What Do Religious Institutions and the UN Have in Common?
Philip F. Harris
July 26, 2006
They are essentially ineffective. To preface my remarks let me say that there are some UN organizations and some aspects of religious organizations that do add to the quality of human existence. However, as a Peacekeeper the UN is a failure. With regard to the practice of “loving thy neighbor,” churches are a failure.
Since its inception, the UN has done little to prevent or stop conflict. Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, just about everywhere in Africa and the Middle East, are but a few example where a world body should and could have made a difference, but did not. The UN Security Council is comprised of nations with the most powerful military might in the world. Yet, time after time they have done nothing to stop wars or end genocides.
What is the problem with this world? Why do we continue to allow the senseless slaughter of millions? Are we just trying to reduce surplus population or are the most powerful nations in the world functioning on an agenda that is a mystery to all? Why not send a hundred thousand Chinese and a hundred thousand European troops into Lebanon and just stop the fighting now? Why not just tell Syria and Iran that that if they do not stop giving arms to terrorist organizations that the world will step in and put a stop to it once and for all? Let people, key word being people, have whatever kind of government and society they choose, but let there be no tolerance for genocide, ethnic cleansing or interfering in the affairs of freely chosen lifestyles of nations.
Like the UN, major religious institutions are multi-national. They have adherents in many countries and are the bastions of enormous wealth. Everyone is aware of their various charitable organizations and they do provide some help to alleviate the problems of the poor. With such enormous resources in dollars and members, where are the faithful during all of these conflicts? What would happen if a million Christians and Muslims marched to Lebanon and stood between Israel and Hezbollah? What would happen if Muslims marched en masse into Baghdad and began to disarm militias? What if hundreds of thousands went into the Sudan to end the massacres? What would happen if the Pope told Catholics that it is their moral duty to journey to some of these locations and put themselves between the warring factions? How many boat tickets could TV evangelists buy to send their followers into these troubled zones?
Perhaps we have moved past the days of Selma and when people actually seemed to care about the world around them. Perhaps these large organizations are more concerned about preserving their existence than fulfilling their stated missions. Put a donation in the mail and all will be well appears to be the way to assuage the conscious. Perhaps we are content to “suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.” We reap what we sow and I believe that our garden is wilting in the blazing heat of apathy.
Since its inception, the UN has done little to prevent or stop conflict. Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, just about everywhere in Africa and the Middle East, are but a few example where a world body should and could have made a difference, but did not. The UN Security Council is comprised of nations with the most powerful military might in the world. Yet, time after time they have done nothing to stop wars or end genocides.
What is the problem with this world? Why do we continue to allow the senseless slaughter of millions? Are we just trying to reduce surplus population or are the most powerful nations in the world functioning on an agenda that is a mystery to all? Why not send a hundred thousand Chinese and a hundred thousand European troops into Lebanon and just stop the fighting now? Why not just tell Syria and Iran that that if they do not stop giving arms to terrorist organizations that the world will step in and put a stop to it once and for all? Let people, key word being people, have whatever kind of government and society they choose, but let there be no tolerance for genocide, ethnic cleansing or interfering in the affairs of freely chosen lifestyles of nations.
Like the UN, major religious institutions are multi-national. They have adherents in many countries and are the bastions of enormous wealth. Everyone is aware of their various charitable organizations and they do provide some help to alleviate the problems of the poor. With such enormous resources in dollars and members, where are the faithful during all of these conflicts? What would happen if a million Christians and Muslims marched to Lebanon and stood between Israel and Hezbollah? What would happen if Muslims marched en masse into Baghdad and began to disarm militias? What if hundreds of thousands went into the Sudan to end the massacres? What would happen if the Pope told Catholics that it is their moral duty to journey to some of these locations and put themselves between the warring factions? How many boat tickets could TV evangelists buy to send their followers into these troubled zones?
Perhaps we have moved past the days of Selma and when people actually seemed to care about the world around them. Perhaps these large organizations are more concerned about preserving their existence than fulfilling their stated missions. Put a donation in the mail and all will be well appears to be the way to assuage the conscious. Perhaps we are content to “suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.” We reap what we sow and I believe that our garden is wilting in the blazing heat of apathy.
Print
Email
