We will be shacked up at the historic Nottoway Plantation and Resort in White Castle, LA, for 3 days and 4 nights exchanging ideas, making music, and otherwise getting suntans in the light of each other’s company.... In the evenings we will perform for each other and enjoy great food in a captivating setting.The poor wording choices added to the misstep, taking it way beyond clueless. And the internet erupted, pointing out the racist setting and demanding the cancellation. Difranco was slow to respond. And then she did cancel the retreat, issuing a statement that has been critiqued as a "fauxpology," in which she indicates that at first she had hoped to still go to the location and have a discussion about the setting become part of the experience, and then realized she would have to cancel it after all. There are excellent critiques of her response here by Emi Koyama and here by Tim Wise. Koyama's blog links to many other good critiques, as well. Essentially, Difranco avoids taking any blame, seems to believe that it is her place to reclaim a slavery location, and throws blame back at those critiquing her actions calling those statements "hatred."
We hope also for Nottoway Plantation to serve as an educator, giving the public a glimpse of life on a Louisiana sugar cane estate in the mid-1800s. With this comes the regrettable fact that, as was typical during that period, Nottoway's workforce was comprised of slaves. However, to sidestep this issue out of a fear of public scrutiny would be an injustice. To bypass a historical property such as ours in order to avoid talking about slavery would be to ignore the opportunity we all have to keep moving forward — to not only acknowledge the shameful shortcomings of our past, but more importantly, to continue to grow in our understanding and support of one another.It's a very small step. Nottoway is by no means turning itself into a museum about slavery. It's still primarily about sharing the opulent lifestyle of its owners, and allowing its guests to luxuriate in, not engage critically, with that history. As Tim Wise writes:
At least at Dachau, the guides don’t waste time ruminating on the vicissitudes of life as a camp guard, or the architecture of the prison wings. There, the purpose of the visit is to horrify, to remember without deflection or protection from the evil that envelops the place even now. But in America, we turn our chambers of horror into historical amusement parks, into places where more is said about manners, and weddings, and cotillions, and carriage rides, and ball gowns, and Doric columns and parasols, than about the system of white terrorism that made all of those things possible.Nottoway's new statement will no doubt be highly critiqued, but that's not what I'm writing about today.
Ani, you don’t get to choose how Black women want to deal with the legacy of slavery.I agree. But I do have to choose how I deal with the legacy of oppression. This Difranco did not do, to her detriment. Similarly, Kimberly Foster writes in a post titled, "Dear Ani DiFranco Supporters: You Cannot Reclaim an Oppression You Have Never Experienced":
There can be no healing at Nottoway Plantation. Continuing to hold an expensive getaway here is an affront to feminists of color.I agree that I cannot reclaim an oppression I haven't experienced. Is this the same thing as reclaiming a site of oppression? Is it possible for my heritage to be reclaimed? What would that mean? These are the questions I've been engaging in for decades. And then, how do we go about it? How do we avoid making racist mistakes that continue to add to the problem of the legacy of slavery?
I was well-intentioned when I thought that it would be an act of boldness for us to have a progressive event in a place so wrought with suffering. I did not see outside of my white privilege or reach outside of my circle to gather input from communities that would be directly affected by this venue.
This is what they’ve been doing. Taking the fundamental ideas behind Gale’s traps and adapting them into weapons against humans. Bombs mostly. It’s less about the mechanics of the traps than the psychology behind them. Booby-trapping an area that provides something essential to survival. A water or food supply. Frightening prey so that a large number flee into a greater destruction. Endangering off-spring in order to draw in the actual desired target, the parent. Luring the victim into what appears to be a safe haven— where death awaits it. At some point, Gale and Beetee left the wilderness behind and focused on more human impulses. Like compassion. A bomb explodes. Time is allowed for people to rush to the aid of the wounded. Then a second, more powerful bomb kills them as well. (Kindle Locations 2381-2387)Gale and Beetee are contemplating something unthinkable to Katniss: large-scale killing of innocent people in order to get at a few desired targets. And then, there's the question posed to Katniss and the other surviving victors by Coin near the end. President Coin says:
"In fact, many are calling for a complete annihilation of those who held Capitol citizenship. However, in the interest of maintaining a sustainable population, we cannot afford this.... What has been proposed is that in lieu of eliminating the entire Capitol population, we have a final, symbolic Hunger Games, using the children directly related to those who held the most power.” (Locations 4675-4682)Coin presents these options as if they are the only choices -- mass killing of all Capitol citizens, or a Hunger Games, killing innocent children to satisfy those whose rage calls for complete annihilation.
