Sorry for ranting....

I'm sorry, but something snapped while I was listening to the news this morning, and now my brain feels like it's about to explode from incredulity. Key figures in the Bush administration are suspected of orchestrating the firing of eight US attorneys because of their refusal to get with the program, stop investigating so many Republicans, and start investigating more Democrats; and now, when the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee wants some of the principal figures involved in this scandal to testify publically under oath about their knowledge of this whole sorry situation, he is accused of initiating a "partisan fishing expedition."

I'm sorry, but the hypocrisy and disengenuousness of that statement are staggering. Mind-blowing. I'm left practically speechless from outrage. And yes, I understand the importance of attorney/client privilege, and how essential it is for the President to be able to receive candid and confidential advice from his advisors, and all the rest. But isn't this the same administration which has already attempted to cut the heart out of attorney/client privilege as part of its so-called "War on Terror," by denying "enemy detainees" both habeus corpus and the right to counsel, even to the extent of investigating (and prosecutiong) attorneys who represent accused terrorists, and pressuring corporate cronies to stop doing business with law firms who provide pro bono legal services to individuals who the Bushies believe don't even deserve a fair trial?

Of course, I suppose Congress could always consider the option of hiring some "independent military contractors" to kidnap the "honorable public servents" in question, and deliver them to some secret undisclosed off-shore location where they could be waterboarded and in other ways "not tortured" until they reveal everything they know. But oops, I almost forgot...those Blackwater guys all seem to work for (and vote for, and contribute vast amounts of money to) the Republicans too. So I guess that won't work. Even though Attorney General Alberto Gonzales assures us it is all perfectly legal.

And I'm so, so sorry to be witnessing this whole sad, sicknening chapter in the history of our Democratic Republic....

So terribly, terribly sorry....

My 15 Seconds of Fame

OK, it finally happened -- the "NIghtline" segment on "Beauty Tips for Ministers" aired last night, and everyone in the country who was still up at that hour (and cared) got to hear how my good friend PeaceBang literally ripped my "holey" clothes off my back...and not in a good way! And I sure hope it's true what they say about the camera adding 15 pounds, because if it's not I definitely need to push myself away from the table and start making it back in to the gym every day.

In any event, it was fun to do, I'm glad it's over, and I sure hope everyone has the good sense not to judge PB's style savvy by what I typically wear to work. She's a fashion goddess. And I'm just an (occasionally) well-dressed extra...


a more typical day at the office....

Spiritual but not Religious

Recently there's been a thread on this topic on the UUMA-chat. Here's my contribution to the conversation, expanded and slightly modified for this forum (to which I have been terribly undisciplined about contributing).

Whenever I address this topic, I like to point out that the word Spirit in the Greek New Testament is pneuma, which can also be translated as "breath" or "wind," while the root of the word Religious is ligare which means "to bind" (as in ligament or obligation). Thus Religion is sometimes defined as "that which binds us back/binds us again to God" (or whatever passes for God in your theology: Creation/the Ground of Being/the Interdependent Web of All Existence/Matters of Ultimate Concern); while Spirituality might be said to refer to "that aspect of our experience which can be felt but not seen, which is as ubiquitous as air, and as intimate and essential to our own existence and well-being as breathing itself." Given these two definitions, it seems to me that people who claim to be "Spiritual, but not Religious" are simply folks who don't want to feel "tied down" or "held back" by the traditional rules, rituals, and discipline of "organized" religion, but who still wish to be in touch with that Higher Mystery which gives us life and gives life meaning, and refuses to be "bound" by our attempts to rationalize and codify it. That's not so complicated, is it?

I think the tricky part for those of us who like to think of ourselves as both Religious AND Spiritual leaders is to be able to show our people that religion does indeed have a place in our spiritual lives, because we NEED tradition, ritual, discipline, and covenantal relationships mutual obligation and accountability just as much as we do regular inspiration in order to live truly meaningful and fulfilling lives. Without the sense of "discipleship" provided by routine religious devotion, "spirituality" is often just a lot of hot air. Just my two cents worth, from someone who really does know what he's talking about, and who speaks from personal experience....

March Fo(u)rth

So someone mentioned in church this morning that today is the only day of the year that is also a command. Clever. Funny. OK, and just a little stupid. But I can't help but be reminded of that old wordplay about Independence Day: Those who go forth with a fifth on the fourth, rarely go forth on the fifth....