Unitarian Universalism

[CuAnnan]

Brass Bell Doll

CuAnnan

Why?

I feel that in the end, we are responsible for our own actions as individuals.

CuAnnan

If the Church did not cover it up but did not formally decry it as wrong doing, they'd have been every bit as ******** morally culpable just of a different crime.

I agree with you, but I also feel that the framework of the Unitarian Universalist Church is not designed to create a religious body in the sense I'm familiar with. Instead, they're like Wiccan Covens. Autonomous.

They're not, though.
A Wiccan coven is autonomous up until the point that they violate the ardanes, at which point you can get the HPS/HP disenfellowed by her/his initiating HP/HPS, at which point she has no vouch.

And I have my issues with Wicca.  

[Brass Bell Doll]

CuAnnan

They're not, though.
A Wiccan coven is autonomous up until the point that they violate the ardanes, at which point you can get the HPS/HP disenfellowed by her/his initiating HP/HPS, at which point she has no vouch.

And I have my issues with Wicca.

Is it possible that some Wiccans can disagree about what is and is not a violation, and the result would be that while the member was reported to their upline, their upline found them not guilty of breaking their word?  

[CuAnnan]

Brass Bell Doll

Is it possible that some Wiccans can disagree about what is and is not a violation, and the result would be that while the member was reported to their upline, their upline found them not guilty of breaking their word?

This is true.
It does not make the religion any less responsible for what its adherents do. That they eschew the responsibility, deciding to be autonomous, was a choice made by them. They are responsible for the fallout from that choice.  

[Brass Bell Doll]

CuAnnan

This is true.
It does not make the religion any less responsible for what its adherents do. That they eschew the responsibility, deciding to be autonomous, was a choice made by them. They are responsible for the fallout from that choice.

By that reasoning, would any group a person belonged to be guilty by association? Since the structure is designed to have autonomy and to self regulate within it's subgroups, I could understand taking issue with a specific congregation that allows misbehavior to continue, but the whole thing?

Do you feel that the reasonable extension of this would have a policy set so that anytime a member of an organization does something, it's leadership is compelled to comment? It seems to me it would become very tricky when we look at structures that aren't designed to address ills outside of the scope the organization was created for.  

[CuAnnan]

Brass Bell Doll

By that reasoning, would any group a person belonged to be guilty by association?

If the group eschews laws which require a person to behave and force them to face the consequences if they don't, then ******** yes.

Brass Bell Doll

Do you feel that the reasonable extension of this would have a policy set so that anytime a member of an organization does something, it's leadership is compelled to comment?

When asked for comment, yes.
When asked, by a member of the wronged community, definitely.
When they comment, in defense of the actions while acknowledging that I have the right to feel wronged, then without reservation.  

[Brass Bell Doll]

CuAnnan

If the group eschews laws which require a person to behave and force them to face the consequences if they don't, then ******** yes.

When the groups do not meet this requirement, what happens?

CuAnnan

When asked for comment, yes.
When asked, by a member of the wronged community, definitely.
When they comment, in defense of the actions while acknowledging that I have the right to feel wronged, then without reservation.

I think that would create artificial authority. When a woman commits a crime, who has the ability to speak on behalf of all women? I imagine the response would be that women are not an organization that have a central authority designed to comment on such things. If we tried to create one, it would not succeed based on the nature of womanhood. In a similar way, the Unitarian Universalist Church isn't designed to speak for each congregation, and instead has a system that enables each group to vote and act.

When I think about it, it reminds me of State based criminalization of Salvia. The Federal Government has no policy against it, but individual states have laws that make holding it illegal. The right to determine acceptable behavior on a community level is beneficial since it allows people to function without requiring that we all be the same. Our vote then reflects our positions and we become personally responsible for our community rather than have an arbitrary force that is removed from us telling us what we should and should not do. We develop expectations based on what benefits our communities, rather than what someone tells us we should think or feel. At times this means that overly permissive groups will create problems for their neighbors, but it prevents an abuse of executive power because the power is left in the hands of the people. Which would bring us back to personal responsibility.

Do you feel that the congregations are doing enough to protect the rights of others in preventing the mistreatment that has been described?

To add:
I'm personally very used to a Top Down power structure. Authority at the top organizes, dictates and executes policy.

The Unitarian Universalists aren't built that way. Their power is from the Bottom Up, the individuals create change through their vote, and no one individual can speak for the sum of the group. Because of this, change has to come through explaining the position and convincing a large group of people, rather than a single person or even a small group at the top. This can be very difficult, but I do not feel I can say their structure is "wrong". Would you agree?

Further note: In cases of desperate emergency, there is a means by which executive power can be issued, in much the same way that in emergency the President can suspend Congress.

