Coda to "Why I'm Not A Universalist"

Well, to a lot of my posts, really. I've been loading programs into my new computer, and a little while ago loaded my CD collection of Mad Magazines- every issue up through December, 1998. Naturally, I had to test the installation by reading a few of my favorites. For those not familiar with the Mad Magazine of yore, it was quite the literate magazine for the first 25 years or so- gonzo, yes, but not juvenile. The contributors also had a keen understanding of the American zeitgeist- that's what made their satire so funny. Even when you knew their portrayals were twisted, you knew they were the conventional wisdom. So check out this piece from nearly 40 years ago.

Mad Magazine, September 1972

The Mad "Religion In America" Primer

Chapter 8 The Minister

This is a Baptist Minister.

He is delivering a sermon.

It is a very important sermon.

It is all about non-religious people.

He tells about people who worship idols.

He calls them Paganists.

He tells them about people who aren't sure there is a God.

He calls them Agnostics.

He tells about the worst people of all.

People who don't believe there's a God.

People who are threatening to destroy religion as we know it.

He calls them Unitarians!

Questioning the moral authority of the UUA and leadership

Sunday's post on "Boy in the Bands" begins, "I’ve had many misgivings about the UUA over the years: its direction, its leadership, its poor service providence, its continuing exclusion of Christians, its culture of preciousness, its old boys and girls networks, its relevance in today’s world." What moved him to write was a guest post on Musings and Essays by the former District Executive of the Clara Barton District, describing how she'd been forced out of her position. Coming as it did after the controversial firing of the Pacific Central District Executive- over the objections of the PCD board- it's easy to understand why Scott says, "...but now we have the suggestion of a plan."

I imagine that Scott was reminded, as I was, of the way Boston mishandled the disaffiliation of the Independent Affiliates, something that has left lasting resentment and bewilderment... and they seem to have learned nothing from it. It's especially ironic when you consider how we try to lecture our political leaders about transparency in governance, even to the point of our previous Association President praising Iranian President Ahmadinejad for meeting with him and answering questions, something he presumed that our own President would not have done. (Not that he had actually asked) And yet our own Association leadership is scarcely a role model to emulate.

When you think about it, "Do as I preach, not as I do," seems to be our motto. We are busy right now lecturing everyone through open letters and a "Standing On The Side Of Love" campaign about how collective bargaining for public employees is a human right, and yet this summer we will, for the fifth time in sixteen years, hold our General Assembly in a state where it's forbidden by law. We are always lecturing others about class, race, and racism, and yet our own experience with racial issues begins with the Black Affairs Council walking out of the 1969 General Assembly, and disaffiliating from us the following year... and since then, we've been the only mainline church in America to actually get whiter and richer over the years. We are always faxing Washington about wages, immigration, even minutia like transportation policy, and telling them that our policies are the way to future growth and national prosperity... and yet our five decades of stagnation and failure to thrive have resulted in Association layoffs recently. It's a wonder that every Congressman we've emailed hasn't replied with a link to this song:

I may start referring to such things as "mote" issues in the future- as in, "...how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me cast out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

UU, Alzheimer's, and politics

"Plaidshoes" really struck a chord with me with her Tuesday post, Tired of Defense. If you haven't read it, you must- and read the comments also. I was caught from the beginning, "I had a bit of a disturbing parking lot conversation today. I mentioned to a friend that I had seen her friend at my UU church. I thought of it as a positive. Another way that the world is so small that we all seem to run into each other. Well, my friend stated that she was not happy about this. It caught me completely by surprise. She flat out said it like that. I asked her why, and she stated that it would mean her friend was no longer a Christian." It reminded me of my wedding- and my mother.

That may sound strange to you- if it does, the explanation will be stranger still, but it's true. You see, in the months before my wedding there had been disagreement among we four brothers about our mother. She had been deteriorating of recent months, and several doctors had said she had Alzheimer's. We were split, 2-2, on whether she really had Alzheimer's, or whether this was one of her manipulative schemes. (Fred Sanford was a rank amateur in the manipulation business) The question was settled when she came to my wedding- at All Souls Unitarian Universalist Church. Everyone agreed that she had to be genuinely out of it to set foot inside the temple of the Antichrist.

So I understand plaidshoes' irritation at her friend's comment, and why she feels tired of being on the defense. In fact, I have an extra layer she does not- a political one. When I joined All Souls, a friend of mine had said, "I thought you were a Republican." I said yes, I was. His puzzled reply: "But you know they're a communist front organization, don't you?" Mind you, he wasn't trying to be derogatory or insulting; he was simply stating common knowledge- just as plaidshoes' friend had.

Both of these misunderstandings raise a question that plaidshoes does not address in her post: Why did her friend think that UU was not a religion? It would be easy enough to blame Mad Magazine, The Simpsons, Garrison Keillor, but none of their jibes would have stuck had there not been a kernel of truth in them. That's why stereotypes stick- Scandinavians really are often blonde; they really do eat lutefisk. If you tried to create a new stereotype that didn't reflect what people see in their daily lives- oh, like all Scandinavians eat grits and collard greens- it wouldn't stick, and people wouldn't repeat it. So clearly, the general public doesn't see us doing the things that a religion does; the question is, are we just poorly communicating what we do, or is their perception better than ours?

I have a serious question

If the right of collective bargaining for public employees is so critical to our principles of human dignity and the democratic process that it justifies an emergency email from the Congregational Advocacy & Witness Director asking us to sign a petition from Interfaith Worker Justice and to participate in a strategy call with labor leaders; if it's a basic human right enshrined not only in our principles, but in the United Nations Universal Human Rights Declaration and in the first amendment to the Constitution, then why are we holding our General Assembly in North Carolina, one of only five states in the nation to outlaw collective bargaining by public employees? Why did we hold the 2005 GA in Texas, one of the other five? If "Standing On The Side Of Love" means fighting for the right of public sector employees to use collective bargaining, then why are we rewarding states that outlaw it?

We're famous for our rigid stands on human rights. We boycotted Arizona just because they didn't make MLK's birthday a holiday. We spent last summer furiously blogging about Arizona again, holding special conference call meetings to vote on cancelling our GA there because of 1070. We're also famous for the way we vet venues- every last detail must be accessible, recyclable, fair traded, capped and traded, sustainable, renewable, local, and prevailing waged- how did we let a basic human right slip through the cracks?

Don't tell me that this is a new situation; it's not. In 2005, Indiana revoked collective bargaining for the public sector- indeed, Indiana was the inspiration for Wisconsin's actions, as we managed to turn red ink to black despite the horrible recession. (although Gov Walker seems not to notice that in Indiana we also had some tax increases) There was no outpouring of outrage by UU ministers and bloggers then- had anyone cared, we might have had emergency "Move the GA from anti-union Texas" meetings that year, and we certainly wouldn't have selected another anti-union state for this GA had there been an uproar. But there wasn't. So why do we suddenly care about public sector unions now when we never did before? What's changed between the selection of an anti-union state for our GA and now?

Could it be that we choose our issues by wetting our finger and holding it in the air? There is a lot more press and public uproar over Wisconsin than there was over Indiana; it's a lot more fun signing petitions that someone might actually read, and having conference calls with real activists instead of the same voices you heard at GA. Could it be that this time the DNC is involved? They were in no position to exploit the situation in Indiana in 2005, but they're having a field day in Milwaukee. I've noticed over the years that our actions and concerns track the DNC's pretty closely- remember our rather fluid positions on the filibuster? Could it be that we've taken so much flak for being elitist that we're suddenly desperate to prove solidarity with the middle class?

