By Mthulisi Mathtuhu
http://www.newzimbabwe.com/pages/mthuli28.16350.html
THE Zimbabwean Church leadership is a hotchpotch of fairly educated people of a considerable cultural level and downright gullible people of highly questionable intellectual acumen and moral standing.
Among them you will find narcissistic power mongers and wealth seekers with a fair sprinkling of dishonest men and women of renowned insincerity.
Not to be outdone are those of different political persuasions making the grouping naturally given to polarisation which is why the Anglicans and the Catholics will issue totally different statements on the situation obtaining in Zimbabwe as if they reside in two different planets.
This composition renders the Church leadership vulnerable to manipulations and hi-jacking as the politicians seek to use them as a camouflage for their
tyranny.
So when the Church leaders met last year to produce the Zimbabwe We Want document, it was apparent to some of us in the ecumenical movement that the gullible lot among them had swung the ship to take the route that was welcome to the government and help Robert Mugabe pretend that he was doing something.
The blunder of the Church today has been to enter the Zimbabwean debate with the thinking that Zimbabwe is a victim of some conspiracy. The scope of their reasoning is essentially pleasing to Mugabe.
They speak about Zimbabwe in a manner that would rather please the tyrant in Mugabe than challenge and implore the normal person in him to see sense in the drive for the other Zimbabwe.
Rather than use their moral authority to diplomatically bring a sense of guilt and consequently, the urgent need for reform, they will use it to shield him. Mugabe is certainly relieved than challenged by the bond he has with the Church leaders who often concoct eulogies for him under the guise of theological reflection and patriotism.
The Church Leader’s spokesperson Bishop Trevor Manhanga’s "patriotic" statements and gesturing are all that counts to Mugabe and are enough to please him as they are within the premise of blaming somebody else other than the Dear Leader.
The contents of the Zimbabwe We Want document are not important to Mugabe, after all that is what is written every day in the opinion pages of newspapers by the Lovemore Madhukus and the Brian Kagoros.
What Mugabe is interested in are the Bishops who purchase into and defend the fallacy that Zimbabwe is under attack and is a victim of vitriolic imperialist propaganda.
That is why there is no difference today between Manhanga’s utterances and the state adverts praising the trees, mountains, rivers, Victoria Falls and the country’s literacy levels as if anybody ever questioned the beauty of Zimbabwe.
What is under attack is not Zimbabwe in its entirety, but is the obtuse leadership that has sunk deep down to the levels of the ancient kingdoms of the Old Testament era.
What is under attack is not the contents of the document, but the spirit and the purpose behind its release because we have always been saying what it says anyway.
It is the willingness of the Church leaders to expose their ethical weaknesses by being on the same platform of views with Mugabe while at the same time producing a ‘good’ document that he will evidently not take serious in order that they may claim in future that they never conducted themselves questionably.
The Zimbabwe We Want document should not be used to cover up for the Church leadership’s folly which is a windfall for Mugabe.
Even as they still cling on to it, nothing has come out of the document because there was never going to be anything except that they were always going to end up being "patriotic Zimbabweans" giving interviews to the official press which customarily doesn’t give space to democrats but to confused apologists.
It is for this reason that the document is unacceptable because instead of it being an instrument to engage Zimbabwe and Mugabe for change, it is used to cover up for the Church’s support for the establishment which is what Mugabe intended in the first place.
Criticise the Church leaders today, and their apologists will be quick to say its bigoted criticism because they (primates) produced a "good" document. But didn’t Mugabe present a "good" speech at Independence in 1980 but only to walk out of Rufaro Stadium to set up the Fifth Brigade that went on to mete out unprecedented violence on the civilian population in Matabeleland in a spectacular betrayal of his promises. Wasn’t his speech a good statement used to cover up for his wayward and evil ways that were to unfold just a few weeks from its delivery?
"Even a madman can say something with sense but watch out because he will soon add something to it which will show you that his mind is still spoilt," writes Chinua Achebe.
It is the case with Trevor Manhanga who will produce a good document (regurgitating what has been said over and over again) but will go on to extend solidarity to the very class that is a hindrance to the Zimbabwe he wants.
He will go on to excoriate the defenders of democracy, as he did with South African editor Mondli Makhanya recently, but will keep quiet or just "regret the situation" when the state descends on democrats and opposition politicians seeking to air their views freely.
If Manhanga and his friends are ever so ready to frankly dispute the claims of the supposed detractors of Zimbabwe in the South African media, they should explain why are they reluctant to comment on murder and beatings of Zimbabweans by the state.
It is hypocrisy for them to condemn "violence" under the cover of being non-partisan when it is clear to everybody that what we are faced with is not just "violence" but state terrorism. It is not something to "regret" but something to condemn in frank and forthright terms.
There is very nearly no indication that the Church leaders abhor Mugabe’s un-statesman-like political behaviour. Their spectacular readiness to condemn "violence" and "attacks on Zimbabwe" is opposed by the reluctance to condemn state terror, electoral theft and un-diplomatic violent language from State House.
If they were indeed concerned about bad journalism, they should have long complained in strong terms about the state publications which use their statements to defend Mugabe.
While Manhanga is at liberty to show his vehement displeasure with the South African journalists, he will not show the same forthrightness in the face of journalism practiced by the ZBC and the Herald.
Actually he is silent because it is the kind of journalism serving the person he is not only in bed with but whom he is not willing to be frank in his dealing with.
Evidently, the best way to deal with Mugabe is not through documents but civil disobedience which Archbishop Pius Ncube is talking about.
Hasn’t history shown us that Mugabe resents documents of discussion? Think of the Chihambakwe report, CCJP report, Zimrights report, African Union Human Rights Commission report, Constitutional Commission draft Constitution etc.
To want to discuss with Mugabe is to miss the fact that what is obtaining in Zimbabwe is not a battle of minds. It is something less about views but more about murder, brazen repression and madness.
