are "that's what insurance is for" from your significant other when you've done something stupid.
(Didn't hit anybody with my car. Did either leave my cellphone in the ladies room of an office building and/or leave my bag where somebody could take my phone.)
On a related subject, there's something especially evil about taking someone's phone. Take my cash, I don't like it but I understand it. You can get as much use out of a twenty dollar bill as I can. But take my cellphone? I have international calls blocked. T-mobile is putting a hold on my phone number as we speak. Whoever took it got something like an hour or two of use out of it, and it will be really annoying to replace. I called my number and politely offered money if the cellphone was returned. I think I heard breathing on the other end, but no response. That phone is next to useless to anyone but me. Taking a cellphone is like taking somebody's prescription sunglasses or their prosthetic leg.
What's the point?
CC
who agrees that, yes, the prosthetic leg comparision was a tad over the line, but I really liked that phone.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
CC wakes up
Just woke up a few minutes ago from a bizarre dream. An old lady was going on an extended trip (though it was implied that she was dying) and wanted to hire me to take care of her brother. I wouldn't take that job in a million years in real life, but I really wanted it in my dream.
The brother was crazy and lived in a mansion built like a giant funhouse maze, with all sorts of trapdoors and weird slides and that sort of thing. There was even a funhouse mirror that made me look like a completely different person. I was cuter in my reflection. Ah well.
The crazy old guy thought it would be funny to escape from me, so I start chasing him, but as I run through spinning rooms and go down slides, I started to feel really nauseated. I'm chasing him through the house, feeling sick, but determined to do my job and keep him out of trouble.
I corner him in an office and then I step the wrong place and the floor goes out from under me, dumping the contents of the desks as well and I'm falling down a hole like Alice in Wonderland, with peices of paper (that are all blank, I guess it was a fake office) falling down with me.
And then I woke up.
Pretty weird, huh?
Oh well, back to sleep.
CC
The brother was crazy and lived in a mansion built like a giant funhouse maze, with all sorts of trapdoors and weird slides and that sort of thing. There was even a funhouse mirror that made me look like a completely different person. I was cuter in my reflection. Ah well.
The crazy old guy thought it would be funny to escape from me, so I start chasing him, but as I run through spinning rooms and go down slides, I started to feel really nauseated. I'm chasing him through the house, feeling sick, but determined to do my job and keep him out of trouble.
I corner him in an office and then I step the wrong place and the floor goes out from under me, dumping the contents of the desks as well and I'm falling down a hole like Alice in Wonderland, with peices of paper (that are all blank, I guess it was a fake office) falling down with me.
And then I woke up.
Pretty weird, huh?
Oh well, back to sleep.
CC
Monday, January 30, 2006
Current Voting Results and more discussion of the nature of the "Fixing UUism" contest
I intended to update voting results every two days, but tomorrow is looking like the mother of all busy days, so I will go ahead.
With 4 votes apeice, member ratification of GA resolutions and developing a mission statement are tied. The moratorium on GA complaints and putting social justice issues in a religious context have three votes apiece. Most of the remaining proposals have one or two votes apiece.
Seven people have voted so far. I will vote sometime midweek.
Ok, now a word on the contest.
Though UUA reform ended up being the general gist of most of the suggestions, much as government reform was the theme of the Sliced Bread Competition, the contest on which this was based, I didn't necessarily start it thinking that would be the result.
To be honest, I didn't think much about it at all. As I've written other places, I pretty much saw the sliced bread contest and thought "Gee, we should try that for UUism!" and went with it. My big worry was that nobody would want to participate and I'd look stupid.
I may look stupid other ways sometimes, but I surely can't complain about the level of participation in this contest and the level of enthusiasm I've seen.
A Catholic friend of mine checked in on my blog this weekend and was just amazed by what she saw. People in most other faiths just don't feel free to sidle up to a blog and say "I think X is a problem with what we're doing as a religion and we should do Y and Z to fix it."
We do.
And yes, it was no doubt cheeky of me to put this up, and probably somewhat disrespectful to those who do this for a living, though being told how to do their job is probably nothing at all new to people who work in religious fields. It sure isn't in the political ones.
But at the same time, I can't deny that I am proud to belong to a faith where saying "Hey, there are problems, and we should fix them!" is not a particularly revolutionary statement.
That said, I've been keeping an eye on Left Coast Unitarian's thread about what people love about UUism. I'm always confused by those who assume that people who are criticizing something don't love it.* (A sentiment represented in on LCU by James' statement When I miss church and read UU blogs all too often I get the impression that there is so little love for Unitarian Universalism among my co-religionists.)
To me, the people who see an institution and want to improve it are exactly the sort of people (Robertson Davies called them "strivers-after-better-things") that I want to hang out with and they are showing a great love for their institution. In her response to James, Jess talks about UUism as a living, breathing, evolving institution. I agree, and I see conversations like this one as part of that process.
