« My Movie Girls, Part Two | Main | The New Band of Brothers »
June 15, 2006
Presbyterian Seminaries: Schools for Anti-Semitism? Part I
In the coming days, leaders of the Presbyterian Church USA will take up a controversial issue – whether to divest from Israel. Why do these Presbyterians think as they do? Their critics overlook the obvious: It’s because of what’s being taught in some Presbyterian seminaries, where future church leaders are inculcated with the moral and religious foundations that shape their world views.
Special Investigative Report to Seraphic Secret
By David Paulin
Leaders of the Presbyterian Church USA take up an old obsession in the coming days: Israel. They’re expected to vote on whether to divest from some multinationals doing business there – a controversial process launched at last year’s general assembly, amid a storm of controversy. Critics inside and outside the church have vigorously protested their actions.
To Presbyterian decision-makers, however, divestment is all about human rights – or, rather, Palestinian rights. They mercilessly villainize Israel for violating them, criticizing its anti-terrorism policies – its “separation wall” in particular – and even its commitment to its Jewish identity.
Israel is not perfect, of course; no country is. But the venom of some Israel-bashing Presbyterians is troubling because it negates anything positive about the Middle East’s only democracy; naturally, this suggests the criticism is really a politically correct form of anti-Semitism. Presbyterian and other mainline Protestant churches, according to one study spend far more time and resources on alleged abuses by Israel and America – yet allot much less attention to the world’s most odious rights abusers.
In some cases, Presbyterian leaders have been apologists for Palestinian terrorism. Their divestment vote followed at least two “fact-finding missions” to the Middle East in which senior church officials hobnobbed with Middle East terrorists. They were part of well-meaning but naïve efforts at “dialogues” aimed at “understanding” different views and cultures.
“They're taking basically a pro-Palestinian, even worse, pro-Hamas, pro-Hezbollah, pro-terrorist groups’ stance," complained Rev. Parker Williamson, a retired pastor and former chief executive of the conservative Presbyterian Lay Committee, speaking ahead of the week-long general assembly meeting that starts Thursday, June 15, in Birmingham, Alabama.
Jewish groups are particularly upset over the church’s veiled anti-Semitism. The outrage is justified, but I suspect it's missing some important nuances. This probably isn’t old-fashioned anti-Semitism; not the “Gentleman’s Agreement” variety anyway – or at least not among most Israel-bashing Presbyterians and fellow travelers in other mainline churches.
This is worse, I suspect. This strain of anti-Semitism seems bound up with anti-Western loathing – or self-loathing. Palestinians are idealized. Israel is villainized. Yet Israel is not the only target. Many of the church’s Israel bashers seem just as upset over America and, for that matter, Western Culture. To many of them, it’s not just a matter of what Israel or America does in respect to their policies. It’s a matter of who they are. You’ve heard about “self-hating Jews.” Some of these Presbyterians are “self-hating Christians.”
Churches and Palestinians
Why do Presbyterian decision makers think as they do? Their critics overlook the obvious: It’s because of what’s being taught in Presbyterian seminaries, which inculcate future church leaders with the moral and religious foundations that shape their world views.
One seminary with which I’m familiar is in Texas: a 104-year-old institution whose idyllic grounds are near the University of Texas campus in Austin, the state capital. I’m not a Presbyterian, incidentally. I’m not even a church-goer, though I regularly attended a mainline Protestant church as a youngster. Early last year, however, I took a greater than ordinary interest in religion when I noticed that the Austin Theological Presbyterian Seminary was hosting a thought-provoking conference in February: "American Churches and the Palestinians." The theme of the two-day event was inspired by a line from Isaiah 58:6: "To Loose the Chains of Injustice…”
Later, when briefly visiting the conference, the biblical passage’s subordination to a political view became clear: Israeli Jews were colonial oppressors; and Palestinian Arabs were their victims. The event’s main sponsors were hardly friendly toward Israel: The Interfaith Community for Palestinian Rights; Friends of Sabeel-North America; and Pax Christi USA. Hundreds of religious leaders from around the country, representing various denominations, attended along with seminary faculty.
The speakers and participants invited to the event revealed much about the seminary and its world view. As the old adage goes: “Tell me who your friends are, and I’ll tell you who you are.”
