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).

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.

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.

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.

Ethical Lobbying

My late mother always did have a difficult time figuring out what I was doing with my life.  Once, driving home from picking me up at the airport as I returned from years of study, she asked:  "Now what is it you got your degree in?" "Anthropology, mama."  Well, it was a discipline alien to her experience, and I really wasn't all that shocked that, after I had spent 14 months in East Africa, sending her all of my films and slides and weekly (yes) letters, she still hadn't figured it all out.  Mama was a sweet soul whose world could be a bit narrow.

Many years later, when I was talking about something that I was working on at the Texas capitol, mama again asked the key question:  "Now, what is it that you do at the capitol?"  "I lobby, mama."  "Carolyn Ann, you don't mean it?!!"

Now any southern child knows that when their mama says <first name> <middle name>, especially with audible italics, the Vigoro® has hit the Mixmaster®. Mama's shocked reaction said it all.  "Lobbying" is a bad word, a bad thing to do.  No wonder when the corrupting influence of money in the halls of our government is so blatantly evidenced by those who lobby.  And no wonder when all the lobbyists one hears about are demonized as, well, the bad guys.

How, then, can I use the phrase "ethical lobbying"?  Is that not an oxymoron?

Well, no.  There are some ethics in lobbying, standards which good lobbyists might want to uphold.  Most likely do.  There are also those who lobby in the public interest.  These lobbyists--and the people (not corporations) that they represent--are interested in social change, public policies that have a positive effect on how we live.  At Ethical Society of Austin, we are thinking about doing a little lobbying in conjunction with Reason Rally 2016.  Can this even be a good thing? I'd say it is if we think of it in terms of "ethical lobbying"--just another form of ethical action, if you will.

One could talk about our constitutional rights to free speech, to petition our government for "redress of grievances."  One could talk about the eight commitments that ethical humanists make, which point toward building a more humane society, acting on our shared responsibility to create it.  We do not, however, need to appeal to various "authorities" to know what ethical lobbying is, because it is simply a natural human response to hurt and suffering and unfairness and ignorance and dysfunction and all the other ills we encounter--whether they are man-made or the products of the natural world.  If a lightbulb burns out, we replace it.  If a dress pattern doesn't quite fit, we modify it.  If a child falls, we pick her up.  If an animal is hungry, we feed it.  If a house is on fire, we call the fire department. Ethical lobbying is simply another way, another tool, if you will, to address the problems--great and small--that we face in our community.  It is another way to seek justice, to demonstrate compassion and caring, to discover truth.  While technically, lobbying is advocacy that focuses on specific legislation and is addressed to specific decision makers, ethical lobbying would take the values and principles of ethical culture into the public arena to promote the common weal, to take one more step toward creating a world that is more humane, just and fair.

"Yes, mama, I do lobby.  To help sick people get medicine."  "Well, okay, then."

Primary Highs and Lows

I went to vote in the Super Tuesday (makes me hear the Super Trooper chorus in my head) primary on March 1.  It's a thing for me.  If I can, I like to vote on an election day during a presidential year rather than taking advantage of early voting.  Voting is just a big deal for me.  I love the sense of community that comes from voting in person.  I also love the powerful feelings of unity and fellowship that come from attending the precinct caucus ("These are my people!").

Because I spent several years in another county, taking care of my late mother, I have missed this experience.  All of my voting during that period had to be by absentee ballot.  I was physically absent, but I also felt socially absent.  Issues that would have absorbed my attention and concern were far removed from my then reality.  Candidates were less familiar to me than I liked, since I like to know all I can find out about the views and records of those that I vote for.

This March primary was bittersweet for me in a number of ways.  The candidates, warts and all, reflect the frailties of humanity, the confluence of greed and opportunism, the irony of time in hurried flight--when good things come too late.  I walked in to vote with a smile and (almost) dancing feet.  It was good to be "present" again; it was wonderful to fulfill my duty as a citizen and enjoy the freedom to do so without harassment or obstacle.  I really had a gleeful time marking my ballot.  But I left with tears in my eyes.  I remembered past election days with such high hopes for the future, a future that is now and not a realization of those hopes.  I remembered past elections when loved ones no longer here shared the joy and responsibility of this civic duty, making it a family affair.

