• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

UU: too Political?

EverChanging

Well-Known Member
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.
 

blackout

Violet.
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. ;)
 

Storm

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

applewuud

Active Member
Now that we're three weeks away from the election, and the right wing is doing everything it can to cast honest debate about economic choices as an either-or between "socialism" and "free markets", it seems like an appropriate role for UU churches to stand up for our values in the public square: reason, freedom, tolerance, truth.

I thought it would be good to revive this thread and see if people are getting more politics in the pulpit right now, turning off people like UltraViolet? Or bummed out because UUs aren't doing enough at a critical time?
 

applewuud

Active Member
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.

Go to Netflix and rent the movie "The White Ribbon". It's a German movie (with subtitles) set in 1913-14, about this kind of harsh environment and religious repression of "sin". The implication is that it set the stage for Nazism, the children of a village start taking secret revenge on their oppressors. Just another example of how religion and politics affect each other.
 

seeker57

Member
My congregation isn't overtly political.

We do have some somewhat conservative members - not many, but some.

I will remind people early voting has begun this Sunday and ask them to make sure they do indeed vote, but won't endorse anyone or any of the amendments, etc., on the ballot.

We are a lay-led congregation, and its my turn at the helm this week, which also happens to be Association Sunday.

I believe in putting my actions where my beliefs live. I was part of a protest march in Ogden, Utah, during the Mountain Desert UU Conference a week and a half ago. About 200 of us marched through downtown Ogden to city hall to protest anti-gay comments made by the second in command of the LDS church.

Rather than endorse a candidate or party, I think it is out duty to speak out - and act out - when we see injustice.

So, in that sense, I suppose we are political, just not into politics per se.

Seeker
 

seeker57

Member
Speaking of political action, did anyone else wear purple today to commemorate those who were either killed or committed suicide after suffering anti-gay bullying?

It was an easy way to "Stand on the Side of Love."

Seeker.
 

The Shadow

New Member
Is it not a Liberal concept to have tolerance for different opinions?

Yes, up to a certain point.

It's when the people who hold those opinions try to force them upon others...that's where my tolerance ends. The religious right's massive mobilization to oppose same sex marriage is a perfect example of this. If someone believes that homosexuality is wrong and that marriage is a sacred institution that should be between one man and one woman only, as much as I may disagree with that view I still respect their right to hold that opinion as long as they understand that trying to force this on others is unjust.
 

keithnurse

Active Member
In my UU congregation the most political aspect would be the Sunday morning Adult Forum where they have a different speaker each week to speak on a topic of interest. The topics are sometimes political but not always. Once a month during the worship service we have a "joys and concerns" ritual where anyone can come up and light a candle and state what their joy is or their concern. The minister always prefaces it by saying "we invite you to state personal joys and concerns and please refrain from political statements". One of the main leaders in this congregation is a libertarian type conservative, very liberal on social issues and religion but conservative on economic issues and for smaller government.
 

keithnurse

Active Member
I am liberal. It has been my experience that liberals can be every bit as mean spirited toward people they disagree with as they claim conservatives are. For example I have witnessed at liberal political meetings someone trying to get across a conservative position and the liberals, instead of engaging the man in a honest discussion they just shouted him down. Or if someone is against the "Obama care" health care plan some liberals assume he is against poor people having health care or he just being hateful.
 

seeker57

Member
I agree that some liberals can be as vitriolic in their expression of what they believe as their conservative counterparts.

I find just extending the courtesy of listening to others, even if their arguments don't convince you, often allows for a better dialogue and better relations with those espousing those arguments.
 

bicker

Unitarian Universalist
Yes, up to a certain point. It's when the people who hold those opinions try to force them upon others...that's where my tolerance ends.
Precisely. I think some people get the idea that UU means "anything goes" and you can believe whatever you want. Nothing could be further from the truth. UUs are to be tolerant of other perspectives, true, except for intolerance itself.
 

bicker

Unitarian Universalist
Maybe, "tolerance", itself, is off-target. Tolerance for different beliefs should be a given. The distinction you're making rightfully should be between acceptance and condoning. You can (and I believe, should) accept something, even if you don't condone it.

Tolerance, though, at least with regard to the things we're talking about, should be a given.
 

seeker57

Member
Maybe, "tolerance", itself, is off-target. Tolerance for different beliefs should be a given. The distinction you're making rightfully should be between acceptance and condoning. You can (and I believe, should) accept something, even if you don't condone it.

Tolerance, though, at least with regard to the things we're talking about, should be a given.

Good point. Accepting another's difference, or point of view is much different from condoning it.
 
Top