It is unfortunate that the focus was on the boycott, and not on the reason for the boycoot proposal.  It is also unfortunate that frustration with the failure of alternative routes of action to stop the abuse of human rights by Israeli settlers and the Israeli government has pushed this group of pastors to take a hard and perhaps over-reaching edge to their actions.

At the same time, there are many Canadians who are bothered by our governments words and policies regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict who may be drawn to the UC for the willingness of this group to take a stand.

My impression is also that this group tends to overstate the amount of support they have even in their own conference.  Aren't they the same ones who were voted down at conference and then made a big splash in the news in 2006--only to be called on the carpet for it?

Hi Mahakala,

I don't think that the National Post wastes a whole lot of time with being "fair."

Nor do I think this particular crowd in this particular Presbytery gives a fig about how their actions/statements will impact upon the rest of the Church.

Again, I don't think that either the National Post or Rev. Macintosh are interested in being helpful.  Rev. MacIntosh wants a platform to speak from and the National Post wants to sell papers.  Sensationalism is the vehicle.

One could write a letter to the editor.  The editor is under no obligation to print it.  One could write a letter stating that because of the National Post's resort to sensationalism on this issue as well as others recently that one will no longer purchase their paper.  I suppose if there were enough of such letters the National Post might take notice.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I'm sure they'e not representative of the United Church as a whole. They're trying to be Christian in more than abstractions.

(But they also don't know how to handle loaded questions from the press.)

We just posted this on the United Church Facebook page to clarify the position of the national church.

----------------------

The United Church of Canada clearly supports Israel’s right to exist. We believe ending the occupation of Palestinian territories begun in 1967 is a major step necessary to ensure peace in the region. The General Council 2009 decided not to initiate a national boycott of Israel but invited churches/regional bodies to study, discern & act on ways of ending the occupation including the possibility of economic boycott.

The Holy Land Awareness and Action task group speak for themselves at http://occupiedwithpeace.org/

The results of a Google search for "Holy Land Awareness and Action Task Group" helps provide a bit more perspective on the group and its position within the United Church of Canada.

Does anybody want to belong to a church that demands conformity? I should think people like that are already signed up for Jehovah's Witnesses and fundamentalist churches.

Quoted from the article....

Q Has the national church ­endorsed what you’re doing?

A The national church has not endorsed this campaign...

all the rest is commentary.

LB

---------------------------------

Journalism largely consists of saying "Lord Jones is Dead" to people who never knew that Lord Jones was alive.

     G.K. Chesterton

I believe the group has a relationship with South West presbytery, although they are not on the presbytery web page. The principal actors are well-known in Toronto Conference, to be sure.

Why target ISrael? What has Israel ever done wrong? Why can't they target really evil people, like the Haitians who work sewing levis and fruit of the loom and and growing Chiquita bananas, and making up to three dollars a day for it - and now have the gall to ask for five?

Why can't they target Palesinians who left their houses in a mess so that Israelis had to come and clean them out?

Why can't these protestors stop disrupting church-goers who are interested in more important issues like - does God consider Moslems to be real people?

It's all so unfair.

I am always intrigued by not what is published in the national Post, but the amount of coverage  they give to certain stories. It is one of the few papers/web sites that covers religion in Canada.  They have an agenda, which like Fox News is concealed under a claim they are just presenting things as they are. When in reality they just reported things in a way to create divisions by highlighting only certain aspects

For the longest time they had a lot of Conservative Roman Catholic opinions and reporting.   Especially from one Priest who was always claiming that sexual abuse was not a problem in the Catholic Church, but was a problem created by the Jewish controlled media. (NYT, Boston Globe)

They dropped him as as a regular last year, after Vatican officials stopped using code words and actual said Jews were behind the scandal because of the Vatican position on the middle east.

. They than started publishing opinions from sources such as the National Catholic Reporter which were more critical of the Bishops.

However the amount of coverage they give to the sex abuse scandal seems to be way down for the last 2 years, just as  more damning facts come out.

In fact it seems they give more coverage to certain groups inside the UCC than they do to the sexual scandal inside the Roman catholic church.   True the sex abuse scandal is global, but it is also Canadian. The roman catholic church is 4 times bigger than the UCC in Canada.

One could also point out that the only reason we (Canadians)do not realises the importance and significance of the scandal is that the media in Canada has done no investigations, like they have in Europe or the US. Almost all the stories in Canadian media is from foreighn sources, or are of the court reporting nature. That is they only report what is going on in the court system, without investigating the story further.

It just seems strange that they give so much coverage to the UCC on issues.  A prior article and interview with the Moderator highlighted the divisions within the UCC. The story was old news. Also the divisions within the catholic Church are much greater, and of much bigger historical importance. and they get almost no coverage, and when they do it is presented in a way that dismisses them as being significant. 

I actually think that many in the UCC are flattered by any coverage we receive in the press. It reinforces a belief that the UCC actually stands for things and is still important.     This prevents us from asking why are they not covering and doing investigative reporting on the problems in the Roman catholic Church, the decline of the Presbyterians, the splits in the Pentecostal Churches ( they actually do have splits with many congregations leaving)

The Anglican also are covered much like the UCC. 6 parishes leave the Anglican church to oppose same sex blessing and they get dozens of stories about it in the National Post.,all the while  ignoring the much more numerous cases inside the Pentecostal church of congregations splitting from their bodies. 

