tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221254862024-03-13T23:51:47.739-07:00Sparks in the DarkDiscussions about life, the universe, Unitarian Universalism... and various shiny distractions.ogrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15910505029382522110noreply@blogger.comBlogger127125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22125486.post-33164959385626318752011-06-21T11:14:00.000-07:002011-06-21T11:45:04.012-07:00Universalism RapI was, a few months ago, carpet bombed by the muse. I don't read music, I don't play an instrument, and essentially sing only in groups. I rarely write any sort of poetry. So finding myself suddenly with what was clearly song and... <span style="font-style: italic;">rap...</span> was more than unexpected.<br /><br />Worse, it demanded it be presented. And now it has been; sung as part of a sermon, sung to a camp, and shared in print with classmates.<br /><br />So now I'm unleashing it. Feel free to rap it yourself, however the spirit moves you. I just ask that if you use it in a service or such--or reprint it--that you keep my name associated with it.<br /><br />As I've performed it, the refrain's sung and the rest is a sort of spoken word rap.<br /><br />Universalism Rap<br />© Patrick McLaughlin (with many thanks to Marcia Stanard for her assistance)<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">It's a crazy idea, in the end love wins<br />and God's looking forward to forgiving sins.<br />It's a crazy idea, being loved so well,<br />No one in the end gets damned to hell.</span><br /><br />If you go back to the second century,<br />Origen preached to folks like you and me,<br />saying God doesn’t hate, God’s all about love,<br />and salvation <span style="font-style:italic;">happens</span> when push comes to shove.<br /><br />It says love is patient; love is kind.<br />We know that love is crazy and can be kind of blind.<br />It says love’s forgiving; it sure isn’t hate—<br />and even devils are forgiven when it gets real late.<br /><br />It <span style="font-style:italic;">makes</span> plain sense, said Hosea Ballou.<br />Eternal punishment, it <i style="">just</i> can’t be true!<br />So he wrote it and preached it in the 19<sup>th</sup> C— <br />and made a whole lot of people just crazy.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">It's a crazy idea, in the end love wins<br />and God's looking forward to forgiving sins.<br />It's a crazy idea, being loved so well,<br />No one in the end gets damned to hell.</span><br /><br />He wasn’t alone; there was also John Murray, <br />whose tale reads like Job in the Bible story.<br />His family all died; he was jailed for debt—<br />so his country and his pulpit and his faith he fled.<br /><br />His ship stuck off New Jersey, at Good Luck Point,<br />where he met a man – <span style="font-style:italic;">Potter</span> – who owned a joint;<br />a church he’d built, for someone to come preaching<br />universal salvation (he knew about the teaching).<br /><br />Murray was <span style="font-style:italic;">done</span>, “I’ll be gone on the sea!”<br />Potter insisted, said there’d be no breeze.<br />“I know god sent you here this church to fill,”<br />and Murray preached, ‘cause on Sunday it was still.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">It's a crazy idea, in the end love wins<br />and God's looking forward to forgiving sins.<br />It's a crazy idea, being loved so well,<br />No one in the end gets damned to hell.</span><br /><br />Like Jesus planting mustard in the parable field, <br />this crazy idea that all souls get healed.<br />And most who preach it just get the sack—<br />but universal salvation keeps coming back.<br /><br />It’s a gospel of inclusion that some teach.<br />Final reconciliation might be preached.<br />They’re just different words for God’s great scheme—<br />everyone’s included in that final dream.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">It's a crazy idea, in the end love wins<br />and God's looking forward to forgiving sins.<br />It's a crazy idea, being loved so well,<br />No one in the end gets damned to hell.</span><br /><br />So follow the <span style="font-style:italic;">logic</span> when you teach God's love;<br />your hope isn't just in heaven above—<br />because heaven's on earth, wherever love's found<br />and everywhere we go is holy ground.<br />‘Cause truth's not held in just one place;<br />God's been talking to the whole human race.<br />There's <span style="font-style:italic;">not</span> one truth, or <span style="font-style:italic;">just</span> one way,<br />and there's not gonna be any judgment day.<br /><br />Because heaven's on earth, wherever love's found,<br />and everywhere we go is holy ground.<br />Yes, heaven's on earth, wherever love's found<br />and everywhere we go is holy ground.<br /><span style="font-style:italic;"><br />It's a crazy idea, in the end love wins<br />and God's looking forward to forgiving sins.<br />It's a crazy idea, being loved so well,<br />No one in the end gets damned to hell.</span><br /><span style="font-style:italic;"><br />It's a crazy idea, being loved so well,<br />No one in the end gets damned to hell.</span><br /><br />Nuh-uh. No hell. Amen.ogrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15910505029382522110noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22125486.post-74027091923808219482011-05-16T13:01:00.000-07:002011-05-17T10:09:42.922-07:00Of Wild, Feral, and Domestic UUs...UPDATE: <span style="font-style: italic;">I've made a correction based on Chris Walton catching an error I made while moving data from the World's pdf to Excel. I've corrected the data in the columns so that it's accurate, but am striking through the erroneous data in the text and replacing it with the corrected numbers.</span> Thank you, Chris!<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Also, Christine asked about how I extracted numbers from the Pew survey on the unchurched, which made me realize I'd forgotten to write about assumptions and method, as I'd intended. The basic assumptions; the two surveys are accurate and reliable, and the Pew survey includes both churched (member) and unchurched UUs in proper proportions, as well as that the two data sets, taken four years apart, represent pretty much the same population. I think all of those are reasonable, but any one of them might be questioned.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">It's that second assumption that the actual math rests on. If member UUs are represented in Pew's sample in proper proportion to the overall population, and non-member UUs are as well, then we can take the Pew number, subtract the UUA's adult membership data, and discover how many unchurched UUs there are (the "wild" and "feral" populations). This, in fact, is what was done in the post I linked to in Transient and Permanent. When I saw that post, and the data from UU World, I realized that one could do some fairly simple algebra; we had the Pew numbers (UUs at large) and the UU World data (member UUs). Backing out the UU World numbers from the Pew numbers would give the numbers for the free range UUs. If the two sub-population were the same size, I'd simply have subtracted (Pew - UU World = unknown). Transient and Permanent's insight that there were three free range UUs for every member UU (actually, just over three--the numbers are 76% free range and 24% members--since I don't believe that the numbers we're working with are that precise, I worked with the 3:1 ratio) just required weighting the numbers. Thus the actual formula looks like 4(Pew) = UU World + 3(unknown) -- the need to multiply Pew's number is because we're working in percentages, not absolute numbers.</span><br /><br />-------------------------<br /><br />On Facebook this morning, Chris Walton posted a link that I'd previously missed at UU World, a comparison of data from two polls, one by UU World in 2004 and one by Pew Research in 2008. Both look at reported data from UUs. What's fascinating are the differences....<br /><br />I am indebted as well to this posting at <a href="http://transientandpermanent.wordpress.com/2008/02/25/how-many-uus-are-there-in-the-usa/">Transient and Permanent</a>, which mulled over some of the Pew data three years ago.<br /><br />Here's the basic data:<br /><br /> <style>@font-face { font-family: "Verdana"; }@font-face { font-family: "Calibri"; }@font-face { font-family: "Cambria"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }</style> <table class="MsoNormalTable" style="width: 235pt; margin-left: 4.4pt; border-collapse: collapse;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="235"> <tbody><tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 84pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="84"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" > </span></p> <br /></td> <td style="width: 70.15pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="70"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >UU World</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 80.85pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="81"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >Pew Research</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 84pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="84"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >Income</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 70.15pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="70"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" > </span></p> <br /></td> <td style="width: 80.85pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="81"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" > </span></p> <br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 84pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="84"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >< $30,000</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 70.15pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="70"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >14%</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 80.85pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="81"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >19%</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 84pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="84"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >$30k–$49,999</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 70.15pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="70"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >13%</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 80.85pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="81"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >25%</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 84pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="84"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >$50k–$74,999</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 70.15pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="70"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >19%</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 80.85pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="81"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >16%</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 84pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="84"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >$75k–$99,999</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 70.15pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="70"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >16%</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 80.85pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="81"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >13%</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 84pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="84"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >$100,000></span></p> </td> <td style="width: 70.15pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="70"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >25%</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 80.85pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="81"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >26%</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 84pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="84"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >No response</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 70.15pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="70"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >13%</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 80.85pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="81"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" > </span></p> <br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 84pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="84"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" > </span></p> <br /></td> <td style="width: 70.15pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="70"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" > </span></p> <br /></td> <td style="width: 80.85pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="81"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" > </span></p> <br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 84pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="84"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >Education</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 70.15pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="70"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" > </span></p> <br /></td> <td style="width: 80.85pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="81"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" > </span></p> <br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 84pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="84"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >< high school </span></p> </td> <td style="width: 70.15pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="70"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >0%</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 80.85pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="81"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >3%</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 84pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="84"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >High school </span></p> </td> <td style="width: 70.15pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="70"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >2%</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 80.85pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="81"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >16%</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 84pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="84"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >Some college</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 70.15pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="70"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >11%</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 80.85pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="81"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >30%</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 84pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="84"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >College grad.