Don’t miss out on the action! Over 100,000 supporters of immigration reform will gather this Sunday, March 21st, on the National Mall to witness the urgent need for immigration reform. Grab a friend, grab a sign, and join us!
Last week, President Obama met with Senator Chuck Schumer (NY) and Senator Lindsey Graham (SC), who are working together to draft a bipartisan immigration reform bill in the Senate. However, talks are stalled and immigrant families cannot wait any longer. The time for immigration reform is now.
As people of faith, we can’t sit by as the broken immigration system rips apart families and communities. Join us in Washington DC to urge Congress to pass just, humane immigration reform.
When I was told that two Iranian women would like to stop by and talk to us at FCNL, I was very excited. I had never met someone who currently lives in Iran, though I frequently meet people who have left Iran and now live in the United States. These women, Sousan and Shida, were very cordial and offered some fascinating insights into the experiences of Iranians, and how U.S. policies and rhetoric affect them.
Meeting with Sousan and Shida
Sousan made a very striking comment towards the end of our meeting (their English was outstanding and they also spoke German and Arabic in addition to their native Farsi.) Expressing the frustration that many of her fellow Iranians feel at being labeled ‘fundamentalists,’ Sousan quipped, “If ‘fundamentalists’ means we are insistent about our beliefs, we are all fundamentalists!”
The subject of the U.S.-Iran relationship is one that arouses deep emotions, and often unyielding perspectives. Despite the fact that most Iranians and Americans have never experienced the other country or culture first hand, most have developed a paradigm of distrust and even enmity towards the other. Actually, in the few years I have been working in Middle Eastern issues, I have noticed a great deal of ‘fundamentalist’ thinking–by that I mean, people seem to have firm, fervently held opinions on the topic regardless of their leaning, and I have met with greater or lesser degrees of respect for my own beliefs.
Before meeting Sousan and Shida, I spent the entire morning at a session held by the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) a group representing the Iranian expatriate community that FCNL has worked with for some time. There could not have been a more marked contrast of political perspectives between those who have left Iran for various reasons over the last thirty years, and the women still in Iran. The NIAC forum focused heavily on human rights abuses by the Iranian government and was strongly favorable towards the opposition movement–compared to the women from Iran who were critical of expatriates and of the opposition ‘Green’ protests. Yet, both of these groups, whether in agreement with the policies of Iran or not, emphasized strongly the need for people to people dialogue and respect for differences of opinion and cultural understandings. FCNL believes this is a fundamental necessity, and in the foreign policy arena, we couldn’t have a stronger conviction–so perhaps we are fundamentalists, in a good way? read more…
For many at FCNL, that didn’t mean very much, but for me and a couple of the other interns it meant a lot. Juanes, an internationally known Colombian singer who has won more Latin Grammys than any other one musician, came to FCNL. To my colleagues here at FCNL I’ve been describing him as the “Justin Timberlake of Latin America.”
For me part of the appeal is that he is a pop artist who not only sings about broken hearts but he also sings about political and social messages in his music. Even more evidence of the humanitarian side of this dashing Latin singer, is his participation with the United States Campaign to Ban Landmines. FCNL has played a strong role in this issue for many years. An issue that directly affects Colombians as well as many other countries that have a history of US military presence. It is this involvement that brought him to FCNL today.
Juanes with Joe Volk in front of FCNL's building
This afternoon, the group, United States Campaign to Ban Landmines (USCBL) met in FCNL’s downstairs conference room. About five of the FCNL interns hovered near the front door for about 30 minutes prior to when we thought he might show up. When he finally came, I was too embarrassed to introduce myself, so instead I hovered behind a wall, hoping to a catch a glimpse.
At the end of the meeting, Tommy Bobo, an FCNL staff member, took some photos of the Campaign to Ban Landmines group with Joe Volk, Juanes, and a War Is Not the Answer sign. You can get a free War Is Not the Answer sign, like Juanes did, here.
What you can’t see in the picture are the silver shoes Juanes was wearing! Don’t worry, after the pictures were taken, I finally introduced myself to him and shook his hand. It has been quite a day here on 2nd and Cst. If only every day was this eventful.
Torture is not just a national security issue. It’s a moral issue.
FCNL has embarked on a campaign with the National Religious Campaign Against Torture (NRCAT) to end US-sponsored torture forever. Because we’re not just talking about national security, we’re talking about human lives and human dignity.
