A Dying Breed

A Dying Breed
In Memory of
Bernard E. Cox (Sept. 18th, 1925 – Feb. 23rd, 2006)

Bernard Elijah Cox, the youngest child of Bedford and Mittie Cox’s ten children, was born Sept. 18th 1925. Bernard was one of a kind; so to speak, at his beginning the mold was broken. He was the family humorist, who was much loved by many nephews and nieces.

Some time ago Bernard told of an experience with the IRS auditor: A phone call comes from the agent wanting to make a visit. Bernard says, come right on down and I’ll carry you out to my office and show you all the records you would like to see. Upon arriving he invited the agent in. Would you like to go out to my office now? Yes. He carried him out to the barn and offered him a feedbag to sit on. Sir, here in this box are all my records. Please help yourself. The agent quickly saw all he wanted and departed without delay.

Bernard, a bachelor, was born, as all his siblings, at the home my grandfather built in 1910. He lived all of his eighty-years in that house, with a sister, Nina, until her death six years ago. Loyally in taking care of the spinster sister during her later years was a time-honored responsibility to him. The house was a wood frame with weather boarding, finished inside with tongue and grove pine walls and ceiling, and in all its ninety-five years of existence has never been painted outside or inside. It is still structurally sound built of timber, pure heart pine, of which is not available in lumber yards today. The home remains furnished with much of the original furniture, some built by his daddy. This speaks volumes to the conservatism of Bernard and his philosophy that there are more important things in life than the show of aesthetically appealing abodes. His usual apparel was matched by the same way of thinking.

Over the years his several lady friends, nephews and nice in-laws, made attempts to inspire enhancement of dress apparel by giving him many gifts of clothing, but they never succeeded, except on some very special occasions. He died with many new gifts in his closet unwrapped. A patched shirt or jeans he wore gave evidence to a miser’s life but not necessarily for the sake of hoarding money. Coordinated attire just didn’t matter, but above all what mattered most were character, heart and soul, “what’s the right thing”. There was never a more generous, giving, serving person, always going beyond the call of duty. When my father, or any other sibling, needed a hand to build a house or a barn, he was there without the asking, as was the nature of all the siblings in that family. The Quaker heritage, having a great granddaddy as a Quaker minister brought to the next generations a strict adherence to the faith, possibly influenced his life’s examples in ways that are hard to comprehend in this modern day.

In addition Bernard was a product of the great depression of 1929. In 1930, Bernard, at age five, with all of the Cox family experienced a traumatic witness of the family’s mortgaged horses and wagon being repossessed by a Goldsboro firm. However, several days later the family was sent word to come get the horses and wagon because the firm had so many teams of mules, horses and farming equipment that could not be redeemed for cash. Fortunately, 1931 brought a better crop year by which the debt was satisfied. This was an era that fixed many indelible traits, habits, in the minds of a generation of people of a now bygone age.

Perhaps one of the most fitting acts for his always timeliness in meeting various chores and responsibilities, the day before his death he fulfilled an appointment with his accountant to pay his last tax bill here on earth. A love for farm life, his work ethic throughout life was seldom equaled. He would buy a new car about every ten to fifteen years. Tractors or other farming equipment were essentials, but otherwise necessities were exceptionally few.

After overcoming past heart and kidney operations, Bernard died, happily I believe, after visiting his 90-year old brother, Lester, on his way to feed the cattle where he fell between the halted tractor wheels, engine still running. Bernard was a dedicated and beloved member of Selah Christian Church where family and many neighbors and friends celebrated his life Sunday February 26, 2006.

Following is a poetic tribute by Mary Kay Cox, given to Bernard on his last birthday:

My dear Uncle Bernard
He’s our favorite one
With his head so shiny
And his eyes so blue
He’s always got a word for you.

Simple and loving that’s what
Our dear Uncle Bernard is
Never boastful or bragging
He’s just humble and true
Even though he may be dragging.

A mule he has ridden
A tractor he has driven
The baby of the bunch
He was probably spoiled too much.

He’s one of a kind
Now he’s in his prime
No telling what he might find
Sunday night he goes a courting
A Dodge he is sporting.

He’s not lazy or shy
Always on the go and waving bye
My dear Uncle Bernard
Yes, he’s our favorite one.
And we love you so.

