Holey, holey, holey

That's part of the title of an article by Michael Schulson posted on Religion Dispatches.  The other part is:  "The Problem with a New Study Valuing Religion at $1.2 Trillion Per Year."  Schulson is referring to an article by Brian J. and Melissa E. Grim, entitled "The Socio-economic Contribution of Religion to American Society: An Empirical Analysis," published in Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion.  The Grims' article has made quite the media splash without a great deal of push back on its methodology, its purpose, or its conclusions.  Schulson undertakes some push back on all counts.

The abstract of the Grims' article includes some striking notions:

". . . the first documented quantitative national estimates of the economic value of religion to U.S. society. . . . the revenues of faith-based organizations, is $378 billion annually – or more than a third of a trillion dollars. . . . undervaluation because it focuses on annual revenues . . . Our second mid-range estimate [provides] an estimate of the fair market value of goods and services provided by religious organizations, and [includes] the contribution of businesses with religious roots. This mid-range estimate puts the value of religion to U.S. society at over $1 trillion annually. . . . Finally, we discuss the limitations of this study and suggest several possible lines of research that could build upon and extend this research." [Emphasis added.]

I have chopped away at the abstract for space, but it provides a clear enough window into the Grims' study for our purposes here--to look at and expand on Schulson's analysis.

Here are some thoughts on Schulson's thoughts:

• Word.  Data have been selected.  The methodology may be a step above WAG (wild-ass guess), but it is at least biased.  As Schulson points out, the choice of "businesses with religious roots" seems somewhat capricious. He does not press, however, the emphasis on Abrahamic religions and failure to recognize offshoots of Eastern religions, such as the booming businesses based in yoga.  Perhaps the Grims are guilty of the same myopia that allows the cultural appropriation of yoga for secular fitness programs in disregard of its religious and philosophical origins.  Perhaps some of the choices are related to a bigger agenda which discounts religions with a smaller presence in the US.
• If the purpose of the article is to show the economic value of religion in the American economy, it fails, as Schulson rightfully points out, to balance the monetary contributions with the social and economic consequences of the businesses and religious organizations that should be subtracted from that awesome total before one can say one has truly found the bottom line. Schulson singles out Walmart*, the largest of the "businesses with religious roots" and a behemoth in the American economy.  He points out that Walmart, for all its gross sales, costs the American public in funds spent to subsidize the health and welfare of Walmart employees--enough to whittle down their "contribution" to the economy quite substantially.  Schulson, perhaps for lack of space, fails, however, to point out that Walmart also costs communities where it out-competes the smaller mom and pop businesses that had long anchored the centers of small towns all over the country.  What cost to local economies in jobs and taxes?  What cost to local communities in, well, community?
• Why do this study?  Schulson follows up on some questions regarding purpose, the answers to which largely seem to be on the order of:  Gee, we make a valuable contribution to the American economy!  I think there may be more to the study than simply serving up another version of Little Jack Horner.  When I first encountered reports of the Grim study I felt there was something more ominous, something more in the line of threat implied in the research.  Perhaps it was the copy editor's headline, which I have now lost track of, that gave that sense of oppression, but my first reaction was that this whole study was intended to communicate intimidation.  The implied message--enhanced by the exaggerated "value" that came from adding in "businesses with religious roots"--seemed to me to be that religion, particularly America's favored versions of religion, were so essential to the economy, being practically its very backbone, that any falling away from religious belief (and action) would bring economic disaster for all of us.  It is as if the author's were saying:  "See?  Religion runs this country."

Perhaps I am making too much of this study.  Or, perhaps the Grims do have a devious motive in creating such a grossly inflated statement of the economic relevance of religion-related expenditures.  As it is, I think we would all do well to look for some perspective on how religion should be considered in the context of American society.  Shrilly asserting dominance isn't what I would consider a useful perspective.  Unless, of course, we flip it and argue that everything that is not included in the Grims' study as part of religion's economic contribution to the American economy must therefore be secular and not religious.  $1.16 billion vs $17.9 billion (estimates, of course) is big, but not dominant.  Just saying.

---------------

*  Yes, I am still a Walmart shopper, as I have explained before (see also Comments).

If I had a hammer

I attended the American Ethical Union's Lay Leadership Summer School in North Carolina this past August. It was a "mountaintop" experience on several levels, not least because we were in the beautiful Blue Ridge Mountains, staying at a resort and learning center called The Mountain.  A part of the training that I and 19 other ethical humanists from across the country undertook included breaking out into teams to create "End of Day Ceremonies," part talent show, part creative rethinking of how we celebrate and mark transitions in our local societies.

My team included six people from congregations of differing sizes and disparate communities.  What we had in common, however, was music.  Not everyone saw themselves as "a singer," but everyone was game to try.  Not only were they willing to sing in public, they were willing to rewrite the lyrics of favorite songs to communicate ethical culture.  We presented our "ceremony" as a cabaret with much participation from the audience--singing along, dancing, general hooting and hollering.  It was, we thought, replicable for other societies:

• select an occasion
• set the (desired) scene
• gather a few volunteers to start a song
• project the new lyrics on a screen so the audience can sing along
• enjoy

This is not the kind of performance that needs to be perfect or fancy or even all that good.  Exuberance can make up for a few flatted notes--assuming the audience ever sings softly enough for anyone to notice.  It was all about fun and the "joy of ethical."  We even called our cabaret "Felix's Joy Joint" and required a "secret password" to get in.  The password:  "Don't postpone joy!"

My own performance took a slightly different tack.  (Surprise, surprise!)  I knew what I wanted to sing.  Was thrilled that I would get to sing.  Loved every minute of it.  And what I sang was "If I Had a Hammer," pretty much in the style of Peter, Paul and Mary.

Why this old song?  Why not change the words to "be more ethical"?  Because of this:



Part of our "performance" was to tell our story.  How did we come to ethical culture, what does ethical culture mean to us, what about ethical culture keeps us coming back for more?  Each of us had different stories to tell.  My story, for that day, came from the deep distress that is calling me to action, ethical action, to make our world better, more humane, safer for human beings.

In 1970, the images in the video above were splashed across America.  Armed soldiers shot down American college students who were protesting the War in Vietnam.  They shot down protesters as well as random bystanders, including one fellow in a phone booth who was calling his mom to tell her that, no, he was not part of that protest and not to worry.  I, too, was on a college campus in 1970.  Not protesting.  Not too knowledgeable about much outside of my chosen field of study and the work that I needed to be doing to get my next degree.

Then I heard the news:  "They're killing college students."  I saw the images.  I realized that things were happening that could cost me my life, so I had better figure out what they were pretty damned quick.  So I joined the march.  And I manned the barricades with my sign.  And I helped keep the campus radio station going with my editorial skills.  And . . . I was changed.  (This is how you radicalize people, by the way.)

Years of various levels of activism and political involvement later, I was again asleep to the world around me.  My life was consumed with personal grief and recovery.  I could not watch or read the news--my own pain was too much for that.  I did, however, eventually find that famous Road to Recovery and read the news now and then.  I was, however, clueless on the morning of June 12.  June was Gay Pride Month.  I wore my Freedom Rings to our Sunday Meeting at Ethical Culture of Austin and made some bland announcement about "awareness" and "being a good ally."  It was only on the way home that I happened to turn on the radio.

