Tom DeLay to Family Research Council
Here's part of what
Tom's been saying ...
And so it’s bigger than any one of us, and we have to do everything that is in our power to save Terri Schiavo and anybody else that may be in this kind of position.
And let me just finish with this: This is exactly the issue that’s going on in America. That attacks against the conservative movement, against me, and against many others. The point is, it’s, the other side has figured out how to win and defeat the conservative movement. And that is to go after people, personally charge them with frivolous charges, and link that up with all these do-gooder organizations funded by George Soros, and then, and then get the national media on their side. That whole syndicate that they have going on right now is for one purpose and one purpose only and that’s to destroy the conservative movement. It’s to destroy conservative leaders and it’s, uh, not just in elected office but leading. I mean Ed Feulner, today at the Heritage Foundation, was under attack in the National Journal. I mean they, they, this is a huge nationwide concerted effort to destroy everything we believe in, and, and you need to look at this and what’s going on and participate in fighting back.
I had no idea liberals were so powerful!
Spirit Buddies
Doug Rogers told me about a program that Mission Peak Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Fremont, CA runs called
Spirit Buddies - you might want to check it out.
The intent of this practice is to create an awareness of the relationships in your life and the positive impact they have. You will be communicating with a partner to support each other in this practice.
Unitarian Universalism - not for everyone?
Doug Rogers of the Mission Peak Unitarian Universalist Congregation submitted an interesting piece to the UUA Public Relations mailing list, and he's given me permission to reproduce it here:
Curtis Michelson commented on the idea that not everyone is cut out to be a UU.
The "not for everyone" is a very important issue for UU's. I believe that it is a flaw that we should address and fix. It's important to remember that Apple nearly went out of business, and would most likely have gone under, except that they came up with the iPod, which is for everyone (or at least a lot of people). The nitch market is a tough one to survive in because the nitches keep changing.
A message that is aimed at one person out of a thousand (our current fraction of the US population) is a weak message and is quite likely to die out completely as the culture changes.
An institution that is unable to re-formulate itself to become more attractive to potential members is not likely to endure. Religions tend to fade slowly, but they do disappear. Quakers were once a powerful part of the culture, now they are nearly gone. Methodists and Presbyterians are dying out. In the late 1800's Unitarians and
Universalists were about 10% of the US population, now we are 0.1% and holding.
We claim that we want to influence the larger culture, to promote justice, etc. Currently we are unable to do that, we have just the smallest bit of influence around the gay rights issues, and that's about it. Some people join us with the idea that they are going to be able to influence political issues, but they are unable to do so because we do not have the numbers. We also don't have the focus or the discipline.
Saying that we are an elite group, not for everyone, is a reflection of present reality, but it is not an honest position to take forward. Do we really think that we are the only people who deserve or are capable of happiness, spiritual growth, ethical behavior? Do we really think that we can exert a positive influence on our society at our present strength? Do we really believe that fundamentalists succeed by preaching hell fire and damnation?
One of our big conceptual problems is that we are hung up on theology. Since it matters to others, we allow our lack of it to define us. That takes us right into the "build your own theology" and elitism. Not that many people are concerned with theology. It's a bad focus, particularly since we don't have one. We start our definition with a negative. Not good framing. We do have a lot to say and we have a lot of agreement among ourselves when it comes to behavior, that's where our message
should be.
Look at the Buddists, for example. They have a path that is extremely difficult to actually follow, you need to be a monk. They also have no theology, at least not in the sense that Christians use the term. Yet, they have a powerful worldwide presence. The reason is that they have a powerful message. Their message can be grasped at many levels, and is accessible to everyone.
Look what the Dali Llama has done. During the last 35 years or so, he has, nearly singlehandedly, brought his ancient, extremely complex, and largely unknown religious culture onto the world stage. People world wide know him and his message. They have read his books and have the greatest respect for him and what he represents. How does he do this? I think we can learn at least two things:
- He is focused outward, to people all over the world. He truly wishes them well, even his enemies, particularly his enemies. Can we say with a straight face that we wish the best for those we disagree with? We have trouble even talking to those who have different political opinions, let alone a significantly different religious
outlook from ours. We need to get past our own self centered view of the world. The truth is that nobody cares what we think, except us. And why should they? Unless, of course, we have something to offer.
