Atlanta Unitarian

Why I Worry about Global Climate Change

2011-05-22T21:23:00.002-04:00

This Sunday evening I was playing with my two small children in the park. It suddenly hit me why I am so concerned about climate change.

I think as we get older and we slowly come to grips with leaving this world, our legacy for future generations becomes more urgent. I feel a deep need to ensure that the joys and treasures I have enjoyed in my lifetime should be available to future generations. As we sever the strands of the web of life one by one, the entire web is threatened. No one is truly certain about the magnitude and the meaning of the climate-related effects we are unleashing on our children's future.

And I think that my concern is not limited to the impacts upon humans. I think it is really important that there be frogs, that there be bees in the future. That there be polar bears and snail darters and Hemlock trees. It is my prayer that future generations live in a world that is as rich in life and in nature and in beauty as our own, hopefully more so.

It is my sorrow that we as a culture seem unwilling to awaken to this obligation. And so I also pray that future generations will be able to forgive us our shortsightedness, and find a way to live rich, fulfilling, and responsible lives, in whatever world they find themselves in.

Where are the Unitarian Paths?

2010-01-01T14:48:00.003-05:00

The great thing about being a UU is the freedom; the horrible thing about being a UU is the freedom.

Unitarian Universalism has developed satisfactory answers for certain ills. The moral and intellectual oppressiveness of hidebound religious dogma. The need for a continually renewing spiritual awareness and spiritual understanding. The importance of radical inclusiveness and human-centered values. A balance between the life of the intellect and the spirit.

And yet I find in the area of religious practice it is lacking in depth and structure. I do not feel a lack of theological grounding, but I do find a void on guidance for how to be a "practicing" UU.

Perhaps my keen awareness of this fact comes from my own Jewish background. In Judiasm, there is a prayer for every situation; a holiday for every season; a rich palette of rituals and practices interwoven with meaning. The grounding in literature, community, and spiritual practice is manifold and deep.

In Unitarian Universalism, I am not sure how to have an active or deep spiritual practice. The problem is not that there are no spiritual practices available, but rather that there are too many. I can pray if I want, I can pick and choose from a lengthy list of UU prayers and prayer books. I can engage in Zen Buddhism meditation. I can enter chalice circles, reading groups, discussion groups. I can participate in social action groups or attend a peace rally. But it seems that no matter what I do, it is based upon an individually constructed and chosen practice. My path will be entirely my own, the meaning I construct will be individual, almost secretive, and the accountability and motivation will be mine alone. Perhaps there is something lofty and idealistic about this individually constructed spirituality. But on the other hand, it can make you feel lost, without grounding, without a clear path forward.

I long for a clearer path of Unitarian Universalist committed practice. It is not so much that I wish to be told exactly what to do, but perhaps to be able to choose among a package of practices that have been worked out to be effective for people with similar theological orientation. An "order" of Unitarian Univeralism, for those of us who are serious about spiritual practice and having spirituality infuse our everyday existence.

The Virtues of Being The Worst

2009-10-06T09:00:00.005-04:00

I've recently joined a few new activities where I was clearly and markedly the worst by a large margin.

The first is I've joined the "back-up" choir at my UU church.

The second is I went out for some pick-up Ultimate Frisbee this past weekend.

In both cases, there was a sense of anxiety that I might be (OK, was) dragging down the group. It can be tough to know that you are the bottom end of that bell curve, scraping against the right edge of the graph.

But I think that I also experienced a broader sense of liberation. Being the worst, once it has been clearly and definitively established, frees you from any pretence of image or competition. You can immerse in an activity for whatever it is, on its face value. The subjective experience of being in the moment becomes so much more important, because you are clearly not impressing anyone.

It's a great thing to sing, and greater still to sing surrounded by voices of beauty. The music stays with you as you walk - you hear its echos and resonances in the days between rehersals and performances. It's a great thing to run, to jump, to catch. The feeling of synchronicity between mind and body, flying object and receiving hands. These are great things even when they don't achieve their precise aim, although we are so accustomted to thinking of things as only having value in a comparative sense - that only the best or at least the much better has any value.

It's also easier to appreciate other people's skill for what it is, when you have attempted said skill and failed to reach it. One of the greatest sins of our age is the sin of ingratitude - we are so used to things going so well so often that we fail to appreciate what we have. The flaw in the American Dream is that it often makes us oblivious to the American present. There is something beyond striving and achieving that makes a life rich and meaningful.

Everything I Need to Know I Learned from my 7-Month Old Son

2008-06-07T21:14:00.003-04:00

Everything I Need to Know I Learned from my 7-Month-Old Son (Almost)

If you can eat, drink, pee, and poo without incident, you have much cause for satisfaction.
The best way to get our needs met is to articulate them clearly, repeatedly, and, if necessary, with volume.
It's in our nature to learn, grow, and try new things, with our own interest as our best guide.
The best way to learn something is to take an iterative approach rather than a linear one; learning by nature is two steps forward, one harsh bump on the tush.
If you're paying attention, the world is a pretty fascinating place. Shadows are particularly interesting because you can't pick them up.
The foundation of happiness is being with people who love you for who you are.

Can't wait for the next 7 months...!

Lost Connections

2008-04-06T20:10:00.004-04:00

I've been thinking about modern life and how as an unintentional result of modern convenience we lose our vital connections with the earth and its cycles.

I've been reading Michael Pollan's Omnivore's Dilemma, which reveals
how thoroughly we've lost touch with the source of our food as a culture. We have little or no understanding of the places, processes, and full price of the sources of our food. Pollan particularly dwells upon the denial that is required for the current system of industrial processing of animals to be acceptable in our culture. He essential says that if we knew where our meat came from, we wouldn't eat it.

On another front, the political front, I've increasingly come across the dilemma that many local governments are facing. They are running out of revenues to perform the services their constituents demand, but there is increasing resistance to any type of tax increase. It seems we have lost ourselves in our own political rhetoric - we no longer connect the benefits we receive from federal, state, and local governments with the taxes we pay. The services we get are just there, just taken for granted background, while the taxes we pay have become in many minds theft, an unnatural taking by a corrupt few from the hapless many. We've lost the connection between the common wealth we create and build together and the dues that make that common wealth happen.

On a third front, I've been increasingly stymied by the concept of where all of our waste goes. We talk of throwing trash away, but there is no 'away' that I am aware of on this earth. What we mean by 'throw something away' is that someone else carts off our trash, someone else worries about where it goes and what kinds of problems it causes. If I've paid someone to haul my trash away, it's not my problem any longer. And this has resulted in a disposable society, where we buy new things rather than fix old, where it's easier to throw away a container than to clean a plate, where most people don't think twice about using something just once and then tossing it. We're truly disconnected with our physical impacts on the planet, oblivious to all the places and habitats downstream.

I don't have answers to any of these dilemmas. But it strikes me how all the virtues of the modern world - convenience, speed, mass production - serve to disconnect us from the consequences of our actions, and serve to make us less cognizant of our many interdependent relationships with the world around us. And it seems to me there is a relationship between our disconnection with the world around us and our dissatisfaction, our modern ennui. When we become primarily or exclusively consumers, optimizers, an audience, a target market, we lose much of what makes life gratifying and grounded. Ultimately, life is not a product and happiness is not found in maximizing comfort or convenience. Life is found in balance and in connection, and my suspicion is that it may be nearly impossible to enjoy life while plugged into the machine of the modern American economy.

I spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to unplug. I strive for moderation in my consumption, but even so I'm overwhelmed with choices and even more overwhelmed with information. It seems to me part of the answer is to re-establish these connections - to know where our food comes from, to know what our taxes pay for and what our local government does, to know where our trash goes and take some accountability for these things. This would start to bring us around to where we can really see ourselves for what we are, to where we can really be in relationship to the world around us.

Celebrating Memories

2008-03-01T19:39:00.004-05:00

Sometimes I wonder if our forward-looking culture does not underestimate the value of making and cultivating memories. We have so many catch phrases for focusing on the future. What's past is past. We need to focus on the task at hand. We need a plan for going forward. Just do it.

But life at any stage is composed at least as much by memories as by opportunities, by the path we have followed as much as the path we have ahead. In fact, we are much more likely to discover ourselves by looking backwards than by looking forward. Life has a way of revealing through experience things that would never occur to our imaginations alone.

What rituals, what practices, what customs do we have to cherish memories? Our holidays commemorate our civic history, but what about our personal history? Do we use birthdays to reflect backwards? Anniversaries? Graduations? Are we afraid that if we look backwards we will see opportunities missed, rather than life lived?

If life is worth living, then it is also worth remembering, and worth telling. Our stories should not just come from entertainment professionals, they should also come from ourselves, from our own lives rich with experience.

Recession of 2008

2008-03-01T19:21:00.002-05:00

With the nation embroiled in talk of recession - the media, investors, politicians - Americans seem desperate to avoid entering this dreaded state. Congress and the President rushed to pass a $100 billion + stimulus package. Pundits spin every day about whether or not we are in a recession, and what it would mean if we are. It is my sense that the obsession with recession reveals the dark side of the infamously optimistic American character. What is this desperate state that is so awful that we must try anything to avoid it, and that is so horrific that even if we are in it we had better not go about and acknowledge it?

It reminds me very much of someone in the early stages of a depression, when there is still opportunity for denial and distraction. It's like a depressed person who thinks he can put off depression if he can just go on enough ski vacations consecutively. All kinds of denial and avoidance are preferrable to looking the depression squarely in the face.

Perhaps, on the other hand, there is something ameliorative, or even healthy, about an occasional recession. I mean no disrespect to those who are truly hurting - losing their jobs or their homes. These people need our help and we as a country should assist them. But the hub-bub and paranoia seems to go far beyond these few.

Perhaps a recession is a good time to re-evaulate what we have done in the last frenzy of growth that did not work out so well. Perhaps a recession is a good time to re-evaluate our needs, our values, our priorities, perhaps to think about those non-material or less material rewards of life. Perhaps a recession is a good time to become more realistic about our capacity for production and consumption, to make a good hard accounting of how things stand. Perhaps a recession is a good time to re-evaluate our more speculative investments, and re-direct those investments towards opportunities that are sustainable and long-term.

