Tim Bulkeley

Today was a “half-work” day at Cloudy Paddocks. I got all the work I needed to done in half a day, and so could spend the other half on fencing the pig paddock. This is brilliant when it works as (on the change is as good as a rest principle) I get more than half the work done in each half that I would in a full day. It uses up a day of holiday, but keeps me on top of both my day job and my hobby job.

Today I finished¹ the new fence for the pig paddock. When Richard was here, but there’s been little progress since.

I had been calling the paddock Pig Heaven as it has trees, damp patches and all sorts of piggy delights. But then I began to think of the theology of that :( So now, I’m calling it the Pigs’ Happy Place. I know there’s an allusion to the Sky TV adverts in this, but think about it… Sky want to keep their customers more or less content so they become food for advertisers. I want to keep my pigs really content till they become bacon. Not much difference is there? Except I won’t charge my customers!

1. Except for a few bottom staples on battens, really difficult with only one person despite Strainright’s brilliant batten holder, and the “Taranaki gate” which needs some thought.

I was recently asked about the ethics of animal testing. While I’m aware that it is a very contentious issue for “animal rights activists” it is not one I have thought much about. Though, since I grow animals to eat, I am closer existentially to that related issue than someone who gets their meat from the supermarket.

It seems to me there are some simple principles that provide guidance:

• God made animals so we have a general responsibility to care for them like for the rest of creation (see Gen 1)
• God explicitly allowed the use of animals for human benefit including killing them to eat (see Gen 9:3) n.b. I’d see this extending to the next line…
• Research and testing which is of other great benefit for humans should also therefore be considered within God’s will.

If you would like a review copy of the print version of my new book:

Tim Bulkeley, Not Only a Father: Talk of God as Mother in the Bible & Christian Tradition (Signs) Auckland: Archer Press, 2011 ISBN: 978-1468091373

Please contact me, please say both where you expect to publish the review (blogs are quite acceptable though a full review rather than a short note would be good) and when you are expect to write it. There are no conditions and you should be as critical as you normally would.

I’m sure people who claim the verbal inspiration of Scripture have an answer, but I’m puzzled. Jesus says in Mat 19 and Mark 10 that “Moses”¹ gave permission for divorce “because of your hardness of heart”. Does this mean that Jesus considered Deut 24 to be Moses’ own teaching? Please do not answer on behalf of others, or offer facetious answers, I am not trying to be “clever” just to understand how the claims of verbal inspiration work. Many of my students and fellow church members hold the idea, but I can’t get my head around it.

1. Or “he” presumably refering back to the Pharisees “Moses” in Mark.

Many discussions around the Bible founder on the shoals of factual accuracy. The “facts of the matter”, and claims that they are either accurately or inaccurately reported, generate much heat (and for those who like good knock down arguments¹ delight). This should not surprise us, for since the Enlightenment, we have worshiped “facts”.

Indeed respect for the facts has served us well. Truth is found when the facts are reported and marshaled into arguments accurately.

Yet, always, but especially in matters of relationship, there is another sort of truth. Faithfulness too can be truth. In fiction when a character acts in ways which ring true to their nature (as built up elsewhere in the story or the corpus) and to the relevant aspects of the world as we know it (remembering that willing suspension of disbelief plays a role in all poetics) we say the story is “true”. Likewise when the other things all good fictions communicate, the attitudes and elements of worldview “fit” with (i.e. are faithful to) what we believe, we say the story is true. Similarly, in the ancient world,² when an ambassador spoke a message that represented faithfully what his lord would have intended, his words were true. This would have been so even if the message was in fact contradicted by a written communication that spoke differently – if the lord would indeed have spoken differently in the changed circumstances.

To expect the Bible to conform to the first sort of truth, in a world which lived by the second, is mere fundamentalism (a thoroughly modern system).

Of course, to interpret a text which seeks to be faithful requires more skill and judgement than to interpret one which aims at the facts. And isn’t it interesting how often “the facts” serve to support and sustain the status quo?³

Amanda at Cheese-Wearing Theology has posted this month’s Biblical Studies Carnival, in what ways is the “world” (of bibliobloggery) it presents true?

