|
|
 18 Oct 2002 @ 13:32
BEHOLD!
Spiritual Leaders of the World
You are called upon by the People
We beseech and call upon your leadership in these times of crisis! The people suffer and their voices are barely heard, above the din of war drums and political speeches.
We call upon your leadership! Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, Priestesses, Monks, Teachers and spiritual leaders of all kinds, we call upon the wisdom of your office. Be the way-showers to us in these times of war and rumors of war…reveal your wisdom which you have kept largely hidden until now, and lead the way to peace! The people will walk in your footsteps! Governments, policemen, politicians and corporations will heed your call for the laying down of arms, and for the rising up of the beneficence of God and all things Holy, for War is not the way. They too will walk in your footsteps, if you will only lead them now. Form among yourselves the united front of Wise Understanding in the Universality of Human Kind.
Stand with your people in protest of war and rumors of war. Wear the vestments of your Holy office so that we may all perceive where the true moral ground takes its stand. Walk the streets and appear before cameras with us, to pledge your support for peace and understanding among nations and neighbors! Guide us in these darkest of times and come forth, before another world war destroys the future of mankind.
Guide us with your acquired wisdom, and with your connection to Christ, Buddha, Mohammed and all of the other great Way-showers throughout history. Demonstrate the responsibilities rightly invested in you to hold the Titles of Spirituality among humankind, so that we may see the path away from needless war, and toward the light of spiritual brotherhood and sisterhood for ALL TIME.
Show the world, the press, our governments and our brothers and sisters the meaning of the spiritual ministries you regularly provide them. Make it well known, we humbly ask, how the people who look for your leadership may best serve God and Truth in unity and peace. Show us all with your eloquence, your moral courage in the face of adversity, your fortitude in crisis, that peace, understanding and spiritual aspiration are the best road to a better Era for all life on Earth.
Let there be no war with Iraq or any other nation on Earth, so long as the words of true righteousness ring forth in the world.
YOU ARE CALLED UPON BY THE PEOPLE…GUIDE OUR STEPS!
Let this notice go forth to every church, temple, synagogue, sacred grove and all other places of worship. Present it to the leaders and way-showers of these places, so that they may know the people need their guidance, now more than ever. More >
|
|
|
|
 14 Oct 2002 @ 11:04
The following was a speech given at the national convention of Concerned Voters, receiving a standing ovation to a crowd of over 2800 people, on October 5th, 2002.
Who Do We Think We Are?
It’s really very interesting when you think about it, in realizing the fact that throughout all this talk of war with Iraq, never does anyone in government or the media ever ask; “Hey, why is this our business?” Iraq isn’t a state, or a territory, or a province of the United States. It doesn’t hold any special obligation to our country that I know of, which specifies how it should run its own affairs. So who do we think we are, telling another country what to do? Who are we to invade and occupy any other country, simply because we don’t approve of their leaders or policies? Who are we to install puppet dictators out of convenience one year, and knock them down the next?
Some will say that “Being the only remaining ‘superpower’, makes it our responsibility to guide the world”. Yeah? Who says so? Upon what democratically granted or God given powers, is the United States supposedly invested, to dictate to the world how it should govern its affairs? We have no such power. No one “voted us into office” as a world policeman. No one elected the U.S. as Judge, Jury and Executioner, who holds all worldly wrongs to the light of our superior justice. The world does not bankroll us to militarize it’s borders or agreements, nor do we have any special providence through international law to function as an Overseer for the people’s of all nations. Only WE claim to have such authority, (by “WE”, I mean the U.S. government currently in power). Why? Because we have such a huge military….everybody else is scared stiff of us, that’s why. But that isn’t real authority is it? This is merely the power of the bully who hasn’t yet been seriously challenged. It is by no means the authority invested in having any “moral high ground“. Quite the contrary, ours is increasingly the “moral low ground”.
