Rev. Gloria White-Hammond, M.D.
Latest
Rev. Gloria White-Hammond, M.D.
Chairperson, Save Darfur Coalition
2009 marks the seventh year of the ongoing genocide in Darfur - seven years of constant killing, rape, destruction and displacement in Sudan – a nation at war with itself. For the last month, activists, religious leaders and survivors of some of the world’s most horrific genocides have come together at events across the country for Genocide Prevention Month in order to advocate for a global effort to stop this, and future, atrocities.
For many of us involved with this effort, our dedication, resolve and belief in a light at the end of the tunnel, is fueled by our faith. Our confidence in the power of persistent faith is inspired by stories from our sacred texts and informed by accounts in our history books. The New Testament gospel writer, Luke, recounts the parable of the persistent widow who seeks justice from the unrighteous judge. She declares victory when the unrelenting tenacity of the grassroots activist eventually wears down the uncaring judge. The passage ends with a rhetorical question. If the reprobate judge eventually acquiesces and does the right thing, won't the God who is righteous and caring, respond to our advocacy by doing likewise? The Hebrew Bible is also replete with accounts of activists whose persevering faith led to justice despite oppressive leaders and overwhelming odds. What if Moses had abandoned hope in the face of the hard-hearted Pharaoh? What if Queen Esther, seized with fear, indecision or indifference, failed to petition the king—thereby enabling the extermination of her people? The power of activism energized by faith is also reflected in the subsequent success of contemporary social movements. The power of activism energized by faith is also reflected in the success of more contemporary social movements. Throughout their campaigns, persistent activists embodied the confidence that determined faith coupled with decisive action would tip the scales of justice in favor of the oppressed—sometimes quickly, but more often slowly, painfully slowly. Gandhi devoted thirty years to the arduous struggle for Indian independence. Throughout the years of arrests and imprisonments, he found inspiration in the Hindu Bhagavad-Gita for the movement that would eventually shake India and the British Empire. "When disappointment stares me in the face and all alone I see not one ray of light, I go back to the Bhagavad-Gita. I find a verse here and a verse there, and I immediately begin to smile in the midst of overwhelming tragedies." From the early days of the movement, Gandhi collaborated with Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, a devout Muslim who recruited over 100,000 nonviolent activists and armed them with “the weapon of the Prophet—patience and righteousness.” The same indefatigable faith sustained Nelson Mandela and his fellow freedom fighters through four decades of warfare against legalized racism before the walls of apartheid collapsed and came tumbling down. Such faith enabled civil rights workers in America to hold fast to the vision of the Hebrew prophet, Amos, for a day when "justice [would] roll down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream." Activists could hardly imagine the immense changes wrought in America because of their sacrifices—changes that resulted in the election of the first African American president fifty years later. Genocide Prevention Month and the coming together of this ‘constituency of conscience’ at events across the world are more relevant than ever before. Just a few weeks ago, I had the opportunity – along with several other Darfur advocacy leaders – to meet with President Obama and Special Envoy Scott Gration to share our insights on the region and provide recommendations on how to address the deteriorating humanitarian crisis. President Obama recognizes that those who are continuing to fight for Darfur are not defined by a single religion, community or calling. What unites these activists is the singular desire to stop genocide from occurring anywhere ever again. In the Jewish tradition, the seventh year is the year of jubilee when captives are set free and land is returned to its original owner. We are wise enough to know that the battle to end genocide follows no set timetable; but we are "faith-fueled" enough to believe that jubilee for Darfur and all victims of genocide is well on its way. --- Rev. Gloria White-Hammond, M.D.
Chairperson, Save Darfur Coalition
Dr. White-Hammond’s work as a humanitarian has achieved global impact. She has worked as a medical missionary in several African countries including Botswana, Cote D’Ivoire and South Africa. Since 2001 Dr. Gloria has made seven trips into war-torn southern Sudan where she has been involved in obtaining the freedom of 10,000 women and children who were enslaved during the two decades long civil war. In 2002 she co-founded My Sister’s Keeper (MSK), a humanitarian women’s group that partners with women of Sudan in their efforts toward reconciliation and reconstruction of their communities. MSK has developed two grinding mill projects and supports the Akon School for Girls in Gogrial County. In February 2005, Dr. White-Hammond traveled into Darfur, western Sudan to listen and learn from female victims of genocide in Internally Displaced Persons camps. She recently served as the National Chairperson of the Million Voices for Darfur campaign and currently is the Co-Chair of the Massachusetts Coalition to Save Darfur. She was awarded a Bachelor of Arts degree in biology from Boston University, a Doctorate of Medicine from Tufts Medical School and a Master of Divinity from Harvard Divinity School.