Zimbabweans including Mugabe know that his time is up. He knows that he has raped the country and will not leave because he fears accounting. It is not that he thinks he is a victim, although he says so.
There is no doubt that the Church leaders are currently not doing anything because the document is dead and buried. It will forever be useless in as far as Zimbabwe’s future is concerned. They have come to a dead end. The only thing they have to do is to complain about some people not being patriotic because the person who sent then to the people has shown them that they were wasting their time.
Perhaps they may as well tell Zimbabwe the source of new vehicles driven by some of the Church leaders. They should say who is funding their secretariat on the so-called Zimbabwe We Want project.
Mthulisi Mathuthu is a New Zimbabwe.com columnist. He can be contacted at: thuthuma@yahoo.com
What exactly is the way forward in Zimbabwe?? Please Zimbos lets discuss! hosted by zimfinalpush.
Chat about what's on your mind. More about public chats.
WATCH THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK CUTTING UP HIS CLERICAL COLLAR!
Powered byIP2Location.com
|
MP3 music download website, eMusic
| Click here to unsubscribe | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use |
© 2006 eMusic.com, Inc. All rights reserved. iPod® is a registered trademark of Apple Computer, Inc. Apple is not a partner or sponsor of eMusic.com, Inc. |
|
Gostats counter
NB: THIS IS NOT THE HOME PAGE!
technorati profile
Previous Postings Archived Monthly!
-
►
2006
(11)
- ► November 2006 (3)
- ► December 2006 (8)
-
►
2007
(47)
- ► January 2007 (7)
- ► February 2007 (1)
- ► March 2007 (8)
- ► April 2007 (15)
- ► September 2007 (2)
- ► December 2007 (1)
Thursday, May 3, 2007
URGENT "STATE OF THE NATION ADDRESS" FROM THE OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE PRESIDENT!
"STATE OF THE NATION" ADDRESS BY YOUR PRESIDENT!

I think there is a bit of confusion in our beloved country of Zimbabwe today!
Who ever said I won the Presidential Elections of 2002?
I never said so!
All I said was Tsvangirai's Election Petitions are "frivolous and vexatious."
I also pleaded with all patriots to "recognize" me as the Executive President.
I am the only person who can keep this country of Zimbabwe together!
If I removed myself from the top seat, the country will degenerate into chaos (racialism, tribalism, regionalism and all the negatives you can think of!)
Now we are in this whole mess because you simply refused to do the obvious- JUST RECOGNIZE ME. PERIOD!
Do you honestly think Tsvangirai can run this country?
I'm very disappointed with you, my fellow countrymen!
Running a country is a very complicated, delicate task!
You do your best and you are still accused of not doing your best!
WHO REALLY COULD HAVE MANAGED THIS ECONOMY BETTER THAN ME?
Now about the so-called rigging and the so-called-violence!
Your focus should be on the major issues!
Would we really stand by and allow Mr Blair to re-colonize our country, take away our Sovereignty and take over all our resources?
Would you allow someone to take your wife and you just stood by?
Please lets be very serious, Ladies and Gentlemen, Comrades and Friends!
About assassinations:be very careful!
This may break the whole Nation apart!
Who killed Cde Hebert Chitepo?
So why do you ask who killed General Josiah Magama Tongogara?
About the so-called "Truth and Reconciliation Commission!"
Where and when do we start?
Who will remain without blood on his hands?
Do you know how Dr Parerenyatwa died? Was it Smith's men or was it an internal struggle?
So will you raise the dead to ask them to testify?
Then last but not least: where in the world are "perfect people"?
The words "rigging", "assassinations" etc are English words!
Are they Shona words?
MUTIKWANIRE! (STOP THIS LUNACY!)
Please recognize me, rally behind me as your God-given father and lets move forward and re-build our Nation!
About the unfortunate isolated incidents in the Southern part of our country (the so-called "Gukurahundi Massacres"), please lets not open old wounds!
The Ndebeles can be very naive if they think we have forgotten their vicious raids against our peace-loving Shona people in the 1890s!
Please let all bye-gones be bye-gones!
MAY THE GOOD LORD ABOVE BE WITH YOU ALL!
Yours Faithfully,
ME.
Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it now.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
"MUGABE NOT TYPICAL DICTATOR!" CHURCH MAGAZINE!
Standing Up to Mugabe
5/1/2007
Commonweal Magazine: A Review of Religion, Politics and Culture
Robert Mugabe is not a typical dictator. Unlike, say, Idi Amin or the former Liberian president Charles Taylor, Mugabe does not play the part of a thug. He wears natty suits, watches cricket, and reads the British press. He gets up early to practice yoga, drinks lots of tea but no alcohol, and switches artfully between a very proper English and Shona, the language of Zimbabwe's majority tribe.
In fact, despite his fierce opposition to British involvement in his country, Mugabe is in many ways a textbook Anglophile. His rhetoric may be ferociously anticolonial, but he still wants his children to learn the manners of British royalty.
But Mugabe is a dictator - and a particularly dangerous one. First elected as prime minister in 1980, the 83-year-old former school teacher has slowly destroyed his country's economy.
Zimbabwe was once the breadbasket of southern Africa but now depends on aid from the World Food Program, which estimates that 38 percent of the country's population is malnourished. This hunger is not mainly the result of natural famine but of greed and maladministration. In 2000, President Mugabe's government confiscated the land of the country's remaining white farmers and, in the name of justice and decolonization, gave it to his friends and political supporters, most of whom knew little about agriculture. The farms were neglected or destroyed, while the urban poor went hungry, many of them fleeing to South Africa. As James Kirchick recently reported for the New Republic, Zimbabwean state-run television now warns people not to set brushfires, which are being used to trap mice for food.