Mary Kay Cox
September 18, 2005

Morality born of Leadership

Morality born of Leadership

It is refreshing to hear President Bush is now willing to meet with Kofi Annan in a spirit of unity to deal with genocide. After three (3) long years of a tumultuous Darfur region in Sudan, perhaps all the admonishments and suggestion of writers like Nicholas Kristof of NY Times, the study and recommendations of Eric Reeves (referred to in July 30th, 2005 in CA: Crash-course on Darfur Region Genocide http://criticalactions-what-isyour-opinion.blogspot.com/2006/01/crash-course-on-darfur-region-genocide.html), and others speaking out, has brought our president to heed the ‘moral authority’ call. Bravo President Bush!

Three excellent articles in different papers today covered the president’s comments as he spoke from Tampa FL yesterday:

Washington Times: President Bush yesterday called for doubling the number of peacekeeping troops in Sudan’s troubled Darfur region and said NATO’s involvement would probably be required. “I’m in the process now of working with a variety of folks to encourage there to be more troops, probably under the United Nations,” said Mr. Bush, who discussed the peacekeeping efforts with U. N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Monday. “But it’s going to require a – I think – a NATO stewardship, planning, facilitating, organizing, probably double the number of peacekeepers that are there now, in order to start bringing some sense of security.” http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060217-112524-7893r.htm

Washington Post: "I'm in the process now of working with a variety of folks to encourage there to be more troops, probably under the United Nations," Bush said in Tampa in a question-and-answer session after he made a speech on terrorism. The announcement caught senior White House aides by surprise because details of the new policy have not been finalized. Still, a top White House official said the Bush statement is part of a significant shift that will drive Darfur policy in the months ahead. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021701935.html?referrer=email&referrer=email

New York Times: "Our country was the first country to call what was taking place a genocide, which matters," he said in front of the audience of about 400 people, who appeared overwhelmingly supportive of Mr. Bush. "Words matter." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/18/politics/18prexy.html?th&emc=th


Words do matter, but more importantly as in the old wise saying, “Action speaks louder than words.” Let morality be born out of an unrelenting leadership to cease this barbaric genocide.

Man's Inhumanity To Man

Man’s Inhumanity To Man

This is Halima, a 27-year-old widow whose husband and brother were murdered when the government-supported janjaweed militia attacked her village.

Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.: "Man's inhumanity to man is not only perpetrated by the vitriolic actions of those who are bad, it is also perpetrated by the vitiating inaction of those who are good."

In my last writing (http://criticalactions-what-isyour-opinion.blogspot.com/2006/02/moral-authority-anyone-to-stop.html) "moral authority” was examined: Where does it come from and who has it? Many believe that morality is relative, meaning humans understand and evaluate beliefs and behaviors only in terms of, for example, their historical and cultural context. Relativism is in the mind of the beholder. So I wonder what’s in the minds of our world leaders who have shown essentially no concern for genocide. But now, at least, another a would-be leader steps forward from the small country of Slovenia, President Janez Drnovsek.

As reported by Nicholas Kristof, Dronovsek came to the United States to talk about Darfur with Kofi Annan, Bill Clinton and Chinese officials. (According to this report President Bush declined to meet with them.) Now just as I’m writing this I see a report on CNN that President Bush is today meeting with Kofi Annan to talk about the Sudan situation.

Kristof, one of the more knowledgeable writers about genocide, says, “Granted, people like these die all the time in Africa of malaria or AIDS. And it's true that it's probably as wrenching for a parent to lose a child to malaria as to a machete. But when a government deliberately slaughters people because of their tribe or skin color, then that is a special affront to the bonds of humanity and creates a particular obligation to respond. Nothing rips more at the common fabric of humanity than genocide — and the only way to assert our own humanity is to stand up to it.”

He’s right! But will there be a muster of moral authority to stop these atrocities? It would be a fitting tribute to the memory of Martin Luther, Jr. and Coretta Scott King. You can help make it happen by speaking out now.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

February 12, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
Disposable Cameras for Disposable People
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF http://select.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/opinion/12kristof.html?th&emc=th
Meet some of the disposable people of Darfur, the heirs of the disposable Armenians, Jews, Cambodians, Rwandans and Bosnians of past genocides. Look carefully, for several hundred thousand people like these have already been slaughtered in Darfur in western Sudan — and the lives of more are in our hands.