The only thing in nature that grows and never prunes is a cancer. Healthy beings grow, mature, prune, retrench, and grow again. It would seem to me that what is good for nature might be good for our economy and our natures as well.

Hippocrates Lays Down the Law

2008-02-02T14:17:00.000-05:00

Life is short, art long, opportunity fleeting, experience treacherous, judgment difficult.

-Hippocrates

... or in modern terms...

Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans.

-John Lennon

Growing Self Esteem

2008-02-02T13:37:00.002-05:00

Self esteem cannot be created through praise. It cannot be created through achievement, awards, and success.

Self esteem can only be grown from within. Like a seed that grows into a flower, self esteem cannot be forced into bloom. The right conditions can be cultivated, but a flower must grow and bloom of its own accord.

What are some of the conditions that can help to grow self esteem? Acknowledging and meeting the needs of a person, facilitating their development and capacity, and reflecting back to them their own unique identity and personality.

Everyone has the light within them, and when we reflect back their light, we help them see it more clearly. This is the greatest challenge in helping another - not to make them into your idea of good or shape them into your ideal, but rather to help them to cultivate their own voice and come into their own understanding of the true and the good.

And ultimately, you must give them the space to bloom of their own accord. The growth and fruition of natural things cannot be coerced or accelerated; and so each person must eventually be the source of their own impetus upwards and outwards.

St. Francis And The Sow

Galway Kinnell

The bud
stands for all things,
even those things that don't flower,
for everything flowers, from within, of self-blessing;
though sometimes it is necessary
to reteach a thing its loveliness,
to put a hand on its brow
of the flower
and retell it in words and in touch
it is lovely
until it flowers again from within, of self-blessing;
as St. Francis
put his hand on the creased forehead
of the sow, and told her in words and in touch
blessings of earth on the sow, and the sow
began remembering all down her thick length,
from the earthen snout all the way
through the fodder and slops to the spiritual curl of
             the tail,
from the hard spininess spiked out from the spine
down through the great broken heart
to the blue milken dreaminess spurting and shuddering
from the fourteen teats into the fourteen mouths sucking
             and blowing beneath them:
the long, perfect loveliness of sow.

The Need for Regulation in an Increasingly Complex World

2008-01-20T13:34:00.000-05:00

The trend in this modern world is towards continually greater complexity. In a world where the choices that face us are ever more complex, there is a great need for regulation and a variety of mediating institutions that can provide citizens with meaningful information and useful judgments and evaluations.

Some examples of the increasingly complex choices we face include the wide variety of financial decisions consumers are faced with, with regard to savings, borrowing, and mortgages; The environmental and social impacts of our lifestyle choices; Our choices with regard to philanthropic activities and their effectiveness; political choices and exercising political influence at the state, federal, and local levels; career development and educational choices; choices relating to the raising of children and managing a family; choices with regard to food consumption, cooking, and dining; choices with regard to physical health, medical treatment, and physical activity.

I know that I myself am overwhelmed by the breadth of my choices, though I am highly educated and informed relative to the general populus. How much more overwhelmed must so many others be, who may not have as many advantages in terms of education and access to information.

Therefore I find it very puzzling when politicians advocate for deregulation as a solution to our modern problems. We clearly need more regulation, and more information, and greater transparency throughout all these choice realms. Of course we do not need regulation for its own sake, but in order to protect people from harmful choices and lack of information. And all regulation need not come from the government - in some cases non-profit associations can play that role. But the general need for more regulation and more organizations that monitor, inform, modulate, and oversee is indisputable.

A recent look at the economic and policy challenges of past few years highlights this trend. Some recent economic crises include:

-The recent collapse of the housing market due to inadequately supervised mortgage lending practices and mis-understood financial instruments related to mortgages
-Spiking electricity prices in California due to the manipulation of markets by a few electricity trading firms
-A series of corporate collapses in the wake of misleading schemes for reporting profits and losses
-Problems with dangerous toys being imported from China

Looking back on the problems and trends of recent years, it seems overwhelming clear that we are in dire need of more regulation and oversight to protect our common health , safety, and welfare. The deck is stacked against the average citizen and consumer, who must make difficult decisions in confusing environments, often in situations that are defined by corporate powers with virtually bottomless resources on their side. Yet no one seems to be articulating or advocating for this need. On the contrary, there are some political voices that still decry over-regulation as if these problems did not exist.

As the world we live in continues to become more complex, we need stronger intermediary institutions, and this should be a policy priority at all levels. And often, the regulatory role will best be served by government.

The Paradox of Choice

2007-12-30T20:52:00.000-05:00

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 how much am I missing, how much I would like to know more) and settled on the Buddhist section. First I saw the Dalai Lama's works, which appeared to be about two dozen extremely compelling titles ('The Art of Happiness','Cultivating a Compassionate Mind'). I thought to myself briefly that anyone that popular could not possibly be so insightful. It was my version of sour grapes over not having the time to read these books.

I skimmed over numerous other Buddhist authors, and thought about how each one might contain unique and revealing wisdom especially pertinent to living life well. Which of these great men and women should I choose as my teacher? How can I find those worth reading without having to wade through messy intellectual thickets? I settled on Ticht Naht Hahn (whose name I can never spell right) and started to browse through his dozen or so plus titles. Anger and peace both seemed to be major themes, both appropriate to me. After browsing through a couple titles, I decided there was really no where to start, no where to begin, and went over to the business section where I could be more superficially distracted.

One simple bookstore in a corner of the world, and far too much knowledge and wisdom for me even to contemplate absorbing.

It reminds me of an art teacher of mine who would often say "Life is short and art is long." And yet we have to make some kind of work of art out of our lives before they come to a close.

Calling for Tax Cuts Disingenuous

2007-12-30T20:40:00.000-05:00

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 that it's OK to take a free ride at the expense of the system wherever possible.

I understand that no one wants to suggest specific programs to cut while running for office, but candidates ought to at least explain in principle what types of programs and services government ought to provide and therefore should be funded by taxes, and what types of programs and services should not be.

Proposing to cut taxes is particularly irresponsible now, at a time when we have record deficits, two concurrent and very expensive wars, and lingering social security and medicare budget crises. To my way of thinking, cutting taxes now is just shifting the burden of today's costs onto the next generation. That's what deficit spending is generally, but particularly in our current setting.

Finding Your Faith

2007-12-24T18:11:00.000-05:00

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.

Unitarians and Other Faiths

2007-12-24T18:01:00.000-05:00

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.

A Way to Meaningful Service

2007-12-15T13:04:00.000-05:00

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 war, global warming, international poverty, livable communities, better education, universal health care.

On the other side of the ledger, we have my various attempts at service, which I would characterize as frustrating, unfulfilling, and unproductive. I've been on various committees that have talked about issues and organized but to little visible effect. I've participated in one-day service projects that painted someone's bathroom or cleaned up a part of some woods. Actually, the woods clean up was one of my more satisfying experiences because I actually saw some results, a positive difference. What I hate most is talking, meeting, organizing, and discussing, with no visible or discernable result. With so many important political issues, change can only come about through changing people's minds, and my experience is that there is really no way to achieve that. People make up their own minds, and most people, including myself, are offended by attempts to be made to change.

So my question is, how can a desire to serve be translated into a meaningful practice of service? How should I deal with problems that are so great in scale that they are far beyond my ability to influence? How should I use my scarce time and energy, when there are so many problems and just one of me?

Or perhaps the questions is not one of service, but of the intense dissatisfaction that lies in my heart when I see the state of the world? How do I manage this energy for good rather than for ill?

Loving the Stranger

2007-12-13T20:26:00.000-05:00

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 pride.

I suppose all of us would prefer to be around those like ourselves. And for those of us who have given considerable thought into the way we live, perhaps we have some ground for recommending certain aspects of the way we live to others. But nevertheless, there ought to be a way to accept differences, especially with regard to the trivia of everyday household life, and to find grounds for compassion and even connection. But I find this more difficult to do in reality than in theory.

If anyone has suggestions for sources of wisdom or practices to help with loving the stranger, please let me know.

It has also struck me that nearly every traditional culture placed great premium on hosting strangers, to the point of providing food and shelter and even entertainment. It seems these stories of hosting strangers are the source of many of the folk tales of many cultures. But this tradition of hospitality seems hopelessly lost and outdated in modern society. Is true hospitality still practiced? What are the living models out there to emulate?

Atlanta Unitarian vs UUA Commission on Social Witness

2007-05-09T21:24:00.000-04:00

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 culture.

The laws and norms of any civil society, including ours, are based on moral values. However in a society such as ours where there is a great diversity of belief, laws must be based only upon those values on which there is unanimity or at least near-universal consensus. History has taught us that when the majority is able to enforce its moral values on the minority it results in oppression, abuse, and strife, and that it suppresses the continuing moral evolution of society as a whole. For that reason, moral values which are contentious in nature should not become law but rather we as a society must always veer on the side of liberty when clear moral consensus has not been established.

We as a society have established freedom itself as a moral value because we have found that individuals are generally the best at making decisions with regard to their own well-being, fulfillment, and happiness. In our history we have seen the yoke of oppression thrown off of various outdated hierarchies and power structures, and we as a society agree that individuals’ autonomy ought to be zealously protected from oppressive systems. Freedom of belief and autonomy in life choices are values to be celebrated and cherished both in our civil society and within our Unitarian Universalist theology.

-The Necessity of Human Dignity

One of the fundamental moral agreements that stretches across all faith traditions is the need to treat all human beings as ends of themselves. Every person deserves to be treated with dignity and should be able to live free from the fear of violence or coercion. This belief is soundly grounded in both our religious and political systems - in our religious system as a respect for the sacred in each person, and in our political system as a belief in the inherent equality of each person. There is some controversy over how broad the moral value of human dignity is defined. There is consensus in our society that human dignity includes basic rights to freedom, freedom of belief, and freedom from violence or coercion. Unitarian Universalists generally subscribe to a broader definition of human dignity, one that includes that basic needs of every human being are met, including the right to adequate food and water, education, health care, and social and personal development opportunities.

