« Render Unto Caesar.... | Main | Sinkford Values Statement »
November 10, 2004
The Fifth Principle
The Fifth Principle
Andrew Fink
October 24, 2004
Until recently I thought of us as a religion with no beliefs. Whenever I would say that in front of Nana, she would gently disagree. As usual in such things, Nana was right. Our seven principles are religious beliefs. My error was in believing that religion required a supernatural, a god or gods who took conscious interest in our lives. Of course Judaism and Christianity, our Western religious roots, both have such a God. That was the source of my confusion. But Judaism and Christianity are much more than a worship of the God of Abraham. Half of the Ten Commandments are instructions in how to deal with one another. The words of Jesus that we are most familiar with are the Golden Rule, the story of the Good Samaritan, and the admonition to love our neighbor. So, our seven principles are in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Our difference is that we have not based them on instructions from a deity.
I speak today on the fifth of these principles:
We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote
The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
This involves two separate concepts, The Right of Conscience and the Democratic Process. Initially I will deal with them separately, but as we will see they are properly joined.
In its absolute sense the right of conscience means the right to think and feel what we wish. But since mere thoughts are like dreams and incapable of external suppression, the Right of Conscience to be meaningful includes the right of expression of those thoughts --- and within limits for the protection of others, the right to act on them.
Recognizing this principle the UUA General Assembly has adopted a number of resolutions designed to induce the government and others to respect the Right of Conscience of the individual. The 1967 UUA General Assembly adopted a resolution reaffirming “the right of all persons to give peaceful and public expression of dissent from established policies.” For you younger people, this was the Viet Nam war era. In 2002 the General Assembly recognized the right of conscience includes the right to dissent even from UUA pronouncements in its Statement of Conscience regarding the failures of the war on drugs. In a 2003 General Assembly Statement of Conscience reference was made to the Right of Conscience in adopting a resolution on world trade regulation.
Abortion is the most prominent area where the UUA has asserted this right of conscience. In many ways at many times since 1973 the UUA has recognized that the right of conscience includes a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy.
For me the Right of Conscience is the right to do what I think is right and good, limited only by the harm that exercising such a right might cause others. The reading from John Steinbeck is something I found when I was about 20. I pull it out and read to my friends every few years. I believe it expresses the right of conscience beautifully.
In its most simple terms democracy is majority rule, and the Democratic process is one in which we arrive at decisions supported by the majority. However, in our society and in our church it means much more than that. Our vision of democracy includes rights of the minority to express their view and to dissent. Our vision of the democratic process includes insuring that all have a right to participate in arriving at the democratic decision.
The democratic process is important at our congregation level. At the leadership conference I attended in July we spent a lot of time on how to apply the democratic process to church management problems. As one who likes to jump impatiently directly to the solution, I had to learn to let others process the issues in their own way. I was surprised at how often this process resulted in my changing my mind. The process is also important at the national level. Most of the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly are what are called a resolutions of immediate witness and by rule represent the view of the delegates to the assembly only, not the position of the UUA. We have a long and complicated process that must be followed before a General Assembly can take a position on a social or political issue on behalf of the UUA. From idea to final resolution process takes years and includes opportunities for congregations to comment and requires a vote of a super majority of delegates at the General Assembly. This ensures that the final resolution is truly a democratic expression. It also ensures that those who dissent can express their views.
This, I believe is how the right of conscience and the democratic process merge into one principle. It is not just democracy, but the democratic process that ensures that the right of conscience is preserved.
It is a beautiful principle.
I wish that the Unitarian-Universalist Association did a better job of following it. Instead, our national organization tends to recognize the fifth principle, the Right of Conscience and the Democratic Process, only when it is useful to promote the political objectives of our social activists. Our national church is a selective adherent.
As I noted, the UUA has passed many resolutions supporting a woman’s right to have an abortion. I personally support that right as well. I will not repeat what we have all heard too often of the various sides of the issue. I just wish to remind you that good people thinking about what is best for society disagree over the questions of when human life begins and when abortion is the killing of a human, and whether and under what circumstances it should be permitted. Our position on abortion is not so much a disagreement with those who believe abortion is immoral, as it is a belief that those people should not impose their belief on the rest of us. Our position is consistent with the Right of Conscience expressed in our fifth principle.