Torture dehumanizes both perpetrators and victims. We, as members of a society whose government has tortured, are also caught up in this web. We are called to take a stand.
Now, we’re asking you to take one step to join us.
Ask your meeting or church to endorse a Commission of Inquiry. A Commission of Inquiry would be independent. It would gather the facts and make recommendations about how to ensure that the United States never again engages in torture.
In order to educate your community about the importance of eradicating US-sponsored torture, you could show them the Campaign’s 20-minute video, “Ending US-Sponsored Torture Forever.” I’ve included the trailer here.
Torture is a moral issue, and it is always wrong. Help us to spread the word.
Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | function fbs_click() {u=location.href;t=document.title;window.open(‘http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=’+encodeURIComponent(u)+’&t=’+encodeURIComponent(t),’sharer’,'toolbar=0,status=0,width=626,height=436′);return false;}Facebook
Just a few days ago, Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) introduced a bill to reauthorize a special diabetes program for Indians (SDPI) for another five years. Nearly one in five American Indians and Alaska Natives has diabetes and it is a leading cause of illness and death. I’ve heard the words “diabetes” and “epidemic” used in the same sentence in reference to Indian Country more times than I can count since coming to work at FCNL.
The proposed legislation, S. 3058, would also increase funding from $150 million per year to $200 million per year for the SDPI. This would be an important step in the right direction of providing increased funding for Indian health care, which currently lags far behind the health care most people in this country experience.
Another thing that makes this bill exciting is that it was introduced with a very bipartisan set of consponsors, including 8 Democrats and 8 Republicans. According to the National Indian Health Board press release, “The SDPI supported programs have resulted in a decrease of 13% in the mean blood sugar level (AIC), which translates to a 40% reduction in diabetes-complications.
Please consider writing to your senators asking them to co-sponsor this bill. You can also write your representative regarding the corresponding House bill.
Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | function fbs_click() {u=location.href;t=document.title;window.open(‘http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=’+encodeURIComponent(u)+’&t=’+encodeURIComponent(t),’sharer’,'toolbar=0,status=0,width=626,height=436′);return false;}Facebook
On Monday, I attended an event at the Center for American Progress (CAP) on the global implications of climate induced migration. For the past several months, I have been researching the intersection between climate change and preventing deadly conflict, an interdisciplinary area in its infancy. The panel at this event included a representative from the United States Agency for International Development’s (USAID) Conflict Management and Mitigation (CMM) office, an Oxfam representative, and a migration specialist. I was impressed at the diversity of perspectives represented and that finally many of these issues (conflict prevention, humanitarian assistance, and migration) are being brought together into one conversation with a collaborative goal of presenting a nuanced and perceptive picture of how climate change will affect social dynamics across the globe.
Climate change advocates and migration experts have long been skeptical of one another. Migration scholars resent that many environmental groups have used a dramatized threat of “climate migration” to drum up support for their cause, while inadvertently demonizing migrants. Conversely, environmental groups often feel that migration studies discount the effects of climate and environmental change and that it would be possible to attribute much of the migration in the past several decades (at least partially) to climate change. Thankfully, some of this animosity seems to be thawing as people realize that all these issues are interconnected and action is dependent on understanding how.
Susan Martin, the climate specialist, mentioned four ways that climate change and migration interact:
1. Desertification and increasingly long drought seasons push people out of their homelands (a relatively slow migratory pattern).
2. Rising seal levels will force people to relocate (slow).
3. More frequent and intense natural disasters induce displacement and people often never return to their original homes (this results in quick, mass migration– we are seeing more of it already).
4. Competition over resources leads to conflicts, displacement (this could be large scale, and is the scariest option in many ways).
She also provided a lot of hope, though. She mentioned that remittances from migrants back to their home countries far outweighs any government or foreign commitments and that if that resource stream could be tied to adaptation projects it would be a tremendous resource. The entire panel also reiterated that often the very necessity of sharing resources means that there is increased cooperation about things like water rights. Cooperating on environmental issues can then begin to break down other barriers, such as ethnic, religious or political differences. Perhaps the very direness of the situation will force humanity to become more peaceful and cooperative.
I was also heartened to hear that both Oxfam and USAID are building a consciousness of environmental change into their projects and that everyone is taking this issue seriously. The common wisdom on the connection between climate change and conflict is that a changing climate multiplies other factors that lead to fragile and failing states, such as poverty, weak governance, and economic instability. Therefore it is essential that climate change be part of any conversation happening in the State Department, USAID, and even the military. It also means that FCNL’s climate and peaceful prevention of deadly conflict programs are more closely linked that we often think.
Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | function fbs_click() {u=location.href;t=document.title;window.open(‘http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=’+encodeURIComponent(u)+’&t=’+encodeURIComponent(t),’sharer’,'toolbar=0,status=0,width=626,height=436′);return false;}Facebook
I think I could go on for a while about all the things that sets FCNL apart. FCNL’s beautiful, green building, its location just four blocks from the Capitol, the wonderful and energetic FCNL Staff, and of course, the historic, powerful witness FCNL provides in Washington.
Something less well known but equally as impressive is the process in which FCNL decides what legislative priorities to work on. This biannual process involves asking Quaker meetings and churches all over the country to engage in worshipful discernment to determine what they feel are the most important legislative priorities for FCNL to focus on in the coming session of Congress. These priorities are within the wider context of FCNL’s policy statement and the four “we seeks“.
All of the responses are worshipfully considered by FCNL’s policy committee, a smaller body of twelve members appointed from FCNL’s General Committee. Out of the responses, the policy committee, takes the “sense of the responses” and put them into a document that is presented to FCNL’s governing body, the General Committee. This body meets in November where they also examine and worshipfully consider the statement created by the policy committee. The approved document becomes FCNL’s legislative priorities for the coming congress. See FCNL’s legislative priorities for the current congress.
Yes, this is somewhat of a slow and complicated process for an organization to decide what legislation priorities to focus on, as the process goes from one body of Quakers, to another body of Quakers to another body, and happens over the course of almost a year….however, partly due to this long, and laborious process, I believe it is an incredibly powerful and unique experience.
It can be a powerful process for the individual, for the Friends community, and for FCNL. The process presents a unique opportunity for Friends to ask themselves deep questions within the context of the wider world of Friends. What do I believe are the most pressing national legislative issues? What issues do I feel called to work on? As a community, what local or national issues do we feel called to work on? What is our group’s role within the wider world of Friends?
The opportunity lies in engaging in serious discernment as a meeting, which helps individual and collective witness to grow. Often Friends feel a call to further work as a community, whether at a local or national level. Overall, Friends have the opportunity to feel more connected to each other, to become more connected with FCNL’s work and feel more connected with the wider world of Friends.
Not only is it beneficial on the local level, but FCNL’s work finds increased grounding and spiritual depth through this process. The more diverse responses FCNL’s receives the richer FCNL’s work becomes. There is no other process like this among Friends. It is corporate discernment on a large scale, connecting Friends of all branches and theological backgrounds for a common purpose. How is the Religious Society of Friends called to witness in Washington? How is the Religious Society of Friends called to change federal policy for the common good?
If you belong to a Quaker meeting or church, and your community has not engaged in the priority process this year, I strongly encourage you to do so.
Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | function fbs_click() {u=location.href;t=document.title;window.open(‘http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=’+encodeURIComponent(u)+’&t=’+encodeURIComponent(t),’sharer’,'toolbar=0,status=0,width=626,height=436′);return false;}Facebook
For a while now, one of my favorite sources of interesting and sometimes challenging information has been Yes! Magazine. Their tagline is, “Powerful Ideas, Practical Actions” and I’ve certainly always found something to like in their publication and on their website.
Yesterday I took a look at their site and was happy to see that they have a new article posted by the “Interfaith Amigos” Rabbi Ted Falcon, Pastor Don Mackenzie, and Sheikh Jamal Rahman who have been working, writing, and learning together since 2001. This new article, “Head, Heart, and Hands: Breaking the Cycle of Religious Fear” by Sheikh Jamal Rahman addresses many issues and can certainly be related to FCNL’s work as well as the Epistle Encouraging Quaker Engagement with American Muslims that the General Committee approved during the 2009 Annual Meeting.
If you’re looking for ways to encourage interfaith dialouge, the “Interfaith Amigos” seems like a good place to start!
Happy reading.
In peace,
~Rachael
Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | function fbs_click() {u=location.href;t=document.title;window.open(‘http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=’+encodeURIComponent(u)+’&t=’+encodeURIComponent(t),’sharer’,'toolbar=0,status=0,width=626,height=436′);return false;}Facebook
This was the message from Dr. Cindy Williams in her testimony in the Senate Budget Committee today at a hearing entitled: “Defense Budget and War Costs: An Independent Look.” Another witness, Dr. Gordan Adams, stated explicitly: “…the defense budget should not be exempt from a freeze.”
