[Buddha-l] Fallacy of division (Why neo-conservatives are notwelcome on buddha-l)

[R. P. Hayes]

On Sun, 2005-08-21 at 16:32 -0600, Joanna wrote:

> I personally rather doubt that many political conservatives will avail
> themselves of your minister's proposed invitation.

I don't think her idea was to invite political conservatives to join us.
Rather, she was acknowledging that several people have left the
Unitarian church because they sense that supporters of George W. Bush
are not welcome in our midst. (It took all the supernormal powers I have
accumulated through decades of Buddhist meditation from restraining
myself from jumping out of my pew and shouting "Good riddance to the
blackguards!")

> Perhaps it's not such a great idea to draw the boundaries 
> exclusively--that's what the fundamentalists do, throwing people out of 
> their churches who raise unwelcome questions.

I'm all for kicking people out of a church if they cannot walk in step
with the congregation. What I am NOT for, or course, is insisting that
there be only one congregation. I see nothing wrong with each
congregation deciding who is welcome in their midst and who is
unwelcome. 

In the 17th century there were few people in the Americas who were
stronger advocates of religious diversity and freedom than the Quakers.
And yet the Quakers also strongly discourage any Quaker marrying "out of
meeting." They saw no contradiction at all in advocating that Catholics,
Baptists, Methodists and Presbyterians all have the right to practice
their religions openly, and in suggesting that Quakers do best when they
stay to themselves and avoid intimate contact with others. This also
makes perfect sense to me nowadays. It is also perfectly in keeping with
Buddhist principles. Nothing is seen as more important in Buddhism than
keeping company with people who will reinforce one's efforts to embody
Buddhist values and avoiding those who undermine Buddhist values. (Yes,
this does mean keeping people who seriously believe that Bush deserves
to be president out of the sangha.)

> The ABQ UU minister's idea is also striking in that it smacks of the 
> Christian idea to take truth to the heathen. His assumption...

For Heaven's sake, Joanna. You don't think Unitarians would have a MALE
minister do you? Rest assured, our minister's assumptions are hers, not
his. And I have to say that her sermon was not at all suggesting that
Unitarians take truth to others. All she was saying was that we should
perhaps not take it for granted that everyone who comes to a Unitarian-
Universalist church hates George W. Bush and the war in Iraq. We should
try to remember that some people want to be Unitarians AND supporters of
George W. Bush. We should perhaps try not to assume that every car in a
Unitarian parking lot still has a Kerry-Edwards sticker on the bumper
right next to the outline of a fish with the word "Evolve" inside it.
That's the only point she was trying to make. I disagree with it
entirely, but I do want to make it clear what she was advocating.

> I've noticed this about quite a few UUs I come across and socialize
> with--they are rather smug in their views. 

I wouldn't say that Unitarians are smug. They're just right about most
things, and unafraid of being condescending to the poor bastards who
wallow in dangerous forms of delusion that result in self-made idiots
like George W. Bush being allowed to steal elections and then govern as
if they had actually won them fairly.

>  But I suppose the same can be said of other churches and creeds....even Buddhism.

Show me a religion that is not smug, and I'll show you a religion that
will probably not last until Tuesday of next week. Religion just is
smugness. If you're not willing to be smug, you should stay the hell out
of churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, meditation circles and
covens. (Of course religion doesn't have a monopoly on smugocity.
Smugness also plays an important role in the academic world and in
science. Come to think of it, to be smug is to be human. Perhaps we
should rename our species Homo smugiensis. Homo sapiens is surely one of
the biggest misnomers in the history of biological taxonomy.

Okay, I guess I'd better say something about Buddhism. Last week Judy
and I went to the local insight meditation meeting. After the meditation
period, one of the people asked us who we were and then promptly
informed us that this particular insight meditation sangha is only for
people of color and that we shouldn't come unless we're invited by a
colored person. Judy quickly pointed out that I in fact was invited by
someone and had brought her (Judy) along. I was then informed that I had
no right to invite my wife, since I am not a person of color. Only
colored people can invite white people to meditate with this sangha.
Fine. I have no problem being excluded from an insight meditation sangha
that wants to exclude people whose skin color is reddish brown in the
summer and yellowish pink in the winter. People of our color are not
welcome among them, and that is a plain fact. What is to to be gained by
questioning their reasons for not welcoming us? If they don't mind my
smugly concluding that they don't have even the vaguest idea of what
insight consists in according to Buddhists, I don't mind their wallowing
in a silly mess of their own making.

-- 
Richard Hayes