Some will say that “Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction” and is a menace to the world. Others say that although there is no proof Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, he never the less wants and actively seeks them. Now here’s another question the government and media never ask; “Out of the 200 largest countries in the world, how many DO NOT either possess weapons of mass destruction or actively seek them out?” Well the answer is obvious…NO ONE. So what does this imply regarding our indictment of Saddam Hussein, and his not-so-special desire for such weapons? It implies that he is only one in a very large crowd, and by no means special, nor is he deserving of any special criticisms or treatment in the international community on that basis. So how then can the American government justify going to war with Iraq on these grounds? It absolutely can’t. It CANNOT! The possession of a weapon is insufficient grounds to convict a person of murder, much less execute them for a crime against their fellow human beings. Under any honest or logical standard of international law the same should, and in fact MUST, be said of any country. We do not execute people as murderers for crimes they MIGHT commit, nor do we have the right to destroy countries who MIGHT use weapons of mass destruction. Also, is it not more than just a little ironic that throughout all this discussion of removing weapons of mass destruction from Saddam Hussein, that the United States openly discusses when, how and where they will use those very same weapons to accomplish this end?
Is it not more than a little ironic that WE GAVE nerve gas and various biological agents to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, less than two decades ago, urging them to use these on their neighbors? Where was all our moralizing then? That’s another issue the media and government wont touch.
In all this talk of war and its “cost” to taxpayers, never is there any real consideration of how many Iraqi lives will be lost, most of which will no doubt be civilian. It’s clear that the government and medias’ focus, is as usual, money considerations before lives or mass suffering.
Some will say that Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator, a despot and a tyrant, and therefore cannot be trusted by the international community. Well here’s another question never asked by the government or the media…”How many governments in the world are run by ruthless dictators, tyrants and despots?” If you are any student of international relations or history, then you know the answer….COUNTLESS. Once again we are faced with the quandary of U.S. government insanity…On the one hand we are told that we must kill Saddam Hussein and by necessity, 100,000 or so of his fellow Iraqi military and civilians, because he is a tyrant.. On the other we are faced with the fact that the world is full of tyrants, not the least of which, it is arguable, the current president of the United States, via his virtual declaration of war on half the world through the so-called “War on Terror”. Who would be more ruthless and tyrannical, Saddam Hussein and his “threat to the world community” or US, (the U.S.) in the carpet bombing of Baghdad and all other Iraqi cities? Who’s talking about killing who here?
The Bush administration has openly discussed the “option” of using nuclear weapons in battle, and has constantly repeated the “pre-emptive strike” mantra of “hit them first before they hit us”. Once again, who does the law hold accountable for assault and battery, when one person hits another without provocation? The person who strikes first, that’s who. I can just see the defendant in such a case pleading with the judge…“But your honor, I only hit him because I figured he might hit me in the future!“ The Judge would not only put him away because this is a ridiculous defense, he would probably unload a few more years of prison time on this guy, for being a maniac.. So why should international law be any different? Why should one country be able to appoint itself as the policeman of the world, and then proceed to sock “the other guy “ in the jaw first, as a so-called “pre-emptive” strike? So let’s not look too closely at what tyrants and despots do as an excuse for U.S. war plans, because there lingers here the unmistakable stench of hypocrisy and war mongering. At least, don’t look too close if you want to remain “loyal” to the so-called “war effort”. Face it people! This government line is WHOLLY CRIMINAL and outright mass murderous! There is no excuse for such behavior as going to war with Iraq “pre-emotively”. Any one who supports this nonsense is just as liable for rightful punishment for mass murder, under any international war crimes hearing, as is George Bush and his team of war mongering murderers. No more, no less., just like Hitler was.
Besides, who here doesn’t know yet, that all this “Showdown with Iraq” nonsense is about getting their oil? Iraq has the second largest reserve of oil in the world, and this has nothing to do with it, we’re supposed to believe. Uh huh. I wonder how God-awful hell-bent on war the Bush Administration would be, if there was no oil in Iraq? Or better yet, what if the United Nations said, “Sure, take over Iraq, but give every drop of oil proceeds right back to the Iraqi citizens”. You can bet that will never happen!
