Moral Values in a Pluralistic Society

At General Assembly in 2005 the Unitarian Universalist Association adopted the Study/Action issue Moral Values in a Pluralistic Society. It will be voted on as a Statement of Conscience at this summer’s GA. A Google search located very few sermons on this topic, although there were a lot of classes and workshops being offered on it. Below are links to the draft of the statement of conscience, three sermons, one discussion on a UU blog site and an article from UU World magazine.


Moral Values in a Pluralistic Society: Draft Statement of Conscience
By: UUA Commission on Social Witness
Date: August, 2006

The draft statement asks us to reclaim our tradition of advocacy on moral issues. To do so we must be clear about the moral grounding of Unitarian Universalism. The draft statement emphasizes two major moral principles – Immanuel Kant’s Ends Principle, which is the basis for our first principle of inherent worth and dignity, and the Golden Rule. These principles correspond closely to the American principles espoused by the Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The draft statement asserts the need to work with other faith traditions to defend the freedoms expressed in these documents. It concludes with a list of actions we can take as individuals, as congregations, and as an association to become proactive in the public dialogue on moral values.

"Through the exploration, discernment, and articulation of our moral values in concert with affirmation and celebration of the pluralism of our society, we will rediscover our faith as a living tradition whose grounding and practice will then be visible, audible, and valued in the public square."


Moral Values in a Pluralistic Society
By: Rev. Mark Hayes, Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Centre County, PA
Date: September 25, 2005

Rev. Hayes shares the concern of many religious liberals that religious conservatives have dominated civic discourse in recent decades. He feels that we have the right to raise our voice on the moral implications of political issues. He cautions that our positions should be grounded in our core moral values. He also reminds us that we live in a pluralistic society which makes it difficult to balance competing values that are prioritized differently by different segments of society. We can avoid the trap of viewing issues in absolute terms of right and wrong by basing our positions on our moral values and recognizing that others have different values. Rev. Hayes then discusses at length the theory of linguist George Lakoff that uses the metaphor of ‘society as family’. In Lakoff’s theory the liberal worldview is based on a Nuturant Parent Model that emphasizes empathy and responsibility. The conservative worldview is based on the Strict Father Model which emphasizes security and obedience. With such divergent worldviews it is not surprising there is such a radical difference of opinions on social programs, health care, same-sex marriage, and many other political issues.

"We should not be taking positions simply because of the support of a particular political party, or of a particular special-interest group, or even of the Unitarian Universalist Association headquarters in Boston. We should take positions because they are consistent with our espoused values. Being a pluralistic community ourselves, we may not always be able to come to a unified collective position. In that case, however, we can still express ourselves as individuals. And we can use our disagreements as an opportunity to be in dialogue and to examine more deeply our values and our ways of applying them."


Reclaiming Moral Values
By: Rev. Amy Freedman, Channing Memorial Church, RI
Date: January 15, 2006

Rev. Freedman says that the tendency of Unitarian Universalists to be very independent people can make it difficult to act collectively and respond to public issues as a faith community. This puts us at a disadvantage to religious conservatives who are often well organized and better able to influence public policy. She specifically warns about the Christian fundamentalist worldview known as "Dominionism" which has as its goal to "reclaim America for Christ." She suggests that religious liberals need to reclaim moral values to uphold those values which were the basis of this country. That may appear to be a daunting task, but Rev. Freedman feels that each of us can help bend the moral arc of the universe, using Theodore Parker’s phrase. By discussing the moral issues of our times among ourselves and with other churches and community organizations we can begin to make our voice present in the world.

"How is it possible to bend the moral arc of the universe? The reality is that social change begins with the dedication of a single human heart. Our own ability to express and share our own moral values will increase the likelihood of positive change. Our own lives may seem insignificant when compared to the entire world, but each one of us can help bend the arc toward justice."


We Believe We Can Make a Difference
By: Rev. Nancy O. Arnold, Unitarian Universalist Church of Akron
Date: July 9, 2006

Activities in the state of Ohio have forced Rev. Arnold to come out of political retirement. Two Christian conservative groups are working to transform Ohio politics. They plan to evangelize over a million Ohioans and register 400,000 of them to vote through a network of "Patriot Pastors." Their goal is to create "Christocrats – citizens of both their country and the Kingdom of God." These groups have already succeeded in banning same-sex marriage and eliminating sex education in public schools and they continue to push for anti-abortion and anti-evolution legislation. So some UU ministers have joined others in founding a group called We Believe Ohio to unite diverse religious voices to achieve social justice. Rev. Arnold offers several suggestions on how we can begin to accomplish this mission , how each of us can witness for religious pluralism.

"The Mission of We Believe Ohio states:
We are called as people of faith and loyal Americans to be united in dialogue and action to say:

YES to justice for all
NO to prosperity for only a few;

YES to diverse religious expression
NO to self-righteous certainty;

YES to the common good
NO to discrimination against any of God’s people;

YES to the voice of religious traditions informing public policy
NO to crossing the lines that separate the institutions of Religion and Government. "


Moral Values
By: Phillip Lund, Phil’s Little Blog on the Prairie
Date: August, 2006

Phil Lund is currently the Lifespan Program Director for the Prairie Star District of the Unitarian Universalist Association. These four blog entries describe some of the material he covered in his workshop on Liberal Religious Moral Values at Camp Unistar in Minnesota. (The log entries are presented in reverse chronological, so you will need to start at the bottom and work up.) In the first two blog entries he addresses the first study question from the Moral Values in a Pluralistic Society resource guide. This question concerns different aspects of morality, and Phil cites references to Avishai Margalit, George Lakoff and Rabbi Lerner. The third blog addresses a different study concerning building bridges in a pluralistic society. Phil describes the moral values that motivate various types of liberals and progressives, including socioeconomic progressives, identity politics progressives, environmentalists, civil libertarians, anti-authoritarians, and spiritual progressives. The fourth blog provides an exercise for prioritizing a shared set of values.

"I suggest that when we gather in religious community to talk about moral values, we need to consider ourselves first and foremost spiritual progressives, and that we should try to uphold those values when discussing issues that are important to us. I also believe that we need to instill in our children spiritual progressive values within the context of our religious communities. For those of us who are Unitarian Universalists, that means linking our family values to our religious values. "


Who's afraid of freedom and tolerance?
By: Doug Muder, UU World magazine
Date: August 15, 2005

In this article from UU World magazine Doug Muder, author of the blog Free and Responsible Truth, argues that UUs and other religious liberals need to understand the basis for the worldview of religious conservatives. One book that provides such insight is by James Ault Jr., who locates the core of their worldview in their vision of family. Ault describes an extended-family system where the members are enmeshed in a network of mutual obligations and the survival of the society depends on everyone fulfilling their obligations. This leads to an absolutist moral values system. Muder points out that the liberal worldview is based on choice rather than obligation. It is not surprising that religious conservatives reject, or even fear, the liberal worldview – as our insistence on freedom to choose is viewed as running from our obligations rather than running towards something and committing to it. Muder concludes that when the fundamentalists of all stripes respond in anger to the changes in society brought about the liberal values of freedom and choice we must not respond in kind and perpetuate a vicious cycle of polarization. We must offer a message of hope and portray the virtues of the committed life, a life that is ours by choice not by obligation.

"If there is one basic thing conservatives do not understand about religious liberals, it is this sense of commitment. They see us champion choice over obligation, but misunderstand our reasons. They understand us to be advocating a superficial and nihilistic way of life. They think we want to choose our own moral codes so that we can pick easy ones that rationalize our every whim. They believe that we want the freedom to define our relationships so that we can walk away from anything that looks difficult."