Last Updated ( Thursday, 23 April 2009 15:06 )
The past few weeks have marked a number of significant victories in rapid succession for the U.S. gay rights movement. Four U.S. states now explicit allow gay residents to marry, with the recent additions of Iowa and Vermont making national headlines. Following these victories, the District of Columbia’s city legislature unanimously voted on April 6 to recognize the nuptials of gay couples married in other states, as New York currently does. However, despite these advances, many same-sex couples in the U.S. remain unable to enjoy some of the most important privileges of marriage. The U.S. has an estimated 50,000 bi-national same-sex couples, in which a U.S. citizen enters into a committed same-sex relationship with a foreign citizen. Currently such couples are still prohibited from enjoying the same federal immigration rights afforded to other married couples in the U.S. Therefore, even if a bi-national same-sex couple is married in Iowa, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Spain, South Africa, or any other legal jurisdiction in which same-sex marriage or its legal equivalent are recognized, that couple will not recognized as a couple for the purposes of U.S. federal immigration law. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed into law by President Clinton in 1996, defines marriage between a man and a woman for the purposes of it being recognized under federal law. The implementation of DOMA has meant that U.S. citizens and permanent residents in same-sex permanent relationships cannot use their citizenship status to enable their partners to obtain permanent resident status in the same manner as heterosexual couples. If a foreign citizen in a committed same-sex relationship cannot find another means of staying in the United States (such as through a student visa, work visa, or other sources), he or she can be deported regardless of having created a family with an American citizen or permanent resident. Ultimately, many bi-national same-sex couples have to choose between being separated from the partner with whom they have made a lifelong commitment, leaving the country they love, or breaking immigration laws. For many bi-national same-sex couples currently living in fear and insecurity, the recent reintroduction of the Uniting American Families Act of 2009 (UAFA) by Representative Jerrold Lewis (D-NY) in House of Representatives and Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) in the Senate offers the possibility of a light at the end of the tunnel. The UAFA aims to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate discrimination in U.S. immigration laws by permitting permanent partners of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents to obtain lawful permanent resident status in the same manner as married couples, by adding the term “permanent partner” to all sections of the Immigration and Naturalizations Act that apply to legally married couples. It also provides mechanisms to penalize immigration fraud in connection with permanent partnerships. Advocates of the rights of bi-national same-sex couples hope that this time the UAFA will succeed in passage. It should be noted that this is not the first time that the UAFA bill has been introduced at the House. In fact, Representative Lewis has introduced the bill five times previously. However, there is increased optimism that this time around both President Obama’s administration and a majority of the representatives in the Democratic-controlled Congress will support the UAFA. To date, more than twenty countries worldwide recognize same-sex couples in a permanent relationship for immigration purposes, which includes Andorra, Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. In the Americas, Canada allows same-sex marriage, and Brazil, Colombia and Ecuador recognize many marriage rights through same-sex civil unions, including equal immigration rights for same-sex couples. After Canada, which allowed same-sex marriage in 2005, Brazil was the first country in the Americas to fully recognize same-sex unions and to grant all rights guaranteed to an opposite-sex civil union to a same-sex civil union. The primary rationale for allowing foreign citizens to gain Brazilian residency through their Brazilian same-sex partner comes from Brazil’s federal constitution, which establishes that every citizen shall be guaranteed the power to exercise his or her fundamental human rights. Within those fundamental rights are the right to a family and freedom of movement. The Brazilian legal system ensures that all citizens, regardless of gender, are protected from state interference in how they choose to form a family as well as the right to reside and work anywhere in Brazil with their chosen partner, regardless of the nationality or gender of their partner. In order to respond to the concerns about the possibility about potential immigration fraud, Brazil’s immigration authority enacted the Administrative Resolution Number 5 in 2003, which establishes the criteria under which Brazilian residency should be provided