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 out there, but I think it had a lot of things right. In Unitarian Universalism we do pick and choose and create hybrid theologies. And in many cases this is because we have "done the work" -- a lot more so than your average non-hybrid-believer. By way of example, a recent Pew study showed that atheists know a lot more about religion than the average believer.
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, offers these same work-arounds.
{?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.
This blog is intended to be a neutral ground where all can discuss their issues with the Unitarian Universalist Association and its member congregations. It is also a place where those criticisms can be answered and challenged in turn. The only ground rules are these: No personal insults, no armchair psychoanalyzing, no spamming. Address people by their proper names; no nicknames or "cute" references; something you may find funny another may find offensive. No links unless they are absolutely necessary to understand the issue. Keep the discussion about the discussion; don't label the arguments made (such as "DIM" or "irrational")- labels do not advance understanding. Simply agree with them or refute them.
Anyone wishing to start a new thread can submit it as a comment, and I will copy it as a new post, with its own address, that people can comment on and refer to- just mention that this is what you want to do.
Please jump in!