Consider a few of the main guests:
Robert Jensen, a radical left-wing University of Texas journalism professor. Days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Jensen gained national notoriety for his inflammatory Op-Ed column in the Houston Chronicle, "U.S. Just as Guilty of Committing Own Violent Acts." The attacks, Jensen argued, were "no more despicable than the massive acts of terrorism...that the U.S. government has committed during my lifetime."
At the conference, Jensen discussed the mainstream media’s coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A well-known figure in radical circles, it was not hard to surmise whom Jensen thinks the U.S. media favors – given that he believes Israel is as immoral as America. Two years earlier, in fact, he published an Op-Ed column in the Houston Chronicle and Palestine Chronicle. Its title and first sentence were the same: “I Helped Kill a Palestinian Today.”
“If you pay taxes to the U.S. government, so did you,” asserted Jensen. He went onto to say that “the current Israeli attack on West Bank towns is not a war on terrorism, but part of a long and brutal war against the Palestinian people for land and resources.” He said nothing about billions of international aid flowing over the years into the Palestinian territories – only to be squandered, pocketed by corrupt officials, or used to fund terrorism.
Jensen, a tenured professor, is a self-described “activist” in the mold of his radical counterpart, Ward Churchill, the embattled “ethnic studies” professor at the University of Colorado. Questioning the innocence of the World Trade Center vicitims, Churchill had derided them as "technocrats" and "little Eichmanns," a statement with which Jensen fully agreed. (More on Jensen in Part 2.)
Cindy and Craig Corrie, parents of the late Rachel Corrie, spoke at the event’s dinner. At age 23, Rachel Corrie was killed when she put herself in front of an Israeli Defense Forces bulldozer conducting anti-terror operations – clearing tunnels utilized by Palestinian terrorists. To her supporters Corrie is a martyr. To some in the mainstream media she’s an idealist. However, The Wall Street Journal’s online OpinionJournal had the most accurate description for her: "terror advocate." It produced this revealing photo of Corrie at a pro-Saddam rally: She’s clad in Muslim garb, her face contorted in rage as she burns a crudely drawn American flag.
Corrie’s parents head the Rachel Corrie Foundation for Peace and Justice. Its goal is to support “programs that foster connections between people, (which) build understanding, respect, and appreciation for differences and that promote cooperation within and between local and global communities.”
The star speaker was the Rev. Naim Ateek, a Palestinian Episcopal priest who founded and directs the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center in Jerusalem. Ateek "flatly denies that Israel has a right to exist, describes Israelis as immoral and demonic, and salts his sermons with the language of Jewish deicide," observed Diana Applebaum in a recent article in The American Thinker.
Like his Presbyterian cheerleaders, Ateek is an apologist for terrorists. He distributed a lengthy paper: "What is theologically and morally wrong with suicide bombings?" A Palestinian Christian Perspective." This subject was timely. Suicide bombings were more common at the time: Israel’s infamous “separation barrier” – which has indeed saved lives by thwarting suicide bombers – was in a less advanced stage of construction than today.
Ateek’s paper navigated a thicket of theological considerations, but its theme was fairly simple: Suicide bombers do indeed violate Christian doctrine – but the desperation fueling their misguided actions is understandable: It's Israel's fault. Neither Ateek nor his Presbyterian supporters, incidentally, have ever given credence to three other “root causes” of Palestinian terrorism: Islamist ideology; the culture of hate permeating Palestinian culture; an "honor-shame" mentality that undermines efforts for peace, which the overwhelmingly majority of Israelis desire.
I visited the conference briefly, walking along hallways lined with numerous exhibits outside “workshops” being conducted in classrooms. The exhibits bristled with pro-Palestinian political literature and books. One focused on Palestinian culture, displaying clothing and other items. (Not included were suicide vests or a replica of the Sbarro pizzeria suicide bombing; such an exhibit was displayed by clever Hamas student activists at al-Najah University in Nablus).
Ateek was a conference favorite. Conference-goers eagerly repeat his stories of alleged Israeli terrorism against Palestinians, including when, he says, his family was forcibly removed by Israeli troops on May 12, 1948. Perhaps Ateek’s stories are true; perhaps not. However, what’s clearly false about these stories, revolving around Israel’s creation, is that they pretend these were everyday occurrences, the result of Israel’s aggression: the defining element, in other words, of what Israel is.
There’s no denying, to be sure, that some Palestinians have some legitimate historical grievances. Most of us do; and most of us get over them. That includes people with far greater historical grievances than any of us: Jewish holocaust survivors and their families. They’ve led productive lives wherever they’ve gone, neither wallowing in self-pity or hatred.
