Mormons and Darfur
So, there’s a Catholic, a Jew, an Evangelical, and an atheist. Sounds like the set-up for a bad joke, but this one’s deadly serious. The Baltimore Sun reports on the Save Darfur Coalition, a group of otherwise uneasy bedfellows who have united to call for action on Darfur:
In what may be the broadest coalition of faith-based groups ever assembled for a political cause, Jews, Christians and Muslims, liberals and conservatives, evangelicals and atheists are joining with humanitarian and human rights organizations to demand that the U.S. government end the killing in Sudan.
Absent from the coalition is any official representation from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Asked by the Bloggernacle Times whether the Church would support the Save Darfur Coalition, spokesman Tom Owen said, “the Church seldom enters into, nor comments on political issues. However, the Church is standing ready to assist the people in Darfur with volumes of Humanitarian [Aid] when and if we are called to do so.”
The liberal LDS group Mormons for Equality and Social Justice (MESJ) is also silent. When contacted, media director Robert Poort did voice MESJ’s support for Cross Left, however. Cross Left, a progressive Christian “clearing house,” has joined with moveon.org to promote a “virtual march” for Darfur. (An actual march was held in Washington, DC last Sunday.)
Despite the lack of official encouragement, individual Mormons are taking action. Deborah, a Mormon teacher and Exponent II blogger has engaged her students in an extended project to save Darfur:
They have sent essays to each of their congressional leaders, they are raising money for NGO’s that help Darfur refugees, and recently published an op-ed in the local paper. It’s been amazing (and humbling) to watch their unabashed belief that they can make a difference. They are currently trying to gather 1000 signed postcards to send to President Bush — if any bloggernacle readers want put their names on one of our postcards, they can e-mail these 8th graders at darfurpostcards at yahoo dot com (include name and city).
“Despite the lack of official encouragement, individual Mormons are taking action. “
I hope for the day when Church members will be so converted that they do not need for the Church to explicitly inform them of every worthy cause. When Mormons are known not only for being “so nice,” but also for being anxiously engaged in good causes of all kinds.
Do you think it is sufficient for the Church to “teach correct principles” that motivate members to act as Deborah, or do you think that the Church must also make official statements?
Comment by BrianJ — May 2, 2006 @ 8:40 pm
Thanks for for keeping this issue on the radar screen, Ronan. I had a couple students Sunday’s rally. They were so moved to see Elie Weisel and other religious leaders speak (I feel like I’m doing something right when they are more jazzed by Weisel than George Clooney). We’ve sent in nearly 1500 postcards to the savedarfur.org coalition — students took them to their synagogues, Catholic Youth Groups, Japanese school. They took them to their parents workplaces — one boy stood for hours in the cold outside his parents’ restaurant, engaging patrons in conversatons about the atrocities in Darfur. They’ve humbled me. You know, we just finished To Kill a Mockingbird. After Tom is wrongly convicted, Harper Lee writes:
“Atticus,” said Jem bleakly. “How could they do it, how could they?”
“I don’t know, but they did it. They’ve done it before and they did it tonight and they’ll do it again and when they do it – seems that only children weep.”
The church didn’t motivate my action on this — I wish it had. I wish I had heard more statements decrying this genocide (and others) — because it would have woken me up sooner. Last week, a speaker came to talk to my kids about the Armenian genocide. He ended with the Hitler’s word as he sent the first troops into Poland, “”Go. Kill without pity. Who nowadays remembers the annihilation of the Armenians?” That’s why I believe churches have an obligation to speak out — perpetrators of genocide count on our silence.
Comment by Deborah — May 2, 2006 @ 9:25 pm
“…However, the Church is standing ready to assist the people in Darfur with volumes of Humanitarian [Aid] when and if we are called to do so.â€
What does this mean? Is the Church waiting for a call from the Coalition or from God before they use the humanitarian aid? This statement strikes me as very odd.
Comment by Pris — May 3, 2006 @ 8:41 am
I find it a bit strange that the LDS Church has no official statement on the matter, however, when Gays or Feminists are seeking to exert their Constitutional rights its time to rally the troops and get the opposition out. I think the protection and sanctity of human life rises above all other issues that the Church has felt compelled to speak out on and purposely try to thwart. Am I missing something here?
We’re always hearing how the LDS Church wants to go mainstream and be included in the pantheon of the worlds religions. Well its about time they put aside the advice of their PR and legal machinery and step up to the plate as these other world wide organizations have done.