On my fifth and last trip to Darfur, in November, I smuggled in 20 disposable cameras to hand out to these disposable people. While taking photos without a permit is illegal in Sudan, two aid groups agreed to distribute the cameras, teach the genocide survivors how to use them, and then send me the pictures (for their own protection, I'm not naming those aid groups).

Many of the resulting photos were unusable, for those shooting the pictures had mostly never held a camera before. Many of them were living until recently in thatch-roof mud huts, and their first direct encounter with the modern world came when Sudanese military aircraft strafed their villages.

The photos were taken in makeshift camps near the town of Zalingei where survivors have lived since fleeing their villages. Taking a photo more publicly might have led to an arrest or a beating. These scenes reflect the banality of waiting — for food, for protection, for death. In short, such photos are a bit like those from the Warsaw Ghetto in the early 1940's.

The photo in the upper left shows Assim, 5, Asiel, 3, and Salma, almost 2; Assim says he misses the village trees he used to climb, for in the camps the trees have all been cut for firewood. The photo in the upper right shows a man named Adam in his tailor "shop."
The photo in the lower left shows Aisha and Fatima, preparing their "stove." And in the lower right is Halima, a 27-year-old widow whose husband and brother were murdered when the government-supported janjaweed militia attacked her village. An aid group helps her and other women make biscuits and cheese to sell in local markets — so they won't have to venture out of the camps and risk rape by the janjaweed.

Granted, people like these die all the time in Africa of malaria or AIDS. And it's true that it's probably as wrenching for a parent to lose a child to malaria as to a machete. But when a government deliberately slaughters people because of their tribe or skin color, then that is a special affront to the bonds of humanity and creates a particular obligation to respond. Nothing rips more at the common fabric of humanity than genocide — and the only way to assert our own humanity is to stand up to it.

President Bush is doing more about Darfur than most other leaders, but that's not saying much. The French are being particularly unhelpful, while other Europeans (including, alas, Tony Blair) seem to wonder whether it's really worth the expense to save people from genocide. Muslim countries are silent about the slaughter of Darfur's Muslims, while China disgraces itself by protecting Sudan in the United Nations and underwriting the genocide with trade. Still, even Mr. Bush is taking only baby steps.

Here are some grown-up steps Mr. Bush could take: He could enforce a no-fly zone to stop air attacks on civilians in Darfur, lobby Arab leaders to become involved, call President Hu Jintao and ask China to stop protecting Sudan, invite Darfur refugees to a photo op at the White House, attend a coming donor conference for Darfur, visit Darfur or the refugee camps next door in Chad, push France and other allies for a NATO bridging force to provide protection until United Nations troops arrive, offer to support the United Nations force with military airlift and logistical support (though not ground troops, which would help Sudan's hard-liners by allowing them to claim that the United States was starting a new invasion of the Arab world), make a major speech about Darfur, and arrange for Colin Powell to be appointed a United Nations special envoy to seek peace among Darfur's tribal sheiks.

With Mr. Bush saying little about Darfur, presidential leadership on Darfur is coming from ... Slovenia. The Slovenian president, Janez Drnovsek, has emerged as one of the few leaders who are actually organizing an international effort to stop the genocide.
"You ask, Why Slovenia?" he told me. "I can ask, Why not Slovenia?"

Mr. Drnovsek came to the United States recently to talk about Darfur with Kofi Annan, Bill Clinton and Chinese officials. But he says that President Bush declined to see him; if Mr. Bush were more serious about Darfur, he would be hailing Slovenia's leadership — indeed, emulating it.

On Tuesday, Mr. Bush spoke movingly at the funeral of Coretta Scott King. I hope he'll look at these photos and ruminate on an observation of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.: "Man's inhumanity to man is not only perpetrated by the vitriolic actions of those who are bad, it is also perpetrated by the vitiating inaction of those who are good."

Moral Authority - Anyone to Stop Genocide?

Moral Authority - Anyone to Stop Genocide?

In response to “Wayward Christian Soldiers” a friend raised questions, and requested the comments not be published. I highly respect my friend and honor the request; however, since the answers I gave to this response are very relevant to the main thrust of the initial message, Separation of Church and State (and moral discernment), I will give a condensed paraphrase of these fair questions to preface my response.

• The article I included by Charles Marsh quoted John Stott for which the writer states: “Surely this is a prime example of the confluence on Church and State, not the separation of it”: John Stott: "Privately, in the days preceding the invasion, I had hoped that no action would be taken without United Nations authorization," he told me. "I believed then and now that the American and British governments erred in proceeding without United Nations approval." Writer: “I think Stott is mistaken and the United Nations has no moral authority to authorize war on action of any kind.”