Forty-nine dead.   And I was awakened.

What my waking eyes saw were things that had certainly been going on a long time--often out of my line of sight even before I lost family members and began the never-ending process of grieving.  LGBTQ.  Latinx.  Police violence.  Religious radicalism--of all sorts.  Hate and oppression and discrimination and dirty tricks and . . . it just doesn't end, does it?  But now I see it, as if anew, and am determined to try to make a difference.

So, in those beautiful mountains and that ramshackle "resort," in humidity that exceeds what Houston can do, in a welcoming room of ethical humanists, I told my story of two awakenings and how I felt that ethical humanists, joined in ethical action, could make a difference.  And I sang.  And we sang.



For me, this was a mountaintop experience because I got to sing out loud what I had been humming and softly singing to myself for weeks.  It was a mountaintop as well because I was heard--not merely as a chance to sing, which meant a lot to me--but as a voice, calling out those words:  Danger, Warning, Love.  And it was a mountaintop because I know that others share that sense of danger, are calling out warnings, and exclaiming that Justice, Freedom, and Love for each other are essential to our survival as a nation.

Seeing injustice is an ethical obligation

As ethical humanists, we talk about injustice and its many faces and the choices we have to correct it.  As humans, we bog down on priorities and strategies and "getting it."

In the past weeks, I have been much involved in these discussions--observing, listening, talking, and writing.  My correspondence has grown substantially, and now it is time to come back home to the Hoedown to work it out in my own mind, at my keyboard.  The weeks have been full.  St. Louis for the 101st AEU Assembly. The Mountain near Highlands, NC, for the AEU's 2016 Lay Leadership School. Family.  Adventures in travel.  Making connections with other ethical societies and with the roots of the movement.  Throughout all this busy-ness have run the threads of social justice--specifically racial justice, criminal justice, and the occasional stray mention of feminism/womanism.

Where do we start to act?  Why, indeed, must we act at all, especially when our own lives are not affected by these conflicts but rather by others, perhaps based on economics or age or some other damned thing?   Here's a thought:

As ethical humanists, we commit to making the world a better place so that in and by that process we make ourselves better humans.  We are, then, obliged to look at the world around us--our home, our neighborhood, our community, our country, our world--with eyes that appreciate what is good and just but also identify what is corrupt and unjust. 

The first step in fighting injustice, I would say, is first to see it.

We often wear blinders in our daily lives, protecting ourselves from pain, getting in ruts with our comfortable routines, not seeing the suffering of others unless we are slapped with one of those late night commercials about hunger or animal abuse.  I change the channel, so much do I resist feeling that pain. But there is injustice all around us, begging to be seen. 

• Why does my neighbor keep having broken bones, falls, bruises, depression? 
• What does this article I am reading about black people being shot by police mean for my community?  Does it happen here?  
• If water scarcity and drought is a root cause of the violence in Syria, can such a thing happen here?  
• I am doing a good thing by serving meals at the homeless shelter, but why are these people homeless?

Simply being aware of the signals that something might be wrong can be a start.  If we cannot see injustice, then we can do nothing to overcome it. Seeing the signals and recognizing them as signals, we can then begin learn more about it and the problems that are being signaled.

"Black Lives Matter"--tee shirt, button, statement--is a signal that something is wrong--not only in the black community but in the white community that surrounds it.  When someone cannot understand that signal, cannot see that it is communicating something important, that too is a signal of something wrong.  It becomes a problem ignored, a wrong unrighted.  Worse, it becomes a problem prolonged and increased.  

How do we see?

Well, we look.  We scan our environment for threats--this isn't safe, that could be hurtful.  We look for anomalies--something is out of place, not right. We look for balance--the fairness that may be the most fundamental of all human values. Maybe we should expand our search beyond ourselves and our families to others in our community/world, even including strangers in our protective vision?

We interpret what we see.  That's the part about "getting it."  We tend to interpret the signals around us in personal terms.  Personal would include ourselves, our family, our friends--and moving out beyond the circle of known persons to larger entities, still "circles" to which we "belong."  We use familiar words and concepts and experiences and knowledge to interpret the signals we get so that we can read them in terms that we understand.  Not everyone uses those words or shares those experiences.  Seeing injustice will sometimes include a new perspective on what we are looking at.  That new perspective may include active study of an issue to learn more or something as simple as listening so that we can see things better.

Here's a fairly mundane example.  It's about wallpaper, but "wallpaper" eventually became a code word with my late husband that stopped a budding conflict because one of us remembered what happened when we shopped for wallpaper for the bathroom.  Well, it was a matter of taste.  I wanted the foil with butterflies (this was in the 80's!) and he wanted the stripes.  Things got tense.  We were starting to get a little more heated and a little louder and realized that our "discussion" not going well in the wallpaper/paint store.  We decided to take it over to the McDonald's across the street and try to work it out with some ice cream. And so we did, finally reaching the dumbfounding realization that he was talking about the master bath and I was talking about the guest bathroom.   We were arguing over nothing, since I was fine with stripes in the master, and he was fine with butterflies for the guests. From then on, for more than thirty years, one of us could say "wallpaper," and the other would stop to make sure that we were actually talking about the same subject. 

The point of the wallpaper story is that interpretation of data, including signals about injustice, can depend upon point of view.  "Getting it" always includes knowing the point of view from which you are "seeing."  It usually includes recognizing that more than one point of view is looking at the problem.  It should include sharing points of view until everyone can really see the same thing.

Seeing injustice, I have said, is an ethical obligation.  I also think that it is an ethical action.

What are you seeing?

Labor Day is a day for ethical actions

Labor Day is that awkward holiday that ends summer and begins a season of month after month of national holidays.  It is also a day of significance for workers in the US:

Labor Day, the first Monday in September, is a creation of the labor movement and is dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers. It constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of our country. (US Department of Labor)

As a national holiday, it was established by Congress in 1894, after the majority of states had already established holidays in honor of Labor.  In the anti-union (in, oh, so many ways) South, it is a good time for shopping the sales and alcohol-related highway deaths.

I've been thinking about labor and wages and such since coming back from the AEU's 101st Assembly in St. Louis.  While the Assembly program was focused on the theme of "Bending the Arc of History Toward Justice," there were resolutions on other matters that also got some attention in small briefing sessions and in the business meeting.  One was the Living Wage resolution.  It's worth a read.  And it's worth knowing that an earlier draft of the resolution focused on raising the minimum wage to $15.  After some discussion, the makers agreed to change the resolution to support a living wage--the amount of money that a person must earn to support their family if they are the sole provider.

Here is the current living wage estimate for Travis County.  Less than $15 for a single adult, but considerably more for adult + child, a family situation for many in Travis County.  Indeed, thirty-three per cent of children in Travis County live in single parent households.

