Tuesday, April 11, 2017

White Supremacy in Liberal Religion, particularly Unitarian Universalism

I posted this elsewhere; 

To break down white supremacy in the UU hiring context, it is an unspoken (but indefensible) assumption that because UUism is "predominantly white", UU religious leaders who are white will be more effective leaders, a better fit, more likely to be team players with the rest of the leadership and less likely to run into problems with our mostly white congregants and congregational leaders. 

It is also an assumption that investment in creating congregations of color is very risky and most likely to fail. 

It is also a white supremacist assumption that most people of color are not interested in a religion like ours, therefore UU religious professionals of color are doomed to failure -- unable to minister to people of color outside our congregations and less likely than their white colleagues to minister effectively to the white people in our congregations/communities. 

These assumptions lead inevitably to the unspoken conclusion that when it comes to hiring religious leaders for the UU movement, white is better!

This whole train of assumptions and conclusions are based on the idea that liberal religion and Unitarian Universalism are culturally appropriate to white people, but not so to people of color. It's white supremacy, friends.

Sunday, April 09, 2017

More Interviews with UUA Presidential Candidates

The UUA Presidential Campaign is heating up.

Over the last few weeks, I have interviewed each of the candidates about their thinking about the role of the UUA President in the widespread resistance to the Trump administration. I asked similar questions to all three candidates so you can compare their answers and approaches.

You might especially interested in the last question I asked each candidate about where their motivation to struggle for social justice comes from in the personal history. Each answered in a different way.

Here are the interviews:

Jeanne Pupke:

Alison Miller

Susan Frederick-Gray 

Note: I started this interview process before the announcement of the decision to hire Andy Burnette as the Lead of the Southern Region. In order to keep the interviews on the same topics, I did not ask about that decision and all that has followed in its wake. I am sure that the candidates views on the whole question of the white supremacy active in the UUA's hiring practices will be checked out during the campaign.

Sunday, April 02, 2017

Sin, Shame, and Compensatory Goodness

Like so many, I am struggling with the news of Ron Robinson's arrest for possession of child pornography. He has been a friend of mine since I was in seminary. I suggest you read Tony Lorenzen's account of his influence on a group of us. I considered him a modern hero of Unitarian Universalism, someone whose vision of ministry was a prophetic challenge to the rest of us. If you are not familiar with Ron's ministry, read this 2010 article in the UUWorld.

I do not know what happened in Ron's life to give rise to such unhealthy and dangerous desires. We don't even know how much his desires were acted upon. But there it still is, the presence of such an orientation to abusive desire, an orientation toward sin, in one I thought an exemplary human being.

We are told that such an orientation toward abuse, such sin, does not spontaneously arise, but often has roots in the person's experience. The abuser was once the abused.

But none of us now know that about Ron Robinson.

What we see is two things in contradiction. One is this sin, which has now been revealed. The other is what we have seen all along: an extraordinary ministry of service and generosity.

What is the relationship between the two?

One possibility is that a malignant sociopath created a whole facade of faithful, loving service as a elaborate ruse, to hide behind, while he sought to gratify his abusive desires.  A demon in disguise. But I have to say in my 25 years of interacting with Ron, I never saw something that seemed insincere, self-serving, manipulative, or otherwise bullshit.

Another possibility is that his secret orientation toward abusive desire was a source of shame, and out of that shame, a whole counter-life was lived, to compensate for the shame, to prove to himself that he still had worth.  A self-destructive "sainthood," because its purpose was really to destroy a part of the self that is a source of shame.

The second possibility seems kinder, but is terrifying upon reflection. It means that we ought to suspect the hidden motivations of those who seem the most heroic, and the more heroic, or self-denying, the more we should be suspicious. There are people who are too good to be true. In retrospect, should I not have seen that in Ron?

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Simple Messaging for Trump Supporters

Forget converting them !

The goal is to neutralize them by diminishing their enthusiasm.

Many people liked Trump because he was (1) wealthy (2) a success at business and therefore (3) beyond corruption because of his wealth and thus (4) free to speak the truth as he saw it.

But none of those are actually true:

He is not as wealthy as he claimed, but deep in debt, much of it to foreign banks and shadowy Russian businesses.

His reputation as business leader depends on overspending on his projects and then going into bankruptcy. Businesses can advantageously go bankrupt. The US government cannot. His particular business skills are irrelevant to the job of being President.

His debt and obvious cash flow problems are forcing him into corruption. He is selling the Presidency for quick profits. A truly wealthy person would divest and liquidate his holdings, content to live the rest of their life on the profits accumulated over the years. But Trump's refusal to divest means that he needs to continue to make money through his businesses. He is probably too indebted to liquidate. If he sold everything, he wouldn't make enough money to pay his debts.

