It's Sunday, often referred to by Christians as the Lord's Day.
This post is in reaction to something I read on another blog. It was someone who felt they had to point out that there were Sunday morning sermons on this blog, a blog associated with the Lehigh Valley Tea Party. It went on complaining about right wing extremism along with the usual nonsensical boilerplate that accompanies such blathering.
First let me point out that since January, when lvtp.org was launched, this ceased being the official web presence of the Lehigh Valley 9-12/Tea Party. I changed the "about" page to explain that change and appended the text in the link below the banner to include the word "Unofficial".
But really, why does it matter? If I posted an article on the lvtp.org website, here, or anywhere with references to the Bible and a belief in God and Christ why would some people consider it wrong, extreme, or in bad taste? Nobody is forcing you to read it, you're always a click away from something else. The criticism that was leveled on the other blog wasn't even specific to what was in my posts, it was simply the fact that it was a sermonette that he apparently found so troubling that he felt the need to share.
So what's the problem? I'm open to constructive criticism.
6 comments:
I think the point of confusion is that you have 912 Lehigh Valley T-Party emblazoned on your blog and few are going to get past that to the "about" page to read about anything being "unofficial". So, if you have that that title emblazoned on your blog, reasonable people will conclude it's the official voice. So, if you want to make it yours and end the confusion, you might wish to change the name.
As to the sermons, I personally don't have an issue with them and I don't believe the poster had an issue with them either. The jist of the comment was a reflection of the perception of your "messaging". If the blog is supposed to be the official voice of a political organization, then general practice is that the voice tends to be secular in nature and that's the expectation of readers. If the blog is your personal thing, then that same expectation is not there and you can do what you want. The name of your blog communicates something very different than what you say it is.
Once you look at it this way, then you'll understand that the comment didn't concern itself with bad taste, sanctions against your beliefs and etc.
As to the other stuff outside of the sermons, I have a strong difference of opinion, as you well know.
I am the commenter who posted on Lehigh Valley Ramblings the post about the sermonizing. Your site does not make it very clear that this is an "unofficial" Tea Party site as Greg L has stated. Not only do you have the 912 T-Party at the top of the page, you have a "join" button below.
You may not be "official," but you clear present yourself as closely related. First, "the unofficial official blog" is confusing at best. Moreover,that is not dominant, but the T-Party image is. Finally, here on the comments page, there is no reference to the unofficial part of this blog. When you click to post a comment it says "Original Project 9-12/Tea Party of the Lehigh Valley PA" at the top of the page.
To clarify my other comments, Greg L is wrong ... I did have an issue with the sermon. I do not think it was in bad taste and I think you have every right to your personal beliefs. But, you clearly have designed your personal blog to make one believe that you represent the local Tea Party group. If your site was obviously not affiliated with a political group and was personal opinion (like LV Ramblings for example) I'm ok with the sermons.
But the close affiliation makes me feel different. Why?
When this whole Tea Party movement began, if you recall, it was about fiscal issues. Just fiscal issues, and more specifically government spending. Clearly, a sermon morphs that into a religious and more than likely "conservative social values." Quite frankly, this does the Tea Party in general, and the local 912 group any good.
Because here's the thing ... this is a secular society, not a Christian society. I myself am not, nor was I raised, a Christian. That doesn't make you any better or worse than me, just different. In fact, my religious affiliation is not important. And in politics and this society, one has a right to his/her personal belief system, but the majority does not have the right to impose it on the minority. The Constitution, in fact, is designed to protect minority rights.
And that is where the perception your sermons come in. As a non-Christian, when you preach to/at me, it makes me feel (and I am sure many others) that the Tea Party is about the social issues as well as the fiscal issues. As soon as you give me that perception, you loose me.
As a non-Christian in this country you hear things a little different than a Christian does. The argument over President Obama's religion, for example, makes me nuts. It does, because the underlying assumption is that he should be Christian. Not Jewish ... not Buddhist ... and not an atheist, but a Christian. And it is clear that you cannot be a Muslim. As a non-Christian, it makes me feel some believe I am a little bit second-class. (and I am not presuming this is how you feel).