- He is always on message. His message is consistent and easy to understand. He doesn't parade his deep knowledge of the complexities of the Tibetan version of Buddhism. (If you've read some of his popular books, try one of his more theoretical books, I couldn't get through any of them.) We are much too quick to use special terms, "code", to separate ourselves. To be fair, we have tried to push past that
tendency, and to the extent that we have been successful, we have grown. We need to simplify our message and stick to it. Try reading our 7 principles and purposes. They are convoluted and unclear; they were written by committee and they sound like it. We don't even know what our message is, we are told to invent our own version. Not a strong position.
We have all the elements of a great religion, one that could bridge the gap between modern science and ancient wisdom. One that really could bring peace to the nations and peace in our hearts. We have both a clergy and a membership who, together, comprise an expertise in both science and religion that is unmatched. We also have a culture of open discussion (except we don't discuss politics well, we mostly just repeat slogans), and we also are willing to change and have changed our service
format, music and words. We could be the force that re-interprets spirituality in our time.
We lack organization. We are stuck in the worst possible model, every church for itself, but with a centrally educated clergy and a weak national association dominated by a professional staff. (I see progress at the national level) We don't know what our message is, we are unable to separate important issues from distractions and we have the foolish idea that every individual has the right to pull the organization in his particular direction. The wonder is that we exist at all.
It's ironic that we are quite clear on advising individuals on how to organize their individual lives, deal with grief, prioritize and move forward, but have not yet figured out that the same issues and problems exist at an institutional level. As an institution we need to do the work that a weakly functional individual does when he see a shrink, review, refocus and move forward with some purpose.
I recommend "The Almost Church" by Michael Durall. We can confront and solve our problems. We can do a better job of framing in our everday communications, we can learn to look for the universal appeal in our message, we can reach out to our local communities. These everyday things will strengthen us, but to be world class, we will need a major re-organization.
Their are many paths up the mountain, but all of them are uphill.
Saving Jesus
Here's a sermon called
Saving Jesus by the minister of our church. It starts ...
Several years ago I was talking with a rabbi and comparing our two religions. The rabbi pointed out that there were more differences between us than I might realize. "But," he chuckled, "like you Unitarian Universalists, we Jews get a little nervous around Jesus."
As Unitarian Universalists we do get nervous around Jesus. One church member recently said to me that whenever I mention Jesus, he "winces." I expect that he is not alone. Why is that? If I were talk about Buddha, you would be interested, at worst puzzled, but I doubt that you would wince.
Christian UUs, of course, don't get nervous around Jesus. But a decent number of people in my church, including myself, do. (I was the "wincer" my minister commented on.) It's my goal to learn to stop.
I'd be pleased to hear any comments on this sermon, especially (but certainly not limited to) those who identify as Christian Unitarians.
Not reading the Bible
I've been enjoying reading the discussions on UU blogs about the role of the Bible in UU life. One person I just read this morning was brought up Unitarian; another was brought up Presbyterian. Each has his and her perspective.
I, on the other hand, was brought up Catholic. Let's let everyone guess how much of the Bible I've read. Our minister has suggested he might start a Bible study class; I think I'd be the first to sign up.
And I gotta tell you, I never thought I would say that.
Damage to the founders' careful plan for American democracy
An editorial in the New York Times (free registration required),
A Blow to the Rule of Law, sums up the opposition to what's happening in the Terri Schiavo case quite well.
If you are in a "persistent vegetative state" and there is a dispute about whether to keep you alive, your case will probably go no further than state court - unless you are Terri Schiavo. President Bush signed legislation yesterday giving Ms. Schiavo's parents a personal right to sue in federal court. The new law tramples on the principle that this is "a nation of laws, not of men," and it guts the power of the states. When the commotion over this one tragic woman is over, Congress and the president will have done real damage to the founders' careful plan for American democracy.
Another Times editorial,
Congress's Midnight Frenzy, continues.
The sight of Congress and President Bush intruding into the sufferings of the Schiavo family was appalling. Washington had years to properly consider the agonizing dilemmas that cases like this one raise for uncounted, less publicized American families. But the Republican leadership did nothing until the issue ripened to a maximum moment for simplistic political exploitation.
Who is the spokesperson for the parents of Terri Schiavo?
Media Matters for America tells us that Randall Terry is more than just a spokesperson. Among other things, he's the founder of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue.
