Throughout this document, italics indicate poster's notes. I have removed e-mail headers, listserv signatures, and e-mail addresses.
I find it of considerable importance that since these writings, Craig Goff has had a considerable change of heart regarding UUCF matters. In his words, "I have seen the light." See: Presentation by R. Craig Goff, 11 Jul 2000"
This letter was received privately, which, from the wording of the letter, appeared to be an error.
Michael D. Berger wrote:
>
> The following item has been added to our web site:
>
> Letter about Membership Process, by Mary Binderman, 17 June 1998
>
> Note that private mail received by us related to UUCF issues, whether
> or not related to items on our web site, will generally be posted on
> our web site, and may disseminated widely by other means. Requests to
> keep such mail private will not be honored. We will also entertain
> requests from others receiving such mail to post it on our web site.
> To make such a request, please contact us by e-mail or by telephone.
>
> Our web site is at:
> http://access.digex.net/~mdberger/
> click on:
> Religion
> and then on:
> Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Fairfax
>
> --
> Rosalie A. Clavez &
> Michael D. Berger
I, not as president of the Board (I only have 9 days left), but as a member of this Congregation submit that the recent actions on the part of Michael Berger and Rosalie Clavez are blatant violations of the recently approved (unanimously by the Board) netiquette policy (Section 1 on private messages)and formally request that the Online Editorial Committee remove them from all UUCF list-services.
We as UUs need to take immediate action rid from our loving community these continued acts of disrespect toward the leadership of the church (or what I might call this "up yours" attitude toward our volunteers who have accepted responsibility and authority). I for one am not going to tolerate this disrespect any longer, and once this yoke of the Presidency is removed from my neck, I am going to speak out more frequently to acts I view as being counter to our fundamental principles. I have just returned from a very wonderful, positive and uplifting ceremony to celebrate Jim's 5th anniversary and am plunged into dismay to read of this arrogance on our list-serve. I am disgusted.
Craig Goff Member, UUCF
This letter was in response to a letter from us to Craig indicating the probable error in sending the above letter privately. The parts of the second letter that repeated previous mail have been edited out.
Michael and Rosalie,
Yes, I unintentionally replied just to you rather than replying to all. This message, then, corrects the initial action and sets the ball rolling.
Craig
The following is taken from: Sagan, Carl, 1996, "The Demon-Haunted World", Ballentine Books, New York, Chapter 14: "Antiscience", pp.247-249.
Edward U. Condon was a distinguished American physicist, a pioneer in quantum mechanics, a participant in the development of radar and nuclear weapons in World War 11, research director of Corning Glass, director of the National Bureau of Standards, and president of the American Physical Society (as well as, late in his life, professor of physics at the University of Colorado, where he directed a controversial Air Force-funded scientific study of UFOs). He was one of the physicists whose loyalty to the United States was challenged by members of Congress -- including Congressman Richard M. Nixon, who called for the revocation of his security clearance -- in the late 1940s and early 1950s. The superpatriotic chairman of the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUA), Rep. J. Parnell Thomas, would call the physicist "Dr. Condom," the "weakest link" in American security, and -- at one point -- the "missing link." His view on Constitutional guarantees can be gleaned from the following response to a witness's lawyer: "The rights you have are the rights given you by this Committee. We will determine what rights you have and what rights you have not got before the Committee."
Albert Einstein publicly called on all those summoned before HCUA to refuse to cooperate. In 1948, President Harry Truman -- at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and with Condon sitting beside him -- denounced Rep. Thomas and HCUA on the grounds that vital scientific research "may be made impossible by the creation of an atmosphere in which no man feels safe against the public airing of unfounded rumors, gossip and vilification." He called HCUA's activities "the most un- American thing we have to contend with today. It is the climate of a totalitarian country." *
The playwright Arthur Miller wrote The Crucible, about the Salem Witch Trials, in this period. When the drama opened in Europe, Miller was denied a passport by the State Department on the grounds that it was not in the best interests of the United States for him to travel abroad. On opening night in Brussels the play was greeted with tumultuous applause, whereupon the U.S. Ambassador stood up and took a bow. Brought before HCUA, Miller was chastised for the suggestion that Congressional investigations might have something in common with witch trials; he replied, "The comparison is inevitable, sir." Thomas was shortly afterwards thrown in jail for fraud.