to foreigners in committed partnerships with either Brazilian citizens or foreign holders of Brazilian temporary visas, without distinction to either partners’ gender. The resolution establishes that for the foreign partner to be granted residency status, the applicant must demonstrate a permanent civil union with his or her partner that has been issued by a Brazilian authority or a corresponding foreign authority, thereby providing proof of the relationship. This can include certificates of marriage or civil union in Brazil or another country, affidavits from friends and family, evidence of a natural or adopted child raised by the couple, or evidence of financial support. Such requirements not only succeed prevented immigration fraud but also effectively disproved the dire warnings of critics around the world that extending immigration rights to same-sex couples would somehow result in a surge of fraudulent claims of fake couples falsely claiming to be gay or in committed relationships solely to gain citizenship rights. This has clearly proved to not to have been the case in Brazil, since the criteria for proving the committed nature of same-sex unions is at least stringent as those for opposite-sex union. Given that the proposed U.S. law offers numerous safeguards of its own to prevent immigration fraud, the proposed legislation is just as extremely unlikely result in a rise immigration fraud in the U.S. as it has been in Brazil or in the nineteen other countries that presently extended immigration rights to same-sex-couples. Following Brazil’s example, a number of other countries in the hemisphere have recently made major advances in the recognition of same-sex relationships, including immigration rights. In 2008, the new Ecuadorian constitution offered recognition of civil unions without regard to gender, giving gay couples nearly the same rights as legally married heterosexual couples, including immigration rights. Likewise, in January 2009, Colombia’s Supreme Court mandated equal rights for same-sex couples, including in immigration, although it should be noted that in neither Colombia nor Ecuador have these rights included to the right to adopt. Yet given Colombia’s reputation for having one of the religiously conservative societies in the Western Hemisphere, this victory came as a welcome surprise to gay rights advocates and a sign of growing momentum in the recognition of gay relationships around the world. Meanwhile Uruguay and Argentina have also taken a number of steps towards equal rights for same-sex couples, yet these advances have not yet extended those rights to immigration rights. At this stage, the United States is falling behind other countries in the Americas, as well other developed and developing nations in Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and the Pacific that already allow fully recognized same-sex civil unions or marriage. Passing the UAFA and turning it into law will be opportunity for U.S. to join these nations in progressing towards a more just society. Ultimately, despite its lofty goals, the main purpose of the UAFA is simple and pragmatic: to prevent American citizens and their foreign national partners from being forcibly separated by immigration laws that do not currently recognize them as being a family. For most Americans, the idea of being afraid of whether the government will forcibly separating them from their loved ones sounds like something out of an apocalyptic science fiction movie. Yet it is a fear that thousands of bi-national same-sex couples must grapple with every day. Passage of the UAFA would help thousands of such couples escape the agony of being forced to choose between their families and their country. Moreover, it would return the U.S. to the forefront again in the global fight for equality and justice.
Last Updated ( Thursday, 23 April 2009 14:49 )
|
Eboo Patel
Founder and Executive Director of Interfaith Youth Core In an era of global religious conflict, three points are clear: Religion is not going away, it is impossible to avoid contact with people from different religions, and religious identity is profoundly important to young people. The predominant narrative about religion, born of Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations and Al-Qaeda, tells the story of inherent conflict. It presents a powerful way for youth to engage religious identity: Guarantee that your religion dominates and all others suffocate.
But religious identity in the 21st century can mean something different. The strength of a young person’s religious conviction does not have to be at the cost of someone else’s dignity. Young people have a choice: join the futile fight for destruction, or pave the way for cooperation. Choosing cooperation means joining the ranks of the most powerful social movements in history led by religious young people, such as Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. who, at 26, led the Montgomery Bus Boycott. As young people build the interfaith youth movement, they advance and expand a compelling counter to the narrative of religious violence.
