Phil's Little Blog on the Prairie
Home | About Me | Favorite Links | Phil's Bookshelf | Sermons | Contact Me

Welcome to my blog!

phil0a-sm.jpg

So, just what does the Lifespan Program Director of the Prairie Star District do? Good question! I hope this blog will give you some answers.
 
(For a list by topic of previous posts, visit the "Best of Log" section of my Favorite Links page. You can also Search the PLBOTP archives with PicoSearch.)
 
Here's my RSS Feed if you'd like to subscribe to PLBOTP.
 
Update on PSD Youth Ministry Report. The UUA has prepared a report based on our recent district-level Consultation on Ministry To and With Youth. You can download the report by clicking on the link below...

click here to download the Youth Ministry report

Saturday, August 26, 2006

Moral Values, Part Four
Still more from my week at Camp Unistar...
 
I started by reading Rob Keithan's insightful introduction to the Study/Action Issue Resource Guide. We then moved on to the task of exploring ways to prioritize a shared set of values (the We All Have Value[s] exercise). I listed the following twenty-one values on newsprint and invited each person to choose their top six:
  • Community
  • Compassion
  • Cooperation
  • Democracy
  • Empathy
  • Equality
  • Fairness
  • Freedom
  • Fulfillment
  • Honesty
  • Individual rights
  • Liberty
  • Open Communication
  • Opportunity
  • Prosperity
  • Protection
  • Responsibility
  • Service
  • Strength
  • Sustainability
  • Trust
We tallied the votes and looked at the results. We then discussed whether or not this produce a representative set of values we could work with:
Do these values adequately represent the variety of progressives in our congregations? Is there a little bit of something for everyone here? Or
will some of us need to wait our turn?
 
I then asked people to get into small groups and try to prioritize six values from what the would consider to be a conservative point of view. We discussed that and moved on to Lakoff's Conservative Worldview article.
Did our assumptions about conservative values line up with what Lakoff says about Strict Father Morality?
Can we understand how conservatives might arrive at a given set of values?
Does our understanding help us to extend a bit of our empathy (and perhaps even compassion) in their direction? And does this sort of process help us achieve one of the goals of the Study/Action Issue, to "build ever more compassionate bridged across differences and avoid temptations to exploit differences in the service of being 'right'?"
 
For Part Five we'll look at ways we can start sharing our values with the other Thick We's in our lives.
|
6:25 am pdt

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Moral Values, Part Three

More from Camp Unistar...

 

Possible Study Question #3B (From the CSW Moral Values Study Guide): How might we build ever more compassionate bridges across differences and avoid temptations to exploit…differences in the service of being “right”?

 

Avoid Stereotypes.

 

A social stereotype is a model, widespread in a culture, for making snap judgments—judgments without reflective thought—about an entire category, by virtue of suggesting that the stereotype is the typical case. (Lakoff)

 

Exercise on Stereotypes. Review Sixties Liberal Stereotypes. Discuss other liberal stereotypes conservatives have (Lovers of Bureaucracy, Defenders of Special Interests, and Advocates of Only Rights and No Responsibilities).

 

What are some of the Stereotypes liberals have of conservatives?

 

Selfish, Abusive Fascists, Tools of the Rich.

 

Today, we’ll look at the specifics of the Nurturant Parent model and (if time allows) the Strict Father model.

 

We'll look at the different kinds of liberals, including

 

Classical Theoretical Liberals: Individuals are, or should be, free, autonomous rational actors, each pursuing their own self-interest. (WE SHARE THIS WITH CONSERVATIVES IN BOTH OUR RELIGION AND OUR POLITICS.)

 

Libertarians: Claim to be a distinct category (neither Liberal or Conservative)--their advocacy of civil liberties overlaps with liberals, but the values behind their stance tends to be conservative--mature citizens should be left to take care of themselves, self-discipline, self-reliance, and individualism over interdependence, and they do not give priority to Nurturant Parent values such as empathy, nurturance, interdependence, fairness, and responsibility toward others.

 

Liberal Strict-Father Academics: Much of the academic world and academic institutions are run according to Strict-Father morality. Intellectuals who accept this view of the academic world may be political liberals, but they are intimately acquainted with Strict Father morality and practice it in their everyday professional lives.

 

I believe it’s important to be aware of these variations of liberals when we think about the second Possible Study Question: How are dissenting voices within the congregation honored while the majority speaks out?

 

I said we would pay close attention to the different kinds of progressives and the way they prioritize their values, and suggested that centering our faith around the spiritual progressive category may be a way to get a handle on our values.

All types of progressives adhere to the central moral values of empathy and responsibility. The differences from different priorities are from other values.

Socioeconomic progressives believe that the most important considerations involve money and class. The best solutions are therefore economic and social class solutions.

