A Curious UU

What about Occupy?

2012-02-08T17:12:00.001-06:00

Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of York...
says Gloucester of King Richard.

It is seemingly everywhere, but Occupy Wall Street is the shining example, the poster child (if you will) of our discontent, isn't it? It's not hard to figure out who the sun of York is in this time of ours.

Is NYCGA the real Occupy? Almost 8500 members, 108 groups, proposals, meeting minutes, a place to request housing, principles of solidarity, and much more.

There is also Occupy Wall Street.org. They're on Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit, too. The home page says: Occupy Wall Street is leaderless resistance movement with people of many colors, genders and political persuasions. The one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%. But then in "About Us," they say they are not the real Occupy, not connected with NYCGA nor any other group, but they are an affinity group.

A friend of mine said that it is not so different from the civil rights movement. That when people sat down at the lunch counter, they didn't necessarily have a plan or an organization--they just did it. Like Occupy. He thinks that in 20 years we will be looking on Occupy in the same way we think about the Civil Rights movement.

I balked at the 20 years! Too, too long. "What do we want?... When do we want it? NOW," so we chanted to end the Vietnam War.

Am I a typical unable-to-delay-gratification person of my generation OR is 20 years really too long?

The Vietnam War did end; the ERA may not have passed, but we did get equal rights laws and things like Title IX, and men lost the right to rape their wives--in a relatively short time.

If 20 years is too long to see some substantial change in distribution of wealth, respect for labor, economic recovery, then what do we need to do to speed it up?

Seems a little ironic that on the NYCGA web site, it asks if you want to help, then send, what else? money.

1:00 a.m. waiting for what?

2011-12-14T01:50:00.002-06:00

It's 1:00 a.m. again. I seem to find myself here often, waiting to go to bed, putting off tomorrow, not having quite squeezed enough out of today.

Christmas is looming large and is threatening to overshadow these weeks before. I'm not waiting for Christmas to come. I'm quite content with it being many days away and wishing there were more days of waiting. But waiting for what?

But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint. Isaiah 40:31

Scholars don't believe anymore that the 8th century BCE prophet Isaiah actually wrote chapter 40, according to Wikipedia. But no matter who did, I love the idea of waiting bringing such strength as eagles' wings.

Waiting for rest right now at this time of the morning and for renewed strength. Waiting for a peaceful day during a turbulent time. Waiting to love and to allow being loved.

Whatever the Lord means to you, may your waiting give you wings of eagles.

Do you believe in satan?

2011-09-10T19:57:00.001-05:00

It was an odd question just two days before the 10th anniversary of 9/11, considering it was not the topic of conversation and it was asked by an attorney I had just hired.

I told her that I was not a christian. After declaring herself to be a bible-thumping christian, she asked, "what are you? if it's OK to ask."

The usual I'm-a-UU-what-is-that chat followed, before she asked, "Do you believe in God?" I gave the simple, though incomplete and inadequate reply, "Yes."

"Do you believe in Satan?"

Good lord, couldn't she just ask something simple like "was it your fault?" Since she seemed at present more interested in my soul than my legal status, my thoughts naturally ran to Michelle Bachmann and the anti-gay/christian evangelism disguised as therapy at Bachman and Associates. Maybe this was some legal version of christian zealotry.

I was wrong. She was not trying to convert me to christianity, but just trying to convince me that Satan or evil or the dark side or whatever you want to call it truly exists, and she had experienced it.

Do I believe in Satan? I told her that I don't know.

Since then, I came across Angela Herrera's article on uuworld.org,"After 9/11, can Unitarian Universalists talk about evil?" She says:

This is where religious liberalism, even though it has underestimated humankind’s capacity for evil in the past, has something important to say about evil. We are called to balance the naming of evil in the world with the need to be humble and on guard for it—not as the dangerous other that would try to trick us, but mingled right here with the best of ourselves.

Right here with the best of ourselves...

