Tuesday, May 02, 2006

May 1st: Our generation's civil rights movement?

Could I be the only white UU blogger who made it to a protest yesterday? Could this be? I'll admit I went on my lunch hour and found the time and place by reading a Spanish language newspaper.

I spent the last weekend at the Pacific Central District Assembly. For the Sunday worship service, Rev. Dr. Rebecca Parker was in the pulpit talking about UU Theology. She made the case that there are some theological options that are off the table for Unitarian Universalists, including views of predestination or other denials of at least partial human agency. She argued that the notion that some people would be eternally rewarded while others would be separated and eternally punished is also not compatible with Unitarian Universalism.

She also made the point (and very nicely quoted me) that there is no way for a Unitarian Universalist theology to consider any human beings illegal.

I know I am something of a panentheist, though I tend to use a humanist vocabulary. There is a spark in all people that I would call divine. And it makes us part of a larger whole. If anything is to be saved, it will be in these bodies, by these people in this world. If there is a balm in Gilead, it will be applied by our hands, and if a promised land that can be is to be built it will be built by these very same hands.

May no borders separate us or denigrate the sanctity of working hands. These hands are all we have to do the work of God and the work of humanity.

3 Comments:

At 4:35 PM, Blogger Joel Monka said...

But is a UU capable of recognizing that a human being is living in continuous violation of the law, and is doing so knowingly, with planning and intent? Are UUs capable of looking words such as "illegal" or "alien" up in a dictionary, or does UU Theology deny the existence of uncomfortable truths?

 
At 6:20 PM, Blogger birthingjourney said...

Joel,
Could you further clarify what you mean?

 
At 5:39 PM, Blogger Cee Jay said...

The problem with the program proposed by the Senate is that it continues to bring people across the border to work at low wages with no benefits provided by the employer. This brings down wages and leaves state and local governments to provide for the basic needs of workers. It also brings down wages for those already struggling to survive. I'm very sympathetic to those who have crossed the border for work and family, but as with most debates in our recent political climate, politicians present it as a your either for them or against them instead of dealing with the difficult problems and working for a real solution. The problem is that
income isn't distributed fairly, not in the US and definitely not in other countries. To solve the problem of poverty would take sacrifice and the willingness of those of us who have much to do with less. Those who have more than they need here are quite willing for the poor to sacrifice a living wage, but I don't see the sacrifice of the wealthy or even the decently well off.
It seems we are put in the position of either supporting the House bill that blames the immigrants or the Senate bill that continues to support cheap labor and lowers labor standards for those already struggling in our society.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home