</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 70.15pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="70"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >20%</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 80.85pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="81"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >22%</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 84pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="84"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >Post-graduate</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 70.15pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="70"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >65%</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 80.85pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="81"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >29%</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 84pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="84"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >No response</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 70.15pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="70"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" > </span></p> <br /></td> <td style="width: 80.85pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="81"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" > </span></p> <br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 84pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="84"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" > </span></p> <br /></td> <td style="width: 70.15pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="70"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" > </span></p> <br /></td> <td style="width: 80.85pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="81"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" > </span></p> <br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 84pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="84"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >Gender</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 70.15pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="70"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" > </span></p> <br /></td> <td style="width: 80.85pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="81"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" > </span></p> <br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 84pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="84"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >Male</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 70.15pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="70"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >31%</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 80.85pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="81"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >54%</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 84pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="84"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >Female<span style=""> </span></span></p> </td> <td style="width: 70.15pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="70"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >65%</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 80.85pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="81"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >46%</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 84pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="84"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >No answer </span></p> </td> <td style="width: 70.15pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="70"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >4%</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 80.85pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="81"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" > </span></p> <br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 84pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="84"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" > </span></p> <br /></td> <td style="width: 70.15pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="70"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" > </span></p> <br /></td> <td style="width: 80.85pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="81"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" > </span></p> <br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 84pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="84"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >Age</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 70.15pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="70"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" > </span></p> <br /></td> <td style="width: 80.85pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="81"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" > </span></p> <br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 84pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="84"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >Under 30* </span></p> </td> <td style="width: 70.15pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="70"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >4%</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 80.85pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="81"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >18%</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 84pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="84"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >Over 65</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 70.15pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="70"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >29%</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 80.85pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="81"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" >16%</span></p> </td> </tr> </tbody></table><br /><high high="" school="" some="" college="" graduate="" response="" gender="" male="" female="" no="" answer="" 4="" age="" under="" uu="" world="" used="" not="">The asterisk notes that UU World used the UU range of 18-35 for Young Adults, when surveying.<br /><br />Pew surveyed some large number of Americans and calculated that there were, as of 2008, some 683,000 UUs. <span style="font-style: italic;">Adult</span> UUs. Given the data from the UUA at the time, Transient and Permanent observed that this meant that there were just over three UUs out there, unchurched (but familiar enough with us to claim to be UUs) for every one of us who's on the books as a member. That's a startling number.<br /><br />The Pew data alone is striking. In the population at large, slightly over half of those affirming they're UUs are male. But no more than a third of those who are members are male. Given the imperfect overlap on the age ranges, it looks like there are five times as many under 30s who say they're UUs as are members. Etc., etc. The numbers clearly indicate that there's a very real difference between the different UU populations, the unchurched--what <span style="font-style: italic;">worker</span> referred to as "free range," recently--and the churched.<br /><br />And then it hit me. The Pew survey wasn't of the unchurched. It's of those who responded that they were UUs; members and not, both. The difference between the churched and unchurched would be even more extreme. So I did some number crunching (after having sufficient coffee, because uncaffeinated this morning, I managed the trick of multiplying billions by two (I think that's what I did, anyway; it's irreproducible) and came up with trillions). What I did was to figure out what the unchurched population would have to have responded with in order for Pew to get its numbers after adding in the churched part of its sample. (Note to self: Take this back to the kids to prove that there are occasional adult uses for algebra.)<br /><br />The numbers are, of course, imperfect; there are rounding errors, and such. So columns do *not* add up to 100%, etc.<br /><br /></high> <style>@font-face { font-family: "Verdana"; }@font-face { font-family: "Cambria"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }</style> <table class="MsoNormalTable" style="margin-left: 4.4pt; border-collapse: collapse;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 100pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="100"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span></p> <br /></td> <td style="width: 76.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="77"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Churched</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 85.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="86"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.1pt 0in;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Unchurched</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 100pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="100"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Total UU pop</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 76.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="77"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">24%</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 85.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="86"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">76%</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 100pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="100"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span></p> <br /></td> <td style="width: 76.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="77"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span></p> <br /></td> <td style="width: 85.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="86"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span></p> <br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 100pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="100"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Income</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 76.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="77"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span></p> <br /></td> <td style="width: 85.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="86"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span></p> <br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 100pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="100"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">< $30,000</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 76.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="77"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">14%</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 85.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="86"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">20%</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 100pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="100"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">$30k–$49,999</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 76.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="77"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">13%</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 85.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="86"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">29%</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 100pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="100"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">$50k–$74,999</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 76.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="77"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">19%</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 85.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="86"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">15%</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 100pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="100"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">$75k–$99,999</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 76.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="77"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">16%</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 85.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="86"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">12%</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 100pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="100"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">$100,000></span></p> </td> <td style="width: 76.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="77"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">25%</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 85.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="86"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">26%</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 100pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="100"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">No response</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 76.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="77"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">13%</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 85.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="86"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span></p> <br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 100pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="100"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span></p> <br /></td> <td style="width: 76.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="77"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span></p> <br /></td> <td style="width: 85.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="86"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span></p> <br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 100pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="100"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Education</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 76.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="77"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span></p> <br /></td> <td style="width: 85.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="86"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span></p> <br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 100pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="100"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">< high school </span></p> </td> <td style="width: 76.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="77"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">0%</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 85.