Coffee Hour

Jeff Wilson says:

I like to think that all political ideologies are more or less compatible with UUism. UUism is a religion, not a political party, and there's room for people to worship alike (or at least together) yet still carry differing political convictions. I've known UUs who were Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Socialists, Libertarians, and Independents. And I've known UUs who come down on the opposite side than me on politically-charged moral and social issues, including abortion, the death penalty, welfare, flag-burning, gun control, gay rights, corporate malfeasance, the environment, drug control, affirmative action, the Patriot Act, the war in Iraq, and welfare.

Within UUism as a whole, I tend to be more left-wing than the pack (I'm not a Democrat, they are too conservative--and compromised--for me), but within my own demographic (young adult UUs) I'm pretty mainstream. I know a great many UUs who are considerably more radically leftist than I am. So clearly one need not be a Democrat to be a UU, nor share a basic political orientation.

If politcally conservative UUs sometimes feel uncomfortable within UUism, that only bothers me somewhat. I don't say this because I'm not one of them--they're UUs, I want to honor their choices and would rather they come to church with me in fellowship than quit, whatever our differences. Rather, I think it's a pipe-dream to imagine one could ever not be discomforted in UUism. We include such a range of religious (and political) practices and views that it is impossible not to encounter people and groups with attitudes and activities that we find strange, maybe even threatening at times. UU conservatives don't dominate, and that may mean in some cases that they have to do some extra work to feel at home in UUism. But radical progressives don't dominate either--they have to do plenty of work to come to terms with the generally tame liberal sentiments of the UU mass. Meanwhile the neo-pagans freak the humanists out, who make the theists feel disgruntled. We all have our crosses to bear in UUism.

That said, I think it needs to be made explicitly clear that conservative UUs are welcome in our denomination, perhaps similar to the way that we make it loud and clear that we welcome gays. It isn't that the majority of UUs (or even a particularly sizable minority) will ever be gay, or that a general heterosexualism won't continue to permeate all aspects of UUism. Similarly, I want conservatives to have a home in my denomination. They're never going to rule the roost (nor, for that matter, will the more progressive liberals), and they're going to encounter plenty of pro-moderate/liberal attitudes, but that doesn't mean they can't stand with us and walk the spiritual path with folks who cast different ballots once every few years.

Mark Brooks says:

I think the criticism that being a UU also means being a Democrat is in the main true. However, I also believe that a non-creedal, non-dogmatic, free-thinking, religion is ideal for a conservative. Conservatism is very supportive of independence and individuality. As a matter of fact, our Founding Fathers (American and UU) were very independent minded, and put much stock in individuality. What could be more American than that? Likewise, what could be more UU than that?

All that said, I'm probably closest to socialist as anything else on that list. Perhaps communitarian or progressive, I'm not sure. However, I don't see any of that as contradictory to a liberal religious point of view. I also don't see that as contradictory to a conservative religious point of view. Remember, Jesus and the Prophets were very concerned with the poorest of society. There's not anything in Evangelical or Conservative Christianity that requires voting Republican. Many of those folks vote Democratic.

So, yes, I think there is a likelihood that UU will vote Democratic, and there's a likelihood that an Evangelical will vote Republican, but there's no guarantee.

Will Shetterly says:

I'm thinking about this one--which means I'm too busy to tackle it for a couple of days. But it does make me think of an addition to the list of possible names for UUism: The Welcoming Faith. Which would make us Welcomers?

Some would point out that that name doesn't describe us. But many names only describe what we would like to be.

Chris Walton says:

Tom Schade at Prophet Motive chimes in:

I do believe that there is a political programme that flows naturally from liberal religion, and it is traditional liberalism. After all, we shared a crib in the intellectual nursery. In short: an affirmation of cultural pluralism, secular states, free institutions of religion, separation of church and state, consensual, constitutional government, democratic republicanism, human rights, including the right to private property, and equality of the sexes. And a whole list of others that flow from those bullet points.

Read the rest.

Penny Michaels says:

I'm taken by Tom's comment about the separation of church and state as an ideal of traditional liberalism. It's that belief that got me in deep trouble at my (former) church.