Living Wage Calculation for Travis County, Texas

Hourly Wages	1 Adult	1 Adult 1 Child
Living Wage	$10.72	$22.64
Poverty Wage	$5.00	$7.00
Minimum Wage	$7.25	$7.25

10 more columns

Living Wage Calculation for Travis County, Texas

livingwage.mit.edu/counties/48453

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

A living wage is not all that matters to the workers in our community. Workplace safety.  Fair treatment.  Transportation.  Working hours/days.  I'm sure there's more.  We have a holiday right now, and I'm all for that, but I think there is more that needs to be done to see that workers at the lower end of the pay scale get a fair deal.  Still what can I do that would make any difference?

One thing I see a lot of is outright abuse of people working--for little money--in a service capacity.  Waitstaff.  Sales clerks/cashiers.  Others who help take care of our needs in public and in private.  The abuse comes when we think we have been ill-served.  Something is not perfect.  Service is too slow.   Whatever it is that triggers our (false) conviction that we have somehow been disrespected, mistreated, or otherwise taken down from our (assumed) royal throne.  I could just say, "Get over yourself," but as an ethical humanist I want to point out that we are bound to respect the inherent worth in all human beings. A mistake in service is just that--a mistake--not a catastrophic assault on our personal worth. Courteous, non-confrontational language ("Please take this bag as well," "I'd like more ice in tea, please" "I think there's an error in this receipt") can keep things flowing smoothly and acknowledge the worth of the person as well as the service. Instead of abusing those who help us, we reduce at least one source of stress in their workplace and respect their humanity.

I have also seen--just about all of my life--the chinchy, cheap tactic of under-tipping.  We can argue that the "owners" of whatever service is being provided should pay better wages.  I'm not sure how that would work out with portage services in transportation centers, but I know it would raise the price of meals in most restaurants.  Lower prices come from low wages.  We eat fine meals while the servers can't even afford a place to live.  We work in offices cleaned by people who are homeless.  Am I kidding?  Austin Resource Center for the Homeless provides day and overnight beds for workers in our downtown businesses.  They are simply not paid enough to live close enough to their jobs to be able to work there.  (I mentioned transportation, didn't I?)  Look at the etiquette of tipping and then consider how tips are considered, in reality, not merely an indication of quality of service but as a necessary part of the worker's pay--in lieu of actual wages.  Got poor service?  Say so--nicely.  Ask for any corrections you think necessary, including sharing with management that some additional training is needed.  Don't stiff the worker when circumstances are beyond his/her control.  Remember that the time given to your care is a part of their workday for which they need to be paid.  Then think about your part of their living wage.

What I'm writing about is not a big deal.  This is really a very small part of our labor force and a small part of their lives.  We can advocate for better policies that give workers--all of us--better lives, better conditions, better incomes.  Nothing here argues against that--and much more can be argued in favor of it--but small things have big consequences.  A little courtesy can go a long way toward encouraging someone who is working in difficult circumstances.  A proper tip can help make a struggling family a little more secure.  You will be making a small effort, but you will still be engaging in ethical action.  Try it. You'll like it.  (And share this with your sister-in-law.)

Civil Disobedience and Social Change

BreakFree2016 is a global movement to keep fossil fuels in the ground.  The group organized protest actions worldwide in May.  Five of these actions were planned for the US.  Over a two week period there were 30 "escalated" actions, involving 30,000 people on 6 continents.

While I had already posted the Disobedience video on the Ethical Society of Austin website so that members could participate in these actions as a digital witness, we watched it together during our Sunday meeting on July 3.  A day before the nation would be celebrating its 240th year of independence, we had an opportunity to revisit social movements of the past through this movie.  We were well aware of July 4 and its meaning.  Indeed we decorated a little with flags and some star-spangled centerpieces for our tables.  But, when we joined hands and sang "We Shall Overcome" with Pete Seeger, we were all in the mode of thinking about how far we had come in 240 years.

Not far enough.

The video provoked discussion of its focus--fossil fuels and the need to keep them in the ground--but also the broader issue of how to bring about social change on the many issues that confront us as a nation, indeed as a planet.  Some took the view that protests of the sort planned by Break Free were not effective, were actually futile; rather the route to social change, they thought, is through education and one-on-one conversations.  Others echoed the images of the film itself--the struggle of migrant workers, the civil rights movement, the non-violent but highly effective actions of Mohandas Ghandi--and brought more social change issues to the dialogue--Mothers Against Drunk Driving, anti-slavery and suffragist movements, all of which involved civil disobedience when dialogue had failed to bring the desired change.

We could all agree that change is hard to see close up.  Many of us also agreed that we may not be able to effect great changes on our own nor even live to see the changes we hope to bring about.  Still we asserted that we can take action in our own lives, making the small changes that are part of the cumulatively greater changes that are needed.  

In his 1876 founding address, Felix Adler issued a clarion call:

The world is dark around us and the prospect seems deepening in gloom, and yet there is light ahead. On the volume of the past in starry characters it is written—the starry legend greets us shining through the misty vistas of the future—that the great and noble shall not perish from among the sons of men, that the truth will triumph in the end, and that even the humblest of her servants may in this become the instrument of unending good. We are aiding in laying the foundations of a mighty edifice, whose completion shall not be seen in our day, no, nor in centuries upon centuries after us. But happy are we, indeed, if we can contribute even the least towards so high a consummation. The time calls for action. Up, then, and let us do our part faithfully and well. And oh, friends, our children’s children will hold our memories dearer for the work which we begin this hour.

Adler was speaking of the founding of ethical culture, yes, but ethical culture was founded for the deeds yet to be undertaken by its members, disregarding creed and working not only to build the literal edifice of the Meeting House but the moral edifice of ethical humanism on a global scale.  Working, to be sure, in the practical everyday world of need and suffering and petty human failures while seeking a better way to treat each other with respect and compassion.  We are a long way from the high goals set at the beginning of our community, but we have the encouragement of our past to buttress our efforts while the future pulls us forward along our path.  Indeed, Adler thought of that, too, when nearly 50 years after giving his founding address, he spoke to English ethical humanists about meeting the challenges still being posed to the moral commitment of ethical culture:

The radiant future stretches forth its arms toward us, and binds us to be willing servants to its work, willingly to accept those limitations of the individual will which are indispensable in the service of a far­off cause, a service which at the same time disciplines and ennobles the individual himself. 

Social change is a struggle.  It demands that we take the long view, that we accept incremental progress as steps on the long path ahead of us.  It also demands commitment to that long path and even some degree of sacrifice, if self-discipline is indeed a sacrifice.

Whether or not civil disobedience is the answer to causing change, it will likely remain one of the options for many.  For ourselves, today, we may consider what the long-term goal is and what actions we can personally take to work toward that goal.  If the goal is to keep fossil fuels in the ground, what can we do to make that happen?

• Educate ourselves about the presence of fossil fuels in our daily lives.
• Reduce our own consumption of fossil fuels.
• Educate and encourage others to do the same.
• Seek ways to influence decisions about fossil fuel extraction (advocacy, public education, divestiture).
• Act up?

What else?

This week in Scotusland

The Supreme Court confused me this week.  Not being a lawyer, I can't always follow the nuances of precedent and hair-splitting that goes on.  I pretty much go with what I understand to be "right" and then try to figure out whether we are progressing--or falling deeper into the black hole capitalistic fascism known as oligarchy.