Mugabe and his cronies in the Zimbabwean African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) have often used hunger as a political weapon, directing aid to his party's rank and file, withholding it from those who support the country's beleaguered opposition party. Having made them hungry, he has also tried to make them invisible. In 2005 he began to "re-ruralize" a million Zimbabweans who lived in poor urban areas of Harare that voted against ZANU-PF candidates in that year's parliamentary elections. The campaign was called Operation Murambatsvina, which in Shona means "drive out filth."
Zimbabwe's catalogue of miseries is impressive, even by African standards. The rate of inflation is now well above 1,000 percent, the highest in the world; it is expected to reach 4,000 percent by the end of the year. This - and the 80 percent unemployment - make it hard, if not impossible, for the average Zimbabwean to buy even the most basic provisions. In 1990, the average life expectancy of Zimbabwean men was 62. Today, it's 37, the lowest in the world, though three years above the life expectancy of women.
Opposition to Mugabe's regime from within the country has been savagely punished, while criticism from outside has been scorned or ignored. Morgan Tsvangirai, a former union leader who now heads the Movement for Democratic Change, was beaten by Mugabe's police at a prayer meeting in early March. Forty-five other activists had to be hospitalized. Two were killed. Asked about Tsvangirai's beating, Mugabe replied, "Of course he was bashed. He deserved it. ... I told the police: 'Beat him a lot.'"
Until recently most of Zimbabwe's Catholic bishops were silent about Mugabe's misrule, but on April 1 they released a pastoral letter describing the government as "racist, corrupt, and lawless."
Sharp criticism from the United States and other Western countries has often seemed to help Mugabe, since it plays into his public image as a native hero beset by hostile colonial powers.
South Africa's leaders have discouraged what they describe as the "megaphone diplomacy" of the United States and Great Britain in favor of their own "quiet diplomacy." But, so far at least, these leaders have been better at the quiet than at the diplomacy. Although they privately acknowledge the urgency of the situation in Zimbabwe, they are still too reluctant to criticize Mugabe publicly, seeming to treat him as he wants to be treated - as a kind of Zimbabwean Nelson Mandela.
Perhaps the United States cannot do much, but it can do more: it can use every diplomatic and economic pressure available to let South Africa's leaders know that they must no longer enable and protect Mugabe.
If they refuse to listen to the United States and Europe, they should listen to Desmond Tutu, the former Anglican archbishop of Cape Town. Tutu laments that there is "hardly a word of concern let alone condemnation" about what is happening in Zimbabwe. "We Africans should hang our heads in shame. Do we really care about human rights, do we care that people of flesh and blood, fellow Africans, are being treated like rubbish, almost worse than they were ever treated by rabid racists?"
Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it now.
Monday, April 30, 2007
SWRADIOAFRICA: FULL TWO-PART INTERVIEW WITH CHURCH LEADERS!
| SW Radio Africa Hot Seat Transcript
Hot Seat interview: Zimbabwe Church leaders part 2 Bishop Trevor Manhanga (on the right), the Chairman of Heads of Denominations and head of delegation of the Zimbabwe National Vision Document that was launched last year, Pastor Ray Motsi (on the left), the spokesperson of the Christian Alliance (the conveners of the Save Zimbabwe Campaign) and Pius Ncube (in the middle), the Catholic Archbishop of Bulawayo. Ncube is one of the Bishops who signed the Pastoral letter. Broadcast on 24 April 2007 | |||||||||
| Violet Gonda: Welcome to the concluding debate with church leaders Bishop Trevor Manhanga, Pastor Ray Motsi and Archbishop Pius Ncube. In this part of the discussion we hear the church leaders' views on the opposition in Zimbabwe but first, Pastor Motsi picks up from where the discussion ended last week on the issue of what form of resistance the Church should be engaging in right now. | |||||||||
| Pastor Ray Motsi: I think we need to be very clear. The problem in Zimbabwe is not an MDC/ZANU PF problem. The problem is people in Zimbabwe are suffering. For your own information some members of the MDC and ZANU PF are actually living pretty. They may not actually feel the suffering of the people in Zimbabwe and therefore to continue to actually think that the problem in Zimbabwe is ZANU PF and MDC whilst the majority of the people we have 90% of unemployment and people cannot afford a meal a day I think the more we continue to think that the problem is at that level and that the ordinary people who are voiceless, who are harmless, they are marginalized I think we are doing a disservice to God. Our mandate and our mission from the Church is from the bible. What does the bible say about the situation in Zimbabwe? I think it's a bad situation, it's an evil situation because people are suffering and I think that is what we must talk about. Violet: And also I would like to go back to the question that Bishop Manhanga asked and I think it's very important and its also to do with the issue of the way forward. Archbishop Ncube what is the nature of resistance that the Church should take right now? Archbishop Pius Ncube: I think we can learn from South Africa. In South Africa they were dealing with the Apartheid government and they held meetings sometimes they held marches even to the risks of being shot while they marched. The Pastors would march in front and they organized a whole lot of activities to put pressure on the government. They even negotiated that sanctions should be imposed on the Apartheid government and that was agreed to by the western powers. The loans and so on were embargoed and so forth. So we must learn from them. Churches must stop this sweet-talk and engage now into putting pressure which will cause the government to bend. You see in South Africa they were dealing with hardliners there white people who had been 350 years there and they didn't want to let go. They thought they had a divine right to rule but there had to be a lot of pressure to arm twist them to force them to the table. So these people have to be forced to the table by lots of other pressure rather than sweet-talk. Marches, protests, prayer services and training people on how to avoid I think Churches must have some kind of contract together with civil bodies to have a common front and to have common actions with trade unions and so forth. Non-violent action. There must be a contract to bring the government down if they are refusing to negotiate. We cannot be sweet anymore with these people who have oppressed us. It's the 8 th year running now. Violet: Bishop Manhanga can you see your group signing up or supporting this kind of activism? Bishop Manhanga: Well look Violet, I think that for our part, I don't think we have reached the stage whereby the doors to government, and I agree with Pastor Ray Motsi this is not an issue of the politicians alone, we are trying to deal with the people who are in government. I don't think joining up with the people some of the civil society groups may not have the same objectives as the Church and the noble objectives of the Church may be usurped by some of these other groups. And I feel it is very dangerous. That's where we get sucked in even though we may want to make a non violent demonstration or we may want to make a non violent street march to air our grievances. That quickly because we are bringing other elements in who do not share our commitment to non violence and Christian principles and then what happens? The very thing the Church is trying to prevent is what becomes on the ground destruction of property, destruction of life. And I say I cannot be part of that because we don't want to lose people's lives unnecessarily because at this time the doors to talk are