IMP^o^051 Chatt AFSC Minute

perryt at perryt at
Wed Mar 29 11:48:24 JEST 2000

This is the most unFriendly exchange since the last flurry over AFSC. E-mail is
not worshipful and not process in the way of Friends. Larry and Gerald, please
leave me out ot the loop. Perry Treadwell

"Gerald L. Rudolph" wrote:

> > Unfortuately, I have received little insight into Gerald Rudolph's
> > definitions of what Quakers ought to be about.  All I have learned is that
> > he does not like the Chattanooga minute on the matter--for the record, I
> had
> > nothing at all to do with that minute (its words are not mine, and I doubt
> > that withholding funds is the best way to deal with the problems as we
> > collectively saw them)--that he support FCNL--not until now a part of the
> > controversy--and that he does not favor a central authority that can
> decide
> > where meetings send money--other than AFSC's constant posturing as
> "Quaker"
> > and promoting itself as the place to send it.
> Larry,
> I made a comparison of my support for FCNL with my support of AFSC to
> explain how they both worthy to be called Quaker Organizations even though
> they were primarily humanitarian in focus, and though they address only a
> part of what is important to my faith.  Was my use of FCNL as a comparison
> not clear?  Why did you discount this comparison as simply my adding FCNL to
> the controversy?
> I was responding to your request for an "essay" explaining why AFSC was
> Quakerly and not just humanitarian.  As part of that explanation, I used my
> support for FCNL as a comparison, not to suggest Chattanooga or SAYMA should
> drop support for them as well.  I could have used some other Quaker
> organization as a comparison, but thought the two were similar enough to the
> "humanitarian" focus you found in AFSC to explain my thoughts.  Do you find
> this comparison with FCNL (or any other Quaker organization) objectionable?
> I dread another trip to SAYMA with this controversy being raised.  I skipped
> last year because the previous year was so difficult and contentious.
> People then made inflammatory statements similar to your referring to AFSC
> as "posturing as Quaker".  It has been a Quaker organization for decades.
> Its board is overwhelming made up of Quakers.  Why refer to it with
> anger-filled words like "posturing"?  There is nothing being communicated
> with such words except your disdain.  If you take such a hostile approach at
> SAYMA, there will be little chance of mutual understanding at any level.
> Gerald Rudolph

More information about the sayma mailing list