PeaceBang

A Response from The Exec Director of the Fellowship of Reconciliation

October 2, 2008 on 11:35 am | In Activism, Cultural Commentary, Theological Reflection, Unitarian Universalism |

Dear Ms. Weinstein:

You have asked if we consulted Jewish leadership to the meeting with President Ahmadinejad and others. We did approach each of the Jewish peace movement organizations with whom we interact regularly through the Olive Branch Interfaith Peace Partnership and who are members of FOR. I talked on more than one occasion with, for example, Rabbi Waskow at the Shalom Center, Rabbi Michael Lerner of Tikkun, and Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb of Shomer Shalom. I did get helpful feedback on my opening message from Jewish colleagues. They were all invited to be a part of the meeting and while they declined they did not discourage us from facilitating.

There were a number of Jews present at the meeting, including some who have been to Iran with FOR’s civilian diplomacy delegations, and including one Rabbi.

Rabbi Gottlieb, who led our last delegation to Iran delivered remarks at the Thursday evening interfaith dialogue dinner, which was organized by other organizations.

If you read the questions presented and the full document which are available through our blog site, you will note that questions were presented concerning the Holocaust, issues of state, religious tolerance, etc.

It may also not be entirely clear that we did not extend an invitation to President Ahmadinejad to attend this meeting; we accepted an invitation from the Iranian Mission to the UN to invite members of the peace movement for a conversation with the President and others from the government of Iran.

As a Unitarian you will also have noticed that Rev. Bill Sinkford was one of those who asked a question of President Ahmadinejad.

Peace,
Mark

Mark C. Johnson, Ph.D.
Executive Director
The Fellowship of Reconciliation

I appreciate having this information, and I appreciation Mr. Johnson’s giving permission to share it with the readers of this blog. And I wish Mr. Johnson and the FOR all good will and godspeed in their mission, which I ardently support even as I critique their decision to attend a meeting with President Ahmadinejad.

I’ve had a number of off-line responses from UUs and other readers expressing everything from sadness to outrage about this meeting (I still don’t know why they won’t comment on the blog under a psuedonym, if necessary), and some commenting on the blog have also been critical (and some supportive). The general consensus among the critics — whose position I am trying to represent — seems to be that the Fellowship and Reconciliation team were, to use Unitalian’s term, “useful idiots” in a PR stunt meant to shine up Ahmadinijad’s image in the press while simultaneously shooting pigeon droppings into the eye of US foreign policy leaders. This is not to say that the men and women who are committed to peace-making efforts and who attended this meeting are literally idiots. It is to say that, in my opinion, their starry-eyed idealism and spiritual egos were made use of by very canny strategists from the Iranian Mission to the UN.

To speak again about the Unitarian Universalist presence at this meeting, I echo the UUs who say that this is nothing to be proud of. If we claim to “Stand On the Side of Love,” then our president should have been among the protesters at the UN, not at the table with the human rights abuser being protested. That is our tradition, and that is our place. We are not Standing On the Side of Photo Ops and Headlines, but standing on the side of those who have no voice, are imprisoned, harassed, mortally threatened and executed in a climate of intolerance and injustice. In this case, to show solidarity with those brothers and sisters, our leader should have been with the anonymous crowd protesting the Iranian president, not inside with him, giving him the opportunity to evade questions and skirt issues with a smile and a clever talking point.

I believe that Rev. Sinkford owes the Unitarian Universalist community more reflection and explanation of his decision to attend this event, beyond those published here. I would specifically appreciate it if he would speak to the reality that his decision has embarrassed and distressed members of the association of congregations he represents, and provide an opportunity to dialogue about that issue through some on-line or public forum. If nothing else, this would provide a good model for the future UUA president, who will be elected at this summer’s General Assembly.

Three more links, one critical (and whose characterization of the UUA press release on the event as “crowing” I find particularly apt and one cautiously supportive, and one from
Boy In the Bands, who names it when he says that Sinkford, and by association all UUs, got played.