I wasn't worried about an Obama presidency until...

....I read this excerpt from William Kristol's New York Times column this morning:

"But I also have to admit that I look forward to Obama’s inauguration with a surprising degree of hope and good cheer."

Anything that gives Kristol hope and good cheer gives me pause.

Marriage Equality = Religious Freedom

Marriage equality is more than simply a civil rights issue. For me, it's a core religious conviction. The threads of love are woven exactly the same for gay and lesbian couples as they are for straight couples. They have the same expressions of love and support, and the same frustrations and struggles as anybody else. When our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters are denied the right to marry, it diminishes the institution of marriage, and while it may not diminish my freedom of religious expression, it diminishes my religion, Unitarian Universalism.

The Unitarian Universalist Association, in addition to several liberal Christian organizations, such as the United Church of Christ, has made strong pronouncements in favor of marriage equality. My congregation, Bell Street Chapel, has married many gay and lesbian couples during the seven years I've been a member, and, by congregational vote, made a strong proclamation on favor of marriage equality in 2004. Yet, the State of Rhode Island does not recognize their marriages because it has chosen to place one set of religious values above another. Bishop Tobin and Rick Warren have every right to deny marriage within their own religious institutions, but why should they have say over my religious institution.

The Unitarian Universalist Church is hardly a fringe religion. It was the religion of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, of Susan B. Anthony and Clara Barton, and of Ralph Waldo Emerson and John Dewey. This year, Randy Pausch, a Unitarian Universalist, who gave his famous "last lecture" at Carnegie Mellon University, was voted beliefnet's Most Inspirational Person of the year award. Unitarians and Universalists have shaped the political, social, and cultural life in the United States since its inception.

In fact, the constutution of the United States is imbued with the core values of Unitarian Universalsim. Barack Obama referred to UU principles in his "A More Perfect Union" speech; "Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution - a Constitution that had at its very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time." Unitarian Universalists have both an abiding call to justice and equality, and to the belief that we can improve over time, that we are never perfected.

So why doesn't the State of Rhode Island honor my religious values and principles? Why doesn't the state of Rhode Island allow all religious institutions to marry whomever they choose? Let the State of Rhode Island give everyone civil unions, and let Rhode Island's churches marry whichever couples they choose. Let Rhode Island truly be the bastion of religious freedom it was founded to be.

thinking about facebook, part two

One of the unique things about facebook is that it creates a common virtual culture. I recently saw Neil Young and Wilco in concert in Worcester, MA. I was able to discuss the event with people in other cities who either had just seen the concert, or going to the concert in a few days. The next night, I went to a beer dinner at Julians that featured some very rare and exceptional beers. I was able to share information with another handful of friends who are beer connoisseurs. Just this morning, I was able to commiserate with people who share my habit of shopping at the last possible minute!

Frequently, this information comes in the form of status updates, whereby people publicly broadcast (to their friends and networks) what they are doing at any particular moment in time.

We are a culture increasingly open to, and suportive of, public disclosure. When I talk to my parents or other people of their generation, I'm struck by the stark differences between what they consider publicly acceptable disclosure, and what I do. To my parents' generation, personal information is a closely guarded secret, only doled out slowly to the closest of friends and family, if at all. It is rude and in bad taste to discuss personal information, even with close friends. It is a sign of weakness to talk about your feelings, even with a spouse. Even therapy is considered an uncomfortable public disclosure. My generation, and younger generations to an even greater degree, feels much more comfortable talking about both feelings and personal information.

I'm not entirely sure if this line between public and private discourse is constantly shifting toward public discourse or oscillating back and forth between the two. Maybe I should go back and read Foucault to find some clues. I'm not going to be an alarmist that shouts the world is going to hell because of a paradigm shift. When society changes, something is always lost, but something more is usually gained.

Wilco and Obama

In anticipation of the Neil Young/Wilco show tonight, I bring this video of my favorite band and favorite politician on stage at the same time. OK, I'll grant you the video is 3 months old, was made for an election now a month old, and is not their best version of "The Late Greats", but it's my damn blog and I'm including it anyway!

John Stewart and Mike Huckabee on marriage equality

John Stewart is great here. He's respectful of Huckabee, but makes Huckabee and his view on marriage equality seem small with the strength of his argument.

Why isn't Milk playing in any theatre closer than Brookline?

I'm really confused about this. Milk went into nationwide release last Friday, yet there are only two theatres in all of Rhode Island and Massachusetts that are playing the movie, both obscure art house theatres in and around Boston. This is a movie with oscar buzz, famous stars (Sean Penn, James Franco, and Emile Hirsch), and a famous director (Gus Van Zandt). It is also the most highly anticipated movie amongst my friends in quite some time. Now, I'll grant you I live in an uber-progressive, uber pro-gay rights bubble, but still, the movie has at least as much buzz as Brokeback Mountain. Maybe there is some rational reason why I have to drive an hour to see this movie, but I haven't heard it yet. I don't know if theatres are limiting the release of Milk for political reasons, but if they are, than the implications scare the hell out of me.

Public vs. private in the digital world and....Do I believe?

Something unusual just happened to me. Someone, in a forum entirely unrelated to religion, just emailed me to chastise me for my religious views. The email was interesting on a few levels.

The person who emailed me was someone I don't know and have never met. She felt it was OK to take me to task for my religious convictions. It speaks to the interesting and often jumbled mix of private and public personae in the digital world. I wrote some of my core convictions on a website, which can be accessed by the public, yet random public commentary of others is considered invasive. What are the boundaries of privacy in the digital world? While I feel fairly certain that random commentary about other people's beliefs, outside of forums that are dedicated to that commentary, is socially unacceptable, I also believe that the lines are blurring. Although personal conscience, not ettiqutte, should be the ultimate authority to guide our behavior, a set of rules that outline the socially acceptable would be very beneficial to navigating the digital world.

