May I let my voice be a clarion call. I will use these words for justice. I will use these words for truth. And humour.

Monday, November 19, 2012

 

Regarding the Ongoing Catastrophes in the Middle East, Most Notably in Gaza

Hello World,

I suppose it's time I write something again.

Regarding the situation in Gaza, the Bible story of King Solomon threatening to cut the baby in half comes to mind.  I wonder who, among Jews or Muslims (or Christians, even), would step up and show true motherhood (and how that would manifest) right about now.

There is a law that is more profound than Islamic law.  A law more powerful than any so far revealed* in any religion, yet hidden in view so that only those who would wish can know it.

I await a humanity that cares to seek for this law through consensus from establishable common ground.  Else, destruction.  Even utter annihilation.  Every beautiful garden must have a dangerous guardian, and I'm trying not to be too attached to the outcome.

It does bring a tear to my eye and to my heart to reflect on all we love that we'd lose, and all we've lost already.

Lyrics: "This is a beautiful garden.  It has a dangerous guardian." from Ode to Glen Eden
Mood: Wistful
Colors: Orange, yellow, blue

Pax hominibus,
Agape to all,
Joel


*This is true only because although the texts do reveal this law, they cannot force any person to accept the revelation.  The ears have a difficult time hearing it amid the deafening noise floor of life in 2012.  I believe, however, that the heart of every human will begin to seek out this law, because it longs to know it. This law is simple to find, actually.  Just ask your neighbors about it, and your heart will begin to know.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,


# posted by Rev J D @ 12:53 0 comments

Thursday, November 15, 2012

 

From Henry Nelson Wieman's "The Problem of Power"


I found this in the American Journal of Theology and Philosophy (Vol. 3 no.1)

It's from Henry Nelson Wieman's book Creative Freedom: The Vocation of Liberal Religion


Comments from thread on FB:


  • C: Shut up, watch your TeeVee Showz, and leave the rest to the "Big Boys" you stupid gits. Words cannot express how degrading, demeaning, and down-right maddening that attitude is.
    This defines the problem very well, as well as the arrogance that has brought us to where we are.
  • This piece, written in 1982 [edit: oops, published in journal in 1982], is actually quite accurate for today, if not moreso. 

    The statement in the box, I do believe. There is a giant mass of people in the US who are not able to (or choose not to) see the big picture and would not choose to a    llocate funds toward that which is needed in a complex society, and THAT is why we elect representatives and executives, who should do their jobs with as little corruption as possible when they've chosen to take on that specialized role in our society. Sadly, most of those who've been governing have been neglecting to do so with the common good front-and-center.

    Wieman argues that in a democracy, the people tend to argue for their own interests to the degree that for anybody to get into office, they have to kowtow to the voters' ill-informed [see 'media reform'] or myopic localized private demands; and anybody who gets into office (or tries to get in) and attempts to divert the process of governing AWAY from supporting these local interests toward the big things that only government can do is quickly voted out. Somehow military and prisons still receive support, but I imagine that's because they represent private moneyed interests whom the government is no longer able to govern, but rather now acts as a siphon of public funds.

    The two solutions he presents are problematic in that I can't see a way to connect the dots between the present situation and attitudes to what is required to get out of this: "1) Demonstrable truth concerning the common good which underlies and sustains the diversity of local and private interests but not identical with any part or whole of them. And 2) a form of religion which leads [people] to trust and commit themselves to the common good sufficiently to allow their government to command resources and concerted action in its service independently of local and private interests. Also this devotion of religious commitment must control the leaders as well as the people and control [men] who exercise the power of authority in high positions of government."

    I think he sees "religion" here secularly, in a way similar to my view of it: the way we live our life, rather than the narrow view of all the buildings, rituals. "Religion" being "that which holds us together," and "politics" being "how we choose to be in community with each other."

    The big problem I see with #1 is that the framework for talking about the common good needs to be rebuilt, and that won't happen until there are a preponderance of voices doing so in the media. A media revolution would be required. And with #2 the problem I see has to do with the argument that Bo has made (I here paraphrase and add my own extension): Why would you want to support a government with your tax dollars that is doing so much bad with it and NOT putting it to the common good (drones, wall street, military and prison pork projects....)? 

    I would rewrite #2 (CAPS are new): a form of religion which leads [people] to trust and commit themselves to the common good sufficiently to allow AND DEMAND THAT their government to command resources and concerted action in its service independently of local and private interests. Also this devotion of religious commitment must control the leaders as well as the people and control [men] who exercise the power of authority in high positions of government." IOW we have to develop the willpower to REALLY inculcate ourselves and our future generations about the importance of the common good. I don't have any idea how many people would agree with that philosophy, or would be willing to offer up that much of their energy toward that even if we did have a really accountable government. Anarchy (aside from the "if men were angels, no government would be needed" mantra) would suck. Totalitarian dictatorship would suck. Democracy IMHO, done right, would suck less.

  • C: Military and Prisons also receive money because they are directly associated with Fear and a hypothetical lessening of fear by penalizing "bad people". Sadly the really bad people aren't always the ones incarcerated.
  •  I wonder just where are these really bad people hiding out?

    Wieman may provide an answer to this: "In all ages and among almost all peoples excepting recent Western society, a few persons had privileges traditionally established which the masses did n    ot have. They had leisure, did no manual work, could wear ostentatious clothing permitted to no others and develop manners and qualities of mind which set them apart from the common people... which made everyone view these privileged few as a different kind of being from the rest of humanity."