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="86"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">4%</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 100pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="100"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">High school </span></p> </td> <td style="width: 76.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="77"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">2%</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 85.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="86"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">21%</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 100pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="100"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Some college</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 76.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="77"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">11%</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 85.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="86"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">36%</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 100pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="100"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0.1pt 0in;"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">College grad.</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 76.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="77"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">20%</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 85.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="86"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">23%</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 100pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="100"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Post-graduate</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 76.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="77"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">65%</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 85.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="86"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">17%</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 100pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="100"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">No response</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 76.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="77"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">3%</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 85.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="86"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span></p> <br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 100pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="100"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span></p> <br /></td> <td style="width: 76.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="77"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span></p> <br /></td> <td style="width: 85.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="86"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span></p> <br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 100pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="100"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Gender</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 76.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="77"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span></p> <br /></td> <td style="width: 85.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="86"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span></p> <br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 100pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="100"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Male</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 76.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="77"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">31%</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 85.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="86"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">62%</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 100pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="100"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Female<span style=""> </span></span></p> </td> <td style="width: 76.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="77"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">65%</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 85.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="86"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">40%</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 100pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="100"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">No answer 4 </span></p> </td> <td style="width: 76.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="77"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">4%</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 85.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="86"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span></p> <br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 100pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="100"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span></p> <br /></td> <td style="width: 76.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="77"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span></p> <br /></td> <td style="width: 85.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="86"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span></p> <br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 100pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="100"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Age</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 76.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="77"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span></p> <br /></td> <td style="width: 85.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="86"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;"> </span></p> <br /></td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 100pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="100"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Under 30* </span></p> </td> <td style="width: 76.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="77"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">4%</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 85.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="86"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">23%</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13pt;"> <td style="width: 100pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="100"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">Over 65</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 76.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="77"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: right;" align="right"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">29%</span></p> </td> <td style="width: 85.5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; height: 13pt;" nowrap="nowrap" valign="bottom" width="86"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Verdana;">20%</span></p> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <high high="" school="" some="" college="" graduate="" response="" gender="" male="" female="" no="" answer="" 4="" age="" under="" uu="" world="" used="" not=""><br />The classism that some of us have talked about becomes more apparent when we look at what economic class member UUs are likely to be in, versus non-member UUs. Ouch. Interestingly, the people in the upper middle class-to-wealthy range are the only group that seems unaffected. They're equally likely to be UUs.<br /><br />Education is even more striking. That's where the real class boundary is stunningly apparent. Mark Morrison-Reed's analysis that education is the single best marker for whether one is likely to be a (member) UU is clearly on the money. Ouch, ouch.<br /><br />Gender... ok, so it's not news to anyone that the outwardly religious have been predominately female for well over a century. It thus isn't surprising to see that UU members are two-thirds women. But if it was a surprise that over half of those who say they're UUs are male, to find that three out of five people who are unchurched UUs are male was startling.<br /><br />And then there's the age data. <s>65%</s> 29% of those who are members are over 65. Only <s>17%</s> 20% of those who are unchurched UUs are over 65--and while at <span style="font-style: italic;">most</span> 4% of those who are UU members are under 30, 23% of those who aren't members are under 30.<br /><br />So what's the picture look like--in very crude, simplistic averages?<br /><br />Church-going UUs are relatively well-off, extremely well-educated older white women. Indeed, that's what we see in congregations. "Free range" UUs are probably middle class, but are pretty likely to be lower middle class, if not poor; they're much less educated (perhaps struggling still to get educations?), they're young, and male. Simply taking US demographics--young, male, lower education and income... they're also far, far more likely to be mixed race or people of color.<br /><br /><high on="" understanding="" high="" school="" some="" college="" graduate="" response="" real="" class="" breakdown="" shows="" m="" just="" but="" does="" make="" mark="" reed="" single="" best="" marker="" seem="" spot="" analysis="" have="" been="" membership="" gender="" female="" no="" answer="" 4="" data="" alone="" surprised="" religion="" started="" becoming="" predominated="" 200="" years="" didn="" t="" surprise="" me="" seeing="" half="" told="" pew="" they="" uu="" were="" was="" teasing="" three="" out="" five="" uus="" male="" something="" needs="" to="" be="" thought="" about="" age="" under="" 65="" anyone="" as="" practiced="" churched="" designed="" retired="" elderly="" with="" 2="" 3="" those="" members="" being="" over="" surprising="" it="" there="" such="" large="" population="" unchurched="" young="" we="" already="" know="" essentially="" a="" faith="" despite="" long="" struggles="" slow="" progress="" towards="" changing="" what="" i="" see="" here="" church="" very="" well="" women="" least="" somewhat="" better="" off="" than="" uuism="" that="" s="" really="" not="" represented="" or="" served="" is="" for="" less="" educated="" perhaps="" in="" the="" process="" of="" getting="" white="" mixed="" race="" males="" who="" are="" at="" most="" and="" likely="" lower="" middle="" now=""><span>Now</span><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"> </span>that's</span> a divide that's going to take a lot of work to bridge.<br /><br /></high></high>ogrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15910505029382522110noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22125486.post-84748924966904021642011-05-10T10:19:00.000-07:002011-05-10T11:04:18.560-07:00You've GOT to be kidding me...<span style="font-style:italic;">(Okay, so I've been deep in the weeds of my internship for the last eight months. So mostly I've just been too busy with that, and the rest of life, and trying to maintain my family's sense of family--and feeding my own tremulous sense of sanity to blog. And before that, hospital chaplaincy--and HIPPA regulations are more intimidating to the idea of blogging anything having to do with one's life than anything my former life's security clearances might have done. But this... just demanded a rant...)</span><br /><br />So, <a href="http://www.cityofrefugefl.com/2011/05/faith-is-not-membership.html">apparently</a>, some folks have been suggesting/arguing that one isn't UU unless one is a member of a congregation. (I'd like to point out here that Rev. Naomi's post is entitled "Faith is not Membership;" we're not disagreeing. I just find her response too gentle for my soul; as I said, it called forth a rant.<br /><br />And the first rant dropped into the ethereal abyss of the internet. So this one is Mark II, now with less spittle.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><br />You have got to be kidding me.<span style="font-style:italic;"></span></span> Really? Seriously? Someone wants to really make the assertion that you can't adhere to UUism without being a member of a congregation?<br /><br />Someone hold back the Logicians of the HUUmanist wing of the faith, because it wouldn't be pretty if they ripped into it.<br /><br />Really, one only becomes a UU by signing a book (or a membership card--not everyone has books. Some may not even have either of those...)? It's just a <span style="font-style:italic;">club</span>?<br /><br />So, kids--who aren't permitted by our congregation to be members until they're nearly adults, and only then by a more onerous process than the adults ever go through--aren't UUs? The youth I've chaperoned and ministered to at UU Youth Camps weren't UUs either? My goddaughter, who read the adults at her congregation the riot act (from the pulpit, during a Youth-led service) for <span style="font-weight:bold;">their<span style="font-style:italic;"></span></span> failure to live up to UU standards--those that they have taught to the kids in Children's RE--she wasn't a UU (and if so, what business did she have telling adult UUs that they were an embarrassment to the faith?)?<br /><br />And the people who've written down--over a decade ago--what their vision of religion is, thinking that no such religion exists... and are overwhelmed to find out that it does, that there are already thousands of people who share <span style="font-weight:bold;">their<span style="font-style:italic;"></span></span> faith--they're not already UUs?<br /><br />When do the members of a dying congregation cease to be UUs? When the last one goes in and turns off the lights, they are now no longer UUs, just because the congregation failed?<br /><br />When someone who was raised UU and lives in some benighted backwater (which might, from census data, be some rural area, or might be a vastly populous part of some urban center...) decides to try to found a new congregation... they aren't UU? And they're not until someone else shows up and wants to be one?<br /><br />Really?<br /><br />The people who've spent decades feeling alone and isolated, who weep when they join a congregation and ask us where we've been all these years (because we failed them, keeping the light hidden so well that they'd never even heard our name...), they only become UUs when they sign up? Even though their beliefs didn't change in the slightest?<br /><br />Seriously?<br /><br />Let us speak then to the false idol of congregationalism, to the fetishising of a means of organization.<br /><br />Because UUism isn't conferred magically by congregationalism. Baptists are congregationalists, too. And so are many others.<br /><br />And our Unitarian cousins in Transylvania aren't congregationalists at all.<br /><br />Congregationalism is simply the vessel in which UUism exists. In our tradition, in our time. But it's not hard to imagine a presbyterian form of UUism (and in fact, it's pretty clear that there are more than a few of us who'd be more comfortable with just such a scheme). But that wouldn't make it not UUism.