However, such distinctions were non-existent at the conference. There was no pretense at balance. A number of Palestinians were present. So were a few Israeli-Jews who decried Israel's policies. However, there were no victims of Palestinian terrorism. Terrorism was a non-issue, in fact, apparently not worth any moral nitpicking. If a suicide bomber walks into a Jerusalem pizzeria, and Palestinians cheer over the dead, well, people who are as oppressed as the Palestinians, whose humiliations are boundless, are entitled to do desperate things. That, it seems, was the thinking of the upright Christians at the conference.
Photo Exhibition
Weeks before the conference, the seminary hosted a photography exhibit that reflected the conference’s main theme: Palestinians as victims; Jews as their exploiters. Dozens of heart-rending photos portraying Palestinians as victims were hung on the hallways of the seminary’s classroom building. For future ministers and religious leaders, the photos were there to see, ponder, and absorb. The exhibit was from a local documentary photographer, Alan Pogue, a Vietnam veteran specializing in social and political themes.
The exhibition’s theme was unmistakable: European Jews displaced by World War 2 had created Israel and ejected Palestinians from their ancestral homes. In fact, this was one of the photo’s captions. There were no positive photos of Israel or Israeli-Jews. How might Pogue depict Gaza after Israel’s withdrawal – now that Palestinians dying violent deaths usually do so at the hands of other Palestinians?
Some of Pogue’s photos may be seen here.
Two other photos arranged side by side impressed me for the mentality revealed by their juxtaposition. One was from New York City right after the Sept. 11 attacks – a poignant photo of a make-shift sidewalk memorial. It was a still life of sorts: flowers, photos, and mementos left by friends and family members.
Next to it was a strikingly similar photo – one of a Baghdad sidewalk memorial. It remembered the approximately 300 mostly women and children killed by a U.S. precision-guided bomb. They died in an underground shelter that U.S. military planners presumed was one of Saddam’s command-and-control centers. Just before the war, it was converted into an air raid shelter – one Saddam’s military men avoided. Using civilians like this is a common tactic among Middle Eastern terrorists and “insurgents” – a way to blame and shame the enemy when civilians are inevitably killed.
Pogue saw things differently. His caption noted the photos “similarities.” The subtle impression was that Americans now knew the horrors of the same crimes their government committed abroad.
Curiously, the exhibit was removed the day before a rare event at the seminary: a colloquium of Presbyterian ministers and rabbis held two weeks after the Palestinian conference. The event’s title: “A Difficult Friendship: Divestment, Dialogue, and Hope.”
One visiting Presbyterian minister and a rabbi were put off by the “Difficult Friendship” title.
“This is not a ‘difficult friendship,’ this is a ‘nascent friendship’,” observed Rabbi Gary Bretton-Granatoor, director of Interfaith Affairs for the Anti-Defamation League. “We’re really at the very beginnings of a friendship that at best is forty years in duration … The reality is that for the last forty years we have assiduously avoided the 600- pound-gorilla sitting in the room with us … our differences.”
In one sense, the remark was ironic. In recent years, Presbyterian leaders and the intellectual elite within their seminaries have, on the other hand, gone out of their way to bridge “differences” with Palestinian Arabs and Muslims – even when it means apologizing for terrorism or values that are the bedrock of our Judeo-Christian culture.
“The church has been infected,” a conservative seminarian once told me.
She wasn’t referring to Palestinian propagandists. She was describing the peculiar world view adopted by many left-wing Christians – sort of a hybrid of Marxism, Christianity, and Edward Said.
One result has been the vilification of Israel; not to mention America and even Western Culture. No, this is not your old-fashioned anti-Semitism. It’s something worse.
Posted by Robert J. Avrech at June 15, 2006 11:35 AM
Comments
Seraphic Secret is private property, that's right, it's an extension of our home, and as such, Karen and I have instituted two Seraphic Rules and we ask commentors to act respectfully.
1. No profanity.2. No Israel bashing. We debate, we discuss, we are respectful. You know what Israel bashing is. The world is full of it. Seraphic Secret is one of the few places in the world that will not tolerate this form of anti-Semitism. That's it. Break either of these rules and you will be banned.
Without getting into my philosophy of "Why Liberals in the Church Do What They Do", I'll submit my own brief explanation of the biased madness that you observed at APTS: Self-loathing.
