IMP^o^051 Chatt AFSC Minute
lingle at bellsouth.net
Sun Mar 26 21:32:55 JEST 2000
Like Gerald Rudolph, I write only for myself not for my meeting.
It is clear--from his inaccurate charge that Chattanooga meeting has
"announced to the
world"--that he is upset with Chattanooga's response to the AFSC, and he has
decided to double what AFSC has lost from Chattanooga's decision. Fine, as
to his decision.
My disagreements with AFSC do not flow from personnel matters, although the
resignation of Bill Holland, heretofore a strong AFSC supporter, was the
catalyst that brought this latest concern to the fore. My disagreements go
back to my six year stint on SERO's Executive Committee (in the 1970s and
1980s) and my three years on the Corporation (in the 1990s). My concerns
have nothing, per se, to do with AFSC's stand on gay rights, but on the way
AFSC has drifted and continues to drift from its Quaker moorings and
(I must add that the affirmative action program for racial
minorities--"third world people" AFSC politicizes them, leaving aside that
residents of white areas within a dozen miles of my home in Appalachia are
as "third world" as it's possible to get--women, homosexuals, and the
handicapped does demonstrate that AFSC is more concerned with whom it
employes rather than the substance of what it done. There remains no
affirmative action for Quakers in AFSC.)
As a matter of fact, Chattanooga meeting stated policy on contributions
prevent it from giving money to non-Quaker groups. Many have real questions
as to whether AFSC can still be called a "Quaker body."
So before Gerald Rudolph rides off into the sunset convinced that he (and
AFSC) are acting Quakerly, I would suggest 1) that he be a little more
specific about how simply helping the poor, prisoners, and those on the
margins of society is Quakerly rather than humanitarian and 2) that he
compose for us a little essay in which he sketches out what being "Quaker"
is in this context.
More information about the sayma