<br /><br />So the people who grew up UU, who think of themselves as UUs, who practice their beliefs and faith, and who adhere to the kinds of attitudes and behaviors that we hold up and inculcate--they're not UUs? Just because they either can't attend a UU congregation, or don't want to (or can't) drag themselves to the local congregation on Sunday morning? Or because the music and form of worship that the congregation is wedded to is demonstrably 19th century, and the individuals are used to late 20th and early 21st century forms of UU worship and music that speaks to them?<br /><br />Words fail me. <br /><br />On both sides of our tradition, the faithful have been free-rangers; going where the congregations weren't, or where the congregations (or ministers) weren't ready or willing to go. The idea that we want to jam the world into the Procrustean Bed of formal congregational membership so that we can sneer at those outside the walls and insist that they aren't really UUs... is insane. Were it a proposal from the dreaded entity "Boston," there would be a serious risk of the UUA being dissolved, or of a competing association/conference/convention forming (we've done it before).<br /><br />Get over yourselves. <br /><br />If there are UUs out there who aren't connected, then it's more likely our fault for not letting them know we exist, or not providing what they need in order to be in covenant and community with us. But for the love of that which has been called god, stop demonizing <span style="font-style:italic;">them</span>. Stop pointing the finger. Stop falling into the illogical trap that imagines that there's something magical and mystical about a signature on a <span style="font-weight:bold;">Book</span>. Because there isn't.<br /><br />The failing is ours, whatever it is. Perhaps it's the daunting paleness of an array of UUs. Perhaps its the grotesque and often ignored (and denied) classist attitudes and behaviors of our congregations. Perhaps its that a foray into Gershwin is avante-garde music for the local congregation. Perhaps... oh, hell, who knows?<br /><br />But just stop. We are the people who keep trying to draw the circle larger. Not the people who exclude. At least that's our intent; we're human and we fail. But don't try to create an exclusionary communion of the booked held apart from the not-booked. That is just utterly contrary to our traditions, and it's a hideous violation of the universalist spirit.<br /><br />Here I stand. Love ya. You're entitled your opinion, of course. And I'll insist on your right to hold it. But it doesn't mean I have to respect <span style="font-weight:bold;">it</span>.ogrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15910505029382522110noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22125486.post-11996605601113332012011-01-12T21:06:00.000-08:002011-01-12T21:50:48.245-08:00Fellowships...Scott Wells (Boy in the Bands) asks "<a href="http://boyinthebands.com/archives/whats-wrong-with-fellowships/#comments">What's Wrong With Fellowships?</a>"<br /><br />It's a bit late to reply to there--and I'm aware that I may go on at enough length that I shouldn't reply there. So here...<br /><br />It seems like the issue of fellowships must be in the (UU) air. It's the third or fourth time in a few days that it's been brought up where I'm aware of it.<br /><br />I think my first answer is "Who Cares What's Wrong With Fellowships?" <br /><br />The UUA and AUA (and so far as I can tell, the UCA) have no history of a successful church planting program. Period. With one noteworthy exception--the Fellowship Movement. According to the small volume by that same name, congregations that are, or started as, fellowships account for close to a third of current UU congregations, and about the same percentage of current UUs. And I'm pretty sure that doesn't include congregations that started after the end of the Fellowship Movement, as supported by the UUA (the date escapes me now--in the late-mid 1960s, if memory serves at all). But more congregations have continued to rise up more or less along that model, even without the scant encouragement and assistance.<br /><br />Great amounts of UUA staff time and significant sums of money have been invested--both before the Fellowship Movement and since--in very intentional church plantings. I don't think that even their great fans would disagree that the results have been profoundly underwhelming, considering the amount of money and support. Particularly compared to the money and support given the the Fellowship Movement (one staff person, Monroe Husbands--a name I doubt the MFC will ever ask anyone about, but should be, and some office support. Plus his slender travel funding). <br /><br />What flaws would one accept today for an effort that added a few hundred congregations to our movement?<br /><br />I suspect that the answer is "at least a few; even serious ones."<br /><br />The complaints I have seen range from "well, many failed," to "they didn't often grow into larger churches and call ministers," to "they tended to be anticlerical." I'm sure there are a few others.<br /><br />And they're no doubt largely accurate. Sort of.<br /><br />So let's just sift through that, a bit.<br /><br />Many failed. Of <span style="font-style:italic;">course</span> many failed. Most new institutions fail, whether businesses or non-profits, or churches. And--lets be fair--these were start ups in places that were often explicitly in places that no one in their right mind saw as hot options for starting a new UU congregation. They were seen as marginal places, if that, most of the time. And so a higher than average failure rate should have been <span style="font-weight:bold;">expected</span>. But the author of The Fellowship Movement rather debunked that. The survival rate was actually pretty good, all things considered. And there are still ~300 UU congregations that come out of that. How many failed start-ups, with minimal UUA input, would we accept failing, in order to get 300 new congregations? (My answer? I don't think I'd bat an eye at 75% failure rate, in such conditions.)<br /><br />They didn't often grow very large. True. But then... many of them started in marginal areas. And the vast majority of our congregations are on the small side. Critiquing fellowships for not being more likely to become large (and none are more than about 60 years old) than their non-fellowship counterparts is... well... <ahem>. Is there an obligation to become large? And some have broken those size boundaries--particularly, it's my impression, when they're in areas that became suburbanized by metropolitan area growth in the past 50 years. In short, when there were plenty of people to draw on.<br /><br />They didn't call ministers. Well, in part that's true. In part, some remain too small to do so. And in part some are happy as fellowships--with all their flaws and drawbacks--and the lay led style of worship. The implication that they're something less than real UU churches is unjust, and violates the notion of what a congregation is, all the way back to the Cambridge Platform. Of course, there's also no UUA requirement. It's something that almost all of them get over if and when they grow to a size where professional ministry becomes not simply a good idea, but necessary. It is, I think, a natural price of the very feature that made them successful and able to survive; they were able to do jsut fine on their own, thanks... and the question of why they need a minister is a shade obscure to them. <br /><br />They were anticlerical. Well, there's a strong bit of truth there. Of course, so was the whole era that they existed in--being founded in the 1950s and '60s. Anticlericalism was rampant in the whole society, and in UU circles in general. In fellowships, that wasn't countered (as a result of no ministerial presence) and probably they got a bit stuck in it. Also, as they began to explore professional ministry, there were culture clashes. Ministers who expected them to be like "normal" churches, and to treat their ministers accordingly, were often oblivious to the fact that these people had done a very laudable job of running the whole show on their own, for years, and perhaps were less sensitive and graceful about things than they ought to have been. The assumption that the model of ministry in such a congregation would be pretty much just like that in another UU church was an error. And both sides paid for it. Some ministers were harmed and careers damaged. And so were some fellowships, as well.<br /><br />And a fair amount of all this is, I believe, a feature of the times. Fellowships (to some degree) flourished because of the culture they were launched into, and the demographic shifts of the times. But they were also relatively isolated, and had to grow and survive on their own. They created their own cultures and ways--which actually are in many ways remarkably consistent from one to the next.<br /><br />And because of the above, the UUA (and many ministers) are horrified at the idea of replicating the experiment. Never mind that it was <span style="font-style:italic;">successful</span>--and that nothing else has been. <br /><br />I'll just observe that I find that incredibly foolish and short-sighted, not to mention critical in all the worst (and none of the best) senses of the word.<br /><br />New fellowships--congregations popping up along that same model, without the official encouragement--are really not different creatures. But their environment today is vastly different. It's not the 1950s and '60s and '70s. The cultural anticlericalism is a different beast. And probably most significant, these new congregations are not utterly isolated, as their forebears were. The very nature of the internet means that they have access to contacts and resources and information and models that early fellowships would have given their right arms for. They have access to professional sermons that can be used, from many more sources than they'd have had in the past. And the potential exists for them to have vastly more local support than in the past, even if just in the form of seminary students and occasional ministerial preaching. They can be informed of the hazards that their cultures risk developing, and means of avoiding them.<br /><br />And so on.<br /><br />What's wrong with fellowships?<br /><br />Given current attitudes in the UUMA and at UUA HQ, what's wrong is that there won't be many more. "We" would rather not deal with the possible headaches--even if it means refusing to try a fellowship movement for the 21st century, with lessons learned from the first run.<br /><br />Given that I've seen some of our best contemporary worship and such at fellowships that have grown up and out of their worst flaws, I think the whole movement suffers a lot more than merely missing a few hundred more congregations....<br /><br />Better, apparently, that there are amazing gaps in where one can find a UU congregation--as Scott's just shown with his analysis of where there are, and aren't, congregations to be found.<br /><br />I think it's a damned shame.ogrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15910505029382522110noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22125486.post-92163929564408809232010-10-11T17:03:00.000-07:002010-10-11T17:32:51.103-07:00Six 9/11s a YearWe've spent billions and committed what will be trillions (yes, in the plural) of dollars to the nominal cause of responding to the attacks of 9/11/2001. We've been so serious about this that in addition to the wealth committed, we've also sacrificed the lives of thousands (the final tally's not in, but more than died on 9/11) of US service people, and the brains, minds, and bodies of tens of thousands more who came home (or will come home) permanently maimed.<br /><br />It's dismal news that the analysts tell us that it will be for naught, that the way we've spent American lives and treasure has actually made the world more unsafe and unstable, and made the US more a target than it was. But let's set that aside for now. What's not debatable is the cost, in dollars and flesh. <br /><br />So what would we do about something that's causing as many unnecessary, innocent deaths in the US, every year? What about something causing six times as many deaths--every year?<br /><br />Would we commit to trillions on trillions of dollars, risk thousands of lives, and talk about a generational effort (it's not a conflict, so that word has to be modified...) to resolve it, once and for all?<br /><br />The Institutes of Medicine of the National Academies released a <a href="http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2004/Insuring-Americas-Health-Principles-and-Recommendations.aspx">report</a> six years ago that observes, <blockquote>"Lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States. "</blockquote> About 8,000 of those are infant deaths, the result of the shameful infant mortality rate that the US suffers from. And that's directly attributable to a lack of prenatal health care. That's the estimate--and observation--of the Centers for Disease Control. <br /><br />We do very well--essentially as well as anywhere in the world--with caring for premature babies. But because of our health care system, we have many more premature babies per 100,000 births than other developed nations. And that's attributable to our health care system's failure to care for pregnant women.<br /><br />Most distressing in all this is that the picture's not getting better. It's getting worse. <blockquote>In 1950, the United States was fifth among the leading industrialized nations with respect to female life expectancy at birth, surpassed only by Sweden, Norway, Australia, and the Netherlands.</blockquote> That's from HealthAffairs. The same <a href="http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.2010.0073v1">source</a> observes <blockquote>The last available measure of female life expectancy had the United States ranked at forty-sixth in the world. As of September 23, 2010, the United States ranked forty-ninth for both male and female life expectancy combined.</blockquote> <br /><br />All this while being the "leader" of the free world.<br /><br />It's not for lack of funding. We spend more, and more per capita, than any other nation. Since 1970, our spending has increased at a rate significantly above what any other nation's increase in health care costs have been. But our results... have been abysmal. Spending more and more, we cover a smaller and smaller percentage of our population. Life expectancy has fallen a long way from the top tier of nations, and more and more American infants are put at risk of early death.<br /><br />And?<br /><br />And we do almost nothing about it.ogrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15910505029382522110noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22125486.post-80651840421933343772010-09-03T09:33:00.000-07:002010-09-03T10:24:30.752-07:00We're all minorities.I recently read this in the comments (electronic letters to the editor?) to an article about a case in NJ where the police really screwed up while presenting Miranda rights to a Latino minor and his Spanish-speaking mother. All of which I offer just to provide context. But this isn't about that case. It's about the comment.