Don't like these theories? What's your explanation?

Umm, Hey, can we discuss this...

...before we go making the SEIU the UUA's seventh source? I just got an email from Susan Leslie, UUA Congregational Advocacy & Witness Director, asking me to "Please join UUA President Rev. Peter Morales and sign on to IWJ's Open Letter from Faith Leaders: Stop Attacks on Public Sector Workers and Unions." Coming as it did after such UU blog posts as One possible litmus test for UU Culture, Collective bargaining is a human right, An open letter to religious leaders in support of collective bargaining, Drops of water turn a mill, singly none..., and a number of others I've lost my notes on, I'm afraid it's already become one of those creeds we deny having, but I'm going to speak anyway.

Public employee unions are a different kettle of fish than ordinary unions. This is a truth that not a single one of the writers mentioned above seems to grasp. I'm going to quote a letter from President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to Luther C. Steward, President of the National Federation of Federal Employees: "...Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.
All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.
Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable." (full text available from The American Presidency Project)
　
To put it into my own words, there are two very big differences between private industry unions and public employee unions. The first is that the private union is trying to get a piece of the profits for the workers who had a big part in creating them. That's only fair- go for it. But governments do not generate profits! Public employee unions are not negotiating for a piece of the profits, they are negotiating for a tax increase.

Another difference is that while the ordinary union is speaking for people who have no other way of making their corporate bosses listen to them, public employees do have a voice: it's called democracy. The public employees' boss isn't C. Montgomery Burns, it's we the people. But it's just too much work to go to town hall meetings, write letters to Congressmen and the editors, or actually vote I guess.

Let's not forget that we're not talking about minimum wage flunkies here, either. Much has been said about the middle class in these posts, but from where I sit a lot of those public employees look like millionaires. How can I say such a silly thing? Benefits- particularly healthcare and most particularly retirement. Read The Millionaire Cop Next Door from Forbes. The short version is this: "City officials have said that in Carlsbad, the average firefighter or police officer typically retires at age 55 and has 28 years of service. Using the 3 percent salary calculation, that person would receive an annual city pension of $76,440.
That does not include health benefits, which might push real retirement compensation close to $100,000 a year." Let's ignore the health benefits for the moment, and just take the pension- round it to $80K. How much would you have to have in a private retirement fund to get $80K a year? "Investment pros like my friend Barry Glassman say 4% is a reasonable return today. That’s a pitiful yield, isn’t it? It is sure to disappoint the scores of millions of baby boomers who will soon enter retirement with nothing more than their desiccated 401(k)s, down 30% on average from 30 months ago, and a bit of Social Security.
Based on this small but unfortunately realistic 4% return, an $80,000 annual pension payout implies a rather large pot of money behind it–$2 million, to be precise.
That’s a lot. One might guess that a $2 million stash would be in the 95th percentile for the 77 million baby boomers who will soon face retirement."

Do you have two million dollars in your retirement account? Knowing many of my readers, I'm guessing not. Now ask yourself how much you'd have to earn to save, over and above living expenses, two million dollars in only 28 years? And this completely ignores the security factor in government jobs- four of the last five jobs I lost were because the company went out of business; relatively few American government bodies go out of business. Now tell me again about how the public employee unions are representing the downtrodden middle class...

One last beef I have with Susan's email: she repeats an untruth: "This is not about balanced budgets; it is about power... If there is not enough money for them, it is because the contracted funds have been taken by conservative officials and given to wealthy people and corporations instead of to the people who have earned them." It was understandable a week ago when Rachel Maddow said this; she was fulminating off her own misreading of the budget numbers. But since then several nonpartisan organizations have refuted this; PolitiFact's refutation has been repeated and referenced widely. To be repeating that canard now is highly irresponsible, and makes it look like our UUA spokespeople get their facts from the Daily KOS.

UPDATE: Knowing that not everyone reads comments, I wanted to add this from comments:
But my primary point, the raison d'etre for this post, is that there is plenty of room for disagreement and need for debate on this issue- I don't want it declared a basic tenent of our religion until such debate has taken place. I don't want Boston taking a position on my behalf without such a debate. I don't want clergy out there declaring that support for the unions in Wisconsin is an extension of our faith, an inseperable part of our principles, until we have had that debate. That would be irony indeed- basing a political position upon our democratic principle without a democratic debate and vote!

Passed at the UUA Board Special Meeting May 6, 2010

Business resolution for the 2010 GA:

Whereas the state of Arizona has recently enacted a law—SB 1070--that runs counter to our first principle, affirming the worth and dignity of every person,

Whereas the Association stands in solidarity with allies using a widespread economic boycott of Arizona as leverage for Love against this hateful legislation;

Be it resolved: we will not meet in a state of fear.

Accordingly, the Assembly hereby:

• Directs the UUA General Assembly Planning Committee to recommend to the Board of Trustees an alternate location for General Assembly 2012 at a location outside the state of Arizona;

• Pledges to generate from Member Congregations the amount sufficient to cancel arrangements in Phoenix for GA 2012;

• Pledges further to generate an equal or greater amount to fund ongoing efforts to Stand on the Side of Love in Arizona.

• Pledge to renew and redouble our efforts to become a multicultural, anti racist Association; to live as a people standing faithfully in opposition to systematic racism in our congregations, local communities, and in our own lives.

*******
This was passed at a special online meeting* of the board that as many observers as the technology would allow were invited to participate in- a procedure I applaud and appreciate. The discussion was wide ranging, with many points brought up that are worth all our consideration. I have names attached to some of these, but as I wasn't able to capture actual quotes, it wouldn't be fair for me to put words in their mouths by attributing my faulty memory to them.

Cancelling will cost about $615,000 in penalties; shortfalls would have to come out of programs. (That's why fundraising is mentioned in the motion) It may also cost us in the future, as the convention business community is actually pretty small and tight-knit; cancelling may mean other cities might require advance money and more penalty clauses.

The deadline for making a decision is somewhat uncertain. As I understood the procedure, we have "dibs" on the dates in 2012, but not an absolute commitment; if another convention inquires about using the facilities, we will then be given a few days to make a decision. Since there's no way of predicting when or whether someone else will ask, the deadline for the decision is not at this moment firm. (If this is incorrect, someone in the know please correct me)

It was pointed out that going to Phoenix may put some of our own members at risk, and that they may not attend for that reason. A potential boycott of our own GA by our own members was also brought up as a risk of keeping GA in AZ.

The question of our selection policy was brought up, including the risk of our moving the 2012 GA to another city that would be unacceptable to some for different reasons.

There was discussion of whether it might be better to go and protest, that if our intent was to do something rather than make a statement, that might be more effective. Inquires about groups putting together public witnessing were made.

One question I have concerns the 2011 GA in Charlotte. In the most recent "Standing On the Side of Love" email, we were warned about seven other states that were contemplating passing their own 1070- and North Carolina was one of them. If this happens, would we be able to boycott, or would there not be enough time to change plans?

I wish I were able to attend GA next month; this may be an historic debate.

*If we can put together a virtual meeting at a moment's notice, how come the Global Warming conferences always have to be physical meetings at places like Helsinki, with all the burning of jet fuel that involves? Just asking.

