All this GA talk must be getting dull for folks who weren't there. So let's wrap up. This was my first GA. Here's some advice for anyone else going for their first time:
1. Blog, or read blogs and comment a lot. I was advised to join a covenant group so I would have people to check in with throughout GA. I didn't. Instead I hung out with Linguist Friend a lot and met the bloggers really once a day until Saturday. I won't say we were a covenant group, but we were a little within-GA fraternity. Whenever I saw I blogger outside of one of the blogger meetups, I greeted them with genuine delight and enthusiasm. I felt like there were a bunch of people whom I knew and that made GA seem a lot more comfortable.
2. You will be walking. However much you think you will be walking, you're wrong. YOu will be walking more.
3. As far as I can tell every major road in Illinois and Indiana is under construction all the time.
4. Bone up on thy procedure. I did a bunch of Model UN in high school and college and I was still googling "definition of 'committee of the whole" on my blackberry when I should have been paying attention.
5. If you go out to dinner with Peacebang, let her order for you. Best meal I've had in quite some time.
CC
Showing posts with label GA 2006. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GA 2006. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Saturday, June 24, 2006
UUAGA06: Boom Shaka laka!
It was a great day at GA this afternoon.
The body passed the Committee on Social Witness' bylaws changes. This is the mother of all good news for the Chalicesseurs who were concerned about GA being unresponsive to the congregations. 25 percent of certified congregations will have OK any SAI in a ballot vote before the SAI is even presented at GA. My prediction? We won't have any SAIs next year because the congregations won't be ready.
If participation in this ballot vote improves next year (this year it was only ten percent, but then, it wasn't required,) then it will be because the people who are passionate about that SAI have worked that much harder to educate the other congregations about the problem they propose to study. They will have had to drum up increased interest to get us to study the issue in the first place.
Will this increased interest mean that the congregations will actually study the study action issues when they come out, getting involved and producing truly representative statements of conscience?
I hope so.
Maybe one of these days, when the UUA speaks on behalf of us, they will really be representing us.
Maybe someday, as Fausto so beautifully puts it, the UUA Washington office will be our ears in Washington and not our mouth.
Yeah, I know. I've got a bad case of GA euphoria.
Infused with delight after the vote, I went up to meet the UUA moderator. I introduced myself by my real name and mentioned that I go by Chalicechick on the web and that I write this blog.
She said "Wow! YOU'RE Chalicechick?" and pumped my hand with great enthusiasm.
Yeah, it was a pretty good afternoon.
CC
The body passed the Committee on Social Witness' bylaws changes. This is the mother of all good news for the Chalicesseurs who were concerned about GA being unresponsive to the congregations. 25 percent of certified congregations will have OK any SAI in a ballot vote before the SAI is even presented at GA. My prediction? We won't have any SAIs next year because the congregations won't be ready.
If participation in this ballot vote improves next year (this year it was only ten percent, but then, it wasn't required,) then it will be because the people who are passionate about that SAI have worked that much harder to educate the other congregations about the problem they propose to study. They will have had to drum up increased interest to get us to study the issue in the first place.
Will this increased interest mean that the congregations will actually study the study action issues when they come out, getting involved and producing truly representative statements of conscience?
I hope so.
Maybe one of these days, when the UUA speaks on behalf of us, they will really be representing us.
Maybe someday, as Fausto so beautifully puts it, the UUA Washington office will be our ears in Washington and not our mouth.
Yeah, I know. I've got a bad case of GA euphoria.
Infused with delight after the vote, I went up to meet the UUA moderator. I introduced myself by my real name and mentioned that I go by Chalicechick on the web and that I write this blog.
She said "Wow! YOU'RE Chalicechick?" and pumped my hand with great enthusiasm.
Yeah, it was a pretty good afternoon.
CC
UUAGA06: The "UU Voice" is Dying of Lonliness
So I'm walking through the exhibit hall when I catch a glimpse of Michael Durall sitting in the All Souls Tulsa booth. I pick up a printed copy of the UU Voice.
"You can have that for free," Durall says.
"Thanks," I say, ever the polite chick.
"Enjoy it," he said whistfully. "It might be the last issue."
"Why?" I asked.
"Well, I get tired of never hearing from anyone. Sometimes I put out an issue and not even one person writes me to tell me what they think.
I, of course, know the solution to this problem: insult the church of the sub-genius.
But I come up with a more self serving solution.
"Why don't you put it online, with each story easy to link to individually? I'm sure bloggers would comment on it." He gives me this hilariously skeptical expression. "So I'm guessing blogger response isn't worth what regular response is?" I fill in.
He doesn't say one way or another. We go on talking about the UU voice for a bit and I wander off.
I've been kicking around adding funny interviews with well-known UUs to my blog as a feature. But I think I will wait on asking Durall.
CC
"You can have that for free," Durall says.
"Thanks," I say, ever the polite chick.
"Enjoy it," he said whistfully. "It might be the last issue."
"Why?" I asked.
"Well, I get tired of never hearing from anyone. Sometimes I put out an issue and not even one person writes me to tell me what they think.
I, of course, know the solution to this problem: insult the church of the sub-genius.
But I come up with a more self serving solution.
"Why don't you put it online, with each story easy to link to individually? I'm sure bloggers would comment on it." He gives me this hilariously skeptical expression. "So I'm guessing blogger response isn't worth what regular response is?" I fill in.
He doesn't say one way or another. We go on talking about the UU voice for a bit and I wander off.
I've been kicking around adding funny interviews with well-known UUs to my blog as a feature. But I think I will wait on asking Durall.