<br /><br /><blockquote>Constitutional rights should NOT be afforded to ILLEGALS.</blockquote><br /><br />The writer insists that "illegals" should not be afforded Constitutional rights. One has to wonder what rights they should be afforded, in that case. But the Constitution is pretty clear; in most cases, it asserts, rights are inherent in <span style="font-style:italic;">human beings</span>, period (in a few cases, they inhere to citizens, but those are a narrow class of things like political rights, the right to vote, etc.).<br /><br />Should constitutional rights be "afforded" to someone who has committed murder? Isn't that a crime that's far, far, <span style="font-style:italic;">far</span> worse than the mere infraction (which is all it is, legally) of crossing the border in a manner not in accordance with the law?<br /><br />Why does it--why do we--affirm (not afford!) the same rights to people who may have, and who have, violated some law?<br /><br />The answer is simple. It's one to commit to memory and remember every time our sense of anger and outrage and desire for punishment (we <span style="font-style:italic;">like</span> to think of it as "justice" when we feel that way) surges. We affirm and uphold the rights of <span style="font-style:italic;">everyone</span>. <span style="font-weight:bold;">All the time</span>. Even--especially--the people who have done terrible, terrible things. Even people who aren't like us. People who are different. People who are scary, who trigger that primitive thing deep in our brains that worries about leopards in trees and monsters under the bed.<br /><br />We uphold that for them, but not <span style="font-style:italic;">for<span style="font-weight:bold;"></span></span> them. <span style="font-style:italic;">We do it <span style="font-weight:bold;">for ourselves</span></span>. <br /><br />You see, we do it to ensure that in that terrible moment where <span style="font-weight:bold;">we</span> are looked at--justly or not--by someone as the scary thing, the monster, the other, the bad person, we are not outside of being treated with rights. In doing so we are ensured just and equitable treatment by a system that <span style="font-style:italic;">rejects</span> the impulse that judges <span style="font-style:italic;">without</span> facts and understanding and imposes a harsh punishment on the monster under the bed, so that it never, never, never comes back.<br /><br />But <span style="font-style:italic;">of course</span> it does. The monster under the bed is almost entirely in our heads. It's always with us. <br /><br />No matter how often we kill it, or imprison it, or treat it brutally (which, I suspect, really doesn't make it go away at all. It feeds the real monster under the bed; the one in our heads).<br /><br />We "afford" rights to people who might be people who immigrated illegally for the same reason that we afford rights to people accused of murder, or theft, or speeding. We do it for ourselves, so that our rights are protected and held sacred.<br /><br />The <span style="font-style:italic;">minute</span> that we carve out an exception to this principle, the minute that we except a person, or a group from having the same rights, we put ourselves at extreme risk. If anyone can be put outside the protect of the law, then <span style="font-style:italic;">anyone</span> can be put outside. <span style="font-weight:bold;">Including you</span>.<br /><br />After all, each of us is part of some minority that others might dislike, despise, or fear. History proves that. <br /><br />It's the lesson that Rev. Martin Niemöller wrote about;<br /><br /><blockquote>They came first for the Communists,<br />and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.<br /><br />Then they came for the trade unionists,<br />and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.<br /><br />Then they came for the Jews,<br />and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.<br /><br />Then they came for me<br />and by that time no one was left to speak up.</blockquote><br /><br />You can replace any of those groups, those categories, with any others. Niemöller was writing about what actually happened in Germany. But the lesson is a universal one. (It's worth noting that in the US today, despite the widespread failure of Communism, it--and Communists--are still a pretty powerful monster under the bed. So are trade unionists, for many, despite being down to only several percent of the population (despite their having provided us 40 hour weeks and many other good things...). And it's still easy to find people who fear and hate Jews, too.) Mexican, Tea Partier, Liberal, Conservative, Mormon, Muslim, Gay, Evangelical, and on and on. No group is the majority. Even more to the point,<span style="font-style:italic;"> no one</span> is the majority. They just look like it in the moment... <span style="font-style:italic;">if you don't look too closely</span>.<br /><br />The majority is always a collection of minorities who are--for the moment--ignoring their multitude of differences.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Anyone</span> can fall out of that coalition the minute that they become the moment's monster under the bed.<br /><br />"Illegals" are afforded the same rights as everyone else, because we <span style="font-weight:bold;">insist</span> that everyone has those rights. <span style="font-style:italic;">Not</span> out of generosity, but <span style="font-style:italic;">out of the deepest self-interest</span>. So that when "they" come for us, we're not outside the circle of light that keeps the monsters away.<br /><br />It's important. The monsters don't like the light. As long as we make sure it shines on all of us, they'll stay deep in the darkness in our heads and hearts.ogrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15910505029382522110noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22125486.post-55180020860005178522010-08-28T20:41:00.000-07:002010-08-28T20:57:58.786-07:00Social Justice and Modern (Biblical) ObligationsFrom the very beginning of the Jewish state in Canaan, there was a fundamental (divine) directive to share. The land was divided up among the tribes, and the tribes were to support and sustain their own (but that’s not all). Recognizing that some would become wealthy, and would hoard, and that some would become poor, simply through ill fortune, or being born to poor, unfortunate parents, God’s directive was that the land be taken back and redistributed equitably every 50 years. Every seven years, all debts were to be canceled, forgiven, forgotten.<br /><br />Now, it’s questionable (say the scholars) as to whether that was ever actually <span style="font-style: italic;">done</span>. But you know what, that’s moot. These folks want to argue that they shouldn’t <span style="font-style: italic;">have</span> to care for the sick, the ill, the unfortunate, the homeless—that it should be voluntary, that the state should not be in the business of doing that with money taken from them in taxes. It ought to be... well, optional. Pure charity.<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Hogwash</span>.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Let’s just note in passing that for all their talk, that voluntary care of the poor <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">isn’t</span> happening—and hasn’t, not in this country, nor any other, to a level that begins to be sufficient. So the idea that it’ll get taken care of by good Christians out of charity is poppycock. Not that there aren’t all kinds of charitable works—Christian, Jewish, Muslim and otherwise. There are. But not enough. Not nearly enough. Not <span style="font-style: italic;">even close</span>.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">So, back to that argument from Biblical grounds. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Just WHO was responsible in ancient Israel (and Judah) for such care? </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Well, the original Israelite community was tribal; the tribes were responsible. But those chieftaincies didn’t last very long. Various pressures from inside and outside resulted in the creation of the Israelite kingdom. So the king took on the responsibilities of the relatively anarchic tribal confederation. The Hebrew scriptures are pretty clear; just check almost any of the prophets—<span style="font-style: italic;">raging</span> criticism of the wealthy (that would be the rich…) and the powerful (nobility, priests…) and <span style="font-weight: bold;">particularly</span> the kings. Railing against those storing up abundance and living in plush accommodations with gold and ivory and pleasant oils, luxuries… while the poor starved, while widows and orphans were dispossessed and abused.<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">Check any of the prophets. Shall I wait while you check? I recommend Isaiah (an especial <i style="">fave</i> of most Christians). I recommend Isa 1:14-17.Or heck, there’s 5:1-23 (there’s more, too). Gee, my translation even subheads Isaiah 5:8-23 “Social Injustice Denounced”—what do you <span style="font-weight: bold;">mean</span> that <i style="">social justice </i>doesn’t appear in the Bible? </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Most of the justification for the destruction of Israel and Judah, and the Babylonian exile, is that the rulers and the powerful were corrupt, greedy, selfish and unjust. They didn’t share with the rest of the people, they let the poor starve and they stole their land. Which was God's anyway, according to the Bible, and people only got to use it—and only until it was redistributed again.<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Short form: having more than <i style="">enough</i> when there are people homeless and hungry is viewed by God as the worst of sins—just like theft, just like murder. In fact, it is essentially apostasy; the willful violation of God’s commandments. Sin.<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">So, back to the question of responsibility. Who’s responsible? Well, the <b style=""><i style="">king.</i> </b>And so you find the prophets just <span style="font-style: italic;">ripping</span> into the kings for their malfeasance, warning everyone that God is going to devastate the kingdom, that they will be laid low, slain, dragged off into slavery... and that it's God's will <span style="font-style: italic;">if</span> this crap continues.<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">But heck, what’s that got to do with <span style="font-weight: bold;">today</span> and all those folks who don’t want to share with the poor? They’re <span style="font-style: italic;">not</span> king (for which we can all be grateful…). </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">No, they’re part of The People. Here in the USA, that means that they are, by definition, collectively the sovereigns—<span style="font-weight: bold;">just <span style="font-style: italic;">like</span> being king</span>. Which means we’re ALL responsible. It’s not just a question of whatever charity we <span style="font-style: italic;">feel</span> like giving. We bear the responsibility. We The People—the government.We stand in the same relationship to the missing king as the king did to the defunct tribal confederation. All those responsibilities, from defense to justice to... caring for the poor... those are <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">ours</span>.<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">So when they whine that it’s unfair to tax them to give alms to the poor, to care for the sick, to house the homeless, to feed the hungry… they’re <span style="font-weight: bold;">wrong</span>.<span style=""> </span>All those conservative Christians have a responsibility to meet—as sovereign—to see that the wealth of the nation is shared equitably with all, before excess is used for comfort and luxury. Taxation is how We The People take our money from our pockets to do our collective business.<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">It’s a Biblical, social justice obligation for good Christians and Jews.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal">For the rest of us, there are other good arguments. But that's for another post, some other day.<br /></p> <!--EndFragment-->ogrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15910505029382522110noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22125486.post-50312795304253473302010-07-15T10:10:00.000-07:002010-07-15T11:05:05.761-07:00Would I Be Offended?The Rev. Rosemary Bray McNatt <a href="http://www.uuworld.org/ideas/articles/158177.shtml?n">reports</a> that she was once asked by her son if she'd be offended if he chose a different religion when he grew up. She observes that as his mother, no, she and his father raised their kids to think and make choices for themselves. But as a UU minister, well... yeah, it would bother her.<br /><br />I'm not sure my response would be any different. Just differences in nuance.<br /><br />I grew up UU, so the choice was mine to stay or not (or, given the realities of my teen years abroad, to return to being an active UU or not...). Neither of my parents were ministers, so that element's not the same, but I'm not sure that it's different for any UU and their kids--save in degree. I know older members of our congregation who raised their kids in the fellowship--and some think of themselves as UU (but don't attend), and some attend somewhere, or here, now and then, and at least some have adult children who went off and chose very different religions.<br /><br />For any parent, regardless of their faith, I think there's an ouch in that.<br /><br />The roots of the word, religion, refer to those things that tie us (back) together, with each other and the holy. Having one's child reject those things for others <span style="font-style: italic;">tends</span> to feel like one's less connected, disconnected from, not tied back together with... one's offspring. Ouch.<br /><br />Would I be offended? Not by the act. Part of me would be pleased that my child felt the freedom to make that right choice (for them, for now)--at least as long as they felt able to be above board with me about it. But there'd still be an "ouch" to it.<br /><br />Still, I can imagine reasons--people make these kind of choices in order (sometimes) to marry a beloved who is a devout and committed member of some faith tradition. With whatever reservations and mental Twister.... <br /><br />What would offend me would be having them reject the core values we've raise them with. Which are, of course, pretty UU. But I've talked with enough people who aren't UU, who listen to or read the seven principles and observe that they don't really have an disagreements... to know that there are plenty of people who share our values who aren't UU.<br /><br />Like so many historic figures from the UU past, I guess I'm more interested in the universals of (our) religion than in the particular peculiarities of it, less devoted to the transient in religion and focused on the permanent.