I was G-chatting with a friend about the Sinkford-honored-to-meet-with-Dude-who-believes-in-stoning-people-to-death issue and as part of my explanation of why it made me so upset, I linked to this old post.
For newer readers, that I was sick of this and writing things like that two and a half years ago might add some perspective on how long running my objection to the UUA's immersion in politics has been and why it bugs me so much when Sinkford helps a tyrant with his PR.
I have to believe the next UUA president won't be like this.
CC
Ps. Someone who agrees with me, but is far more rational on the subject has posted here.
7 comments:
How about like this U*U immersion in politics CC?
Usually, I would assume that you were teasing me and well aware that internal politics isn't what I'm talking about.
But I'm not taking any chances today.
So: "Internal politics isn't what I'm talking about."
CC
The UCC's Rev. John H. Thomas got it right ..at least partly.. (he could have voiced some support for Iranian dissenters) but he understood he was being used,
I was invited to the dinner but have declined. In previous public statements I have objected strongly to the rhetoric of President Ahmadinejad, rhetoric regarding the State of Israel and the historicity of the Holocaust that is deeply disturbing to all who believe in Israel's right to exist and who acknowledge the on-going pain that the Holocaust and its memory still evokes. While the organizers of this event certainly hope to raise their concern over this rhetoric with President Ahmadinejad, I am not convinced this will be effective. To the contrary, I fear the occasion can and will be used by President Ahmadinejad to claim legitimacy and support for himself by an association with respected United States religious leaders. I respect the sponsoring organizations' intent for dialogue, but fear that the more likely outcome is sowing confusion and disappointment among our own members and, in particular, the American Jewish community.
I am grateful to Bill Baar for adducing the remarks of Rev. John Thomas, which are very well stated. They make clear the lack of wisdom of such interaction with Ahmadinejad, no matter how well-intended.
There is, however, another side which is more crucial for the UUA. When young, I married into a diplomatic family, and for many years I had the benefit of learning informally from my father in law, who was a distinguished diplomat and for a time the director general of the Foreign Service of the USA. From this background, he knew something about the requirements for the sort of people who should engage in diplomacy. One thing I retain from him is a conclusion that diplomacy of the sort to which Sinkford was pretending in this encounter is not for amateurs. Sinkford has now become one of the numerous Westerners who have been used by a master of such ploys as he experienced. This greatly reduces his credibility as president of the UUA, both to its members and to outsiders.
It appears that Sinkford's interests have shifted to areas for which he is neither prepared nor talented. In this situation, he should resign to pursue them, preferably as a Methodist.
:One thing I retain from him is a conclusion that diplomacy of the sort to which Sinkford was pretending in this encounter is not for amateurs.
I do believe that Rev. Scott Wells already said this very succinctly on his Boy In The Bands blog when he snarkily quipped -
"There’s a difference between a diplomat and a dilettante."
:Sinkford has now become one of the numerous Westerners who have been used by a master of such ploys as he experienced."
To closely paraphrase Rev. Wells' parting shot -
Diplomats play hardball, Sinkford — and by extension, U*Us — just got played.
:This greatly reduces his credibility as president of the UUA, both to its members and to outsiders.
That would be true if President Sinkford and the UUA actually had significant credibility to begin with. . .
:It appears that Sinkford's interests have shifted to areas for which he is neither prepared nor talented.
Not really. President Sinkford's interests have been in areas for which he is neither prepared nor talented for some time now, and I am not just talking about his amateur diplomacy. . .
:In this situation, he should resign to pursue them, preferably as a Methodist.
Who is to say that his (ahem) "historic" meeting with Ahmadinejad was not largely motivated by a desire to pursue such interests when he steps down as President of the UUA in a matter of months? With any luck President Sinkford will persuade the UUA to send him on yet another U*U "fact finding mission" to Iran before he steps down so that President Ahmadinejad can arrange yet another U*U Photo-Op for Bill showing him posed at the controls of a Shahab-3 missile launcher. Then U*Us can start calling him Tehran Bill. ;-)
Robin, thank you for pointing out the convergence of Scott Wells's and my thinking about the issue of professionalism in Sinkford's handling of this mess.
Did President Sinkford "handle" a mess or create one LF?
I would say the latter.
I suppose that the UUA "news" article spin could be reasonably described as "handling" the mess President Sinkford created though.
Post a Comment