Comment by David — May 3, 2006 @ 11:46 am
Thanks for the write up and reminder, Ronan.
Comment by J. Stapley — May 3, 2006 @ 12:05 pm
David -
I think the church wants to be respected, but I very much doubt it wants to go mainstream. In fact, going mainstream would be the start of a slow death for the church. Chruchs that “go mainstream” become secularized, lose their unique identity and then lose a huge chunk of “market share” (as discussed in the Book The Churching of America).
general comment:
I find it funny that many people who want the church to stay away from issues like gay marriage suddenly want it to get deeply involved in other causes. Sometimes it is best if we are not commanded in all things, but are instead actively engaged in good causes of our own volition.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — May 3, 2006 @ 12:34 pm
Thanks, Deborah, to you and your students.
The Church has clearly decided to pick its battles and right now it is gay marriage that it is spending its political capital on.
Comment by Ronan — May 3, 2006 @ 1:09 pm
“I find it funny that many people who want the church to stay away from issues like gay marriage suddenly want it to get deeply involved in other causes.”
Deeply involved? Not necessarily. But this comparison lacks teeth. Genocide belongs on an entirely different plane than any other “political issue.” It is an unambiguous afront to humanity, the face of evil. (I highly recommend reading Samantha Power’s “A Problem from Hell.”) I don’t think the church needs to become “deeply involved”; but there should be no ambiguity about our deep abhorrance. And a shrug to “thou shalt not kill” doesn’t seem strong enough. Armenia, Nazi Germany, Cambodia, Rwanda, Darfur — we (America, church members, the world) haven’t responded well.
Why speak up? Because the world ignores genocide. Again and again. I brought it up with a few Mormons the other day, and most did not know where Darfur was or what was happening there. Last year, my students didn’t know. Heck, I didn’t know the details until the class discussion serendipitously turned that direction last fall. Senator Paul Simon once said that if 100 people in each congressional district would have contacted their representative expressing concern (not policy preference — just concern) about the situation in Rwanda, the U.S. would have found a way to intervene. We didn’t call. Congress didn’t act. Neither did the U.N. And so it goes. By the way, Elie Weisel makes the case for speaking up for Darfur far better than I can.
Comment by Deborah — May 3, 2006 @ 1:09 pm
Im saying stay out of all causes if you cant be consistent, especially when world wide organizations are on the same page of basic human rights which we all possess as human beings. If the Church cant see what all these other organizations see, namely, another holocaust and genocide in the making then I would be ashamed to be apart of that organization and wonder what we are here for? Do we not have brothers and sisters all over the globe, whether baptized or not, atheist or believer?
Ok Ivan lets examine your comments in the context of some of things that have transpired. The Church doesnt want to be mainstream yet it has eradicated its former policy of priesthood denial to Black males.
It no longer wants to discuss the many wives Brigham Young had at one time. And instead paints him as a monogomous leader with no beard.
The Church in order to shed its polygamist/Ammish pioneer image went Corporate along time ago. Was this a need to be mainstream? Rather than looking like the Jewish Prophets of old they now want to look like Ward Cleaver or a Wall Street Financier.
BYU has also seen fit to clone its students in an image that says mainstream, apolitical, and ready to enter Corporate America. Our students dont rock the boat. They’re compliant worker bees.
Again, am I missing something here?
Comment by David — May 3, 2006 @ 1:17 pm
The Baltimore Sun article gives no indication that the Darfur activists have any idea what they want the U.S. to do. Not a single sentence advances past the concept that genocide is bad. Do they have targets they want bombed? Do they want an economic blockade? Do they want an airborne division to drop on Khartoum and oust the current regime? Should Rice and Bush go on TV with stern, disapproving scowls? The U.S. government isn’t killing anyone in the Sudan, so a demand that it stop killing there seems to imply that the U.S. should take control of the area. If that’s the idea, then those favoring such action should so advocate that course plainly.
And which course of U.S. action should the Church advocate?
Comment by John Mansfield — May 3, 2006 @ 1:19 pm
I want to do something about this, but I’m not sure what. Does anyone have ideas or advice?
Comment by Serenity Valley — May 3, 2006 @ 1:23 pm
JM,
That’s the fault of the Sun, I think. Have a look at the Coalition website. Here’s what they want (none of which involves “dropping bombs”):
1) The President and Secretary Rice should call upon Congress, NATO, and the broader international community to provide immediate help to the African Union peacekeeping mission.
