The Genocide in Darfur

The conflict in Darfur has been going on since July 2003. The conflict centers mainly on the part of African rebel factions, the government backed janjaweed and Sudanese government itself. The conflicted originated with black African rebels began demandign more political power within the government. As a result, the government let loose the militia called the "janjaweed" who have been attacking black villages: burning houses, and killing and raping innocent civilians. Though the Sudanese government claims no associationw with the janjaweed, they have given money and assistance to the militia who are responsible for ethinic massacres. Currently, the struggle has progressed into an even more violent power struggle for rebels, the janjaweed and government forces for control over resources and money. The Sudanese government renewed its bombing campaign in late 2006 and 2007 upon areas said to be "under rebel control" on a daily basis, resulting in even more deaths and displacement.

The situation in Darfur has spread far beyond the region. Neighboring countries have become involved by taking in refugees as as well as other areas of Sudan. Many of those displaced as well are now living in camps, completely dependent upon international aid. Those in need of assistance amounts to roughly 4 millions, which is approximately two-thirds of the population of Sudan.

A more subtle player in all of this, is China. China is the main oil trade partner with Sudan (they buy somewhere around 40% of its oil). The trade agreement between these two has caused China to consistently vote against U.N. sanctions against Sudan. Even worse, the U.N. has refused to declare the situation in Darfur as a genocide.

More information about Darfur can be found here.

Why The Catholic Church Condemns Torture

By now we have all heard of the Middle Eastern religious and political “dissident” taken captive by a Western government, interrogated, ridiculed, made to endure denigrating postures, beaten and eventually killed.

His name? Jesus of Nazareth.

Two thousand years later, Christ remains with us, and so does torture. Meditating on the sufferings of Christ ought to help bring Christians to call for an end to torture, particularly in America. The painful scourging, the mocking crowning with thorns, the carrying of the cross, and the crucifixion were carried out with state sanction.

This relates directly to the controversy of interrogation (torture) at Guantanamo Bay. It is shameful to see many Catholic politicians, including pro-life Senator Sam Brownback, in favor of this horrendous endeavor and the continual existence of Guantanamo.

The safety of the American people is fundamental. Nevertheless, every human being is made in the image and likeness of God and their dignity—and the rights that flow from it—is inviolable. Torture violates the basic dignity of the human person that all religions, in their highest ideals, hold dear. It degrades everyone involved—policy-makers, perpetrators and victims. It contradicts our nation's most cherished ideals. Any policies that permit torture and inhumane treatment are shocking and morally intolerable.

Catholics, especially politicians, should stand with the Church and not with the arbitrary, and at times unjust will of the State.

Christian Ethics and American Law

The American political debate is a heated landscape—a landscape that is not at all lacking in general presuppositions, that are undeniably philosophical in nature, that are scarcely brought to intellectual scrutiny. One might declare that some law is ‘unjust,’ or that this law in favor of the ‘common good.’ Another person may say certain public policies violate basic ‘human rights.’ Each of these claims presupposes that there is some universal norm by using words such as 'justice' and 'common good' that everyone is aware of, that has moral implications, and that we all have an obligation to uphold.

What is most concerning is the post-modern tendency to say that moral principles and the law should not be connected. Morality should not be legislated. This is a common American notion. While this problematic assertion can be approached in many ways, I think the most fundamental question that should be asked is, what is law?

It seems to me that the common American idea of law is a set of rules set forth by the State that are enforced by a credible threat of force and punishment. There is something undoubtedly true about that proposition, but does it fully capture the essence of the law? Are we prepared to accept that the law is merely a matter of obedience and control? Sure, obedience and control have something to do with effective laws, but do they adequately define the nature of the law? If so, what distinguishes the ‘just’ laws from ‘unjust’ laws? Perhaps nothing. Perhaps all laws are simply expressions of the will-to-power of an individual or a group. But if this is so, what are we really saying when we complain about ‘unjust’ laws? Is it merely anger because our self-interests have failed to win over the self-interests of others?

That may be so, but it would be undeniably strange. Why? Because the human experience has shown us that there is a difference between asserting our own wants and true ‘justice’—whatever that is. Children and adolescents commonly accuse their parents of being ‘unfair’ for not giving them something they want. But is that the same as, say, Martin Luther King saying that it was ‘unfair’ for the State of Alabama to refuse to allow African Americans to enroll in its universities? Both statements involve a claim on others. It seems safe to say that we are fooling ourselves if we think that there is no substantial difference between the two.

When parents deny children something they want, there is no universal moral reason as to why a child must have, say, a particular toy. The only reason a child may have to claim ‘unfairness’ against their parents is their own desires. Martin Luther King in his Letter From Birmingham Jail argued that rights due to him by virtue of the natural law, by virtue of his humanity were unjustly denied him and any laws protecting this injustice are not laws at all.

It is clear that Dr. King believed that laws are designed to protect justice. He also presupposes a natural moral order that we humans can know and must conform ourselves to. Is he right? I think so. What if he isn’t? What would that mean? Consider this. Adolf Hitler legalized every action he made while in power in Nazi Germany. Does legal status, morally qualify his actions, particularly the 6 million Jews that perished at his command? Did the legal status of slavery make it morally acceptable? It strikes me that most Americans would agree that Hitler did immoral deeds and slavery is immoral. But that same majority of Americans accepts the horror of abortion as the status quo and often cites that it won’t be illegal anytime soon. Or, they claim that the legality of abortion won’t stop women from seeking abortions. So why stop it?