<br /><br />Besides, one of my favorite Oliver Wendell Holmes quotes comes to mind; "We are all tattooed in our cradles with the beliefs of our tribes." If one of my children ever takes that step, I'll offer them my blessings on their journey, and observe (to myself, I hope, only) "You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave."ogrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15910505029382522110noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22125486.post-1774568881241000452010-07-02T08:16:00.000-07:002010-07-02T08:54:40.099-07:00Can we please get on with it?The <a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/07/new-study-seconds-cato-finding-immigration-reform-good-for-economy/">CATO Institute says</a> it will improve American household incomes by $180 <span style="font-style: italic;">billion</span>/year by 2019.<br /><br />The <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/01/raising_the_floor.html">Center for American Progress says</a> it will improve American household incomes by $189 billion/year.<br /><br />Quoting CATO:<br /><blockquote>[I]t is worth noting that very different think tanks employing two different models have come to the same result: Legalization of immigration will expand the U.S. economy and incomes, while an “enforcement only” policy of further restrictions will only depress economic activity.</blockquote>Quoting CAP:<br /><br /><blockquote>The U.S. government has attempted for more than two decades to put a stop to unauthorized immigration from and through Mexico by implementing “enforcement-only” measures along the U.S.-Mexico border and at work sites across the country. These measures have failed to end unauthorized immigration and placed downward pressure on wages in a broad swath of industries.</blockquote>Comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) would benefit the US economy by something on the order of $2.5 trillion (the studies <span style="font-style: italic;">agree</span>).<br /><br />Oh, and that fantasy of stuffing all the undocumented into boxcars and shipping them out of the country?<br /><blockquote>Mass deportation <span style="font-style: italic;">reduces</span> U.S. GDP by 1.46 percent. This amounts to $2.6 trillion in cumulative lost GDP over 10 years, not including the actual cost of deportation.</blockquote>ogrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15910505029382522110noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22125486.post-32357369296852351802010-05-16T22:48:00.000-07:002010-05-16T23:19:41.010-07:00What's a Soul?As its Big May Question, <a href="http://uusalon.blogspot.com/">UU Salon</a> asks, "What is a Soul?"<br /><br /><blockquote>Does it exist before we are born? Does it disappear when we die? It is unchangeable, or capable of growing/shrinking/strengthening? Can you lose your soul, or gain one?</blockquote>Answers to such a question are explicitly rooted in one's theology. Those are theological questions. Is there a soul? What is it? Depending on what one believes, those answers may be defined (by a faith's doctrines, or by authorities who've already weighed in...). Or not.<br /><br />Unitarian Universalists, of course, don't have an easy out; we don't share a theology that defines these answers. Even if we've adopted an existing theological view, within the context of our UUism, that offers answers, that's something that we have to consciously adopt.<br /><br />So what are my answers?<br /><br />Well they arise from the things I've already concluded. I'm not a supernaturalist (and having said that, I think we actually know so very little that I'm entirely confident that there are things that look entirely supernatural...). I'm some form of pantheist. "This"--all of this that we see, touch, feel, experience (and the much, much greater part that we do not) is part of what I describe as nature. And that's all there is.<br /><br />"Soul" is a term I use to describe that experiential essence of being; the "I" that seems to exist within a living being. Not the thinking, but the aware observer that experiences being aware and observing. Perhaps that is an illusion--but if so, it's a "real illusion," in the same sense that solid objects are illusions.<br /><br />I tend not to believe in a soul as an entity that has a coherent existence separate from the living wave-form of a being. (But I'm entirely at ease with the idea of being wrong; it's something humans are particularly adept at--being spectacularly, flamboyantly, fervently wrong). It's a part of the universe, too. It, I suspect, ends with death. And just like matter, it doesn't go away. "Away" is a false concept. There's no away to go to. It just changes form. Matter decays into component materials and becomes other forms of matter--living or not. Energy goes off as well. The essential thing that is us doesn't remain coherently us; instead, traces of what we were end up smeared across the rest of the planet and all life and through the universe (given enough time).<br /><br />It's an answer that's actually the same as other answers--it just depends on the perspective one takes on it. It's entirely possible to look at this and say "There's only one soul, and it's shared and interwoven through everything and everywhen." Which is about as good a metaphor for god as anything I've heard.<br /><br />Can it die? No. Can it be squandered? Sure. Soul is--as best I can make out--'meant' to be exercised and enriched. Shared.ogrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15910505029382522110noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22125486.post-5884123881013570862010-04-12T09:36:00.000-07:002010-04-12T09:56:22.523-07:00UU membership shrinks... a proposalI read (unsurprised, but not pleased) that the overall membership of the congregations of the Association shrank this past year. A rather small decrease in the grand scheme, but still, a second year of slight decline.<br /><br />No doubt there are many solutions possible. Some of them might even be worth undertaking.<br /><br />Here's one that recognizes an unintended discouragement to membership that the UUA imposes on most member congregations. Large congregations, as I recall, are assessed their dues based on a percentage of their budget. It doesn't matter if they have a great couple years and grow by 30%. Their numbers don't directly affect their dues. Their budget drives their dues. Assuming that new members come in (as has generally been the case) paying below average pledges (there are a variety of reasons for this, all of them understandable and... that's not on topic now), the large congregation's budget would grow, but not by 30%. So growth is a good thing for large UU congregations.<br /><br />But in those below that dues category, dues are essentially a poll tax on congregational members. You're in a small or small-medium congregation and you gain 30% new members? Yay! Uh... but those 30% won't (see above) increase the budget 30% for some time to come.... However, the dues the congregation will pay will increase by... 30%.<br /><br />There's a direct effect I've seen to this.<br /><br />In encouraging new members... there's also a frank and honest conversation about what membership means (that's good), and that it costs the congregation for each new member. Some congregations simply require that new members pay the cost of their membership. Others don't. There are explanations and justifications for each viewpoint....<br /><br />But it's ironic. At the very time that we're leaning harder on our need to be more open to a more diverse membership, without regard to all those categories we could list in our sleep, we have a barrier that is economic. That means that the relatively poor, those who are young and strapped, or those who are financially strapped for whatever reason... are discouraged from membership. <br /><br />Which drives down the membership of not-large congregations--and drives down membership of the UUA congregations as a whole.<br /><br />Does it happen? I know of cases. I know of a woman who would be a member of my congregation right now--but she knows she can't give that much, and since it costs the congregation UUA and District dues if she becomes a member, she's not. She gives what she can anyway, supporting the congregation (but not the UUA...). I believe I know of others, but haven't had the conversation with them that would make it explicit.<br /><br />Want more members? Use one single system for congregational dues that *doesn't* rest on a poll tax. It's discouraging potential members. It may also be helping hamstring efforts at being welcoming and affirming to all who think they could find their home among us.<br /><br />It's funny, there are those who insist that to *be* a UU, one has to be a member of a congregation. I understand the idea. It has some--but not enough, I think--merit. But if that's the case, then what we're saying is that there's a wealth-test to be a UU, too--unless you happen to be able to be a member of a large congregation.<br /><br />A simple percentage of budget scheme would make a lot of things easier on a lot of people. We'd still want to count membership for other purposes. But I think using it to determine funding for the UUA and Districts is a bad idea.ogrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15910505029382522110noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22125486.post-46315566828175748522010-03-08T14:21:00.000-08:002010-03-08T15:09:41.142-08:00A Reply (and comments) to misstreebcThere being no way for me to post a response to a posting on livejournal (without creating an account, which I do not want, that would oblige me to accept some spam from the corporation behind live journal...), I'm responding here.<br /><br />The temptation to just let it go, ignore it, and move on would usually win at that point... but misstreebc is clearly speaking of my congregation; I recognize the service from the description.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><blockquote><span style="font-weight: bold;">Today was my 3rd time at a UU service.</span><br /><br />I enjoyed the service very much, and am very, very in accord with the idea of a church whose beliefs are based on values and principles rather than creed or dogma.<br /><br />There is one thing that bothered me, though. The sermon was about church history and a sister congregation in a Romanian village. It was an interesting sermon, and made me appreciate the religious freedom we have in the United States. A couple of times, though, the minister broke into the song "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead", and seemed to be celebrating the deaths of Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceau,sescu and his wife. I can totally understand celebrating justice, the renewal of religious freedom, and the end of an oppressive regime, but to actually celebrate their deaths really bothers me. IMO, life must always be respected, no matter how vile the person. I could never celebrate the death of another human being.<br /><br />From what I understand, this seems to violate a core Unitarian belief in the worth and value of every human being. Am I right?</blockquote>First, I was a little taken aback myself. Not so much because Ceausescu's death was being celebrated (though I did notice...), but because I wondered at how the folk in the congregation who identify as Pagan, as Wiccan, who use the term <span style="font-style: italic;">witch</span> to identify themselves felt.<br /><br />I remember Ceausescu's fall--and death--and as a fan of politics (national and international) and history, I'd have to say... few have been more deserving of execution.<br /><br />Personally, I'm opposed to the death penalty on a variety of grounds. But I suspect, being honest with myself, that were I a Romanian of that time, in a position to help make that decision, I'd have made the same one. The man was a veritable fountain of evil actions, and there were certainly forces in the country that would have sought to free him and restore him to power. Had be been freed, there'd have been a vicious civil war, and where he had power, there'd have been a sea of blood.<br /><br />4,000 were massacred--on his orders--at Timisoara. Something like another 80,000 were killed on his orders during his regime. In addition, then (1989) exiled dissident Mihai Botez estimated that at least 15,000 Romanians died annually from starvation, cold, and shortages even though Romania was rich enough to provide those basic requirements. (Ceausescu <i>chose</i> not to do so. He was trying to pay down an international debt to avoid having the failure of his policies revealed....)<br /><br />It's an imperfect world. It's important to remember that huge numbers suffered badly under his rule. Minorities were demonized in ways that Fred Phelps fantasizes about. Literally thousands of ethnically Hungarian villages were destroyed, meaning many Unitarian congregations were victims, meaning literally tens of thousands of people who are close religious kin were his victims, along with the Romany and others.<br /><br />It's a sad, sad thing that there are any human deaths that are good things. But the blunt fact is that there are. Across Romania, celebrations broke out spontaneously.<br /><br />Perhaps the minister could have handled it more delicately, but in terms of expressing how most Romanians felt--and particularly how those who aren't ethnic Romanians felt--the trope from <span style="font-style: italic;">The Wizard of Oz</span>, "Ding, dong, the Witch is dead!" is probably pretty apt. That we, as UU congregations, hold life very highly and affirm the inherent worth and dignity is true. But our sympathies lie with those who have not been the oppressor. Ceausescu was pretty much entirely the oppressor. Think about what Romanians--people who'd been his victims, who'd been oppressed and terrorized by him--must have felt about him to decide to execute him on Christmas Day.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Ding, dong!</span><br /><br />No, it's not the enlightened tear that the Buddha might have shed. But it's honest--and the minister was trying to convey what things had been like, and how people felt. It's so easy for us to say, in this country, what we'd never do. We've never faced it (most of us), or anything like it.<br /><br />You ask an interesting question. Does it violate our affirmation of the worth and dignity of every person to celebrate a death?<br /><br />My own answer is that were that all it was, I'd say yes. But when that death is utterly woven into liberation for millions, and means the literal salvation from misery, suffering and death for many thousands... I fully understand it. I suspect that were we common citizens of Bucharest in 1989, we'd have celebrated.<br /><br />Free at last, free at last.ogrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15910505029382522110noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22125486.post-62992176771312771792010-03-04T17:02:00.000-08:002010-03-04T17:04:23.486-08:00Maybe we've just been misunderstanding...what "<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/04/grayson-leading-in-republ_n_486090.html">bipartisan support</a>" really means.<br /><br />It's good to see that there's widespread support for the Constitution still.ogrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15910505029382522110noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22125486.post-25119360820372842502010-02-16T20:35:00.000-08:002010-02-16T20:45:00.679-08:00Sometimes... even good news gets overspunOk, I want to preface this by saying that I've participated pretty heavily in the UU process on Peacemaking--and that I think this is a very important issue and that I support it.