CC
Friday, June 23, 2006
UUAGA06: An Ecological imbalance on the Global Warming SoC
This morning's plenary was a huge freaking mess.
Philo will cover it in more detail on the GA blog, I'm sure, but the jist is that this body wants a FAR stronger Statement of Conscience than the one that the committee put together with input from the 10 percent for congregations who gave enough of a damn to contribute.
I'm likely going to vote against the strengthened statement since under amendment 34 the statement asks for denominational leadership to lobby our American elected officials. That's kind of a litmus test with me, I'm afraid. That said, this resolution will pass anyway.
The whole issue highlights the importance of some of the procedural stuff we will vote on tonight. Tonight we will be looking at a proposal to put a quorum on denominational input on the Study Action Issue. If more than X percent of the congregations do not respond to the initial survey, it will be assumed that people don't care and we won't have SAIs that year.
This issue with the global warming statement of conscience illustrates why this procedural change is so important.
But we can also look at the issue another way. Various Chalicesseurs have long maintained that the GA delegations are full of hippies with too much free time and that their concerns are not the concerns of the congregations. The issue this morning would seem to support that premise as the work of the congregations wasn't nearly strong enough for those committed enough to come to GA. Since reading TheModoBlog's freaking brilliant the Ecology of Polarization post, I have frequently thought about the crucial balance between the activists and the moderates in various political environments. This issue today suggests that the Chalicesseurs are right and there is something wrong with that balance.
Perhaps this rule change on quorums for SAIs will be the beginning of restoring a balance.
Here's hoping.
All that aside, we were a messy, messy, body this morning and moderator Gini Courter handled it with asskicking grace, diffusing tension with humor and exemplifying a kind of professionalism that I frankly envy. This post was originally titled: "Gini Courter:Chaliceblog woman of the Year," and I will probably devote a later post to praising her.
UUGa06
UUAGA06
CC
Philo will cover it in more detail on the GA blog, I'm sure, but the jist is that this body wants a FAR stronger Statement of Conscience than the one that the committee put together with input from the 10 percent for congregations who gave enough of a damn to contribute.
I'm likely going to vote against the strengthened statement since under amendment 34 the statement asks for denominational leadership to lobby our American elected officials. That's kind of a litmus test with me, I'm afraid. That said, this resolution will pass anyway.
The whole issue highlights the importance of some of the procedural stuff we will vote on tonight. Tonight we will be looking at a proposal to put a quorum on denominational input on the Study Action Issue. If more than X percent of the congregations do not respond to the initial survey, it will be assumed that people don't care and we won't have SAIs that year.
This issue with the global warming statement of conscience illustrates why this procedural change is so important.
But we can also look at the issue another way. Various Chalicesseurs have long maintained that the GA delegations are full of hippies with too much free time and that their concerns are not the concerns of the congregations. The issue this morning would seem to support that premise as the work of the congregations wasn't nearly strong enough for those committed enough to come to GA. Since reading TheModoBlog's freaking brilliant the Ecology of Polarization post, I have frequently thought about the crucial balance between the activists and the moderates in various political environments. This issue today suggests that the Chalicesseurs are right and there is something wrong with that balance.
Perhaps this rule change on quorums for SAIs will be the beginning of restoring a balance.
Here's hoping.
All that aside, we were a messy, messy, body this morning and moderator Gini Courter handled it with asskicking grace, diffusing tension with humor and exemplifying a kind of professionalism that I frankly envy. This post was originally titled: "Gini Courter:Chaliceblog woman of the Year," and I will probably devote a later post to praising her.
UUGa06
UUAGA06
CC
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Why I don't like the Peacemaking resolution
Since Elizabeth asked, my problems with the Peacemaking resolution are as follows:
1. I do worry that we will end up a peace church and that's not in our tradition.
Also, as Joel notes in CUUMBAYA we will be painting ourselves into a corner given how strongly we are demanding something be done about Darfur. Also, I believe in the concept of a Just War.
2. I worry more that the issue will be divisive, and pointlessly so. The fact that we are studying this and will almost certainly pass whatever we come up with leaves us two possbilities: Us as a peace church for all the wrong reasons, or a vague statement about how peace is a good thing that no one cares about. If the screetchy self-righteous hippies win this one, then some good people might leave. If not, we have to deal with angry screetchy self-righteous hippies. Lose-lose. Lose-lose.
3. I surmise that our enthusiasm for this comes out of our collective dislike of and feeling of helplessness at this particular war. This suggests shortsightedness to me. I really hate shortsightedness.
4. I have heard that helping our young men get into consciencious objector programs is a big part of why we're doing this. That's wrong.
5. I feel like UUs will vote for anything as long as it: a. Sounds good and b. involves no actual work outside of the occaisional petition. I am certain that a decent portion of the people voting put absolutely no thought into this at all.
Since being at GA, I've seen so many examples of UUs going out and doing good work for the poor, work that actually involved getting off one's ass. Give me a resolution about that, I'll vote for it.
CC
who is not tagging this as a GA post as to do so would be sort of bitter.
1. I do worry that we will end up a peace church and that's not in our tradition.
Also, as Joel notes in CUUMBAYA we will be painting ourselves into a corner given how strongly we are demanding something be done about Darfur. Also, I believe in the concept of a Just War.
2. I worry more that the issue will be divisive, and pointlessly so. The fact that we are studying this and will almost certainly pass whatever we come up with leaves us two possbilities: Us as a peace church for all the wrong reasons, or a vague statement about how peace is a good thing that no one cares about. If the screetchy self-righteous hippies win this one, then some good people might leave. If not, we have to deal with angry screetchy self-righteous hippies. Lose-lose. Lose-lose.
