Bismarck Mandan Unitarian Universalist Speak Out, Opinions

And so I awaken on this Inauguration Day, my heart as bleak as today's grey Minnesota sky. Thankfully my eight year old daughter inhabits a different bit of reality, which is leaping for joy about today's school agenda-Snow Olympics. She scampers and squeals as she gets dressed, and I am grateful to have her energy to contrast to my own, which is almost two-dimensional in its flatness.

Unitarian Universalism is a good fit for me, in part, because I am an optimist by nature. I experience moments of cynicism, despair, and hopelessness, but my spirit is a buoyant one. But, today, I am bleak, and I notice this in my morning meditation.

I am bleak because I know how much of the work which is central to UU values will be harder in these next years. Some things we're constantly defending: Women's reproductive choice. Marriage equality. The United Nations. Civil and religious liberties. Child care funding. Some things we're constantly trying to stop: School prayer. Government funding of religion. Preemptive wars. Regardless of who is President, prophetic religion is a tough sell in the nation's capital, and these struggles have been ceaseless since I woke up as an activist nearly thirty years ago. Power, as Frederick Douglas wrote a hundred fifty years ago, never concedes anything without a struggle-it never did and it never will. But our work gets even harder, as the Religious Right demands more and more from elected officials, and I know the years coming will challenge us deeply.

Part of me, I notice in meditation, is drawn to the odd seduction of hopelessness, wants to relax into its arms, throw the oars off my little rowboat and drift slowly out into the vast foggy sea. But then another voice speaks, waking me up. "Imagination is a moral imperative," it says, in the sharp tone in which a parent might say for the third time, "Hang up your coat NOW."

I consider this. I am privileged to live a life where I get to use my imagination and all of my other gifts every day at work. The UUA's advocacy work and public witness work, putting our UU values out into the world, reaches out to the broadest swath of souls we can conceive to promote the principles by which we live-justice, equity, compassion, peace, liberty, interdependence. This is by nature creative work. Most of the time, we at the UUA work with one another joyfully, with much laughing and energy, which flourishes because of our deep respect for one anothers' work and knowledge that we can trust another. This is, indeed, privilege.

But, imagination as moral imperative. Moral imperative? I remember this language from old ethics classes but I'm not even sure what it means exactly. To be a moral person, I MUST imagine? Another familiar line comes into my mind, from Adrienne Rich's stunning journal, What is Found There: Notebooks on Poetry and Politics. One of my desert island books, where I've turned over and over for help. "Despair," she wrote in 1991, "when not the response to absolute physical and moral defeat, is, like war, the failure of imagination."

War as the failure of imagination? This makes total sense to me. I once went to a high school and watched a series of student-written plays. The teachers had provided boxes of props to inspire them; one class had been allowed to use the prop of a gun if they wanted. The other had not. In the class which had been allowed to use the gun, every single play, probably six of them, concluded with someone being shot. It almost became comical, how that gun defined the limits of adolescent imagination, in plays which otherwise bore no resemblance to each other. In the class without a gun, the endings were much more varied and interesting. This was not a sociological experiment, simply class plays, and no one but me even seemed interested in what that gun did to youth's imaginations. But I was awed by it. Multiply a gun into an army, and I can certainly see the epic crumbling of imagination. So this makes total sense.

Despair as failure of imagination makes sense to me, too, on an intuitive level. I remember a parent orientation at my daughter's preschool five years ago. The teacher, who had run the place for over 30 years, told us that they tried to stay out of the kids' ways as much as possible and let them have about two hours uninterrupted free play each day. One anxious parent raised his hand. "But if they run out of ideas about what to play," he said, "You jump in and help them think of some, right?" I immediately chuckled, expecting the teacher to brush away this absurd question. My own daughter and every other three year old kid I'd ever known in my life as a teacher and religious educator, wouldn't run out of ideas if we never spoke to them again! But the veteran teacher responded soberly. "We are seeing a new phenomenon these past few years," she said, "Where kids actually ARE unable to think of things to play." She went on,"We link it to the absence of unstructured time in children's lives, and to excessive amounts of time watching television."