These progressives believe that economic inequality lies at the heart of most societal problems, and therefore that redressing economic inequality is the best solution. Crime, infant mortality, low education levels — most, if not all, social maladies — would be greatly reduced if people were more equal economically.

Fairness is the key value here, along with equality and opportunity: Fairness fundamentally demands that every American be given an equal chance at economic success.

Identity Politics progressives are those who either belong to or identify with a particular oppressed group who desires their liberation and an end to oppression.

All progressives agree on the importance of liberation for such groups. It doesn't matter whether the focus is on correcting the injustices of the past or taking a more global stance that oppression is wrong regardless of group affiliation. All oppression is wrong, and to right the wrongs means extending rights to everyone in society equally.

The shared values of responsibility, fairness, trust, cooperation and community-building all figure prominently in extending rights to all.

Environmentalists focus on the sustainability of the earth and the natural environment, the sacredness of nature, and protecting native peoples.

At the heart of environmentalism is the value of sustainability. We want all life to continue on this planet, and this means that we must stop doing damage to it. This is the only way to ensure that future generations will be able to live healthy, fulfilling lives. It is also the only way to show proper respect for the source of all life. Furthermore, we have to protect the rights of native peoples.

To live sustainably means being good stewards. This in turns means:

  • Doing as little damage as possible to the planet: selective logging, using renewable energy, minimizing pollution.
  • Finding ways to undo the damage we do: recycling, permaculture, reseeding of logged forests.

Looking at these commitments in terms of broader progressive values, environmentalism is about nurturance and the future: nurturance of the planet and of future generations. Empathy and protection are the primary values.

Civil libertarians: These progressives focus on the notion that human beings have a fundamental right to live their lives without harassment and harm being inflicted on them by arbitrary power. Issues of freedom, liberty, democracy (equal sharing of power), and individual rights are paramount.

Government, as the ultimate holder of power, is the greatest potential threat to these freedoms. Thus, civil libertarians believe, we must be on guard at all times for even small threats to our civil liberties, because the slope down to authoritarianism is very slippery. Thomas Jefferson’s famous quote sums up the central commitment of civil libertarians: “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”

Protection is the central value here. Individuals are vulnerable to mistreatment, and should be protected, and freedoms themselves must be protected. Responsibility, Fairness, and Opportunity are also important: with freedom comes the imperative to use that freedom responsibly, and it is essential that freedom be available to everyone in a fair and equal manner.

Spiritual progressives focus on the nurturant aspects of religion and spirituality. Service, compassion, and community, connects spiritual progressives to other people and the world, and are central to their spiritual practice.

Nurturant spirituality comes in many forms: for Christians, a nurturant God transmits nurturant values through grace and love; for Jews, Tikkun olam—a duty to heal the world; for Buddhists, a vow of compassion for all beings.

For spiritual progressives, empathy is the paramount value and responsibility is central to the spiritual practice of maintaining communities and service to others. Spiritual progressives, of course, seek meaningful fulfillment in life for themselves and others.

Anti-authoritarians: Civil libertarians and anti-authoritarians share a deep distrust of authority. Where civil libertarians specifically emphasize the interplay between the government and individual freedom, anti-authoritarians point to the larger problem of authority in general: how people and organizations with more power can threaten and harm those with less power. Authority figures here are broadly conceived: they can be large corporations, police departments, even parents.

The central values for anti-authoritarians are fairness, freedom from oppression, and protection of those oppressed. It’s just plain wrong to use power to harm or oppress others, regardless of the particular societal arena in which the power dynamic plays out. Anti-authoritarians also pursue honesty and open communication as a defense against the control of information by anti-authoritarian forces.

 

I suggest that when we gather in religious community to talk about moral values, we need to consider ourselves first and foremost spiritual progressives, and that we should try to uphold those values when discussing issues that are important to us.

 

I also believe that we need to instill in our children spiritual progressive values within the context of our religious communities. For those of us who are Unitarian Universalists, that means linking our family values to our religious values. Later in the week, when we work on answering the question “How are the children?”, we’ll talk about ways to make that link, that connection. For now I’d like to offer what is probably the single most important thing every UU family can do to make the connection between family and congregation—lighting a chalice every day, or at least once a week.


|
8:58 am pdt

Monday, August 21, 2006

Moral Values, Part Two
More from my week at Camp Unistar...
 

Picking up on the last part of the first CSW study question (By what authority does our understanding of morality derive?), we got into small groups and came up with some possible answers. Responses ranged from the Declaration of Independence, to guidance from some inner authority, to assessing the outcomes of moral decisions made in the past, to community, the principles and purposes, and our sources. I suggested that no understanding of morality can lay claim to any higher authority, and quoted Rabbi Lerner's words of environmental ethics to give us something to talk about:

There are no scientific or empirical tests, experiments, or observations...that can prove that one ought to extend moral concerns to environmental issues. That is a faith position, whatever your faith may be, even if it is faith in secular ethics.

