If so, all religions should be this polite. 

But then, there's much in the UCCan that Mallick has probably never seen (still currents run deep).

The United Church is its own religion?

That was my thought too! And all this time I thought we were simply a denomination of Christianity. My bad!

WEll you're obvioulsy not "true" Christians.... right?

Like you and somegalfromcan, this was what I thought on reading the OP.  Is the UCC supposed to be "a religion"?

The use of the word "religion" would have to be addressed to Heather Mallick, as she is the one who used it.  Depending on her intent, she may have used it incorrectly or correctly.

I would also say the same of her use of the phrase "too polite to qualify". I thought she meant she meant "a uniquely Canadian experience", then I have to say, "no not really".

If I say, "she meant relevant on a national scale",  I have to admit that we sometimes ask ourselves that same question.

I have heard acusations that the lack of uniformity in the UCCan makes it not a religion, when one uses religion as a set of beliefs.

If say she means does not quallify as believers, as a religious movement, as a faith....now that is something else.

The column seems to be about her thoughts on a lack of "uniquely Canadian" and what is and is not Canadian.

If I am being asked, "are we too polite"? Yeah, some times.

Too polite?  Not judging by many of the people on this forum.  I have been called names and insulted too many times to count.   United Church people aren't neccessarily polite when they get worked up. 

Mallick forgets 1986-1992. There were lawsuits and a near riot at General Council in 1990 over sexuality. We are not as nice as she thinks we are. We're human, just like any other Canadian institution.

my god I thought it was a funny comment that fit the piece - a throw away line -

Like most churches, the United Church is to too detached, irresponsible, too tied up in ritual (much of it pagan) to qualify as a religion.

Nor can it reasonably be said that it exemplifies Canada. If it did, far more Canadians would be attending it.

I like Heather Mallick's sense of humour :3

If I may ask, where can I get me one of them thar sex hats?

Coming from a very ritualistic Pagan religion myself, I find this statement rather curious.

I think you might benefit from checking a dictionary regarding the meaning of the word "religion".

A few years back one of the local United Churches advertised a free Maunday (sp?) Thursday dinner. A friend of mine, my wife-to-be, and I went. When we got there we discovered that they were asking a set price at the door, $12 or so as I recall. All for a plate of cold cuts and warm potato salad. What's so polite about that?

Thank goodness, then, you didn't attend this; when you saw the elephant priest tell you aboot her people's practices, you'd (sooner rather than later) have to change your idea that you are G_d's elect, and that other beings besides you have souls, free will and all those tasty inner bits that make life interesting :3

(you might want to try that infrasound massage -- from kms away! -- and their chimpanzee bisque -- it's to die for, as long as you aren't a trog)

Oh, witch, almost anything can be called a religion - with dictionary evidence to support such a usage. (I use the full version, some 26 volumes, of the Oxford English Dictionary with Historical Precedents.)

I am a person of Christian faith. I think of Christianity as a religion which is about our social behaviour. I believe in God - but also know I cannot possibly understand who or what God is. I think worshipping God as if God were a human monarch is absurd. I don't give a damn whether Mary wes a virgin. Tough break for Joseph. I believe the message of Christ was about our social behaviour and our means of perceiving. It was not about clapping hands rising from the dead to walk  on golden streets.

It was a thoroughly practical messsage (and, I think, a God-inspired one). I can tolerate a little bit of ritual. But I have no patience with any church that pays so much attention to ritual, and ignores the teaching of Jesus except to preach about them as safe abstractions.

I am really not enthusiastic about cheering and praising God for ancient Samaritans while we ignore our own treatment of present day moslems.

Yeah, I think there's room enough in our Churches/Mosques/Temples/Gurdwara's/Circles/Furpiles/Cultures for those whose current "Moslem Troubles" BS are:

o  we should focus on our past and present-day-treatment of Moslems;

o  are the result of "A Clash of Civilizations";

o are the result of Moslem genocide that has been going on for centuries;

o  are the result of a inner Moslem conflict between the Old Skool and the Modernists;

o  are the result of Islam being an outdated (and dangerous) BS;

o  are the result of the old Moslem way of life going away and, thus, people flailing aboot for meaning and purpose.