still open. I hear what my brother Archbishop Pius is saying but I think that, look the time has not yet arrived as I see it whereby we say 'it is a total waste of time talking to government.' I think we must still talk to them, I think we have not gone over the precipice. That is my personal opinion. I think we should do whatever we can and then if the time comes when we say that we are not making any progress and we are dealing with a government that doesn't want to listen totally to us then obviously the Church has to re-look and say 'ok we have been doing all these things there is no improvement what do we do?' Violet: What about you thoughts Pastor Motsi, it seems Zimbabwe has become too polarized and also tend to be too passionate about the crisis that people tend to pick one side or another. Or that they don't want to hear the truth because they want change. Now do you think we should have higher morality of opposition leaders? Pastor Ray Motsi: Without any doubt. Obviously our quest is that those that are into politics and those that aspire to get into political positions must be people that are of higher regard for the law and morality for this nation and human rights. And therefore we actually desire to see people who are of high caliber to occupy such echelons of political authority. I think I need to contribute to this argument concerning the argument of the approach that we must take. I think whilst we approach the problem of Zimbabwe from diverse point of departures the aim and the reason must be the same. The aim is to bring about a desired goal which is, as far as I am concerned, transformation of every aspect. We need a multiplicity of approaches in order to pressurize the powers that be and everybody else who is involved, including the politicians to behave in a manner that the people of Zimbabwe want. Not what they want. Rather than them telling us what is right we Zimbabweans we need to tell the leaders what is right and therefore the multiplicity of approaches will actually help us in understanding that there is no one group that has got the monopoly of truth and the monopoly of know how of how best to deal with the problem of Zimbabwe at the moment. I think there is need for some stakeholders' approach to come together to deal with this issue. It's a Zimbabwean problem and therefore Zimbabweans need to come together. That's my case as far as this is concerned. Violet: And Archbishop Ncube on the issue of political parties there are some people who say we ignored that aspect of Robert Mugabe that was dictatorial from the beginning and that we are ignoring this issue in the MDC. Now do you think there needs to be some kind of truth speaking when dealing with the opposition? Archbishop Pius Ncube: Yes I think the tendency is that Robert Mugabe's behavior has tended to be seen as standard, unconsciously. You see this man has been sitting on our backs for the last 27 years and so unconsciously we take in even some of his bad behavior as though it's alright. So it's wrong for people in the opposition to take the party, their party as though they are the owners of the party. The people can always change and get some other party but there is this possessiveness amongst some people even in the opposition you find it. I heard that a party leader was saying 'over his dead body would he allow anyone else would take over his leadership even in the opposition.' Now that attitude is wrong. They must be humble enough to allow the people to choose another leader you can always start something good. Let others take over and continue it you don't have to cling to it. Violet: Bishop Manhanga, your views on the opposition. Bishop Manhanga: Violet I think the problem we make hear
let's look even with President Mugabe. President Mugabe is the leader of ZANU PF but ZANU PF is made up of so many people. I think that if people are unhappy with a particular leader, and I use that analogy, they should form their own party. I am saying that often times we say the problem is Mugabe, what about the people in ZANU PF. We say that the problem is Morgan Tsvangirai but what about the people in the MDC? All Zimbabweans even in the Zimbabwean problem are complicit. We must ask ourselves as Pastor Ray said, 'what have we done in the situation?' So, when we talk about the opposition, I think if people are not happy, for example, with Tsvangirai's leadership, if they don't follow the laid down procedures in their party then they must form their own party. If they are not happy with Mutambara it's no use sitting there saying 'this man is a dictator' but you don't want to do anything about the problem. That's the problem. Everybody says these things but at the time when something should be done everybody cops out or chickens out and that's the problem. I think we get the kind of leaders we deserve at the end of the day! Violet: But Pastor Motsi what are your views on this. Do you think that is the solution that if you are not happy with a particular leadership then you form your own party? Pastor Ray Motsi: I think in a true democracy that would actually be true there is no reason why anybody could actually form his own party or her own party if they so wish. But again going back to Bishop Manhanga's point earlier on, I personally believe as a nation we need to learn to have conflict resolution and know how to handle our conflicts in a manner that will make us better people in the future because we are learning from our mistakes. But as it is there is no indication at all of learning from the past in order for us to have a better future and therefore I personally believe that history is coughing at us because instead of learning from it we are actually making, in my own opinion, blunders that even history itself never saw. And as a result I find it extremely, extremely difficult that as Zimbabweans it seems we are not mature there is no tolerance in term that people cannot actually be in the same room and in the same country holding different opinion and views and coming from different schools of thought. We don't have to think that because I have a different view it means I got it from outside the country. It means that us as Zimbabweans are so stupid that we can never come up with new ideas of how to actually handle our situation and that to me it is so bad and unfortunate in our country. Violet: And as the conveners of the Save Zimbabwe Campaign does this problem exist in the pro-democracy movement? Pastor Ray Motsi: WellI think it's a Zimbabwean problem to be honest with you. I think its Zimbabwean problem. You can see it manifesting in all kinds of areas of our country and I personally believe I'm of the opinion that whilst a few people have had a very strong nationalist perspective not all Zimbabweans have had such a nationalistic approach as is needed in order for us to go forward as a nation. Violet: And Archbishop Ncube in terms of the Zimbabwe recovery plan, do you have greater hopes for a reformed ZANU PF or what you see in the MDC? Archbishop Pius Ncube: The thing is perhaps it is possible that there can be a reformed ZANU PF but up to now the history of ZANU PF that we have had in the last 27 years where as soon as they are threatened they become violent. For the last month they have been abducting up to 600 people and torturing them, beating them, some they have even killed. So I think a party is judged by its activities. The people of Zimbabwe have by now lost confidence in ZANU PF let them try other parties because the way I see it its tainted, heavily tainted this party. There can always be new parties. Some parties rise and die and new parties formed. In regards to the MDC also, well it still has to prove itself. Some people speak very nicely before they are in power but once they are in power sometimes they do exactly the same thing the oppressor was doing. I mean Mugabe took over from Rhodesia Front but now he is trying exactly the same tactics, which he was denouncing. So hopefully if another party rolls and takes over power it doesn't do exactly the same mistakes but people should always