On the Election-L list some genius wrote: I believe that theological/ethical argument within the Seven Principles paradigms does not leave much flexibility toward the political Right.
Perhaps Conservatism has some proud past where legitimate concerns were raised but in my view, American Conservatism today is simply an excuse for crying: Me! Me!
Forgive me, but I just can’t identify U U with me! me!
My response:
The seven principles are not a creed, so we cannot use them to measure what is compatible with UUism and what is not.
One of the reasons the seven principles are not a creed is because they would be a crappy one because they are so vague and wishywashy that you can interpret them to mean damn near anything.
To wit:
Doesn't the inherent worth and dignity of every person include fetuses?
Doesn't justice, equality and compassion in human relations include fairly trying criminals and then executing them if that's what is just, and compassionate to the victims of the murders, and equal given that their family member was killed? How about longer prison sentences for repeat offenders so that fewer people have to be robbed, raped, etc? Where's the justice and equality in taxing working people to pay for programs for people who don't work?
Doesn't acceptance of one another mean acceptance of conservatives in the way that you accept African Americans? Would you ever insult African Americans from the pulpit? Do you say to yourselves that African Americans don't share our values culturally so it shouldn't bother us if we chase them off?
Doesn't a free and responsible search for truth and meaning mean we should continue to teach the question of evolution? If our children can responsibly search for truth and meaning in other areas, why not give them the facts about the controversy for themselves?
Doesn't the right of democratic process mean that people should be able to keep gays out of powerful positions if that's what the majority wants? If the majority isn't comfortable with gay rights, shouldn't we not be forcing gay rights on the majority?
Wouldn't the goal of world commuity with peace, liberty and justice for all be most swiftly achieved by invading the most ruthless of the world's dictatorships and installing democracies? People are suffering while we sit around and negotiate with Castro, Kim Jong Il, the Taliban, etc. Shouldn't we be doing something to help?
Doesn't respect for the interdependent web of existence mean that conservatives have a place in the world, too, and indeed that they are an important part of the process?
Anyway don't argue with the individual conclusions, I don't believe most of those things myself, I was just making the point that a fairly extreme conservative could interpret the seven principles to their liking very, very easily. That's why we shouldn't use it for a creed. I don't want to speak for actual conservative UUs, but I will see if I can find one willing to write his/her own take on the seven principles. Suffice to say, I'm sure they could.
CC
25 comments:
Let's concede this comment,
Perhaps Conservatism has some proud past where legitimate concerns were raised but in my view, American Conservatism today is simply an excuse for crying: Me! Me! Forgive me, but I just can’t identify U U with me! me!
Patrick Allit's History of Conservative ideas in American History notes Conservatism as a formal movement doesn't have much of a past in America... it was only in the 20th century Americans started self identifying as Conservatives (go read the book..no time to get the page cite).
Anyways, that footnote aside, instead of thinking Liberal / Conservative, or Left / Right, or Progressive / whatever...
...think of America with two parties: one focused on Liberty, and the other focused on Justice.
A party focused on Liberty can well be viewed as a party of Me Me... it's a party about defining the limits of what Government can't and shouldn't do to "me".
A party focused on Justice has a far tougher go of it because creating Justice can mean limiting someone else's Liberties. If I create a "right" to Health Care, someones got to pay for it. Anytime there is a "right to..." something, one should look at who has to yield something --usually to finance-- that right. Justice is about "Me" and "You" and mediating the Just relationship between us.
It's far easier to deal with rights to be free from this and that, than the rights to this and that.
Our Unitarian and Universalist heritages straddle both concerns of Liberty and Justice.
Our challenge is to overcome the logic now pervasive and reflective in the quote perhaps, that seeking to focuse and create Justice implies rooting out the unjust. That there are nasty, unjust people out there, and if only they would go away, well, the Just world would emerge.
It's a bit more complicated than that.
Creed really has nothing to do with it. If I could change anything about the P&P it would be to eliminate the word "believe" from every rendition. They are not a statement of belief, it's a covenant to affirm and promote. The Nicene Creed would be even more vague in terms of trying to derive political opinions simply from the creed itself. But that doesn't make it a bad creed.