In his opening statement, Chairman Conrad (ND) pointed out that Defense spending is taking an ever-growing portion of federal government spending; it is higher in the President’s budget request for FY2011 than peaks during the Reagan build-up, the Korean War and the Vietnam war.
The Our Nation’s Checkbook campaign led by FCNL, has been working to change this imbalance in spending. We, along with organizers around the country and a coalition of national organizations, are pushing for hearings in the House and Senate Budget Committees on spending priorities, recognizing that the budget committees are really the place where spending priorities are set. Today’s hearing was not the hearing we asked for, but it was certainly a step in the right direction.
Chairman Conrad (ND) recognized the critical responsibility of the budget committees, saying: “This is the Budget Committee and we have a responsibility to take the President’s budget request and rework it and turn it into a budget resolution that considers all the trade-offs that we confront.” Dr. Adams pointed out the risks of a rising defense budget very clearly: “An unconstrained defense budget is likely to make draconian choices in all other areas of discretionary spending necessary.” As the Pentagon budget increases, other spending priorities are being squeezed.
Human needs, the environment and efforts to prevent war are absolutely essential to create real security in this nation and around the world. These priorities cannot take back seat to more Pentagon and war spending. As evidenced by the hearing today, there is a growing movement even within Congress to reevaluate Pentagon spending. Check out recent Our Nation’s Checkbook successes and join the campaign to reprioritize federal government spending by emailing Stephen at stephen@fcnl.org.
Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | function fbs_click() {u=location.href;t=document.title;window.open(‘http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=’+encodeURIComponent(u)+’&t=’+encodeURIComponent(t),’sharer’,'toolbar=0,status=0,width=626,height=436′);return false;}Facebook
I love the Olympics. I love parking myself in front of the TV and watching the Summer and Winter Games (I guess that’s what separates me from the athletes; I’m a couch potato, and they’re out working their butts off). I’m a huge sports fan in general, and I love watching sports like diving and ski jumping that are only widely available to watch during the Olympics (unless, of course, you have the ultimate sports cable TV package).
The Olympics brings out the best in athletes, I think. There’s a certain thrill to competing not as part of a money-hungry professional sports league (like the NHL), but as a representative of your entire country. And the Olympics are a time when it doesn’t matter if you’re a Detroit Red Wings fan or a Los Angeles Kings fan: we can come together and be fans of Team USA.
It’s sentimental, I know, but I enjoy the notion that the Olympics can be a time of peace, goodwill, and harmony between nations. I believe that sports can transcend political divisions, although I’ve obviously been proven wrong multiple times in past Olympics (see: 1980 Moscow Games boycott and 1984 Los Angeles Games boycott).
So, I am obviously quite dismayed at some of the reactions from ice dance competitors in response to the results of the ice dance competition. Last night a Canadian pair won the gold and an American pair won the silver. This was only the third time since ice dance became an Olympic sport in 1976 that a Russian of Soviet couple has not won the gold. The U.S. also had back-to-back ice dance medals for the first time, and this 1-2 showing by Canada and the U.S. marked a turning point in ice dance competition. North America showed it was ready for the ice dance world stage.
What should have been a time for joyous celebration for Canada instead turned sour with accusations from other teams of a home-court bias from the judges. Athletes should be gracious whether they make it to the podium or not.
When I was participating in athletics at George School, we were taught to nurture healthy competition and good sportsmanship. All athletes, no matter what their level of play or the outcome of the game deserved respect. We were taught that it was ok to want to win and to want to do well, but we shouldn’t sacrifice common decency and mutual respect. It made us not only better athletes, but better people in the long run.
I know that competing at the Olympics is a definitely a high-stress moment for athletes: who doesn’t dream of Olympic gold? But to lose common decency and respect for fellow athletes is, in my opinion, disrespectful of your sport and disrespectful of the Olympic spirit.
I think if all athletes kept in mind those guiding principles like I was taught at George School, the Olympics of my dreams could become the Olympics of reality.
Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | function fbs_click() {u=location.href;t=document.title;window.open(‘http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=’+encodeURIComponent(u)+’&t=’+encodeURIComponent(t),’sharer’,'toolbar=0,status=0,width=626,height=436′);return false;}Facebook
The FCNL Team
Rachael Jeffers
Inez Steigerwald
Lacey Maurer
Rebecca Sheff
Katrina Schwartz
Kimberly MacVaugh
Lizzie Biddle
Stephen Donahoe