Ask a Unitarian Universalist

[Major_Tom]

But whether or not what Phelps is saying is “admirable” is subjective. Shirley Phelps-Roper might find his preaching quite admirable, while others may disagree. Therefore, it appears UU congregants are only interested in learning from those with whom they agree (or whose words they find “admirable”).

Again, what’s with the “Phelps Fever” everyone is comin down with ? Did I miss a memo…?

 

[andrewstx]

I visited a UU last weekend to see what it was about. I did not join their congregation.

I also visited a Mass, in the parish where my new house is, no less, and a daily minyan at a synagogue. Have I joined all three groups without knowing?

This is from a use of the English language perspective. I am not UU, so I cannot answer from that perspective.

To join a Catholic parish you have to be Catholic and register at the parish.

To join a Jewish temple you need to convert to Judaism.

To join a UU congregation generally you have to sign the membership book.

Just visiting any of those houses of worship does not automatically make you a member.

 

[Major_Tom]

Is there a substantive difference, from a UU perspective? If one visits a UU “church”, is that person not also joining other UUs in their pursuit of “truth”?

Chill, man! Of course people visit. We actually let them go, too. Several people have posted here that they have visited a local UU church, didn’t care for it… cool, move on, and God speed. Have a donut for the road. We’re not Scientologists! We won’t hunt you down.

 

[PRmerger]

Again, what’s with the “Phelps Fever” everyone is comin down with ? Did I miss a memo…?

It’s just the nature of the discussion, Tom.

We have to choose a point of view that is odious to both parties. We can’t choose abortion. One of us isn’t opposed to it. We can’t choose same sex marriage. One of us isn’t opposed to it.

Thus, the common ground we can find is that which the Reverend Fred Phelps proclaims.

 

[Major_Tom]

It’s just the nature of the discussion, Tom.

We have to choose a point of view that is odious to both parties. We can’t choose abortion. One of us isn’t opposed to it. We can’t choose same sex marriage. One of us isn’t opposed to it.

Thus, the common ground we can find is that which the Reverend Fred Phelps proclaims.

OK. Phelps’ views ( I confess I know nothing about him; however, I’ve heard a lot about Westboro. Say no more). Again, to be succint, their views are inconsistnet with our seven principles. 'Nuff Said.

 

[PRmerger]

OK. Phelps’ views ( I confess I know nothing about him; however, I’ve heard a lot about Westboro. Say no more). Again, to be succint, their views are inconsistnet with our seven principles. 'Nuff Said.

Again, that is heartening to hear.

I am making a point, though: I often hear objections to the CC’s “intolerance”.

It appears that the UU, also, permits “intolerance.”

 

[PRmerger]

Chill, man! Of course people visit. We actually let them go, too. Several people have posted here that they have visited a local UU church, didn’t care for it… cool, move on, and God speed. Have a donut for the road. We’re not Scientologists! We won’t hunt you down.

Wow, Tom. Wow.

That’s a little out of proportion to stew’s comment.

 

[Major_Tom]

Wow, Tom. Wow.

That’s a little out of proportion to stew’s comment.

Fair enough. In trying to follow everything, I skimmed over the past few pages, and saw all kinds of traffic on Phelps Phelps Phelps, out of nowhere, that looked like a bunch of bombs being thrown. Poor attempt at humor on my part.

 

[Major_Tom]

Again, that is heartening to hear.

I am making a point, though: I often hear objections to the CC’s “intolerance”.

It appears that the UU, also, permits “intolerance.”

The guideposts are wider. Generally speaking, more topics, and more viewpoints, are in play. If you define having guideposts (at all) as being intolerant, then yes, we would be considered intolerant as well.

 

[PRmerger]

The guideposts are wider. Generally speaking, more topics, and more viewpoints, are in play. If you define having guideposts (at all) as being intolerant, then yes, we would be considered intolerant as well.

Well, what I have seen from most UU folks is that when it is the CC it is “intolerance”, but when it is the UU church it is, well, a “guidepost”.

So now my question is: why is having wider borders better?

For example: is it better for an engineer to be more liberal with his measurements? Would you trust a foundation built by a contractor who took more liberties with his guideposts? What about a pharmacist? Or a surgeon? Or an airline pilot?

 

[Major_Tom]

Well, what I have seen from most UU folks is that when it is the CC it is “intolerance”, but when it is the UU church it is, well, a “guidepost”.

So now my question is: why is having wider borders better?

For example: is it better for an engineer to be more liberal with his measurements? Would you trust a foundation built by a contractor who took more liberties with his guideposts? What about a pharmacist? Or a surgeon? Or an airline pilot?

A library with ten books? Or a thousand?

 

[PRmerger]

A library with ten books? Or a thousand?

If the library has 1000 books that state:

The formula for water is H20
The formula for water is H2O2.
The formula for water is NaCl
The formula for water is H1N1…

What good is that having 1000 books?

vs

10 books that actually have the correct info:

The formula for water is H20, not any of that other nonsense.