To hear about the demise of children's imaginations ranked, for me, with hearing about the demise of the virgin forests. Something completely irreplaceable and precious is being lost. I have to wonder how this is connected to the increasing numbers of children who are being medicated for depression and anxiety and aggression and other mental health problems. As ever, the children are the canaries in our coal mines.

So, my prayer for each of us on this Inauguration Day is that we seriously consider how to yoke our imaginations to the common good-to commit ourselves to keeping hope alive. Though there are certain activities which I believe all citizens should participate in, such as being in relationship with elected officials about our values and opinions, activism does not need to be formulaic or follow one way. On this Inauguration Day, I challenge you to dedicate yourself to finding a way to put something creative out into the world, whether it's learning Thai cooking or mentoring a child or painting or writing or creatively protesting injustice. Take seriously that you need to be alive, to be rowing your own little boat, not to be surrendering the most precious gifts you have been given-your heart's desires, your soul's longing for connection, your abilities to manifest the vision of life that is uniquely yours. No one can take that from you unless you give it to them. This Inauguration Day, hold tightly to this birthright, and pledge to dedicate your life to it.

May it be so!

April 18, 2002

I'm Barb Lennington, a resident of Bismarck, a member of this YMCA and the married mother of two high school children.

I have opened up my heart, my eyes and my mind to hear what a minority population in this community has to say about certain privileges that are offered to me because I am a heterosexual. One of these privileges, that also qualifies my family for the privilege of a discount at the YMCA, is marriage. In North Dakota, homosexuals are not afforded the privilege of marriage.

The relevant section of the ND Century Code Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 1 states “What constitutes marriage - Spouse defined. Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between one man and one woman to which the consent of the parties is essential.” One man, one woman. This same ND Century Code, until 1955, banned marriage between a white person and a Negro person. (14-03-04, 14-03-05, 14-03-26, 14-03-27) What would this board’s response have been to an inter-racial heterosexual couple before these misguided statutes were repealed?

Many people quote this book right here as justification for discrimination against homosexuals. Despite its ageless wisdom, the Christian bible has been used over the centuries to justify slavery, the slaughter of non-believers, and the subjugation of women. I think that the YMCA, being an institution founded on Christian principles, needs to ask itself in this instance, “What would Christ do?” Wouldn’t he advocate loving our neighbor, who in his most famous parable he defined as our enemy?

On the YMCA World website, John Casey, Secretary General of the YMCA in 1998, talks about how Christ was a revolutionary figure who challenged the status quo and challenged the injustices of the world he knew. He never used either his authority or his power to hurt, abuse or control others, he was the ultimate Christian Principle Centered leader.

Many churches in our community, including Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, right across the street, are considering adopting a welcoming statement which specifically lists sexual orientation in its inclusive language. Some churches in Bismarck have already done so. I’m proud that my church, the Unitarian Universalist Church of Bismarck and Mandan, is one of them.

The American Psychiatric Association dropped homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses in 1973. The research was in, there was no reason for it to be treated as a mental illness. The majority of homosexuals were living productive lives and were not a threat to anyone. Yet, here we are today treating the homosexual population as something less than everyone else. Why? Because of their relationships? How two consenting adults engage in their relationship is no ones’ business but their own

This YMCA’s current position on “family” is a position of discrimination, pure and simple. Being homosexual is NOT a choice. Even Ann Landers affirmed this in Tuesday’s Bismarck Tribune.

Some people in our community have portrayed this issue as an attack on marriage and the family. Not true! What we must keep in mind here is that there are certain people for which marriage is not presently an option. Homosexual couples are one group, families headed by foster parents, or grandparents don’t meet the present YMCA definition of a family. Consider also a handicapped person living with a sibling and their family.

A recent article in the Tribune talked about a lesbian couple who had approached the Mandan Community Center about their definition of a family. I don’t see how anyone could say to the child of this couple, who have been together for twelve years, “I’m sorry, but the state and I don’t believe that your mom, her partner and you constitute a family.”