The urgency of this situation is compounded by a series of converging sociopolitical and population trends which have created a mass of religious young people. These influential trends are probably not news to any of you. We know that globalization has given rise to unprecedented interaction among diverse religious communities around the world, and that it is young people, as they in particular have embraced new forms of global communication, who will decide how these interactions tend. In Muslim majority countries, several additional trends are at work. First, there is a significant youth bulge: in Afghanistan and the Gaza Strip, the median age is about 17 years; in Iraq and Pakistan it is barely 20, and in Syria and Saudi Arabia the median is about 21.5 years.[1] Second, these youth are faced with changing socio-economic factors that create insecurity; there is a clear lack of job opportunities and services to meet their needs. The unemployment rates in Afghanistan and the Gaza Strip have been estimated at close to 40%, and in Jordan and Iraq this number is around 30%.[2] Finally, as youth worldwide seek identity and purpose in their lives, they are confronted with a global religious revival. Scholar Thomas Farr writes “Faith, far from exiting the world’s stage, has played a growing role in human affairs, even as modernization has proceeded apace. Iran’s Shiite revolution in 1979, the Catholic Church’s role in the “third wave” of democratization, the 9/11 attacks – all illustrated just how important a global force religion has become.”[3] Though much of the media focus is on the Middle East, the issue of religious identity in youth is relevant worldwide. Muslim communities in Western Europe are a key demographic that cannot be ignored. As of 2003, there were 15 million Muslims in the European Union (three times more than in the United States at the time). Moreover, in 2003 the Muslim birth rate in Europe was triple that of the non-Muslim birth rate. By 2015, the Muslim population in Europe will have doubled, while the non-Muslim population will have declined by 3.5%.[4] Many of these European young Muslims face issues such as discrimination, economic deprivation, underemployment, and residence in ghettoized communities.
Let me be clear: the problem is not the mass of religious young people. The problem is that powerful grassroots movements like Al-Qaeda engage young people’s religious identities destructively and lead them towards radicalization. These movements provide youth with uncertain futures a sense purpose, meaning and contribution. We need a substantial investment in a counter-movement that engages the powerful force of religious identity in a constructive way. This movement will provide youth with a different kind of meaning: empowering them to become interfaith leaders. It will require significant funding, the mobilization of human capital and the adoption of interfaith youth engagement as a government priority. With the Obama administration, this counter-movement could become a reality. Since day one at his inaugural address, Obama has emphasized the importance of interfaith engagement and cooperation. Last week in Turkey, he made it clear that “The United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam.” His outreach to the Muslim world, indicated by his re-iterated “open hand” to Iran and recent visit to Turkey and Iraq, among other examples, shows that his intention isn’t merely rhetorical. The White House Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, of which I am an advisory member, is another example: one of our four task forces focuses on interfaith cooperation. As the most powerful leader in the world, it means something that President Obama has chosen to highlight this issue. I hope he considers the pivotal role of young interfaith leaders in his quest to advance interfaith cooperation.
---
Eboo Patel Eboo Patel is the founder and Executive Director of the Interfaith Youth Core, a Chicago-based institution building the global interfaith youth movement. He was recently appointed by President Obama to the Advisory Council of the White House Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Initiatives, where he is working to realize the President’s priority of interfaith cooperation. He is the author of Acts of Faith: The Story of an American Muslim, the Struggle for the Soul of a Generation. Eboo holds a doctorate in the sociology of religion from Oxford University, where he studied on a Rhodes scholarship. He writes "The Faith Divide", a featured blog on religion for The Washington Post and has also written for the Harvard Divinity School Bulletin, the Chicago Tribune, The Clinton Journal, The Review of Faith and International Affairs, The Sunday Times of India and National Public Radio. Eboo serves on the Religious Advisory Committee of the Council on Foreign Relations, the National Committee of the Aga Khan Foundation USA, and the National Board of the YMCA. He has spoken at the TED Conference, the Clinton Global Initiative, the Nobel Peace Prize Forum and at universities around the world. Eboo is an Ashoka Fellow, part of a select group of social entrepreneurs whose ideas are changing the world; was named by Islamica Magazine as one of ten young Muslim visionaries shaping Islam in America; was chosen by Harvard’s Kennedy School Review as one of five future policy leaders to watch; and was most recently selected to join the Young Global Leaders network of the World Economic Forum.
Last Updated ( Thursday, 23 April 2009 15:05 )
|
Opinion