  • C: Yes, and history shows that many of these were not good people. We have the same today in the "privileged classes" of the 1%.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,


# posted by Rev J D @ 07:39 0 comments

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

 

Sermon:Tending a Sensitized Conscience


Tending a Sensitized Conscience

Delivered November 11, 2012 at First Unitarian Church of Pittsburgh



       During my twenties, I drove taxi for a year at Union Cab in Madison, Wisconsin. I remember early on, the dispatcher – his name was Tim, but everybody called him “Hat” – I remember Hat telling me, “You've got to really listen to your radio.” I thought to myself – Did he mean just always be tuned in to the CB radio so we could listen and put in a bid when a trip became available in our area? Did he mean to listen closely to the songs on the FM radio stations? Or did he mean to really listen to the voice of the dispatcher, to hear the tone of his voice, and try to find out from his inflection whether the calls he was giving were good calls that would take me and my fare all the way across town, or they might be just a few blocks, for which I'd have to drive a couple miles to get there? Or I thought maybe he meant even deeper listening, and his use of the word “radio” was a metaphor – in which he wanted me to listen to others so closely, and figure out the stories prior to the stories, to hear what was happening in their hearts and their heads. Then again, maybe it wasn't about people at all. At the very beginning of the teal hymnal, we have a song that says, “Listen more closely to things than to beings...”
       This is a sermon about listening deeply. Listening with the purpose of educating our conscience – our internal sense of right and wrong, also known as that still, small voice within. This education I'm talking about assumes that our conscience is not some static entity. That our sense of right and wrong is dynamic. It assumes that as we open to receive new experiences, the conscience is capable of fine-tuning its compass toward the good, and also of becoming more keenly attuned to nuance. The invitation I'm investigating today is for each of us to consider sensitizing our conscience, according to our present ability and desire. To make it capable of detecting things that it previously could not.
       First comes the question of why to do this. Having a sensitized conscience means being ready to take on some of the sting of life, feeling a little more tender, maybe even raw. It may be preferable or easier to just go out and numb the pain we already have. And maybe your life does have a lot of pain. And if that's the case, this sermon may well not be for you, at least not in this moment. But if you are willing and have the capacity to move to a deeper level of connection with suffering, the question of why still looms. 
       I think of the enlightened Bodhisattva from the Buddhist tradition who, upon reaching a state of enlightenment and understanding suffering, then and there makes a vow to go back to the human world and work to guide people to the alleviation of their suffering. To choose that is to enter into a world of discomfort. There's a good reason to go back and engage (from whatever state of enlightenment you already have). Taking on some level of discomfort is bearable, especially with the knowledge that the discomfort you take on with a new sense of awareness may help alleviate some actual pain in the lives of others. To my understanding, pain is an order of magnitude stronger than discomfort.
       There's another reason why you might want to develop a more sensitized conscience – spiritual growth. There is always room for increasing our awareness, thereby allowing for a better-informed conscience. I have a brief story to illustrate this point. The first General Assembly I attended was Portland in 2007. I was staying in a hostel 3 miles from the assembly floor. I got on the bus in the morning, and got halfway there, and realized I'd forgotten my name badge. If you forget your name badge, there is no way you can get onto the floor. So I turned around, knowing I would be at least 45 minutes late, and wouldn't be able to make it to any of the workshops during that morning session. And I had an epiphany! There were three different workshops all at the same time I had wanted to attend, and I would've been unable to take in two of them anyway. Missing all three wasn't really that much different, in a way. Right there on the bus I realized that if I were at GA, I wouldn't be able to pay attention to what was going on on the bus! And from there, I realized that we are missing almost everything, all the time. I imagined there were even a million things going on in that bus that I wasn't aware of and would never be aware of. But that's no excuse not to try and pick at least one thing to pay attention to. The key is to prioritize what gets your attention.
So, a second question then is 'How to cultivate a sensitized conscience?' The first step is to be curious. Ask questions – of yourself, and in dialog with others. “What am I experiencing? How do I feel about it? What experiences have I had in the past that lead me to feel this way, and not some other way?” Can you imagine how others with different perspectives, based on different life stories might feel in the same experience? It's easier to do if they're right there in the room sharing the experience with you, especially if you can just ask them.
       A really good way to sensitize is to ask, “What am I missing?” The things on the surface, at least, you and I try to catch. But, as I like to interpret my old taxi dispatcher “Hat” as saying, find out what's under the surface there. When there's a conversation or dialog, it's often more telling to listen into the noise-floor for what's NOT being said, either something that's under the surface, or may actually just be an elephant in the room that people are focusing away from, either consciously or unconsciously. I've learned to know my senses only take me part way. As humans, using our senses, we do not have the ability to see in the Infrared or Ultraviolet light, we cannot hear the high-frequency sounds that dogs can hear, or the 7.8 Hz low-frequency sound of the earth's constant rumble. We do not have the inherent ability to detect radon gas in basements, not can we detect radioactivity. We have to stop and ask, I wonder if there's something I'm missing here, and then go out and get (or devise) an instrument to find out. The same is true with developing a keener sense of conscience.
       So once we do begin to have a more sensitized conscience, what happens? We do, indeed, start having to ask questions of ourselves, and begin calling ourselves into accountability. Accountability is uncomfortable, especially when one is less-than-willing to engage, or not sure how to go about engaging (I have been in both situations myself). You may start to feel guilt or shame for things you've done or left undone, or you may feel fear of what might happen (such as 'doing it wrong') now that you're doing something. Another thing that happens is that we begin to see and feel new nuances from new perspectives, and may feel compelled then to report back on what we've discovered on this free and responsible search for truth and meaning. A sensitized conscience is a very good tool for that search, and practicing the right of conscience may very well be the result of that search.
       There's a sacred text -- actually a rather profane text, but sacred in that it serves a purpose worth studying -- I came across in late-August of this year. In this case, the sacred text was words spoken by Clint Eastwood, at a political convention. I don't mean for this to be a political sermon. In fact, the only way I see it as political is that the root of the word 'politic' refers to “how we choose to be together in community.” Eastwood's way of being in community was quite remarkable, actually.

