Better to be United then Right?

[Quiddity]

As to not derail another thread:

My thinking from this, in my admittedly Baha'i pov, is that it is better to be unified than to be right.

The real evil would be to be so attached to a point of view that the church split and people killed each other over it.

These are very interesting statements Sharon. If there is anyone I know that lives by this, I would immediately think of my mother in law. Having a great relationship with my wife's parents I get quite involved with family matters (often, not by choice).

We have a saying in Spanish that goes "Es mejor ser feliz, que tener la razon". Translation: It's better to be happy then to be right.
She holds a similar view with regard to unity. I gotta tell you that I struggled with this concept for years. I absolutely LOVED the unity she brought to the family and still do.

But...

It's caused immense amount of damage to the family. I'm sure this isn't what you mean or even what you would like but I can tell you from my personal experience (and perhaps you've experienced something similar) that if she would have attached herself to a view point, it would have prevented so many future problems.

I agree with you that unity is crucial and all attempts/avenues should be exhausted, but prolonging it for the sake of unity can also cause damage to families, communities, countries, etc.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

What do you think?

Is it better to be united then to be right? If so, why?

 

[doppelganger]

"Right" is a matter of perspective. It's better to be united and "right." But that's a delicate art - one that infrequently holds any interest to those imagine they are "right" in any regard other than their own.

 

[Quiddity]

"Right" is a matter of perspective. It's better to be united and "right." But that's a delicate art - one that infrequently holds any interest to those imagine they are "right" in any regard other than their own.

It sure is a delicate art. If push comes to shove, should one select one above the other?

 

[MaddLlama]

Well, the question is what is meant by unity? Is it just getting along with one another? All denominations of a certain religion coming together as one single one? All religions coming together as one single one? It's a bit vague.

 

[doppelganger]

It sure is a delicate art. If push comes to shove, should one select one above the other?

Right in ideas? Or right in actions? I can still be in unity with someone whose ideas differ from mine (it usually means I just don't understand where they are coming from). But I won't participate in actions in furtherance of unity, if I disagree with the acts. Does that make sense?

I get the impression from the quotes you posted that this concerns some of those trivial doctrinal ideas that pop up in religious arguments. I'd pick unity over any of that stuff, but that's a two way street.

 

[Quiddity]

Well, the question is what is meant by unity? Is it just getting along with one another? All denominations of a certain religion coming together as one single one? All religions coming together as one single one? It's a bit vague.

That's a good question. Well, I suppose people's tolerance will vary depending on location and relationship. People are willing to allow all sorts of things as long as it's not in there home or in their circle of friends and family. I suppose we could keep it within a circle of friends and family?

 

[Quiddity]

Right in ideas? Or right in actions? I can still be in unity with someone whose ideas differ from mine (it usually means I just don't understand where they are coming from). But I won't participate in actions in furtherance of unity, if I disagree with the acts. Does that make sense?

Right ideas...wrong actions are easier to fix in my mind.
That ring true for you?

I get the impression from the quotes you posted that this concerns some of those trivial doctrinal ideas that pop up in religious arguments. I'd pick unity over any of that stuff, but that's a two way street.

Well, I gave an example of my mother in law picking unity above an attachment (doctrine). It's really no different. Not until you make it religious...

 

[doppelganger]

Well, I gave an example of my mother in law picking unity above an attachment (doctrine).

I'm not seeing that. What was the example?

 

[Booko]

Well, the question is what is meant by unity? Is it just getting along with one another? All denominations of a certain religion coming together as one single one? All religions coming together as one single one? It's a bit vague.

This is often the crux of things, ML.

There is real unity and "faux unity." Faux unity is pretending we all love each and agree -- when we do not.

Real unity only comes about after discussion in an atmosphere of patience and realizing that it is possible to agree to disagree and still remain together in peace.

Faux unity is glossing over differences and pretending everything's just hunky dory. That's not a unity that will last -- things buried always surface in time.

The thing is, at what point do our personal views trump everyone else's?

At what point is it justified to seek violence, oppression, and mistreatment of our fellows?

 

[Quiddity]

I'm not seeing that. What was the example?

Not one specifically. Sorry, about that.
She remains in unity with other family members [including her husband] even in the face of large [not trivial] disagreements and expression of those disagreements are common by others within the family. Say for example a family member has an addiction and another has a worldview that is the opposite of everything you hold meanigful. Which would be a deal breaker for you and why?

 

[Booko]

Hm, since I sorta started off by mentioning a Baha'i pov, I should probably elaborate on that just a bit. Our decision-making process in the faith sure can involve debate -- heated sometimes -- but even in the face of strong disagreements once a decision is made we are all called to obey it, not grudgingly, but wholeheartedly.

