The General Assembly Boycott of Arizona

May 13, 2010

Sometimes I hesitate to write about Unitarian Universalist political stuff. This is for a couple reasons that deserve at least a line or two each that I feel compelled to outline as semi-disclaimers. First concern is offending people who are much more emotionally involved and perhaps much more informed and wise than I am about these things. I saw this with my, I thought, somewhat mild post on the UUA presidential election last year. I eventually had to close comments because I just couldn’t moderate all the strong feelings, misunderstandings, and purposeful misconstrual of others’ opinions.  I guess that is my way of trying to bring the tenor of the post down. These are just some ideas.

Also, I sometimes hesitate to write about these things because it could reinforce the idea that these sorts of questions are the real questions of life – that our little internal UUA decisions are somehow what we should really fret about. I know I know that politics is of course deeply connected to spirituality and prophetic work and so on. I just fear that there is a tendency of us Unitarian Universalist to somehow think advocacy work in and of itself is the work of the church and to take ourselves extremely seriously when it comes to our political stances and in terms of sort of impact our decisions have on the world.*

So, like with my last post, I did spend quite the time in preamble here. Anyway, if you are still reading, for whatever reason, even given my caveats, I still somehow feel compelled to write about the potential boycott of Arizona and switching of the GA location

Well, lets be honest. It isn’t like I “somehow” feel compelled to write about this. Really, I am compelled to write it because the potential $615,000 cost (in penalty fees) of boycotting Arizona seems like it might not be the best use of that much money. I think of this in the context that I owe a lot in student loans from getting my M. Div. And I am not some crazy anomaly. I know many-a ministers and future ministers who easily owe as much or more than me. I am not suggesting that $615,000 should go to pay off student loans for ministers or ministerial candidates, but rather that it behooves us to consider the very high cost of becoming a minister when we are considering the use of Unitarian Universalist resources now and in the future.

The second reason I feel compelled to write about this is that our congregation is in the middle of canvas (i.e. yearly pledge drive) and our minister is retiring and so we are, at the same time, looking for an interim minister and thinking about the period to come when we search for a settled minister.  How we will ever manage to pay a decent wage to our future ministers is not a minor issue. It is very serious and we are struggling with it. We vastly underpay our current minister for going over and above the call of ministry, including no health insurance. We are struggling to get pledges to meet our current budget which involves no pay increase for an interim minister. Part of the struggle is (as imagine is the case at a lot of places) that people simply don’t give enough to cover the cost of what it takes to run a church and rely on big givers and “the regulars” to step up. This said, it is also very much because people are trying to pay for houses, live on a fixed income, pay for college, pay off debt, and just sort of cobble enough together to make it. I do not know for sure, but I image that our per capita income is on the low end of most New England Unitarian Universalist congregations. I am not really suggesting that the $615,000 that we might raise to cover the cost of this boycott should be use to pay ministerial salaries or support struggling churches, but rather just to highlight how much money $615,000 is and the various other very pressing financial needs Unitarian Universalism faces.

(See also Boy in the Bands on what $615,000 could buy (or really he does $1.3 million which takes into account the desire of the board to raise an “equal or greater amount” to support public witness efforts in Arizona). And see also the UU World article which notes that “it is unclear how the resolution would raise this money—or the ‘equal or greater amount’ it also pledges to raise to support public witness efforts in Arizona—without cutting funding for other UUA programs and services.”)

So, given these two things that are quite present on my mind, coupled with the fact that many people who want to be ministers can’t even begin to afford school and other costs of ministry, I just can’t get my head around spending $615,000 to boycott Arizona. Not because I am somehow against the boycott of Arizona in general, and not because I don’t think that the law is just terrible in so many ways, but because I’m not sure that that would be $615,000 spent in the best way. That is more than half a million dollars. I wonder if we could somehow do very important work by holding GA in Arizona? How could our presence there be a move of solidarity with people there who are working for equality, justice, and the daily struggle for life and love and bread?