Terry's words and personal life have also stirred controversy. As the Fort Wayne (Indiana) News Sentinel reported on August 16, 1993, at an anti-abortion rally in Fort Wayne, Terry said "Our goal is a Christian nation. ... We have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism. ... Theocracy means God rules. I've got a hot flash. God rules." In that same speech, Terry also stated that "If a Christian voted for [former President Bill] Clinton, he sinned against God. It's that simple." According to a March 18, 2004, press release, Terry declared on his radio program that "Islam dictates followers use killing and terror to convert Western infidels." As The Washington Post reported on February 12, 2000, in his 1995 book The Judgment of God Terry wrote that "homosexuals and lesbians are no longer content to secretly live in sin, but now want to glorify their perversions." In a May 25, 2004, interview about his gay son with The Advocate, Terry stated that homosexuality is a "sexual addiction" that shouldn't be rewarded with "special civil rights."
Federal intervention in Schiavo case prompts broad public disapproval
An ABC News poll says
Americans broadly and strongly disapprove of federal intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, with sizable majorities saying Congress is overstepping its bounds for political gain.
The public, by 63-28 percent, supports the removal of Schiavo’s feeding tube, and by a 25-point margin opposes a law mandating federal review of her case. Congress passed such legislation and George W. Bush signed it early Monday.
Thanks to
thinkprogress.org for pointing this out.
"A great political issue" that would appeal to the party's base
That's the
Republican's take on the Terri Schiavo issue, in case you were wondering. According to the Seattle Times,
Republican leaders believe their attention to the Terri Schiavo issue could pay dividends with Christian conservatives whose support they covet in the 2006 midterm elections, according to a GOP memo intended to be seen only by senators.
To say they these Republicans have no shame would be to infinitely understate the case.
Daniel Schorr on NPR did a good commentary on the case.
How to run a meeting
Having been to more than my fair share of church Board meetings, ChaliceChick's
The ex-Presbyterian presents: How to run a Goddamn meeting rings particularly true. One that I particularly like is:
5. We aren’t Quakers, consensus is unnecessary.
What a timesaver just using
that rule would be!
Jesus sermon
No sooner do I say that
my Unitarian Universalist church is careful not to use the "J-word" (at least without balancing it with other religious leaders), our minister does a sermon on Jesus primarily oriented to those for whom referencing Jesus is, at best, a touchy subject.
I'm working on getting a copy of the sermon put on my church's web site.
Philcrates answers my comment on Christian UUs
In
this posting, I commented (apparently not rhetorically, because I got an answer) that, in spite of some Christian UUs seeming to feel somewhat persecuted, "I keep noticing that most of the bloggers who identify as Unitarian Universalist characterize themselves as
Christian Unitarian Universalists... Go figure."
Philocrates picked up on the my puzzlement, and gave an explanation I would have never thought of. In part, he says
It's parochial: Although you might not be able to tell, several of the early UU adopters of Blogger and Movable Type -- two of the major blogging software packages -- actually know each other off-line. Could it be that UU Christians took to blogging early because it gave us a way to keep in touch with each other while having conversations we wanted the larger movement to be having? Boy in the Bands, Philocrites, Prophet Motive, PeaceBang, and Unity, for example, are written by real-life pals who like to hang out with each other. And now that a few of us have met the Amazing Fausto, we're not just a bunch of div school pals. (Only PeaceBang and I are Harvard Divinity alums. Fausto shames us all, though: He knows more UU history and theology than 93% of ministers.) Since we're a chatty bunch, we make UU Christianity seem more widespread than it is. When you add in the other UU blogs by Christians or Christian-friendly blogs, you get quite a long list.
I had no idea that the UU blogging community was
that tightly knit! :) And I feel much better now, knowing that my UU church, which stays significantly vigilant in watching out for the "J" word, is not in quite the minority I might have thought <insert chuckle here>.
Although I'm beginning to think the pro-"J" group might be a little more interesting.
An attempt to orchestrate the takeover of the Episcopal Church?
Father Jake makes a case that the American Anglican Council is
get trying to get the Episcopal Church kicked out of the Anglican Communion, and then claim ownership of all assets. He quotes a number of sources including court papers, and near the end, he says ...
What conclusion do you come to when you read this stuff? What I see is a handful of folks, primarily bishops, priests, and attorneys, trying to orchestrate a takeover of the Episcopal Church; building this "parallel universe" on the backs of our gay and lesbian members. To the troops, they scream about the bible and tradition. Among themselves, it's all about property and power.
Thanks to
Philocrates for pointing this out.
Should Joe Lieberman leave the Democratic Party?
Oliver Willis certainly things so.
Joe Lieberman feels that as a Democrat, it's a good idea to launch a public attack on the party chairman. Why? Why the hell does he do this? Why is Joe Lieberman actively hurting the Democratic party? He knows the media salivates over the notion of a party member disagreeing with party leadership, and the GOP is smart enough to keep their disputes behind closed doors. But Joe Lieberman, seduced by the lights, camera, and ink can't wait to be the "maverick" once again, knifing his party in the back.
