And by the way, I read a bunch of books in preparation for this platform address, but the two that had the most influence on the final product were probably Active Liberty by Justice Stephen Breyer and How Democratic Is the American Constitution? by Robert A. Dahl.

This morning I’m going to explore how we tend to think about the Constitution, and in particular how different attitudes toward the Constitution parallel different ways that people look at religious texts.

Ethical Humanism falls within a category called liberal religion, which describes an attitude toward religious concepts and authority that de-emphasizes tradition and traditional hierarchies, and instead emphasizes what I’ve called spiritual democracy, adapting beliefs and practices in the light of modern information and social conscience.

The other end of the spectrum of religious attitudes from liberal religion is often called literal religion, and it emphasizes traditional hierarchical authority and traditional ideas and textual interpretations. We can use this framework of liberal and literal religion to better understand some of the conflicting attitudes toward the Constitution.

One of the ways that the Constitution is like a religious text is that lots of people have very strong feelings about it, without actually knowing what it says.

Even as adults, most Americans don’t know the details of our Constitution, and they know even less about other countries’ constitutions or systems of government, and yet most Americans assume that ours must be the best. This also reminds me of attitudes toward religions: “I don’t know that much about the arcane details of my religion, and I know even less about other religions, but I know that my religion is true.”

I think we can all agree that ignorance and reverence are not a good combination. And perhaps we could have more knowledge if we had a little less reverence: It’s hard to worship something and be clear-eyed and honest about it at the same time.

Our Constitutional system has major elements that we assume are well-thought-out, necessary aspects of democracy, but this may not be the case.

For instance, each state gets two Senators. Having grown up here with that system, it’s always seemed fair to me. But why should some people have more of a say in our national government based on where they live? Perhaps other commonalities are more important now than geography. We should decide that based on an educated and open discussion, not just assume that we live in the best of all possible Constitutional systems.

Our president and legislature are chosen by winner-takes-all elections, rather than the proportional parliamentary systems that most other democratic countries have. You can argue that our system is better, but you can’t argue that the framers of the US Constitution thought it was better, because proportional systems of voting didn’t exist until the mid-1800s, so the framers didn’t have that as a model to choose from.

Now that there are several models of democratic government to choose from, newer democracies are choosing not to emulate our system—even those new democracies that we are helping to create. If our system is so superior, how come no one else wants it? How come we don’t even set it up again when we have the influence?

Our winner-takes-all system leaves substantial minority views completely unrepresented. In a parliament, if your party gets 20% of the votes, you get 20% of seats. In our system, if you don’t win, you get nothing. The U.S. system also makes it almost impossible to have more than two major parties.

Does approaching the Constitution as a sacred text allow us to examine and debate the merits of different systems of government? Or does reverence keep us from openly looking at alternatives?

During the Constitutional Convention the attendees couldn’t decide whether the president should be chosen by the federal legislature (as in a parliament) or by electors chosen by states. The framers decided on the latter at the last minute, partially because the Electoral College would lessen the possibility of intrigue and corruption, because the electors in each state would be “at so great a distance from each other.” That argument is clearly no longer relevant in our age.

Many people have argued that the electoral college is undemocratic, because it can theoretically overrule the will of the voters; it can result in a president who actually lost the popular vote; and because the number of electors for each state is based on the number of Senators plus representatives, so the votes of citizens in smaller states again count more.

So far over 700 proposals to change or abolish the electoral college have been introduced in the House of Representatives, but all such proposals are killed by the Senate.

When you hear criticism of the Constitution are you uneasy? Excited? Analytical? Does it depend on whether you agree with the person doing the criticizing? Does it depend on whether you like the person doing the criticizing?

One can argue that the Framers of the Constitution themselves did not want it to be seen as a sacred document, or they would not have included a system to amend it.

Few would argue with many of the amendments to the US Constitution, such as ending slavery and giving the vote to all citizens. But have we taken care of the major flaws in the Constitution, or are there a few more, or are there a lot more? How would we know if we were done amending it? And if it does need further amending, should that be done through more individual amendments or is it time for a major Constitutional Convention?

I think part of the reason so many Americans think of the Constitution as a sacred text, even liberals, is to make the idea of another Constitution Convention blasphemous. Both sides of the political spectrum don’t want to take seriously the possibility of another Constitutional Convention because each is so terrified of what the other side might push through at such a Convention.