Via the UU World article, Rev. Susan Frederick-Gray, minister at the Phoenix church notes:

One of the things that religious groups bring and UUs would bring is a moral voice, an ability to engage around social justice advocacy. There is value that UUs bring that’s beyond financial, that’s something other groups don’t bring in terms of morally and politically engaging with what’s going on in Arizona.

There is that. Or, in the end, if we actually could raise $615,000 to support immigrants and civil rights in AZ, why not give it to some organization in Arizona that would likely put it to much better use than cancellation fees which, I imagine, ultimately end up with corporations?

I get that it is important and seems very prophetic to join a big boycott against such an obviously terrible terrible and unjust law. I have no doubt that the intentions of most if not all who believe we should boycott come from a place of compassion for those who will suffer because of this law and a hope for justice – a hope to bring about change.

Yet, I think the minister in Rev. Frederick-Gray has a good point:

I understand the reasons to support the boycott and even support some of those reasons myself… The groups calling for boycotts want to create an immediate financial impact and pressure on the state of Arizona, yet it is unclear if canceling GA in two years brings that kind of immediate financial impact.

Given the lack of clarity about the impact this will have, I just wonder with the relatively few resources available, if there is not perhaps a better use of half a million dollars? Is it a prudent and responsible use of our limited resources? Is there better way to use our energies to be in solidarity with Arizonans who are struggling for justice and to be in solidarity with undocumented people who live and work in the United States?

*One could also surmise that someone takes themselves too seriously when their blog posts on relatively minor topics are very long and detailed. That is to say, I know this post got too long. I will try to be clearer and shorter in the future. Darn it. How does that always happen?

8 Comments | GA, politics, progressive politics, social justice, Unitarian Universalism, UUA | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Elizabeth

Obama and hope

June 28, 2009

I thought ChaliceChick was pretty amusing today when she said this – she remembers what it was like to be a Hillary supporter when

Obama was made of kittens and fairydust and was going to change politics forever and ever.

I try not to get too involved in politics since I live with Mr. Political Science who is involved enough with it for both of us, but I still thought this was funny. I think of my wise friend who is the benefactor of this blog when she was visiting last summer: she said, “If it was easy or even possible to be non-partisan and work together well with the Republicans, lots of people would have done it already. It isn’t like anyone hasn’t thought of that before.” Not that I don’t appreciate his efforts and the nice words he says, but it seems that this whole post-partisan change new world we-can-do-it is just a lot harder than he thought.

Not to be all anti-Obama, because I think he is just fine, just not nearly as good as he said he was going to be and everyone thought he would be, it does remind me of this cartoon which I find amusing.

cartoon

Just some random thoughts on another rainy day….

9 Comments | Barack Obama, hope, politics, progressive politics | Permalink
Posted by Elizabeth

Washington and the new pres

June 2, 2009

I know lots of liberals are gung ho about our new president. I am not so impressed. I see lots of different rhetoric.* Not a lot of different policies. I am not disappointed, however, because I never had hopes that it would be so different. Before he even ran I heard someone say something like, “You don’t get to run for president of the United States by doing things differently.” I thought that was a good point – the system is set up to keep out real, actual change makers.

I’m not saying he is a bad guy, and of course he is better than the last round of White House folks. Of course, real change would have been nice. Although I don’t like the casual tone of the article, the gist of David Michael Green’s article, “Get Obama,” was a somewhat good summary of some of the issues I’m talking about. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/05/10-3

Why write this blog post, you ask? Since it is not well thought out and probably will disturb a large part of my already rather meager readership? I just get sooooo tired of hearing people being so ra-ra Obama because he is so eloquent when he talks and he does lots of nice symbolic things with declarations and memos about openness and such. Not that I want everyone to be down on him – rather I just want people to expect more of a president that makes lots of claims about change change change. I want us to demand more and not be so happy that the president isn’t George Bush or John McCain that we settle for any old thing that isn’t downright dreadful (and, I must say, while he does less dreadful stuff than GWB, he still seems to have his share of dreadful).

