PeaceBang

27 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

1. Um. it’s on the front page of UUA.org.
   Clearly, it’s something Rev. Sinkford is proud of and the UUA wants the world to know. Lots of pictures, too. [oh my. OH my, oh my. - PB]

   Comment by Sean — October 1, 2008 #

2. Oh, God. What the hell is wrong with us? A bad idea for so, so many reasons.

   Comment by Benjamin — October 1, 2008 #

3. Of COURSE that was us, Peacebang. The organizing bodies were the Fellowship of Reconcilliation and Religions for Peace, of which we are active members, http://www.rfpusa.org/links/members.html , and Rev. Sinkford met with Amahdinijad personally. http://www.uua.org/news/newssubmissions/120089.shtml You’ve got to love the summation: “The UU delegation left the meeting convinced that President Ahmadinejad was sincere in pursuing a relationship with the American people and the U.S. government. Rev. Sinkford remarked, “I could not imagine the current U.S. president taking the time to honor questions about his actions the way Ahmadinejad did today.”” It’s that kind of clear eyed realism that has made us so influential in public affairs.

   Comment by Joel Monka — October 1, 2008 #

4. Why is this so bad? Why can’t he go where he was invited to go and talk with him? Molehills. e [Jacqueline, you're very, very young, aren't you? Because of that, you get a pass here. But not for long, kid, because you need to get busy and study world history. -PB]

   Comment by jacqueline — October 1, 2008 #

5. The worst part of this - even beyond President Ahmadinejad’s blatant lying and evasion - is Rev. Sinkford’s seemingly throwaway slap at George W. Bush in the last paragraph of the article: “I could not imagine the current U.S. president taking the time to honor questions about his actions the way Ahmadinejad did today.” [Thank you for underlining this embarrassing moment of unnecessary disrespect and showmanship. - PB]

   Doesn’t our very first principle say to respect the inherent worth and dignity of EVERYONE? I’m sorry, but I’ve got to call shenanigans. If this comment came from Mr. Joe Schmoe, I’d think little of it - everyone’s entitled to an opinion. If this came from Rev. Joe Schmoe at the pulpit, I’d probably ask him to elaborate on his remarks during coffee hour and wonder why he’d say such a thing. But this came from Rev. Bill Sinkford, President of the entire UUA.

   That makes the man a hypocrite and really makes me wonder if I should be following him and this faith. I’ve been a UU for 10 years and have happily given my time, money, and leadership to my congregation. However, I’ve been doing a lot of soul-searching over the past few days after reading the UUA article. I’m seriously questioning whether or not I want to continue to be associated with folks like this. Over the past few years - particularly since the beginning of the Global War on Terror - my congregation has become inundated with Code Pink and Move On social action types and people wearing Obama buttons and stickers at services, and I wonder, “If I were an average person walking into this place of worship, would I be welcome here?”

   I’ve become sick of it all. If being a UU means being a moonbat, and I know I don’t want to be a moonbat …

   …

   … I leave it to you readers to fill in the remainder of the logic.

   Comment by Scott — October 1, 2008 #

6. Thank you for noting this. Please read my post on the Iranian Pacifist Ayatollah Boroujerdi. It was Boroujerdi’s words on his arrest (on youtub via the link) that kept going over in my head. I was never so ashamed of being a UU as Sinkford talked like this….

   Tell the world that Boroujerdi did not fear death…. He defended an Islam which promotes love and kindness not the Islam that these lot advocate which has brought poverty, corruption, prostitution, addiction ….I don’t want you to risk your lives for me, I just want you to tell the world what happened here,.

   Comment by Bill Baar — October 1, 2008 #

7. Peacebang,

   Don’t get so upset! You’re going to break your spirit and destroy society’s beauty!

   CC [Aw, now! C'mon, you know me! Someone's gotta run tel dat! But I promise to preserve my femininity as I engage my brain and my anger, because that's my cultural responsibility. I'm re-applying my lip gloss at this very moment.- PB]

   Comment by Chalicechick — October 1, 2008 #

8. I’m sorry, PB, but I have to disagree. And while I may be young, I’ve also lived in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world and I am very well informed about a number of issues. (just thought I’d get that out of the way before my age could be used against me.) [My bad, I'm sorry. - PB]