And calling people out for a failure to live up to a covenant (for example deriding John Edwards for being unfaithful) is not an attempt to elevate a covenant to a creed. Even if people accept your premise that the Principles are not creed (which they should) they will still call people out on a perceived failure to live up to them, which makes your point "the P&P are not a creed" a moot point at best.
I don't think it is possible to rewrite the Bill of Rights in such a way that rights would never come into conflict. Similarly a statement of values, like the P&P, will be subject to conflict and interpretation. In the text that you quoted I think the failure of the person is the inability to understand that shared values can lead to divergent opinions. You do a good job showing examples of differently derived opinions. In that part of the post I think you are on the right track. The fact that conservative and liberal alike can embrace the P&P is not a bad thing.
My wife did a mother's day sermon in which she talked about how members of the congregation were heading out to the peace rally, and Second Amendment Sisters were heading to the counter rally. She derived both points of view, and strengthened the community by showing both sides their shared values.
I suppose she could have implied both sides were "bad Unitarians" by calling them "geniuses" that were trying to elevate the P&P to creed by holding political opinions, but at best I think it would have turned politics into the elephant in the room with tension bubbling below the surface. I don't think much good would have come from it.
We both agree that conservatives can make good UUs, I just don't think your approach of implying that some liberal UUs are idiots and "bad UUs for trying to institute a creed" is a good way to make the point. I think the better way is that if they admit they can't understand then the person should be encouraged to seek divergent opinions and try to understand. Which is where you sort of come to in the end of your post. But if you don't value the P&P then why ask a conservative their opinion on them? Leave out the part about creed, strengthen the part on shared values, and I think you have a really good post.
UUpdater,
You missed my point, though admittedly I didn't state it as clearly as I could have.
First off, your preoccupation with "Bad UUs" continues to puzzle me. Again, I don't find that a useful term and want to make it clear that whatever your reason for putting that phrase in quotation marks, you're not doing it to indicate that you're quoting what I said because you aren't doing so.
Creed does have something to do with it when people are saying that something is inconsistent with UUism when because it is inconsistent with the seven principles. That is the definition of using the seven principles as a creedal test.
If the seven principles are holy to an individual and they like to talk about how their politics are in line with them, I suspect they are dull conversation and cocktail parties, but I don't have a fundamental objection to that line of thought.
My objection is to people (like the guy I was responding to) who use the seven principles as a measuring stick to see whether something is consistent with UUism as a whole. Conveniently anything such a person likes does measure up and anything a person dislikes does not. I've never seen any other result. Nobody ever says "I like this spiritual/moral/political view, but it is against the seven principles," they merely reinterpret the seven principles to include whatever they want to believe.
I don't regard these blanket declarations of something being consistent or not as being a "Bad UU," I regard that as using the principles incorrectly and I've seen lots of people whom I consider good UUs do it.
The reason I would ask for a conservative's opinion on them is that I deliberately used the seven principles to justify at least a few things that most UUs would find abhorrent. I wanted to make my point in a dramatic fashion and I wanted to show how easy to reinterpret the seven principles actually are no matter what you're trying to make them say.
But I wanted to make is clear that not every conservative UU is hot to invade every country that has a government we don't like and not every one wants to deny gay rights. So I invited someone who was a conservative UU to provide their version.
CC
I think the only way one can be a "bad UU" is to break their covenant with their Church.
Otherwise a UU is free to spout off whatever they like as long as their conduct within the bounds of their covenant.
PS A final footnote. Many threads in CC's post have been on my mind of late. Here is something from NY Review of Books in 1987 I stumbled on and have been thinking about: Emerson and Socialism: An Exchange By Irving Howe, Reply by Leo Marx
One of Leo Marx's conclusions,
A third necessary precondition of socialism is a government strong enough to enact and enforce socialist principles. In the age of multinational corporations, an anticapitalist program hardly could be enforced without the exercise of immense governmental power. Yet Emerson, like most American individualists to this day, was an unwavering believer in minimum government. The cardinal theme of his 1844 essay on "Politics" is "the less government we have the better."