Since the U.S. has chosen not to revisit our Constitution as a whole, we’ve left it to the courts to update it by deciding if and how it should be applied to present-day problems. The problem with choosing to update our Constitution through the court system, though, is that especially when such decisions are made by narrow margins in state or the US Supreme Court, they can seem arbitrary and unfair and undermine respect for the rule of law.

And although our courts are secular, in judges’ different attitudes toward the Constitution we can see a version of the liberal and literal religious views articulated.

The recent Citizens United ruling illustrates this literal versus liberal interpretation of the Bill of Right’s phrase “free speech.” The literalist interpretation is that the words “no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech” means that “free speech” should not be limited, period (except in very extreme circumstances, yelling “Fire!” in a theater, etc.), therefore everyone is entitled to as much speech as he or she can buy. This equality of the right to buy speech may lead to an inequality of the amount of speech each person gets—and we’re seeing with the superPACs that very rich people can buy a lot more political ads than even groups of poor people put together—but that’s just too bad; it’s not a good enough reason to limit the absolute right of free speech.

The liberal interpretation of “free speech” asks, what is the purpose of a right to free speech in a democracy? US Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that the purpose is “to encourage exchange of information and ideas.” If, then, the likely consequence of allowing unlimited spending on political ads would be to distort the exchange of information and ideas by over-weighting the opinions of people and groups with more money, speech in the form of bought political ads should be limited to uphold the ultimate purpose of the free speech clause.

So Constitutional liberalism tries to look forward to the consequences on people today and tomorrow, while Constitutional literalism tries to look past to the intentions of the framers.

Some might say that we can’t know what the future might hold, though, while we do know what the framers wrote and therefore what they wanted. Isn’t it better to go with the traditional authority we know rather than take authority into our own hands, who knows with what ultimate result?

I do sympathize with the fears that liberal attitudes can arouse in those who don’t share them. But the idea that traditional authority is fixed and clear is false. We are always taking authority into our own hands, because even when we try to point to “tradition” we are picking and choosing and interpreting.

For instance, what about the original intentions of framers that didn’t make it into the Constitution? Madison proposed that the federal government should have mechanisms to “reduce extreme wealth toward a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence toward a state of comfort.” Madison wrote a lot of the Constitution, but his intention to use the Constitution to wage class warfare didn’t ultimately make it in.

Madison also changed his mind on some things in the Constitution as he got older, such as limiting the vote to men. So what do we mean by “original intent” of the framers? Which framers? And their intent when? At the moment they signed the constitution? Or later when they might’ve had different views, perhaps based on more experience with democracy?

Like everyone, I have a point of view. I am a religious liberal, and I look at sacred texts through that frame. So when I read the Constitution, and I begin with the phrase “we the people,” I ask, which people? And to me the most important people are not the dead people who wrote the Constitution, but the live people who are affected everyday by it now, and the people to come who will hopefully live under some improved version of it.

Overall, I do think the Constitution was a remarkable document for its time and has served us pretty well for over 200 years, and it deserves respect. But I don’t think it should be considered sacred, because that attitude encourages people to use the Constitution not as a point of discussion but as a weapon to insult their opponents’ honor or patriotism. The word Unconstitutional gets thrown around like fascist or socialist or unethical. When a text or an idea becomes sacred, disagreements become accusations of blasphemy. That just stops all communication cold. And no democracy can thrive without free and open discussion.

Politics, it is often said, is war by other means. And most of those other means will never appear in a civics textbook, or be taught in a political science class. Dr. Smith will describe the way that some of these other means are employed during election campaigns and during the policy process, with special focus on the role of money and how it might be overcome. He will discuss the impact of these other means both on the body politic and, more personally, on those who aspire to public office.
11 a.m. Auditorium.

Platform Music: Community Singing

Colloquy: A guided meditation and discussion on a topic that changes weekly.
9:45 a.m. Boardroom.

Forum: Ethics and Effects of the Use of Unmanned Military Drones by Colonel Ann Wright
9:45 a.m. Hanke Room.

Sunday School:
10 a.m. until noon

Ethical Mindfulness Meditation:
8 – 9:30 a.m. The Foyer.

It’s full of stars: Al Pacino plays Roy Cohn, a Jewish lawyer and Washington insider who is “evil incarnate,” as one character puts it. Meryl Streep plays Hannah Pitt, mother of Joe Pitt (Patrick Wilson) and mother-in-law of Harper Pitt (Mary-Louise Parker), two very confused Mormons. Streep also has two other roles; look for her.