   Extending hospitality and engaging in relationships is A Good Thing. Sure, a church leader meeting with a dictator who refuses religious freedom (among other things) isn’t going to change the situation. He (or even a whole group of religious leaders) isn’t going to change Ahmadinejad’s mind. But they are showing him that not all Americans are like the President. They are showing him that he is still a human being and a child of God and that he has value even though he doesn’t believe that about other people. They are taking one very very very tiny step toward a world in which we build relationships rather than bombs. And you know what? It’s about time someone did that. The vast majority of conflicts in this world arise from fear (which is the basis of power grabs, right?) and often fear is founded on the unknown. For instance, the vast majority of Israelis don’t know a single Palestinian personally. And vice versa. Look where that’s gotten them. In order to treat others like human beings (and to have ANY credibility when we require that humane treatment of others, including world leaders) requires meeting and talking and knowing one another. It’s hardly the fault of the religious leaders that the dictator was lying to them. But a journey of a bajillion miles (about how far we have to go until M.A. either turns sane or dies and is replaced by someone less crazy) can’t begin without a little bitty step.

   Just my 1 cent.

   Comment by Teri — October 1, 2008 #

9. So Teri, Rev Sinkford’s meets a tyrant and can’t ask by name of the fate of some of those (including fellow clerics preaching an Islam very akin to UUism… about as close as Islam gets) from this list?

   What kind of cowardly faith have we become?

   Comment by Bill Baar — October 1, 2008 #

10. My blood ran cold when I first saw the headline last week that Sinkford met with Ahmadinejad. But my blog isn’t oriented toward expressing personal opinions, so I had no good way of expressing my discomfort. I’m glad others are starting to talk about this upsetting event.

    Comment by Jeff Wilson — October 1, 2008 #

11. PS Thanks for the link PB. I feared it was just Robin and I who noticed this one… noticed and bothered.

    Comment by Bill Baar — October 1, 2008 #

12. I have to agree with Terri. I think talking is a good thing. We want our children to talk to the bullies don’t we? Why wouldn’t we want to engage with another bully? By not talking to him are we saying “until you think and behave like us we aren’t going to share with you”. What exactly is that going to get us. Again - talking is good. Sorry, I just don’t see the problem.

    Comment by jacqueline — October 1, 2008 #

13. Keep talking, gang! Thanks for all the comments thus far…

    Comment by PeaceBang — October 1, 2008 #

14. (((We want our children to talk to the bullies don’t we?)))

    When someone quite dear to my heart was in elementary school, the other kids found out that if you punch the kid with asperger’s, he falls on the ground and screams.

    So they did it every day. For years.

    I’d say what Ahmadinejad would like to do to the Jews, the Sufis, the Kurds, (etc, etc, etc) is fairly analagous.

    Now you may think that someone who goes up to the kids on the playground and says “Hey, I notice that you kids keep beating on that guy, and I hear what you’re saying that you’re just trying to toughen him up and these things happen, and I want you to know that I’m honored to have met with you and I hope we can work for playground peace at some undefined point in the future” is in some way helping the situation.

    Knowing a grown man with post-traumatic stress disorder, I tend to disagree.

    CC

    Comment by Chalicechick — October 1, 2008 #

15. My understanding is that we are a faith that if it stands for anything stands for Love. Not sappy love, but love born of the truth in the sacredness of every soul.

    There is a fair argument, voiced here, to reach out in the name of this love, even to those who may disagree with us. The issue of Israel, for example, or nuclear weapons, we could put down to geopolitics, history, rhetoric. There has as yet been no war, nuclear or otherwise. Surely, so to speak, the Iranians love their children too?

    Of course they do.

    Better perhaps to judge their leaders by what they do, rather than say. This is a nation where homosexuals are executed simply for the sin of being who they are.

    http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2005/11/21/iran12072.htm

    Women are stoned to death for “crimes” they do not even understand.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/2309674/Iranian-adulterers-to-be-stoned.html

    These are crimes against us all. As UUs surely we have a responsibility to look beyond the political, and dare I say, faddish perspective and go deeper - in to the soul of things. Our faith is older than any politics, left or right, Democrat or Republican.

    This parly with the President of Iran did not relieve the suffering of gays or women in Iran, regardless of Sinkford’s “reflection”. It did no good for our fellow, suffering souls. If it achieved anything, it was to help give succor to a regime that enthusiastically pursues their torment.

    PB is quite right - we are not “one of the big boys” - our only role in this tragedy is as “useful idiots”. If anything, Sinkford should have been out in the cold protesting, rather than boasting about his big-hitting: measure for measure it might have shown more solidarity and respect for our fellow, suffering souls. [Thank you, Unitalian, for adding more depth to what I was trying to say. - PB]

    Comment by Unitalian — October 2, 2008 #

16. More kids died in Chicago from gun violence than US troops killed in Iraq or Afganistan this summer.

    Guns in the hands of other kids. The schoolyard bullies analogies don’t make sense anymore. We tell our kids to run and train them to hit the ground when they hear gun far.