What these dictator-judges do not seem to understand is that their authority extends only as far as people choose to obey them.
How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.So now Ender's Game is a movie, opening this week, and the old Orson Scott Card fan in me really wants to see it, and the activist in me wants to boycott it. And there are people calling for a boycott.
But I have decided I will go see it in the spirit in which I still read Dickens and Shakespeare, dig into Norse mythology, listen to Wagner.The problem with this argument is that Wagner isn't currently able to help promote Nazism by our listening to him now. Orson Scott Card, however, is still actively campaigning. Another argument states:
In a world where ethical consumerism is sometimes the best way to get our point across, art is a murky zone. Did you watch Chinatown, Rosemary’s Baby, or perhaps the queer film Bitter Moon, by director Roman Polanski, the man who raped a 13-year-old? From Mel Gibson, whose hideous anti-Semitic and sexist diatribes are now legendary, to Chris Brown, Cee-Lo Green, O.J. Simpson, Charlie Sheen, Axl Rose, Alec Baldwin, Donna Summer, 50 Cent, Amanda Bynes, and many more, people have committed crimes that range from uttering slurs to rape, battery, and murder.Well, actually I've avoided giving any money to Roman Polanski by not seeing any of his films in the theater. And once I learned of Mel Gibson's anti-semitism I've avoided seeing him in the theater. Basically, when an artist starts promoting hate, I do try to avoid paying money for that artist's works.
Same-sex marriage makes a lie of the very foundation of traditional gender roles. Same-sex marriages say that a woman can run a household, or that a man can raise a child. This does not square with those whose lives and beliefs and relationships depend on upholding and living their lives based on differences between the sexes.Wayne is right on in her analysis. This is absolutely about equality. It is absolutely also about feminism and gender roles. The fight against same-sex marriage is inherently linked to the fights against women's reproductive freedom.
An even more frightening argument against same-sex marriage that is blasting from my TV is that the state has an interest in “procreation” – i.e. who does it and under what circumstances.... It is about who should bear children and under what circumstances. In other words, controlling women’s reproductive behavior. We often hear the case of Loving v. Virginia (1967) – the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case undoing the ban on interracial marriage – brought up as an example or precedent for expanding civil rights when it comes to marriage. But equally as relevant to the current political climate, I would argue, is the 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the U.S. Supreme Court decided that married couples could use contraception. Let me repeat that: the United States Supreme Court had to decide that a married woman could practice birth control. And if you think that decision is untouchable and safely entrenched in the history books, then you haven’t been paying attention to threats to access to not only abortion, but birth control, in recent political battles.Need examples? In Michigan, a bill is advancing through the legislature that would allow health care providers to refuse to provide services based on religious objections. This refusal would not be required to be disclosed in advance. State law already gives health care workers the right to refuse to perform abortions. So what is this about? Birth control. Oh, and it doesn't just give the right doctors and pharmacists to refuse to prescribe birth control or fill prescriptions. It also gives Michigan employers the right to have their insurance refuse to cover birth control for their employees. Think this won't pass through our Republican-controlled legislature and be signed by Governor Snyder? I wouldn't bet on it.
I am what the NRA might call a "good guy with a gun."I have great qualms about armed teachers, because of the potential for accident or a child getting his or her hands on the weapon, but I personally was, for a while, leaving the door open a crack for armed guards at schools. I know as I sent my child back to school after Sandy Hook, I was scared. I think I would’ve been less scared if I knew her school had an armed guard. However, when I was at a discussion group in Detroit about the New Jim Crow recently, an official in an EEOC-type position said something that made me think twice. She said that she believes, based on what she’s seen, that when there are cops at schools, that children’s behavior that might otherwise have been dealt with by the school becomes criminalized. And I think we’ve already established which kids are likely to be seen as bad seeds, and which ones are likely to be seen as good kids who just did something stupid. When thinking about that, I started to think that there might be unintended consequences of armed guards at schools, at that I would have to see some more data on this before I was comfortable. Interestingly, both G.B. and G.H. also balked at the idea of armed guards or police officers at schools.