There is a lot of Emerson and small "s" socialism floating about UUism today. As a one-time big "S" Socialist who could sing the "Internationale", I think globalization and technology slew "big Gov" solutions of any sort. We're stuck with Libertarian, capitalist solutions these days because Government committees aren't nimble enough to react, and manage the complexity.
The problem with the Principles as creed is not so much that their used to define good v bad UUs, but that their not reflective of the many threads and themes of Unitarian and Universalist thoughts and traditions.
We need simple expositions of the Emerson and Socialist (here I'm thinking Social Gospel...Socialist not a bad word for me either..hardly a slur) threads and traditions because they do embrace both the Emersonian "Me", and the Social Gospel's "You" gotta do this for your brothers/sisters.
They're in tension. Tension good... but we do have to acknowledge it. It's our past. Not something pushed onto naive people, who could never pass some UU 7P test, by Glenn Beck, Fox News, Karl Rove, so on and so on....
"Creed does have something to do with it when people are saying that something is inconsistent with UUism when because it is inconsistent with the seven principles. That is the definition of using the seven principles as a creedal test."
This is where we disagree. Saying something is inconsistent with the seven principles is saying that you believe someone is breaking with covenant. If your understanding is that someone has covenanted to do something then pointing out a perceived violation is not an attempt to make the covenant a creed. Where I typically disagree with people is that when someone says they perceive a violation I think the fault is in their perception. If you think a conservative can't be a UU then you need a change of perspective on conservative thought, not UU history.
Perhaps a better example than John Edwards would be someone saying that viewing pornography breaks the marriage covenant because the person is being "mentally unfaithful" to their spouse. Some would agree, and others would disagree with that assessment. The question of interpretation has to do with what constitutes being "unfaithful" in the covenant. If the person declared anyone viewing pornography had a "bad marriage" then I would disagree with their assessment of what it means to be unfaithful. I would not tell them they are making a mistake in trying to treat marriage vows as belief statements.
"My objection is to people (like the guy I was responding to) who use the seven principles as a measuring stick to see whether something is consistent with UUism as a whole."
What I find objectionable about this is the inability to respect other peoples opinions. You sneeringly call the person a "genius" and tell them that they miss the mark because they are trying to use the principles as a creed. I think it would be better to try and raise the level of respect in the discourse and ask for greater understanding, not add more insults to the mix.
(((Saying something is inconsistent with the seven principles is saying that you believe someone is breaking with covenant.)))
That's one potential interpretation and I'd be ok with what he'd done if he'd put it that way, but given the rest of this person's comments, I think my interpretation that he was using them as a measuring stick to see what makes a UU makes more sense.
If I treat vows as the covenant and UUism as the marriage and phrase the marriage example the same way this person phrased the conservatism example, I think I get:
I believe marriage vows do not leave much flexibility towards pornography
Pornography is mental unfaithfulness
I just can't identify being married with mental unfaithfulness.
Yes, the logical step that it is a violation of the marriage vows that leads to the "not able to identify with being married" is not explicit, but I don't see how what he's saying makes any sense at all without it, and it's perfectly clear with it.
(((I think it would be better to try and raise the level of respect in the discourse and ask for greater understanding, not add more insults to the mix.))
Weren't you the one trying to sell me on the term "Bad Unitarian" like a week ago? What's the difference other than I think my comment was pretty clearly situational and "bad Unitarian" sounds more like a blanket condemnation?
CC
Well, how then should a Politically Conservative UU interpret this,
I believe that theological/ethical argument within the Seven Principles paradigms does not leave much flexibility toward the political Right.
Flexibility like they'll have to be excommunicated because the author finds their politics incompatible with the 7Ps?
Liberalism today vs the Liberalism I knew growing up, increasingly incoherent.
If a fellow UU can't be flexible towards me and my politics, philosophy, theology, or for that matter, love-of-trains, convertibles, beer, Chicago baseball, whatever; well, go be rigid! That's fine. That can be UU. For no UU authorities can judge us good or bad UUs; or tell who of us has found truth and who has not.
