Home of the Wanderer

http://sillypoorgospel.blogspot.com/2008/03/geek-squad-jesus.html

Peggy Parsons, who has a paid position with universal tech support, writes skillfully about the ultimate programmer, the big software re-write, and the human interface. As a tech support volunteer – and as one who likes to customize the system settings, download new software, get all the latest upgrades, and sometimes even do beta testing – I’m particularly grateful for the 24/7 help-desk.

While I’m often more excited about the new releases than I’ve ever been about the millenia-old re-write, I recognize that it’s all being done by the same dev-team. In fact, I think that a lot of the new releases I get so excited about may really just be custom design adjustments to get my interface working. One thing I love about the dev-team: there is no abandon-ware, and they’re always taking bug reports. It’s nice to know that the lead hacker takes a personal interest in making the software work for each and every one of us.

Allison writes in this recent post about, among other things, the relationship between Quakerism, Universalism, and Christianity. That brought to mind this article, which my grandmother recently shared with me when I was back east visiting. In it, Samuel Caldwell argues that Quakerism not only marries Christianity to Universalism, but makes of them two sides of the same coin.

It was a refreshing read for me, as it seemed to speak to (and of) my own condition. I suppose I’ll need to make a note of it in my page about my spirituality.

Robin Mohr’s recent comment brought to mind a question that has been with me in recent years: does anyone wait for the results of a clearness process before deciding that they are getting married? Given the number of happy marriages with which I am acquainted that seem not to have done so, is it necessary? Have we ever, as a Society, had this as a practice?

From what I’ve seen, such discipline would seem to be a thing of legend. And then I consider a couple who called off their wedding plans twice before finally (after ten years, I believe, and on the third attempt) getting clearness to marry. It was hard for them, but I believe they both consider it to have been appropriate to wait. (more…)

“Quaker Dating” by Betsy Blake | QuakerYouth

I would *totally* sign up for a Quaker dating site. As a matter of fact, I have. I’m not convinced yet about http://www.quakersingles.org – they have 65 registered users, and no way to filter search results by age or location. In the meanwhile, I’m using http://www.okcupid.com (where I’m registered as heaventwig).

I’ve been thinking, for a couple of years now, about a Young Adult Friends (YAF) workshop on Quaker romance. I was hoping this blog post might talk about such a thing, or try to address some of the questions that come up for me about what it means to date as a Friend. I guess you did that to some extent in raising the issues of discipline and the desire to pair with another Friend, which both seem relevant to me. (more…)

Some things are just plain fun, and even easy, while providing a challenge.

For example, it’s challenging to sing really well, but when it works it just works. The voice flows out of the mouth effortlessly – at this point the voice is beyond belonging to a particular person, or at least it seems that way when I’m the one opening my mouth and letting song flow out. There’s no work involved, except in staying out of the way.

Similarly, I find a pleasant challenge when I can stare into my heart and discover the sun, everywhere I go. (more…)

I believe that government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed; that the best policies are those that most help the least well-off; and that by thinking together, members of a community can gather their collective wisdom to discover good ways to manage their common assets. I believe (more…)

http://www.yahoo.com/s/643847

These two guys jumped down in front of an arriving subway train in NYC, pushed a fallen woman to safety, and then hopped back to the platform themselves. They left before anyone knew who they were.

Now that’s intoku. I find myself wondering if I would do the same thing, in their shoes. I think I’d need to be with one or both of my brothers, and be in much better shape. Which brings to mind the Quaker practice of living simply and cultivating one’s own abilities, so that one is ready when a situation presents itself requiring action.

What are your favorite stories of good done in secret? What do you do to be ready to act when needed?

This YouTube video brought to mind the communications workshop at the FCNL annual meeting, in which we worked on different aspects of communications strategy around presentation of a memorial event with flags to represent all those that have died in the war. I thought you would want to see it.

[Edit: I’ve had to remove the video, because the YouTube code is now doing funny things to my website.]

The presentation you see in this video was put on at both Reed College and Lewis & Clark over the past couple of weeks (though the footage is apparently only from L&C). The people putting it on are friends of mine from the Dean campaign and others with whom they have since connected through Democracy for America. The event was sponsored by the Students for a Democratic Society chapters at the schools, as well as by the Iraq Peace Project.