But as someone who has worked in K-12 schools and colleges for a quarter century, let me suggest a few reasons why bringing my gun to school is not the answer to gun violence in America.
First, as microcosms of society, schools will always have some students, parents, and teachers with anger problems, mental illness, or poor self-control. As educators, we regularly try to model peaceful conflict-resolution, 99.9 percent of which we successfully deescalate despite significant volatility. And when we don't succeed, weapons are not needed. Introducing guns in those scenarios, in fact, invites other kinds of nightmares. And tragedies.[i]
The governing principle in human relationships is the principle of love, which always seeks the welfare of others and never seeks to hurt or destroy… Any thinking person who subscribes to that principle and also has a firearm - I have no fear being in their company. How do you get a person with a mental health issue to understand this principle - I don’t know. How do you get a teenager with no economic hope and a belief that they have only a very few years left to live to understand this principle - I do not know.
This whole discussion is chasing the wrong ghost. I see no difference between a firearm, a knife, a baseball bat, a car or a really big rock. All of them are perfectly useful tools when operated by a thinking person. All are tools which can have terrible consequences when used incorrectly or used with out care. We only talk about the ownership of a tool and not the condition of our hearts and minds.
How do we get from here to there - I do not know.I think G.B. is really on to something here. It’s worth remembering that when the church shooting happened in Knoxville, the church responded by talking about love. The UUA put out a full-paged ad in the Boston Globe about Love. They started the Standing on the Side of Love campaign. You know all my sermons come back to love.
And so I say to you today that I still stand for nonviolence. And I am still convinced that it is the most potent weapon available to the Negro in his struggle for justice in this country. And the other thing that I am concerned about is a better world. I’m concerned about justice. I’m concerned about brotherhood. I’m concerned about truth. And when one is concerned about these, he can never advocate violence. For through violence you may murder a murderer, but you can’t murder murder. Through violence you may murder a liar, but you can’t establish truth. Through violence you may murder a hater, but you can’t murder hate. Darkness cannot put out violence. Only light can do that. And so I say to you, I have also decided to stick to love. For I know that love is ultimately the only answer to mankind’s problems. And I am going to talk about it everywhere I go. I know it isn’t popular to talk about it in some circles today. I’m not talking about emotional bosh when I talk about love. I’m talking about a strong, demanding love. And I have seen too much hate. I’ve seen too much hate on the faces of sheriffs in the South. I’ve seen hate on the faces of too many Klansmen and too many White Citizens Councilors in the South to want hate myself, because every time I see it, I know that it does something to their faces and their personalities and I say to myself that hate is too great a burden to bear. I have decided to love. If you are seeking the highest good, I think you can find it through love. And the beautiful thing is that we are moving against wrong when we do it, because John was right, God is love. He who hates does not know God, but he who has love has the key that unlocks the door to the meaning of ultimate reality.Martin Luther King, Jr. did choose the path of love and non-violence it knowing where the path might lead—people around him were killed along the way, and he certainly knew that it was a possible, and perhaps even likely, outcome for himself, as well. Jesus chose it, too, knowing where the path would lead.
The years are blurred, but I think it must have been around 2003 when the Michigan mandatory minimum laws were changed. One day JD got a letter from the state. The letter informed him that he would be released in a few weeks. JD showed me the letter. I congratulated him but he didn't seem that happy. I asked why he didn't seem happy. He said, "Goddamn, I've just done over a decade for what kids are getting two years for now. I missed my father's funeral.”And then, in "Statutes and Limitations," VanSumeren turns from personal narrative to thinking about how he would personally reform the system. He writes, simply:
I think that one's convictions should remain on one's record for no longer than the duration of the statute of limitations for that particular offense beginning from time of discharge after the successful completion of sentence. Thus, in the case of armed robbery, a twenty year felony with a twenty year statute of limitations, one's record should be cleared twenty years after the positive completion of incarceration and supervision, provided the offender commits no more felonies. And that's that.His writing isn't for everyone, but it is something which deserves a larger audience. It's real, and it's informative. Enjoy.