...
Senator Lieberman, if you hate Democrats so much - leave. Leave. Go away. Join the Republicans, join the Libertarians, become an independent - whatever the hell you want to do but leave the Democratic party. You're not fit to work in Washington under the party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden or any of the other millions of us who believe in the promise of America.
Go. And don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split you.
Evangelicals and social action
Sometimes it's a good idea to read what people on the othe side of the fence are writing. Cal Thomas, a nationally syndicated columnist, wrote a March 14 piece entitled
The evangelical third coming in which he argues that evangelicals shouldn't be bothering themselves with issues like global warming. After all, he says,
There is no biblical expectation that a "fallen" world can, should or will be improved prior to the return of the One to whom evangelicals are supposed to owe their complete allegiance.
But the quote that amazes me the most is this:
Liberal churches have long believed in a doctrine of salvation-through-works, as if helping the poor was the chief responsibility of government and an end in itself, rather than a means for individuals to communicate the love of God to poor people.
Guess that proves I'm a liberal - I always thought helping the poor
is an end in itself.
Thanks to Media Matters for America for pointing this one out and for their additional comments.
Theology and the UU 7 Principles
Daniel Harper in
Yet Another Unitarian Universalist Blog, speaking about Unitarian Universalist theology, says ...
Oh, and forget trying to base theology on the "Seven Principles." While Christian theologians do tend to ground their theology in interpretations of their sacred texts, the "Seven Principles" are excerpts from the UUA's bylaws, and -- alas -- lack the poetry and human depth of the Christian and Hebrew scriptures. The "Seven Principles" function fairly well as a profession of faith (thought I still prefer the old Universalist Winchester Profession for sheer poetry, even though I pretty much disagree with it) -- but the "SevenPrinciples" are definitely not theology.
Indeed, I sometimes wonder if one of the things keeping Unitarian Unviersalists from doing theology in our local congregations is that we make the false assumption that the "Seven Principles" are sufficient. They aren't. They say "what," but not "why" or "how" or "when."
UUA President Applauds California Court Ruling in Support of Equal Marriage
(March 15, 2005) UUA President William G. Sinkford today issued a
statement following yesterday's ruling by the San Francisco, CA Superior
Court supporting equal marriage rights for all couples. Sinkford said:
"I applaud the San Francisco Superior Court ruling that affirms the
right of equal marriage for same-sex couples. Superior Court Justice
Richard Kramer stated there was no rational reason for denying marriage
to same-sex couples, and I could not agree more.
"The ruling matches our history-our lived experience of over 30 years of
having same-sex families openly be a part of our faith. Today, we also
celebrate the role of Unitarian Universalists who have worked for Equal
Marriage-especially the fine work of the Unitarian Universalist
Legislative Ministry of California that coordinated the participation of
65 California UU congregations this winter in the Standing on the Side
of Love campaign and delivered 3,800 valentines in support of marriage
equality to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
"To the many same-sex couples and Unitarian Universalists in California,
I affirm your work and support for justice and equality. Please keep up
the good work as we move inexorably to recognition of civil marriage as
a civil right."
A heterodox Christian UU faith
And
Fausto, writing in the Socinian. comments on
PeaceBang's testimony to her heterodox Christian faith. One small comment from Fausto ...
I can’t count the times I’ve found myself thinking many of the same things [Unitarians not being able to acknowledge Christianity as a legitimate source]. They preach the Gospel truly, but without attribution to the source, and the Lord moves among them like a thief in the night.
Are some UUs Anti-Christians?
Jess's Journal has thoughts on the quantifiable difference between being a Unitarian Universalist and being an anti-mainstream Christian.
There's a strange dichotomy in American religious thought. On one hand, there is tradition, where prayer and Jesus and apple pie hold all the answers. On the other hand, we're taught to be thinking beings, and the superstitions that have become attached to mainstream Christianity don't exactly make intellectual sense to a lot of people. It's getting people to admit that without feeling guilty that is the largest challenge.
But, I feel that Unitarian Universalists aren't doing the greatest job at being around for those who do come to the realization that they need a spiritual home, but that they're not necessarily Christians. UUs go too far in the opposite direction, trying to distance ourselves as much as possible from what has become Christianity that we have become a group of anti-Christians rather than a cohesive religion in our own right. We become a refuge, yes, but not necessarily for healing - more for wallowing.
Thanks to
PeaceBang for pointing that one out.