3. I surmise that our enthusiasm for this comes out of our collective dislike of and feeling of helplessness at this particular war. This suggests shortsightedness to me. I really hate shortsightedness.
4. I have heard that helping our young men get into consciencious objector programs is a big part of why we're doing this. That's wrong.
5. I feel like UUs will vote for anything as long as it: a. Sounds good and b. involves no actual work outside of the occaisional petition. I am certain that a decent portion of the people voting put absolutely no thought into this at all.
Since being at GA, I've seen so many examples of UUs going out and doing good work for the poor, work that actually involved getting off one's ass. Give me a resolution about that, I'll vote for it.
CC
who is not tagging this as a GA post as to do so would be sort of bitter.
UUAGA06: Memorandum
To: The guy sitting one seat away from me during the service of the living tradition, the one with the chewing gum, who stole my program and thought the problems with the closed-captioning were so freaking hilarious that he was STILL reading the bigger mistakes off a full half hour after the problem appeared.
From: CC
It's amazing how tiny, inconsiderate behaviors can add up to really mess with somebody else's experience.
From: CC
It's amazing how tiny, inconsiderate behaviors can add up to really mess with somebody else's experience.
Blogging UUA GA 06: Love letter to the Chalicesseurs
Hello,
Just got out of a beyond fabulous blog meetup hosted by the UUA technology folks. It was deeply moving to be around so many people I've come to respect and adore in the UU blogosphere.
In one of the opening scenes of the new X-Men movie, you see Magneto (mmm... troubled) and Dr. Xavier getting out of a car and talking lightly as they walk up to Jean Grey's house. I have seen the first two X-men movies several times and am really fond of these characters. As I sat in the theater watching these two guys chat with such obvious fondness and respect for one another, I was shocked to find a well of affection for them inside me. For fictional old guys with super powers.
Blog amigos, meeting you guys gave me the same feeling. Hafidha looked gorgeous and I totally missed the chance to tell her how much I love her stuff. I confessed to Clyde that his symbol of genocide post changed the way I looked at the St. Louis arch from the moment I first saw it.* I got to yell "Great Principles" at Dan Harper, who of course gave props to Mr. Crankypants. And tell Jess that I loved her hymn reviews. And tell Ministrare how much he rocks and that I don't really link to him much but I totally respect him and I think he's a great writer. I got to put names to faces, discovering that there are UU bloggers who are way cuter than I'd pictured them.
It amazed me how deep my affection for the people in this room was. Mid-meeting, I found myself wondering "Do these people really care what a 28 year old wiseass thinks about every little thing?" (If you found yourself asking the same question, I totally apologize. I did talk too much.) But I looked around and people were looking at me with thoughtful faces. What I was saying mattered to them.
I guess that's why I write this. I put my poorly-copyedited thoughts out there on faith that what I'm writing matters to somebody and everytime I check my hits I am gobsmacked to find that I was right. (At the same time, I want to be right again tomorrow, so I really put a lot of thought into what I'm going to write and how best to express whatever's on my mind. If the Chaliceblog starts to suck you will leave. I never forget that.)
And what other people write matters to me. I read every comment this blog gets and it is against my personal blogging philosophy to ban commenters. (Yes, even that one.) Someone commented recently that he's finding UUpdates less useful because of the sheer volume of stuff on it. I've realized that I don't feel that way because I read UUpdates so often I almost never get behind. I visit a whole ton of UU blogs on an almost daily basis, and I'm only going to get worse having met the people responsible for some of them. I do not control my blackberry, it controls me.
OK, I'm starting to sound pathological here but you get my point.
Whatever we're doing here, I think it rocks.
Thank you for being my fictional old guys with superpowers.
CC
UUGa06
UUAGA06
*Item: In going to fetch that link from Clyde's blog, I discovered that a lady I went to church with is now commenting on Clyde's blog. This is kinda trippy. I get that it shouldn't be, but it is.
Just got out of a beyond fabulous blog meetup hosted by the UUA technology folks. It was deeply moving to be around so many people I've come to respect and adore in the UU blogosphere.
In one of the opening scenes of the new X-Men movie, you see Magneto (mmm... troubled) and Dr. Xavier getting out of a car and talking lightly as they walk up to Jean Grey's house. I have seen the first two X-men movies several times and am really fond of these characters. As I sat in the theater watching these two guys chat with such obvious fondness and respect for one another, I was shocked to find a well of affection for them inside me. For fictional old guys with super powers.
Blog amigos, meeting you guys gave me the same feeling. Hafidha looked gorgeous and I totally missed the chance to tell her how much I love her stuff. I confessed to Clyde that his symbol of genocide post changed the way I looked at the St. Louis arch from the moment I first saw it.* I got to yell "Great Principles" at Dan Harper, who of course gave props to Mr. Crankypants. And tell Jess that I loved her hymn reviews. And tell Ministrare how much he rocks and that I don't really link to him much but I totally respect him and I think he's a great writer. I got to put names to faces, discovering that there are UU bloggers who are way cuter than I'd pictured them.
It amazed me how deep my affection for the people in this room was. Mid-meeting, I found myself wondering "Do these people really care what a 28 year old wiseass thinks about every little thing?" (If you found yourself asking the same question, I totally apologize. I did talk too much.) But I looked around and people were looking at me with thoughtful faces. What I was saying mattered to them.