I call that mind free, which jealously guards its intellectual rights and powers, which calls no man mater, which does not content itself with a passive or hereditary faith, which opens itself to light whencesoever it may come, which receives new truth as an angel from heaven, which, whilst consulting others, inquires still more of the oracle within itself, and uses instructions from abroad, not to supersede but to quicken and exalt its own energies.Unitarian Universalist minister the Rev. Kirk Loadman-Copeland describes the events:
It began in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1634 and continued until 1884. The tradition spread to Connecticut in 1674, to Vermont in 1778, and to New Hampshire in 1784.... It was one of the few public holidays in pre-revolutionary America. Stores and schools closed and the day was marked with parades, picnics, and an Election Day sermon delivered to the officials by a distinguished minister.This seems to be the sense of the election sermon in Unitarian author Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter that the Rev. Mr. Dimmesdale delivers:
Thus, there had come to the Reverend Mr. Dimmesdale—as to most men, in their various spheres, though seldom recognized until they see it far behind them—an epoch of life more brilliant and full of triumph than any previous one, or than any which could hereafter be. He stood, at this moment, on the very proudest eminence of superiority, to which the gifts of intellect, rich lore, prevailing eloquence, and a reputation of whitest sanctity, could exalt a clergyman in New England’s earliest days, when the professional character was of itself a lofty pedestal. Such was the position which the minister occupied, as he bowed his head forward on the cushions of the pulpit, at the close of his Election Sermon.At some point, however, the tradition of preaching the election sermon to the politicians themselves ended, for the most part, and we began to understand the term "election sermon" differently, as one preached to the congregation shortly before the election. Today, our understanding of the "election sermon" is definitely as a pre-election sermon given by the minister. The modern understanding has become so pervasive, partly because of the confusion of the term "election day" that the Unitarian minister the Rev. Forrest Church wrote in an election sermon:
Until reading up on it, my understanding had been that the Unitarian tradition of election sermons was always, as Forrest Church suggests, as we practice it now. But like most traditions, this one has apparently changed over time. That doesn't mean that what we now do is meaningless, just because the tradition isn't "pure," but that we must find the meaning in it not from the sake of tradition, but because it is worthy in its own right. For now, I think there's something important about speaking to the event at hand on the eve of an election, and am planning what I will say in my own this year.There’s a noble tradition in the ministry, going back to the 17th Century.One or two Sundays before an election, almost every preacher in the landdevoted his sermon to the body politic.It’s a great literary genre. Often, the brimstone was so hotthat an Election Day sermon was the one sermon a minister might be remembered by....Here’s how it went. The world has gone, or is about to go to Hell.The reason is simple. God is punishing you for your sins.Whatever is wrong in this world is wrong because you are wrong-headed,wrong-hearted, inattentive to God’s commandments,and God is watching and God is angry,and if you keep on messing up you will burn forever.
I'm outside "tent city" in Phoenix with about 2000 Unitarian Universalists and allies. It is 99 degrees now that it is night time, down from 109 today. In tent city, people who are rounded up for deportation are imprisoned out in this heat without relief. We are told that they can hear us in the tent city, as we chant and sing and cheer.
It is wonderful to have the UCC president (his title is different but I don't have it handy) with us tonight and telling us the UCC is with us in this fight.
Yesterday I went to hear Michelle Alexander speak about her book, The New Jim Crow. I also went to a follow-up session with the author of a UU study guide. Sadly, Alexander.had time for only two or three questions, and I was about eighth in line.
I think to read this book, no matter how progressive already, is to have a great awakening--at least it was for me.
And hearing her speak here in Arizona, it became clear to me that our immigration system is also part of the new Jim Crow. It is so similar in effect on a people to our prison system.
The UU Ministers Association voted today to pass new language for a year of study. This language would change our code of professional ethics from language that basically outlawed specific actions to a much simpler and straight-forward "19 words." The new language reads:
"I will not engage in sexual contact, sexualized behavior, or a sexual relationship with any person I serve professionally."