1. What H. Dumpty described as “glory”.
2. Before modern technologies made swift or even almost instant communication at a distance possible.
3. At least until the pressure for change becomes almost irresistible, at which point somehow those flighty facts change sides.

Gavin (at Otagosh) posted a fairly long response to my piece Biblical marriages. Since he took the trouble to reply at some length as a post, I’ll do the same.

His critique starts

Then Tim makes an amazing statement: “In terms of the teaching of Scripture it is clear that Gen 2 is a privileged text (Jesus and Paul both cite it when discussing marriage).”

Genesis 2 is a privileged text?  In what sense?  Both Jesus and Paul cite other texts too.  Or, to be more specific, Paul and the Gospel writers cite other texts.¹

Well, yes, evidently both Jesus and Paul² also refer to other parts of Scripture. A full treatment of what the Bible says about marriage would need to treat them and yet other texts (that neither of these use) also. But still it seems to me, for a Christian reading of Scripture the fact that both Jesus and Paul (more than once) cite Gen 2 does make that passage a somewhat privileged locus for seeking a biblical understanding of marriage.³ No, Gavin, I cannot accept that all texts, or passages, are equal. Like most people⁴ I have a “canon within the canon, though it will be different for different purposes and I think that (as I began to here)⁵

Gavin continued:

There were no “red letter” options available to indicate Jesus’ actual words, quotation marks had yet to be invented, and speaking of “invented”, much (please note that I’m not saying all) of the material attributed to Jesus has clearly been put into his mouth.

This seems to assume that when I say “Jesus” my interest is historical. There is a terrible tendency in modern thought to value history and “facts”. But I am not a historian, I am a theologian, my primary interest is not in reconstructing a plausible history but in the character “Jesus” who inspires and is the centre of the New Testament. This Jesus whether or not “invented”⁶ does make special use of this passage.

This section of the post concludes:

Tim’s decision to anoint Genesis two as “privileged” is entired [sic]⁷ theological and subjective.

I hope that I have shown that the first is entirely true, but perhaps to be expected of a theologian, and that the second is true only in the most general sense. I gave a reason that Gavin did not like, and in a short post failed to present any of the others, perhaps I have begun to rectify that lack above.

Gavin then quotes something I wrote and rejects it. I wrote:

“in this (as in everything else) human sinfulness warps and twists God’s intent. All of the ‘biblical’ marriages listed in the graphic reflect this.”

Gavin replied:

The problem is that, as Tim knows full well, the documents themselves contain little or no condemnation of these customs.  If there’s warping and twisting going on, wouldn’t you assume that this would be signalled within the text? 

Well, Gavin and I might assume that, but the fact is that biblical narratives though they frequently recount the most terrible breaches of God’s desires (as expressed in the texts themselves) seldom mark them as such, we cannot rely on such explicit markers. But then the simple fact that no Bible character (with the arguable exception of Jesus) is presented without faults, sins and failings might suggest – and certainly does to my theological reading – that the Bible sees humans as sinful, warped and twisted. Nice middle-class liberal moderns may not like it, but we are all broken and in need of repair.

On the charge of biblicism that Gavin closes with, perhaps I’d be happy to plead guilty.

1. I am sorry, I have spent half an hour playing with HTML but cannot reproduce gavin’s emphasis in these quotes, something to do with the way this theme handles blockquotes :(
2. See below, I’ll continue to use these convenient shorthand designations despite Gavin’s scorning of them.
3. Much like a blog post getting lots of links would privilegeit in Google’s algorithms ;)
4. Except raging fundamentalists.
5. Though of course in a longer treatment I should have added other reasons, like the claim that Genesis serves as a preface to both the Torah and Scripture as a whole, and the further claim that the early chapters are particularly “laden” with significant teaching, and the claim that Gen 2 is “about” marriage and is one of few Old Testament texts that are…
6. I know why I put quotation marks round the word, since i seriously doubt that the gospel authors or the traditions that may stand behind them intended to “invent”, but why does Gavin use scare quotes here?
7. PS3/2/12  now corrected in the original post.

