First Letter to the Editor, June 2012
UU: Liberal Religion or Religion of Shared Values Principals versus Beliefs As a relative new UUer, I was intrigued by 'Democracy and Empire' in the Summer 2012 UUWorld. In my orientation to UU it was explained to me that we are a religion of shared values (as embodied in our seven principles) not shared beliefs. While this seemed rather straight forward initially, I believe that it is quite challenging to develop a strong religious community based on shared values rather than shared beliefs. This article highlighted these difficulties, e.g. the author referred to UU as a liberal religion. Does that mean that Republicans and other conservatives are not welcome in UU because of their offensive political beliefs? 'Democracy and Empire' seems to be a call to action to oppose an insidious alliance between the military and big business and their imperialistic ways. It portrays the world as a conflict between them (the military and big business) and us. However, I would hazard that a majority of UUers have owned stock (at least in their pension funds) or worked for a corporation (which is all a corporation really is, owners of stock and employees) and many have served in the military voluntarily. The reality (as always) is that there is no clear schism between them and us and such calls to action are often divisive, causing more harm than good. His portrayal of the U.S. military in a very negative light is not consistent with the UU principles. An intelligent, responsible and moral person could support the different actions of the U.S. military. When a person or group of persons use violence and even murder to repress others, then a responsible person following UU principles would be compelled to try to stop the violence. It is well documented that Hitler, Sadam Hussein, and the Taliban were extremely brutal and violent. Further, it can be argued that the Germans (and other Europeans), Iraquis, and Afghans are better off without their previous leaders. A responsible, intelligent, and moral person could support each of these military actions for the most honorable of motives and it does not help to impugn such choices with negative motives. Another example of how differing beliefs can lead to different choices is the highly divisive issue of abortion. I happen to believe in a women's right to choose, but I also appreciate that if another person were to conclude that life started at inception, then abortion would be tantamount to murder and they could responsibly oppose abortion. My personal compromise is to support a woman's right to choose within the context of Roe v Wade (a reasonable limit) while simultaneously opposing any government funding of abortions under any circumstances. It is not reasonable to force people (taxpayers) to fund procedures which they find morally abhorrent without good cause, but I also support Planned Parenthood as an alternative to government funding. The point is that U.S. policy is the result of the input of many individuals each of which have many reasons for the choices they make. It is counter productive to assume selfish, self serving, or other nefarious motives for others without good cause especially when there are other and better justifications for their choices. We should strive to assume the best of everyone. In this fashion real communication is possible which can lead to a lasting consensus within a community, real solutions to complex problems. This can be done by conscientiously following our UU principles, pausing before speaking out on controversial issues to insure that our words are in line with out principles. In that way, UU won't be liberal religion with requirements for political or other beliefs, but rather a religion of shared principles and values, not shared beliefs, as we aspire to be.---
I received a hand written post card explaining that my essay had been considered but was too long for inclusion.Second Letter to the Editor, December 2012
I was disappointed to read of Tim DeChristopher's civil disobedience. I fear that too many Unitarian Universalists resort to 'civil disobedience' not because they have no voice in the process, but simply because they did not get their way. Unfortunately, this undermines everyone's right to be heard and encourages those who disagree with us to respond to our lawlessness with further lawlessness leading not to anarchy, but rather violent tyranny as those most eager to resort to violence thrive in such environments. I believe we have a responsibility to carefully and consistently clean up the pollutants left by our distant predecessors in order to extend the current inter-glacial period until we get out of the current ice age and return the Earth to normal temperatures. I am pleased that the leases were blocked after a court found that previous proceedings were inadequte and that Mr. DeChristopher was sentenced for his lawless behaviour. I regret that so many Unitarian Universalists laud his lawless behaviour which is contrary to our values. Everyone should be respected and given the opportunity to be heard and no one has the right to impose their will on others just because their words were found inadequate.---
I received no response to this letter though a couple of letters were published which expressed similar concerns about the articeles.Resign from UUA, May 2013
While most of the articles in UUWorld are uplifting and help strengthen our UU community, there are also many articles in the vein of political activism and I find them divisive and contrary to the seven principles of UU. For example, many articles degrade the 'military industrial complex', vilifying both the military and big business. This is in spite of the fact that many fine and moral people serve in the military voluntarily, work for large corporations or are stockholders of large corporation (which is all that big business is, really). UUWorld is not treating these individuals with the respect and consideration that they deserve but instead depersonalizes them and thereby violates UU principles while being needlessly divisive. I can not support that sort of hate mongering. I am resigning my membership in my local congregation and UUA as that is the only way I can be true to my principles and not support UUWorld and its divisive publications. I do this with regret as the leadership of my local congregation is most conscientious in avoiding such divisiveness. I hope to remain an active supporter of my local congregation, just not a formal member. I also hope that in revising UUWorld's direction you give up on divisive political activism or, in the alternative, UUA withdraws all support for these divisive articles claiming to represent UU. Click here to see the next rambling tale.This page was last updated on August 11, 2013