Do you believe in satan, in evil, in the mingling of it in ourselves?

Wishing you all much peace on the marking of the 10th anniversary of 9/11 and in your Water Communion/Mingling of the Waters tomorrow.

How do you feel--ethically & spiritually--about the execution of bin Laden?

2011-05-02T13:45:00.000-05:00

I understand the desire and need for justice. I can only begin to imagine the pain and suffering of those who lost people they loved on 9/11. I, too, am relieved that bin Laden will not planning any more harm against anyone. Not entirely naive, I get that sometimes violence happens for a greater good.

Please tell me it is not only me that watched in horror last night, the crowds around the White House in celebration of ? What? Justice for 9/11? The end of a nightmare? This execution as a symbol of something?

I saw in those crowds similarity to the crowds that celebrated the 9/11 massacre. This morning, when it was reported that Bin Laden was executed on the spot, that there were no plans to take him, my blood ran cold. I find myself feeling much more like Ken who blogged this morning "Mourning the Death of Osama bin Laden." See what you think. [ http://kens-hot-dogs.blogspot.com/ ]

To Balance the List

2010-12-28T19:02:00.000-06:00

We spend January 1 walking through our lives, room by room, drawing up a list of work to be done, cracks to be patched. Maybe this year, to balance the list, we ought to walk through the rooms of our lives... not looking for flaws, but for potential. ~Ellen Goodman

Do you make New Year's resolutions?

Personally, while I applaud those who do and actually keep them, I am more Mark Twain-ish on the subject:
New Year's Day… now is the accepted time to make your regular annual good resolutions. Next week you can begin paving hell with them as usual.

In the fall of 2009, I dared to write that things were looking up in Haiti--the signs of progress were there and I was hopeful that the new year would be even better for Haitians. For those affected by the earthquake and the orgs trying to help in the aftermath, 2010 has been about creating lists of work to be done and patching cracks has been the least of the work.

It's been a challenging year in terms of remaining hopeful and resolute. How do you stay positive in the middle of so much devastation?

During personally hard times, people have asked me how I do it, or express disbelief at the prospect of dealing with it (whatever "it" happens to be at the time).

Ellen Goodman is on to something that sounds very UU-like (she certainly is quoted often by UUs), with balance and all. It's so easy to find flaws in each other and in ourselves--no balance there just a tipped scale for many of us.

It is important not to ignore cracks and flaws, of course, but believing in potential--in you, in me, in Haiti, and in the world--is what gets me out of bed every day during particularly hard times.

Can you see the potential here?

A man exits a restaurant after he looked for his belongings. An earthquake rocked Port au Prince on January 12, 2010.

Photo Marco Dormino/ The United Nations United Nations Development Programme

Happiness is...

2010-12-06T15:57:00.001-06:00

If it's been said once, it's been said a thousand times in a myriad of ways:

Happiness is not having what you want. It is wanting what you have. --Rabbi Hyman Schachtel
When you can't have what you want, it's time to start wanting what you have. --Kathleen A. Sutton
If you ever find happiness by hunting for it, you will find it, as the old woman did her lost spectacles, safe on her own nose all the time. -- Josh Billings
...it's that - if I ever go looking for my heart's desire again, I won't look any further than my own back yard. Because if it isn't there, I never really lost it to begin with! Is that right? --Dorothy, Wizard of Oz

And the famous UU quote: Do what you can. Want what you have. Be who you are. -- Forrest Church

What if what you have is illness, loss, and/or suffering? And don't tell me to cherish suffering, the gifts in things like cancer, or the inevitable silver lining, because I don't. I wouldn't wish some of the devastating loss I've experienced on anyone. I think I have become more compassionate because of those losses, but I don't believe that to become compassionate, you have to suffer first.

But, what I have discovered is that I cherish potential, and never more so than during hard times. Happiness is not wanting the cancer that you have, it is believing in the potential to be happy, to be useful, to be loved and to love in spite of cancer or loss or suffering.