I certainly have the feeling that Jess is describing. On the other hand, I keep noticing that most of the bloggers who identify as Unitarian Universalist characterize themselves as Christian Unitarian Universalists (including PeaceBang). Go figure.
Who Gets It? Hillary
Nicholas D. Kristof, writing in an
Op-ed piece in the New York Times (free registration required) says that Hillary Clinton knows how to guide Democrats to winning elections.
Senator Clinton, much more than most in her party, understands how the national Democratic Party needs to rebrand itself. She gets it - perhaps that's what 17 years in socially conservative Arkansas does to you.
Universal Life Church Minister's Assn joins President Bush's Council
According to
PRWeb,
The Universal Life Church Minister’s Association today announced it has teamed with the White House to become a Certifying Organization for the President's Volunteer Service Award, a national program recognizing Americans who have demonstrated a sustained commitment to volunteer service. Established in 2003, the award was created by President George W. Bush to give Presidential recognition to individuals, families and groups who meet requirements for volunteer service, measured by the number of service hours performed over 12-months.
The Universal Life Church Minister’s Association is one of thousands of organizations that have joined forces to deliver the President's Volunteer Service Award and honor the volunteers who strengthen our Nation. As a Certifying Organization for the award, The Universal Life Church Minister’s Association is responsible for verifying service hours, nominating potential recipients and delivering the award.
The White House must be proud to get 20 million new volunteers. After all, according to
their web site, you can become a Universal Life Church minister in 3 minutes by registering online.
From where does government derive its authority?
Left2Right has a good discussion that revolves around Supreme Court Justice Scalia's revelation that our government doesn't derive its authority from the people as we thought it did:
And when somebody goes by that monument, I don't think they're studying each one of the commandments. It's a symbol of the fact that government comes — derives its authority from God. And that is, it seems to me, an appropriate symbol to be on State grounds.
Eliminating severe poverty around the world?
Matthew Yglesias discusses Jeffrey Sachs' theory that
we could eliminate severe poverty around the world for $150 billion per year in donations from rich countries.
By severe poverty we mean here the conditions experienced by those who live on less than $1 per day. There are quite a lot of people like that on the earth, and I think it should be clear that if we really do have a workable plan on the table to eliminate severe poverty around the world for $150 billion per year that we probably ought to pony up the $150 billion. Indeed, we probably ought to pony up something like $200 billion to give ourselves some margin of error. The moral benefits should be obvious. There would also, I think, be security and economic benefits. In practice, people suffering from the sort of dire poverty Sachs is concerned with here simply can't participate in anything we would recognize as modern political or economic life. Lifting people out of the sinkhole of dire poverty would set them up to lift themselves further up the ladder, building a better world for us all.
The Living Church of God
The Revealer discusses the beliefs of the Living Church of God. At the church in Brookfield, Wisconsin, seven congregants were killed on March 12 by one of its own members, who then took his own life.
The article asks if the beliefs of the church might have contributed in any way to the mental stability of the shooter.
The main task of a minister and congregation
What is the main task of a minister and congregation? Daniel Harper believes it should be
doing theology.
A few years ago, I heard Ruppert Lovely speak. He was the long-time minister at the Countryside Unitarian Universalist church in Palatine, Illinois. He said that he believed the main task of a minister was to do theology with his/her congregation. Other tasks of ministers are incidental to doing theology. This seems to imply that the main purpose of the congregation is also to do theology...
Challenges to progressive Christianity
The Revealer comments on Amy Sullivan's
article in Salon (registration required) discussing the challenges to progressive Christianity.
What Democrats Stand For
New Democrats Online, by the middle-of-the-road Democratic Leadership Council, has an article called
What We Stand For.
Here are some simple truths every Democrat needs to hear. To win back the White House in 2008, our party must change. We must be willing to discard political strategies that may make us feel good but that keep falling short. We must finally reject the false choice between exciting our base and expanding our appeal, because unless we both motivate and persuade, we'll lose every time.
But above all, Democrats must be bold and clear about what we stand for. It's time to show the millions of people who can't tell what Democrats stand for that any American who believes in security, opportunity, and responsibility has a home in the Democratic Party.
Evangelicals fight global warming
The
New York Times (free registration required) reports that evangelicals have a new cause.
A core group of influential evangelical leaders has put its considerable political power behind a cause that has barely registered on the evangelical agenda, fighting global warming.
These church leaders, scientists, writers and heads of international aid agencies argue that global warming is an urgent threat, a cause of poverty and a Christian issue because the Bible mandates stewardship of God's creation.
