Nan and I were greatly saddened to see the church succumb to internal political correctness by establishing a so-called "Netiquette" policy. We see it as an act of weakness. We also can't help but reflect that every censorship policy ever imposed was justified by citing the need to "protect people's feelings" and "maintain order".
How simple it is for some people to invoke our principles and purposes as an excuse for their own limitations and exercise their need to control others. Before the word "electronic" became associated with mail, it was understood that once received, mail belonged to the recipient, to do with as they pleased (unless used for profit, in which case the writer could sue for damages). From whence does this "right to privacy" spring? This new "right" will serve no useful purpose, but will allow those who so choose to send abusive, flaming mail to those in disagreement. We don't believe any individual should receive this type of mail, whether postal or electronic, but as adults we can cope with it. As we understand the "Netiquette" rules, Nan would have been subject to suspension for posting the abusive, uncalled-for, though private, message sent to her by a board member last week. We wonder: is that person a member of the NOEC? (Do we know what NOEC stands for?--No Offfensive E-mail Committee? Nurturing Our Exciting Community? Nazi Overlords Eliminating Constitutionality? Guess which one we vote for.) In any case, can the Board (and/or the committee) be trusted to censure one of its own for violating "netiquette" in the future? What would make one think such trust was well-placed?
This church is perilously close to losing all ties with the UU Community we used to be a part of. A free pulpit and free expression are two fundamental principles of our historical church, not to mention our republic. The whole concept of a monitored, censored church-sponsored chat-list is antithetical to our traditions. Suggesting that our Principles & Purposes support this ridiculous scheme is beneath contempt. We don't think we are any more tough-skinned than the rest of you but we have not read anything on this list that overwhelmed us. We may not always like it, and we will call foul when we believe that is the case, but we don't need anyone to protect us from e-mail!
Yes, we are angry and negative. In spite of our efforts (and those of others) to alert this congregation to the slow but sure usurpation of congregational polity, we see well-meaning ostriches with their heads planted low enough to avoid any awareness of this battle. And we finally do see it as a battle. The rights we had when we joined this church in 1989 are gone. We loved the public gesture that we made to join the church as individuals of free will, walking up to the membership book and signing it. The process has been changed beyond recognition: there is now a required (?) membership class, new members potluck, new members recognition and above all the private meeting with the minister. While those changes may seem innocuous to many, joining this congregation now requires application to the membership committee and supplication to the minister. As presently constituted, the church seems more oriented towards social activities than social justice. Being a Unitarian Universalist used to stand for so much more.
Being a Unitarian Universalist has never been the simple, easy choice. It can mean rejection by friends and family adhering to more traditional religious traditions. It can mean working in low-paying public service jobs as a testament of one's beliefs, that is difficult to explain when you can't afford to go to the church auction anymore. The leadership of this church seems bent on creating a hierarchical, exclusive club. Tony DeCamp and Mary Lazar, Steve Clapp and Ed Cacciapaglia, and others were contributing to the Unitarian Universalist movement before some of our board members were even aware of it. Unfortunately, the current church leadership finds the exercise of free will in this congregation objectionable--hence the NOEC.
We had hoped that our participation in this forum would help re-establish the fellowship of principles that made this church an exciting place to be. That no longer seems possible, as the current church leadership and too many of the members would rather not think about the rights they have allowed to slip away--and please, try not to raise your voice in church unless you're willing to make the coffee and pay for the flowers!
So where does the fault lie? We believe the problem starts at the top: the minister must be held responsible for the ongoing campaign to marginalize those who do not share his vision for the church. He, and the people he selected to sit on the board and otherwise "lead" the church, are tearing it down by being intolerant of disagreement, and hurting many long-time members by action and inaction. Despite his efforts to hide behind his board or his lay ministers when people have objected to egregiously bad policy-making, his hand is evident. As a very active, long-time member put it, Jim has the thinnest skin of anyone he has ever seen in his life. Criticism, no matter how mild or constructive or justified, is met with the same stone wall. And we see the board following suit.
Kudos to Marcia Helme for taking the first public stand on this issue last summer. (What has happened to Democracy?) Kudos to those 20+ members who went to the board with their concerns and worked with the Omsbudwomen's Committee to develop a fair statement of their concerns. Kudos to the 60+ members who signed Tony DeCamp and Mary Lazar's petition for a congregational meeting on the Buddhist rental of RE space. (May Gaia help the RE teachers of the future!) Kudos to the former board members--Carol Crotty, Terry Finnegan, and Lana Kaminski, for working so hard on the Ombudsman's report of real problems in our family. Kudos to Ed Cacciapaglia and Tony DeCamp for excercising their right to participate in the recent board elections against the minister's selected candidates. Kudos to the 116 members who understood Tony's candidacy and voted for his years of service in this church.
One of the questions Nan poses to her students is: "Would it bother you to see another student being teased or harassed at school?" The answer is frequently, "NO!" Then she asks whether it would bother them to see a friend being teased or harassed at school. The answer is "YES!" We fear that too many of our members are still reasoning at the "NO" stage: "As long as nobody is bothering me or my friends, it's okay." On Mother's Day Jim Nelson suggested that church members who have been critical of church leadership over the past year are trying to "tear it down". We feel that statement constitutes harrassment, and betrays a tendency, shown on too many other occasions, to blame someone else, in this case the victims. Many people understand criticism to be a type of feedback. It may not always be constructive, but it is unfair to cast all criticism as condemnation, as Jim did. We strongly feel this mad campaign for control must stop. It has already torn our church apart. We fear it will only end when one side claims the corpse. How sad that will be for every member--past, present and future.
Were we all Moonies, or Mormons, or Shiite Muslims, authoritarian leadership would not only be acceptable, but expected. UUs tend to want to talk, argue, complain, suggest new ideas, and generally be pretty "disorderly". When the last of that exuberance has been chased from here--and there ain't much left, folks--it will stop being a UU church. We increasingly doubt that we want to stick around that long.
Nan and Chris Johnson