<br /><br />So, from the official (I think it's official...) <a href="http://uupeacemakers.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=319:ga&catid=1:min&Itemid=53">UU Peacemakers blog</a>:<br /><blockquote>Congregations voted to place the Peacemaking Statement of Conscience on the agenda of General Assembly (GA) this summer. The participation rate was 74% (counting "yes," "no," and "abstain" votes), with 38% of congregations voting "yes" and 0.8% voting "no". The remaining congregations either voted "abstain" or did not vote.<br /></blockquote>74% participated. That's spectacular. Since the old process had seen nothing better (as I recall) than 10% and the new one mandated a minimum of 25% as a sort of "quorum" to permit GA to consider it, I had thought it was setting us up for a lot of failure. I'll take my crow medium, with some BBQ sauce, please.<br /><br />74% - 38% = 36% -- of whom 35.2% <span style="font-style: italic; color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">abstained</span>?<br /><br />What is <span style="font-style: italic;">that</span> about?<br /><br />It takes energy, effort, time, people... to respond. We've historically mustered a lot of ignorance and apathy over issues.... And now we're seeing active apathy? Or is that conflict, inability to agree on how to respond?<br /><br />Alas, that 38% in favor looks far less spectacular in that light.<br /><br />But I look forward to seeing what's next, because--as I said--I think this is <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">really</span> important.ogrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15910505029382522110noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22125486.post-28663793982797720222010-02-16T20:32:00.000-08:002010-02-16T20:35:18.243-08:00Where I've Been...I've spent the last six months doing CPE (hospital chaplaincy as in intern), taking classes at the same time, and being a (less than) full-time parent. Plus a variety of other things... followed by a month of intensive classes at Meadville Lombard.<br /><br />I hope to start blogging occasionally soon... but have a pretty intense schedule for the next <> year or so.ogrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15910505029382522110noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22125486.post-83714967056923096512009-11-16T15:17:00.000-08:002009-11-16T15:24:16.489-08:00It's Called BlackmailThe Roman Catholic Church, as a result of its views on poverty, human rights, etc., provides all kinds of charitable works. Everything from hospitals to soup kitchens to caring for orphans.<br /><br />All of which is immensely laudable. Worthy, indeed.<br /><br />Which is why <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/us/13marriage.html?_r=2&scp=5&sq=gay%20marriage%20dc&st=cse">this</a> is so shocking.<br /><br />What it boils down to is a threat; if the city grants equal marriage rights, the church will cease providing charitable services.<br /><br />It's their privilege, of course. But it's morally indefensible. It's using the poor, sick, indigent and orphaned as hostages.ogrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15910505029382522110noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22125486.post-14184262521934480282009-09-13T20:05:00.000-07:002009-09-13T20:07:08.813-07:00Not a number to be proud of<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yVgOl3cETb4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yVgOl3cETb4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>ogrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15910505029382522110noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22125486.post-30235621753546050672009-09-13T13:00:00.000-07:002009-09-13T13:29:21.562-07:00We're All Diminished: the murder of James Pouillon<a href="http://pfarrerstreccius.blogspot.com/2009/09/what-side-of-love-stood-james-l.html">Bill asks where all the bloggers</a>--and the UUA--are regarding the murder of James Pouillon.<br /><br />Well, murder is wrong. The murder of Pouillon is a reprehensible act. The fact that I disagree with his views about abortion doesn't change the reprehensibility of his murder.<br /><br />But the blogosphere on the left didn't just ignore this. It got addressed at DailyKos, where the murder was decried, and decried again when the facts trickled out that it wasn't a politically-unrelated killing. Front-paged, too. I suspect that the news of the killing didn't spread as widely--Pouillon was a relative unknown, while Tiller had a far higher profile and people had been targeting him for a long time. The analogy breaks down, the cases are only loosely similar. I've seen nothing (which may only mean that I've not seen it) suggesting that this killer was associated with pro-choice groups or attended a church or participated in some other group that demonized Pouillon and talked about how good it would be if he were to be dead.<br /><br />That still doesn't bear on the murder of Pouillon--only on the larger politics and newsworthiness of the case.<br /><br />Harlan James Drake, Pouillon's murderer, seems to have targeted people he held grudges against--the other person he killed, Mike Fuoss, ran a gravel pit. The police caught up with Drake as he was--the police believe--he was on his way to kill a third individual he had some grudge against.<br /><br />It's a damned shame. James Pouillon was, from all reports I can find now, steadfast in his beliefs, and equally a gentle, non-violent man.<br /><br />I think that the case hasn't been addressed much because it's lower profile and murkier; Pouillon was--it appears--killed because the images he protested with offended Drake. That's not an excuse--murdering people because they show pictures that offend isn't tolerable, nor acceptable, explicable, or reasonable. But it's not clear that Drake was on some sort of crusade against anti-abortion protesters. And it's usually an error to leap off into a posting when the facts aren't available or clear. That's the sort of thing people did when McVeigh bombed the Federal Building in Oklahoma City--started insisting that this must have been an attack by anti-American Muslims....<br /><br />None of which makes Pouillon's murder any less regrettable.<br /><br />Just that presumptive politicizing of murders is... highly inflammatory, and socially unwise.ogrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15910505029382522110noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22125486.post-10443200952421574132009-09-08T19:55:00.000-07:002009-09-08T21:18:56.688-07:00Chicken Little PoliticsIs it over now? Can the non-hysterical, non-bed-wetters come out now?<br /><br />The mere notion that significant (or at least very noisy, very publicly-attended parts) of a political movement would display utterly hysterical, hide the children (literally) behavior because the president was going to speak to school children is, frankly embarrassing. I'll admit that I've been annoyed, disgusted, shocked, stunned, appalled and revolted by both actions and political performances of the GOP in the last decade. But I have never run to cover the eyes and ears of my now teenaged sons when any politician spoke publicly.<br /><br />In fact, on occasions I made sure that my sons listened to a speech by George W. Bush, so that they could hear him, and so that we could talk about what he said, what it meant, what it implied... and whether that was objectionable or not.<br /><br />No sheets were soiled. No hysteria about protecting children from hearing words dripping from demonic lips.<br /><br />I'm embarrassed for the GOP. I recall having intelligent conversations about policy over the political divide with my grandparents--but I know for certain that they'd have been utterly mortified by the shameful performance by the standard-bearers of their party now. So yellow, so terrified of their own imagined shadows that a speech by a president had to be avoided? The cartoons should be showing an elephant cowering on a tabletop, avoiding a mouse.<br /><br />Just so... embarrassing.ogrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15910505029382522110noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22125486.post-63662090268783658632009-08-17T12:57:00.001-07:002009-08-17T13:03:18.657-07:00One Picture...<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-lcpks6M0O0/Som3IrPDKFI/AAAAAAAAAAU/2MuXEbB4B1c/s1600-h/No+Idea"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 596px; height: 484px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-lcpks6M0O0/Som3IrPDKFI/AAAAAAAAAAU/2MuXEbB4B1c/s400/No+Idea" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5371025390288709714" border="0" /></a><br />Speaking truth to ignorance.<br /><br />Read the two signs on the left for your starting, cognitive dissonance moment. And the rest.<br /><br />And enjoy the observation of the man in the middle.ogrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15910505029382522110noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22125486.post-47363967837717689552009-08-08T20:08:00.000-07:002009-08-08T21:55:31.697-07:00What "Call" (Can) MeanKit Ketcham, on Facebook, posted her call story--in response to someone's request. Since I dipped an oar in that conversation... she urged that I do likewise, that it might be useful for others.<br /><br />A little context and background.<br /><br />I grew up UU--my parents joined a congregation when I was little, just a couple years after the consolidation. We only were active until I was about 10--and then we moved overseas. So I had the tattoos--but didn't have the LRY experience, and didn't return to formal involvement for almost 30 years. I grew up in a happily agnostic, very Humanist home. Plenty of theist family friends, and extended family--but not at home. The son of a mechanical engineer and rocket scientist... a pretty solidly scientific world view was something I absorbed.<br /><br />Ministry will be my third career. I've been a writer and editor, and a full-time, at-home father and homeschooling parent (it's so fun to be asked why we homeschool, and to say "for religious reasons," since it usually triggers complete brain meltdown that's fun to watch...). I'm still doing that. I will be at least until I'm done with my M.Div and... I think I might be done before I get into a pulpit. <br /><br />I'd been a deeply involved member of the congregation for years before my call. I'd been on our search committee--7.5 years ago now--and knew, as well as any lay person's likely to, what professional ministry work demanded, and looked like. I'd <span style="font-weight: bold;">never</span> even thought about doing it, nor had any impulse toward it. After all, I knew enough to know better. During search, a number of people had urged the idea on me--but they did the same to my co-chair, and we both felt it was panic; desperation, fear of some outsider. The fact that people liked it when we preached--once, or maybe twice, in a year... well, so what? Once a year's not <span style="font-style: italic;">that</span> hard.... But do it regularly--and all the rest? Crazy.<br /><br />I also dress pretty casually, given my options. Jeans, t-shirt. I like living in So. Cal, and wasn't looking to find reasons to move. I'm a night owl. Etc. <br /><br />So... three years ago, I was my last year on the board of trustees. I'd been president, led the congregation though a couple big things, including a major governance revision and shrinking the board down to something sane... and at last, I was out of the presidency. For the first, time, I got to go to General Assembly (Portland, for anyone trying to place this) without feeling like I had to go and attend all sorts of things for the congregation's benefit. This was going to just be going to attend interesting lectures, visit with people... have fun. My beloved agreed to go--leave the kids in the care of our goddaughter--mostly because it was Portland, a city she loves.<br /><br />We registered... and then dawdled on hotel reservations. Silly of us.<br /><br />So nothing in the downtown was available, and the hotels for the convention had been full for ages... and our hotel ended up being well out of town, up on the Columbia, near the end of the Yellow Line (blessings on a city with real, working public transportation). Thursday night, we hopped on the train and my sweetheart -- not a night owl -- promptly fell asleep against me. There I was, the only person awake in the entire car, with at least 20 minutes to kill. So I started flipping through the catalog. Since I had come for my own pleasure, I hadn't planned it out. I was deciding what to do... when I felt like it.<br /><br />So I started reading. What might be fun, interesting?<br /><br />As I flipped pages, I read session titles... and read those that might be appealing. I flipped a page and read <span style="font-style: italic;">So, You're Thinking Of Becoming A UU Minister...</span> -- and heard my <span style="font-style: italic;">own</span> voice, in my head... but very clearly and distinctly (a quite odd experience)... "You know, I could do that, and I'd never have to think about it again."<br /><br />Now, hearing voices--even your own--is disturbing.<br /><br />But remember, I was a writer and editor. Words count, and I'm acutely aware of meaning, ambiguity and nuance.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Again</span>.<br /><br />The voice part was disturbing; that was <span style="font-style: italic;">strange</span>... but "again" just threw me into a spin. Again says that something has happened before, and is happening... <span style="font-style: italic;">again</span>. Remember, I had not thought about it. Not considered it. Smiled nicely at anyone crazy enough to suggest it, and moved away quickly from the lunatic.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Again</span>.<br /><br />We arrived at the end of the line and got off the train. I allowed my partner a few minutes walk in cool air--most of the way back to the hotel--before saying anything about the fact that the world had turned upside down and inside out while she'd been sleeping. The conversation went more or less like this;<br /><br />"Uh, there's this session that I think I... uh... ought to go to..."<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"Oh, good."</span> (as in, that's <span style="font-style: italic;">nice</span>.)<br />"About becoming a minister."<br />(brief pause--and these words are a verbatim report...)<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"Uh, maybe your next wife--because I'm not sure I'm cut out to be a minister's wife."</span><br /><br />Oh. Not only was I hearing voices and having incredibly disturbing experiences, I was being told that my life was probably going to get run through the chipper-shredder, just for starters.<br /><br />She fell asleep easily when we got to the room. I usually have no trouble sleeping--and had trouble falling asleep. I usually find that problems are much more manageable when I sleep on them, too. I woke, and still felt like I had a cinder block in my stomach. My beloved was by now amused. Not sure about this whole minister thing, but entertained to see me so incredibly wound up and off-center.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"I think you should go to that session,"</span> she told me, and we headed in to G.A.