Near the beginning of his speech, he says: “So I -- so I’ve got Mr. Obama sitting here. And he’s -- I was going to ask him a couple of questions.” I thought to myself, “Is this performance art? Is he acting? He must be acting.”
He went on to ask the silent and invisible man in the chair questions regarding his 2008 promises vs his record regarding Guantanamo and then interrupts himself, saying, “What do you mean shut up?” He continues to ask questions to which the invisible man in the chair remains silent, and then Eastwood interrupts himself again... “I am not going to shut up, it is my turn.” He speaks for a while longer, and interrupts himself again, responding indignantly to the chair... “What do you want me to tell Romney? I can’t tell him to do that. I can’t tell him to do that to himself.” Then later, “I’m sorry. I can’t do that to myself either.”

       I felt so appalled, I had to pause the video. It took me a day or so after experiencing this for my conscience to begin to sort things out. The issue was not with just the words. The real issue I saw was with the process, the way it was done. I can only imagine President Obama sitting with his family in the White House living room, or at work with his staff, watching this pseudo-conversation. Were it me, I would be nonplussed perhaps, and I don't know whether I would be amused or very not amused. Here, Eastwood had brought an imagined likeness of the president, the most powerful man in the world, and dressed him down. He made this man – this African-American man who had been vested with power by over 50% of the voters three years ago – he made him invisible, put him there into the narrative without his permission, and then, of all things – he made this imagined character into the fabled (and fearsome) angry black man, without ever having his invisible man in the chair even speaking a word of his own. For all listening, it was like hearing one end of a telephone conversation – the profanities were unspoken, but they were there to be sure. After almost four years of keeping his cool amid being treated like a second-class president in so many ways -- as if he can't be legitimate, or "our" equal or better than us -- finally somebody had conveyed anger on his behalf, and strangely, it was Clint Eastwood who did so. Wordlessly. Unexpectedly. Without permission.
       What did it mean to me? I still don't fully know. Not without complexifying, by being in conversation. My conscience tells me that what Eastwood did was mean-spirited and unethical, and may eventually somehow serve something good – but at a huge cost. This was not microaggressions, this was aggression. And to be clear, I call this racism. And by shining his light in this way, Eastwood unconsciously gave others permission to do the same. In this sacred text, is a conversation that needs to be had, if we are to come together.
       Throughout this election cycle, and since the results came in, I have been feeling the gravest sense of broken community. Among white people, straight people, and men, with the unacknowledged privilege of being white, or straight, or male, it seems there are large groups of people feeling their privilege slipping away. I see them in fear and anger regarding this change, and believe they are avoiding invitations to come to common ground. I see a power still entrenched, and refusing to let others speak for themselves, instead speaking for them and plastering them with labels.
       With no universal conversation happening, the signal-to-noise ratio is low [the children's story involved exploring the noise floor of various situations with respect to audio recording]. In order to hear each other, to have a conversation that doesn't make the Abby in each of us want to cry, we need to turn the noise down AND come to common ground. Until all parties are ready to come together and talk, however (and some are still not ready), I will be taking my dispatcher's advice, and listening to the radio, trying to find what's underneath and behind this. I want to see more than just the surface of this pain, fear, and anger. And I want to get to a place where we desire to have this conversation not only for the instrumental purpose of creating greater community, but also for the intrinsic value of bringing each person back. to. wholeness.       As one granted privileges in several ways, who seeks to be a better ally, I want our congregation to be ready to call out oppressions wherever we see them. And I don't want the people with dark skin to have to call out their examples of oppressions each time they come. Or the women to call out theirs, or the LGBT folk, or the people who have disabilities, or the people with oppressions marginalized enough that they didn't even make this list. I want us to be sensitized allies, who step up and into the conversations before the persons on the receiving end have to become their own last line of defense. And because I want to honor the dignity of all, when I do step up and speak, I will try not to speak on behalf of others. I will speak for myself. It has taken me a long time to figure that out, and I doubt I still have it completely right. This spiritual growth is a work in process.
       So, now. How to tend a sensitized conscience? The rewarding part is knowing you're coming into closer connection with others, and making room for – as Leslie Takahashi Morris states it – the more gorgeous rainbow world, where there is room for a river of identities. The reward is knowing that in closer connection, you're listening back in time for the seeds (both the wondrous and the tragic) that made them what they are. And you're listening forward in time for the flowers they hope to bloom, that make them do as they do.
       Another way to cope with this new awareness is to know the reason why you chose it. Principle zero – love! – the foundation and predecessor for all our principles. Principle zero says step forward with a spirit of confident love. That spirit of confident love says your still small voice within is not a burden to carry as you make your way, but is a blessing to guide you each and every day. 
       Amen.


Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,


# posted by Rev J D @ 15:16 0 comments

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

 

Nine (9) Important Keys to Real Democratic Elections in the US and Elsewhere

In time for 2016, I am convinced we need a National Election Amendment, including some semblance of the following.  Multipartisan task forces should hash this out and negotiate the details for maximum democratic process.


1. Approval-voting instead of plurality-voting (allows everyone to vote with absolute sincerity, and dismisses the problem of "lesser-of-two-evils" and ALSO eliminates the need for "primaries" and all of the weird distortions caused by insincere voting at that stage); 

 

2. Public money only -- no private donations, or privately-purchased advertisements (allows free speech to be equitable, and mitigates opportunities for candidates/representatives to be corporately-beholden); 


3. Democratically-elected *media*, with ~20% of the FM spectrum dedicated to news and opinion from people we elected (bandwidth and time given according to proportion of popular vote -- allows all people to have their voice heard through representatives in the public media, rather than the overwhelming skew of voices only representing corporate media ownership, and narrowly defining the bounds of discourse);

4. Eliminate electoral college (we're not delivering vote-counts via pony express anymore, and direct voting makes every person's vote count);

5. End to gerrymandering.  Set the congressional district boundaries and keep them as-is until it comes time to add or subtract.  When that happens, each of the significant parties (define at whatever threshold) in the state should get to pick counties in a rotating draft, such that the Republicans get to pick one county for the district of their choosing, then the Dems, then the third party, then R then D, etc, until they're all spoken for.  To simply have dominant state legislatures recreate district lines in ways that secures their continued dominance has an ossifying effect for democracy.
 

6. Consensually-agreed-upon secure voting (either paper or transparent, secure machines with audited paper record) with sufficient resources at every precinct (It's not who votes that counts, its who counts the votes.)  The electronic voting systems frequently used do not in any way merit public trust.

7. Adequate resources for voting.  Nobody should have to wait more than 2 hours to vote.  Ever.   A standardized system.  The secure voting system should be standardized.  Citizens in Florida shouldn't have remarkably different voting experiences than those in Iowa.

8. Penalties for intimidating, harassing, or intentionally misleading anybody about voting should be severe (e.g. 2+ years in prison), and should be enforced.  "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."
 

9. No term-limits (if representatives are naturally popular, the constituency would suffer if they need to seek somebody else less qualified with less experience).

10. Everyone gets the day off for election day (this allows for people who work long hard hours to have their voice heard)!


Please, get talking in social media, until this framework gets pushed into the mass media. Another quadrennial election cycle with this kind of ramped-up toxicity and inanity, and our nation is kaput.

In order: Approval-voting, no private money, elected media, eliminate electoral college, end gerrymandering, standardized secure equitable voting, term-changes, national holiday.


OR do we not have the political will to establish true democracy and overcome corporate oppression? 


Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,


# posted by Rev J D @ 10:30 0 comments

Saturday, February 11, 2012

 