 

[nmgauss]

Well, what I have seen from most UU folks is that when it is the CC it is “intolerance”, but when it is the UU church it is, well, a “guidepost”.

So now my question is: why is having wider borders better?

For example: is it better for an engineer to be more liberal with his measurements? Would you trust a foundation built by a contractor who took more liberties with his guideposts? What about a pharmacist? Or a surgeon? Or an airline pilot?

If the goal of the organization is to establish narrow borders beyond which any interest is prohibited because it might poison the minds of its adherents, then I suppose intolerance comes with the territory. Suppression of “dangerous” views from outside the organization is the norm.

But if the goal is to broaden people’s minds by exposure to different points of view, then having wide tolerance fits in with the goal. In this case suppression of potentially dangerous or objectionable views is counterproductive.

 

[Tomdstone]

Well, what I have seen from most UU folks is that when it is the CC it is “intolerance”, but when it is the UU church it is, well, a “guidepost”.

So now my question is: why is having wider borders better?

For example: is it better for an engineer to be more liberal with his measurements? Would you trust a foundation built by a contractor who took more liberties with his guideposts? What about a pharmacist? Or a surgeon? Or an airline pilot?

Does the Roman Catholic Church have wide borders concerning the teaching on Limbo or is it a fixed and certain doctrine which must be believed by all?
Is it better for the Roman Catholic Church to be more liberal on the teaching on Limbo?
Did the Roman Catholic Church widen its borders on who can receive Holy Communion in the Roman Catholic Church? Before Vatican II, only Catholics were eligible. Is it better now, or was it better before?

 

[PRmerger]

If the goal of the organization is to establish narrow borders beyond which any interest is prohibited because it might poison the minds of its adherents, then I suppose intolerance comes with the territory. Suppression of “dangerous” views from outside the organization is the norm.

This is no more the paradigm of the Catholic Church than any mathematics class wants to suppress “dangerous” views to its students.

But if the goal is to broaden people’s minds by exposure to different points of view, then having wide tolerance fits in with the goal. In this case suppression of potentially dangerous or objectionable views is counterproductive.

Then I ask you if you would permit the Rev. Fred Phelps to preach at your church, so as to broaden people’s minds by exposure to different points of view?

 

[PRmerger]

Does the Roman Catholic Church have wide borders concerning the teaching on Limbo or is it a fixed and certain doctrine which must be believed by all?

There is no teaching on Limbo, Tomdstone. Its existence is merely theological speculation.

 

[PRmerger]

Did the Roman Catholic Church widen its borders on who can receive Holy Communion in the Roman Catholic Church? Before Vatican II, only Catholics were eligible. Is it better now, or was it better before?

Perhaps if you could offer the Magisterial documents pre-VII that you are referencing, and the teachings post-VII that you are addressing we can discuss.

 

[Tomdstone]

There is no teaching on Limbo, Tomdstone. Its existence is merely theological speculation.

So there are wide borders on what a Catholic may believe about Limbo? However, Limbo was mentioned in the Baltimore Catechism which was the way Catholics in the USA were taught before Vatican II. The Baltimore catechism never said anything about speculation. If there are wide borders on what a Catholic may believe about Limbo, why then is it unreasonable for the UU to have wide borders on what their members may believe?
If 1+1 = 2, shouldn’t we know whether there is a Limbo or there is not a Limbo, just as in mathematics, we know for sure that 1+1 does not equal 3, but it must equal 2. Either there is a Limbo or not. you can’t have both being true. But there are some Catholics who believe in Limbo and there are other Catholics who do not believe in Limbo. Which is right? Why can the Catholic Church allow Catholics to believe either option, when they are contradictory and you really can’t have both being true at once?
The point here is that UU may look at things similarly to how the RCC looks at limbo. Some things are theological speculations and the UU allows its members to have differing viewpoints on some issues, just as the RCC allows its members to take contradictory views on Limbo?

 

[nmgauss]

This is no more the paradigm of the Catholic Church than any mathematics class wants to suppress “dangerous” views to its students.

Mathematics does not teach dogma from a Magisterium which decides what is the truth. Everything is rigidly cohesive and based on rigorous logic. Catholicism is a discipline based on questionable testimony of individual personal revelations, and thus subject to inconsistencies because of the many people testifying. If there is no hard evidence of anything, the professed truth becomes unprovable.

Then I ask you if you would permit the Rev. Fred Phelps to preach at your church, so as to broaden people’s minds by exposure to different points of view?

Does he have to preach, which is an effort to persuade people. Why not have just a question and answer session for informational purposes?

 

[PRmerger]

Does he have to preach, which is an effort to persuade people. Why not have just a question and answer session for informational purposes?

But why wouldn’t they want him to preach?

Answer:
Because they are intolerant to his views.

Now, in the Catholic model, there’s nothing wrong with being intolerant to certain views. That’s the reasonable and moral thing to do.