A Blessing

I've had this tab open for about a week and keep forgetting to share it.  

This piece is by Lee Allison Paczulla.  The full text is posted here. 

The first stanza is: 

blessed
are the elderly, and the immunosuppressed
blessed
Are the fearful, the anxious and irritable
blessed
are the ones who use humor to get by
the ones who could use a vacation anyway
the ones who fear for their life
blessed are the ones who are sick of it:
all the flawed logic, the security theater   

7 Things: Faith in YA

1. I wrote way back when about how I found myself to be a UU, so no need to rehash that. I recognize that the US as a whole is becoming less religious and that would include current teenagers.  (Of course for anyone writing historical or fantasy, the numbers would be different.)  However, it is now noticeable if a YA character makes even a passing mention to attending some sort of place of worship, that a little like fesity red-heads, it seems out of sync with the reality of life for many teens.

2. I am not saying we need more conversion or inspirational stories.  (We may. I...don't know.) But certainly there could be more teens in fiction who identify as a part of something. 

3. In the years that I have been working with the high schoolers and now middle schoolers, the number of teens regularly attending our congregation has doubled.  Now that is clearly due to all sorts of factors, and not a representative or scientific sampling of teens.  I will also tell you I have spoken to teens who get their parents to drop them off even when the parents don't attend.  Who create their own teen gatherings, because their congregation doesn't offer them.  Who say that the teens they meet at multi-state or multi-congregational events are the only teens they know who get them. 

4. I'm not saying that every book needs to include a YA of some faith.  But off the top of my head, I can think of a few Christian, and a handful of Jewish, and that's it. Miranda Kenneally's Stealing Parker was the first YA I can think of that talked about the fact that different churches in the same town might have different approaches to the same issue. 

5. Some people have been very hurt by religious institutions.  I don't want to gloss over that.  But some people have found great comfort in them.  Or not.  Some people find formal religion not for them.  All of these experiences are valid and should be represented.

6. And atheism to.  Atheism isn't the same as being unchurched or none.  It can also be a destination for folks who have spent time thinking carefully about the world. And these things, whether a YA character has made the same choice as the people who are raising them or not, could be powerful motivators without being preachy. 
7. Religion is not necessarily in the same category of some of the other glaring omissions in the YA landscape.  But again, if the idea is to represent the breadth of experiences out there, leaving religion out more often than not seems problematic. 

7 Things: The Youth Edition

This past weekend was the worship service put on by the youth, which is always a fabulous thing.  (I am biased, but participation in our congregation tends to go up, particularly compared to other lay led services, and typically I sit next to someone who tells me how this is their favorite service each year.)
1. The timing of the service was such that we knew it was likely it would coincide with the search committee's announcement of the new ministerial candidate.  (Several years ago, their service coincided with the associate minister announcing her candidate-ship elsewhere). 
2. But the planning started in February, and when we hung out they seemed mostly done.  (These things are never totally done until you do them, but there you go.)
3. This year's theme was Utopia, so there were readings and songs and a dance about this.  They did a great skit for the story time* spot about working to make the world closer to your own utopia. 
4. There was a pony themed reading. (Although it is my understanding that "My Little Pony" has more to do with unicorns and pegasuses, but there you go.)
5. The seniors who wished to spoke (this year three of them chose to) and made me cry.  (In a good way.  They are pretty proud of making us cry.)
6. There were musical interludes. In the second service there was a minor technical malfunction with a guitar, that the other member of the duo covered well by offering to tell jokes. 
7. But as silly and corny as it is, it is moments like these that instead of feeling sad for humanity, I think humanity is lucky.  These guys have big, big plans to fix this world. 

*It goes under a number of names, but we have a spot early in the service where the kids who are there with their parents get a story or reading or lesson that in theory has multi-generational appeal, but tends to be aimed at the younger kids.  Normally, after that they get sung off to class.  For the youth service, a larger number of them stay for the whole thing.