When the UUA took a stand against the war in Iraq, it made sense to me--at least I wasn't opposed to it. As an institution, it seemed appropriate to take a stand in a situation where we might have some small chance of influencing the decision. Later, however, the congregation was called by the social action committee to take a similar vote and I found myself to be one of the few voting against it.

My personal faith leads me to make political decisions, not the other way around. While I wasn't in favor of the war, I couldn't, in good conscience, vote for something that would (a) have no effect, (b) put us in lock-step on a very complicated set of issues, and (c) drive a wedge between members and basically tell new members that they weren't welcome if they didn't agree with our politics. The latter is especially self-defeating. I know of no way to convince people of the rightness of my viewpoint by calling them names from a picket line while pretending to support peace. I just didn't see an up side to this.

I wish I belonged to Jeff's wonderful church, but in my part of the world, that action cost me my friends and my spiritual home. (And I thought shunning was an Amish tradition). I truly believe that all UUs have an obligation to take their values into the world, but I object to having the church hijacked to serve the needs of any particular viewpoint--no matter how "right" it may be. Separating church and state was done for a reason, and I think we're finding out what that is. By the time we eliminate everyone who disagrees with us, we'll be a very small denomination indeed.

DaveC says:

I asked somebody at church "Am I the only person here who voted for Bush", and the answer was yes. When the ANSWER and NION folks had their table set up I choked on my coffee and cake; I have stated elsewhere that Ramsey Clark (sponsered by ANSWER) is the most evil lawyer alive, and the bar for that is set pretty high. (Somewhere in a conservative blog, it was pointed out that people actually believe that John Ashcroft is the worst ever Attorney General, when Clark actually defended a 7th Day Adventist preacher in Rwanda who assisted the genocide.)

The last time I was around a regilar church service was last Columbus day when the preacher was castigating the "white Europeans" for all the evil things we have done - slavery, genocide of Native Americans, etc. etc.

So I'm done with that. It's not even worth arguing that America sacrificed more than any other country to end slavery. And of course nobody in church cares about Sudan.

Plus the RE classes that state that Jesus grew up in a Palestinian village. That's a little slanted. I would say Galilee, personally.

Just saying I can't get with the anti-American, anti-Israel program. Sorry.

Chris Walton says:

A question for DaveC and other UUs who voted for George W. Bush in 2000: How do you characterize your political ideology? Would you identify as a libertarian? A conservative? A traditional liberal? A progressive Republican? A foreign-policy or military-minded moderate?

I wonder whether "mainstream" UUs have a mental image of what a Republican is that some UUs who vote Republican would strongly challenge if given the chance. Then again, perhaps the majority has just found ways to shun minority viewpoints rather than deal with the fact that people in the same church hold almost irreconcilable political differences. What do you think?

Barbara Preuninger says:

I describe myself as a "radical moderate", and let people decide what that means on their own.

I'm very concerned about the political conformity & self-righteousness I sometimes witness in UU circles. Often, the "liberal" views I happen to hold are drawn out and praised, while the "conservative" ones are stifled &/or ignored (to the point where people literally forget that I hold them). In the end, I'm left with the uneasy feeling that "free & responsible search for truth and meaning" is not really happening.

Last Sunday, I was privvy to a conversation where the participants quickly concluded that those who didn't agree with their political world view were either ignorant (actually, the word used was an emphatic "STUPID") or profoundly selfish. Why is something like this being said in a UU environment? (Note: this was not the first time I've heard such things!) I almost started to wonder if I had accidentally walked into a group of right-wing Christians in bizzaro-world.

I tried to gently address the issue by saying that I'd love to hear a conversation between one of the participants and my neo-conservative boss. (The two people seem to hold such opposite views, and yet I often find myself agreeing with various aspects of each of their arguments.) Not sure if my point was really taken. At the time I was really not interested in taking an "opposing side", especially when I didn't really *oppose* their world view as much as the self-righteousness and certainty that went along with it. (Any tips on how to tell people they're being obnoxiously sanctimonious without ticking them off? Especially if you like & respect them in other ways?)