-Moral Values and Personal Freedom

Although we subscribe to freedom as a political value, this should not be confused with the moral right for individuals to act or think however they please. It is certainly possible to stay within the bounds of the law and the freedoms provided by civil society and to act badly and destructively within these bounds.

Instead, we believe the purpose of freedom is to enable individuals to live lives of meaning, purpose, and value. Every individual will have a different path to living a life of meaning, but we maintain that individuals have a positive obligation to assiduously define and engage in a meaningful life. In particular, Unitarian Universalists believe that we have a positive responsibility to consider the impact of our actions on other people and the natural environment, and that we also have a responsibility to act compassionately towards people in situations of need and distress.

In short, individual freedom is necessary in order to for a person to develop a fully mature moral understanding of their lives and their place in the world. Freedom is to be sought not in order to live a life of indulgence, but because it allows for a life of meaning as lived in accordance with an assiduously attained system of autonomously developed moral values.

-Moral Values and Secular Society

We as Unitarian Universalists are distressed at the secular values of greed, insensitivity, and cheap sexuality that are coming to dominate secular society, and we join with people of other religious communities in calling for a deepening and reawakening of our shared spiritual values in combating these trends. The public sphere is increasingly dominated by a mass media that holds dear no values other than profit taking, and has increasingly pandered to the lowest instincts in people in order to succeed in that goal. In response, we make a call to what we believe are widely held moral values shared with other religious communities in our society. We call on the media to:

1 – To treat the subject of human sexuality with discretion and respect for privacy, in consideration of the sacred element that surrounds human sexuality
2 – To promote the public good, by providing timely, accurate, and thorough information regarding the important issues of the day
3 – To elevate the level of public discourse, by discouraging the use of insults, derogatory terms, and other debasing tactics of debate, and to increase the appeals to people’s reason and desire for mutual understanding

We encourage communities and individuals to “unplug” from the ongoing buzz of mass media, and to look to other sources for information, entertainment, and renewal. In particular, we encourage individuals to engage in relationship and community building activities, to take advantage and support of non-profit sources of information, and to engage in the slower and more thoughtful forms of media such as printed media and books.

Serving the World by Being More You

2007-03-18T20:53:00.000-04:00

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-realization - what is it in us that wants to come alive? These natural gifts are the ones that have the power to keep giving, these are the ones that will not dry up in a time of strain or disappointment.

Just as we aspire to harvest the world's resources sustainably, so we should seek to harvest our own resources sustainably. We should be aware of our own inner ecology and what it's capable of yielding. In certain resources, we may be abundent and boundless, in others quite scarce.

Also, this formula ties service to spirit. I very much believe that our acts of service cannot be measured except by the soul which inhabits them. The ultimate scarcity in the world is not a matter of material but a matter of attention and compassion. Those gifts which spread love and make generosity possible, those are the gifts which renew and heal and bring hope to the world.

We don't have to choose between cherishing our spirit and serving the world. Properly done, each is an inherent part of the other. And to truly serve others, we must first understand ourselves and what it is we have to offer.

Democrats don't need an anti-war candidate

2007-02-22T19:35:00.000-05:00

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 the wrong topic at the wrong time. This war is effectively over, and what's left will certainly be played out by 2008.

What we need to debate is a Democratic vision for what American foreign policy should be going forward. What are the big issues, and how will we tackle them? How will we respond when the Republicans bring up their worn-out "war on terror?"

I'm no foreign policy maven, but here are some of the ideas I'd like to hear discussed:

-The US needs to take a lead role in building international institutions and international law, because the problems of the present and the future - terrorism, disease, global warming - are going to be international by definition and will only have international solutions. We need to build a foreign policy based on universal human rights, finding common ground between different points of view, and mutual respect bewteen nations. This will also harness rising powers such as India and China so that they become additional reinforcements for international law rather than potential rivals in a unipolar world.

-The idea that we are world citizens, that we are one planet and one people. Instead of "God Bless America" I'd like to hear "God Bless the Whole World." We are moving to an age where we are more interdependent than ever, and our fates are linked to the fates of people everywhere. As such, the US should lead the effort to end global poverty according to current UN plans.

-The idea that we have to live up to the moral standards we want other nations to aspire to. If we believe in human rights, then we have to give a fair hearing to our "enemy non-combatants" so we prove that they aren't just someone we picked up by accident. We have to end the current US policy of torture. We need to reinstate the rule of law and agree to crucial international standards such as the Geneva Conventions.

In short, there is a whole lot to discuss. As long as we limit ourselves to Iraq, we will be fighting about the small differences that divide us instead of the big visions which unite us. As long as we talk about Iraq, we will be talking about Mr. Bush's failed policies and not our vision for the future and how we can do better.

In 2006, it was enough for Democrats not to be Republican for us to win. But in 2008, we can do better - we can lay out a vision of America that reflects our values of compassion, responsibility, and fairness. And a pro-active and engaged American foreign policy has got to be part of that vision.

Non Duality (Unity)

2007-02-01T19:25:00.000-05:00

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 that underlies that action, and I can relate to it. I can understand being in a hurry, being overwhelmed, being scared, being angry. These realities exist in me, I know them well. I can see why this person who I have just judged did what they did, I can see the human experiences that underly their action and relate to them.

I like this practice because it reinforces my basic belief in the unity of humankind. Also, it helps me to be less judgemental and more understanding.

It's interesting to me that no matter who you are, it's easy to see people who are different from you as somehow less. What's hard to do is to see the value of every person, no matter how they differ from you in identity or belief.

Loving Emptiness

2007-01-01T20:07:00.000-05:00

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 learn to love my own emptiness.

The Hazards of Excess

2006-12-16T15:25:00.000-05:00

Any item that is of value in the right proportion becomes a hazard in excess. Food we need to live, but in excess it causes obesity and discomfort. Rest we need to recuperate, but in excess it can make us dull and listless. We are biological creatures, and our health and vitality depends upon balance and moderation.

But we are driven by an economic system premised on the concept that more is always better. It is always better to be richer rather than poorer. It is always better to make more money. It is always to consume more things, have bigger homes and vehicles, to go more places, to have more experiences. It is better to read more, to know more, to do more, to conquer more. Not only is our economic system based on the concept that more is better, our culture is based on the concept that more is better. Even among the bohemain counter-culture, where accumulating stuff is looked down upon, people still want to travel more, to hike in more wild places, to try more unusual experiences.

But it seems to me that our endless pursuit of more is quite harmful and self-destructive. It is a subtle way of saying to ourselves that our lives are not good enough. It is a way of making leisure into work and self-knowledge into a an outward competition. More is not better. Better is better. Sometimes less is better. There is a certain substance to life, which is the substance of our spirit and our attention, and as we spread it more thinly we lose it. We find a million ways to distract ourselves and amuse ourselves, but we forget what it is to *be* ourselves.

It seems to me that it is not a coincidence that the sudden accumulation of more has coincided with an apparent loss in the sense of beauty and proportion. And pleasure as well. Someone who is attuned to pleasure and enjoyment will not subject themselves to endless bouts of excess, because such bouts are unpleasant. Someone with a sense of beauty will not purchase a McMansion because they find no sense of value in unused space or empty gestures of importance.

In this sense, an appreciation of beauty becomes not merely a luxury for the elite. Love of beauty has to do with being in touch with the vital forces that comprise life, understanding their health and rhythms. Beauty teaches us balance and proportion and sufficiency and gratitude. Perhaps beauty has never been more important than in our current time and culture, when the hazards of excess are pressing upon us as never before.

Great Americans

2006-12-03T09:49:00.000-05:00

It's interesting how this innocuous phrase has turned saccarine because of its abuse by certain right-wing talking heads. "Great American" now sounds like it has something to do with a steadfast patriotism and jingoism that stands against criticism, no matter how soundly grounded.

But America has produced a significant amount of greatness, which is easy to overlook considering our current retrograde state. The following is a brief list of some of my favorite great Americans; I'd like to hear about some of yours.

Walt Whitman
Whitman is one of the great scribes of the American scene in all its diversity and nobility. Whitman celebrated American vitality, creativity, and versatility. He celebrated the common man and woman and the multiple everyday people who comprise the pride of the country. Whitman elevated the glories of democracry to higher than that achieved by any previous aristocracy.

Ralph Waldo Emerson
Emerson was considered one of the first American intellectuals. He celebrated the individual conscience and the unique callings of the individual spirit to virtue. Emerson beckoned us to higher levels of integrity, and encouraged us to always look at the world freshly, with our own eyes. Emerson embodies the American independence of mind and freedom of conscience we still hold dear.

Martin Luther King
Dr. King took a personal and racial history of pain and suffering and turned it into a redemptive philosophy of understanding and compassion. I think the deep philosophical basis for Dr. King's actions are often overlooked, how the social justice campaigns that he led were undergirded by serious introspection into theology and the human character. Dr. King reinvigorated, if not created, the American tradition of seeking justice through compassionate means.

UN Millennium Human Development Goals

2006-11-11T09:08:00.000-05:00

I was reading through the UN Millenium Human Development Goals the other day for research at work.

Human Development Report 2003, Millennium Development Goals: A compact among nations to end human poverty.

As I reflect back upon this report, among the goals that I recall from the report:

-Reducing child mortality
-Increasing access to basic health care
-Increasing access to education
-Spreading democracy and democratic practices
-Reducing violent conflicts around the globe
-Reducing violence against women and empowering women

Aren't these American values? Aren't these moral values? Wouldn't you like to see an American foreign policy that supported these goals as a primary objective?

Wouldn't such a foreign policy lay the groundwork for putting an end to terrorism?

I have a hard time understanding those who oppose the UN as an institution and its mission.

By the way, the world is currently falling short on reaching these goals.

Should I avoid "Great Clips"?