I’ve seen several peopl, including Rowland Crowcher, post this ”infographic” on Facebook. Since I’ve spoken quite a bit on “Family in the Bible”, and am due to speak to a leaders group from the NZ Christian Network on the “Theology of Marriage” really soon it makes me hopping mad!

In one sense the graphic is “true”. The Bible does present all these, and more (some arguably worse) patterns of marriage. It is also true that God chose to work in and through many of these. Just looking at Abraham (the “father” of the three monotheistic religions) or Jacob (aka “Israel”) makes it clear that God does not turn aside from some convoluted and perverse human arrangements in choosing who to use as a channel of grace.

But, do any of these represent “a biblical view of marriage”. Hell no! It is time for some stakes in the ground. In terms of the teaching of Scripture it is clear that Gen 2 is a privileged text (Jesus and Paul both cite it when discussing marriage). This passage, and the teaching of Jesus and Paul make some basics clear:

Marriage:

• was ordained by God
• is the union of a man and a woman
• produces and nurtures the next generation
• provides necessary partnership

However, in this (as in everything else) human sinfulness warps and twists God’s intent. All of the “biblical” marriages listed in the graphic reflect this.

See some of my earlier posts for background to this one:

•  What is a family?
• Does the Bible present a preferred pattern of family
• Reading the Bible: seeking teaching on family

I am aware that what I have written in the very short and angry post here will be understood by some people as endorsing particular views on the currently hot and vexed topic of “Gay marriages”. It does. Gay marriage is an oxymoron since not only is marriage the partnership of a man and a woman, but also intended to produce as well as nurture the next generation. However, the view endorsed above says nothing about either Civil Unions, or about the possibility of blessing (or even solemnising) them in churches. As far as I am concerned that seem to be separate issues, and ones on which my view of marriage does not entail any particular position. I wish that we (Christians of all stripes, marriage activists of every opinion, and especially the authorities of both states and churches) would just sit back and separate the two things and issues.

As part of my preparation for leaving Carey I’m moving to Gmail. On the whole I find the web interface nearly as good as (if quite different from) Thunderbird especially given the limitations imposed by the choice of living in the cloud. However, I am not yet a convinced cloud dweller,¹ so I wanted the “offline” feature. That meant installing and using Chrome (I use Google for my diary too). That’s OK, Chrome is hardly bloatware :) BUT while in FF mailto links open Gmail in Chrome they persistently ask me why I have not installed and set up Outlook Express !?* :(

I’ve searched the rabbit warren of user comments that serve Google instead of an organised help feature, to no avail. Apart from a couple of third party² plugins there seems to be no way to remove this weird “feature”.

I thought Chrome was supposed to be nearly as tweakable as FF or even (God forbid) IE³ but no, as a matter of simple basic functionality Chrome is a locked down Microserf shop. Weird!

PS Here’s a hack a friend just found (9th Feb 2012):

Open Gmail in Chrome. Press Ctrl-Shift J.

Paste this into the code window:

 navigator.registerProtocolHandler("mailto",
                                  "https://mail.google.com/mail/?extsrc=mailto&url=%s",
                                  "Gmail");

Chrome will ask if you want to use Gmail, say yes. Problem solved.

Now why could Google not tell me that?

1. Being often out of Internet contact – I have a 3G phone but don’t use the data services because of cost, and because 90% of the time I am not within cell phone coverage.
2. And lacking any seeming “official” acceptance.
3. Which at least back in the Dark Ages when I last used it, let me set up other email clients.

One of the things I have not yet done as well as I’d like is to package these podcasts into convenient forms to give quick simple  introductions for students in classes I teach, so I’ve been collecting the posts on Genesis with that in mind.

I’ll gradually be adding podcasts to fill some of the gaps. Here’s one to introduce the section of the Bible that contains Genesis, the Torah or Pentateuch. I’ll try briefly (5 minute Bible) to explain what the Torah is and what it does. To do this we’ll also look briefly at what it contains, and hint at the role of the Pentateuch as Christian Scripture.