<br /><br />Of course, it wasn't that day--it was the next day. So I had a day to squirm on the meathook... and I have no idea what session I attended. I probably have some notes, somewhere--it would be interesting to see what I didn't absorb....<br /><br />As I came out of the session and up the hall, I spotted her coming out of one room and heading my way--and our minister came out of another, and joined her and the two of them chatted as they came my way. When we met up, it turned out that our minister had skipped breakfast to get to something before G.A. started, and was suffering a blood sugar slide... and so I saw my opportunity; I went into search committee/board member mode and took her to go get an early lunch. We could talk about the annual meeting, the elected officers, the budget... stuff outside of my issue and distress. Yay! My dear smiled at us and went off to whatever she had next on her schedule.<br /><br />Off we went. And all was well.<br /><br />Until 10 minutes into the actual meal.<br /><br />Suddenly, she looked at me and asked "So, are you going to go to seminary, or what?" And fortunately, my mouth was empty, so I didn't do a spit-take. But I think my jaw dropped, and I felt like checking my forehead to see if there was a mark.... (I knew my partner wouldn't have said a word, so it never even crossed my mind.) <br /><br />So I spilled what was going on--and she was amused. She'd simply been asking, because she'd assumed for years that it was on my mind, that I knew, felt a call... and must be thinking about it. She was surprised I hadn't been and found it funny. So we talked for a few minutes.<br /><br />And then--thankfully--someone, a stranger, walked up and asked if he could join us. I was off the hook! <br /><br />Alas, it turned out he was a minister, and that our minister knew him, and knew his story and... so we went back to the conversation, now with a new acquaintance as part of it. <span style="font-style: italic;">Squirm.</span> Mind you, I'm still completely unsure about this--highly dubious, and half-convinced that this insanity will shatter my family, end my marriage and who knows what else. I'm not looking for approval and assurance. I'm looking for the way out. I'm looking to spot--and grab--the brass ring.<br /><br />Fortunately, a few minutes later, she had a meeting to get to... so she left, I made my apologies, and I fled that nightmare conversation. Now, wandering through the exhibit hall... the seminary booths leered at me. I was pretty sure they hadn't been there before--I'd never seen them at other G.A.s and I hadn't noticed them the previous day. So I left the hall....<br /><br />I've no idea what the next 24 hours were like, or what I did. All I recall is that after lunch the next day, the session finally was going to happen.<br /><br />I went. I was the first person in the room. The presenters weren't there, yet. So I left... wandered around... got a drink... came back and was the second person into the room--someone entered just before me, so I couldn't just leave. Slowly people trickled in, avoiding each other's eyes, wincing when they saw--and were seen--by someone they knew. Phrases like "Don't can't tell so-and-so I was here" were heard more than once.<br /><br />I sat through the session. Unusually, for me, I had nothing to say. No questions. I was listening for the thing that would tell me, "No, I don't have to do this." There were things I heard that might have been killers a couple years before... but not now. Nothing. David Pettee offered--among other things--a description of various categories of calls and call stories; that was the only hopeful thing... I didn't hear <span style="font-style: italic;">mine</span>.<br /><br />I left at the end, wandered past the exhibits, and somehow collecting packets of information from a number of seminaries.<br /><br />I happened to run into David the next morning, and mentioned that I'd been at the session, and hadn't heard my call listed. So he asked me to briefly describe it.<br /><br />"You want the short, sound bite version, right?"<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"Yeah."</span><br />"Well, I'd call it the Alien Call; I didn't know it was there, and all the sudden it ripped its way out of my chest, and looked me in the face."<br /><br />David recoiled very slightly, though he managed not to look perturbed, and said something like "Well, I think you need to think about that..." and moved on.<br /><br />So... we went home. I discovered that I was fine--as long as I was busy with something that demanded my attention. Educational work for the kids, fine. Committee and board meetings, great. The only problem was that any time--and every time--that I was alone with myself, "it" leaped into my awareness. Driving. Showering. Doing household chores. Driving home from meetings....<br /><br />So I capitulated. I started actively looking for a seminary. <br /><br />And for a moment, I thought that I'd found the brass ring. Remember, I'm a full-time parent. Homeschooling. There aren't any seminaries close by that would knowingly let a UU in classes--maybe on campus. There's one that was suggested in the L.A. basin, but that's a two hour (plus traffic) drive, one way. The notion of leaving two teenaged boys alone from very early Wednesday morning until late Thursday -- their mother's a consultant and frequently travels on business; her work week is very unpredictable much in advance... and that travel is mandatory; it's how we eat... -- didn't seem reasonable.<br /><br />Fortunately, by this time, she'd decided that I ought to go ahead with this... though she retained real reservations about it, come the day that it became a reality. But going to school, she could handle.<br /><br />But there wasn't one... and the idea of suggesting that we should pack up the family and move so I could be close to a seminary sounded like insanity.<br /><br />And then I discovered that Meadville Lombard had a program that would allow me to do most of the study and work at home--I'd just have to go and live in Chicago for about three weeks... in <span style="font-style: italic;">January</span>, each year, for how ever many years it took to complete the degree. That, at least, was something that could be arranged for.<br /><br />I began to mention it to friends--who all seemed to think it made sense to them... which made me wonder why they were at ease and not surprised, and I was. I called and told my father what I was going to do, and got a solid and affirmative response; he thought it a fine idea. Everyone else seemed to think so--and I was still pretty freaked out.<br /><br />So I applied and hurried like crazy to make the end of September deadline for everything to be complete, including the interview.<br /><br />And found myself in Chicago, the next January, walking into an incredibly cold wind--while it was flirting with 80 degrees back home--when I suddenly realized that David Pettee had listed my call's category. It was just one that, having grown up as I did, I didn't connect with, or really have the language for.<br /><br />Oh.<br /><br />Crap.<br /><br />I've no idea what to make of it. I've made peace with it. I'm enjoying the work--I'm taking an insane class load (that's official, as expressed by both other students and professors) as a "part-time" student with a family and life here at home. I'm nearly getting solid As... having skated through my B.A. with B- and C+ grades. I'm loading myself up with other, non-academic work, and I'm happy... and productive.<br /><br />But it's very much a sense of being compelled.<br /><br />"Called."<br /><br />I could have chosen otherwise. But I'll admit that the experience was so unsettling that the idea that it might come back and need to really get my attention was more than enough to persuade me that I didn't want to find out.<br /><br />"Again" is not something I want. Once was enough.ogrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15910505029382522110noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22125486.post-42773432990737784812009-06-27T18:12:00.000-07:002009-06-27T18:31:58.014-07:00Article II Revision Voted Down... an observationI will note here that I did not attend the mini-assembly (four reasons: I'm not a delegate, I already got my input into the process starting nearly a year ago, I was satisfied with the language (not enthralled, but <span style="font-style: italic;">this is bylaw language</span>, in the <span style="font-weight: bold;">bylaws</span>, not poetry), I knew that the bylaws-established process did not permit sumstantive amendment <span style="font-style: italic;">at this stage</span>, and I fully expected that there would be amendments--in the future--to the painstakingly drafted language).<br /><br />So I was rather shocked to find that there was a coalition of people hostile to the change. I'll have to explore (please, feel free to explain your part if you're part of it) those reasons.<br /><br />Two I've heard that I'll admit that I dismiss is that "they're not broken" (one doesn't only address things that need to be "repaired") and that changing them would create chaos for various R.E. people and somehow violate the wonderful Sources Cantata (which was performed at the PSWD D.A. and is wonderful). Those are crappy reasons for embracing creedalism. If that's where we're going, fine--that should be argued for in public.<br /><br />One of the arguments I'd put forth for a serious change is that the Principles themselves have started to be treated like a creed by some--hurling some principle at another, citing it as being violated, and accusing the violator of being a bad UU because of it. If that's not creedal thought and behavior, I'm not sure what is.<br /><br />The words aren't the essence. The essence is what we're about, and to my mind, ought to be expressed and re-expressed regularly so that we avoid mistaking the container for the contents.<br /><br />The support of nearly half of the voting delegates (tangent: where were the others on such a major issue?) for the change makes clear to me that a change is coming, and soon. Of course, the bylaws forbid it being brought back up for two years. But I suspect that will sorely test our beloved moderator's insight, grace, and good will. Would a proposal to amend only one section of Article II qualify as bringing the same issue up? Given the fervent call (supported by the Youth and Young Adults) for the statement of inclusion in place of the statement on non-discrimination, I would hope to see that change sooner, rather than later.ogrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15910505029382522110noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22125486.post-32560707247080424682009-06-24T23:43:00.000-07:002009-06-24T23:48:47.214-07:00Thursday - GA 2009It's late, so this is going to be short...<br /><br />Berry Street Essay -- awesome. The start as a head fake, and then... Paul Rasor taught us the mathematics of oneness. And the formal response was as powerful.<br /><br />Opening Plenary -- Gini Courter, as usual, added to her fan base. And they haven't even seen her herd cats in a full plenary session yet. Sinkford spoke movingly--very, very movingly. And yes, he spoke to Iran, too. Not that I have any fantasy that Iran's leaders give a damn what the head of a small religious community in the USA thinks.<br /><br />Opening worship -- lovely. Wonderful.<br /><br />What you can see streamed, watch.<br /><br />A few hours of sleep call...ogrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15910505029382522110noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22125486.post-48616459915021936322009-06-19T20:36:00.000-07:002009-06-19T20:43:03.729-07:00The SummerMuch quoted of late -- made more famous by being Twittered -- are Ahmed Shamlou's lines "To slaughter us/ why did you need to invite us / to such an elegant party?"<br /><br />Reading more of his work, it's easy to find it very relevant.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">The Summer</span> (published 1973)<br /><span><span style=";font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:85%;color:black;" ><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:14;" lang="EN-CA" ><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif;"></span></span></span></p><blockquote style="font-style: italic;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:14;" lang="EN-CA" ><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif;">The trustees of the Garden<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:14;" lang="EN-CA" ><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif;">From the depths of the confine<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:14;" lang="EN-CA" ><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif;">send the tired passer of the route<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:14;" lang="EN-CA" ><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif;">a green tinted kiss.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:14;" lang="EN-CA" ><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif;">***<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:14;" lang="EN-CA" ><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif;">On the wide shoulders of the breeze<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:14;" lang="EN-CA" ><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif;">slowly dance the seeds of a new fragrance.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:14;" lang="EN-CA" ><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif;">And what would it be <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:14;" lang="EN-CA" ><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif;">The fruit of the grown tree <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:14;" lang="EN-CA" ><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif;">This year,<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:14;" lang="EN-CA" ><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif;">So that the birds are spared <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:14;" lang="EN-CA" ><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif;">from the defined lines of the cage?</span></span></span></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;"><span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:14;" lang="EN-CA" ><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif;"></span></span></span></p> <span style="line-height: 115%;font-size:100%;" lang="EN-CA" ><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif;"> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" lang="en-CA"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;">By Ahmad Shamlou</span></p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;" lang="en-CA"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,serif;">Translation: Maryam Dilmaghani</span></p></span></span></span></span>ogrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15910505029382522110noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22125486.post-86131444119734863492009-06-17T16:35:00.000-07:002009-06-17T16:39:26.558-07:00Haiku, applied topicallyBeneath the Alborz<br />I hear free birds a-twittering<br />In Tehran's green treesogrehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15910505029382522110noreply@blogger.com0