Radical Critique of A New Framework

 
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 12:47:18 -0600 (MDT)
To: The URANTIA Book Discussion Group <URANTIAL@WWW.URANTIA.ORG>
From: pgeiger@rmi.net (Phil Geiger)
Subject: Radical Critique of A New Framework
Cc: urantial@ubook.org, ubtalk@utalk.org
Sender: owner-urantial@ubook.org

The following are my comments on the position paper of the Fellowship entitled
"A New Framework for Cooperation" (a summation is mercifully included at
the end of Part 2, for those who don't want to read through the whole
document)

>Groups of Urantia Book readers are presently confused and divided in their
>>views of outreach, text preservation, and other matters of importance to
>the >eventual success of the revelation. In spite of this confusion, the
>revelation >continues to reach a growing body of interested readers.
>However, there lingers >the feeling among many that the Urantia community
>could be better served by a >greater spirit of unity or harmony among its
>members.

Okay so far.

>Unfortunately, simple unity is not easy to achieve in a community that has
>>become polarized over copyright and trademark issues. Normal divergences
>of >opinion have become exacerbated by the inability of the two original
>Urantia >organizations, the Fellowship and the Foundation, to agree on a
>basis for >mutual cooperation.

Exacerbated, yes. But not a root cause of the problem.

>As a result, each organization has become an unintentional focus for the
>hopes and aspirations of various partisans

        "partisan: 1. adherent or follower of a person, cause, or party. 2.
member of a guerilla group  fighting or engaged in acts of sabotage,
against an enemy army of occupation (Scribner Bantam Dictionary)

(Assuming the authors intended the first definition, one hopes they will be
specific about who and what they are talking about. Vague innuendos are SO
tacky)

>who hope to influence the business of the revelation.

I thought the *business* of the revelation included both secular activities
(book publishing and distribution) AND spiritual activities. The mandate to
foster *a* religion, found in both organization's respective charters, is
never even mentioned, let alone discussed, in this position paper.

>Thus the pluralistic Fellowship unintentionally
>finds itself identified with opponents of Foundation policies.

THE most sacrosanct Foundation policy has been their unrelenting insistence
on being the sole publisher of the Urantia Papers, whatever the status of
the law at any given time, and dictators of who can use the so-called
"marks". Did the Fellowship "unintentionally" publish their own version of
the Papers? Did they "unintentionally" file their Amicus Brief in the
Maaherra case? Did they "unintentionally" use the 1-800-Urantia number on
their promotional materials? All these actions presumably had the complete
support of the opponents of the Foundation's policies.  Sorry, your own
actions prevent you from arguing "unintentionally".

>In this situation, it is impossible for either organization alone to
>exercise the moral authority to serve as an unifying force within the
>movement.

This, of course, assumes that even working together they can exercise moral
authority over anybody or anything (more on that in a moment).

>If the Foundation and the Fellowship could arrive at a relationship which
>allowed them to work together, each in their own way, for the advancement
>of >the revelation, a true leadership center would be established for the
>Urantia >movement with the potential to provide unifying moral authority.

The kind of moral authority your seeking will NEVER be achieved as long as
lies like those that have been foisted upon the U.S. Government Trademark
Office and the public as a whole by the Urantia Foundation are allowed to
stand. Who among you is willing to go before the public - choose your
venue, here on Urantia or in front of the Court of the Ancients of Days -
and say with a straight face that the term "Urantian" was "coined"
-invented - by the Urantia Foundation? As the Urantia Foundation has
already done, and which the Fellowship/Brotherhood aided and abetted in its
infamous Confirmatory Agreement. The clear implication of these actions is
that the ends (protection) justified the means (lying).

As a result, if sincere religionists want to identify themselves as groups
of Urantians, they have to be "licensed". Shades of the Anglican Church in
early Virginia, where secular law was used to license ministers to keep the
populace in line. In today's world, how do you think the idea of
"licensing" is going to go down in countries like Russia and China, who
"license" religions and religious beliefs? Where in the latter country, in
order to be a minster of the Christian faith you have to be "licensed" by a
secular governmental organization run by an atheist. Where you are
forbidden to believe in things like the 2nd coming of Christ; where
violating the licensing power of the State means 10 years in a hard labor
camp?