Previously, the guidelines forbade sexual relationships with people one counsels, interns, married congregants, staff, minors, and, if married, anyone one serves professionally except one's partner.
The new language passed by a majority this year and must pass by two-thirds next year. (This, incidentally, means it is harder to change the UUMA code of conduct than it is to change the state of Michigan's constitution--which is certainly more a problem for Michigan.)
I voted for this, although I was torn, as I have known colleagues who have met their spouse in their congregations, and have pursued those relationships is in ways that were non-exploitative. Universalist fore-father John Murray met Judith Sargent Murray as a member of his congregation. But times have changed. And while we know there are significant differences between ministers and counselors, we now hold ourselves accountable in ways much more similar to other professions.
The thought shared today in ministry days is that doing social justice without having the models and training is like doing the work of religious education without renaissance modules and trained religious education professionals.
We do have models and structures out there that we can tap into, though. In Michigan we have the Michigan UU Social Justice Network (MUUSJN), which recently brought a workshop on healthcare to Jackson. We can network with other local (non-UU) congregations, and with other Michigan UU churches. We need something like what we had in Jackson with the Jackson Interfaith Peacekeepers, but with a broader social justice platform.
I think one of the questions is: What do we want from our faith? Are we looking for our religion to be a place from which we do social justice? If so, let's start working on putting the structures in place to do that ministry.
I will do my best to beIt's obvious that the Girl Scouts in the response videos have learned what it means to be "considerate and caring," "courageous and strong," "friendly and helpful," "responsible for what I say and do," to "respect myself and others," and, most importantly, to "be a sister to every Girl Scout."
honest and fair,
friendly and helpful,
considerate and caring,
courageous and strong, and
responsible for what I say and do,
and to
respect myself and others,
respect authority,
use resources wisely,
make the world a better place, and
be a sister to every Girl Scout.
Our concern with ‘All American Muslim’ is that it does not accurately represent the term Muslim, which is a follower of Islam and a follower of Islam believes in radicalization, the use of Sharia law, which provides for honor killings, mutilation of women and numerous other atrocities to women.Despite how often we hear anti-Muslim rhetoric in our society, this piece of vitriol really shocked me. His objection to the show is that it portrays moderate, average, peaceful American Muslims. Apparently a religious extremist like Katon can't believe that moderates within other religions exist. He paints a caricature of Muslims and then claims that anyone who doesn't look like his caricature isn't Muslim, and that moderate, peaceful Islam doesn't exist.
Lowe's has received a significant amount of communication on this program, from every perspective possible. Individuals and groups have strong political and societal views on this topic, and this program became a lighting rod for many of those views. As a result we did pull our advertising on this program. We believe it is best to respectfully defer to communities, individuals and groups to discuss and consider such issues of importance.No, Lowe's, what you did wasn't a response to controversy; what you did was a response to bigotry. The controversy wasn't something you acted in response to, it was something caused by your action. And your non-apology of "If we have made anyone question that commitment (to allowing people to have 'different views'), we apologize" isn't going to throw us off track while you continue to bow to the wishes of the hate-mongering bigots by not advertising on a show which is all about showing this thing you've just stated you have a commitment to--differing views. You're daring to tell us that you have a commitment to allowing different views, and then pulling ads from a show highlighting difference because the bigots say different views can't really exist?
I was at a UU leadership function. I met a really smart, really energetic and sweet guy. The kind of guy that any church elder or pastor would love to recruit onto the board. He volunteered his path to me: “I’m a Buddhist-Humanist,” he said. Then he took a swig of fair trade coffee while I told every particle of my being that, no, I would NOT roll my eyes.Here's the thing: Yes, you can. And that's part of what Unitarian Universalism is about. She says, "Be a Buddhist or a Humanist and do the work, because I suspect that claiming a hybrid philosophy might have something to do with wanting to be “spiritual” without the messy work of transformation." But sometimes "doing the work" of theology is in studying and understanding multiple religious traditions and understanding that each of them have to be adapted in some way to fit with one's own spiritual beliefs. I know there are critics of Building Your Own Theology
You can’t be a Buddhist-Humanist. You just can’t.