It'll be interesting to see if the Administration listens to religious arguments on a subject that's not abortion or gay marriage. My guess? Naww. Unless the evangelicals come up with a novel twist - something like "gays who want to get married love global warming". Maybe that would get the Administration's attention.
Social Security revamp supporter lost a ton on investments
According to
The Cunning Realist, there's a promoter of Bush's vision of a New Social Security System who knows one thing personally: it's not hard to lose a ton of money managing your own investments.
Over the past few months, several financial industry pundits have been highly visible in the print and television media promoting the President's vision on this issue. One of them is named Don Luskin. I've seen him repeatedly on a variety of business and political talk shows; he's also a prolific writer about this issue.
When I first saw Luskin on television a few months ago forcefully advocating private accounts, I did a double-take. The last time I remembered seeing or hearing about him previously was several years ago, but I did not remember much about him. A fast internet search brought it all back in a few seconds. For those not familiar with Luskin's past, in 1999 he started a mutual fund firm called MetaMarkets.com. The results were ugly; the company's two funds quickly lost a shocking percentage of investor funds, and had to be shuttered. One post-mortem appears here.
Thanks to
Oliver Willis for pointing this one out.
Social Security bad for marriage and kids?
According to the
State University of New York at Buffalo, Social Security is bad for marriage!
Policymakers and citizens pondering the merits of Social Security reform should consider new evidence showing that "social security" adversely affects decisions to marry and have children.
A new University at Buffalo study, examining the experience of 57 countries over a 32-year period, concludes that in the U.S. and other countries where social security is instituted as a defined-benefits, pay-as-you-go system, marriage and fertility rates fell sharply over time -- partly as a result of social security itself.
Youch ... I had no idea. Let's dump the whole damn program. Tomorrow, if possible.
Thanks to Talking Points Memo for pointing out that story.
Public version of Saddam Hussein's capture fiction
Station WHAM IN Rochester, NY reports that an Ex-Marine says that the public version of Saddam Hussein's capture was fiction.
"I was among the 20-man unit, including eight of Arab descent, who searched for Saddam for three days in the area of Dour near Tikrit, and we found him in a modest home in a small village and not in a hole as announced," Abou Rabeh said.
Thanks to Atrios for pointing this one out.
Spiritual vs politically idolatrous churches
Tom Schade at Prophet Motive continues his discussion of spiritual vs politically idolatrous churches.
Much of the conflict over politics and church among Unitarian Universalists is between advocates of a passive/quietistic/spiritual church and proponents of the blue politically idolatrous church.
Most Unitarian Universalist churches and ministers are happily enrolled in a grand coalition of the Left. I will never forget the UU minister who hoped that our congregation would recover from a difference of opinions about theology, liturgy and symbols by uniting against George W. Bush.
But there has also been a steady drumbeat of criticism of dominant “politicization” of Unitarian Universalism. Some criticism has been from genuine conservatives and Republicans, but mostly the critics have urged us to keep politics out of the service, the sanctuary and the sermon.
New Ambassador to UN doesn't much care for UN
The
Seattle Post Intelligencer says
John Bolton, President Bush's pick to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, once said it wouldn't matter if 10 stories of the world body's 38-story headquarters simply vanished.
The 56-year-old also has said he does not believe in diplomacy for its own sake, and keeps a model of a hand grenade on his desk at the State Department.
Well heck. Why don't we name someone who hates pasta as ambassador to Italy? Or someone who can't tolerate well-crafted automobiles to Germany?
4 kinds of churches
Tom Schade in Prophet Motive says there are 4 kinds of churches:
- The passive, quietistic church
- The Red Politically Idolatrous Church
- The Blue Politically Idolatrous Church
- The Prophetic Church
What kind of church is yours?
Open letter to Condi Rice
The
Winnipeg Free Press prints an open letter to Condi Rice from Lloyd Axworthy, president of the University of Winnipeg and a former Canadian foreign minister. It starts
Dear Condi,
I'm glad you've decided to get over your fit of pique and venture north to visit your closest neighbour. It's a chance to learn a thing or two. Maybe more.
I know it seems improbable to your divinely guided master in the White House that mere mortals might disagree with participating in a missile-defence system that has failed in its last three tests, even though the tests themselves were carefully rigged to show results.
Thanks to
BoingBoing for pointing this out.
Who should you call a terrorist?
Matthew Yglesias discusses
Brian Montopoli's article on words like "terrorist" and "terrorism" which lack meaningful definitions.