I'm mostly concerned with the idea of UU closing in on itself - setting itself apart from all the "ignorant, self-centered masses". Historically, many religions have been *really, really* good at doing this, and it led to their weakening as legitmately helpful entities. Republican voters make up a pretty significant portion of the population (or so I've heard). Is it really wise to assume that *none* of this large group of people really has much of a handle on "Truth", to the point where openly welcoming them to UU is really a minor issue? I don't see how this attitude helps UU either in living up to its own values, nor in growing as an institution.

Matthew Gatheringwater says:

This is turning into an interesting discussion! It is great to hear the experiences of other people. My two cents: Even deeper than divisions over particular political ideologies is the division between Unitarian Universalists who believe politics and religion are the same thing and Unitarian Universalists who believe religion is bigger, deeper, and more ultimate than politics.

DaveC says:

Chris,

I'm responding to your question about the type of political ideology a UU Bush voter might have.

I would describe myself as a 19th century liberal, or a 21st century moderate conservative, or a Reagan Democrat (even though I voted against him twice!).

I believe in a small government. I think that private institions, and the free market in general, do the best job of meeting people's needs. If a private company or institution fails to adequately provide a good or service, then another person or company or church or store will exploit this, and deliver the goods or services. On the other hand, if there is only one centrally controlled source for a good or service, whether that is a government or a monopoly, a failure can be catastrophic, and there may be no recourse. So I am definitely all for capitalism. (Although I would not like to be called a 19th century capitalist. Not with the likes of Rockefeller and Carnegie, no thank you.)

I believe more in negative rights (Congress shall make no law...) moreso than positive rights (Freedom from want, etc).

So you might describe me as somewhat libertarian, I agree with many things in Charles Murray's book "Why I am a libertarian".

On the other hand I like the fact that there are national parks, interstate highways, public libraries, and to a certain extent clean air and water legislation.

I believe also that lower taxes = more freedom, but paradoxically that no taxes = less freedom.

I went to a big Southern Baptist church recently and was pretty appalled by some of the things said from the pulpit. The echo chamber effect certainly happens at conservative churches as well.

A big problem is that many of the people who strongly voice their opinions are, in some way or another, activists that tend to take extreme positions (on both sides). So these people end up in the clergy, or head up committees and think that everybody is supposed to agree with them.

==============

Here's how I have voted in Presidential elections:

Carter
Carter
Mondale (I had misgivings while doing this)
Bush
Clinton
Dole (Just for fun! I knew Clinton would win.)
Bush

In retrospect, I should have voted:

Carter
Reagan
Reagan
Bush
Clinton
Clinton
Bush

=============

Here's some other weblogs I read (this will tell you a lot - to many, this looks very right wing):

Lileks
InstaPundit
Andrew Sullivan
National Review Online
WindsofChange
Tacitus
CrookedTimber
Michael J Totten
Roger L Simon
Steven Den Beste
Belmont Club
IraqTheModel
HealingIraq
Arts & Letters Daily

and of course, Philocrites

Look up in Steven Den Beste's archives about how atheism is a belief system as much as any religion is; it is a pretty interesting read.

============

Here's how I feel about the issues:

abortion - Should be legal, but is generally morally wrong after 2nd trimester.

death penalty - Support, but only for the most heinous cases. Sentencing guidelines are messed up for this.

welfare - A minimal safety-net is desirable, but a mindset that these are "entitlements" is very undesirable. Thanks, President Clintion for trying to fix this!

flag-burning - Should be legal, though most people who do this are dirtbags

gun control - Responsible adults should be able to own guns. (Not machine guns or Grenade launchers.) Unfortunately, too many people are not responsible

gay rights - I don't hassle gays and think it is wrong to do so. On the other hand, some are complete jerks like the 21 year old college student who felt discriminated against because he couldn't be a Scoutmaster. Give me a break. Civil unions, OK. Marriage, I'll have to think about that - I feel strongly both ways? (Read Andrew Sullivan, then NRO, then Brian Tiemann for interesting points. Andrew and Brian are both gay "conservatives" but reach completely different conclusions.)

corporate malfeasance - is bad.

