Missing a bet on Fox

The Nevada Democratic Party had scheduled a debate for the announced Presidential candidates in August, to be hosted by Fox News- until MoveOn.Org got wind of it, and raised such a ruckus that the debate has now been cancelled. Two different versions of the story are here and here .

It seems to me that the party is missing a bet here- the problem isn’t that Fox is involved, but that it’s the wrong division of Fox. What we have here, counting both major parties plus the Greens and the Libertarians is over a dozen candidates that have to be winnowed down to four for the final election. Fox has in place the best mechanism yet devised for doing just that- what they should have done is scheduled a special “Presidential Edition” of American Idol!

Look- more people vote for Idol candidates than for President- and they pay extra to do so. Make those 866 charges into campaign contributions; 30 or 40 million calls an evening add up to a lot of money- it could even the playing field for the less well financed candidates. People would actually hear more from each candidate on the “Idol” format than they do in standard debates, especially as the numbers of candidates get smaller each week; we’d have better informed voters. It would save the parties and the taxpayers a fortune; primaries are not paid for by commercials. And a lot of the candidates could well use advice from Simon Cowell!

A Conservative in a Liberal Faith

A conversation that began on CRAPonSundays and was continued on the ChaliceBlog here and here raises two old questions: 1. Is it proper and/or effective for a church to be involved in politics, and 2. How can a UU be a political conservative? As the political positions are derived from the PPs, a UU shouldn’t be a conservative. I will address the second question first, as the answer to that leads directly to the answer to the first.

Those who don’t understand how a good UU can be a political conservative have fallen afoul of a logical fallacy, mistaking the method or means for the desired end goal, leading to a false choice. Instead of asking “Is method A or method B the best way to achieve our goal?”, they ask “Do you agree with method A, or do you disagree with the goal?” For example, they might say “Do you support the Living Wage, or do you not care about the poor?” A conservative might say, as I did here , that the issue is not whether I care about the poor, but whether or not this program will in fact help the poor- and I know it will not. My concern for the poor is why I’m against it. Unfortunately, this basic question- will the proposed program actually work- never seems to be addressed in depth when “debating” the topic, only whether or not it follows the PPs. To a conservative’s ears, this sounds like “politicians’ logic”: Something must be done. This is something; therefore we must do it.

None of the general principles of a classic (not a religious right) conservative, things like fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility and personal action, that rights reside within the citizen and are only loaned to the government, not vice-versa, least government possible, and even that as local as possible, etc., are in conflict with the PPs- with one possible exception: Conservatives recognize that government is rarely the right vehicle to address the basic issues, that either the marketplace or other citizen organizations (like churches) are far more effective in issues where hearts and minds must be changed. This is in direct opposition to the current mindset of the majority of the UUA, who seem to believe that social justice comes only from the pages of a sternly-worded fax to a congressman.

That last leads me to why we, as a denomination rather than as individuals, should steer clear of politics- if you want to actually do something, rather than just make a statement, you don’t want to go to the government in the first place. If you look at the social advances we’ve made in the last half century or so, almost all of it came from social organizations and social pressure, rather than government action. Martin Luther King made his points from the pulpit talking about God, not from the Washington Advocacy Office talking about votes. MADD has done more to stop drunk driving with social pressure than any lawnorder politician ever accomplished- comedians like Foster Brooks used to base entire careers on how funny public drunkenness is; could you imagine such an act succeeding today? Why do you think there’s no more blackface humor or “I’m Cheryl-fly me!” style sexist advertising on TV? Changing public sensitivities, driven by social activists, not government projects. Disney and other private companies did more for gay rights by using their buying clout to force insurance companies to stop discriminating than anything the government has ever done, and it was groups like GLAD that created the social atmosphere that made it possible. Any government action that aided any of these things followed the social pressure from private groups; they didn’t lead it.

That being the case, I believe that every penny spent on the Washington Advocacy Office is wasted, as is every moment of time spent debating resolutions aimed at Congress. We should be talking directly to the people, not to politicians who quite frankly have no reason whatsoever to listen to us anyway. We could instead be asking the entertainment media to change the way certain issues are presented or referenced, like MADD and GLAD and anti-smoking groups and so many others did. We could be producing Public Service Announcements to be distributed to radio and TV stations. We could be training experts in given issues who would be able to speak to churches and clubs around the country, or giving lectures at Barnes and Nobles. You know- those things that are proven to work.

Missing in Action

Does anyone know whatever happened to The Happy Feminist ? I really miss her.

Freedom Vs. Truth

I believe I have mentioned before that what got me hooked into UU was the first sermon I heard by Reverend Bruce Clear- I know I have recommended his sermons here before . I am about to do so again- and amusingly, this sermon opens with a description of the sermon that hooked him into UU. And why does he tell that story? A teaser: “I tell this story to prepare you for what might sound a bit shocking to some ears, whether newcomers or long-timers. I am going to speak out this morning against truth. I declare that I don't believe in truth.” The full text is here .

Important announcement

I had hoped it would not be necessary to say the words- especially as for five crucial days I have been too sick to coherently blog. But catching up on the news, it seems that these days nothing can be taken for granted, and things that go without saying now need to be said. Therefore, I state this formally for the record: I am not the father of Anna Nicole's baby.

For UUs living outside New Orleans,

This is Shrove Tuesday, also known as Mardi Gras. I said it that way because while most Protestant denominations pay scant attention to Lent and Mardi Gras, it seems that many UUs have taken a step beyond inattention to cultural illiteracy on the subject- which I think is a shame.

I’ve been thinking about this since doing coffee hour Sunday, with our service group, The Channing Club. When we do coffee hour, we like to decorate the table holding the cream, sugar, and snacks. This time we did a Mardi Gras theme, and I wore the green, purple, and yellow jester’s hat I picked up in New Orleans. A number of people asked why the hat, and I usually smiled and answered “Just confirming what everyone always suspected about me.” But there were a surprising number who actually hadn’t a clue about Mardi Gras. “Oh, what, is that this weekend?” “Well, Tuesday is technically Mardi Gras, but it’s actually the end of the whole Carnival season.” “Really!”

It surprised me how many knew how little about Mardi Gras, even to the point about not knowing about its connection to Lent. Of course, there wasn’t time while serving coffee for lectures on the subject, nor is it my place to do so. But a lot of Protestant denominations are rethinking their position on Lent, thinking they may have been hasty ditching it along with other Catholic practices in the schism, that it may have been one of the babies in the bathwater- and I think they may be right, and that it wouldn’t hurt we UUs to take another look at it.

Those who know Lent only from childhood Catholic friends who had to give up chocolate or gum or comic books for a month are unaware of the valuable symbolism involved. Lent commemorates Jesus' first step into his ministry- he spent forty days in the wilderness praying, fasting, learning to handle doubts and temptations. Those who practice Lent do so because they are aware that whether they like it or not, their lives too are a ministry; that the world will judge Christianity by the actions of Christians. The idea is to spend forty days out of the year in spiritual contemplation, practicing and testing your discipline and devotion.

This seems to me to be an excellent practice for UUs to adopt. It’s non-denominational; Jesus didn’t invent the practice- the forty day trial is a recurring theme in the Bible. For example, Moses stayed on the Mountain of God forty days (Exodus 24:18 and 34:28), Elijah traveled forty days before he reached the cave where he had his vision (1 Kings 19:8), Nineveh was given forty days to repent (Jonah 3:4). Thus, a UU Lent would include a tradition that Jews and Muslims could share as well, and excludes no one- though a Pagan, the Divine knows I could certainly use periods of discipline and contemplation. Even some atheists may benefit from a little introspection. I think if carefully thought out, a UU Lent could be a useful and unifying practice for us.

What do I believe about God?

Ms. Kitty has a truly marvelous entry in the latest UU Carnival, Ms. Kitty's Saloon and Road Show: Prophetic Atheism . At the end, she asks a question one almost never hears asked by a UU Minister: What do you believe about God?
Like Ms. Kitty, I cannot believe in the “old man on the throne” God. The ancient concepts of God, from Zeus to Jehovah, is not really a God, but a man writ large; a being who thinks as men think, who sees as men see (just better), who feels the same emotions men do, and acts upon them just as savagely as men do. This is the God that inspired Mark Twain to say, “God created man in his own image; man, being a gentleman, returned the favor.” For this reason I no longer even use the word “God” to refer to that which I worship, nor use the masculine pronoun; they have too much baggage- I say “the Divine”, and “She”.

I am a Panentheist: the Divine is part of the fabric of space-time itself, (I speculate on how it could have happened here ), and so is in everything. The Divine is not the creator, but the substance of creation- but She is also a living sentience. As She is in everything, I am also an animist.

The Divine does not manipulate the physical world; she does not cause natural disasters to punish, nor saves from disaster to reward.

