Church of the Three Crosses

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Moving into 2010

We are entering a new decade. Some who are history sticklers say that actually the new decade does not begin until next year, but at any rate, we are into a new year. The decade began with us holding our breath as our computerized world clock rolled over to 2000. We breathed a sigh of relief when the world did not crash. Over the decade we have experienced the horror of September 11 and we have celebrated as we watched history being made with the election of the country's first African American president. As a nation we have entered two wars and continue to see thousands of Americans engaged in conflict – with over 3,400 Americans dead and thousands of Iraq soldiers and civilians the reality of war making haunts us. We have seen our consumer economy take a nose dive, watching helpless the impact of greed and profiteering. In this recession the exposure of the level of that greed was astounding and as a result many continue to suffer from under or unemployment. As a nation our reputation also took a nose dive as we tortured people in the name of "making America safe,” and which actually did the opposite. In the final days of 2009, we watched the Senate pass a health care reform bill that we hope will begin to address the complicated issues around the uninsured and escalating systemic cost. As we step into 2010, may our challenges be met with a new spirit of cooperation both nationally and internationally that will address the urgent issues that threaten our planet: global warming, a rise in religious fundamentalism, poverty, war and national arrogance. While enormous issues continue to face us as a people, we can hope that there will continue to be great advancements in scientific and technology discoveries and social collaboration that can lead us into a stronger global village. May the true meaning of peace (well being for all - plants and animals included) - edge us closer to our fuller selves in 2010.John Hobbs, pastor

Monday, August 31, 2009

"Coup" in Honduras

I write today about the "coup" that took place in Honduras on June 28, 2009. I place the word "coup" in quotes because many who support the present government claim that the government was properly protecting itself against a potential dictator, albeit in an irregular manner. For reasons that follow, I do not agree. Form matters, and what the government officials did was illegal and unconstitutional according to Honduran law and according to the Rule of Law.

The facts, though somewhat muddled, are not in substantial dispute. Manuel "Mel" Zelaya was elected President in 2005. The Honduran Constitution is very explicit in requiring that the President serve only one term and cannot ever again be President. Indeed, according to Constitution Article 239, anyone proposing a change in the law, and those helping him, will immediately cease office and remain ineligible for ten years. Zelaya was a large landowner and conservative when elected and for about two years afterwards. However, at some point he turned away from the conservative elements that elected him and toward the trade unions and campesinos who had been previously excluded from the political processes. Among other actions, he raised the minimum wage in Honduras by approximately 60%. He also formed favorable relations with Hugo Chavez and other leftist leaders of Nicaragua, Equador and Bolivia. All of his actions infuriated the conservative and propertied interests in Honduras, which included military leaders and most members of the the National Assembly

In early 2009, Zelaya began to talk about a Constitutional Assembly to amend the Constitution. He proposed a referendum, but when objections were voiced, he said the vote would be a non-binding advisory "consultation" on whether there should be a vote in November (during regular elections) on whether to call a National Constituent Assembly to amend the Constitution. He scheduled the "consultation" for June 28th. In preparation, he ordered the distribution of ballot boxes and ballots. The Supreme Court declared the proposeed vote illegal. Zelaya ordered the military to distribute the ballot boxes anyway. When the military refused, citing the Supreme Court opinion, Zelaya fired the commander and the defense minister, and Zelaya and his supporters seized the ballot boxes and prepared to distribute them.

All of this led up to a warrant issued by the Supreme Court ordering the military to arrest Zelaya to face charges. The military arrested Zelaya (some said "in his pajamas")at 5 a.m. on June 28 (which was also the date of the "consultation"). Then, beyond the arrest warrant, the military placed Zelaya on a plane and expelled him to Costa Rica. The military then closed media outlets favorable to Zelaya. There are rumors that arrest warrants were issued for many of his supporters, and they have gone into hiding. There are also reports that demonstrators in favor of Zelaya have been tear-gassed and shot. The military is headed by Gen. Romeo Vasquez, a graduate of the notorious School of the Americas.

After Zelaya had been expelled, the military presented to the Assembly a resignation allegedly signed by Zelaya. The Assembly accepted the "resignation," then for good measure adopted a resolution removing him from office for his misdeeds. The Assembly then named the President of the Congress, Rigoberto Micheletti, as new President. According to at least one authority, if Zelaya's removal was proper, Micheletti was the proper one to succeed him. The new government has continued civilian rule; the military has expressed its subordination to civil authorities.