Let us also take a minute to discuss the possibility of creating World War 3, with our reckless and criminal actions as a country. Some will say that even discussing this possibility is over-reacting, that this will never happen so long as the U.S. is “taking care of the world”. Well stop and think for a minute longer, as to what kind of precedent our new set of international policies creates. Rather than the old fashioned diplomacy and peaceful, mutual understanding approach to international relations, now we have “you are either with us or against us”. Rather than disarmament we have a new escalation in military spending the world over, as every national leader tries to keep pace with the New World Order of George Bush. Rather than working together for the greater good of humanity, we have the “War on Terror”, which would be more aptly named the “War of Terror” one that is literally terrorizing the majority of the world. It’s got a number a nation states at each other’s throats, such as in the case of India and Pakistan. It’s got every nation persecuting their political opposition by branding them as “terrorists”, as an excuse for torture, mass imprisonment and mass murder. You can literally cut the escalating world tensions with a knife on any given day, and guess what…the United States is behind it all.
Given the above mentioned criteria for going to war with another country, “pre-emptively”, who among you thinks that Iraq will be the last and final target of U.S. plans for world domination? Who will bet their life savings that George Bush will not find another excuse, using yet another tireless media campaign, to go to war, destroy and conquer such countries as Iran, Libya, Yemen, North Korea and a host of others? What? No one will take this bet? Well, then, maybe you should begin taking this whole matter more seriously. By “this whole matter” I mean the “War of Terror”, George Bush as a murdering maniac in control of the largest military in the world, just twitching with trigger happy glee as he rapes one nation after the next in the name of “democracy”? People seem to think this whole affair is just a game…after all, it’s just, “those people, you know, over there” who are getting killed by the bombs we pay for, and by the military our sons and daughters belong to, and by the government whose flag we fly on our cars and homes. Is this what you stand for when you fly this flag?
Given the precedent we’re providing, who is to say that India should not launch a nuclear attack against Pakistan, or Pakistan against India for the same reason, to “pre-emptively” prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction? Who could rightly criticize one invading the other, killing millions of people, based on such a criteria for war? Who will criticize China for destroying Taiwan, or Japan for destroying North Korea, or Israel for destroying Palestine? Or for that matter, anybody destroying anybody on behalf of half baked assertions, and big talk but little proof of anything?!! Who will count all the bodies if everybody destroys everybody else “pre-emptively”. It’s all sheer Madness!
So when the world gets so fed up with us that it simply will not take any more lies and bullying, just remember why nuclear and/or biological war began in the first place. It began because WE CREATED IT, or at the very least, as average citizens, let it happen. Don’t blame Saddam Hussein, or Osama Bin Laden or any other tyrant. Blame George Bush and the Congress and Senate, as well as the average American who didn’t have the guts to speak their mind and say what’s right, while there was still time to prevent the destruction of mankind. More >
|
|
|
|
 13 Oct 2002 @ 10:42
Documents show U.S. delivered germs to Iraq
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Iraq's bioweapons program that President Bush wants to eradicate got its start with help from Uncle Sam two decades ago, according to government records getting new scrutiny in light of the discussion of war against Iraq.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent samples directly to several Iraqi sites that U.N. weapons inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program, CDC and congressional records from the early 1990s show. Iraq had ordered the samples, claiming it needed them for legitimate medical research.
The CDC and a biological sample company, the American Type Culture Collection, sent strains of all the germs Iraq used to make weapons, including anthrax, the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and the germs that cause gas gangrene, the records show. Iraq also got samples of other deadly pathogens, including the West Nile virus.
The transfers came in the 1980s, when the United States supported Iraq in its war against Iran. They were detailed in a 1994 Senate Banking Committee report and a 1995 follow-up letter from the CDC to the Senate.
The exports were legal at the time and approved under a program administered by the Commerce Department.
''I don't think it would be accurate to say the United States government deliberately provided seed stocks to the Iraqis' biological weapons programs,'' said Jonathan Tucker, a former U.N. biological weapons inspector.
''But they did deliver samples that Iraq said had a legitimate public health purpose, which I think was naive to believe, even at the time.''
