Losing My Religion (and finding another)

[tcpip]

Unitarian elections were as expected on Sunday, with a significant victory to the Marxist-Lenninist faction (yes, this steeple-jacking really did happen and the same people are still in control), who were trotted out for their annual vote. More disappointing was the decision to vote down a proposal to introduce proportional representation, which cements an wilfully exclusionary attitude. Amusingly, they now have a treasurer who doesn't believe that the organisation needs a budget (following a c$60,000 loss last year). As one more neutral member has observed in a classic understatement, "the church has governance issues" (including classics such as bikeshedding). Same person also suggested that I am better off putting my energies in an organisation where they can actually have some effect, rather than having any attempt to change or initiate being blocked as it perceived as a threat.

Indeed I had come to the same conclusion prior to the meeting, and will be directing my energies instead towards the Uniting Church, specifically St. Michael's Church in Melbourne where the executive minister, Dr. Francis McNab, has advocated the sort of ecumenical and liberal religious perspective that I would be comfortable with. They have a much better idea of financial and organisational management, a much larger congregation, and overall a much larger national grouping (albeit they have a more orthodox and Christian viewpoint overall, but I am accepting of that). I will of course, keep my subscription to the Unitarians, because that is where my orientation lies, but I seriously cannot see any chance of the existing group even considering reforming themselves before their life reaches its historically inevitable conclusion.

Ultimately it does give rise to the need to avoid organisations whose leaders have irrationalisible ideologies, as they will always prone to intransigence and reject good ideas on the grounds of that ideology. Larger and less ideologically-driven organisations are better as they are used to dealing with diversity within their group, they understand the need for a fair distribution of power which recognised participation. Most importantly they have the organisational intelligence to work out what actually constitutes a good argument. Doctrinaire ideologues can never understand this. They will always fail a test of intelligence because they have ideological blinkers. This said, I am surprised (and impressed) by the number of regular congregation members who have contacted me to express their frustration at the events. Perhaps it also time for them to find a new home.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Good luck with your conversion to a new religion. I was at Sunday’s AGM and in my recollection of events, the only thing I can deduce from the election results is that you were resoundingly rejected both as Treasurer and Committee of Management member. I wonder if that had anything to do with your negativity and lack of respect towards other members of the Church, as demonstrated by your loud sniggering and side-comments when others had the floor and were trying to voice their point of view? I am sure the Unitarian Church will continue to thrive with or without your input. Oh, and finally, I don’t think any Church would benefit from members who claim to be open-minded and yet use blogs to attack others by negatively accusing them of belonging to specific political factions, e.g. “with a significant victory to the Marxist-Lenninist faction (yes, this steeple-jacking really did happen and the same people are still in control), who were trotted out for their annual vote” – your reaction smacks to me of being that of a sore-loser... wouldn’t you say?

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Hello Patrizia,

It was your second time in attendance last Sunday, wasn't it?

I was at Sunday’s AGM and in my recollection of events, the only thing I can deduce from the election results is that you were resoundingly rejected both as Treasurer and Committee of Management member.

Well given the CoM has the second-least democratic voting method that is not surprising. In a democratic voting system I would have been easily elected. Not that is a good reason to pick one voting system over another.

As for treasurer, I know that I received a majority of votes from those who turn up at least twenty times a year, and almost zero from those who turn up less than three times per annum. What does that suggest to you?

I wonder if that had anything to do with your negativity and lack of respect towards other members of the Church, as demonstrated by your loud sniggering and side-comments when others had the floor and were trying to voice their point of view?

I doubt that made any difference at all. Certainly if a candidate for treasurer says that the organisation like this doesn't need a budget, I will am likely to have a little chuckle.

I am sure the Unitarian Church will continue to thrive with or without your input.

Are you? It certainly had reached a very low point by the end of 2010. In those two years membership has doubled and attendance has gone to 150% of that figure.

Now, would you care to make some predictions on what the next two years will be like?

Oh, and finally, I don’t think any Church would benefit from members who claim to be open-minded and yet use blogs to attack others by negatively accusing them of belonging to specific political factions, e.g. “with a significant victory to the Marxist-Lenninist faction (yes, this steeple-jacking really did happen and the same people are still in control), who were trotted out for their annual vote” – your reaction smacks to me of being that of a sore-loser... wouldn’t you say?

I don't mind losing elections at all. If I did, I wouldn't be a radical. I run for positions to introduce ideas and change systems.

As for the MLs, are you denying this is true?

Have a nice day,

tcpip