Sermon on Love as a Foundation

Delivered at First Unitarian Church of Pittsburgh, Feb 5, 2012

Love is a Source of Truth and Meaning
     On Tuesday of last week, the staff had a belated holiday lunch at the Thai Place down on Walnut Street. If you enjoy Thai food, I highly recommend the Pad Thai. At the end of lunch, we went around the table reading aloud the fortunes from our fortune cookies. Mine was about as uninformative as they come: “You will be successful in your work.” Well, I hope so, but how do they know? Eh... In my opinion, Phil, who works evening security, got the gem: “Great thoughts come from the heart.” It's been said that Unitarian Universalists can find sacred text anywhere, and I agree. There is sacred text to interpret not only in ancient cultural books, but also in novels, newspapers, remarkable experiences, plain old day-to-day experiences, and also in fortune cookies.
     “Great thoughts come from the heart.” A little research shows these words come from Marquis de Vauvenargues (vo-ven-arge). I don't fault the fortune cookie writer for plagiarism. I am only grateful to the universe for bringing these words to me, because they're such a perfect fit. “Great thoughts come from the heart.” Those words say that the heart is the source of thoughts. Not just any thoughts, but great thoughts, important thoughts that matter to our world. Thoughts that clamber their way from our minds to our mouths, thoughts that then may turn into actions or events, or even institutions!
     Last weekend, Paula Cole Jones was here to present a workshop on reconciliation and anti-racism on Saturday, and then she and I co-led worship on Sunday, so I got to hear her sermon twice. :) I was glad to see about 25 people at the workshop, and the sanctuary was pretty full on Sunday as well. This tells me there is a desire in this congregation to begin, or re-begin some heavy spiritual transformation around becoming a multi-cultural congregation. I commend that, and back in Oakland, I've been a witness to the hard work that it takes to transform. It means asking some deep identity questions about who each of us are, and sitting with it and reflecting for a while. It means identifying the context of how our cultures are set up. That hard work means getting over ourselves and the mixity of privilege and oppression (more than likely, each of us has some of each), and it means finding that still small voice within to guide us and impel us on. The heart is a source.
     More than anything else last week, what I learned from the sacred text Paula Cole Jones brought is that we as UU's have a tendency to start by thinking, and that doesn't generally get us where we want to be spiritually. In this congregation, we say the seven principles every week as a part of worship. I'll be the first to say that I believe the seven principles are wonderful. And we treat them as our foundation. There is a deeper question, however. A question that provides a deeper foundation: “Why do we have the seven principles?” “Why do we covenant to affirm and promote these principles?” I say the answer to that is Love. A desire to be in beloved community, to care about each other, and to know we are cared for. The principles work best when we recognize them as a natural extension of our desire for love. When we start from love, and stay with love, we'll be in balance throughout. Even with love, I'm sure we're going to make mistakes, people may disagree, people may misunderstand, and somebody may get hurt. Yet with a humble love as the foundation, we know that we're committed to each other and we're not going to abandon anybody, and we'll get back on that horse once we're ready again.
     Love is our reason for wanting to have truth and meaning. We want to have meaningful beliefs that lead us to good ends. Love wants us to have openness and truth in our relationships, so we don't hide from fear of what others might think. That openness also means that we make ourselves vulnerable. As beloved community grows, a feeling of greater safety develops, with more space for vulnerability. Some truths are very difficult to share even among those we're close to--there's not a requirement to open up and be vulnerable—only an invitation.
     On the prophetic side, there is often an invitation to speak one's conscience where there is not safety, and some people accept the challenge to open up nonetheless. The search for truth in human religion has been fraught with heretics who have braved contempt, ridicule, ostracism and even death to advance deeper truths into religious discourse. Unitarian and Universalist history has many such prophetic voices. For an example, I'd like to invite you to come back in time a couple centuries with me to May 5th, 1819. On that day, William Ellery Channing delivered the seminal sermon called “Unitarian Christianity” at the ordination of Rev. Jared Sparks. In his sermon, Channing boldly cemented a new clarity of what this novel “Unitarian” movement was about, claiming the name that opponents had previously used as a pejorative. Sitting in and listening to portions of the sermon, you would also be able to hear between the words a context in which the Bible was considered the only real sacred text worth considering, and there was a pretty heavy trinitarian orthodox view. I have two brief sidenotes: First, the quotes I will be sharing from Channing's sermon were originally non-gender-inclusive, and I leave his words intact for the effect of greater immersion into the culture of his time. Second, I will be offering a more in-depth study of this sermon as part of an adult religious education course beginning in a couple weeks. If you're interested, check the website for details.
     So strong was the biblical context of Channing's time that the first portion of his sermon is devoted to the full use of our faculty of reason when examining the Bible. In response to accusers, he states, “Our leading principle in interpreting Scripture is this, that the Bible is a book written for men, in the language of men, and that its meaning is to be sought in the same manner as that of other books. We believe that God, when he speaks to the human race, conforms, if we may so say, to the established rules of speaking and writing.” For him, context is key: “We find that the different portions of this book, instead of being confined to general truths, refer perpetually to the times when they were written, to states of society, to modes of thinking, to controversies in the church, to feelings and usages which have passed away, and without the knowledge of which we are constantly in danger of extending to all times, and places, what was of temporary and local application.”
     From a full read of the sermon, it is evident to me that he spoke this sermon of truths not for his own ego, or to gain control, but to satisfy an underlying love he felt from God. Using the Bible as his text, he sought to clarify the unity of God, stating that claims about God being three separate persons in one were untrue and caused great confusion. Regarding these inconsistencies, he preached, “If God be infinitely wise, he cannot sport with the understandings of his creatures. A wise teacher discovers his wisdom in adapting himself to the capacities of his pupils, not in perplexing them with what is unintelligible, not in distressing them with apparent contradictions, not in filling them with a skeptical distrust of their own powers [of discernment].”
     He sought to clarify that Jesus was fully human—as we are--and that the variety of theories on his special dual divine/human nature tended to disparage his character. In answering this theory of dual nature, he states, “We complain of the doctrine of the Trinity, that, not satisfied with making God three beings, it makes Jesus Christ two beings, and thus introduces infinite confusion into our conceptions of his character. This corruption of Christianity, alike repugnant to common sense and to the general strain of Scripture, is a remarkable proof of the power of a false philosophy in disfiguring the simple truth of Jesus.”
     Channing sought also to clarify the moral perfection of God, stating, “We believe that God is infinitely good, kind, benevolent, in the proper sense of these words; good in disposition, as well as in act; good, not to a few, but to all; good to every individual, as well as to the general system.... God's justice has for its end the highest virtue of the creation.” Accordingly, he also was clear on the Unitarian rejection of substitutional atonement: “We believe that Jesus was sent by the Father to effect a moral, or spiritual deliverance of mankind; that is, to rescue men from sin and its consequences, and to bring them to a state of everlasting purity and happiness....We recollect, however, that, not long ago, it was common to hear of Christ, as having died to appease God's wrath, and to pay the debt of sinners to his inflexible justice; and we have a strong persuasion, that the language of popular religious books, and the common mode of stating the doctrine of Christ's mediation, still communicate very degrading views of God's character. They give to multitudes the impression that the death of Jesus produces a change in the mind of God towards man, and that in this its efficacy chiefly exists... It naturally leads men to think, that Christ came to change God's mind rather than their own; that the highest object of his mission was to avert punishment, rather than to communicate holiness.”
     Fast forward back to 2012. Many of these theological suppositions we UUs now take for granted, and have moved well beyond. Those following in his footsteps have brought further realities into the conversation, including rejection of biblical miracles, a greater understanding of this present life as the one that matters, and the inclusion of many other sacred texts, even including fortune cookies. Which brings me back to... love as a foundation. I believe Channing truly came from a place of love and humility, and desired for connection across theological differences. “We can hardly conceive of a plainer obligation on beings of our frail and fallible nature, who are instructed in the duty of candid judgment, than to abstain from condemning men of apparent conscientiousness and sincerity, who are chargeable with no crime but that of differing from us in the interpretation of the Scriptures.” Underneath his words was a desire for beloved community in one large family, an earlier part of an arc preceding and leading toward our principles.
     In the “Guess How Much I Love You” children's story today, the father and son nut brown hares make a game of expressing ever greater love for each other. There is never the slightest thought that they could be out of relationship with each other. It's a pretty good model for us to strive toward, for times when we turn inwards to build a stronger core community in this congregation, and also for when we are turning outwards.
     But again, the anti-oppression work of changing our collective soul—it can be difficult and consuming. Even a mantra of “just add love” means asking some tough questions as we become vulnerable to our own inner searchings, as well as to the searchings of others. If you/we step further into this work of building beloved community here at First Unitarian, and I hope we do, my prayer is that we recognize our limits, and be gentle with ourselves and each other. For we often don't know the storms and struggles others carry within, and sometimes hardly acknowledge our own.... For those times, may we foster a love that undergirds meanings and the truths we make about ourselves, each other, and our world.
     Because... “Great thoughts come from the heart.” I wonder if, rather than competing as these rabbits did, we were to cooperate in a determined outspoken love. I wonder what might this world become if we started an inclusive cooperative competition based on mindful love. I wonder if, from a base of embodied love, we can create an entirely novel meaning to this collective spirit we call life. And I wonder how vulnerable and strong we can become if we support each other side-by-side holding each other's hands and hearts, and what spirits we may be able to brave to bring our truths and meanings. I don't believe we can know until we try, and I do wonder. Amen.