Urge Congress to work with the President and the international community to make sure that sufficient food aid is provided for Darfur.
2) The President and Secretary Rice should continue to push the UN Security Council to authorize a UN peacekeeping force for Darfur.
3) The President should increase America’s involvement in the Darfur peace process by appointing a Presidential Special Envoy.
4) Urge Congress to provide at least $173 million for Darfur peacekeeping within the emergency supplemental Fiscal Year 2006 funding bill, H.R. 4939, currently under consideration
5) Urge Congress to pass the proposed Biden/DeWine amendment to allocate $250,000 for the establishment and support of an office of a U.S. Special Envoy to Darfur within the emergency supplemental Fiscal Year 2006 funding bill, H.R. 4939.
6) Urge Congress to pass the proposed Biden/DeWine amendment authorizing the President to spend appropriated funds on logistical assistance from NATO to both the current African Union peacekeeping mission in Darfur and any future United Nations peacekeeping force in Darfur.
7) Urge Congress to pass the strongest possible version of the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act.
9) The United Nations should pass a resolution authorizing the creation of a UN peacekeeping force in Darfur as soon as possible.
10) The United Nations should aggressively enforce its current sanctions against Sudan.
Comment by Ronan — May 3, 2006 @ 1:29 pm
Serenity,
Decide which of these 10 points makes sense to you and lobby your representatives.
Comment by Ronan — May 3, 2006 @ 1:30 pm
David,
Regarding the ability of BYU students to respond to the crisis without apparent church instruction, I offer the following finds from the first page on a google search on the terms “byu” and “darfur”.
Enjoy!
http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/59148
http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/59198
http://p2p.genocideintervention.net/blog
http://www.fubecar.com/nucleus/7th.pdf
Comment by HP — May 3, 2006 @ 1:48 pm
Didn’t Darfur get mentioned in General Conference?
Comment by john f. — May 3, 2006 @ 2:00 pm
John: What Ronan said. The African Union is supposed to be “keeping the peace” but they are sorely understaffed and underfunded. At best, they are providing minimal protection for the hundreds of thousands living in refugee camps. They need help and want help. The U.N. has a few teethless sanctions, and could do much more politically and diplomatically to hold the Sudanse government’s feet the flame. And so we’re clear, this isn’t just mass murder. Like Bosnia, this genocide involves the systematic raping of the women of Darfur. Every journalist who has traveled there has offered some version of this story: A family in the refugee camp has to make a terrible choice 1) send the man out to gather food and risk his death 2) send the woman out to gather food and risk her rape 3) send neither out and risk starvation.
Sam Brownback and Barak Obama’s joint op-ed makes these recommendations. (But little will happen until congress feels the urgency of the electorate . . . a pulse).
Comment by Deborah — May 3, 2006 @ 2:01 pm
Here’s the reference from the October General Conference:
Gordon B. Hinckley, “If Ye Are Prepared Ye Shall Not Fear,†Ensign, Nov. 2005, 60.
None other than the Prophet of the Church noted the tragedy in Darfur. If any members of the Church are not informed about it, it is their own fault and not that of the Church.
If this is not enough, Deborah, what do you envision? Are you saying that the Church should start some campaign? Start lobbying the US government to provide aide to the African Union? Let’s get specific — if a general condemnation of the genocide in Darfur from the Prophet himself is not enough, then what do you want the Church to do?
Comment by john f. — May 3, 2006 @ 2:06 pm
well, he mentioned it but didn’t specifically condemn it. I think it is uncontroversial to state that he was not saying it was good. And that coupled with the fact that the Church is ready with humanitarian aide as soon as it can get that aide to those who need it seems like it should be adequate response to a far away and difficult situation. Don’t forget that any aide has to get past corrupt African kleptocrats before anyone on the ground in Darfur benefits from it.
Comment by john f. — May 3, 2006 @ 2:11 pm
Thanks for reminding us about President Hinckley’s words on Darfur, jf. In fact, his talk was what first started this BT series on Darfur.
Comment by Ronan — May 3, 2006 @ 2:14 pm
Thanks, Ronan.