Each weekend I covenant,
Being desirous of promoting practical goodness in the world, and of aiding each other in our moral and religious improvement, we have associated ourselves together—not as agreeing in opinion, not as having attained universal truth in belief or perfection in character, but as seekers after truth and goodness.
CC's listserv writer can seek rigidly, and I can seek limberly along.
Life, love, and death giving neither of us any assurances of finding truths or goodness but both of us good UUs in the search; whether we're sclerotic or not.
Well,... what type of political conservatism are we talking about here? I think someone like David Brooks, for example, would find himself in agreement with our principles. But Rush Limbaugh, or Phyllis Schlafly? Probably not.
Likewise, I can think of a few Lefties who would chafe at taking the UUA's Seven Principles seriously.
That IMHO is the bottom line -- not whether you can argue that your chosen political position is consistent with one or more of the UU principles, but whether you actually put any given position to the test, regardless of whatever ideological label has been branded to that position.
(((I think my interpretation that he was using them as a measuring stick to see what makes a UU makes more sense.)))
I'm not saying he wasn't using them as a measuring stick. I don't agree that using a measuring stick is tantamount to trying to institute a creed. Perhaps this goes back to my previous religion, but there were plenty of folks deemed "bad Catholics" who could recite the Nicene Creed without hesitation. The concept of the creed had nothing to do with being a good or bad Catholic. If you could not profess your faith you were not a bad Catholic, you were not considered Catholic at all. If there were to be instituted a UU creed (granted not happening) then failure to profess would make you "not UU" instead of a "bad UU". The concept of creed historically has been very binary, you either are or are not, you either agree in whole or you fail the test. Which is why I find your "measuring stick = creed" so confusing a concept. Generally a Creed was not a spectrum of beliefs where the more you agreed the better you were.
(((If I treat vows as the covenant and UUism as the marriage ...snip... and it's perfectly clear with it.)))
Yeah I think you pretty much laid it out correctly. Problem is there is no equivalent to creed in the analogy. Take it a step further. He follows up with "anyone who watches porn is a bad spouse because they don't value faithfulness". My reaction to this assertion would be to point out that not everyone would agree with the assessment that porn is being unfaithful. That married couples that value faithfulness do, in fact, still enjoy porn. If you then said a creed was analogous to a belief in monogamy. I would not argue they should not try to force their belief in monogamy on others. If you argued that point of view you could actually reinforce the idea that they are correct, that their belief in monogamy should not restrict the "polygamous" porn watchers.
(((Weren't you the one trying to sell me on the term "Bad Unitarian" like a week ago?)))
Mostly I was asking questions trying to discern how you understood the term. If I interpreted your responses correctly they were basically "yeah I agree that what that person is doing is wrong, but in a theological sense I would not call them a 'bad Unitarian' because of it". This makes you distinctly different than others I have talked who truly think good/bad are not appropriate terms - ever. Some dude starts to strip in the service, then there is no situation to address, because the situation is perfectly acceptable. This does not seem to be your opinion, you are willing to draw boundaries on behavior but the label "bad Unitarian" is not one you would use when addressing the issue. You reserve "bad Unitarian" specifically as a theological condemnation, which is invalid without a creed. Did I pretty much grok your response? Again, "creed = bad/good" as opposed to "creed = is/isn't" seems a bizarro concept to me, but I think I understand the thought process.
(((What's the difference other than I think my comment was pretty clearly situational and "bad Unitarian" sounds more like a blanket condemnation?)))
My intention was never to encourage you to use the term, though I certainly understand the perception. I was attempting to remove the association between good/bad and creed (which you claim to be true by definition). And point out that for someone who dislikes the term, you imply it on a recurring basis. For example I think saying that anyone who celebrated Chalica doesn't understand the appropriate use of the principles is a pretty blanket condemnation on your part.
I talked with one of our RE classes--sixth through twelfth grade, I think--last month about the fifth principle and why I thought it wasn't a very good principle, taking a tack similar to yours.