I suggested that this is true of extending ethics to morals, as well as extending a moral concern to specific issues. Not surprising if you consider that liberal theology truly does lead to a Faith Without Certainty (to use the title of Paul Rasor’s excellent book).

 

In terms of understanding morality in a UU context, I suggested that the work of George Lakoff could be helpful here, especially his "Nation as Family" metaphor.

 

I said we would pay close attention to the different kinds of progressives and the way the prioritize their values, and suggested that centering our faith around the spiritual progressive category may be a way to get a handle on our values (details in a future post). I closed with a look at Lakoff’s CONSERVATIVE STEREOTYPES OF SIXTIES LIBERALS:

 

Eternal flower children: Hopelessly naive idealists who did nothing but place flowers in their hair, make peace signs, and put into practice the slogan "Make Love, Not War."

 

Deadheads: hedonists interested in nothing but sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll.

 

Violent radicals: loudmouths spouting communist slogans, leading violent antigovernment rallies, and preaching violent revolution.


|
8:53 am pdt

Thursday, August 17, 2006

Moral Values, Part One
Once again, it's been a little while since I've posted anything. I do have a lot of material I'd like to share with you, however, stuff that I used last month during a weeklong workshop on Liberal Religious Moral Values at Camp Unistar here in Minnesota. Here's what we covered on the first day:

 

Today we went over the motivation for this particular workshop: The Study/Action Issue for 2005-2007, voted on by the delegates of the 2005 General Assembly at Fort Worth, Texas, "Moral Values for a Pluralistic Society."

 

Following the SAI Resource guide, I explained where we are in the process (the middle of the three year selection/study & action/implementation cycle), then I read through the text of the Study/Action Issue (starting with the issue itself: How might the moral and ethical grounding of Unitarian Universalism be given greater voice in the public square?").

 

I explained that we would take the first study question first: What is the difference between "morality" and "ethics"? How do we understand morality? How do we understand it in a Unitarian Universalist and civic contexts? By what authority does our understanding of morality derive?

 

To help answer this question, I quoted UU blogger Philocrites’ entry regarding Avishai Margalit's distinction between Morality and Ethics, and noted that Margalit's notion of Thick and Thin We's would be explored further later in the week when we looked at Douglas Smith's "Whatever Happened to We?" article in the UU World. I also noted that Margalit's paralleled Jon Kabat-Zinn's differentiation of empathy and compassion, something that would come into play later when we got around to discussing how we might respond to those who share a different prioritization of values.

 

In terms of understanding morality in a UU context, I suggested that the work of George Lakoff could be helpful here, especially his "Nation as Family" metaphor, along with the Strict-Father vs. Nurturant Parent Morality scheme. I said we would pay close attention to the different kinds of progressives and the way the prioritize their values, and suggested that centering our faith around the spiritual progressive catagory may be a way to get a handle on our values.

 

Finally I made the claim that no understand of morality can lay claim to any higher authority, and quoted Rabbi Lerner's words of environmental ethics to give us something to talk about: "There are no scientific or emperical test, experiments, or observations, however, that can prove that one ought to extend moral concerns to environmental issues. That is a faith position, whatever your faith may be, even if it is faith in secular ethics." I suggested that this is true of extending any moral concern into specific issues.
|
10:51 am pdt

2007.06.01 | 2007.05.01 | 2007.04.01 | 2007.03.01 | 2007.02.01 | 2007.01.01 | 2006.12.01 | 2006.11.01 | 2006.10.01 | 2006.09.01 | 2006.08.01 | 2006.07.01 | 2006.06.01 | 2006.05.01 | 2006.04.01 | 2006.03.01 | 2006.02.01 | 2006.01.01 | 2005.12.01 | 2005.11.01 | 2005.10.01 | 2005.09.01 | 2005.08.01 | 2005.07.01 | 2005.06.01 | 2005.05.01 | 2005.04.01 | 2005.03.01 | 2005.02.01 | 2005.01.01 | 2004.12.01 | 2004.11.01 | 2004.10.01 | 2004.09.01 | 2004.08.01 | 2004.07.01 | 2004.06.01 | 2004.05.01 | 2004.04.01 | 2004.03.01

Recent Comments

Looking for something in the PLBOTP archives? Use PicoSearch!

PicoSearch
Site Search by PicoSearch. Help

www.flickr.com
psdlund's
                                             photos More of psdlund's photos

All services provided by Prairie Star District are funded by congregations who pay their District and UUA dues, as well as individuals who contribute to Friends of Prairie Star District.
Thank you for your generosity!

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com

Free Blog Counter

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.