One summer in graduate school I was a student of Condon's. I re- member vividly his account of being brought up before some loyalty review board:
"Dr. Condon, it says here that you have been at the forefront of a revolutionary movement in physics called" -- and here the inquisitor read the words slowly and carefully -- "quantum mechanics. It strikes this hearing that if you could be at the forefront of one revolutionary movement . . . you could be at the forefront of another".
Condon, quick on his feet, replied that the accusation was untrue. He was not a revolutionary in physics. He raised his right hand: "I believe in Archimedes' Principle, formulated in the third century B.C. I believe in Kepler's laws of planetary motion, discovered in the seventeenth century. I believe in Newton's laws...." And on he went, invoking the illustrious names of Bernoulli, Fourier, Ampere, Boltzmann, and Maxwell. This physicist's catechism did not gain him much. The tribunal did not appreciate humor on so serious a matter. But the most they were able to pin on Condon, as I recall, was that in high school he had a job delivering a socialist newspaper door- to-door on his bicycle.
* But Truman's responsibility for the witch-hunt atmosphere of the late 1940s and early 1950s is considerable. His 1947 Executive Order 9835 authorized inquiries into the opinions and associates of all federal employees, without the right to confront the accuser or even, in most cases, to know what the accusation was. Those found wanting were fired. His Attorney General, Tom Clark, established a list of "subversive" organizations so wide that at one time it included Consumer's Union.
Contrary to what is suggested below, at the time of these letters, this site was the work of both Rosalie A. Clavez and Michael D. Berger. The account was in Michael's name, which did cause some confusion. More recently, the situation has changed. See: Chat List Issues, 17-26 Jun 1999.
I suggest that we should applaud Michael Berger for his decision to be the "bearer of the flame". I heartily invite all those who enjoy conspiracy theories, poisoned-pen letters, personal vendettas, character assassination, allegations of ill intentions, even occasional paranoid delusions, to send their e-mails directly to Michael for publication. I extend my invitation to those who believe they have to save the rest of us from ourselves. Anyone can have access to Michael's web site just for the asking. This is truly "free" press!
I believe that our friends who will seek this method of publication will find a most appreciative audience amongst each other. Some of the pieces that fall into the broad categories above are brilliant examples of learned penmanship. If Michael runs the site for a while, he will have collected works in a new literary niche, something like "tolerant liberal hate mail". There must be a market for that.
In exchange I have only one request. Please do not send copies of anything that belongs on Michael's web site to this list. I am really pressed for time, and this will save me a lot of time reading stuff I don't see as contributing to anything worth having.
I look to my religious community as a source of broader and deeper understanding. I hope to find hints about how to become a better person. I was deeply moved by the self-disclosure in the stories of fatherhood I heard last Sunday. None of the fathers lectured me on how things out to be. Their stories were about rolling up their sleeves and striving to be the best they could be. Amen to that. Far too many members missed an opportunity to be truly inspired.
As I said in earlier postings, our community is a very big tent that needs to get even bigger. What I propose is not to exclude or silence anyone, but to direct the authors to the most appropriate publications.
Although I have just made myself into a target, and am prepared for some hot replies, I promise to do my best to be nice to everyone who plays in our big sand box.
Bruno Walker
The following message is from Rosalie alone.
Craig,
I hope that my actions provide a mirror in which the congregation can study its own reflection. The way in which we govern ourselves in our church community is inextricably part of our spirituality.
I believe that Mike's and my actions are firmly grounded on our UU principles. Specifically, they are based on belief in:
"The inherent worth and dignity of every person";
"Justice, equity and compassion in human relations";
"Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations";
"The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large".
I wish you well -- be of good cheer.
Rosalie
This letter was privately received.
>> I believe that Mike's and my actions are firmly grounded on our UU principles.
Rosalie, I believe that your intentions are grounded in our principles; however, I believe that the effects of your actions are pretty contradictory to them.
How does increasing the circulation of slanderous remarks promote the inherent worth and dignity of every person?
How does promoting the views of those who choose to take offense at everyone and everything show justice? How does it show acceptance of others - except in the negative?
How does promoting the views of those who believe that they as a minority still have the right to dictate to the majority show equity? How does it show the democratic process?
The majority of the church has spoken on these issues. There is only an ever-decreasing minority who are refusing to accept that. Unfortunately, they are becoming ever more strident and offensive. Chris's Co-Dependent No More was REALLY derogatory and offensive since it, in effect, said that every member of the majority was part of some problem and that his enlightened view was the only way to salvation. Did you publishing it because you believe he was correct and that spreading the word might make us see the light? What value does posting that particular piece serve?