2006-11-07T18:57:00.000-05:00

I went to Great Clips the other day for a haircut. I was struck by the soul-crushing corporateness of the whole experience.

Every time the door opens, some disheartened employee chirps "Welcome to Great Clips." Each cutting area is designed with corporate flags, large blow-up pictures of smiling models, but no signs of the personal identity of the cutters - no photos, no news clippings, no comics.

The music is on a generic, very white-sounding pop station.

The employees are wearing near-uniforms, all dressed in long-sleeved black.

I tried to make some conversation with my cutter. Her name was Kendra, she looked to be about 20. My haircut was complete in about 15 minutes. I wondered to myself if Kendra had worked at any other salon, and if she had, why she ended up coming here. Maybe Great Clips gave her a chance as a newly trained stylist. All I know is I keep coming back and I hardly ever seem the same stylist twice.

Should I avoid Great Clips because they try to homogenize their employees and suppress their personal identities? Should I go to some old fashioned, mom-and-pop barbershop or some fancy, personal-identity salon? Truth is, I like getting cheap, fast haircuts.

Is the fact that I am even asking this question the sign of hopeless, self-involved navel gazing? Perhaps some choices are not even worth thinking over.

Ecclesiastes

2006-09-05T21:11:00.000-04:00

I spent the small hours of last night reading most of Ecclesiastes through sleep-encrusted eyes.

If you are the kind of person who never reads the Bible as a matter of principle, you might think about making an exception for Ecclesiastes. It's a very philosophical chapter, and much less moralistic than most other parts of the Bible.

The main message seems to be our helplessness to change things in the face of the vast forces that control the universe. It is strange that this message of despair, improbably cast across the void of time, gives me great comfort in my own despair.

The clarity and coherence of early Ecclesiastes seems to break down into a static of jumbled ideas and messages towards the end (... or was this me going back to sleep?) In particular, Ecclesiastes seems unclear on whether wisdom is an essential virtue, or just another flavor of human folly.

The following are some of my favorite passages:

Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.
What do people gain from all the toil, at which they toil under the sun?
A generation comes, a generation goes, but the earth remains forever....
All streams run to the sea, but the sea is not full....

And I applied my mind to know wisdom and to know madness and folly.
I perceived that this also is but a chasing after wind.
For in much wisdom is much vexation,
and those who increase knowledge increase sorrow...

What do mortals get from all the toil and strain with which they toil under the sun?
For all their days are full of pain, and their work is a vexation;
even at night their minds do not rest.
This also is vanity.
There is nothing better for mortals than to eat and drink,
and find enjoyment in their toil...

Again I saw all the oppressions that are practiced under the sun.
Look, the tears of the oppressed - with no one to comfort them!
On the side of their oppressors there was power -
with no one to comfort them...

Then I saw that all toil and all skill in work come from one person's envy of another.
This also is vanity and a chasing after wind.
'Fools fold their hands,
and consume their own flesh.
Better is a handful with quiet
than two handfuls with toil,
and a chasing after wind'...

What is Spirituality?

2006-08-18T20:48:00.000-04:00

Today I was reading through some definitions of "Humanism" online, and I found them strangely hollow. Of course, there are many different kinds of humanists, including religious humanists and secular humanists. But I found it strange that within the definition of humanism there was no reference to anything spiritual. The definitions had a tilt that focused on what is this-worldly, and more specifically, things that are observable and objective. I found in the definition a strange focus on action that somewhat puzzles me.

I started thinking about what spirituality is, and what it is not, and how I would define it.

Spirituality is not the same as believing in the supernatural. There need not be a belief in God, or angels, or an eternal soul. But a spiritual orientation does imply the belief that there are human experiences that cannot be reduced to physical explanations. Human experiences must be interpreted as they are experienced, subjectively and holistically, in order to be understood. A spiritual outlook requires asserting the primacy of experience over physical explanations of the human condition.

Spirituality is not the same as morality. It is possible to be moral without having any significant spirituality. However it is spirituality that takes pleasure at the sight of moral actions being performed, and that finds displeasure in immoral action. Morality is focused on the implications of our actions on others. Spirituality is concerned with how we stand with ourselves. I can be spiritual without acting on any other person; I can be spiritual within the quiet of my own mind.

Essentially, I think spirituality is a faculty. Like any faculty, it can grow stronger with exercise or fade with neglect. Spirituality is a faculty that includes a capacity for satisfaction or dissatisfaction. What is unusual about our spiritual faculty is that our sense of spiritual satisfaction and dissatisfaction often has little to do with what happens to ourselves as persons. Our spiritual faculty is more oriented to our psychic connections outside of ourselves - people we care about, our hopes, our beliefs, our percepion of beauty.

It is possible to have an experience and have it be spiritually devoid; and it is possible to have the same experience (to external appearances) and have it be spiritually rich. Therefore the weight of the spirit cannot be measured by observable action. Yet each of us has the intuitive ability to feel its weight.

The Good Fight

2006-08-10T18:40:00.000-04:00

I have recent completed and strongly recommend Peter Beinart's book The Good Fight. This book is particularly useful for liberals who belief that Islamic terrorism is a serious world threat but have been alienated by the Bush administration's tactics on its "war on terror."

Beinart convincing puts forth a number of related thesis, and ties them together with a strong narrative history and a thorough exploration of the relationship between complex foreign policy issues:

1) Islamic terrorism and its related ideologies represents a new kind of totalitarian threat that must be aggressively addressed through the application of American power. American power can be used for good in the world, when it is applied with appropriate humility and circumspection.

2) Liberals are most likely to win elections when their domestic vision is tied with a vision of America's role in the world

3) Liberals have a successful history of combatting totalitarian movements upon which they can draw, namely during the cold war.

4) The battle against Islamic terrorism is at its deepest level a battle of ideas. Liberals are the best stewards of this battle of ideas because they hold America to a higher moral standard that can serve as an inspiration to our partners and aspiring reformers world-wide.

5) The battle against Islamic terrorism requires strengthened international institutions and international cooperation, which liberals have a better track record of creating and building due to their willingness to truly cooperate with foreign powers.

6) Moderate sectors of the Islamic world need to be encouraged through democratic reforms and economic development. These are programs most likely put forth by liberals, with the Marshall Plan being the historical model of American-led reform and development

Again, a highly recommended read. True pacifists may be disappointed with some of his conclusions, but I think the best of Beinart's ideas will be inspiring even for them.

And most of all this book speaks to the urgent need for Democrats to put up an alternative vision of the world from that the Republicans put forth. Mere opposition and taking account of failures of Republicans is not enough, nor has it ever been enough.

Liberalism (Part I)

2006-07-16T17:10:00.000-04:00

In my next couple of posts, I plan to explore the concepts of the 'liberal' and 'conservative' categories, politicially, culturally, and spiritually.

In particular, I'm interested in the problem that liberal has come to mean something derogatory. I think that liberals need to own the term and need to actively define liberalism. I can't remember the last time I heard a Democrat say, "Yes, I'm a liberal. And by liberal I mean that...."

I think the core feature of Liberalism is openness to new ideas. It's not surprising that some people would find this threatening. Anyone who is used to doing things a certain way, or benefits from certain existing arrangements, naturally could feel threatened by new ideas.

But it's hard to think of any concept more patently American than that of openness to new ideas. In business, openness to new ideas is called innovation, and it's deeply prized. In science, openness to new ideas is called research (or the practice of exploring new ideas) and it's the lifeblood of scientific progress. In the arts, openness to new ideas is called creativity, and it's widely seen as what makes the arts vibrant and invigorating and edifying. Americans readily and aggressively adopt new ideas throughout their culture. Yet somehow the name for this open and progressive attiitude towards change - Liberalism - has attained the tint of elitism.

A second primary characteristic of Liberalism is the idea of community, that as a nation or state our fates are linked together. The idea of a common destiny is a deep and historic current through American history and does not seem like something we need to distance ourselves from politically. Yet this aspect of Liberalism too has come in for ridicule - the 'bleeding heart' liberal. In fact, conservatives also value community, they place a great value on charity, neighbors helping neighbors, and the dependability of regular, honest people. I think the only difference between the liberal and conservative values of community are the scale at which the community is concieved. Conservatives tend to draw a small circle of community, focused on family and the most intimate friends and neighbors. Liberals tend to draw the circle of community more broadly, to include a wide variety of different people and outward on to the idea of world community.

If these are the two defining strains of Liberalism - openness to new ideas, valuing and defining community broadly - I don't see why any progressive-minded person should seek to avoid this label. These are good, solid, American values; values that we can embrace and values that we can run political campaigns on.

Unitarian Sales Pitch

2006-07-10T21:02:00.000-04:00

I was recently talking with another new Unitarian on how we "sell" our religion to others. My original sales pitch was: “You don’t have to believe in anything in particular to join our group.” Her sales pitch was: “We take the best of every religion, with out taking the bad stuff.”

Well I don’t think it takes a genius to see which sales pitch is better. Hers is both better and more accurate than mine. In fact, my sales pitch is so weak I’m shocked I would even say it aloud – that the best we have to offer is a lack of constraints, total personal freedom? Is this what we offer? Why join a group whose main offering is to leave you just the way you were before you joined?

I think what I was trying to say is that we encourage people to think for themselves, and to create a theology based on their understanding of the universe. In other words, we create a community for seekers that can help provide guidance, dialogue, and rigor to the search for the great truths of existence. A community of seekers – sort of like the Quakers. This is a bit better of a sales pitch, but I think it still lacks something. I think there is a core stance to Unitarianism, or if there isn’t one I think there is something I would like to place at its center, to give it a core stance in my mind.

Taking the best of religion while leaving behind the worst sounds good, but also sounds very ambiguous. What is the best part of religion? And what is the worst part? In a simple way, perhaps the best part is the part of religion that connects us to each other and helps us see our fates as linked. The best part of religion exhorts us to be kind and considerate and to act ethically. The worst parts of the religion are those parts used to enforce outdated social hierarchies or social norms – like elevating men above women, or one class of people above another. So this definition makes some sense, assuming that the other person is coming from a similar value system to those of most Unitarians.