I guess that's why I write this. I put my poorly-copyedited thoughts out there on faith that what I'm writing matters to somebody and everytime I check my hits I am gobsmacked to find that I was right. (At the same time, I want to be right again tomorrow, so I really put a lot of thought into what I'm going to write and how best to express whatever's on my mind. If the Chaliceblog starts to suck you will leave. I never forget that.)
And what other people write matters to me. I read every comment this blog gets and it is against my personal blogging philosophy to ban commenters. (Yes, even that one.) Someone commented recently that he's finding UUpdates less useful because of the sheer volume of stuff on it. I've realized that I don't feel that way because I read UUpdates so often I almost never get behind. I visit a whole ton of UU blogs on an almost daily basis, and I'm only going to get worse having met the people responsible for some of them. I do not control my blackberry, it controls me.
OK, I'm starting to sound pathological here but you get my point.
Whatever we're doing here, I think it rocks.
Thank you for being my fictional old guys with superpowers.
CC
UUGa06
UUAGA06
*Item: In going to fetch that link from Clyde's blog, I discovered that a lady I went to church with is now commenting on Clyde's blog. This is kinda trippy. I get that it shouldn't be, but it is.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Blogging UUA GA 06: The Beginning
CC is sitting in National Airport* getting hammered in preparation for
her flight.
There's a guy eating an ice cream cone who looks like Dick Cheney, but
I'm sure it's not him.
Well, pretty sure.
I met a nice looking Baptist minister and he and I talked about serving the lord for a bit. He pointed out that since I was trying to go to law school it could be argued that I was going into the same profession he's in, just the better paid part of it. An interesting argument, though I won't flatter myself and the law by buying it totally.
I will say that when I became a notary public, the idea that I was now an alter girl in the church of law came to mind.
It's probably best if I don't philosophize when intoxicated, I know.
I'm flying to Linguist Friend's house and then he and I are taking a road trip, stopping at his ancestral home, which was once a commune in Indiana for Victorian hippies or some such. We will hit St. Louis tomorrow evening, in plenty of time for the blogger thingy.
Pour the gin, kids, we're on our way.
Anyway, I don't care what the opening ceremony says, I'm raising my
glass and declaring GA begun.
Cheers!
CC
*No locals, even the Republicans, call it "Reagan National Airport."
UUGa06
UUAGA06
her flight.
There's a guy eating an ice cream cone who looks like Dick Cheney, but
I'm sure it's not him.
Well, pretty sure.
I met a nice looking Baptist minister and he and I talked about serving the lord for a bit. He pointed out that since I was trying to go to law school it could be argued that I was going into the same profession he's in, just the better paid part of it. An interesting argument, though I won't flatter myself and the law by buying it totally.
I will say that when I became a notary public, the idea that I was now an alter girl in the church of law came to mind.
It's probably best if I don't philosophize when intoxicated, I know.
I'm flying to Linguist Friend's house and then he and I are taking a road trip, stopping at his ancestral home, which was once a commune in Indiana for Victorian hippies or some such. We will hit St. Louis tomorrow evening, in plenty of time for the blogger thingy.
Pour the gin, kids, we're on our way.
Anyway, I don't care what the opening ceremony says, I'm raising my
glass and declaring GA begun.
Cheers!
CC
*No locals, even the Republicans, call it "Reagan National Airport."
UUGa06
UUAGA06
Friday, May 26, 2006
Codename: SnUUp Bloggy Blog
Over at Philo’s blog, he is cluing all GA-attending bloggers in on some blogger get-togethers (BTW, I, for one, would love to meet any Chalicesseurs, whether you have a blog or not.)
The first blogger hoedown will be Wednesday, June 21, from 9:45 to 11:15 p.m. in the Benton Room at the Renaissance Grand Hotel. You’re supposed to RSVP here before June 15 so that Deb Weiner of the UUA can have the proper amount of drinks and munchies. (CC requests gin, ice and Rose’s Sweetened Lime juice. Not that I won’t still show up even if this is a non-Gimlet occasion, but I will have had a long drive and y’all know what I’m like when I’m cranky...)
Also, Philo is putting together a lunch meeting for Thursday. Check the information board at GA or check the Chaliceblog while you’re there. In addition, I’m thinking of putting together a “blogger cell-phone directory” to facilitate spontaneous hanging out and/or snarky text messaging during the plenaries. Shoot your cell phone number to chalicechick at gmail dot com if you’d like to participate.
Also, PB is putting together a dinner for Friday night at a Tapas restaurant. rsvp here
All that said, one thing I would like to do is to start thinking about running a UU blogging workshop next GA. I’m thinking of calling it “CC’s Legends Ball”*
CC
*Ignore me. I get like this on Fridays sometimes.
The first blogger hoedown will be Wednesday, June 21, from 9:45 to 11:15 p.m. in the Benton Room at the Renaissance Grand Hotel. You’re supposed to RSVP here before June 15 so that Deb Weiner of the UUA can have the proper amount of drinks and munchies. (CC requests gin, ice and Rose’s Sweetened Lime juice. Not that I won’t still show up even if this is a non-Gimlet occasion, but I will have had a long drive and y’all know what I’m like when I’m cranky...)
Also, Philo is putting together a lunch meeting for Thursday. Check the information board at GA or check the Chaliceblog while you’re there. In addition, I’m thinking of putting together a “blogger cell-phone directory” to facilitate spontaneous hanging out and/or snarky text messaging during the plenaries. Shoot your cell phone number to chalicechick at gmail dot com if you’d like to participate.
Also, PB is putting together a dinner for Friday night at a Tapas restaurant. rsvp here
All that said, one thing I would like to do is to start thinking about running a UU blogging workshop next GA. I’m thinking of calling it “CC’s Legends Ball”*
CC
*Ignore me. I get like this on Fridays sometimes.