In the email itself, the person called me to task on my "lack of faith" and said that for me, there "is no God" in a response to my self description as a religious agnostic. Although I know this is a random email from someone I don't know with a sketchy set of boundaries, I'm still wrestling with those descriptions. I don't feel as though they fit me, but I'm having a difficult time articulating why they don't. While I am fairly certain there isn't a god who "pulls the strings" of the world, I would not call myself an athiest. We are connected by forces beyond our understanding, and we owe ourselves, each other, and the world our best selves, not because of some distant reward, but because it will make life more interesting, rich, and bountiful. We are called to evolve and change because the world evolves and changes. While I may lack faith in God as defined by the emailer, I have a deep abiding faith in that call to change and evolve.

Tasty!

For any beer geeks out there, try the Harpoon's Leviathan Series. It has exceeded expectations for me. Their Baltic Porter, Triticus Wheat Wine, and IPA have all been excellent offerings that far exceed anything else the brewery has done. Cheers!

Theologians they don't know nothing about my soul- Jeff Tweedy

I have a confession to make. Although I am a committed Unitarian Universalist (UU) who has had a number of leadership positions in my congregation, I know very little about UU theology, or about theology in general. I can't say for sure where my personal beliefs lie, only that they lie somewhere in that wide chasm between athiesm and theism called agnosticism. Although I do read spiritually oriented books, in all honesty, I read 3-4 times as many politically oriented books, and about as many sports related books. What theology I do have is cobbled together from a wide variety of sources that grab and speak to me individually, but do not coalesce into anything coherent.

I think that overall, my lack of a coherent theology is a good thing. I do have a series of deeply held beliefs, even if I can't always speak to their intellectual or spiritual justification. Like Emerson, I believe that I am the best judge of my life and my place in the world.

I think in many ways, my lack of a coherent theology mirrors that of many other UU's. Still though, that lack of a coherent theology is the reason Unitarian Universalism is such a transient religion, why so many people who join eventually leave. Is it possible to nourish spiritually without a coherent theology? The religions that attract the most people seem to have the most concrete theologies, the easist answers. Easy answers have a strong appeal in a complex world, and religious fundamentalism is on the rise. How can we make the spiritually complex as appealing and nourishing as the simple theology of fundamentalism? I'm not sure that's a question we can afford to leave to the theologians.

Thinking about facebook

Over the past few months, I have become a daily user of facebook. During that time, I have reconnected with scores of old friends from high school to grad school to California, where I lived for 3 years in my late twenties. While facebook may be a less elegant way to remain in touch than pen and paper, it is a much more effective one. Although I use facebook daily, I remain uneasy about its impact in our lives. Right now, it is the primary way I keep in touch with people with whom I would have little or no relationship otherwise, but I'm wondering when and if it will replace real, actual interactions with other people, my local friends, the people I now see regularly...

Prescient moment for Obama

Obama calls it

Obama and "Otherization"

For the past several years, I have encountered people who have helped me onward in my spiritual journey, often in specific ways. Tich Nat Hanh's writings taught me about mindfulness and anger. Hafiz has taught me to celebrate and glory at our creation. Emerson has taught me about the individual journey, and Ghandi and King the communal journey. All have acted as a spiritual guide to me for the past few years, through times of joy and pain. For the past few months, Barack Obama has been such a figure.

A few years ago, before he announced his candidacy for president, I read Obama's "Dreams from My Father" a memoir he wrote about identity and place. I was impressed with his ability to integrate the lessons from his life into practice. I was more impressed with his ability to empathize, to step into people's shoes. He seemed to really try to step into other people's shoes, to understand their views and their stories. He listened.

Obama demonstrated this quality during the campaign in even stronger measure than in his book. He constantly reached out to those who rejected him, who "otherized" him. He refused to do so in kind. He refused to dehumanize his opponents or their beliefs. He spoke to the good in others even when he disagreed with them. Of course, he criticed Republican policies and even the abilities of Republican leaders. He made some mistakes, but for the most part, he treated his opponents and their supporters with dignity and respect, with grace, even when that grace was not reciprocated.

It is a lesson I am still trying to learn. Many people I know and admire, including some of my closest friends, have not yet learned this lesson. To them, George Bush is a bogeyman who can do no right and Republicans are either evil money-grubbers who want to make the world a worse place or crazy religious nuts who want to take away our civil liberties. That is not a productive place to start dialogue.

While I believe the Bush Administration has done signifigant damage to the United States' international reputation, I also believe that the administration has been agressive tackling the African AIDS crises, far more so than Clinton's was. I don't think I could have made that statement 6 months ago. I don't think I would have made that statement without listening closely to Barack Obama.

The "otherization" of people is, and always has been, one of the great dangers in the world, and in my mind, the greatest. If there is evil in this world (another topic for another day), it's heart is in the "otherization" of our fellow men and women. It has caused wars, slavery, prositution, and terorism. Although sitting around a coffee shop talking about how much Bush and Cheney "suck" may be a relatively benign example of "otherization", it is still a point on a continuum that has an only negative direction.

The trick is, how do I keep my voice loud and strong, for improved education, for marriage equality, for peace and social justice, without "otherizing" those who would stop me? I don't know the answer to that, but I believe it might start with a beer, a handshake, and some listening.