The problem is abortion is murder. Take for instance the act of murder. Why is murder against the law? There are two reasons. One, to allow citizens to kill one another would produce anarchy and is against the interest of the State. Two, murder is an objective moral evil that is contrary to human nature. It is self-evident that the second reason has more bearing than the first. The convenience of outlawing murder for the State to maintain order is a by-product of the reality that the act of killing innocents is contrary to the moral order of the universe and that the endorsement of the action itself cannot yield any good or productivity for any human society.

One might ask, what does it all matter? It matters because it affects each and every individual in society. Why might we say that African Americans have a right to liberty over slavery? One might argue that slavery—free labor—is beneficial to the American economy and thus, the ‘common good.’ So why not allow slavery? Are there really any inviolable human rights that cannot be gone against no matter what profit or convenience doing so may yield? I certainly think there are.

We live in a society of ‘rights.’ We all have a right to something and we’ll be damned if anyone takes those rights away. But where do rights come from? In the modern, agnostic, morally relative world of scientific materialism all we are, is a collection of atoms no different in substance than that of a desk or a television. The universe in itself has no meaning and no purpose, which logically means that there is no meaning or purpose to our lives. If that’s true, what are ‘rights’ especially if we arguably have no meaning, and therefore, no dignity?

The notion of ‘natural rights’ was developed in the Catholic intellectual tradition in contribution to the philosophy of law. A fundamental concern for America is whether or not it is possible to preserve the notion of ‘natural rights’ without the Judeo-Christian understanding of the human person and of human nature which the notion of the natural law has been traditionally based. Can the idea of a natural law stand if we’re nothing but a random assortment of matter on a tiny dot that we call earth in a vast and meaningless cosmos? The short answer is no.

These questions are pressing. Western society is dominated by moral relativism, which leads ultimately to moral decay. We have come to idolize the biblical figure Cain in not wanting to be our brother’s keeper. America is in dire need of a strong, vibrant Christian presence to transform this debate and give it moral clarity. It is an imperative that there is an awareness of the origin of laws and a proper understanding of the moral and intellectual principles of interest in the American legal system—inalienable rights, civil liberties, federalism, separation of powers, etc.

This is why it upsets me that some Christians pull their children out of the public schooling system—still leaving millions of other children to go through the broken system—and refuse to be at the front of the campaign for American education reform so that Christian moral principles are not disregarded or given merely lip service. We need to return philosophy to our education system and instill moral values.

More importantly, Christians must be more than a force to illegalize abortion in the public square. It is vital that we are able to articulate our Christian moral perspective through rational and philosophical discourse because this vital tool (philosophy)—has been virtually eliminated and trivialized in western society—is the only way we may help America rediscover those human and moral truths that are written into the nature of the human person.

New Threats to Darfur Civilians

Violence in Sudan is escalating. The Justice and Equality Movement, a Darfuri rebel group, attacked Khartoum on Saturday in an attempt to topple the Sudanese regime. The government has reportedly stopped the attempt. In retaliation to the attacks, there is already news of widespread atrocities against Darfuri civilians.

Reports indicate that the government is detaining, torturing and killing Darfuris in and around Khartoum, and that janjaweed militias have commenced attacks in North Darfur. The international community must demand an immediate end to atrocities, speed up deployment of peacekeepers, and make clear to all sides that there is no violent solution to this conflict.

Please take the time to tell President Bush to immediately use all diplomatic and economic tools necessary to help end attacks against innocent Darfuri civilians.

The situation in Darfur is dire. Violence is affecting every aspect of life in Darfur, including food supplies. The U.N. has been forced to cut its food aid shipments in half because its trucks are often hijacked before they get to the people in need.

President Bush must immediately use the full force of American diplomacy to urge all sides to exercise restraint, protect civilians, and to begin a just and inclusive peace process. President Bush must also use the U.S. presidency of the U.N. Security Council in June to ensure full deployment of the UNAMID peacekeeping force for Darfur, and to punish those who attack civilians.

The international community is falling tragically short of our mandate and our moral obligation in Darfur. There is hope, but only if the most powerful actors on the world stage are serious about ending the genocide.

Thank you for your dedication to the people of Darfur.

The Catholic Church and Capital Punishment

I read this article in a philosophy course on Ethics. It illmuminates the moral nature of the death penalty and presents a coherent evolution of the Church's stance on the issue without undermining of Sacred Tradition. It is a valuable read; all too often are there situations where one person says, "I can't support him, he's pro-choice," and the counter-reply is, "Well, the other guy is in favor of capital punishment."

Though, I am direly opposed to capital punishment myself, the argument of "proportionalism" in regard to voting for a pro-choice candidate doesn't work in this situation. (And this is coming from a Democrat). The two issues, abortion and capital punishment, are not morally equal. Abortion was legalized in 1973 and since then approximately 50 million unborn children have died in 35 years. Capital punishment was reinstated in 1976 in only 37 states and approximately 1,100 criminals have been put to death. The massive margin between those two numbers demonstrate in one respect [frequency and scope] how abortion immediately trumps the death penalty. Moreover, the Church has consistently taught that the State does not have the right to kill, but it has the obligation to protect (i.e. self-defense) the citizens from harm and if there are no other means of maintaining the common good, the death penalty is morally permissible. Abortion, on the other hand, is the deliberate and intentional killing of unborn human life making it sustinctly murder whereas this is not the case of capital punishment, though it proves unnecessary today [the gravity of abortion is greater, i.e. murder vs. "needless bloodshed" as capital punishment isn't necessarily murder.]

Cardinal Avery Dulles, Catholicism and Capital Punishment