Could I have handled this better? Sure. "Improving UUism" would have been a better title for the whole enterprise, first of all. People seem to resent the idea that UUism is broken. IMHO, institutions we love are always like Toyotas. First the radio doesn't work quite right,then the door handle on a passenger door breaks, but you never think of giving up the car because you love the car and it still runs OK. But there are still little things that can be fixed to make the driving experience more pleasant. That's all I meant by it.
I just love the word "fixing." It has such a powerful, hands-on connotation. And I think it speaks well to my point that we love our car that, as Chutney noted, almost no complaints here are about the practice of UUism. Nobody says "refining belief through reason has to go" or complains about the water communion. Nobody even rallies to get rid of Joys and Concerns, a proposal I would have rejected on polity grounds but soundly agreed with in principle.
Steve Caldwell is right that there should be some way to vet the rules against UUA bylaws. As I am loath to get into interpretation arguments about what they mean, I didn't choose to disqualify rules on that basis, but having a mechanism for doing so would have been a good idea. (If I ever do this again, I may recruit religious professionals to serve as anonymous judges.)
Anyway, that's all I wanted to say. No malice toward my beloved faith intended. Keep those votes coming to chalicechick at gmail dot com.
Love and kisses,
CC
*After all, I will complain about the hippies and activists I run into protesting a lot of different ways, but you will never see me questioning their patriotism. I don't. If they didn't basically believe in the American system of government, they would stay home.
With 4 votes apeice, member ratification of GA resolutions and developing a mission statement are tied. The moratorium on GA complaints and putting social justice issues in a religious context have three votes apiece. Most of the remaining proposals have one or two votes apiece.
Seven people have voted so far. I will vote sometime midweek.
Ok, now a word on the contest.
Though UUA reform ended up being the general gist of most of the suggestions, much as government reform was the theme of the Sliced Bread Competition, the contest on which this was based, I didn't necessarily start it thinking that would be the result.
To be honest, I didn't think much about it at all. As I've written other places, I pretty much saw the sliced bread contest and thought "Gee, we should try that for UUism!" and went with it. My big worry was that nobody would want to participate and I'd look stupid.
I may look stupid other ways sometimes, but I surely can't complain about the level of participation in this contest and the level of enthusiasm I've seen.
A Catholic friend of mine checked in on my blog this weekend and was just amazed by what she saw. People in most other faiths just don't feel free to sidle up to a blog and say "I think X is a problem with what we're doing as a religion and we should do Y and Z to fix it."
We do.
And yes, it was no doubt cheeky of me to put this up, and probably somewhat disrespectful to those who do this for a living, though being told how to do their job is probably nothing at all new to people who work in religious fields. It sure isn't in the political ones.
But at the same time, I can't deny that I am proud to belong to a faith where saying "Hey, there are problems, and we should fix them!" is not a particularly revolutionary statement.
That said, I've been keeping an eye on Left Coast Unitarian's thread about what people love about UUism. I'm always confused by those who assume that people who are criticizing something don't love it.* (A sentiment represented in on LCU by James' statement When I miss church and read UU blogs all too often I get the impression that there is so little love for Unitarian Universalism among my co-religionists.)
To me, the people who see an institution and want to improve it are exactly the sort of people (Robertson Davies called them "strivers-after-better-things") that I want to hang out with and they are showing a great love for their institution. In her response to James, Jess talks about UUism as a living, breathing, evolving institution. I agree, and I see conversations like this one as part of that process.
Could I have handled this better? Sure. "Improving UUism" would have been a better title for the whole enterprise, first of all. People seem to resent the idea that UUism is broken. IMHO, institutions we love are always like Toyotas. First the radio doesn't work quite right,then the door handle on a passenger door breaks, but you never think of giving up the car because you love the car and it still runs OK. But there are still little things that can be fixed to make the driving experience more pleasant. That's all I meant by it.
I just love the word "fixing." It has such a powerful, hands-on connotation. And I think it speaks well to my point that we love our car that, as Chutney noted, almost no complaints here are about the practice of UUism. Nobody says "refining belief through reason has to go" or complains about the water communion. Nobody even rallies to get rid of Joys and Concerns, a proposal I would have rejected on polity grounds but soundly agreed with in principle.
Steve Caldwell is right that there should be some way to vet the rules against UUA bylaws. As I am loath to get into interpretation arguments about what they mean, I didn't choose to disqualify rules on that basis, but having a mechanism for doing so would have been a good idea. (If I ever do this again, I may recruit religious professionals to serve as anonymous judges.)
Anyway, that's all I wanted to say. No malice toward my beloved faith intended. Keep those votes coming to chalicechick at gmail dot com.
Love and kisses,
CC
*After all, I will complain about the hippies and activists I run into protesting a lot of different ways, but you will never see me questioning their patriotism. I don't. If they didn't basically believe in the American system of government, they would stay home.
