One line from Sarah Palin’s speech on Wednesday really has me pissed off. She said, "Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America … he’s [Barack Obama] worried that someone won’t read them their rights?" The fact that the United States government is required to assume people are innocent before proven guilty is one of the basic freedoms that people are supposed to afforded by the United States constitution. I think that whether or not people are citizens is pretty irrelevant. Everyone should be entitled to certain rights under the law. The difference between a police state and a representational democracy is that in a representational democracy people are allowed to hold dissenting views and engage in political organizing without fear of reprisal. It is clear that right now is this country dissenting views are increasingly be equated with terrorism. It is also clear that those suspected of terrorism are not treated like human beings by our government (for examples visit the site freedetainees.org).

It is clear from the actions of the police in St. Paul during the Republican National Convention that not all people have the basic rights of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly in our society. Journalists such as Amy Goodman were arrested while covering the protests. Several organizers for the RNC Welcoming Committee have been arrested and charged with conspiracy to riot in furtherance of terrorism. The RNC Welcoming Committee organized civil disobedience efforts in order to disrupt and protest the convention. While many might not agree with such actions they are certainly not acts of terrorism. If the United States is a democracy people should be able to express themselves and peacefully protest government and political parties. I have read or heard nothing about efforts from protesters to violently disrupt the proceedings of the convention. Having been involved in similar protests several times in my life I find it hard to imagine that such plans existed. At the most there probably were plans to erect barriers and blockades in the streets to limit Republican delegates movement and draw attention to the issues that the protesters are mad about–issues such as poverty, the war and oppression of dissent.

Palin’s comment and the actions of the police in St. Paul–where well over 300 people have been arrested–have reminded me of Benjamin Franklin’s famous line: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." I hope that in the coming years people will be able to organize to ensure liberty–freedom of thought, speech and political organization–in this country. I am, to be honest, less concerned with safety. Far less people in the industrialized world die from terrorism and violence than automobile accidents and the lifestyle health issues that result from living in the exurbs (I discussed this a little in my sermon "Fear Itself" a few months back).

Like a lot of people, I was shocked by John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his nominee for Vice President. I have spent a little on-line, reading the paper and listening to the radio trying to figure out her positions on issues. What I’ve discovered is that her positions are pretty far from those that religious liberals might be comfortable. Family friend Nate Silver wrote a detailed analysis of her positions on five issues near and dear to the hearts of most religious liberals–evolution, global warming, hate crimes, sex education and abortion. I think I am most bothered by her position on global warming. It’s imperative that the next administration take serious action to address this issue. Here’s an excerpt from Nate’s blog fivethirtyeight so you can see where Palin stands on the issues:

The Issue: Evolution

Palin’s Position: Although Palin’s personal views on evolution are ambiguous, she favors teaching creationism along with evolution in public schools (source).

America’s Position: A USA Today/Gallup poll in June 2007 reported that 53 percent of Americans believe that evolution is definitely or probably true, as opposed to 44 percent who think it’s definitely or probably false. More relevant to Palin’s position, however, a Pew Research poll in July 2006 showed that Americans favor teaching creationism along with evolution in schools by a 58-35 margin (source).

Conclusion: Although this fact will annoy many liberals – including yours truly – Palin’s views are squarely within the American mainstream.

The Issue: Global Warming

Palin’s Position: She does not believe that global warming is manmade (source). In addition, in an interview in May with Fox’s Neil Cavuto, Palin expressed skepticism that climate change is occurring at all:

We don`t believe that this speculation, again unprecedented, on computer modeling could forecast the effects of climate change, to the degree that leaves us in a comfortable position. It`s just too far out into the future, this speculative modeling (source).
America’s Position: An ABC News study in July showed that an 80-18 majority of Americans believe that global temperatures have been rising. A CNN poll in June broke responses down into three categories: 54 percent believe that global warming is real and manmade, 22 percent believe it is real but not manmade, and 23 percent describe global warming as a “theory that has not yet been proven” (source).

Conclusion: If Palin believes in global warming but does not attribute it to manmade causes, her views are at most somewhat out of the mainstream. If she does not believe in global warming at all, her views are strongly out of the mainstream.

The Issue: Hate Crimes

Palin’s Position: Opposes proposals to expand hate-crimes statutes to cover sexual orientation, and seems to imply that hate-crimes statutes are superfluous, period (“No [I do not believe in expanding hate-crimes statutes], as I believe all heinous crime is based on hate”). (source).

America’s Position: In a May 2007 Gallup poll, Americans favor hate crimes statutes by a 78-18 margin. When the definition of hate crimes is expanded to include sexual orientation, support diminishes slightly, but such statues are still favored by a 68-27 majority (source).