UUA Board to meet over moving the Phoenix GA

From UUA Email: "The UUA Board of Trustees will hold an online Board Meeting on Thursday, May 6, from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. Eastern Time to determine how and when adecision will be made to affirm or change the location of GeneralAssembly 2012, currently scheduled to be held in Phoenix, Arizona. UUAModerator Gini Courter called this Special Board Meeting following thepassage of Arizona Senate Bill 1070. This meeting is open to observers;"
I have registered to attend, and will blog about it- live blog if possible. More tonight if live blogging; otherwise tomorrow.

Why do I do it?

Why do I defend the supporters, if not always the organizers, of things like the Tea Parties or the Arizona immigration law from charges of racism, sexism, homophobia, or all the other "isms" that get thrown around in UU blogs? Why did I speak up before the Presidential election against UU bloggers who said candidate Obama's poll numbers proved how racist America is?*

To begin with, it's simply not true. Tens- depending on the issue, hundreds- of millions of Americans are not "ists" who base all their decisions on "isms". That's a problem with calling our position on everything "Standing On The Side Of Love"- sometimes we come to really believe that those not standing with us are all haters. It seems to me that some UUs, despite all our vaunted reason, understanding, and tolerance are simply incapable of believing that anyone could genuinely care for people and still come to a different position than ours.

Secondly, it's counterproductive on many, many levels. To begin with, when you call someone an "ist" of any kind, you've just written them off in your mind. After all, "isms" are irrational, and irrational people cannot be convinced by rational argument. If you've been doing this, I give you the words of Benjamin Franklin from 1776: "These men, no matter how much we may disagree with them, they are not ribbon clerks to be ordered about - they are proud, accomplished men, the cream of their colonies. And whether you like them or not, they and the people they represent will be part of this new nation that YOU hope to create. Now, either learn how to live with them, or pack up and go home! In any case, stop acting like a Boston fishwife."

And, of course, they will write you off as well. You just deeply insulted them; they can here the contempt in your voice. They know that you, too, are incapable of being moved by their arguments, so why should they bother to enter a dialogue with you? For example, last night Mayor Bloomberg of New York speculated on the nature of the terrorist who planted the car bomb in Times Square: "Home-grown, maybe a mentally deranged person or somebody with a political agenda that doesn't like the health care bill or something." How do you think NY attendees of Tea Parties and Town Hall meetings who opposed the Healthcare reform bill felt, knowing that's how he sees them? What do you think the odds are that they'll ever listen to another word he says on the subject?

And, of course, if you assume irrational motivations for all your opposition, you won't even try to understand their actual motivations, their real fears. And since you don't understand what they really want, you'll miss all opportunities to find a genuine compromise, or an outside of the box answer. If, for example, you're convinced that all those against the "living wage" proposal are just a capitalist pigs operating on the "I got mine, Jack!" principle, you'll miss opportunities to get their cooperation on other assistance programs that don't trigger their fears of economic backlash.

And lastly, it's just plain unseemly. We're religious bloggers. We're supposed to be the good guys. If we can't discuss an issue without demonizing the opposition, who can? If UU bloggers- including ministers and religious professionals- cannot write with compassion, cannot display any faith in their fellow man, what does that tell the world about UU itself?
　
*To this day, I cannot understand how polling better before the election than any other candidate of his party since Roosevelt, and getting the highest first-term landslide in a century is evidence of racism. OK, technically, LBJ got a higher vote, but I don't think that counts as he was a sitting president, even though not elected.

Church as school

In her most recent post, Kim Hampton asks Are we afraid of religion? Her thoughts had been inspired by this quote from the GA-listserve: "Advocacy has always been..and will always be…at the core of UU…", and she asks, "Really? ADVOCACY has been, and always will be, at the core of UUism? Really?" I know that many UUs believe it to be. Indeed, if you read the comments to The UUA Presidential Election and The Point of Our Faith at Elizabeth's Little Blog, you'll see that there are people who get incensed at the very idea that anything else could be at the core of our religion.

I was thinking of this when I read the following passage from a story by Neil Gaiman:
Rose Walker's Journal:
I've been making a list of things they don't teach you at school.
They don't teach you how to love somebody.
They don't teach you how to be famous.
They don't teach you how to be rich, or how to be poor.
They don't teach you how to walk away from someone you don't love any longer.
They don't teach you how to know what's going on in someone else's mind.
They don't teach you what to say to someone who's dying.
They don't teach you anything worth knowing.

It struck me hard, because I had made the same list myself many, many years ago. Not in exact detail- for example I did not yet need to know what to say to someone who's dying; at that age, I was more concerned with questions like "How do I accept the responsibility for my actions without being paralyzed by fear of consequences". But the spirit of the list, including the fact that I actually wrote it down, was the same. And I knew, even at that age, that this was the purpose of religion: public schools are the schools where you learn what you need to know to earn a living; churches are the schools where you learn what you need to know to live. And I knew, even then, that the lessons that are the most important are on how to live- Simon and Garfunkel taught me that.

What I didn't know then was that there were two philosophies of religion, just as there are of schools: one teaches you answers, and the other teaches you how to find answers. Religions such as Christianity and Islam are of the first sort; UU and a number of Pagan religions are of the second sort. Or at least that's what I had thought when I first discovered, in order, Paganism and UU. But as I got to know more people in my congregation, and then people from other congregations through travel and the internet, I learned that there was a third school of thought: church was where you went to learn the status of House Joint Resolution 234, and who the committee chair overseeing it was.

I agree with Kim; I hope that the core of our church is not that third sort, "Cuz if it is…friends…we are dead." Not merely because we're not really very good at it, (though as she says, and I have written many times, we're not) but because we'll have forsaken what religion and only religion can do- help us learn how to live. There are a hundred places where one can learn about community organizing, but only one school where you can learn the things on that list- church. And if we aren't there to provide the Montessori school of religion, then where is one to go if the fixed set of answers school of religion doesn't satisfy one's soul? Do we really want a country in which the only school offering the lessons of life is the Religious right? I think that being an alternative religion is the ultimate social service we can perform.

On the UUAWO and staff cuts

Scott at "Boys in the Bands" has two posts on the announced staff cuts at UUA HQ, Bad day for the UUA, and Thinking about the UUA staff cuts, and we had this exchange of comments: "Joel Monka wrote: Why “oh crap?” I was calling for the elimination of the UUAWO years ago, before the fiscal crisis. Scott Wells wrote: And you were wrong. But more about that later."

I think from the second post that he may have misunderstood the nature of my disagreement with the UUAWO. My argument is neither from political policy reasons nor from polity reasons- nor is it anti-democratic. My primary complaint is that the UUAWO, and our other social justice organizations, for that matter, often do not take their stands strictly on principle but on political expediency. For example, does anyone remember this UUAWO mass emailing?