Too much?  Ah, well.  My nuance button short-circuited with the Orlando murders.  That was too much for me to stand still for.

And speaking of which--one small step forward on gun control:  Voisine v. the United States expanded and/or clarified (can't tell which) the definition of reckless domestic violence so that persons convicted of such crimes are no longer eligible to purchase guns.  Not sure whether the Orlando shooter's domestic violence record would have prevented him from from purchasing guns had this ruling been in place before June 13, but the ruling will certainly help keep guns out of the hands of a few more people whose anger needs more management.

More press coverage went to the ruling on Texas' attempts to end legal abortion in this state with increasingly onerous (and medically unnecessary) requirements (link includes full text of ruling on Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt).  The implications of this ruling--against the State of Texas and for women's health, including the choice to end a pregnancy--will have repercussions in other states on these sorts of restrictions.  It won't end the culture war that surrounds a woman's right to control her own body without the interference of a third party.  Muslims (just for a commonly evident example) seek to begin their control of women's bodies on the outside with the requirement to veil.  Americans (dare I say Christians?) are more subtle, allowing the illusion of freedom and self-control in clothing choices (for now) while digging deeper to take over control of the essential female role of reproduction--making it pretty much mandatory every time a sperm can reach an ovum.  Rape, incest, pre-marital sex, marital rape--not important.  What is important is that sperm+ovum=government takeover for whatever uterus happens to be present.  (Well, I'm about to rant.  This is not my point today.  Deep breaths.)  I am personally long removed from this particular battleground--and yet I know it well.  This war isn't over.  More's the pity that we have to keep fighting the battles again and again when there are, frankly, bigger threats to the human race* than a medically safe procedure that some women choose to have for important personal reasons and others don't, also for important personal reasons.

One might think:  "So far so good" for this week's rulings.  What's the problem?  Look at McDonnell V. United States.  In a unanimous ruling, the eight-member Court vacated the conviction of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell for bribery.  The Court agreed that he took the [bribery] money and did some favors (set up meetings) for the CEO of Star Scientific, but that he did nothing official to benefit the company.  Huh?  Take the money, make connections, and then walk out the room--nothing to see here?  $167K is a lot of "nothing"--unless making those connections was "something."  Isn't this what lobbyists do for their clients?  Setting up meetings with decision makers, shining the glow of one's credibility over the meeting, encouraging through that credibility the use of that meeting for some purpose beneficial to the client?  Surely all those lunches weren't held because the chicken salad was good.  Just saying.

I'm old enough to understand that some weeks we win, in others we lose.  In the grand scheme of history, we are winning--climbing down from the trees, walking away from cannibalism and some gross forms of brutality.  We wear clothes, bathe sometimes, use language in place of weapons (sometimes).  What I would like to see is some moral progress.  Or at least some clarification--in progressive steps--that we are making the world a better place.  Let me try:

• We say that ethics begins with a choice.  We are committed to that.
• In Voisine we see the Court saying that recklessness doesn't just happen--one chooses to be reckless.  Taking a gun in your hand and then acting recklessly is choosing to act in a way that endangers others whether or not you intend to cause harm.  From my perspective, this sets a standard for gun owners that should be inherent in gun ownership and use whether or not domestic violence is at issue.  
• In Whole Women's Health, "choice" has another layer of meaning, but the Court's ruling maintains the notion that the law allows women to choose how to manage their bodies--including their uteri--and that other laws should not be made to prevent that choice by reducing access to means to exercise that choice.  (Would that they had done that in Hobby Lobby, but I digress.)  
• In McDonnell, the choice to accept [bribe] money was held as neutral.  It would have become criminal only with a subsequent action that was criminal--or something like that.  I'm not so happy with this outcome, because I think it will have the practical effect of adding more money to the executive side of government when there is already too much money in politics.  It does that because the brake of conscience that exists when one is concerned as much about the appearance of impropriety as the impropriety itself is removed.  If money+action is illegal, how do we allow money and still monitor for the actions that make that money illegal?  If money without action is legal, then why disclose (or monitor) the money? It's all a bit above my knowledge level, but my gut says that this kind of choice will be dangerous for the republic.

Yeah, we win some, we lose some.  Progress is hard to see close up.

---------------
*It's the action, not the location, that I see as imperiling us.  Middle East, Southeast Asia, Africa in my lifetime; Europe and the rest of Asia in living memory.

Things that need to be said

After Orlando, there are few things that need to be said.

About the LGBT community.  The massacre at Pulse in Orlando was a hate crime.  It came as a shock to the LBGT community, which includes not only those who identify as LGBT, but also those who care about that community, whether because of family and friendship ties or because of their desire to live in an inclusive and ethical society.  The attempt to co-opt the grief and suffering that comes out of such an evil act for political purposes is despicable.  So, too, are the false flag condolences from those who helped create a climate of hate against the LGBT community. Thoughts, prayers, moments of silence are, at best, disingenuous from those who, in the days before Orlando sought to deprive the LGBT community of its civil rights and protections in this life while condemning them to horrors in the afterlife.

About gun violence.  

• Guns kill people.  
• Assault weapons are called that for a reason.  
• On the day of the Orlando murders, an additional 38 Americans lost their lives to gun violence and 8 more were wounded.  So far in 2016, there have been 24,087 "incidents" of gun violence which led to a total of 6,186 deaths and 12,616 injuries.  
• Here's a look at 330 mass shootings in 2015:

I am ignoring the voiceover at the end.  This isn't about politics.  It is about thinking that there is one "gun problem," one "solution," that the problem is only guns.  We need to broaden our thinking to look at all the issues with who has guns and why, not just the kinds of guns they have.

About extreme Islamic terrorism.  Is there a difference between the terrorism of one religious group over another?  Is there a difference between extreme terrorism and ordinary terrorism?  Did the men and women in the Pulse suffer more than the men and women of Emmanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church?  Was their suffering less or more than the victims and survivors of the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting?  These were all acts of terrorism.  I am not intending to downplay one event to highlight another.  I am not denying the role that Islam seems to have played in the Orlando shooter's motives--or justifications.  I am not in any way meaning to be flippant or casual about the terrible crimes that have been committed.

I am, however, interested in the concept of terrorism as a tool to influence behaviors and attitudes, as a weapon of war.  The goal of terrorism is not just to kill or maim; it is first and foremost intended to create terror.  To instill a fear in those who survive, who witness, who somehow become aware of the event--and its justification--so that they become wary of doing anything that might bring such a horror down on their own heads.  LGBT men and women would then stop being who they are--or at least acting openly in any manner that might seem authentic to their identities.  Rather they will go back in the closet, stop demanding outrageous "rights," straighten up.  Black people cannot change the color of their skin, but they can certainly stop making such a nuisance of themselves, again demanding outrageous "rights."  They need to "know their place" and stay there.  Women must stop seeking to gain control of their own bodies and lives, become once more subservient to men, and take up their proper roles as baby makers and sex objects.  No more "women's rights" nonsense.