Sunday, May 21, 2006
For the wrong reasons
Several people in my offline life have made a point recently that makes me uncomfortable.
"If we become a peace church," they say, "our young men will find it easier to avoid the draft."
Yesterday, a woman went even so far as to sneer "For all those boys who didn't start writing letters about how they were pacifists at age 12."
For what it's worth, according to a large organization of objectors applying for status really isn't nearly as bad as people seem to think, assuming you know three people willing to write letters about what a peaceful guy you are. You don't HAVE to be a member of a peace church. It appears that the Army doesn't want a bunch of people in their ranks who are evangelizing for pacifism. I'm sure it helps, but "become a Quaker" doesn't even make the list of suggestions.
But I have a deeper problem with this argument.
I think it's really telling that this CO thing comes up as quickly as it does. It's one of the top reasons people give for passing this SAI.
We're not talking much about how we abhor violence in all forms.
We seem to talk a lot about how we could get our hands on the privileges our government gives those who abhor violence in all forms. (Perhaps the right to spend the war as a medic or fighting forest fires in America isn't much of a privilege. But for lack of a better word...)
I love the guys in my YRUU group. I would be devestated if anything happened to one of them.
But passing a resolution so other (poorer? darker-skinned?) guys will die in their place is not something we as a church should be doing.
As UUs, we talk about "justice" a hell of a lot more than we talk about "peace." If America were in danger from a real threat, one who would take over her and treat her people badly, UUs can and should be willing to fight. Freedom is worth that. Democracy is worth that.
There is such a thing as a just war. And I think most of us would agree.
Those that don't can become a CO another way. UUism doesn't lack for opportunities to express one's pacifism. If pacifism is your thing, do it, and UUism will give you plenty of chances to express your beliefs.
But if our best, most consistently stated, reason for passing this would be to send some other religion's kids to die instead of those of ours who DON'T have strong pacifistic view, that's not good enough.
In fact, I'm sort of appalled that people keep suggesting it.
CC
"If we become a peace church," they say, "our young men will find it easier to avoid the draft."
Yesterday, a woman went even so far as to sneer "For all those boys who didn't start writing letters about how they were pacifists at age 12."
For what it's worth, according to a large organization of objectors applying for status really isn't nearly as bad as people seem to think, assuming you know three people willing to write letters about what a peaceful guy you are. You don't HAVE to be a member of a peace church. It appears that the Army doesn't want a bunch of people in their ranks who are evangelizing for pacifism. I'm sure it helps, but "become a Quaker" doesn't even make the list of suggestions.
But I have a deeper problem with this argument.
I think it's really telling that this CO thing comes up as quickly as it does. It's one of the top reasons people give for passing this SAI.
We're not talking much about how we abhor violence in all forms.
We seem to talk a lot about how we could get our hands on the privileges our government gives those who abhor violence in all forms. (Perhaps the right to spend the war as a medic or fighting forest fires in America isn't much of a privilege. But for lack of a better word...)
I love the guys in my YRUU group. I would be devestated if anything happened to one of them.
But passing a resolution so other (poorer? darker-skinned?) guys will die in their place is not something we as a church should be doing.
As UUs, we talk about "justice" a hell of a lot more than we talk about "peace." If America were in danger from a real threat, one who would take over her and treat her people badly, UUs can and should be willing to fight. Freedom is worth that. Democracy is worth that.
There is such a thing as a just war. And I think most of us would agree.
Those that don't can become a CO another way. UUism doesn't lack for opportunities to express one's pacifism. If pacifism is your thing, do it, and UUism will give you plenty of chances to express your beliefs.
But if our best, most consistently stated, reason for passing this would be to send some other religion's kids to die instead of those of ours who DON'T have strong pacifistic view, that's not good enough.
In fact, I'm sort of appalled that people keep suggesting it.
CC
CC's Doppelganger
At the gathering of folks from my area who are going to GA, I set my bagel down across the table from a benign-looking older hippie.
"Will you be in the CUUPS both again this year?" The woman asked.
"Excuse me?" I said, looking up.
"You were in the CUUPS booth in Ft. Worth."
I smiled sweetly. "No, actually I wasn't. But I'm sure it's an easy mistake to make. There are a LOT of chubby brunette chicks in Unitarianism."
The Hippie looked at me for a long moment, "Thank you for the gift of your humor."
I think that was a smackdown.
CC
"Will you be in the CUUPS both again this year?" The woman asked.
"Excuse me?" I said, looking up.
"You were in the CUUPS booth in Ft. Worth."
I smiled sweetly. "No, actually I wasn't. But I'm sure it's an easy mistake to make. There are a LOT of chubby brunette chicks in Unitarianism."
The Hippie looked at me for a long moment, "Thank you for the gift of your humor."
I think that was a smackdown.
CC
Friday, April 14, 2006
"Goodness, those GA hotels are classy,"
I thought as I looked over the list of GA hotels. I mean, check it out, y'all. We've got the Adams Mark, two different Renaissance hotels, the Holiday Inn, the Omni. And the prices top out at $130.
Now I think of these as very expensive hotels. $130 a night is probably a good deal.
But I'm a simple girl. I don't require much. Free wifi, clean sheets, maybe a hot tub someplace, and I'm happy. So I find myself asking, why do we have only the best hotels? And is there a better deal to be had in downtown St. Louis?
I'll take the second question first.
Of course there's a better deal to be had in St. Louis.
Even the most cursory search turns up several good hotels at much better prices.