Now let us turn to other issues to show how selective the UUA can be in applying this principle. There are children in the world who work in sweatshops sewing clothes or making sneakers. Many feel that it is wrong to exploit them this way and they refuse to buy goods made in such shops. Others note that when children are denied the right to work in sweatshops the result is that they must turn to prostitution or picking through garbage heaps in order to survive. Good people can be found on both sides of the issue. People can in good conscience believe that it is good to boycott child labor products and others can in good conscience believe that it is good to give those children work. The UUA does not respect the right of conscience of those who want to protect the children from prostitution and garbage picking. The UUA has adopted a resolution urging legislation to ban child labor goods from this country. According to the UUA our right of conscience demands we be allowed to kill human fetuses, but it does not let us give employment to human children.
A similar example is the minimum wage. There are good people who feel that the minimum wage causes unemployment. There are workers who are willing to work for less than the minimum wage. For whatever reason, these people, exercising their right of conscience do not want to be subject to the moral dictates of those who think a low wage is somehow wrong or immoral. The UUA does not respect the right of conscience of a worker willing to sell his services for less than what the UUA believes is a meaningful wage. Instead, the UUA wants to impose its views on all workers, denying them the right to control the sale of their labor.
Similar limitations on the right of conscience can be found in UUA resolutions pertaining to gun control and the exercise of first amendment rights in campaign expenditures. A review of the UUA website will disclose many similar GA resolutions, statements by our president, and positions taken by our Washington office. The Right of Conscience, as applied by the UUA, does not extend to matters with which it disagrees.
Regarding the democratic process the UUA has similar tunnel vision. It seems to respect the right of all to participate only if the UUA favors their position.
Whenever our GA takes a stance on political issue it is a religious organization becoming involved in or attempting to influence government action. On occasion we actually express our political position in religious terms. In 2003 we quoted five of our principles in support of a resolution advocating government action on international trade. In 2004 an amended statement of conscience on civil rights referred to our faith tradition as justifying our political position. Other areas where we have cited our faith or our principles in support of political positions include the war on drugs, freedom of expression, and racism.
However, when Christians wish to influence government, the UUA reacts adversely. It is of great interest to go to the UUA web site and do searches on the religious right. There you will find the religious right is criticized for pretending to speak for God, for suggesting others are anti-family or anti-God. Name calling by the right is criticized. But, you will also find comments that the right is fascist and anti-democratic. We are guilty of the same kind of name calling that we accuse them of practicing.
The most egregious example of hypocrisy in the UUA is the resolution of 1996 called Challenging the Radical Right. That resolution criticizes the Radical Right for joining in coalitions and getting involved in campaigns aimed at gaining control of our public institutions, such as schools, libraries, political parties, and governmental bodies.
The resolution goes on to urge UUA member congregations and individual Unitarian Universalists to proclaim and promote our principles by becoming active participants in public institutions such as schools, libraries, political parties, and governmental bodies. Apparently, it is bad when the religious right attempts to push its agenda politically, but good when the UUA pushes its agenda.
When I asked Nana why it was all right for her to speak politically, but not all right for Jerry Falwell to do the same, her simple response was that she was usually right and he was usually wrong. Nana was joking. The UUA says the same thing. It is not joking. It does not even know it is saying it.
Theodore Parker, a Unitarian Minister and friend of Emerson commented on democracy saying: “Democracy means not ‘I am as good as you are,’ but ‘you are as good as I am.’” I suggest that if the UUA really believed in the democratic process, it would take Reverend Parker’s comment to heart and concede that the religious right has as much right in the political arena we do. If the UUA really believed in the right of conscience for everyone, it would respect god-based religions as much as our value based religion. It would challenge their political positions with reason and argument, not by denying their legitimacy.
The UUA criticizes the religious right for having an arrogant “holier than thou” attitude regarding the strength of its political positions. The UUA is just as arrogant with the other side of the coin, a “not so holy as thou” attitude making its positions more legitimate.
I wish to make it clear, I am glad that the Unitarian Universalist Association feels strongly about social and moral issues. I don’t think our principles are things to be hauled out on Sunday morning and then forgotten for the rest of the week. One of the things I love about this church is the intellectual stimulation I get from discussing political and moral issues with my friends in the church.
My objection is with the manner in which the national church gets involved. If you agree, I hope you will join me in urging our national church to reform its political involvement.
Amen,
So be it.
Shalom.
This is the reading by Steinbeck referred to above:
And this I believe: that the free, exploring mind of the individual human is the most valuable thing in the world. And this I would fight for: the freedom of the mind to take any direction it wishes, undirected. And this I must fight against: any idea, religion, or government which limits or destroys the individual. This is what I am and what I am about.
Posted by nanak at November 10, 2004 10:41 AM