I 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.
No doubt there are many solutions possible. Some of them might even be worth undertaking.
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.
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%.
There's a direct effect I've seen to this.
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....
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.
Which drives down the membership of not-large congregations--and drives down membership of the UUA congregations as a whole.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Monday, March 08, 2010
A Reply (and comments) to misstreebc
There 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 chose not to do so. He was trying to pay down an international debt to avoid having the failure of his policies revealed....)
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.
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.
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 The Wizard of Oz, "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.
Ding, dong!
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.
You ask an interesting question. Does it violate our affirmation of the worth and dignity of every person to celebrate a death?
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.
Free at last, free at last.
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.
Today was my 3rd time at a UU service.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 witch to identify themselves felt.
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.
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.
From what I understand, this seems to violate a core Unitarian belief in the worth and value of every human being. Am I right?
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.
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.
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 chose not to do so. He was trying to pay down an international debt to avoid having the failure of his policies revealed....)
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.
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.
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 The Wizard of Oz, "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.
Ding, dong!
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.
You ask an interesting question. Does it violate our affirmation of the worth and dignity of every person to celebrate a death?
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.
Free at last, free at last.
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Maybe we've just been misunderstanding...
what "bipartisan support" really means.
It's good to see that there's widespread support for the Constitution still.
It's good to see that there's widespread support for the Constitution still.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Sometimes... even good news gets overspun
Ok, 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.
So, from the official (I think it's official...) UU Peacemakers blog:
74% - 38% = 36% -- of whom 35.2% abstained?
What is that about?
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?
Alas, that 38% in favor looks far less spectacular in that light.
But I look forward to seeing what's next, because--as I said--I think this is really important.
So, from the official (I think it's official...) UU Peacemakers blog:
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.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.
74% - 38% = 36% -- of whom 35.2% abstained?
What is that about?
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?
Alas, that 38% in favor looks far less spectacular in that light.
But I look forward to seeing what's next, because--as I said--I think this is really important.
Where 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.
I hope to start blogging occasionally soon... but have a pretty intense schedule for the next <> year or so.
I hope to start blogging occasionally soon... but have a pretty intense schedule for the next <> year or so.
Monday, November 16, 2009
It's Called Blackmail
The 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.
All of which is immensely laudable. Worthy, indeed.
Which is why this is so shocking.
What it boils down to is a threat; if the city grants equal marriage rights, the church will cease providing charitable services.
It's their privilege, of course. But it's morally indefensible. It's using the poor, sick, indigent and orphaned as hostages.
All of which is immensely laudable. Worthy, indeed.
Which is why this is so shocking.
What it boils down to is a threat; if the city grants equal marriage rights, the church will cease providing charitable services.
It's their privilege, of course. But it's morally indefensible. It's using the poor, sick, indigent and orphaned as hostages.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
We're All Diminished: the murder of James Pouillon
Bill asks where all the bloggers--and the UUA--are regarding the murder of James Pouillon.
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.
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.
That still doesn't bear on the murder of Pouillon--only on the larger politics and newsworthiness of the case.
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.
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.
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....
None of which makes Pouillon's murder any less regrettable.
Just that presumptive politicizing of murders is... highly inflammatory, and socially unwise.
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.
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.
That still doesn't bear on the murder of Pouillon--only on the larger politics and newsworthiness of the case.
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.
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.
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....
None of which makes Pouillon's murder any less regrettable.
Just that presumptive politicizing of murders is... highly inflammatory, and socially unwise.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Chicken Little Politics
Is it over now? Can the non-hysterical, non-bed-wetters come out now?
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.
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.
No sheets were soiled. No hysteria about protecting children from hearing words dripping from demonic lips.
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.
Just so... embarrassing.
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.
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.
No sheets were soiled. No hysteria about protecting children from hearing words dripping from demonic lips.
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.
Just so... embarrassing.
Monday, August 17, 2009
One Picture...
Speaking truth to ignorance.
Read the two signs on the left for your starting, cognitive dissonance moment. And the rest.
And enjoy the observation of the man in the middle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)