Post for a Sponsor

From Sponsor #1: Mike, a close friend and sponsor posed this question in response to an earlier post. Mike is an eternally inquisitive and thoughtful person, and so I am particularly pleased to write this post.

'But when it comes to opinions in general, how does morality play out? Saying "slavery is morally wrong and should be abolished" is a given today but in 1860 in America that was a radical statement. Is it possible for something to be moral in one culture or time but not others, then how is morality not arbitrary?'

I came across this line from Kafka recently: '...the man stands once and for all outside our people, outside our humanity, constantly starved, nothing belongs to him but the moment, the ever-continuing unbearable moment without even a sliver of a moment of recovery to follow it, he forever has only one thing: his pains... he has only the ground required by his two feet, only the purchase covered by his two hands, thus even less than trapeze artists in a vaudeville show, who at least have a safety net suspended beneath them.' ('The Diaries of Franz Kafka, 1910-1923')

In 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The enumerated rights, such as access to an education and freedom from arbitrary arrest, speak to certain beliefs and moral standings which continue to stand strong against the sands of time. Then there are other rights which are contentious still, such as the right of consent on the part of both parties when entering into a marriage contract. How different cultures and states have in the past dealt with the distribution or outright rejection of these sorts of rights does offer the impression that while 'morality' itself is not arbitrary, its varying expressions and presence may be. Such a history is one reason why there were two treaties ratified in 1966 which speak to the basic rights allegedly espoused by contemporary humanity, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Is it right that there is still a caste system in place in India? Is it right that secular Jews find such disdain among their Haredi counterparts?

Post for a Sponsor

From Sponsor #2: Danni, a friend and sponsor poses this question-comment from the context of a Christian and world citizen.

'I do not understand for the life of me why anyone feels that their words are more important that another's.'


What is it that makes us believe our words carry more weight than other peoples' words or expressions? When we do defer to another, why is it so often a person from within our 'in-group' or from within a zone of acceptable difference? What marks the boundary between tolerance and caution in discussion and action?

As with every thoughtful question posed, immediately more questions than answers arise.

Now we saw in National Socialist Party v. Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977) a striking situation take place, with the ACLU suing on their behalf. Eventually the NSPA won in the Supreme Court through a defense of the First Amendment. What does such a stance say about the values of free speech versus freedom to live free from fear and harassment in America?

I travel around every day here in Jerusalem and I hear and see anger and intolerance expressed vocally and physically, from group to group, with none spared from these caustic and constant volley of insults, stereotypes, and threats. When I arrive in the morning at Yad Vashem, for a day of study and reflection, I feel the same heaviness of an ugly history as many of the other visitors to the museum.

If I assert a doctrine of peace and non-violence in Israel, and soon, in Geneva, do my words automatically have more gravity because they reflect the ideal towards which we claim to strive? If so, then this would answer my friend's question. My words have more weight because they are... right. But that logic is the first step on the same worn path which each charismatic leader and true believer treads in the march towards seizing public sway. If enough people agree, does that make it right?

Perhaps it is the hope that our words will end the daily bouts of expected and unexpected violence choking us and our children, those unpredictable moments of ferocity which threaten to end everything, the good and the not so good. Perhaps such a hope is why we continue to shout antiquated or contemporary views, each attempting to drown out another's voice.

But in voice, there is a freedom. Let us continue to shout until we are hoarse and breathless.

I'm a recent graduate from the Political Science, Linguistics, and Classics Departments at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, and this past week I was offered an opportunity to intern for six months with the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) in Geneva, Switzerland. I have accepted; however the position is unpaid and I am searching for a sponsor or another means of funding this internship. I need to find a sponsor or means of funding soon as the position is for early January!

This blog is going to be dedicated to recording my experiences in this field of human rights activism in Geneva. For each of my sponsors, I will write a post focused on an aspect of human rights, international law, or other topic of their choice!

Toda raba, mahalo, gracias, and thank you!