Labels: , , , , ,


# posted by Rev J D @ 13:17 0 comments

Thursday, February 2, 2012

 

Legalization: What about the Children? And the Users?

Here's an interesting and compelling reason for legalizing marijuana.  The children.  And the adult users.

Regarding children and young adults (and probably older adults as well), there are a portion of them that are going to want to escape, or just to try something new.  You probably have somebody among your family and friends for whom this applies.

Here are a few of the dangers of NOT legalizing, and NOT regulating:

  1. There is nobody checking for IDs, so at present, it is READILY available to any high school of middle school student if they want to get it.
  2. It remains unregulated which has two inherent problems.
    1. A user doesn't have a clue how strong it is, and may get too much effect.  Would you do this with aspirin or alcohol?  No--the strength is printed right on the side of the bottle.
    2. Your children and friends could be breathing in dangerous molds and chemicals.  Cannabis grown indoors attracts mold, and many growers use chemicals to combat it, and also to help the plants grow faster and bigger.  In this world where the things we get at the grocery store are grown using pesticides, we've already lowered our standards of what we put in our bodies.  If you wouldn't allow your children and friends to eat chemicals on apples, would you want them to get it here without regulation?
  3. It's known that people, especially children who lack adult capacity for judgment) will try substitute drugs to get high if Cannabis is illegal.  
    1. One such substitute is huffing glue and gasses that can cause hypoxia which can permanently destroy brain cells.
    2. Another substitute is the K2 stuff, a.k.a. "spice" which is incredibly dangerous, and has a variety of chemicals sprayed onto leaves.  People are going to emergency rooms as a result of this.  It's called "synthetic marijuana" but that's a terrible misnomer.  A person cannot overdose on marijuana.  K2/spice would better be called a variant of meth.  In other words, prohibition is a gateway drug.
Let's face it.  Healthy adults want their children to grow up healthy.  And they don't want their kids to be using drugs.  

I will continue to say this to my grave if necessary.  Legalize it, and educate about it honestly--young people with growing minds would do well to abstain.  But don't lock people up over it, and don't destroy their lives using political and legislative force.  Grow it outdoors.  Eschew smoking it, opting instead for vaporizing or ingestion, which are much safer and provide different benefits.

For people with serious medical conditions, it should be researched by pharmaceutical industries.  There are terpenes and cannabinoids of astounding value that need to be researched and combined in the most effective combinations into medicine.  There is plenty of money to be made for pharmaceutical industries without keeping it illegal for simple adult use.

We should do everything we can to stop people from driving while intoxicated in any form--whether the intoxicant is alcohol, marijuana, prescription drugs, a cell phone, or a hamburger.  This requires major changes, and will require political will to create a powerful system of trains and busses for mass transit.  It will also take a major attitude adjustment for Americans who want to be independent and free to drive whenever and wherever they want without prior planning.  I think we can and must do this.

And finally, for God's sake... for GOD's sake (literally), legalize hemp and start weaving it back into the industries that it has been excluded from.  The world won't come to an end if we cut back on tree-based paper production.  In fact, it will tend more toward thriving.  The world won't come to an end if we use hemp textiles.  It won't come to an end if we use hemp oil in place of ethanol.  The corn industry would decrease, but those very same farmers who grow corn could switch to hemp!  Hemp produces more oil per acre/hectare than corn.  The list of uses goes on and on, so for God's sake, we need to allow hemp to become a vital part of our economy.
And of course, this all needs to start from a place of LOVE.  Do you love your neighbor?  Then you want them to eat good food.  You want them (if they choose to imbibe at all) to intoxicate themselves safely.  You want them to transport safely to and from their work, play, and home.  And you want them to have a clean planet.  You don't want them in prison.  You don't want their families devastated by being separated from their loved ones.  You don't want their future employment opportunities destroyed by laws that do harm.  It starts from a place of love.  It starts from a place of love. pax hominibus, agape to all, joel

Labels: , , , , , ,


# posted by Rev J D @ 10:21 0 comments

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

 

Excited about the recent #OccupyWallSt Vision Statement

Pic from here.


