Annual Repost of Julia Ward Howe's Mother's Day Proclamation

Mother's Day Proclamation
by Julia Ward Howe
(1819-1910)

Arise then...women of this day!
Arise, all women who have hearts!
Whether your baptism be of water or of tears!
Say firmly:
"We will not have questions answered by irrelevant agencies,
Our husbands will not come to us, reeking with carnage,
For caresses and applause.
Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn
All that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience.
We, the women of one country,
Will be too tender of those of another country
To allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs."

From the voice of a devastated Earth a voice goes up with
Our own. It says: "Disarm! Disarm!
The sword of murder is not the balance of justice."
Blood does not wipe our dishonor,
Nor violence indicate possession.
As men have often forsaken the plough and the anvil
At the summons of war,
Let women now leave all that may be left of home
For a great and earnest day of counsel.
Let them meet first, as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead.
Let them solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means
Whereby the great human family can live in peace...
Each bearing after his own time the sacred impress, not of Caesar,
But of God -
In the name of womanhood and humanity, I earnestly ask
That a general congress of women without limit of nationality,
May be appointed and held at someplace deemed most convenient
And the earliest period consistent with its objects,
To promote the alliance of the different nationalities,
The amicable settlement of international questions,
The great and general interests of peace.

(For lighter fare, check out my other retread from Mother's days past, Mother’s Day: 5 Things (still) Worth Knowing.

Mother's Day Proclamation

Mother's Day Proclamation
by Julia Ward Howe
(1819-1910)

Arise then...women of this day!
Arise, all women who have hearts!
Whether your baptism be of water or of tears!
Say firmly:
"We will not have questions answered by irrelevant agencies,
Our husbands will not come to us, reeking with carnage,
For caresses and applause.
Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn
All that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience.
We, the women of one country,
Will be too tender of those of another country
To allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs."

From the voice of a devastated Earth a voice goes up with
Our own. It says: "Disarm! Disarm!
The sword of murder is not the balance of justice."
Blood does not wipe our dishonor,
Nor violence indicate possession.
As men have often forsaken the plough and the anvil
At the summons of war,
Let women now leave all that may be left of home
For a great and earnest day of counsel.
Let them meet first, as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead.
Let them solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means
Whereby the great human family can live in peace...
Each bearing after his own time the sacred impress, not of Caesar,
But of God -
In the name of womanhood and humanity, I earnestly ask
That a general congress of women without limit of nationality,
May be appointed and held at someplace deemed most convenient
And the earliest period consistent with its objects,
To promote the alliance of the different nationalities,
The amicable settlement of international questions,
The great and general interests of peace.

(Yes, I did post this last year too, but it remains just as important today as it was a year ago, and as it was when Julia Ward Howe first penned it. For lighter fare, check out my other retread from Mother's days past, Mother’s Day: 5 Things (still) Worth Knowing.

Yes Nero, you're crazy.

Nero @ American Power sez:

"Reparations for Iraqis?

I've been writing about this all year, and radical lefties have called me crazy."

As I am the "radical leftie" you cite--& on behalf of all my "radical leftie," peeps--yes Nero, you are crazy.

We are already giving reparations to Iraqis, by rebuilding that which we (& they, & in many cases those others we invited in) broke. Every rebuilt school, house, or road is reparation paid to the Iraqi people. Most of the time, folks on your side point to these things as proof of our success in that country. Do you disagree?

Personally, I think we owe it to them, though I also question why they have a surplus while we have a deficit, and think their government ought to pay some reparations to the Iraqi people, as well.

Thanks for the link, though...

Another comment too long for Nero

UPDATE: Damn... I have to learn to have patience with blogspot... When I posted this (& then sent the link to the guy with whom I was conversing), the second half of the comment wasn't in the thread over at Nero's blog. I thought he'd deleted it... Half hour later, it's there... I was wrong to think he cut me off... (I might not've, had he not done so before). I'm sorry I accused him, and that I did all this unnecessary maneuvering to get my thoughts posted & before the person to whom they were directed... Oh well...
---------

The original post & comment thread are here and here. (I wish Nero would just grow up & let adults have in-depth conversations rather than counting words, but it is his blog, & his rules...)
-----------

You weren't talking about the current conflict.

