Principles and Purposes

The Commission on Appraisal’s draft of revised Principles and Purposes for the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations was released this week. Responses sprang up everywhere.

Rev. Sean looks forward to the conversation:

I think this conversation could be very interesting and if we do it well, could be powerful for our association. The Commission on Appraisal has done good work, if only in providing us the opportunity to have this conversation.

Scott Wells also starts with what he liked:

1. The COA did the work. They engaged in a process offering language to change a document that — more than any other, for better or worse — epitomizes Unitarian Universalism within and outside our general fellowship, and is very popular in its current form. The last time this happened, the process very nearly tore the Christian wing away. Their duty is to their credit; I wouldn’t want to have had the task.

. . .But I’m afraid my problems with the draft are far greater.

Christine Robinson expressed reservations about the role the Principles and Purposes have taken:

I have liked our current purposes and principles, and while I agree that such statements should be revised from time to time, I don’t like this revision. One reason I don’t like this revision is that I don’t like the way the purposes and principles have moved into a creed-like place in our life together. People are taking them way too literally.

“Chalice Chick” wrote as an engaged layperson:

Now, I don’t know nothin’ ’bout birthin’ no principles, so this is entirely me the lay person who doesn’t like the principles much in the first place.

In a demonstration of the inter-relatedness of UU blogs, “Ogre” at Sparks in the Dark expands upon a comment he made at Chaliceblog:

I criticized “inherent” last night over at the Chaliceblog.

Chalicechick asked what the problem is with “inherent.”

Lots. Rather than dump it all there in a reply that would get skimmed, I decided to post here (in a post that will get skimmed).

Daniel Harper (writing as some time ago as his alter-ego Mr Crankypants) proposed an entirely different Article Two, which has been referred to by several bloggers this week.

Mr. Crankypants’s denomination, the Unitarian Universalist Association, is currently facing up to the fact that the denominational bylaws require us to review Article 2, the principles and purposes — that in fact we’re five years overdue in making such a review.

The current principles and purposes were drafted in the mid-1980’s, and they now sound selfish and narcisisstic principles — a true product of their time. Pity that Mr. C. isn’t King of the Universe (yet), for if he were, the principles and purposes would already be rewritten. Of course you want to see Mr. C.’s version of the principles and purposes. Read on, fair reader….

Politics

Of course UU bloggers have been responding to current U.S. politics. Here’s just a sample.

Colin Bossen defends basic constitutional freedoms:

One line from Sarah Palin’s speech on Wednesday really has me pissed off. She said, “Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America … he’s [Barack Obama] worried that someone won’t read them their rights?” The fact that the United States government is required to assume people are innocent before proven guilty is one of the basic freedoms that people are supposed to afforded by the United States constitution. I think that whether or not people are citizens is pretty irrelevant.

David Pyle is one of many bloggers commenting on privacy concerns in elections.

I usually agree with Barrack Obama, but not on the issue of privacy for politicians. This issue is one of the reasons I decided against pursuing a career in politics, (even though ministry is not much more private). I just can not agree that the family and personal life of a politician is not the business of the people they serve.

Joel Monka is more typical of UU bloggers in disapproving of close looks at candidates’ personal lives:

Bloggers are finally starting to exit the Palin family bedrooms, only to enter her church.

Monka posted more than once about his concerns:

CC , Ms. Theologian and I have been trying to convince the UU blogosphere to leave Gov. Palin’s womb and family, and sexist double standards out of the discussion, and talk only about the issues- with little success. The general consensus seems to be, “Republicans talk about values all the time, so I can trash her family all I please.” Asking “If you can’t keep it clean because it’s the right thing to do, how about because it’s the prudent thing to do,” has been no more successful. “Vengeance is mine,” sayeth the angry bloggers.

Cee Jay also devoted multiple posts to the contrast between personal and policy issues.

I am so sick of all the coverage that involves the personal lives of the candidates for President and Vice President.