Having children can really change your perspective on a lot of things. Of course, most of you (at least those who have children) already knew that. And having a child that is high-maintenance, spirited, active-alert or… (insert your favorite euphamism for "difficult" here) can really shake up the way you see life, the universe and everything. Thinking about my religious/spiritual journey, for example, I am almost certain that I would still be in the Catholic church. I plan to expand on that in an upcoming diary. Working title: "God is a blue puppy." Anyway, here are two basic lessons children can teach us about the art of persuasion: --Taking something away goes a lot more smoothly if you do so by offering an alternative. --If you really want them to take what you have to offer, you can’t force it. You need to act like you don’t care one way or the other, and let them "discover" it on their own. The first lesson isn’t really specific to anything I experienced with my own kids—more of a general truth I think works for both kids and grown people. (Probably works for dogs too, now that I think of it.) Here’s the scenario…toddler has, in his or her clutches, a forbidden object. Maybe it’s something breakable, or maybe it’s something that actually endangers the child. You have two choices. You could a)having the advantage in both size and strength, forcably pry the contraband from the tyke’s tiny hands b)entice the child with something else You’re better off going with B here, because if you choose A, the child is likely to tighten his or her grip, resulting in either damage to the item or injury to the child. I would suggest that people do not outgrow this impulse to cling tightly to anything someone is trying to take away from you. The threat of loss only serves to make it seem that much more valuable. Back when I was in college, I was still Catholic, and also still of the mind that, in order to be a Christian, I had to believe in the literal truth of most of the Bible stories. My views at the time would have been consistent with what Marcus Borg has called “soft literalism” Softer forms of literalism are willing to grant that not all of the biblical stories are to be understood in a literal-factual way. For example, the six days of creation might be understood metaphorically, perhaps as geological epochs; and the story of Jonah spending three days in the belly of a big fish may be a parable rather than factual history. But soft literalism affirms that the really important events in the Bible happened more or less as they are described. For example, the sea really did part in two to permit the Hebrew slaves to escape the Egyptians in the time of the exodus, Jesus really was born of a virgin, and he really did walk on water, multiply loaves, and so forth. The stories of "the spectacular" matter to both hard and soft literalism. Indeed, Christian literalism is to a large extent a literalism of the spectacular. For the earlier paradigm, "the miraculous" is central to the truth of Christianity. Anyway, at one point in college, I sat in on a theology class Demetrius was taking. Given that this was fully 20 years ago, I can’t remember much in the way of details, but what stands out is that the professor was trying to provide evidence that events in the New Testament did not happen as recorded. I also recall that I didn’t take too kindly to that. But twenty years later, I am now quite comfortable with notion that the New Testament is not a literal history of the life of Jesus and the early church. I came to that place through my own exploration of faith, my discovery of The Center for Progressive Christianity, and my reading of such authors as Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, and Bishop John Shelby Spong. The reason I was able to release my tight grip on “soft literalism” is that a positive alternative had been offered. That professor 20 years ago, as I perceived it, was trying to take something valuable away from me—specifically my beliefs (which were an important part of my identity), and my sense that I had a coherent understanding of how the whole general mishmash works. And he had offered nothing in its place. This experience has given me a better awareness of the pitfalls inherent in any attempts to convince people that, as the Weird Al song says Everything you know is wrong Black is white, up is down and short is long And everything you thought was just so Important doesn't matter Now, on to the second thing children can teach us about the art of persuasion… If you really want them to take what you have to offer, you can’t force it. You need to act like you don’t care one way or the other, and let them "discover" it on their own. Our first born has taught us this lesson many times over in his nearly 12 years on this Earth. Food was a lot more likely to be rejected if we actually put it on his plate, but the same item became infinitely more appealing if he put it on his own plate. At mealtimes, we discovered, the thing to do was to make healthy, appropriate food available, and allow him to "forage" for them. We later discovered that a similar dynamic held true for education. There was about a three year period that we homeschooled him (starting at the end of his kindergarten year.) By that point we had discovered, for example, that it took a team of experts, a behavior plan, and a superhuman level of patience just to extract a measly two sentence journal entry out of him. But the very same child, left to his own devices, taught himself the Hebrew alphabet over spring break. We were reminded of the dialog in the Hitchhiker’s Guide radio series when the characters were aboard Disaster Area’s stunt ship: TRILLIAN: Hey, that sounds better! Have you managed to make some sense of the controls? FORD: No, we just stopped fiddling with them. I think this ship has a far better idea of where it’s going than we do. With our son, we found that when we backed off a bit (did less "fiddling with the controls") we actually got a lot more high quality work out of him. So we turned to the "foraging" model again. I would go to the library and check out a whole bunch of books and CD-ROMs, and just make them available to him. If an activity was freely chosen, he was willing to pour a tremendous amount of time and effort into it, but the activity was someone *else's* idea, that very same energy might go into fighting it. Counterwill is the name for the natural human instinct to resist being controlled. Although not unique to humans, this dynamic is certainly the most complex and developed in our species. The counterwill instinct is, in essence, an allergy to coercion. In other words, most humans have this "you're not the boss of me" impulse to some degree. Our son was just blessed with an extra helping or two (or ten) which has allowed us more opportunity than most to observe the phenomenon "up close and personal". I have definitely seen it in the area of religion. It was at the times our son was around people who clearly *wanted* him to believe in God(de) that he was most resistant to the idea. But when he was in religious education at the local Unitarian Universalist church, his "I don't believe in God!" was met with, "So? A lot of people here don't." It was only then that he became more open to considering the possibility of a supreme being. Maybe this seems counterintuitive to a lot of people, but I've discovered that if I *want* my son to become a Christian one day, my best chance of achieving that outcome is by letting go. Don't push, don't try to indoctrinate, but make the information available if he wants it. Answer questions if he asks them. Of course, he still may choose to keep his distance from religion, but trying to force my belief system on him would just about guarantee that outcome. A couple weeks ago in Under God vs. The Golden Rule, I noted that I take issue with the Christians who aggressively push to have their belief system treated as more "legitimate" than all others not in spite of my faith, but because of it. What I have discussed here points to a reason they should *want* to back off a bit. The more you push, the more you risk pushing people away.