In fact, quite a few people play more than one roll in this odd film. Emma Thompson is Nurse Emily, but also the guardian angel of America. She appears first in white, and later in dark blue with white. I think she also played a homeless person who told Hannah Pitt how to find her way to her son’s apartment.

My favorite character is Jeffrey Wright, a flaming queen who is Nurse Belize, and also a mystical travel agent, and I think also a rather phony leather queen in the park.

Yes, it’s that kind of movie.

The basic story is that Prior Walter (Justin Kirk) lives with his lover, Louis Ironson (Ben Shenkman), but they break up when Prior is diagnosed with AIDS and Lou can’t handle the whole thing. Meanwhile the evil Roy Cohn is trying to persuade the straight-laced (or is that laced up straight?) Joe Pitt to take a job with the Justice Department that he has arranged for him. Roy needs someone on the inside because he’s about to be disbarred for borrowing a bunch of money from a client and “neglecting” to pay it back. Why Joe? Because Cohn is a closet queen who has lust in his heart for the handsome young Mormon.

Unfortunately, Joe is tightly laced indeed. He and his wife are “buddies,” but their sex life is pretty awful for both of them. Also, she’s a Valium addict and has hallucinations and weird episodes of a variety of types.

It’s hard to know when something is a dream, a hallucination, or a real part of the story. I finally decided it was easier to just treat them all as events to be evaluated later. That seems to have worked best.

This is sort of a cross between “Dogma” and “The Birdcage,” although there is a lot of serious stuff, and a lot of sadness. There are also some superb laughs, as when the Angel has to “revise the record” because the Prophet to whom she appears, Prior Walter, is not behaving as predicted. But the sex scene between the Angel and Prior (whom, you will recall, is decidedly gay) is excellent, and reminds me of “Angel Fire” by Andrew Greeley.

Just toss out all your assumptions and expectations, and enjoy the movie. The preachy part is all the way at the end, in an epilogue. And it, too, is not something you could predict.

Statements in this review do not necessarily express the thoughts or opinions of the Ethical Society of St. Louis or its leadership.

Since I was busy last Sunday drumming with Occupy Ethical as the platform “music,” it seems an appropriate week to post some notes from my platform “Get on the Love Bus,” originally given at the Ethical Society of St. Louis in March 2010. You can hear the whole thing if you scroll down on our podcasts page.

Two days ago, on Friday morning, I was woken by two alarm clocks at 4 am, rolled out of bed, and drove sleepily downtown to Metropolitan Community Church to get on the Love Bus.

The official name is the “Show Me Marriage Equality” bus, a project that three times so far has taken same-sex couples and clergy from Missouri to Iowa for legal weddings—and there is a fourth bus being planned for May.

The buses are organized by Ed Reggi and Scott Emanuel—who got married on the first bus trip—because the only thing better than finally being able to marry the person you love is helping others have that experience and showing all this love to the world by documenting these trips.

I call the “Show Me Marriage Equality” bus the Love Bus because for all the political outrage inherent in adult citizens having to drive 6 hours and cross state lines in order to get married, then to come home and have those marriages be considered invisible, having been on the bus twice now, I can tell you that it is not primarily a bus about politics; it is a bus about Love. About the Love that each of those couples has for each other, and about the desire to show that love is not something to be feared; it is something to be spread to every state in this country, and to every country on Earth.

. . .
A few images that will stay in my mind:

A middle-aged white male couple who had been together for several years. One of the men brought up a small box to symbolize the moving boxes that he had finally gotten rid of. As part of his vows he stomped on the box and said to his husband, “I’m home.”

A black female couple who had been together for over 30 years, dressed for church, reciting a poem to each other that they had written together.

A young woman singing the Beatles’ “My Life” to her new wife as her vow.

A white woman marrying a black woman vowing that she would clean up after the dog.

Later, singing “Happy Birthday” on the bus to the tween who traveled to Iowa on her birthday to stand beside her moms as they got married, and the card to her that everyone on the bus signed.

From the first bus last year, I will never forget the father who came to give away his young daughter to her new wife. They were also an interracial couple. I’ve been trying to mention people’s races because it’s noticeable to me that the Love Buses have been the most racially diverse and harmonious experiences I have seen since I moved to St. Louis.

