Right-Wing UUs

[bicker]

There are seven principles which Unitarian Universalist congregations affirm and promote:

1. The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
2. Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
3. Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
4. A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
5. The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
6. The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
7. Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

If you can lean right and still embrace the vast majority of what those seven principles imply, then great. I know some folks who try, though I assure you that the vast majority of people in this country who lean right would view such people as leaning left - heavily left. The whole concept of respecting "others" rather than expecting everyone to live according to your own beliefs and values is, regrettably, a left-leaning perspective these days. Right-leaning folks generally refuse, as a matter of principle, to recognize that their own religion's precepts truly have no relevance beyond their own body, their own family, their own home, and their own church. Considering other religious belief systems wholly equal to their own is, in some ways, the exact opposite of what right-leaning means - right-leaning, to a great extent, includes the assertion of primacy of one, specific, preexisting belief system, so it is almost as if we can "mathematically" prove that the intersection between right-wing (at least) and UU is null, given the fourth principle.

 

[lilithu]

If you can lean right and still embrace the vast majority of what those seven principles imply, then great. I know some folks who try, though I assure you that the vast majority of people in this country who lean right would view such people as leaning left - heavily left. The whole concept of respecting "others" rather than expecting everyone to live according to your own beliefs and values is, regrettably, a left-leaning perspective these days.

What he said. :yes: I don't care about labels - theist, atheist, Democrat, Republican, whatever.... but our Principles are our shared values as a community. Without them, we are not one. It makes no sense to say that our tolerance should be so wide that we tolerate people who would denigrate others. In the face of oppression, there is no such thing as "neutral." People who are "neutral" side with the oppressors. So... as long as you affirm our principles, we're family. If you don't, well, I'm going to point it out. And if that feels like I'm not "tolerating" your views, so be it. I've really been amazed by the number of people who will insult someone else, and when I call them on it, they claim I'm not respecting their inherent worth and dignity.

I'd also argue that our 7th Principle runs counter to libertarianism. If you recognize that we are all interconnected with each other, it's hard to justify an "every person for themself" mentality.

 

[freddiehayek]

Principle 1 ask us to attribute worth and dignity to everyone and that includes people on the Right. Principle 7 asks us to acknowledge the web of existence which includes even humans on the Right. Principle 4 allows us to search for truth and meaning in the world and this means listening to (if not agreeing with) the Right.

I classify myself as an independent which means that I listen to the left (The New York Times) and the Right (The Wall St. Journal) and make my choices after considering both. My favorite principal is the Fourth and I head a discussion group at my congregation in which speakers from both sides are invited and the audience invited to question opinions and even what speakers present as facts from both sides. I am always checking my own beliefs.

The labels Democratic and Republican are misleading because members of both parties agree with some of their party principles and disagree with others. I am a fiscal conservative and a religious liberal and I find the choice I must make when I vote somewhat tragic because no one candidate for president is willing to disagree with Party dogma and do what is best for the US at the cost of his career as a politician.

Freddie

 

[bicker]

Principle 1 ask us to attribute worth and dignity to everyone and that includes people on the Right. Principle 7 asks us to acknowledge the web of existence which includes even humans on the Right. Principle 4 allows us to search for truth and meaning in the world and this means listening to (if not agreeing with) the Right.

This thread was not about how UUs should treat and interact with people on the right-wing. It was about whether people on the right-wing could be UU (and if so, what were the parameters of such belonging, given the tenets of the UU faith).

 

[freddiehayek]

I do not see the Seven Principles being used to prevent people from joining because their political desires differ from the general liberalism of UUs. Those who are right-wing may leave if they feel others are too hostile and insulting to them or if they feel that joining UUism is simply funding Democratic Party goal attainment. Or, like me, they may stay and defend their positions.

Take the case of achieving world peace. There are those who feel that disarmament and pacifism is the way to achieve world peace and there are others who feel that maintaining a strong military is the way to prevent wars by governments that feel a country may be an easy pushover. Both views are methods of achieving peace and discussion is valid in getting an informed decision on which way to go. To say that only one method is correct for UUs is to promulgate dogma.

Freddie

 

[applewuud]

I have a mild objection to the statement that religious liberals are a minority of religious people. Liberals believe that God will provide all the money to fund their programs to end "oppression" and restore "fairness", or to put it more bluntly that God will always provide enough rich people to be shorn to foot the bills. Conservatives are not that sure.

Freddie

How does this characterization of "liberals" refute that religious liberals are a minority in the overall community?

BTW, as far as "providing enough rich people", members of liberal UU and Episcopal denominations have historically been in the upper percentiles of income.

 

[applewuud]

...Take the case of achieving world peace. There are those who feel that disarmament and pacifism is the way to achieve world peace and there are others who feel that maintaining a strong military is the way to prevent wars by governments that feel a country may be an easy pushover. Both views are methods of achieving peace and discussion is valid in getting an informed decision on which way to go. To say that only one method is correct for UUs is to promulgate dogma.

Freddie

I agree.