Hello, readers
If you read the ChaliceBlog and you appreciate what I write, I'd really
appreciate your vote in the UU blog awards. The Chaliceblog is a labor of love, but
it would mean a lot to me to win something.
Thanks,
CC
Ps. If you haven't checked out The Happy Feminist, please do. It rocks.
appreciate your vote in the UU blog awards. The Chaliceblog is a labor of love, but
it would mean a lot to me to win something.
Thanks,
CC
Ps. If you haven't checked out The Happy Feminist, please do. It rocks.
The ChaliceMom vindicated
As a kid, I always ran around with my shoelaces untied. My mom always said that if I didn't tie them, someday there could be terrible consequences.
Who knew she was so right?
CC
glad she mostly wears boots and pumps these days
Who knew she was so right?
CC
glad she mostly wears boots and pumps these days
This is my bank, kids.
BB+T has vowed to not loan money to building projects that got their land by taking it away from private citizens under eminent domain. As the article points out, the stand will in the end probably be profitable for them, but I will take my friends where I can get them.
The Supreme Court screwed the pooch big time on this one, IMHO. I'm sort of amazed that the liberals were the ones who voted for it as opening things up to abuse by large businesses is usally more the conservatives' racket.
Here's the story of an LA furniture maker who was kicked off of his property so the city could build a new animal shelter on it. $17,000 in campaign donations from a competing furniture maker later, the land is being sold to the competing furniture maker. At a cost of millions to the taxpayers.
Suffice to say, I'm happy to be a BB+T customer this morning.
CC
The Supreme Court screwed the pooch big time on this one, IMHO. I'm sort of amazed that the liberals were the ones who voted for it as opening things up to abuse by large businesses is usally more the conservatives' racket.
Here's the story of an LA furniture maker who was kicked off of his property so the city could build a new animal shelter on it. $17,000 in campaign donations from a competing furniture maker later, the land is being sold to the competing furniture maker. At a cost of millions to the taxpayers.
Suffice to say, I'm happy to be a BB+T customer this morning.
CC
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Voting on your favorite "Fixing UUism" Idea
Shoot me an email at chalicechick at gmail dot com with your top five choices. I will announce regular tallies of how things are going and will declare a winner on Friday. A runoff is a possibility if there are a lot of choices that are too close to one another.
If you want to tell me why you voted for each choice or for your favorites, go for it. I might quote some people talking about how great the winner is.
The choices are here
If you want to campaign for your idea on your blog, you can, of course, but please don't email a ton of your friends and tell them to vote for your idea just to do it. I have a suspicion this has been done in other contests recently, and it's just a tacky way to behave.
CC
If you want to tell me why you voted for each choice or for your favorites, go for it. I might quote some people talking about how great the winner is.
The choices are here
If you want to campaign for your idea on your blog, you can, of course, but please don't email a ton of your friends and tell them to vote for your idea just to do it. I have a suspicion this has been done in other contests recently, and it's just a tacky way to behave.
CC
Mystery Nerds
Longtime readers of this blog (a relative thing) will recall that my church does an annual Murder Mystery Night sponsored by YRUU. Last night was “Murder in New Orleans.” It was great fun and the kids were wonderful actors, though the mystery (which they had bought from a game company) was not well written.
Few people over eighteen were into it, but TheCSO and I were, especially me. I questioned suspects, I talked over the clues with my friends, I was even the one who found evidence that a will was faked. (The signatures didn’t match the same people’s signatures on other documents.)
In the end, we didn’t even guess the right person who did it because the whole thing was really cluelessly put together by the game company. (e.g. The fact that one lady misspelled her own name in a signature on another document was not relevant to the case, just a typo on the game company’s part.)
The CSO and I had great fun, and we came up with a more interesting solution to the murder than the one the game company had provided. Also, their solution didn’t actually make any sense if you know anything about the mechanics of garroting someone to death, which, embarrassingly enough, we do.
This all goes way back for me. When I was three years old, my mom would read me two chapters of a Nancy Drew mystery every night. Nancy Drew mysteries always end chapters on a cliffhanger and I literally taught myself to read because I wanted to know what happened to Nancy before the next night. (Though I didn’t admit I could read until I was six or seven because I was afraid my mom would stop reading to me. She knew, though, and would sometimes point to a word and ask me what it said. “Parade!...I mean…I don’t know!” I would respond. For a kid who could read at three and a half, I sure wasn’t very smart…)
I am such a geek for mysteries. I have friend who is a biologist who once actually wrote to the writers of “Star Trek: The Next Generation” offering to vet the scripts for biological fact error free of charge. (Apparently TNG’s early scripts had a lot of problems in that department.) I can so see myself being one of these people. I used to LOVE “Monk” but I quit watching in frustration when the solution to the mystery didn’t actually make sense one too many times.
I know I said this last year, but theCSO and I really have to go to a murder mystery dinner theatre someplace else some time where we can be around mystery nerds of our own kind.