They hate capitalism, they hate wealth inequity, they despise the Christian tradition and they hate Western culture and its hegemony. Yet, they are the beneficiaries of it. Presbyterians are almost all White, rich and educated after all!
So, to reconcile this in their heads, they hate themselves and the loathe their own country, religion and heritage. Therefore they go into these fits of irrational leftist mania.
It would be pitiful if they didn't have so many chances to wreck our country and a once-great Christian denomination.
Posted by: Toby Brown at June 15, 2006 01:34 PM
Fascinating piece by Mr. Paulin!
My theory on why the seminaries are like this, (and this is true for many Jewish seminaries as well), has a lot to do with our society.
I'm not sure who we expect to go into a seminary in a country like America where economic success is held in such high regard. The people who are going to dedicate their lives to a career that promises little financial reward are mostly going to be liberals who will identify with the poorer people of the world even if they happen to have a murderous ideology.
THIS IS NOT AN EXCUSE, as naivete can be just as deadly as outright evil, as we all know.
But religious leaders must do a better job of making life in the clergy more attractive to people who will otherwise go on to law school or business school. Otherwise more and more of our seminaries could become havens for people who are simply out-of-it.
I'd also like to see a little less "capitalism-bashing" by all religious leaders. Greed is one thing, but I can't tell you how many times I've read pieces by Rabbis of all stripes decrying money as evil in and of itself. I suspect there is much of the same in Chrisitian churches as well.
Posted by: Jake at June 15, 2006 01:51 PM
Mr. Brown:
You are a friend of Larry Rued and strongly against the odious divestment measure that seems to be picking up steam in the PCUSA. Your analysis of the radical rot in your church sounds depressingly correct. We thank you for your support and hope to hear from you on this issue on a regular basis.
Posted by: Robert J. Avrech ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.seraphicpress.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 15, 2006 01:54 PM
This just came in from Seraphic Friend ANONYMOUS :
Again, if I may, for the record, let me reiterate PCUSA voted for divestment TWO YEARS ago, at the last General Assembly. Due to a plethora of overtures from outraged presbyteries (because this really doesn't sit well with the rank-and-file Presbyterian), the Assembly is being forced to reconsider this week. I make the distinction, because I think Jews need to understand that
this cancer has been progressing and spreading for a d--n TWO YEARS from one American mainline denomination to another. I think that makes
for a worse prognosis than learning of a fresh eruption.
By the way, the Simon Wiesenthal Center has both a press release and an online petition appeal:
http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=fwLYKnN8LzH&b=242023
I recommend that you tune into Will Spotts' blog. Very bright and keen, he's a younger Presbyterian reporting from Birmingham http://blog.pcusaelders.org/
Posted by: anonymous at June 15, 2006 02:12 PM
Jake:
Your argument falls short when you consider that Orthodox Rabbis earn the lowest amount of money on the Rabbinic pay scale when compared to the Conservative and Reform movements, and yet the Orthodox do not go around bashing capitalism. Nor are the Orthodox on the liberal side of the political spectrum. In fact, they are quite Conservative.
Money has nothing to do with this liberal/radical swing.
It's all about values.
The more liberal Jewish movements have replaced traditional Jewish theology and observance with radical liberal politics. I assume it's the same with the various Christians denominations.
Your analysis is mistaken in that it's exclusively materialistic.
Posted by: Robert J. Avrech at June 15, 2006 04:33 PM
Robert:
You're very right, I'm focusing on materialistic things because we're talking about a vocation as well as a religious calling.
There are only two communities that I am aware of in America where joining the clergy is not only a mainstream thing to do, it is considered a truly viable career path despite the usual lack of major financial rewards: 1) The orthodox Jewish community and 2) The Evangelical community.
And in both of these communities I would agree with you, strong and well-defined values have made becoming a Rabbi or a minister something other than a "flakey" or "do-gooder" job.
But my previous post was about the Presbyterian community specifically and the entire Protestant non-evangelical community and non-Orthodox Jewish community generally.