environment - The best way to have clean air is to use more nuclear power. So there are tough choices. I think that the more affluent a society is, the better for the environment. Going back to cooking and heating with wood stoves would be a bad thing.

drug control - Too much money is spent and lives are messed up from fighting marijuana. Pot is not harmless, however, and heroin, PCP, etc. should never be considered for legalization.

affirmative action - Probably does more harm than good in education. In some cases it has been helpful in hiring opportunities, for some public sector jobs it makes sense.

the Patriot Act - Much of this is common sense. Some of this should have sunset provisions. Some parts are probably bad.

the war in Iraq - Something like this was necessary. Saddam was a bad bad guy who had already demonstrated that his strategic goal was to seize control of the Kuwaiti and Saudi oil fields. I go along with the neo-cons on this that the world desperately needs a model civil society in a large Arab country. (I don't consider Turkey to be Arab.)

=============

Why Bush? I voted for Clinton in part because I liked Gore; I voted for Bush because I belatedly liked Reagan. There was somthing about Gore that I didn't like but I couldn't quite put my finger on it. This may not make much sense, but I have this aversion to do-gooders, and that was probably what ultimately made me decide the way I did. When my son was in 2nd grade, a social worker from the school strongly suggested to my wife that we put my son on Ritalin. My son is a very bright kid and we (my wife actually) had him tested by a real psychologist, and even though he tested out great the school continued to give us trouble. They said that maybe he could help tutor some of slower kids. Hey - he was a second grader who wanted to learn, and was bored and getting into trouble, so they wanted to make him into a teacher because they weren't teaching him. So anyway both my kids eventually went to private school which was a big financial burden on us, and I could have used some of those school choice vouchers.

One thing about that 2000 election I didn't like was that my daughter was upset and afraid that Bush might be elected. When I asked her why, she said that "if Bush is elected, I won't be able to get an abortion." She was 11 years old at that time. That just seemed wrong to me. I don't know whether this type of indoctrination had occurred in church or from friends or television. But divisive issues that do not have any single good solution are used over and over again by all sides to stir up emotions. Children should not be subjected to those issues.

=============

My wife loves teaching Religious Education. I am generally happy that my kids went through RE at the UU church. The OurWholeLives sex education was good. My daughter went to the UU Mountain Camp in North Carolina and had a wonderful time. There are many very nice people at church. I personally am not a big "joiner" - I'm a long-time "friend" of the church, not a member - and am somewhat of a sceptic, so I can't really think of ANY denomination that I would feel particularly comfortable with, thought UU seems like it ought to have been a good fit.

I hope that I haven't sounded too negative about all this.

Best Regards,
DaveC

Chris Walton says:

My friend Rick Heller, whom I met at a Wesley Clark Meetup in Cambridge last fall, discusses the attractions a libertarian or political centrist might feel for Unitarian Universalism at his religion blog, Transparent Eye.

Chris Walton says:

33 of us have taken the quiz, and I'm intrigued by the highly unscientific results:

• Thirty-three percent of us identify with "liberal."
• Twenty-seven percent identify with an ideology usually defined as farther to the left: "progressive" (4), "socialist" (4), or "green" (1).
• But another thirty-three percent identify with positions that are often considered centrist: "moderate" (6) or "communitarian" (5).
• No one has identified with "anarchist," "conservative," or "libertarian."

I don't trust us as a representative sample, however, because I know of UUs whose political ideology clearly lines up with each of these unmarked categories.

But I wonder how far off the poll really is: At the General Assembly this year, delegates overwhelmingly embraced a "liberal" position on Iraq — endorsing the recent U.N. Security Council Resolution that sets up a timetable for international withdrawal — and rejected a more radical position, which would have demanded immediate and total U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

Mark Brooks says:

I've already signed in as a socialist, but let me say that not all of my beliefs would fit in that neat category. I support the death penalty. I also support a moratorium on the death penalty. I believe that the death penalty should be used in only the most heinous of cases. We use it much too frequently (I live in Texas). I also believe that there are innocent people on death row, and that probably we have put innocent people to death. All that said, I believe that society should keep the option open for the death penalty. Society should be able to protect itself from the likes of Kenneth Allen McDuff and Timothy McVeigh.

