Here’s one sociological/psychological observation about the controversy in my church over gender and clergy.
Eight years ago, Michael Effertz sat down and made a thorough, what I would describe as almost preternaturally patient argument for queer mass (i.e., no gender restrictions on who can serve in what role).
He makes the argument several different ways: dialectically by showing how arguments against queer mass contradict (what was then) current EGC policy, spiritually and religiously using the writings of Crowley as evidence, and using evidence from gender theory.
One of the really interesting things he does in that book is he tends to “steel man” his opponent’s arguments. He attempts to give his opponent’s arguments the strongest form he can think of, and he attempts to think through what their objections would be and responds to them.
He printed this book at his own cost and sent copies to all lodges in USGL as well as the three governing officers of USGL.
And it was met mostly with crickets.
The only borderline official response it got was a review written by an EGC Bishop, Tau Polyphilus. Polyphilus did not address many of the arguments in Effertz’s book, certainly not the strongest ones, and where he did attempt to address them, he committed straw man fallacies.
Straw man is a fallacy of relevance. It’s when you do not respond to your opponent’s actual argument but rather a weaker reconstruction of it. In other words, as charitable as Effertz was, that’s how uncharitable Polyphilus’s counterarguments were.
Nonetheless, Effertz responded, again, this time with a short pamphlet in which he took everything Polyphilus said completely seriously and responded to everything even resembling an argument in it.
Again, crickets.
I’m pointing this out because I was reading a thread on a friend’s wall today, and I saw someone suggesting to a person who was upset with the current policy that they suggest a new policy to EGC authorities (in lieu of being angry about it, I guess).
But this has been done already, and it was done in the most thorough, most polite way imaginable. And it was met with (on the best interpretation) sloppiness and indifference.
Now here’s the thing.
No one is under any sort of absolute obligation to be polite with anyone. If you want to get right up in someone’s face and tell them they’re a homophobic ass-kisser, that’s your right. Not sure what it accomplishes, but that’s your right as far as I’m concerned.
And no one is under any obligation to consider a polite, well-reasoned argument.
I mentioned Effertz’s book to someone recently (who hadn’t read it), and their response was that Effertz is an asshole.
Sadly this is the level of discourse in OTO I’ve become used to.
It comes from the overculture, for sure. It’s also exemplified by some leaders in the group. But I’ve learned at this point that if I expect rational discourse, I’m going to be disappointed. There’s either no will for it or no ability to engage in it.
In the past year, at least, the only serious discussions I’ve had about anything of interest regarding Thelema or OTO mysteries has been either with former members or with individuals who have one foot out the door. (And I must confess, I am in the latter category now.)
But here’s the other side of it.
If people ask you for something politely, if they protest in the most civil way imaginable, and your response is indifference (or worse), they’re eventually going to go into a fucking rage.
It’s hard for me to take moral opprobrium seriously—moreso if you were one of the people doing the brushing off in the first place. The closer you were to the issue, the more I tend to view the pearl-clutching as being in bad faith. Although I also understand if there are people who just aren’t aware of all the history around all this—I wasn’t until recently—and who, because of that, are having trouble understanding why people are so upset.
So my suggestion is that, if you don’t want people becoming impolite, if you want there to be a custom of rational discourse in your community where people give and accept reasons for things, then start by giving and accepting reasons for things.
Or better yet, start by listening carefully.
The opposite of rational discussion isn’t personal freedom (as so many Thelemites seem to think). Reasoning exists at one end of a continuum, the opposite end of which is violence. (To my best understanding, the Book of the Law confirms this idea, it doesn’t deny it.)
So if you have a serious problem with discourtesy—if that’s something you value in good faith rather than as a cudgel to use against someone when it’s convenient—then when someone is courteous and rational with you, be courteous and rational back.
And if they’re not courteous and rational with you, still be courteous and rational back. Listen carefully. The higher up you are in any hierarchy, in my opinion the more you ought to do this, only because of the negative psychological impact and loss of prestige for your organization that comes from being a powerful person who also acts aggrieved.
Name one person who enjoys seeing a winner cry. Are we hard-wired against that?
You only have control over your own actions, but those actions end up influencing the culture around you. Straw man and ad hominem are not just mere logical fallacies. Those fallacies also send out a signal about how willing you are to listen to people and carefully consider their ideas.
And you’re going to reap what you sow.