The following is from The Other Paper's cover story this week A year ago, Blackwell's candidacy looked like a hopeless vanity project. He'd backed off after promising to run against Taft in '98 and had been a thorn in the side of his fellow Republican officeholders ever since. But while others were dismissing his chances, Blackwell was very publicly taking up conservative causes, notably opposition to high taxes and gay marriage. He made enemies on Capitol Square, but he made friends among the Republican grassroots. Suddenly, he's the man to beat. "If you look at the polls, he's definitely the front runner," said Jordan, a Blackwell supporter. "He did a great job leading our efforts to define marriage the way it's supposed to be defined, and he's doing an outstanding job advocating Republican principles." To the Republican old guard, the idea that religious folks are deciding the future of their party is maddening. "That's probably the only group that gives his candidacy any legitimacy," said Republican lobbyist Neil Clark, "and I hope they're proud of that." They are. This past week has been a coming-out party for evangelicals in Ohio politics. Tuesday was Ohio Family Lobby Day at the Statehouse, where Christian-right organizations shared strategies for getting more of their priorities passed in the state legislature. The event was organized by Greg Quinlan, a Dayton-area activist who says his Christian faith has cured him of his homosexuality. The Statehouse rally came three days after Pastor Rod Parsley hosted two national celebrities of the Christian right for a Central Ohio rally. Professional liberal baiter Ann Coulter--who's on the cover of this week's Time magazine--and perennial candidate Alan Keyes came to Parsley's World Harvest Church to help with a flashy launch of the pastor's new book, Silent No More. "Values voters, as they've been called now," Parsley said in an interview prior to Saturday's event, "I do sense that those people are stirred up. I do sense that they recognized they had a voice, and they recognized that their vote counted and that one vote is important, and I don't think that there's any turning back in them at this point." ---- More on the Religious Right in Ohio Politics here.

There's a great diary on Social Justice Sunday by Glenn Smith over at MyDD... I just finished a live interview with FOX, up against Rev. Albert Mohler from the "Justice Sunday" event. Of course, FOX had him live on camera while I was on via telephone (hiding from the wind noise in my rent car) with my picture on screen. DriveDemocracy was described by FOX as "protestors." Mohler was a late switch. I was supposed to be on with Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. So I wasn't quick enough to remind viewers that Mohler is the fellow who said "I believe that the Roman Catholic Church is a false Church." Click here for the rest. And click here for another diary Louisville Oscar just posted this one at Kos Pharisees, Sadducees, & Scribes: Religion And Politics in America

There was a town hall meeting on Social Security in Columbus today with Senator Harry Reid, Senator Byron Dorgan, former Senator John Glenn, and Mayor Mike Coleman. I only found out about this meeting last night, but I did manage to attend. Details here.

