Eda Uca: Testifying of the Nonviolent Jesus
We don’t need another election. We need an exorcism. It is this that leads me from vigil to vigil and I burned with it on the evening of March 16, when I participated in nonviolent civil resistance and was arrested with more than 200 others as part of the Christian Peace Witness for Iraq. I shook from it in court some three months later when I pleaded “no contest” to failing to obey a lawful order.
There were 13 disciples in court that day, each with a unique mission. Many spoke beautifully to issues of amendments, traditions, permits, and codes. I ask you, sisters and brothers, what is our message? I wonder: Should we defend ourselves in finite opportunities to testify, or ought we defend the lowliest victims of war?
I stood at the podium that day, my throat dry and my hands cold, testifying to the message of the nonviolent Jesus. I stood and prayed there—as I had in front of the White House on that bitter cold night so many of us remember—strictly to relieve the ringing in my ears: speak for the dead or join them. I could not discuss the First Amendment or the parameters of the permit. Rather, I felt commissioned by God to speak to one truth alone: The frontline in Iraq is everywhere and the children have no place to hide. When I sat down I felt, but for a moment, clean.
Eda R. Uca is a member of Jonah House, an intentional faith-based resistance community in Baltimore, Maryland. She is the author of Ana's Girls: The Essential Guide to the Underground Eating Disorder Community Online.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
From the Jonah House website:
http://www.jonahhouse.org/NSA06.htm
Does Wallis agree?
Posted by: Blake | July 13, 2007 4:47 PM
That is all well and good, but I must say that I am curious. Have you gone to states such as Iran and to groups such as Al-Qaeda to do the same thing, considering that they are partially and/or completely responsible for committing acts such as these:
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/bless-the-beasts-and-children.htm
Posted by: MadHatter07 | July 13, 2007 4:55 PM
It's a method of deflecting the responsibility that everyone has to regard the truth by insisting that someone else hear and accept it first, a kind of he said/she said approach that's more interested in dominating and finding excuses than loving.
Posted by: M North | July 13, 2007 6:02 PM
Madhatter, you said, "This is all well and good," but I must say that I am curious. If you are truly sincere in this statement, why do you engage in the *tu quoque* fallacy?
Posted by: Hali | July 13, 2007 6:45 PM
M North and Hail-
I just state it to make a point. Most of the people on this website are more concerned with scoring political points than they are with helping people out. For all the stuff you hear about how terrible the genocide in Darfur is, you hear nothing about what is really going on with Al Qaeda and their allies and their treatment of the Iraqi population. I think that it has a lot to do with Jim and his friends wanting a certain group to succeed in American politics to the extent that they are willing to condemn the Iraqis to untold misery and torment.
Posted by: MadHatter07 | July 13, 2007 8:15 PM
For all the stuff you hear about how terrible the genocide in Darfur is, you hear nothing about what is really going on with Al Qaeda and their allies and their treatment of the Iraqi population. MadHatter07
I agree. We should discuss that. That starting point of the conversation should be how Al Queda did not exist in Iraq until George Bush's dirty little illegal war ousted Hussein and created a vacuum for Al Queda. Once we agree on what the catalyst for Al Queda's presence in Iraq was, we can discuss both how to counter it and how to deal with our own immoral leaders.
Posted by: Sarasotakid | July 13, 2007 9:11 PM
Blake,
who cares if he does or doesn't?
p
Posted by: Payshun | July 13, 2007 10:17 PM
Wow Eda R Uca. I’m not sure how you typed this article and patted your back at the same time, but it’s quite impressive.
Posted by: TimR | July 14, 2007 12:00 PM
Payshun,
Fair or not, the truth remains, "you are known by the company you keep." When Jonah House calls the US "The World's #1 Terrorist", and Sojo runs an article by a member of Jonah House without any elaboration, well, people are going to wonder about things like that.
Is it fair? Maybe not, but at least Blake has given Sojo a chance to say whether or not they agree. Would you prefer that he simply jumped to the obvious though not necessarily correct conclusion?