CC
Few people over eighteen were into it, but TheCSO and I were, especially me. I questioned suspects, I talked over the clues with my friends, I was even the one who found evidence that a will was faked. (The signatures didn’t match the same people’s signatures on other documents.)
In the end, we didn’t even guess the right person who did it because the whole thing was really cluelessly put together by the game company. (e.g. The fact that one lady misspelled her own name in a signature on another document was not relevant to the case, just a typo on the game company’s part.)
The CSO and I had great fun, and we came up with a more interesting solution to the murder than the one the game company had provided. Also, their solution didn’t actually make any sense if you know anything about the mechanics of garroting someone to death, which, embarrassingly enough, we do.
This all goes way back for me. When I was three years old, my mom would read me two chapters of a Nancy Drew mystery every night. Nancy Drew mysteries always end chapters on a cliffhanger and I literally taught myself to read because I wanted to know what happened to Nancy before the next night. (Though I didn’t admit I could read until I was six or seven because I was afraid my mom would stop reading to me. She knew, though, and would sometimes point to a word and ask me what it said. “Parade!...I mean…I don’t know!” I would respond. For a kid who could read at three and a half, I sure wasn’t very smart…)
I am such a geek for mysteries. I have friend who is a biologist who once actually wrote to the writers of “Star Trek: The Next Generation” offering to vet the scripts for biological fact error free of charge. (Apparently TNG’s early scripts had a lot of problems in that department.) I can so see myself being one of these people. I used to LOVE “Monk” but I quit watching in frustration when the solution to the mystery didn’t actually make sense one too many times.
I know I said this last year, but theCSO and I really have to go to a murder mystery dinner theatre someplace else some time where we can be around mystery nerds of our own kind.
CC
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Friday, January 27, 2006
Where were you?
I will have a mechanism for voting (even if it is just emailing me your top five choices,) set up over the weekend. But right now
The Happy Feminist is asking where people were when historic events occurred. I'm answering hers and adding a few of my own.
My answers:
Deaths of John Lennon and Elvis, Iranian Hostage Crisis, Shooting of President Reagan: Not born yet, or I was unaware of them.
When I heard that the Challenger exploded, I was in Ms. Allen's third grade class watching it on TV. I don't particularly remember it as having been traumatic at the time, but I've had dreams about it and often thought about it, so I guess it probably was.
The OJ verdict. I was in english class. It was a very diverse English class with a teacher who had gone to the Citadel. Mr. Levin made it clear he was taking no crap from any of us and that there would be no fuss from anyone, no matter what happened. When the verdict was read, we were perfectly silent and remained so for the rest of class.
I was at the teen club where I worked when I learned that Susan Smith had drowned her kids. I felt a certain kinship to her for reasons that are obvious to those who know me well. That one hit me really hard.
I heard that Princess Diana died from my college advisor. He was a great kidder and I assumed for two days that it was a joke. (My college was really insular and I didn't watch much TV.)
The Monica Lewinsky story broke when I was in India with a group from my college. I went tearing all over Bombay buying up American magazines and trying to figure out if she was related to Mike "the Chicken Man" Lewinsky, a guy I'd gone to high school with. Yep. They were brother and sister.
On the morning of September 11, 2001, I was in North Carolina and at work. I called my mother in DC over and over until I got through to the low-income housing project she manages in Anacostia. When I did get through, she said "Of course I'm fine. Nobody bombs poor people!" and hung up on me.
When I heard Katharine Hepburn died, I had just returned from a vacation to see linguist friend. I was pretty upset and wore black for a week. She was my childhood hero.
Added later:
Oh yeah, and at my senior prom, the DJ played this weird song and my friend Kylie went "Oh! There's a dance to this song, I learned it on a cruise. It's called LA MACARENA!"
By mid-summer, the whole country knew how to do Kylie's dance.
CC
The Happy Feminist is asking where people were when historic events occurred. I'm answering hers and adding a few of my own.
My answers:
Deaths of John Lennon and Elvis, Iranian Hostage Crisis, Shooting of President Reagan: Not born yet, or I was unaware of them.
When I heard that the Challenger exploded, I was in Ms. Allen's third grade class watching it on TV. I don't particularly remember it as having been traumatic at the time, but I've had dreams about it and often thought about it, so I guess it probably was.
The OJ verdict. I was in english class. It was a very diverse English class with a teacher who had gone to the Citadel. Mr. Levin made it clear he was taking no crap from any of us and that there would be no fuss from anyone, no matter what happened. When the verdict was read, we were perfectly silent and remained so for the rest of class.
I was at the teen club where I worked when I learned that Susan Smith had drowned her kids. I felt a certain kinship to her for reasons that are obvious to those who know me well. That one hit me really hard.
I heard that Princess Diana died from my college advisor. He was a great kidder and I assumed for two days that it was a joke. (My college was really insular and I didn't watch much TV.)