"JOIN US TO SAVE THE FILIBUSTER! MONDAY MAY 23 4:15 PMEMERGENCY RALLY AT ‘SENATE SWAMP’ (corner of Constitution & Delaware Aves, near the Russell Senate Bldg) AND TUESDAY MAY 24 7 - 9 AM INTERFAITH SPEAK OUT ON SUPREME COURT STEPS
For information on the “nuclear option” and judges, including UUA letters of opposition, Visit www.uua.org.
WHY NOW??
With a vote expected on the “nuclear option” on Tuesday afternoon, religious people committed to protecting the rights of the minority to speak on issues that effect all Americans, must publicly stand for pluralism and democracy. We are committed to a pluralistic society with respect for the beliefs and rights of all people. Our Unitarian Universalist faith guides us on a path of affirmation of difference and preservation of the democratic process.
WE MUST SPEAK OUT!
“To claim that minority-party senators and their supporters are acting ‘against people of faith’ because they wish to preserve the Senate filibuster is an affront to millions of devout Americans."— Rev. William Sinkford, President, Unitarian Universalist Association"

That was five years ago- fast forward to today: the president is calling for majority leadership in the Senate to abuse the budget reconciliation process to bypass the filibuster, and Senators Begich (AK); Bingaman (NM); Brown (OH); Durbin (IL); Harkin (IA); Johnson (SD); Kerry (MA); Lautenberg (NJ); Lieberman (CT); Shaheen (NH); Udall (NM) and Rep. Jim McDermott have all introduced or cosigned legislation to eliminate the filibuster. Where's our outrage now? Where's our "Save the Filibuster" campaign? If the filibuster is that central to democracy, don't we believe in democracy anymore? The answer, of course, is that then it was a Republican majority and we disapproved of what they were doing; today it is a Democratic majority, and we approve of Democratic Party policies. It was never about the filibuster per se, nor our democratic principles; our outrage was cynical political manipulation then, and our silence is cynical now.*

But my objections to the UUAWO go beyond the fact that they make us appear to be not an independent church, but merely the Democratic Party's chaplain office. They are a complete waste of resources. And no, Scott, I am not whingeing about how expensive the UUA is to run, and I agree that if anything, most are underpaid. Nor do I wish people who have served loyally to be tossed out in the streets- they are capable people who could do useful work elsewhere in the UUA. My point is that even if I agreed with the general principle of church as lobbyist**, our efforts are so ineffectual as to be a waste of resources. There's no reason to believe that our efforts have ever changed a single vote in Congress. There's more evidence for the existence of God than for "...the UUA Washington Office for Advocacy... influencing public policy decisions made by the U.S. Congress and Administration."*** Even if a lawmaker has ever heard of us- by no means a guarantee- he's unlikely to be impressed by our efforts. In fact, the more he knows about us, the less likely he is to be impressed by our efforts.

Why should he or she be impressed? Our vast numbers? If every UU in the entire US moved to a single congressional district, they would still only represent one quarter of the vote for that one Congressman! Because of our famous independent streak? If they know anything about us at all, they know there's nothing whatsoever that would make the average UU vote for a Republican; if there's a Democratic candidate so bad a UU could no longer hold his nose to vote- and I've never heard of one- the most that UU would do is stay home. Because having a church behind him is good cover? The only reason a Congressman would need a church endorsement is if he's taking heat from the religious right, in which case our endorsement would do more harm than good- the religious right does know us, and doesn't like us; I know Southern Baptists who would grant more grudging respect to The Covenant of the Goddess than to us. Because of our unflinching realism in facing human rights issues? After the former president of our association said, “I could not imagine the current U.S. president taking the time to honor questions about his actions the way Ahmadinejad did today.”?

The only kind of advocacy office that would be truly effective is one that serves as a resource, guiding members to organizations in their neighborhoods that can actually do something; a dollar given to an organization with a real voice and presence is worth a thousand dollars given to a group no one has ever heard of. And isn't that what the UUA is supposed to be- a resource to help the member congregations be more effective? Sure, it's an ego boost to have an official "UUA Committee to XYZ", but isn't actually accomplishing something more important than feeling good about being enlightened? I say, when it comes to "... influencing public policy decisions made by the U.S. Congress and Administration.", leave it to the pros, and let the UUA Advocacy offices be our guides to these pros instead. Stop compromising our principles to no effect, put the members of the UUAWO into positions where they can use their time and expertise assisting the congregations, (you know, the raison d'etre of the UUA) and use the money saved in these lean times to make UU a religion that new people will want to join, and current members will want to stick with. Perhaps if we do that, we will grow to the point where we have the numbers and influence to make a Washington office worthwhile. (though I would still have philosophical problems with it)
　
*And before you say "You're a conservative and are just against our positions", I want to point out that the filibuster issue I mention above was over the confirmation of a Supreme Court judge. I am on record, in writing, that my position is that elections matter, and that the President gets whoever he (or she, hope springs eternal) wants, barring an objection high enough that it would cause impeachment if it were found after confirmation- I supported both Alito and Sotomayor on those grounds. I stood by my principles through Clinton, Bush, and now Obama, even when it meant backing someone I didn't like. I will further point out that Senator Byrd- hardly a right winger- opposes the plan to eliminate the filibuster; he is being consistent with his positions. The UUAWO cannot say the same thing. So much for democratic principles.

**I am firmly against the role of church-as-lobbyist. The first reason is that corruption is a two way street; many who think they've bought a politician find that they have too much invested in said politician to walk away from him when they disagree. Then the rationalizing starts- "hold your nose and vote for him because at least he's good on the important issues"... then "Hold your nose and vote for him because even though he can't be counted on, at least he keeps the Democratic majority"... then you realize you sold your soul and didn't even get your payment for it.

The second reason is more philosophical. There are two types of things lobbyist fight for- the first is to get an obscure, less than obvious problem that is nonetheless vitally important to those affected looked at by Congress. Perhaps it's florists wanting a two week quarantine on man eating orchids because they might carry a blight of some kind. This is exactly the kind of thing the founding fathers were thinking of when they put the right to petition in the first amendment. I'm all for that kind of lobbyist- but that's not us. The other kind of lobbyist is fighting a social issue of some kind that he cannot get the general public to support- these range from prohibition to abortion to sexual issues. This sort of activist/lobbyist has discovered that you don't have to sway 150 million people to get your way- you only have to sway the right 268 Congressmen and Senators. Then the government will do your convincing for you, and use tax dollars to do it- it's the modern version of converting the king to your church, then gaining the whole country as converts. And it's so easy to rationalize... this is THE RIGHT THING TO DO (tm)- that gives us the right to sneer at those we disagree with, and cram our position down their throats by government fiat rather than listening to them, addressing their fears, and convincing them.

***from the Draft Statement of Conscience on Peacemaking

Why I attend church

"Why do you attend church? If you don't go, why not?" These were questions asked by Jacqueline at MoxieLife ; she was expanding the audience for these queries from her daughter Paige , who asked them in a letter to her hometown congregation.

I don't have perfect attendance by any means. I miss many summer services, especially Labor Day; how many times can one listen to the local head of the AFL-CIO? I frequently miss guest sermons as well, especially "special musical guests"; how many times can one listen to an overage hippy who sounds like Raffi performing songs written by Al Gore? And sometimes I just need that Sunday morning as a mental health day. (OK, I was up too late Saturday night- stop smirking) But I make around thirty Sundays a year, plus special events, such as graduation parties, going aways, holidays- the only Christmas Eve we've missed was when our plane was snowed in at O'Hare. Plus I facilitate a small group, belong to a service club, and a CUUPs group at another congregation; I spend a fair amount of time at church. Why?