But Reinhold Niehbur caught a lot of flak from religious liberals in the 1930s when he left pacifism and thought Christians had to prepare to fight Nazism and Stalinism. By 1945 his ideas were mainstream. Too bad when feeling deeply about an issue leads one to hold a dogmatic position and act offended when one's dogma is challenged.

 

[freddiehayek]

I believe that despite the higher incomes of religious liberals there are still not enough of them to make a serious dent in poverty. Religious liberals favor government programs to cure the ills of society and at the same time make sure that they pay the minimum taxes, leaving others to pay for the government programs.

Freddie

 

[Genswer]

I don't think there are many UU's who are right-wing on social issues. Maybe on some economic issues, people might favor a more laissez-faire approach.

Of course this depends on what you call right-wing or left-wing.

 

[Reverend Rick]

While I am not a UU and will delete this post upon request, I am a universalist and a republican who supports SS marriage.

 

[Antiochian]

I believe that despite the higher incomes of religious liberals there are still not enough of them to make a serious dent in poverty. Religious liberals favor government programs to cure the ills of society and at the same time make sure that they pay the minimum taxes, leaving others to pay for the government programs.

Freddie

Religious liberals are filthy rich? This is news to me. I won't broadcast my annual income on this forum, but let's just say a politician (or a televangelist for that matter) would be giving up quite a few of their luxuries were they forced to live on the same amount. And I'm not lazy. I work hard for what I do make.

 

[freddiehayek]

I was merely copying Applewud's statement:"BTW, as far as providing enough rich people", members of liberal UU and Episcopal denominations have historically been in the upper percentiles of income". I have heard this before but I have never tried to find out if it is true. I do not know any fellow UUs who are "filthy rich", whatever that means, but then people rarely broadcast their net worth or 1040 tax forms.

It is unfortunately fashionable today to punish success as something shameful that has occurred only due to stealing from the less successful.Only the less successful are to be admired and rewarded.

Freddie

 

[lilithu]

It is unfortunately fashionable today to punish success as something shameful that has occurred only due to stealing from the less successful.Only the less successful are to be admired and rewarded.

Success is great. Where the pushback comes from is certain people thinking that they achieved their success alone, without help from others.

 

[freddiehayek]

Remember Rawls? He said that successful people deserve no credit for their success because they were guided by their parents in supplying the right genes for thinking and determination and growing up in a place with opportunities for applying these traits. Similarly, the unsuccessful had less fortunate parents. Therefore, all the rewards for success should be stripped from the successful and given to the unsuccessful.

This transfer would be done by the government as individuals are not to be trusted. We all have becomes robots without any inherent worth or dignity and must be ruled by the always benevolent, non-egotistic bureaucrats.

Freddie

 

[Antiochian]

I was merely copying Applewud's statement:"BTW, as far as providing enough rich people", members of liberal UU and Episcopal denominations have historically been in the upper percentiles of income". I have heard this before but I have never tried to find out if it is true. I do not know any fellow UUs who are "filthy rich", whatever that means, but then people rarely broadcast their net worth or 1040 tax forms.

It is unfortunately fashionable today to punish success as something shameful that has occurred only due to stealing from the less successful.Only the less successful are to be admired and rewarded.

Freddie

I know some staunch (fiscally AND socially) conservative Evangelicals who are quite wealthy. Some of them are my distant relatives. They believe in the prosperity gospel and all that happy horse manure.

I have worked as a nursing assistant in a retirement home over 10 years. I was desperate for a job at the time--any job--and was fortunately hired. It's backbreaking work, but the pay is overall astonishingly low. The administrator and office employees, on the other hand, sit behind desks and talk down to us and treat us as their inferiors, and they take home a far bigger paycheck.

Am I whining? Maybe, but I've seen what I've seen. You may ask why I don't just quit that work and try to get a better-paying job by educating myself. I am trying to better myself. I am taking college courses. But my point is, *someone* has to do that work, because I don't see a lot of people volunteering to take in their elderly family members with dementia or other serious health issues. My dad was treated the same way in his factory job. He was never an educated man, but he could work his butt off for days on end. And the jerk with the "book knowledge" who ran the place treated him like garbage. The jerk that you might say society is "punishing for being successful."

I don't believe in 'punishing' rich people. But I do get tired of them manipulating the lower classes, particularly the poor. I've also seen my share of people who didn't work for their "success" at all, but had it handed to them on a silver platter by mommy and daddy. The Paris Hiltons of this world. That's just my 3 cents. Take it for what it's worth.

 

[freddiehayek]

A reply to Antiochain is difficult to compose without seeming insensitive to the problems of the poor. Even so, continuing to expand our spending to entitlements to everyone who seems to deserve one is leading to default on our debts as the spending can only come from borrowing more money and increasing out debt to the point that we default on our loans. Yes, the government can print more dollars to pay off the debt but the dollar becomes worth less and less as we do that. In the end, everyone will become poor when we need wheelbarrows to tote our money to the market to buy food as the Germans did between the two world wars.

Freddie