The Monica Lewinsky story broke when I was in India with a group from my college. I went tearing all over Bombay buying up American magazines and trying to figure out if she was related to Mike "the Chicken Man" Lewinsky, a guy I'd gone to high school with. Yep. They were brother and sister.
On the morning of September 11, 2001, I was in North Carolina and at work. I called my mother in DC over and over until I got through to the low-income housing project she manages in Anacostia. When I did get through, she said "Of course I'm fine. Nobody bombs poor people!" and hung up on me.
When I heard Katharine Hepburn died, I had just returned from a vacation to see linguist friend. I was pretty upset and wore black for a week. She was my childhood hero.
Added later:
Oh yeah, and at my senior prom, the DJ played this weird song and my friend Kylie went "Oh! There's a dance to this song, I learned it on a cruise. It's called LA MACARENA!"
By mid-summer, the whole country knew how to do Kylie's dance.
CC
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Fixing UUism is off to a kickass start
The Fix UUism contest is off to a great start. Now every entry is a separate post, so we can discuss their merits individually. Keep sending those ideas to Chalicechick at gmail dot com.
Click here if you don't know what's up.
Here are the ideas so far:
A couple of notes:
1. I'm going to go through and add links to the blogs of bloggers who submitted ideas.
2. Addenda to the rules:
A. Generalized opinions are not plans. (e.g. "We should have more diversity" is not a plan. I'm sure Sinkford would love to have more diversity and would gladly snap his fingers and make that happen were that an option. "We should have more diversity and here's how we should get it..." is the beginning of a plan.) People who write to me suggesting more diversity, a central core to UUism or making the UUA more Christian without a plan for getting there will be diqualified under "Rule A." Yes, Robin Edgar's thing about reducing hypocrisy is probably a violation of this, but I'm grandfathering it in as I thought of rule A after reading it.
B. This is a tricky one and I'm afraid it will largely come down to a judgement call on my part. The plans should in some sense be yours. I accepted Jamie Goodwin's idea about changing the name as changing the name is not a plan associated with one specific person and he came up with a voting mechanism. I accepted the UU Monastery idea Indrax submitted because the lady who thought of it is actually another poster on my blog. (UUism is a frightfully small world.) So far, I've rejected a plan that the Commission on Social Witness came up with. In general, if there's already a large movement to put your plan into action, it doesn't need to win theChaliceblog's hinky little contest.
B-2. Addendum to rule B. Ideas that come straight from a famous UU are not eligible to win the contest. But I will gladly put them on the additional ideas page.
3. You people seriously need to sleep in on the weekends. I got some 15 emails with comments, ideas and rules questions between the hours of 4 a.m. and 9 a.m., both eastern time.
4. Philo has posted his own idea which is slightly different in scope. It sounds good to me.
5. Steve suggests everybody review the relevant UUA bylaws before posting something to keep things the UUA is already doing from coming in as suggestions. While I recognize that this is in some ways a good idea, I do not want to get into fights over iterpretation of the bylaws and I also kind of like the "brainstormy" nature of this activity.
My solution is this: Steve seems to be enjoying telling people how wrong they are immensely. So I propose that when it comes time to vote, you read the comments on each proposal you are thinking about voting for. If Steve says the UUA is already doing that proposal and you agree with his interpretation of the bylaws, don't vote for that one.
6. Clyde Grubbs has some interesting things to say about the pseudo-corporate structure of the UUA. Neat stuff. Check it out.
7. I will set up a system for voting over the weekend.
Now, let's talk about the ideas!
CC
Click here if you don't know what's up.
Here are the ideas so far:
- Moratorium on condemning things at GA
- Member ratification of GA resolutions
- GA in Las Vegas every year
- Hold GA every two years
- Actions of Immediate Witness Require a 66 percent vote
- Lay off 1/3 of the UUA National Staff
- Move UUA headquarters to St. Louis
- Disassociate Unitarianism and Universalism
- American Sister Churches
- Eliminate UU Hypocrisy
- Merge UUism with another liberal faith
- Found a UU monestary
- Support Lay Ministry
- Change the name
- Develop a UU Yoga
- Celebrate World Day of Conscience during days on which a total solar eclipse takes place anywhere in the world.
- Streamline the UUA
- Social Justice Activities should be placed in a religious context.
- Be Proactive in Best Practice Sharing
- Less Emerson, More Parker.
- A Separate non-tax exempt political organization
- UUs need to minister to recent immigrants
- Rewrite the Principles and Purposes
- Inreach to the Unchurched
- Abandon Our History
- Real Outreach
- Build an association of free faiths
- Dissolve the UUA and hold a new Constitutional Convention
- Come up with a mission statement of shared values
- Focus on the Freedom
A couple of notes:
1. I'm going to go through and add links to the blogs of bloggers who submitted ideas.
2. Addenda to the rules:
A. Generalized opinions are not plans. (e.g. "We should have more diversity" is not a plan. I'm sure Sinkford would love to have more diversity and would gladly snap his fingers and make that happen were that an option. "We should have more diversity and here's how we should get it..." is the beginning of a plan.) People who write to me suggesting more diversity, a central core to UUism or making the UUA more Christian without a plan for getting there will be diqualified under "Rule A." Yes, Robin Edgar's thing about reducing hypocrisy is probably a violation of this, but I'm grandfathering it in as I thought of rule A after reading it.
