Granted the fact that Americans as a general rule, including myself, do not know nearly enough about the world’s largest continent. Saying “Africa” seems to bring to mind stereotypes, prejudices and the original sin of the Constitution, slavery. My generation only mentioned Africa when they wanted to “Feed The World” through music (at Christmas time, of course) and when we crooned “USA for Africa.” Only later did I learn that, no, all Africans did not know it was Christmas- nor did they particularly care- and Ethiopians still experience hunger.

Africa has experienced so much turmoil. The nations of Africa need and deserve strong leadership. But now another African tyrant has emerged. As if Idi Amin wasn’t enough, now the world has Robert Mugabe. Another African problem. I suppose we can easily say that the problems of Africa should be solved by Africa. This makes a lot of sense. The African Union (AU) should take steps to bring peace to this troubled region. And they are, through mediator and South African President Thabo Mbeki. But Mbeki has been sharply criticized for his constant coddling of Mugabe, and the AU fell short of condemning the actions of this mad man. Botswana seems to be the only country saying what everyone around the world is thinking: Mugabe has to go.

Would the United States be hypocritical in making such a bold statement as this? Perhaps. Political critics could point to US associations with Saudi Arabia, China, and numerous third-world countries as relationships that ignore undemocratic political structures as a way to show such hypocrisy. It isn’t as if Mugabe has just recently become an autocrat. His history of political violence goes back to at least 1976. But US foreign policy is complicated, shifting and problematic. We have not lived in a perfect world for a long time. And as long as Congress and Presidents change, policy will change as well. But we should never stand idly by while people are under attack by their own leaders.

Some say violence is not enough. Well, if we need another reason, how about potential US investment being circumvented... does that give the US the reason it needs to take a stand? What about the fact that Mugabe is destabilizing the entire region? We should act. There is something rotten in Zimbabwe.

An injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere. A very nice sentiment, almost elementary in its meaning. We need to act sooner rather than later. Zimbabweans are asking for US help, and we should give it. Mugabe is killing and raping his opposition. I suppose one could even say he is Saddam Hussein-ing his country. This is unacceptable.

I do not believe that we should enter into another military conflict- two or three at a time, please. But I believe we should take a stand. I am encouraged by the US introduction of UN sanctions. I hope the world takes notice. And I hope we maintain our resolve.

While numerous pop stars joining together in a remarkable attempt in the 1980s by recording songs to help those in need in Africa was encouraging, such actions today would be ridiculous. While it may have helped for a nano-second, music did not not stop hunger in Ethiopia. Music can only go so far. Perhaps that is why there have been no songs for Darfur, Congo and other troubled spots in Africa… or the world, for that matter. Singing is not enough. Let’s at least take a strong stand and tell the world that we believe Zimbabweans deserve a life free of Mugabe. And then ACT responsibly.

A Saturday in mid-May in Iraq. Perhaps a day to reflect, relax, a day for respite. Unless, of course, you have a gun needed something to shoot. Out of targets? Well, then used the Koran. If this action sounds ridiculous that’s because it is. But, once again, America gives Muslim fundamentalists a reason to question our position in Iraq.

The New York Times posted an article on May 19 of an incident with an American soldier using the holy book of Islam, The Koran, for target practice. Major General Jeffery Hammond in Iraq read from a statement of the unnamed soldier that reads like a student who has plagiarized an essay from the Internet, trying to take credit for words written by others: “I sincerely hope that my actions have not diminished the partnership that our two nations have developed together,” reads part of the statement.

The statement may be indicative of a continuing problem with Iraq. The excerpt from “Soldier Anonymous” identifies the partnership of “two nations.” The problem is that the incident affects at least three nations; the United States, Iraq and the Islamic nation. Failing to recognize this third nation in a statement of apology simply adds fuel to the fire of disgust Islam fundamentalists have for the US, giving more propaganda for use by those wishing our extermination.

A more fundamental issue, though, is the action itself. The shooting of the Koran is completely against the basic tenets of democracy, a form of government we are attempting to sell in the Middle East as an ideology of tolerance and religious freedom. How can we possibly expect others to embrace what we know to be a great system of government when to others it appears to be a system of laws of convenience? But there is a religious reality we should acknowledge as well.

If someone where to use The Bible for target practice, the uproar in the US would be fanatical. It is difficult to imagine any reason given to the public for such a barbaric act to be acceptable to any Christian or any American. It is an act inherently provocative, meant to incite hate and intolerance, which it surely would do in every corner of America. And it has.

