[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

RE: B001 in 2003

No one knows what actually goes on in the minds of a voter not
oneself.  That never stops us from guessing, based one what a
non-scientific sample of others say.  


Most `sides' try to present some resolutions they feel bound to pass
so that they can tell their supporters they came home with a least
something, if not the bacon they wanted.  I felt +Keith was in part
doing that, and in part double-dog daring progressives not to vote
for historic understandings of the faith.   He would of course have
his own understanding of what a yes vote meant that many who would
also vote `yes' might not share.   In that mix, the majority refused
to take bait.   You could not say they opposed the historic
understandings, but that they weren't going to put them up for
reconfirmation in a setting that was highly  politically charged.


I am definitely describing my own reaction to the proposal.  I am
only guessing that others shared it. 


Once when Benjamin Franklin was loosing for one of his proposals for
the Continental Congress, he said, "Gentlemen, I move that we pause
for a moment of prayer."  Alexander Hamilton replied, "Gentlemen, I
move that we not bring in any outside interference."  I think the
`no' vote on B001 called Bishop Ackerman's bluff.


Best wishes.




Louie Crew, 377 S. Harrison St., 12D, E. Orange, NJ 07018.



-----Original Message-----
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 11:37 AM
To: lcrew@newark.rutgers.edu
Subject: B001


Dear Louie,
I've been cruising the "dark side of the web" and notice that AAC is
making much over the defeat of Rez B001 at Gen Con 2003, saying that
it is a rejection of historic Christianity, etc., etc.  I assume most
of who voted to reject it didn't think they were doing that. I know
my bishop didn't. Do you have some sense of the rationale of those
who voted to reject?


Please sign my guestbook and view it.

My site has been accessed times since February 14, 1996.

Statistics courtesy of WebCounter.