We have heard the response from the LGBT community:  "In hope and defiance, we dance."  We see from Mother Emmanuel Church days of commemoration and positive action with the reminder: "Let all that you do be done in love."  From Planned Parenthood--well, they're still busy fighting all those politicians to keep the doors open.  I'll just say for them:  "Oh, hell, no!"  

And leave it there for now.  There's more.  I missed my self-imposed deadline for a post this week, but I have certainly been puzzling my way through recent events.  Yes, there'll be more.

Do we need a poster for religious freedom?

Dunno.  Really reluctant to enter the religious freedom wars as they are currently being fought in the US.  It's always something, isn't it?  But this little image has popped up in my email a couple of times,

and someone in the chain of discussion quipped that "it looks like we have a poster!"  Mebbe so, mebbe not so much, but I--of course--have a thing or two to say about that.

First, I'd like to look at what "freedom of religion" covers.  And, first, I'd like to point out that freedom of whatever passes for religion in one's belief system ought to include a belief system.  If we support freedom of religion (as I do), then there's got to be something there to have any freedom of [it].  So I'd make the first bullet:

• Believing in any being(s) or ideal(s) as a focus of religious feelings and behaviors

This would allow for religious freedom for people who choose to believe in one or more gods/higher powers/deities or who choose not to believe in such beings but rather in one or more central idea(l)(s) which allows them to experience and express the functional benefits that are associated with "religion."  Whatever those benefits might be, I'm not going to speculate here (although I probably will do another day).  I'm just pointing out that freedom of religion should actually include religion.

Taking the counterpoint, consider the last bullet in the first section:  "Choosing not to participate in religion at all."  That could be a nice way to say that it's OK to be a "None" and not affiliate with any religious group or belief system.  But what about the "Nones" who flat out disbelieve in any being as a focus of religious belief, the so-called "atheists, agnostics, and skeptics"?  They are not "participating."  Is their lack of participation what is protected by religious freedom while their lack of belief is not?   Can freedom of religion include freedom from religion?

Personally, I think it should.  Rationally, I'm hung up on language a bit.  Those prepositions--"of," "from"--have distinct meanings which should not be conflated.  So how do we get "of" to include "from" here?  

"Atheism" is, I would say, part of the spectrum of religious belief.  Religious belief is something of a continuum.  On one end there is an extreme of belief (in whatever) that thoroughly consumes the believer in all aspects of life and attention.  The stereotype of the ascetic hermit who meditates or prays almost unendingly, leaving as much as physically and mentally possible the present world, in order to focus on/join with the object of belief (whether being or ideal) seems to fit the one extreme.  In this case behavior is reflective of belief--that a focus exists and that acting in such a manner is the best way to worship/experience/achieve the desired state in relation to that focus.  On the other end of the continuum, there is an affirmative disbelief, a denial, that any being exists that can or should serve as a focus of religious feelings and behaviors. That may be reflected in behavior that simply ignores--by word and deed--any being of religious focus.  It may be reflected in both word and deed that denies the existence of such beings and, moreover, demands that expressions of belief in their existence be removed from the secular environment.  The latter is more extreme than the former, I think, but both still can be considered--no doubt under great protest by those who find themselves on this end of the continuum--as religious beliefs.

Yup.  I'm actually saying that atheists actually have religion (just as they have some really fine music, the blues included).  They have looked at other belief systems, rejected them, and hold their own (varied) beliefs about the nature of the universe (including its origin), the nature of humankind (including its origin), their personal values, future, end-of-life--and on and on through the gamut of issues that are explained (or not) by assorted religious belief systems.  Their beliefs don't--won't--look like the beliefs of other more organized religions, but they are religious beliefs because they focus on the issues that religions try to resolve.  "Religion" is, after all, merely a word that labels a category of human behavior and thought, just as "kinship" is a word that labels a category of human behavior and thought.  

So I'm thinking I'd modify the new first bullet by adding a new second:

• Believing in a(ny) being(s) or ideal(s) as a focus of religious feelings and behaviors
• Believing that no being exists to serve as a focus of religious feelings and behaviors

I need to think about the "ideal" part a little more, so I'm leaving it out of the negative end of the religious continuum, for the time being anyway.

What do you think?  Are atheists on the religious continuum?  If so, does our "of/from" problem disappear, since I'm basically saying that freedom of religion should make the affirmative disbelief in a supreme being a protected religious belief?  Religious practice is another subject altogether--about which more another day.

These aren't the droids you're looking for!

There's a lot of turmoil right now about who pees where.  If ya wanna use a public ladies' room, ya gotta have the correct genitalia.  The same ones that you were born with.  No changes allowed.  If ya wanna pee in a public men's room, the same rules apply.  But 'cept if ya got the boy kind of thingies and you are transitioning to be the gender--the person--that you know you are, there is no place to pee.  Go to the ladies room and get arrested.  Go to the men's room and risk assault, battery, and death.  I can imagine that the same risks apply to a female transitioning to male.  Go to a women's restroom dressed as a male* and someone will get flapped and call the cops.  Go to a men's room and, if discovered, risk assault, battery, and death.

Part of the problem could just be men's rooms.  Perhaps we should ban those. Nasty places.  Some men are so afraid of being labeled deviant that they can't even touch their whatsis long enough to aim.  Just ewwww!

The issue has gotten way out of hand.  There has been silly legislation.  Now there's a mass lawsuit in which, of course, Texas is participating.  Is this part of the election silliness that always seems to grip our nation because [internet] [TV] [talkies] [radio] [vaudeville] is making us less responsible adults?  One has to wonder, who will enforce this legislation?  Will public restrooms now require body scanners?  Will there be body searches to make sure that everyone who enters has the right stuff?  Good luck with that.  Any fool who gets between my diuretics and the bathroom door is just asking for trouble.

I speak lightly, but the issue is quite serious.  

• It's hate filled.  The amount of anger and pure venom shown for a human being who is already struggling with deep personal issues is sickening in its zeal.  Making a transsexual man or woman the object of such a conflict, such unnecessary humiliation**, is both perverted and, frankly, wrong.  Bad.  Double-plus not good.  Evil!
• It's dangerous.  Just by making this an issue, transsexuals are being singled out, made more visible than before.  This makes them a bigger target for abuse and assault.  It also lends legitimacy to the discrimination and abuse against trans men and women and even now makes it dangerous for an opposite sexed parent to take a child to the restroom.  In very real terms, it increases the risk of suicide in an already vulnerable population.  
• It's dumb.  While the aforementioned men's rooms are disgusting cesspools (yes, I know what a cesspool is, and, yes, I've been in a men's room--see "diuretics" above), women's rooms are devoted to privacy.  I ask you (women), have any of you ever seen another woman's Little Flower in a public restroom?  I suppose it's possible, but I can testify that I have never caught a glimpse of The Precious.  We have bathroom doors, and we close them.  We maintain private space by averting our eyes.  If a transsexual male has ever been in the same bathroom at the same time I have been, how would I know?  Some men's rooms don't have doors out of fear of Teh Gay, so I imagine men do see a lot of junk in their space.  With so much male hysteria on this whole subject, I have to wonder if we're not seeing some personal issues worked out in public media--with the potential for horrifying consequences.
• It has nothing to do with religious freedom.  Not even close.