Here is the audio: Introducing the Torah or Pentateuch

In part one I drew attention to the problem that this verse seems to contradict what Paul himself approves and to some funny things going on in and around the verse. Here I’ll focus on my reason for mentioning this, how we should respond when a Bible passage seems to contradict what the same author says or does elsewhere…

The audio file is here: Understanding contradictions: 1 Cor 14:34 (Part 2)

Perhaps no Bible text illustrates the dangers of a simplistic reading of Scripture than 1 Cor 14:34.

If we tear this verse from its cotext,¹ and then read it as if the Bible were “God’s instruction manual for life” and even worse read it also literally then we are in trouble! The verse (in the fairly literal NET)² reads:

the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak. Rather, let them be in submission, as in fact the law says.

The verse is full of oddities.³ Not the least of which is that in 1 Cor 11:4-6 Paul assumes that both women and men will pray and prophesy, and in this same chapter 1 Cor 14:4-5 suggests the same thing, and that this is indeed in the public meeting (cf. v.4). Paul seems to be contradicting himself!

What is going on, and how should we interpret such passages?

Here is the audio (of part one): Understanding contradictions: 1 Cor 14:34 (Part 1)

1. Or for a podcast.
2. Even the NRSV is less literal here omiting the “the” before women, one of the oddities of this verse is that Paul seems to be talking about some particular women.
3. Another is the way most English translations make the first sentence a run-on from the verse before, though many MSS mark vv.34-5 off from the surrounding texts.

Many people think the Bible is like a hologram, any part of which shows the truth. The practice of scholars, preachers and teachers, of citing single verses or lists of verses to demonstrate something, encourages this view. The claim that the Bible is “inerrant” in all its parts seems to seal the idea. Yet in the Bible God itself told us in the Bible that it is false!

Here is the audio: What is the Bible? (Part 2) A hologram?

________________________________________________

Yes, another blast from the past, but while all the other fine people enjoy SBL in San Fransisco I’m still marking away

How do we picture Scripture? That is what is/are the (unconscious) models in our heads as we read and use the Bible?
This ‘cast refers particularly to Gen 18:20ff. and Amos 7.

How did God reveal Scripture, by dictation as with Moses, by some less sharp inspiration as seems to have been the case for prophets? And why do the four gospels not all sound alike?

Here is the audio: What is the Bible (Part 1)

_________________________________________________
Things have been very busy for a while now, so I thought I’d recycle some old podcasts. This one and its follow up, to come, were done back in 2007 when this podcast was pretty new, and I think the topic is one that bears repeating

Like Esther, Daniel is set in a foreign court and telling to the trials and triumphs of exiled Judeans and is packed with humour at the expense of the imperial overlords.

In this podcast I’m following an article by Hector Avalos from CBQ and focusing on the repeated lists of Dan 3. For his comparison text Avalos went to the early English Piers Ploughman but I’ll refer to “How the Whale got his throat” from the Just So Stories by Rudyard Kipling (for obvious reasons

Audio file: Humour in the Bible: book 27: Daniel the humour of lists

Well,the end of the world has passed, again That’s the second time this year! It is the Bible that causes all the problems. or ratheit is bad reading of the Bible that causes all the problems. No book is more commonly misread than Revelation. Christians keep wanting it to predict tomorrow. And boy, do they get tied in knots!

But a simple direct dose of the KIIC principle would cure them… Keep It In Context, that’s all you have to do. Ask how the message would sound to the writer and intended receivers of the message.

Here is the audio: Decoding Revelation: the KIIS principle

In Understanding the prophets: Part one I spoke about the “Three Cons” as a key to reading the prophetic books of the Old Testament with understanding and in ways which are faithful to their original intention. In this second part we’ll look at an example from Amos 5:18ff. and apply this approach. The result will be an uncomfortable word from God for us today.

Here are the slides from that talk: Understanding the Prophets: Part Two: Amos 5:18ff. There are some podcasts that deal with the book of Amos here and there is a detailed free online commentary with a wealth of background information and pictures here.