As you have been correct in writing often on this blog, the non-Orthodox Jewish communities have taken on a different set of values, both politically and socially for many years. I don't exactly join you in condemning this shift, but I think these movements are naive in many of their new values and also naive in not recognizing that they are shifting far away from very old traditions. I don't exactly mind that they are doing this... but I do mind that so many of them don't seem to get it that they are part of a radical shift. As long as they realize what they are doing and really do believe in these new values, fine. I guess I make myself a pretty lonely Jew indeed when I admit that I agree with many of these new values, (especially vis a vis gay rights), but I also agree that these new values are just that: new. And they are definitely beyond the rules set out in Jewish law. But it is a new form of Judaism not unlike our own version of a Protestant Reformation. I actually admire those Jews who are trying to incorporate their personal values with their Jewish tradition, but it's a tough battle. As for the many Conservative and Reform Jewish leaders who I believe are using these issues to advance their own power and prestige, I have no love for them at all.
I surely don't have to connect the dots for anyone who's read this blog. Robert has said that left wing politics have become the new belief system for Conservative and Reform Jewish leaders. He's right. And in that atmosphere, the kind of people going to those seminaries are going to be ripe for what many of us would consider radical leftist propaganda.
Now for the non-evangelical Protestant community. Let me ask everyone this: Do you know ANY very religious, politically conservative, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, etc. Christians who are neither Catholic nor Evangelical? Because I don't. And I've known a lot of Christians and lived in every region of this country. In fact, every conservative non-Evangelical Protestant I've ever met has eventually become an Evangelical, a Protestant, or an Orthodox Jew.
I submit to you that the non-Evangelical Protestant Christian community is the mirror image of the Conservative and Reform movements in Judaism.
One last point: we need to make the case for Israel for not only Catholic and Evangelical Christians, but for these left wing non-Evangelical Protestants as well. And you know what? It's not that hard. Here's why:
1) Israel is a true Democracy
2) Israel offers more gay rights than any other country in the Middle East
3) Israel provides greatly for its citizens with its a quasi-Socialist state structure
4) Israel has free health care, education, etc.
The list goes on and on. The point is, whether you're a devout Evangelical or a gay Episcopalian bishop, Israel is country you should admire and support especially now.
Posted by: Jake at June 15, 2006 05:51 PM
SORRY: This sentence should have read:
In fact, every conservative non-Evangelical Protestant I've ever met has eventually become an Evangelical, a CATHOLIC, or an Orthodox Jew.
Posted by: Jake at June 15, 2006 05:54 PM
"Something worse" than antisemitism.... "self-hating Christians" - these phrases make me shudder, but I think David's right. They're good talking points.
Anyone remember Nechama, in her recent Virtual Jerusalem review of the (first) Hebrew Kid novel, writing that cliches in some Jewish literature make her roll her eyes? I feel the same way about many of these images of "resistance", such as the damning Rachel Corrie image and those Pogue photos. Letting one's moral compass be distorted by "Marxism, Christianity, and Edward Said" pollutes the moral landscape any of us try to create - be it a screenplay or any depiction of violence in Eretz Israel.
Posted by: Jeremiah at June 15, 2006 10:08 PM
Jake:
Thanks for your clarification. Let me comment on the reasons you think we need to make the case for Israel.
Yes, Israel is a true democracy. But leftists don't care about democracy for they are by ideological inclination, tyrants.
I loathe the quasi socialist economy of Israel and hope for its demise as quickly as possible. I am a free market capitalist.
I support freedom and tolerance for homosexuals. But leftists turn a blind eye to the murder of homosexuals in Arab society.
A much bigger issue, Jake, is the repression of women in Arab society. "Honor killings." Western feminists have abandoned their Arab "sisters" in the name of, er, "cultural sensitivity." First time I've ever heard of being sensitive to throat cutters.
I do not support Israel's free health care and eduation. It is badly broken. Again, I am a free market capitalist.
Here are the real reasons Israel should be supported by all clear-thinking free people.
1. The Arabs have repeatedly been offered peace, even land for peace; they have repeatedly rejected every offer on the table. Terror is their way of life--and they are proud of it. Just read their newspapers. Watch their TV shows.
2. The Arabs have no interest in building a state of their own--only destroying Israel.
3. The Arabs are time and again led by governments with genocidal platforms against not only Israel but world Jewry--and Christians. Such a people should not be rewarded with a state of their own.
4. The Arab/Israeli conflict is not about land. It is part of the world-wide war against terror. To give such a people a state of their own is to help build, literally, a terrorist state.
5. The Arabs have replaced rhetoric with reality in every corner of their public and private discourse--such governments cannot be embraced by a civilized community of nations for they cannot be trusted.
6. The Arabs teach their children that homicide bombing is the highest status one can attain in their culture. This should repulse every decent man and woman. That it doesn't proves the moral inversion in the American and European left.
