I have learned to ignore the extreme elements that deny the UU principles, or bend them slightly. Using reason and rational arguments that pay attention to science and ignore an idolatry of the spirit means to me that you have to separate the two sides. I agree that theologically you can’t define yourself as a progressive theologically. I use the term Liberal with a capital L to distinguish myself from people who use it to mean a political stance, and say so.

A term that I ran into in Building Your Own Theology is everydayness. I wonder if the progressives are both caught up in their preferences regarding everydayness (that the transformation that will come will affect everybody with peace and love) without realizing that it is still true to say that there is everydayness in real life. There is an upper end to reality. I think that progressives reach for an end to the everydayness that contains the ability of people to lie, or cheat and make things harder for everybody else. They see an everydayness that they think that they can break out of by willing it true.

The problems that we have with our ecology could lead to our mass extinction soon. Given this kind of problems that we face, it is understandable that people would have preferences regarding solutions to big problems. I belong to 350.org because I think that there are scientific proofs that we have to get the level of carbon down to 350/million, or we can trigger disaster. That is however separate from my theology. I don’t try to define my views of what I would prefer others to do in theological terms.

I see the differences between progressive and Liberal theology as one of trying to use force on others–if only verbal–to make them join the preferred worldview. I suspect that much of the opposition to the military is one of implied preference for a moral force that is done one to one to promote a progressive agenda as a religion, rather than recognizing that the use of force is a secular convention that we have the military for.

Donald Wilton

The Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Franklin North Carolina’s “Weapons Policy” is a fine example of “progressive” reactionism, which why I brought it to your attention here. It actually doesn’t have a whole lot to do with misunderstanding of some aspects of some pagan faith, indeed I am not sure that Sikhs would appreciate being classified amongst pagans.

Here is what the FU*UC’s ‘Weapons Policy’ says -

No items, concealed or not, that can be reasonably defined as weapons may be brought onto the buildings and grounds which comprise The Unitarian
Universalist Fellowship Of Franklin, North Carolina

So *they* have not in fact banned “this particular individual” from carrying a
hunting knife on church property, even though Pagan UU Charles Rowe is the first “victim” of that security blanket banning of weapons as it were. Nope, “progressive” Franklin U*Us just banned any and all *items* concealed or not, that can be reasonably defined as weapons from being brought onto the buildings and grounds which comprise The Unitarian Universalist Fellowship Of Franklin, North Carolina. So yes, your very liberal question asking if the FU*UC has “removed all of the knives from the church kitchen”, to say nothing of removing all the chairs in the sanctuary and all the cars in the parking lot. . . is quite pertinent here.

Gotta love those ever so “progressive” Franklin U*Us no?

I think you have correctly identified a consequence of what I am speaking of, but that consequence is not the motive force…

What I am arguing for is that how we should live our lives as people of Liberal Faith should be determined by our values, principles, and practices, regardless of any goal. That this has us work toward our goal anyway is a consequence. But it is a wonderful point that you have unpacked from what I wrote, and I thank you for it.

Robin, I have seen that story in several places… and to me it is an example of both reactionism, as well as a misunderstanding of some aspects of some pagan faiths. I am not there in that congregation, so I’m not going to second guess this particular decision… but there is an excellent question of, if they have banned this particular individual from carrying a hunting knife, have they also removed all of the knives from the church kitchen?

But that is a completely separate discussion… and all churches are peopled by people, and so therefore are subject to the messyness that is inherent in peopledom.

Yours in Faith,

David

Wow Chuck! I dare say that that is the first time anyone has ever described The Dark Knight Of The U*U World as elegant!

I am genuinely flattered.

If we as a life form give up on being the best we are and reaching out and helping others the best we can, then we are no better than mindless creatures with tool making skills. Animals, act in only their self interest. An argument can be made that such a philosophy is not even mammilian. To argue “what’s the point” to reaching out and helping others is also a form of sociopathy.

Your point is a truth of humanity, and sanity. Thank you for saying it.

It is also refreshing read a use of eastern religion that is not focused on ignoring racism, or criticizing ideas of fairness. Too often passive-racist UU’s misquote eastern ideologies to support their arguments of self ceteredness, non-inclusion and support of racial injustice. Your statement is a welcome rescue of eastern religion.

More later, but thank you.

Apparently so David. . .