But what is that missing item at the center? I think it would be accurate to call that thing God. But whatever you decide to call it, the thing that I am indicating is a belief I have – a belief that I think is widely shared among Unitarians – that there is a force greater than ourselves that we can connect to through worship. And that by connecting to this force greater than ourselves, our ability to understand our role in the universe is enhanced and our ability to do good in this world is strengthened. Without this sacred offering, would Unitarianism be anything more than a social club?

Reverence for Life

2006-07-10T20:57:00.000-04:00

Nice post on reverence for life and the need to learn reverence for life on A People So Bold A People So Bold.

Putting Beliefs into Action

2006-06-25T17:31:00.000-04:00

Recently one of the minister's at my church has been focusing on putting our beliefs into action. She has been arguing that faith without works is not enough. She argues that we have a moral imperative to act on our beliefs.

This is a complex and multi-layered issue, but on the whole I have to say that I disagree. I see action as the flowering that spontaenously occurs out of the seed of belief. We do not need to force our hand. If we have sufficient self-understanding, when the time is ripe, we will act with conviction and with courage.

I think it is part of our culture is an obsessive focus on results, and I think that faith is a curative for this unhealthy obsession. If everything is only useful for the purpose it serves, then nothing is worthwhile in itself. I think the first and deepest spiritual lesson is that life is worthwhile in itself, and that we are worthwhile in ourselves. We should act not out of an anxiety to prove ourselves worthy, but from a graceful centeredness and a clear self-conception.

Emerson suggested that everything we are is present in everything we do. That is, our actions come from us; actions alone cannot define us. Prizing action over soul diminishes what it is to be human. If we measure each other solely by our actions, we are saying that the internal world does not matter, and we are suggesting that feeling, belief, and understanding do not matter if they cannot be capitalized upon. Actions become symbols and proofs, demonstrations to others of how we want to be seen - in short, actions lose their sincerity and genuineness.

Genuineness is the magic that makes our actions worth doing. Even a child can tell the difference between something sincerely done and something done for show. The difference between listening and hearing is not in the 'action,' but primarily in something unmeasurable, in the level of attention and concern we bring. Our presence itself is an action, an action that can demonstrate love or concern or reverence. The energy of our inner soul radiates outward and affects all those around us. When we act from our center, our actions have a resonance that actions from a sense of duty or obligation can never carry.

There are times when we hide behind our indecision or anxiety to avoid taking action. In these cases, forcing action can be helpful for curing the stasis of the soul. Action and experience are sometimes the best teachers, and delay can at times be our worst enemy. But for the most part I think we need not be too eager to act, for we have nothing to prove. There are so many things worth doing, and so few resources of time and energy. Rather than attack the world frenetically, it is better that we should take our time, and consider what it is in ourselves that needs to be realized in the world. When the action comes from within, it will have a greater power to sustain the vagaries of the world.

An Agenda for the Democratic Party

2006-06-23T16:44:00.000-04:00

Energy Indepedence

Any idiot can see the problems that having no energy policy has gotten us into. No other issue has such deep implications for our economy, our environment, and our foreign policy. We do not need drastic measures, but we *do* need a steady reduction in the use of carbon-based fuels, an increase in alternatives like renewables and nuclear power, and new investments in transit across the country. And of course higher fuel standards for vehicles across the board.

Universal Health Care

I don't think it's a stretch to say the majority of Americans probably support universal health care. It just makes sense, and it's the right thing to do. More individuals, and businesses, are feeling the pinch of health care costs that are rising faster than incomes. The US spends a higher percentage of its GNP on health care than possibly any other nation, yet millions are left out of the system entirely. Hospitals are overloaded and non-profit hospitals are going bust or are deeply in the debt. The current system isn't working on many levels, foremost on providing access to health care for all Americans.

Fiscal Responsibility

I can't think of any legitimate economic or policy reason for our endless fiscal deficits. They're a byproduct of a broken ideology that says we can get all of the services we want from government without paying for them. These deficits are unfair - we're placing a tax on future generations (or ourselves as older people) for benefits we are getting now. It's like paying for a what you want by placing it on your children's credit card. And it hasn't worked out that great economically either. Since Bush has been president and instituted his tax cut policies, the stock market has barely budged, and the average American hasn't seen growth in their real wages.

The Democrats can win on these issues, because they're serious issues that are of concern to the vast majority of Americans, and they're issues where the Republicans have been absent or even counter-productive. The only missing part to this formula is that the Democrats need a clear global strategy on terrorism, something the Democrats have lacked or at least have not clearly articulated. This is a more complicated matter, so I'm going to leave it for another posting.

Articulating New Liberal Values

2006-06-03T15:21:00.000-04:00

In recent years we have fretted over the rise of the religious and political right. In seeking to oppose them, we have appealed to secular principles of freedom and justice. We have argued that, despite recent setbacks, these principles are enduring in their broad appeal and merely need to be defended from an attack of the moment.

Stepping back, perhaps the rise of the religious and political right can be seen in a different context. Perhaps the rise of the religious right is merely a reaction to an increasingly toxic mainstream culture – a culture that is vacuous and obsessed with the gross material rewards of money, sex, and power. In this context, the rise of the right is not the source of cultural sickness in itself, but rather a symptom of the broader cultural sickness of our time. People have gravitated to the religious right because it gives them a system of meaning and understanding the world that the secular mainstream culture does not. If this is the actual battleground of our culture, then the need is not so much to oppose the religious right, as it is to provide a source of meaning to those people who feel swamped by the misleading messages of our media-driven culture.

What we need to offer people is liberal religious perspective that allows them to live meaningful lives, and yes, resist the temptations of the larger secular culture. We need to give people a full and sacred definition of what it is to be human, one that respects the needs of their soul as much as the needs of their body. As religious liberals, we are in a unique position to give people a vision of life that is both meaningful and modern. We can give people a way of understanding themselves that is deep and timeless, yet free from outdated constraints and discredited authorities.

Over the longer term, liberalism is very much in the ascendant. To a large extent on cultural issues, and to a lesser extent on economic ones, liberal values have defined the direction of our politics over the past 100+ years. More people are freer now to live as they choose and believe as they will than perhaps any earlier time in American history.

But over the short term, we feel out-manuevered and over-whelmed. Somehow the conservatives have done a better job of defining and explaining their values. Somehow the conservatives have convinced people that we stand for weakness and pandering, while they stand for strength and pride. My conclusion is that we have been out-manuvered by the conservatives because they have been working hard on it for a very long time. They have been working on defining, explaining, and amplifying their values, while we have coasted along on old slogans and themes. We haven’t done the work of understanding ourselves, what it is we stand for, and why – and then transmitting this understanding to the broader culture.

And the earlier great successes of liberalism have led us to hang onto the old values and ideas that have carried us so far. Namely, the ideas and values of human rights, of social justice, and of personal freedom. And no doubt that these ideas and values have great merit and are a permanent part of our belief system.

But the time may have come for new values, and new definitions of what makes life worth living. Most of all, it has become clear that freedom and progress, as they are currently defined, will not of themselves bring us to a better way of living. Progress needs to be redefined not just to include greater control over our physical environment and greater knowledge by science, but a greater degree of mastery over ourselves and a greater degree of self-knowledge. It is us, humans, that are the ultimate untamed and dangerous force in the universe. Unless we learn to master ourselves, we will destroy ourselves surely. We cannot believe in a progress that does not include spiritual self-struggle and self-examination.

The values that we need to redefine and explore are the broader spiritual values from which our political values arise. These include the value of compassion; the value of love for creation; and the value of the sacred dimension of human life – those needs and aspirations that go beyond the material realm. These values, because they are so deep and because they are so difficult to define, do not provide us with as clear a picture of the role of government and policy as our current political values. But ultimately we need these broad, encompassing values to help us define possibilities for living that are fulfilling and that maximize our opportunity for survival as a species. And our definition of our political goals must spring out of that broader definition of what makes life meaningful. We cannot abstract away the sacred human element from our politics, nor should we.

There is a broader network of spiritual progressives working on this task – defining our spiritual values, defining our political values, and the connection between the two. Their website is: http://www.spiritualprogressives.org/

I invite you to join a study group with me on these issues, on how we define our spiritual values, on how we define our political values, and the connections between the two. I look forward to a lengthy and engaging dialogue on these challenging issues.

How Much Is Enough?

2006-05-22T20:54:00.000-04:00

One of my most dearly held beliefs is that the soul is encumbered by the pursuit and ownership of material objects. I have long thought that having less and keeping life simple are important spiritual practices.

But in fact, I do own an awful lot of things, more things than I can manage really. I live in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. From this population, I would guess that I am in the top 20% of households income-wise. It seems that, without really meaning to, I have gotten quite immersed in stuff, both physically and mentally.

I think there are all sorts of reasons for this, good and bad. I think we inevitablely measure "enough" by what we see around us. Our parents were happy to have a color television; we also want a DVD player, a playstation, and an iPod. It's almost like swimming upstream to detach from the material progress we are immersed in.

A second reason, one less compelling to me but surely understandable, is the relationship between owning material goods and status. We are judged by the home we own and the car we drive. And of course, the clothes we wear. How much of what we buy is for display for other people? And is this a diminishment of ourselves spiritually?

One thing that I have recently been trying to keep in mind is the boggling extent of world poverty. Something like 1 billion people live on less than $2 a day. This shames me. But at the same time, I do not believe in asceticism. Live is to be lived, and the mission of compassion is not to snuff out all joys, but to share in the vibrancy of life.

So this is my question - how do we know what is enough, what is too much, and what is too little? How do we measure our own needs, distinguish needs from wants, and distinguish wants from frivolity? How do we keep in mind the great hunger of the world, while still living our own lives fully?

I think this is an essentially spiritual question, one that takes great and perhaps continuing discernment. Reason alone cannot tell us what is enough, nor can custom. Nor can we obey the arbitrariness of our own desire, nor can we deny ourselves everything but the barest necessities. I think it requires a continuous alertness to many things - what it is we desire, whether having what we desire makes us happy, our ability to ameliorate suffering in the world with our material resources, our relationship with the things we own.