UUs and Race

2010-09-25T19:44:00.002-05:00

I have never met a UU that didn't care deeply about issues of discrimination. The UUA website has a page devoted to resources on "Anti-Racism, Anti-Oppression, Multicultural (ARAOMC) Resources" which interestingly is not found under "Members" but "Leaders--Identity Based Ministries--Multicultural." Anti-racism workshops and ministries are plentiful, I believe. [ http://www.uua.org/leaders/idbm/multiculturalism/araomc/index.shtml ]

Yet, consider the uuworld.org article by Paul Rasor Spring 2010 2.15.10 :

If you were asked about the racial and ethnic diversity within Unitarian Universalism, what would you say? If you wanted to verify your impression or discover how much we have changed over the past decade, where would you look? Whom would you ask? I tried to find out, and I discovered that nobody really knows. The UUA simply does not collect the data that could tell us how we are doing. When it comes to our own racial and cultural identity, our policy seems to be “don’t ask, don’t tell.” I find this both troubling and puzzling in light of our commitment eighteen years ago to create a “racially diverse and multicultural Unitarian Universalism.”...

In 2008, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life’s U.S. Religious Landscape Survey generated demographic information about even small religious groups like ours from interviews with 35,000 adults. ... Its weighted numbers show that 89 percent of UUs identified as white in 2007, 3 percent as Asian, 3 percent as Latino/Latina, 1 percent identified as black or African American, and 4 percent as “other/mixed.” ...

the UUA’s Mosaic Project Report, published in 2009, tells us that 42 percent of UU youth of color are the only ones in their congregations’ youth groups, and another 44 percent are in groups that have only two or three. In other words, UU children and youth for the most part attend religious education classes and youth groups that are far less diverse than their school classrooms. The Mosaic Project concludes:
The Unitarian Universalist culture [our Youth and Young Adults of Color] experience may not be relevant to their life experiences. Even though many of [them] have been UUs from birth, feelings of being an outsider are prevalent.

The UU goal is not just to be anti-racist, but to be multi-cultural and multi-racial.

Recently, a visiting minister was giving a program at our church and about a dozen of us were helping set up the program, provide coffee service, etc. Of all of us helping out, I noticed the visiting minister stopping to talk to only one of us and thank her for helping out. What was so different about this one person? She was African-American.

Was the minister anti-racist? Clearly, yes. Was the minister post-racist? Clearly, no.

So my question is: What can we do as UU's to move beyond racism, to a place where being African-American or non-white in a UU church is not special, but just is?

UU's are not "agin" tradition

2010-09-08T19:06:00.000-05:00

Most outsiders apparently believe that Unitarians are always, under all circumstances, opposed to anything that can be called traditional. They assume that when a Unitarian runs into a tradition he will automatically be "agin" it, as Calvin Coolidge's preacher was "agin" sin....a good case can be made for the proposition that Unitarians are more concerned to maintain traditions than their critics are.

--Frederick May Eliot, "We Have Enormous Resources in the Treasury of the Spirit," Christian Register, 1936.

Rev. Eliot was, of course, not referring to the tradition of merging (or mingling) of the waters or the water communion (or ceremony), since the ritual is only 30 years or so old. But, I think he is right that UU's understand and value tradition. It's what connects one generation to the next, and one person to something larger. "Rank by Rank Again We Stand" celebrates tradition.

Rank by rank again we stand,

from the four winds gathered hither,

Loud the hallowed walls demand

whence we come and how, and whither.

From their stillness breaking clear,

echoes wake to warn or cheer;

higher truth from saint and seer

call to us assembled here.

If you are soon to celebrate the water ceremony, may you find joy in the tradition of standing together for higher truth.

IS AMERICA ISLAMOPHOBIC?

2010-09-02T14:58:00.000-05:00

This question on the cover of Time magazine* seems irrelevant to me. The question really is: IS AMERICA FOR FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR NOT?

