United Church plan attacked as anti-Semitic

Yea, what with all the unconverted penguins down there, the global clergy are missing out on a glorious opportunity. Maybe some fund-raising to send the clergy to Troll Station et al is in order?

I don't remember that one.  We went to Knox-Met, downtown. 

Part of me giggles when I see the UCC referred to as a "religious group".  I mean, yeah, technically they are, but we certainly didn't take any of the religious bits seriously.

Hmm, interesting:

"The resolutions, which will be brought before the Church's upcoming general council, call for a "comprehensive boycott of Israeli academic and cultural institutions at the national and international levels" and refer to the recent assault on Gaza as a "visible reminder of the ongoing Israeli regime of exclusion, violence and dehumanization directed against Palestinians."

They also say that Israel was "built mainly on land ethnically cleansed of its Palestinian owners," and make reference to the effectiveness of boycotts when dealing with state-sponsored racial discrimination and violence as was the case in South Africa."

That's a bit rich coming from a Church that was involved in Aboriginal residential schooling until 1969.  Sounds like they got plenty to apologize for in Canada with regard to exclusion, violence, dehumanization and the like that they really should be too busy casting stones elsewhere.  Of course that's probably why they are casting stones elsewhere.  This new "social justice' kick that some so-called "progressive" Churches are on is a great way to talk about all the ills of the world so long as those "ills" are somewhere else and not caused by the Church.

Sounds like people should boycott the United Church.  Don't go and don't give them any money.  Economic pressure, especially for a church, ought to force them to change their ways.

Makes about as much sense as boycotting the most progressive mainstream country in the Middle East.  What other country in the region respects the rights of women, respects labour rights and espects the rights of gays and lesbians? Israel was practically found on socialist principles and the services that Israel provides to its citizens puts our social safety net to shame.  

Israel is not perfect, that's or sure.  But it's pretty strange that the United Church is stepping out of its own back yard to criticize Israel when it has so many shit-bombs in its own yard.  

At least other churches are honest about their motives.  They pray for the conversion of the Jews and adhere to the doctrine that all non-believers are going to hell.  But that's not very politically correct anymore and "progressive" churches can't very well do that however, what they can do is do crazy-extreme things like boycott Israel all the while draping themselves in the "socially just" flag.  

Big Daddy wrote:

That's a bit rich coming from a Church that was involved in Aboriginal residential schooling until 1969.  Sounds like they got plenty to apologize for in Canada with regard to exclusion, violence, dehumanization and the like that they really should be too busy casting stones elsewhere.

They did apologize. [url=http://www.united-church.ca/beliefs/policies/1998/a623]Eleven years ago.[/url]

When is Israel going to apologize for their crimes?

And when are you going to apologize for spreading lies about Israel?

Oh yeah? Forgetting about Saudi Arabia!??

This effort to suppress criticism of Israel for its oppression of the Palestinians, even by its former soliders, is public policy of the State:

"Israel continues to ratchet up diplomatic pressure against European Union funding of a group that exposed what it described as war crimes perpetrated by the Israel Defense Forces in Gaza.

The deputy director-general of the Foreign Ministry, Rafi Barak, expressed "concern" last week over Britain's financial contributions to "Breaking the Silence," an organization founded by IDF veterans which collects testimonies from soldiers serving in the Palestinian territories."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1103748.html

The UCC will obviously never adopt any boycott resolution. What bothers me is their shameless capitulation to the Zionists, as evidenced in statements like these (quoted above):

Quote:

"In 2003, the Church said that we affirm the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. And that's a significant commitment. What is means is that we are strongly supportive of the existence of Israel for the sake of the Jewish people in the world."

The UCC has a good (far from stellar) record of taking more humane stands than many other churches on international, Aboriginal, social, and other questions. Protesting that "but but but we recognize Israel as the state of the Jews" doesn't do any credit to that record. The fact that it's not as bad as the Christian right is hardly much of a recommendation.

Thanks for the link, Loretta. It proves what Unionist was saying to be correct.

Caissa wrote:

Why would anyone respond to critiques of motions that have yet to be voted upon?

Good point. Other than pandering, capitulation, ass-kissing... I can't think of any reason.

Caissa wrote:

Why would anyone respond to critiques of motions that have yet to be voted upon? Talk about contempt for democracy...

Umm, because debate on motions should happen before a motion gets voted on.  

I find it interesting here that every time I point out that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East that respects the rights of women, gays and lesbians, and labour, there is no attempt to argue that there are other countries, but there is an attempt to relativize that point away or deny it entirely. Why?  I'm not saying Israel is perfect, but it's not the "evil empire" that it's being portrayed here either. And you would think that the United Church would want to encourage countries that respect the rights of women and gays and lesbians, or hell, at least acknowledge this.  

Not that the United Church doesn't have some of its own business to take care of.  It ran residential schools until 1969.  (Talk about apartheid?!)  As someone pointed out here, they apologized for this 11 years ago.  Wow.  The church participates in the destruction of Aboriginal culture until only 40 years ago and it took them 29 more years to resolve to apologize for this.  Things don't, apparently, move very fast in these Church institutions.  Except criticisms of Israel.  Apparently, criticising the only Jewish state in the world seems to be such an imperative that it is able to overcome institutional inertia.

BTW, has anybody here actually been to Israel and seen first-hand what's going on?  

Big Daddy wrote:

Umm, because debate on motions should happen before a motion gets voted on. 

Well, the United Church was attacked for planning to even debate this motion, which you think is fine - not because you care about democracy, but because you're in love with Israel.

Quote:

I find it interesting here that every time I point out that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East that respects the rights of women, gays and lesbians, and labour, there is no attempt to argue that there are other countries, but there is an attempt to relativize that point away or deny it entirely.

