We covenant to affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of every person.
—First Principle of Unitarian Universalism
Before the Unitarian Universalist[1] was its own coalescing entity, they were separate religious strains (prior to 1961). Of course, it is often wondered what was the main difference then between the Unitarians and the Universalists? As the joke goes, the Universalists believed that God was too good to send anyone to hell, while the Unitarians believed that they were too good to be sent to hell.
As I explore UU a bit more closely, I find that I’m drawn to their seven principles. In dealing with the first principle, I was immediately struck by the word inherent. Inherency is a tricky subject at best, but it is vital to understanding both humanity and the religious notion on an individual and collective level. The short end of what could be a long and difficult argument is that in order for something to be inherent it must be a part of the essential nature of a thing.
Some dismiss essence as a fundamental aspect of humanity. I think there are some pretty good arguments there. But I also think it misses the point. But, in fact, most of the arguments for humanity or for humanism fall flat on their face without at least a subtle acknowledgement in some form of an inner essence or inner self that is from an outer self[2]. But, unlike some, I do not believe this inner self or essence is some kind of buffer against the knowledge (assumption?) of an apathetic universe. It is part and parcel of that universe which makes that universe, at the least, not so apathetic anymore.
I love this quote that I use all the time in relation to freedom, equality, and the human condition (and most especially in relation to politics when Gerald brings out his “All men are created equal” arguments):—
In the same way, when it is asserted that “all men are born equal,” of what “men” are we speaking? The statement is evidently untrue of all “outer men,” for we see that they are both physically and mentally differently endowed and that natural aptitudes have to be considered even in nominally egalitarian societies. A predication of equality is only absolutely true of all inner men; true of the men themselves, but not of their personalities.
—Coomaraswamy, The Bugbear of Democracy, Freedom and Equality, p. 151.
All human liberty is predicated on the equality of the essential nature of human beings. One can beat around the bush all they want about the ephemeral and unverifiable qualities of this nature, but the point remains that without some postulate of an essential nature, we are reduced to mere machines without independent thought or will to action. The reductive properties to the argument of biopsychosocial phenomenon to not properly address the logical conclusions of such an position. In fact, as Quinn points out:—
Without a higher worldview … the modern person has nothing to replace the notion of equality once it is shown to be fallacious. The modern therefore clings to it as an ideal, rationalizing that the overt differences between people are wholly explained by the differences in their early environment, genetic composition, or other such reductions.
—Quinn, The Only Tradition, p. 280.
It is through this higher worldview and the recognition of this essential nature that we find the principle of inherent worth and dignity of each person[3]. Ultimately, Thelema proclaims that “Every man and every woman is a star (AL 1.3).” The principles of inherent dignity have been mistaken for rabid individualism, but nonetheless there is a sense of integral union with the inner self that must manifest in the outer self. Once we recognize the inherent worth and dignity of ourselves we are capable of passing that onward or forward or outward through the recognition of the inherent worth and dignity of others.
One of the reasons I am drawn toward UUism is this particular principle. It resonates with me deeply.
I’ll leave off here with one final UU joke.
Three religious persons are discussing when life begins.
The Catholic said, “Life begins at the moment of conception.”
The Jew said, “Life begins at the moment of birth.”
The Unitarian Universalist said, “Life begins when the last child goes off to college and the dog dies.”
Oh yeah. That’s my kind of religion!
innervox
- Granted, I’m not calling myself a UUer (yet), but I find that any religion that can laugh at themselves is a religion worth exploring. I can remember a day when Thelemites too laughed at ourselves. Anyone remember the Book of the In-Laws? How many religions actually have—and endorse—a parody of their own “Holy Book”? Regularly, even. There is something affirming both about the ability to laugh but in the lightness of spirit that comes from such laughter. [↩]
- Indeed, Thelema also demands this distinction on the most fundamental level of existence. [↩]
- It would appear that there is (or was) some controversy over this wording in that some felt that it should read “every being” rather than “each person.” I will not debate here the natures, different or alike, of humans beings and animal/plant/whatever being. I find it ultimately to be a waste of time. [↩]
Recent Comments