If podcasts can have dedications, then this one is dedicated to Robert Carroll. The podcast is full or irony, first that of an introvert who spoke before thinking and who failed to read or digest a fine work by an admired teacher and friend, and then that of a frequently (and often mordantly) humorous Irishman who denies title humour to black humour so like his own. And then in the end, in Ezekiel 4:9ff. I’ll suggest there is both irony and (black) humour in the account of the Lord GOD conceding a customary prohibition to his staunch, righteous and rigorous prophet, while demanding that nevertheless he break the clear commandment of Scripture.

Here’s the audio: Humour in the Bible: book 26: Ezekiel

In this podcast I refer to:
Chotzner, Joseph. “Humour of the Bible.” In Hebrew humour and other essays, 1-12. Luzac & co., 1905. (The quotation is from page 12.)

and especially to:

Carroll, Robert P. “Is humour also among the prophets?” In On humour and the comic in the Hebrew Bible, edited by Yehuda T. Radday and Athalya Brenner. 169-189. Continuum International Publishing Group, 1990.

Gender is not (only) a Feminist issue!

I ended my double post Proverbs as a gendered text and Proverbs as a gendered text: Proverbs 31:10ff. with the question of where reading such (strongly) male texts left women readers. Sadly it has had little response, (though thank you Judy

So I’ll end this podcast with a reverse of the question with which I ended the one on Pr 31, and suggest there are parts of the Bible that heterosexual men can only read with the help of a little creative gender bending.

Let’s see what you make of my (literal) reading of Song 2:1ff.?!

More on gendered texts: Turning the tables

News sources including the Guardian are reporting that among the 600+ prisoners being released by the government in Nappydaw are many prominent political prisoners.

Despite the facts that there are still many political prisoners in jail and despite the laws that put them their being still on the books this is good news. It is another sign of hope after so many years of worsening gloom in Burma.

Pray that the progress may continue.

Both AFP and the Irrawaddy are reporting that the KNU have signed a ceasefire with the Nappydaw government. This deal could mark the beginning of an end to the war which has been running for well over 60 years.

Pray that this and other hopeful signs from Burma may indeed mark a new beginning for the troubled country!

The question of when child labour is a traditional form of community self-help has come up a couple of times for me recently.

The example nearer home came from a friend of ours working on the border in a village that runs dormitories and a school for teens and kids who otherwise would miss out (falling between two countries systems, an ongoing war and just plain remoteness). She writes(with a few identifying details changed)  of a new project at the village, a vege garden:

As I have watched the transformation of scrubland into well ordered farm, a conundrum has arisen in my mind. My Western Social Work self asks if this is a form of abuse and exploitation of a captive youth labour force compelled to do whatever their elders “ask” of them. As one new 18 year old student assertively told the Principal, “I have never had to get out of bed at 5.30 a.m. and have never had to work like this in all my life. I came here to study  so I can go to university”. Then my K’nyaw wah (white Karen) self sees one boy playing guitar and singing alongside of other boys who are splitting bamboo stakes 1, and I see the bwadawar (community) at work and it all seems perfectly normal – a  community that sows together, reaps together, producing nutritious food,  developing new skills and combating the passive donor aid mentality that so permeates the border – just one of many casualties of this 62 year old war.

Please share with me your thoughts – I would appreciate some dialogue on this.

My “take” is simple:

• if the labour is for the children’s benefit, as in this case since they will eat the results instead of eating a more minimal diet
• if no one but the children is profiting from the work, as in this case since the food is grown as food not for sale
• if the children learn and grow themselves – as in this case for growing (even a little of) your own food is rewarding and builds a sense of one’s own worth as well as practicing skills of collaboration and dependability

then it is not child labour but community development.

The first example came up in a discussion on Fair Trade chocolate and the accusations of slavery in the Ivory Coast. David Ker pointed me to a post by a friend of his (a link which I have somehow lost The friend had spent time working in Ivory Coast and argued that (at least) many of the cases of supposed child labour there were the common African phenomenon of children being sent to live with relatives for their schooling, and while there helping out the family with family work.

On the whole the case he described, which fits with what we knew in Zaire/Congo, is similar to the case above, with the added benefit that the adults involved are relatives, but the complication that it is a cash crop being grown.

(On the general case of Ivory Coast I am not convinced, there are what seem to be well-documented reports from reputable organisations, e.g. the US State Department, that claim regular trafficking of children for work in cocoa plantations.)