Book Rant: Babies in the Backseat

Remember how annoyed "Jesus Take the Wheel" made me. (Hey, ChaliceChick agrees with me.) Well, I have found another level. I was reading book in which the baby's father and only caregiver had the baby in the car in the middle of an ice storm as the father was driving up a mountain to make a delivery. (It was, of course, medicine to create some sort of justification for why the child's only caregiver would risk both himself and the child in such dangerous driving weather.)
Recognizing that the chances that this drive would be successful going both up and down the mountain were slim, the father decided to drop the baby off at a house he spotted from the road because God told him that this person was a good person and it would all be okay.
Now I am not saying that God or Jesus or whomever can't talk to you. I'm just saying that whatever divine powers you believe in might want to to take a little more care in deciding who looks after your child.
I have to confess I did not make it far through this book, so I do not know if later there was some explanation for why when the father got the call to make the delivery he didn't say, "I'm sorry but road conditions or treacherous so I cannot make this trip today risking both myself and my child." Or why he didn't arrange for proper childcare before he left. Or why, realizing that road conditions were treacherous, he decided that his child was better off with a random stranger.
(And honestly, had the point of the book been that he returned to the house to discover the stranger and the baby had disappeared, twisted person that I am, I would have found that interesting.)

Walt Whitman

Most people know Walt Whitman as an American poet. He was born in New York, moved to Washington, DC during the Civil War, he wrote "O Captain! My Captain" (which I bring up since many know it from the climactic scene in "Dead Poet's Society"), and later he moved to New Jersey.
There is a stanza of "The Wound Dresser" carved into the north entrance to the Dupont Metro in DC, a high school in Bethesda, MD and a rest stop in New Jersey. (I'm sure there's a lot more than that, these are off the top of my head.)
Yes, well, apparently the speculation that Walt Whitman may have been gay or bisexual has created an issue. Now, I tend to try very hard to ignore people who I sometimes think try extra hard to be controversial just to be in the spotlight a little more. (Although apparently one of the last times I broke this rule was for a related story a few years ago.) But sometimes things get a bit difficult to ignore.
The congregation where I attend and am also a youth group advisor is in Bethesda. A number of the students attend the Walt Whitman High School.
Apparently, the Westboro Baptist Church has announced that they are planning to protest outside the high school since it it named after a (possibly) gay person. They have apparently announced protests in the past that they didn't actually follow through on. However, the school is ready. They have taken the opportunity to talk about civil rights, and Walt Whitman himself in various classes.
There is also a counter protest planned. And there is a group accepting pledges to raise money for the gay/straight alliance for the length of the protest. (Other local targets past and future include George Mason University for having a Pride Week and Roland Park Country School for performing "The Laramie Project" as their spring play.)
And Chalicechick is finally going to go to a protest (counter though it may be.)
And let's end with this snippet from "Song of Myself":
I celebrate myself, and sing myself,
And what I assume you shall assume,
For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you.

Where I Resort to Linking

So, back in September Chalicechick posted a link to a funny exchange between church signs.
And it was fun to imagine. Well, apparently a possibly less funny version is occuring in the United Kingdom. Apparently the atheists started it, with bus ads stating such things as, "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."
And I just want to take a moment to step onto my soapbox and say to the people who find that ad annoying, our society, here in the US, and my recollection is that it was more so in the UK, we have such a predominance of not only a theistic but Christian viewpoint that constantly gets excused by people saying well people are just expressing their faith. So, here, you go. Agree or disagree, this is the atheists expressing their faith. /off soapbox
Okay, so in response (after trying to get the ads blocked), some Christian groups are responding with their own signs. (It's fairly amusing if you clock the links, they have also mimicked the layout and design used in the atheist campaign. My personal favorite "response" bus ad is the Russian Orthodox Church's, "There IS a God, BELIEVE. Don't worry and enjoy your life." Can't wait to see how this ends.