Thomas Jefferson said, "If the freedom of religion, guaranteed to us by law in theory, can ever rise in practice under the overbearing inquisition of public opinion, then and only then will truth, prevail over fanaticism.”

Phobias and -isms in all their human forms have been a part of America since Europeans landed. Thomas Jefferson surely knew it. That we still have them several hundred years later is sad, but not surprising.

But is anyone else the least bit surprised that there is any question that Americans should be able to build an American religious building of any kind in America? and that there is vehement protest against this?

Yet, even some of the most liberal among us have said, "Yes, but it's ground zero, sacred ground."

No, it's really not about ground zero. If it was just about ground zero, then protests and attempted blocking of religious building wouldn't be happening all over the country in places like Sheboygan County, Wisconsin, and they are.

Is there someway we can help the debate get real? The thinly disguised opposition to Islam needs to be exposed for the real issue, which is constitutional. It's just one of those quirky little things in the constitution that does not allow one group a freedom that another is denied. The question is, "Are Americans going to follow the Constitution or not?"

That people say they believe in the right to build a religious structure, just not a Muslim one, is a thinly disguised way of arguing against the Constitution, whether they understand that or not.

Why should we care--has the building of any UU structure ever been blocked? No, but religious freedom denied anywhere diminishes freedom everywhere (excuse my butchering of Dr. King's quote).

Now, debate is a good thing, it's repression that is not. This particular debate about the rights of American Muslims has the potential to strengthen America's dedication to religious freedom, and perhaps even unite the seemingly least unite-able of us behind one of the most basic American values.

In our own history, the foundation of Unitarian principles did not happen without struggle and vehement debate. Dissenters of orthodox Calvinists were thought to be hypocrites and and not Christian, about the worst thing one could be named in 18th - 19th century America.**

Then William Ellery Channing happened. (Many claim Channing as the father of UU even though he refused to align with any organized religion, even Unitarianism) That debate served to help religious liberals better define what they felt liberal about. But Channing shaped the debate into something more. Instead of arguing against the argument against liberal religious principles, he espoused a different strategy.

The most effectual method of expelling error is not to meet it sword in hand, but gradually to instil great truths with which it cannot easily coexist, and by which the mind outgrows it.

Is there a lesson for us here for today?

Sources:

*Is American Islamophobic? Time magazine, vol. 176, no. 9, August 30, 2010

**The Channing centenary in America, Great Britain, and Ireland: A report of meetings held in honor of the one hundredth anniversary of the birth of William Ellery Channing, 1881

Like Species

2010-08-16T16:30:00.000-05:00

In her column of August 2, 2010, Rev. Meg Barnhouse wrote:

...Sometimes the place where you used to find wisdom gets destroyed. People fail you, a church disappoints you, new information strips away your feeling about a scripture. It’s as if your wisdom tree is lying in splinters.
In the aftermath of such a coming apart, we are tempted to take our piece of wisdom home with us and stick it in a place of honor, savoring and celebrating that one little piece of wisdom of which we can be sure, pulling it out whenever there is a new question, a new issue, acting as if that piece of wisdom is self-sustaining, and as if it is enough, on its own, to sustain us.

In acting like this, we are forgetting the crucial next step. What is needed is to bring our piece of the wisdom tree back together with the others, to stand together on the roots of what wisdom we have. We do have wisdom within us, but it is not enough to hold and savor just the wisdom we can grasp. Our piece needs to be added to the others....

A minister once told me that she needs to be with her 'like species' sometimes. I think she was meaning the same thing as Meg Barnhouse. It's not enough to have and to hold wisdom, it's the joining of wisdom with others who understand that makes the difference, and especially when something bad happens.

Besides adding our piece of wisdom to a congregation, it's what happens when people join together to share like experiences, such as parenting, love of reading, skiing, grief, addiction, and all the things that bring strangers together in common interest, passion or pain; that bring 'like species' together.