I think my belief is that if we have a positive and appreciative relationship with what we own then our consumption will tend to moderate itself. About my possessions, I ask myself, is this something I use? Is this something I enjoy? Is this something that takes away from my relationships with friends and family, because it exacerbates my consuming nature? Is this something that has come to own me by occupying a disproportionate share of my time or my effort?

It often strikes me that the things which bring me the greatest happiness are rarely owned. I take this as a lesson to place the proper value on owned things.

Three Prayers

2006-05-22T20:50:00.000-04:00

Here are three prayers I could use right now:

1) A prayer for when I observe someone fail to live up to their responsibilities, either to myself or to others. That is, for when other people fail to live up to my hopes and expectations for them, be they friend or stranger.

2) A prayer for when I feel estranged from someone. When I dislike what someone does or says, I tend to categorize them as "other" - less smart, less good, in some way less than myself. I want to reinforce for myself that those who are different from me are not worse, though they may make me feel uneasy.

3) A prayer for feeling frustrated and ineffectual as work. For spinning my wheels as it were.

Any suggestions?

Hell Is Other People (Heaven, too)

2006-04-30T17:56:00.000-04:00

Here's my question of the day: As a person of faith and compassion, how should I deal with the people who bore, disappoint, an ger, and frustrate me?

I think there is a valid role for aversion here. It's generally a good idea to avoid people who have bad behaviors, or even just behaviors that push you to your edge, and it's a good idea to spend time with people you enjoy and admire. But there are some situations where you have to deal with people who you don't like.

I wish I could say that I always look for the best in people. I wish I could say that I am good at finding commonalities - after all that *is* my faith, that what is common to humans is greater than what distinguishes us. But in practice, I'm a pretty good elitist. But I think there is spirit in this too. The deepest spiritual connections form between people who see each other as peers, who feel a mutual resonance in each other's perspectives. This type of companionship can provide depth, and this type of relationship has long been a great bulwark of spiritual understanding and growth. A true friend is a spiritual companion.

But back to the other side. How do I deal with situations where I am stuck with people who disappoint me, who bore me, or even disturb me? I guess there is a point at which confrontation is warranted - where I should tell someone of my disapproval of them. But there is probably a larger role for patience and forbearance.

Thinking back on my experience, one key lesson seems to be that my patience or forbearance is unlikely to cause a change of behavior in the subject of my aggrivation. If forbearance is the answer, it has to be sufficient unto itself. But I do think that learning to stretch my comfort zone, learning to deal with the frustrations of life, is itself a useful discipline.

Critique of Reason

2006-04-23T16:55:00.000-04:00

My philosophical heritage is rationalistic and scientific. I place a great value on reason and empiricism as means of inquiry to investigate truth. I also acknowledge the great price that humankind has paid due to irrational and superstitious beliefs. At the same time, I think the role of reason in self-understanding and knowledge of the soul is greatly limited and even has the potential to be destructive.

Reason is an excellent tool for understanding the physical world. Reason and empiricism have proven their success multiple times over he course of history, and we have all benefited greatly from the discoveries of science and medicine in particular.

But for understanding the psyche, for understanding our internal world of meaning, reason is inadequate.

Every reason-led person I have ever met distinguished between right and wrong, and cared about the events in the world far from themselves. But reason alone can never tell us right from wrong. Our desire to see right realized in the world, our dislike of wrong, our care for the world outside of its affect on our ourselves, these are all at their base inexplicable and irreducible.

Our experience goes far deeper than our impressions of the physical world. Of course there are the emotions, but there are many other things besides, perhaps less well named because these are much less distinct. There are our moods, our connections, our apprehension, our passion, our understanding. There are our aspiriations, our pride, our humility, our hope, our wonder. Can we really enumerate the dimensions of human experience? What is the experience of reading a Shakespearian tragedy? What is the experience of hearing a Mozart sonata? Can these things be measured, compared and objectively valued?

Looking at our experience through the perspective of reason flattens it, distorts it. The bean-counter of reason cannot embrace the full complexity of human experience, which is not simply positive and negative. The dimensions of the soul are many, and the best life is not necessarily the one that has the least suffering; suffering, too, has its valued place in the soul.

There is an impulse toward wholeness and integration in the soul. The soul has its own kind of understanding, neither part of reason nor wholly outside reason, an intuitive designer that brings together the myriad elements of experience to make a unified picture of the world and one's place in it. This process of world-understanding or meaning making is continuous, it is mysterious, and it is beyond the grasp of reason and beyond the measurement of science.

When reason is forcefully appled to this meaning-making mechanism, the result is violence to the soul. Reason cuts like a knife, separating what in the soul is married. It reduces the soul to a slave, whose worth is no more than what can be objectively measured by the systems of economy or biology.

It is ironic that the great light of reason, liberator of humankind, is also capable of creating a kind of blindness, one that robs us of our deepest insight into ourselves.

Why We Torture

2006-04-08T10:38:00.000-04:00

President Bush has said that the United States does not torture. But we do. In Guantanamo, in Abu Graib, in other prisons around the world, the evidence keeps coming forward. The facts are clear: the United States does practice torture. But why?

Looking beyond President Bush's executive power grab, beyond his refusal to be bound to the international law, what we see at the core is a deeply flawed understanding of humanity and human dignity. At the core of President Bush's torture policy is the belief that those who commit terrorist acts are not fully human and not deserving of human dignity.

The belief at the center of these and other religious right policies is that there are two categories of people: good people and bad people. The good people we protect, and the bad people we destroy. The good people are people like us, and the bad people are people are something else, something less than human.

This is a deeply flawed understanding of both humanity and of evil. The fundamental existential truth is that all people are capable of both good acts and evil acts. And though there is a role for punishment in society, there is no role for de-humanization.

President Bush has started the path to de-humanization, and now he claims to be surprised where it has taken us. But when we de-humanize our enemy, all tactics become justifiable, and this is exactly what has happened. All of the sudden, we have implicit permission to torture, kill, maim, destroy, anyone who opposes "us" and our righteous ends.

Once you de-humanize one group, then it is a short journey to expanding the stigma of less-than-human, to seperating humanity into ever more categories of worth and value. The only way to oppose this is to hold to one standard of rights for all people, regardless of what they have done.

We have to remember, there is only one group of humanity - all of us. And torture is always wrong.

Losing Myself

2006-04-01T07:59:00.000-05:00

This blog was supposed to be about issues and beliefs, not personal experience. But I guess it is inevitable that the one should influence the other.

Sometimes in the course of the day or the week I lose myself. In the practice of saying things I do not mean and doing things I do not think are important, I lose my integrity. Or perhaps it is more accurate to say I cover my integrity up, like a fresh wound becomes hidden behind a scab.

When I say I lose my integrity, I do not mean that I manipulate others to my advantage. Quite the opposite. What I find myself doing is manipulating myself for other's convenience. I become what others need, demand, or expect, because I believe it for the time being to be necessary or expedient. And in those manipulations of myself, my integrity is lost, and eventually I myself become lost.

My definition of the good life is one in which every action and word flows from the center of my being, and nothing is extraneous. To be myself completely; to be myself deeply; to be myself with integrity. Always to stand on the firm ground of the soul. I think it is this longing that makes me nostalgic for simpler times and places, times and places I've never visited except in my imagination.

Principle Two: Practice Gratitude

2006-03-28T21:54:00.000-05:00

My second spiritual practice is to re-connect to my inherent gratitude.

It is human nature to notice that which changes, and to ignore that which stays the same. But we are so immersed in great blessing, that we scarcely take the time to notice it. We always think of the margin, the edge, how things could get better. Rarely do we think how good things are, or simply what is right with ourselves and our lives.

I think practicing gratitude, it's very easy and very gratifying. And also I think it is something that gets easier with time - it is something that is worth practicing. It's very simple. Just ask yourself, what is it in my life that I am glad for? Something will come up of its own. The key is sincerity. You cannot be grateful for something because you *should* be. Gratitude springs from the heart. Practicing gratitute means taking the time to slow down and listen to the sweet music of gratefulness in the heart. Even if it is small, even if it's just for one small thing, this is worth listening to.

One of my favorite gratitude rituals surrounds making tea. I like to think of tea as the junction of the four great elements: earth, air, fire, and water. The tea leaves and the coffee mug are of the earth; the steam and aroma, of the air; the heat is the fire; and then there is also the water, the medium by which everything mixes and communicates. In my cup, these four cosmic forces combine to create something beautiful, a small gift to life.

I pour the steaming water into the mug, and let the tea steep. Already the miracle begins - the scent of the tea, the gleam of the stream of water into the cup. By the time the tea is ready, I'm am also ready to receive it. My nose sniffs, my lips sip, the warm stream reaches down my throat into my stomach and then diffuses into my limbs.

The elements of nature have balanced, connected, and aligned to speak to me as a gift from one whom I'll never fully know.

Sincerity

2006-03-21T07:39:00.000-05:00

Sincerity, or self-honesty, is the life-blood of the spirit. Where sincerity flows, the spirit is refreshed and nourished. Where sincerity does not flow, the spirit must wither.

The spiritual life is the one side of life where truth to yourself is paramount. In our social lives, appearances rule - we are judged and estimated by what we appear to be. In our spiritual lives, we can be nothing other than what we are. We see ourselves naked, without cover.

Every person when they look inside sees a microcosm of the entire universe. Love and hate, anger and forebearance, fear and courage, and all the other kinds of struggles lie within. This muddle within turns out to be of great value. First, it connects us with every other living creature - their struggles, their paths, we identify with even if we never experience that path first hand. Second, the muddle within indicates that our true selves are hidden, that we must seek to find the hidden unity underneath.

The key to sincerity, self-honesty, is to accept the reality of what is within you. Embracing the truth of ourselves is itself an act of courage and a path towards spiritual life.

