JField has a spiffy post on the contrarian tendency among some UUs. He cites as an example those who wanted to "knock Cindy Sheehan down a notch."
As someone who commented on Cindy Sheehan, I do have to say that once one's child is dead, I doubt one can be knocked down any more notches, even if that were a desirable thing. I pretty much ignored her until people in the UU community started calling her a "prophet."
That probably makes me a classic asshole contrarian by JField's definiton as I wasn't interested in writing negative things about her as a political figure until she became popular.
I can look back on this and see a pattern, especially politically, I can within the last few years easily recall speaking out against enthusiasim for Howard Dean, Bill Sinkford, and John McCain. A lot of this comes from me being more conservative than the average UU (which says a little, but not much) and a big believer in keeping lines of communication with the other party open. Howard Dean's insults really make the liberals cheer, but they only entrench conservatives against us. This is not the way to make a better world. Sinkford seems determined to turn Unitarian Universalism into the religious wing of the Democratic Party. McCain is a cool guy, but until you've really read up on his political views, don't vote for him.
Excepting my objections to the study action issue, which come from its focus on sitting on our asses talking about morality rather than actually helping people, I only really see this tendency when we're talking about politics. The fact that the UU blogosphere was mostly Christian for most of the time I've been posting (though things are looking a lot more varied these days) didn't have me railing against Christianity.
So looking at the way I do it, I think it comes basically from a fear of bandwagons. Perhaps it is our outsider status itself that creates this fear, but I don't think I'm the only UU who gets nervous when people in large groups start to passionately agree on something as such people have a tendency to carry things too far. I don't have an issue with Cindy Sheehan herself, but I don't want us to get so excited about her antiwar message that we adopt her anti-Israel message. Sinkford seems like a nice guy, but he should do his politics on his own time because they don't seem to be growing our churches much and I'm sick of being made to feel like a heretic for not signing petitions at coffee hour. That the commission on appraisal report strongly implies that social action is the only way to live our faith out in the world suggests to me that the Sinkfordist tendencies have stained our thinking. I hope it doesn't take too long to get the stain out.
Anyway, I do see what JField is talking about, but I'm not entirely sure that it's a bad thing. And besides, Servetius was certianly a classic asshole contrarian, so perhaps UUs come by it honestly.
CC
9 comments:
But if Servetus was alive, would you attack him for his ego and attack the activitists protesting his execution?
There is a difference between disagreement and what I am talking about. I would only ask that you discern when you sincerely disagree based on core principles and when you are trying to be too smart to believe what others believe or too hip to believe in anything popular.
Would I have attacked Servetus for his ego? Not physically, and given the times, I'm not sure I would have known how to read or write, so probably I wouldn't have had the means to do so any other way.
I wouldn't have "Attacked" the activists protested his execution, but I would have questioned the point of doing so.
I am skeptical that anybody finds me hipper or smarter because I have issues with, say, Sinkford and Cindy Sheehan.
Indeed, while Sheehan was just a soldier's mom and Sinkford was just a UU minister, I didn't have anything to say about them.
But nobody was listening to them anyway, so why bother.
There are a few UU bloggers, and I don't think Steve Caldwell will mind when I call him out as a specific example as he and I have argued near constantly since we've read one another's writings, who have an entirely different philosophy of what our primary values should be. While they are just UU bloggers, I will have the occaisional tiff with them on their blogs or mine, but I don't in any way try to "debunk" them or in a comprehensive manner articulate why I think they're wrong.
Elect Steve Caldwell to Sinkford's job, you bet your ass I will start criticizing him consistently and clearly. I would expect no less from him if I had Sinkford's job.
Now, I assume he would have to be popular to get elected, but it's not the fact of the popularity, it's the power of the popularity that is my concern.
His disagreements and mine are based in core principles, but without the popularity aspect, it's pointless to do much about them.
CC
Interesting thoughts, as usual, CC.
I think what I like most about your blog is that you do seem leery of jumping on bandwagons, I'm like that too.
As soon as someone is labeled a prophet or the next great leader or whatever, I bristle and get worried that people are going to stop thinking for themselves and just jump on.
What I use to really like about UUs was that they weren't so quick to bandwagon - that seems to be changing and it makes me nervous.
Cindy Sheehan is no prophet. She's a mom who lost her son in a war that she has questions about. If either side turns her into something else, then that's their issue and I'm not going along with either side of the game.
And, if Servetus was alive, I'd probably be on the fringe wondering if we ought not be spending our time on something other than protesting an execution.
Chalicechick wrote:
-snip-
"There are a few UU bloggers, and I don't think Steve Caldwell will mind when I call him out as a specific example as he and I have argued near constantly since we've read one another's writings, who have an entirely different philosophy of what our primary values should be."
One could ask if all (or at least many) Unitarian Universalists share a set of common primary values and if so, what would these values be?
Since we're both Unitarian Universalists, it would be reasonable that you and I might share one or two common primary values. The place where you and I don't find common ground may be in the implementation of these common values.
Those widely shared primary values, in order to BE widely shared, generally have to be pretty vague. That's one of my primary issues with the Seven Principles, for instance - they're so vague, and so open to interpretation, that there's little point. Yet all too many UUs impose their particular interpretation of those vague phrases as obviously what they mean.
In order to tell where a difference is only in regards to implementation, we first have to be sure that the shared value is the same. And the primary way we've done that in the past - write a bland statement by committee that doesn't offend anybody and everyone can agree with - produces statements so vague and open to interpretation that we can't even know if we DO agree.
I'm not even sure Steve and I agre on the primary values.
For exmaple, I don't think I'm wrong in saying that Steve believes diversity to be a primary value of UUism.
I think of diversity as a good byproduct of doing liberal religion correctly, but have yet to see any attempts as actually persuing diversity that didn't make us look pathetic and pointless to those we were trying to impress with our openness.
CC
Chalicechick wrote:
-snip-
"For exmaple, I don't think I'm wrong in saying that Steve believes diversity to be a primary value of UUism."
Far be it for me to disagree with you about what I might think, but I think you're confusing my support of anti-oppression work as a primary value.
My support of anti-oppression work comes from my personal primary values (which include support of justice, promotion of self-worth, a recognition that we are interdependent in our relationships with each other and the world.
It's entirely possible that I'm misguided in supporting anti-oppression work (it wouldn't be the first time).
But please don't confuse what I do and support with my values.
The CSO wrote:
"Those widely shared primary values, in order to BE widely shared, generally have to be pretty vague. That's one of my primary issues with the Seven Principles, for instance - they're so vague, and so open to interpretation, that there's little point."
Obviously, you're not the first person to make this observation. Here's a quote from Developmentally Challenged: Understanding Unitarian Universalism's Lack of Mass Appeal by Manish Mishra in the Spring 2005 issue of the Journal of Liberal Religion. Manish is writing about the UU principles as they relate to Fowler's developmental stages:
"Taken as a whole, these seven principles comprise the entirety of what Unitarian Universalists have agreed to hold as common religious goals/beliefs within the denomination. To the extent, then, that Unitarian Universalism has 3rd order/stage conventional religious norms, this is it. However, it is worth noting that someone genuinely functioning at the 3rd order of consciousness would likely have great difficulty with these principles. They are so broadly stated and devoid of particular context that they would leave a 3rd order individual yearning for further guidance."
http://meadville.edu/LL_JournalLR_v5n1_Mishra.htm
The open and very situational nature of the common values that Unitarian Universalists share appears to be a "design feature" and not a "flaw."
This fluidity allows an immense degree of religious freedom and also demands a degree of responsibility.
"No Charge Online Advertising Channels For Any Business"
Post a Comment