The disclosures put the United States in the uncomfortable position of possibly having provided the key ingredients of the weapons America is considering waging war to destroy, said Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. Byrd entered the documents into the Congressional Record this month.
Invoices included in the documents read like shopping lists for biological weapons programs. One 1986 shipment from the Virginia-based American Type Culture Collection included three strains of anthrax, six strains of the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and three strains of the bacteria that cause gas gangrene. Iraq later admitted to the United Nations that it had made weapons out of all three.
The company sent the bacteria to the University of Baghdad, which U.N. inspectors concluded had been used as a front to acquire samples for Iraq's biological weapons program.
The CDC, meanwhile, sent shipments of germs to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission and other agencies involved in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. It sent samples in 1986 of botulinum toxin and botulinum toxoid -- used to make vaccines against botulinum toxin -- directly to the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons complex at al-Muthanna, the records show.
Botulinum toxin is the paralyzing poison that causes botulism. Having a vaccine to the toxin would be useful for anyone working with it, such as biological weapons researchers or soldiers who might be exposed to the deadly poison, Tucker said.
The CDC also sent samples of a strain of West Nile virus to an Iraqi microbiologist in the city of Basra in 1985, the records show.
------
On the Net:
The documents are available at: [link]
CDC: [link]
ATCC: [link]
©The Morning Journal 2002
|
|
|
|
11 Oct 2002 @ 11:20
Bush’s war drive vs. Iraq
By Patrick Martin
11 October 2002
The Democratic Party is moving to provide a comfortable margin of votes to pass resolutions in the House of Representatives and the Senate authorizing an imminent US invasion of Iraq. The House voted Thursday to give Bush the power to wage war, a week after an agreement between Bush and House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt on the language of the resolution.
A series of top Senate Democrats have endorsed the resolution, including Majority Whip Harry Reid, Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden, and John Kerry of Massachusetts, a prospective presidential candidate and one-time leader of veterans’ protests against the Vietnam War. It is expected that less than a quarter of the Senate will vote against a resolution to authorize Bush to launch a unilateral war of aggression.
The war resolution’s text is an amalgam of the lies and distortions issued by the Bush administration to justify its long-sought goal of invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam Hussein, including repeated mentions of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, although there is no evidence connecting Baghdad and the suicide hijackings.
The gist of the resolution is a blank check for Bush to use military force against Iraq: “The president is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.”
For the first time in US history, the president would be authorized to launch a war preemptively against a country that had not attacked the United States first and has no ability to threaten or even reach the US militarily. This war is to be waged on the pretext of enforcing UN Security Council resolutions, even if the UN Security Council majority opposes such military action.
In statements defending the resolution, Gephardt embraced the “big lie” of the White House, that the September 11 terrorist attacks make it a matter of self defense for the United States to invade Iraq, in order to prevent further terrorist attacks using weapons of mass destruction.
“Everything changed with 9-11,” Gephardt declared. “If you’re worried about where terrorists will get these weapons, the first place you’d be concerned about is Iraq.”
Effectively admitting that there is no evidence that the Iraqi regime has either the ability or the intention to use such weapons against the United States, Gephardt said, “There’s no smoking gun, and you’re not going to have one. Your standard of proof has to go down, because you’re living in a world of terrorism. We have to prevent a weapon of mass destruction being detonated in the United States. We have to do everything possible to prevent that.”
Such arguments do not make sense even in their own terms. If the greatest danger facing the American people is the possibility of a terrorist attack inside the United States using nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, nothing is more likely to produce such an outcome than a foreign policy based on the principle that the United States has the unilateral right to invade any country in the world it chooses.
The Bush-Gephardt doctrine, by authorizing a one-sided US slaughter of the people of Iraq and, by implication, any other country targeted by the White House and Pentagon, makes terrorist retaliation and the slaughter of innocent Americans even more likely.
Gore’s critique of the Bush doctrine
It is little more than two weeks since the Democratic presidential candidate in 2000, former vice president Al Gore, delivered a blistering critique of the Bush administration’s war policy in a speech in San Francisco. It is worth recalling the speech today, since it reads as an indictment, not only of the Bush White House, but of the Democratic congressional leadership.
