An Apology--Sort Of

[JOHN BURCHFIELD]

[I contemplated at length whom I should send this message to.  I decided to include members of the Humanist Google Group, along with non-members whom I felt might be interested, as well as other people who attended the October 29 meeting that I reference.  If you feel that anyone else I haven't included might have some interest, please forward this message to them.]

On Saturday, October 29, I attended a meeting at First Church on the theme "A Sacred Conversation on Race."  A second meeting on the same theme is scheduled for November 19.  (I joked to David Herndon in an e-mail that I would much prefer a Profane Conversation on Race.)

The meeting was, if anything, too well attended.  The meeting opened with a discreetly non-denominational prayer (I suppose that is what makes it "sacred.").  Then--and this is important in light of my eventual involvement--there was a perfunctory setting of "ground rules," which were recorded on a large piece of paper.  These rules were recorded as single words, representing complete sentences.  (Trigger warning:  Microaggression ahead!) Meaningless rituals are, of course, emblematic of the religious viewpoint.

Around the middle of the three-hour session we were asked to complete an inventory "Unpacking the Knapsack of White Privilege."  I had run into this smug, politically correct catechism before, and I piped up to express my displeasure.  I was then subjected to a barrage of criticism, focusing on the theme that I had flouted the "Ground Rules."  Call me obtuse, but I am still not sure what I did that was so offensive.  I admit that I spoke out of turn, and that I indulged in "speechifying," and that both were a violation of the ground rules.  For this I gladly apologize.  In a sense though, I felt that this was a legitimate act of civil disobedience, like Rosa Parks sitting in the wrong bus seat--or hecklers throwing cream pies at Ann Coulter.

Where do I go from here?  Before I joined First Church, I was warned by someone who knew that I thought that the cultural diversity training we got at work was worthless, that he thought that being a UU meant getting cultural diversity training all the time.    I concede the truth of this observation, at least since the Alma Crawford-Roy Frye kerfuffle.  I admit that, as far as I know, I am not speaking on behalf of a dissident minority in the congregation.  Roy Frye may be the only UU that I know who shares my views, at least in part.   And look what happened to him!

A special note to John Hooper and other Humanists seeing this little manifesto--I do not want to seen as a spokesman for Humanism in thus little dustup, but I don't doubt that there is a connection.  The congregation's treatment of Roy Frye is significant in this regard.

I believe that I do speak on behalf of a significant group--the legion of people who have quit the church or who have been attracted but never joined because they were repelled by the smugness and superiority of self-styled "anti-oppression activists" who casually assume the moral high ground in controversies involving racial and other forms of oppression.

I have said enough.  Any thoughts?

Oh, Happy Halloween!  (Or is it Samhain?)

John Burchfield

[Leo Nagorski]

I think it’s kind of difficult to weigh in on something when we only have one side, John. But, I suspect that you knew  (or suspected) what kind of a meeting it was going to be long before you walked through the door and went specifically to stir things up.  There’s nothing necessarily wrong with that. Likewise, you admit you violated the “rules”.  As a result, Perry Mason might pass on your case.

 

I am curious though, was it just a UU meeting or was it “interfaith”? If so, how much interfaith participation was there?

 

Also, do you have any factual information that the people who quit or never joined First Church you referenced did so because of the reasons you suspect? If so, you and your “legion” might be able to present it to the Board of Trustees to have those aspects of church life you dislike changed. It isn’t necessarily impossible. Back several years ago, perhaps a decade or so ago, Thandeka criticized the way anti-racism training was being done in the denomination at the time. Other voices joined her in criticism and the training was changed. At the very least you might get a clearer sense of just how popular you viewpoint is vis-à-vis the current one.