The Econo Lodge Riverfront, for example, starts at 81 bucks per night and is .3 of a mile from the convention center hotels, making it forty dollars a night cheaper than many of the hotels the UUA reccomends.
Similarly, the Hampton Inn is $105 per night if you have AAA. It is only a quarter mile from the convention center.
If you're willing to drive in for fifteen miles every morning, you can stay for as little as forty bucks a night at the Super 8 out by the airport. The drive every day will suck, but even if you pay $10 a day to park at the Holiday Inn across the street from the convention center, you'll still save a bundle.
So why, you may ask, is the UUA only making deals with the expensive hotels. What makes it worth it to potentially exclude people who could almost attend, but would seriously need to cut costs?
Environmentalism.
The UUA has a long and detailed list of requirements. The requirements, intentionally or not, strongly favor the more expensive hotels. After all, the classy hotels already use china plates and serve organic foods, and they are used to kowtowing to weird demands from rich people. Older hotels that haven't been refurbished and still lack low-flow shower heads, and of course any places where one might be expected to handle a ketchup packet, are beneath our notice.
The UUA could have made two lists, hotels and hotels that get our environmental seal of approval. But we're too pure for that, so instead we assume that of course our members want to pay something like $200 extra for five nights to shower under less water. So we exclude any hotel that doesn't meet our standards.
And we wonder why we are a religion full of yuppie white people.
Sigh.
CC
Ps. Here's a hotel map of downtown St. Louis.
PPs. Boy in the Bands also notes that a new bus company will make it cheaper to get to GA from the midwest.
Now I think of these as very expensive hotels. $130 a night is probably a good deal.
But I'm a simple girl. I don't require much. Free wifi, clean sheets, maybe a hot tub someplace, and I'm happy. So I find myself asking, why do we have only the best hotels? And is there a better deal to be had in downtown St. Louis?
I'll take the second question first.
Of course there's a better deal to be had in St. Louis.
Even the most cursory search turns up several good hotels at much better prices.
The Econo Lodge Riverfront, for example, starts at 81 bucks per night and is .3 of a mile from the convention center hotels, making it forty dollars a night cheaper than many of the hotels the UUA reccomends.
Similarly, the Hampton Inn is $105 per night if you have AAA. It is only a quarter mile from the convention center.
If you're willing to drive in for fifteen miles every morning, you can stay for as little as forty bucks a night at the Super 8 out by the airport. The drive every day will suck, but even if you pay $10 a day to park at the Holiday Inn across the street from the convention center, you'll still save a bundle.
So why, you may ask, is the UUA only making deals with the expensive hotels. What makes it worth it to potentially exclude people who could almost attend, but would seriously need to cut costs?
Environmentalism.
The UUA has a long and detailed list of requirements. The requirements, intentionally or not, strongly favor the more expensive hotels. After all, the classy hotels already use china plates and serve organic foods, and they are used to kowtowing to weird demands from rich people. Older hotels that haven't been refurbished and still lack low-flow shower heads, and of course any places where one might be expected to handle a ketchup packet, are beneath our notice.
The UUA could have made two lists, hotels and hotels that get our environmental seal of approval. But we're too pure for that, so instead we assume that of course our members want to pay something like $200 extra for five nights to shower under less water. So we exclude any hotel that doesn't meet our standards.
And we wonder why we are a religion full of yuppie white people.
Sigh.
CC
Ps. Here's a hotel map of downtown St. Louis.
PPs. Boy in the Bands also notes that a new bus company will make it cheaper to get to GA from the midwest.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
"How can you be a UU and kill people?"
a girl in my YRUU group asked. We were making brownies for a bake sale and the subject of the discussion was UUs in the military.
"Well," I said, bearing in mind that this girl goes to a quaker school, "A UU in the military could probably give you a more reasonable answer than I can, and I am trying to arrange it so one can come here and talk to the group. But as far as I know, most people are OK with the police having to kill people every now and again when those people are trying to kill them or trying to hurt somebody else. At this point, our soldiers in Iraq aren't fighting another army, they are trying to keep order and trying to keep Iraq from breaking out into a civil war. I really don't think they are killing anybody they don't strictly feel they have to. As far as I can tell, at this point they are more or less the cops. Like the cops, sometimes they don't behave as they should, but I don't doubt that any UUs over there are doing the best they can to be just and reasonable in a difficult situation."
My little soliloquy wasn't enough of an explanation, I know, but it seemed to satisfy her for the moment and the conversation moved on to other things, most notably the similarity between Quaker values and UU values. (Swoon! Why can't teaching RE ALWAYS be like that??)
I've been thinking a lot about the UUs and violence issue. There is a part of my brain that cries out for structure, and that part loves the idea of being able to say that violence is against my religion.
But in the end, I can't believe it.
TheCSO and I have had a lot of talks about the Christian Peacemaker Teams recently. He has strong objections to them, likening them to skiers who knowingly go onto a dangerous mountain then endanger rescuers when the inevitable avalanche occurs. Admittedly, the CPT was less than gracious upon being rescued, putting out a press release describing their members in glowing terms and not bothering to mention the soldiers who had rescued them. (Note that the press release says the prisoners were "released" Yeah, they were "released" when a bunch of British, American and Iraqi soldiers showed up on the doorstep of the place where they were being held. I think most of us would say they were "rescued" and I do agree with the CPT's critics that the CPT was quite uncharitable there.) After much, much negative media reaction, they did issue a statement thanking the soldiers.
What makes the issue even muddier is that these folks were only released when an insurgent who was being interrogated by the Americans gave up the address of the place where they were being held. And I think we all know what "interrogated by the Americans" means these days.