What do you think? How would you answer my friend?

I wrote to the Rt Hon Murray McCully (NZ’s foreign minister) back at the very start of March: Double standards? An open letter to Murray McCully. That letter basically suggested that the UN operated a system of double standards:

The United Nations operates a system of double standards. When in North Africa (close to Europe as so “visible”) a military dictator begins attacking civilians the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon and Security Council reacted quickly to Colonel Gaddafi’s attacks on Libyan civilians. The Security Council passed a unanimous resolution demanding an end to the attacks, imposed sanctions, and refered Libya to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

In Burma ethnic minority civilians have been attacked by the state for decades.

I then mentioned the KNU’s appeal “asking UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to take effective action to immediately stop the Burmese regime’s military operations and human rights violations in Karen areas. ” and asked:

Is NZ supporting this appeal? If so how? If not why not?

Mr McCully’s answer only took about 12 weeks to compose and basically says: No, but we do support some humanitarian projects in Burma, and did oppose the unjust imprisonment of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

Basically this does not answer the question. So I will reply like this:

Dear Murray,

Further to my letter of 4th March and your reply of 30th May, as I understand your answer it is a firm: No. But you seem also to claim that somehow our support of some humanitarian projects and campaigning for the release of one prominent political prisoner (out of thousands), Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, somehow absolves us from complicity in the ongoing abuse (amounting according to many observers to attempted ethnic cleansing)  of the ethnic  minorities by the regime’s armed forces. Can you please explain the logic of this to me. If it was my daughter being raped, or my brother maimed by landmines I doubt I would see NZ’s support for the release of one prisoner as a great support.

Yours faithfully,

Tim Bulkeley

Several sources have been reporting remarks made recently by the Thai Governor of Tak province (where most of the Burmese refugees in Thailand are) these all refer to a report on Alert Net: Thailand wants Myanmar asylum seekers to go home – official

The headline is a touch misleading, since it has always been Thai policy that the refugees return home once there is no fighting and their homes are safe. The refugees wait for that day too. What is new and involves a flagrant disregard for the truth is the claim that the elections in Burma have ended the fighting and removed the need for the refugees to remain. In view of the shelling, mortar fire and repeated gunfire (heard in Mae Sot as well as in smaller Thai towns close to the border) this claim either betrays a total disconnect from reality, or a blatant lie by Govenor Loifah.

Loifah said Myanmar was no longer violent and “we should start considering asking them to return voluntarily”.

But the United Nations’ refugee agency UNHCR said voluntary returns should only happen if there was no longer any fighting and refugees could sign papers saying they wanted to go back.

“That means Myanmar would have to be welcoming them home and guaranteeing their rights when they go home. UNHCR would need to be able to monitor their safety when they go home. It’s fairly clear that none of these conditions exist right now in the areas these refugees come from,” said UNHCR spokeswoman Kitty McKinsey.

Loifah said he would be happy to work with the European Union and the UNHCR if they started reducing spending on assistance to the camps to persuade residents to leave.

“Ideally, the province would like to be able to set a deadline for closing these camps but realistically, it’s hard to do so because of international organisations. So it’s likely to drag on,” he added.

When NZ and Japan were struck by earthquakes recently each country welcomed International search and rescue teams to help hard-pressed local teams.

When a nearly 7 point quake shook a tribal area in northern Burma (Myanmar) the generals who have the power reacted just as they did to previous national disasters. The Irrawaddy reports:

However, the junta once again prioritized internal security above the lives of its own downtrodden population while stubbornly refusing to request any direct international humanitarian assistance. This repeated self-centric slow disaster management was compounded by the lack of any rescue expertize or equipment.

Although the junta eventually accepted material support from the international community, the generals remained reluctant to invite in foreign rescue teams with well-equipped experts. They seem to think it would be a national humiliation, and chose to let the people suffer more and die merely to save face.

But even if such deplorable motives for the refusal of international aid comes as no surprise, it does nothing to explain why domestic efforts were similarly thwarted. Local civic groups and Burmese volunteers who—individually or in groups—rushed to the disaster areas to provide victims with assistance were turned away.

