Comments for Making Chutney

Comment on Who loses with regions? by Boy in the Bands - The winners with regions

Boy in the Bands - The winners with regions — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:50:22 +0000

[...] asks who the losers would be. Staff, to be sure. That’s what reorganizations are for. But I wonder who the [...]

Comment on Who loses with regions? by chutney

chutney — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 15:29:21 +0000

I wonder if we could end up with a regional assembly held in three locations over a couple of months, with (mostly) identical programming. Might be good transition to a one-location, one-date regional assembly, though who knows how the costs would work out?

I’d also like to see some decentralization of functions, and the whole ordination/fellowshipping process is a great place to start.

Comment on Who loses with regions? by ogre

ogre — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 03:29:50 +0000

I’d be interested in hearing what responsibilities are being devolved from the UUA to the regions with this. If it’s just that there will be superdistricts, and “Districts” will fade (and/or linger, in the same was that some state Universalist Conventions do…), then I’m not sure I see any real value.

I imagine that if the 5th Principle Project’s objective of moving G.A. to every other year passes, we’d see regional assemblies. Which would… sort of obviate much of the objective, as they’d still be quite expensive for most to attend. Or we’d see district assemblies continue–making regions more an administrative reality, but one disconnected from experienced UU life for most.

If it started to mean that the MFC’s functions were decentralized, I’d be delighted–the pseudo-presbytery system we’ve got wasn’t something that really ever got congregational approval, as far as I can see, and I’m unconvinced that it’s a good idea. Of course, I think that could be handled at a district level too–but anything that starts decentralization would be a good thing….

Comment on Who loses with regions? by chutney

chutney — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:56:41 +0000

Another question: Assuming that at least some district admin staff will be laid off, what will be done with the money saved by this? Will it go back into the regions, so that they can hire more program staff, or will regions not see any of that money?

Comment on Therapy, Criticism, and Heresy—Which Is UU? by chutney

chutney — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 20:00:48 +0000

Because that’s why philosophers get paid the big bucks? Making generalizations isn’t a sin, after all. We’d be without 99% of the world’s philosophy and theology without these sorts of generalizations. If you don’t like a generalization, you should argue why it’s inadequate, or else never make any generalizations of your own, if that’s even possible.

Unfortunately, because the passage is so short, we can’t know whether or not Zizek sees them as mutually exclusive options. Knowing him, he’d probably riff on some complex dialectical relationship between the two if asked about it directly.

I’ve always gained a lot from these sorts of typologies, and I don’t think they’re without nuance. Zizek is certainly not without nuance (upon nuance, upon nuance) if you read more than this one short passage. And you can only expect so much nuance from four sentences in a book’s introduction.

Comment on Therapy, Criticism, and Heresy—Which Is UU? by Bill_Baar@hotmail.com

Bill_Baar@hotmail.com — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:55:06 +0000

Why reduce the world’s entire religous experience today into two buckets: the critical, and the therapeutic? We lose much nuance and gain what clarity from that kind of simplification. I’m not sure why Zizek does it.

Comment on Righteous judgment by chutney

chutney — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:38:17 +0000

On a societal level, I agree that we cannot judge someone’s soul. But on a personal level, with discernment, I think it’s entirely possible to judge important parts of who they are, though never the whole person.

Comment on Righteous judgment by kim

kim — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:42:30 +0000

re judgment: I agree that we cannot judge a person’s soul. We can, however, as a society, perform civil judgment and protect ourselves from those who cannot act civilly.
That’s another reason to separate church and state: we must not claim to judge their sin, only whether they acted illegally. Our laws should therefore be based on harm or some other secular criteria, not sin or morality.
I hope that makes sense, I’m being distracted….

Comment on Two new Bibles I like, and a question by Green Monk

Green Monk — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:39:36 +0000

Do it here!

Comment on 10 ways start a growing fellowship group by chutney

chutney — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:44:48 +0000

Kim, I think the Board is the probably the last I would start new fellowship programming from. Just start it up and let the board admire what you’ve done once they notice.