To have been saved by violence, or at least soldiers, puts these advocates of nonviolence in an almost impossible Public Relations position. Given that they had specifically requested not to be rescued, I'm not sure any statement could have remained true to their principles yet had the proper tone.
((FWIW, here's an interesting (and far more sympathetic) essay on the CPT folks from Canada. ))
I've been giving a lot of thought to the proposed study action issue.
I'm torn, and not the least by the fact that all that's being debated right now is whether we should study and discuss the thing. I'm usually a great fan of studying and discussing things, at least in the beginning. In junior high school, I played Stephen Hopkins in 1776 and greatly relished being able to say "Well, in all my years I ain't never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn't be talked about. Hell yeah! I'm for debating anything. Rhode Island says yea!" every night.
My observation is that the UUA only puts out two kinds of statements, vague and intolerable. The proposed study action issue is of the first sort, asking the reader to examine the issue of violence from many perspectives*. It includes mildly annoying political ideas about identifying the forms of intervention we will support that if accepted I am certian will result in many long-winded, statements about what President Whoever believes on behalf of all the member congregations, as well as hasty assurances that we will listen to all points of view and more philosophical questions like "What are the hallmarks of peaceful cultures?" and "What role do human physiology and psychology play in the perpetuation of violence?"
But I'm pretty certian the meat of the question is "Should we become a peace church?," or as the tentative study action issue puts it, "Should we, the Unitarian Universalist Association and member congregations, reject violence in any form?"
I really think we overstate our case when we talk about becoming a peace church. Quite arguably, this war was unjust. But just wars do happen, and I don't think we should shrink from fighting them. The study action issue states "Our principles are models for peacemaking yet we act as if violence is more effective than nonviolence in certain situations." I don't see the contradiction in that. Maslow's statement that when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail seems relevant here. If violence is our hammer, not every problem can be most effectively solved by violence, but some problems are nails. Sometimes, something is threatened that it is worth using violence to defend.
Besides, that "violence cannot solve problems" is a belief, and last I checked we weren't supposed to be in the business of telling our members what to believe. That's one reason why I so disliked the "tell the YRUUers how to come off as consciencious objectors" portion of the anti-recruitment YRUU class I attended. I love those guys and would be devestated if any of them died in a war, but "here's how to appear to be a consciencious objector so you can get out of getting drafted" is not the same lesson as asking them whether they have a fundamental objection to war in the first place.
I am especially suspicious of the statement that we will "Honor and support the challenges of military and law enforcement personnel and their families." I don't think I have to remind regular readers that we aren't doing so hot at that right now, and I assume things would only get worse as we got on a peace crusade. Conformity on this issue is leading to enough unpleasantness for military and veteran UUs already. As a peace church we would face many of the same problems the Christian Peacemakers are facing in trying to resolve these contradictions, except that our problems would be within our own churches as police officers and members of the armed forces found that their careers were now against their religion because a vote of GA said so.
We aren't the Quakers, the Witnesses or the Mennonites. This isn't our tradition. It could be our new tradition, but I worry that it wouldn't reflect who we are, but what we're fearing right now.
Pacifists will say that if every church were a peace church "The baptized Catholic leader of Nazi Germany, Adolph Hitler, would have been raised within a progressive peace church by a strong pacifist Catholic mother who would have nurtured and loved and protected little Adolph from the cruelty of his father and the cruelty of his society." That particular pacifist goes on to say that if only the churches were pacifist, the (as far as I know non-religious) Columbine shooters would have been well-adjusted, too.
This is an extreme, but I don't think completely unrealistic example of the sort of thinking that worries me. One who assumes that if US troops left Iraq today, then tomorrow the Iraqis would govern themselves in peaceful anarchy and everything in the region would be much improved without the police-type protection the troops are providing is also among the sweetly delusional.
Katy-the-Wise once preached that sentimentality was one of the seven deadly sins, defining it as "overvaluing something for reasons not of fact but of desire." She provided the quite UU-palatable example of parental notification laws for abortions. These laws are written with the idea that every set of parents will be warm and wise and understanding with only the good of their children at heart. The reality that some pregnant girls fear getting beaten or thrown out of the house is ignored for not fitting into the view of reality that the conservatives who write these laws have chosen.
It seems apposite to me to categorize our desire to be a peace church, along with my desire to have violence be against my religion, as falling within the sin of sentimentality.
CC
* Though if we do accept it, one of the first suggested actions is "Advocate for peacemaking initiatives at all levels of government." That's what UUism needs. More lobbying. Because what we're doing has been such a terribly effective use of our time.
"Well," I said, bearing in mind that this girl goes to a quaker school, "A UU in the military could probably give you a more reasonable answer than I can, and I am trying to arrange it so one can come here and talk to the group. But as far as I know, most people are OK with the police having to kill people every now and again when those people are trying to kill them or trying to hurt somebody else. At this point, our soldiers in Iraq aren't fighting another army, they are trying to keep order and trying to keep Iraq from breaking out into a civil war. I really don't think they are killing anybody they don't strictly feel they have to. As far as I can tell, at this point they are more or less the cops. Like the cops, sometimes they don't behave as they should, but I don't doubt that any UUs over there are doing the best they can to be just and reasonable in a difficult situation."
My little soliloquy wasn't enough of an explanation, I know, but it seemed to satisfy her for the moment and the conversation moved on to other things, most notably the similarity between Quaker values and UU values. (Swoon! Why can't teaching RE ALWAYS be like that??)