The Divine operates through living agencies, by speaking directly to our souls. She does not compel, she only persuades; we are free to ignore her if we wish.

The Divine does not damn us for disbelief, nor punish us for disobedience; She dispenses her gifts unconditionally. Any price we pay for these “sins” we impose on ourselves, by denying ourselves her abundant joys and wisdom.

The Divine is not fed by our praise, nor diminished by the unbelievers’ ridicule. If you deny her, She will love you still; if you praise her, she cannot love you more. Just accept her, and be enriched.

What do you believe about God?

Do we choose to believe?

What is belief? There are many definitions, but the one that covers more uses of the word than any other I am aware of is the mental acceptance of the truth or factuality of a claim. The “claim” can be of any nature- a statement, an assumption, even the evidence of your senses- “I can’t believe my eyes.” Many attempt to make a distinction between what we know and what we believe, but this is a false distinction; as individuals, we have no source of information that can be trusted as absolute objective fact, not even our senses. As individuals, we live in a subjective world, a mental model that we hope is a close match to the objective world.

Belief is how we construct that mental model, and it is arrived at in many ways. We can largely trust our senses, but not completely; as Scrooge said to Marley, “a little thing affects them. A slight disorder of the stomach makes them cheats.” Even when operating in perfect order, our sense are still not adequate to determine fact, as they are subject to our perception- was that two faces, or a vase? Was that a bird or a bat- or a meaningless ink blot? Authority is another way we construct the model- but of course we must realize that those authorities are also fallible. Logic is another method, but logic has its limitations as well, and we cannot predict when a new discovery will upset the old rules. Belief is the weighing of all these factors- largely unconsciously- and assigning a level of trust to each claim.

What sorts of proofs and evidence we trust most is a function of our personality types. Some trust authority to a much higher degree than others- when faced with that old question, “Who you gonna believe- me, or your lying eyes?”, the answer would be, “You.” Some trust past experiences highly- how highly can be demonstrated by an anecdote I heard at a seminar. The speaker was an author, a blond Caucasian woman, who had been partly raised in China and so spoke several dialects like a native. She said that quite often she would ask a local something, and be told “I don’t speak English”- the local having been so accustomed to the “fact” that Westerners don’t/can’t learn Chinese that it didn’t sink in that she had addressed them in Chinese!
Some trust logic so highly that they feel no need to test a conclusion logically arrived at. This is why for centuries tomatoes were believed poisonous in Western Europe; the plant is a close relative of the Deadly Nightshade, and tasting your fingertips after handling the leaves and stems will tell you they contain some of the same toxins. Q.E.D.! When two or mores types of evidence agree, belief in the conclusion is strong indeed. It only makes sense that heavy objects fall faster than light objects; look, a rock falls faster than a feather! This was so convincing that it was believed for thousands of years.

What controls how our minds balance the different types of evidence? What makes a person prize logic so highly that he writes off his own powerful emotional experiences, as Scrooge did, as, “an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato.” What makes another trust authority so highly that if his reading of the Bible led him to believe there was an invisible bridge across the Grand Canyon, he would take the leap of faith and step out upon that bridge? What part does education play in assigning values to evidence, what part experience- and what part genetics?
I look at my own experience. Though raised in a devout atmosphere, at no time did the Bible stories seem any more real to me than Greek myths. I remember quite clearly, my age in single digits, lying awake at night wondering what was wrong with me that I couldn’t believe. Surely, at that age, that came from within- believe me when I say that fifty years ago in Indiana grade school children were NOT taught to question God or Christianity! On the other hand, despite years of trying on atheism- back when I bought into the false choice of either Jehovah or nothing- I could never accept that, either. Even though I share with Richard Dawkins a high I.Q., a technical education, and a tendency toward linear thinking, I cannot deny the Divinity my heart knows exists.

Is it possible that we can no more choose how we believe than we choose our sexuality?

Warning: low humor part 2

Taking a break from my work to pass along a very bad joke:

I understand that Fox has just bought a new sitcom based on the Space Shuttle on the strength of its first episode. "The plot was strange," said a Fox spokesman, "But the pilot was irresistible."

I'm still alive

It's been a while since I've posted, but it wasn't for lack of opinions. (strangely enough, I seem very well equiped with those) No, there have been a number of "real life intruding" incidents in a row, such as losing the furnace with real temperature 5 below, windchill 25 below; Imbolc, Superbowl preparations, coffeehour duty at church, game and victory celebrations (you do know I write from Indianapolis), meeting with book dealers, etc. I expect to resume my normal blogging pace shortly.

A chocolate chip time machine

I won’t go into the psychological state that resulted in my coming home yesterday with two different bags of cookies and a gallon of milk, other than to say it had been years since I had last done that. Nor were they small packages of gourmet cookies, the only sort I normally indulge in, but Oreos and store brand chocolate chip.

When I poured a large glass of milk and ripped open the Oreos, I was suddenly transported more than 45 years into the past, to an afternoon when my mother and baby brother were asleep, and my father (who worked second shift) not yet awake. The memory was so vivid I nearly saw double, my own fingers superimposed over a five year old’s, as they dunked the Oreo into the milk. I honestly didn’t know for a moment whether my fingertips really were that cold, or if I was remembering how cold my fingertips got in the milk as I waited for the Oreo to become completely saturated with milk before eating it.

Understand that this is a delicate moment- the cookie must be totally soaked to be at the peak of perfection, but not so soaked as to fall apart into the milk and have to be retrieved with a spoon. Not that I would have, actually; cookie etiquette called for you to get a new cookie instead, and drink the sludge later. The memory didn’t fail me; I timed the dip perfectly, the cookie squishing delightfully in my mouth, the edge that had been between my fingers the only dry spot, like Achilles' heel.

The five year old cookie expert’s eye noted that the chocolate chip cookie didn’t have the structural integrity to saturate in the cup; it would have fallen apart almost instantly. Without thinking I shifted to the alternate milk protocol: I bit off a piece, but did not chew, holding it in my mouth as I took a sip of milk and held them together until the cookie was saturated before smooshing it against the roof of my mouth with my tongue.

I’m not a person noted for my keen memory- there are people I’ve sat next to at church for ten years whom I still need to read the nametag to get the last name right; I still have to look at the calendar to get the exact day of my brothers’ birthdays, having only the months memorized... and yet these memories were so vivid that it was only after I swallowed the first half of the chocolate chip cookie that I realized I had actually tasted another brand of cookie altogether- the one I had eaten on that afternoon in 1961. I had never truly believed the Zen master’s claim that it was possible to drink tea from an empty cup before; now I know that it’s true.

Who needs drugs? I have chocolate!

What is it about some people

that makes them think they must embellish points they have already won with lies to drive the points in harder? While people from all walks of life do this, this behavior is most egregious in politicians, whose words are recorded and can be recalled.

In a speech delivered in Davos, Switzerland last Saturday, Senator Kerry said, “"When we walk away from global warming, Kyoto, when we are irresponsibly slow in moving toward AIDS in Africa, when we don't advance and live up to our own rhetoric and standards, we set a terrible message of duplicity and hypocrisy," Kerry said.... So we have a crisis of confidence in the Middle East — in the world, really. I've never seen our country as isolated, as much as a sort of international pariah for a number of reasons as it is today." The conclusion may well be true; we may be a pariah state- he’s in a better place to judge than I am, he gets out more than I do. But he is knowingly lying when he lists the two reasons he did as the reasons the Bush administration has lost world respect.

Why do I so boldly call Senator Kerry a liar? Let’s take his first complaint: “When we walk away from global warming, Kyoto,...” While it is true that the US did cynically sign the Kyoto Accords, knowing full well that it would never be submitted to the Senate for ratification, it was Al Gore, representing the US for the Clinton administration that signed it, and it was Bill Clinton that refused to submit the treaty to congress! True, Bush could have submitted it to the senate when he took office more than a year later, but he did not do so for the same reason that Clinton did not: the senate had already passed a “sense of the senate” resolution stating that they would never ratify any climate treaty that excluded China, which Kyoto does.

This resolution, s.res.98
, was sponsored by Senator Byrd and passed by a bipartisan 95-0. There was no possibility of the Kyoto treaty being ratified under either President, and so no reason to submit it- something that Sen. Kerry knows full well, for as the link above shows, he voted for it! Sen. Kerry is blaming Bush for failing to pass a treaty that had actually failed under the previous administration- and he himself had been one of those who had killed it!

So let’s move to his second point: “when we are irresponsibly slow in moving toward AIDS in Africa,...” I offer this article from The Independent , January 2, 2007: “The foreign affairs legacy of President George Bush so far speaks most loudly of terrorism, Afghanistan and the quagmire of Iraq.

