"I hear you're having a sign-making party for John Stewart's "Rally to Restore Sanity," the lady at church whom I'd seen around but never met said.
"I'm thinking about it, but I'm trying to talk someone who lives closer in to having it." I said.
"Wouldn't it be wonderful if the church could sponsor a sign-making party or let people from out of town stay here for it?"
"Actually, I don't really think it would. I don't see this rally as problematic, but I'm worried that sign-making parties and lending the church to protesters would become a regular thing for liberal political rallies and I think that would be a bad trend for our church. I think we should leave the sign-making and such to individuals. But feel free to ask the minister about it. She might not agree with me." I said.
The woman hadn't been expecting to be disagreed with. It really took her aback.
"Oh, I'm sure people would understand that this is a different sort of rally."
"I perceive that this is a different sort of rally, but someone who is passionate about immigration who wants to hold an event for an immigration rally or some such would likely feel differently. It just seems like a bad precedent to set, but again, the minister might disagree. You should ask."
"But..."
And it went on like that for while.
CC
4 comments:
I love that you didn't just stand there. Or say something incoherent like I have been doing lately. I love that you said your truth and let her go find hers for herself. Excellent role modeling for moi! Thank you! (And you were right.)
This post reminds me of a sermon Forrest Church preached at the Long Beach California General Assembly a few years back. Many folk wanted to use his Manhattan based church as some type of beachhead for demonstrations and such at the Republican National Convention. He would not permit any of it. Equally offputting was seeing a photograph of Obama hugging a parishoner--during the 2008 election campaign--in my UU Church newsletter. I voted for Obama but think the church should be sensitive to potential conservative parishoners, particularly since the newsletter is available to a general online readership.
"I voted for Obama but think the church should be sensitive to potential conservative parishoners, particularly since the newsletter is available to a general online readership."
The other side of this is that UU churches used to be way more involved with social action, but then the conservatives started whining that we weren't being sensitive to their feelings, so everything toned down. Now, it's difficult to see what we stand for.
If all we stand for is liberal politics, why shouldn't we be a political organization rather than a church?
CC
Post a Comment