Re: Double Standards
From: David G Adams (dadamsworld.std.com)
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 95 16:59 CST
> 
> Well, for the past several days there have been NUMEROUS
> posts on UU. Many of which have asserted than many/most
> members of various coho groups are UU, & others have 
> suggested that people seekign to recruit for coho should
> look to UU groups, thus perpetuating the current skewing of 
> membership. This discussion might lead many people to believe
> thatt they are not welcome in coho, from various perspectives.
> Although UU claims to be UNiversal, it really only is
> Universal with regard to many forms of christianity.  
I tried to take this thread off the list, but I've been misinterpreted 
(well, my name wasn't mentioned, so I can't really complain) so I'll post a 
defense of why UU and coho are so compatible.  Here's the UU Principles for 
everyone's reading pleasure...

UUs covenant to affirm and promote...
* 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
* A free and responsible search for truth and meaning
* The right of conscience and the use of the democratic 
  process within our congregations and in society at large.
* The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and 
  justice for all
* Respect for the interdependent web of all existence, of 
  which we are a part.

> If someone
> were practicing traditional Jewish religious practices, their
> practices woudl not be encompassed in UU, which, first of
> all, alsmot allways hold their "nondenominational services"
> on sundays. Additionally, many forms of pagan/wiccan practice
> are not encompassed by most UU groups. And yet, traditional 
> religious christians of various denominations also condemn UU,
> believing that it is a flight from "real" christianity. 
Well, it _is_ a flight from "real" christianity.  We recognize our judeo- 
christian roots, especially christian, but the vast majority of UUs do not 
recognize the divinity of Christ (hence Unitarian, not Trinitarian), we do 
not believe in heaven and hell, original sin is out the door, no second 
coming, no armageddon.  Doesn't sound anything like Christianity to me.  The 
inderdepentant web of existence sounds pretty pagan, as well.
On the subject of traditional Jews, I bet you won't find a coho community 
anywhere in the US that has a strictly kosher common house kitchen.  Correct 
me if I'm wrong, folks.  Oh, and we do have many Jewish ceremonies at our UU 
church, and my coho group (which meets at the UU church) lit a minora (sp?) 
at a meeting in December.  A UU congregation, like a diverse coho group, is 
incapable of formally meeting every set of traditions and beliefs, but gives 
space to individuals to find their own path and celebrate in their own ways.

> Despite all of this, no one has proposed cutting the 
> trumpeting of UU on this list in order to 
> protect the image of coho. 
Why that is when precisely what John suggested that got you so upset in the 
first place.  Quoting...

JG> But there is a UU list for those interested, if any:
JG> soc.religion.unitarian-univ
JG> , I think.  I frequent that list quite a bit; ...
JG>   I sure as *heck* don't want to bring my
JG>  religious principles into it [cohousing-l], even if they are UU.

Admittedly, in the part I didn't quote, he brought up the subject of 
polyrelationships and used that buzzword "respectible".  He has said in a 
couple of messages that UUism is associated (rightly, I might add) with 
"dangerous" [from the perspective of right-wingers] ideas.  He suggested 
(and I obviously don't completely agree, since I'm posting this) that all of 
those ideas, including UUism be discussed elsewhere.

> 
> One person insisted that
> compulsory monogamy does not really exist, that tehre
> are no realy social forces againt polyamory anyway, s
> so what do i have to be so riled up about. 
That would have been me.  I didn't say there were no social forces.  There 
are all kind of evil social forces out there we ought to be battling.  
That's why many of us are trying to create coho communities.  But I objected 
to the term "Compulsory monogamy".  Monogamy is only compulsary if you get 
up on an altar (UU or otherwise) and say "I do".  Then you've committed 
publicly.  Of course there are married couples who chose not to be 
traditionally monogamous.  More power to them.  
Social forces don't stop me from certain practices that cost a certain 
surgeon general her job.  Nor should they stop you from polyrelationships, 
if that's what works in your life and your partners' lives.  But I don't 
talk about masturbation here (oops, I guess I just did), so please explain 
to me why it is appropriate too focus on polyamory here.

Dave

_____________________________________________________________________

  |\/\/\/|  David G. Adams           |  Cornerstone Cohousing
  |____  |  U4 Consulting            |  Homebrewer
 OO    ) |  Arlington, MA            |  
 (       |  dadams [at] world.std.com     |  S.P.A.M. of the D.N.R.C.
  |      |  CompuServe: 72630,1374   |  Subvert the Dominant Paradigm
_____________________________________________________________________

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.