But statistics just compiled by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development reveal that since taking over the Oval Office, Mr Bush, partly under pressure from his Christian supporters as well as celebrities such as Bono and Bob Geldof, has dramatically increased US aid to Africa. ... The development aid is complemented by Mr Bush's rapidly growing commitment to fighting HIV and Aids in Africa, as well as malaria. In what has become the largest health initiative of his presidency - the President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (Pepfar) - Mr Bush has pledged $15bn over five years to fight HIV in Africa and provide drugs for Aids victims.
... "Bush and his Christian supporters seldom get the credit they deserve for their role in the global fight against Aids," the Los Angeles Times noted. "US spending on the disease overseas under Bush has risen tenfold, while Christian groups have given unselfishly to the cause."...” I’ll add to that the words of Bob Geldof: “"You'll think I'm off my trolley when I say this, but the Bush administration is the most radical - in a positive sense - in its approach to Africa since Kennedy," Mr Geldof, who organised the 1985 Live Aid fund raising concert for Ethiopia, told Britain's Guardian newspaper.”

So... the most bipartisan foreign affairs effort in 50 years- the 95-0 rejection of Kyoto during the Clinton administration- and Bush’s African AIDS initiative- virtually the only thing he’s gotten right and is universally praised for- are the only two things Sen. Kerry can think of to criticize Bush for?!? Almost any other person on the planet could have stood at that podium for an hour listing Bush’s blunders without consulting notes- but Kerry has to make things up? Can somebody explain that to me?

Thank you

For nominating me for best new blog at the
Third Annual UU Blog Awards . That is such an honor that it feels greedy to ask for your vote as well- but I am doing so anyway. Make an old man happy!

So near, and yet so far, Part 2

Davidson Loehr, in his essay Salvation by Character:
How UU's can Find the Religious Center , once again does what he always does so masterfully: correctly diagnosing the disease, then discussing the symptoms instead of the underlying illness!

To Mr. Loehr, the problem is that our religious language has not kept pace with our changing religious concepts. What change is he referring to? “...we have not adequately filled the hole left by the death of God... The theological problem of Western religion can be put another way: During the last few centuries, God ceased to be a being, and became a concept. The "being" God needed a place to be, and that vanished when people stopped believing there could be anything "up there." Since then, "God" has "dwelled" in the minds and hearts of believers, as a concept, an idea, or a feeling. While the language has stayed the same, this "category change" for the word "God" has changed the game of theology almost completely.” He goes on to describe the problems this has caused, and the attempted solutions or ways around the problem others have tried: “Scientism, Politics as a Religion, Theological Double-talk”. He proposes his own solutions- redefining the language we use, and the questions we ask.

But there is one question so basic it cannot occur to him, any more than a fish can question water... his one TRUTH, the central concept upon which all else in his (and nearly all of UU theologians) philosophy hangs prevents him from asking it: Is God dead? He is so proud of not telling me what I must believe that it never occurs to him that it is equally hubris to tell me what I must NOT believe- a living God. This is the modern liberal theologian’s one essential creed, that God as being is dead. How many currently serving UU ministers believe in a living God- 5%? 1%? Any at all? Is it even possible to graduate from a UU seminary believing in a living God?

Mr. Loehr is aware that this is out of the mainstream of humanity- “Most dictionaries define "religion" as involving a belief in a god, and nearly everyone still takes that to mean a supernatural Being who lives somewhere "up there."“ Just how far out of the mainstream is it? While it’s impossible to get any definitive numbers, here are some low conservative estimates, culled from an evening‘s Googleing: believing in a living God, (not necessarily Abraham’s Jehovah, but a being nonetheless), some 5 billion. Those who have felt the presence of God directly, whether in a church service, or during a transcendental moment in their lives, over a billion. Those who feel the presence of God regularly, several hundred million. Those whom God has spoken to directly, (including Pentecostals who have spoken in tongues, Wiccans who have drawn down the Moon, VouDoun and Obeah and Santeria who have been possessed by a Loa, etc.), tens of millions.

One of the most important and meaningful dialogues the UUA could get into would be “Is a living God compatible with modern science?”- but it is a debate the UUA as presently constituted will never have. How do I know? Because one cannot have a true debate with those whom you despise- and that is not too strong a word for how believers are perceived within the UUA. Contempt for any such belief was the central theme of the “Language of Religion” forums the UUA held through the official website a couple years ago, and contempt fairly drips from every page of this, and many other of Mr. Loehr’s essays- “The Liberal Bias: Intellectual Integrity. Not all religious paths require intellectual integrity. In fact, most don't. ...That's a key difference between the broader conservative religious paths and the narrower liberal paths. ...If we're going to check our brains at the church door, almost any faith will do. Ours is, and has always been, a much harder and more demanding route. ...Like Santa, the old God-as-a-being is gone. Those who've dressed up in his clothes have tried to sell us visions of science, politics, and theological self deceptions.“

The fourth paragraph of his essay opens, “Mainline and liberal churches, including ours, continue to attract a smaller and smaller percentage of the population.” How many times has this been noted? How many blog entries, forum threads, and discussion groups have asked “We’re the most welcoming denomination there is- why don’t more gays join?”, or “We put more effort into race relations than any other denomination- why don’t more African-Americans join?” Could it be that after the first visit, they stopped thinking of themselves as a minority, and instead looked at themselves as believers amongst those who think ordinary Christians check their brains at the door? Could they have first felt welcomed as gays, then felt their integrity questioned as believers in a living God? It’s amazing to me how many UUs who lecture about institutional racism and heteronormative behavior in our culture at large fail to recognize the institutional atheism within the UUA.

I think we need to start a new dialogue among ourselves. Is an anti-creed- things thou must not believe- the same as a creed? Should we be as welcoming to those who have conventional beliefs as we are to those with alternative beliefs? Is God dead?

So near, and yet so far

William R. Murry‘s article, “Reason and reverence“, in the Winter 2006 issue of UU World, discusses his faith, which he describes as humanistic religious naturalism . What he describes is so close to what I, and many other Neopagans believe... and yet, so very far.

Most Pagan faiths share the Humanist beliefs in social commitment and personal responsibility. Having rejected the concept of a “savior”, we have no one to take the blame for us- we have to accept the consequences of our actions. Having no savior, Pagans know they must work for the betterment of society; we’re not waiting for someone else to come and do it for us. Most Neopagans share the Religious Naturalism perspective that finds religious meaning in the natural world, as do a great many of the classic Non-Abrahamic faiths, from Shinto to Native American. Where we all differ from the classic Humanist or Mr. Murry’s Religious Naturalism is his rejection of a supernatural realm, or a supernatural God/s/dess.

He does say that he is a theist; but that his God belongs to the natural universe, rather than a supernatural deity. I think part of the difference is in the definition of “supernatural”, as my deity, too, belongs to the natural universe- but does not resemble his. When a modern Pagan, or indeed a modern theist of most any stripe says “natural” and “supernatural”, they mean “that which is understood”, and “that which is not understood”. When a modern atheist, or post-modern theist of Mr. Murry’s variety uses those words, they mean “that which is understood”, and “that which is fantastic in concept; non-existent”. For the first type of theist, the Divine is (or can be) an actual being, a non-human sentience; for the post-modern theist, the Divine is a vague “force of creation”, or more often “love”. To this kind of theist, an actual being would be “supernatural”, and therefore nonexistent.

This produces a conundrum for the post-modern theist that is clearly revealed in his article. He speaks of the importance of reverence; it is the fourth of his five characteristics a viable future religion must have. He says, “...but it is only reverence, understood as feelings of respect and awe, that can save us from the hubris that would destroy all the good we have accomplished.”, and “...a religion without a profound sense of reverence is no religion at all.” Exactly so. But nowhere does he explain, or even hint at the OBJECT of his reverence, his respect, his awe. As he quotes Carl Sagan at the end, one can infer that it is the universe itself he so reveres- but that seems a bit weak to base an entire religion on, doesn’t it? The stars are pretty, therefore I must change my life and work for others? It might be God he reveres, but given his only description of God, “...power of creativity, an immanent force for good in the world, or simply as mystery.”, that hardly seems like the object of a reverence so deep that it “...can save us from the hubris that would destroy all the good we have accomplished.”

Of course, he must remain vague, as any explanation of the object of such words as “faith”, “worship”, “reverence”, etc., would of necessity involve a definition of what he means by “God”, which means tap-dancing around the Humanist insistence that reason denies the existence of a living God. I believe there are two causes for this insistence that reason denies the existence of a living Divinity: 1. Misunderstanding the limits of reason. “Reason”, “Rationality”, or any human logic system is a mental construct to try to understand the universe- it is not the universe itself. When reason and reality conflict, it is “reason” that must yield, not reality. I discuss this here and here To those who still can find no room for a living God, I say first explain Dark Energy and Dark Matter , and then tell me how we know too much to believe. 2. Misunderstanding the nature of and limitations of the Divine. This, I believe, is Mr. Murry’s error.

