I just finished reading a series on rape in the Congo “as a tool of war” — a war that appears not to be war per se, but a way of life. At the end of what has to be among the all-time goriest accounts of human abuse on Earth, I couldn’t help but wonder:  Where are our feminists, anti-war zealots, child “protection” advocates, assorted nuclear-energy hysterics and conscientious objectors — all those “enlightened” do-gooders who point the easy finger at elderly, flirtatious gentlemen (especially Conservatives) who make a pass at pretty ladies in the congressional elevator, but turn away when confronted with horrific evil?

Take, for example, the likes of Presiding Episcopal Bishop Katherine Jefferts-Schori, so anxious to take up the cause of gay marriage, even if it means stripping historic churches of resources needed to address the tribulations of average parishioners, most dealing with issues far removed from politics?

And where is Tipper Gore, wife of the Global-Warming Alarmist-in-chief? She was (and presumably still is) so passionate about mental illness, especially depression, that in 1999 as the Vice-President’s wife, she chaired the first White House Conference on Mental Health and subsequently served as Mental Health Policy Advisor to President Bill Clinton.

Where is Jane Fonda, that non-student of nuclear power, physics, and foreign policy who “acted” her way onto the Vietnam stage, traitorously posing for the Viet Cong, denigrating our soldiers and our mission? Where’s Michael Newdow, the renowned attorney who sought to strip “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance in order to “protect” his daughter from the very words that might help thwart the sexual atrocities described in the Times’ article, if Congolese men believed they might some day answer for their violence to a Higher Power?

Alas, these household names are AWOL, every single one. It’s easy, after all, to “save” people from sadness in a land of plenty; simple to confront sexual harassment when it’s an elderly man planting a kiss on the face of a woman in the Senate hallway, child’s play to advocate for goofy “civil unions” from the comfortable bench of a hallowed cathedral, fun to do a photo-op atop a tank with U.S. Forces nearby to protect your celebrated derrière if things get out-of-hand, and painless to feign outrage at the words “under God” in a country that protects free speech.

But these same broad-minded souls become weak-kneed when confronted with anal and vaginal fistulas, deliberately inflicted by thugs on a three-year-old in the land of anarchy and grinding poverty. Just can’t find the time, can’t be bothered, can’t take on another cause.

Not to avoid passing judgment on myself here: I’m AWOL, too. Too scared, too appalled, and too sickened to even contemplate the harrowing ordeals suffered by Congolese girls and women over decades. I’d roll into the fetal position at the sight of just one person so abused.

But, then, I’m not pretending to be a clergywoman; or marching around yelling “child abuse” at a mom who spanks her child for running out in a busy street; or working to inflict atheism under the umbrella of “freedom of religion.”

I respectfully suggest that those who can’t get enough of trashing America and our way of life book themselves on the next flight to the Congo, and take their collective ire to where it really counts — a locale without electricity, running water, or hygienic facilities, a country that condones sexual torture of females young and old, a region that not only relishes “rape” and “sodomy” as we understand those terms in the USA (which is bad enough), but indulges in a kind of torture unthinkable to free-world sensibilities, doing so much damage as to require eight surgeries for one of the woman interviewed, just to repair the physical damage.

We won’t discuss the emotional damage; Tipper Gore might get depressed.

The men who do this sort of thing do not qualify as “animals,” as doing so would be an insult to the animal. I know of no mammal that inflicts the level of cruelty described in the series, and certainly not for “kicks.” Germany’s Josef Mengele, the concentration camp doctor who was said to hum classical tunes as he conducted medical experiments on fully conscious subjects, came closest. Shirõ Ishii, the Japanese commander of Unit 731, whose vivisections, surgical “alterations” and amputations without anesthesia were used to test biological weapons in World War II, could surely have given Mengele a run for his money; and the Taliban’s torture chambers in Lashkar Gah, Afghanistan, uncovered by British and Afghan troops in March 2008, boggle the mind.

The difference is that such incidences proved not quite as endemic to the entire culture as exists in the Congo. Afghan troops themselves helped expose Taliban torture chambers; many Japanese were repulsed by Ishii’s Unit 731 and worked to destroy the evidence, including in satellite facilities, after the war — indicating that they comprehended the term “wrong,” Divine Emperor’s endorsement or not. Most Germans later found their conscience and just 40 years after could barely come to terms with the atrocities they allowed under Hitler.