The bulk of Gore’s September 23 speech was devoted to the implications of Bush’s doctrine of launching unilateral, first-strike military action against Iraq. The former vice president’s attack was couched in a right-wing, pro-imperialist framework, warning that the drive to war with Iraq would disrupt the international support necessary to wage a successful war against terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Gore made no mention of the overriding motivation for the war: the desire to seize control of Iraq’s oil resources, the second largest in the world. But the points he made were nonetheless telling.
Recalling that he had been among the minority of Senate Democrats who voted for the first Persian Gulf War, Gore noted that in 1991, Iraq had crossed an international border to attack to Kuwait, but in 2002, the US government was proposing to cross an international border to attack Iraq. Opposition to such a move had already become a powerful factor internationally, he said, pointing to the results of the German election campaign, in which the Schröder government overcame a significant deficit in the polls by appealing to antiwar sentiment.
Gore made an extraordinary admission for an American politician, pointing to the “great anxiety all around the world, not primarily about what the terrorist networks are going to do, but about what we’re going to do.” He then went on to outline the longer-term consequences of the doctrine of preemption.
“To begin with, the doctrine is presented in open-ended terms, which means that if Iraq is the first point of application it is not necessarily the last. In fact, the very logic of the concept suggests a string of military engagements against a succession of sovereign states—Syria, Libya, North Korea, Iran—none of them very popular in the United States, of course, but the implication is that wherever the combination exists of an interest in weapons of mass destruction, together with an ongoing role as host to or participant in terrorist operations, the doctrine will apply.
“It also means that if the Congress approves the Iraq resolution just proposed by the administration, it would be simultaneously creating the precedent for preemptive action anywhere...”
Even more dangerous, he said, was the administration’s broader attack on democratic rights. “The idea that an American citizen can be imprisoned without recourse to judicial process or remedies, and that this can be done on the say-so of the President or those acting in his name, is beyond the pale,” he said.
Without referring to it by name, Gore denounced the national security strategy document released by the White House earlier in the month, saying that it was “important to note the consequences of an emerging national strategy that not only celebrates American strength, but actually appears to glorify the notion of dominance. The word itself has been used in the counsels of the administration.”
He concluded, “What this doctrine does is to destroy the goal of a world in which states consider themselves subject to law, particularly in the matter of standards for the use of violence against each other. That concept would be displaced by the notion that there is no law but the discretion of the President of the United States.”
The response on the part of the Bush administration, congressional Republicans and the bulk of the media was to portray Gore—who received more than 50 million votes for president in 2000, winning the popular vote over Bush—as a virtual traitor who was undermining national unity and presidential authority in wartime. Congressional Democrats reacted to this major pronouncement by the titular leader of their party with a combination of indifference to the substance of Gore’s criticism and fear that the speech would cost them votes in the November 5 election.
The Senate suppresses debate
Perhaps the most significant vote in the Senate took place more than a week before the final passage of the war resolution. It was the vote to shut down the one-man filibuster launched by Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia against any consideration of the measure.
Byrd, the longest-serving Democrat in the Senate and its president pro-tem, pointed out the war resolution was unconstitutional on its face because it shifts the power to declare war from the Congress, where it is vested in Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, to the president.
The resolution was “a product of presidential hubris,” Byrd said. “This resolution is breathtaking in its scope. It redefines the nature of defense. It reinterprets the Constitution to suit the will of the executive branch.”
Byrd cited a speech delivered by Abraham Lincoln while he served in Congress, opposing US aggression in the war against Mexico of 1846-48. Those who wrote the US Constitution had regarded the power to declare war as the most oppressive power of the British king, Lincoln argued, and therefore decided to place that power in the legislature rather than give it to one man, the president. Giving the chief executive power to wage war on his own decision “destroys the whole matter and places our president where kings have always stood,” Lincoln concluded.
But not a single senator, Democratic or Republican, would support an effort to invoke the Constitution against the drive to war. Byrd’s filibuster was shut down by a vote of 95 to 1.