Mr. Murry cannot see the hand of the Divine in nature. He sees the fact that “nature’s rain falls on the just and the unjust” not as the evidence of the Divine’s unconditional love, but as proof that “Nature knows nothing of justice, love, kindness, or generosity.” It seems that he buys into the fundamentalists’ concept of a judgmental God who punishes with natural disasters, and rewards by saving one from those same disasters. The only God he was looking for was an angry God. There are other visions of God- I discuss some of mine here He goes on to say that it is Humanism that “...provides the values that naturalism lacks.” This seems to me to be running very close to the hubris he himself warns against when he speaks of reverence.

The theist who believes in a Living Deity is caught between two forces: the background culture that insists on the false choice of either the God of Abraham, or atheism; and the Humanist who insists on the false choice of either reason or a “supernatural” God, but not both. Oddly enough, it is the second sort who cause me more grief in my daily life. With every passing year- almost every passing day- there are fewer and fewer Christians who would call me a devil-worshipper and attack me. If they do, I have the first amendment to protect me. If push comes to shove, I have the second amendment, too. (no, I’m not a fluffy bunny pagan) But there are plenty of Humanists and/or atheists in my congregation and my denomination who have no patience for anyone who does not see things their way, and are often not shy about announcing it, either.

Mr. Murry speaks of “A new humanism is emerging among Unitarian Universalists,...a religious humanism that offers depth, meaning, and purpose without sacrificing intellectual honesty or the spiritual dimension.” I hope that this is not another declaration of war on theism, but fear from some past experiences that it will become exactly that. I, too, refuse to sacrifice intellectual honesty; I will not write off my, and many others, transcendental experiences as temporary insanity. (as some oh-so-tolerant UUs have described them) I will not be ashamed of saying grace or any other ritual that deepens my connection to the Divine. I welcome the emergence of Humanistic religious naturalism as a new faith tradition, and hope that when he said “...and a profound respect for others.”, he meant respecting theists, too. If he does, perhaps UU will become the “viable religion of the twenty-first century” he seeks.

I’m proud of the Indiana State Senate

If things go the way common sense would dictate, Indiana will become the first state to immunize school girls against HPV. From the article in Indystar.com : “Senate Bill 327 would require HPV vaccines in girls before the start of sixth grade. A vaccine approved last year by the Food and Drug Administration wards off some strains of HPV, which can cause genital warts and cervical cancer. Indiana children must get booster shots for diseases such as measles, mumps and rubella before middle school, so the proposal's backers say it makes sense to add the HPV vaccine to that age group. But schools wouldn't be forced to turn away girls who aren't vaccinated against HPV, as they do for other required shots.”

This is a completely bipartisan effort- also from the Star: “The state proposal, written by Sen. Connie Lawson, R-Danville, has the blessing of every female senator -- seven Democrats and six Republicans.”

We needn’t worry about the state’s reputation, though- there are champions of the state’s reputation as the home of the ignorant yahoo fighting against it: "This says, 'Hey, you can engage in sexual activity and not be at risk for this disease,' which is pretty pervasive," said Micah Clark, director of the American Family Association of Indiana. "Without an abstinence message, it could offer some false hope that you're invincible against this disease, and you're not." I was with them opposing handing out free condoms to 13 year olds in the public schools- I did think there was an element of mixed message, of “nudge, nudge, wink, wink” there... but the HPV vaccine? Does he imagine a 13 year old boy is going to say to a 13 year old girl, “Hey, that thing about you not getting cancer is hot- wanna do it?”

A slightly more serious challenge is the cost- some $2.7 million. That is, after all, 3.6% of what we’re spending on the new football stadium for the Colts- some of the luxury skyboxes might have to settle for a Leroy Nieman on the wall instead of a Chagall; but still, if enough girls are spared cervical cancer, it may be worth it.

This is a remarkably far-sighted and sensible proposal for a legislative body who spends most of it’s time and our money on things like fighting against Daylight Savings Time, or fighting against the federal judiciary for the right to dedicate opening prayers to Jesus... I can only hope against hope it passes.

Reflections on my first year blogging

I started this blog on January 11, 2006 with some hopes but few expectations- which was a good thing, as 2006 proved to be a kidney stone of a year- it did pass, but there was pain. Friends and regular readers know that this past year I have dealt with death in the family and the collapse of my business, plus many lesser blows I haven’t bothered my readers with. I’m proud that with all that has gone on in my life I managed to keep the blog going at all- it would have been so easy to let it go, to drop this least important of my burdens when I was feeling overwhelmed. And yet, for reasons I don’t truly understand myself, I did not- I even managed some essays that I’m quite proud of.

Here are some of the posts that have meant the most to me this past year, even though not all of them are my best work, and in no particular order:

Two cat anecdotes, A genuine act of faith , and I wonder

Some thoughts on the UUA: Why I love UU , How UU can grow... , What is to be the UUA’s role in the world? , and Does UU have a center?

Some personal philosophy: Reason in religion , What gets me through the night , My favorite word of reverence , My musings on Moral Authority , and Holiday musings from an Earth centered perspective

And some random moments: Thoughts on food , Lay off of Hammurabi already! , "Think as I think," , In the Midst of Life... , Michael Moore parody , Dark laughter , U.S. energy use , and The myth of overpopulation .

I’m proud of these moments, but there were too few of them- I vow to do better in 2007!

Finally, Vietnam

Somewhere around three weeks into the Iraq war people started drawing false Vietnam analogies, but now in 2007 we are finally fulfilling them.

It started with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid warning the President before his speech that sending more U.S. troops to Iraq would be unacceptable - even though the President’s plan is nearly identical to that recommended by Speaker Pelosi’s own choice for Intelligence Committee chairman only a month ago . Other politicians who had criticized Bush for not sending enough troops are now criticizing him for sending more troops. Tipping point... it is now conventional wisdom that there are more votes to be gained by blanket opposition to the war than by being right about the war, even if it means flip-flopping when you could have had a legitimate “told you so”. Vietnam syndrome.

This means that the President’s plan is doomed to failure, because no matter what happens it will be reported as a failure on the evening news, just as the Tet offensive- the greatest US victory in the Vietnam war- was reported as a failure on the TV news. This means that Teddy Kennedy’s position, (and to be fair, he has been consistent from the beginning), that he frankly doesn’t care what happens to the Iraqis as long as we leave, will become the official position of the Democratic party.

If Iraq follows the Vietnam example, the purges after our precipitous withdrawal will eclipse anything that went before; in Vietnam, about two million died- and they didn’t have the religious hatred involved. And just as the violence spread from Vietnam into Laos and Cambodia, so it will from Iraq throughout the Middle East. The Islamists already believe that their victory is inevitable; that all they have to do is shed blood- ours, theirs, anybody’s- and America will break and run. And why shouldn’t they believe it? It’s perfectly true. Tens of thousands of terrorists from all over the world will flood into Afghanistan, and we will flee before them- after all, after having surrendered Iraq, no American politician’s spine will suddenly stiffen over Afghanistan. The current government of Pakistan may or may not have time to flee to exile in Europe before the extremists take over, but it matters little in the long run- do you think the French or Italian police will be able to prevent the fatwa’s from being executed? Within two years, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan will all be run by Al Quaeda and Taliban forces- armed with Pakistan’s atomic bombs.

Has the war been mismanaged? It’s been the biggest cluster-you-know-what since Debbie did Dallas... but no matter how bad staying is, leaving prematurely will be worse. Strangely, though, the people comparing Iraq to Vietnam mean by that that we should leave- but the real lessons of Vietnam show we should stay.

A minor accomplishment

I finally had a couple hours today, so I sat down and labeled my posts. Now if anyone is sick enough, they can search my insane ramblings by category!

Five Theological Questions Meme

In her Friday 1/05 entry, Ms Kitty lists Five Theological Questions her mentor had asked. It brought back a lot of memories for me- when I had my first crisis of faith some 37 years ago, I began an intensive philosophy/religion search. In the course of that search, I ran across a number of similar lists, some ancient, some modern, and so these are things I have pondered many times over many years. Although my answer have varied over the years, and may do so again for all I know, I do have a current set of answers, and so I’m going to treat her questions as a meme.

1. Who am I and what is my purpose (the question of Being)?

I began as a not quite blank slate upon which much was written and much was asked. I did not frame the questions, but I am responsible for my answers. I am the total of all my decisions to date. One of those decisions was my purpose: to leave this world in a better shape than I found it. That means, at minimum, to follow the moral code I have adopted, one based on the principal of least harm. What more it may mean I’m still exploring.