And yes, he speaks whatever is on his mind. Unfortunately, it is the incoherent bluster of a profoundly uninformed person.

There was a certain logic for voting for Trump. But you have to see that the logic for Trump has turned out to not make sense.

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

10 Actions for Avoiding Protest Burn-Out

Article by Cynthia L. Landrum
With all the Executive Orders fling fast and furious, there's a lot for progressives to respond to right
now, and one of the things I've been worried about is protest burn-out. After having a webpage with an article on protest burn-out crash on me ten times as I tried to load it yesterday, I decided to write my own. So here's some things you can do.

1. Know your energy style. 
 Are you an extrovert or an introvert? Do large crowded protests energize you or deplete you? Do you like sitting down and composing letters to representatives and the press, or do you dread them?  There is a lot of work to be done, and we need people doing a wide variety of things.  So focus on the kind of activities that energize you, and don't beat yourself up for not doing everything.

2. Follow your expertise.
Do you have a lot of experience in an area that might be helpful?  How can you use that strength?  One great example is how lawyers responded to the immigration issue this week by going down to the airports themselves and helping people with legal aid on the spot.  Are you a teacher?  Maybe you can help with a teach-in.  Are you a veteran?  Share what you know about how this is not in America's security interests.  Are you a writer?  Write!  If, like me, you're a great generalist, do a little of this and a little of that.  There's lots of space for you in this movement, because we need people to be flexible and responsive, and a wide variety of skills are needed.  There have been a lot of times campaigns, for example, have asked me to go door-to-door.  I refuse.  That's not my strength.  But if you want someone to spend an hour spreading your message on social media, I'm your gal.

3.  Find friends to do this with you.
Make a plan with a couple of friends who share your passion to engage in this together.  You'll keep each other going and keep each other strong this way.  Protests are easier and more fun if you've got friends to make signs with, share the drive with, and debrief with afterwards.  Don't have good friends you can ask?  Ask for some to partner with you in a Facebook group for local progressives, or in your place of worship.

4.  Similarly, connect to community.
Engaging in social justice can be draining, and having a community of support with you can help.  So find a spiritual community, and join in the local progressives.  In the last week, I've found two local progressive groups on Facebook that I had no idea existed.  In one case, that's because it didn't, and it's new.  Joining them connects me to other people in my community with my values, and then when I go to events, I connect with the people there that I've been talking with online, so it gives a touchstone at the events, as well.

5.  Set your limits for larger actions and smaller actions.
Are you going to get burned out if you protest every weekend?  Know your limits, because there will hopefully be ongoing protests for quite some time.  So if you engage once a month and that will be energizing for you and not burn you out, set that limit -- and keep to it.  It's better to miss the next important big thing but have energy to sustain this.  Similarly, even smaller actions can burn you out, because there are endless ones you can take.  So set yourself a daily or weekly time limit for how much you're going to do.

6.  Know your social media limits.
If you have Facebook friends like mine, all you have to do is open it and you'll be inundated with all the fear, despair, and bad news of the world.  So know how much of that you can take before it depletes you.  Then disconnect from it and do something energizing or community-building or just plain fun.

7.  Find the places where victory is possible.
We need to engage in long-term resistance and protest even when victory isn't in sight, but we also need to have periodic wins.  So make a point of prioritizing some places where victory is possible.  And that brings me to the next point...

8.  Don't forget the local.
With all the action going on at the national level right now, it's easy to forget about local issues.  But local issues are where we can sometimes make a big impact, and it's important to have periodic victories as we engage in this work over the long haul.  We can resist at a local level, too.  Encourage and support your local government in standing up to oppression.

9.  Cut back when necessary.
If you find yourself burning out, don't be afraid to pull back.  Yes, we need large numbers of people to resist and to protest.  But I can count one friend who didn't march on the day of the women's march for every friend who did, and it was still the largest protest in history.  And those friends who didn't march are hopefully energized by what they did instead and by seeing the wonderful photographs of their friends, and ready and excited to engage in the next thing.  So allow yourself to cut back when you have to -- without apology.

10.  Engage in a spiritual practice.
Practice something that keeps you calm and focused, and do it daily and/or engage in it before and after significant social justice work.

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

The Nation versus the State

The current American State was created by the Constitution, a document written in 1787 and adopted by the thirteen states in 1789. By that act, the first post-revolutionary state, the government created by the Articles of Confederation was overthrown. The Constitution established the second post-revolutionary state. You could call the second American Republic.

The authors of the Constitution conceived of the American nation as an ordered society in which white men of property were supreme, and others were subordinate to them, not because the government said so, but because it was the natural order of things. White supremacy was reality, according to them.