I've been thinking a lot about the UUs and violence issue. There is a part of my brain that cries out for structure, and that part loves the idea of being able to say that violence is against my religion.
But in the end, I can't believe it.
TheCSO and I have had a lot of talks about the Christian Peacemaker Teams recently. He has strong objections to them, likening them to skiers who knowingly go onto a dangerous mountain then endanger rescuers when the inevitable avalanche occurs. Admittedly, the CPT was less than gracious upon being rescued, putting out a press release describing their members in glowing terms and not bothering to mention the soldiers who had rescued them. (Note that the press release says the prisoners were "released" Yeah, they were "released" when a bunch of British, American and Iraqi soldiers showed up on the doorstep of the place where they were being held. I think most of us would say they were "rescued" and I do agree with the CPT's critics that the CPT was quite uncharitable there.) After much, much negative media reaction, they did issue a statement thanking the soldiers.
What makes the issue even muddier is that these folks were only released when an insurgent who was being interrogated by the Americans gave up the address of the place where they were being held. And I think we all know what "interrogated by the Americans" means these days.
To have been saved by violence, or at least soldiers, puts these advocates of nonviolence in an almost impossible Public Relations position. Given that they had specifically requested not to be rescued, I'm not sure any statement could have remained true to their principles yet had the proper tone.
((FWIW, here's an interesting (and far more sympathetic) essay on the CPT folks from Canada. ))
I've been giving a lot of thought to the proposed study action issue.
I'm torn, and not the least by the fact that all that's being debated right now is whether we should study and discuss the thing. I'm usually a great fan of studying and discussing things, at least in the beginning. In junior high school, I played Stephen Hopkins in 1776 and greatly relished being able to say "Well, in all my years I ain't never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn't be talked about. Hell yeah! I'm for debating anything. Rhode Island says yea!" every night.
My observation is that the UUA only puts out two kinds of statements, vague and intolerable. The proposed study action issue is of the first sort, asking the reader to examine the issue of violence from many perspectives*. It includes mildly annoying political ideas about identifying the forms of intervention we will support that if accepted I am certian will result in many long-winded, statements about what President Whoever believes on behalf of all the member congregations, as well as hasty assurances that we will listen to all points of view and more philosophical questions like "What are the hallmarks of peaceful cultures?" and "What role do human physiology and psychology play in the perpetuation of violence?"
But I'm pretty certian the meat of the question is "Should we become a peace church?," or as the tentative study action issue puts it, "Should we, the Unitarian Universalist Association and member congregations, reject violence in any form?"
I really think we overstate our case when we talk about becoming a peace church. Quite arguably, this war was unjust. But just wars do happen, and I don't think we should shrink from fighting them. The study action issue states "Our principles are models for peacemaking yet we act as if violence is more effective than nonviolence in certain situations." I don't see the contradiction in that. Maslow's statement that when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail seems relevant here. If violence is our hammer, not every problem can be most effectively solved by violence, but some problems are nails. Sometimes, something is threatened that it is worth using violence to defend.
Besides, that "violence cannot solve problems" is a belief, and last I checked we weren't supposed to be in the business of telling our members what to believe. That's one reason why I so disliked the "tell the YRUUers how to come off as consciencious objectors" portion of the anti-recruitment YRUU class I attended. I love those guys and would be devestated if any of them died in a war, but "here's how to appear to be a consciencious objector so you can get out of getting drafted" is not the same lesson as asking them whether they have a fundamental objection to war in the first place.
I am especially suspicious of the statement that we will "Honor and support the challenges of military and law enforcement personnel and their families." I don't think I have to remind regular readers that we aren't doing so hot at that right now, and I assume things would only get worse as we got on a peace crusade. Conformity on this issue is leading to enough unpleasantness for military and veteran UUs already. As a peace church we would face many of the same problems the Christian Peacemakers are facing in trying to resolve these contradictions, except that our problems would be within our own churches as police officers and members of the armed forces found that their careers were now against their religion because a vote of GA said so.
We aren't the Quakers, the Witnesses or the Mennonites. This isn't our tradition. It could be our new tradition, but I worry that it wouldn't reflect who we are, but what we're fearing right now.
Pacifists will say that if every church were a peace church "The baptized Catholic leader of Nazi Germany, Adolph Hitler, would have been raised within a progressive peace church by a strong pacifist Catholic mother who would have nurtured and loved and protected little Adolph from the cruelty of his father and the cruelty of his society." That particular pacifist goes on to say that if only the churches were pacifist, the (as far as I know non-religious) Columbine shooters would have been well-adjusted, too.
This is an extreme, but I don't think completely unrealistic example of the sort of thinking that worries me. One who assumes that if US troops left Iraq today, then tomorrow the Iraqis would govern themselves in peaceful anarchy and everything in the region would be much improved without the police-type protection the troops are providing is also among the sweetly delusional.
Katy-the-Wise once preached that sentimentality was one of the seven deadly sins, defining it as "overvaluing something for reasons not of fact but of desire." She provided the quite UU-palatable example of parental notification laws for abortions. These laws are written with the idea that every set of parents will be warm and wise and understanding with only the good of their children at heart. The reality that some pregnant girls fear getting beaten or thrown out of the house is ignored for not fitting into the view of reality that the conservatives who write these laws have chosen.
It seems apposite to me to categorize our desire to be a peace church, along with my desire to have violence be against my religion, as falling within the sin of sentimentality.
CC
* Though if we do accept it, one of the first suggested actions is "Advocate for peacemaking initiatives at all levels of government." That's what UUism needs. More lobbying. Because what we're doing has been such a terribly effective use of our time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)