The Daily Grind

2006-03-15T06:40:00.000-05:00

At this point in my life, I have held a number of jobs and spent a considerable amount of time in school. I think I can say that without qualification, every occupation I have ever had left me physically and emotionally exhausted at the end of most days. This is not to say that there has not been excitement and inspiration. But whereas excitement and inspiration have been occasional visitors, exhaustion has been a constant companion.

This leads to a number of questions-

Is our culture's attitude towards work inhumanely demanding or otherwise dehumanizing?

Is it something in me that makes work exhausting, something in my attitude or constitution?

Is there a right occupation out there for me, that if I found it, my exhaustion would be combatted by an equally constant inspiration? In other words, is it a matter of finding the right fit for my skills and interests, that is somehow still elusive after all these years of trials and errors?

Is it the human condition that work should always be exhausting, regardless of whether it is rewarding or not, regardless of the amount, the environment, and so on? Is it just inherent to the nature of work and life that we should tire from it?

This reminds me of the great biblical story of Adam and Eve being cast out of the Garden of Eden, and the curse upon Adam, that he shall have to make his living by the sweat of his brow. Somehow I find this eternal and somewhat unreasonable curse satisfying, as it gives me some means for understanding my daily exhaustion.

I do have one partial answer. For me, the answer is not to avoid or eliminate work. I do see a spiritual need and value to work. I'm glad that I get to work; I'm even glad that I have to work. But my relationship with work, that could stand some improvement.

Work Prayer

2006-03-12T21:12:00.000-05:00

Some days when I am on my way to work, I say to myself a little prayer, it goes something like this:

Thank you for this new day. Thank you for my legs which walk and eyes which see, for the ability to explore and come into contact with the wide world.

Thank you for my abilities. Thank you for my understanding, which allows me to think about the world and allows me to try to plan for a better world.

Thank you for my co-workers, who help me to see things in a new light. Help me to see the light that is within them, help me to forgive those who distract and annoy me.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to work on a job that challenges my abilities and that can make a difference in peoples lives. Let me try to offer something of myself as a gift to the world on this day.

Universalism

2006-02-26T18:37:00.000-05:00

Unitarian-Univeralists like to joke that they don't believe in anything, that all beliefs are equally welcome at the UU table. But there is a strong Universalist current in today's UUism, one that I think is a permanent and powerful feature.

Originally Universalism was a belief about universal salvation. God's mercy is too great to allow anyone to fall into hell, and therefore all are saved. Of course this belief is still very controversial today, but for most UUs, the issue of heaven or hell is no longer relevant.

In its present, secularized but nevertheless spiritual form, Univeralism speaks to our acceptance of people of all types, just as they are. This acceptance, this idea that all people are welcome into our congregation and our community, is a powerful and even transforming spiritual force. This idea, that love and acceptance will be placed before judgment and before social pressures of conformity, may be the strongest spiritual weapon in the UU arsenal.

Religion has been used to divide people for so long. Religion and religious thinkers have tried to separate high from low, good from bad, Jew from gentile. Many religious leaders still work on this framework - good is achieved by expelling the evil out. But this has always been a convenient and self-deluding myth. The potential for evil, and the potential for good, is within every one of us. The basis of redemption is not expulsion, but understanding and forgiveness. When we accept people just as they are, when we accept whole people, they can bring the whole truth about themselves into the church and experience healing. A church of expellers will never achieve wholeness, because it will be a community driven by image and censorship. The full arc of the heart will never be revealed in such churches.

This is the great spiritual power of UUism in our day and age - welcoming all who come. The spirit that underlies Universalism - the spirit that see us linked together in an eternal sisterhood and brotherhood - is a powerful one, one that will take us far along the road of spiritual growth.

Principle One: Renew the Contemplative Spirit

2006-02-26T18:36:00.000-05:00

This is the first in a series of entries where I will try to elucidate a set of guiding spiritual principles. These principles are not meant to be universal, or timeless. These are merely a set of principles I have arrived at through introspection that seem appropriate to me at this time in my life. These principles are intended as a guide to make every day meaningful, every day stand on its own.

The first principle is to renew the Contemplative Spirit. What I am saying here is that we all have an inherent contemplative spirit, that allows us to look at the world with wonder and fascination. The essence of the contemplative spirit is that it is not trying to achieve anything. The contemplative spirit is like being in its purest form, with no goal outside itself. We all have it, we are given this spirit at birth and it is always available to us. But in our world it is often erased by the urgency of tasks, responsibilities, and the world of social appearance.

To renew the comtemplative spirit, I must let go of all that I must do and all that I wish to appear. I must come into the moment, and see the uniqueness of the moment. For me the contemplative spirit involves actual thought, actual contemplation. I am mulling some aspect of existence, perhaps something very mundane. Contemplation does not come about because I will it or because I try to do it, but incidently as a matter of grace. Contemplation comes to me of its own accord during those moments I am at peace, or when I am able to still my inner stirrings.

How you renew the contemplative spirit, I am not sure. It has something to do with attaining a more distant perspective. Or the contemplative spirit is renewed by seizing on some small object of beauty, a floating cloud. But at any rate, I maintain that the contemplative spirit is worth cultivating, that this is a valuable spiritual practice in itself and for itself. I think for me contemplation is a type of prayer, maybe the highest form of prayer. And of course the essence of it is its completeness - contemplation is not for any end beyond itself.

The Soul of Pleasure

2006-02-15T21:13:00.000-05:00

Most religious traditions frown on the pursuit of pleasure. I think we can all imagine why this would be so - that the pursuit of pleasure can interfere with moral conduct. In particular, sexual pleasure and pleasures of food, 'pleasures of the flesh,' are considered dangerous temptations. Serious adherents of many religions seek deeper spiritual understanding through privation from physical pleasures. But I am prone to see pleasure as a worthwhile end in itself, one with spiritual or soulful contents.

Pleasure should not be confused with obsession or gluttony. Pleasure is actually something a bit difficult to achieve. The mindless pursuit of lusts does not create pleasure. Rather, pleasure is only the result of a refined attention and a patient experience. In some sense, pleasure grasped is pleasure destroyed. The pleasurable experience of the senses is something that requires an appreciation of the present, a keen awareness.

The soul of pleasure is thankfulness. Thankfulness is our most element and basic relationship with God. When we are capable of nothing else, no other capacity, we are still capable of thankfulness. In pleasure, we acknowledge God's gift of the senses, we acknowledge the amazing coincidence that is sweetness and beauty. A soulful pleasure, one that does not grasp or horde, is a melodious prayer to God's ears.

The soul of pleasure is increased still more when it is shared in good company. To share the gifts and bounty of nature with kindred spirits - is there a higher calling in our life than this? I think in the light of full awareness and full thankfullness, pleasure is a boon to the soul and not a burden.

Global Warming

2006-02-03T15:22:00.000-05:00

As a general rule, this blog will not seek to address current issues, but instead will look to the framework of values and understandings that underly a liberal political philosophy. However I make an exception to talk about global warming.

I think the underlying value behind the global warming debate is quite simple: that we have an obligation to be stewards of the earth, not just for future generations but for all life on the planet. We have an obligation to preserve the existence and habitat of other species, whether they’re animal, plant, or other. This is a very serious and profound obligation that could be discussed in depth on its own. But to get straight to the point – we should be very reluctant to destroy what we are not capable of creating. We destroy God’s creation of manifold species at our moral and existential peril.

It is conceivable that in 50 years, our time will be looked at nostalgically as the time when we could have made a difference, when we could have prevented global warming. Scholars will debate why we dithered. The problem of terrorism distracted American society from the looming threat. An ex-oilman as President took every opportunity to delay addressing an issue that would have placed him in opposition to his beloved coterie. Or perhaps simply the problem was that the American people were much better at addressing realized threats than potential ones.

I have a feeling that those who demur concern for global warming have an essential failure of imagination. They cannot imagine a planet sucked dry of life. They cannot imagine glaciers melted, coastlines swamped, climates changed, species extinct. The pine forest in your backyard becomes a desert. Wheatfields in Iowa become subtropical jungle. The very complexion and character of our beloved Earth, forever altered in the name of temporary convenience.

The values in the debate are clear. The only thing the other side of the debate (‘Let’s keep our fingers crossed…’) has going for it is delay and denial. Unfortunately, that may be all they need to win, and so lose the great inheritance of us all.

Faith without Dogma

2006-01-31T21:37:00.000-05:00

I believe the Unitarian Universalist faith may be stronger than many dogma-specific faiths. A dogma-specific faith is tied to a weighty theology whose images and ideas were born in other ages and other lands. A dogma-specific faith is tied to a network of abstractions and theories, dizzying in their complexity. What does it mean to believe in the Trinity? What does it mean to believe in karma? Do the complex explanations of theology bring us closer to God?

On the other hand, what does it mean to have faith, when no specific creed is applied? What shape does ether take when it is not confined to any vessel?

For me, faith means faith in God. But the reason I can take refuge in God is because in my mind God is a concept without shape or definition. God is akin to life-force or the infinite or the substrate of all the universe. God is the strong force, the force that binds atoms together instead of letting them spin off into space.

The Unitarian Universalist faith allows the individual to seek and find truth on individual terms, based on an individual experience of the divine. We are able to seek the mysteries of the spirit without trying to confine them to the limits of human mental concepts.

I suppose this is the same as any religion that has a mystical arm. All mystics admit the indecipherable nature of the divine. It's just that as Unitarians, we have less theology to let go of when we reach that place.

Why "Atlanta?"

2006-01-31T21:32:00.000-05:00

Why "Atlanta" Unitarian?

My identity is closely tied up with that of my native city.

We share a lot of characteristics. We're polite but ambitious. We have a great pride and a secret shame.

I feel like a lot of Atlanta's story is my story. The story of Jewish immigrants who were sent down south to avoid the crowding of New York. The story of racial division but visions of racial unity.

I feel a resonance with the natural world in Atlanta too. Large sprawling yards filled with yawning oak trees, messed with leaves and vines. A laziness in the humid summer breeze. Sweat on a child's back as he runs after a ball in the street. Powerful waves of rain, sudden and unexpected. A pleasantly warm and sunny December afternoon.