Again, to be perfectly clear, your blog gives off the perception that you represent the "Original 912/Tea Party of the Lehigh Valley PA." That is where a sermon and quoting scripture is a problem for me. Make the page look like it represents you personally and not a political movement, and I cool.
David Flintlock
Greg L said...
If the blog is supposed to be the official voice of a political organization, then general practice is that the voice tends to be secular in nature and that's the expectation of readers.
-----------------------------
Thanks for throwing in your 2cents Greg. I guess my question is why do we bow to this "general practice"?
I know if I'm speaking as a non-profit (which here I am not)that I shouldn't be endorsing political candidates. But why the expectation to be secular? Even government legislatures often open with a prayer.
----------------------------
Greg L said...
The name of your blog communicates something very different than what you say it is.
----------------------------
Well, it's main purpose is still to support and educate on all things Tea Party in general, Lehigh Valley in particular. And "Unofficial" is there in yellow under the banner. I guess I can stop being lazy and change the title also -- The Original Unofficial Project etc...
But my point & question still stands, why do the believers have to feel constrained to silence when expressing themselves in so many facets of public life?
I have no problem listening to an Objectivist professor explain his beliefs and morality that are firmly rooted in atheism. We have had that guest lecturer at a LVTP general meeting early last year. Now if there was a preaching guest lecturer (we haven't had one) that came to similar conclusions (altruism is evil, covetousness is evil, theft is evil) but quoted scripture along the way to buttress his argument... I imagine those on the outside of the Tea Party movement would conjure up all sorts of "bogeymen" out of that.
----------------------------
Greg L said...
As to the other stuff outside of the sermons, I have a strong difference of opinion, as you well know.
-----------------------------
I'm shocked! And dismayed!
Mr Flintlock,
Thanks for coming by.
I do empathize with your position, being a non-Christian in a land that so often disingenuously harps on that aspect of life. So maybe my position may come off a bit strange to you.
I guess I object to the "this is a secular society" jazz. Could this just be a society, neither sacred or secular? If I said it was a Christian society, the obvious impression is that everyone else should just keep their opinions to themselves. When you say it's secular I don't feel that as a leveling of the playing field, more like a reversal where I should keep quiet. Maybe reading my response to Greg explains that a bit clearer.
I understand the confusion over official or not. The name is there because I created this site to give out info for the group when it was limited to the MeetUp site. I will consider a name change in the near future but it will still largely be a Tea Party promoting site. It's not meant to be a focus on my life.
Please let me explain something about the group. It is a coalition of people with disparate beliefs with limited government being the uniting factor. No one is trying to force their religion on anyone. When there's a presentation on Objectivism no one jumps up and shouts that Ayn Rand was an evil atheist. When a short opening prayer is given not every head is bowed but respectful silence is given.
Of the 9 principles that are listed for membership only believing in 7 are required for being a member. That allows for atheists, agnostics, and others to join in coalition. I'm a "7 of 9'er" myself.
I just lost a lengthy comment and I'll try to reconstruct the jist of what I was saying.
The focus of the question is off. The issue is not whether your religious voice is being constrained. It's an issue of messaging and who you're seeking to attract. If you seek a broader audience, the messaging is more inclusive. If you seek a narrower audience (i.e. people who share both your political and religious beliefs), the message is more exclusive. People keep things secular not to deny their beliefs but to broaden appeal around issues.
Your messaging here will likely result in a level of contention with the official blog as most people won't bother to distinguish between the two and that's what was reflected in David's comment and my own perceptions. So what you do here, impacts "official" messaging and the fact that there exists this level of confusion, speaks loudly to any outsider with an appreciation of organizational structure.
Bottom line is that you can remove the "constraint" easily by changing the blog name and doing as you please while also helping not to confuse your organization's overall messaging. Continue as you are and you'll find yourself in a fight with your compatriots over control of the message.
Thanks Greg.
"People keep things secular not to deny their beliefs but to broaden appeal around issues."
I understand that, just object to the concept that has ingrained itself into society that to "broaden" one must limit a message in one certain aspect. But I do understand the point you make.
Post a Comment