I also support the right to an abortion. I feel it should be used in only the most serious of circumstances, but I believe that the option should remain open to women.

If we forego either of those possibilities, I believe the society as a whole is potentially at risk.

I support same-sex marriage. I've been divorced twice and married thrice, so you might wonder why I would support ANYONE getting married. But, if that's what two people want to do, that's okay with me. It's really none of my business. However, I don't think poly marriage is sustainable. I don't think polyamory is even viable. I can't say I've tried it, but I just don't see how there could not be jealousy and resentment involved. Do I think it should be legal? I don't know. I suppose after hearing arguments about it, I could have a definite opinion. There could be all kinds of problems when it comes to parental rights and custody should the poly union dissolve. Probably, I'm against it.

Legalize drugs? I'm inclined to be in favor of it. I've spent most of my life against it, but presently it looks like the illegality of drugs is more dangerous that the actual use of drugs. Does drug use harm society, no doubt it does. Does the spending and use of manpower in the war on drugs harm society, yes it does. Does the war on drugs cause more harm to society that the use of drugs, I believe it does.

That's just a few issues I can think of off the top of my head. So, even though I'm much farther left than most Texans, I still have the incongruous opinion from time to time.

Meredith says:

Being a Texas UU (as Mark is) I have the image of a very liberal person in the general community, but compared to my UU friends I am probably not that far left. My husband is very moderate and disagrees with me on school choice (privatization, not just charter and magnet school which I've no problem with) and gun control. We are both Kerry voters (and nothing could sway me to Bush).

I find myself not being as Green as my congregation, but being on the same page as most of them.

We really don't have an issue with politics making anyone feel left out in our meetings. We do have a few conservatives in our already very small church. They feel very at home here in Texas. It's the other 30 of us who are the only Kerry voters we know.

There are closet Democrats in our Baptist churches and I'm sure they feel the same way as the Bush voters in the UU. There is no way to deny that a Bible-based belief church will instill conservative political values, spoken or unspoken. Moving to alternative religions/thoughts/beliefs logically moves one away from conservative politics, even if not intentionally or persuasively.

I think we really can accept all, but it's best if we don't discuss "the church's" view because we shouldn't have one. I have met pro-choice Catholics and Mormons for gay rights, so anything is possible.

Nate Oman says:

If you will permit a non-UU interloper who is enjoying this conversation to interject a question, I have one. To the extent that there are UUs (is that the proper terminology?) who closely identify their religious liberalism with their political liberalism, how do they respond to the idea of public reason that is quite popular with many liberal thinkers. By public reason, I mean the idea that political arguments must be made in terms accessible to all members of a pluralistic society. Hence, religious arguments are out. (For examples of liberal thinkers who make this sort of argument look at John Rawls, Robert Audi, or Bruce Ackerman.) Is their something about UU theology that makes it public? (Perhaps the wholehearted embrace of theological pluralism?) Do politically liberal UUs simply reject the idea of public reason, ie religious arguments in politics are just fine? Do they engage in conceptual and rhetorical abstienence, ie no religious ideas in the political idealogy; the congruence is coincidental?

Matthew Gatheringwater says:

Hooray for non-UU interlopers! Nate has pointed out one of the elephants around which we typically arrange our pews. Frankly, we don't talk too much about "public reason." I think it is a legacy of the time when Americanism and Unitarianism were pretty much the same thing--especially in the minds of Unitarians! Although unitarian theology and people with unitarian views predated America, Unitarianism has a special relationship with America because our country and our religion were inspired by similar liberal religious principles. Since the sixties, Unitarian Universalists have often lost sight of that fact (although books like Forrest Church's American Creed are good reminders) as we have been infected with cynicism and a kind of dismal liberalism, and we have marginalized ourselves right out of the public conversation to the point where even our friends keep us at arm's distance. (See John Kerry.) Patriotism and optimism are hard to muster, but we are still workin' that old sense of self-righteous entitlement as if we continued to frame the public debate. We routinely object to the way in which religion is used by political conservatives, but lately this seems to be motivated less on principle and more from a fear that "they" are doing it better than "we" are.