When I write it, it sounds so obvious, but adding my wisdom to others is a concept I've had trouble with for a long time. I suspect others may question their wisdom and who would possibly care about it, too. When I think of 'like species,' what ministers can only get from or give to other ministers, what a mother can only give to or get from another mother, I see more clearly that the everyday kind of wisdom (as opposed to lightning bolt revelations or War and Peace type examinations) is indeed something we all have and is wasted if we keep it to ourselves.

She goes on to say:

It is difficult to walk a good spiritual path solo. It helps to be in relationship to a community where your wisdom can be made more whole, challenged, and where it can have fresh life breathed into it by touching it, again and again, to its roots, by bringing it together with the wisdom others carry with them.

So true. If life itself is a spiritual path, then so true.

Link to Rev. Barnhouse's full column: http://www.uuworld.org/spirit/articles/169762.shtml

2010-08-06T16:15:00.000-05:00

Rev Frederick-Grey, who was arrested last week in Phoenix on the day that SB1070 went into effect, asks us to send a letter to President Obama to "to halt all Immigration Custom Enforcement (ICE) ACCESS programs that enlist localities and states in the enforcement of federal immigration law."

Takes about 5 seconds; something everyone and anyone can do. Here's the link:

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1272/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=4563

If you are not on the list for Standing on the Side of Love mailing list, go to the home page and look for the red box that says "Get Involved" and enter your e-mail address. FYI--it's a good list on which to be--what they send is informative, to the point, and they do not flood your mailbox with messages.

http://www.standingonthesideoflove.org/

Arizona and GA 2011

2010-07-19T16:32:00.000-05:00

I was talking to someone today about the Arizona business resolution and what happened at GA 2010 surrounding it, and she mentioned that someone could propose a new business resolution about GA 2012 at GA 2011. If SD1070 law is repealed, or we no longer want to hold a justice GA around immigration, then we could be debating the issue again at GA in 2011.

I was reminded too about what one person said during the debate about the resolution, and that was that the business of the UUA, UU's, and GA IS social justice work. So, if we cancel all GA business, then we are in effect canceling social justice work.

Arizona and immigration was not the only social justice work being done at GA 2010. We voted FOR a Statement of Conscience on Peacemaking and FOR a Green Revoluntion in Religion business resolution. We debated revitalizing american democracy, ending world slavery, national economic reform, energy, peace, and justice. Workshops were offered on: a UU response to the crisis in Haiti, programming for LGBT youth, indigenous peoples' rights, human rights in Isreal/Palestine, congregation-based community organizing, anti-racism/anti-oppression, to name a few.

In 2012, if we suspend business as usual to the least amount required by the bylaws, then none of the issues above will be studied, debated, or worked on.

There was a lot of emotion and some fury around the Arizona business resolution that I believe got in the way of a real debate about GA 2012. Debate about the opposition to SD1070 was confused and at times interchangeable with debate about GA 2012, when they are clearly two distinct things. Not one person argued in favor of the law. The fervor to DO SOMETHING about SD1070 was high and since the resolution to hold a 'justice' GA in 2012 was the only thing on the table, that fervor translated into a pro vote for a 2012 'justice' GA around immigration.

Did we really vote to suspend all other social justice work at GA in 2012? As a religious denomination, a body of political and spiritual influence, at GA in 2012, are we really going to say NO to working on gay rights, world slavery, global warming, anti-racism, and the many other issues of importance?

I still find this hard to believe.

Seriously, I think UU's are versatile enough to pat our heads while scratching our stomachs. Can't we oppose SD1070 AND stand on the side of love for LGBT equal rights AND work for a green revolution AND end slavery AND....