Please Don't Send me Threats

I have a couple people in my circle who are fans of the chain emails. I have worked very hard to set myself up as someone who sends annoying responses and should therefore be removed from the list. I have no problem with cute stories or a joke or two. (I did however send a gentle reminder to someone who sent me the same joke twice.)
However, I object to the following:
1. The untrue. Look, we have all fallen victim to one or two of these. But if you are net savvy enough to open an email, you are net savvy enough to do some checking. And if you don't know how or can't be bothered, then don't send it. Please. The fact that your bestest friend sent it does not do anything to make it more true.
2. The political. Last election year I got slanted crap from people on both sides of the spectrum. Here's the thing, either I agree with you politically, in which case email persuasion is unnecessary or I don't and you have pissed me off. And I have yet to see a well reasoned political chain letter. They may well exist, but please err on the side of caution and leave me off your list.
3. The religious. It works similarly to the above. If I believe what you do religiously, then I might appreciate a cute anecdote. But chances are, you don't actually know what I believe religiously. Now I say this not because my ideas are so fabulous and complex, but simply because most of us don't have deep theological discussions about out religious views. Why that wall breaks down when it comes to email I don't know. Chalice Chick had asked if anyone had any great suggestions for this when she was getting them from co-workers. The general consensus seemed to be that the delicate nature of the subject meant there was a greater chance of offending someone by trying to explain why you didn't want such emails and it was easier to delete them. But, please, save your friends and co-workers from having to have these discussions by not sending the emails.
4. The threatening. Now, I am being a tad facetious here, but whether they are little wee fairies that threaten to harm those who don't pass them on to exactly ten people or the various scare mails (this is the new way the crazies will kill you - watch out for parking lots) or combinations thereof - why? Why send this? If you like the wee fairy, it takes seconds to remove the text that threatens your friends. (And really, why would you send threats to people you say are friends?) And as for the scare mails - let me live in ignorance please.
So, what spawned the rant? I got an email listing people who made fun of God and/or Jesus and died. It also told me that I had to pass it on to get my miracle. I can't decide if the spirit of the email is intended to cement my righteousness for not mocking God or shame and scare me should I have been mocking God or to convert me so that I can escape untimely death. I understand that some people are superstitious and certainly I want my friends to have miracles, but I am so flabbergasted that this would be sent to me. After some time I have calmed down a bit, but I still am at a loss. At this point just as much of my frustration is wrapped up in that fact that I can't think of anything I could say about this that might not result in hurt on the part of the sender. And yet, I really never want to receive anything like this again.

If You Like Sand in Your Prayers

As a young adult who is an active in her spiritual community, I applaud any effort to try and think outside the box, and make participating in a spiritual community a little easier. And yet, I find myself a little flummoxed by the idea in Italy of an inflatable church.
Yes, some lucky beaches in Italy are getting inflatable Catholic churches where attendees can take a moment out of swimming and sunbathing, to pray or confess their sins.

Even With the Warning

...this still made me cry. I had a post about diversity queued up, but let's just bask in this right now.

Books: The Adventures Continue

I am apparently a slow learner. I took Kate Braestrup's Here if You Need Me with me to Starbucks. Now there was thought behind this as my choice from the TBR pile. I knew it was going to be a slowish day at work Friday and I wanted to to pick something that would not make me nuts not being able to read it. This is not to say I expected it to be boring or bad, it is to say I have better self control when it comes to putting non-fiction down.
Here if You Need Me is the story of Braestrup's journey to and of becoming a Unitarian Universalist minister, something her husband had planned to do before his death. I'm not sure why it didn't occur to me to stash a second book in my bag in case it got to be a bit much to read in public. It didn't. So, as I nibbled away on some food in Starbucks I hit the chapter where they prepare her deceased husband's body. And there I was in Starbucks, holding back tears again.
Well, other than that, I did well. I read the book over the weekend, in spots. I made other people listen to parts (not too often, I showed some restraint). Remember how I said non-fiction tends to go slowly for me? Finished it Saturday night.
It's a great story about this woman who is a UU minister who works as a chaplain for the Maine State Game Warden Service. It's sad, as I mentioned, in parts. It's lovely in parts. Braestrup talks about being raised in a fairly agnostic family, and the reactions to her choice to become a minister, a little about being in seminary as a UU, but mostly about being a chaplain. What that means for families who have need of the Game Wardens, for the wardens themselves and for her.
One of my favorite parts is her recounting of a discussion she had with a warden after they recovered a fisherman who's sled had fallen through the ice. Their discussion was fairly non-descript, but later one of the other wardens passed on that that discussion really helped him. As people who work or have worked in any helping profession (paid or unpaid) know, sometimes it is the simplest moments, where you just listen or just talk that have such meaning for the other person.