The idea behind this is that, if a decision turns out to be the "wrong" one, it will be more quickly revealed as wrong, so it can be corrected.

Oftentimes decisions seem wrong, but the underlying cause of failure is that people who disagreed were undercutting some effort. If everyone is coopearting, the only explanation is that the decision was wrong -- so we change it.

This is one of the many reasons why I believe that "it is better to be unified to be right."

When people assert how "right" they are, their are egos hard at work, and that never ends up well.

For a historical version of this I know Victor will understand, we could always talk about the debate about the Trinity in early Christianity, or maybe the debate with the iconoclasts, and how "being unified rather than right" would've been of benefit.

 

[Quiddity]

This is often the crux of things, ML.

There is real unity and "faux unity." Faux unity is pretending we all love each and agree -- when we do not.

Real unity only comes about after discussion in an atmosphere of patience and realizing that it is possible to agree to disagree and still remain together in peace.

Faux unity is glossing over differences and pretending everything's just hunky dory. That's not a unity that will last -- things buried always surface in time.

In practice, these are hard to tell apart. How do you know that you couldn't have said something clearer? That if you only listend a bit longer things would have clarified? That our bias just didn't allow us to present it in any other way but extra glossy?

Even more interesting, what would be a deal breaker even if you had an atmosphere of patience and charity? I mean, would you agree to disagree with say a rapist? Or would you break the unity?

The thing is, at what point do our personal views trump everyone else's?

When your right...

At what point is it justified to seek violence, oppression, and mistreatment of our fellows?

This isn't necessary. I'm just talking about breaking the unity.

 

[Popeyesays]

The basic baha`i rule is: Unity Good! Dissension bad! In family issues united is almost always good, unless some are suffering harm.

Mirza Abu'l Fadl a baha`i teacher and close personal associate of Abdu'l Baha discussed the defining aspects of baha`i Unity in The Brilliant Proof:
"First, a command which is particularly a feature of the Bahá'í religion and is not found in the other religion is "abstaining from crediting verbal traditions." It is will known to men of learning that it was verbal tradition which divided the Jews into 25 two great sects. Such are the basis of the book of Talmud, and caused the division of that one nation. One of the two schisms called the Rabbinists looks upon the teachings of the Talmud as the law which needs to be followed and considers it the greatest means for the preservation and permanence of the Israelitish people. But the other sect, Karaites, looks upon the Talmud as sheer heresy and conducive to perdition. Thus these two sects cannot possibly be harmonized or cease mutual opposition.
Similarly in the Christian religion the main cause of schism and division were these verbal traditions which were termed "authoritative." Each one of the Christian churches, such as the Catholic, the Orthodox, the Jacobite, the Nestorian and others consider it obligatory to follow these traditions inherited from and handed down by the fathers of the Church, as the very text of the Holy Book.
Thus when in any of the great Councils the questions of the unification of the Christian people would be at issue, they would avail themselves of these inherited traditions which were opposed to union and harmony. Likewise in the religion of Islam, claiming these verbal traditions which were related of the Founder of that religion, subsequent to His death, was the cause of the division and separation into various of the principal sects, such as the Sunnite, the Shi'ite and the Kharajite, or into the secondary schools of Hanifite, Malikite, Shafiite, Haubalite, etc.
Each of these hold to a set of traditions considered as authentic by their own sect.
But Bahá'u'lláh closed to the people of the world this door which is the greatest means for sedition; for He has clearly announced that "in the religion of God all recorded matters are referable to the Book and all unrecorded matters are dependent upon the decision of the House of Justice." Thus all narrations, relations and verbal traditions have 26 been discredited among the Bahá'í people and the door of dissension, which is the greatest among the doors of hell, has been closed and locked.
Second: One of the laws and ordinances peculiar to the Bahá'í religion is the law prohibiting the interpreting of the Word of God. For interpretation of the Words and exposition of personal opinion has been one of the greatest means of dissension in the former religions, the cause of darkening of the horizon of faith and concealing the real meaning of the Book of God.
It is an evident fact that learned men differ in their minds, and the natural gifts of sagacity and intelligence or the lack of understanding and comprehension vary in degrees among them. Thus when the door of interpretation and perverting of the Words from their outward meaning is opened, strange opinions and curious contradictory interpretations will result and different sects will arise among the one people and one religious community.
Consequently Bahá'u'lláh has explicitly commanded His followers to wholly abandon the door of interpretation and follow the Words revealed in the Tablets according to their outward meaning, so that the events which have transpired among the past nations should not recur among the Bahá'í people, and the unwelcome happenings which appeared among the various sects due to difference in mentality and viewpoint should not become manifest in this new auspicious day, which is the day of the glorious Lord.
Thus one of the explicit commands of this great Manifestation is the ordinance abrogating difference of scholars with regard to the station of the Manifestation of the Cause. In former religions, even as testified by history, it has become evident that when in a question of this kind a difference has arisen between 27 two of the doctors of religion, both parties were firm in their standpoints and held tenaciously to their sides, while the laity, according to their usage , would adhere some to one and some to the other, thus closing the doors to agreement and unity to such an extent that religious fraternity was changed into deep and bitter enmity, scientific dissension terminating in bloody strife and warfare. This is illustrated by differences which arose between Arius the priest and Alexander the Bishop of Constantinople, regarding the Trinity, in the fourth century, A.D.; also the Nestorian differences which took place in the fifth century between Nestorius the Bishop of Constantinople and the other bishops, which caused terrible wars and the shedding of precious blood. The effect of these sad dissensions has lasted until the present day. These are clear proofs and evidences for the point at issue."
(Mirza Abu'l-Fadl, The Brilliant Proof, p. 24)