2. What must I do to be made whole (the question of Salvation)?

I do not accept the basis of the question. I do not believe in Original Sin; we are born perfect, ready for heaven. When we sin, we are writing for ourselves a record that will be very painful to read when we achieve enlightenment- but that is our pain, self imposed, a pain that in our better moments we will embrace to aid our growth, like the pain involved removing a splinter. There is nothing else to be “saved” from.

3. Who or what is in charge (the question of God)?

There is a big and a small component to this. The small component is my life; I am in charge of that. Sure, there are times when I’d like to palm off the responsibility of making decisions to someone else... but it’s my duty, and I cannot give it to someone else even if I wanted to- because even that act is itself a decision, a decision to shirk my duty. Even to do nothing at all is a decision to accept another’s decision.

The big component is the world, and no one is in charge of that. The way in which we are made in God’s image is that we, too, have the power to create, the spark of unpredictability. God does not cause bad things to happen to good people; we do, by working at cross purposes. If mankind ever united in a cause, then that collective decision would be in charge... until then, no one is.

4. How do I know what I know (the question of Authority)?

Small surprise as a Unitarian but first I drip what I know through the filter of reason and logic. But I also know that logic often fails us, as I discuss here . Then it becomes time to ask your gut. Does my soul know this to be true, no matter what my mind says? Am I trying to argue myself out of what I know is right?

As to Authority... well, this may sound arrogant, but I accept no authority outside myself for the truly important questions of life. I’ll listen for wisdom, listen to proffered advice- but I regard no other mortal to be an authority on my soul.

5. And What does my death mean (the question of Time)?

This is something I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about. One reality at a time is my motto. I have faith that if I make myself truly worthy of this world, I have no need to fear what I find in the next one.

Tag: anyone who has answers ready!

Recently encountered irritants

The aristocracy is not “To the manner born”. One is not host on a petard. It is the muster that one does or does not cut. Leech and leach: one is a noun, the other a verb.

Ok, I’m really not a grammar Nazi. I was not among those who complained that Star Trek’s mission statement split an infinitive; I’m wont to tell those who chide me for ending a sentence with a preposition that that is the sort of nonsense “up with which one should not put.” I would never correct a friend or blog; I’ve always held that my pomposity in doing so would be a greater offense than a minor language faux pas. But the examples listed above were out of books from major publishing houses.

Come on, publishers- if you’re going to charge me $26.95 for a book you told me was an important work, hire a Goddamned editor! Running a book through a spellchecker is not good enough; have a human being- preferably a high school graduate- read the thing before committing to print. I’m not offended when Ludicris or 50 Cent abuses the language; they quite literally don’t know any better. But I expect better from major publishing houses.

Eating in Provence

Having covered the horrors of air travel in the first installments, it’s now time to explore the real reason anyone would go to the French Riviera- no, not nude beaches! (not in December, anyway) Food!

To begin with, we found it’s even more important in the provinces than in Paris to time your sightseeing around meals- you simply will not be served except at designated meal times. Between 2:00 pm and 7:00 pm nothing more substantial than a crepe or an ice cream can be had, and usually not even that. If you speak French, and are very polite, and have a really good reason for not being there at the appointed hour (like your plane being late), and they are feeling guilty over some secret sin and need one act of charity to be promoted from Hell to Purgatory, they will tell you where the nearest convenience store selling baguettes and cold cuts is- that’s as close as you’ll get to off-hours service. The reverse if often true as well- even relatively important tourist sites may well be closed during the critical lunch and dinner hours.

Once those restaurant doors open, however, wonders await. Being on the Mediterranean, you would expect a lot of seafood specialties, and you’d be right. True Bouillabaisse, for example, cannot be made anywhere else- it depends on species found only there. Bouillabaisse must be ordered 24 hours in advance (especially when you’re there in the off-season as we were). There’s a bit of ritual to it, too. First they present a silver platter heaped with freshly caught... well, I assumed seafood, although some of the specimens were so exotic that I could only hope they came from terrestrial oceans, for your approval. This is a very dangerous moment for me, just like the moment when the sommelier offers the cork and small sip for approval. Am I the only one who has to suppress an impulse to spit it across the room and scream “Are you trying to poison me?”, just to see what would happen?

Ok, evidently I am. Well, since I am not writing from jail, I suppressed the impulse with the chef, too, and he took the platter back to the kitchen. After appetizers and a bit more wait, servers came out with huge bowls, trays of condiments, breads, etc. The bowls were piled high with all the strange things I had approved earlier, each one cooked separately in whatever specific manner each demanded before being loaded into the bowl. Lastly, a large tureen of broth was produced and ladled over the pile in the bowl. In the interest of public sensibilities we should probably draw the veil over the rest of the scene.

Desserts in France are different from American restaurants- smaller, less heavy, less of an “instant diabetes” feeling. On the other hand, all French restaurants serve Creme Brulee. It’s not that Creme Brulee is the ultimate dessert, but for someone who grew up as a cross between Bart Simpson and Beavis & Butthead, a dish that combines a sugar rush with a blowtorch is irresistible. Afterwards is something else you won’t get in America: brandy and cigars.

There were other surprises as well. I had thought that raw fish was unique to Japan, but it’s not. “Carrapacio” is very thinly sliced, raw meat with spiced oil drizzled on it; it was available in salmon, beef and lamb. Being in close proximity to Italy, there was pasta and beans on the menu- in the rest of France, your only carbohydrate choices are bread or Pomes Frites. One last surprise was the method of pricing on the menus- be very careful, because it may not be what you think. We ordered a rare fish that was priced at 18.00 Euros... when we got the bill, it was over 80.00 Euros! The part we had missed was that it was 18.00 Euros per 100 gram serving, and that having killed the fish, they serve (and charge for) the whole thing, however many 100 gram servings it turns out to be. Had they not accepted plastic (which many places outside of Paris do not) it might have been very embarrassing!

Station Break

We interrupt this program to bring you a special message from our sponsors:

Happy New Year!!!!

Part two: CDG Paris and beyond

After six agonizing hours in the air- a fortuitous jet stream cutting nearly two hours from the flight time- we landed at Charles De Gaulle Airport, Paris. If you’ve never been there, it’s hard to describe- CDG is an airport in the same huge, arrogant way that Texas is a state. It’s almost more accurate to describe Paris as the residential subdivision of CDG than the other way around. When your plane lands, you’ll taxi for 20-30 minutes, over highway overpasses and through traffic-controlled intersections before you’ll get to your gate. In our case, there was an additional 30 minute wait when we got there, as we had arrived ahead of schedule and the gate was not ready for us- which will give you an insight into a certain kind of bureaucratic mentality.

You see, no matter how big CDG is, it’s not big enough; as the world’s busiest airport, the demands on it’s facilities are huge- and so our “gate” was not a gate at all but merely a box painted on the tarmac, with an “x” for each piece of equipment... and not every piece of equipment had arrived yet. The schlepper with the stairs was there, and the bus for the 30 minute ride to the terminal was there- wasn’t that good enough? Mais non, it’s not a legal gate until everything is there; the plane may not pull into it. Well, we have customs to get through and a connecting flight- couldn’t you roll the stairs over to where we are then? Quelle idea! Passengers cannot wander willy-nilly over the tarmac! You must deplane at a proper gate! But your “gate” IS just a piece of tarmac with an outline painted on it! *Sigh* Never mind, I understand; it’s the Les Nessman of WKRP in Cincinnati school of management.

I must say, however, that once inside CDG, it’s fairly impressive and fairly well run. If you have questions, answers are available in French or English. I witnessed this myself; no matter in what language the questions were asked- Russian, Spanish, Greek- the answers were in French or English. Our connecting flight was located with only the minimal amount of nonsense that is required by customs and security.

I was horrified to learn that the last leg of the trip was another Airbus, but we got a break: our seats were in the emergency exit aisle. As there are international regulations demanding that a human body can actually fit through the exit for safety reasons, this section is twice as roomy as normal. An hour later we were in Nice. Deciding to splurge on a long taxi ride, 20 minutes later we were in Villefranche Sur Mer! We had left Indianapolis at 6:00 p.m. Friday, and it was now 3:00 p.m. Saturday- but we had arrived!

Next: Food, wonderful food!

Our Vacation in Villefranche Sur Mer

I discovered several important things during our vacation in France- it turns out that when they say “travel is broadening”, they don’t just mean the high-calorie French cooking! But the only way to tell what I learned is in context, which means describing the whole experience... so those with a low tolerance for boredom may want to bail.

Part One: getting there is half the fun

We’ll pretend that the day started with a Northwest Airlines flight to Detroit. It actually began by getting up at 4:00 a.m. for a last minute housecleaning to impress the catsitter, doing the laundry I was going to be wearing that day, etc., but those things belong to another story- something like “No time left for me; the life of a obsessive”, and I should be telling a therapist, not you.