B. This is a tricky one and I'm afraid it will largely come down to a judgement call on my part. The plans should in some sense be yours. I accepted Jamie Goodwin's idea about changing the name as changing the name is not a plan associated with one specific person and he came up with a voting mechanism. I accepted the UU Monastery idea Indrax submitted because the lady who thought of it is actually another poster on my blog. (UUism is a frightfully small world.) So far, I've rejected a plan that the Commission on Social Witness came up with. In general, if there's already a large movement to put your plan into action, it doesn't need to win theChaliceblog's hinky little contest.
B-2. Addendum to rule B. Ideas that come straight from a famous UU are not eligible to win the contest. But I will gladly put them on the additional ideas page.
3. You people seriously need to sleep in on the weekends. I got some 15 emails with comments, ideas and rules questions between the hours of 4 a.m. and 9 a.m., both eastern time.
4. Philo has posted his own idea which is slightly different in scope. It sounds good to me.
5. Steve suggests everybody review the relevant UUA bylaws before posting something to keep things the UUA is already doing from coming in as suggestions. While I recognize that this is in some ways a good idea, I do not want to get into fights over iterpretation of the bylaws and I also kind of like the "brainstormy" nature of this activity.
My solution is this: Steve seems to be enjoying telling people how wrong they are immensely. So I propose that when it comes time to vote, you read the comments on each proposal you are thinking about voting for. If Steve says the UUA is already doing that proposal and you agree with his interpretation of the bylaws, don't vote for that one.
6. Clyde Grubbs has some interesting things to say about the pseudo-corporate structure of the UUA. Neat stuff. Check it out.
7. I will set up a system for voting over the weekend.
Now, let's talk about the ideas!
CC
Fixing UUism: Focus on the Freedom
Julie Baumler
I think a lot of the problems of UUism would go away or decrease if all of
us were more focused on a "free and responsible search for truth and
meaning" as a positive value. We spend too much time picking apart the
services, theology, political issues, those of us who are or aren't
sufficiently politically correct, ... Congregations and members need to
explore for ourselves, how a person and a congregation that suports a free
and responsible search for truth and meaning acts, thinks, speaks, reacts,
etc. I believe that some of the current curriculum materials address this
issue, but not in a specific manner. I think to impliment some sort of
"reflective congregation" and "reflective member" program and award
(similar to Welcoming Congregations) to specifically address this and put
out a challenge in the World to members to answer the question themselves,
much like Sinkford (IIRC) did with the elevator speech idea.
Even those who disagree with this principle (and I'm sure there are some),
could be encouraged to flesh this out as a basis for their disagreement.
IE We shouldn't look for a free and responsible truth and meaning because
it allows things that are bad or false to be proclaimed unchallenged.
Someone who believes in a free and responsible search for truth and
meaning would ask a speaker during coffee hour to clarify how they came to
some idea they presented in the service - was the search free and honest?
- rather than telling everyone right then and there that they were wrong.
Disagreement with wrongful ideas and values should happen immediately so
no one is misled.
I think a lot of the problems of UUism would go away or decrease if all of
us were more focused on a "free and responsible search for truth and
meaning" as a positive value. We spend too much time picking apart the
services, theology, political issues, those of us who are or aren't
sufficiently politically correct, ... Congregations and members need to
explore for ourselves, how a person and a congregation that suports a free
and responsible search for truth and meaning acts, thinks, speaks, reacts,
etc. I believe that some of the current curriculum materials address this
issue, but not in a specific manner. I think to impliment some sort of
"reflective congregation" and "reflective member" program and award
(similar to Welcoming Congregations) to specifically address this and put
out a challenge in the World to members to answer the question themselves,
much like Sinkford (IIRC) did with the elevator speech idea.
Even those who disagree with this principle (and I'm sure there are some),
could be encouraged to flesh this out as a basis for their disagreement.
IE We shouldn't look for a free and responsible truth and meaning because
it allows things that are bad or false to be proclaimed unchallenged.
Someone who believes in a free and responsible search for truth and
meaning would ask a speaker during coffee hour to clarify how they came to
some idea they presented in the service - was the search free and honest?
- rather than telling everyone right then and there that they were wrong.
Disagreement with wrongful ideas and values should happen immediately so
no one is misled.
Fixing UUism: Figure out what would make UUism "not UUism"
By Paul
"Engaging Our Theological Diversity" says (slightly edited) ...