Ironically, many newspapers this week have been running a story that opens with a woman who normally attends a Untiarian Universalist congregation, but now spends Sundays going to religiously conservative churches to try and catch them pushing political ideology from the pulpit! Apparently, UUs *do* embrace the idea of public reason--especially if it is a stranglehold on religious/political conservatives. If only we turned the same critical look at our own pulpits! I still haven't quite recovered from a UU sermon in which the minister suggested the Berg beheading might actually been carried out by American intelligence agents who needed propaganda to distract from the torture at Abu Gharib.

Far from engaging arguments about public reason, we seem to have adopted a nudge-nudge, wink-wink attitude toward politics in the pulpit. Take a look at this statement from the UUA's coverage of the General Assembly:

"Near took advantage of her status as a guest to say that although we probably can't say it, she could liken today's times to the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago. 'The whole world is watching' to see whether the people of the United States will take their 'huge opportunity on November 4th — we must get George Bush out of office.'"

Or how about this, from the new Unitarian Universalists for Kerry blog: "Although a denomination may not, by law, be involved in candidate campaigns, many of us are working to -- in [UUA] President Sinkford's words, 'Reclaim our democracy.'"

Obviously, we are self-conscious about being seen to use religion to further political aims, but we're going to try and get away with it anyway.

Chris Walton says:

Nate asks a great question:

To the extent that there are UUs . . . who closely identify their religious liberalism with their political liberalism, how do they respond to the idea of public reason . . . the idea that political arguments must be made in terms accessible to all members of a pluralistic society.

A couple of things: The early American Unitarians assumed that reason was a God-given capacity that allowed human beings to comprehend both revelation and natural law. The proper interpretation of scripture and the proper interpretation of law — natural and civil — was made possible through reason. For these Unitarians, there would have seemed to be no contradiction between the expectation that religious people would use "rational" arguments in debating public policy. What they did object to was the claim that anyone could claim to possess a special revelation that defied rational scrutiny. So you can see how the secular notion of public reason actually has a historical root in an idea that, in the 18th and early 19th centuries, had religious traction.

In the 20th century, a very different notion drew a great deal of interest from Unitarians and some Universalists: the idea that theology could be made scientific, either as a form of social science, or in a few cases as hard science. (I have never found this approach even remotely convincing, but that's another matter.) These humanist Unitarians would have endorsed the idea that "religion" has no place in public dialogue — unless it had been tested scientifically, which is really a way of saying that it would have been translated into rational terms anyway.

The question I have for religious conservative critics of the idea of public reason is this: What criterion is available for people to use when several competing factions show up in the public square claiming "Thus saith the Lord"? What's the conservative's justification for life in a pluralistic society?

It's a good question for Mormons, for example, who have this affirmation as one of their church's Articles of Faith: "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." Apparently a Mormon hegemony would still allow Unitarian Universalists, Buddhists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Pagans, Roman Catholics, and Santeriasts to worship in a society they dominated — but how would they structure the public discourse? Utah doesn't provide a wholly satisfying test case, from my perspective.

It seems to me that Rawls expects people to abstract themselves and their own commitments out of the picture before entering the public square, which seems much too high a bar. But some notion of public reason — say, social ethics from one's own religious perspective — translates "faith" into something other people can evaluate, question, discuss, and test. Roman Catholic social ethics is a great example, as far as I'm concerned. I don't need to accept or even comprehend another person's starting point — although it helps if I can at least conjure up sympathy for why another human being would value what they value — but I do need to be able to discuss the consequences of the public policies they want to implement. That's a notion of public reason I think most religious people who don't look forward to banishing the infidels can get behind.

James Field says:

I think there are "pubic intellectuals" that construe public reason differently. I'm thinking of an essay by Cornel West (former Harvard now Princeton) in David Batstone (from Sojourners) book The Good Citizen.

Several of the authors in The Good Citizen talk about attempts to relegate all values to the private sphere. West argues from a more left position that it is essential to find ways to revalorize nonmarket values like compassion and caring.