Inclusive and Non-Offensive

I work for one division of a huge company. My location has less than thirty people. So it creates an interesting culture where we have many of the benefits, structure, and bureaucracy of a large company and yet much of the closeness of a small group. Our office space is shared with other divisions, but for the most part we do our own thing in our own corner (so to speak).
It creates interesting scenarios since most of the folks here are Christian, with varying levels of outward practice. (I recognize that many people that consider themselves Christian do not feel that church attendance and such is a requirement. I am not disagreeing, I am simply stating that there are differences.) We have two Jewish people. And we have me (although I don't spend a lot of time at work explaining that I am UU, neither do I hide it, most people seem to assume I am Christian.)
Our location used to be larger. We used to have anti-pagan Christians, and Jehovah's Witnesses and Buddhists and even a Muslim or two. And yet, whether it is our decreased size, or the fact that we have a number of people who have been here quite a while (myself included), there is a lack of inclusivity that I am seeing. Nothing terrible. Nothing offensive. But problematic. And I think, much like racism, that is kind of the bump we are stuck at today - that people think as long as they are not accusing someone of terrorism or stupidity - ie not being offensive - that their work is done. But failing to offend is not the same as being inclusive of religious diversity.
Some of it I think is lack of knowledge. I have had people ask me why anyone would actually object to "The Passion of the Christ" since it is historically accurate and I pointed out to them that historically accurate and Biblically accurate are not interchangeable for everyone. I explained to one co-worker who Mohammed was, and his significance within the Muslim faith. And some of it, I think is just - I hesitate to say narrow mindedness because I don't thinks it's resistance to inclusivity so much as lack of recognition that inclusivity is a meaningful goal. (Which I guess is narrow mindedness after all.)
Example:
A co-worker brought in a colorful basket with various candies and left it out for folks. Some of the candies were encased in plastic eggs. She referred to them as Spring eggs. Another co-worker responded that since a Jewish co-worker was telecommuting, we could call them Easter eggs. I pointed out that it wasn't just that co-worker who didn't celebrate Easter and was asked who else didn't. (I do recognize now that I didn't help matters by leaving it framed as who do we need to allow for, rather than just why can't we just call them Spring eggs).
And I do recognize the the Christian adaptation of a number of pagan rituals has muddied the waters - colored eggs, decorative trees, and exchanges of presents and food do not scream, "I love Jesus," so it is hard to see why participating in such rituals is problematic.
And certainly, I don't think food or twinkly lights are - of themselves - problematic. And it's hard when you feel you have taken into account all thirty people to understand that it makes sense to make this an environment where different beliefs are acceptable when everyone here mostly believes X so why not. And of course one person decorating their cube or bringing stuff in is totally different from a work sanctioned celebration.
Do I think if our next hire was Hindu (to pick one) we would be welcoming and accepting? I do. But I'm not sure the Hindu person would be able to see that right away. And that's why trying to start from a place of inclusivity works better than trying to retro-fit each person's beliefs into an existing - if unofficial - structure.

Since You Asked

[Warning: Long post ahead.]

