Rev. Stefanie's Blog

The following article was submitted to and printed by the La Cañada Valley Sun, Glendale News-Press and Burbank Leader, respectively, in response to Sam Lundquist’s project of chronicling what people say to the question:  “What is your hope?”

My greatest hope is that we learn to soften the hard edges of fear in our personal lives – as well as in our collective life (and that we do so sooner, rather than later).

While fear can serve us well, inspiring caution in situations proven to be dangerous, it also tends to overshadow the life-affirming and empowering qualities of love and faith.

Some of the fears through which we are burdened and which manifest in the discord and violence of racism, sexism, homophobia and poverty; in degradation of the environment around us and the spirit within us; include:  fear of change, fear of the unknown, fear of difference, fear of insufficiency, fear of our potential as human beings and the responsibility that implies.

When these fears take hold there is little room for love and compassion.  There is little room for generosity, gratitude, forgiveness, and creativity.  When fear takes hold awe and reverence whither away; joy crumbles; and lonely desperation unfurls.  But, where love abides, all things are possible!

A further hope is that all our glittering hopes not gather dust, as we “await” their fulfillment.  Rather, that we give our lives to their manifestation.  (Often that process is begun by revealing our highest vision to one another, as Lundquist is encouraging folks to do.)

Rev. Stefanie Etzbach-Dale

Unitarian Universalist Church of Verdugo Hills, La Crescenta

The following was submitted to and published by the local press In Theory religious section in response to a question regarding the treatment of gays and lesbians by churches, and referencing the recent expulsion by a MA Catholic school of a boy because his parents were gay.  Apparently the expulsion was heavily criticized.

I am aware that, for many religious denominations, homosexuality remains a complex moral issue. However, Unitarian Universalists have a long history of affirming the worth and dignity of all human beings – regardless of sexual orientation.

In fact, our congregations welcome human diversity as a gift and actively work for equality in our hearts and minds, as well as under the law.

The latter equality, where it has been achieved, affords committed gay or lesbian couples the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexuals joined together in marriage.  Which, among other things, allows children raised in these homes to know themselves and their families as “just like” all others.  And certainly deserving of the same right to education!

It is baffling to me that some would be moved to, in effect, punish a child…for the God-given sexual orientation of the parents.

How can this be considered a moral act, grounded in God’s love?

It is equally thrilling to learn that our collective understanding of morality has progressed to such a point that there was heavy criticism this past week of the decision by a Massachusetts Roman Catholic school to remove a child of lesbian parents.

As thrilling as it is to note when religious communities grapple with the practical application of moral standards, choosing to acknowledge and value among them the presence and ministry of gays and lesbians seeking to serve their Creator.

My hope is that we get to the point where we don’t have to ask whether gays and lesbians are treated equally and fairly – just as we don’t have to ask whether there are imposed inequities between people with blue eyes and people with green eyes.

The distinctions would no longer be considered significant in any way, other than that they are a gift to be celebrated.

The following was submitted to and printed in the local press in response to questions about corporal punishment in the classroom:  Is corporal punishment on its way in again? And does it really work? Or are we taking a step backward in the discipline of our children? In what situations is corporal punishment appropriate, if at all?

The goals and challenges of teaching our children are timeless and universal.  As much as children have a natural curiosity about the world, they also have limited attention spans and, even within the same age group, can have hugely differing cognitive abilities.

For many teachers finding creative ways to meaningfully connect with these children, passing on the accumulated wisdom and values of our time, is what teaching is all about.  However, that goal has clearly become increasingly challenging.

Some say the challenge has to do with recent generations’ expectations of immediate gratification (afforded through TV/internet), that diminish the capacity for patience when struggling with new concepts or assignments.

Others say the challenge has to do with inconsistency within and among our homes regarding the importance of cultivating “authentic thought in our children, versus the importance of “obedience”.

And then there are those who point to the demoralizingly low status (and salary) granted those entrusted with energizing and expanding the minds of our children.

What is clear to me is that learning and teaching are incompatible with the kind of power struggles that manifest, for example, in corporal punishment.  When a teacher’s frustration and demand for obedience is remedied through violence of any kind (corporal, verbal, etc.), violence becomes “the lesson.”