And I think that might be my only political post for the next six months. Living with a political scientist who wakes up and falls asleep talking politics is nearly all I can take of this stuff. But I thought I would do one Obama post while the inspiration strikes. Feel free to comment but it is unlikely that I’m going to take time to respond thoughtfully. Not that your comments are unimportant but political debates just aren’t my thing these days. I am politically fatigued.

*This is not to say that different rhetoric is not important. It is. For instance, even if you are going to be a pushy super-power, I think it is much better done with nice, team-work-ish rhetoric than you-do-what-we-say-stupid-peons rhetoric.

2 Comments | Barack Obama, democracy, politics, progressive politics, progressive strategy, quick post | Permalink
Posted by Elizabeth

The Rick Warren Bru-ha-ha

December 20, 2008

I am of two minds on the Rick Warren matter.

My first reaction is to say, “Look, I don’t like the guy either. I don’t agree with his theology. I don’t agree with his politics. But it isn’t like he was chosen to be the minister-in-chief or something. He is giving an invocation. I know it has a lot of symbolic meaning, but it doesn’t have any practical consequences in and of itself. It is a gesture of the president elect to say, ‘I am not a president only to progressives or to liberals, but a president to the whole country.’ And, there are big parts of the country that can identify with Rev. Rick Warren. And, as conservative evangelical pastors go, he is one of the less offensive ones who has at least made some overtures toward changing the tone of the rhetoric. My hope is that it is a gesture that will soften the hearts of those who would tend to be more opposed to Obama and his policies. It will not solve many problems, but it is a gesture of unity, which people are always talking about. You know, one country, working out our differences and that sort of thing. By saying all of this, I don’t mean to say that I don’t understand why people don’t like it. Heck, I don’t like it either. But I see it as a strategic move that may help in the long run with things that matter more than who gives the invocation at the inauguration.” (It is of course another matter whether there should be invocations and benedictions at inaugurations anyway.)

That said, it occurred to me how often discrimination against women or the GLBTQ community can often be chalked up to theology, while few people will stand for discrimination against ethnic minorities chalked up to theology. I try to imagine if someone gave the invocation that said that they still supported slavery based on theology. Or that women should obey thier husbands based on theology (heck, Warren may agree with the second of those statements). What would it mean to have someone give the invocation as a gesture of unity and goodwill who was known to support legalized discrimination against women – that they should get paid less, that rape should be less of a crime, that they should not have inheritance rights? Hmm. No matter how symbolic or strategic that would be, I would be feeling really unhappy about this. So then I started rethinking what I said above.

And now I just don’t know. The thing is, so many of these difficult issues are totally intrackable. “We” dig in our heals. “They” dig in their heels. We write on our blogs about why we are right. We affirm each other at our churches about why we are right. We are smug. We know whose side God is on. And where does this get us? What is the way forward toward better understanding each other, finding common ground to work on together, even, dare I say it, finding areas where compromise makes sense. I am not talking about any particular issue, but rather all of these very intense social and political issues that are so close to our hearts – all of our hearts – and where it seems so difficult to move forward.

I’m guessing having Rick Warren give the invocation at the inauguration isn’t the answer. But I wish we could come up with a better one that just insisting on how right and just we are and getting offended and indignant. Not that I am somehow immune to this. I do it to. But there must be a better way…

6 Comments | abortion, Barack Obama, Campaign 2008, Christianity, conservative Christianity, democracy, feminism, liberal Christianities, marriage, megachurch, politics, pop culture, prayer, progressive politics, religion | Permalink
Posted by Elizabeth

Privilege, Justice, and Sustainability

April 28, 2008

Over at My Moxie Life, Jacqueline writes about Why Food Isn’t My Politics (also mentioned at The Interdependent Web). She writes about how she and her family became vegetarian and…

Three years after that we moved to an intentional community in Missouri for a year. We, again wanted to experience living as lightly on the earth, community, and a back to the land ideal. It was while living with 70 other people from all walks of life that I began to shift my ideas about food…

What I began to realize was that food is only a choice for those who have the financial privilege to make that choice. It is an economics thing. If you come from a lower economic background or a definitive cultural background you will have food ideas around that. You MAY choose to break out of those ideas, but often, in the circumstances you CAN’T. You eat what is offered, and if you are lucky you are grateful.