7. The last thing the world needs is another backward Arab Islamic tyranny.
Posted by: Robert J. Avrech at June 16, 2006 10:18 AM
Mr. Avrech, your post immediately above this one has many excellent points evident therein.
I would amend just one portion of it, however.
You say, "Israel is a true democracy."
Israel has shades of democracy, yes. However, a country with no Constitution, like Israel, a country with a visibly weak Parliment, like Israel, is not a "true democracy". The survival of socialistic systems which you rightly disdain do not a "true democracy" make.
A.P.
Posted by: A.P. at June 16, 2006 11:06 AM
Re: divestment
What I would like to know is who exactly is in charge of this campaign. The theologians? Or the congregations? Or both? From what I understand, much of the American public is unaware of/indifferent towards the conflict, and when polled, usually tends to favor Israel. Methinks these divesters are hijacking PR, and their congregations aren't even aware of what is going on. There's only one thing we can do if we want to put an end to this type of movement - rather than petitioning completely unreasonable, self-absorbed activists, we should put out information to the much more reasonable public, which right now remains unaware and indifferent. Arguing with die-hard partisans is useless. Informing those, straddling the fence is much more important. And I really don't think we're doing enough of that.
Posted by: Irina at June 16, 2006 11:15 AM
A.P.
Israel is a Parliamentary Democracy--like England. Whether it is weak or not, is a matter of poltitical/philisophical speculation. However, let it be noted that Israel's government is not so weak that it has ever fallen into the hands of the military through bloody and violent coups and assasinations, as in every single Arab country.
Thank you for your comment.
Posted by: Robert J. Avrech at June 16, 2006 11:16 AM
David Paulin,
There are two Presbyterian Churches - PC USA and PC America. There are big differences between the two denominations called Presbyterian. PC USA has abandon the mission of spreading the gospel for Social Activism. A huge split occurred about 10 years ago when PC USA embraced the "homosexual rights" agenda rather than stick to the tradition of "infallibility of scripture". However, PC America still embraces the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as their own, through Jesus Christ the savior. To that end, it is common to have PC America congregations pray for the peace of Israel, and its salvation through acceptance of Jesus. PC America continues to present the good news to Jews as a matter of spiritual integrity. PC America does not engage in economic subterfuge against Jews or Israel.
Another point you may find worthy of contemplation is that the Episcopal Church is in the same spot as the Presbyterian Church, except the acceptance of the homosexual agenda and abandonment of the principle of the infallibility of scripture occurred a good decade or two prior to the apostasy of the PC USA.
If you have the inclination, then a full understanding of the phenomena occurring inside the church denominations (and American culture) can be found in the Bible's 1st chapter of Romans.
Best regards,
Steve Cupps
Posted by: Robert J. Avrech at June 16, 2006 11:18 AM
Robert:
I agree with a lot of those points. It's just that we may need to make slightly different cases for Israel depending on the audience. Some audiences are hopeless, and that might be the case in most of Europe, etc. The good news is, without having to bend facts or lie, there is a good argument to be made for Israel whether you're conservative, liberal, or somewhere in between.
Posted by: Jake at June 18, 2006 07:44 AM
Jake:
Forgot something:
8. Financial Transparency: The PLO and now Hamas are the biggest bunch of thieves the world has ever seen. The American tax payer, and the Europeans (not their beloved Arab brothers) have poured billions of dollars into the various governments. The money has disappered. Except for that which is used to purchase arms and pay off the families of homicide bombers.
The Arabs in Gaza and Judea and Samaria are the biggest welfare witches the world has ever seen and they will continue as such until they act start building instead of destroying, until they start taking responsibility for their lives instead of kvetching and blaming Israel for every ill that befalls them.
This inability to assume personal responsibility probably stems from typical Arab paranoia, xenophobia, malice, an all pervasive incompetence, overlayed now with the oh so brutal Jihadist world view... but then trying to sort it all out seems hardly worth the effort. They have made their bed, let them sleep in it.
P.S. Arafat's widow, Suha, spends about 22 million a year to fight the good fight from her million dollar apartment on the Champs Elysee.