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | July 14, 2007 4:09 PM
Sarasotakid-
Ok, so since you like to think that Iraq wasn't a state-supporter of international terrorism before the current war, why were they listed as an original member of the list of state-sponsors of terrorism back in 1979 and had been a member of the list for nearly a 13 years before the current war?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._list_of_state_sponsors_of_international_terrorism
But, of course you, Jim, and others are free to continue to believe the myth that Saddam was an innocent when it comes to terrorism.
Posted by: MadHatter07 | July 14, 2007 4:44 PM
You have to realize that I don't think that Eda R. Uca, Wallis or Sojo believe that Al Queda and other fringe, radical Islamic groups are the proplem. It is the US and we alone are the reason the world is in such poor shape. If the US would just disappear off the face of the earth it would be a better place - I think that is what they believe by what the write. Al Queda and such that have caused terror all around the world are only doing it in respond to that the US (and maybe a few others) have done. Have we done everything correct - no. No Adm. has and none ever will. What would happen if the US disappeared tomorrow. The poor and hungary of the world would be dying at more than 3 times the current rate. Small crazy dictators around the world would be able to cause havoc with little fear of reprisal or retalliation. So lets be pragmatic about this one shall we. Lets get the US back into the US and the UN out of the US. Then - Al Queda and such will settle down and the world can live in peace and harmony.
Lets end world terrorism by bringing all the troups home now - and let the UN deal with the problems - most who author on this site I think believe that would be the best policy to date.
Whatever -
.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 14, 2007 6:14 PM
Posted by: | July 14, 2007 6:14 PM
The above post is mine.
later -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | July 14, 2007 6:22 PM
"...of course you, Jim, and others are free to continue to believe the myth that Saddam was an innocent when it comes to terrorism."
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" Matthew 7:3
Dictators Supported by the U.S. Government:
General Sani Abacha, Nigeria
Idi Amin, Uganda
Colonel Hugo Banzer, Bolivia
Fulgencio Batista, Cuba
Sir Hassanal Bolkiah, Brunei
P.W. Botha, South Africa
General Humberto Branco, Brazil
Raoul Cedras, Haiti
Vinicio Cerezo, Guatemala
Chiang Kai-Shek, Taiwan
Roberto Suazo Cordova, Honduras
Alfredo Christiani, El Salvador
Ngo Dihn Diem, Vietnam
General Samuel Doe, Liberia
Francois Duvalier, Haiti
Jean Claude Duvalier, Haiti
King Fahd bin'Abdul-'Aziz, Saudi Arabia
General Francisco Franco, Spain
Hassan II Morocco
Ferdinand Marcos, Philippines
General Maximiliano Hernandez Martinez, El Salvador
Mobutu Sese Seko, Zaire
General Efrain Rios Montt, Guatemala
General Manuel Noriega, Panama
Turgut Ozal, Turkey
Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi, Iran
George Papadopoulos, Greece
Park Chung Hee, South Korea
General Augusto Pinochet, Chile
Pol Pot, Cambodia
General Sitiveni Rabuka, Fiji
General Efrain Rios Montt, Guatemala
Halie Salassie, Ethiopia
Antonio de Oliveira Salazar, Portugal
Anastasio Somoza Jr., Nicaragua
Anastasio Somoza Sr., Nicaragua
Ian Smith, Rhodesia
Alfredo Stroessner, Paraguay
General Suharto, Indonesia
Rafael Leonidas Trujillo, Dominican Republic
General Jorge Rafael Videla, Argentina
Mohammed Zia Ul-Haq, Pakistan
http://www.omnicenter.org/warpeacecollection/dictators.htm#authors
Posted by: neuro_nurse | July 15, 2007 7:37 PM
Moderatelad-
That for the most part was a good post.
Posted by: MadHatter07 | July 16, 2007 8:10 AM
Moderatelad,
I think your beliefs about Sojo's thoughts on Al Quaeda are extreme. Sojo offers a different perspective on the complexities of the situation than the conservative perspective, and it is important that we examine the problem from all perspectives. I don't think it is wrong to examine how U.S. actions may or may not encourage terrorism. You interpret such acts as Sojo blaming the U.S. for the problems in the world. I interpret that as honest appraisals of both the good and bad the U.S. has offered the world. You are adamant about focusing on only the good the U.S. has done while ignoring the bad things the U.S. has done, and that, in my mind, is a very dangerous position. Neuronurse certainly brings the point home with the extensive list of evil dictators supported by U.S. governments (governments of all political stripes, I might add).