The conversation matters because the preservation of democracy is threatened by real economic decline. While it is not identical to moral and cultural decay, it is inseparable from it. Even though the pocketbook is important, many Americans are concerned more about the low quality of their lives, the constant fear of violent assault and cruel insult, the mean spiritedness and cold heartedness of social life, and the inability to experience deep levels of intimacy. These are signs of a culturally decadent civilization.

By Decadent, I mean the relative erosion of systems of nurturing and caring, which affects each of us, but which has an especially devastating impact on young people. Any civilization that is unable to sustain its networks of caring and nurturing wil generate enough anger and aggression to make communications near impossible. The result is a society in which we do not even respect each other enough to listen to each other. Dialogue is the lifeblood of democracy and is predicated on certain bonds of trust and respect. At this moment of cultural decay, it is difficult to find places where those ties of sympathy may be nurtured. . . .

Spirituality requires an experience of someting bigger than our individual selves that binds us to a community. It could be in an authoritarian bind, of course, which is why the kind of spiritual and moral awakening that is necessary for a democracy to function is based on a sense of the public -- a sense of what it is to be a citizen among citizens. . . .

The ultimate logic of a market culture is the gangsterization of culture. I want power now. I want pleasure now. I want property now. Your property give it to me. . . .

In our own time it is becoming extremely difficult for nonmarket values to gain a foothold. Parenting is a nonmarket activity; so much sacrifice and service goes into it wihout any assurance that the providers will get anything back. Mercy, justice: they are nonmarket. Care, service: nonmarket. Solidarity, fidelity: nonmarket. Sweetness and kindness and gentleness. All nonmarket.

Tragically, nonmarket values are relatively scarce, which is one of the reasons why it is so tough to mobilize and organize people in our society around just about any cause. It is hard to convince people that there are alternative options for which they ought to sacrifice. Ultimately, there can be no democratic tradition without nonmarket values.

For all the public "liberalism" in UU circles, theology/values are basically forced to the private/personal sphere. Collectively we need to do a better job of having community and solidarity across all are divides that can provide a model for dialogue and pluralism in the world even more than we need to be involved in fairly superficial electoral and protest politics.

For the record, I sympathize with anarchist and socialist positions but was not comfortable with the joke taglines for each.

Nate Oman says:

Thanks for the response to me questions. This is interesting stuff.

It seems to me that you have outlined essentially two responses to the problem of public reasons:

1. One denies the distinction between religion and public reason, by insisting on a reasonable and rational theology. While this was perhaps -- as Chris suggests -- once a historically viable option, I am extremely skeptical that it will work today. Too much of what 18th and 19th century rationalists took as being "Reason" was simply cultural homogeneity. Hence, I am not certain that even UUs (again, forgive me if I misuse terminology) can make the claim their theology is "public" in a world of really radical pluralism. Perhaps Catholic Social Thought provides a counter-example. To be honest with you, I don't know where I come down on this. There is much to admire in CST, but I am not sure to what extent it provides a truely "public" discourse.

2. One argues for a less rigorous idea of public reason and puts in its place...what exactly? I agree with Chris that Rawls's professed claim that all participants in public dialogue must abstract themselves completely from their conception of the good is probably untenable. (I am also persuaded by the criticisms of Michael Sandel, who suggests Rawls' concept of public reason requires a desicated view of personhood.) On the otherhand, I am not quite sure what the alternative is supposed to be. As Chris points out one can write the idea of respect for religious pluralism into one's theology a la Mormonism, but it is not clear that this assertion standing alone provides any guidence for how one should conduct public or political dialogue. Much the same thing can be said, I think, of West and others from the pragmatic tradition. Approaching concepts and discussion functionally may hold the the conceptual problem of pluralism at bay for a while, but ultimately doing what works will only work if we have common concept of what works, yet the absence of this kind of concensus is what pushed us toward pragmatism in the first place. (BTW, I would disagree with some of West's criticism of market values, but that is a seperate issue.) It seems that West articulates a longing for a solution without actually articulating a solution.