    Something like 20% (check Chi Sun Times for exact %) of Chicago school kids qualify for a PTSD Dx now too… just a tangent but on a very real and bloody tragedy in my city.

    Comment by Bill Baar — October 2, 2008 #

17. I too was stunned when I saw this on uua.org. Not something to be proud of. The Revs. Hallman, Morales and Sinkford will be speaking at the UU New England Fall Conference on Oct. 17-18 in Worcester. This seems like a good topic for questions.

    Comment by Sarah — October 2, 2008 #

18. CC - Interesting. That is EXACTLY the role my daughter played at school as a sanctioned Conflict Manager. She would see conflict and talk to both sides. She would engage them both in conversation to open up the issues and work through the conflict. Granted, we are talking my ball vs your ball here, but the idea is that she was engaged in talking to the bully as much as she was talking to the victim.

    I stand by what I say we need to talk. We don’t have to agree, but we have to talk.

    Comment by jacqueline — October 2, 2008 #

19. Some perhaps not-well-organized thoughts, which may turn into a post of my own later….

    What makes or breaks a democracy is not “public dialogue,” but widely distributed political power. Ahmedinejad can “dialogue” precisely because an oppressive political system means that he is never forced to be responsive to anything that may emerge out of the dialogue. This doesn’t hold anyone accountable because it doesn’t force them to be responsive.

    The prophetic voice is one that builds organized, strategic power to hold power people accountable for their bad actions. Instead, we put out press releases and pass resolutions. This episode is not a prophetic stand. This is masturbation, only more dangerous.

    To be prophetic we don’t just want a relationship — “king-to-jester” is a relationship — we want a relationship of mutual respect. I would want my (future) kid to talk to bullies, yes — but to stand up to them, not to “ask them questions,” and certainly not for the fleeting thrill of poking some other bully in the eye. We get respect with public officials by being powerful.

    To be prophetic, we have to talk as equals. In other words, not “dialogue,” but negotiation. Moses didn’t go up to Pharaoh to get to know him better, he did it to negotiate: “Do this, or else.” And he could do that because he had power to back it up. In his case, God’s plagues; in ours, the power of organized people.

    President Bush may not hold as many press conferences as I like, but he is accountable in a way the Iranian president never has been — witness the initial failure of the bailout, or the 2006 congressional elections. And nothing that the UUA, or Sinkford, have done has made Bush one iota more accountable.

    As for idea that we should have a relationship with them for “pastoral” reasons, i.e. to help him see the error of his ways, this is (1) stupid, given that UUs don’t even count as “people of the book,” and are thus unlikely to be listened to by a conservative Muslim, and (2) is better done in private anyway, is we really care about the state of his soul. [Benajamin, I do hope that you will post this, at least, if you don't write more later. This is an excellent critique of what I agree is empty dialogue. - PB]

    Comment by Benjamin — October 2, 2008 #

20. PB - I went ahead and posted it. If I waited for every thought to be fully formed before I posted it, I’d never post anything. More later, though, probably.

    Comment by Benjamin — October 2, 2008 #

21. (((She would engage them both in conversation to open up the issues and work through the conflict.)))

    You’re assumption that there’s a conflict inherent in “I punch you because it makes you fall on the floor and scream and I think it’s funny” confuses me.

    What precisely would you suggest as a compromise?

    Could the bullies be allowed to punch and get their scream Mondays and Wednesdays and expected refrain Tuesdays and Thursdays?

    Perhaps Fridays could alternate?

    On the world stage, perhaps this guy could simply send homosexuals to the electric chair rather than stoning them to death?

    That said, I do sort of see what you’re getting at.

    And if Sinkford had treated this as a serious conversation rather than a PR opportunity I would be closer to agreement with you.

    CC

    Comment by Chalicechick — October 2, 2008 #

22. I hear your point, Peacebang, Benjamin and others who state that Sinkford should not have gone to speak with Ahmadinejad. Your points make sense to me. At the same time, the points that Teri and Jacqueline are making also make sense to me.

    So here is my point. I think both responses are appropriate for different people in different roles and for different reasons. This is not a Rodney King “why can’t we just get along” response. Far from it. It is more appropriate for a Bill Sinkford to meet with Ahmadinejad than for a Barack Obama. It is more appropriate for a Condi Rice to meet with Ahmadinejad than for a George Bush. It has to do with the role they play in the current circumstances.

    The message sent to Ahmadinejad from a religious group is far different than the message that would be sent from a Barack Obama. I am not talking here of actually words spoken but implied message.