It is not possible to treat the PP's as a covenant, because they are too vague, too ill defined. If you're going to treat the covenant as contract law, saying that someone is a bad UU for breaking it, then the conditions of that covenant must be as specific as a contract- ask CC how difficult contract law can be.
Joel, considering the UUA bylaws reference the principles as covenant I think it is appropriate to do so. I have no interest in defending the quality of language used, but I do think it is more reasonable to reference them as covenant than creed.
And again, my intention was not to defend the practice of calling others out on the covenant, but rather to offer a different response. If someone says "conservatives are selfish bastards who are not compatible with UUism" I would rather respond with "here is why conservatives are not selfish bastards, and how their views are compatible" as opposed to "We have no creedal test so selfish bastards are perfectly welcome". YMMV.
Principles aren't commandments. One has to draw conclusions from principles to act on them.
UUs who use the 7Ps as clubs forget that they're clubbing the conclusions, and not violationsof a principle;and that different conclusions can be drawn from one principle e.g. The inherent worth and dignity of every person doesn't automatically conclude pacifism. (I've been told that too.) It doesn't conclude total prohibition against abortion either (as CC suggests it could in the post). One has to work conclusions from this principle and those conclusions can differ.
So, my point is, when people throw the 7Ps creed-like they're usually saying you're drawing the wrong conclusion.
Tell them it's the how one gets from a P to conclusion that ought be examined, and they should accept there can be many equally valid conclusions: A, B, C, D.... drawn from an identical P.
Valid meaning one can reach different conclusions using sound logic and all remain "good" UUs so to speak.
We'll...
We have no creedal test so selfish bastards are perfectly welcome.
Why not welcome the selfish bastards?
At my Church we covenant each weekend ... not as having attained universal truth in belief or perfection in character...
Playing Shakespeare writes,
What does it mean to be a ‘bastard’ in Shakespeare’s world? In Medieval England the term ‘bastard’ was defined in Latin as filius nullius. This phrase means son of nobody. This is a very alienating concept. To be nobody’s son suggests being completely alone, and isolated. Don John in Much Ado About Nothing stands as an emblem for such isolation.
Frankly, I think my Church a perfect home for Don John kind of bastards. Welcome home comrades is what I would tell them.
Join, and fill out a pledge form.
What *would* make someone a bad unitarian? Anything?
Why not welcome the selfish bastards?
Bill, you are correct that the person is making 2 (at least) logical errors. First that a conservative is selfish, second that that being selfish is incompatible with being UU. Correcting the first logical error eliminates the applicability of the second, with the bonus that the person will hopefully not think ill of their fellow UUs. Simply focusing on the second error allows the first misconception to remain. I suppose if someone was completely and utterly incapable of accepting an alternate point of view as valid then it would be necessary to move on to the second error. But I would not start there.
Hafidha-
My theory on "Bad Unitarian" is that it is a term one just shouldn't use. My take is that "Unitarian" is a statement of identity like "Asian."
Even if you are Asian and think that another Asian doesn't live up to the cultural/moral/whatever standards that you set up for your people, to call someone out as a "Bad Asian" just makes you look like a jerk who thinks he/she can tell everybody else how to live.
I see no benefit to telling people that they don't REALLY have the identity that they think they do except in very specific circumstances that are not related to behavior. (E.g. If you have no Cherokee blood and/or no cultural connection to the Cherokee people, I'm OK with the Cherokee nation saying you're not a Cherokee and asking you not to call yourself one.)
CC
UUpdater,
I could be wrong, but to me the entire "But some Republicans are good folks and could contribute to UUism, let me try to convince you" routine, which God knows I have done over and over, seems like pleading for the approval of a closed-minded person, and I just feel like we all have better things to do.
I far prefer the "Nobody died and made you judge of which of other people's beliefs are within the realm of the seven principles. Also, nobody died and made you the judge of whether a person whose beliefs don't sufficiently measure up to the seven principles in your estimation is actually a Unitarian" approach.
