Atlanta Unitarian

The title of this posting, " The Paradox of Choice ," is actually the title of an interesting book I've read in the past couple of years about the negative psychological impacts of too many choices. It's a frequent theme in my thoughts, a problem that is particularly acute in modern western society. The other day I was visiting a book store and I was overwhelmed by my choices. So many books to read, so many appeared to be interesting, I had no idea how I should go about selecting one. On top of that, I feel like I 'should' be reading certain books in order to keep up with current events. On a whim I went to the religion section. I browsed the sections on Christian spirituality, which included any number of subsections I can't think of now (devotionals, fiction, Catholic theology, inspirational, bibles...). Each section seemed compelling, and I browsed the titles with a pang of guilt. I skipped over Islam, Judiasm, and Sufism (all the time wondering ho

I just reviewed the president's candidates positions in a helpful summary by the New York Times here . I find the Republicans constant call for tax cuts disingenuous. If taxes are always too high no matter what their current level is, then the optimal level of taxes would logically be zero. Yet no Republican has come forward proposing to shut down the government entirely yet. It's easy to be for tax cuts, because no one likes paying taxes. But it's intellectually and morally dishonest unless you can explain what level of taxes you would find justified or supportable. I find it morally dishonest because I believe it feeds into today's mentality of something for nothing - that I ought to be able to benefit from government services without having to pay for them. In civil society, where so many of our investments require common payment and provide common benefit, this self-centered thinking is corrosive. It feeds into cheating the system and promotes the attitude tha

Look to what you care about deeply that in no way concerns your self interest; there you will find your faith. Now do not seek to understand this irreducible force within you; instead seek to live it and embody it fully. You may find that it grows and that every day you stand upon firmer ground.

If Unitarian-Universalists believe there is wisdom to be found in other faiths, then we should accept other faiths as legitimate in themselves. Where we find some wisdom, others may find a lifetime's worth. If Unitarian-Universalists believe in the right to individual conscience, then we should respect the chosen faith of other individuals acting by their consciences. In short, we should be, true to our name, accepting of the wide and diverse faiths found among humanity, and not hold ourselves to be superior to others. In the great family of all faiths, we should be the conveners, the ones who find common ground, the ones who seek to bring the family together over shared values and commitments. Besides, it is the mark of a mature and settled faith to accept those of different faith without fear or discomfort.

One of my life-long struggles is finding appropriate and meaningful channels for my desire to serve. I feel passion in my heart, I envision various and wonderful possibilities in my head, but when my hands get to the work of service, I find myself stymied, bored, frustrated, and unsatisfied. One of the problems is that the reach of my mind (same as any educated person's mind) is so much greater than my capacity to influence. I see the importance of addressing global warming, but I feel powerless to make a difference. I've reduced my carbon footprint and signed various petitions online, watched "Inconvenient Truth," followed the issue in the news. But what more can I do, as one individual with no particular power or influence? There are so many issues I care about so deeply. I feel so helpless to make a difference. What I do almost always feels like a drop in the bucket. Just off the top of my head, I am concerned about torture and human rights, ending the Iraq w

Recently I came across someone, I think a politician, discussing that the moral imperative to love the stranger is common to all religions, and it got me thinking. As a UU, I believe in the inherent worth and dignity of every person. This is not simply a political statement; it is also a religious statement of faith. Within every person is inherent value, which means, that every person brings some merit or value to this planet and the human community. Ideally as a person of faith I would be able to see that value in each person, to be able to find common ground and common humanity with any person, no matter how different from myself. I find myself falling pretty short on this measuring stick. Recently I have had occasion to have several long term visitors to my home. I have found that, when placed in close proximity to a stranger, I tend to focus on what I object to in others, to think about how I would like them to be, to see them as a negative reflection of my own points of prid

I include below my statement on " Moral Values for a Pluralistic Society " to be compared to UUA's which can be found here . I admit that I have an unfair advantage of writing as an individual versus UUA which is forced to write as a committee through a political process. However I found UUA's statement so lacking in support for the concept of moral values (we are Unitarian Universalists, not Nihilists!) I felt it would be better to start from scratch than to comment on it. Tell me which statement you prefer! AU's Statement on Moral Values for a Pluralistic Society: -Freedom, Moral Values, and Civil Society We live in a country and a world defined by diversity, a diversity of peoples, races, religions, creeds, ages, and cultures. In our country, the US, we have a history of respect for different religious and political beliefs. Freedom of expression of belief and freedom to worship the faith of our choosing are core values enshrined in our Constitution and our cul

It's not a new idea, and it's not an original idea, but I'm very enamoured with this idea that has been rekindled in me recently thanks to the help of a dear friend. The idea is to find our vocation or calling by seeking where our personal gifts happen to meet the worlds' needs. It's a balancing act - looking outside to see what the world is needing, but also looking inside to see what it is you have within you that is inherently generous. I like this idea so much because it's a concept of service that is based on abundance rather than guilt or obligation. I think there is a natural abundance of the spirit that overflows and creates great gifts if we cultivate it. It's very important that we pay attention to the world, that we see it clearly, so we can see the great needs that are out there to be met. We do have an obligation to see the world clearly and not in a self-serving way. But we serve the world best by listening to our own inner needs for self-

Yes, you read me right. The search for the most pure anti-war candidate among the Democrats is an exercise in futility, backward thinking, and self-defeat. Yes, the Iraq war is wrong. Yes, the Iraq war was always wrong. Yes, it would have been great if someone had stood up to President Bush at the time he was planning this ass-backward, imperialist invasion. But the problem is this is not 2003, or even 2004. This is 2007. The Iraq problem now is how do we leave their country in a way that minimizes the threat of expanding into a possible regional civil war. It does not matter what various Senators wish they had done or might have done in 2003. George W. Bush was the president in 2003 and he was going to find a way to go to war and invade Iraq one way or another. It's doubtful that one or two or even ten principled senators could have done much about that. The debate about which candidate was or is the most anti-Iraq war, to paraphrase John Kerry, is the wrong debate about t

Inspired Thich Nhat Hanh' s ideas on inter-being, I have developed a related idea of non-duality. The main concept is to see others as essentially similar to yourself, especially when you have the impulse to distance yourself from them. It's an interesting but difficult practice for me. A number of times each day, I see someone who I pronounce a judgement on in the quiet of my own mind. I decide that they are mean, or selflish, or stupid, or inconsiderate. This is almost a relfex action. It comes from my very well developed sense of wrong and right, which others are continually violating. When someone else violates my sense of right, I judge them, I feel disappointed from them, and then become estranged from them. I decide that it's better if I avoid them. The principal of non-duality says to me that the flaw which I see in them is also somehow in me, if only in a small and hidden way. Even if I do not agree with what they do, I can see the human feeling or impulse

It seems to me that the reason we in our culture are driven to distraction is that we have forgotten how to love emptiness. The Tao Te Ching makes great mention of emptiness. It is noted that emptiness is a valuable characteristic. It's emptiness that makes a cup or a room valuable. Vessels of empty space are what make all other forms of activity possible. The most sacred emblem of emptiness is the womb, from which all life comes. We, people of our day and age, abhor emptiness in all of its forms. We work against empty schedules, meetings with empty agendas, empty wallets, empty minds. We see emptiness as a sign of poverty and weakness. I myself have always greatly feared my own boredom. But boredom is not so frightening really. It's quite human and mundane and perhaps even comfortable now and then. I'd like to be able to see emptiness as a strength and a virtue. I'd like to be able to sit with emptiness comfortably, to make friends with her. I'd like to