Comment by Serenity Valley — May 3, 2006 @ 2:23 pm
President Hinckley’s complete statement was: “Man’s inhumanity to man expressed in past and present conflict has and continues to bring unspeakable suffering. In the Darfur region of Sudan, tens of thousands have been killed and well over a million have been left homeless.â€
Ronan highlighted it at the time — I think he was the first member of the bloggernacle to bring up the issue of Darfur (as a sign of how little it’s been on the public radar screen in general).
This was in the context of a talk on personal preparation in last days and transitioned into a discussion of food storage. I really hope some people’s ears perked up, but I’m not sure it made the radar screen for most people listening. I loved Hinckley’s talk on racism in the most recent Priesthood session. Shouldn’t we know we shouldn’t be racist? Sure, but a kick in the pants from time to time reminds us of our obligation to reach outside of ourselves. Injustice anywhere really is a threat to justice everywhere.
I am not angry with the church about this — I feel like I am living my religion in doing what I can to address this humanitarian crisis, and that’s what matters. But since you asked, I DO wish, personally, that the church had signed it’s name to the coalition because I teach students from at least 13 different religions (Catholic, Jewish [orthodox and reform], Muslim, Buddhist, UU, and various Protestant sects). Every single one of them could find a representative from their faith on this list — except their teacher.
Comment by Deborah — May 3, 2006 @ 2:27 pm
David -
all religions vacillate between accomodation with the larger culture (mainstreaming) and differening themselves from it – when a church becomes too mainstream, that’s when it starts to loose “market share.” There’s a tension point between being different from the mainstream and accomodating it in some way. All religions have to do this to some level.
The Churching of America documents this fairly well. However, it also documents that when a church loses that tenision and actually becomes “mainstream” then it’s on the downward path to decline (the same happens if it totally rejects the mainstream and goes off into bizarre pathways of belief).
Merely because the church makes some moves towards the mainstream means nothing more than that they are still maintaining that tension (I also take issue with some of your examples – the church gave priesthood to all worthy males due to revelation, not out of a desire to be more mainstream).
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — May 3, 2006 @ 5:47 pm
Ivan, I agree we should be actively engaged without someone telling us to do it. However, the church has come out in the past urging it’s members to vote a certain way politically, what is the harm in getting involved in this political matter? Is there any possible negative that could come from the church supporting actions to benefit these people in Darfur? Hopefully this doesn’t come off as an attack, I’m curious if you can think of something?
They need money and troops. The church (and it’s members) can provide one, and it can influence it’s members to petition congress for the other.
Comment by jjohnsen — May 3, 2006 @ 7:45 pm
jjohnsen -
fair questions. Basically, it’s like this: I personally think the church should stay out of most political situations. The few times the church does take a specific political stance – well, that actually troubles me a bit. But then I realize prophets and apostles are there to trouble us, so I figure I should sit up and take notice: Something more important than mere politics must be at stake.
The Darfur situation is horrible, but if the church were to sign on to this particular compact, it would find itself supporting all sorts of incidental things such as urging the use of UN troops and an increase in the US governmental budget. It might be that the church in general supports the basic ideas behind it, but doesn’t want to get tripped up by the fine print, so to speak (and to mix metaphors).
I personally don’t think the Church should function as a political entity. Sometimes it does, and since I believe the church is led by an inspired prophet, I force myself to rethink my notions. But i think the church’s main mission would be diluted if it found itself in the position of cosntantly having to comment on every major world issue of the day and time.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — May 4, 2006 @ 9:03 am
I agree with Ivan.
I believe, also, that what we are doing in Africa will have a long lasting positive affect on the whole area. It won’t happen overnight, but we are making peoples’ lives better there.
One thing that has troubled me is the limits of what a government or in this case, a church, can do. I personally have wanted the president to wave his magic wand and fix things, but as I age, I realize that is simply not possible.
Despite our best efforts, these people can only progress as far as they and their neighbors will allow. They must work for their own good, as well.
I believe that however tragic and seemingly insurmountable the circumstances, anyone, any people, can make their lives better. There are choices which will benefit them, but they are the ones who must make them.
I’m not informed well about Darfur, and I’m not laying blame on the people of the Sudan who are being murdered. I am saying that everyone has a responsibility here. There are people in Africa who are rising to the challenge of improvement.
I think positive change will come, just not as soon as anybody would like.
Comment by annegb — May 4, 2006 @ 9:23 am
Good point. If the church never strayed into political territory I would understand, but anytime they get political it has the possibility of getting messy. They’ve already decided they are willing to get political, so why not this cause?