Starr King president Rebecca Parker asked this: "What features of Unitarian Universalism, if you took them away, would leave us with something that is no longer Unitarian Universalism?
I would love to have that question answered. Some group in the UUA could be charged with doing so.
"Engaging Our Theological Diversity" says (slightly edited) ...
Starr King president Rebecca Parker asked this: "What features of Unitarian Universalism, if you took them away, would leave us with something that is no longer Unitarian Universalism?
I would love to have that question answered. Some group in the UUA could be charged with doing so.
In which CC loves and loses the UUA. .
Hat tip to CUUMBAYA where Joel pointed out the disclaimer at the bottom of the letter to the congregations about the recent UUA objection to the Alito nomination.
Please note that the UUA does not represent or claim to represent the views of individual Unitarian Universalists or individual congregations, but the Association as a whole, as defined by statements approved by the General Assembly. Also, lobbying related to a nomination is an IRS-sanctioned activity for non-profits.
I've argued for the UUA to put a statement like this underneath its political missives for some time noting that (a) it's the right thing to do and (b) the ACLU does and nobody confuses them with shrinking violets.
At CUUMBAYA, Joel wonders if our voices are being heard. Actually, as I read it I almost hoped not, because if somebody at the UUAWO thought of their own accord "Wait a second, maybe we shouldn't imply that we are speaking for absolutely everyone" then that would signify a change in thinking that I think could be really wonderful.
I actually felt warm things toward my faith tonight. I can't tell y'all how good it felt to think that some people at the UUAWO actually gave a shit that UUs don't all feel the same way and made an effort to not speak for me.
Of course, then I noticed that it is only in the letter to the congregations. The press release mentions that fundamentalists can't speak for everyone of faith but fails to see the irony of not mentioning that the UUAWO can't speak for everyone of the UU faith.
So, the UUAWO doesn't speak for all UUs, but that's a secret that we only tell our member congregations. In front of the press, we hide all those pesky dissenting opinons.
And then seeing that the flyer for congregations is actually encouraging people to PREACH on JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS broke my heart all over again.
CC
Please note that the UUA does not represent or claim to represent the views of individual Unitarian Universalists or individual congregations, but the Association as a whole, as defined by statements approved by the General Assembly. Also, lobbying related to a nomination is an IRS-sanctioned activity for non-profits.
I've argued for the UUA to put a statement like this underneath its political missives for some time noting that (a) it's the right thing to do and (b) the ACLU does and nobody confuses them with shrinking violets.
At CUUMBAYA, Joel wonders if our voices are being heard. Actually, as I read it I almost hoped not, because if somebody at the UUAWO thought of their own accord "Wait a second, maybe we shouldn't imply that we are speaking for absolutely everyone" then that would signify a change in thinking that I think could be really wonderful.
I actually felt warm things toward my faith tonight. I can't tell y'all how good it felt to think that some people at the UUAWO actually gave a shit that UUs don't all feel the same way and made an effort to not speak for me.
Of course, then I noticed that it is only in the letter to the congregations. The press release mentions that fundamentalists can't speak for everyone of faith but fails to see the irony of not mentioning that the UUAWO can't speak for everyone of the UU faith.
So, the UUAWO doesn't speak for all UUs, but that's a secret that we only tell our member congregations. In front of the press, we hide all those pesky dissenting opinons.
And then seeing that the flyer for congregations is actually encouraging people to PREACH on JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS broke my heart all over again.
CC
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
Hot Tip for Veronica Mars fans
A friend of a friend of a friend is the mom of the guy who plays Duncan. Apparently Duncan may be off the show after tonight's episode.
Heard it here first.
CC
Heard it here first.
CC
Fixing UUism: Come up with a mission statement of shared values
by SCUniversalist
We force ourselves to come up with a report on our shared values -
- and then issue (and vote on) a mission statement (with an escape clause if neeed be),
- which shows folks that we do stand for something,
that we dont just believe anything,
that as nice as we think we are, we might not be for you...
and the tough message of - you will hear some stuff in the pulpit that you may not personaly believe, but hopefully you will be inspired by the rest of what is said
We force ourselves to come up with a report on our shared values -
- and then issue (and vote on) a mission statement (with an escape clause if neeed be),
- which shows folks that we do stand for something,
that we dont just believe anything,
that as nice as we think we are, we might not be for you...
and the tough message of - you will hear some stuff in the pulpit that you may not personaly believe, but hopefully you will be inspired by the rest of what is said
Monday, January 23, 2006
Fixing UUism: Dissolve the UUA and hold a new 'constitutional convention'
by fausto
Dissolve the whole darn national organization, and then hold a GA of congregational delegates to decide how much of it to reconstitute, and in what size and form. Presumably that would help solve the problem of congregational apathy! (Pursuant to one of the other suggestions, the GA recommendations would be subject to congregational ratification, of course.)