Did you know the Pentecostal assemblies used to have as many active members as the Anglican Church, but are now estimated to have 1/2 to 3/4 the membrship?

As an "outsider",I'm a little unclear what the United Churches position is about Palestine and Israel. Could someone explain it in a more direct fashion for me?

I also forgot  the complete absence of any reporting on Evangelical Churches. the only time they received a story in the Post was when a Youtube video went viral, and was being reported on in the US, of Evangelicals, evangelising by harassing LGBT in a peaceful toronto neighbourhood and yelling at  their friends and neighbours.  

The United Church is divided on what to do about the war in Palestine. We are against the war, but do not agree on what we can do about it.

Clear as mud. No "official" position?

Nothing clear, beyond our principles, but that is a result of our nature of our  governance system.

We also oppose, homophobia, ableism, sexism, unjust war, but how to identify or deal with them is thought of in diverse ways, or as you say, we are as clear as mud.

The only things that seems clear in the UCC is local autonomy of the congregations, with the only limits to what they say is right or wrong, is that they have to remain in UCC, or their property is taken away.

A much more interesting Article would be title. :Why the National Post writers are targeting the United Church of Canada.

I don't worry about the church not having an official position. I would be very worried if it did. What does bother me is the failure of its members to address these issues in the context of their faith. (or to discuss their faith in the context of these issues.)

The United Church of Canada has made the following official statements about the situation in Israel/Palestine and how to respond, each of which includes specific responses to be considered by United Church members and courts.

Global Partners Israel/Palestine

LB

------------------------------------

Muddy water, let stand - becomes clear.

     Lao Tzu

Thanks LB, that link has helped to answer my questions and opens new questions.

Theologies are crippling the area and even though the Palistinians seem to want the west and Israel to disregard their interpretation of the Bible, they too insist on theirs.

Taking down the barriers, seems frightening to the Israelis, and yet how frightening would it be for Islamic religions to open up the "temple mount" in Jerusalem to anyone to practice their religion openly within? It seems to me, if walls are to be knocked down, they have to be knocked down by everyone.

The articles provided in the thread you offered, seem to be a tad one sided towards the liberation of the area as a solution for a peaceful coexistent. Is there an Israeli perspective offered as well? Maybe I missed it.

I do think that barriers can come down,and should, because when you take away both sides interpretation of theology, what you have left is a prison camp that both sides are held hostage to. The jail keeper also creates their own hell.

I don't believe any resolution to create a more open society will come from arguing any religion's book as law, but more like Jesus did by fulfilling the law or fleshing it out, so to speak so it becomes more humane and just, with an abundance for everyone.

Just asking, but in the thread provided by RAN above "Occupied with peace", doesn't Kairos in fact endorse sanctions and boycotts against Israel as the article mentions?

Do sanctions work?

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/news-analysis/a-13-2008-03-06-voa43....

Kairos is not the United Church.  It is a separate organization.

To further complicate things, the Kairos document

http://www.oikoumene.org/gr/resources/documents/other-ecumenical-bodies/kairos-palestine-document.html

is NOT produced by Kairos the organization.

So the United Church along with various other churches does not support Kairos?

YEs the UCCan supports Kairos.  Matt was pointing out that this does not mean it says the say things Kairos says all the time.

Indeed.  Thanks, Gord.

Yes and even when it says it does, it does not mean much to most members.

I think Graeme has a good point. Instead of trying to do something specific, maybe we need to develop a new approach in the UCC. Perhaps developing new tools that allows members to understand how these issues need to be approached in the context of our faith. It seems to me that a lot of work is done bynsome that has little results. If we examine why, we might be able to address the underlying reasons, instead of focusing on specific results.

It should be pointed out that there are different organizations called "Kairos" (which means "the time for God's purpose".  There is a multi-denominational group of Canadian churches (including the UCCan) working towards social justice initiatives, and then there is a Palestinian organization with the same name. I would be careful about attributing any statement to the Kairos Canada that may in fact be coming from a different organization. Maybe it's time to change the name of Kairos Canada?

It is essential that Christ ians use their faith in judging others. That does not necessarily mean condemning those things that are anti-Christian (though is does mean recognizing that they are anti-Christian). It also means understanding that those who do damage are not necessarily evil - but products of evil done to them.

In the base of Israel, it cruelties and hatreds owe a great deal to Hitler - and to us. We knew what Hitler was doing. We knew it before the war. And we didn't do a thing about it before, during, or after the war. The behaviour of moslem terrorists is a product of the terror we have inflicted on them.

The teachings of Jesus are quite useles unless we apply them to daily life. Often, most of the time, we don't. Notice the Faith and religion threads - and notice how many come from the "what's in it for me" school of Christianity. Will I be happy in heaven? Will a get reduced time in  hell? Tell me which trivial rules I have to ovey to get to heaven. Will it help if I whip myself?

well said again Graeme