be given the liberty to change leadership when they are dissatisfied. But ZANU PF believes that we are their property so arrogant are they they think that we are their property. And the idea of leaving ZANU PF to start another party, we know very well that any party, which becomes very strong, would be intimidated. As long as the party is weak they have no problems with it. But as soon as a party is a threat to them, like ZAPU was a threat to them and MDC is a threat to them then they will thrash it. They use violence that is their classical code. Use violence to bash the people so that they remain, you imbibe them to stay in ZANU PF. It is as though ZANU PF is an end in itself it should be a means to an end not an end in itself. Violet: Your thoughts Bishop Manhanga. Bishop Manhanga: You see Violet, what I would say is that just recently the ZANU PF Central Committee sat together. If within ZANU PF people are opposed to President Mugabe being the leader why didn't they stand up in that meeting and say 'we don't want Mugabe to lead us into the next election?' I think once the Central Committee has endorsed it they had been given a chance within the party. I come to the MDC they have Congress. Once they endorse Morgan Tsvangirai as their President, well I find it difficult that people start fighting saying this person is an oppressor he is not our leader. I don't know the internal mechanization within this party, but I am saying if Zimbabweans whether in MDC or ZANU PF are not happy with the leadership surely they have an opportunity to express themselves within their various party caucuses and inline with their constitution. And when you don't see this happening I think then that is a great indictment on us as Zimbabweans if at those particular points within our political structures we are afraid or we are
what's the word? Cowards - that we can't stand up. But once a person has been endorsed I'm in no position to say this person should not lead this party. That is within their part and whoever they choose that is their choice. Violet: And my question was, and that is the question that I had also asked Archbishop Ncube, in terms of the Zimbabwe recovery plan do you have greater hopes for a reformed ZANU PF or MDC? Bishop Manhanga: You know this is my desire Violet. I think Zimbabwe can turn around because Zimbabwe has got an amazing amount of talent both within ZANU PF and MDC and outside of politics. If we could tap into those people and not just look at people along party lines I am telling you this country would be the Switzerland of Africa. It would be an amazing place to live. I think that's where we should go in the future. We should put Zimbabwe first not our party, not our allegiance to any leader. We have got amazing people of all political persuasions. So I am not really looking towards a reformed ZANU PF or a transformed MDC. I am looking to whoever forms the next government in this country to have a patriotic fervor that looks at people and what they have to offer. If we do that we have a tremendous chance to turn this country around. Violet: Pastor Motsi? Pastor Ray Motsi: I think we really need to put aside a patriotic and nationalist bigotry where patriotism and nationalism is actually defined along party lines because Zimbabwe is for all Zimbabweans who are here whether they are aligned themselves with party politics or not. And the question you asked is about the hope for transformation. On a personal level not representing CA (Christian Alliance) per say or Save Zimbabwe per say, I personally believe we have had ZANU PF for all these years and they have had their chance to actually transform this nation and therefore from a political point of view I really wish that there would really be transformation because ZANU PF itself is not actually transforming. It's not actually transforming the situation to a point where everybody in Zimbabwe is beginning to enjoy the benefits. Therefore I think everybody is looking for a wholesome transformation in Zimbabwe. Now I don't know whether the MDC is the party that will actually bring the kind of desired transformation that is needed in this country. But it's transformation we need and I think desperately. Violet: And before we go Pastor Motsi a final word? Pastor Ray Motsi: My final word is that the Zimbabwean people need to come together to begin to actually work together in a way in which that only us as Zimbabweans will be able to bring about the change and transformation in this country in a non violent peaceful way and conflict resolution. Because we do have conflicts and we need those things to be resolved in a manner that will help us. But I also believe that one of the key aspects that we have is a constitution and I don't think we can actually transform the nation willy nilly without having touched the constitution and therefore that is an important aspect that also needs to be touched and brought onto the national agenda because it is not a ZANU PF issue neither is it an MDC issue. It is a Zimbabwean issue. That is my conclusion. Bishop Manhanga: Violet we are going to elections probably within the next 12 months or so. My desire and my hope is that these elections will not be characterized by what we have seen in the past. We would want an electoral process that is agreed upon and acceptable to all parties prior to, during and after the process. And after that electoral process let's all come together. Let's have a situation whereby we can all embrace the winner or winners of that election and know that for the next five years we are going to build the country together. This country cannot afford another disputed electoral process which leads to further polarisation, further isolation, further antogonisation and bloodshed. So I pray and I hope that we will get that kind of situation and next year as we go to elections if they are all harmonized we agree as Zimbabweans to accept those results. Once they are out we accept them and then we agree to meet after five years again in another electoral process that will give us a chance to start again as a nation. Violet: And Archbishop Pius Ncube. Archbishop Pius Ncube: People of Zimbabwe as well as all Africa they must stop this business of putting their politicians on the pedestal. We have destroyed ourselves by over admiring these politicians. We must hold our politicians accountable to us. They were elected by us to work for us and now they are making themselves masters over us and they are so arrogant and people sink deeper and deeper into suffering. So the idea of operating outside political frames that will not be possible in Zimbabwe because we are hindered by laws and these people are not allowing us to change and you can be sure that they are not keen about the change of the constitution because they will lose power. So let Zimbabweans be brave enough to hold their politicians accountable and when the politicians fail in their accountability and they are no longer people centered let Zimbabweans be courageous enough to bring them down! To derail them because they have failed. This idea of sweet-talk, carrying on both shoulders when people have shown explicitly in every way for a good 27years that they are not people centered, that they are dictatorial, that they are murderers, that they are liars we cannot continue with it. Let Zimbabweans be courageous enough to hold their politicians accountable and if they don't live up to the mandate given to them let them kick them out and bring them down by civic disobedience. Violet: Archbishop Pius Ncube, Bishop Trevor Manhanga and Pastor Ray Motsi thank you very much for participating on the programme Hot Seat. Thank you Violet. Violet: And next week we talk to political leaders Mr. Morgan Tsvangirai, Professor Arthur Mutambara and civic leader Dr Lovemore Madhuku. Comments and feedback can be emailed to violet@swradioafrica.com | |||||||||
Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for your free account today.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
CELL-PHONES HAVE BROUGHT HEAD-ACHES IN RELATIONSHIPS!