I'll begin with a double negative; what things that deter others fail to deter me? Jacqueline started drifting away while she was caring for her dad, and I can understand that one quite well; sometimes the concern of others can be overwhelming, as I learned when my father in law died . But I had the opposite emotional reaction- as long as people are still talking about him, he's still there.

Neither am I deterred by Paige's complaint: "As UUs it isn't our belief in a god that brings us together, it's a belief in peace and understanding. I don't feel that overwhelming peace when I walk into the doors of our church on Sunday afternoons, and I wish I did." I don't enjoy the battles within our church- regular readers have heard me on the subject repeatedly- but it doesn't keep me away. Why? Maybe it's my advanced age, maybe it's my years in politics, but I never expected anything different. People have opinions, and I expect them to argue about them; a lack of arguing demonstrates only a lack of passion. "Overwhelming peace" is for retreats and contemplative orders of monks and nuns.

Now for the active voice reasons. First, I go because I'm a social creature, and I enjoy the company of others. It's the largest organization I'm interested in joining wherein I'm certain of my welcome. Closely related to this reason is comfort and nostalgia; I was married there, and that wedding was perhaps the last public event my mother was functional enough to attend. People there remember my father in law, and ask about my mother in law, who while alive and well is 3/4 a continent away.

I go because I learn a lot. Not just from Rev. Clear's excellent presentations, but also from coffee hours and general discussions. Where else can I go to have a discussion with hundreds of people who disagree with me? And I'm completely serious- one learns nothing if one only keeps company with those one agrees with- after all, you already know what they think.

I go because I'm "modeling", or what we used to call "living your faith" back in the days before everyone spoke like a humorless philosophy undergrad. If anyone at my congregation is going to say "There are no good reasons to vote against Obama, just one bad one" or "The division isn't between atheist and theist, it's between rational and irrational" or "conservatives aren't capable of rational thought; at best, they can memorize a few facts and parrot them back", they'll have to do it while looking at me- and after 14 years at that congregation, I don't think they can anymore. It's important to see the human face of those one despises; the contrast with the preconceptions usually reveal the stereotypes for what they are. And it's important for me to see the human faces of liberals and atheists, too.

I go to be part of change. All Souls has evolved a lot over the years, and I've been part of that- and I'd like to be part of it in the future as well.

A New Blog

I have decided to create a new blog to offer as a public service to the Unitarian Universalist Blogosphere. This was inspired by an escalation of the verbal warfare surrounding the dispute between Robin Edgar, the UCM, and the UU world in general. Relations have degenerated in recent months and years, to the point where many bloggers- myself included- simply stopped permitting Robin to comment. Then in the last few weeks, things went further downhill yet; more emotion from Robin's blog, and two new blogs, equally emotional, created about him- one with an obscene name, and one that's a parody of Robin's own.

To defuse this situation, and to attempt to reconcile the aggrieved parties, I have created a new blog for their use: Reason and Reconciliation This blog is intended to be a neutral ground where all can discuss their issues. I felt this necessary because both Robin and those who disagree with him have many good points that need to be heard, but they are never aired because of past baggage. This is an attempt to start afresh, to discuss these issues calmly and rationally. Whatever your past issues, bring only current discussion.

The only ground rules are these: No personal insults, no armchair psychoanalyzing, no spamming. Address people by their proper names; no nicknames or "cute" references; something you may find funny another may find offensive. No links unless they are absolutely necessary to understand the issue. Keep the discussion about the discussion; don't label the arguments made (such as "DIM" or "irrational")- labels do not advance understanding. Simply agree with them or refute them.

Robin, feel free to post there; you will never be banned from that blog. Individual posts may be bounced for rewording- blogger doesn't seem to permit detail editing- but you will be able to post reworded versions of a bounced post. Feel free to post issues you have with the UUA, or any member congregation. The only sort of posts not welcome are generic attacks; as this is for discussion, issues would need to be specific.

All other commenters, feel free to discuss any issues raised, and to raise your own... BUT... discuss only the issues raised, be logical and to the point. Anonymous comments are acceptable, as long as they conform. If you are going to use a pseudonym, please choose a unique one and stick with it, as an aid to understanding and following the discussion. (nothing more confusing than having more than one "anonymous"!!)

I invite all those knowledgeable in church policy and procedures to watch the discussions, to jump in if there seems to be a misunderstanding of policies, etc.
I am not moderating this blog for two reasons: first, that dialogue can begin immediately, without having to wait for me to log in and approve things, and secondly, because I'm so busy I've been neglecting my own blog- I have notes for dozens of posts I simply haven't had time to write. But I took time to do this because I thought it was important; please do not abuse the license I'm giving everyone.

Lying, even in a good cause, is wrong

The latest News from UUA Advocacy and Witness ,"Act Now to Pass the Employment Non Discrimination Act!", does just that when it says, "...it shows our elected officials that as Unitarian Universalists, we stand on the side of love for equality AND religious freedom.", and "ENDA's opponents say that it interferes with their religious freedom, but we know that this is not true." It IS true, it DOES interfere with their religious freedom.

For many Christians- especially the more fundamental ones most likely to be affected by this act- the term "religious institutions" is not limited to a church or a church bookstore. The law may make a distinction between a bakery owned and staffed by Christians and a monastery whose monks bake bread, but they do not- they take "Wherever two or more are gathered in my name" seriously. The government may say the banner on the wall of the construction company that says, "Everything we do is dedicated to the greater glory of God" is mere decoration, but they do not. They do not compartmentalize their faith from the rest of their lives; they believe that religion is not just for Sunday in just this building, but something they must live every moment.

Perhaps the people who wrote that advocacy letter are unaware of this, despite being college graduates working in a religious institution, but my Congressman, being Muslim, is well aware of it, as are both my Senators. Were I to take that tack in a letter to them, they would presume it to be just another email generated letter from a special interest group... which, in fact, it would be; and they'd know that if my name is in their Farley Files, and it might be as I've met all three of them.

Much of what I hear in church, and much of what I read from bloggers and the UUA tells me that many UUs have never studied and don't really understand their Christian neighbors. They lecture Christians over social justice issues, assert "truths" that Christians know ain't so. I often feel like beginning every such discussion by quoting Benjamin Franklin from 1776: "These men, no matter how much we may disagree with them, they are not ribbon clerks to be ordered about - they are proud, accomplished men, the cream of their colonies. And whether you like them or not, they and the people they represent will be part of this new nation that YOU hope to create. Now, either learn how to live with them, or pack up and go home! In any case, stop acting like a Boston fishwife."

Far better to argue from the truth- yes, this is an infringement of your rights- but none of our rights are absolute. Freedom of speech and press have restrictions, ranging from shouting "fire" to McCain-Feingold. Freedom of assembly is restricted by the requirement of permits. And freedom of religion has restrictions, too; we forbid human sacrifice, even when voluntary; we forbid the use of certain drugs, we require parents to get medical care for their children. Rights are an always fluid balancing act between the individual and the compelling interests of society- and at this time, the balance must be drawn here, for these reasons... Don't tell him "all seriously religious people agree..." (as our previous president was wont to do), because he knows it isn't true.

Honesty really is the best policy. Even if you don't win the first round, you'll win respect, and your words will gain weight in the process. Acting like politicians will only get you the same respect that politicians get- surely we want more than that.