This is a last resort, given the values of individual freedom and responsibility the organization holds. Since having an administrator tell all the congregations that certain actions are wrong will not convince them, it strikes me that it would be a waste of time, money and effort because the situations others have mentioned will only change when the majority learns and makes it clear through their vote that the behavior is unacceptable.  

[CuAnnan]

BBD, all of what you're saying is in defense of how the situation occurs but does nothing to mitigate the responsibility of the Church for the attrocities defended by the church as entitlement.

Yes, they have a bottom up system.
Yes, this allows for people to do bad things.
But it also allows them to do so without censure.  

[Brass Bell Doll]

I feel the problem is that any expectation we have as outsiders is an attempt to force a community to conform to our ideal power structure.

I am suggesting that the structure itself doesn't hold responsibility for an individual's actions anymore than I can be responsible for what my neighbor does.

I have to question if the desire to have a quick and pleasing solution to a problem is worth telling others they cannot engage in democracy. The system itself doesn't allow entitlement or actions to go without censure. Instead, the individuals who support the action allow for this. I feel that trying to force them to conform would be pointless, and instead the system, which functions, could be used to bring about the change you have spoken of, just not in the way it is being addressed.

If the Church did adopt a Top Down power structure and demanded that anyone who wanted the benefits of the organization would have to conform to a standard or be kicked out, how many members would actually change? How many people would truly surrender their entitlement? How many people would defend their entitlement and leave and form a new group, or worse still, hide their entitlement in more subtle ways?

Instead, if real change is going to happen, it has to be done on a congregational level. This means a great deal more work. It also means that those who do not wield entitlement will not be punished for being under the same banner of those that do.  

[CuAnnan]

Brass Bell Doll

I am suggesting that the structure itself doesn't hold responsibility for an individual's actions anymore than I can be responsible for what my neighbor does.

If you know your neighbour is committing a crime that you do not report, you are committing a crime.
It's called accessory to the crime or accessory after the fact, depending.

Brass Bell Doll

Instead, if real change is going to happen, it has to be done on a congregational level. This means a great deal more work. It also means that those who do not wield entitlement will not be punished for being under the same banner of those that do.

Indeed.  

[Gho the Girl]

CuAnnan

Brass Bell Doll

Is it possible that some Wiccans can disagree about what is and is not a violation, and the result would be that while the member was reported to their upline, their upline found them not guilty of breaking their word?

This is true.
It does not make the religion any less responsible for what its adherents do. That they eschew the responsibility, deciding to be autonomous, was a choice made by them. They are responsible for the fallout from that choice.

I support the right to bear arms.

So I'm responsible for accidental shooting deaths?

I support women's right for bodily self-determination.

So I'm responsible for third term abortions?

I support gay adoption.

So I'm responsible if a gay parent abuses a child they adopt?  

[Deoridhe]

Gho the Girl

I support women's right for bodily self-determination.

So I'm responsible for third term abortions?

This is a side note, but most - if not all - third term abortions are done due to medical necessity. If you support women's right for remaining alive, supporting third term abortions is a good idea.  

[Brass Bell Doll]

CuAnnan

If you know your neighbour is committing a crime that you do not report, you are committing a crime.
It's called accessory to the crime or accessory after the fact, depending.

I understand. In this situation, my neighbor and I have no police. Instead, we have to act as a community and spread awareness.  

[CuAnnan]

Gho the Girl

I support the right to bear arms.

So I'm responsible for accidental shooting deaths?

I support women's right for bodily self-determination.

So I'm responsible for third term abortions?

I support gay adoption.

So I'm responsible if a gay parent abuses a child they adopt?

I've had some posting difficulty, so I'm trying Chrome:
Do you decry these things, Gho?

When asked about them, do you refer to accidental shootings as someone's right? How about child abuse, is that a right?

Because that's the entitlement I've been faced with when I challenge all but the local (and by "local" I mean "the one in Dublin City") UU church.

It's not the free nature of UU that I have a problem with. It's the lack of accountability, personal or otherwise.  

[Brass Bell Doll]

CuAnnan

I've had some posting difficulty, so I'm trying Chrome:
Do you decry these things, Gho?

When asked about them, do you refer to accidental shootings as someone's right? How about child abuse, is that a right?

Because that's the entitlement I've been faced with when I challenge all but the local (and by "local" I mean "the one in Dublin City") UU church.

It's not the free nature of UU that I have a problem with. It's the lack of accountability, personal or otherwise.

I do not feel there is a lack of personal accountability, but instead there are people who act in ways that contradict their stated intention. Growing beyond that isn't always easy, and it takes time and effort to educate people- it's even more challenging when their self image doesn't match the criticisms. If so much of their personal sense of value is rooted in that they are fair and just people, to have someone say they are not can cause people to strip a gear.