But it’s easy to pretend that the day started with a Northwest Airlines flight to Detroit, because all NWA flights involve changing planes in Detroit. If you fly from the International Space Station to Mars on NWA, you’ll do it via Detroit. Once in Detroit, however, there was minimal fuss in loading for the second leg of the trip, Detroit to Charles De Gaulle, Paris. This was on an Airbus 330, but the exact model number is unimportant, as there are only two basic Airbus product lines: copies of Boeing products, and copies of McDonnell Douglas products. This one was a copy of an McD wide-body jet... but it wasn’t wide everywhere.

Airbus had managed to improve profitability by running extra seats further into the tail cone than any other airliner manufacturer. Do you remember in art class how the illusion of great distance is created by having lines that should be parallel converge upon a “vanishing point”, with objects getting smaller and smaller as they approach that point? That effect is realized in real life by the aisles and seats as they are squeezed into the tail cone of the Airbus. Oddly enough, all of the overly tall or overly wide passengers (I fit both categories) were seated in this section. I’d like to think this was random chance, but then I notice this plane was manufactured in a country where they think that Jerry Lewis is funny. Seriously, how tight was it? A jagged hole was torn in my pants as I forced myself into the 17” seat- and bruising of my hips and thighs actually interfered with the rest of the vacation. I repeat: those seats are 17” wide... by comparison, the hip room a two door Volkswagen Rabbit allows- more than 52” for two people- Airbus could fit three-abreast seating into with room to spare. Not since the liberation of France in 1945 has anyone ever been more glad to see Charles De Gaulle!

Next: The Innocents (well, not guilty anyway) Abroad!

A note to a friend on Christmas day

When my beloved and I finally got home, circa 12:30 A.M. Christmas Eve after more than 24 hours in transit from France (a long story I will write about in the near future), we found a huge pile of correspondence that we were unable to get all the way through until today. In that pile, I found a Christmas card from a special category of sender- Dear Friend Whom I Have Never Met. It was like having another present to unwrap. This post is addressed to the sender of that card.

The card’s message was about the deficiencies of a man who eats fruitcake, and for most of my life I would have agreed with it- still do, in fact, for the man who eats normal fruitcake. But just about twenty years ago I found... the fruitcake. It was an experience even more profound than Sherlock Holmes’ finding the woman. Baked by Trappist monks in New York, the fruit and nuts are of the highest quality... the cake of a recipe Lucifer was thrown from Heaven for stealing... aged... soaked in fine brandy, then glazed to hold the brandy in while it ages... this is a fruitcake that is only available mail-order, and one must exercise extreme restraint in making out the order to only get what you have rationed yourself, for once it has arrived no further restraint is possible; no matter how much you have ordered, it will be only one serving. Try it if you dare, here

Greetings to all

The reason I've been unable to post or comment the last week is that I was in the south of France- I'll be writing about it in the near future, as well as catching up with the work of my fellow bloggers. until then...

Merry Christmas to All, and to all a good night!

Glad for a name change

Years ago when Indianapolis formally changed the name of our World‘s largest Christmas tree to “The Circle of Lights”, ( another view ), many were upset. But after seeing what SeaTac airport has just gone through, I’m glad we acted early to “secularize” the event... could you imagine trying to put up a 284 foot tall, 4,784 light Menorah along side the “Circle of Lights”? Of course, as a Pagan, I’m perfectly happy with a tree...

P.S. the pressures of family events may prevent me from posting again until after Christmas- but this is a good thing. Merry Christmas!

P.P.S. As “Christmas” is a Federal holiday, that was a secular salutation. :)

Thoughts on food

A private response to my post on Swedish Christmas customs inspired some thoughts on food. I was told that another Yule time legacy from Sweden’s Viking past is a test of courage and stamina called “eating lutefisk”. I looked it up- this involves soaking herring in toxic, caustic lye before cooking it. But that’s not the weird part- the weird part is that we do something similar right here in America! It seems that someone- probably from Minnesota- decided that corn, too, should be soaked in caustic lye before eating; thus was born hominy. This got me to thinking- how on Earth did we think of some of the things we do to food?

Some recipes, even fairly complex ones, aren’t hard to guess how they came about. Cake, for example- I’m picturing a hung over bachelor stumbling into the pantry one morning, and finding what is in every bachelor’s pantry: two cups of dry cereal, an egg, and a half cup of milk left over from making cappuccino the night before. He shrugs, mixes it all together, throws it into the oven and goes to the bathroom for Visine and a long shower. When he returns to the kitchen he finds that he has invented cake.

Other foods are much harder to figure out. Coffee, for example- who invented that? “Hey, Bill, I got this great idea! You know those hard, red berries on the coffee bush?” “Yeah, once I made my little brother eat a handful- he barfed, then started twitching. It was hilarious!” “OK, we take some of those, roast them ‘til they’re brown and sticky, then throw them in boiling water to leach out all the poisons...” “And...?” “Then we drink it!” “Righhhhhht....”

Or take sausage. Pan sausage is easy enough to figure out; once the principle of grinding meat was established, spicing it was obvious. But link sausage? Do you KNOW what sausage skins are? How on Earth did it ever occur to someone to stuff their spiced hamburger into THOSE?

Or yogurt- who had the guts to be the first to try that? Again, I’m thinking bachelors. “Hey, guess what I found in the back of the fridge? It’s that bottle of milk we bought last year! Wanna try it?” “Dude, it’s quivering!” “C’mon, I dare ya!”

At least with the evolution of life forms we can see the intermediate steps, see the progression from one form to another; but with food, it’s often a mystery. How did we go from cucumber sandwiches to pickles? Was there ever a dish of fresh cucumbers, vinegar, and garlic that was just allowed to sit too long? The same question goes for sauerkraut. Or haggis- was it a common thing to serve your oatmeal in a sheep’s stomach before it occurred to someone to add lungs and other organ meats to it?

What foods can you not figure out?

Well, I never!

John Derbyshire of “National Review”, (am I safe in assuming that I am in the minority as a UU blogger who reads National Review?), reports on a game they’re playing at the London Daily Telegraph in which you confess to things you have never done. Quoting John, “The trick is that the things you confess to never having done are things that — and this is of course highly life-context-dependent — you ought to have done, or feel you ought to have; or things of which the omission is surprising in some other way — e.g. lived your whole life in London but never seen the Thames. Things that hardly anyone does (“never been on safari”) don’t count.”

Ok... I have never:

Made it through an entire episode of Seinfeld.

Been to Disneyland. Or Florida, for that matter.

Attended a professional Baseball game.

Gone to a bar, unless invited to meet someone there.

Done “Trick or Treat for UNICEF”

Successfully pulled a tune out of a musical instrument.

Successfully negotiated a dance without incident.

Attempted to ski (snow or water) or surf. Or managed to swim without looking like a paddlewheel boat.

Gone two weeks without chocolate.

Gotten all Christmas or birthday cards out on time in any year.

Voted Democrat for President.

Sent a text message, or used any cell phone feature other than making a telephone call.

Had a haircut without thinking of David Crosby’s song “Almost Cut My Hair”.

Worn a pair of tennis shoes that cost more than $25.

Saved anything, music or data, onto a CD.

What have you never?

The “Christmas Wars” heat up

Much has been made here in America the last couple years of “the war against Christmas”, as some people call every instance of someone saying “Happy Holidays” rather than “Merry Christmas”, or “Holiday Tree” rather than “Christmas Tree”. Of course, there are those who love to point out that there’s nothing Christian about the “Christmas Tree”- it’s really a pagan tradition. But for a real mix of Christian and Pagan, with resulting fireworks, (literally!) look to Sweden!

You see, in Sweden, Christmas gifts for the boys and girls are brought by the dwarf Jultomten, in a sleigh drawn by the Christmas Goat, Julbok. What, you’ve never heard of the Julbok? It evolved from medieval Sweden, when Thor, the Norse god of thunder, rode in a wagon pulled by goats to deliver Christmas presents, and is a favorite Christmas ornament The city of Gavle celebrates this tradition every year by building an enormous Julbok downtown. Unfortunately, vandals burn it down every year.

But not this year! After last year’s vandalism- conducted by Santa Claus and the Gingerbread Man- Gavle turned to the aviation industry for fireproofing expertise, and swear that not even napalm could take down this year’s Julbok! Hail Thor, Happy Yule!

Nostalgia lost

It’s pledge time for the local Public Television, and of course that means we’ve been seeing special dinosaur-rock reunion concerts. Generally I watch only to see if the coots can still hit the notes- and it’s amazing how often they can after all those years. But another thought struck me while watching the Doo-wop special.

Doo-wop is before my time; this special was octogenarians on stage singing to septuagenarians in the audience. But it was kind of sweet, actually, with silver-hairs holding hands and singing along, sometimes with tears in their eyes, remembering their salad days. By the end, there was dancing in the aisles. Suddenly it occurred to me that this was another thing denied to the Hip-hop generation. That they’ve been denied a positive, uplifting cultural experience in the present is pretty clear- but they’ve also been denied in the future the kind of societal-binding nostalgia their parents have, the camaraderie of shared cultural experience the oldies induce.