Actually, let me ask that again as the focal point of my message. How do you believe that the posting of Chris's Co-Dependent No More will help UUCF?
From: [Mark Waser]
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 1998 13:05
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Paradise Lost]
What useful purpose was served by posting the message? Couldn't the purpose have been handled privately? Should we pillory people in public or try to work things out privately?
From: Bruno Walker
Sent: Monday, June 22, 1998 23:09
Subject: Great news for "alternative" publishers of e-mail
I heartily invite all those who enjoy conspiracy theories, poisoned-pen letters, personal vendettas, character assassination, allegations of ill intentions, even occasional paranoid delusions, to send their e-mails directly to Michael for publication. I extend my invitation to those who believe they have to save the rest of us from ourselves.
I look to my religious community as a source of broader and deeper understanding. I hope to find hints about how to become a better person.
As I said in earlier postings, our community is a very big tent that needs to get even bigger. What I propose is not to exclude or silence anyone, but to direct the authors to the most appropriate publications.
From: R. Craig Goff
Sent: Sunday, June 21, 1998 11:46
Subject: Re: another web site addition
We as UUs need to take immediate action rid from our loving community these continued acts of disrespect toward the leadership of the church (or what I might call this "up yours" attitude toward our volunteers who have accepted responsibility and authority). I for one am not going to tolerate this disrespect any longer, and once this yoke of the Presidency is removed from my neck, I am going to speak out more frequently to acts I view as being counter to our fundamental principles.
From: [Mark Waser]
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 1998 13:05
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Paradise Lost]
Seriously though, censorship is a rather inflamatory term and the Netiquette policy does not equate to censorship in a number of ways. I didn't see any subjects that we were not allowed to discuss, topics that we weren't allowed to bring up, or opinions that we weren't allowed to express. I, too, would have gone ballistic over any of that.
From: Kurt /Carol Jensen
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 05:44
Subject: Re: Metasequoia Tree & Worship Disruption on Feb. 22
Your comments about Craig's rather poor choice of words are somewhat disingenuous. Do you or anyone else really believe Craig meant "or else?" or what he really intended, which is supporting John in his dellusion will only make him worse. Are you really concerned that our board will do "something" to any member or is this just a way to take a "free" shot at the board? Please remember our Board is made up members of this congregation too. None of them are out to "get" anyone and I think most everyone knows that.
From: Alison Eskildsen
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 1998 07:19
Subject: Netiquette
Importance: Low
You, the subscribers, will be the primary monitors of your own postings. Should someone get outrageously offensive on a consistent basis, then there's a mechanism in place to discuss what, if anything, should be done. We are part of a democracy (US or UUA) which means we're governed by rules the majority choose. And we're part of a free and open congregation which means we have open minds about ideas and spirituality, not that we operate without rules or that we are free to behave as we like. The netiquette guide is not a big hammer ready to fall. It is intended to simply remind us to be considerate of others as we share our opinions. You may state your beliefs and opinions freely, as you (Chris and Nan) did in your posting.
From: [Kenneth M Lampe]
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 1998 09:06
Subject: UUCF Community
Second, in our opinion, anyone who violates the guidelines agreed upon by the community, or the principles of Universal Unitarianism should be removed from the email list, removed from services or any church activity.
From: Ford Prefect
Sent: Monday, March 30, 1998 22:36
Subject: Re: An Apology to All-1:30 AM
I note with some regret that none of your four options includes the idea of compromise. I can only assume that you've concluded that a) the issues dividing your church are of a sort that are not amenable to compromises, or that b) they are simply too important to compromise. Seems a bit of a leap. You also appear to have divided the congregation into two monolithic blocks, one of which has the singular virtue of being bigger than the other. That, too, strikes me as a bit of a leap.
From: Mark Waser
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 1998 09:39
Subject: Re: An Apology to All-1:30 AM
You know, there are two different kinds of poeple - - those who divide people into two different kinds of people and those who don't :-).
Seriously though, when you have a yes/no issue, there aren't too many ways the division can go. And the whole reason why I wrote the note is because people have been insisting upon dividing themselves and mistreating the opposite side. I didn't do the dividing.
From: Ford Prefect
Sent: Monday, March 30, 1998 22:36
Subject: Re: An Apology to All-1:30 AM
On the other hand, this could revitalize fund-raising. Imagine all the money that could be made selling T-shirts and bumper stickers with catchy slogans like "UUCF --Love it Or Leave It"
From: Mark Waser
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 1998 09:39
Subject: Re: An Apology to All-1:30 AM
Hey, I'd buy some.