Addendum: CC's comment shows that some clarification of the Christian opposition to ENDA is in order. Many Christians believe that someone who is actively homosexual cannot be a Christian. Homosexual desires, they feel, are a temptation of Satan; one is not responsible for such temptations- ask Job. But acting on those temptations is a conscious decision. Therefore, an active homosexual who feels no remorse and has no intention of trying to change, is unrepentant and cannot be Christian. Therefore, the owner of a Christian company, who has dedicated his endeavors as a testimony to how one can succeed by living God's word feels he cannot hire a homosexual. (this describes many of my former customers) He feels his rights of free association and freedom of religion are abridged by being forced to hire non-Christians. He feels that if the courts have found otherwise since 1968, it only means that the courts have been wrong since 1968.

He is right- it is an abridgement of his rights. It simply isn't rational to say that the freedom of association doesn't mean you can decide who to associate with, or that the freedom of religion doesn't mean you can use your religion beliefs in the exercise of your freedom of association. But, as I noted above, we abridge rights all the time in the public interest. My position is that by getting a business license, society has granted him certain rights and privileges, such as the ability to buy wholesale, to not pay sales tax on most items, etc. He has become a public institution, and owes society certain favors in return- such as complying with anti-discrimination laws. The price of the right to discriminate is to forfeit the special advantages and privileges of a public institution.

I do not know if this was the reasoning in the 1968 decision that said employers may not discriminate on the grounds of religion. If it was, then the court admitted that it was interfering with the right of free association and free exercise of religion, and I agree with the court; it was a balance between individual rights and society's needs. ENDA would be a further abridgement of those rights; justified, yes, but still an abridgement. If the courts ruled that there was no right of free association in the first place, then they came to the right decision via the wrong path. It wouldn't be the first time.
　
　

Keeping them coming

The latest church bulletin from my congregation, All Souls Unitarian Church (Indianapolis) , made me think of the recent election of a new UUA President. The biggest issue was how to grow our membership- and I thought most people were looking at the issue the wrong way. Most of the discussion was about how to get people in the doors; I maintained that the problem wasn't getting people to visit- I can't think of a Sunday we haven't had visitors- the problem was getting them to keep visiting. That, I believe, is the problem- after all, if the average UU congregation picked up a single new member a week, they'd double their membership in two years.
The connection to the church bulletin was the teaser for future sermons:
"Sunday, October 4, 10:30 a.m.
"The Religion of God"
Rev. Bruce Clear
Over the years, I've enjoyed preparing religious biographical sermons, and spoken on "The Religion of... " Some examples are Walt Whitman, Albert Einstein, Susan B. Anthony, Kahlil Gibran, Charles Darwin, Beatrix Potter, and so forth. It is time to
quit playing around and go right to the heart of the matter. What religion does God practice?"

Does anyone think I'm going to miss that sermon? I've mentioned before that Bruce's sermons are somewhere between a chat with that favorite cousin or uncle whose visits you look forward to and a lecture by your favorite professor. Here's a few sermons of recent years I remember fondly:
Roots and Branches of Religious Liberty
Eyes On the Prize
Feeling At Home in the Universe
Searching for Truth: A Detective Story
A Harmony of Science and Religion
Heartbreak, Healing, and Hope
The Anatomy of Happiness
Competition and the Game of Life
Our Most Intractable Sin
Are All Religions Really the Same?
The Heart and Art of Unitarian Universalism
Was Jesus a Christian?
To Keep Alive the Covenant
What Values? Whose Values?
The Anatomy of the Soul
Credo
Give Them Not Hell, But Hope and Courage
The Sacred Feminine

Yes, social justice is important, and we must never let it out of our thoughts... but do we have a single social justice issue that isn't addressed by a secular organization that's more efficient, and has more clout? So why would one go to a church to clumsily, ineffectively engage the issues?

As Bruce said in his sermon, Are all religions the same , "It is relatively easy to identify the questions that religions tend to ask. What we find in studying the worlds religions is that each one has a different favorite question. Some of religions common questions are as follows:
First, what is the purpose of life? Why are we here?
Second, how can I cope with suffering in life?
Third, how do I find personal peace and contentment?
Fourth is the question of ethics. How do I know what is right and what is wrong?
And fifth, how do I know truth? On what can I depend?
These are five of many questions that human beings the world over ask themselves, and usually turn to religion to discover answers."

These are the questions being addressed by those churches that are actually growing. These are the questions people go to church for. They don't join churches to have a vehicle for the healthcare debate or abortion rights or immigration reform- those are political questions being much more effectively addressed by political organizations. Too much of the UUA is more PAC than church- and therefore performs neither function effectively. Churches that spend more time addressing these questions than asking you to write your congressman- the Pentecostals, say, or the Jehovah's Witnesses, have grown from 40-70% the last twenty years. One religion that addresses these questions AND encourages people to study and think for themselves- Wicca- has grown more than 140% per year for the last ten years.

Our numbers have been static for more than forty years.

Maybe doing what religions do isn't the best way for us to grow as a religion- but it's a great way to retain any growth we get from any other plan.

One last post about the FFRF ad controversy

I had not intended to say anything more about it, but judging by comments to many of the blogs that complained about the ad, and a couple blog posts supporting it, it appears to me that the nature of the offense and the complaints were not universally understood. Goodwolve, for example, in two posts- I am not changing my mind , and One more time - is there room in the UUA (or how fear is ruining everything) seems to believe that the entire issue is that theists hate atheists, want them to either shut up or convert, and want to insert the church into the government.

Steve Caldwell, in his post Anti-Atheism Ad in UU World That Criticizes Bishop Spong , seems to believe that theists can't take any criticism: "As one of my favorite bloggers (Greta Christina) has said in the past, people are so used to whispering around religion that an everyday voice sounds like a shout." (as a quick aside, I can understand how one might want to say that to a Christian, but we Pagans are kind of used to being shouted at. By Christians and atheists both.) Steve and Goodwolve are both misunderstanding the issue.

Let's look at the quotes so many of us found objectionable. Clarence Darrow: "I don't believe in God because..." So far, so good. I have no problem whatsoever with that; half- possibly more than half- of my friends are atheist or agnostic*, I have no problem with anyone stating their beliefs in a positive way. The problem comes in the second half of the quote: "... I don't believe in Mother Goose." To understand my problem with this requires a discussion of a distinction that has been largely discarded in modern discourse, especially politics: the difference between a mistake and a lie.

To make a mistake is to say something that is untrue, but you believed it was true when you said it. There was no intent to deceive yourself or others; you were simply wrong. A lie is saying something that you knew was wrong when you said it. The same distinction can be made between a mythical character and a fictional one. An example of a mythical character is the Urban Legend about the guy who bolted a JATO rocket to his '67 Chevy, flew off the high side of a turn, and crashed. It never happened... but it's very believable; JATO rockets do exist, and daredevils have in fact bolted them on cars and attained very high speeds. Foolish people really do try to duplicate stunts they're not experienced enough to pull off. There is no obvious reason to doubt the story, unlike a fictional character- say Mr. Spock- who there is no reason to believe to be an actual person, and the author never intended for you to believe to be an actual person. Thus when Darrow finished his statement with "... I don't believe in Mother Goose.", he was saying that God is as obviously fictional as Mother Goose, that those writing about God never intended their tales to be believable- but then asked us to believe them anyway. That is worse than saying that those who believe in God are gullible- I don't mind that, of course that's what an atheist believes- but he is saying that those who wrote about God are liars, and we who believe are dupes of the silliest kind.