The thing is, there didn't really seem to be such a big issue before North Carolina introduced its "bathroom bill."  Then other states started doing the same, and Congress got into the act with the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (HR 4909), and the media*** still flaps about it non-stop.  However, not all of these bills were all about bathrooms.  They include other things, like eliminating requirements to pay the minimum wage or "prevailing wage."  Like protection of wildlife on federal lands.  Like assaults on clean energy.  As gapaul commented on a Religion Dispatches article:  "Do the Arguments Against Bathroom Equality Hold Water?":

Where did it come from? Read the entirety of the North Carolina bill, passed hurriedly before recess. It also says that private companies can't be required to pay minimum wage, and limits lawsuits against the government for all sorts of discrimination -- race, religion, disability, as well as sexuality.  Its almost like they want us arguing about bathrooms, and completely oblivious to the trail of corporate interest. And now that the whole country is facing a major election, isn't it interesting that a few states have decided its a good time to restart the Culture War? [emphasis added]

I do not at all want to minimize the importance of "the bathroom issue." It is very important for the men and women who are transsexual or transitioning as well as to those of us who care about human rights.  But I have to wonder, with gapaul, if we are not being deliberately distracted from other things that are also important.  

* Note that I have not found it unusual to encounter a male-dressed woman in public restrooms.  I have, rightly or wrongly, assumed that they were lesbians. Still, they might have been men transitioning to female.  No one seemed to get flapped before all of this brouhaha.
**Just to be clear, The Honorable Zoe Lofgren is a hero!
***Read the whole thing, but especially the Media Matters clip.  Hat tip to Trish Taylor for this reference.

Spelling God With Two O's

That's the name of a slender book of essays, written by Arthur Dobrin, who first began having colloquies as a form of meeting for ethical societies.  How helpful to have found a free download of the book.  I found it on one of my meandering wanders through the internet that had one purpose but ended up some place else. In this case, the "landing" was a serendipitous encounter with something I will probably make a morning ritual.  OK, I don't actually have a morning ritual, but I want one, and it could become much more interesting than what's going on right now.

Dobrin's book is a collection of essays on values and essential concepts.  He names the value, provides an inspirational quote from another writer or thinker (including but certainly not limited to Felix Adler), and then explores the idea from several perspectives.  For example, tolerance:

Since we all have our preferences and savor life in different ways and are certain that our ways are natural and right, it is impossible to like or to approve of everyone and everything they do. Still it is possible be tolerant of them. You may never want to meet them but you grant them the right to live as they choose. You don’t envy them and may dislike them but you allow them to live as they want. Not every way is worthy of appreciation but everyone has the right to bad taste.

Dobrin notes that not everything should be tolerated--deliberately causing pain, harming innocents, etc.--but that tolerance is a (minor) virtue that makes living in a diverse society better for all of us.

I think I will be reading this book as soon as I can get it onto one of my reading devices.  If I fail with the morning routine thing (pretty much a given), I can at least read one of these brief essays whenever I find myself waiting or dining alone or just needing to spend a little time working on my life.

Black Lives Matter . . . to Me

That's the inaugural "Compassionate Pen Writing Prompt" for the New York Society for Ethical Culture's Ethics for Teen Leaders "invitation to express."  Teens are asked to use that writing prompt to express what the Black Lives Matter movement or concept means in their own lives.  The expression may be an essay, a poem, a short personal letter, a short story, or a graphic.

Audrey Kindred, children's program director at NYSEC, explains the invitation in these terms:

"Black Lives Matter"  is a modern civil rights call of a kind, over half a century after Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech.  This call at this time indicates that we might need to be ever more attentive of unmet needs, caring of continued inequalities and vigilant about outstanding harms occurring within the very "American Dream" Americans have been creating since King.  

Her words caught my attention, especially:  unmet needs, continued inequalities, outstanding harms.  And then I found this music.


The album came from the fortuitous meetings of Rev. Osagyefo Uhuru Sekou and Jay-Marie Hill at Black Lives Matter protest in Cleveland.  Once they decided to collaborate musically, they wrote 11 songs in 6 days.  This is both "movement music" and "healing music" that deals with issues of equality for gender, sexuality, and race.  It also raises unmet needs, continued inequalities, and outstanding harms.

Worth a listen.  Worth a thought--what is there in our everyday lives that contributes to unmet needs, continued inequalities, and outstanding harms? How should we address these issues in our everyday lives?

The Ethics of Eating: Meatless Monday

I'm a Texas girl (senior variety).  I love cow.  Well, not the ones on four feet, unless they are at some distance from my person.  I have been up close and personal with one or two (milking is much harder than it looks; also gross). When the cow becomes a steak, I, as I said, love cow.  Chicken fried.  Medium rare. Even the poorer cuts become wonderful with some fajita seasoning or slow cooked with a little bbq sauce and a goodly amount of smoke.  Hamburgers? Yum.  Meatloaf?  That's a happy meal for some of us. (Me! Me!)

I do come by this love naturally.  Texas, as I said.  My father was also an influence.  During World War II, there was a foxhole moment I dare not even imagine when he swore:  "If I get out of this alive, I'm eating steak every day." He pretty much did, and so I also developed a taste for it.  In his case, the vow came from the semi-starvation of some grueling and, well, I can't even bear to think about it.  I just know that he wanted cow at most every meal, and he ate his dessert first.  That, too, was combat-related.  If any shooting started, the one part of whatever pitiful meal was available that you did not want to miss, he said, was dessert.

I will never be a vegetarian, but lately I've been trying to reduce my consumption of meat.  This for environmental and health reasons.  The damage to the planet of raising large food animals is said to be out of hand, but it's also said to be mitigable with improved practices.  We Americans have been said to eat more protein than any other nation, to the detriment of our health, but there is clinical evidence that says otherwise.  Meh.  Every health and environmental concern that has been raised has always faced push back from interested parties.  That's not all bad when methods and data need some stricter attention nor when practices improve and change the scope of the problem.  In the meantime, however, those of us trying to figure out what the right thing to do (or eat) might be are left trying to sift through the mixture of messages to find the truth--or a reasonable facsimile thereof.  For me, that truth says I can reduce my meat consumption by making Mondays meatless.

Doing so is easier said than done.  So far, I'm at only 50% compliance.  I have been trying to observe Meatless Mondays for the past six weeks (more, if you count the times I forgot to start).  In that time, I've nearly starved, spent a fortune, and struck out by accident when I woke up and grabbed some leftovers to stop the hunger pain in my stomach.  Oops!  Wrong leftovers for Meatless Monday. Yesterday, I had to eat a hamburger, knew that I was about to lose another chance to observe Meatless Monday, and decided that I would just have to try to deal with it on Tuesday.  (So far so good.)

Even so, I am committed.  I think it's a good idea for my personal health to start making an effort to get more plant-based food in my diet.  Just as important, I think it's an ethical choice on many levels to decrease the amount of meat in my diet.  The reasons include, among other things that I care about, antibiotic resistance, animal welfare, animal waste, land use, water pollution, and more. Keeping the commitment after a lifetime of loving a really good steak is going to be a challenge.  Here's what I'm thinking:

• Choice takes advance planning.  I can't wait until Monday to try to figure out what I can eat.  I need to buy the foods that I will eat well in advance. Prepare the snacks, even some "leftovers," for quick bites when I need something to nibble on or just something fast to tide me over until the next meal.  (Try not to think about the madness of hunger to a diabetic.  We just try to survive it.)
• Choice needs to be sustainable.  I can't keep buying prepared and packaged foods at this rate.  My food budget tells me so, and I know that home cooked meals are better for me.  I can manage the carbohydrate and sodium content for my body's needs much better than any corporation.  So I need to know that Mondays need extra time for food prep, giving, I suppose, an added benefit of slowing down the all too hectic pace of my life lately.
• No meat does not mean no protein.  I can't sustain my health by turning Mondays into a day for all starch-based foods (although I did do that one Monday).  I need to learn more about alternate sources of protein.  The spirit of Meatless Mondays precludes fish, but not (so far) eggs and dairy.  I should broaden my palate and learn to cook with tofu and other vegetable proteins.
• Making an ethical choice helps eliminate the perception of deprivation.  That's a personal thing.  At first, I just tried to make it through 24 hours without meat.  I even watched the clock and made a ham sammich at midnight, so deprived did I feel.  Now, despite my frequent failures at observing the day, I am more unhappy, dissatisfied when I do fail, because I think that this is an important and valuable activity for me.  What I am discovering is that--even as I struggle to overcome years of habit and the memories of my mama's excellent chicken fried steak--I want to do this.  I want to reduce my impact on the planet, however minute the reduction, with this choice.  I also want the satisfaction of making an ethical decision to do what feels like the right thing.  That means that I don't feel so deprived by this choice any more and don't have to rush for some meat at midnight.

Meatless Monday is not a choice that everyone can--or will want to--make.  It's a personal decision that I am trying to make work and slowly getting better at. Still, how and what we eat can have an effect on the planet, on our community, on our fellow humans.  Whether we all make the same choices is less important than that we do make a considered choice--that we are mindful of how we live--because it matters. The choices we make are, after all, ethical choices regardless of which way we decide an issue, because they are choices that balance our values and beliefs against each other and reflect our ethics in the balance.

Your thoughts?

The Ethics of Driving*

OK, maybe this should be revealed up front as a recitation of some of my pet peeves, but, really, people, enough is enough.  I've been doing a lot of driving lately.  Trips back and forth to see the great grandbaby.  Hauling a dear friend's relatives around when she can't be in two places at once.  The occasional road trip to visit a friend.  Those weekly drives north of the river to attend ESOA meetings.  I thought I had seen some really nasty driving habits in Houston, but Central Texas seems to be picking up some bad behaviors of its own.

There was a time in Texas when we saw many reminders to "Drive Friendly."  Texas is, after all, advertised as "The Friendly State," so it fit very well with our supposed character to have that motto painted on various highway signs.  As I recall, it did seem to do its job as a reminder to drivers to drive courteously and lend a hand when needed.  Then we got the motto "Don't Mess With Texas."  Despite what folks outside of Texas might think, that was really an anti-litter campaign.  As in don't mess up the house, kids.  The motto replaced "Drive Friendly" on signs and, despite all intentions, morphed into some macho crapdoodle that was used far too often to mean "leave this big bad dude alone"--or some such nonsense. Nothing to do with driving anyway.

Nowadays, I'm starting to see some of those electronic signs that tell us about missing children or elders also tell us to "Share the road."  It's about time!

I rant.  Perhaps to step back a little and think about what sharing the road might mean.  Perhaps even to think in terms of the ethics of driving.  What might one do to make driving a social event--that is, an event for members of a civil society--rather than a venue for rage, reckless endangerment, death?

• Here's a simple one.  Use those headlights judiciously.  Not so hard.  Turn them on when driving at night, in the rain or other conditions where visibility is limited, or all day long--just to be helpful to other drivers who also happen to hold your life in their hands.  Dim them unless you are way the hell out in West Texas and nobody else** is on the road!  Bright lights inside the city limits or outside the city limits can be deadly.  Blind the oncoming driver, and you become responsible for the consequences, whether the injury is to him or to you.  That's how I see it anyway.  If I could see at all with your bleeping bright lights in my eyes.  You may think that the headlights are there for your sole use and benefit--but, no.  They are indeed intended to help you see the road, but they are also intended to help others see you so they can try not to hit you.  
• Another no brainer.  Use the turn signal like it means something.  Once upon a time, cars didn't come with built in turn signals.  You had to stick your arm out the window (if there was a window) and hold it straight out to signal that you were turning left or bend it at the elbow and point your hand to the sky if you were turning right.  Cars also lacked brake lights, so you needed to stick your arm out that window again and hold it straight out at a midpoint between your shoulder and your hip.  That let the folks behind you know that you were slowing down.  If you wanted to be creative, you could waggle it up and down a little just to make sure they didn't miss the signal. Lots of folks did miss those hand signals, of course; hence the need for signal lights (and tail lights).  Even so, way too many drivers nowadays seem to forget both the existence of turn signals in their vehicle and the basic need to let other drivers know their intentions.  I'm supposed to know when you want to change lanes just because your SUV is bigger than my car and you think that allows you to move it over into my lane without a signal?  Sorry, honey, all I can tell from that maneuver is that you grew up in a barn and probably have more money than sense.  As an (evolving) ethical driver, I want to help you get to where you are going--safely--just let me know when you are going to make a move into the space where my car is headed so that I can slow down to let you in rather than having to slam on my brakes, watch my belongings crash into the floorboard, and feel the bruising effect of a locked seat belt.  Use that turn signal, already!  When making a turn.  When changing lanes.  Whether on a public road or in a parking lot or other private area.  It's plain common sense, its courtesy, and, if you care, it's ethical.  In turn, I will respect the signal, not only knowing what you plan to do now that you have shown me, but allowing you to do it by giving you room to get into my lane or waiting for you to make your turn.  Even in a parking lot.
• But here's the real thing about sharing the road:  You have to do it anyway. Unless it's your private road and no one else is driving or walking or cycling on it--you don't have a choice.  You have to share the space.  At high speeds. Trying to control a heavy machine that can become a deadly weapon at any second.  Why drive as if there were no one else on the road when there are clearly dozens of other vehicles all around you?  Why drive as if those vehicles did not include other human beings whose needs and wants are just as important as yours?  You're late?  Join the club.  You want to get home soon?  Club.  You forgot that you had to stop at the store so you need to make a sudden left turn?  Signal, for garden seed.

Sure I sound grumpy here, but this is not a wish for the "good old days."  It's all an opening for me to say that this is an area where I think that ethics does have a role to play.  Above and beyond the legal requirements for safe driving, I'm thinking that we might recognize that, even though we have just gotten into our car--alone--and will have no face-to-face interaction with others while we are driving, we are still about to interact with other people.  Driving--how we drive--is an ethical activity.  Ethical in that we make choices as we drive; we affect others positively or negatively by those choices; we affect ourselves as caring, compassionate (or not) human beings by those choices.  We may be the only person in our car, no one we know may see us, but we ourselves know the choices we make.   If we are going to try to bring out the best in others, maybe we could give a thought to how we treat them on the road. 

