So I'm wondering what now?

To the UCC:

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/ledzeppelin/yourtimeisgonnacome.html

On to "Mother Jesus" and Rock/Paper/Scissors.

They are so clueless and they'll be surprised when membership falls further.

If they weren't so crippled by p.c. thinking, they would be able spare a moment to consider the fate of their own fellow Christians in the lands of the Arabs and see that they are floundering and disappearing. Their response??? Divest from...Israel. Or not. Idiots.

Where those of us who fight divestment on many fronts go next is clear. The Presbyterian Church was the lynchpin for a divestment movement that, by its own admission, has failed at universities, in corporations and at cities. At this year's ISM conference, they made it clear that churches were their last best hope for regaining lost momentum for their propaganda campaign. The Presbyterians were, until yesterday, the one example they could point to where a major institution was behind their efforts. Today, they can no longer do so.

We must use this victory to make sure any school, church, city, town, union or other political or civic organization understands that divestment is NOT an option those who seek peace embrace. Divestment must be placed where it clearly belongs: beyond the mainstream of peace-loving individuals, a tactic that is little more than a propaganda program for those who prefer conflict to reconciliation, war to peace.

Thanks for keeping up the drumbeat on this issue and special thanks to the many Presbyterians who were the real driving force to seeing divestment overturned within the church. Mazel Tov!

I don't understand was McLeod or Anderson taking a pro Palestinan stance?

What was McLeod's attempted ammendment intended tto do? What is the Barman Declaration? Who was there apology language to, Israel? for attempting divestment?

Anderson spoke against what motion and against what Amendment(McLeod's) ?

Please oblige me I couldn't follow every morsel of this continuously?

I can't find the wording of the ammendment but McLeod was hostile, Anderson friendly. I'm *guessing* McLeod was trying to ditch or change this part: "1. We acknowledge that the actions of the 216th General Assembly (2004) caused hurt and misunderstanding among many members of the Jewish community and within our Presbyterian communion. We are grieved by the pain that this has caused, accept responsibility for the flaws in our process, and ask for a new season of mutual understanding and dialogue." But that's only a guess. I don't know what relevance the Barmen Declaration has in this context. When I heard the reference I thought the ammendment might be friendly, since Dexter Van Zile has noted repeatedly that Protestant groups' (and Sabeel) stance with regard to Palestinian Nationalism is in direct contradiction to the Barmen Declaration, but further explanation by Noel made it clear his was an unfriendly ammendment.

Sorry, that should be "further explanation by McLeod"

Jon - thanks.

It was not everything many of us in the PC(USA) (who opposed 2004 policy) wanted, but in spite of the attempts at spin, the combination of this with the statement that suicide bombing and terrorism are crimes against humanity really does set the "divestment" movement back considerably.

McCleod's ammendment was intended to remove the apology language. He wanted language that expressed regret that people misunderstood what the PC(USA) had done. This is not the case, so the amendment would have scuttled the resolution. He opposed any actual apology -- including the admission of an originally flawed process. He also resented the notion that the 217th GA would apologize to Presbyterians for actions of the 216th GA -- which makes little sense since the GA's are composed of representatives of Presbyterians. He seemed to favor an, "if you don't like it and you're a Presbyterian, too bad . . ." approach to the 2004 action.

His reference to the Barmen Declaration was unrelated. It was to the language about not telling a sovereign nation whether it can defend itself. This is a gross misinterpretation of Barmen (the original that the committee amended also had language about how a nation could defend itself, would have raised a possible conflict).

Dexter (and I agree) has argued that adopting the politically correct divestment initiative singling out Israel and telling a country that it has no right to defend itself (as was essentially done in 2004) grossly conflicts with the Barmen declaration. This was unrelated to McCleod's attempts.

I see you refused to print a rebuttal that I sent last night. Hmm go figure!!!

Your statement that you welcome opposing opinions is typical.

You have becme the oppressors!!!

I have not removed any comments. Your comment is probably still in the thread you put it in (not this one).

http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archives/008581.shtml