±«Óãtv

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Goodness me, I hadn't realised that the Wailing Wall had been the focus of a contemporary make-over.

It would appear the local Jewish settler saw it as a take-over rather than a make-over.

Am I the only one who thinks its a little insensitive for the Archbishops to turn up wearing crucifixes at a Jewish holy site? I'm not surprised this caused problems.

No PTL you are not. Unfortunately some of our church leaders seem to think it necessary to adopt all the dress sense of a costume drama in order to assert a degree of authority.

**Who** we are is always more important than how we appear.

Some of these guys seem to have missed Matthew 23

That was a crazy interview today. Those church leaders go out to israel and when Will asks about the security barrier they dont even know if the barrier is legal or not. Thats exactly what i mean about ridiculous leadershhip form the church leaders, so called. They want to talk about the issues that matter they say, then when they're asked they dont know what leadership to give.

I don’t know about church leadership but they are certainly guilty of ignorance. This problem has arisen on a number of occasions. Pope John Paul II was said to have hidden his Cross when he visited the Wall, though there is some doubt about this since pictures of him seem to show it clearly. It is strange that none of the churchmen were aware of the history of Jewish sensitivity on the matter.

A number of newspaper reports stated that the four churchmen had refused to remove their crucifixes, but in the Sunday Sequence interviews with Brddy and Cooper all that was said about this was that they decided to act in solidarity with the Lutheran Bishop. This could have been explored further.

If they did refuse, was it rudeness on their part, as Peter suggests? As a secularist and someone who puts even less store on religious symbols than religious dogma, I would suggest that both ‘parties’, Christian and Jewish, need to lighten up.

So, according to the Sunday Sequence interview, here's what we have from the church leaders. They were not fully aware of the sensitivities, the visit to the Wailing Wall was unscheduled, they grew in their understanding. Mmmmmmmmmm!

Sorry, but anyone with even a smattering of religious and political knowledge of the Middle East could have spotted the problems. Did no one brief the leaders before their visit? Do any of the four main churches have a press office or research assistants? Did anyone give them basic guidance in terms of, "say this, don’t say that." Was the Lutheran church representative aware of the potential for conflict?

On the point of Islam and the visit to the Mosque, which was, presumably, the Dome of the Rock, they seem to have forgotten that Muslims recognise Jesus to some extent, but the Jews don't recognise him as much more than a criminal. By the way, it would also be interesting to whether or not the churchmen removed their shoes prior to entering the Mosque, as is customary.

If the point of the visit was, as indicated, to offer encouragement, support and hope to fellow christians, then there really was no need of fancy dress, photo opportunities at a controversial security barrier or international headlines. My thoughts, for what they're worth; next time, travel in civies, avoid the PR stunts, and go about your business as quietly as possible. "Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." It was a well known Middle Eastern religious leader who said that once.