I was talking about all conflicts, including Iraq...

You were coming off with one of these love, peace, and flowers lines.

Yeah, sorry about having ideals... Gosh fo'bid. Scurry on back to your regularly scheduled reality, and forget I said anything...

As far as Benedict XVI, he has never condemned the war in Iraq, nor has he called it unjust.

Um...

The War in Iraq - A Roman Catholic View - John Paul II and Benedict XVI on the War in Iraq: n the April 2003 issue of 30 Days, an Italian Catholic magazine, the future pope (then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) made his opposition to the war known, while supporting Pope John Paul’s assessment of the justice of the war. He declared Pope John Paul’s position on the war to be “the thoughts of a man of conscience occupying the highest functions in the Catholic Church” and “the appeal of a conscience enlightened by the faith.”

Cardinal Ratzinger also argued that “reasons sufficient for unleashing a war against Iraq did not exist,” in part because:

"proportion between the possible positive consequences and the sure negative effect of the conflict was not guaranteed. On the contrary, it seems clear that the negative consequences will be greater than anything positive that might be obtained."

New Pope Benedict XVI a Strong Critic of War : After suggesting that perhaps it would be necessary to revise the Catechism section on just war (perhaps because it had been used by George Weigel and others to endorse a war the Church opposed), Ratzinger offered a deep insight that included but went beyond the issue of war Iraq:

"There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a 'just war'."

As for the death penalty, I suggest you read Humanae Vitae.

I will do so when I have time... though I think that summary of the Church's position from my last comment was pretty clear...

I am curious, though. Being a Catholic myself, I am surrounded by smug, self-righteous latte liberal Catholics who are always whining about Iraq and the death penalty, yet have no problem with using birth control -- which the Church opposes as violently as it does abortion -- or speaking of, murdering their own children. Cafeteria Catholics have no business quoting the positions of the Church, since they feel they can ignore the Church when it suits their purposes.

Yeah, but the point of my last few comments is that that kinda hypocritical thinking goes both ways... Save the unborn, so they can die in war, or be put to death at another's hand for breaking the laws of man... Life is life. If it's sacred, it's sacred.

But thanks for the "My God can beat up your God" talk... Always nice to see that humility before the Lord... (Clue... God & faith ain't clubs with which to beat your fellow man... I'm glad your God makes you feel powerful 'n' all, but being all belligerent & holier-than-thou (literally) about it don't impress me in the slightest.) We all have our own relationships with our faith, and I can assure you that you haven't got any more of a lock on the one true path than any of the rest of us, whatever you may think...

There's a difference between denying a thing...

and asking for proof of its existence.

Nero has repeatedly claimed widespread infiltration of the Democratic party by radicals, Stalinists, antiestablishment types & other nogoodnicks, but is unable to provide much of anything in the way of proof, aside a few individual connections.

What I said before & will repeat again now, (& let's see if our friend Nero will even try to make his case this time, or once again distort what I say, & ignore what he cannot distort), is that there are very few "radicals" or "Stalinists" supporting Obama or the Democratic Party. William Aires-to the extent that he is anywhere near the radical crazy he once was, anyway--is one guy. Tom Hayden--(same caviat)--is one guy. There is no widespread support among radicals for either (any) status quo politician coming out of either status quo party. That's what makes radicals radical. Rather than supporting the status quo, &/or working within the system trying to make the incremental changes they seek, like McCain, Obama, & pretty much every other politician from either major party, they favor immediate & fundamental change, frequently through unorthodox means (violence, mass movements, revolution, ...)

Yes, there have been, are, & will be a few isolated "radicals" who buck that trend & support major party candidates. But they are few & far between, and usually are not (or do not remain) well respected within their "radical" community. One might say these former radicals grew up & out of their youthful ways, much the same way we Americans politely ignore a some elected folk's youthful drug use & whatnot...