Lots of things are that way for me these days.  Important.  Difficult.  Full of memories as well as dreams of a better future.  One thing that does give me hope is that one of the eight commitments that we make in the Ethical Society of Austin is to democracy:  Democratic process is essential to our task.  We explain this:

The democratic process is essential to a humane social order because it respects the worth of persons and elicits and allows a greater expression of human capacities.  Democratic process also implies a commitment to shared responsibility and authority.

Many of the issues that drove my vote on Tuesday are expressed in that statement.  From a desire for a humane social order to shared responsibility. there were opportunities on the ballot to support them all.  And that, too, is part of our commitment in ESOA.  We look to the democratic process for the internal operations of the organization itself, we commit to participation in the democratic process in our civic lives, and we work toward preserving the best of our American democracy by supporting inclusion, transparency, and fairness in our public institutions.  Yeah, I'd call that super any old day.

Gloating over Scalia

Justice Antonin Scalia is dead.  I missed the news.  It apparently happened a few days ago.  I am sometimes isolated from current issues when I have some thinking to do--no TV, no newspaper, not internet news feed for the duration.  So I don't know the circumstances, just that it was sudden and unexpected (to most people?).*  I found out about his death by reading a political blog that I often visit--although not in the past several days.  At this point, news posts are dealing with the political circus that has erupted over Scalia's replacement on the Supreme Court of the United States.  The comments discuss the Republican strategy, the Democrat strategy, the quality of the headline of whatever article is being discussed (a constant debate).

Some commenters, however, note that they took the news of Justice Scalia's death as an opportunity to celebrate.  Then followed some snarky remarks about houses falling on Scalia, as if he were a "wicked witch."  And so on.

I can't say that I thought of Justice Scalia with any admiration while he was alive, nor do I think his legacy will make our nation a better one.   Indeed, I was quite convinced that his every action on the Supreme Court was to weaken the nation, ignore the constitution, and generally destroy the fabric of civil society.  I had read, however, that he was nice enough in person, had a good sense of humor.  I forced myself to listen to him speak a couple of times and was pretty much surprised that he made some sense.

I don't believe that his "spirit" lives on.  His conscious awareness of self--his soul, if you will--died when he drew his last breath and the electrical connections in his brain stopped.  I am not afraid that his ghost will haunt me if I "speak ill of the dead."  Why then am I bothered by the celebration and snark that others have evinced?  Am I exhibiting some sort of false piety when I think that there should be at least a moment when we acknowledge that a human life--any human life--has ended?

Death is a big deal.  It's the end of a life.  Whatever a person did in life is over. His/her works may continue after death, but there will never be anything new from him/her, never be any explanation for the past, never be any chance to change or make amends or make peace.  It's just over.  Done.  Finished.  Do we not need to pause in our own busy lives to take into account this change that has happened--this new void in our world?  Do we not owe it to ourselves to preserve our own humanity by acknowledging the immensity of death, the significance of a human life and death?  Even some animals grieve for the loss another.

When we call each other pejorative names, we objectify and generally discount each other's human worth.  When we gloat at the death of an enemy/opponent/other, we deny both their humanity and our own.  To take pleasure in death, frankly, makes us one with any common killer.

Yes, there's a vacancy on the US Supreme Court.  I can see that as a good thing for some progressive and humanist issues, since the vacancy was held by an extremely conservative justice.  Yes, there will be a scramble to fill the vacancy, and we can all pop some corn to enjoy the show.  We may even decide that our vote in the coming primary will make a difference in how the show ends and get involved in it in our own small way.  Life and politics go on.  Let them go on with some recognition of our common humanity, our common mortality, our common need to--somehow--live together.

*Just hoping his family had some time to prepare.  Sudden death of a loved one can be quite traumatic.