UU: too Political?

[bicker]

Originally Posted by UltraViolet

My son (age 10) came to me again just today regarding people
(kids at school, and parents of kids at school)
asking him why he doesn't go to church.
*sigh*
Anyway, when he brought this issue up last year
I said to him maybe he and I could try the local UU.
Unfortunately since then, the fellowship group
has become an actual church ,
but I guess to satisfy his need to "check out church"
I would be willing to give it a try.

I was originally a little concerned about the use of the word "church", but I later realized that my concerns were really quite superficial. More importantly, I realized the value of referring to my religious beliefs and practices in terms that most people I would interact with actually understand. When I talk about how I go to "church" on Sunday and "worship" "God", I probably mean something very different than most people (let's call them "Christians" ) mean by each of those words, but the overall point, that we're doing the same thing, gets across much more readily than if I had to try to explain (and often forcefully assert) the parallel that the use of these common words effectively does for me. There is no significant ethic in deliberately making a point of one's "otherness". (In many ways, unnecessary assertions of otherness are little more than arrogance, anyway.)

Originally Posted by UltraViolet

Besides my aversion to church buildings and church services,
I have two other ... worries.
Firstly can LHP be reconciled with UU principles,

I think the short answer is "yes". The long answer has to come within yourself.

Originally Posted by UltraViolet

Secondly ... I am completely "a"political.
In other words, I am not political.
I don't follow politics at all anymore,
and I RARELY ever vote --
but for an occasional and notable instance here and there.
(for reasons I won't bother with here).
If meetings are constantly about effecting change through voting,
I WILL lose my mind.... and I will not fit in at all.

Let's not worry about "meetings" yet. Let's just talk about the actual purpose of the church, which is community, worship and spiritual development. In the context of the actual purpose of the church, there is absolutely no place for discussing politics. Indeed, most of the social action that UU's advocate is "working" to improve the world, not politics: Volunteering to help in a poverty-stricken area; volunteering to help clean up the watershed; etc. (Just two recent examples of activities my church has engaged in and fostered.)

Even within the context of the "meetings", politics is still not generally within the realm of church activity. There are probably exceptions, but that's all they are, exceptions. And if you find yourself on a committee that is getting more political than it should be getting, then speak up and get them to fly straight.

Originally Posted by UltraViolet

Sharing about people's personal spiritual empowerment however,
interests me a GREAT deal.
If I go to a church at all, I want it to be about ...
the esoteric, the transcendental, personal empowerment, deeper philosophy.

And that's 99% of what I experience at my church.

[EverChanging]

My wife and I recently came to a similar conclusion. While I don't think it is an absolute equivalence (humans first; then other animals), I do recognize that there is a moral inadequacy in the manner in which our society uses -- really abuses -- other animals for food and clothing, and to some extent needlessly (or at least with substantially less "need" than most people, and our society, in general, assert).

I absolutely agree, although I had a very hard time with the "humans first, then other animals" concept until relatively recently. I had decreased the amount of meat I consumed but never gave it up completely. I had a very hard time with taking medications I knew had been researched on animals, too. Some non-human animals, such as chimpanzees, are actually smarter than some infants or severely mentally handicapped humans, so where do we draw the line? Why is the human given more rights than the chimp? What makes humans superior?

I still do not believe that human life is superior to any other kind of life, even plant life. But as someone pointed out to me, humans evolved as we have by sticking together. Placing all other life forms on the same par as other humans might not always be good for the evolution of our kind. Other life forms focus on preserving, mainly, their own kind as well. If a house is burning, a mother, even a vegan, will likely save her child over a puppy. But female dog would probably save her puppy rather than a human.

I am afraid that without this type of instinct, to put one's own species ahead in some ways, the diversity of life cannot be maintained as a whole, especially for those species who must have meat to survive. (There are times when even non-human animals aid humans or even save their lives, however.) I am a college student without much money and still have a lot to learn about vegetarianism, so I have not made that transition yet, but I will. I will never be able to not contribute to non-human animal suffering in some ways -- animals die when we harvest grain, build houses and apartments, create medications, etc., but I would still feel good about contributing to it less. Ah, I think I'm rambling again.

There has been a gross injustice committed, perhaps since the beginning of civilization, with regard to the assertion (and society deference to the assertion) of what is veritably ownership of children by their parents. In our church, the point is made very clearly that being a parent is a responsibility, not a right. Parental "rights" essentially are the rights of the children to be fostered by the people who love them most, and who will care for them the best. Parents should have an easy time demonstrating that they qualify as those "people".

I agree, totally. The way I often see parents treating small children is appalling.

Coincidentally, the last few episodes of Mad Men (a television series on AMC) have highlighted just how much disrespect for children our society sanctioned in the 1960s. I remember the exact sentiment that the television series depicted, and it was indeed despicable. No wonder so many of those children grew up to be the kind of people they grew up to be.

One relative I had in mind who grew up in a very harsh environment grew up to be that way herself, especially to the most young and helpless children she interacted with, not just myself. She did not grow up in a horrible environment, but it was still very punitive, judgmental, and physical punishment and humiliation were common for very trivial matters -- that is what the relative herself tells me, but she seems to think that is the way things are supposed to be. I have to remind myself not to become too judgmental about people like this myself....Our environment is a very large part of who we are, and no one asked to be born into such an environment.

[UltraViolet]

Thank you so much Bicker for your comments.

Between this thread,
and Storm in chat...
I think I know what to do for my son,
UU RE sounds just right.
Really he wants to know ABOUT religions.
(he doesn't want to join one)
I will also feel free to attend "non service" events
with my son, on a case by case basis, as interest strikes us.
Thank you for calling my attention to this option.

[Timerider3]

As a UU and a socialist, I find the liberal majority in our churches and fellowships to be surprising heterogeneous. They have become very Obamaite and focused on governmental programs in areas where social alternatives are a clear alternative. I've learned to keep my mouth shut on political matters for this reason--our goals and concerns may be nearly identical but our methodology is very, very different.

[Storm]

Hmmmmm...... I can only speak to my own church, but that hasn't been my experience at all.