This past Sunday was the youth-led service at my church. The youth were wonderful, eloquent, and generally awesome. During a transition between pieces of the service two folks seated behind me whispered that if these teens were so invested in the church, the congregation and Unitarian Universalism as a whole, why do they disappear. Well, it was certainly not the time or place for me to throw my two cents in, but, as a young adult myself, this is a topic that is near and dear to my heart.
I participate in the youth program at a congregational and a district level, and have done so for four years. The youth program as I have watched it, works a lot like a covenant group, although conferences that have large participation can clearly change that up. The conferences I have attended used family groups (or touch groups) to try to alleviate that. People check in with each other, usually have a topic(s)to discuss, but are also open to suggestions based on other participants' input.
Youth worship is typically circle worship - where the leaders encourage group participation (rather than square worship, where people are talking at you and your participation is standing and singing at the appropriate times).
All of this leads to opportunities to get to know the people sitting next to you and near you. Certainly the structures of conferences where there are several days to work the process are different from what you can accomplish in a single day or morning. So these kids often come away with close friendships, or at least a clear sense of community - deeper than the we all go to the same church feeling.
Then they age out or bridge into young adulthood.
Now, I hear that there are churches and congregations with really active young adult programs. I have participated in some young adult stuff at my church - covenant groups and pot lucks - and within the state. But they tend to be monthly, sporadic. Certainly that has to do a little with the fact as you move into young adulthood, schedules fill up.
But I think a lot of churches just assume that hey, young adults are just like everyone else now, so square worship is all fine and good. And if you want to get to know folks, join a committee! And when they look around and see that they don't have many young adults, they say that it is because young adults don't like church. Young adults want to sleep in. They'll come back when they have kids. And certainly some will come back. And some will go somewhere else, because it's closer or offers more support and community to people like them.
And I don't want to knock the hard work that many people are doing for and with young adults. But I think there are a lot of people who don't understand any reason that young adults need anything different than people in their forties (old adults?) or fifties or nineties. Or who have written it off as a natural part of the growing process to leave the church you were raised in for a while.
I was looking for a church in college, but I kept finding traditional stuff. Nothing that inspired me to choose it over sleeping in with any regularity. There was a Thursday evening service at one church but it wasn't my kind of church, so despite the convenience of the timing, I didn't go back.
The other piece is that, having spoken with the folks who run the middle school program, a lot of kids are lost before they hit middle school, so they spend a lot of time trying to get some of those kids back. I know we never get the full population of rising eighth graders. So it is as both sides of this that people are being shaved off of the whole. And sure, the older you get, the more choices you are likely to have about how you spend your Sunday mornings, so some of that is inevitable.
So, I guess, to nutshell it, instead of asking why they don't come back, I think we should ask what we are doing to keep them connected, to make them want to come back.

ETA: Clearing out the backlog in my email box, I came across this, written by a former YRUU member and current young adult. Ethan touches on something I didn't get into of fear of writing a novella, the risk of losing experienced UU leaders

Buildings, Weather and Interdependencies

One of the many things I love about DC is that while there aer certainly plenty of buildings of the tall sort, there are no real skyscrapers. The reason is that there is a rule in place that nothing can be taller (height-wise, hills and such are not counted in this) than the Washington Monument.
When I was travelling in Europe someone told me that Europe - having done much of their building prior to the skyscraper era - is experiencing space problems, while places where development came later, such as Asia are building up to make better use of space.
I also recently ran across a discussion about DC's height limit and how that may play into the high real estate prices since there is a finite number of dwellings that can be put in.
Well, the spring issue of UU World has an article talking about weather and the seventh principle. The seventh principle for Unitarian Universalists speaks to recognizing the interdependent web of existence, our connection to the world and each other.
Author Laura Lee talks about our effects - intended and unintended - on weather and states:
In urban areas, where greenery is scarce and pavement is not, tall buildings block the path of winds and expand the surface areas that absorb solar heat. The result is an effect known as the “urban heat island.” It is particularly pronounced in Japanese cities like Tokyo, where high humidity multiplies the effect of rising heat. Tokyo today is 3°c hotter than it was a century ago. Palm trees native to subtropical southern China are springing up in the city as flocks of parakeets native to southern India and Sri Lanka fly overhead. NASA scientists observing satellite images of Atlanta, Georgia (nicknamed “Hotlanta” for its nightlife), found that the hottest parts of downtown were as much as 10°f hotter than the surrounding area and that this difference caused air to rise and created thunderstorms. If you live East of the city and a tornado comes your way, you may have Hotlanta to thank.
So, there is a reason, aside from the historical and the aesthetic, to maintain DC's height limit. Because, it is certainly hot enough already. (Or it is in the summer, at least.)

