«
»

Are our individual causes relevant?

04.08.07 | 3 Comments

SteveCaldwell’s post on the Wikipedia article on UUism—“Who speaks for UUism on the web?”—got me thinking. So I went and checked out the Wikipedia article.

In the section on politics, I found these two sentences:

Individual Unitarian Universalists are involved in opposing the death penalty, supporting environmental protection, peace, feminism, gun control, free speech, safe and legal abortion, and animal welfare. Others work to end homelessness, racism, domestic violence, homophobia, sexual assault, and HIV/AIDS.

How is this relevant? Or more to the point, how is this list relevant to an article on Unitarian Universalism? It’s not a comprehensive list, and there are UUs who oppose some of these causes. (Thinking death penalty, gun control, abortion, etc.)

The rest of the paragraph reads:

While political liberals make up a clear majority of Unitarian Universalists, the UU movement aspires to diversity, and officially welcomes congregants regardless of their political views. Politically conservative Unitarian Universalists point out that neither religious liberalism nor the Principles and Purposes of the UUA require liberal politics. Like the beliefs of Unitarian Universalists, politics are decided by individuals, not by congregations or the denomination.

Seems like this covers it well enough on its own. Why the need for the list of pet causes? Isn’t this an example of us being “excessively self-congratulatory?”

3 Comments


«
»