Hopefully soon, this blog will be a collective effort of the members of UUNICORN (Unitarian Universalists Not in Church or Religiously Networked.) Really, UUNICORN is a group of UU punks/radicals who all went through YRUU at roughly the same time (we have a couple of "generations") and who still feel attached to UUism but who don't feel served by the UU congregations available to them. We work well together because we have a collective history to base our shit talk on and because we all really enjoying making dumpstered eggs into fantastic spanish omlettes. And I mean, like any other UU community, we tend towards to radically exclusive, and are probably still decidedly narcissitic, but we've also managed to create a UU community without the help of the stupid UUA.

This Saturday we had a great conversation about the first principle. A principle which I generally use as the UU "selling point:"
respect for the inherent worth and dignity of all people

It would seem, on the surface, that this is a pretty easy idea to get behind. Who doesn't love respect? Worth? Dignity? Exactly.

So that's what we hide behind as UU's - we love EVERYBODY! We are such awesome peace loving hippies! You would love to be a part of our community cos we won't judge you like all those christians you've met!

Bullshit. We are just as judgemental as the next group of people, maybe more so because we have this neat little principle to hide behind.

UU's don't often have to deal with issues of theodicy. Shit happens and God has nothing to do with it, right? So we just move on. But the thing is: shit does happen, it happens in our communities, and it rips them apart. We are seeing this happen wholesale with the ways in which we are handling the racism of our denomination. We've formed lots of committees and study groups and even training cadres, but we haven't changed the abject racism of our faith, because we aren't willing to deal with the fact that a lot of us white folx are doing really awful things to people of color, or standing by and letting them happen. If we were to do that, we might have to look more closely at that first principle and how well it stands up to the reality that people can be real asshats to each other.

There was a sexual assault at a youth conference a few years ago. The district is still dealing with the fallout. I think we're still dealing with it because we haven't been able to have real and genuine conversations about sexual assault, and what that means when we supposedly respect the inherent worth and dignity of every person. The inherent worth of a sexual predetor? That offends us, maybe, but also paralyzes us. So we react the same way people have been reacting for centuries and put a bunch of shitty rules in place that never address what is going on.

I'm a systems person - a sociologist. I understand that this is just as problematic as an individual person, someone who looks at psychology as the root of everything. But when I have to deal with evil, I deal with it on a systems level. Since my understanding of divinity is directly tied to my understanding of intentional community, my version of theodicy is when that community collectively fucks up and stops being accountable. That's every community, because community might be holy, but its not infalliable or omnipotent.

The question is how we can possibly create accountable communities that also respect everyone's inherent worth and dignity. How do we hold everyone accountable for the awful shit that happens and still be able to say to the perpetrators, "you are a human being worthy of respect and love?" CAN you do that? Does it even work?

And how can we do that when the system that we were raised in, that we understand as reality, is rotten to its core? How do I say to the perpetartors of sexual violence, "what you did is not acceptable and is awful and caused pain. But you are a worthy human being. You cannot behave like that in this community, but you are still a valuable part of it." while still taking into account the safety and needs of other members in the community, most notably the survivors of violence?

I have a totally irrational hope that there is a way to do that. Its the hope that keeps me alive. And even when I don't believe that anything will ever change, least of all in my lifetime, I still believe that it will because otherwise, what's the point?

Some people, I hear, call that faith.

Respect for the World Wide Web of which we are all* a part

*all except, you know, the majority of the world who isn't obessively and narcissitically hooked into the internet.

I got this YouTube UU Propaganda clip from an aquaintance. Thought y'all might like to see what the world wide web of which we are all a part is seeing of the flaming chalice . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJCf4VgnkBk

In a world without beliefnet

So I'm reading all this UU History for a class I'm taking this quarter. I've never been a big American history fan. I think American history is boring. Not even genuine drama, just a lot of really stupid and inane bullshit.
But its good that I'm reading this, I guess. Good because maybe someday soon I'll be a major representative of "the faith" or the movement or whatever, and because I've oft advised people not to get involved in something they don't understand, and I've been patently ignoring my own advice for a long time now.

I flirted with Christianity for a while in college. I don't know that anything about it hooked me, per se, in terms of theology. I mean, on my best and most mystical days, I can kind of get behind the idea of "god" or whatever, but the idea that said god would 1) bear a child (to an unwed 13 year old, knowing full well it would freak her shit out and put her in a totally precarious position given the misogynistic mores of the day) 2) off that child in a really horrific way to clense the world of "sin", seems really kind of outlandish. I can see its validity as a cautionary tale, maybe, but I can't buy it.
On the other hand, I can totally buy that there was some guy out in the world who had radical ideas and fucked shit up and got killed by the governement for it, and that the folks who hung out with that guy thought he was so awesome that they started communities dedicated to living life the way he thought it should be lived. So, you know, I dig Jesus and shit.

Anyway, this all relates because I've been reading this history and mostly wondering 1) if it resonates with me at all and 2) if it would have resonated with me 100 years ago. If I didn't have beliefnet to tell me I was a UU, would I be one? a U or a U, that is. Which really means I'm thinking about why I'm a UU. I don't know that I feel some sort of lack in my life without the idea of God, because as I said, I often don't believe in God. But there is something that keeps me attached to this movement, so attached in fact that I am planning on making a living doing it.

So, would I have been a Unitarian or a Universalist? Yeah, probably. Lets keep in mind that I would probably have to at least feign interest in a church, that or risk total marginalization (lets assume that I am a white lady with at least a modicum of class privilege) and because I'm a smart cookie, I'd find one that I could stomach. Probably, I'd be a Universalist. Frankly, I'm a little astounded that whether God is a three-in-one deal or a single being has consumed as much history and controversy as it has. And I'll be blunt, I think most trinitarians are totally fooling themselves, hanging recklessly on to some historical precedent of monotheism. It's probably racism, since most polytheistic religions are the religions of folks of color. But I digress . . . Universalism, on the other hand, well . . .yeah. People are worried about whether they're going to hell (lets assume that I believe, in some way or another, that hell exists. and heaven too) I'd want everyone there with me, in heaven that is, and I think God would too. Come on, God didn't create all this shit just to set it on fire. Or, God did. But God would set it ALL on fire, not just some of it, right?

The funny thing is, of all my important spiritual questions, the two least important are whether God exists (and therefore, also, whether God is multiple personality or just a single crazy guy) and whether heaven exists. But the history of my denomination is built on folks who really did care about this stuff.

I just think its funny.