Losing by religion

[capriccio]

From the Moose:

"In the cultural war, the right has made a valid argument about the role of religion in politics - the left is hypocritical when it asserts that religion should have no role in politics. In truth, there is a long and proud progressive faith tradition.

"From the abolitionist to the civil rights to the anti war movements, religion has played a vital and vibrant role in lefty politics. The Moose attended more church services when he worked for the United Farm Workers than he did when he was employed by the Christian Coalition.

(snip)

"Ultimately, the fundamental question is not one of faith, but the type of faith vision. Unfortunately, too many on the left are blinded by their secularism to recognize this reality. The debate should not center on the separation of church and state, but rather a justice-based faith vision versus a power-based faith vision."

http://www.bullmooseblog.com/

[Wapsie B]

1. Ok.

Then let's put Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists on the bench.

[Pacifist Patriot]

2. Or we could just stack the bench with UUs.

Just kidding!

[Maat]

4. Seriously, that would be the best ..

since UU's are conditioned to be responsible to community and get along!

[Pacifist Patriot]

5. Get along?

BWAA! We have a long tradition of splintering as groups.

Okay, I know what you mean. Can't help a little self-deprecation every once in awhile.

[Maat]

8. LOL!

I get the joke.

But ... whenever I am in my UU congregation, it seems to me the theme is respect ... respect for each other and respect for the environment, etc.

I didn't say that it was always easy to gather and be there for a diverse group, or that it was easy for them to get along afterwards.

But I sure respect UUers for trying! Actually, doing it is vital.

(By the way, I'm the Religious Scientist who visits 'my' UU church at least once per month. I'm a half-breed - just kidding).

[Taxloss]

3. No no no no.

Never mind that the "justice-based faith vision" (a phrase that sends shivers down my spine) ignores non-religious people, it completely ignores the fact that Separation PROTECTS religion. It protects believers from having to deal with an unsympathetic government that is affiliated to another doctrinal stripe.

[Maat]

6. Well, there's no doubt in my mind that separation protects ..

faith (religion).

I belong to Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and that is a recurrent theme of Rev. Barry Lynn's (the Head Honcho).

This is a yes-and-no topic, in the sense that, I do not deny that one's faith affects how one makes decisions; it is a factor in a decision, like one's relationship with one's parents, one's culture, one's environmental surroundings, and a whole host of things.

And, there's no doubt that religion should be in the public square - AS two people privately discussing it, or a group availing itself of public facilities (equal access is constitutional) privately discussing it.

But NEVER should government sponsor or endorse religion.

So, I start pointedly asking anyone conversing with me to state plainly what they mean, for I am not going to be led down a nonsensical path by a Religious Wrongie (member of the Religious Right). They distract and confuse.

[Taxloss]

10. I agree completely.

I find it hilarious when people get wound up about separation of church and state. Can you oimagine an openly atheist President? Of course not. There's an unhealthy religious culture for you.

Here in the UK, we have an established religion but have had several atheist prime ministers. Go figure. I think that just keeping the whole "God" business out of public life and keeping it a matter of private devotion is the only sane course.

[Maat]

15. Yes.

Or a matter of private discussion between individuals.

[Pacifist Patriot]

11. Well said.

[Maat]

14. Thanks.

[ihaveaquestion]

7. Uh, NO!

"Unfortunately, too many on the left are blinded by their secularism to recognize this reality."

"Secularism" on the left isn't the problem, it isn't even a problem at all. "Secularism" doesn't even really exist, it's a construct of the extreme "Christian" right to try to label the left as something evil. The kool-aid drinkers buy it because they don't have the imagination to believe that anyone else could have a life without a set of rules governing their lives (like they have to have), ergo, those who don't want a religious government must be "secularists" or followers of "secularism."

The left just wants to have their religious faith (or lack therof) removed from the discussion.

IT'S IRRELEVANT! :eyes:

[Pacifist Patriot]

12. Yep. My fundie relatives frequently call me...

"that liberal secularist" behind my back. <I've got a few tattling relatives.> I find it enormously humorous given my vocation.