Israel doesn't respect the rights of women, gays, lesbians, labour, or anyone else. I deny it entirely.

Quote:

And you would think that the United Church would want to encourage countries that respect the rights of women and gays and lesbians, or hell, at least acknowledge this. 

Why should the UC encourage countries that respect the rights of hell? I don't follow you.

Quote:

Not that the United Church doesn't have some of its own business to take care of.  It ran residential schools until 1969.

Ok, I understand. So because the United Church participated in some dirty crimes against humanity in the past, it is honour-bound to support the proponents of apartheid and mass murder today. Great advice! Thankfully, many United Church adherents I personally know don't have shit for brains and do indeed have a social conscience.

Quote:

BTW, has anybody here actually been to Israel and seen first-hand what's going on?  

Yes. Although I would have thought one could (for example) critique Nazism without having been an inmate of the death camps.

At first reading, I could see that you hate Israel and you take far too much delight in throwing around terms like mass murder and apartheid.

Bu then I read this...

Unionist wrote:

Yes. Although I would have thought one could (for example) critique Nazism without having been an inmate of the death camps.

Perhaps, some deeper, larger resentments?

You really like that line, don't you.  

SparkyOne wrote:

Boycots don't work, it's just paying lip service.

They work. Stop trading with Israel, stop investing in their companies, stop sending them weapons, start treating them like the pariah that they are - and use that as a necessary international adjunct to the struggle of the Palestinian people and of those Israelis who abhor their regime - and ultimately they will go the way of the South African apartheid regime.

"Lip service" is what the UCC has done to date. It has had some positive components. Now they have a historic opportunity to do more than lip service. Unfortunately, it won't happen. Maybe some day.

They couldn't be too concerned.  This thread's been up for three days now and they've only sent in the B team.

oldgoat wrote:

They couldn't be too concerned.  This thread's been up for three days now and they've only sent in the B team.

Ahhhhhhh.... as is so often the case after one of your posts, I wish I had said that!

Just like that right-wing political party in Saskatchewan, it sounds like a name change is needed for the United Church.

Isn't it amazing what a little marketing can do.

You got me.  It's all a big Jewish conspiracy to shut down threads on Babble but the smart people were away so "they" sent me.  I've also been left in charge of the financial markets and Hollywood for the weekend.  And, I am plotting to give away all of Canada's water to a multinational corporation.  I will do this on Sunday after I am finished attending the gay pride parade. I look forward to seeing the Palestinians for Pride and the Saudis for Same Sex Marriage floats.  

Oh, yeah, the cubes of store-bought white bread and Welch's grape juice in the cool little glasses!

I was actually up that way (that stretch of Broad St.) the other day, visiting friends.  Will have to pay closer attention next time.

Big Daddy wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Yeah, I confess to taking delight in the truth. 

Do you support womens' rights?  Or would you rather see women in burkhas as is increasingly the practice in Gaza.  Do you support the rights of gays and lesbians or do you support corporal and/or capital punishment for being homosexual?  Do you support Hamas?  Where are you coming from on this?  time to let it all hang out.  What is the "truth" to you?  

Apparently truth is nothing to you because it is not the practice to wear Burkhas in Gaza. Even Niqab is rare. Most commonly women wear the head scarf as Hijab. Any clod you has looked at a photograph of women in Gaza can see that. Have you ever looked at one?

Here is one:

Gazan women being gunned down by the women's liberationist snipers of the IDF. "If that don't teach em to be free what will?" Only freed two of them from their slavish and backward ways here. If they were wearing Burqua they could have liberated them all in good conscience, no doubt.

You seem to feel very confident in your right to tell women what to wear in the name of women's rights, unlike Hamas which does not advocate for enforced dress codes for women.

Quote:

"Hamas Will Not Impose its Religious and Social Programs on Others"

Another difference between Hamas' position and that of global jihad movements is evident in the policies that it has adopted since its takeover of Gaza in June 2007. Ignoring the persistent demands of the Palestinian military group Jaysh Al-Islam, [11] and of Al-Qaeda leaders like Ayman Al-Zawahiri, [12] Hamas has refrained from announcing the establishment of an Islamic emirate and from enforcing shari'a in Gaza. Instead, it has kept its promise from before the takeover to avoid imposing Islam on the public. [13] In a 2006 television interview, Hamas Political Bureau head Khaled Mash'al promised, "Hamas will not impose its religious and social programs on others. Rather, it will present [its ideas] to others without forcing them [to accept them]. [For example,] women will not be forced to wear the hijab... Hamas [follows] the principle of 'there is no compulsion in religion' and 'religion is [embraced] by choice, not by force.'" [14]

MEMRI

Nor have I been able to find a source where they say they advocate corporal or capital punishment for gay people. Do you have one? I'd very much like to see it.

Big Daddy wrote:

You got me.  It's all a big Jewish conspiracy to shut down threads on Babble but the smart people were away so "they" sent me.  I've also been left in charge of the financial markets and Hollywood for the weekend.  And, I am plotting to give away all of Canada's water to a multinational corporation.  I will do this on Sunday after I am finished attending the gay pride parade. I look forward to seeing the Palestinians for Pride and the Saudis for Same Sex Marriage floats.  

With the hired and scripted flatfaced lies in support of tyranny and murder having no takers, the only remaining angle of approach, which is also standard fare, is to label the participants of dissenting opinions as anti-semetic.

[url=http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/04/shattering-the-myth-of-democracy-and-e... the Myth of Democracy and Equality in Israel[/url]

[url=http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery06022009.html]Racists for Democracy[/url]