When doing nothing is actually an action...

Even if you live under a literal rock, it is quite possible that you've seen the excitement and interest around the Invisible Children's video and campaign KONY2012. As J. said, the viral has gone beyond viral to mainstream. It's pretty amazing. [Kudos to Invisible Children for their social media campaign]. However, and it's a big HOWEVER, there are some HUGE problems with the campaign, and even bigger with the organization that I can't get beyond. And it pains me.

First, you should know I met Jason, Laren, and Ben back in 2006 before the first video came out. They are amazing young men, who had a very impacting experience and were compelled to take action, real action not just tweeting, or blogging. I deeply admire that. There is large controversy raging over their 2012 campaign and I am contemplating devoting my entire Friday "weekly reading list" to the articles, critiques, and defenses that have come out. We all need to be educated about the organizations we admire. But bigger thought tonight, stems from me pouring through articles about KONY 2012 this afternoon.

I read an archived blog at Wronging Rights in which they contemplate the notion that often comes up around major human rights issues that we "should" be doing something, anything and often that can lead us to actually doing something worse, more harmful than if we had done nothing. The author says, "The demand to know what the person on the other side [who is posing criticism to said idea] would do differently is also a demand that they justify having an opinion at all. Which can seem - at least to me - like a move away from "is this a good idea?", towards "if you don't think this is a good idea but you can't come up with something better, perhaps it's because you are a self-interested jerk who only cares about oil and cell phones, and doesn't really want to help people who are DYING." She goes on to say that she is in favor of doing nothing when all the proposed ideas are "crummy." (note - the article is good, but read the comments they are BETTER!)

I was instantly conflicted. Deeply conflicted. Damn.

I agree.

I disagree.

Aren't I morally obligated (especially as a person of faith) to stand up for the weak, the oppressed, the victim, the orphan, the widow? Often I feel compelled to do something. I want murdering monsters to be brought to justice. I want the killing to stop. I want the victims of abuse to be saved. How can I do nothing?

On the other hand, I know that nothing, especially in the foreign policy realm, is cut and dry. Good guys, and bad guys in black and white terms generally don't exist. Just arming the rebels in Syrian won't stop the blood shed. It's more complicated than that. Just sending in militias and peacekeepers to capture Joseph Kony hasn't succeeded in ending his campaign, often the result is more death, more pain.

Understand my conflict? There's some serious tension there that we should learn to live with.

Thoughts welcomed.