the ways of adulthood - I can act professionally, communicate better than some adults I know, be nice, polite and respectful. I am cautious, organized, and I follow through...sometimes to an extreme. And yet at the same time, I constantly find myself in an imbalance between finding ways to help, do my job (whatever that may be at the time), learn, grow, do what is right, and still get some sleep and free time at the end of the day. I know I am often too quick to judge, and I am quick to anger when something isn't been done as well as it could be. I'm still learning to remember that my ideas arn't always right and that not everything has to be perfect. I am also constantly learning that when I am "grown up," I do want to have a good job, be professional, have a family and friends, help others the best way that I can...but I want to do that without becoming cynical or jaded, or so tired that I cannot live the life that God gave me. It's certainly going to be a trick.
Now that you (whoever this audience is...and please I encourage you to show yourselves in the forms of comments when you would like) understand the point of this...let me tell you about a fascinating event I witnessed tonight!
Delegation of Israeli & Palestinian Mayors Panel
University of Indianapolis, July 18, 2006
At the beginnging of the evening, the new provost at the University gave a speech about UIndy's committment to international education...while that is still shaky ground in my view, it does point to one important note for fixing the world's problems. Education is one of the foundational elements to bring about positive change. There is no way to deny it. And it can't happen on a big level, it has to happen on a small level, a community level...like Mar Elias. Like the exchange program that, despite all its' flaws, exist here at the University of Indianapolis. It has to happen on a student-to student, teacher-to-student, community-to-student level. It takes so many people to bring about this fundamental change. No one ever said you could save the world alone.
The question is: is this where I should concentrate my efforts?
Also, a cool note...there are international organizations in Indianapolis??? Apparently, they all collaborated on this event...gasp!!!
International Center of Indianapolis
Peace Learning Center
Sagamore Institute for Policy Research
University of Indianapolis, July 18, 2006
A delegation of Israeli & Palestinian Mayors here with the US State Dept. on a trip to the United States to learn about American local government and US apporaches to municipal management, came to the University of Indianapolis to give a panel and talk in conjunction with the Mar Elias Student Exchange program that is going on this summer (which I am running). First, of all there was a really good crowd there and my students played music and spoke and were received fabulously, which is always exciting. But, it was also exciting because the mayors spoke frankly and hopefully about some of the issues facing them and their cities/towns at a time when the situation in Israel is very tense, and some would say deterioating all hope.
The mayors present were: Walid Ahmad Issa Abbadi - Ya'bad, West Bank; Hani N. A. Abdalmashi - Beit Sahour, West Bank; Yaron Ben-Nun - Gedera, Israel; Meir Dahan - Maskeret-Batia, Israel; Okab N. D. Daraghma - Tubas, West Bank; Ibrahim M. A. Jaffal - Abu Dees, West Bank
The mayors initially did introductions and talked a little bit about the towns/cities that they represent and what they are famous for. For example, Mayor Abdalmashi talked about how Beit Sahour is famous for the civil disobedience that its' citizens practiced in the first intifada. After that, they talked about how the trip has been so far, which was really interesting because talk about a tense set-up situation. 10 mayors in total from opposite sides of one of the most historically divisive conflicts ever traveling together for two weeks going in and out of meetings talking about the "right" way to govern their municipalities. But surprisingly, they were really frank about it. They said, indeed in the beginning it was very hard, especially when the hostilities on the Lebanese Border and in Gaza broke out on the 2nd day they were in the States. However, that they had built a mutual understanding as the trip went on becuase they all face some of the same problems! Some of them have plans to visit each others cities, one of the Arab mayors with one of the Jewish mayors wants to built a kindergarten together founded in the principles of peace.
Then they each talked about some of the issues facing their cities: huge percentages of unemployment with no help in sight, the inability to pay regular municipal wages, belief by their constiuents that the mayors have "magic wands," roadblocks and constant conflict present problems for economic stability, lack or resouces (especially in the Arab towns) such as electricity and basic supplies, ways to improve education like scholarships, lack of a draw for investors, no politicaly stability, etc.