I get the overall impression that you are saying the U.S. is the author of all peace and harmony in the world. The only one responsible for any peace in this world is Jesus, and it is vitally important that you not elevate our nation above Jesus. We are capable of great things, but we are not capable of bringing true and lasting peace (and if you looked at it honestly, you would also realize that not all of our efforts for peace in this world are free of ulterior motives--a statement again underscored by Neuronurses' list).
Posted by: Anonymous | July 16, 2007 11:25 AM
Whoops--above post posted by Squeaky
Posted by: squeaky | July 16, 2007 11:29 AM
neuro_nurse I notice you did not have Stalin listed in the terrorists we supported .
Important you include him . The United States supported the Soviet Union with supplies during WW 2 . The lesser of two evils and who is helping our natrional interest has always been U.S policy . Dealing with evil however , even if it is the lesser , can and most of the times comes back and takes a bite out of you .
I wonder though , would you have not helped Stalin defeat the Nazis ?
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | July 16, 2007 4:48 PM
Mick Sheldon,
“As German bombs fell on London and Nazi tanks rolled over US troops, Sosthenes Behn president and founder of the US based ITT corporation, met with his German representative to discuss improving German communication systems. ITT was designing and building Nazi phone and radio systems as well as supplying crucial parts for German bombs. Our government knew all about this, for under a presidential order, US companies were licensed to trade with the Nazis. The choice of who would be licensed was odd, though. While the Secretary of State gave the Ford Motor Company permission to make Nazi tanks, he simultaneously blocked aid to German-Jewish refugees because the US wasn't supposed to be trading with the enemy. Other US companies trading with the Third Reich were General Motors, DuPont, Standard Oil of New Jersey, Davis Oil Co., and the Chase National Bank. President Roosevelt did not stop them, fearing a scandal might lead to another stock market crash or lower US moral. Besides, the same companies that traded with Hitler were supplying the US with its armaments, and some corporate leaders threatened to withdraw their support if Roosevelt exposed them. Henry Ford was a good friend of Hitler's. His book -- The International Jew -- had Inspired Hltler's Mein Kampf. The Fuhrer kept Ford's picture in his office, and Ford was one of only four foreigners to receive Germany's highest civilian award. As for Sosthenes Behn, at the end of the war, he received the highest civilian award for service to his country -- the United States of America.”
http://www.omnicenter.org/warpeacecollection/dictators.htm#hitler
Posted by: neuro_nurse | July 16, 2007 7:44 PM
Posted by: squeaky | July 16, 2007 11:29 AM
OK - no I do not think that the US does everything correct. They never have they never will and I have never said that.
BUT - I do feel that we do it better than most countries in the world and I would rather have a Bill Clinton in the White House effecting world policy than the UN, Saddam, Koffee, or several others that I could name but we do not have the space. I would have supported anyone from either party taking on the situation in Iraq. %^&* I did support Clinton going into the Bulkins and that was a 'civil war' and Mr. 'M' had not attacked anyone outside of the country.
But again - that chatt about Nurmburg style trials and the only chatt is putting our guys on trial. (what - no guts going after those that behead civilians. Right - they do not represent a 'country' - nice out)
You know - I have friends that for any number of reasons have prayed that the Almighty would remove His hand of protection so that we in the US would have a little understanding of what other counttries go through. I am about ready to join them. I believe I have found the enemy and it is pacivism, complacency, sloth, mendasity, self centerness, weakness just to mention a few.
None of this would have happened if 911 had not happened and you conspircy theorist can go ^&*( something.
$%^&* it is hard to remain 'moderate' on this site. With so many 'hardcore Bush haters' someone has to try to keep the balance in the world of Sojo - but I am loosing the battle. Just like GWB is loosing in Iraq - there - I beat you to the Bush Bash - Hah.