We are a large, diverse, inclusive religion with passion and compassion for many things. To the Board I would say: Please don't let a majority try to dictate the conscience of us all. "The voice of the majority is no proof of justice." --Friedrich Schiller

The United States of America, Plaintiff vs. Arizona and Gov. Brewer, Defendants

2010-07-07T19:22:00.000-05:00

Did you hear? On July 6, the Department of Justice filed a complaint in federal district court in Arizona against the state of Arizona AND the governor:

In this action, the United States seeks to declare invalid and preliminarily and permanently enjoin the enforcement of S.B. 1070, as amended and enacted by the State of Arizona, because S.B. 1070 is preempted by federal law and therefore violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. [ http://ht.ly/27NYC ]

The DOJ also filed a temporary injunction to delay SB1070 from going into effect on July 29. The Arizona court will hear the case on July 22.

Go here to send a "No Anti-Immigration Law in My State" to your governor. Standing on the Side of Love has made it very easy to do this: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1272/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=3690

Come, yet again come.

2010-07-06T19:23:00.000-05:00

You may know that that #188 in Singing the Living Tradition is from a poem by Rumi:

Come, come, whoever you are,

wanderer, worshipper, lover of leaving,

ours is no caravan of despair,

come, yet again come.

But did you know that the melody was written by Rev. Lynn Unger, Minister in CLF (Church of the Larger Fellowship)? I met her recently, she's a friend of a friend, but didn't know at that time that she was the composer of one of my favorite hymns. Something sort of magical happens (a spark of the divine perhaps?) when you sing this song in rounds with a congregation. Thanks, Rev. Unger.

GA 2010: My Favorite Moments

2010-07-03T13:06:00.002-05:00

If GA was anything, it was all-encompassing; like stepping into a different country with a different language for a few days. All in all, it was great and I was honored to be there, as a delegate.

I had many great moments at GA; here are a few of my favorite (not in order of importance):

The last person recognized at the procedural mic just before plenary ended on Saturday morning--a minister who introduced a beautiful couple of women she had married the weekend before, and a chariot led by tall roosters carrying the couple around the room and off to Loring Park for the public witness scheduled in connection with the Pride Festival, and the procession of us following. A proud-to-be-a-UU moment, to be sure
A hug from one of the brides.
Peter Mayer and Ann Reed singing together and separately. Singing "Blue Boat Home" along with Peter and thousands of UU's. Ann Reed performed We Will, a song that she wrote in being commissioned by the Sesquicentenial Steering Committee of First Universalist Church of Minneapolis--beautiful, powerful. If you haven't heard it, go now and find it.
Being present when my minister was honored for his service; being honored to be part of his congregation.
Talking with a UU from Arizona during the mini-assembly debate on Arizona.
Part 1: Finding one of my favorite people in the world in the exhibits on the first day and getting a great hug. Part 2: Finding him again at the Sunday morning worship service and getting an even bigger hug.
Keith Ellison's impassioned speech--he's definitely a guy to watch for on the national stage.
Sitting next to a mom from Michigan whose son was in the children's choir; she was proud, as she should have been--they did a great job.
Sitting next to a guy from Ohio whose partner was in the adult choir; he was proud, as he should have been--they did a great job.
Al Franken showing up announced and talking about his idea of god, and saying, "You are my favorite kind of church."
The banner parade at opening ceremony (the closest thing I'll ever have to an Olympic moment).
Plenary I, II, III, IV, V, VI,VII--as a delegate, the mini-assemblies and plenary are where it all happens: learn, debate, vote. Raising your yellow card to vote is a humbling thing, especially when you look around and see hundreds of other yellow cards in the air.
Gini Courter's Moderator's Report at the last plenary--the best sermon/talk/reflection of GA.
A hug from the moderator. (UU's are a huggy bunch, aren't we?)

Just to be clear, I think GA was an amazing thing. I heard that 3800 UU's were there. I love that we are a passionate religion with strong social justice values, and that what we sing and what we pray, we mean.

Did I agree with everything that was said and done at GA? No. Did I vote on the winning side every time? No (but almost all the time).

