I believe that engagement with Iran is the right thing to do, but that this particular mode of engagement was not effective. I think a more effective model has been the grass-roots effort by groups of Quakers and Mennonites who spend 3 months to a year studying Islam in the holy city of Qom, and who as part of this exchange-student experience organize inter-faith dialogs with Islamic scholars and their students. These efforts lack the glamor of a UN meeting with a foreign head of state, but they engage groups of fairly mundane but religiously engaged citizens, across cultures.

And this was a bad decision, unfortunate for many reasons.

For all practical purposes, sadly, it becomes a coda to his tenure.

Sad…

And the cheap shot against Bush was sad.

But Sinkford’s Moral Failure, for which he should resign as Prez, was failing to speak the names of fellow religous and political leaders held in Ahmadinejad’s prisons.

That’s an unforgiveable thing for him to have done. Sinkford could have helped Liberal’s in Iran and failed miserably. He made their fate worse.

We need to know how the candidates for Sinkford’s job stand on this one too. We can’t have another UUA Prez like him especiallly when UUA is asking for a blank check to speak on behalf of all UU’s on War and Peace with a peacemaking statement that is almost certain to be open to a 100 and 1 intrepretations (if it’s anything like the draft my Church’s SJ committee has written).