I've mentioned in the past that a group within my church started meeting after the November elections, trying to figure out how to respond as progressive people of faith. Last week there was another meeting of that group, and I attended so that I would have the opportunity to talk to others about Social Justice Sunday and the Break the Silence bus tour. I was surprised to find that, in a group that is very motivated and tuned in to precisely this sort of issue--being a visible, vocal alternative to the "Religious Right"--no one in attendance had heard of either of these events. Given that George Lakoff's diary about Social Justice Sunday is no longer visible on the front page of Daily Kos, and given that Justice Sunday/Social Justice Sunday is in fact this coming Sunday, I am posting about this again in the hopes of generating some more interest. Below, I have included information about the Social Justice Sunday event in Louisville, Kentucky, and the National Council of Churches' response to Frist's "Justice Sunday" event. Here are the details on the event in Louisville: Social Justice Sunday WHAT: Social Justice Sunday - Faith and Freedom Vigil WHEN: 2:30 pm, April 24, 2005 WHERE: Central Presbyterian Church 318 W. Kentucky St. Louisville, Kentucky CONTACT: Clergy and Laity Network and DriveDemocracy Progressive Religious Communities, our leaders and our community friends are gathering to witness: OUR OUTRAGE over the attempt by the Family Research Council and its radical Christian Right colleagues to highjack the judicial selection process for their politiclal/theocratic agenda OUR DISMAY Senate Majority Leader, Senator Bill Frist, is lending his name and influence to the Family Research Council's claim of universal support from "people of faith" for its strategy, thereby giving false religious credentials to a thinly veiled political agenda OUR POSITIVE COMMITMENT to defend and strengthen our social context in its commitment to fairness for all people, free of biased religious doctrines and prejudiced attitudes which are inimical to a mature religious understanding of the standards of inclusiveness and justice in American life The Social Justice Sunday invitation is available at the Building the Beloved Community. Please distribute the invitation to all progressives. And here is the response from the National Council of Churches: Disagreeing Without Demonizing NCC General Secretary Challenges Planners of 'Justice Sunday' for Attacking Fellow Christians A partisan political campaign to change the Senate filibuster rules has taken a detour through church-state territory, and NCC General Secretary Bob Edgar has challenged the tactics as "dangerous and divisive" to the nation's religious and public life. In a statement issued Tuesday, Edgar says: "We are surprised and grieved by a campaign launched this week by Family Research Council and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who said that those who disagree with them on President Bush’s judicial nominees are 'against people of faith.' "This campaign, which they are calling 'Justice Sunday,' should properly be called 'Just-Us' Sunday. Their attempt to impose on the entire country a narrow, exclusivist, private view of truth is a dangerous, divisive tactic. It serves to further polarize our nation, and it disenfranchises and demonizes good people of faith who hold political beliefs that differ from theirs. Update: I just saw this post on MyDD Bound for Kentucky

I looked to see if Joan Chittister had any comment on the new pope yet, but so far she does not. But the site she writes for, the National Catholic Reporter, has several articles. Here are two of them Hero of church's conservative wing becomes Pope Benedict XVI The Vatican's enforcer: A profile of Cardinal Joseph Ratizinger From the second ("enforcer") article: His record includes: * Theologians disciplined, such as Fr. Charles Curran, an American moral theologian who advocates a right to public dissent from official church teaching; Fr. Matthew Fox, an American known for his work on creation spirituality; Sr. Ivone Gebara, a Brazilian whose thinking blends liberation theology with environmental concerns; and Fr. Tissa Balasuriya, a Sri Lankan interested in how Christianity can be expressed through Eastern concepts; * Movements blocked, such as liberation theology and, more recently, religious pluralism (the drive to affirm other religions on their own terms); * Progressive bishops hobbled, including Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen of Seattle, reproached by Rome for his tolerance of ministry to homosexuals and his involvement in progressive political causes, and Bishop Dom Pedro Casaldáliga of Sao Félix, Brazil, criticized for his political engagement beyond the borders of his own diocese; * Episcopal conferences brought to heel on issues such as inclusive language and their own teaching authority; * The borders of infallibility expanded, to include such disparate points as the ban on women's ordination and the invalidity of ordinations in the Anglican church.

Here is the blog I put up that is more specific to my geographic area: Progressive Christianity in Central Ohio

