Thursday, January 26, 2006

In which CC loves and loses the UUA. .

Hat tip to CUUMBAYA where Joel pointed out the disclaimer at the bottom of the letter to the congregations about the recent UUA objection to the Alito nomination.

Please note that the UUA does not represent or claim to represent the views of individual Unitarian Universalists or individual congregations, but the Association as a whole, as defined by statements approved by the General Assembly. Also, lobbying related to a nomination is an IRS-sanctioned activity for non-profits.

I've argued for the UUA to put a statement like this underneath its political missives for some time noting that (a) it's the right thing to do and (b) the ACLU does and nobody confuses them with shrinking violets.

At CUUMBAYA, Joel wonders if our voices are being heard. Actually, as I read it I almost hoped not, because if somebody at the UUAWO thought of their own accord "Wait a second, maybe we shouldn't imply that we are speaking for absolutely everyone" then that would signify a change in thinking that I think could be really wonderful.

I actually felt warm things toward my faith tonight. I can't tell y'all how good it felt to think that some people at the UUAWO actually gave a shit that UUs don't all feel the same way and made an effort to not speak for me.

Of course, then I noticed that it is only in the letter to the congregations. The press release mentions that fundamentalists can't speak for everyone of faith but fails to see the irony of not mentioning that the UUAWO can't speak for everyone of the UU faith.

So, the UUAWO doesn't speak for all UUs, but that's a secret that we only tell our member congregations. In front of the press, we hide all those pesky dissenting opinons.

And then seeing that the flyer for congregations is actually encouraging people to PREACH on JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS broke my heart all over again.



Joel Monka said...

Well spotted, CC- as the disclaimer can be seen only by members, it is clear that it can only be a response to our complaints. Which makes it rather pitiful, actually... but it does answer the question of why they won't seek ratification for what they do!

Bill Baar said...

The disclaimer is sort of the problem. Who in the world is UUA speaking for? Just the staff? The guy who fixes the paper jams at the UUA office?

A Church, a Religous movement, needs to make moral statements on moral issues. That serves the Church, it's members, and America best.

When it gets involved with nominations, it's groveling around in the muck of politics. Fun place if you like Politics, but Church better off out of it.

I'd rather see some thoughtful pronouncements on the issues Alito will have to contend with e.g. euthansia, abortion, same sex marriage. Get a clear set of values out their on complicated issues and do people a service in making their own political decisions.

The UUA just looks like it's dodging hard questions Religous Liberals should not dodge.

Chalicechick said...

I do regard staying out of things like judicial nominations as the ideal.

But I also do believe that my co-religionists are bound and determined to get into this stuff and if there were an association-wide vote, my side would loose.

Ergo, I feel I must appeal to their better natures.


Bill Baar said...

UUs should get into this stuff.

UUs should turn to their Church fo guidance.

But the UUA should stay out of it, and focus on the guidance.

UUA does what it shouldn't, and doesn't do what it should.

That's incompetance all round.

Robin Edgar said...

Amen to that Bill.

I couldn't help! but notice! that there are no less! than nine! exclamation! marks! on that U*U! web page! Remarkably childish incompetence all round AFAIAC

The UUA has been dodging my hard questions about internal UU injustices, abuses and UU hypocrisy for about a decade now. . .

Religous Liberals should not dodge but I have plenty of well document evidence that they do, including this very recent post to my Emerson Avenger blog. . . That's why this Transcendentalist Super Hero has finally decided to "go for the Juggler". . . I would encourage you and other like-minded UUs to do like-wise in your own special ways. Heck even take the various actions that are called for in that falgrantly partisan political UUAWO call for action but in ways that they don't quite expect. . .

UUA does what it shouldn't, and doesn't do what it should. . .

Allah prochaine,

The Dagger of Sweet Reason,


Chalicechick said...

Yes, of course UUs should get into is AS INDIVIDUALS if they like.

I meant "get into it" as an association.

I'm guessing from your posts that you know that, I just wanted to be clear.


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.