Starting with the last first, the core of my UU Prophecy is that we-as-a-people are a bottom-up organizational entity, which we at least in part *have* to be if we're going to be able to gather wisdom from wherever among us it occurs. So we need to have communication that will let us respond to ideas from any such quarter. Modern communications technologies make this trivial, but the demands on organizational decision-making processes still occur -- would Einstein's relativity paper have gotten caught in a spam filter if he'd emailed it?
So once we've established that our 'religion' derives from all of us, we have to address the social nature of religion, which UUism historically has not. 'Do your own thing' is all very well and good, but there needs to be concern for how this fits with our being a society and maintaining a civilization. We might be strong enough that it only has to be a preference for such things rather than prohibitions and covenants, but the bias has to be there.
And damn, but my ankle hurts. Ignore it, on with the prophecy: My big disagreement with the Seven Principles is that while 'compassion' is the core of the first principle, 'passion,' without the 'com-' prefix, isn't addressed at all. I hold that it is not possible for someone to feel for someone *else* unless they can feel for themselves first, and further that as the member of my People that is closest to my Joel, I am in the best position to maintain myself and should be the member of society doing most of that work. (I still need help, hence the '*com*passion' element, but the job's *mostly* mine. And yours, for you.)
Next bit is on the "democratic process," the Fifth Principle. I hold that the purposes of collective decision-making are to make sure all viewpoints are adequately considered and represented, and that with as much data collected as it is reasonable for us to do we make the wisest decisions of which we are capable. Democratic process is a *tactic* for achieving these goals, and I suggest it is a mistake to confuse tactics and goals. (There are also the questions of "*Which* democratic process?" and "Who picks what we get to vote on, and how?")
Next, civilization: Libertarian philosophy is not civilized, in that allowing my fellow man to die when I have the means to save him is not a civilized act, even if his own actions have brought about his peril. (I except if he *intends* to die; he gets to make that choice. It seems to me that the fundamental civilized act is saving someone from the unintended consequences of their actions so that they can learn from their experience.[hopefully they *will* learn, but it's only my job to do the saving; the learning is *their* issue.]) From this premise, I observe that very little of the political or economic activity in my country of residence is civilized, and thus conclude that if I want to continue living in civilization, it has become necessary for me to maintain it myself. The best organizational form available to me is the corporation, so I'll use that.
The premise that unites religion and civilization is Life; I am Life and I'm caring for Myself. But that's a bit too abstract to take action on, so I'll leave religion and civilizations as my highest-level topics.
And this is getting too big, so I'll post this bit and get to the kibbutz and bike co-op in the next message.