Later, the "resignation" was clearly shown to be a clumsy forgery and now is ignored as a reason for removal. The Assembly vote likewise is of dubious Constituional validity. Under the Honduran constitution, unlike the United States, the Assembly can only pass a resolution saying there are grounds to bring a case against the President (Art. 205(15)). But the Supreme Court must hold a trial and adjudicate that there are in fact grounds for removal (Art.319(2)) to oust the President. None of that was done here.

Zelaya's removal was unanimously condemned by the OAS (Organization of American States), including by the United States, the United Nations General Assembly and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Under prodding from the U.S. and other countries, President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica undertook to mediate the dispute. He proposed that Zelaya return to finish his term, with no sanctions against those who removed him. However, Micheletti and his followers will not agree to Zelaya's return. There is at least a suggestion that they intend to stall until November, when an election will result in a new President. (The new candidates were nominated before the coup.)

Meanwhile, economic sanctions have begun against the present government. The U.S. has suspended military and other aid. Under U.S. law, if the change in government is declared a "military coup," another $150 million in aid will be suspended. Other Latin American countries have likewise suspended their relations with the present government of Honduras. In the United States, Rep. Delahunt and others have introduced H.Res.630 condemning the coup.

It should be clear from the foregoing that I believe Zelaya's removal and expulsion from Honduras was contrary to Honduran law. Under Article 102, no Honduran may be expatriated or delivered to an authority of a foreign state. Further, the order of the Supreme Court is itself suspect, as noted above. At the very least, Zelaya should be permitted to return and resume his Constitutional functions. Until that happens, the country will exist under an illegal military and civil coup, and its government should be subject to the full array of sanctions available to the United States and other countries.

Those interested in more information, and a more scholarly treatment than mine, may consult Geoff Thale, "Behind the Honduran Coup," in Foreign Policy in Focus, July 1, 2009, available at <http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/6225>, and Doug Cassel, "Honduras: Coup d'Etat in Constitutional Clothing," published by American Society of International Law, v. 13, no. 9, July 29, 2009 available at <http://www.asil.org/search.cfm?displayPage=1258>. The text and co-sponsors of H.Res. 630 are available at <www.thomas.gov>.

Frank Schneider

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Don't Put a Period on Health Care: God is still speaking

The United Church of Christ is calling its members to participate in the national health care debate. The United Church of Christ has stated that any health care proposal must include the following: Coverage of all persons; access regardless of ability to pay; a full set of benefits; a choice of physicians and other providers; Elimination of racial and ethnic and other health care disparities; waiver of pre-existing conditions exclusions without any age limits; a public option.

If you would like to contact your lawmaker, you can call the Capitol switchboard at 888-797-8717.

Friday, July 24, 2009

Dr. Gates

In response to Maria Haberfeld’s comments on CNN.com, defending the police officers actions because of the potential danger that are a part of the day to day life of officers I wrote to CNN saying: While it is true that police officers come with stories and life experience that inform their judgments and actions, so would Dr. Gates “make decisions based not just on a given situation but also based on his prior experience.” Dr. Gates as an African American would know all too well the statistics around profiling and harassment that has been a long history of the interactions between law enforcement officers and African Americans. Dr. Gates knows the dangers and even the deadly potential these encounters carry. Therefore, both men came to the encounter informed by their life experience – each I would imagine, mistrustful of the other. These encounters demonstrate that we have much work to do within our society to build bridges of trust – racism continues to divide us and keep us specious of the other – a sad reality.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Violence erupts across the world – a shooting in a church in Illinois – a shooting rampage in Alabama - a shooting in a high school in German: over the past two days, the violence from guns floods our consciousness. One wonders – what would drive anyone to deny the sacredness of human life to the point of pushing them to pull the trigger on their weapons of death.
Surrounded by this news of violence it seems fortuitous that Bishop Desmond Tutu was in Chicago yesterday supporting Mayor Daley’s move to have new gun laws passed in Illinois. But on the same day, I heard on the news that the gun lobbyists are gathering in Washington to work toward passing laws that would be favorable to their constituents. Their argument often starts something like this: “it is not the gun that does the violence, but people.” That is a weak argument in my opinion, for without the gun the act cannot take place. I support Mayor Daley’s efforts in passing more restrictive laws and commend him for his courage in advocating for those laws.