tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post7819160310847921860..comments2023-10-24T05:49:04.269-04:00Comments on The Chaliceblog: Clarifications.Chalicechickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07781469958573869914noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-72159461892942654312008-11-15T01:11:00.000-05:002008-11-15T01:11:00.000-05:00I'm talking about quite a few ministers who state ...<I>I'm talking about quite a few ministers who state that a given position is THE moral stance. Why even pretend to accept diverse opinions in our religion, if the differences are legitimately choices between moral and immoral, good and evil? Why would Rev. Sinkford, for example, wish to fellowship with slave traders who have no conscience?</I><BR/><BR/>But presumably people once did fellowship with slave traders. At one point in our nation's history, there were considered to be diverse opinions about whether blacks were really human, had souls and were capable of responsibility for themselves and their families. Not having the full context, I'm unclear on why you think it's beyond the pale for someone to compare a political position to that of acceptance of the slave trade. Heck, the Constitution originally accepted the slave trade and forbade banning it. Nor does the Bible, the foundational text for most Americans' faith, forbid slavery; MLK had to get around the whole "son of Ham" thing by focusing on the idea that we are all children of God.PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09381347581328622706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-19000335560348439532008-11-14T18:07:00.000-05:002008-11-14T18:07:00.000-05:00"It's one thing to gripe about the substance of a ..."It's one thing to gripe about the substance of a minister's political positions, but it's another to say that he shouldn't be able to use moral language regarding politics because that's an abuse of his position."<BR/><BR/>You're still not getting it. I'm talking about quite a few ministers who state that a given position is THE moral stance. Why even pretend to accept diverse opinions in our religion, if the differences are legitimately choices between moral and immoral, good and evil? Why would Rev. Sinkford, for example, wish to fellowship with slave traders who have no conscience?<BR/><BR/>Lol... the word verification is "goducon"Joel Monkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10631333436948102576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-65526122270315188862008-11-14T14:17:00.000-05:002008-11-14T14:17:00.000-05:00The same basis as every other voter.I should clari...<I>The same basis as every other voter.</I><BR/><BR/>I should clarify: on what basis is a minister competent to judge policy <I>such that I should give a damn about his opinion</I> other than on the basis of its morality? Sure, every voter is "competent" to judge policy, in the sense that we all have a right to vote and hopefully make that vote in some part on the basis of a candidate's proclaimed policies (though I wonder how many Bush voters cheered for his 2000 mockery of "nation building" and then cheered for his 2003 invasion of Iraq). <BR/><BR/>But someone who is stating his opinion in the hopes of convincing others has his best shot by demonstrating some capacity that those others don't necessarily have. If Elaine Lafferty tried to convince McCain's policies were good for women, and her sole premise for why she can tell this is that she is a woman, I'm going to laugh her ovaries out of the discussion. On the other hand, if Lafferty tries to convince me on the basis of her having seen in her experience as an attorney that extending filing deadlines on discrimination statutes actually works to female employees' detriment in some way, I'd listen.<BR/><BR/>It's one thing to gripe about the substance of a minister's political positions, but it's another to say that he shouldn't be able to use moral language regarding politics because that's an abuse of his position.PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09381347581328622706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-4673181093842042042008-11-14T13:36:00.000-05:002008-11-14T13:36:00.000-05:00"But on what basis is a minister competent to judg..."But on what basis is a minister competent to judge policy except by its morality?"<BR/><BR/>The same basis as every other voter. But often, it's stated as a moral argument when it's really purely political- this was revealed when Sinkford spoke out against changing the Senates rules on cloture of filibuster. He laid it out in terms of our PPs... but at the end reserved the right to change his mind if it were a Democrat majority and a Republican filibuster.Joel Monkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10631333436948102576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-63803554605344718242008-11-14T10:45:00.000-05:002008-11-14T10:45:00.000-05:00I have no problem with a minister favoring a candi...<I>I have no problem with a minister favoring a candidate, or a position. Such opinions carry only the weight of one person's opinion. But when they state it as a choice between good and evil, they are speaking with the moral authority of their office, whether they realize it or not.</I><BR/><BR/>But on what basis is a minister competent to judge policy except by its morality? If someone wants to know an economic cost-benefit analysis of immigration policy, she asks an economist; if she wants a moral analysis, she asks someone who spends a lot of time thinking about morality, such as a minister. Unless the minister is hiding a PhD in economics behind his theology degree, I'm going to put more stock in his moral evaluation than his economic one. As to whether he has moral <I>authority</I>, that necessarily depends on whether I deem him a good thinker in his field, just as it does for whether I consider a given economist to have authority. Greg Mankiw isn't seen as abusing his "economic authority" by saying silly things about the tradeoff between work and leisure; why should a minister be seen as abusing his "moral authority" if he says silly things about immigration?PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09381347581328622706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-637322013720799992008-11-13T21:11:00.000-05:002008-11-13T21:11:00.000-05:00pg, the video was not the UUA website, but it was ...pg, the video was not the UUA website, but it was a minister's blog, under the minister's name, not a pseudonym. Sorry I don't have the link; it was some time ago.