As a Unitarian Universalist, I believe that “respect” is central in all human interaction.

Clearly it would be most helpful for all children to arrive in the classroom having had instilled in them, via the modeling of their parents, respect for learning and for those who teach!

Then, once they get to school, their teachers should focus on modeling respect not only for the subject, but for the students’ natural curiosity, ability to learn and motivation for doing so (even, or especially if these are “disguised”).

I’m not saying that’s easy!

Along those lines, it seems most appropriate to assure that teachers are afforded the training, support, compensation and status befitting their influence on this country’s future leaders.

The following was submitted to the In Theory section of the local press in response to the following questions regarding the recent Arizona law on immigration:   Is the new law a step forward in combatting illegal immigration to the U.S., or does it go too far? What are the moral and/or ethical dilemas that you see here that may arise or have already arisen from this new law?

Moral concerns about “state sanctioned racial profiling” are, as of last Friday’s revised wording, now apparently no longer in the forefront.

But there are still ample related issues that should be of concern to people of conscience.  Such as those pertaining to the growing number of people who feel personally affronted by the existence on our soil of non-citizens (regardless of their contributions to the functioning of our economy and culture).

Many are making it their mission to spread hate-filled mythology about “them”, and to advocate for inhuman extremes of segregation and punishment through various means – including border barriers (like those once dividing East and West Germany and those currently dividing Israeli and Palestinian settlements), and violent, fear-driven vigilante actions.

But there is another moral concern as well.  It has to do with this country’s history of ignoring/manipulating its laws.  Particularly when doing so creates benefit.

An example of this is the federal immigration laws which, when inconsistently enforced, assure the continued flow of cheap labor without which the current American standard of living would be greatly diminished.  This relates directly to the willingness of employers and consumers to place blame on undocumented workers, without taking responsibility for enabling this unofficial, much-maligned and yet highly profitable labor system.

A moral nation would encourage honest dialogue about its motives and commitments.  More-so (and I realize this is a stretch), a moral nation would create and consistently enforce fair laws designed to protect the freedom, dignity and worth of human beings.  Not just those with a US passport.

The following response was submitted in response to a question posted by the In Theory section of the La Cañada Valley Sun, Glendale News-Press and Burbank Leader, respectively:  Should UK political candidates play the God card in an effort to gain more votes even if it means going against the grain of UK politics?

First, God is not a “card” to be “played”.  Anyone flippantly asserting otherwise is 1. missing the whole point, and 2. doing their own spiritual growth a mis-service.  Whatever God is, or isn’t, should be given serious consideration… as a personal matter and not as a self-serving publicity stunt.

Experiences and beliefs about God are among many other highly personal aspects of human existence (like sexuality) that I believe should, ideally, be kept out of politics.  Using (actively emphasizing, denying or fabricating) such information as a way to win or destroy the trust of voters indicates to me a disturbing lack of personal integrity.

With that said, voters do want to get a sense of the values that will be influencing the decisions of those empowered as their leaders.

I want to know, for example, whether a candidate’s stance on  environmental change is grounded in commitment to our sacred responsibility as stewards of the earth.  Or, whether it is grounded in happy anticipation of the prophesied apocalyptic destruction that will lead “god’s favored few” to eternal paradise and the rest to oblivion.

His/her support of green initiatives seem very likely to depend upon that religious stance.

But there are clearly problems with this.

We may be misinformed about the value-systems of others.  We may hold unfair prejudices against those whose religious beliefs or practices are different from our own.

We may harbor assumptions about their ability to govern in such a way that honors those concepts we most value (such as ethics grounded in God or, conversely, ethics claimed and lived without affirmation of God).

We may become justly or unduly concerned about their commitment to our own religious freedom.

We may get so distracted by our inner-dialogue about who they are and how we think that will play out when they are in possession of political power, that we forget to ask the right questions; we forget to pay attention and stay involved in political process.

Should the UK start emphasizing religious beliefs in the political arena?  Clearly there are many elements to be considered.  So how about starting with: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”