Coffee Hour

James Field says:

I think this question relates directly to theological diversity questions. I've been to services where a Christian would be unconfortable, I 've been to services where an anarchist would be uncomfortable, I've been to services where a pagan would be uncomfortable and and I've been to services where a Republican (or at least a Bush supporter) would be uncomfortable.

That said, I don't think we want to be the "lowest comon denomination" on the political front too. As someone far to the left, I'd rather have people organize patriotic 4th of July services and sing those songs than have them be hidden in some corner out of deference to me. I'd rather see more Christian services where people really explore their theology even if it is different from mine.

In general I believe that we need to focus on supporting people in their efforts to live out their (conflicting) values.

While I don't believe that the President of the United States was actually interested in the human rights of the Iraqi people, I absolutely believe that several military members of my congregation do believe in fighting for human rights in Iraq.

We need to trust the good intentions of our brother and sister UU's. There is an inarguable truth in everyone's point of view.

That said, I think there may still be a core set of "universal" values that we can build consensus on.

This is quite tricky. What is the magic line that must be crossed in order for us to have a moral obligation to act? From a safe distance, we can all agree now that slavery was a bad thing. We can all agree to that. We can all agree that Nazi atrocities were a bad thing. We can all agree that taking hostages and beheading them is a bad thing. We can all agree that torturing prisoners (and even raping their children) is a bad thing.

When do we become obligated to do something? Is everything relative or is their some floor that we collectively will not sink below?

What structure can we use to balance prophetic voice with inclusiveness? How much of this is a minister's prerogative? Do congregations call a minister to raise uncomfortable issues? In a lay led environment, can we rely on the different people involved in services to provide a true variety of perspectives?

Is this like journalism? Where you can't escape bias but you can be fair and balanced?

ChaliceChick says:

I’m torn on this one because while I really don’t believe that politics has a place in the pulpit, I have in the past belonged to a church in a very conservative state where the people came and talked about politics because they didn’t feel comfortable doing it anyplace else. I am loath to take that away from those people.

Now there were conservatives in that church, and they seemed pretty understanding about the need, say, an elementary school teacher might feel for a place where she can talk about her passionate belief in gay rights.

I’d love to believe that in liberal states, there are UU churches that are tiny bastions of conservatism, but I don’t.

I think we as UUs sometimes forget that there is no commonly accepted moral standard by which we can judge the morality of the political parties. To say that a good UU is a political liberal is to pass a judgment that UUism does not ask us to make.

If I want to take care of the poor through job training and daycare programs, and the guy down the street wants to take care of the poor through support for big business that will create jobs, I think he’s wrong about the way he’s going about it, but morally, we’re equal and he has just as much a place in my church as I do.

That having been said, I also think that one of the finer things about the Republicans at my old southern church was that they were aware they weren’t the majority and were willing to suck it up a bit. When, for example, you’re the only non-Christian in your office, you can jump up and down and cry discrimination when the office throws a Christmas party, or you can just understand that you’re not the majority and be gracious about it.

So I guess my answer is as follows.

Liberals should:

1. Never let conversation become a monologue.
2. Accept that there are many ways to the top of the mountain and some conservatives are very good people who have chosen a different way.
3. Seek to learn from Conservatives. At the very least, they will improve their own arguments.
4. Try to keep politics out of the worship service itself. A political action group that meets Wednesday nights is one thing. A sermon on the evils of trickle-down economics on Sunday morning is another.
5. Remember that there are lots of kinds of Conservatives. A Bush voter can still be Pro-Choice, for example. It’s just probably not their first priority.

Conservatives should:
1. Accept that they are not the majority, and roll their eyes. If some old lady gives a sermon every year about how awful the Republican party is, make like a humanist on Beltane and pick that Sunday to try a different church or go to an art museum rather than making a fuss about it.
2. Join the worship committee and make your voice heard. Seek balance.
3. Speak up in discussion groups. You’re hard to demonize if you’re sitting right there and sometimes people who are strongly on one side really haven’t thought the other side’s logic through. Present that logic and you will be making a bitch session into a conversation.
4. Remember that there are lots of kinds of liberals. If there’s one loudmouth liberal and a four people nodding in agreement, that’s not five people attacking your position, it’s one. And the people nodding may only half-agree anyway. Sometimes it’s easier for a moderate liberal to smile and nod at the radicals than to argue out the finer points.

My two cents worth,

CC

Barbara Preuninger says:

"Sometimes it’s easier for a moderate liberal to smile and nod at the radicals than to argue out the finer points."

I am so often that person "smiling and nodding". But I'm getting tired of smiling and nodding and not making any stand whatsoever. My little fragile flower of "finer-point opinions" is getting steamrolled by that "loudmouth liberal" you describe! (And, IMHO, the truth usually lies in the finer points.) But usually, trying to argue something out with someone who has made up their mind is a pointless endeavor, and I try not to waste my time on it. But as things come up (e.g. Iraq war), I long for a community in which to hash them out (spiritully, intellectually, practically...). A place to present all of my thoughts/ideas/opinions respectfully but honestly and hear the reactions of others to what I say. I don't feel that I have all the answers, but I don't want anyone to just give me a list of answers! I've had to deal with the fact that this kind of community simply does not exist, or at the very least I haven't found it yet.

I'm not looking for respect for my views *as a conservative* (since I'm not one), but rather for the conservative aspects of my nuanced views.
Of course, welcoming self-described conservatives is important also. Hopefully, doing so would alleviate the problem I described and not exacerbate it by turning every loud-mouthed monologue into a loud-mouthed *debate*!

I should note that I still love my congregation and UU in general (our minister and RE director and music director are all awesome, as are many other people in the congregation), so I am not describing a deep dissatisfaction here. I suppose I'll just need to figure out when to discreetly roll my eyes and when to loudly clear my throat...

And I will probably remain one of the few (only?)agnostic very feminist OWL teachers with strong pro-life leanings in all of UU. I am so statistically insignificant that sometimes I wonder if maybe I don't really exist... :o)