(What's going to happen when the Chinese version of Urantian religionists
take their place next to their "unlicensed" Christian brothers and sisters,
who even now are being arrested, tortured, and forced to work long hours in
horrid conditions for daring to practice their religion without a "license"
from the atheistic Officials of the Religious Affairs Bureau? Someone want
to explain to them why they will need a "license" to identify themselves
with the emblem of the Paradise Trinity? Hopefully we will have the good
form to boycott the cheap consumer items made by the sweat and blood of
their forced labor)

>Such an achievement would not cause radical criticism from the extremes of
>>opinion to cease,

        "radical: ...2. one who wants to make fundamental changes, as in
government or society, by going to the root of things; 3. Extremist"
(ibid).

(It must be accounted a triumph for the status quo that the latter
definition has come to replace the former in most people's minds).

Given a choice of definitions, though, I'll choose door number 2. Until we
accurately identify the ROOT causes of the dissension in the Urantia
community (another being the human usurpation of the emblem of Michael and
the Paradise Trinity), all the pretty words about unification will remain
just  that.

>but it would have the effect of giving greater substance
>and credibility to a balanced approach to fostering the revelation.
>At least, it would have the effect of marginalizing radical fringe
>elements and >reducing their ability to perturb the progress of the
>revelation.

What's perturbing the progress of the Revelation is the very proprietary
attitudes, backed by millions of dollars of legal muscle, that Bill Sadler
Jr. warned us about in his April 1955 Memo.

It's amazing, throughout this entire document, no blame is ever laid at the
feet of either the Fellowship or the Foundation. Just those mysterious,
unnamed dark forces...

(So let's check in and see how are evolving scapegoat is taking shape. From
a vaguely defined "partisan", we now can include "radical fringe elements"
indulging in extreme criticisms as the reason for the disharmony in the
Urantia community. Sounds like the relevant definition of "partisan" is
really the sabotaging guerrilla one. Back to you, Dave)

>If some such center cannot be found, the movement is faced with continuing
>>disruption and organizational confusion for the foreseeable future. The
>success >of the Foundation in appealing the Maaherra decision has given
>the Foundation's >opponents a rallying point for defiance of the
>copyright. If the Foundation is >not proactive in depolarizing this
>situation, it may be  faced with an >onslaught of defiant publishing
>activity leading to more  acrimonious >litigation.

Rather than depolarizing the legal situation, the just announced subpoenas
of the Asoka and Agondonter donor records have poured a truckfull of jet
fuel on the flames.

>It is inconceivable that the Fellowship would foster these extreme actions.

Excuse me? Did someone just move the goalposts? Have we entered an
alternate reality in which the Fellowship DIDN'T file an Amicus Brief in
the Maaherra case? Where the Fellowship DIDN'T engage in the most egregious
act in Foundation supporter's universe - opportunistically PUBLISH their
own edition of the Urantia Papers? (Surely, Kristen's "sin" of merely
publishing a study guide to the Foundation's Book, which arguably resulted
in a demand for MORE Foundation books shouldn't even be considered in the
same league with a rival publisher taking market share).

>The Fellowship is totally devoted to preserving the availability of an
>accurate, authoritative text of the Urantia Book

So are those pesky radical partisans we've been hearing about.

>and has absolutely no quarrel with the Foundation on this vital issue.

Odd that the real crux of the problem - fair use of the Revelators
revelation, is not even mentioned, let alone discussed. Much easier to get
a foot in the door by stereotyping those who have a different view of
dissemination as copyright and trademark saboteurs.

>The Fellowship will not benefit from, and will certainly be injured by,
>the >effects of intemperate actions on the readership, which it only aims
>to serve.

"Intemperate actions ON the readership"? Like those intemperate (extreme)
legal actions inflicted ON the readership by the Foundation, and the
consequent negative effects that then has ON the Fellowship? What a screwy
self-serving piece of reasoning this is. First undefined intemperate
radicals are responsible for causing disharmony in the Urantia community;
causing an intemperate response by, presumably the Foundation, since they
the ones who are suing the readership; and now the Fellowship whining about
how all this impacts them, as if they didn't have any part in any of this.
Amazing.

>We believe, however, that a window of opportunity exists at the present
>time in which cooperative movement by the Fellowship and the Foundation
>towards >a common good could greatly reduce the risk of further
>confrontation.

Sorry again. This "window of opportunity", if based solely on the
leanings of the present leaders in both organizations, might in fact be
able to create an interval of relative peace. But like the failure
of the Dayton Accords in Bosnia, created by an emotional reaction to the
conflict there (AND because of the negative effects it was having on
"business"), lasting peace can only be achieved by dealing with the root
of a problem.