| Marriages in a cell phone era! By Masuzyo Chakwe and pictures by Abel Mambwe
| ||||
| THE cellular phone, a modern innovation continues to change in size and shape: the smaller it is getting, the bigger the problems this thing is bringing. In Africa and Zambia to be specific, this piece of technology continues to transform communication. Some spouses have sworn that this gadget is nothing but a conduit of infidelity and deals. Aside its potential health impacts, its so amazing that a palm size innovation could wreck so much havoc in homes, force governments to alter laws to accommodate it and make marriages almost disposable when marriages were meant to last, according to the Bible. Young Women Christian Association (YWCA) executive director Katembu Kaumba says cell phones have brought problems in most homes. "There was a woman who was complaining that her husband goes with the phone in the bathroom because he doesn't want her to answer the phone. And at times she would answer the phone but he would react violently," she says. Kaumba says it cannot be denied that cell phones have brought a lot of problems. Quiet all right, it has simplified many people's lives but others argue that the cell phone has brought more problems socially than solutions. Other women say most men have become prisoners to their own phones. When at home, they either change Sim Cards to avoid the wife discovering their extramarital affairs. Some do not leave the cell phone unattended to. "My husband sleeps with it. In the night he sends SMS while covering himself in the beddings. He removes the tones so that I do not hear him sending. He tells me he is playing games but I wonder what games," says one woman who declines to be identified. This theory is called Read and Delete or put simply, R and D. It means the receiver of the text messages deletes them immediately after reading so that their spouse does not have access to them. In 2005 a woman had a mobile mouthful. In the United States a spouse driven to the breaking point had no other choice than to swallow the husband's cell phone. The woman was a victim of cell phone rage. According to The Kansas City Star, the woman swallowed her boyfriend's mobile in mid-argument because "she didn't want the boyfriend to have it." The phone became lodged in the lady's throat, and she was rushed to the emergency room. "Police responded to a call about a non-breathing person about 4:50 a.m. in the 3000 block of Southwest US 40," the paper reported. "Police arrived and found that the 24-year-old woman was having trouble breathing. Her identity was not released." The poor woman still had the phone wedged in her throat when she got to the hospital. Later police started pursuing another line of argument, which was that the cell phone might have been shoved under the woman's throat. Whatever the case, cell phones have been used by people to lie over their whereabouts to their spouses or even business partners in cases where they owe that person money. Most marriages are fraught with problems conceived by the cellular phone. Brenda Milimo, 40 from Kabwata and has been married for 12 years says cell phones have brought a lot of problems in marriages. Milimo said a man wants to check the woman's cell phone when he can't allow her to check his and that creates suspicion and problems. Milimo says she does not mind her husband checking her phone but he gets offended if she gets his. She says the feeling of security in a marriage should be two sided but its usually one sided in marriages. Milimo says men are usually insecure in marriage. "If he wants to check my phone, I should be able to check his because if he refuses then there is something wrong and this brings problems of suspicion and it happens," says Milimo. The question is why is such a small gadget awash with problems? Some spouses have earned themselves assaults from their husbands for failure to disclose their cellular phone's pin numbers. Recently, a 34-year-old married woman from Lusaka's Kabwata Estates Musonda Manda was severely battered by her husband for refusing to give him her pin number for her phone. Later the husband brought a chain of text messages from the woman to the hubby and what started a case of battery is slowly having its own twists. Manda argues that a husband or wife should not have access to either's phone because a cell phone is a private thing. She says she knows that when two people are married they become one but every body is entitled to some form of privacy at one time. "There are certain things I want to talk about with my girlfriends and I don't want my husband to know about so he should respect that just as I have to respect that there are certain things that he would want to discuss with his friends," she says. Some people will agree with Manda that a person is entitled to some privacy as stipulated in the constitution but this will raise some argument for other people. Is it fine for a husband to answer his wife's phone or read her messages? Is it wrong for a wife to answer or read his husband's messages? Some men argue that if he buys a phone for his wife, then he has the right to access it at any given time. Others will argue that if he buys it for her, then it means it is hers; he should not have anything to do with it. Maybe the only thing he should do is service it: feeding it with talk-time whenever it runs out. Kabwe Chewe, 40, from Chilenje, says he is entitled to a woman's cellular phone but not a woman checking his. Kabwe has been married for the last 12 years and says normally a man's cell phone should be secretive but he must have access to his wife's phone. Chewe says the issue of gender is spoiling a lot of things. "I am entitled to her cell phone but she is not entitled to mine because women over react over simple things. I can receive a message or a call from a woman over work, she won't understand and might over react. This gender thing is spoiling a lot of things" he says. However, Brasio Kasaila, 31, from Chilenje says in marriage there should be no privacy because when they get married they become one body. It depends on how a couple takes it. Kasaila says communication is important in a relationship. "If you think it's not okay then that's up to you but with me, my wife is free to read my messages and I am free to read hers, the cardinal point is trust," he says. Wanawito Silwimba, 29 from Chelston has been married for five years and says both a man and woman have the right to answer or read each other's messages. Silwimba says if a person wants privacy then he or she should have a private line. "If you want to hide things, have another line that you will only use for those things because I believe if she doesn't want me to go through her phone then there is a problem. I don't check my wife's phone but she checks mine, unless people are primitive, this shouldn't create any problems. When you marry someone there should be some form of trust, it's a matter of trust. In the five years