GA-able blogging?

Table of Content

Chris the Progressive Protestant is responding to a UCC-blogosphere-wide request to ruminate on the proposed UCC devestment from Israel motion that's making its way towards this summer's General Synod.

Interesting. Surely the current epic-lengthed "Brave new UUism" posting at Coffee Hour shows that we can do something like this.

But is there anything coming up (or that should come up) at General Assembly that we ought to mutually blog about?

9 Replies to “GA-able blogging?”

  1. I wish UUs as a group could stay out of politics and concentrate on religous and philosophical issues.

    We have nothing to gain – except for certain of us patting ourselves on the back – and a lot to lose from people who might otherwise support us.

  2. I agree with Paul. I already have one UU friend who quit coming to church because of the UUA’s Israel/Palestine stands—her husband is Israeli. I don’t really see what we or the Palestinians would gain by this (besides the back patting).

  3. Part of the problem is that when it comes to peace and justice ministries, much of UUdom has devolved into works-righteousness. Aren’t we precious and morally superior to those other folks…

    We need to be spiritually grounded and let our passions for peace and justice flow from there. I have more respect for Quakers who oppose war because it does violence to “That of God in every person”, than I do for UU’s who oppose war because a Republican is running it.

    Perhaps cynical and overly simplified, but I think you get the idea. The whole local congregational disengagement from the GA resolution process speaks volumes to me.

    here is an idea.. What if we abstained from making GA resolutions for a whole year? What would happen? Might we listen more, instead of straining to be heard?

  4. Derek said “What if we abstained from making GA resolutions for a whole year? What would happen?”

    I’ll tell you exactly what would happen.

    Nothing. Except for two things:

    1) There would be more time to do things that are at least a tiny bit relevent to Unitarian Universalism as a religion.

    2) Those few UUs whose lives revolve around intellectualizing about the Large Issues would have to find something else to do.

  5. Just as a point of clarification: I thought Scott was merely suggesting that we could mutually blog about a common point of interest. I don’t know that he was specifically suggesting the divestment from Israel question. Or maybe he was. In which case, I’m against it. Just because I find UUs embarrassing when they start to spout off from a place of very shallow understanding and self-righteousness about how WE can teach some other group (particularly an entire nation with as complex and troubled a history as Israel!) how to be more appropriate in the world.

    Especially given the vast UU ignorance and/or dismissal of the religious meaning of Israel, I think this one is particularly problematic.

    I’m with Paul. For God’s sake, develop meaningful religious education programs in your congregation before you go off making meaningless resolutions about Darfur or what not.

  6. While I think a divestment question is a legitimatequestion, that was not my reason for making the post.

    Rather, wouldn’t be be useful to coordinate a blogging effort with some issue that the General Assembly is taking up? That’ll probably be a political issue. But what we (bloggers and commenters) make of said issue is up to us.

    It makes sense to me to lever the concern of the day rather than cast after shadows. Even if the concerns are a bit shadowy.

    Plus, I would like to get some off-site, out-of-Ft-Worth comment from decision makers and influence holders on the record and on the blogs. Bloggers have the opportunity to “call out” people who might feel that their opinion is self-evident, but really subject to a number of divergent opinions.

    Indeed, I rather think that’s part of the UCC/Divestment blogging activity.

  7. Scott,

    After re-reading your post, I realize I did misinterpret what you were saying, and I apologize. I must have read it a bit too fast.

    I do agree with several of the other comments, though.

    Paul

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.