The following post was written by Elyse Bartlett, a student at Emerson College and UUSC's summer election-engagement intern.

We live in a time when religious faith informs many of the most divisive issues that face our country. Homosexuality, abortion, assistance for low-income people, respect for the environment — these are all political issues that much of the electorate considers through the lens of their various faiths. As Unitarian Universalists, our diverse, colorful religious beliefs are closely intertwined with our moral and ethical commitments; the Seven Principles provide the framework for how we are to live as compassionate, loving members of a just and accepting society. It is vital that we remember this in the midst of the election season.

Political participation as well as supporting and encouraging others to engage can be a forceful way to shape society for the better. We can put our values into action as we cast our votes — and as we register and support other voters to engage in the election process.

When most people think of "religious voters," they think of the conservative right - those whose religious beliefs inform their voting in the way of "traditional family values" and "the sanctity of marriage." Some interpret their religion to condemn homosexuality and abortion, resulting in legislation that voids the LGBT community's basic civil liberties and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her own health and body. Some encourage the dismantling of foreign aid, or the detention of immigrants, or the profiling of racial and religious minorities. Such legislation is contrary to our own religious beliefs, an affront to our affirmation of the "the inherent worth and dignity of every person," "justice, equity, and compassion in human relations," and "acceptance of one another."

UUs are also faithful voters, standing up for and with those who are marginalized in our society and abroad. When the time comes to vote, we will vote for not only our religious beliefs but also what we believe to be morally and ethically right for our human community.

A large part of our country has stated its religious beliefs loud and clear, both in words and in the voting booths. It is time for us to answer with our own beliefs, words, and votes. Our Seven Principles are not just there to be affirmed within our congregations; we must live them as functioning members of our communities and our society at large. As UUs, our declaration of faith is action — what better way to serve your faith than to stand up for those facing injustice in this country?

As Election Day approaches, keep your values in the front of your mind and let them guide you through important decisions. Together, we can send a message to our lawmakers and our fellow citizens that we are a moral, faithful group, and we will never stop fighting for a compassionate and just society.

The following post, "A Solution for Saleh," by UUSC President William F. Schulz, was published in the Huffington Post on December 30, 2011.

The recent decision of the U.S. government to admit the embattled President of Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh, to the country for medical treatment presents a classic human rights conundrum. Though a friend of Saddam Hussein and conciliatory toward Iran, Saleh has been an ally of the United States against al Qaeda. But according to human rights groups, he and his security forces have been responsible for hundreds of deaths since the Yemeni opposition took to the streets last spring to demand his ouster. By rights, his opponents claim, Saleh should be brought to trial, not provided top-notch medical care and, presumably, a comfortable retirement. At the same time, there is much to be said for removing him from the scene in Yemen — something Saleh has repeatedly agreed to and then reneged upon — and letting Yemen get on with its future, however fraught it may be.

If we lived in an ideal world, all those who are alleged to have committed crimes of whatever stripe would be brought before a bar of justice and, if convicted, sentenced. But just as prosecutors sometimes decide to plea-bargain a case or even not to prosecute an obviously guilty party because of extenuating circumstances such as an overriding state interest, so nations often have to decide whether it makes sense to offer a human rights offender safe haven in exchange for a chance at peace. The most recent dramatic example of that dilemma presented itself, at least theoretically, in the case of Muammar Qaddafi. Had Qaddafi been willing to flee Libya early in the conflict, thus no doubt saving scores of lives, a reasonable argument could have been made that offering him immunity might have been the better option than insisting upon justice, despite his decades of human rights violations.

One solution to this quandary is to establish a reliable system of international accountability. Were the International Criminal Court (ICC) the universally recognized arbiter of the guilt or innocence of the world's tyrants, supported by all nations, its indictments enforced, human rights offenders would know that the odds of their finding a country willing to host them and hence of their escaping punishment for their crimes were minimal. But of course major powers, including the United States, are not parties to the ICC; even some of its member states refuse to honor its indictments; and the Court has not yet succeeded in convicting anyone.

In the absence of consistent enforcement of international law, therefore, the burden of holding human rights violators to account often falls to individual victims of those crimes. Fortunately, in the United States, we have not only statutes (the Alien Tort Claims Act and the Torture Victim Protection Act) that allow for civil suits against alleged perpetrators but also an organization, the Center for Justice and Accountability (CJA), founded in 1998, that facilitates such litigation. CJA and its clients have successfully won judgments against wrong-doers from China to Haiti, El Salvador to Peru.

So one option with regard to Saleh, following his admittance to the US, may be to bring civil suit against him on behalf of some of those he has harmed. On February 21, 2012, when the transfer of power in Yemen is finalized, Saleh will no longer be a head of state and hence protected by sovereign immunity. At that point legal action becomes at least theoretically tenable. Of course, the US may have made guarantees of immunity to Saleh and may seek to intervene to stop such a suit but that would put the government in the uncomfortable position of defending an alleged human rights criminal. If the Administration is intent on admitting Saleh and, for whatever reasons, unwilling to return him to Yemen for trial, let it at least refuse to shield him from civil suits, thereby preserving at least one clean hand in the dirty business of dealing with despots.

On November 10, 2006, President Bush called for Senate confirmation of John Bolton as permanent representative to the United Nations. Send your senators a message to vote "No" on Mr. Bolton's nomination now.

Yes, he's back. The president nominated Mr. Bolton as U.N. ambassador and without any Senate action, made an appointment on August 1, 2005, the first day of the congressional recess. Now the Senate must confirm that nomination before the new 110th Congress convenes in January 2007. Without Senate confirmation, the nomination expires.

Over the weekend Sen. Joseph Biden, likely to become chair for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which held hearings on this nominee in 2005, called on the president to send a new nomination to the committee.

And Sen. Lincoln Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island and fellow committee member defeated in last week's election, announced he will continue to oppose Mr. Bolton's nomination. He said, "To confirm Mr. Bolton to the position of U. N ambassador would fly in the face of the clear consensus of the country that a new direction is called for."

With ten Republican and eight Democratic members the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at present would vote a tie: nine in favor and nine opposed -- effectively a "No" vote.