that I have been married, I have never beaten my wife over anything," he says. Benjamin from Kabwata says his phone is his wife's phone and vice versa. He says he answers her phone and she does the same. Benjamin says he has never attempted to read his wife's messages because it is not necessary. "This is our 17th year in marriage and I don't read her messages because its her personal thing, if she is bathing and the phone is ringing I can answer it but if she is near I shout for her and I don't care if it's her male mate. She is a workingwoman and we all come from different backgrounds, she doesn't work with women alone. Like with me, I have many sisters so most people I know are women so a phone should not bring problems," he says. Daisy Zulu, 52 from Kabwata has been married for 32 years and says she has had no problems with the phone. But Zulu says a woman should have some form of privacy. "We are one but you know how men are, he can't allow you to check his phone but he would want to check yours which is not fair. I don't check his and he doesn't check mine," she says. She says men are selfish and even when a woman wants to use their phones, they don't give. "We believe in sharing but we should also respect each other's rights," says Zulu. Malcom Lubasi says only the guilty should be afraid "My wife does answer my phone and she does read my SMS messages. All you need to do if you have a 'girlfriend' is give your 'girlfriend' conditions under which they may call you or send you a message. If they do send you one at work, make sure you delete it immediately (remember RD theory). Besides, when you are married, you must always let wakumbalis know you are married and that they respect your spouse. Anything short of that may be your nemesis," he says. Obby Masamu, 38 from Kabwata says traditionally a woman is supposed to be submissive and a husband is supposed to tell a woman what to do. "When you are getting married, you know what you are getting yourself into and its for their (women) own protection," he says. Masamu says a husband is entitled to the wife's cell phone while the woman is not. Bradford Phiri, 30 says if he buys a phone for his wife or girlfriend then he has to have access to it. "I mean I bought that phone for her because I want to be communicating with her and she should not use it to call other people especially if I am the one who buys the talk time because women have got that tendency of paging you even when you buy her talk time so you wonder who she calls with my talk time. This is why men get upset because I used my money and she should respect and understand that. If she wants to be calling other people let her buy herself another phone but that will still give me the right to check in her phone," he says. "You know with men, things are different and there are so many things that we discuss as men that are not for women's consumption and because men are more equal than women and it is always going to be like that no matter how much women fight for their rights so women will always have to do what a man says." Brebnar Changala, 46, from Kabwata has been married for the past 13 years. He says the issue of cell phones is a very difficult gesture because it borders on privacy. He says going through someone's cell phones is an intrusion in one's privacy but it goes without saying that biblically in marriage, people are one and when one questions the other then it means that they are two. Changala says criminals, businessmen, youths and adults use the cell phone and it carries a lot of positive and negative things. "There are a lot of things that wives do that they do want their husbands to know about and a man should not use his masculine power to invade the privacy of the wife while women don't have the same privilege. We should respect each other's phone for the sake of peace and I don't interfere with my wife's phone," he says. However, Young Women Christian Association (YWCA) executive director Katembu Kaumba says for what she feels, there is a right to privacy and every individual has a right to privacy. Kaumba says each individual has that right that should be respected. She says there should be open communication. "What lacks I think, is lack of communication. The spouse would want to know what the other spouse is doing but they don't communicate and this comes from the way we are socialised, women are told not to question their husbands," she says. Kaumba says women are taught to believe that whatever is theirs is their husbands' and that is how women are brought up. She says men want to know and read what their wives are doing. "Why not ask her. Don't go looking for something that will hurt you. You will find a message that says 'Thanks for last night', you will think that it was sex but it might have been dinner and it was coded, for you, you will not understand and that is why I say communication is important in a relationship," she says. "We offer couple counselling, there are couples that come here where maybe the husband is complaining that the wife is always going to kitchen parties and when he ask her, you will hear that the husband has no time for her and she may want to go out but the husband never takes her so communicate." Kaumba says cell phones are breaking a lot of homes. "There was a woman who was complaining that her husband goes with the phone in the bathroom because he doesn't want her to answer the phone and at times where she would answer the phone, he would react violently," she says. She says it cannot be denied that cell phones have brought a lot of problems. Well, the issue of cell phones is something that will remain debatable for a long time and whether it is okay for a husband and wife to read each other's messages or answer one another phone is something, which will receive different views. If you are married for instance, at what point does answering your spouse's phone becomes invasion of privacy? Or what constitutes invasion of privacy in a marriage when spouses are even known to share a bath? Generally the mobile phone has simplified life and made communication much easier and faster than before. Welcomed as an advancement in technology, this small gadget is shaping lives and along the way living many casualties. Marriages continue to struggle to accommodate the cell phone and government has had to change laws such as the traffic offence which forbids driving while talking on a phone or using a mobile phone in a bank. The cell phone is here to stay, and so are the problems associated to its use, what are your views? For comments or contributions or suggestions, you can send them to masuzyoc@gmail.com |
Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it now.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
ANGLICAN BISHOPS "BLASTED" FOR SUPPORTING MUGABE!
Monday, 23 April 2007
Zimbabwe: Anglican bishops support Mugabe
The bishops of the Province of Central Africa have issued a Pastoral Letter. The text of the letter can be read here.