It was the white middle and upper middle class kids that were offensively food oriented. THEY were making the RIGHT moral choice and they let you know in no uncertain terms that they were better because of it. Well, that screams of economic superiority, a bit of racism, and holier then thou attitudes.

These were CONSTANT conversations at East Wind while I was there and because of that tension and my wanting to understand where everyone was coming from I chose that food was something to be thankful for in whatever form it takes.

Education and poverty were more important to me then what someone served me at dinner.

So, we moved back to San Francisco omnivores… and have stayed that way.

I started to comment over at her blog, but the comment got a bit long so I thought I would post it here. I completely hear this idea that often liberals or other do-gooding folks go around being like, “Gosh, look at us. Shopping at Whole Foods, getting our vegetarian, local, organic food while we cruise around in our Prius. Golly, we are sure doing good by the world. Too bad there are those other people who are ruining the planet!” I know these people. I try not to be one. Probably I don’t always succeed.

So first, I want to affirm Jacqueline’s struggles with this issue and say that such struggles resonate with my experience (perhaps, um, too closely….). Yet, I think there are two important additional things to consider here.

First, I think we need to be careful not to set up a false dichotomy between “food politics”, and other (race and class or education) politics. Being attentive to the ways that our diet impacts the world around us – the natural world, humans, and other animals – is one important way to seek to live out our convictions related to compassion for suffering, non-violence, environmental justice, and human rights. Vegetarianism isn’t just all about saving the animals/lessening their suffering. It is also about trying to live more sustainably so that future humans have an earth to live on, and it is about being attentive to the ways that meat consumption, violence, the meat packing industry, immigration, race, class, food shortages, food riots, global warming, etc. are all related. Vegetarianism or veganism is, of course, not only way to address such concerns. But, I don’t see our food choices (to the extent that we have choices about our diet) as separate from bigger questions about justice, environment, class, etc.

Secondly, I struggle with the idea that if everyone/poor people/lots of people can’t do _________ (fill the blank with an attempt to be more sustainable/attempt at social justice activity), then it is a privileged thing to do and we are being too privileged/spoiled/snobby if we do this thing. I feel like this would apply to most volunteering, many if not most home energy efficiency measures, to many forms of education (expensive colleges/any colleges/many forms of homeschooling/private schools, etc.), buying organic/locally grown food, having the time and energy to grow a garden, driving a hybrid car, etc. The problem seems not to be that by doing these things (such as being vegetarian) we are not attending to the real problems like race or education, but rather that often our attitudes about our various “do-gooding” activities (like being vegetarian) are problematic.

The problem could thus be framed as the attitude that “We are doing the right thing (as privileged, liberals) while they (poor, others) are not,” rather then the problem being framed as the particular action we are taking (in the case of Jacqueline’s post, vegetarianism). If we look at it like this, the solution would not to be to stop doing action X, but to change our attitudes about action X.

For me, it is all about finding a balance between calling on each other and calling on ourselves to live as sustainably and justly as we can, while at the same time, being understanding that we can only do what we can do. I find it challenging, with vegetarianism, but also issues like hyper-consumerism, sexism, racism, classism, etc. to know how to best challenge my fellow humans try to live justly and more sustainably, while at the same time acknowledging the wide range of limitations to what each of us can do as individuals, families, communities, and countries. Certainly, to some extent, I believe all of us are called to call to humanity to be more just, more loving, less violent, and to live more sustainably, and to live out these principles in our own lives. But how much is too much calling? And how are we to do it without infringing too much on individual prerogatives, given that we cannot all do it all? And, are there different standards for calling upon fellow Unitarian Universalists, than, say, the general public?

Thanks to the post at Moxie Life for helping me to continue to grapple with some of these questions.

4 Comments | animals, environment, food, progressive politics, simplicity, social justice, sustainability, veganism, vegetarianism | Permalink
Posted by Elizabeth

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 26 other followers