Posted by: Robert J. Avrech at June 18, 2006 09:59 AM
I agree with Mr. Brown –- one reason why some of the Presbyterians in question do what they do is indeed self-loathing. It’s ironic because, as he points out, this is a wealthy church, and that’s clearly evident by the types of people you see in seminaries. Some certainly struggle to make ends meet and take out student loans. But, by and large, this is a comfortably well-off group of people: solidly middle-class and upper-middle class.
That said, I don’t want to generalize. I have a feeling that many in seminaries are not fans of radical politics or causes; however, it’s those with a radical agenda who are attracting a lot of the attention and who, unfortunately, move up the ladder toward leadership positions.
One sense I have is that those who are the most comfortably well off are the most left wing. Odd, isn’t it? Finally, my sense is that many left-leaning “activists” seminarians bring their values with them to the seminary – and the finishing touches of that development are provided by accommodating professors who thrive in the insular seminary environment –- much like Robert Jensen thrives at the University of Texas.
I disagree with some of the points suggested by Jake. Some of the seminary students I’ve met are certainly smart – they certainly could hack it in law or business school. Seminary courses don’t seem like a piece of cake to me; there’s no way I could get through Greek, Latin, or Hebrew, and you have to respect somebody who can hack those subjects. I’d take “Introduction to Business” or “Contract Law” any day, before taking classes like that.
Regarding Irina’s question as to where the push for divestment is coming from, I am not clear on every twist and turn in the move toward divestment – at least not clear enough to make an authoritative statement here. However, there is no doubting that it has come from the “elites” of the church – those who are decision makers in some congregations; and those who are the intellectual elite both within the administration and seminaries.
However, you only have to do a Google search to see that many rank-and-file Presbyterians – smart and accomplished people who know their bibles – are outraged at the divestment move. The decision has not been done in a democratic fashion; that’s the feeling among ordinary Presbyterians.
Regarding Steve Cupps’ comment: Yes, I’m aware that not all Presbyterians belong to the same church; and that the church in question, Presbyterian Church USA, is the most problematic in regards to its politics and social agenda. This, however, is not my area of expertise; I don’t normally follow issues relating to religion -- except when they take the outrageous turn that they did with the divestment decision.
Thankfully, I’m happy to see that the waves generated on the web by these two articles (which, incidentally, were inspired by this blog and e-mail exchanges with Robert), confirm one thing: The divestment decision and the politics leading up to it have generated protests and outrage that have transcended religious affiliations. In other words, it’s obvious, from all the web sites picking up on this, that this is not seen as a “Jewish” issue or “Israel” issue. That’s something really positive to consider.
Posted by: David Paulin at June 20, 2006 12:22 AM
To better answer Irina's question -- regarding who is leading the investment campaign -- I am also providing this news item, below. It is from a Presbyterian publiction, "re News," which describes itself as a "publication of Presbyterians for renewal." I found it on the web at: www.pfrenewal.org.
In addition to this news item, it should be noted that the "Churches and Palestinians" conference I described came a few months ahead of the divestment action. Also, the divestment action was taken just as Israel was pulling out of Gaza --an interesting bit of timing.
Here's the news item:
DIVESTMENT AND THE MIDDLE EAST
During the 216th G.A. in 2004, a commissioners’ resolution was passed that began a review of the PC(USA)’s financial investments in corporations doing business in Israel, with the intention
to consider divestment. Of all the decisions that year, few came close to the firestorm created around those regarding the Middle East.
The response was understandable. The decision for divestment was made without prior study or conversation with the members of the PC(USA) and global community who would be impacted
by such a decision. It committed the denomination to an aggressive strategy of foreign relations. The resulting fracture of peace following the Assembly attests to the short-sightedness of the
decision to pursue divestment.
A slew of overtures are coming to the Assembly in response to this controversy, and almost all of them seek various alternatives to the actions of the 216th G.A. The most aggressive approach, Ov
11-01 (Mississippi), rescinds the actions of divestment and the statements made against the security wall built by Israel.
The least aggressive approaches ask for new policies on the Middle East before considering divestment, a change to the Standing Rules regarding decisions on investments, and a focus on investment strategies that promote peace. Nearly all affirm the historic quest of our denomination for peace in the Middle East. Several overtures,e.g. Ov 11-04 (New Covenant), take a balanced approach to rescind the decision to pursue divestment and call us all to work
for peace.
PFR SUPPORTS those overtures that clearly call for rescinding the decision of the 216th G.A. to pursue divestment while also affirming our commitment to work for peace in the Middle East.
Posted by: David Paulin at June 20, 2006 03:00 AM