My first throught when reading this was one of helplessness. I’ve been following the fairly unknown plight of the Shan people in Burma over the past month (look it up, a tradgedy of ethnic cleansing by a people’s own government). And now this? The question is how is one supposed to respond to everything bad going on in the world? My contention is you can’t. I don’t have the capasity to fly the Shan flag, AND the invisible children flag AND the Thai sex trade flag (although allot of those girls happen to be Shan). So then is it an all or nothing situation? Or do you just have to pick YOUR battles?

I’ve not arrived at a place of peace yet.

Stunning to think that this can happen in an ‘enlightened’ society. I’m angry, but comfortable, so not THAT angry. How do I get ANGRY?

The question is HOW we act when the people who are doing these abominable things say “no”. Will we impose sanctions, hold concerts, wage war? Like Matt says, he is not angry enough to actually DO something, and I bet most of us are the same. Nothing will change unless we are prepared to risk something to stop it. The great rights movements of the 20th century succeeded because people were willing to lay down their lives for a righteous cause. We text our names to a rock star so we can feel smug, but we risk nothing!

All it takes for evil to succeed is for righteous men to do nothing, and we are seeing the end results of that now.

And don’t get me started on those who condemn the Americans because they actually do stand up and fight.

Great thoughts gents.

Stuart; “Or do you just have to pick YOUR battles?” I think this is where representation comes in… and I think our leaders, in both politics and church life, ought to represent the range of issues that the people are engaged with because the underlying values are of God. Therefore a leader can speak out on injustice and relate that to specific issues of injustice that “their people” are engaged with. This carries more weight… theoretical, yes, but allows us to engage knowing it does make a difference.

Mike; “HOW we act” is so important – are we willing to forgo something because of the principle? How risky can it be to “deny one’s self”? If we are not actively addressing an issue, then we are passively allowing the evil to continue.

On the US thing – my issue is that the ‘stand up and fight’ is selective and appears to be in their own best interests, not simply because of the values that they state.ro

Matt; I think you sum up the plight of our culture and something that I constantly struggle against… I think the anger is more akin to an outcry which is a vocalization of compassion – speaking up because you feel for these people.

more thinking and acting to be done – I think it has a lot to do with our view of earth, heaven and God… but that’s another post.

I agree, Ro. I am all for the BIG action, and am probably guity of dismissing the small ones as trivial. I think as a community we have to have a voice against ALL evil, but individually we dont have that capacity, so we do have to pick our battles.
It is a pity that politics renders our governments weak, and scared to do anyrthing except that which will get them re-elected. It is a sad fact that voters will not support meaningful action against Darfur or Somalia, but will support action against Iraq if it means cheaper fuel!
Personally, i think getting rif of Saddam has been good for Iraq. However, we underestimated the ability of the Iraqi people to take advantage of the freedom they have been offered. And the problem of the Iraq fiasco, like Kosovo and Northern Irelabd, is that no nation now has the stomach to step in and fight for those who really need it, like those in Africa.