Still, I left with the feeling about us all at GA and UU's in general, that I have about my family. We may not always agree but we love each other. I trust that the people in my family are strong in spirit, good-hearted people, so that even when we disagree on particular things, I know that on the whole, we are united.

So, thank you to the planning committee, the board, the volunteers, the attorney, parliamentarian, the delegates, the workshop presenters, the choirs, the musicians, and all of you.

Whoever came up with "standing on the side of love" is a genius. There is no place I'd rather be and no one with who I'd rather be with.

Plenary

2010-07-01T23:32:00.000-05:00

There were actually several plenary sessions in which reports were given, speeches made, music, breakout congregations recognized, and of course, voting on changes to the bylaws, a statement of conscience, the AIWs (action of immediate witness), CSAI (Congretional Study Action Issues), and the two business resolutions.

The plenary in which the business resolution vote on Arizona was scheduled was perhaps the most well-attended and emotional. By this time, the resolution had changed dramatically. It was no longer about boycotting Arizon, but about holding a special 'justice' GA there in 2012.

Section Four of the amendment now said “to explore options within the Phoenix area that would minimize our financial contribution to the Arizona business economy.” Some felt that this might hurt our allies, and/or unfairly punish businesses who oppose the law as much as we do. I kept hearing the Arizonan's voice in my head, "There WILL be lists," and I still can't get behind this or even believe that UU's are talking about blacklists.

Salvadore Reza of Puente spoke at plenary. He was great. In essence what he seemed to be saying was or what I heard his say was: do what you will in 2012, but come NOW, we need you NOW. Everyone cheered him, but I didn't hear anyone talk about partnering or working for justice in Arizon NOW.

Gini Courter did a great job reminding us that we are all on the same side of the issue and such before the time opened up for debate. The line at the Pro microphone were very long. I couldn't see the Con mic, but there were so many procedural questions that not many people got to speak pro or con. Then after 15 minutes of debate (I believe), the floor is open for amendments, and there were a few.

Like the mini-assembly, the people speaking for the amendment talked about how horrible the SB1070 law is, and not about whether a 'justice' GA in two years is the best response to opposing the law. It felt as though if you were against the resolution, you were against the cause. The amendment passed overwhelmingly and with great joy.

Now, what? I will be interested to see how many people answer Puente's call to come to Arizona NOW, and be part of the National Day of Non-Compliance on July 29, the day that SB1070 goes into effect, in this Arizona summer of human rights.

I just now came across a letter that Salvadore Reza of Puente and the head of NDLON (National Day Laborer Organizing Network) wrote to Rev Morales on June 8, 2010, in which they wrote:

We invite you to transform your General Assembly scheduled for June, 2012 in Phoenix into a Unitarian Universalist convergence for human rights in Arizona. We urge you to call UUs across the country to support the movement on the ground here in Arizona and to coordinate your activities with Puente and NDLON.

Perhaps I missed it in both mini-assemblies and plenary, but I did not hear anything about this letter, that the idea of using GA as a convergence for human rights was the idea of Puente and NDLON. I heard a lot about the work of LUUNA (Latina/o Unitarian Universalist Networking Association), DRUUMM (Diverse and Revolutionary Unitarian Universalist Multicultural Ministries), and ARE (Allies for Racial Equity), and how they all worked into the early hours of the morning to draft an amendment that they could all agree to, and about the "many hours of deep listening, tears, and prayer" that the ARE President talked about.

And so, I'm curious, what will UU's do now?

UUA GA the First

2010-06-30T16:29:00.002-05:00

GA in Minneapolis 2010 was my first, and in most ways it was what I expected. I went to programs, lectures, workshops, ceremonies, and services. I listened to business reports, inspiring stories, updates, and gave money. The music and choirs were exceptional.

Mini-Assemblies were something else. The structure of GA, how business is done, and the many different kinds of things proposed and to vote on was a learning experience. Let me say at the top that overall, GA was run exceptionally well--rules were explained and followed, and moderator Gini Courter kept us all both in good humor and in line with our larger goal to work for a better UUA.