Their view was that the nation (the people as a whole) was naturally dominated by white men of property and so the state that they created to govern that white supremacist nation was structured to preserve white rule. The new government was studded with anti-democratic barriers to thwart reform from below. The founders created the strongest central government they could that still lacked the power to interfere with the practice of slavery.

So, White Nationalism is not a strange new ideology. White Nationalism is the founding ideology of these United States. The present government of the United States, the one created by the Constitution of 1789, is a White Nationalist State. We see this today in belief that white Americans are the "real Americans," or that August Wilson is a great black playwright, while Arthur Miller is a great American playwright.

Today, we consider that the American Nation, (the people, the society as a whole) is a multi-cultural nation. We are a multi-cultural people, with all the unity and disunity which naturally flows from that fact. But the structure of the American state is, from its beginning, white nationalist, which makes it a barrier to justice for the multicultural American nation.

The structure of the state, the government, is at odds with the nation, or the people and society.

The question now is whether the present US State, as structured by the US Constitution, can deliver democratic justice, especially to People of Color, and even more particularly, Black People, anytime in the foreseeable future.

If you think that the answer is "yes," then your strategy has to be gain enough political power in the system as it now stands to deliver the reforms needed for justice. How's that being working out?

If you think that the answer is "no," then your strategy has to be to work for structural changes in the government, either through a series of amendments to the present Constitution, or the replacement of the present Constitution by a new one.  But, the prospects of amending the Constitution to create a democratic and just state is that the anti-democratic features of the Constitution are designed to prevent that kind of change.

The alternative is to propose a new Constitution.

I think that it is time for a group of prominent and respected people who represent the full range of the American people be gathered to propose a new, or radically revised, Constitution, one that dismantles the anti-democratic structures of the present one, and yet still protects the civil rights of those with minority opinions.


  • The qualifications to vote and the administration of elections should be standardized across all states: universal, automatic registration, national standards on voting periods and administration etc. 
  • Local policing should be directly accountable to the Federal government with a nation-wide system for civilian review of police conduct. 
  • A nation wide system of equitable public school-funding.
  • The abolition of the Electoral College
  • Positive guarantees of rights to health care, education, housing, food, etc. 
How would democratic self-government in the United States be structured? How could a government be created that would have the power to reverse and repair the injustice and exploitations of centuries of white supremacy? How would get from here to there?

A new people's Constitution written by an all-peoples' Constitutional Convention could establish a goal, a positive vision of our hopes.  

With the election of Trump, people are talking the possible end of the American Republic. But we don't want to just preserve the American Republic. The pre-Trump status quo is not our goal; it was unacceptable, then and now. 

Monday, January 16, 2017

The Illegitimacy of Donald Trump

Four reasons why Trump is an illegitimate President, in order of importance:

1. He lost the popular vote. The Electoral college is a anti-democratic vestige of the Constitution which violates the principle of the equal protection of the laws.

2. The widespread practice of voter suppression in key states which provided the margin Trump needed in the EC.

3. The participation of the government's internal security forces (the FBI) in an effort to swing the election, by selectively releasing and withholding information about its investigations.

4. Colluding with a foreign government's illegal collection of non-public information and receiving and using that information in its campaign communication.

Again, illegitimate is not illegal. Trump himself has trafficked in the accusation of illegitimacy. The most obvious is his birtherism about President Obama. Another was his repeated statement that Hillary Clinton should not have "been allowed" to run for President.

John Lewis is right.

If #Trump is illegitimate President, as per @repjohnlewis, then elevating Mike Pence isn't the solution.

The illegitimacy of Trump extends to the whole ticket, because the whole administration was elected together. The election of the President/VP together on a Party Ticket (recognized in the 12th amendment) effectively limits the impeachment of a President to cases of individual misconduct. There is no constitutional means for holding a political party accountable for cheating in an election. Yet that is the situation we are in.

What can we do?

I think that it is important to resist any attempt to assign meaning to the idea that "Trump won". Like when people say that Trump won because "the people" don't like Hollywood celebrities, but he didn't win. Like when people say that Trump won because people don't care about his tax returns -- but he didn't win! He didn't win because people don't like political correctness, because he didn't win! The only reason why he is being inaugurated is because our constitution is anti-democratic.

Analysis of why Trump won has to be limited to why Trump carried particular states, but not implying that Trump won because of broad national, cultural trends, because he didn't win. 

Accepting that "Trump won" is the gaslighting of America, trying to manipulate us to think that something happened that did not happen. And the "Trump won" gaslighting is based on the foundational gaslighting of the country: that white people know what is real, and others do not.

Is there a constitutional means to change the party holding the White House, especially when the party of the President controls the House and Senate?

In today's circumstances, it would require: 

1. The election of a new Speaker of the House, either a Democrat, or a respected centrist, by a coalition of Democrats and dissident Republicans.
2. The simultaneous impeachment of the President and Vice President.