"You can't evict an idea whose time has come!" 

I first came across this OccupyWallSt list of points when Michael Moore copied it to his own post which was on a link from the OccUUpy group on Facebook. (Funny how information gets around.)







Anyway, here is the text of the most recent draft:
We Envision: [1] a truly free, democratic, and just society; [2] where we, the people, come together and solve our problems by consensus; [3] where people are encouraged to take personal and collective responsibility and participate in decision making; [4] where we learn to live in harmony and embrace principles of toleration and respect for diversity and the differing views of others; [5] where we secure the civil and human rights of all from violation by tyrannical forces and unjust governments; [6] where political and economic institutions work to benefit all, not just the privileged few; [7] where we provide full and free education to everyone, not merely to get jobs but to grow and flourish as human beings; [8] where we value human needs over monetary gain, to ensure decent standards of living without which effective democracy is impossible; [9] where we work together to protect the global environment to ensure that future generations will have safe and clean air, water and food supplies, and will be able to enjoy the beauty and bounty of nature that past generations have enjoyed.

What excites me about this? Any visionary counter-statement from those who would instead be corporate overlords will pale in comparison if it even dares to mention money.  This vision statement, and this movement are an idea whose time has come, democratically and wondrously.  Seems that the tyranny of "power-over" only knows how to respond with more and greater tyranny.



lyrics: "Home, home on the range, where the deer and the antelope play.  Where seldom is heard a discouraging word, and the skies are not cloudy all day.  How often at night when the heavens are bright with the light from the glittering stars, have I stood there amazed and asked as I gazed if their glory exceeds that of ours.  
(Thanks, Gramster Hamster!)


colors: red, white, blue, green, yellow, orange, purple, black, indigo. 
mood: really okay.  a little stressed over an upcoming career interview. 
chant/prayer/mantra: om, om on the range.... 

pax hominibus, agape to all, joel

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,


# posted by Rev J D @ 19:27 0 comments

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

 

Sermon: Imagine this City as Heaven


Imagine This City as Heaven
Delivered to First UU San Francisco on Aug 8, 2010

During the several years between graduation from college and the time I stumbled upon Unitarian Universalism’s saving grace, I was on a spiritual quest. While studying for a Bachelor’s Degree in mathematics at the University of Minnesota, I had been a Bible study leader and a large group leader in a non-denominational evangelical Christian group. After leaving that group my senior year, I was left with some pretty big spiritual questions. Neither the theology nor the group’s way of being in the world sat right with me, yet I had only just begun to determine my own understanding of theology and of how I wanted to be in the world.

Part of my quest for a new understanding of spirit included the use of cannabis and other entheogenic substances. The word “entheogen” is similar in meaning to “hallucinogen” or “psychotropic” but implies a spiritual or religious use, contrasted to what some call “recreational use.” The use of these plants didn’t really provide me with many answers, though they did help me raise countless questions regarding matters of the spirit. I am not sure whether I would have thought of them (or focused on them as I did) had I performed my search steeped entirely in sobriety.

As a matter of caution, I must add that while the use of these substances aided me in my search, the use of awareness-altering substances can be harmful, especially under the wrong circumstances, and I do believe very strongly in preventive education and counseling. I will also add that I am very glad to be among Unitarian Universalists who understand that the United States’ war on drugs is ill-conceived and is overall more harmful than the drugs themselves. The UUA has issued several statements of conscience over the last four decades expressing that understanding clearly and showing a path to real justice.

Now, returning to my spiritual quest: One of the questions that came upon me and stuck was the one from today’s reading, from a song from a local band in Madison, Wisconsin. “What if you thought you were an angel?” Sometimes the effects of hallucinogens can include a heightened state of suggestibility. So I thought, “Yeah! What if?!” And then I came back down, and though I all too soon realized I am destined to remain in this human body, the question did stick with me. In what ways am I an angel? And when am I not? And what does it mean that I’m even thinking this?