Surely you can find a congregation that shares your particular BS on the subject?  Online, perhaps?

As a child, I thought I had found it in the United Church. Fourteen  years ago, I discovered to my surprise that I had never lost that belief. So I returned to the United Church after an absence of fifty years.

I was fortunate in my attendance at churches with fine congretations and exemplary ministers, to one of whom I am profoundly grateful for help when I terribly needed it.

But in my speaking days, I came into close and regular contact with the Jewish community of Montreal, and to the judaic tradition of the synagogue as a place of learning and discussion and exploration of the world around us. (That tradition has now  been grievously weakened by the rise of Zionist pressure groups.)

Unitarians have something of discussion about the real world. But it is all wrapped up by an approach to the spiritual that is painstakingly modelled on that of almost any Protestant church, but with a careful avoidance of any mention of God or Jesus by name. I was many times a speaker for Unitarian services; and was always struck by their similarity to mainline churches, Their services, as a result,  often resembled a suprise party for God, but without the guest of honour in attendance.

Huh? There was no "elephant priest" in the presentation that I witnessed after I followed your link. I will say that I'm thankful my epilepsy is controlled by medicine. If not, I'm pretty sure that it would have given me a seizure.

As to the rest of your comments, I feel that you have missed the point of what I said. The way in which I feel the United Church in question was impolite was to advertise a "free" dinner and then ask an all-too-high admission fee at the door.

As for elephants, I consider them neither our friends nor our enemies. I consider them to be animals.

Thank you for sharing this, Graeme.  It sounds like you are missing those days?

And I just came across this guy who is doing his little bit; he's giving the IRS only 70% of what he owes them, because he wont pay the 30% that they will use for the war :3  Just click on the bolded words and it'll take you there.

I do miss them.

Jae, how much mileage do you think you can get out of this "free" $12 dinner?  It's probably been at least a year since you first brought it up.  I think you should bring it up again in late 2011, then at least once in 2012, and continue on an annual basis from 2013 through 2020.  Make sure everyone knows you were once charged $12 for a "free" United Church dinner.  Only then, will you exact proper revenge for false advertising, overpriced cold cuts and under-chilled potato salad.

I'll bet Baptist potato salad is never warm.

Excellent, I'll bring it up til someone in the United Church has the decency to apologize for it.

Come out and try some.

Maybe you should try a Baptist fatwa against that particular Church?  Who knows, you might gain a following :3

Oh FFS.  Let it go.

I'd tell you, "your Jae is showing", but somebody else has commandeered my line and is riding it like a rented mule.

I'm trying to think of things I would enjoy less than that.  I'm not coming up with much.  Incontenence, perhaps?

It seems you're argueing the relative merits of the particular principles and rituals/traditions of sects withion your religion.

I don't particularly have a problem with that. It's your religion after all.

I was just curious as to how you came to the conclusion that the more rituals the less likely it is to be a religion. And really not everything can be called a religion. You pretty much have to have, with very few exceptions, a belief in God to have a religion. The corrollary of that is that any belief in God can reasonably be called a religion. To say that I don't have a religion because I have too many rituals is, quite frankly, absurd, considering the wealth of Divine beliefs within my religion.

Heather Malick is a talented writer. She is not an expert on religion or theology. If she was, she would know that the UCC is a Christian denomination. Yes, it is uniquely Canadian -- we were formed in a polite way, much like Canada was formed through compromise and cooperation.

And as for polite ... well, clearly she has not seen our discussions about Israel/ Palestine or gender/ sexuality rights.  

Witch. look at the dictionary. Anything which, at any point, relies on faith has the first quality of a religion. Faith necessarily implies a belief in a power of some sort, a faith that is not the result of reasoning.

Ritual distracts from the practical message of Jesus. The RC church, for example, preached for over a millenium to congegations that could not undestand the language in which the preaching was delivered.

Hey hey hey... Stop the slinging dude. Seriously. Ad hominems aren't welcome.

Please add things like "I believe" or "I think" in your statements: this is an open forum, and we should respect each other. 

"You believe" that ritual distracts from the practical message of Jesus. Please understand that some people find comfort in that ritual -- meditative and all -- and that helps them to focus on the practical messages. Some other don't. There are many in between. 