My limited, but growing exposure to the homosexual community has resulted in an honest evaluation of myself. I’ve thought about my response to finding out that someone I loved is a homosexual. It could be a daughter, son, niece, nephew, aunt, uncle, a close friend, a close friends child, my grandchild. I can tell you that my response, even five years ago, is not a response of which I would be proud today. There was enough knowledge available even then to make discrimination against the homosexual population indefensible. The majority is not always right and our nation’s Bill of Rights was adopted largely to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority. The tide is turning, more and more YMCA’s across the nation are adopting inclusive policies. Does this YMCA want to be a follower, as the YMCA’s were who waited until the 1960’s to allow mixing of races, or a leader and do what is right by coming up with an inclusive definition of a family?

In closing let me clarify that it is not the discount that is an issue it is your definition of a family. I think that you could come up with an inclusive definition that does not discriminate, and which includes all loving, caring families sharing your principles of strong kids, strong families, and strong communities. My belief in the worth and dignity of every person causes me to stand up here for a minority population, on an issue that does not personally effect me now, but someday may, come slander or criticism. I will stand up for what is right, even if I’m standing alone. Hopefully there is at least one member of this board who sees the injustice institutionalized in the YMCA policy. I encourage you to keep in mind the YMCA mission of putting Christian principles into practice through programs that build healthy spirit, mind and body for all, not just those that fit a narrow definition of the norm.

Thank you for your time. ============================ Barb Lennington (701) 223-3899 blenning1@bis.midco.net

Free advice for the Pope

Submitted by Jeff Evenson

John Wittmayer
Associate Professor of Communication
Chairman, Division of Communication and Fine Arts
University of Guam, Mangilao, Guam 96923
Phone: (671) 735-2702 FAX: (671) 734-3575
email: jwittmay@uog9.uog.edu

A certain amount of arrogance is needed to be a columnist. In past articles, I have offered free advice to the Government of Guam, the President of the United States, the U.S. Congress, the United Nations, and to humankind in general. So it should not come as a shock that I have chosen, this week, to offer a few helpful suggestions to Pope John Paul II.

I chose to direct my counsel to the Pontiff because he is the probably the most well-known of international religious leaders, and this pope has taken initiatives to promote harmony among the many world religions and sects.

The pontiff has also taken an active role in confessing past wrongs of the Church. He recently issued an apology to China for mistakes made during the colonial period. During the millennium ceremonies, he acknowledged many other past sins of Christianity.

The Church recently even admitted it was wrong to try Galileo for heresy. O.K., the acknowledgment does come a few centuries after his death, but I still give the Catholic Church credit for trying to come to terms with its dark history. Do you see any other religions publicly confessing their sins?

So it seems that, in this time of holy wars and wars on terrorism, the pope would be just the person to call a conference of the leaders of all world religions (including Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus) to endorse a doctrine of universal religious principles.

I am not sure if the Pope has apologized for the Crusades, but if he hasn't, this would be the time, and if he has, this is the time to reiterate it. The conference would be somewhat like a big AA meeting. The Pope could get things rolling by acknowledging that the crusades against the Muslims were wrong and call on the other leaders to admit the violent transgressions of their religions. This discussion could lead to the adoption of a doctrine similar to the following:

The Deity supports human acts of love and denounces acts of hate. Violence can only be justified in defending one's self, one's family, or one's nation against direct attack. Offensive violence is offensive to the Deity. War is contrary to the teachings of all great spiritual leaders such as Jesus, Mohammed, Krishna and Buddha.

Religious wars are profanely wrong. There is no Holy War! To declare holy war is blasphemous to Allah, God, Jehovah, Yahweh, and all other manifestations of the Divine. Whoever declares war in the name of the Deity shall be denounced by all the religions of the world.

Do not ask the Deity to bless violent acts. Do not ask God to bless America or any other nation or group, for such a blessing implies less favorable treatment of others. The blessing of the Lord should be directed to all nations, for all are God's children. The Deity has no chosen people nor any forsaken souls. Do not send your missionaries to convert others to your view of truth. Listen to all and learn.

The Jihad of Osama bin Laden is wrong. Using airplanes as weapons is wrong. Using diseases as weapons is wrong. Dropping bombs on innocent people is wrong. The Crusades were wrong. The Inquisition was wrong. The forced conversions to Islam and Christianity were wrong. (The list can go on and on). All violent acts in the name of religion have been wrong.

