The full time blogger and spare time Methodist minister who runs the Connexions website has launched a petition protesting at the imminent writ against the Methodist Church for discrimination (Richard's preamble by the way is inaccurate as the case is about discrimination not Antisemitism and he hasn't yet seen the detailed terms of the case).The petition has already attracted a staggering 113 signatures. Some are anonymous, many start "I am not a Methodist/Christian" etc, several are from abroad and there's a smattering of doubles. We have 400,000 Methodists in the UK, so far about 1 in 5000 have signed. Its all very underwhelming.
But who is it addressed to? Now my understanding is that petitions are by definition addressed to some one (the Queen) or some body (the council). You have to present them. Petitions don't exist in thin air.
Presumably at some point the petition will be delivered by Richard to the plaintiff. That's me!
Well let me warn Richard, here and now, I am ready for him.
If he dares to come anywhere near my house to present his petition I'll set the goldfish on him and give him a cup of tea and a jaffa cake (which I expect him to boycott).
Posts
19 comments:
Are all Jaffa cakes made in the disputed territories of Palestine, then?
When are you going to stop communicating the fiction that this is a boycott against Israel, Israelis and the Jewish people?
Richard himself has headed a post "Methodist Church's boycott of Isreali goods" so perhaps you should ask him.
http://theconnexion.net/wp/?p=8615
David, “full-time blogger and spare time Methodist minister” is a bit of a low blow, don’t you think? Especially since it isn’t that long ago that you wrote to me, apparently concerned, that I hadn’t been blogging much lately. In any case, if I were a betting man I’d be prepared to wager a goodish sum that I have far less time on blogging recently than you have.
But you’re right. The petition wasn’t one of my better ideas. Several of my friends have said as much. The number of signatures gathered hasn’t been large. But
1. I haven’t made much effort to promote it and
2. the number of signatures is significantly greater than the number of comments at your blog, despite a couple of media links that you must have been very pleased about.
You say that this ‘case’, should it ever come, is about discrimination, not anti-semitism, but I continue to struggle to see the difference. My dictionary defines anti-semitism as hatred of or prejudice against Jews. If you’re accusing the church of discrimination against Jews, how can you not be claiming anti-semitism?
Incidentally, you have also claimed that the church is pursuing a ‘political campaign’ and thereby misusing resources. But you haven’t responded to any questions which invite you to point to this campaign.
If your case against the Methodist Church is based on a single headline at my blog, your case is thin indeed. You know full well that that the boycott is against goods and services produced in the illegal settlements, not against all Israeli goods.
I see that you describe the lawsuit as imminent. Presumably that means it’s not too late to call it off. Wouldn’t that be best?
Come on Richard you spend hours on your blog.
The inquiry about your health in September was genuine. I feel connexions is an important part of the Methodist blogsphere. I don't always agree with you but that is the nature of life.
Don't worry the case is not based on the single headline on your blog, though that does provide evidence of the misunderstanding that the church's position represents. All these little blogposts and comments provide useful evidence so keep them coming.
Launching a petition is more complex than many people think. There are a number of preparations needed to get it working properly (accuracy for one)and then it does require a lot of leg work.
Anyway its not my job to give free advice this time of night.
Rest assured that when the writ is served there will be great deal to chew over.
Got to say David, I thought that comment was very harsh on Richard.
If anything his blog is a clear part of his ministry, and deserves his time.
I would add I don't agree with everything he says either (ain't life like that), but it is an interesting read.
>> "I feel connexions is an important part of the Methodist blogsphere..."
After all the stuff you've said about me and my blog, you'll forgive me for choosing not to take these apparently kind words at their face value. Your sarky remark in this post wasn't the first time you've implied that I'm lazy or neglectful of my duties. I know better than to ask for an apology, but I don't have to like it. This is just another example of your willingness to say whatever you like about others, whilst squealing "Abuse!" whenever anyone disagrees with you.
Yes. My blog sometimes takes hours. I'm accountable for the time I spend. But not to you.
You still haven't explained how a claim of discrimination against Jews is different from anti-semitism. Nor have you offered any indication of where or how the Methodist Church is running a political campaign against the Jews of Israel. I think there are good and plainly obvious reasons for that.
PS I'm particularly partial to jaffa cakes. But I'll need no persuasion to boycott yours.
Richard,
I think it best to leave it there. Sadly not for the first time.
That's fine by me, David. But it wouldn't hurt you to at least try and answer the questions:
1. What's the difference between discrimination against Jews and anti-semitism?
2. Where's this political campaign that the Methodist Church is supposed to be running, and how much is it costing?
Thanks Richard,
Let me answer your second question first. If you see Methodist Council document MC/10/88 you will see that of the 85 tasks laid down for the connexional team by conference the resolution 14/7 is listed as a priority A. Presumably this activity is going to take up professional time? How much that will cost I do not know. But there is a cost to which I do not wish to contribute.
See http://www.methodist.org.uk/downloads/coun-MC1088-connexional-team-work-priorities-2010-11-011010.pdf
Church House has advised me (letter 040910) that resolutions 14/1 to 14/11 can be interpreted as "campaigning". Resolution 14/7 qualifies as "political activity".
If you want to quibble with the Church House definition of "campaigning" and "political activity" drop them a line.
