[Poster's Note: A few typos have been corrected. Mike.]
Subject: Re: Hoping the New Year is Prosperous for You
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 21:39:00 -0800
From: "Michael D. Berger & Rosalie A. Clavez"
To: [Community for Constructive Change]
Craig,
Thank you very much for your letter explaining your actions. Your honesty regarding your feelings, and how they motivate your actions is outstanding. With regard to Jim, my own experience is fully consistent with your analysis. Reading your letter gives me the opportunity to review some of my own thoughts on my relationship to the religious establishment, and to compare my responses to yours. Some relevant comments follow.
In church recently (Unitarian Universalists of Sterling), "faith" was discussed, and, in particular, the concept of "faith in our institution" was mentioned. In this regard, below I mention two institutions: The United States of America, and the Unitarian Universalist Association. But first, some basic considerations. On my web site, the following can be found:
I wear the pink triangle on my church nametag. Throughout history, humans have found, and continue to find any excuse they can to do evil to one another. It is likely that this is a consequence of Darwinian evolution -- those who successfully repressed their competitors were more likely to survive. I relate this biological concept to the religious concept of original sin. We inherit it -- but perhaps we are not constrained by it. One of the functions of religion is to pursue this possibility.
I add that variation within species is a major aspect of evolution. We are therefore endowed with substantial variation within our species -- in both physical and spiritual aspects. UUs see this as a good thing, but it has its problems. One of the most interesting problems appears when, in a thought experiment or in reality, we try construct a utopian society. Here are some candidate characteristics of persons in one such society: accepting of others; non-aggressive; non-competitive; willing to share resources. The fantasies of the 60's contained such elements. However, for humans, such a society can only exist as an enclave within a larger society where it is maintained with the use of power. The reason for this is that the proposed utopia would be in a state of unstable equilibrium, comparable to a cone balanced on its point. The slightest perturbation results in catastrophe. Because of human variation, an evil power broker will arise and find fertile ground in which to grow his/her ego.
In political discussions, an old friend often reminded me that the American government was constructed with the full knowledge that many, if not all individuals, given enough power, could be expected to do a considerable amount of damage. The power of each individual is therefore limited by the structure of the government. In the broad historical context, the USA appears to be doing reasonably well, although it is easy to find serious shortcomings. Faith? I recently read:
... the Supreme Court is indeed a political beast and, btw, I don't necessarily object to that - our entire system is based on capitalist politicism - if you think we're in a true democracy I assert that's a delusion. (contact me for the reference)
Personally, I tend to be optimistic about the USA, but there are many troubling issues.
The UUA presumably operates on a number of principles that recognize human variation and attempt to make good use of it. However, there is relatively little provision for enforcement. The UUA is run by individuals who are presumably committed to these principles. However, unless violations are flagrant and publicly demonstrable, the "... tendency, yes even a bias, for one minister to protect another minister" can be expected to dominate. It is a matter of self-preservation. The worthiness of the UUA to receive the "faith" of the congregants must therefore be challenged by the "unstable equilibrium" argument presented above, which predicts that in such situations, the appearance of a certain measure of uncontrolled evil is unavoidable.
Elsewhere I have written:
Is Jim evil? I assume that the more we knew him, the harder it would be to make such an attribution. Nevertheless, there are clearly evil aspects that present a serious problem. Is UUCF evil? It certainly has problems in this direction. One wonders if this is a consequence of leadership, a problem inherent in the structure of large UU churches, or something else. I am sure that there is more to say about this -- and I have faith that it will be said.
This "faith that it will be said" continues. Please note my comment with regard to Jim being evil: "...the more we knew him, the harder it would be to make such an attribution". I stand corrected. While my emotion does not appear to be as extreme as yours, I suspect that this is merely because I have had fewer opportunities to nurture it. Certainly the reports I continue to hear are seriously troubling to me.
The issue of whether UUCF is evil is difficult. Problems with Jim seem plainly obvious to me. Doesn't any one else see this? Well some do, but so many do not. Without apology, I must compare this to Nazi Germany. What do they have in common? At the very least, there is the tendency for people to ignore or discount injustice done to others. In many cases it is thought that "it is not really that bad", or "these `nasty people' are getting what they deserve". Do you cringe at my comparison of a church conflict troubling perhaps a hundred people with the torture and death of millions? As I have said elsewhere, "It is my opinion that the mechanisms of human evil are few. Time and time again these mechanisms are manifest in different combinations and with myriad varieties in detail." Indeed, Nazi Germany had more opportunity to develop "myriad varieties in detail", but our small local controversy clearly presents the basics in embryonic form. Furthermore, it is my "faith", that this is not a matter of opinion, and that what is going on is manifestly evil. Why so many people do not see it remains a mystery to me.
Some time ago, in describing my religion, I wrote: "We attend Unitarian Universalist Churches." This is about as far as I can go in identifying myself with the institution. The church I attend serves my spiritual needs well. I expect that to continue, but in the long term, there are potential problems. I hope for the best, but I have few illusions. The UU religion preaches such things as the worth and dignity of all persons, and the democratic process, and the benefits of incorporating diverse points of view. These things often preached in sermons and generally the audience consists mainly of UUs. What is the purpose of this preaching? Clearly, it is not that UUs have achieved these goals! On the contrary, we have a long way to go, even in the best of cases. When leadership blatantly fails to meet these standards, the progress is backwards.
I am talking of the progress of humanity to a higher spiritual level. Such progress occurs in centuries, not years. It appears that humanity may have the potential for a positive outcome. This is as far as my faith goes. However, if it is done, it will be because we will have done it.
Mike.
[Good and Evil, by R. Craig Goff, 30 Dec 2000 is quoted in full here.]