April 24 is Social Justice Sunday Here is the press release Friday, April 15 – A coalition of progressive religious leaders and organizations today expressed outrage that Republican leaders are attacking the faith of Democrats and progressives in a cynical, partisan effort to win support for a handful of extremist judicial nominees. "Such an action is immoral, deceitful, and beyond the pale of even politics as usual," said Rev. Albert M. Pennybacker, Executive Director and Chair of Clergy and Laity Network and coordinator for the Building the Beloved Community Coalition. "We call on Senator Frist to immediately cancel his plans to attend the event, and we urge all Republicans to condemn this wholesale attack on the religious practices of their political opponents." According to the New York Times, Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist will join an organization called "The Family Research Council" in a national telecast on April 24. The Council is calling it "Justice Sunday," are saying Democrats want to use the Senate filibuster "against people of faith." "As people of faith, we protest the religious manipulation of the filibuster issue, said Pennybacker. "Attacks by Republicans on the religion of those who differ politically are offensive in America." The Clergy and Laity Network will sponsor a national prayer vigil on April 24 and is inviting citizens of all faith traditions to protest this unprecedented attack, which is add odds with America's religious traditions. The CLN and DriveDemocracy are the coordinators of a national coalition of more than 65 religious organizations. Their national "Breaking the Silence" campaign kicked off April 4 at Riverside Church in NYC and is continuing with a national tour of America.

The National Day of Prayer has become a vehicle to promote a right-wing agenda. Although it is billed as a "government-proclaimed day is offered to all Americans, regardless of religion, to celebrate their faith through prayer", the National Day of Prayer Task Force asserts that "our expression of that involvement is specifically limited to the Judeo-Christian heritage and those who share that conviction as expressed in the Lausanne Convenant." Instead of the exclusionary events that have become typical of the National Day of Prayer celebrations around the country, we should be affirming and celebrating the religious pluralism that exists in the United States. May 5 should be a National Day of Inclusion.

First of all, a little parental brag--my 9 1/2 year old daughter sang with her youth choir in church last Sunday and she totally rocked. In a robed, Episcopalian way, I mean. Okay, "rocked" is kind of a weird word for it, but it's the first thing that comes to mind in attempting to describe the parental pride welling up inside me. She sings with a church youth choir, and I am already impressed that she is learning how to sing in "parts" (soprano, alto, etc.) which is something I didn't do until high school. But Sunday there were only three girls present, and she was the only alto, so she effectively had her first "solo" for a couple lines. She got through it by thinking about her kitty-cat, she says. When it was over, she beamed at me, and I responded with a burst of silent but enthusiastic applause. It's amazing to see how grown up she is getting to be--especially in contrast with the baby being baptized at today's service. Wow--has it been that long? Three different priests were in attendance, and each of them said a portion of the baptismal prayers/blessings. I found my attention riveted on the Associate Rector, Mother Rebecca, in her robes and very pregnant. I couldn't help smiling at this distinctly motherly image of God. I thought back to something I read by by Marcus Borg that has really stayed with me... "...watching my wife in her role as an Episcopal priest distributing the bread of the Eucharist one Sunday morning. Among the people kneeling at the altar rail was a four-year-old girl, looking expectantly at my wife's face as she bent down to give her a piece of bread. My wife has a beautiful face and a wonderful smile. As I watched the young girl, I suddenly wondered if my wife's face was filling her visual screen and being imprinted in her mind as an image of God, much as the face of the male pastor from my childhood had been imprinted on mine And I was struck by the difference: an image of God as a male authority figure shaking his finger at us versus an image of God as a beautiful woman bending down to feed us." I really love the way Borg expressed that--his thoughts about images of God as well as the obvious affection and pride when watching his wife "at work". More and more, I have been making a conscious effort to say "She" when talking about God. The moment at which this really became a conscious decision was one Sunday afternoon when I was driving through town and saw the Kerry/Edwards signs for the first time...the ones with the words "For a stronger America". I thought "Wow--that's just testosterone-y, isn't it?" And for me, well, just everything is connected--one thought leads to another and another. These big concepts of leadership and authority, whether we are talking about religion or politics, just sort of blur together for me. (Makes it hard for me to write a diary in any sort of linear fashion!) But it troubled me to see how much we have accepted that, of course, leadership of any kind has to be "male"...even to the point of defining Ultimate Reality as male. And since everything we do or say starts ripples that can affect everything else, calling God "She" seemed as good a place to start as any. At this point, I suppose I should explain my "misspelling" of God in the title of this diary. This is how Katy Scott explained it: Dear _____ and others who have not yet read my explanation for the spelling of Godde. Christian Feminist writers became very uncomfortable with the traditional God. It was understood in the present RCC/Christian environment that God=Male connotation. Now we all say we understand that God the Creator/Sustainer is a Spirit and has no sex, BUT we humans, being who WE ARE, through time "inferred" maleness to God. One of our common sins being our giving to Godde OUR human qualities and foibles (same as the Greek and Roman, etc. -- all the great Pantheons of gods throughout time) and not letting Godde be Godde, Mystery. So the Feminist writers introduced the word Godde: God for the "male characteristics" and de extending the meaning toward Goddess for the "female characteristics;" but wise women as they are, they stopped the spelling here. I really like this spelling as the best I have read, Godde is inferred to be "not only male and/or female, but more -- open ended into eternal Mystery." To our eye when we read it, the spelling is "incomplete" just like our knowledge of Godde, who is Mystery, and who is more than male and female and all that our present theologies can describe. Just some thoughts I wanted to start to share, as much of the world is focussing on the death of the  "Holy Father". Being a mother has had a very important effect on the way I think about the One in Charge. One thing Demetrius and I discussed a while back, when we were both going to the Unitarian Universalist church in Columbus, was this whole notion of God as parent and faiths/nations as squabbling children. I know this isn't terribly original, and many other people have certainly expressed something similar, but the significant thing was that this was a shared "aha" moment between two people who had always thought about religious matters from very different perspectives. Anyway, it went something like this. As parents of small children, it's not that we are "good" and they are "bad", but that we can understand some things that they just can't "get" from their own limited perspective. Our job is to care for them and guide them the best we know how. And at their stage in life (preschool/early elementary at the time), there was really nothing material we needed that they could give us. Sure, if they made us something with glitter and glue and paper, we would say thank you and gush about what a lovely thing they had done for us. But did we need it? No. (And I'm sure Demetrius would be happy to share with you his feelings on the subject of glitter.) If you asked us, though, what we wanted more than anything from our kids was for them to just STOP FIGHTING FOR TEN FREAKING MINUTES!! I imagine Mother Godde feeling much the same way--surely she appreciates the sentiments behind our glitter and glue creations (rituals, prayers, observances we follow) but she doesn't need them. But, a few minutes of peace? Seeing her children interact with kindness and respect? Now that would be priceless!