Much of my thought, my concern, and my identity spring from this city.

So this blog, I dedicate to my hometown.

Democrats Lost at Sea

2006-01-31T20:39:00.000-05:00

Ever since the catastrophic Bush election of 2000, the Democrats have been lost at sea.

I was quite involved in the Dean 2004 campaign. There was a glimmer of hope for a minute there. Dean never had a chance to share who he was or what he stood for with the mainstream public. He has been imaged as a ferocious, out-of-control bulldog. Actually he is quite calm, reasoned, seasoned, and educated. But his main appeal was definitely his far reaching vision of what America was about, what our problems are, and how they could be addressed. I do not think any of this received more than a half minute of attention in the popular media. Which goes to show another problem, the monster that is our press today, but I'll save that for another time.

Currently I receive news and propaganda from a number of left-leaning organizations, and I could not be more tired of these messages. I include the messages from Dean in his new role as head of the Democratic National Committee in my critique. Democrats and leftists have devolved into endless sniping and Republican-baiting. They only seem capable of criticizing, mocking, and slinging mud. Basically, I am repulsed by the behavior of my own party. In particular I am sick of all the ad hominem attacks of Republicans and members of the Religious Right. Except Pat Robertson, he deserves it.

Democrats and liberals need to get back to our vision of what America stands for and our values. I've been strongly influenced by George Lakoff in my political thinking recently, especially his book "Don't Think of an Elephant". What the Democrats have been missing is a clear idea of what they stand for. Or, if they know what they stand for, it would be nice to hear it once in a while. All I've heard from Democrats, both nationally and in my state, is endless pot-shots at elected Republicans. We need to take the time to tell people what we as Democrats stand for and why, what our understanding of the American dream is. The Republicans are light-years ahead on this, and we have to start working and building our vision now.

Unitarian Faith

2006-01-29T17:57:00.000-05:00

I happen to believe there is such a thing as Unitarian faith, and that this faith is powerful and enduring. I believe that the religious principals that bind Unitarians together are more important than the political ones. Both of these beliefs are quite controversal, for reasons that may be difficult to explain if you are not familiar with Unitarianism.

Unitarian faith is powerful because it is based on the raw understanding of the universal and inherent connection between all human beings and beyond to humanity's connection to the natural universe. We as Unitarians really try to accept all people and find the worthy spirit within all people, and therefore we endeavor to live up to the standard of our faith that all people have inherent worth and dignity. It is a very simple principle, but a very difficult one to put into practice and revere. Unitarians do this well - we respect the inherent worth and diginity of all people well. This is the first step - the necessary condition - upon which the Beloved Community could be built. And the foundation of this behavior is essentially a faith, in that it is something we believe in utterly and completely and without proof.

I believe that the religious calling of Unitarians is more important than the political one. In short, I think you can be a religious liberal while being a political conservative. The religious essence of Unitarianism is more fundamental and more important, because it is only on the basis of mutual love and respect that any political or social system can be sustainable. Or from another perspective, you cannot really change the minds of your enemy by anger, hatred, or fear. Fundamentally the problem we battle, the problem that underlies all other problems, is a lack of love and a lack of attention. These problems therefore can only be corrected ultimately through our efforts of love and attention.

And I believe that our ultimate (i.e. sufficent in itself) aim is not about solving problems. Our ultimate aim is the celebration of life and the reverence for life and creatiion. Life is sufficient unto itself. It is not lived to 'solve' things. It is lived because it has its own value, its own vibrancy. Our Unitarian faith should point at the inherent beauty of life. If we are correctly oriented, corrective action will come of its own accord. It is most important to be motivated by compassion and not guilt in our social justice efforts.

I have touched on a lot of points here, and maybe gone a bit astray. But the main points are this: that Unitarian Universalism is not a secular club or a social movement, but a deep faith; and that in my opinion the practice of the faith is primary to the practice of social justice action.

Emerson's Divinty School Address

2006-01-25T08:32:00.000-05:00

I recently started a class on Emerson at UUCA. I had tried to read him before on my own unsuccessfully. The structure of the course has helped me to focus on the material better.

The first reading assignment was Emerson's Divinity School Address. Already with just one reading I feel a great spiritual kinship with Emerson. It feels like he had many of the same thoughts I have had, but that he looked more deeply into those thoughts and understood them better.

Emerson's main point in this essay is that religious understanding can only come first-hand, through our own interal apprehension of the universe. We cannot come to spiritual truths through teaching or dogma, because these truths must be experienced directly. Emerson makes his point in the context of trying to revive a dying Christian church, but the point is universal.

Here he speaks about the need for an immediate relationship with the divine, with no outside interpretation or mediation:

Let me admonish you, first of all, to go alone; to refuse the good models, even those which are sacred in the imagination of men, and dare to love God without mediator or veil.

I am looking forward to reading more of Emerson, and to learning more of his insights. I have a feeling he will help me understand my own faith and my own light more clearly.

Principles, not goals

2006-01-20T14:06:00.000-05:00

It struck me the other day, how can we live in such a way that we could die any time without regret? You cannot know how long your life will last. You may die tomorrow. If so, what will become of all your uncompleted goals? They will dissolve, disappear into the vortex of space and time. If we live for the goals we achieve, our entire life’s purpose can be wiped away at any instant.

On the other hand, if we live a life of principle, each day has value. Each day stands on its own, a day lived well. Organizing a life around principles means that the value of life is in living it – life itself is what becomes worthwhile. Goals point outside ourselves, and often have no ultimate reference. Principles point within (or from the inside out?) to the divine spark at our core.

This does not mean that you should not have goals. Only realize that goals are slippery, and goals are only attained at least in part by grace, not through the exercise of will alone.

Principles, on the other hand, are a solid ground on which to stand and live life proudly. By living through them every day can be made sacred and whole.

Why go to church on Sundays?

2006-01-08T19:59:00.000-05:00

Many of my athiest and humanist friends probably wonder why I would bother going to church on Sundays. Why miss a couple extra hours of sleep, or an opportunity for a leisurely Sunday brunch?

To this question I respond with a set of questions: How do you remember that we are all connected to each other and to the world at large? How do you remember the unique gift of creation and the brief gift of life? How do you deal with a world in which suffering is greater than your capacity to address it? How do you keep alive your hopes for a better world?

Aristotle said something like you are not what you aspire to but rather what you do on a regular basis. If you want to be something, you must practice being it regularly. Going to church, praying, worship, this is a kind of practice, practicing being a better person. It takes practice to care about the world and to avoid the dangers of solipsism. It takes practice to be fully alive, to be fully aware of the opportunities life presents us. I pray, I go to church, because I need more practice. I need practice on how to live fully and how to live well. In short, it is a reminder to wake up. Miss a few hours sleep, in order to be more wakeful.

"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." - Aristotle

Liberal Religion is a call to a higher moral standard

2005-12-04T16:40:00.000-05:00

Often conservatives bemoan liberals for a lack of clear morality. Because liberals do not acknowledge a single authority on good and evil, conservatives reason, liberals fall into 'relativism' where no action can be clearly discerned as right or wrong.

On the contrary, I have found that religious and political liberals have a very clear idea of right and wrong. For example, it is generally liberals who stand for universal human rights.

In conservative religion, knowing the truth is easy, but following the truth is hard.

In liberal religion, knowing the truth is hard, and following the truth is still harder. Liberalism is the harder path, the path that takes more self-discipline and effort. In fact it is possible that many conservatives spurn liberalism because it is hard, because the moral challenge of a brotherhood with all humankind is too weighty a burden to bear.

In liberal religion, right and wrong must continually be discerned and the moral understanding must continually be refined as new truths are revealed by experience and debate. Some moral truths are well established, and close to certain. Other moral truths are more tenative and need to be evaluated. In the liberal religious sphere, reason, prayer, community discussion, and engaging in multiple points of view are all valid tools for exploring moral truth. Sometimes, this makes things more confusing and it becomes difficult to discern moral truth. But in the long run, we have faith that through earnest effort humankind can come closer to moral truth, and become better and more pure in intent.

The search for truth is undergirded with humility. Humans can never claim an absolute hold on the truth. Even though things we are most certain of, we should acknowledge are limited by our human understanding. Of course we must act based on our best understanding, but we must also act with humility. We should remain open to the possibility that we may be wrong, that we can be corrected. Only by remaining open to new truth and new revelation can we become better, and can we achieve a more complete moral understanding.

Friends' Testimony of Integrity

2005-08-07T21:20:00.000-04:00

"The testimony of integrity calls us to wholeness; it is the whole of life open to Truth. When Lives are centered in the Spirit, beliefs and actions are congruent, and words are dependable. As we achieve wholeness in ourselves, we are better able to heal the conflict and the fragmentation in our community and in the world.

"Integrity is a demanding discpiline. We are challenged by cultural values and pressures to conform. Integrity requires that we be fully responsible for our actions. Living with integrity requires living a life of reflection, living in consistency wtih our beliefs and testimonies, and doing so regardless of personal consequences. Not least, it calls for a single standard of truth...

"Friends believe in speaking simply, avoiding misleading words or emotionally manipulative language, which could divert from the discernment of God's will. Commitment to truth requires authenticity and veracity in following one's own conscience, illuminated by the Inner Light. When we depart from truth, we separate ourselves from God. Integrity is not simply a habit of speech, but a way of life increasingly aligned with God's will"
- Book of Faith and Practice, Pacific Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends.

Such a clear and powerful statement could only come from profound religious insight.

To me, what this statement is about is living the same set of values through all of your roles in life, living to a consistent standard. And moreover, that standard coming from a constant effort to discern God's will. Imagine being the same person at work as at home, the same person with your friends as with your family, always with an open heart and spiritual frame of mind.

Such a contrast with the traditional rules of religion, which are primarily about refraining from forbidden activity. This is an exhortation to constant effort and betterment. A discipline.

How did the Quakers get such insight? Is there something about their practices for discernment that is particularly effective?