    I have heard Ahmadinejad’s speeches before, they are filled with dangerous rhetoric. They tend to be filled with hyperbolic emotions. It is hard to see the human behind such displays. Here was an opportunity for Ahmadinejad to show a more human face. His words were still rhetorical. He is deft as all politicians are at avoiding the harder questions. Yet this experience is important to the larger picture.

    There is a need to develop some level of talking points in any conflicted relationships. There is a need to have some sort of level playing ground from which to build to those more difficult points of disagreement. The current adminstration has stated that no conversations with Ahmadinejad would occur without some sort of pre-conditions. Of course, then Condi Rice did meet with his representatives so one has to wonder what were the pre-conditions if any, to allow that meeting. Some of those pre-conditions might occur at a lower level of interaction. Enter the Peace and Reconciliation folk.

    They have no authority to alter current foriegn policy with Iran but they can show a different face to that country. It is the same strategy used when we invite or are invited to a cultural exchange or to have a student exchange. It is a grass roots development that allows for human interaction at the human level not the political level which is conflicted.

    I see the need for both stances from people in different roles.

    As to the specific question Sinkford asked? We already know Ahmadinejad’s stance on these issues-no new information came forth from the question. The question I would have asked would have been more aligned with what was mentioned above about the welfare of the cleric under arrest for speaking out against his governments policies.
    Blessings,

    Comment by Fred — October 2, 2008 #

23. The UUA’s self-congratulatory coverage of this reminds me of nothing so much as naive Neville Chamberlain (Britain’s only Unitarian Prime Minister) proudly declaring “peace in our time”.

    It’s conventional wisdom among religious historians that “liberal” religion took a body blow from which it has never fully recovered because of its inability to engage the problem of human evil presented by WWI and WWII. Sinkford’s posture toward Ahmadinejad, and the UUA’s reporting of it, both seem to confirm that we haven’t learned much since.

    Comment by fausto — October 2, 2008 #

24. More unclear thoughts…

    <>

    But, Fred, the problem is that if you want human, not political, interaction, than the last thing you should do is go meet with a political leader.* All meetings with political leaders are inherently political, and call for a prophetic stance, not a pathetic one.

    [*You should go meet with regular folks. I'm told that the FOR does arrange for this, which is good as far as it goes.]

    I also think it’s impossibly naive to think that political conflicts are primarily motivated by a lack of “understanding,” and if we only showed each other “different faces” our problems would be solved. Political conflicts primarily arise from serious — and legitimate and real — disputes about resources, self-interests, and values.

    And I want to be clear — I think the prophetic failure here is not just that Sinkford et al. entered into dialogue without holding Ahmadinejad accountable, but that they do so having also, over many years, failed to hold our own government to a more rational, compassionate and progressive relationship with Iran (among other places). By being more concerned with ego than with being both ethical and effective in the public sphere, the UUA has enabled the current problems in our Republic no less than they have enabled Ahmadinejad. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is a pragmatic stance in politics but is a sorry basis for prophecy.

    Comment by Benjamin — October 2, 2008 #

25. I am glad to know we are all talking about this! I’m not UU but sometimes I wish I was (since often Presbyterians can’t seem to get our act together about anything, much less do something, even if it is dumb…). In any case..

    I do think the coverage of the event was less than ideal. I would wish, were I UU, for more recognition that this is the tiniest of steps and that questions were not answered honestly but instead treated as segues to predetermined soundbytes, as per usual when one speaks with a deranged dictator.

    And I do think that if it was more PR stunt than genuine hope for reaching out to another child of God (dictator or not), then we have a problem. And the person above who noted that since dictators have no accountability, relationships are unequal and therefore less useful than true relationships is of course correct.

    But I stand by my initial point that even one small inkling of relationship, one small note that not all Americans are the way he thinks they are, that we value life and hope and expect others to do the same (crazy or not, dictator or not!), that peace is important and is grounded in knowing one another, is a good step. I wish for more good steps in many areas of conflict and bullying, from the streets of Chicago (also my town, and also worrying when so many children are being gunned down) to the Israeli-Palestinian separation wall to Cairo and its Sudanese refugees to Iran. These ideals are worth working for, even if they’re unpopular and even if they don’t work. How can anything work if we don’t try?

    another 1 cent…

    Comment by Teri — October 2, 2008 #

26. Teri,

    I’m a (ex-?) UU who kind of wants to be a Presbyterian — although the more time I spend around both the more I start to see the advantages of bishops.

    Benjamin

    Comment by Benjamin — October 2, 2008 #

27. gasp! bishops??!?!?!? oh my. I haven’t quite gone there yet…

    Comment by Teri — October 3, 2008 #

Leave a comment