Ever since, the question in that song has led me to a wide variety of questions, along with a few responses:
Q: Why do we tend to think of ourselves as humans with a spirit, and not the other way around?
A: Actually, since finding UU, interestingly enough, I have heard several people quote Christian writer CS Lewis on this subject. In response to the question, “Do you have a soul?” He replies, “You do not have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.”
Q: What is a good working practical definition of angel?
A1: Simply put, an angel is a messenger from the divine source. An angel can also be a messenger to the divine, or between divine beings. (And to be clear, my understanding of “divine source” here is most definitely intended to be inclusive of theologies with different understandings of an ultimate source.) I have heard it said that sometimes with prophets and all the wrestling they do with the messages they are called to deliver, their identity as messenger gets all jumbled up with that of the angel.
A2: Whenever we speak prophetically--and I believe we each are capable of it on a good day, and our bold voices are so often needed these days—when we speak prophetically, in delivering the message to whomever needs it, we become the prophet and the angel, and the spirit of the message is released to another who needs it.
A3: I also believe that these angel-messengers share the words we hear from others to our innermost divine. This is shared ministry and pastoral care of the finest order. We are given two ears and one mouth for a reason—our ears are so often needed these days. There is not much in the world more healing than being heard, especially in the spirit of Namaste—the divine spark within me greeting the divine spark within you.
Q: Many Christians talk about everlasting or eternal life, as something that happens as an afterlife. This led me to another question: What about this universe, this life we share in the here and now—is there a difference between everlasting and eternal?
A: I say yes, and the distinction is important. Everlasting is one more followed by one more, implying living forever. A million years, then a million and one, then a million and two. You get the picture, and frankly I think after a million years, there’d likely be diminishing returns. But eternal is a sense of infinite wonder that we reside within. This universe we live in, for all practical purposes, has no beginning and no end. The eternal moment of life we live within is the here that includes every part of the universe, and the now that spans from the beginning of energy and matter in the universe until the end of the universe. We are living in eternal life right now. I won’t speculate about what happens to our consciousness after our bodies pass on, but as UU’s we believe in an interconnected web of all existence of which we are a part. Life is a part of that existence, and we are born into life, we grow into complex beings capable of being part of the universe, experiencing the universe, acting on the universe, and then eventually we must depart from it. But that life which we are enjoined into is eternal, given from one generation to the next, knit together like a chain.
And a final question: What would heaven be like, in a practical sense, here, on Earth, while we our spirits are alive in these bodies?
Heaven. I will call up another set of recent Christian imagery as leverage to pry open the pearly gates. Here is St. Peter at those gates, letting the good individuals enter into a life of bliss, and the bad people… they get the trap door—damned to hell forever! Well,… actually, that’s a story told upon a story told upon a story originating with Zoroaster in ancient Persia around the time of Moses, but there is something here from this story worth preserving. Yet since I’ve painted such an ugly picture for you (and I know it’s ugly) I will casually remind you that the Universalist theology of yore says that our creator is good and would not do such a dastardly thing to its creatures.
However, if this is actually “This-City-As-Heaven” we’re talking about, we need to bring up salvation and damnation, and there is the all-important question of spirits. If we let one bad seed in, that’s a recipe for spoiling everything. Our heaven will only be as good as the spirits that thrive there.
And some spirits must be damned. For the sake of justice, those spirits must have their energy diminished or extinguished. I am NOT talking about damning or diminishing the energy of people here, I am talking about the spirits that enter in and out of people’s personalities. Some spirits pass by gently, and others set in and take hold. And when I say “spirits” here, I am also NOT talking about apparitions or exorcist-type possessions here either.

I am referring to down-to-earth spirits we all can recognize. These spirits exist not only within people, but also within organizations, and within codified laws and policies. For heaven to be real in this city, some spirits need to be damned—to be weakened and starved for energy—the spirit of fear, the spirit of animosity, the spirit of stinginess; the spirit of cynicism, the spirit of mistrust, the spirit of ennui; the spirit of anxiety, the spirit of misunderstanding, and the adversarial spirit.

In heaven, in this city, we call upon the spirit of love, and seeking to save it, we add our energy.
In heaven, in this city, we call upon the spirit of a mighty kindness, and seeking its salvation, we add our energy.
In heaven, in this city, we call upon the spirit of realistic confidence, and seeking to salvage it, we add energy.
We call upon the spirit of beneficence, and seeking to save it, we add energy.
We call upon the spirit of enthusiasm, and seeking to save it, we add our energy.
We call upon the spirit of calm assurance, and we add our energy.
We call upon the spirit of samadhically clear perception, and we add our energy.
In heaven, in this city, we call upon the spirit of cooperative harmony and amiable rapport, and seeking its salvation, we add our energy.

Seeking the salvation of this city and of ourselves, we know these spirits must thrive. Fear and insecurity will have no place in heaven, and they should have no place here in San Francisco either.

I’ve been talking about this city as heaven. But I think you know how this can scale. The sixth UU principle talks about one world community, with peace, justice, and liberty for all. These spirits need to thrive in the world at large. These spirits need to thrive in this congregation of course—love, a mighty kindness, confidence, enthusiasm, assurance, clear perception, and cooperation.

And for a community or a world to attain a condition, that will be the case when the hearts of the people attain that condition, because the world (at least the human-centered social world) is made up of people. It’s been noted before, that as Unitarian Universalists, we are less about getting people into heaven than about getting heaven into people. So each of those good spirits--get them in you, and let them catch fire. As for the spirits of fear, animosity, cynicism and the rest, I ask that you not allow them a home in your person. And as ministers are often preaching to themselves as well, I include myself in that request.

As Unitarian Universalists, we have the capacity to make these changes in ourselves and our communities. While other religions are waiting for the return of their messiahs or for signs of the end of the age, we are getting busy building heaven, and turning the corner into that next age the others all are waiting on. And we need those in other religions to join with us. If we turn on all those spirits, I think our light will be bright enough to attract them. I think it will also attract those who have given up on spiritual matters, whose spirits are dusty or under-exercised. It will attract those who go to the church of the Sunday morning paper with coffee, to feel again the importance of coming together in community.

And I think this heaven needs to be concrete. Like a solid rainbow. Those good spirits--given energy--will bring a monumental paradigm shift.
In heaven, in this city, the energy we pour into the spirit of cooperative harmony will call people out of the individual boxes of isolation and into community, to share words of mighty kindness together.
In heaven, in this city, the spirit of compassion—zealously kindled—will call us away from a system of class oppression, so that all have physical and economic security and none are left behind to live in the streets, or to wonder where the necessities of life will come from.
In heaven, in this city, our energized confidence will restore our faith in that which we believe has capacity for good.
In heaven, in this city, our clear vision will call us to create a sustainable way of life for the sake of future generations.
And finally, in heaven, in this city, we will set the spirit of love alight and stand in the midst of it. The spirit of that love will stand forever: dynamic, indefatigable, and unwavering.

May it be so.

pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel

Labels: , , ,


# posted by Rev J D @ 21:41 0 comments

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

free page hit counter