Morning Calm,

I am not aware that you shared what exact UCCan that was so that someone from there could address this Maundy meal from some time ago. Location would have done if you could not have recalled the name.

This is like going to East Side Mario's and getting charged for something you thought was free. You can bitch and moan to everyone who will listen and you can make it about each and every franchise. You cannot reasonably expect much more of an apology from the company other than, "sorry about your experience at East Side Mario's, however, each is independent".

You have been given that time and time over.  If you are not aware of it, here it is -

"If you understood the dinner to be free and were asked for a fee/donation, I am sorry for any micommunication or that it was not clear. If you were asked to leave or not allowed to eat with an inability to pay, I am sorry for that. Each United Church is different. Had I been at the door, your confusion about cost and/or an inability to afford the meal would not have stopped me from letting you in.If I  had been asked to pay for the tickets I chose to comp. I would have paid for them out of my own pocket, regardless of whether you are a member or even like the United Church or not. "

Now, you can quit.

Och, don't worry lass; graeme and Witch are old timers at this thing; sometimes, I think they're married :3

And though it is very difficult to show with text, I think graeme has one of the WICKEDEST dry senses of humour on WC :3

Since I have no tangible proof to verify my story, SG, I decline to name the actual congregation. I do not feel that it would be wise to so identify it.

Not quite. It would be like going to East Side Mario's and getting charged for something which they had advertised as being for free.

Apology accepted.

Thank you SG. Finally I can be at peace, knowing that someone in the United Church of Canada has a warm heart and does care.

Wicked? Moi?

Giastorm - do not use words you don't understand. check ad hominem, for openers.

If you ever become a writer, drop the "I think". Any editor will tell you that a) the use of I think implies doubt, and therefore weakens your statement. b) If you say something, pay your reader the compliment of assuming he knows that is what you think -and does not suspect  you of lying.

Churches have a strong tendency to lose the message of The Bible in a welter of abstract, very abstract notions of good, and in ritual. Italian soldiers made the sign of the cross before invading Ehtiopia. Nazi armies had chaplains to lead them in prayer before invading Belgium. American cardinals have blessed warships. Canadian clergy have, at best, been silent in the presence of a society who most respectable elements are people consumer by greed, and who inflict suffering on others.

Actually, I don't have to think any of those things. I know them.

It is after all the United Church of *Canada*....

Dr. Filmore:  Confrontation's not a natural state for me. 

                     I'm....Canadian.

Dr. Sweets:  Canadian....or afraid?

     Bones, April 7, 2011

Loved that one.... it is good to laugh at ourselves.

Thanks InannaWhimsey. I think what you term a dry humour, I call impertinent.

Tomato, tomahto?

Yeppers, you are very powerful; you always have a choice as to how you interpret :3

I'm glad for so many different worldviews on WC -- it is very tasty here.

(I think you and I are from the same generation and brought up in similar commie-pinko-hippie surroundings, the power of "I" statements, pop culture feminism, turning off lights when not needing them, going green...really beautiful, dreamy ideological stuff)

I'm sure that we have many similarities. Although  offline discussion for sure, but I was actually raised in Northern Ontario by a hardshelled former police officer who told me I was looking at the world through rose-coloured glasses because I joined the Young Liberals. 

The "I" statements come from writing internal communications and social media protocol for many companies.

In real life, where you can see and hear me when I speak and don't have to infer tone, I'm a lot more irreverant. 

Politeness is a bit of a myth - and exists in the mind of the beholder.  There's the 'myth' that Canadians are 'polite' (except during NHL playoffs, olympic hockey tournaments, curling bonspiels, etc).  United Church people are no more, or less, polite than church members across the denominational board.   The UCC was never intended to be a 'religion' but a denomination within the larger Christian 'holy catholic' (i.e., universal) church.  You'll find everything from soup to nuts in any congregation.... United Church or otherwise.

There's a difference between politeness and blandness, just as there is one between proclaimed beliefs and actions ( or lack of them.)

I tried to dispell some of this this morning, but I'm hoping to really ramp up to it for next Sunday :)

I wish I could be there - perhaps for a modest fee and expenses.....