The big controversy this year was, of course, whether to hold GA 2012 in Arizona or to boycott Arizona and presumably, hold GA elsewhere. This business resolution was on the final agenda, and the talk of GA before and during. "WHEREAS the state of Arizona has recently enacted a law—SB 1070—that runs counter to our first principle affirming the worth and dignity of every person..." There was never any disagreement about this.

Then the mini-assembly came along, and again, I admit I was learning how it all works as it was going along. Mini-assemblies follow rules of order, similar to Plenary, in that one had to be recognized at the microphone to speak, and no one was supposed to be heard unless they were recognized by the mini-assembly moderator.

There were several amendments to the original business proposal to boycott Arizona, and we delegates had opportunities to vote on them. The debate sometimes focused on the terrible situation for immigrants in Arizona and sometimes on what to do about GA in 2012. I happened to be sitting next to someone from Arizona who was against the boycott, as I was, in part because we hoped this odious law would be repealed long before 2012.

By the end of the mini-assembly, the drafters of the two main separate amendments agreed to work together for one solution. The original business resolution was unrecognizable--there was no mention of a boycott, the whole resolution having been changed to holding GA in Arizona in 2012, but suspending business as usual in order to work on opposition to SB 1070 and the immigration issue.

The next mini-assembly regarding Arizona was something else yet again. Apparently, the drafters (never quite sure who all and how many) spent hours into the night coming to some conclusion on the amendment. Copies of the new amendment were handed out, though there were not enough copies for everyone.

Some of the things that were voted on and passed were included in this draft of the amendment and some were not. One person asked why some language that had been agreed upon didn't end up in the final draft, and we were told by one of the drafters that she got too tired by 2 a.m., and so it didn't get in.

There was something to do with chocolate that appeared to be an inside joke between the moderator and drafters or among the drafters or something that precipitated a bag of raisins or craisins being tossed at someone. How does this work: "I recognize the delegate throwing the raisins"?

All that aside, emotions were high in the room. Things were said like, "I won't come to Arizona in 2012 if ...."

The debate seemed to shift almost entirely to opposition of SB 1070, so that if you were on the con side of the amendment, it appeared as if you were for SB 1070, which couldn't have been further from the truth.

One of the debates on this day was about the language in the amendment to do with boycotting unfriendly businesses. It was eventually changes to something softer, but on my way out, I heard one delegate from Arizona declare loudly, "There will be lists."

This was about the time I began to wonder if I was in the right place. UU's creating blacklists?

I could not have been the only one to wonder: Who would create the lists? Who would make sure the vetting was accurate? What would be the media headlines when someone on the list was blacklisted who was really a friendly: UUA BLACKLISTS ONE OF ITS OWN? Does this really affirm our principles?

Speaking to people after, some who had been at the mini-assumbly and some who had not, I tried to guage the direction this was going on. Just a day or so earlier, the body of delegates did not come to a 2/3 majority on immigration as a study issue and a runoff vote had to be scheduled. We weren't sure about studying immigration but we seemed to be very sure that GA 2012 should be focused on it.

I was put off kilter by how our decision about two years from now was being moved almost entirely by reaction to a current situation.

Yes, the idea of a new kind of GA and one focused on an issue of social justice is exciting, but was this the best way to create this? In effect, since we are suspending business as usual for the first time in GA history and focusing on one issue in 2012, the UUA is saying that the issue of immigration is the most important issue of our day.

If we were going to plan a special justice-oriented GA, shouldn't there at least have been some discussion on what issue is of greatest importance to UU's?

And if we voted to hold an immigration-focused GA in 2012, what does that do for the situation in Arizona now? Will we be lulled into complacency because we hotly debated and agreed on this UUA-historic event to take place in two years?

Recommended reading on the history of the UUA.

Next time: Plenary