I just wish his supporters when they post stuff like this....,
...to perceive the need for change and move in the direction that keeps us relevant....would speak plainly on the relevant direction their movement's going to carry us if it isn't Denver, 'cause they leave me baffled with their endorsements.
What changes? What's irrelevant? What's not? When I smile and stick to those new comers, what am I'm I supposed to say of us, according to Rev Morales?
6 comments:
While you are at it Bill you might want to ask Rev. Peter Morales to clearly define exactly what he means by "the religion of our time" when he proclaims that Unitarian*Universalism "can be the religion of our time." I have never seen a clear definition of what he means by this, nor have I seen Rev. Peter Morales' 25 year plan for how he intends to transform Unitarian*Universalism from the "tiny, declining, fringe religion" that he acknowledges it is today into "the religion of our tine" in *our* time. I have posed these questions in comments on his apparently abandoned 'Along The Campaign Trail' blog months ago as well as in comments on other U*U blogs but have not received the slightest answer from him yet. Until I see these two important questions responsibly answered I will have to consider his somewhat over-the-top pie-in-the-sky campaign slogan -
"We can be the religion of our time."
to be rather empty campaign rhetoric devoid of any real substance.
The Morales campaign is filled with "empty...rhetoric," you claim?
That same claim and more should be directed instead towards the Hallman campaign.
Quoting from Hallman's recent UU World two-page ad: "Unitarian Universalism has a unique opportunity, not simply to manage change, but to create it."
What does that mean precisely? Euphemisms and empty rhetoric there as well, no?
Of course, the *real* issue is not the substantive meanings behind political verbiage and slogans -- such slogans, it should be noted, are intended to be terse and memorable. Debating the validity of a campaign slogan is therefore a completely meaningless past time.
The *real* issue is which candidate will be the best president -- and which candidate's campaign has created the least amount of division in our beloved religious movement.
That candidate is Peter Morales, and for that reason he has my support.
Hallman hasn't bee a model of clarity either....
We deserve a bit more from both.
Charles you misunderstand me, or knowingly and willfully misrepresent my words, when you pretend that I am claiming that The Morales campaign is filled with "empty...rhetoric." I said no such thing. I clearly said that Rev. Peter Morales' campaign slogan, just one element of his campaign rhetoric albeit an important one, appears to be empty campaign rhetoric because A) Rev. Morales does not appear to have clearly defined what he means by "the religion of our time" nor has he laid out a realistic plan fopr how he intends to transform Unitarian*Universalism from "a tiny, declining, fringe religion" into "the religion of our time" within a realistic time frame that validates his campaign slogan. I figure that *our* time runs out in a matter of decades so asking for a 20 to 30 year road map is not an unrealistic request.
:That same claim and more should be directed instead towards the Hallman campaign.
I never made that claim Charles. It may well be that the Hallman campaign is filled with empty campaign rhetoric.
::Quoting from Hallman's recent UU World two-page ad: "Unitarian Universalism has a unique opportunity, not simply to manage change, but to create it."
:What does that mean precisely? Euphemisms and empty rhetoric there as well, no?
Sounds like the Hallman campaign may have taken a cue from the Barack Obama campaign. . . Actually I find that somewhat vague campaign rhetoric about "change" to be somewhat more believable than Rev. Peter Morales' campaign rhetoric pretending that Unitarian*Universalism *can* be "the religion of our time." That is quite a grandiose claim, especially in light of the fact that Unitarian*Universalism is the farthest thing from "the religion of our time" at the moment. . . Rev. Peter Morales certainly has his work cut out for him if he wants to "grow" U*Uism from "a tiny, declining, fringe religion" into "the religion of our time" in a matter of a few decades. How is Rev. Peter Morales going to make U*Uism "the religion of our time" when U*Uism is competing with Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism to say nothing of Scientology and Mormonism for a share of the religious market place? All I am asking Rev. Morales to do is to clearly define exactly what he means by "the religion of our time" and then to lay out a realistic plan for achieving that goal. I asked these reasonable and quite important questions months ago but have yet to see anything that even remotely constitutes answers to these two questions from Rev. Morales.
:Of course, the *real* issue is not the substantive meanings behind political verbiage and slogans -- such slogans, it should be noted, are intended to be terse and memorable.
It helps if political verbiage and slogans reflect *realistic* aspirations Charles. Campaign slogans should reflect realistically achievable aims rather than "pie in the sky." If Rev. Peter Morales continues to fail or refuse to define just what he means by "the religion of our time" and fails or refuses to present a realistic plan for getting U*Uism from Point A of being "a tiny, declining, fringe religion" to Point B of being "the religion of our time" I think I can justifiably and reasonably refer to his campaign slogan as rather grandiose empty rhetoric.
:Debating the validity of a campaign slogan is therefore a completely meaningless past time.
I disagree Charles. If anyone's campaign slogan appears to be unrealistic aka pure unadulterated BS it far from meaningless to call bullshit on it. Campaign slogans are often a form of campaign *promise*. Rev. Morales' campaign slogan is "promising" that if he is elected as UUA President he will transform U*Uism into an important religion to be reckoned with on the world stage alongside great religions, or what Morales calls "obsolete religions". . . such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism etc. To be perfectly honest Morales' "campaign promise" doesn't seem very realistic to me, I could even go so far as to say that it would take some kind of "miracle" to grow U*Uism into "the religion of our time."
I've heard that a physicians' organization (AMA?) has a lock on convention space in Denver every year in the last week of June, and that's why GA isn't held there.
Ft. Wayne would be fine with me, if it has enough meeting and hotel space. (I grew up near there.)
cool!i love it!AV,無碼,a片免費看,自拍貼圖,伊莉,微風論壇,成人聊天室,成人電影,成人文學,成人貼圖區,成人網站,一葉情貼圖片區,色情漫畫,言情小說,情色論壇,臺灣情色網,色情影片,色情,成人影城,080視訊聊天室,a片,A漫,h漫,麗的色遊戲,同志色教館,AV女優,SEX,咆哮小老鼠,85cc免費影片,正妹牆,ut聊天室,豆豆聊天室,聊天室,情色小說,aio,成人,微風成人,做愛,成人貼圖,18成人,嘟嘟成人網,aio交友愛情館,情色文學,色情小說,色情網站,情色,A片下載,嘟嘟情人色網,成人影片,成人圖片,成人文章,成人小說,成人漫畫,視訊聊天室,性愛,a片,AV女優,聊天室,情色
Post a Comment