We, as representatives of the modern world's religions, acknowledge the mistakes of the past and ask forgiveness from each other and from the Deity. Let us go and sin no more.

"Do not ask God to bless America or any other nation or group, for such a blessing implies less favorable treatment of others. . The Deity has no chosen people nor any forsaken souls."

Politically Correct Christmas

Submitted by Ann Knudson

On the 12th day of the Eurocentrically imposed midwinter festival, my Significant Other in a consenting adult, monogamous relationship gave to me:

TWELVE males reclaiming their inner warrior through ritual drumming,

ELEVEN pipers piping (plus the 18-member pit orchestra made up of members in good standing of the Musicians Equity Union as called for in their union contract even though they will not be asked to play a note),

TEN melanin deprived testosterone-poisoned scions of the patriarchal ruling class system leaping,

NINE persons engaged in rhythmic self-expression,

EIGHT economically disadvantaged female persons stealing milk-products from enslaved Bovine-Americans,

SEVEN endangered swans swimming on federally protected wetlands,

SIX enslaved Fowl-Americans producing stolen non-human animal products,

FIVE golden symbols of culturally sanctioned enforced domestic incarceration,

(NOTE: after members of the Animal Liberation Front threatened to throw red paint at my computer, the calling birds, French hens and partridge have been reintroduced to their native habitat. To avoid further Animal-American enslavement, the remaining gift package has been revised.) FOUR hours of recorded whale songs,

THREE deconstructionist poets,

TWO Sierra Club calendars printed on recycled processed tree carcasses, and...

ONE Spotted Owl activist chained to an old-growth pear tree.

Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah, Good Kwanzaa, Blessed Yule, Joyous Winter Solstice, Happy Holidays! (unless otherwise prohibited by law)*

*Unless, of course, you are suffering from Seasonally Affected Disorder (SAD). If this be the case, please substitute for this gratuitous call for celebration the suggestion that you have a thoroughly adequate day.

In Patriotic Time, Dissent is Muted...

Submitted by Char McLaughlin

Peace Lab

NY Times September 28, 2001

SPEECH AND EXPRESSION
In Patriotic Time, Dissent Is Muted
By BILL CARTER and FELICITY BARRINGER

The surge of national pride that has swept the country after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 has sparked the beginnings of a new, more difficult debate over the balance among national security, free speech and patriotism.

In the most highly publicized case, a nationally televised talk show host was shunned by many of his advertisers and criticized by the White House spokesman for making what some considered an unpatriotic remark about American soldiers.

But the debate over whether it is proper to speak in ways that seem to contradict the popular theme of national unity has been played out on smaller stages as well.

A college professor in the Southwest has been threatened with disciplinary action for comments he made about the World Trade Center disaster, and at least two small-town journalists have lost their jobs after criticizing the president.

A program of the works of a German composer was canceled by a New York music program after he made comments that suggested the destruction of the World Trade Center might be considered "the greatest work of art imaginable for the whole cosmos."

Floyd Abrams, a first amendment specialist with the Manhattan law firm of Cahill Gordon & Reindel, said the United States often debates issues like patriotism and free speech in times of crisis.

"Hard times for the first amendment tend to come at very hard times for the country," Mr. Abrams said. "When we feel threatened, when we feel at peril, the First Amendment or First Amendment values are sometimes subordinated to other interests."

One of the most visible examples of this burgeoning debate involved a scuffle between the White House and Bill Maher, host of the late-night talk show "Politically Incorrect." Last week, Mr. Maher said that the hijackers were not cowards but that it was cowardly for the United States to launch cruise missiles on targets thousands of miles away.

Some of his main advertisers abruptly ended their sponsorship of the program, which is designed to be controversial. He later apologized for the remarks.

On Wednesday, Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary, denounced Mr. Maher, saying of news organizations, and all Americans, that in times like these "people have to watch what they say and watch what they do."