The fact is, there are very few if any Communist, Socialist, or Anti-War groups or organizations supporting or promoting Obama for President or the Democratic party. Name your boogieman... UPFJ isn't. World Can't Wait isn't. ANSWER isn't. CodePink isn't. Commies & socialists have their own parties & likely there own candidates, too.

Yes, there are a few individuals who are work for/with one of those organizations who do support Democrats. Yes, there are people (probably alot of people) who attend rallies & marches organized by these groups who also support Democrats. For the most part, those people are Democrats, who also happen to be anti-war, or anti THIS war. Being anti-war or anti THIS war, and attending a rally is support of their beliefs doesn't make them radicals. It makes them good citizens.

AmericanNeoCon is playing on irrational fears.
AmericanNeoCon preaching to his own personal choir.
AmericanNeoCon is wrong.

American Power: The Democrats and the Antiwar Movement

Mother's Day Proclamation

Mother's Day Proclamation
by Julia Ward Howe
(1819-1910)

Arise then...women of this day!
Arise, all women who have hearts!
Whether your baptism be of water or of tears!
Say firmly:
"We will not have questions answered by irrelevant agencies,
Our husbands will not come to us, reeking with carnage,
For caresses and applause.
Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn
All that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience.
We, the women of one country,
Will be too tender of those of another country
To allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs."

From the voice of a devastated Earth a voice goes up with
Our own. It says: "Disarm! Disarm!
The sword of murder is not the balance of justice."
Blood does not wipe our dishonor,
Nor violence indicate possession.
As men have often forsaken the plough and the anvil
At the summons of war,
Let women now leave all that may be left of home
For a great and earnest day of counsel.
Let them meet first, as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead.
Let them solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means
Whereby the great human family can live in peace...
Each bearing after his own time the sacred impress, not of Caesar,
But of God -
In the name of womanhood and humanity, I earnestly ask
That a general congress of women without limit of nationality,
May be appointed and held at someplace deemed most convenient
And the earliest period consistent with its objects,
To promote the alliance of the different nationalities,
The amicable settlement of international questions,
The great and general interests of peace.

The Swartout's may be victims, but...

Update 3: Replaced the link to the dead motionbox video with the youtube embed, and deleted the link to the rightwing site (to the motionbox vid) that was in update 1.

Update 2: New video, from a different angle.



Update: Added the best video I can find, to replace the one that is no longer available on this site. (which has now--update 3--been replaced by the YouTube video.)





It's kinda hard to tell exactly where this all went wrong, but the "in your face" style of the Swartout family as regards anti-war protests and protesters has led to several other incidents where they were the unfortunate victims, including one in which the 82 year old wife of a WWII veteran kicked Mr Swartout in the ass, and when he pressed charges, was fined $25.00 for her crime. As with serial peace victim Joshua Sparling, I wonder why these few are repeatedly attacked while counter-protesting against anti-Iraq war groups, while so many others escape such a fate. Is it pure dumb luck (or unluck?), or is there anything in the behavior of the victims that leads to such troubles?

To the extent that the peace folks were the agressors in this (or any) situation, they were wrong. But I also wonder whether putting a camera to one's face gives one care blanche to walk among those with whom one disagrees, mocking and insulting them until a verbal or physical confrontation ensues, and then claim victim status, as though there was no way they might've avoided such trouble. While one has the right to walk in any public place at anytime one wants, and to say whatever one feels, actually using those rights isn't the smartest thing to do in every situation... ...unless one wants a nifty little youtube video and the right to whine about poor treatment at the hands of hypocritical peace protesters, anyway...

Along with rights come the responsibility to use them intelligently and appropriately, and I suspect that some of the latter was lacking in this situation.

See also: What'd I Say?: Joshua Sparling: A swiftie spitting swiftly

World's best-known protest symbol turns 50

"It started life as the emblem of the British anti-nuclear movement but it has become an international sign for peace, and arguably the most widely used protest symbol in the world. It has also been adapted, attacked and commercialised."

Read the rest here

More info here: Peace symbol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia