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)]

Interesting response - where were those illusory supporters you have referred to? They weren't there when it counted, were they? Perhaps it tells you something about those who did turn up, because the AGM mattered and they wanted their voices heard... delude yourself at will, blame the process of election as you like, blame it on the blow-ins, but ask yourself this - why did they come? As for myself, I was there because I love the values held by the community within that branch of the Unitarian Church and, like you, made a point of being there, to exercise my voting rights. I follow closely what happens at the Church, even if I cannot presently attend as I would like to, and I wanted to make sure my voice was heard. Ironically, I had no idea who you were until your manners (or lack of them) alerted me to your presence.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Interesting response - where were those illusory supporters you have referred to?

Ummm.. They were there and they voted for me?

Sure, I can name four or five people who are regular attendees who couldn't turn up for very good reasons, but my comment still stands. I received a majority of votes from those who turn up at least twenty times per year, and almost zero from those who turn up less than three times per year.

The average attendance for 2012 is 38. I received 30 votes. Of the people who voted for me who are "less than regular attendees", I received 2 3 votes (EDIT: I was reminded of one other).

What do you think this means for the church?

blame the process of election as you like

Well, I think that's a just claim. If you can put aside the personalities for a moment and try to engage in a non-partisan and informed judgement, why do you think that majoritarian block-voting is a fair voting system?

Perhaps it tells you something about those who did turn up, because the AGM mattered and they wanted their voices heard...

Sure, we know why people who are almost never in attendance turned up, don't we? Look, I understand that partisan politics is about establishing and controlling organisations. Heck, I've been in the ALP for long enough to see what branch stacking looks like.

Do you really think it was just pure good fortune that twenty new members were signed up earlier this year, just in time to acquire voting rights for the AGM? And none the month afterwards?

Sort of smacks a little of convenience, doesn't it?

It really is quite sad and weird behaviour, that is going to be prone to encouraging people to put their energies in more accepting organisations that recognise and respect ability.

Ironically, I had no idea who you were until your manners (or lack of them) alerted me to your presence.

Oh, do get over a little snicker, already, shall we? Mea culpa!

Now, you claim that you follow closely what happens at the Church and yet you had no idea who I was?

http://levlafayette.com/unitarian-universalist

Perhaps it could be argued that I'm a little biased on the matter, but if you had been following closely you would know how much I have contributed to the church. So either you're a lot less aware than you think you are or you're being less than truthful.