The same thing is true of the Twain quote. Had he said "Faith is believing what ain't so.", I would have no complaint at all. His "truth" is that there is no God- of course he's going to say it ain't so. But that's not what he said- the quote is "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." He is calling people of faith liars, or worse.

Dawkins does Twain one better. He, too calls God fictional, but then adds another insult on top of that: "... is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction." And he goes even farther than that, he takes a step neither Darrow nor Twain took in his insult. Steve said, "However, I don't see either ad as a personal attack on any person but rather a criticism of different opinions about theology. From my perspective as a reader of both ads, I can see that criticism of a religious idea isn't the same as criticizing the person who may hold that idea." But Dawkins wasn't speaking in the generic; he was very specific- "The God of the Old Testament". That's saying, "Hey, you, Jews- YOUR God, the one you have a covenant with? HE is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction."

Goodwolve asked, "Why can't you let an ad that is defending your right to promote your religion in the confines of the law be part of our Unitarian dialog?" What about the ad is defending my right to promote my religion? It says not one word about defending my right to promote my religion- and it does insult me and my ancestors. One cannot even use the small-print boilerplate to establish that intent- it reads, "a 501(c)(3) non-prophet organization of atheists and agnostics working since 1978 to keep church and state separate." They clearly don't want me as a member; they specify atheists and agnostics, even to the point of making the pun "non-prophet". Given that, and they insults they quote- and the complete lack of any mention of the Constitution, or any church-state issues- how on Earth was I supposed to understand that they're defending me?

She also asks, "If personal experience is what really changes us I doubt it will happen that a theist will convince me that there is a god. I also doubt that I will convince them there isn't. And yet we feel the need to defend our position." This is a very important point that comes up in all the theist/atheist debates, and deserves attention.

Goodwolve, I'm not trying to convince you. I'm not trying to convert you. My faith is not evangelical; in fact, my beliefs say I couldn't convince you if I tried- the experience of the Divine (or the lack of it) is intensely personal, and can rarely translate from one person to the other; I have often said that in truth there are six billion religions. Nor am I defending my position, not to you or anyone. I do not need or desire your belief in my vision of the Divine. Nor do I need your belief to fellowship with you- Hell's bells, many of my fellow Pagans have deep differences with me. I treasure differences and new perspectives; one cannot learn anything by talking to a mirror. I love reading your blog, and Steve's. Driving you out of the church is not what i want.

ALL I WANT IS TO NOT BE CALLED A LIAR OR A DUPE AT CHURCH. That's all. It really, really is. Tell me God does not exist, and we're still friends; those are your beliefs, and I will defend your right to hold them. State your reasons for believing so if you wish, and I'll happily examine them- I don't know everything. I love hearing positive statements of a position to study. I want to hear it. But statements that do nothing to advance your position but merely denigrate mine I'll complain about.

Is that really so hard to understand?
　
　
*I'm using the terms in the commonly understood forms: atheist- there is no God, agnostic- I don't know. Yes, I know atheists say it isn't that simple, and the dictionary definitions are wrong, but the fine distinctions are not germane to this discussion.

Accepting the Chaliceblog invitation

ChaliceChick addresses the question of the controversial Freedom From Religion ad in the latest UUWorld in her usual thoughtful manner, saying Let's Play UU World Editor ; Which ads would you take? Which ads would you refuse? Why? I have to respond here, because as usual, I ran way too long for a comment.

My editorial principles would be: no attack ads; nothing that ridicules or denigrates any person, faith, or organization. No political ads, even positive and polite ones, for fear of both offending members and running afoul of the IRS. Ads must be tasteful, taking the sensibilities of the readership into account. Lastly, I am sure there some editorial policies about products or groups that may be unacceptable that have been decided by the board. (see my speculation about tobacco below) How I have applied these principles in the past: I have written to the UUWorld protesting the "Darwinfish" ads; some of their products are direct attacks and deeply offensive. How I would apply them to CC's examples:

- a moderately-phrased ad from a Pro-life group that appeals to the emotions of readers with a headline like "a person is a person no matter how small". The headline quoted is the essence of the entire argument; it is presented as a position statement, not an attack on any person or group. The language is not offensive or derogatory. If that is the worst thing in the ad- no graphic photographs, no accusations of unworthy motives against their opposition- I would accept the ad.

-an ad from a UU reiki practitioner extolling the benefits of Reiki and selling classes on reiki. As long as the ad does not make unsupportable claims, like curing cancer or something, it's inoffensive and no sillier than half the things we do. Take it.

- An ad from a non-UU Christian group that urges social justice action in God's name "Thy will be done on Earth' is a call to action." Social Justice Action is a huge part of this church; indeed, I was attacked in comments to Elizabeth's Little Blog for suggesting we take time to heal ourselves as well as the rest of the world. The only possible reason for refusing it would be if there's an official editorial policy against using the "G" word, and if there is, there shouldn't be- take the ad.

- An ad from a tobacco company advertising their product for native American-style rituals. I think there actually is a policy against accepting tobacco ads- does anyone know for sure? If there is, it doesn't matter what the people in the ad are using the tobacco for. If there isn't such a policy, there should be- refuse the ad, and add a disclaimer to the boilerplate about products that are lethal even when used as recommended.

- A less-moderately phrased ad from a pro-life group that says something like "Everyone who supported slavery was free; everyone who supports abortion is already born." This language is stronger, but no stronger than has been used in some of the articles. At least half of it is demonstrably true, and the other half can be reasonably assumed. Again, if that's the worst thing in the ad, take it.

- An ad from a UU Christian group that encourages people in trouble to reach out to Christ. Something like "Dear God: I have a problem. It's me." The language is inoffensive. The concept is inoffensive; there are some UUs who do exactly that. Hells bells, even many Pagans (such as myself) realize most of their problems can be found in the mirror. Take the ad.

-An ad from an animal rights group that says "Stop kidding yourself, animal slaughter is murder, go vegan." Like the Pro-Life ad, the statement is their entire argument. It is strongly worded, but not a direct attack on any person or faith. Take the ad.

- An ad from an organization of reform Jews encouraging people to convert to Judaism. I had thought it was the official position of their faith to discourage conversions; you usually have to prove a strong calling to get them to accept a conversion. Leaving that aside, as long as the ad only promotes their own theology, and does not denigrate anyone else's, take the ad.

Selective sensitivity

UUs are a highly sensitive bunch. We know that the terms "articulate", "brown bag lunch", and the note produced when Rush Limbaugh blows his nose- F sharp- are all racist code language. How is then that the advertisement on the inside front cover of the latest UUWorld passed the smell test? If your copy hasn't arrived yet, the ad is from the Freedom From Religion Foundation. This is a non-prophet (their pun, not mine) "association of atheists and agnostics working since 1978 to keep state and church separate". The ad says, in small type 2/3 the way down, "FFRF educates and litigates".

That's as may be- but this ad sure doesn't do much educating- if it did, Berry's Mom wouldn't have been moved to say, "Excuse Me? I Thought We WERE a religion!" The ad in fact is not educational- it doesn't say anything about the separation of church and state (except in the small print 501(c)(3) statement quoted above; it doesn't tells us about any incursions of religion into any facet of government. It doesn't give us any examples, arguments, etc.,- it only gives us quotes from six atheists, five of those quotes ranging from mildly to highly offensive.

