Moving the UUAWO to political organization separate from the church and non-tax exempt would have the following benefits-
-They could do as much political stuff as they wanted without fear that this would come back and bite the churches. The would be free to comment on any law, any person they wanted to.
-They could have a separate leader (Sinkford would be perfect for the job) who could make as many statements as he liked on behalf of members of that organization.
-THe activist wing of UUism could have a voice in politics, but they would not be assumed to be speaking for every UU.
-The UUA could still do charity work and other more politically inclusive activities. We would no longer be percieved as a toy of the Democrats and some of the people who have left because they were tired of being spoken for politically might return.
-Since the Conservatives tend to do this sort of thing with tax exempt organizations, we could then go after them without being hypocrites.
I haven't thought this through, but I like it. A lot.
Sounds like a damn good idea to me. but I'm not very savvy about this sort of thing, so don't go by me....
Sounds spot on.
This wouldn’t do any good. If the new separate organization retained any identification with Unitarian Universalism in its name, the disassociation would never palliate those conservatives and libertarians for whom liberal advocacy is an outrage. It would not bring any of the ones who have left back into the church. On the other hand, if a new organization did not have a Unitarian Universalist identity, why have one at all? Why not just throw in with People for the American Way, the ACLU, or a dozen other organizations and have done with it? Of course UUs can and do participate in those outfits now. But very many of us—I dare say most—want our unique voices as UUs heard. And why, oh why, should we abandon the moral authority of our institutional voice while everyone from the Southern Baptists, to the Catholic Church, to Scientology is exercising theirs? Separation of Church and State—yes. Respect for minority opinion among us—yes. Abandonment of the public square to an enfeebled entity doomed to failure—absolutely not.
Post a Comment