The BBC reported on the same day that the murder of Chaldean Catholic Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho would result in the execution of Ahmed Ali Ahmed. While the severity of the two incidents are vastly different, the targets themselves are too similar to ignore. In no way do I claim that one act lead to another. On the contrary, the fact that the two are quite probably unrelated indicates that religious intolerance is the norm- and the US government is involving itself in the fray.  We praise the death penalty for the murder of a religious leader.  We want criminals held accountable.  But isn’t the act of aggression taken by a US soldier likely to lead to further violence?  Is the soldier going to be held accountable for the actions?  I have no idea. All I know is that the soldier is no longer in Iraq, according to reports.  Probably a smart move.  A move that also may allow the soldier to escape culpability for his or her actions.

The “Koran-as-bullet-repository” incident is an act of aggression against Islam, not against terrorism or fundamentalists or Iraq or even the Middle East. An American used a holy book, a book that praises Jesus Christ, to empty a weapon of war. It is not an act of bad judgment from a soldier- it is an act the screaming hatred.

I find myself at odds with the report, however. As much as I would like, I simply cannot completely blame the soldier. I have no idea what his/her motives were. For that matter, he or she has been fighting in a war under horrific conditions. It is easy to sit in judgment. I refuse to try and convict anyone based only upon one report found on the world-wide-web. It is my right, however, to register my dissatisfaction and disgust with the act.

An American soldier unrelated to the incident apparently kissed a Koran (one that was intact and not riddled with bullet holes and gun powder) and gave it to some local Iraqi “tribal leaders.” I wonder if the leaders find themselves in a moral dilemma: How can we keep a sacred text that has been kissed by the infidels?

Christians in this country should be mortified by the actions of the military. Unfortunately, the ones with the loudest mouths on the tallest self-made pedestals are probably nodding their heads with smiles on their faces thinking of how this latest incident foretells of The Rapture. They don’t realize that as they yell of the second-coming, voices of reason- that same reason taught by Christ- are drowned out. They choose to ignore the fact that when everyone is shouting in the name of God that they are simultaneously choosing to drown out the voice of God.

The only thing this incident should foretell is a need for calmer heads. Democracy is not religious pulpit. This democratic society needs to take a stance and say once and for all that religious intolerance goes against its ideals and it will not take sides in a Christian/Muslim war. The only wars we should be fighting should be those conflicts that threaten our freedoms and the freedoms of others, not the protection of people who insist on a pissing contest where the loser is killed. When that pissing contest mean deficating a religious text, well, what reaction do we think we are going to see? We must stand firm against religious intolerance. Our government should lead the charge. A Democratic people should expect nothing less from its soldiers, leaders and diplomats. I know I expect nothing less.

The Christian Science Monitor says it better then I ever could

In the book “Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War 2, and the End of Civilization” Nicholson Baker gives a pacifist critique on the behavior of our political and social leaders during World War 2. He forces us to examine the whole truth of the war, rather then just the myth of the “god war” that has been sold to the American people. This is not to say that World War 2 was not a necessary war (though Baker may disagree with me), rather that we should remember the whole truth of the war then just the idealized version that is fed to us.

During the run up to war, humans have the unfortunate habit of ignoring any information that does not mesh with their view of the situation. All parties are guilty of this, many pacifists feel that truly threatening characters can be met with open arms, while hawks tend to forget that war should be the option of last resort, used only after all others have been exhausted.

In “Human Smoke” we are given a pacifist’s telling of WW2, and it is a welcome change from the narrative that is so commonly heard. In the common narrative Churchill and Roosevelt are unblemished characters who are responsible for leading the allies to victory against the forces of fascism and tyranny. This view does not do justice to those who did their very best to prevent such a tragic war from occurring. In reality, both Churchill and Roosevelt are guilty of serious crimes against both their own people and many other peoples as well. Of course, even with their many faults, Churchill and Roosevelt remain vastly preferable to the nightmare that was represented by Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo. Nicholson rightly refers to World War 2 as the “greatest catastrophe in human history”, however it can be both that and the “good war” that Americans like to remember so fondly.

It is important to remember the events of WW2 in shades of gray, rather then the black and white myth makes such a good story to tell. When we remember events as they actually occur it gives us a defense against reckless militarism. It gives us a defense against fear mongering, it reminds us that war is truly an awful act to inflict against anyone. However, most importantly of all, it reminds us that in extenuating circumstances, it sometimes is necessary to inflict such mass slaughter on our fellow human beings

The first book we will read to discuss is Human Smoke: The Beginnings of World War II, the End of Civilization.

The purpose is to provide a space for people in a specific place and a specific time that have ideas about subject and writings… by people I mean friends who want to communicate to others in their way in their own time.  Free speech for all.  In this case, more free speech for some of us.

Speecher