Repeated from Livejournal and Holidailies: The UU First Principle and Pick-A-Dictator

A post in which I am afraid I will not be making new friends and will manage to alienate people, not to mention the imminent Godwinization* of this post.

First of all, let's look at the UU First Principle:

Unitarian Universalist congregations affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of every person

And now, for some definitions (and I want you all to know that I'm resisting a few words, like "and," although the troublemaker in me wants to define them, too. All definitions from the OED, though I'm not copying them wholesale):

affirm:

4)To make a statement and stand to it; to maintain or assert strongly, to declare or state positively, to aver.

promote

2.a. To further the growth, development, progress, or establishment of (a thing); to advance or actively support (a process, cause, result, etc.); to encourage: d. To publicize or advertise (a product, organization, venture, etc.) so as to increase sales or public awareness. II.To put forth, move forward; 3. To publish, promulgate; to assert, advance.

inherent

2. Permanently indwelling.: 3. Existing in something as a permanent attribute or quality; belonging to the intrinsic nature of that which is spoken of4. Vested in or attached to a person, office, etc., as a right or privilege.

worth

2. The relative value of a thing in respect of its qualities or of the estimation in which it is held.: 3. The character or standing of a person in respect of moral and intellectual qualities; esp. high personal merit or attainments.

dignity

1. The quality of being worthy or honourable; worthiness, worth, nobleness, excellence.

So those of us who are UUs or who find value in the principles and sources thereof Assert and further the growth or publicize the permanently indwelling 1) relative value or character of a person in respect of moral and intellectual qualities, and 2) the quality of being worthy and honorable that is found in every person.

There are enough complicated concepts there to keep a thealogian or an ethicist going for quite a while in just that statement alone. But I'm actually not going to pursue any of that. I'm not even going to talk about trying to live up to this principle.

No, I'm going to talk about, well, Hitler Fred Phelps (There. Now I've Godwinized the thread).

Because whenever I start explaining the Seven Principles to people, someone inevitably asks how to apply the First Principle to Hitler. Or Pol Pot. Or Stalin, or Osama bin Laden, or Kim Jong-Il, or (on a much less global and more personal level) Bill Clinton or George H.W. Bush, or Peter LaBarbera or James Dobson or Fred Phelps, or, or, or. Pick your poison, as it were. How is it possible to affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of those people?

I'm not sure I have an answer. I really admire the question, though, so let's look at it just a bit.

No, instead, I'm going to digress for a moment, and ask all y'all to go over and watch Jay Smooth explain how to tell people they sound racist. Go on. I'll wait.

You'll notice that, essentially, his argument boils down to approaching what a person said or did as different from what they are. Now, the kinds of people we're talking about who come up in a First Principal discussion? These people did, have done, or are doing horrible things. Essentially unforgivable things. Things that I am in no way condoning or promoting. But I think ol' Jay up there has a point that can provide a partial answer to how do we affirm and promote [Fred Phelps'] inherent worth and dignity.

We separate all the horrific things that he did, from what he is (a person). No, it's not easy. No, I'm not actually advocating forgiveness. No, I don't ever want there to be another [Fred Phelps] in the world. He's still a person. A person who neither affirms nor promotes the inherent worth and dignity of every person, but a person nonetheless. Not one of "them," because there is no "them." One of "us."

But that's uncomfortable (hell, it was uncomfortable for me to type!). It's easier to break the world into "us" and "them." To focus on the difference or Otherness of another person, to deny "them" their basic personhood. And here's the really uncomfortable thing: by dividing the world into "us" and "them," and by not considering "them" to be part of "every person"? That, right there, on a very small scale, is what we see represented on the larger scale by those people I listed up there whose actions make their inherent worth and dignity open to question.

So what do we do about it? Is it possible to live in a way that affirms and promotes the inherent dignity of every person?

I really don't know if it's possible. I try. I like to tell people who ask me about the UU Principles that I'm still working on the first one, and that I think the other six kind of flow from it in the way that I see "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" flowing from "Love your neighbor as yourself". None of these injunctions are easy.

But then, life's a process. We try and live up to our ideals, and when we fail (in small ways) I think it's okay to acknowledge we made a mistake, forgive ourselves, and try again. We either will or won't find out how we did overall when we reach our final destination.

*Inquiry: is a thread Godwinized if you're not comparing the Nazis or Hitler to anything/one but themselves?

** Also,

Unitarian:

A person who believes they are too good to be damned; a believer in the Unitarian heresy [those Christians who reject the Holy Trinity];

Universalist:

A person who believes that God is too good to damn them; a believer in Universal Salvation;

Unitarian Universalist:

A person who may or may not believe in God or Gods or Bob or the FSM, but who gathers together on Sundays to have coffee and disagree with the Minister's sermon. [Yeah, my elevator speech sucks])