In the face of such love, commitment, and normalcy, do marriage equality opponents have any good arguments left? In a secular democracy, whatever the Bible says is irrelevant even if it were clear, which it’s not; biologists and psychologists now understand that same-sex relationships are natural and healthy; and no reputable studies have shown that same-sex families hurt children or anyone else.

About the only argument left is the notion that marriage equality will somehow lead to marriages between more than two people, so I want to address it. As Ethical Society Leader Jone Lewis has argued so well, the issues are not comparable. On the one hand, same-sex marriage requires nothing more than returning the laws to what they were only a couple decades ago, before marriage was defined as between a man and a woman. Nothing has to change but gender. On the other hand, expanding marriage to more than two people would be enormously complicated and require rethinking practically everything—would a marriage among three people be legally one marriage, or three marriages? How would parental rights be shared? Could I divorce one of my two spouses and still be married to the other? What if the other two are still married to each other? If you spend a minute thinking about multi-person marriage, not only will you get a headache, but you’ll realize it’s an entirely different animal than two-person marriage.

. . .
The Missouri legislature apparently has to crawl before it can walk before it can run when it comes to equality. The right to marry is important but it shouldn’t distract us from basic protection against discrimination, or from ongoing threats to foster care and adoptive families.

Yet although it seems likely that Missouri will be one of the last states to have marriage equality, we should fight for marriage wherever we have a chance—not just for its own sake but because marriage equality will confer a legitimacy that will carry over to other issues. It’s much harder to consider people as second-class citizens when they can marry.

It’s sad to read about the forces raising money and massing to block marriage equality from becoming implemented in Washington State. Of all the things to be throwing money and energy at in our nation, with all the real problems we have at this time, to fight against loving couples forming stronger unions and families is maddening.

Ethical Humanism, as a form of liberal religion, does not have a sacred text and reads other traditions’ sacred texts in the light of history, literary criticism, science, and individual experience and conscience. But what about the Constitution of the United States? Should that document, too, be treated as just another human-created text with good and bad ideas, or would such a liberal attitude toward the Constitution undermine the foundations of our democracy? How are differences between views on Constitutional issues attributable to different attitudes toward the Constitution as a secular Sacred Text? Or do attitudes toward the Constitution change to justify political desires?
11 a.m. Auditorium.

Platform Music: Community Singing

Colloquy: A guided meditation and discussion on a topic that changes weekly.
9:45 a.m. Boardroom.

Forum: “War Made Easy”, part II by Don McQueen
9:45 a.m. Hanke Room.

Sunday School:
10 a.m. until noon

Ethical Mindfulness Meditation:
8 – 9:30 a.m. The Foyer.

With the age of Enlightenment, came reason, spreading across Europe, reaching Germany. With the Napoleonic wars had come oppression, famine, chaos; and when the military campaigns ended, Germans were faced with an even more horrific struggle – for freedom. The Universities were filled with young men engulfed in that battle, where they learned Latin by daylight, yet studied democracy secretly by lamplight. A dream emerged, born of the oppression, fueled by repression, for a place where all Germans could raise families, educate their children, and live a life free from fear. When rationalism arrived in the far western states of North America, those ideals took shape in talks in crude cabins and traveled the countryside on broadsheets and books – and freethought was born on the Missouri frontier.

American secularism started in Europe, of course, especially in what colonists came to America to avoid. Of course you were told as a child that many came here to avoid religious persecution in Europe, but Jacoby throws a whole new light on the subject. She makes it abundantly clear why our Constitution does not mention God, not even once. Why there is the prohibition of a religious test for public office in the body of the Constitution, and why it could not be ratified without the Bill of Rights. I suppose we’ve long understood why the First Amendment came first.

Much of the history of free thought in America involves people of great courage who stood up against religious authorities on issues of moral judgment which had been written into laws. It is, to a significant degree, a history of Supreme Court decisions. But it is also about public opinion, the press, and mob psychology. In fact, it’s a tapestry so complex that only a very clear and straightforward style of writing could ever hope to explain it to those of us who have not had much formal education in history.

This is a history of ideas, certainly, but also of people who have often been terribly distorted in the conventional histories. Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen, Thomas Jefferson, ngelina and Sarah Grimke, Lucretia Mott, William Lloyd Garrison, Robert Ingersoll, Ernestine Rose, Abraham Lincoln, George Macdonald, Clarence Darrow, Eugene Debs, and many others.

I can’t begin to do justice to this book. It’s one every American, and everyone who wants to understand America, should read.