My daughter needs to go to soccer practice, maybe I will find a tree and kneel down and pary for the demise of the US - then we can all be praying for the US to fail in one area or another.
keep up the Bush bash - it is what is done so well and enjoyed by so many...I am sure it is productive for some of you.
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | July 16, 2007 7:48 PM
Sheesh, Modlad. I said not one word about Bush. The discussion I was having with you had nothing to do with Bush. I have to wonder why you jumped to that interpretation.
I do agree with this, by the way:
"I believe I have found the enemy and it is pacivism, complacency, sloth, mendasity, self centerness, weakness just to mention a few."
(Although I am not sure what mendasity is =).)
It is strange how our great technological advances and wealth have brought us into such a state--in fact, even our physical health is suffering from our overindulgence.
By the way--what's with all the sarcasm and "%"!@##%"? Was I rude in my response to your post? I really tried hard not to be, but if you thought I was, I apologize.
Posted by: Squeaky | July 16, 2007 9:34 PM
Posted by: Squeaky | July 16, 2007 9:34 PM
Sorry - most of that post was not directed at you and I should have said so when I was typing and I did not - sorry.
In trying to have some meaningful discussion about almost any topic on this site - it is difficult when the top two answers or comments is to 'Bash Bush'.
It looks like it I was directing it at you - I wasn't. Just got caught in the moment and so have done a better job - again sorry.
Have a great night -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | July 16, 2007 11:19 PM
OK--thanks.
I wish the liberal response to politics was not to do what the conservatives did when Clinton was president. I heard so much vitriol from fellow Christians, I wish I had been savvy enough to ask at the time whether or not they were praying for him. We are to pray for all our leaders, whether we agree with them or not. Your point about Bush bashing is well taken. It is hard for people (myself included) to keep emotions in check, especially, I think, when there is a war on. All the more reason to pray for our leaders so that they lead our troops well and wisely.
Blessings,
Lea
Posted by: squeaky | July 17, 2007 12:06 AM
Posted by: squeaky | July 17, 2007 12:06 AM
Truth be told - I stopped praying for Clinton the day that he stood before the gathering at the prayer breakfast and said something about I have sinned, and he lawyers the sameday were in court denying that he had done what he was accused of doing. I did continue praying for the office of the Pres. and the Adm. I also prayed for Monica's parents - this is not what you wanted your daughter to be known for and I don't believe they raised her that way either.
Have a great day!
.
Posted by: moderatelad | July 17, 2007 8:58 AM
If you had a brother or close friend who did the same thing Clinton did, would you not pray for him?
The most open thing I ever heard about Clinton came from the pastor of the church I was attending at the time. He said that it may be easy for us to judge those who fall to such temptation, but the pressures people in that position have to deal with are unimaginable. We all face those temptations ourselves (and sometimes give in to them), and we have so much less stress to deal with--which is why it is so important that we pray for those in positions of authority. I wonder what would have happened during that time had God's people gathered in prayer for the Clintons, rather than condemnation? I'd say we missed the boat, wouldn't you (consider Christ taught us to love our "enemies")?
Blessings
Posted by: squeaky | July 17, 2007 12:30 PM
Posted by: squeaky | July 17, 2007 12:30 PM
I have a friend that went through something simular. I stood by him even when it was not a popular thing to do. The difference - he admitted to what he did and do not make any excuses for his action - he said it was wrong.
Clinton was admitting to the public that he had sinned and then tried to excuse it because of the 'situation or presure' that he was under. Then his lawyers are in court denying that he did it. You can't have it both ways.
There are many people in the public sector that fail us and we have to offer them forgiveness - IF it is asked for from them. With Clinton - he was focusing on Monica and forgetting all the others. There was a trend with him and his actions against women.
Sen. Packwood of OR had to resign his seat for basically the action that Clinton was able to keep his position. Do you think that was correct? OH - Packwood was a Republican and Pat Ireland and the group from NOW went after him with a vengance.
Just want level ground...
Have a great day.
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | July 17, 2007 1:49 PM
Meanwhile, down here in Louisiana…
Senator David Vitter (R, Louisiana) is the first “victim” of the “D.C. Madam” scandal.
Vitter replaced Bob Livingston in the House when Livingston stepped down after being fingered by Larry Flynt for adultery.