Wow. It's so easy to look at the political situation or the front page conflict and forget that each of those front page stories: Hizbollah bombs hit Haifa, Israel bombs Beirut airport, rockets hitting towns all over northern Israel, Israeli defense actions devastating a city that was just beginning to recover from a civil war...they are all terrible things in and of themselves. They breed fear and misunderstanding, cause hatred and continue the cycle of violence. Yet, they also prevent people from rebuilding their lives, developing their economies, educating their children, building a generation that could perhaps bring peace.
The mayors are right - they are the closest elected representatives to the people of Israel and Palestine, they are the ones that deal with the problems created by their governments' choices. They are the ones that have to slowly help their socieities rebuild. And 10 of them gave to the US to talk about the best ways to govern their cities and built a foundation of understanding with each other along the way. That's amazing. For one of the Arab mayors, this was the first time that he had met with Israelis...for one of the Israelis this was the first time he gave merit to political problem-solving beyond his military experience.
The moderator commented that this State Dept. program was American dollars well spent. Amen.
The mayors present were: Walid Ahmad Issa Abbadi - Ya'bad, West Bank; Hani N. A. Abdalmashi - Beit Sahour, West Bank; Yaron Ben-Nun - Gedera, Israel; Meir Dahan - Maskeret-Batia, Israel; Okab N. D. Daraghma - Tubas, West Bank; Ibrahim M. A. Jaffal - Abu Dees, West Bank
The mayors initially did introductions and talked a little bit about the towns/cities that they represent and what they are famous for. For example, Mayor Abdalmashi talked about how Beit Sahour is famous for the civil disobedience that its' citizens practiced in the first intifada. After that, they talked about how the trip has been so far, which was really interesting because talk about a tense set-up situation. 10 mayors in total from opposite sides of one of the most historically divisive conflicts ever traveling together for two weeks going in and out of meetings talking about the "right" way to govern their municipalities. But surprisingly, they were really frank about it. They said, indeed in the beginning it was very hard, especially when the hostilities on the Lebanese Border and in Gaza broke out on the 2nd day they were in the States. However, that they had built a mutual understanding as the trip went on becuase they all face some of the same problems! Some of them have plans to visit each others cities, one of the Arab mayors with one of the Jewish mayors wants to built a kindergarten together founded in the principles of peace.
Then they each talked about some of the issues facing their cities: huge percentages of unemployment with no help in sight, the inability to pay regular municipal wages, belief by their constiuents that the mayors have "magic wands," roadblocks and constant conflict present problems for economic stability, lack or resouces (especially in the Arab towns) such as electricity and basic supplies, ways to improve education like scholarships, lack of a draw for investors, no politicaly stability, etc.
Wow. It's so easy to look at the political situation or the front page conflict and forget that each of those front page stories: Hizbollah bombs hit Haifa, Israel bombs Beirut airport, rockets hitting towns all over northern Israel, Israeli defense actions devastating a city that was just beginning to recover from a civil war...they are all terrible things in and of themselves. They breed fear and misunderstanding, cause hatred and continue the cycle of violence. Yet, they also prevent people from rebuilding their lives, developing their economies, educating their children, building a generation that could perhaps bring peace.
The mayors are right - they are the closest elected representatives to the people of Israel and Palestine, they are the ones that deal with the problems created by their governments' choices. They are the ones that have to slowly help their socieities rebuild. And 10 of them gave to the US to talk about the best ways to govern their cities and built a foundation of understanding with each other along the way. That's amazing. For one of the Arab mayors, this was the first time that he had met with Israelis...for one of the Israelis this was the first time he gave merit to political problem-solving beyond his military experience.
The moderator commented that this State Dept. program was American dollars well spent. Amen.
At the beginnging of the evening, the new provost at the University gave a speech about UIndy's committment to international education...while that is still shaky ground in my view, it does point to one important note for fixing the world's problems. Education is one of the foundational elements to bring about positive change. There is no way to deny it. And it can't happen on a big level, it has to happen on a small level, a community level...like Mar Elias. Like the exchange program that, despite all its' flaws, exist here at the University of Indianapolis. It has to happen on a student-to student, teacher-to-student, community-to-student level. It takes so many people to bring about this fundamental change. No one ever said you could save the world alone.
The question is: is this where I should concentrate my efforts?
Also, a cool note...there are international organizations in Indianapolis??? Apparently, they all collaborated on this event...gasp!!!
International Center of Indianapolis
Peace Learning Center
Sagamore Institute for Policy Research
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