IOn short a baha`i may interpret as he wishes as long as he never attempts to make his interpretation binding upon anyone else. In all matters of potential dissension the issues are to be consulted upon within the houses of justice and deferred to the Universal Houseof Justice if necessary.

Regards,
Scott

 

[doppelganger]

She remains in unity with other family members [including her husband] even in the face of large [not trivial] disagreements and expression of those disagreements are common by others within the family. Say for example a family member has an addiction and another has a worldview that is the opposite of everything you hold meanigful. Which would be a deal breaker for you and why?

What do you mean by "dealbreaker"?

My grandfather was a child-abusing alcoholic who threw my mother out at the age of 12 to fend for herself. I only met him once - on his deathbed the day he died from emphysema. He was a danger in my mother's view, so we were never around him.

On the other hand, my brother in law, a fundamentalist Evangelical Christian, once prayed in front of my kids and my wife after visiting with us for the weekend that I be delivered from the demonic spirits that had deceived me (it started with a nice, "let's pray for a safe drive back to Dallas" suggestion). I'd like to be able to socialize with him, but his beliefs manifest in something I don't want around my kids, even though I understand why he believes what he believes (and why he does what he does), and acknowledge it's his prerogative. But for his actions, there'd still be a unity and fellowship between us as there was for many years before despite our differences.

What, if anything, do you take away from those examples?

 

[Booko]

In practice, these are hard to tell apart. How do you know that you couldn't have said something clearer? That if you only listend a bit longer things would have clarified? That our bias just didn't allow us to present it in any other way but extra glossy?

Well, at the risk of sounding glib, I'd mention that nothing in life is as clear as we'd like? Honestly, we do the best we can, and keep talking, and hopefully over time we manage to communicate.

Even more interesting, what would be a deal breaker even if you had an atmosphere of patience and charity? I mean, would you agree to disagree with say a rapist? Or would you break the unity?

I can't say I ever felt any great unity with the rapist I encountered, Victor. He wasn't interested in working together.

Unity is about people trying to work together, not about the concept that the sheep have a right to defend themselves from wolves.

Justice and mercy have to work together...

This isn't necessary. I'm just talking about breaking the unity.

Let me put it this way -- I grew up a Protestant, and the denomination I was in was famous for splitting up churches and blackballing groups from reentry into the denomination, because of course everyone was "right" in their opinion.

Concrete example: In one instance, a congregation was divided into 2 camps about how to use the money. One group wanted to keep amassing funds for an eventual building. Another wanted to keep a minimum amount on hand and use the rest for missionary and community charitable efforts.

The church split in half over this. The group that "lost" and left to form a separate church was blackballed from entering their new congregation into the old denomination.

There ensued a debate over whether they should join the Orthodox Presbyterians or remain non-denominational. This itself caused the new congregation to split in two.

Now we have three congregations where a year ago there had been just one.

In the meantime, no building fund was saved, no missionary work was done, and the poor in the community were not helped. Nothing was accomplished except that much hatred was spread about.

What in tarnation was the point of all that? Of what possible use?

Would it not have been better if the original congregants had just taken a vote and gone with whatever the result was? At least *something* of use would have happened.

This is exactly why I believe that "it is better to be unified than to be right."

(P.S. This is one thing I've always admired in Catholics -- they manage to have disagreements without going off and forming "Our Lady of 101st Street" over some trivial dispute. :sarcastic)

 

[Booko]

What do you mean by "dealbreaker"?