• Larger question of separation of church and state: “Is there really any Biblical basis for the modern day insistence on separation of church and state in a democracy? If the will of the people is expressed in democracy it would seem logical to me that religious will would likewise be expressed in the public forum of ideas as well and through our elected leaders and laws instituted by them. I am reminded of the 13th Chapter of Romans in which we are urged to obey the civil authority and Paul refers to them as ministers of God. I would be interested to hear from a Biblical perspective your thoughts on the need for complete separation of Church and State. It seems to me that we can never completely separate the secular and religious without making the first the master of the second.” Writer references Romans 13: 1-7

My Response:
Complete separation of Church and State! NO. As stated before I am not for removal of references to God on money, pledge, or government structures that are historically a part of our founding or currently exist. If I were to choose a biblical reference to support separation, I would select from the ultimate moral authority, Jesus: Mathew 22: (15-25)) “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.”

St. Paul’s excellent writings (and others of his) you reference from Romans 13, is subject to many interpretations by clergy and laity. Therein lies the problem, as with much of the bible. I can’t imagine anyone wanting to obey the civil authority of a Hitler, and I don’t think all civil authoritative leaders could necessarily be considered ministers of God. People pick verses and render their self-serving interpretation, which has, in my opinion, served unjust and immoral causes, such as excluding women from the pulpit. Oh, we know the great divide between Catholic/Protestant and moreover the divide between the untold Protestant denominations. Under whose moral-authority interpretation should I put my trust?

Last evening I was watching Larry King’s interview with George H Bush. Bush commented that Kafi Annan, Secretary General of UN, called him to go to Pakistan to collect unpaid pledges ($8B I believe he said.) for earthquake relief. I think that was moral authority demonstrated on the part of Kifa Annan and President Bush. Following the interview with Bush were Robert Schuler Sr. and Jr. Doctor Schuler reminded President Bush that he had prayed with him in the oval office just prior to desert storm. That’s as it should be, the minister’s role, as has been, at least, throughout recent history, evangelist such as Billy Graham, Robert Shuler or a Tony Campolo praying with our leaders for moral discernment. That’s not amassing political power, and I think Jesus would have a lot to say about Christians amassing political power, in the most hyperbole expression to make his point. I can imagine what some of his parables and admonishments would sound if He were speaking today, even though His message would not change. And I believe He would agree with John Danforth: “People of faith have the right, and perhaps the obligation, to bring their values to bear in politics, but not to approach politics with a certainty that they know God’s truth, and that they can advance the kingdom of God through governmental action.”

In Larry King’s interview, both the Schulers emphatically condemned the recent irrational, zealous statement of Pat Robertson.

In the separation statement, I was not trying to suggest that one group had moral authority and another did not. However, in my opinion, it’s a dangerous and slippery slop we find our government teetering with the sway of extreme political-religious right’s influence to amass excessive political power. I would feel the same way if it were the fanatical left. All that said, who does have the more authoritative “moral authority”, is it the judgmental evangelicals who spoke from the pulpit supporting the war; the less judgmental moderate evangelicals, Pope, and clergy who said lets not go or at least wait on UN; or those clergy who remained silent?

“Moral authority” is subjective. Does moral authority come only from God? If so, who can we trust to reveal God’s will of what’s moral? Who is God’s spokesman? Is moral discernment more in the mind of the beholder? If so, then it would be integral to one’s conscience and principles. Does God create all people with a conscience capable of discerning right from wrong? If moral discernment sends military action to one country for protection, freedom and justice, is it immoral discernment NOT to send military action to any number of other countries where genocidal inhumanity is even more deplorable/evil and greater masses of people affected by tyrant governments?

Most of the time I think I know right from wrong. But there are some things I just don’t know about. Thanks for getting me to think deeper about these matters.

Does the United Nations have the clout and a moral obligation to improve the plight of humankind? Kenneth Bacon in this article has suggested that it does have that responsibility:
“28 Days to Save Darfur” http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/31/opinion/31bacon.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

• HOW can the United States best use its month-long turn as president of the United Nations Security Council, which it assumes tomorrow? It could start by devoting itself to ending the violence in the Darfur region of western Sudan — violence that President Bush has characterized as genocide.

What are your thoughts?