Zloduska wrote:
> Yeah, at first I wondered _why_ they (Unitarian ministers) seemed to be mostly women, but then
> she informed me that part of their "bookbag" was many feminist texts.
> Also, they are pro-choice which is a *must* for me, and that scored bonus
> points. I wonder how they stay intact since their ministers have a very
> non-confrontational style? Eastern cultures don't have "preachers" and
> "ministers" like we do, but I still wonder how the Unitarians manage to
> keep theirs alive, since every other denomination seems to have to 'sell'
> itself.
Well, I doubt there's much that is true of all eastern cultures that isn't true of all cultures, but I can speak from some first-hand experience with and academic study of a few Japanese Buddist sects. While they don't have "preachers," they do have clear hierarchies with one man at the top.
Still, the question you pose is one that I'll probably be living with for a while now. Common sense would lead one to think that a religion that didn't recruit as aggressively as its competitors would loose out to the more insistent proselytizers. It would also suggest that if you have two groups of people with opposing ends, and one group has money, privilidge, entrenched power, armed henchmen and a willingness to utilize all of these "advantages" and the other side lacks all these things that the guys with the money, power, and guns would get their way, and yet this isn't (always) what happens. Non-violence often works when common sense says that it shouldn't.
Part of MY bookbag is "The Active Life" by Palmer J. Parker. Parker writes that our social instituions and most peole assume scarcity while a few people and organizations assume abundance. On this he writes, "At every level of our lives the assumption of scarcity, not abundance threatens to deform our attitudes and our actions."
When we assume scarcity and treat life as a zero-sum game, we contribute to the creation of the reality of deprivation. But we can act on the assumption of abundance instead, even in an environment in which competitive stratagies are dominant.
"In a universe of scarcity, only people who know the arts of competing, even of making war, will be able to survive. But in a universe of abundance, acts of generosity and community become not only possible but fruitful as well."
Palmer J. Parker is a Christian, BTW. I'm not, but I value what Parker has to say on matters of faith. Like Steve Harris, author of the essay on skepticism that Richard "Running Dog Capitalist" Brodie excerpted for us, I "find myself quite often taking a position which is just a little more optimistic than the straight facts will completely justify."
Meliorism, faith, assuming abundance when most assume scarcity are all variations on a life-strategy that I see as being quite viable. This isn't a belief system (B.S.) that I'm defending, and if you want counter-examples and evidence to support the assumption that it's a jungle out there and that the meek inherit shit, you'll find plenty of it.
Forgive me, I realize that I'm wandering quite a bit here. Let's see if I can collect most of the disperate threads I've got in play and put an end to this post.
Take care.
-KMO