My grandfather was a child-abusing alcoholic who threw my mother out at the age of 12 to fend for herself. I only met him once - on his deathbed the day he died from emphysema. He was a danger in my mother's view, so we were never around him.

On the other hand, my brother in law, a fundamentalist Evangelical Christian, once prayed in front of my kids and my wife after visiting with us for the weekend that I be delivered from the demonic spirits that had deceived me (it started with a nice, "let's pray for a safe drive back to Dallas" suggestion). I'd like to be able to socialize with him, but his beliefs manifest in something I don't want around my kids, even though I understand why he believes what he believes (and why he does what he does), and acknowledge it's his prerogative. But for his actions, there'd still be a unity and fellowship between us as there was for many years before despite our differences.

What, if anything, do you take away from those examples?

That you gotta love your family -- but sometimes it's best to love them from a distance.

 

[Quiddity]

What do you mean by "dealbreaker"?

Seperate yourself. End communication. Highly restrict when in your sacred place (say your home). The help?

My grandfather was a child-abusing alcoholic who threw my mother out at the age of 12 to fend for herself. I only met him once - on his deathbed the day he died from emphysema. He was a danger in my mother's view, so we were never around him.

Yeah, that would be a example of what I mean by "deal breaker".

On the other hand, my brother in law, a fundamentalist Evangelical Christian, once prayed in front of my kids and my wife after visiting with us for the weekend that I be delivered from the demonic spirits that had deceived me (it started with a nice, "let's pray for a safe drive back to Dallas" suggestion). I'd like to be able to socialize with him, but his beliefs manifest in something I don't want around my kids, even though I understand why he believes what he believes (and why he does what he does), and acknowledge it's his prerogative. But for his actions, there'd still be a unity and fellowship between us as there was for many years before despite our differences.

Hmm...maybe I'm seeing unity as something more meaningful. I know what you mean, and I have similar relationships with some of my own family. But I personally wouldn't call that unity.

What, if anything, do you take away from those examples?

Well, I take that when it comes down to it, people have a tendency of protecting what is sacred and meanigful (this is "right") above unity.

 

[Quiddity]

Well, at the risk of sounding glib, I'd mention that nothing in life is as clear as we'd like? Honestly, we do the best we can, and keep talking, and hopefully over time we manage to communicate.

Of course, but for me, this isn't unity anymore. At best, it's as you said "Faux unity".

I can't say I ever felt any great unity with the rapist I encountered, Victor. He wasn't interested in working together.

... ...

Unity is about people trying to work together, not about the concept that the sheep have a right to defend themselves from wolves.

Justice and mercy have to work together...

I thought unity was about being together, not just trying to be. We are always trying, aren't we? Atleast those that seek and want it.

I guess what I'm saying is that you can have two people trying and never really be united. I'm not saying we should give up, but we all have conditions by which we all draw the line and say "I need to seperate myself from this person". Unless something changes. Wouldn't keeping such a person in the circle of our sacred only cause more damage?

Let me put it this way -- I grew up a Protestant, and the denomination I was in was famous for splitting up churches and blackballing groups from reentry into the denomination, because of course everyone was "right" in their opinion.

Concrete example: In one instance, a congregation was divided into 2 camps about how to use the money. One group wanted to keep amassing funds for an eventual building. Another wanted to keep a minimum amount on hand and use the rest for missionary and community charitable efforts.

The church split in half over this. The group that "lost" and left to form a separate church was blackballed from entering their new congregation into the old denomination.

There ensued a debate over whether they should join the Orthodox Presbyterians or remain non-denominational. This itself caused the new congregation to split in two.

Now we have three congregations where a year ago there had been just one.

In the meantime, no building fund was saved, no missionary work was done, and the poor in the community were not helped. Nothing was accomplished except that much hatred was spread about.

What in tarnation was the point of all that? Of what possible use?

Would it not have been better if the original congregants had just taken a vote and gone with whatever the result was? At least *something* of use would have happened.

This is exactly why I believe that "it is better to be unified than to be right."

(P.S. This is one thing I've always admired in Catholics -- they manage to have disagreements without going off and forming "Our Lady of 101st Street" over some trivial dispute. :sarcastic)

That was a silly thing to seperate over (IMO). I would have just submitted in such an example.

 

[ChristineES]

It is my considered opinion that it is not impossible to get along with someone that you don't always agree with. I have found that no 2 people ever agree with everything 100%. We have to learn to coexist with our differences and not make believe they are not there.

 

[lunamoth]

12Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. 13Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. 14And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity. (Colossians 3)

If one starts with love as the principle, rather than what is 'right,' unity will be the outcome.