Your thoughts? 

--------------

*Hat tip to Adam Gravois for making me more conscious of this as an issue. 

**Why, yes, I do think that is an important point.

How We Live our Lives

In my new role as chair of the Ethical Action Committee for the Ethical Society of Austin, I had to give a report for this month's semi-annual membership meeting.  The last such meeting was only the second or third ESOA meeting that I had attended, and I learned a lot about the society.  I really wanted my report to be just as informative and meaningful so that anyone who might be in the same situation I was last year (interested but cautious) would get some reassurance from my report.  Plus I was excited to have bunches of stuff to report.

You can go to the ESOA website to see how I break down Ethical Action into categories, so I won't repeat that here.  I did want to think a little bit more about the section on Living as ethical action in that report.  I threw in some stuff that I thought maybe folks might not have really thought about:  co-location with Workers Defense Project (we rent meeting space from them), the weekly discussions of ethical dilemmas in our lives, and the big question of how we live our lives.

I counted the latter as ethical action because we all, more or less, subscribe, more or less, to the Eight Commitments of Ethical Culture.  By doing so we make ethics central to our lives and actions and we actively seek to improve ourselves, our communities, our world.  Sometimes that is as small an "action" as treating someone we interact with so that we bring out their best.  Each time we choose to act ethically, we have performed an ethical action.  A simple concept, but I felt it was worth mentioning lest we think of Ethical Action as something that can only be done at the organizational level.  Very often it's just personal.

This point has been brought home to me today.  As I've been catching up on some news and generally procrastinating on some actual work that needs to be done (a serious talent of mine--wish someone would pay me to procrastinate--I am really good at it), I ran across an article about the boycott of Target being undertaken by a half a million people.

Hey!  I boycott Target.  Have been since 2010.  The CEO donated Target money to support an anti-gay gubernatorial candidate (in Minnesota).  I have gay family members.  I have married gay family members.  I was really angry to see that kind of money being used to promote inequality.  So I quit shopping at Target. As I recall,  Target later repudiated this fellow's action and distanced the company from the whole thing.  But I was pissed. So I never went back to Target.  It wasn't as hard as giving up Hobby Lobby anyway (yes, I boycott them, too).

Now it seems others have jumped on my bandwagon (not that I ever mentioned it to many people).  When I followed the headline, I discovered that I should have paid more attention.  The people boycotting Target are all upset because the company has adopted a policy that allows people to pee in the restroom that fits their gender identity.  Target is standing up to the wave of hate and discrimination that seems to be sweeping across our country in this electoral season of madness with a nationwide policy that says that transgender people can at least feel safe from that kind of stress while dealing with a basic human function.

Well, I guess my boycott is over.  All is forgiven, Target.  Well, not forgiven. That was a dumb "business decision" way back in 2010.  Still, I need to stop looking at that red target sign as a symbol of discrimination and now read it as a symbol of inclusion and rationality and, well, courage.  My perspective has changed, and my actions will now follow.

We make choices.  How we treat people is an ethical choice.  How we spend our money is another one.  It's also personal.  I didn't shop at Target for personal--and ethical--reasons.  I do shop at Walmart--for personal and ethical reasons.  Not everyone would agree with my decision to shop at Walmart, but I am content in the knowledge that a beloved family member has a stable job in a supportive (yes!) environment that matches her skills and abilities.  It's important to me to be able to "support" this family member in a positive way just as it was important for me to be able to "support" my gay cousin and his husband by not spending money with a company that I perceived as contributing to a hostile environment for their lives.

Now I need to learn the lesson about not holding a grudge.

And go shopping.

Shop for the basket and other updates

Just a few updates for the changes that are slowly occurring with ESOA and life in general:

• I made a more or less big deal about "shopping for the basket" to provide donations for the Capital Area Food Bank.  Our old basket was getting pretty broken down.  Finally, duct tape just wouldn't do the job.  Thanks to our decisive president, Rebecca Fisher, we now have a new basket.  This one is green (various shades of which will now be our official color for ESOA stuff) and folds up nicely for storage. John Thiess, our treasurer, is also the dedicated volunteer who takes our donations to the Food Bank and keeps a tally of our donations.  The good news, from my perspective, is that we now have a more or less permanent place for the basket--under the Ethical Action display table.  You no longer have to look around and wonder where the yellow basket is, nor do you have to climb over chairs and people to get to it.  When you walk in the door now, you may be looking for coffee, but the basket will be right in front of you.  With a sign even.  Subtle, huh?

• And speaking of the Ethical Action display table, we have one.  We are making every effort to park the thing right in your way and even entice you with sweet treats to grab your coffee and come over and hang out.  
• This is where you can make your donations to the Capital Area Food Bank--canned goods and ink cartridges in the basket, money in the Feed Me canister.  Test your skills at putting a whole meal in the canister without spilling it!
• While you're there you can sign up for a shift at the Austin Resource Center for the Homeless.  This is a once-a-month opportunity to help make a difference by serving dinner at the shelter.
• The EA table is the place to find updated lists of opportunities for issue education and cultural events that seem likely to appeal to ethical humanists.  (Thanks to John Thiess for his weekly activity list.)  
• Advocacy training and briefing materials will also be placed on the table.  This is where you can look for more information about the issues that we are talking about and resources on how to address them. There will usually be something different there for you to look at each week, so come on by!

• In other Ethical Action news, we are updating our page on the ESOA website.  As ethical humanists we act through giving, serving, advocating, and living.  While I try to explore some of these actions on this blog, at ESOA we are really doing the stuff I'm thinking about.  How cool is that? Very.  Check out the Ethical Action page to see what we have done, what we have planned, and--soon--more of those resources on issues and actions to take.  

• Also, too, very big news (big for me anyway--learning new skills here).  We now have an Ethical Action Calendar.  This may change to become a calendar with all ESOA events on it, but, for now, this is where you can look for service events, advocacy events, and the educational and cultural events that may inspire you as an ethical humanist.  Does anyone know how to sync this with my smart phone?  clueless

• Finally (well, probably), we have managed to complete our transition to waste free potlucks.  Some months ago, we decided to try to eliminate disposable eating and serving ware from our monthly potluck dinners.  We started with the napkins--moving from paper to cloth.  Then we accumulated some donated flatware.  Dishes we had to haul in from home each month, but we've just had a generous donation of those as well (thanks, John).  We seem to be set to enjoy our monthly dining and fellowship from now on knowing that, with a little extra effort, we have reduced consumption of products destined for the landfill or even the recycling bin. A little elbow grease, some soap and water, and, of course, some composting.  

• Finally (really this time), Trish Taylor has moved but she hasn't forgotten us.  Trish continues to serve ESOA as its webmaster--and now she's blogging about her move and this new chapter of her life.  Join her at Tea Pad Tales.  Lovely walks, lovely photography, lovely spirit.

This makes me a happy human.  :)  What should we do next?