A similar issue was raised by Congressman Jim McDermott, one of three Democrats who traveled to Baghdad two weeks ago to view first-hand the target of impending US military attack. McDermott told a public meeting in Seattle, Washington October 6 that war with Iraq was the occasion for a profound transformation in the American government.
“What we are dealing with right now in this country is whether we are having a kind of bloodless, silent coup or not,” he told several hundred people at a town hall meeting in his home district. The Bush administration was continually frightening the American people with threats of unspecified terrorist attacks, he said, in order to justify a decision to “suddenly go to war with the whole world.”
The central issue was the assumption of near-total power by the executive branch, McDermott concluded, saying, “If we don’t derail this coup that is going on, we are going to wind up with a government run by the president of the United States and all the rest of us will be standing around just watching it happen.” More >
|
|
|
|
8 Oct 2002 @ 17:58
Subject: Stand for Peace
PLEASE PASS IT ON
WE STAND UNITED
ACROSS THE COUNTRY, MEN AND WOMEN ARE BEING CALLED TO STAND AS PEACEHOLDERS ON
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 10, AND TELL THE U.S. SENATE NOT TO PASS THE RESOLUTION
LETTING THE PRESIDENT ATTACK IRAQ.
WE ARE CALLED TO STAND IN SILENCE AROUND THE FEDERAL BUILDINGS AND THE OFFICES
OF OUR U. S. SENATORS ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY-AND ESPECIALLY AROUND THE CAPITOL
BUILDING IN WASHINGTON, D.C.
WE ARE CALLED TO STAND AS INDIVIDUALS AND AS FAMILIES, AS MEMBERS OF CHURCHES
AND OF SYNAGOGUES, TEMPLES, AND MOSQUES. WE ARE CALLED TO STAND IN SOLIDARITY
WITH THOSE SENATORS WHO SEEK A HIGHER GROUND TO PREVENT THE RESOLUTION'S
PASSAGE--AND ESPECIALLY IF SENATOR BYRD'S FILIBUSTER TAKES PLACE. WE ARE
CALLED TO STAND UNITED, AS AMERICANS HOLDING A VISION OF PEACE.
TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS STAND IN SILENCE FOR PEACE:
-FORWARD THIS BULLETIN to everyone in your network, telephoning those
without email ;
-forward it to your Senators and Congressmen and local media, to let them
know you'll be there;
-find out where your local federal building is, or your Senator's office
(they're in the phone book), or, if you have the means, get to the Capitol
building in Washington, D.C.;
-ARRANGE TO SPEND AS MUCH OF THURSDAY AS POSSIBLE STANDING (or sitting if
health is an issue) around your chosen site; if you can only stand for a lunch
hour, great; if you can be there for the full day, great;
- PRINT OUT SOME COPIES OF THIS BULLETIN to take with you and hand them to
the spokesperson to share with others (you can copy the text without the names
and dates and print it).
-DRESS APPROPRIATELY: WOMEN WEAR BLACK AND MEN WEAR WHITE, for spirit-to
distinguish the silent vigil of Peaceholding from any other demonstrations
that may be happening;
-feel free to JOIN THE GROUP AND LEAVE IT AS YOU NEED, honoring your own
being as you call on the government to honor all life.
When standing, PLEASE HONOR THESE GUIDELINES:
- WEAR BLACK IF A WOMAN OR WHITE IF A MAN (distinguishes our silent stand
from all other demonstrations that might be going on around us)
-with the group, CHOOSE ONE SPOKESPERSON to answer all questions and hand
out flyers during the stand;
-STAND SILENTLY, holding a vision of peace for your self, the community, and
the world;
-stay out of the way so you DO NOT OBSTRUCT OR INTERFERE WITH ANYBODY else
during the stand.
By standing together we unite in expressing to our leaders that reverence for
life on the planet demands alternatives to war: Wisdom now must guide us to
find new ways to resolve our conflicts. Silence allows us to be a witness,
seeing the consequences of war. In silence we stop and let the Spirit that is
expressed in all life help us be more creative and mature. By wearing black
(or for men, white), we identify ourselves as nonviolent holders of peace,
distinguishing ourselves from those who would shout or act out their emotions.