Upon taking office, Vitter called for Clinton to resign.
Within a few months of making that demand, Vitter was apparently eliciting the services of Palfrey’s “escort service.”
Vitter has publicly ackowledged his “past sins.”
It’s interesting to me to read the opinions from Times-Picayune readers – many of whom say we should forgive Vitter and move on.
Perhaps so, but were/are these same people so forgiving of Clinton?
I’ll forgive Vitter when he publicly apologizes to Clinton.
After all, as distasteful as having sex with an intern is, it’s not illegal. However, having sex with a prostitute is.
You just have to love Louisiana politics!
Posted by: neuro_nurse | July 17, 2007 4:48 PM
Wolvie,
Great question, I just never understood how one blog about peace could or should be taken as complete indorsement of another site. I don't understand it. I would not expect a tacit approval of Ann Coulter's ridiculous remarks for all conservatives or for the places she goes. Why then would I automatically assume then that Sojo or Wallis would be on board w/ the idea that the US is the #1 terrorist nation? It doesn't make sense in my head.
p
Posted by: Payshun | July 17, 2007 9:42 PM
Posted by: neuro_nurse | July 17, 2007 4:48 PM
After all, as distasteful as having sex with an intern is, it’s not illegal. However, having sex with a prostitute is.
I was told that for a person in authority (Clinton) to have sex with a subornate (Monica) was harasment because the one in authority can use it to their advantage and manipulate the other person. Clinton was on the job (no pun intended) when he was in the Oval Office. He can do whatever he would like to do on the 3rd floor. But the Exe. Office in one the job. But I guess that has all changes now.
Have a great evening -
.
Posted by: Moderatelad | July 18, 2007 12:02 AM
Think of it this way, Modlad. The Bible explicitly tells us to pray for those in leadership over us. You are arguing with that Word when you decide to be judge over another person's heart. You are called not to judge those in authority, but to pray for them. It's a simple response on your part then to simply obey.
Your arguments and justifications are not with me, but with God, who has already sent His son to die for us (including Bill Clinton) and who knows Clinton's heart. Again, I ask--what if the response from Christians during that time had been to pray for Clinton rather than to condemn him?
However, your refusal to pray for him during those times should give you insight into why it is that many more liberal-leaning Christians are not very charitable to Bush. Clinton was bashed for sexual indiscretions that affected him, Lewinsky, and their families. Bush is being bashed for a war that has affected our entire nation and approximately 3500 American families directly and 10s of thousands of Iraqi families. If you couldn't be charitable to Clinton, then at least understand why many Liberals are having a difficult time being charitable to Bush. You may think the war is justified, but take a step back and understand that those who are not charitible to Bush are not because they do not believe the war is justified. If someone does not believe the war is justified, to that person, Bush's actions are far more heinous than Clinton's indescretions. I hope you can see that link. I also hope you can understand the bashing a bit more--how can you expect Liberally minded people to be more charitable to Bush when you yourself couldn't be more charitable to Clinton? Since you couln't pray for Clinton, it is your responsibility to at least try to understand what all the anger is about. In the liberal mind, Clinton's sin is hardly comparable to Bush's.
Posted by: squeaky | July 18, 2007 11:21 AM
Moderatelad
I like Bill Clinton. I think he was a great president. I do not like or approve of all of the things he did as president, and I absolutely will not try to excuse him for the Lewinsky affair. It was stupid.
Nevertheless, Vitter condemned Clinton while he was committing adultery himself.
One of the columnists in the Times-Picayune wrote, “You can’t stand up for family values when you are lying down with prostitutes.”
In defense of Vitter, I guess you could say perjury is illegal, hypocrisy is not.
Posted by: neuro_nurse | July 18, 2007 1:58 PM
Think how much more effective the non-violent resistence in Europe would have been if Germany did not have such an up to date phone system (thanks to the American Companies).
Bin Ladin would have a much more difficult time with his agenda if more moderate Islamist felt comfortable sitting on thier hands and dragging their feet.
When are we going to start doing things that inspire that kind of resistance in Pakistan?
Posted by: Cynthia | July 25, 2007 5:33 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?