Eeek! Misinformation

Hi! Let's just go right ahead and assume that Jesus Christ existed, as represented in the Bible. I say let's assume because there are some discrepancies between the historical facts and the Biblical documentation, and then there's the whether you believe that guy was the son of God discussion. I am not trying to talk anyone into or out of any particular viewpoint concerning Jesus and his status as a deity or messiah. Promise. But. Just because the Bible is an old book does not make it a history book. This whole the Jews killed Jesus is driving me nuts. I make no claims to Biblical scholarship but the Jews did not kill Jesus. He was arrested by the government in part for claiming to be King of the Jews. Certainly the people who arrested, tried, convicted, and executed him were likely Jewish. But that's like saying every time we execute people in the US that the Christians killed him/her since our country is predominately Christian.
After the "Passion of the Christ" raised controversy, in particular Jewish groups complaining that the movie implied a Jewish plot to kill Jesus, something Christian authorities and scholars agree is incorrect, I had a co-worker ask why they were so concerned since the movie was "historical". I corrected that it was "Biblical". And I have since learned that many Biblical scholars find the movie inaccurate.
Well, here we go again. I learn on DCist this morning that Delegate Frank Hargrove said to the Daily Progress, "Are we going to force the Jews to apologize for killing Christ? Nobody living today had anything to do with it. It would be far more appropriate in my view to apologize to the Upper Mattaponi and the Pamunkey”.
I actually have a bit queued up about slavery and reparation so I'll leave that piece of it for now. I love parallels and comparisons, even faulty ones, but this drives me nuts. What Jews are you planning to ask for apology? (And why does it make more sense to apologize to the native peoples than slaves?) This makes as much sense as the gentleman from Oregon comparing our Iraq policy to "Star Trek". (Watch "The Daily Show" - It's astounding.) You won't be asking "the Jews" for an apology because they did not kill Christ. The government and the country that existed back in BC no longer exists. So, you will have to, as they say, get over it.

My Journey (So Far)

I realized I had not shared my conversion story, although I think of it more as a finding story. I imagine I was holding back, trying not to make anyone feel I was trying to tell them how to believe. But of course I have shared my Nora story and TV stories and so I need to get over that hang up. And yes, people are less worried about book lovers or TV lovers showing up on their doorstep to try and bring them into the fold. Here we go.
My father was Catholic, my mother was raised Episcopalian. Both my parents went to church every Sunday growing up. Both attended religiously affiliated high schools, and my father also went to a religiously affiliated university. My parents were married in the Episcopal church but by the time I arrived a few years later, they were not even C&E Christians. My siblings and I were baptized Episcopalian and attended a Presbyterian elementary school. We were encouraged to attend church on visits with the grandparents, we celebrated the pagan bits of Christmas and Easter (presents and egg hunts), but that was it. My parents told us they wanted us to be able to decide for ourselves. (What we were deciding was never very clear to me.) It was at school where I learned about religion, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
I went to what may be considered a religiously affiliated university*. By that point I had done some soul searching. I decided that I believed in God and had taken to heart the idea that Martin Luther had in part inspired – that a middle person was not necessary to a relationship with God. But I also felt like maybe the rituals and the community that church seemed to provide would be nice. I read Gorman Bechard’s The Second Greatest Story Ever Told** and loved it. Again, I took away the idea that some of the dogma was getting in the way of the important stuff. I went to church a few times in college, primarily on my own, and liked it but still felt a little off.
In my twenties I decided that I didn’t know what the difference between Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, Quakers and all the other branches of Christianity were. I knew some about Judaism and Islam, but not really anything about Buddhism. So I got books. Idiot’s Guide to World Religions. Dictionary of Religion. And I talked to people who told me more about Scientology or the Presbyterian council on sex (which I’m sure was not the official name) and gave me more to read. And in a book that someone lent me, I found Universalists.*** It appealed to me this idea that there was no need for only one right way to believe. And sure, Unitarian Universalists are not the first or the only group to allow such freedom. Catholics have the primacy of conscience, Quakers have attenders, United Church of Christ makes similar allowances.
I was unaware until later that there had been a UU ad campaign where people said, “I was a UU all of my life, I just didn’t know.” I went to the internet, found the UUA site with the guides and FAQs about UUs. And I went to congregation websites and read sermons online. And it felt like a good fit to me. And I found the church where I read one of the sermons and was actually mad that I hadn’t been there to hear it in person.
I shared my results with a friend and she went to a UU church near her, and called me afterwards to tell her it was the first time she hadn’t felt like a hypocrite in church, which seemed like a great description to me.
So that’s how I ended up where I am. And I ended up involved with the youth program (a story for another day) which I think has helped even more.
Is this the answer for everyone – goodness no. Is this the answer for me – yes. For now, and as far as I can see, yes. But time will tell.