 

Leo

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Humanist Community of Pittsburgh" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to humanistcommunit...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to humanistco...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/humanistcommunitypgh.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

---

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com

[JOHN BURCHFIELD]

Leo, I don't have the time, energy, or resources to do a study of disaffected UU's.  This would be an ideal project for someone with a sociology background, perhaps with a grant from the UUA or the AHA.  The late Tom Bellucci used to discuss this sort of thing with me, but he is no longer around to present evidence.  Roy Frye could have some interesting input, but he hasn't returned my e-mails.  When we had Mandatory Cultural Diversity Training at Allegheny County Children and Youth Services ca.1990 I went in eager to fight back; I heckled the presentation and wrote and distributed a scathing critique, which was praised by some of my fellow workers, including one black woman.  The agency continued to conduct shorter cultural diversity trainings regularly, and I attended many of them.  At one of these I won the high score in the Black IQ Test, beating several black contestants.  The agency eventually dropped these trainings, perhaps because the County recruited enough black staff to counter any lawsuits accusing them of discrimination.

I joined First Unitarian Church around 1991.  I was soon aware that my cultural sensitivity was below the UU norm.  Kathy Parker delicately pointed this out to me at the time.  This was around the time that the UUA proclaimed itself an "anti-racist, anti-oppression, multicultural people of faith."  In 1991 I read Dinesh D'Sousa's  Illiberal Education, which had a big influence on me.  At first I avoided cultural diversity training; the field was dominated by a noxious little treatise entitled Dismantling Racism (1991), a popular anti-racist screed by Joseph Barndt, I believe a white Protestant pastor, which is still in wide use, often accompanied by the equally distasteful Unpacking the Knapsack of White Privilege.

My interest in this whole subject was revived by the Alma-Roy fracas in 2011 (does this episode have a name?  I think of it as "Almagate") .  My involvement with the UUs, which had been flagging for a while, revived.  One of Dave Herndon's recommendations was to present regular workshops on discrimination issues.  I have attended many of these, and my reaction was not always negative.  There was a community meeting regarding the Trayvon Martin killing which I found to be very productive.

As far as unpacking the ol' knapsack of white privilege is concerned, leave me out.  I felt like the guy who goes to what is promised to be an informative meeting and finds himself getting a pitch for condos in Florida or vitamin supplements.  A good analogy for popular liberal dogmas on racism and oppression generally is the old term "snake oil."

I suppose that the "conversation on race" was meant to be interfaith, since PIIN was involved, but only UUs were there, aside from Lucien from the CFI group, who wandered in expecting to find the Forum.  If you fear some scandal involving the UU's in the larger religious community, I don't see that as a problem.

Scan the social landscape carefully and you can find "white privilege" everywhere.  Hitler scanned his social landscape and found "Jewish perfidy" all around him!

Once you play the Hitler card, the game is over.  Good-bye!

John

[Leo Nagorski]

So what you’re saying is that you’re unhappy with the status quo at First Church. And, you also believe others think like you on the subject. But, rather than try to take some action to remedy your situation, you just want to complain about it to us on this list.

 

My only comment then would be, Do you want cheese with your whine?

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Humanist Community of Pittsburgh" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to humanistcommunit...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to humanistco...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/humanistcommunitypgh.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Humanist Community of Pittsburgh" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to humanistcommunit...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to humanistco...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/humanistcommunitypgh.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[JOHN BURCHFIELD]

At last, a dialogue!  One of my reasons for posting on the Google Group is to draw out people that might be interested in my ideas.  I don't consider that whining.  I also want do a better job of negotiating the tightrope that Roy fell off.  My short-term goal is to revitalize the HCP, with the hope that this organization will provide me--and others--a forum to present their own ideas, what ever they may.  By abruptly resigning as convener without warning, you have certainly been no help, Leo.  I hope to see you at our next meeting, on Wednesday the 16th.

John

[Leo Nagorski]

Well, John each to their own. You say that you want to revitalize HCP. You also say you can’t understand why so few people want to participate in the online discussions. Perhaps one reason might be that they don’t want to be sucked into a discussion of someone’s pet peeves (hence my previous comment). Quite frankly, I don’t understand how your disgruntlement about things at First Church forwards the cause of Humanism at all.

 

I’ll try to be there on the 16^th.