Conclusion: Palin’s position is well outside of the mainstream. Note: McCain also opposes expanding hate-crimes statutes to cover sexual orientation.

The Issue: Abortion

Palin’s Position: Believes abortion should be illegal “With the exception of a doctor’s determination that the mother’s life would end if the pregnancy continued” (source). Palin also said that she’d be opposed to abortion even if her daughter had been sexually assaulted (source).

America’s Position: Although most polling shows that Americans are pro-choice by only narrow pluralities or majorities, tolerance for abortion increases substantially in cases where there are mitigating factors. In particular, an October 2007 FOX/Opinion Dynamics poll says that by a 70-21 margin, Americans believe that abortion should be legal if the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. A CBS News poll, also conducted in October 2007, revealed similar numbers: just 16 percent of Americans share Palin’s position that abortion should be legal only in order to save the mother’s life, while another 4 percent believed that abortion should be illegal in all cases (source).

Conclusion: Palin’s position is far outside of the mainstream.

The Issue: Sex Education

Palin’s Position: Would replace sex-ed programs with abstinence-only programs (source).

America’s Position: A broad consensus around the teaching of sex education has existed for decades, with 85 percent of Americans favoring sex-ed in schools as early as 1985 (source). The numbers appear to have increased since, as a 2004 poll conducted by NPR, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and the Kennedy School of Government showed that 90 percent of Americans believe that sex education is a “very important” or “somewhat important” part of the school curriculum, whereas only 7 percent believe that sex education should not be taught at all. In the same survey, just 15 percent of Americans supported abstinence-only programs (source).

Conclusion: Palin’s position is far outside of the mainstream.

The term scripture usually means the sacred texts of a given religious tradition. Such texts are often viewed as having divine origin and/or inspiration. I have been thinking recently about whether or not Unitarian Universalist have a scripture or scriptures. We clearly draw upon on the scriptures from the worlds religious traditions including, but not limited to the Bible (both the Hebrew and Christian New Testament portions). But do we have texts that are foundational to our tradition that we draw upon more than others? I think we might. I would suggest that several of Emerson’s essays and addresses, some of Channing’s sermons, some of Parker’s writings, the principles and sources of the UUA, the first Humanist Manifesto and, oddly enough, the text from the Women and Religion resolution at General Assembly in 1977 and the Cambridge Platform have all influenced Unitarian Universalism significantly. I don’t know if that makes them scripture but I think that they afforded some sort of special status–maybe simply the special status of being important texts. Here’s a list of Emerson’s, Channing’s and Parker’s writings that I use frequently (and hear my colleagues use):

Emerson

The Over-Soul
Self Reliance
The Divinity School Address

Channing

Unitarian Christianity
Likeness to God
Self Culture

Parker
The Transient and Permanent in Christianity

What other writings might be considered central to our tradition? I think that Hosea Ballou’s Treatise on Atonement is probably fairly central, but personally don’t use it that often. Given that Unitarian Universalism is an evolving tradition in which revelation is not sealed how recent a person might be included on a list of foundational figures? Could you include people like A. Powell Davies, Clarence Skinner, John H. Holmes and Kenneth Patton who were alive within the memory of many now living? What about people like Thandeka, William Schulz and Forrest Church whose writings and teachings have a lot influence of contemporary ministers? Or living people like Barbara Pescan and Mark Belletini whose works have made it into our hymn books? Also, what about women like Margaret Fuller and Elizabeth Cady Staton who wrote theological texts, were clearly affiliated with Unitarianism but were not clergy or necessarily writing for a Unitarian or Universalist audience?

Perhaps this a little muddled but I would be interested in whatever responses people might have.

Long time family friend Marketa Luskacova was in the LA Times today. They compared her pictures of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia during the Prague Spring of 1968 with images that have recently come out of Georgia. Here are the two photographs that the newspaper ran:

Kenneth Knabb’s web-site the Bureau of Public Secrets just turn 10. Bopsecrets is one of the best sites on the internet. It includes the complete text of his Situationist International Anthology which collects many of the major Situationist texts including a number from the May 1968 uprising in France. Also found on the site is the Kenneth Rexroth Archive. Rexroth has influenced my thinking enormously. The archive includes the complete text of his book on the libertarian tradition Communalism which helped shape my politics; selections from Rexroth’s extensive translations of Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish, French, Japanese and Chinese poetry; and many of Rexroth’s own poems. The site also contains a number of Rexroth’s essays and literary criticism including his previously uncollected newspaper columns.

The site also collects a lot of wonderful radical texts and also including Knabb’s own writings, and some random comics suffering from détournement.