Perhaps I’m wrong. Perhaps fifty years from now a silver-haired Marshall Mathers will be up on the PBS stage, making eyes glisten with an obscenely delivered fantasy of raping and killing his mother; perhaps those future septuagenarians will be lost in memory of their salad days as Public Enemy barks out a classic about killing cops, or maybe Ludicris’ rant about ho’s will move them to one last dance, with grandmama bending over and sticking her booty out so grandpaw can grind his pelvis against it. Perhaps those rappers who have not killed each other at award shows by then will be able to generate the same emotions in their fans that those Doo-woppers did. It could happen, I guess.

Cars and blogs

Over the Thanksgiving weekend we rented the animated film “Cars”, which, like all Pixar productions, was excellent. Something about the emotional feel of the movie, however, has had me pondering about many a political and/or blog discussion.

Central to the plot of “Cars” is the story of the small towns on Route 66 that became ghost towns overnight when the Interstates opened. As one character says, “Bypassed to save ten minutes.” The movie, and even more the director’s commentary, spoke of an entire lifestyle lost.
The interviews of the people who lived along Rte. 66 were poignant- but it struck me that they were oblivious to the fact that Rte. 66 and her sisters had themselves been the death knell of another way of life, the passenger railroad.
“Good morning America, how are you?
Don’t you know me- I’m you’re native son.
I am the train they call the City of New Orleans;
I’ll be gone 500 miles when the day is done.”

A further bit of irony is that Arlo Guthrie and all the others (like my wife) who lamented the passing of the railroads were just as oblivious to the fact that they, too, had destroyed a way of life- the Stagecoach lines. The first generation of ghost towns in America were created by the railroads who didn’t need to stop for food and water as often as the stagecoach; wide-spot-in-the-road towns were “Bypassed to save ten minutes.”

It struck me that this was a basic principle to many an argument. Don’t like WalMart because it drives under the local supermarket and department store? Well, that same supermarket had shed no tears for the single purpose green grocer, butcher and baker it had driven out; the department store had no pity for the single purpose haberdasher, tailor, toy store and appliance dealer it replaced. Worried about losing the manufacturing base? Those factories didn’t worry about the smithies and cottage industries they ruined. Shedding a tear for that historic downtown theater, restaurant or bar that’s closing? I’ll bet you don’t know or care what had been bulldozed before to build it. Worried about the “browning” of America, because our immigrants no longer come from Northern Europe? You’re probably not as worried as the Native Americans had been about the “Whitening” of America.

We cannot allow public policy to be driven by this generation’s nostalgia; change has occurred in the past and will happen again. It’s only natural to fear the future- as both Shakespeare and Captain Kirk have said, it is “The Undiscovered Country.” Ways of life will in fact be lost; we must face that- as our forefather had to. If we allow ourselves to be guided by any principle other than the greater good, we betray mankind for nothing more than a very temporary extension of our current comfort zone.

P.S. If anyone is keeping track, this is my 100th blog entry!

As others see us

A few posts back I asked “Can you write a definition of “religion” that would include the UUA as presently constituted, and not also include a Star Trek club with a socially conscious membership?”. Well, it appears that I was not the first to see an analogy between the UUA and Star Trek- the truly hilarious web comic strip Oh my Gods! likens us to the Borg- the race that was trying to conquer the Universe by absorbing all cultures into their own. Like most humor, it’s funny because it’s so close to true- we have discussed the UU throw-all-theologies-into-the-cuisanart system of spirituality before. CC might want to pay special attention to this episode within the “Borg” sequence, as it confirms her worst fears about how the world sees us.

Tis the season

for tacky Christmas specials on TV. But there was a magic moment, nearly thirty years ago, when this duet really reached me.

An Inconvenient Truth

Al Gore et al predicted that 2006 would be a disastrous year for hurricanes- 15 named storms, 9 or 10 being hurricane strength, 3 or 4 or those being major. There is an extensive article from last May here . These predictions had major economic impact, sending gasoline prices over $3.00/gallon as energy experts expected damage to the refining and distributions systems, which were still recovering from Katrina. The Inconvenient Truth? Number of named storms: 9. Number of category 4 or 5: 0. Number of storms formed in the month of October: 0- for the first time in years.

It’s interesting to peruse the NOAA hurricane statistics ; they paint quite a different picture than Al Gore does. You’d scarcely think from the former Vice President’s diatribes that the rate of major hurricane formation was 50% higher in the first half of the century than in the second half, but this chart shows it clearly: number of major storms, 1900-1950: 42; number of major storms 1950-2000: 28. How can this be? After all, there been a major increase in the number and intensity of hurricanes since the 1970s- the same time frame in which temperature increases accelerated- open and shut case, right?

Not exactly. Why is it that the all the figures are based on the period from 1970-1980, rather than any other recent decade? By pure coincidence- surely no one from the Global Warming crowd would try to massage the figures- the decade of the 70s had the lowest hurricane production, both in total number and in number of majors (see the above chart), in a century; returning to normality would be a dramatic increase. Ok, but what about those temperature increases? Warm water fuels hurricanes, so obviously higher temperatures make for more violent hurricanes, right? True enough, according to Mr. Landsea of the National Hurricane Center. From the first article referenced above: “"Models show a 2- to 4-degree temperature increase by the end of the 21st century, and hurricanes will get about 4 percent stronger for every 2-degree increase," he said, citing Princeton's Geophysical Fluid Dynamic Laboratory and Tom Knutson for the research in this area. In other words, the 1-degree water temperature increase off the coast of Africa could fuel a Category 3 hurricane at landfall, like Katrina, with 130-mph winds, to increase by about 2 percent. Two or three miles per hour of Katrina's winds could have been the result of global warming, Mr. Landsea said.”

Let me make a prediction of my own, one that will be proven or disproven within a just a few years: Given that the 95-0 Senate vote against the Kyoto accords during the Clinton administration showed that the Democratic party was no more interested in it than the Republicans, if the next President of the US is a Democrat, Global Warming stories will drop right off the radar screen.

Holiday musings from an Earth centered perspective

Why does someone with solid nerd-cred (I still own and still occasionally use a slide rule, complete with leather sheath) follow an Earth centered religion, celebrate Earth centered holidays? Because I came to learn that there are eternal verities we are missing by being so separated from nature, and lessons we can learn from the holidays associated with it.

We know Thanksgiving as a secular (or at least non-denominational) harvest festival, and rarely think deeper than that. We get it that the summer’s hard labor is over, and there’s a ton of fresh food to party down with, and yes, they’d want to give thanks for the bounty. But did it ever occur to you that for most of mankind’s existence, it wasn’t until that final harvest and accounting that he knew for sure he’d live ‘til spring? A bad crop, and he’d have to slaughter his animals; a worse crop and... did you ever wonder what kind of stupid, fanatic zealot would volunteer to be a human sacrifice? Look deep into your children’s eyes tonight, and say to yourself, “We’ll never make it through winter- there just isn’t enough. But if I died tonight, these two could make it to Spring...” Feeling like a stupid, fanatic zealot yet?

So, are you giving thanks that those days are gone? Don’t. Yes, it’s been centuries since there was a truly major rust or blight epidemic; but then it had been centuries since the black Death when AIDS struck. Ask a botanist; while unlikely, it’s not impossible that an entire continent could lose a crop. The Wicker Man might yet return- and if he doesn’t, it’s important to remember why he was ever here.

Then Thanksgiving will be closely followed by Yule. Ok, we get it; despite all the promises of his Gods, early man didn’t know, really know that Spring would return until the solstice passed and the days started getting longer again. Of course, he didn’t understand Celestial mechanics; today we can predict Spring to the very hour; we don’t need God’s promises or the evidence of the longer days.

Or do we? The Sun is a raging nuclear inferno, and we need every erg it’s pumping out to maintain our steady seasons. One microscopic fraction of one percent of reduction in that output and we have another Ice Age. We don’t have the interior of the Sun mapped out, we cannot predict exactly what it will do at any given moment... it’s well within the realm of possibility that even as I write this, a shift is occurring deep inside the Sun, and Spring will never come next year. We need just as much faith today to believe that Spring will come as our ancestors did; the only difference is that modern man places his faith in science instead of Mithras- usually without realizing that science, in this case, deals only with probabilities, not certainties...

Now do you get why a nerd would follow an Earth centered religion? By studying nature’s rhythms, I regain my humanity; by studying my ancestors’ mythologies, I understand my own. When I understand how much I have in common with a malnourished primitive in a mud hut, I understand how much I have in common with all men, everywhere today.

How important are your dreams?