Statements in this review do not necessarily express the thoughts or opinions of the Ethical Society of St. Louis or its leadership.

Also, there will be a Camp Quest tent at the rally, so bring your kids! The tent will be geared toward children 5-15, with science experiments, craft projects, and games.

Speaker List: http://reasonrally.org/speakers-2/

Bus: http://reasonrally.dcrallybus.com/Travel/From/StLouis ($110, rates increase after Feb 23)

Bus Discount (prier to purchasing tickets): http://reasonrally.org/2012/02/01/discounts-for-the-reason-rally-buses/ ($55 off)

The trip will be overnight, so your costs should only include transportation and food.

• Curriculum focuses on humanist values, personal ethics, world religions, community service, and character development.
• Director will work with paid staff, volunteer teachers, approximately 40 families and 70 students.
• Salaried position. Estimated 10-15 hours a week.
• Qualifications: understanding of Ethical Humanism, curriculum development, and excellent people skills, especially recruiting and working with volunteers.
• Send resume to Sunday School Director Position, 9001 Clayton Road, St. Louis, MO 63117. Inquiries: (314) 991-0955.

Position Description

Status: Part time

Hours: 10+hours per week (specifically 3.0 of these hours will be Sunday morning from 9:15AM-12:15PM when the Sunday School is in session).

Reports to: Head of Staff

General Description:

The Ethical Society Sunday School director provides leadership and inspiration for the education of Sunday School children and youth, ages pre-kindergarten through high school. (See the Sunday School Core Values at the bottom of this post.)

Purpose of Position:

The Sunday School Director(SSD), guided by the Ethical Education Committee (ECC) is responsible for development and maintenance of the Sunday School (SS), i) curriculum and overall program, ii) interfacing with volunteers, staff, families, members, iii) promoting the benefits of community interaction and personal growth for the students. These efforts secondarily help with the growth and development of the Ethical Culture Movement.

Duties:

Evaluating the work of the SS with the support of the Ethical Education Committee, SID (Special Interests Director), and SSAA (Sunday School Administrative Assistant).

Developing and maintaining SS curriculum and lessons.

Preparing the annual budget with the ECC and SSAA.

Preparing new lessons when necessary.

Enlisting and training volunteers from the SS and the Society to assist and teach.

Assisting staff and volunteers with student behavior that disrupts the SS milieu.

Providing volunteers and staff with lessons and all necessary materials.

Communicating regularly with students, families, and the community to promote classes. projects, and events with the assistance of the SSAA.

Assuring that students, parents, and newcomers are greeted and welcomed at SS and related events.

Meeting regularly with the Leader, Ethical Society staff, EEC, Program Council, students, Nursery School board, parents , and others when indicated.

Communicating with SS directors of other Ethical Societies, share programming information, and participate with the AEU Religious Education Committee when appropriate. Potentially travel to participate to the AEU Religious education Conference.

Assisting in planning and coordinating

• Valentine Buddies (February)
• Thanksgiving Festival (November)
• Spring Festival (March)
• Youth Sunday (May)
• Coming of Age ceremony and luncheon (May)
• Recognition Breakfast (May)

Qualifications: understanding of Ethical Humanism, curriculum development, and excellent people skills, especially recruiting and working with volunteers.

Core Values

The Ethical Society’s Sunday School core values are an essential part of the curricula. All lessons emphasize the 12 core values:

• Ethics is my religion.
• Every person is important and unique.
• Every person deserves to be treated fairly and kindly.
• I can learn from everyone.
• I am part of this earth; I cherish it and all the life upon it.
• I learn from the world around me by using senses, mind, and feelings.
• I am a member of the world community, which depends on the cooperation of all people for peace and justice.
• I can learn from the past to build for the future.
• I am free to question.
• I am free to choose what I believe.
• I accept responsibility for my choices and actions.
• I strive to live my values.

By exempting the Border States from the terms of the Emancipation Proclamation, President Lincoln continued to extend to them some of the autonomy they had enjoyed during the first years of the war. Civil governments continued to function in Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, and in the new state of West Virginia, but Lincoln also authorized the imposition of martial law in these states. Lincoln rejected repeated pleas to resolve the tensions in the Border States, either by placing them entirely under federal military control or by deferring to the authority of their civil governments. Lincoln’s middle course helped to insure that the Civil War in the Border States earned its name. Conflict in these states raged at the most intimate levels of civil society.