((( If there were to be instituted a UU creed (granted not happening) then failure to profess would make you "not UU" instead of a "bad UU". ))
You mean, people would say that they just couldn't identify UUism with what you believed?
Because that's what happened here. You're the only one even dealing with the concept of "Bad Unitarians," the person in question skipped straight to the premise that Conservatives couldn't really be UUs at all, or at least that he couldn't see it.
((( My reaction to this assertion would be to point out that not everyone would agree with the assessment that porn is being unfaithful.))
My reaction to that would be sarcasm, since I think my best approach is to use the absurdity of what they are saying to make a larger point.
(("bad Unitarian" specifically as a theological condemnation, which is invalid without a creed))
Not exactly. Kinsi's perceptions of what people judge him for have nothing to do with a creed, for example.
See what I wrote to Hafidha above.
If a guy strips naked in church, don't come up with a label for him, call the cops.
(((For example I think saying that anyone who celebrated Chalica doesn't understand the appropriate use of the principles is a pretty blanket condemnation on your part.))
I mostly talked about how annoyed I was that the creator of Chalica said "If you notice some similarities to other December holidays—Hanukkah and Kwanzaa—they’re not intentional."
I don't care if we appropriate the timing and the tradition of lighting candles on more than six and less than nine successive nights from the Jews and the tradition of exchanging handmade gifts from Kwanzaa (or gifts at all from Christianity), but I really don't like my intelligence insulted.
Jews who get a "Hanukkah bush" will readily admit "My kids wanted a Christmas tree, so we decided to do something like a Christmas tree but call it Jewish" They don't bother with the "The similarity of my Hanukkah bush to a Christmas tree is not intentional" lie. By comparison, the "playing dumb about the obvious similarities" approach is just embarrassing.
Yes, I do think that Chalica treats the seven principles as a spiritual checklist and elevates them to religious tenets in a way they really shouldn't be, but I never said that anyone who celebrated Chalica "doesn't understand the appropriate use." My guess is that, much like with the appropriation, they know damn well that what they are doing isn't precisely the principles are designed for and just do what they want to do anyway.
If they just treated it as "We're going to borrow traditions from some other faiths and use them to celebrate spirit of UUism as expressed in the seven principles," I still wouldn't participate myself, but at least I wouldn't feel like the Seinfeld writers could create a better and more spiritually inventive holiday than we could when we actually tried because Chalica celebrants would be admitting that they were kinda phoning it in as far as ritual went.
CC
((I far prefer the "Nobody died and made you judge of which of other people's beliefs are within the realm of the seven principles. Also, nobody died and made you the judge of whether a person whose beliefs don't sufficiently measure up to the seven principles in your estimation is actually a Unitarian" approach.))
To me this is an improvement. At least here you don't reference the principles as a creed. "Measure up to the seven principles" is so much clearer. If someone understands the principles as a representation of shared UU values and they judge others for what they perceive as a lack to live up to those values, then telling them that they are trying to "institute a formal statement of religious belief or a confession of faith" is probably going to confuse the heck out of them at best. Telling them they are being obnoxious for judging others is right on the money.
((Because that's what happened here. You're the only one even dealing with the concept of "Bad Unitarians," the person in question skipped straight to the premise that Conservatives couldn't really be UUs at all, or at least that he couldn't see it.))
The part that you quoted sounded like he said he doesn't identify UU values with a particular political philosophy. You seem to be the only one associating the principles with a creed. The reason I keep referring to good/bad is because when someone falls short on values they are usually referred to as being bad.
Let's pull another example from an old post. In this post you use the term bad Unitarians (though I will point out you are paraphrasing others when you use the term and not using it directly yourself). The post by Z is now long gone, but if I recall correctly it was a diatribe about how UUs should be anti school uniforms because of the first principle. No where in the post did he say that if you supported school uniforms you were not really a UU at all. So, CC, it would seem to me to be an accurate statement that anytime someone quotes the principles to judge another UU (good/bad, is/isn't, etc) then you claim it is using the principles as a creed.