(Having identified the root causes of conflict within the pre-federal
American states, James Madison, author of both the Free Exercise of
Religion AND Copyright clauses of the U.S. Constitution, wrote in
Federalist Paper Number 10:
"It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust
these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public
good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.")

>The leaders of the Fellowship have been careful observers of Foundation
>activity for many years. We are well aware that the current Trustees have
>acted >to reduce Book cost and improve availability and have made great
>strides in >developing and publishing translations.

Yes, a little competition is indeed good for the soul. "Effective use is
made of the fraternal competitive spirit...A refreshing and wholesome
rivalry is promoted even among the seraphic hosts." [312]  But would we
have
had a cheaper paperback version had not the Fellowship fallen into such an
unexplainable lapse of radical extremism (given the logic proffered here)
as forcing the issue by publishing a cheaper alternative - *against*
Foundation policy? Would the phantom "exhaustive index" supposedly
published by the Foundation for nearly  forty years ever have been created
without such presumed "extremists" as Kristen Maherra breaking through the
miasma of Trustee indifference and publishing her own computerized Folio
index? Would we have had an audio version when we did if Merrit Horn hadn't
created one first?

>Unfortunately, the memory of past conflicts lingers. This past makes it
>>difficult for our organization to represent the Foundation's interests to
>our >affiliated societies, members, and readers, especially in areas like
>fund >raising. For the Fellowship and its affiliates to trust the new
>Foundation >fully will require some significant gesture that annuls the
>shadow of the past.

Like taking down the barbwire and clearing the legal mine field around the
words Urantia, Urantian, and the symbol of Michael and the Paradise
Trinity. Or at least dropping the lawsuit against Kristen & Eric, since
they are at present in complete compliance with the law. (The Foundation
can always go back and sue them if a problem re-emerges. At least it will
have regained some of the goodwill it has squandered on the inflammatory
subpoena issue).

>How can the necessary degree of trust be re-established? One way is for
>each party to take a series of small, positive steps towards greater
>cooperation. This does not require any great faith in or acknowledgment
>of the motivations of the other group. Unfortunately, by the time mutual
>trust has matured to the level where the attitudes and actions of
>extremists can be tempered, some new crisis threatening the Foundation
>or the Fellowship may have erupted, making further progress very
>difficult.

There will ALWAYS be crises as long as the proprietary mindset exists.

>While we are willing to try the gradual approach, and while we recognize
>that it may have some potential to address disunity in the movement, we
>believe a more promising approach would be for the Fellowship and the
>Foundation to agree at this time on a relatively dramatic act of
>cooperation that will demonstrate the willingness of both parties actually
>to >trust the motivations and intentions of the other.

Since the subpoenas, it's going to take a lot more than that. Good luck.

>Our first thought for such a dramatic action is that the Foundation should
>license the Fellowship for the remaining term of the copyright to publish
>and distribute the inviolate text of the Urantia Book in return for a
>commercial royalty. Such an action would, we believe, shift moral and
>financial support from radical groups

You really are overplaying this radical thing.

>to the two primary Urantia organizations.

Like they said in Watergate - follow the money. Shift moral and financial
support away from "radical groups" (code words for "anybody but we two").
Well, this is at least consistent with the early Brotherhood thinking about
occupying the field and preventing the emergence of other groups revealed
in the March 7, 1955 Executive Committee Memo. Unfortunately, it gives the
lie to any pre-tensions to genuine pluralism.

>We believe there are many additional advantages to the Foundation in such
>an >arrangement, besides fostering a peaceful evolution of the movement.
>First, the >concerns of the Foundation regarding the Fellowship's
>publication of the Book >while the copyright was in abeyance would be
>resolved easily by payment of >royalties on the sale of books already
>printed. (The question of disposition of >Fellowship books currently in
>storage would also be resolved by allowing them >to go back into
>distribution, under the terms of the license.)

Apparently the Foundation isn't buying into this creative suggestion, as
indicated by the handshake agreement that followed.

>Second, any Fellowship success in developing the market for the Urantia
>Book >would redound to the financial and organizational benefit of the
>Foundation, >both through royalties and reader referrals, without cost or
>risk to the >Foundation.

Hard to see why they would refuse.

>Third, the creation of a "second source" for the Book would increase
>occupation of the market by authentic texts and make it more difficult for
>a >corrupted text to position itself as "authentic."