But not so in the Congo. There, mutilating and mangling women and children are almost a rite of passage, one generation after another. Perpetrators apparently cannot even be brought to justice, such as it is in that region.

Why? Because, whereas in Germany, even the first king, Henry the Fowler, worked to eradicate torture, in the Congo there never existed a culture of human dignity — not an ounce of compassion; no concept of virtue; nary a trace of Judeo-Christian idealism, which is critical to feelings of empathy for one’s fellow man.

You think Iraq is a “lost cause”? Try the Congo. If you recall, it was an Iraqi doctor who, in 2003, treated Private First Class Jessica Lynch in a run-down hospital for concussion fractures (which the American media exploited and enhanced for its own reasons). In any case, this doctor also alerted American troops to her whereabouts so they could rescue her.

The free world understandably shuns places like the Congo. It usually sends its missionaries to countries having at least a passing acquaintance with concepts about right and wrong. Tumultuous regions like Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, hostile territories like Saudi Arabia and Iraq, and even havens of the child sex trade such as Thailand, Bangladesh, and the Philippines are preferable to the Congo. Or how about inner-city Washington, DC, with its open-air, illicit drug markets, pimps and prostitutes, junkies and alcoholics?  Still better.

It has been said that there is no limit to evil, and that is probably correct. There does appear to be — if I read my philosophy and religious texts correctly — a limit to human goodness. Nevertheless, a few somehow rise above evil, even helping victims cast off their personal prison of resentment. Some of the women who were so horribly abused in the Congo, their husbands cut into pieces and their daughters raped before their eyes, and their own torture performed on top of what was left of mutilated family members, are setting up support groups and surgical facilities.

This is not a place for U.S. troops. The role of the Armed Forces is not to instill conscience but to protect Americans (and in the case of weapons of mass destruction) people worldwide. The place for serious missionary work — which includes our feminists, child protection advocates, conscientious “objectors,” and even attorneys — is in places like the Congo. But, of course, they don’t have the spine for it, and consequently these regions remain mired in their own malevolence.

Beverly K. Eakman is a former teacher and retired federal employee who served as speechwriter for the heads of three government agencies and as editor-in-chief of NASA’s newspaper at the Johnson Space Center.  Based in Washington, DC, she is now a freelance writer, the author of five books, and a frequent keynote speaker. Her most recent book is Walking Targets: How Our Psychologized Classrooms Are Producing a Nation of Sitting Ducks (Midnight Whistler Publishers).

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (22)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

danwhitehead1 said:

Thank you and thank you again - - - - - - Beverly Eakman!!! Where are the oh-so-concerned and "compassionate" "liberals" indeed!!! They are hiding. They are hiding because they are gutless cowardly, phony trash and utterly worthless scum. They hide behind phony names, unlisted phone numbers and addresses, e-mail programs to hide the e-mail origin, etc. They hide from fighting in wars. They hide from honest and open confrontation. They are the cause of most of the worlds' evils and they remain in hiding because they are, to repeat, gutless cowards underneath all of that "liberal" "caring" "compassion". They are utterly detestable.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 15, 2009
Votes: +1

mousethew said:

	... "They are the cause of most of the worlds' evils". Get a sense of proportion, why don't you?
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 15, 2009
Votes: -1

mousethew said:

... And why you're at it, get an education: "world's evils" (note the apostrophe before the 's') - unless those "liberals" have managed to corrupt Mars and Venus with their "compassionate" "caring" ways. Mind you, this would explain why the "evil, gutless phonies" haven't been solving the world's problems; they've clearly been developing their inter-stellar space program under a smoke-screen of non-issues.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 15, 2009
Votes: -2

danwhitehead1 said:

	Just as I said - - - - - - gutless coward hiding behind phony name(s). Get a backbone. I take nor orders from gutless cowards nor do I ever do anything on the terms of gutless cowards.
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 16, 2009
Votes: +2

mousethew said:

... Sorry, Dan - my name is Matthew Taylor - and sarcasm probably wasn't the best way to begin open and honest confrontation (surely you mean debate?). There's plenty of evil in the world without blaming it solely on liberals. And the idea that the situation in the Congo can be used to attack people - whether you or Beverly see them as ill-intentioned - for campaigning for comparatively lesser ideals is clearly ludicrous. I'm pretty safe in assuming you won't be flying out to the Congo any time soon. By all means, point out how people are wrong in their own choice of issues, but linking people who campaign against seat belt “violators" to those who allow systematic rape in Africa is committing a terrible dis-service to those who have suffered. I'm not American which possibly renders my opinion - in yours - irrelevant, but serious global issues like this surely transcend politics (with both a capital and small P) and those, like Beverly, who use it to score points against opponents should think twice. Oh, and Beverly, putting "Speech Marks" around words to indicate a tone of disapproval is not the most sophisticated tactic - if your argument is strong enough, why label conscientious objectors as conscientious “objectors"?

report abuse vote down vote up

September 16, 2009
Votes: -2

danwhitehead1 said:

	No, I meant - - - - - - everything I said in exactly the way I said it. I retract nothing.
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 16, 2009
Votes: +2

mousethew said:

	... You really meant everything? In exactly the way you said it? Even the "worlds' evils" bit? You literally blame the left for evil on other worlds??? Wow! That's... interesting. Do you have any facts to back that up? I'd be really interested to read them. After I've back from the Congo.
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 16, 2009
Votes: -2

Lee Gonzales said:

	... When you arrive in the Congo look up Zamuda Sikujuwa. When you find her in Doshu don't ask her about her experiences at the hands of a soldier who placed a rifle in between her legs and pulled the trigger. http://abcnews.go.com/Internat...d=7083084
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 16, 2009
Votes: +1

mousethew said:

	... And other than reading about it, what are you doing? Just as I said... Using a horrific tragedy to score points against opponents in the US is wrong. Why not link to HEAL (supported by Hillary Clinton) or other organizations doing something (with the support of many, many people of all political viewpoints)?
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 16, 2009
Votes: -2

Lee Gonzales said:

	http://www.washingtontimes.com...ery-congo/ Changed your mind about going I see.
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 16, 2009
Votes: +2

Steve says look in the mirror said:

... Ms. Eakman, I've done my share of human rights work in war zones, so pardon me when I come back to the United States even more in love with this great place than I was before I left. And having returned to the land founded on our great Constitution, what do I find but a blatantly unconstitutional and pervasive disregard for the First Amendment. Believing in a single god called "God" is just fine with me. Believing in multiple gods as American Hindus believe is also fine. Or the Goddess, as American Wiccans believe. The national motto "in God we trust" and the pledge phrase "under God" establishes an official preference for the Judeo-Christian religion over other religions. I've been to places and seen the hell that results when societies do not have or do not live up to their Constitutional ideals. So go jump in your bag of Twinkies and cable TV, and either shut up or else STAND UP FOR {{{SOMETHING}}}. That's what your forefathers fought so you could do. You gonna live up to that challenge or just make money bitching about others doing what you lack the courage to do?

report abuse vote down vote up

September 16, 2009
Votes: -1

AmericanFreeman said:

	How does that athletes foot taste? mousethew said: "And why you're at it" I think your moronic ass meant to write: and WHILE you're at it, you illiterate libtard!
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 16, 2009
Votes: +1

jobensc said:

Africa Is One Of The Insiders Shining Examples Of Success and Latin America Is Not Far Behind There was a time when The Congo was very civilized, well-educated and making great headway toward becoming great nation, as were most countries of Africa. Alas in the fifties, sixties and thereafter the anti-colonial movement spearheaded by communists trained in Moscow and with the help of civilized humanitarian Americans, Europeans and the United Nations put end that. So the vile atrocities occurring there now is a direct result of the global strategy perpetrated by the insiders who knew this would happen. (As you sow - so shall you reap) Indeed was that not their plan in the first place. They always use war and crisis in their drive and plan for a New World Order. There is a good book by the Belgian doctors who were witness to what happened in the Belgian Congo when the United Nations bombed hospitals and schools and forced them into Communism – for peace of coarse. The book is Forty-six Angry Men