From over on BlueOregon – I’m not posting this there, because I think this topic threatens to derail the thread.

I have a question about the faith caucus. What’s that all about? Is the goal to reach out to people of faith and encourage them to see the morality and values inherent in traditional Democratic ideas, like universal health care and fighting poverty? Or is the idea to get the Democrats to change their views on hot-button issues - like abortion and gay rights? (Kari Chisholm)

is ‘religious communities’ code for ‘white evangelicals’ and ‘conservative catholics’, or does it include buddhists (of which there may be more of in oregon than there are jewish folk), muslims, quakers, unitarian universalists, wiccans, zoroastrians? or is it more an attempt to make inroads to traditional gop constituencies? … what i really want to know is the details of the type of outreach you have done, what are you planning, what religious leaders and communities have been contacted, what has the reaction been, etc? (pedro)

I am a member of the Faith Caucus, and a lifelong Quaker. Though I don’t speak for Mac Prichard, and I’m not an official representative of the Faith Caucus, I believe I can answer both of these questions. Karen Wood and Rob Brading would be able to give you the official answer, as they are the Co-Chairs of the Faith Caucus.

In any case, I was at one of the first organizing meetings of the Faith Caucus, this past summer, down in Eugene. At that meeting, there were a couple of times when one participant or another corrected someone else’s reference to places and/or times of worship. The correction was always toward the more inclusive. Even the name was a matter of some dispute, as we labored to craft an appellation that would be most inclusive.

I’m absolutely certain that there are dual memberships between the Faith Caucus and both the LGBT Caucus and the Women’s Caucus. I know this doesn’t mean these people necessarily have their heads on properly (somehow “straight” doesn’t work as an adjective here), but I think it is indicative that these perspectives will be well represented. Certainly, holding both of the issues identified above (inclusivity and choice) as close to my heart as I do, I expect the Faith Caucus to focus more on the Way, the Eightfold Path and liberation theology than on requiring compliance with Leviticus.

What the Faith Caucus has planned to do involves connecting our faith communities with our political worlds. This means both educating others about the role of faith in informing our Democratic values (eg: finding scriptural support for our platform positions in wisdom texts such as the Baghavad Gita, the Bible, the Koran, and/or the Tao te Ching, among many others), and bringing people together in listening sessions to learn more about each other (eg: a candidate with a congregation, or a monk to a Party meeting).

It has occurred to me, since writing my previous post, that

• I would like to encourage reader-participation, and I’m not sure I made that clear; and
• I imagine that I left out of my previous post what is, to my mind, an important consideration, which I will now address.

In thinking about what to say or not to say so as to honor all my potential futures, it is important to me also to be diplomatic. I challenge myself, in my political work, to speak my truth while maintaining alliances and working relationships with those in power.

I have thought at times that this or that political figure, with whom I am allied, could have done better by making a different choice. I’m not always in a position to voice that opinion to him or her directly, or even to his or her staff. Generally, in the interest of being able to work together on future projects, I have avoided offering public critiques at such times, but I have talked with colleagues about how to handle the situation.

When I can, I address my concerns directly to those involved. For example, when an elected official took an unpopular position, I contacted that person’s staff to ask what I could possibly say in defense of that position. When another elected official spoke at a breakfast, and gave what I thought to be a weak answer to an easy question, I approached the speaker afterwards and suggested what I imagined to be stronger and more effective language. These are in keeping with my understanding of Quaker practice, and seem wise in any case, but I’m not sure I’ve got the whole picture.

How do I know when it’s time to bring attention to my concerns at the next level? What is that next level?

Without revealing damaging (or potentially damaging) details, if you are willing, please tell me (here, in the comments) – what dilemmas have you faced? When have you found it challenging to maintain your integrity while also keeping peace with your colleagues and your community? What have you done to resolve this dilemma? What do you do when the results of your first approach don’t meet your needs?

How does all of this relate to humility? Is it ambition and vanity to hope for future political success, or can this be viewed as a desire to maintain peace and support one’s community (or “further its beliefs”)? How do we communicate our vision for the world in such a way that we don’t sabotage our relationships?

What other questions do you have about this dilemma?