Yglesias observes
Montopoli writes on the oldie but goodie subject of who you should call a "terrorist." My (brief) take is that you need to understand this as what philosophers call a "thick moral concept" -- mixing descriptive and normative. I believe the standard example is "brave." Many praiseworthy actions can't be called "brave" because brave improperly describes the sort of thing that was being done if it doesn't involve facing up to danger. At the same time, someone might do something dangerous that you don't want to call brave. You might prefer "foolish," "stupid," or "risky" because calling something "brave" is a kind of compliment and not all danger-involving actions are compliment-worthy.
The wall of separation
Philocrates has a good commentary on James Carroll's editorial in the Boston Globe entitled
The Dark Side of Secularism.
In it, Carroll discuses the separation of morality from law..
"You can't legislate morality," Americans told each other. Because the language of morality was associated with religion, the discourse of "secular" politics became ethically hollow. Thus, for example (in an observation made by the writer Wendell Barry), Thomas Jefferson could in his public role argue against slavery, while clinging to slaves as "private" property, about which the state had nothing to say. On this issue, Americans would fight a war to enshrine morality in law.
The inherent worth and dignity of BTK
Peacebang talks about the BTK killer.
My Reliable Source asked me what I would do if one of my own dearly beloved congregants turned out to be a serial killer. I'll have to think about that. We talk about the "inherent worth and dignity" of all human beings but of course "inherent" is not the same as "inviolate."
Civil Unions in Connecticut
An
editorial in the New York Times (free registration required) supports civil unions in Connecticut. It notes
If the civil union law is enacted, Connecticut and California will be the only states to have enacted broad laws of this kind voluntarily. Vermont passed a civil union law under court pressure, and a court decision forced Massachusetts officials to recognize gay marriage. It's no small thing for a state legislature to take this step on its own. The constitutional rights of every American are safest when they're protected not by the judiciary alone, but also by the strong support of the citizenry as a whole.
Does the secular left understand the religious left?
Steve Shiffrin in Left2Right says not:
One of the premises leading to the creation of this site, as I understand it, is that there is insufficient communication between the left and the right. ... My assumption in this post is that the secular left does not understand the religious right or the religious left. For example, I doubt that many on the secular left could speak intelligently about the difference between fundamentalists and evangelicals, describe the heterogeneity of evangelicals, appreciate the extent to which the left is populated by those who proceed from a religious perspective, and, especially important, I doubt that most of the secular left understands the character of the religious arguments within and between religious traditions that have political ramifications. Without understanding the arguments, secular leftists cannot participate in effective ways.
Should Howard Dean Resign as DNC chair?
Democracy guy thinks he should.
Congregational stands on social justice issues
Michael Ohlrogge, in a submission to the UU-Leaders mailing list, writes
Hi All,
I'll start off by saying that I see myself very much as a revitalizer and a reformer of Unitarian Universalism. Yes, we do have a number of very good things going for us as a religion. We also though have a lot of challenges and struggles. There are lots of facts and figures I could cite to back this up, but I think the fact that percentage of Americans who are UUs has shrunk every year for the past twenty years is indication enough.
Now, I'm far from being alone in identifying as a UU reformer - I'm sure many others on this list see themselves as such also, which is great. Oftentimes, in UU reform endeavors, there are strong tendencies to search outside the religion for ideas and solutions other groups have come up with. This is certainly good to an extent, but I think that it's also essential to look within the movement and identify the strengths that we do have, that are special to us as UUs, and to do the most we can to lift those up and capitalize on them. One of those strengths that I think we do have is that UUs as a whole tend to have a fairly strong political and social consciousness, and quite frequently at least, our values do seem quite good.
This relates to congregational stands on social justice issues in that I wonder if such stands are always the best way to capitalize upon this UU strength of moral conscience. I think these stands can be, but only if they are tied to real action and furthermore, are seen as a necessary support for that real action. Voting to become a Welcoming Congregation can often be one such example, where the congregation not only states a position, but ideally also makes a commitment to take part in a continuous process of learning, stretching, and exploring that involves everyone in the community.
Other times though, I think the results of a congregational vote on a social justice issue can be less beneficial. There is danger that, by being able to tell themselves that their congregation has voted and taken a stand on some noble issue, UUs may sometimes feel that their moral conscience has been satisfied. This is very bad in my opinion, because it has just served to nullify one of UUs' greatest strengths, their moral consciences, without actually doing anything beneficial for the faith or for the world. This can be like firing our guns into the air - it makes a big noise, but ultimately doesn't do much other than expend our limited supplies of ammunition.