These military rulers really seem to be men without heart or soul.

A post last month: Reducing the number of political prisoners? spoke of the Burma Army using political prisoners for forced labour. The Free Burma Rangers have provided photos (including this one):

Today is (or will be, or was, depending on where you live and how you live days of prayer) the Global Day of Prayer for Burma.

The timing is not bad, tomorrow the significant United Nations Human Rights Council, questions the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in “Myanmar”. It is high time the nations of the world united to condemn clearly and unequivocally the “widespread and systematic human rights violations” in the country.

The situation is well-known, if little talked about.

• Nearly 2,200 political prisoners (mostly prisoners of conscience)
• Censorship and  restrictions on freedom of expression, not least deliberate policy to make mobile phones inaccessible and Internet only through Junta-owned suppliers
• Ethnic minorities – including their civilian populations subject to forced labour, their villages and crops burned, wives and daughters raped by soldiers apparently without consequence
• Teenagers (even young kids barely into their teens) abducted and forced to become “soldiers”
• The list goes non and on…

The Junta refuses  to accept, let alone follow recommendations from the  international community to improve this situation.

Amnesty International put it like this:

The government rejected a massive total of 70 recommendations made during the UPR session, which urged Burma, among other things, to release political prisoners; to repeal national legislation that grants impunity to state officials for human rights violations or penalises peaceful dissent; to end discrimination against ethnic minorities; to investigate and punish cases of intimidation, torture and enforced disappearance; to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross access to detention facilities; and to reform the judiciary to ensure its independence and impartiality.

Burma’s negative response to these recommendations starkly illustrated the government’s absence of political will to acknowledge its serious human rights failings, and strongly suggested its unwillingness to provide effective redress for human rights violations.

Echoing key recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur, Amnesty International calls on all Human Rights Council member and observer states to urge the Burmese authorities to:

• immediately and unconditionally release all prisoners of conscience;
• halt all violations of international human rights and humanitarian law;
• remove all provisions in the Constitution that exempt state officials from prosecution for past human rights violations, and provide full information on measures taken to investigate allegations of human rights violations;
• facilitate independent, impartial, and thorough investigations of all allegations of serious human rights violations; prosecute alleged perpetrators, irrespective of rank or status, in fair proceedings; and provide adequate reparations to victims in accordance with international standards; and
• amend or repeal all legislation which fails to meet international human rights standards, including the 1982 Law on Citizenship, which denies the Rohingyas the right to citizenship.

Amnesty International also calls on all Human Rights Council member and observer states to:

• support the renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur;
• advance the Special Rapporteur’s previous recommendation that an international Commission of Inquiry be established to investigate credible allegations of grave international crimes in Burma.

So, if you are the praying sort, pray that either the UN will find it’s backbone, and the delegates will learn to empathise with the people of Burma, or that in some other way God intervene so that this sad country can live in peace and with justice!

Of course, we don’t stop praying for the people of Japan, and a dozen other places where sadness reigns because of natural catastrophe, and human sin. But equally praying for them ought not to excuse us from sparing a moment today (or tomorrow) for the Global Day of Prayer for Burma!

The last two paragraphs of a DVB article explain the closure of the “Friendship Bridge” according to the Thai govenor of Tak Province:

Thailand’s Foreign Trade Department estimated in October last year that around $US3 million was being lost each day due to the closure of the bridge, the main land-crossing between the two countries. In 2009 trade through Mae Sot was worth about $US860 million, nearly a quarter of the total annual bilateral trade.

Perhaps as a result of the bridge’s closure, as well as attempts by Thailand to curry favour with the junta in return for winning lucrative investment contracts, Thai policy toward refugees has become stricter, and some 10,000 Karen who fled earlier this year have been forced to find shelter in makeshift camps along the river, with little access to food and healthcare.

Meanwhile the military on both sides of the river profit, more bribes. Big ones for the important soldiers, who can help with smuggling the significant loads, small ones for the average grunt, but a nice addition to the family budget. The bridge could stay closed as long as the two governments are controled by the military.