This is the best argument for multiple publishers, and for preserving the
long term authenticity of the text. After the copyright runs out, if there
are millions of authentic texts in circulation, attempts to adulterate the
text should fail. It is ironic that the very rationale the Foundation uses
to justify its copyright claims  - preservation of an authentic text - and
its dissemination strategy - slow growth - can produce precisely the
opposite result by limiting the number of books in circulation when the
copyright expires.

>Our experience as a publisher shows that, by diversifying the presentation
>of >the text, we succeeded in broadening the market appeal of the Book.
>The >Fellowship sold over 11,000 Urantia Books in one year, without
>reducing the >Foundation's ongoing sales of over 20,000 Books a year.

The more the merrier.

>A license from the Foundation to the Fellowship will increase
>dissemination of >the authentic text during the remaining years of the
>copyright. Further, this >license will produce a significant income stream
>to the Foundation without >added investment, providing additional funding
>for translations.

Or maybe another round of subpoenas to prevent those radical extremists
from acting towards the Revelation as the Spirit moves them. (Sorry, but
I'm a little pissed off tonight. The comment does have some justification,
however, given the alllegation that Martin Meyers used money from the
perpetual printing fund to sue the members of the Center for Urantia Book
Synergy in Santa Barbara)

>We believe such a license could be arranged legally to provide the
>Foundation with "absolute control" over the printing of the Book, as
>required by the Declaration of Trust. It is not necessary for the
>Foundation actually to print the Book in order to have "absolute control"
>and, in fact, the Foundation does not actually print the Book now, of
>course, but turns the work over to a commercial printer. What is at issue
>is the willingness of the Foundation to tolerate additional sources of
>inviolate text in the marketplace.

Intolerance, in this case, is self-defeating, per the expiration of the
copyright argument given above.

>It is reasonable to ask why the Fellowship would want to or feel it needed
>to >publish the Urantia Book when the Foundation is willing to provide
>unlimited >copies, at a fair price, to the Fellowship for use in its
>outreach and other programs. We believe that entry into a relationship of
>this type by the Foundation and the Fellowship will send a loud and clear
>signal to the readership that we are committed to working together for the
>>welfare of the entire movement.

I wonder - Does that include the "radicals" too?

> We are convinced that it is imperative that
>such a signal be sent NOW, before the forces of disunity have time to find
>a new focus for their action.

There they are again...

>We are so convinced of the importance of this
>action for the welfare of the movement, that we would be willing to
>negotiate a number of additional concessions to the Foundation to provide
>added assurance of our good faith in this matter.

What price, peace?

>For example, given the trust implied by this relationship, it would be
>easy for >the Fellowship to enter into genuine, active support of the
>Foundation's >translation program.

I suggested a joint translation effort during the last wave of
rapprochement talks. Others likely did the same in previous cycles. After
the dust settles from this latest subpoena bombshell, it might be the only
thing left to salvage (which I am sure works just fine for the Foundation).

>As another example, the Trustees are surely aware of the degree to which
>their >registered marks are a target of negative reaction and potential
>legal attack >from anti-Foundation factions. With some clarification
>through further >discussion, an arrangement could be found for the
>continued use and licensing >of the marks that the Fellowship and the
>Foundation would be able to support. >The effect of such an agreement, if
>framed to avoid further polarization of the >movement, would be to enable
>the Foundation to assure that the symbol of the >infinity, eternity, and
>universality of the Paradise Trinity and the local >universe name of our
>planet will never be perverted to an unseemly or >non-spiritual purpose.

I myself offered such a plan over a year ago, one that requires the
definition of the terms and symbols *as given in the Urantia Papers*
accompany each use, thus speeding up the day when they achieve the ultimate
in protective status - generic meaning (to thundering silence, I might
add). A personal compromise that went against my *radical* grain.

(The radical perspective of licensing can be summed up by comparing it to
the pre-Constitutional debates in the USA re the issue of religious
"tolerance":

"It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the
indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of
their inherent natural rights."      -George Washington (addressing the
Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island)

"Tolerance in the counterfeit of intolerance. Both are despotisms. The one
assumes to itself the right of withholding liberty of conscience, the other
of granting it."     -Tom Paine, The Rights of Man

>None of these actions (serving as a "second source" publisher, massively
>supporting translations, upholding Foundation control of the word and
>symbol  represent an easy path for the Fellowship.)