report abuse vote down vote up

September 16, 2009 | url
Votes: +2

Lee Gonzales said:

story was "Where have all the Outraged gone? not don't help the victims of human rights abuses. It points out the hipocrisy of the left who are "human rights" advocates before camers, but where are they now? The Washington Times has done its part. The Washington Post? The national motto in God ...establishes an official preference for the Judeo-Christian religion over other religions..."---Steve And your point is that it shouldn't? "...STAND UP FOR {{{SOMETHING}}}. That's what your forefathers fought..." ---Steve in the Standing up for what our Forefathers left to us is the idea. No disagreement there. They stood up for God and His wish that all men be acknowledged are born with unalienable rights by man's laws and governmental institutions. The separate colonies bound themselves to the belief that all men are created equal before the law and that the law be a just law and that government was the invention of men (instituted by men) to protect those God-given rights. The Declaration of Independence second paragraph: "We are endowed by our Creator." Like or not our Forefathers believed in One God. They said it in many ways: "the Supreme Judge of the world" "Divine Providence" They identified the one true God as Jesus whom they acknowledged in convention and at the conclusion of the Convention when they afixed their names to that great document. The year was 1787 in the "year of our Lord." I have nothing against the Hindu but they carried their god on a huge wagon that would get away from them and crush believers under its wheels. The Hindu Juggernaut was no match for the God that our Founders prayed to often during the hammering out of the Declaration and the Constitution. They fought a war with another Christian nation -Britan- to make those beliefs stick; used the principles embodied in the Declaration to frame the Constitution. The Constitution essentially followed the Judeo/ Christian beliefs that Rights emanate from the Creator. He is the source of man's rights.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 16, 2009
Votes: +1

AmericanFreeman said:

Not exactly... The founding fathers were deists, meaning that they did believe in a Divine creator, but not in any particular manifestation thereof. The whole "year of our Lord" bit was just the common verbiage associated with the Gregorian calendar and did not necessarily reflect their individual belief in Jesus. Besides, Jesus couldn't be any more contradictory to the Judeo half of the equation than Satan would be to the Christian. Their acknowledgment of mankind's freedom of religion was not a generous gift of Christians bestowed upon the heathens. It was itself an acknowledgment that the Creator/nature (by any name) could be worshiped in any way the individual sees fit, conforming to NO particular dogma.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 16, 2009
Votes: +0

Lee Gonzales said:

"deists" amd deism and customs of the Times They took God very personally and wouldn't think of throwing Him under the wheels of the secular wagon. There were many other Christian customs that the Founders regularly practiced and one of those was praying. Ben Franklin asked the delegates in convention at Philadelphia to ask for His guidance and instituted the custom of daily prayer at the start of Congress. His theological beliefs are one, his words to the delegates speak volumes for his religious ferver: "I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that "except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: …I therefore beg leave to move -- that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service." The British were also a Christian nation and one of their customs was saying "God save the king." You forget that the Founders were a product of Britain's Christian influence. Are you telling us that the Brits weren't believers in Christ?

report abuse vote down vote up

September 16, 2009
Votes: +0

AmericanFreeman said:

The founding fathers were many things... ...including Freemasons and occultists. Benjamin Franklin, since you brought him up, was a member of the Hellfire Club and a 33rd degree Freemason. Not that either affiliation is abhorrent, but neither is especially Christian. Freemasonry requires only the belief in a "Supreme Deity," not Jesus, Buddha, Allah, Odin, Zeuss, Freyja, Lucifer, etc. per se, though all were/are acceptable. Our founding fathers left England for many reasons which include the escape of religious persecution. They may have been practicing Christians, but that possible happenstance did not conform the New World to Christianity nor to the hypocrisy inherent in its practice. Many believe that the rare levels of righteousness and high character displayed by the founding fathers peg them as Christian, but good men praise many different gods. "The Constitution essentially followed the Judeo/ Christian beliefs that Rights emanate from the Creator. He is the source of man's rights." It is sad that the majority of American sheep forget this fact when they support/obey legislation that infringes on those creator-bestowed rights of their fellow Americans. Their only "god" is the administration-of-the-day and the dollar.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 16, 2009
Votes: +0

Steve says look in the mirror said:

Manner in which Founders expressed their own Constitutional rights irrelevant The Constitution says government may not establish a preference for any religion over any other, period. The Constitution does NOT say "unless, of course, the signers of this piece of paper happen to be Christians". The fact that some Founders chose to exercise that right in their own lives by following Christianity has no legal significance when it comes to the power of government to elevate those Founders' views over the views of any other citizen, whether of the Founders era or of our own. The fact is many US citizens do not believe in any god, others believe in many gods, and others believe in one or more goddesses, and others believe in some combination. Ben Franklin and the others' opinions on the subject are interesting, inspiring, comical, tragic, and many other things besides. That said, their opinions are NOT some sort of of super-authority that trumps that awesome document they gave us: the Constitution of the United States of America. Chief among limitations on government is that government is prohibited from establishing a preference for one religion over any of these others. I encourage you to be inspired by the Founders faith! Please do! However, if you cite their example to defend legislation that put "under God" in the pledge and "in God we trust" on money, then you betray the very reason we remember the Founders in the first place.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 17, 2009
Votes: +0

danwhitehead1 said:

Though this thing has gone way off subject - - - - - - I will add these: Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:9-11 and: The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Psalm 14:1, Psalm 53:1 Make no mistake about it, the day is coming when we're going to find out just who is wrong and just who is right.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 17, 2009
Votes: +0

Lee Gonzales said:

Christian influence in the formation of the American Republic QUOTE: "They may have been practicing Christians, but that possible happenstance did not conform the New World to Christianity nor to the hypocrisy inherent in its practice."-----American free man The history of the settlement of the new world was settled by Europeans who came to the new world and settled in various parts of it. Most were Christians and that was no accident or "happenstance." The French and the Spanish and the Dutch, et al, were Christians who came here on permission from their Christian kings. The "hypocrisy" was that the kings kept the rights of their subjects and they could not do anything like set up a new government or start a business unless the king granted them permission to do so. The kings were being hypocritical in not honoring Jesus’ example to live under the law and not to rule outside of the law. Only the English sailed here with their God-given rights intact. But it wasn't because the King saw the light of Jesus, but because Christians in Parliament advised him to allow settlers to sail with the "common law" in tact. That is, their rights as Englishmen came with them - rights going back to the Magna Carta. Christians in Spain and in France could have counseled their monarchs to do likewise but they didn't. The Mayflower Compact is evidence that the Christian influences were not “happenstance.” “In the name of God- Amen.. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith,” ---Mayflower compact---Anno Domini 1620 A poor history student is one that fails to recognize the Christian influence in the formation of the American republic.

report abuse vote down vote up

September 17, 2009
Votes: +0

danwhitehead1 said:

	Thank you very, very much - - - - - - Mr. Gonzales. You won't convince them though. Fools are fools (and usually by choice). Has anyone ever noticed that the three favorite pastimes of the "liberal" left are lying, stealing and spreading confusion?
	report abuse vote down vote up

September 17, 2009
Votes: -1

Lee Gonzales said:

Answering whomever on our Christian heritage I won't say the two challegers are "liberals," but rather agnostics or hold to secularist views but nonetheless champion the republican form of government. I give them credit for that. Steve for example opines: "Chief among limitations on government is that government is prohibited from establishing a preference for one religion over any of these others." I don't disagree with him on that. He does have 'hang-ups' in having the word God placed on our coinage and recited n the Pledge Allegiance to the Flag. You would think thatthe bigger issue would be forcing all Americans, releigious and non-religious to use money that has hardly any value anymore due to the un-godly inflationary polices of government and government-sih agencies like the Fed! If we can all work together to abolish the Federal Reserve, the Income tax and use only "gold and silver coins" as our currency. Allow individuals the power, as it existed at the founding of this nation, to use folding bills or coin, stamped with their own motto, I have no problem is using a gold or silver coin that does not have "In God We trust" stamped on itas long as he is willing to accept payment in gold and silver coins that do have that motto on them. Some folks want Christians to roll over and play dead. I'm sure Steve and Freeman don't but Bill Gates does and so does Nickelodeon: http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-fe...the-system

report abuse vote down vote up

September 17, 2009
Votes: +2