American Unitarian Conference Forum

I had a thought today to share with the group.  

Until recently, I thought that the reason the Unitarian Universalist Association and many main-line Protestant churches failed their members was because they had tried to pass off politics as spirituality.  It occurred to me today the reason was not that simple.

Politics can be spiritual.  If someone is deeply convinced that abortion should be made easier to obtain or harder to obtain, working toward that goal can be a spiritual experience.

The failure is not the melding of politics.  It's the freezing of positions.  

The difference between a spiritual outlook and a political view is that a spiritual view has to be relatively constant to be meaningful.  Few people can pray to God today, Allah tomorrow, and Vishnu on Friday.  In a happy person, changes in spiritual outlook will come very slowly.

A political view should not be static, however.  When the underlying facts change, people should be ready to change their positions.  The easiest way to meld politics and spirituality is to freeze one's political opinion.  If one decides that God wants me to work toward a certain goal, that person risks ignoring any new information that suggests the goal is not so important.

A church should say to people "God is constant.  Information on political issues is ever-changing.  Let God direct you on your work on causes, but always be trying to learn more, and be willing to change your position and your work should the fact change on you.  In this modern age with tons of information available, the facts will change.  God gave you a mind for a reason."

What do you all think?  

Yes, ...except, I would substitute opinions/beliefs/interpretations for "facts" (corresponding to truth) as facts won't change whereas opinions/beliefs/interpretations etc. should change if unsupported by facts. It still takes compiling all of the facts...rather than only some..to make the most truthful proposition...the devil is in the details...context, interpretation etc.

When churches take various political stances...facts that go against their perceived belief system (which suggests a certain political stance) generate hostility, attack, ridicule and are usually ignored or downplayed to their adherents. Galileo can attest to that.

The AUC lists several direct statements in its principles that may change with new facts:

1. God's presence is made known in a myriad of ways.
2. Reason is a gift from God.
3. Free will is a gift from God.
6. Revelation is ongoing.

Each of these statements, though generally accepted as true, probably do not reach the threshold of fact as one element may not be "provable"....God or not adequately demonstrated...revelation is ongoing.

I agree 100% Jason. I don't think faith and politics can be separated into neat little compartments but I also think that a church should not be held together by political views and social issues (as many are, and to an unfortunately increasing degree my own included). I would agree with eruonen that revelation is ongoing and that people shouldn't lock their positions in place despite masses of evidence to the contrary (cough Bush cough)-though on the other flip-flopping constantly isn't a good sign either.

But good thoughts!

Great points Jason-I have learned by experience that static political ideology doesn't fit well with the dynamism and complexity of reality.

I also think that there's a difference between political activity aimed at helping others and political activity aimed at using government to endorse/enforce a particular religious idea.

In the end, I think that private groups addressing social issues by way of politics is not terribly useful, at least not in an immediate sense. I was disappointed with the American Cancer Society's decision to use it's $15M advertising budget towards lobbying for better health care for underinsured cancer patients. I'd have rather seen them-and I'd have made a donation to this end-use that money to actually provide help directly to those who need it.

But I digress...

Thanks!

Do you know people who flip-flop constantly on politics? I honestly don't know anyone like that, although I certainly believe they exist. Maybe it's because I'm in Washington, DC, but people seem very constant in their viewpoints.

The problem is that people start twisting all new information to fit their existing viewpoint, thereby preventing any new understanding.

In both the Clinton and Bush years, for example, websites accused the government of fudging the economic numbers if the numbers indicated the economy was doing well. But if the numbers showed the economy wasn't doing so well, these same websites would use the information to bash the president. The people who posted on these websites had mentally blocked out any data that they didn't like.

Regards,

Jason

"In both the Clinton and Bush years, for example, websites accused the government of fudging the economic numbers if the numbers indicated the economy was doing well. But if the numbers showed the economy wasn't doing so well, these same websites would use the information to bash the president. The people who posted on these websites had mentally blocked out any data that they didn't like."

It's crazy isn't it?! But I find that people generally like fantasy rather than fact

Well they say we do create our own reality...and perception is 9/10 of it. It is purely laughable how politicians criticize their opponents these days but ignore the same thing when it occurs on their side of teh aisle (it makes me resistant to hearing criticism from anyone now). Wonder how THAT happens!

Anyway, I don't know any politician who "flip-flops" per se but they all seem to try and position themselves to escape any situation. Few seem to have any real convictions they can hold onto for any length of time.