[Maat]

13. LOL!

Of course. How funny.

My fundie relatives do the same thing. I'm no minister - so there's no irony there, but, I'm very devoted to my faith - it's just not the one to which they relate.

It has disintegrated to the point where my husband communicates with those relatives - for the most part. I confine the conversation I have with them to pleasantries.

Professor Bokaer, of theocracywatch.org and Cornell, talks about the divide being between:

(1) those who believe in a separation of church and state VS.
(2) those who don't.

I tend to agree.

[Pacifist Patriot]

16. That's exactly how I see it.

And I'm going to take it a step further and possibly insult some people. I think those who believe in separation of church and state are those who are most secure in their faith or lack thereof. Those who want to blur the lines tend to be those who cling to their faith with a fear of examining it.

Sadly there are relatives with whom I have very little interaction these days. I have no doubt that the big hoopla for my cousin's high school graduation will not be duplicated when I'm awarded a doctorate in the fall. I've already been told my D.Div won't be a "real" divinity degree.

[Maat]

17. Oh, now, that is nasty (the relatives' attitude).

But I get the same. My husband gets the same. He gets a new master's or a new doctorate - somehow it is more important that his sister sews a new dress or gets a real estate sales license. I accept the way it is. Notice a pattern? I thought so. I wonder who is insecure ..

I'm proud of what you've accomplished - your progressive pals are!

I just slogged through law school - and there's no one around who can appreciate better how difficult it is (any prolonged course of study).

I agree with what you've said about those who believe in separation of church and state.

I'd take THAT further - those who are secure in their own sexuality promote GLBT rights - for they are the best they can, and want all to be able to enjoy the highest degree of fundamental rights protection.

[Pacifist Patriot]

18. Congratulations! I once considered law school.

I think I must have been drunk at the time. ;)

What are you going to do with your law degree?

Once again, I absolutely agree with you re: your last sentence.

[Maat]

21. I'm going to practice - a small private practice ...

because at this age (46), it is a fun career; we have some savings, so I do not have to earn salary right away.

Law school is just plain crazy; but, you get used to it. Thank Spirit it is over though.

I'll keep taking the Cal-Bar-Exam until I pass it. This was my second try (Feb. 2005); it may take a third try. I'll keep on keepin' on, though. Whatever it takes.

How many years does it take to become a UU minister?

[Pacifist Patriot]

22. Cool, best of luck!

There is no easy answer to your question. There are three ways to become a UU minister and there are different categories of UU ministers.

Ways:

1. UU seminar
2. Previously ordained in another denomination but decide to become a UU.
3. UU congregation can vote to ordain anyone they want.

Categories:

Intern
Interim
Called
Fellowshipped
Associate Fellow
Applied Fellow

etc.

I have not yet sought fellowshipping with the UUMA because I am having to obtain my advanced degree in a secular university rather than one of the UU seminaries. There are none located anywhere near me.

I am ordained by another denomination but consider myself a UU and minister to UU congregations on an as-needed basis. I am not "called" because I have not entered into a contract with a church adn do not intend to do so until my children are much older. I will probably pursue fellowshipping with the UUMA in about ten years.

Like any other bureaucracy they can be a bit of an "old boy" network and look down on anyone who approaches them from outside the conventional UU seminary/internship route. But I'm up for the challenge. ;)

[readmoreoften]

23. You hit it on the nose, ihaveaquestion. nt/

[OneBlueSky]

9. gonna get me a t-shirt that says . . .

Right is wrong.
Left is right.
Any questions?

[lawladyprof]

19. Secular simply means non-religious

And naturally you have religious and non-religious (secular) aspects of life.

[ihaveaquestion]

20. True, but ....

there is no such thing as "secularism" - a belief system based on non-religious aspects of life.

Nor are there "secularists" - those who follow the beliefs of "secularism."

This is made up terminology intended to label people.