Comment by jjohnsen — May 4, 2006 @ 4:23 pm
They’ve already decided they are willing to get political, so why not this cause?
I have no idea, but it’s a bit of a slipperly slope to say that because the church has gotten political a handful of times, it should start getting political whenever we want it to.
Perhaps we should ask the Lord and get some personal revelation on this one. That’s the ideal anyway.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — May 4, 2006 @ 6:31 pm
They’ve now spoke out against nuclear waste being sent to Utah. I’m really confused, because that’s one more issue that they’ve decided to take a public stand on. I know it’s a slippery slope, but transportation of nuclear waste? I think they’ve hit that slope and are choosing some strange battles. I agree with personal revelation, but like I said above, they can affect real change with what they say, on something the majority of mormons probably don’t know about.
Comment by jjohnsen — May 5, 2006 @ 6:52 pm
So who’s willing to enlist as a volunteer in a legitimate “peace-keeping” force and go with it into Sudan? Not I.
There is much suffering, and there are some obvious “bad guy” parties, but who are the “good guys”? Are there any “good guys” at all in this fight? Or is it a fight between “a rat and a snake” with the only innocents being third party victims ?
“Peace-keeping” between two wicked parties mollifies no one.
The US’s involvement in Somalia was a bitter lesson, and the people calling for US action in Darfur seemed to have forgotten that lesson.
Similar problems are going on in the DR Congo. There, there are no “good guys.” So If one does not choose “the lesser of two evils”, then the effort is doubled in trying to pacify both sides instead of one, and multiplied again by having no local allies.
If Africans don’t want to solve Africa’s problems, then are external peacekeepers a step towards re-colonialization? To re-use a question asked 30 to 35 years ago in Southeast Asia, are these people capable of sustaining a democracy? Since the end of colonialism in various African countries, precious few have been able to sustain a democracy. Colonial governments, and white-only rule governments were generally replaced with dictatorships, or tyranny wearing a democratic mask.
From what I’ve gathered from my contacts with African immigrants in the United States, countries that have thrown off colonial or white rule (Zimbabwe, South Africa, and Sierra Leone for instance) are worse off than before. And that’s why migration to the US from Africa has soared. After the end of white-rule in Zimbabwe (the former Rhodesia) 30 years ago, and in South Africa almost 20 years ago, things have only gotten worse for their citizens, and many black Africans have given up and left their homelands.
In the last decade, over 20,000 Africans have immigrated to Indianapolis.
I recently spoke with an LDS member who returned from a mission to Ghana about 2 years ago. They were based at the Church’s West Africa Area headquarters in Ghana, and traveled throughout Ghana, Nigeria, and some neighboring countries. But they never traveled without body guards.
I admire the compassion, but I hear too many voices who have previously said that the US should not play the world’s cop, who are now saying we should be the “cop” in Darfur. Was nothing learned in Somalia over 14 years ago?
I’ve met these refugees/immigrants I’ve personally met people from Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Uganda, Rwanda, DR Congo, Zimbabwe, South Africa, and more countries. They’ve given up on their home countries. They say there’s no way that Africans are going to fix the problems within this generation.
The only possible solution in the short term is for non-Africans to go in and make peace at the point of a gun. And none of the warring factions want that. They’ve already kicked out all the white colonials, and the descendents of white colonials. They don’t want whites going back in and taking over. They don’t want any more “white solutions.” It would take imprisoning or killing millions of people to end the current wars.
Sending in 500,000 military “peace-keepers” wouldn’t even work. I don’t know what a solution might be. But I am confident there is no solution that would work within a 15 year time time. Maybe 500,000 missionaries from all faiths would make a difference, but that also would take a full generation, at least 20 years.
Comment by Bookslinger — May 6, 2006 @ 12:32 am
You are not willing to go, Bookslinger? I understand, but you needn’t. We have Marines and Sailors (and Soldiers and Airmen, of course) who are ready, willing, and able. If a military man or woman cannot get up for a mission like Darfur, I don’t know what would motivate them. I was deployed with the USMC after 9/11, and can only wish that my unit had been sent to do something as important as quelling a nightmare of this magnitude.
Do you really think that the answer is to do nothing about Darfur, because it would take a lengthy commitment of time and resources? Count your blessings that you were born where you were, my friend, and that the shoe is not on the other foot.
Comment by Curtis — June 23, 2006 @ 12:15 am