A more radical version of 2 would be to adopt what one might call a prophetic approach. What I mean is the approach taken by someone like Martin Luther King, Ghandi, or Jeremiah (for that matter). One simply delivers a full-throated and unapologetic denucition and call for progress that is indifferent to the niceties of liberal discourse. Stephen Carter has a wonderful essay on this in _Christian Perspectives in Legal Thought_ (Yale UP, McConnell et al eds.), talking about the role of religion in the Civil Rights movement and its philosophical -- and perhaps more importantly practical -- conflict with liberalism. To be honest with you, this has always been the way that I have understood UUs and others of the religious left. In other words, for me the liberalism has always come tinged with more than a little irony.

David R. Burton says:

The UUA and many UU churches demonstrate by their actions that THEY believe you must be a left-wing Democrat to be a good UU. Thankfully, not all churches affiliated with the UUA are like that, however.

The American Unitarian tradition of loving God and loving your neighbor as your self, reason in religion, religious tolerance, congregational polity and a religious exploration anchored in the Western intellectual tradition is a fine tradition. It bears little resemblance to the God free, politics as religion, intolerant UUism practiced in so many places. The same is true of UUism and Universalism.

An individual who values individual liberty and the individual responsibility that is a necessary companion of true freedom, private enterprise, limited government, federalism and the rule of law would feel very uncomfortable in most UU churches, reading the UUA web site or reading the UU World. In other words, Reagan Republicans, classical liberals, libertarians, and limited government conservatives constituting about 40 percent of the public are made to feel unwelcome since it is clear that the unifying force in most UU congregations and at the UUA is not shared religious opinion but shared left-liberal political opinion.

Most religions, whether Methodism, Roman Catholism, Baptist, Judaism or many others can accommodate differences of political opinion. I am unconvinced this is true in most UU congregations or the UUA.

Rana says:

I don't want to disrupt what is turning out to be a fascinating discussion, but I want to point out the blurriness of the categories you have in your poll. If I wanted, I could easily fit into all of these categories: Communitarian, Green, Liberal, Progressive, Socialist.

Perhaps this is something to take into account when discussing the "liberality" of UUs -- some are "classic" liberals (like old-fashioned Dems and some Republicans) while others are more lefty and some are libertarians with progressive leanings, etc.

I do think it's a sad thing if human welfare and care of the environment are deemed the exclusive property of one party. Shouldn't all political affiliations care about these things, even if they disagree about the means?

James Field says:

Nate:

I left out a lot of what West might suggest as a solution. Following Dewey, he ultimately believes in the power of dialogue. I am less optimistic. I am skeptical of people who think all that is needed is dialogue or that we fundamentally just have a communication problem a la Habermas.

I tend to be more oriented toward your closing point. The ethics of liberal religion may necessitate a more radical relationship to state power and social institutions. Mere voting (democracy for 2 minutes every other year) is a fairly poor way of pariticpating in civil society.

For UU's we are left with either a universalistic or a relativistic version of this. Either we build a consensus (or appeal to some higher authority) to establish social ethics that members are ethically charged to follow or we must support everyone in determining their values and how best to live them out.

Nate Oman says:

James: I realize that there is more to West than the snippet that you quoted, but I still agree with you that Dewey and discourse are not our salvation. Particularlly once one considers the functionalism of Dewey's concept of discourse. (I just finished working on a paper dealing inter alia with Dewey's forays into jurisprudence -- having spent a couple of weeks down that particular rabbit hole, I'm not optimistic.)

Chris Walton says:

This discussion is moving in a nicely theoretical direction — and I haven't forgotten about "public reason," Nate: I'll have more to say soon! But I think there's a practical, congregational question we could discuss, so I've started a new conversation: How can we model hospitality to the full range of political views that can legitimately claim a place in Unitarian Universalism?

Paul says:

I am a Unitarian and to the right of center politically , but I believe all are welcome to UU regardless of political proclivities. We need not all be liberal Democrats .

Craig Haynie says:

Your poll does not offer any choice for the American Conservative. The American Conservative movement does not want to 'Keep things the way they are.' The American Conservative movement wants a freer society, with open markets, lower taxes, private social security, private health care funds for individuals, and a host of new ideas.