From the web site of the Clergy and Laity Network United for Justice. This event is tomorrow, at Riverside Church in New York City--please share this with anyone who might be interested. After weeks of death watches, I'd like to spread the good news that religious voices from *diverse* traditions are coming together in a service and rally of public witness. A Community of Conscience is gathering across our country! In a witness to the nation it will convene at the Riverside Church in New York City, on April 4, 2005. The date reclaims the great antiwar sermon by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., "Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence!" For too long, attacks on freedom and justice by religious voices from the right have gone effectively unanswered. Greed, fear and imperialism have been endorsed. Beginning now progressive religious communities are organizing. Their respected leaders are speaking out. Others are joining in. Please add your voice! Click for the details.

There is a very thoughtful diary on the recommended list at Kos, called "late night thoughts about John Paul II" by kid oakland. Here is part of it... ---- He loved us...both in the particular sense of how he cared enough to "show up" and in the general sense that he was a man who saw his mission as embracing the good of everyone. He saw humanity as a whole. Worthy, imperfect, but essentially, one. That is, to put it bluntly, not a particularly common worldview, and it is a viewpoint whose message was not lost on millions of people. On some level, though it was through his Christianity that he arrived at that vantage point, there is something powerful in it, nevertheless. I am convinced that the challenge of the 21st century is to build a sense of our human community. That is the challenge posed to us by our history and by the defining event that opened this century....9/11. As a living embodiment of the 20th Century, its struggles and nightmares...as a man who grew up in Nazi occupied Poland, and found his vocation under Soviet domination...Karol Wojtyla had a powerful lesson to teach the world...implicitly, simply, in his actions and words. We are one. Our future is intermeshed with that of our brothers and sisters. We are equal. That is the start point. I think this is true. Perhaps not in the way this Pope would have us all accept...or affirm. But in a way that his life force and mission was truly oriented towards....and in a way that all the great paths, the spiritual and philosophical traditions of humankind, aspire to illuminate on some level. Our oneness, equality and interdependency is something we are left with in this new era. In this new century. It is something that binds us and highlights the powerful question of what, if any, legacy we will leave for our children on this planet. John Paul's absence, like that of the Dalai Lama when he dies, will make his presence, a presence we have long since taken for granted, all the more significant. It is no small fact that a man who was celibate, who never had children of his own, became in the end more of a father than he might ever have expected. He was, at the end of the day, a "great" man, someone who lived a significant life, whether one agreed with him or not. He tried to be a force for good. He tried to embody love as best any of us can, ie. through his own limitations. When one sees beyond some of the outer trappings...the robes and the ceremonies...this becomes more clear. John Paul was certainly not unique in his vision, but he did sustain, for his lifetime, the core of his message...a message of humanity and love. There are many other great men and women among us. Some of them known, some of them unknown. The challenges we face....all of us, together, are just as profound...and the terrain does not avail us of easy answers or unifying creeds. Now it's their turn. Our turn. With our feet squarely planted on the ground. It is time to say goodbye...and thank you...to Karol Wojtyla.