The second question seems designed to get you off the embarrassing hook you have impaled yourself on in the preamble to that rather sad petition. It has been interesting to read the comments.
It was almost disturbing to read Dave Warnock's blog on Sunday as he apparently raced from Methodist luminary to Methodist luminary at Methodist Council seeking absolution from the charge of anti-Antisemitism. Them he concluded it was too much trouble to drive to the other side of Leicester to speak to some Jews for himself. What on earth is all that about?
Incidentally perhaps that is something you should do - I think your nearest synagogue is in Stoke on Trent.
As I have repeatedly said on this blog and others: the best judges of what constitutes anti-Semitism are Jews themselves, not me.
I really don't know if the delegates at conference were anti-Semitic. Only one person present (remember I was not there) has made an anti-Semitic comment in my hearing. I've only heard three anti-Semitic comments on Methodist premises. One I have already alluded to, another was made by a person with special needs and the third was made by someone at our church, now long dead, who was a British Israelite.
What I do know is that conference has passed a motion which can be interpreted as being "discriminatory".
"Discrimination" has a legal definition, one that can be tested in a court of law, and soon will be.
It is you that is posting the phrase on the internet "the Methodist Conference acted in a discriminatory and anti-semitic manner". Not me.
I think your friends who advised you that this petition was ill conceived gave you good advice.
I probably won't be able to moderate for the next day or so, so don't take it personally if you posts don't appear
I'll keep it brief - if it's to sit in moderation for ages, there's no point in writing at length.
The first question is not designed to get me off anything. It's a real one, and you can't or won't answer it.
For the rest -- I give up. I'm done here.
Some interesting signatures on the petition. More about that later.
You say the petition includes a note from "Stanley Walinets, who is otherwise unknown to me".
You do know him. He wrote a letter to the Methodist Recorder immediately after conference.
But some of those signatories are even more interesting.
I said I'm done. Obviously, I lied.
I *don't* know Mr Walinets. It may surprise you, but I don't remember the names of everyone who writes letters to the Recorder.
Some of the signatures are indeed interesting. I've done what I can to keep it real, but it won't be perfect.
I'm intrigued about the disappearance and reappearance of this post. I'm sure you had good reason.
Richard, I thought you would have guessed by now that I occasionally press the wrong button. I didn't realise it was down until I noticed the paranoid speculation on another blog. I was busy earning a living most of yesterday and didn't have the time and facilites to put it right.
I signed the petition but regret very much that I did. I felt I was put under pressure to sign. I had disagreed with some of the blogs written by Richard and was ignored when I made a comment he didn't like. Also, on one of my comments recently a word had been changed which changed the whole meaning of the sentence. That's "moderating" apparently. A nasty experience at Connextions that will take me a while to get over. I don't know enough about the British Methodist church to make a judgement on whether you are right or wrong and I have said as much at Connexions.
Thanks Pamela,
I've asked Richard to comment on this.
David
Thank you David.
Pamela: I'm very confused. How were you subjected to pressure? We live on opposite sides of the world. The only connexions between us (that I'm aware of) are the tenuous threads of the internet. The only way you'll have known about the petition is from my blog where it has already been acknowledged to not have been one of my better ideas. But as soon as I've written this comment, your signature will be gone. Promise.
You're claiming that a comment of yours was ignored, but we went over this at the time. I didn't ignore you, unless being in bed asleep counts as ignoring. You appeared to accept this.
On "moderating" -- how can I put this? *I* didn't change your comment. I really didn't. Honest. How a word came to be changed in your post, I have no idea. The only external record of your comment I've got is from Google Reader, and it shows the word you've objected to. So I'm stuck. I've altered the comment. I've posted an apology. In short, I've done all that you've asked of me. I'm genuinely sorry that you've been upset by this. But for the sake of clarity, we ought to let readers here know that the change behind your anger is the difference between the sentence "I have additional respect for your judgement now Richard" and "I have renewed respect for your judgement now Richard". As I say, I didn't make this change, and I can't think of anyone else who could've. But even if I had, whilst 'renewed' and 'additional' are very different words, I don't see that the sense of the sentence is altered.
Whilst I'm here, I have to say that I think posting a public comment on this blog before raising the issue with me directly is bad form. But I'll say no more.
God bless.
Richard and I have exchanged a number of emails on this issue and obviously both of us are upset about this. My point about my comment being changed was that my original words were not used - as I told Richard I am 100% sure of my original words. He can keep denying what can I do?
I did not raise the concern with Richard first as I wrote to him a number of months ago about another issue (in about April 2010 I think) and he didn't bother to respond. So I thought it may be a bit of a waste of time.
The only bad form about this whole thing is the "war of attrition" that is going on between two men of God. There are plenty of people hurting in this world who could do with more care and concern, not warfare between those who are supposed to help them.
Pamela, there is not a "war of attrition" going on. There is a robust debate about the future of Methodism. I fear that as we decline we are going to become a new age political group which will not be proclaiming the good news.
Pamela, I don't know what else I can say. I've told you that I didn't change your comment. That you don't believe me is your prerogative. I don't much like the implication that I'm lying, but I'll live.
David, I have to agree with Pamela about the 'war of attrition' though. You have an odd idea of what constitutes a robust debate.
Post a Comment