*The original purpose of universities was to educate clergy. The University of St. Andrews was formed in the 1400’s when the decision was made that the relationships with France and England were unstable enough to demand a Scottish university. While Presbyterianism is considered the church of Scotland, there are no religious education requirements at St. Andrews, and the university chapel is non-denominational and also provides services for other faiths.
**It is the story of Ilona, Christ’s sister, coming to save us. She states that organized religion has muddled up the message which is, at it’s heart, “be kind”. It is a fictional story that also examines what it may be like for a child of God in the media age and a great read.
***The book was written prior to the merger of Unitarians and Universalists.

Statues and Naming

I have nothing against Reagan. Promise. But I think there should be some parity in representation, naming, and statuing. Because let's face it, even if - as one person I know does - you feel Reagan was the greatest president ever - does his name get slapped on everything we can find? Or might we be willing to allow that other great people have, do, and will exist and maybe we should leave some space for other people to be honored. Because a multi-purpose building on Pennsylvania Avenue was really more than most people get so I kinda thought that was enough. (Remember when the requisite number of years have passed, you can be sure people will be clamoring for the Reagan memorial. So, even though we won't see it for a while, I am counting that.)
And then there was the airport, which besides being a hugely ironic choice, and being an airport that had really already been named after a president (Washington) if in a de facto way, was a huge headache since the very people who insisted on remaning it then wanted all the local folks to bear the cost of the name change (higher since it's a metro stop also).
But okay fine, so we have a building and an airport and likely a memorial. And this is just the DC stuff too. But now, they are changing the statue in the Capitol. As you may be aware each state gets two statues to showcase prominent people from their state. Now of course I compeletely believe that this decision is solely up to the people in California, not me. And I am biased, because the gentleman they are proposing to replace was prominent UU Thomas Starr King. There is an interesting article comparing Reagan and Starr King. Clearly these are snapshot views, and of course changing out the statue doesn't make Starr King less of a cool person, and ceratinly Reagan is a very well known Californian. But, enough already.

*Random fact - Kamehameha I is the only statue who is considered not fully clothed. For while this meant he was placed behind a column so as not to offend visitors delicate sensibilities.

Thanks to Radical Hapa for the link.

Don't Mess With the Comma

President Bush recently said that when we look back, the Iraq War (part the second) will be nothing more than a comma. There is a lovely editorial on NPR as to the ridiculousness of calling a war a comma - so I will let you check that out. But I want to stand here in defense of the comma.

The comma may be little, but it is important. It can not only clarify a sentence, separating items, indicating sequences or pauses, but also change the meaning. (The title of the book Eats, Shoots and Leaves is based on that very premise.)

But the comma has a spiritual association for me as well. The United Church of Christ (UCC) partnered with the Unitarian Universalist Association on the Our Whole Lives sexuality education program. At the time i did the training I was unfamiliar with the UCC - this was before their recent ad campaign. One of the UCC people in the training shared a saying that is used a lot within the UCC: "Never place a period where God has placed a comma." (Attributed to said Gracie Allen.) They have used this phrase, along with their, "God is still speaking," campaign (note the comma after the speaking). The idea is that faith is a continuous thing. God didn't stop talking to us - not just on the little stuff, but on the big issues also. And I find this so appealing. I certainly don't want to step on anyone else's faith, but the idea that faith and my and our relationship with God is continuous really appeals to me. That God didn't make a bunch of pronouncements way back in the day and then disappear, instead that the conversation is ongoing. So don't minimize commas.

Adoption Discrimination

I am so saddened by this. I recognize that the Catholic church doesn't support homosexuality. And I know that all of us come to places in or lives where we have to prioritize our beliefs. We have to make decisions about what things we have to draw the hard line on, even (or especially) when it means limiting our ability to do something else of importance.

But this saddens me. The Catholic church believes that the creation of life is a sacred thing that should not be interfered with, hence their position on abortion and birth control of all kinds. The reality is there are children who need homes.
And due to the above, the Catholic Church cannot address this through birth control (there is of course the option of better sexual decisions, which the Catholic Church is of course addressing, but their solutions their are a bit limiting also). So,
there is adoption. And in the state of Massachusetts, qualified adults who are homosexual may adopt children.

