- I think Dan Harper is absolutely correct in his take on the UUA presidential race.
- If given a choice, I suppose I would vote for Morales. I don’t, however, have a vote. Neither am I all that enthralled in the process.
- I wonder if the next president of the UUA will have the least impact of any office-holder in the UUA’s history, in large part because of diminishing resources and a dubious set of priorities.
- I am absolutely cold to any discussion about the first woman/first Latino president.
- That’s all I have to say on the subject.
Writing about Universalist Christianity and improving how churches work
Agreed, and agree on all but #4. It’s entirely possible to do a lot with limited resource–and to accomplish nothing of value and piss away vast resources (the last US presidency being a case in point). The question will be priorities AND response to the crisis–or crises–that exist or arise during that term of office.
Morales responded to my request he comment on the peace-making resolution. So he gets points from me on that. I think Dan Harper’s comments on the UUA way on target. I’ve belonged to UU Churches since the 80s with a break in the 90s but feel little connection with UUA other than occasional annoyance or worse -shame- over things like the Sinkford-Akmadenijad encounter. I think Dan’s right about it being captured by boomer attitudes and as we boomers fad away, that hopefully will change… it’s just we boomers are going linger for a long time. Hope we don’t sink the whole larger-Church as we go.
Scott
I am not positive about this, but I think [name removed to throw off the Google spiders] is supporting Hallman.
best wishes
Thank goodness that I don’t vote.
Is “None of the Above” an option??? It should be.
We just recently committed to going to GA this year as delegates. I admit that I haven’t been paying much attention to the race and will need to do some studying to get up to speed. CLF delegates are encouraged to vote our consciences, but need to be conscious first…