This news has been reported widely, see Associated Press African Anglican Bishops Support Mugabe and the Angola Press African Anglican bishops support Mugabe.
Magic Statistics has plenty of background links in Anglican bishops support Mugabe after Catholics call for his departure.
Here is what the Roman Catholic bishops said: Repent And Listen to the Cry of Citizens as reported in the Zimbabwe Independent.
The pro-Mugabe Herald in Zimbabwe reports it this way: Anglican Bishops Support Mugabe.
Update
Episcopal News Service has republished this report from Ecumenical News International
ZIMBABWE: Anglican bishops want sanctions on country's ruling elite lifted
Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Monday, 23 April 2007 at 6:51pm BST | TrackBack Episcopal News Service has republished this report from Ecumenical News International
ZIMBABWE: Anglican bishops want sanctions on country's ruling elite lifted
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Anglican Communion
Comments
Well, that's disgraceful.
Lord have mercy!
Posted by: JCF on Monday, 23 April 2007 at 8:07pm BST If Christ hadn't been resurrected he'd turn in his grave!
Posted by: Erika Baker on Monday, 23 April 2007 at 8:08pm BST The anglican bishops are ceasing to surprise me.
Sowing and reaping .........
But because of my own Evangelical background, I suppose, the failings of Evangelicals cut deepest and hurt most somehow.
I think i am a recovering fundamentalist and doubt full recovery from the pain will become possible ......
Posted by: Laurence Roberts on Monday, 23 April 2007 at 8:40pm BST It seems that they are so concerned about sexuality that they can't deal with such mundane things as justice and mercy.
Posted by: Thomas+ on Monday, 23 April 2007 at 9:37pm BST The press reports exagerate. I wouldn't read the bishops letter as entirely supportive of Mugabe's disgraceful regime, although it is critical of the sanctions. I doubt that the Bishops from Zambia, Botswana and Malawi would have signed a letter directly supporting Mugabe.
"We call upon the government of Zimbabwe to provide a framework for peace by creating a conducive environment for dialogue and tolerance."
"As Bishops we denounce all forms of violence perpetrated by whatever source as a means of resolving conflict. As this is a degradation of those created in the image of God. We want to make it unequivocally clear to all of our people, that we do not condone what is happening in Zimbabwe."
"We call upon the civil society in Zimbabwe to articulate and promote the practice and respect of human dignity by all social and political ways in the building of a culture of governance that respects the sanctity of life."
Posted by: Brian on Monday, 23 April 2007 at 9:39pm BST They'd probably think differently if Mugabe was gay.
Posted by: Deacon Charlie Perrin on Monday, 23 April 2007 at 9:40pm BST Unfortunately, this is the sort of thing we have come to expect from the so-called "Global South." If it doesn't involve penises, vaginas, or --saints preserve us!-- anuses, then it's not a moral issue, apparently.
What an absolute, unspeakable disgrace.
On the other hand, the Roman Catholics of Zimbabwe have given the world a heroic example of what it is to speak truth to power. Thank God for them.
Posted by: JPM on Monday, 23 April 2007 at 10:38pm BST This is one of those situations where duckshoving really comes into play.
We're being cruel because of harsh sanctions claims one group. Another group claims to put in place sanctions because of cruelty to the peoples.
The mistreatment of Zimbabweans is to be deplored (and any aliens in their midst).
It does also raise the question of sanctions. My observations are that sanctions are becoming a failed tool and should probably be considered an act of war. They are equivalent to laying seige to a walled city and hoping to starve the people into submission.
The people hurt by sanctions are rarely the power brokers. It is typically the most vulnerable in the community: the poor, women, children, the afflicted, or outcastes. Sanctions actually exacerbate community tensions as the fear of shortages and unnecessary deaths leads to people behaving in more aggressive fashions. e.g. "If there is not going to be enough to go around, then at least my family/sons will survive." or "If there is not enough to go around, if we eliminate a few of our enemies mouths then there is more food for our allies".
That said, priestly castes need to be careful not to be seen to be endorsing cruel or repressive regimes. That is the what Jesus hated about certain Phariseans and others during the Roman occupation: they had become apologers and justifiers of the cruel Roman empire - remember there were crucifixes lining the highways as a form of psychological terror in their occupied nations. Imagine what that was doing to children's pysches at the time. Fast forward to today, imagine what is happening to children's psyches in Zimbabwe, Sudan, Palestine, Israel, Iran or Iraq today...
Any soul or nation who exacerbates these problems or intervenes to create a status quo that serves their economic interests with either no regard or contempt for the wellbeing of a nation's citizens and sojourners has God's emnity.
Isaiah 5:13-21, Ezekiel 34:7-31, Hosea 4, Zechariah 3:11 to 12:8 are worthy rebukes for apologists to cruelty. Matthew 25:31-46 quite makes it clear that both cruel leaders (justifying negligence of their own citizens) or those who impose blockades (depriving from without) are guilty of failing to feed and provide for God's flocks.
Posted by: Cheryl Clough on Monday, 23 April 2007 at 10:56pm BST What a revolting development this is...but, it figures as it's the same clan of mischiefmaking renegade Anglican bishops who continously inspire ignorance, outcasting, corruption of TRUTH/SOCIETY and preach hate against fellow Christians.
Posted by: Leonardo Ricardo on Monday, 23 April 2007 at 11:00pm BST I suppose it's like the Russian patriarch supporting Stalin. The Church continues to break the hearts of the faithful.
Posted by: Davis d'Ambly on Monday, 23 April 2007 at 11:04pm BST More leadership from the "Global South" Anglican bishops.
Posted by: Dennis on Monday, 23 April 2007 at 11:10pm BST Well, they have full stomach and are well fed. What else do they care for. They are eating right out of the palm of Mugabe. God have mercy!
Posted by: Ralph Asik on Monday, 23 April 2007 at 11:51pm BST Post a comment
Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)