|
News Blogs
 
Scolded by Unitarian
By Carl Strock
Monday, August 4, 2008
The other day I pointed out that the liberal Unitarians who recently got shot at in Tennessee responded in a more “Christian” way than the fundamentalist Christians who got shot at last December in Colorado. An usher in the Unitarian church put himself physically in the path of a man firing a shotgun at the congregation and got killed in the process, as other men in the congregation tackled the shooter and held him for police. At the fundamentalist church in Colorado, on the other hand, a security guard simply gunned down the shooter who burst into their church and then thanked God for steadying her hand. I couldn’t help noting that the fundamentalists merrily disregarded the Biblical injunction to turn the other cheek, while the self-sacrificing action of the Unitarian usher appeared to be just the kind of thing that Christians like to think of as distinctly Christian – despite the fact that the Unitarian church is hardly Christian at all but encourages its members to “develop their own personal theologies,” and indeed, the church’s liberalism was one of the reasons it got attacked. It struck me as a nice irony. I expected that some fundamentalist readers might berate me for these observations, but I figured liberal Unitarian readers would thank me, and it would be a wash. So you can imagine my surprise when I saw the letter to the editor in Sunday’s paper from a trustee of the First Unitarian Society of Schenectady not thanking me but taking me to task. He said he was disappointed in my remarks. He said with dismay that I “seemed to be trying to contrast” the responses in the two churches -- and at least that much of his letter was perceptive, since I certainly was trying to contrast the two responses. He said, “I’m not sure what point Mr. Strock” – that’s me – “was trying to make,” though I thought I made the point as clear as I could, and if I had made it any clearer I would have won a booby prize for obviousness. He asked if I was “trying to draw wider conclusions about Christians and Unitarians,” which I wasn’t, necessarily, though I have noted on other occasions that fundamentalists are pretty breezy about what parts of the Bible they take literally and what parts they ignore. And finally he proposed that this wider conclusion, which I did not make, was “unfair, leaning toward divisive.” Here I had gone to bed after writing my original column thinking, well, I may anger some people, but at least I’ll be in solid with the Unitarians, and look what I got. Now I’ve learned my lesson, and I’ll never say anything generous again.
comments
|
Advertisement
|
December 4, 2008
8:16 a.m. [ Suggest removal ]
I belong to the same Unitarian church as the letter writer, and I think Kevin just missed the point of the article. I got it, as did several others I talked to. Feel free to say as many generous things about us as you please.
Robert Hedeen - Clifton Park
11 a.m. [ Suggest removal ]
The point you made in your previous article could not have been made more simple. The trustee from First Unitarian was most likely predisposed to interpreting your statements in a particular way. You've been arguing against religious folk for so long, that even a generous remark may be twisted and turned into something egregious.
By the way, it's nice to see one of your online contributions that doesn't end in a solicitation to purchase the Gazette. You're not going to save the paper that way Carl. Don't be a hero.
Cheers,
Dr. Chim Richolds
11:02 a.m. [ Suggest removal ]
I am a UU in the Chicago area and we too were hard hit by the shooting in Knoxville. I think some of the response you received was in part due to the characterization of the religion as being "loose" with theology or being "breezy" with interpretations of the bible. Our faith does not rely on dogma. Building one's own personal theology is a very considered process, and to do this we draw on teachings of all faiths and traditions. We seek truth from all sources and question those who will not allow their statements to be examined using reason, consideration, and thoughtfulness.
The contrast in response between the Denver church and the UU church is noteworthy, but how many of us have faced a shooter? I don't know that a congregant in Denver might not have stepped in front of the shooter as happened in Knoxville. To assume their only reaction was to shoot the shooter might be unfair. I am more surprised that someone felt a need to carry a gun into their church in the first place.
So please, do not go to sleep angry. I believe your intentions were generous and those intentions are gratefully received. I just don't want the praise to come at the expense of slighting others, even if that was never intended.
Ken Sepos
12:20 p.m. [ Suggest removal ]
As the author of Sunday’s response to your commentary column on July 29th, allow me to expand my thoughts on that column. I understand the point you were making contrasting responses to recent violent assaults at churches. I disagree with it.
I don’t think you can draw any conclusions about the morals of Christians or Unitarians based on individual responses to violence in our congregations.
More importantly, I think it is irresponsible to suggest simplistic divisive conclusions about different faiths just two days after a gunman singled out a Unitarian Universalist congregation because he felt its liberal leanings caused his personal horrible suffering.
I appreciate how the media thrives on conflict. Religious institutions are different. What we have in common is that each was formed in search of meaning to life’s mysteries. Unfortunately, we have also become a common target of alienated violent men who have jumped to simplistic conclusions about religion’s power. Divisive comments about religious faiths in the Daily Gazette following the tragedy in Knoxville struck me as a bit ironic.
I also think your comments were ill-timed. Our Unitarian Universalist congregations are grieving. Here locally, we have personal ties to survivors and victims of the shooting. Praise for the Knoxville congregation’s usher is warranted. Disparaging Christians in the process does not help our healing.
11:55 p.m. [ Suggest removal ]
Carl, loved your column today---pretty much love all of them. What was the internet address that will allow us to check on where out dough is going? Thanks.
8:28 a.m. [ Suggest removal ]
We loved the story of two shootings. Noone should infer that there was any criticism of Christians. The events just happened to present a delightful contrast.
9:43 a.m. [ Suggest removal ]
(((Now I’ve learned my lesson, and I’ll never say anything generous again.)))
Grow up. Seriously, Dude.
You made broad comparisons of two different religions at a really sensitive time for both and now you're pouting because other people aren't as impressed with you as you are.
This might be the most immature thing I've seen in a long time, and I'm on the internet a lot.
12:29 p.m. [ Suggest removal ]
A few quick notes.
To Kevin O’Connor: My comments were ill-timed? Alas, I’m in the news business. We comment on things when they happen. Divisive? Well, maybe – I’m not in the therapy business -- but hardly ill-timed.
To Johnny: The Web address to find where your dough is going is www.seethroughny.net.
To BillyBoBobBrain: With a name like that you tell me to grow up?
To Dr Chim Richolds: Please, please buy the newspaper. It’s my livelihood.
To binkyken: But the slight was intended. To make a big sanctimonious show out of believing every word of the Bible, as the Colorado church did, and then ignore the injunction to turn the other cheek I think is worthy of a gibe, at least.
-- Carl Strock
1:51 p.m. [ Suggest removal ]
What do you mean? It's a great name!
(Note the lack of pouting and/or whining there.
That's how it's done. Also, I didn't need to tell you how you weren't properly appreciating my wisdom.)