My sermons from June 8, June 15, August 10 and August 17 are now on-line. My August 10 sermon, "Rejecting a Culture of Violence", is my response to the attack on the UU congregation in Knoxville.

There’s an interesting article in today’s Washington Post by Kathleen Parker on the recent forum that Rick Warren held with John McCain and Barack Obama. The article is highly critical of the forum because, Parker argues, having a minister publicly interview presidential candidates is a violation of the separation between church and state. Parker writes, "…higher principles…are compromised every time we pretend we’re not applying a religious test when we’re really applying a religious test." I think that is certainly a true statement.

And I also think it is true that there is a religious test for higher political office in the United States. The people that have the highest negatives in public opinion polls are always atheists. In other words, you can’t be President if you don’t profess to believe in God. Personally, every time politicians start talking about their religious beliefs I can’t but help think of Machiavelli’s The Prince in which he argued that it was important for politicians to be thought of as Christians but that it was equally important that they followed the logic of power rather than the logic of ethics to remain in control.

 

I haven’t had a chance to go mushroom hunting for a couple of months so I’ve taken to looking around the neighborhood on my morning walks. This morning I cut what appears to be a pound and a half chicken mushroom. Chicken mushrooms are one of my favorite wild mushrooms. Fried with garlic and olive oil and the braised with white wine they taste quite a bit like, well, chicken–sweet and a little musty.

My find got me to thinking… How much food do I walk past on a regular basis? My neighborhood contains plum trees, wild mint and walnut and hickory trees. There are also dandelions and nettles, which most people consider weeds, and a bunch of different mushrooms–some of which I know and others of which I do not. It’d be an interesting experiment to try and figure out what sort of meal one could make from the available goodies. It’s also interesting to think about how many plants produce things that we generally eat today but which once formed part of various indigenous communities staple diets–acorns, for example.

PS In case anyone is concerned, I am taking the mushroom to be identified by an expert before I eat. It’s always a good idea to get a second opinion, especially if you’re kind of novice mushroom hunter…

There’s an interesting debate in the UU blogosphere going on right now about whether or not Unitarian Universalism is Post-Christian. The most activity seems to be on Radical Hapa and Boys in the Band. The whole debate started because of this Washington post article about the recent events in Knoxville.

Personally, I tend to agree with those who argue that Unitarian Universalists are Post-Christian. I imagine that most sociologists of religion would place us in that category. I would challenge those who don’t like the term Post-Christian to come up with another that they find satisfying and that doesn’t suggest that all Unitarian Universalists are Christian, because I do not believe that we are.

There was a great quorum piece from the New York Times Freakanomics blog yesterday on the future of suburbia. The commentators opinions range from doom and gloom from James Kunstler to somewhat more optimistic prognosis from John Archer and Alan Berube. Pretty much everyone seems to agree that the suburbs will be totally different in 2050 than they are today. Rising energy costs and, to a lesser extent, shifting societal values seem to ensure this. Kunstler, whose book The Geography of Nowhere I read in my early twenties, has some wonderful vitriol:

…American suburbia requires an infinite supply of cheap energy in order to function and we have now entered a permanent global energy crisis that will change the whole equation of daily life. Having poured a half-century of our national wealth into a living arrangement with no future — and linked our very identity with it — we have provoked a powerful psychology of previous investment that will make it difficult for us to let go, change our behavior, and make other arrangements…

The suburbs have three destinies, none of them exclusive: as materials salvage, as slums, and as ruins. In any case, the suburbs will lose value dramatically, both in terms of usefulness and financial investment. Most of the fabric of suburbia will not be “fixed” or retrofitted, in particular the residential subdivisions. They were built badly in the wrong places.

These days, an awful lot of people — the production builders, the realtors — are waiting for the “bottom” in the real-estate industry with hopes that the suburban house-building orgy will resume. They are waiting in vain. The project of suburbia is over. We will build no more of it. Now we’re stuck with what’s there. Sometimes whole societies make unfortunate decisions or go down tragic pathways. Suburbia was ours.

As someone who’s a real believer in urbanism I have to admit I love Kunstler’s dystopian vision for suburbia. I like walkable communities, public transit and population density high enough to sustain interesting neighborhoods and vibrant arts scenes. I also like rural landscapes, camping/hiking and farming communities. Suburbia has seemed to me to be at odds with both of these.

Archer and Berube suggest that suburbia will change but that its future is less bleak than Kunstler predicts. Both seem to believe that in the future suburbia will more-or-less look like a mid-density city. It will be walkable and built around mass transit hubs. It will be increasingly economically and racially diverse. No matter who is right I imagine that the American urban and suburban areas of the next 40 years will be very different than they were in the last 40.