Do they mean as much as this kiwi‘s?

A modest proposal

A rich tradition of both religion and politics has been lost over the years: the formal debate. Yes, we have what are called “debates” in the presidential races, but they are not actually debates; they are joint press conferences. Most denominations have “debates” over doctrine and practices at their General Assemblies, but once again they are not truly debates- a few arguments are made- often heatedly- with no formal citation, no rebuttal, and none of the rigorous logic and rhetoric of debates past.

I offer the services of CUUmbaya to reclaim the great tradition of religious debate for UUs. I propose that people send to me various topics of interest to the UUA for debate, be they GA statements of past or present, or issues likely to come up. It shouldn’t take that much discussion to frame the “resolveds”, and get volunteers to argue the sides. If there are no volunteers to argue an unpopular position, I will take it on- I’ve done “devil’s advocate” before.

The two champions would then email me their arguments, which I would post on CUUmbaya for comment. I propose each side go a maximum of four specific points, to a maximum of 250 words each, formatted thusly: the first post would be the two opening points. The second post would be the rebuttals, then another point, etc., until done. The champions may answer comments if they wish- but it will count against their 250 words for the post.

When all points have been made and rebutted, readers would vote a winner in the comments section. In order for the vote to count, they must score each point as either made, rebutted, or a value judgment not subject to rebuttal, and then declare a winner. I would require this because I have seen arguments in which each and every point made by one side was completely rebutted, and yet that side was still declared winner because they or their position were more popular; that would keep it honest.

So what do you think? Anyone ready to put their logic and rhetoric where their hearts are? Ready to show that UU is really where reason and religion meet?

Catchup potpouri

Item 1: Dem victory not all good.
The first issue to be tackled by Indiana's new Speaker of the House, Pat Bauer, will be the repeal of Daylight Savings Time! After a brief sojourn into the 21st Century, Pat will lead Indiana back to a time when nobody changed their clocks. *Sigh* Fair warning, Pat- nobody brought it up during the campaign, but if you're planning to make Indiana the butt of every late-night comedian once again, be prepared for jokes about that nylon carpet remnant stapled to the top of your head.

Item 2: Happy Cindy's
TV Meme

Do you have cable? No.

Do you have a television in more than one room? Yes- a newer one in the front room, an antique that refuses to die in the kitchen, and a portable in the computer room.

Do you watch television on your computer? No, my one-lung Emachine isn't up to it.

What are your favorite shows? Nova, Secrets of the Dead, McLaughlin Group, Week in Review- and, of course, Football.

What old[er] shows do you love to watch in re-run? Simpsons. (the new episodes, except for Treehouse of Horror, are getting lame.) I would watch any generation of Star Trek, but without cable they're unavailable.

What are favorite shows you hate to admit to? After Mclaughlin Group and Week in Review on Friday night, I watch the second hour of WWE.

Quo Vadis

The election is over, the people have spoken- so where do we go from here?

Democrats: Time to ashcan the following words and phrases: racist, fascist, Hitler, nazi, war criminal, selected not elected, cronyism, moron. Two reasons: A. It will be a new slate you’ll be running against in two years, and Bush won’t be there to kick around; you need to learn how to run a positive campaign. B. You have a diamond opportunity to prove to the American people that you can govern, and so consolidate your victory and gain the White House in two years, but you don’t have a filibuster proof majority; don’t push the Republicans into a corner where they’ll feel that they’ve nothing left to loose. By the way, add “culture of corruption” to the list of banned words; the Republicans managed to eliminate most of their problems in the act of losing, but you reelected someone who keeps $100,000 bribes in the freezer.

Republicans: You lost. Don’t blame the media- they were just as biased when you were winning. Don’t blame Bush alone- he’s the same Bush that was there when you were gaining seats rather than losing them. It’s disingenuous to spend money like a drunken sailor, than try to blame Bush for it because he didn’t veto it. It’s disingenuous to blame Bush alone for the way the war has been handled, when you’ve punted your oversight duties. Face the truth- you had lousy candidates, you didn’t govern well, and you didn’t campaign well. Ashcan the following words and phrases: Ten Commandments, gay marriage, flag burning, Christian Nation, prayer in school, abortion on demand. Tell the Religious Right the same thing the Democrats always tell African Americans: we sympathize with you, but we can’t afford your issues right now- it’s not like you’ll get anywhere voting for the other party.

Democrats: you have earned the right to change the agenda, and the country expects you to act quickly. But don’t make enemies in the process; although the cumulative victory was huge, each seat was narrowly run, and will be precariously held.

Republicans: life exacts a price for incompetence, and you’re paying it now. Be generous in defeat- make the transition smooth, don’t whine about how committees are organized, don’t play parliamentary games to needlessly hinder the Democratic agenda.

Both parties, new members and old: understand that most of the votes cast this election were against either Bush or Pelosi, not for you; all of you are on probation. In 2008 the voters are going to want to hear arguments over who gets the credit for things done, not who gets the blame for things not done. If there was ever in your lives a time for compromise, this is it. Yes, force a change in the way things are done in Iraq, but remember that if Iraq is allowed to fall the victorious terrorists will flood into Afghanistan and Pakistan, creating bloodbaths that will make the killing fields of Cambodia pale in comparison. Yes, reform the Patriot Act, but realize that we cannot return to the days when agencies couldn’t talk to each other and no one could “connect the dots.” Yes, make comprehensive emigration reforms, but realize that we must also gain control of our borders in the process- not for fear of terrorists, but simply to screen for drug lords and to give inoculations; we are starting to see outbreaks of diseases we had thought eliminated in America, such as polio and whooping cough. It's a rare thing to have a major election without any real, specific campaign promises; you have a free hand to do almost anything- use this opportunity well.

Important discovery

I spent the second half of the day with family matters, and could not watch any election results all night; and as a result, I have made an important discovery: the world still goes around even if I'm not cranking.

Nice quote

"When I was told that my lost pearl necklace had been turned in, my first thought was that I must be living right. It occured to me later that the person who found my necklace and turned it in was the one who was living right."

The best explanation

of the difference between Theists, Atheists, and Mystics I’ve ever seen. Lots of other cool stuff there, too.

The question of evil

CC posed a fascinating question for this month’s UU Carnival : Can people be evil? If so, what are the theological implications? If not, how can we account for all the evil that some people commit? My answer is yes, people can be evil- but first we must discus what evil is.

Life is always a balance, for man or nature; balancing the demands of the individual with the demands of the race. It’s a far more complex equation than merely quoting Spock: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few- or the one. It’s more complicated because you must assess the intensity of the need, and the intensity of the harm. Just how complicated the social algebra can be can be seen in some Eminent Domain cases- I recall a case where the state’s case for immediate eviction was quite compelling: every month delay cost the taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars in penalties and interest. But so was the homeowner’s case for staying: he had only six months to live (cancer), and he wanted to die in the bed his children had been born in and his wife had died in. How do you balance the relative harm?

Evil lies in the deliberate upsetting of this balance for your gratification. Great wealth is not evil, if you earned it; Sir Paul McCartney may have more money than God, but he received that money from millions of people who paid it in exchange for the hours of entertainment he gave them. On the other hand, a single dollar is evil if it’s stolen for any reason other than the support of life. A petty evil, granted... but then, serial killers often begin by pulling the wings off flies.

So far, I can’t imagine many UUs disagreeing with me. Where I differ with many is that I believe there are absolute evils, acts that no ‘situational ethic” can whitewash. I can start with an example from the book 1984: Winston was asked by the revolutionary (or so he thought) if he would be willing to throw acid in the face of a baby, if that would win the war. He answered “Yes”... and that answer cost him his soul, for he was forced to admit later that he had the same morals as “Big Brother”. I do not, can not believe in “situational ethics” if that means answering the question above “Yes.”

I do believe that there are evil people- those for whom personal gratification is dependent on the suffering of others. Many rapists don’t do it for the physical satisfaction (evil enough in itself), but just to see that look on the victims face. Schoolyard bullies (the kind who grow up to have careers in gangbanging) beat their victims for the same reason. A large percentage of dictators are like that; there is reason to believe Saddam Hussein is one of those- certainly his eldest son, who watched torture sessions as a kind of cabaret entertainment, was.

The theological implications, for me, are few. The Divinity I believe in does not compel, She only persuades, and any human occasionally allows mundane distractions to drown out that voice we hear with our souls rather than our ears. But the evil person is totally deaf to Her. Although a mental defect rather than a physical one, being deaf to the Divine’s pleas and the victims’ alike is a birth defect as surely as if he had been born without eardrums. My Divinity does not inflict birth defects as a test, or punishment unto the seventh generation; neither does she use evil people to inflict punishment upon sinners. To me, the only theological implication is whether the victims will listen to Her whispers and forgive evil, acting only to safeguard mankind and not to gain revenge.