The Catholic Church has requested that when their current contract with the state ends, the new contract allow them continue to provide adoption assistance without having to place children with homosexuals. Now, I am all for people having and
adhering to religious beliefs. But people of faith (myself included) also need to recognize that when acting in partnership with the government, you have to abide by the law. Just as Habitat for Humanity provides homes for all people who need
them, I think the Catholic Church has two choices. Accept that when working for the state, you have to abide by the rules of the land, or stop working for the state, at least in that capacity.

Because - as US Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts pointed out, the real issue here is that these kids get good homes. We are sadly not in a place where children are being fought over. There are not long lists of parents hoping to take these children in. This is not a time to pick and choose which anti-discrimination laws you want to follow.

Playing the God Card

First - my disclaimer. I am registered as a Democrat - because I wanted to vote in presidential primaries (otherwise since I first was a voter in DC I might have registered with the DC Statehood Party). I do not think Democrats are a superior party, nor do I think Republicans are intrinsically evil. I tend to end up more on the liberal side (as you may have noticed) so I tend to hold a similar viewpoint on many issues to the Democratic party. I also recognize that our two-party-majority system holds within it a wide range of viewpoints.

I heard Jimmy Carter talking on NPR this morning about the differences between Republicans and Democrats and one of things the interviewer asked him about was the perception that the Republican party is the religious party. Carter said he didn't agree with that perception and moved straight into what he thought the major difference between the two parties (right now) is. However, this is an issue I have spent a lot of time thinking about and discussing, so here we go.

It seems fair to say that people who don't spend a lot of time thinking about politics are aware that the religious right represents (as the name suggests) a conservative viewpoint and that they are active within the Republican party. But very little attention (comparatively, at least) seems to go to the religious left. It is sort of a chicken/egg problem - I don't know if the media doesn't seek out the religious left or if the religious left doesn't seek out the media, but the result is the same. I attended a dinner sponsored by a Democratic women's group where one of the speakers - a reporter for a political magazine - said she was often asked how could she be Christian and a Democrat. Her response was that they are intertwined, she is a Democrat as a result of her religious beliefs.

I think this is more common than the public perception allows for. I think as the Republican party has become more strongly associated with a conservative Christian viewpoint, the Democratic party has tried to distance itself from that. Certainly that would be in part to allow for those who are "spiritual" but not "religious", those who are atheist or agnostic, and those who belong to other faith traditions.

But here comes the question - how do you balance that with recognition that there are many religious people who find themselves in the Democrat camp not out of a subversion or denial of their religious beliefs, but because this is where they as a religious person have found themselves? And how do you acknowledge that without alienating those who got here through different paths - religious or not.

Right now I think what happens is that people stay quiet. Which leads to the perception that they have subdivided themselves - sometime I am religious and other times I am a Democrat. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to start some sort of Democrat church or tent revival. But I think that people are keeping quiet about an important component of themselves. And I think there are others, who may feel they have more in common with the Democratic party, but feel that Democrats don't like religious people.

And part of this concern about mixing too much religion and politics comes from the separation of church and state. And I think Democrats in particular are worried about talking too much about how a spiritual or religiously based desire to change the world informs some of their decisions. And I think part of that is how do you counter the God card. If I am having a debate with someone, political or otherwise, and they say that the basis of their conviction comes from God - it stops the discussion. Because what do I say to that? Your God is wrong? You misunderstood God?

Which may lead us to another division. I think everyone turns to religion for answers. The questions may differ, but in the end we are looking for answers. But some people (and some religious traditions) start from a position that those answers are all - well answered. And some start with the idea that we journey towards a state of goodness (for lack of a real word). And there is plenty in between. So where I'm going with this is that some people think you can't argue because God has spoken and some people think you have to do your best to live what God (or whomever) wants and to figure that out for yourself. So when someone says to me, well that's what God wants or that's what [insert deity here] says, I'm shut down. Even though I personally believe in a higher power who wants me to better the world, I tend not to use the God card because I think there's a lot of gray in how I work towards that goal.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that everything has gray, but that's what God wants is not a complete argument to me. Because, I have to be able to explain why I feel this is the right choice. Which might lead people to think that my religion doesn't factor into my political decisions, because I don't use it to explain my choices.

So how do I get to a place where I can demonstrate both - at the same time? I don't know. At least not yet.