A while ago you quoted Katy-the-wise and her description of the core of UUism. I have heard Humanists accuse Pagans of being bad UUs because "they held a belief that they had not examined carefully and tested with integrity". UUs will judge other UUs by any number of standards, not just the P&P. Doesn't make it right, but it doesn't make it a creed either. Part of my preoccupation with what should truly define a bad UU is that when you don't have a good definition, then bad definitions will fill the void.
I like Bill Baar's answers. I am not saying that I want someone to accuse him of being a bad UU, but I know that if someone did he has a useful definition he can hang his hat on. He is good with his church and his covenant. He knows what's what and I don't think some newbie that can't reconcile conservative thought with UU principles is going to rattle him one bit (annoy perhaps, but not rattle). And I think his answer is a much better thing to hang your hat on than "it's just a label". That is where my preoccupation with bad Unitarians comes from. I think UUism could use a lot more folks like Bill, who know where they stand. I think there would be a lot less worry over "tipping points" (though admittedly it's not been a big topic for a while now) if more people were secure in their place in UUism.
My impression is that most people who declare entire groups of people unfit are aware that they are being obnoxious and simply don't care.
That the UUA bylaws say of the Seven Principles "Nothing herein shall be deemed to infringe upon the individual freedom of belief which is inherent in the Universalist and Unitarian heritages or to conflict with any statement of purpose, covenant, or bond of union used by any congregation unless such is used as a creedal test." Indicates to me that the idea that they could be used as a creedal test was a possibility the drafters were very much aware of and attempted to head off at the pass by explicitly labeling the seven principles as something that voided creedal tests.
(((You seem to be the only one associating the principles with a creed.)))
What is the difference between using the Seven Principles as a "measuring stick" for who can be a Unitarian and using them as a "creedal test" for who can be a Unitarian?
Those concepts seem pretty much identical to me as both are about comparing the beliefs in question to the Seven Principles and declaring believers in or out.
(((The reason I keep referring to good/bad is because when someone falls short on values they are usually referred to as being bad.)))
Maybe by people with simplistic worldviews. If nothing else, that label to me smacks of an irredeemability that rankles my Universalism.
I honestly don't remember what Z said either, but I really don't see the need to get into it. How about looking over the only post I can think of where I actually thought about the concept A Bad Unitarian?
I saw some value in it as far as one examining oneself, but it honestly didn't occur to me to use it on other people. That remains my inclination, no matter how many years-old posts of mine you decide mean otherwise.
(((I have heard Humanists accuse Pagans of being bad UUs because "they held a belief that they had not examined carefully and tested with integrity")))
Clearly those Humanists haven't met Joel Monka. Anyway, people will judge each other all kinds of ways, I'm just trying to dissuade them from thinking that they have the force of UUism behind them when they do it.
And what Katy said was "That unique gift is as it has always been a commitment to freedom of belief, of thought and of conscience. Those who confuse freedom with license misunderstand that to mean that Unitarian Universalists can believe anything at all. On the contrary, true freedom means that we are responsible for our own beliefs rather than subject to an outside authority, which puts the burden of truth directly on the individual. The bottom line is that you cannot believe that for which you have no evidence in experience or that you have not examined carefully and tested with integrity…”
So, it's all about examining your own beliefs, not declaring yourself an outside authority tasked with bugging people about not examining theirs. I don't see how Katy's words could be reasonably read as encouraging that behavior or why you brought her up in a context that suggested otherwise without providing the quotation.
I’m always fascinated to hear about concepts that UUism as a whole is worried about, particularly since I’ve usually never heard of them. What is a "tipping point" in a UUism context and if people are/were so worried why is the answer so hard to find? Googling it provides answers that appear mostly unrelated to each other. (Membership, the last straw that made Shawn Anthony leave UUism, the greening of congregations, UUism "going viral", nuclear disarmament, racial justice in Florida, etc)
CC
CC,
UUs free to judge other UU's using whatever criteria they see fit whether it be the seven principles or whatever.
It's just a UU can't really do anything with that judgement other than shout it or whatever.
We can't deny a UU communion for sure.