WE STAND UNITED
THE TRADITION
As participants in this Stand in Silence for Peace, we are part of the larger
tradition of Mahatma Gandhi, Rev. Martin Luther King, Aung Sang Sun Kyi, the
Women in Black, and others who have changed the world by peaceful, nonviolent
action.
As Peaceholders--men and women joined together in holding a vision of peace
for ourselves, our communities, and our world--we stand united with thousands
of others over the years whose prayers and dreams and actions have been the
same.
WOMEN IN BLACK
Women in Black stand in silent vigil, wearing black in remembrance of those
lost to violence, holding a vision of peace. Begun in 1988 by Israeli and
Palestinian women in the Gaza Strip, Women in Black organized and were
effective in South Africa and Belgrade during the '90s, as well. They stand
where they can be seen without impeding normal activities. They stand
silently, each group appointing a single spokesperson to answer questions and
hand out flyers (such as this bulletin) explaining who they are and what
they're doing.
MEN WEARING WHITE
Men Wearing White is a separate-but-related movement, standing for peace on
their own, or joining Women in Black as Peaceholders when the need is for
solidarity--as on Oct.10. Though many men have wanted to join Women in Black
over the years in standing for peace, it has not worked. Women, representing
the feminine, receptive spirit, need a voice of their own and too often give
way to the active, enthusiastic voices of men in their group.
Men Wearing White standing with Women in Black represent the black-and-white
clarity that is needed at this critical point in our history, reflecting the
yin and yang balance our world needs. The request of Men Wearing White is that
they honor the guidelines and traditions of Women in Black when standing with
them--this means standing in silent vigil holding a vision of peace.
THE POSSIBILITY
Most of us who have participated in such a vigil have felt our souls touched
and choose to stand regularly as Peaceholders, as part of our spiritual
practice or religious faith. If you feel this way, ask the spokesperson on
Oct10 when and where a regular stand is held. If there is none, or you need a
different schedule, feel free to start a new stand using the following
guidelinesâ?¦
WE STAND UNITED
TO CREATE A REGULAR PEACEHOLDING VIGIL
1. contact the concerned, spirit-filled men and women you know and tell them
about your experience and desire to continue it;
2. with those who are interested, select a time and place where you'll be seen
but won't impede normal activities (e.g., 5:30 Wednesdays on the Courthouse
steps; 1st & 3d Mondays at noon in the town square);
3. make a sign that says some version of: We stand united as Peaceholders
standing in silent vigil holding a vision of peace for this community and the
world;
4. make up a couple dozen flyers using the relevant information from this
bulletin and including when and where you will be standing;
5. dress comfortably and use umbrellas and stools as needed for health-do
choose to wear black or white, the psychological effect is important;
6. Show up when and where you've agreed, with your sign and flyers;
7. with the group, decide who will be spokesperson, offering to answer
questions and hand out flyers and who will say when the time for standing is
over;
8. maintain a comfortable silence as you stand and feel peace radiating
through you and out to the world around you;
9. when the time is over, acknowledge each other and, as a group, decide who
will take the sign and flyers and bring them back next time;
10. ask everyone who stood with you to contact everyone they know to join you
next time, get phone numbers or email addresses of those who are willing and
create a "phone tree," and reply to this email so everyone can be reached
when important times come, like 10-10, to stand in large masses.
KNOW THAT BEING PEACE IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO EXPERIENCE IT in the world
around you--and give thanks each day for the peace that is present in your
life today.
The Blessings of Peace, in your heart and your world, be yours always---
from the members of the
Peaceholders Network More >
|
|
<< Newer entries Page: 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 29 Older entries >> |
|
|
A Newslog for those who seek Truth for the expansion of consciousness, knowledge, wisdom and the Highest Benefit for All. Leave your egoes at the door please! |
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
|---|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
| 6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
| 13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
| 20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
| 27 |
28 |
29 |
|
|
Create your own News Log in your profile. |
|