Dissolve the whole darn national organization, and then hold a GA of congregational delegates to decide how much of it to reconstitute, and in what size and form. Presumably that would help solve the problem of congregational apathy! (Pursuant to one of the other suggestions, the GA recommendations would be subject to congregational ratification, of course.)
Fixing UUism: Build an Association of Free Faiths
Will
Why not build a association of free faiths? Instead of seeking to
merge with groups like the United Church of Christ, Society of
Friends, Reform Judaism, or Community of Christ, we could seek to
ally with as many of them as would have us in a marriage of equals,
each partner keeping its name and habits while sharing resources.
The UUA could offer to be the initial host, rather like the US giving
the UN a place to grow. But, unlike the UN, the Association of Free
Faiths could seek independent headquarters within a few years,
ideally in a convenient location in the midwest.
This association would give great autonomy to individual
organizations and communities while letting them share all they can.
No one would have to sacrifice identity, but those who wanted to
identify themselves simply as part of the Association of Free Faith
could do that.
Why not build a association of free faiths? Instead of seeking to
merge with groups like the United Church of Christ, Society of
Friends, Reform Judaism, or Community of Christ, we could seek to
ally with as many of them as would have us in a marriage of equals,
each partner keeping its name and habits while sharing resources.
The UUA could offer to be the initial host, rather like the US giving
the UN a place to grow. But, unlike the UN, the Association of Free
Faiths could seek independent headquarters within a few years,
ideally in a convenient location in the midwest.
This association would give great autonomy to individual
organizations and communities while letting them share all they can.
No one would have to sacrifice identity, but those who wanted to
identify themselves simply as part of the Association of Free Faith
could do that.
Wow.
As I've mentioned in the past, I really hate her Desperate Housewives character, but Felicity Huffman seriously rocks here.
CC
CC
Fixing UUism: Real Outreach
Indrax
Real Outreach
Unitarian Universalism needs to start seriously evangelizing. I'm not
talking about ads in Times Square, or 'Principles' wallet cards. We need
to give every person in America a basic idea of what we are about, as a
first step.
This would require much more advertising, or very much more personal effort. I don't think going door
to door is in the cards, we need to find our own style, but we need to
do it in bulk. This is worth a whole other brainstorming contest.
Then we need to start being present and talking to people about why the
things that we value are important, and why a church is a good way to
promote those values. We need to look to groups that would be
sympathetic (homosexuals, minority religion members, environmentalists,
etc.), and also to groups that we have not appealed to in the past. (The
poor, the uneducated, the bigoted, and even the fundamentalists.) We
need to give everyone in America a Personalized 'Elevator Speech' as a
Then we will be ready to start a real outreach.
While we are doing that, we can use what we are learning to look into
evangelizing overseas. Of course, we should NOT link our charitable
services with conversion, or probably even evangelism, but that does not
mean we can't present our faith as an option to people overseas, and
help them establish churches. Unitarian Universalism is about some very
powerful and useful ideas. People dedicated to those ideas being present
woudl be very helpful to the rest of the world.
During WWII Unitarians in Germany adopted the Flaming Chalice as a
secret symbol to help Jews and others escape. Unitarian Universalist can
not help people escape genocide if there are no Unitarian Universalists
in the country.
We are not good at evangelism, and many of us don't even like the idea,
but it will give us new blood, more numbers, a better presence, and a
stronger voice. We can promote
our principles without violating them.
Real Outreach
Unitarian Universalism needs to start seriously evangelizing. I'm not
talking about ads in Times Square, or 'Principles' wallet cards. We need
to give every person in America a basic idea of what we are about, as a
first step.
This would require much more advertising, or very much more personal effort. I don't think going door
to door is in the cards, we need to find our own style, but we need to
do it in bulk. This is worth a whole other brainstorming contest.
Then we need to start being present and talking to people about why the
things that we value are important, and why a church is a good way to
promote those values. We need to look to groups that would be
sympathetic (homosexuals, minority religion members, environmentalists,
etc.), and also to groups that we have not appealed to in the past. (The
poor, the uneducated, the bigoted, and even the fundamentalists.) We
need to give everyone in America a Personalized 'Elevator Speech' as a
Then we will be ready to start a real outreach.
While we are doing that, we can use what we are learning to look into
evangelizing overseas. Of course, we should NOT link our charitable
services with conversion, or probably even evangelism, but that does not
mean we can't present our faith as an option to people overseas, and
help them establish churches. Unitarian Universalism is about some very
powerful and useful ideas. People dedicated to those ideas being present
woudl be very helpful to the rest of the world.
During WWII Unitarians in Germany adopted the Flaming Chalice as a
secret symbol to help Jews and others escape. Unitarian Universalist can
not help people escape genocide if there are no Unitarian Universalists
in the country.
We are not good at evangelism, and many of us don't even like the idea,
but it will give us new blood, more numbers, a better presence, and a
stronger voice. We can promote
our principles without violating them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)