The head of my Church's Social Justice committee sent out an email to the entire congregation letting them know they could march in the St Pat's parade with the Peace and Freedom group under a slogan of Jobs not War in Afghanistan.
I think that runs against the grain of the first P and would abandon brothers and sisters in Afghanistan in a struggle against the Taliban.
I don't think that makes participants bad UU's, but I think they're making some very bad judgments. Judgments that if acted on, would have some very bad outcomes.
Our covenant really the tool for letting us live in Community and still make those judgments that someone is being an awfully bad UU perhapes.
The covenant is what makes UUism a lot different than the Taliban. We can judge but still have rules on community.
So the writer in the original post should go right ahead wondering. Tell him/her to write me for clarification...
...I can render my judgements for them too. We can still be in community while judging each other along.
As I wrote to UUpdater:
(((Anyway, people will judge each other all kinds of ways, I'm just trying to dissuade them from thinking that they have the force of UUism behind them when they do it.)))
We make judgements about each other all the time, but to me there's a huge difference of degree between "I don't know why Karen would wear that outfit anyplace but an 80's party" or "That announcement about Afghanistan was really inappropriate" and "James may share my skin color, but he's not really black" or "People in the Army are paid to kill, so anyone who willingly goes into the army must be a bad person" or "No one who has ever gone hunting could possibly be a good UU."
It is human nature for people to judge each other in both small and sweeping ways, though judging people in sweeping ways is often a pretty stupid thing to do. That said, when they use the seven principles to judge someone unfit for UUism, they are not only making a judgment about their basic redeemability that I don't think is theirs to make, but the basic wishy-washyness of the seven principles means that the deck is heavily stacked in favor of what the judge feels like in the first place.
And nothing in the Seven Principles is supposed to supercede freedom of belief anyway, so using the Seven Principles that way is discouraged even in the bylaws.
(((I don't think that makes participants bad UU's, but I think they're making some very bad judgments. Judgments that if acted on, would have some very bad outcomes.))))
If it helps, I really don't think marching in a St. Patrick's Day parade can really have any actual impact on the world so I don't see a bad outcome coming from this one.
(((Our covenant really the tool for letting us live in Community and still make those judgments that someone is being an awfully bad UU perhapes.)))
Ok, are you talking about your church covenant or the seven principles here?
And what is the point of judging someone a bad UU? Doesn't it make more sense to focus on the behavior that makes you think that? I see no contradiction in asking someone to even leave the church or inappropriate and disruptive behavior and taking care not to judge them as a bad UU in the process.
CC
Regarding judgement and "being a bad UU"...
I make a distinction between judgement (making a decision about someone) and discernment (trying to ascertain the facts about someone). Deciding that someone is a "bad UU" because they do something in the name of their UU faith which rubs me the wrong way is judgement; making an effort to figure out how their actions fit with their UU faith is discernment.
In the BDSM community, we often have online "purity tests" -- how many kinks are you into, and how much have you done them. If you don't do enough, or you do a few things which skirt the edge, would you be considered a "bad kinkster"? No -- because we don't take those lists too seriously. That's not what makes someone "good" or "bad"; it's whether they treat people with respect and acceptance (or, at least, tolerance). We're more apt to label someone as bad when they are obnoxious and insulting, than how many floggers they own or how many event pins are on their leather vest.
That being said ... how about striving to be "mere UUs"? I don't mean in the sense of mediocre, but in the sense that C.S. Lewis talked about "mere Christianity" stripped of all the externals of denominational identity and group conformity. A mere UU as someone who does their best to live by their values as a UU, day by day.
I'd avoid calling someone a bad UU. I'd go along with your "Bad Asian" comment earlier on CC.
We have talked in our Church about some of the wishy washedness of UU statements and we've attributed that search for consensus to the extend we avoid any Judgment all together.
When I say covenant, I always mean my Churches covenant. We are a association of Covenant Religious Communities.
I may be at a different place here than at the beginning of the post, but I don't "think" we want to discard judgment to the extent anything goes...
Post a Comment