A singular antecedent requires a singular referent pronoun. Because he is no longer accepted as a generic pronoun referring to a person of either sex, it has become common in speech and in informal writing to substitute the third-person plural pronouns they, them, their, and themselves, and the nonstandard singular themself. While this usage is accepted in casual contexts, it is still considered ungrammatical in formal writing.The Chicago Style Manual recommends all the usual work-arounds: "he or she," plural subjects, imperative mood, rewrite the noun, revise the sentence, etc. I couldn't find as clear a statement out of the MLA or APA, but my understanding is that they offer the same options. The textbook I'm using for my class, The Little Seagull Handbook
{?xml version = '1.0' encoding = 'UTF-8'?}except that { and } are lesser-than and greater-than symbols -- I can't seem to type them in my blog without it becoming the code. I'm too lazy right now to figure out the work-around which I assume is pretty simple although complicated to Google, so I'm going this route. If you look at the code on the page, you'll see everything easily. It's in pretty-straight-forward html without bells and whistles. Anyway, that code does the trick, and the webpage is sized correctly. As long as whatever tables (and the cells in the table) you're using don't have a specified width or height, everything will wrap to fit on the mobile screen. Then it's just a matter of designing it such that you're not putting too much text up there, so that people don't have to scroll too much. You do want fonts and icons bigger than usual to make them easier to tap on. I'm going with font sized 5 (18pt), and it's workable, although perhaps still on the small side for larger fingers. My icons on the bottom are sized about 32 pixels high, and again they're on the small side to easily tap on.
{!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//WAPFORUM//DTD XHTML Mobile 1.0//EN" "http://www.wapforum.org/DTD/xhtml-mobile10.dtd"}
Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence and toughness multiples toughness in a descending spiral of destruction.(Note that many of the versions being shared have a sentence tacked on the beginning that was not King's, but the rest of the statement--all of that quoted above--was his. Jessica Dovey, Facebook user and English teacher apparently wrote the now oft-quoted sentence, "I will mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy.") One of the quickest ways we justify rejoicing at Osama bin Laden's death is by dehumanizing him, by making him pure evil, almost the devil himself. That's the response I heard from friends and acquaintances as the discussion launched from one Facebook friend's post to another: "He was evil." Once we make him evil, he becomes less than human, and we can respond with pure hate and pure rejoicing at his death.
No matter what you call it – sestercentennial, semiquincentennial, bicenquinquagenary, or just plain 250th – 2020 is a big year for Universalism. It will be the 250th anniversary of John Murray’s famous 1770 sermon in Thomas Potter’s chapel in Good Luck, New Jersey. We celebrate 2 and ½ centuries of Universalist contributions.
The full array of Sestercentennial Universalist Celebrations will be in 2020.
An endearing performance based on the reading of love letters written by Judith Sargent Murray to her husband Rev. John Murray has been commissioned. The performance provides a touching insight into the lives of Rev. Murray and his wife Judith, as well as tell tells the larger story of the birth of Universalism in America.
The Universalist Convocation will begin the celebration with a kick-off event at Murray Grove (May 17 – 19, 2019). Dynamic speakers, including Rev. John Buehrens, former UUA President, will provide the background on the arrival of Universalism in America. And . . . there will be a performance of Love Notes.
The Unitarian Universalist History Convocation (October 17 – 20, 2019) to be held in Baltimore will celebrate TWO significant events in UU history. The first celebration is the 200th anniversary of Rev. William Ellery Channing’s delivery of his “Unitarian Christianity” sermon that is better known as the Baltimore Sermon. The next celebration is the 205th anniversary of Rev. John Murray preaching his first Universalist sermon in Murray Grove in 1770. Murray Grove is a sponsor of this History Convocation.
Rev. John Murray
Plans are evolving to celebrate the 250th anniversary of John Murray’s epic sermon in Thomas Potter’s chapel in Good Luck, New Jersey September 30, 1770. This was the beginning of the thread of Universalist History in “the new world.” And the place where it happened is our oldest historic site. The full array of Sestercentennial Universalist Celebrations will be in 2020.
If you would like to contribute to the planning of the celebration, please use our Contact Us page to express your interest and talents.