And how do you plan to "uphold" the Foundation's immoral ownership claims
to the Revelators words and symbols? You've already signed the Confirmatory
Agreement agreeing that they "own" them and would be foolish to try and use
them again.  What additional steps can you take to "defend" them? Acting as
informers against all those radical extremists daring to follow their
religious consciences, and dutifully reporting them to your new partner?
That will certainly go a long way in proving your loyalty.

>However, if such considerations could form the basis for the re
>establishment >of harmony within the readership, the Fellowship is
>prepared to work towards >them.

By selling out the rest of the readership in the process. With friends like
these...

>We recognize that this outlines a very broad and ambitious basis for
>long-term cooperation between the Foundation and the Fellowship.

You certainly deserve each other at this point.

>Such an eventuality can only come about if the individual decision makers
>in >both organizations are willing to put aside their fears and injustices
>and >grasp the opportunity afforded us NOW to address the real problems.

Well, these are noble sentiments, but the Foundation's subpoena game has
effectively sabotaged any hope of that.

Conclusion

I initially supported the 7 point agreement worked out between the
Fellowship and the Foundation on Oct. 3, with the notable exception of the
provision about breaking the Master's commandment not to go to law among
ourselves (my 1st edition copy of the Papers does NOT say: "Be willing to
suffer injustice rather than to go to law among yourselves; but if you do,
at least have the courtesy of informing each other first").  Even so, in
the spirit of compromise, I was willing to support the agreement overall as
a first step towards reconciliation. But now that I understand the
Fellowship's thinking behind the agreement, I see that it could have only
failed in very short order, no matter what the Foundation might have done.

Time and time again the Revelators warn us about the dangers of secularism.
I believe the RADICAL source of the current problems facing both
organizations originated early on, when they abandoned the spiritual part
of their mission (as when the Brotherhood eliminated the term "ordained"
teachers from its constitution), choosing instead to concentrate on purely
secular concerns. The number of Fellowship members is the same as it was A
DECADE AGO. Joining a glorified secular book club instead of a dynamic
religious organization is apparently an unappealing option in this secular
age of spiritual malnutrition.

One need only review Tonia Baney's totally unsupportable comment to the
Boulder press that the Revelators specifically enjoin us from organizing a
religion to see what fruit the Foundation's choice has born. Their
exclusive reliance on secular trademark and copyright law to fulfill their
mission will always stand as an unbreachable wall between them and the
sincere religionists of the Urantia movement who feel moved by Spirit to
identify themselves as Urantians; who choose to symbolize their allegiance
to the Paradise Trinity, Michael and the universe government of Nebadon by
displaying the concentric circles; who believe fair use of the Revelators
words exceed 1,000 in number. Though the  Fellowship has in general always
supported the trademarks, its characterization of religionists with a
different view as partisans and radical extremists, its scapegoating of
them as the major source of disharmony in the Urantia community now extends
that wall around them as well.

The Fellowship had its brief fling with secular glory, finding a new reason
d'etre in its role as a competing publisher of the Urantia Papers.  Judge
Schroeder's ruling shreddeded those sails rather quickly, and now, with no
religious roots to fall back on, the Fellowship is so lost that it can't
even see straight. Unsure of its own identity, it seems content to settle
for whatever crumbs fall from the master's table. The rapidity of the
Foundation's issuing of subpoenas directed at members WITHIN the
Fellowship, though not a technical violation of the 7 point agreement, now
threatens to tear the Fellowship asunder. It's not too much of a stretch to
view these back to back defeats as a higher judgment from the planetary
supervisors directed at the Fellowship's abandonment of its spiritual
mission. If so, it would seem that the time lag of justice runs quite short
when applied to the "business" of the Revelation.

In sum, this is a horribly flawed document, laced with short-sighted,
hypocritical, scapegoating, divisive, self-serving revisionism - all in the
name of unity!  While I appreciate its intent, I repudiate it's form
absolutely.  It's possible that I am misreading it; that its authors were
so narrowly focused on the meeting with the Trustees that they gave no
thought to its greater implications to the readership. I have *enormous*
respect for those individuals who have toiled ceaselessly these recent
weeks to bring about unity between the two organizations. But the shifting
sands of secularism will continue to undermine even their best efforts.

If this document is allowed to stand; if it represents the true feelings of
the Fellowship leadership, I will follow the dictates of my RADICAL
RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE and resign from the Fellowship forthwith.

Yours in the Revelation,

Phil Geiger

(re-post as desired; Conclusion can be posted separately)