Thus, if your congregation really is going to come together as a whole with the vast majority of your members taking active steps to, for example, lobby local businesses to provide health care to their employees, and you feel that having a congregational vote to support this endeavor will help bolster the resolve and dedication of all those members in their work, then in such a case, I think a congregational stand can be great. (by the way, for a great example of what a congregation can come together to do, research up a little on Martin Luther King's "Operation Breadbasket", his "Where do we go from here?" speech has an inspirational introduction to the effort). If this isn't going to be the case though, if the vote will simply serve to affirm the work of the dozen people on your church's social justice committee, I would strongly urge against taking such a vote. In such a case, the vote itself won't do much productive and at the very least, with the time and energy that it took to bring all those people together to have the vote, all of those people could have instead come together for an all church event (of equal length) to actually go out and effect some real change. This would be a much better way to capitalize on (rather than squander, placate, or shortchange) a key strength of UUs, and I bet that when all is said and done, a congregation will feel a lot better about having participated in real action rather than in an abstract and ultimately hollow resolution.
In faith,
-Michael Ohlrogge
Bush Priorities Are Out of Step
The
New York Times (free registration required) says that A new Poll finds Bush priorities are out of step with Americans.
Americans say President Bush does not share the priorities of most of the country on either domestic or foreign issues, are increasingly resistant to his proposal to revamp Social Security and say they are uneasy with Mr. Bush's ability to make the right decisions about the retirement program, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
MoveOn's activities electoral suicide?
Rolling Stone discusses the effect MoveOn.org has had:
They signed up 500,000 supporters with an Internet petition -- but Bill Clinton still got impeached. They organized 6,000 candlelight vigils worldwide -- but the U.S. still invaded Iraq. They raised $60 million from 500,000 donors to air countless ads and get out the vote in the battle-ground states -- but George Bush still whupped John Kerry. A gambler with a string of bets this bad might call it a night. But MoveOn.org just keeps doubling down.
What's the Matter with Big Business?
Matthew Yglesias addresses this question, first by referencing Bill Gates' speech
What's Wrong With American High Schools. Yglesias thinks business needs to go back to this model:
In the 1950s and '60s business groups also spent a reasonable amount of time worrying about issues of broad national concern that also happen to be issues of concern to corporate America writ large. Progressive concern with creating a healthy, well-educated population is pretty well-aligned with the generic business interest in creating a healthy, well-educated workforce.
Sinkford on Beliefnet's Who's Who
The Rev. William G. Sinkford, president of the Unitarian Universalist Association, is on
Beliefnet's guide to the most prominent and powerful African-American religious leadership.
An Act to Protect Homosexual [fetuses] from Discrimination
The
Magic City Morning Star reports that
Rep. Brian Duprey (R-Hampden, Maine) has submitted a bill to the State Legislature to shield potentially homosexual fetuses from discrimination. LD 908, “An Act to Protect Homosexuals from Discrimination,” attempts to protect homosexuals from death because they might carry the gene that could lead to homosexuality.
This bill as drafted would make it a crime to abort an unborn child if that child is determined to be carrying the “homosexual gene.” Duprey said that no such genetic marker has yet been discovered. But considering rapid advancements in genetic mapping research, he wants legislation in place should such a breakthrough occur
Supreme Court: No Death Penalty For Juveniles
TheBostonChannel.com reports that
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Constitution forbids the execution of killers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes, ending a practice used in 19 states.
The 5-4 decision throws out the death sentences of about 70 juvenile murderers and bars states from seeking to execute minors for future crimes.
The executions, the court said, violate the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Red Family, Blue Family
Thanks to Philocrates for pointing out an excellent piece entitled
Red Family, Blue Family: Making sense of the values issue by Doug Muder, the Unitarian Univeralist who has been posting insightful political essays as Pericles over at
Daily Kos.
Right after the election, I heard the same words over and over: “The country has gone crazy.”
You may have heard something different. I run in liberal circles - east coast, urban, educated, liberal circles, to be more precise. My friends are the kind of people who watch PBS and read The New Yorker for more than just the cartoons. They are accustomed to having explanations for things, and get agitated when they don’t. They can’t just shrug and let mysteries be mysteries.
And that, more than anything, was what had them pulling their hair out last November. Not that we had lost. (Deep down, most of us had expected to lose, even when the early exit polls said otherwise.) But that we could not understand it. The thinking of more than half the country seemed unfathomable. Like Butch Cassidy, we kept looking over our shoulders and asking: “Who are those guys?”