While the ad itself is not educational, its acceptance and placement is. It tells us about the mindset of the editors- and I don't like what it's telling me. It says they didn't think any pledge-paying UU church member (which is, after all, how one gets on the mailing list) would be offended by the first quote in the ad, "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction." Umm, that would be the God of Abraham, and specifying "the Old Testament" makes it the God worshipped in Judaism, and Islam. Taken in conjunction with the Butterfly McQueen quote, "As my ancestors are free from slavery, I am free from the slavery of religion" it sounds like comparing the Jewish Covenant and the submission of Islam to slavery.The Clarence Darrow quote is less offensive than snarky, but then we have the Mark Twain quote, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so" which implies dishonesty or cognitive dissonance in believers. Well, this believer has faith in what he knows *IS* so- the fact that Mr. Twain did not share my perceptions does *NOT* make me a liar or deluded.This is not an educational ad. It does not make a positive case for anything; it merely sneers at billions of people. This ad is hate speech. How is it that these calumnies are given the entire inside cover, second only to the front cover itself in importance? Yeah, yeah, yeah, in small print on page three it does say that the UUA does not endorse all ads- but it also says that the UUA reserves the right to refuse any advertisement. So why wasn't this ad refused for its general tone?

I suspect the reason is because the person or committee who accepted it believes that UUs are just too smart and well educated to fall for all that faith crap. Why would I think that? Because I've seen and heard it before. The UU University Theology track at GA had the same tone. The 90% that was good was spoiled by the quotations from that eminent theologian, Bill Maher, and the insistence that faith was bad and a modern theology must be divorced from any whiff of a deity.

I asked once before , and I'll ask it again: is an anti-creed- things thou must not believe- the same as a creed?

Of UU Dodos

Many thanks to Transient and Permanent for reminding us about, and providing a link for, The Liberal Christian, edited by the excellent Scott Wells.

I was particularly struck by "Ecclesiastical Dodo Tree, A tale of growth and survival by the Rev. Derek Parker." In it, Rev Parker makes the case that growing the total number of congregations is, in the long term, "one of the most pressing growth issues for the future of Unitarian Universalism in North America." I think that while this statement is true, it is so far into the long term that discussing it today is like the parents of a baby suffering from failure to thrive syndrome worrying about whether the grandchildren will get into a good school- better you should make sure the kid grows up to give you grandchildren at all.

What is needed to plant new congregations? Many things, but enough UUs in the seats to be worth filling out the paperwork for a start. "Wherever two or more are gathered in my name" may be enough to satisfy Jesus, but not the UUA. While there is no minimum number for an "emerging congregation", experience with all other organizations tells me that fewer than a dozen are unlikely to be able to maintain, let alone grow to the thirty required to be a real congregation. Very, very few congregations can afford to lose a dozen of the kind of dedicated, energetic members it takes to build a new congregation, let alone thirty for a recognized congregation. My own congregation is 103 years old, and has only spun off two others, and both of those were in the 70s.

Why do people found new congregations- regardless of religion- anyway? There is one common reason, having moved to a location that doesn't have a church of your persuasion; I imagine most UU emerging congregations are started that way. Two reasons Evangelists have seldom apply to us, I suspect: your congregation has grown so large- 10,000 or more- that you just have to split to stay a manageable size (if that were common, we wouldn't be having this discussion); or the "if you build it, they will come" form of evangelism, deliberately moving somewhere that doesn't have a church and building one to convert the heathens. There aren't a lot of UUs with that sort of evangelical spirit; and even if there were, would it work? As I noted above, the whole discussion is occurring because we did build them, and they didn't come. Why else would someone leave their congregation, friends, and fellowship to start another? A reason common to both Baptists and UUs in my experience is having a major congregational vote, the losing faction leaving to found a new congregation of like minded. I know a Baptist church from my childhood, and at least two UU congregations in this city that were founded this way. I don't think that's necessarily a healthy way to grow.

I think we need to look at why youth raised UU don't stay, why once enthusiastic new members leave, and why visitors don't return. I think we need to face the fact that half our membership is only here for the RE, and will leave as soon as their kids are grown. I think we need to look at the public image we project with advertising like "Is God getting in the way of going to church? Come to the church that doesn't have or want one!" Once we solve these issues, we can think about growing the number of congregations; but planting new congregations without first growing the total number of Unitarians will only result in making the average congregation smaller... and as the average right now is scarcely a hundred, (if you look at the list on the official website, you'll find hundreds with membership under 75, many with membership of 50 or less), we'd risk them becoming too small to survive.

There's an interesting discussion going on

at the always excellent Elizabeth's Little Blog on the subject of my previous two posts. It's worth a look.

Oldsmobile, Pontiac, and UU

In the last few years we have seen two iconic American automobile companies killed by the incompetent management of General Motors. Any car buff who isn't also a corporate executive can tell you why they died; they were niche products- the best in their niches- but the managers never understood that.

The Oldsmobile was the luxury car for those who despised Cadillacs. Its customers were an uniquely American blend of status seeking and puritanical reverse snobbery... it was everything the Cadillac was at half the price; so somehow buying it was not an extravagance, but sensibly seeking good value for the dollar.

The Pontiac line was simply the highest performance motor vehicle that it was possible for normal mortals to buy. It was the Ferrari at one tenth the price- and GTO and Trans Am owners would often tell you that in normal street corner to street corner driving where a a full race engine couldn't wind up, they were better than the Ferrari. They were the heroes of number one hit songs, movies, TV shows, and frequently at the top of the most-stolen lists.

But GM tried to turn a niche product into a full product line, econoboxes, sedans, etc., just like every other automobile. It evidently never occurred to them that Olds and Pontiac customers didn't want econoboxes and "sensible" sedans, and that those who did already had brand names they were loyal to. Requiescat in pace, American Icons.

What does this have to do with UU? Unitarian Universalism is a niche religion, as Unitarianism and Universalism before them had been. At some levels, UUs understand this; there are many jokes- composed by UUs- to demonstrate how different we are. But many UUs don't seem to understand another facet of niche products- that they are a fixed percentage of the market, neither growing nor falling without some unusual circumstance at work.

UU's market share has fallen in recent decades because of some competition, just as GTO and Trans Am sales fell slightly whenever a new model Mustang came out. Some of the more spiritual types became Pagans or liberal Christians. Some of the ones who were strictly political action types left when secular action groups became more viable. Some of those who were UUs only because we would marry them when nobody else would have now been welcomed back to their preferred churches.

But the spiritual types who also valued reason and seeking stayed. (And thank you, Boston, for hurting their feelings by disaffiliating all the believer organizations) The political activist who also needed fellowship in their lives stayed. We have achieved our market share of the current social structure, after the upheaval of the last few decades.

What this means is that no vast growth program is going to work, any more than a vast advertising campaign can make an F150 customer buy a Celica. The way to increase Celica sales is to make it more of what the Celica buyer is looking for to retain your current customer base, and wait for social change to naturally increase that base- appealing to F150 buyers is a waste of resources. Similarly, the way to grow UU is to make sure it is giving existing UUs more of what brought them here, make it the best UUA it can be, and not waste resources in scarce times trying to attract people who aren't going to stay anyway. Stop doing those things that are driving current UUs away, retain our base, and the numbers will take care of themselves. Something to think about for the upcoming election.