When the White House later released the official transcript of Mr. Fleischer's briefing, the portion of his comments urging people to "watch what they say" was not included. When that sparked yet another round of discussion over Mr. Fleischer's comments, Anne Womack, an assistant to Mr. Fleischer, said yesterday that the transcript did vary from the remarks Mr. Fleischer made. She called it "a transcription error."

Mr. Fleischer had earlier noted the President's criticism of Representative John Cooksey, Republican of Louisiana, for remarks that were considered disparaging to Arabs. Mr. Fleischer said last night that his suggestion that people "watch what they say" referred to both Mr. Maher and Mr. Cooksey.

Karlheinz Stockhausen, the German composer, apologized for the remarks he made in Hamburg following the attacks, saying, "Not for one moment have I thought or felt the way my words are now being interpreted in the press."

The Eastman School of Music's Ossia Ensemble canceled a planned performance of Mr. Stockhausen's work "Stimmung," scheduled for Nov. 7 at the Cooper Union.

Community reaction was swift and furious when the newspaper columnists in Texas City, Tex., and Grants Pass, Ore., criticized the president's actions the day of the attacks.

Tom Gutting, the columnist for The Texas City Sun, wrote that the president was "flying around the country like a scared child, seeking refuge in his mother's bed after having a nightmare."

The paper received scores of letters and phone calls. Les Daughtry Jr., the publisher of The Sun, later apologized on the front page saying, the column had made him sick. "The opinion piece which I refer to was not appropriate to publish during this time our country and our leaders find themselves in." Mr. Gutting lost his job.

The news director of KOMU, a commercial station run by faculty and students at the University of Missouri, ordered that no flags be worn on camera, leading a member of the state legislature to suggest that body look into the school's financing.

In Oregon, Dan Guthrie, 61, said that on Monday he was called into the office of Dennis Mack, publisher of The Daily Courier in Grants Pass, and fired for a column criticizing the president, saying he "skedaddled" after the attacks.

Mr. Mack said in a telephone interview of the offending column, "we felt it turned into a personal attack as opposed to expanding the concept of the president being on the front line."

In a more subtle reaction to a break with the unified front, correspondents for newspapers and television networks said administration officials stopped returning their phone calls for a time after they expressed skepticism about the White House assertion that Air Force One had been threatened by terrorists. That story was challenged in several news accounts this week and the White House abruptly stopped talking about it.

The Bush administration's sensitivity about coverage of the crisis was also on view this week when the State Department spokesman, Richard Boucher, criticized the Voice of America for defying State's wishes and broadcasting a report based on its interview with Mullah Mohammad Omar, the reclusive leader of Afghanistan's ruling Taliban militia.

In a press conference Wednesday, Mr. Boucher said, "I'm not writing their news stories for them. I'm just - I think, considering the fact that U.S. taxpayers pay for this, considering the fact that this is the Voice of America, we don't think that the head of the Taliban belongs on this radio station."

Lucy Dalglish, the executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said: "The fact that the rest of society and the media are being supersensitive right now doesn't bother me too much. I think that's just a human reaction. I've been a lot less sarcastic and flippant in the last two weeks when I talk to anyone. That's probably a unifying thing." Across the country, Americans were torn in their feeling of whether traditional support for freedom of speech should be undercut by the need to support the government in times of national crisis.

"I don't think it's a time for criticism in the way we've criticized Bush or presidents before him," said Jennifer Ricciardi, 28, a worker for a garden service company in Chicago. "If it's constructive criticism, that is what we need. We do need people asking are these the right decisions to make and what are the consequences."

Darin Peters, a 33-year old business analyst for Qwest Communications (news/quote) in Denver said: `If I saw something was messed up, I'd still say something. I fully support the President though."

Mr. Peters, who was wearing a small American flag pin on his lapel while he was waiting for his bus, said he believed people should speak freely. `It's difficult for anyone to have freedom and liberty and be secure at the same time," he said.

Margaret Whiteside, a volunteer for a project called Literary Chicago said: "We've taken the road of over political correctness, and it's because we are a sensitive nation right now. But we've taken it to an extreme. We've ripped on every president before him, and that's changed because of a real sensitivity to what has happened. But I don't think it'll last."

Return to Top

Mailbox Want to Speak Out? Submit an article.