<BR/><BR/>I have no problem with a minister favoring a candidate, or a position. Such opinions carry only the weight of one person's opinion. But when they state it as a choice between good and evil, they are speaking with the moral authority of their office, whether they realize it or not.Joel Monkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10631333436948102576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-79494945937223200162008-11-13T19:12:00.000-05:002008-11-13T19:12:00.000-05:00Was the video advocating Obama's election also pos...Was the video advocating Obama's election also posted on the UUA website? Advocating with regard to a policy is OK, but candidate advocacy is verboten. Even if posted under an individual's name, if it used church resources (as a video on UUA's server would do, unless that server is an open forum for all members to post whatever they want), that's problematic.PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09381347581328622706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-63159475355843877142008-11-13T18:43:00.000-05:002008-11-13T18:43:00.000-05:00Joel and CC--now that I have more of the context, ...Joel and CC--now that I have more of the context, I can see better why people would be upset. CC, my main issue was not whether it was a good thing to do (even if he were only speaking for himself), but whether Sinkford was claiming to speak for some organization tied to your religion or your religion itself. It sounds like he was at least implying that.Joe The Math Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05965828672680657926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-76002589125267662432008-11-13T14:54:00.000-05:002008-11-13T14:54:00.000-05:00Careful, CC- calling us a "denomination" tends to ...Careful, CC- calling us a "denomination" tends to start big debates.Joel Monkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10631333436948102576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-13160062546589127322008-11-13T14:07:00.000-05:002008-11-13T14:07:00.000-05:00Joe, You are as entitled as anyone to, say, start ...Joe, <BR/><BR/>You are as entitled as anyone to, say, start a blog about how the small liberal arts college you work for is the worst academic institution in America. <BR/><BR/>That doesn't mean it would be a good thing to do. <BR/><BR/>Further, I would say that if you, a math professor, can quite easily see that people of conscience can disagree on political issues then we should expect more from the president of our denomination than a statement that implies that they cannot. <BR/><BR/>CCChalicechickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07781469958573869914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-9989656085393893882008-11-13T14:02:00.000-05:002008-11-13T14:02:00.000-05:00(((Do you think there are any political stances th...(((Do you think there are any political stances that may be fundamentally incompatible with the core values and precepts of a faith)))<BR/><BR/>That would be hard to do for my faith. If there were a Unitarian that believed that, say, Protestantism should be the national religion of the United States of America and non-protestants should be punished, that would be violation of UUism's core values, I would say. <BR/><BR/>Whether there is such a thing for other faiths is theirs to decide. <BR/><BR/>CCChalicechickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07781469958573869914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-71585004818963796052008-11-13T13:57:00.000-05:002008-11-13T13:57:00.000-05:00Joe, the quotes about immigration reform- and he l...Joe, the quotes about immigration reform- and he left no room for people of conscience to disagree- were from a statement published on the official UUA website in April of 2006. It is an interesting fine line... it is his personal statement, but it was also published in his capacity as the president of the UUA, and faxed around by the Washington Advocacy office. Legally, it is not "the official position of the UUA"- he is not the Pope- but it was presented to the other six billion on the planet in such a way as to make it look as if it were. <BR/><BR/>Speaking only for myself, I would be much happier if the entire UUA organization existed only as a resource for the UU congregations, and were not permitted to speak independently to the public, but I know I'm in the minority.Joel Monkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10631333436948102576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-18198779001506133962008-11-13T13:23:00.000-05:002008-11-13T13:23:00.000-05:00Do you think there are any political stances that ...Do you think there are any political stances that may be fundamentally incompatible with the core values and precepts of a faith, or can all of these be subsumed under Biden's pro-choice Catholicism (i.e., "I personally think X is wrong and wouldn't do it because my faith forbids it, but I don't think the law should prohibit X")?PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09381347581328622706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-60360062805854090852008-11-13T12:50:00.000-05:002008-11-13T12:50:00.000-05:003. The stories written by life-long Mormons who ar...3. The stories written by life-long Mormons who are leaving the church over the proposition 8 issue break my heart and I hate to think we do that to people on the other side politically, though I know we do.<BR/><BR/>This is at the heart of why I will not join any UUA-affiliated church.TheCSOhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13158667972488862686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-26097537755994943712008-11-13T12:36:00.000-05:002008-11-13T12:36:00.000-05:00Oops, sorry, I get it now...yeah, slave traders ar...Oops, sorry, I get it now...yeah, slave traders aren't typically people of conscience...Joe The Math Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05965828672680657926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-32619209490601678802008-11-13T12:33:00.000-05:002008-11-13T12:33:00.000-05:00In what context did Sinkford say that? I think Jo...In what context did Sinkford say that? I think Joel indicated that the capacity in which the person speaks makes a huge difference. If he is just speaking as Reverend Sinkford and speaking his mind, surely he is as entitled to do that as anyone.<BR/><BR/>Notice that it IS possible for two "persons of conscience" to disagree.Joe The Math Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05965828672680657926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-56139064058545769182008-11-13T12:12:00.000-05:002008-11-13T12:12:00.000-05:00I think I pretty much agree with CC here, and my m...I think I pretty much agree with CC here, and my main comment would probably be that "things that suck" should always be a far larger category than "things that break the law."Joe The Math Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05965828672680657926noreply@blogger.com