- Home :
- Calendar :
- Newsletters :
- Sermons
But We're Right and
They're Wrong, Right?
March 12, 2006 • Unitarian Universalist Church of Reading
“Speaking is an art—it breaks the silence—
it destroys the sameness of the still air that it fills with vibrations.”
—Unknown
“When you have a choice to make and you don’t make it,
that in itself is a choice.”
—Milton Meltzer
The turn signal blinked on and off, on and off, as I slowed the car to make my exit from the Allegheny Valley Expressway. The weather, as it often is at Thanksgiving, was stormy, dancing between rain and a reluctant, slippery sleet. As we pulled off onto local roads and I saw the hulking shape of the Hulton Bridge ahead, my stomach started to tighten. I wasn’t nervous about condition of the roads, I was nervous about the dinner that was waiting.
It’s not that I don’t love going home to Pittsburgh to visit my folks. It’s not that I don’t love my family. It’s just that family can be so complicated.
You have to picture us around the Thanksgiving table: my father, a devout Catholic and proud Republican hawk who voted for Pat Buchanan in the primary; my mother, a conservative Catholic who voted for Ralph Nader in the last two elections; my younger sister, a Democrat who champions consensus building, a convert to Unitarian Universalism and a fervent feminist; her husband, a logic-infused scientist and liberal Christian; my older brother, a Republican, a rapid Rush Limbaugh fan, and a student at a fundamentalist Christian seminary; and my gay male partner, a secular humanist who grew up in Cambridge in the 60’s raised by pacifists, one of whom was the Unitarian Universalist Chaplain at Harvard University. And then there’s me. Welcome to Thanksgiving dinner at the Kutzmarks!
And so, we’ve drafted two rules for maintaining relative peace in the Kutzmark family home at the holidays:
Rule Number One: During Thanksgiving and/or Christmas dinner, do not talk about: 1) religion, or 2) politics.
Rule Number Two: I repeat, during Thanksgiving and/or Christmas dinner, do not talk about: 1) religion, or 2) politics.
But unlike a family dinner, we, in this country, cannot afford to declare a moratorium on the subject of religion and politics. We can no longer eat together and pretend to ignore our differences. We can’t shut our eyes to some fundamental conflicts of belief. We can’t shut our mouths to the moral chaos that is engulfing our nation.
The growing gap between rich and poor, the erosion of civil liberties, the use of military force, the practice of torture, the withholding of accurate information on national security, the influence of lobbyists in public policy, the negation of international treaties and coalitions, environmental degradation, marriage equality, adoption rights, race and class divisions—no matter where we stand on these issues (and we here in this sanctuary do not all think alike)—no matter where we stand on these issues, we must acknowledge that these are not simply political matters. These are issues of fundamental morality. These are religious issues. They declare where we stand on the basic treatment of humanity and existence. These issues, and others, define the spiritual heart of our country. They proclaim our national values. But today, one powerful voice has claimed the right to speak as the sole religious and moral arbiter in America. And, my friends, that voice does not belong to us. The voice that has named, framed, and claimed the debate is the voice of conservative religion.
Rabbi Michael Lerner, a noted social theorist and theologian, places this blame squarely in lap of liberal religion and liberal politics. In his new book, “The Left Hand of God: Taking Back Our Country From the Religious Right,” Rabbi Lerner suggests that in an attempt to distance ourselves from the religiosity of our more dogmatic and unyielding religious counterparts, we religious liberals ran away from the language of meaning. Religious liberals ignored talking openly about values. Religious liberals ignored talking publicly about morals. Religious liberals ignored talking about, well, religion. The result was catastrophic. While we stayed virtually silent, a whole section of America began moving toward a spirituality that had a voice.
Remember in the sixties when religion was declared passé, or even dead? Remember when theologian Harvey Cox proclaimed the way of the future was the “secular city.” Well, something very different happened. The revolution in human potential of the 60’s, the exhilarating freedom of the early 70’s began to be tempered by cynicism. The war to end all war hadn’t. International relations stayed frozen under the chill of the cold war and the threat of nuclear winter. Corruption oozed out of the Government. More and more miraculous technology left us feeling isolated from one another. A crazed consumerism and materialism sucked the very life out people’s souls. We were disconnected in a life that felt flattened, depersonalized, and de-spiritualized.
And so, suddenly, there were many people in this country looking for someone, something, to address the human hunger of the heart. People needed to know that they were part of something bigger than their latest purchase or their latest struggle. Writes Rabbi Lerner: “people [began to feel] a near-desperate desire to unite their lives with a higher meaning and purpose.”(2) A nation gone numb began to search for feeling.
And some observers suggest that America found nothing in liberal religion’s virtual public silence. They found nothing in a faith that was reticent to stand on a metaphorical street corner and say this is what we believe, this is why we believe it, this is our vision of a spirit-filled community, this is our vision of a compassionate and caring nation, this is our vision of a beloved community full of values and morals and meaning, and this is how you and your family can become part of it. They didn’t hear that prophetic voice from liberal religion. They didn’t hear that proclamation from Unitarian Universalism. And, as Rabbi Lerner, writes, they didn’t find it in liberal politics that “seemed tone-deaf to spiritual needs . . . [and] trapped in a long-standing disdain for religion.”
Rabbi Lerner continues: “It is the search for meaning in a de-spiritualized world that leads many people to right-wing religious communities because these groups seem to be in touch with the sacred dimension of life. Many secularists imagine that people drawn to the Right are there solely because of some ethical or psychological malfunction. What they miss is that there are many very decent Americans who get attracted to the Religious Right because it is the only voice that they encounter that is willing to challenge the despiritualization of daily life, to call for a life that is driven by higher purpose than money, and to provide actual experiences of supportive community for those whose daily life is suffused with alienation and spiritual loneliness.” (3)
Rabbi Michael Lerner continues: “Ten’s of millions of Americans feel betrayed by a society that seems to place materialism and selfishness above moral values. They know that “looking out for number one” has become the common sense of our society, but they want a life that is about something more—a framework of meaning and purpose to their lives that would transcend the grasping and narcissism that surrounds them. Sure, they will admit that they have material needs, and that they worry about adequate health care, stability in employment, and enough money to give their kids a college education. But even more deeply they want their lives to have meaning—and they respond to [churches and candidates] who seem to care about values and some sense of transcendent purpose.” (xx)
See, for better or for worse, morals aren’t about intellectual ideas. Morals are about meaning…a meaning that is deeply felt. One of the dictionary definition of morals is: “based upon firm conviction, rather than upon the actual evidence or demonstration.” Values and morals are not deeply thought; they are deeply felt. And that is why they are so hard to talk about. That is why family dinners can be disastrous. That is why public debates on morality can be divisive. How do you talk someone out of a feeling? How do you tell someone to stop feeling a need?
George Lakoff writes of this merging of feeling and morality in his book “Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think.” Lakoff, one of the world’s best-known linguists, studied how liberals and conservatives use language. His observations are fascinating, and can perhaps help us reframe and reclaim the moral debate.
Lakoff writes that conservatives and liberals unconsciously conceptualize the world in two different ways. And, he posits, this worldview is based on how we feel about ‘family.’ Contemporary moral debate can be reduced to ‘family values,’ or better put, ‘what we value in family.’
For Lakoff, there are two family models we can feel drawn toward: “strict father” or “nurturant parent.” Religious and political conservatives feel drawn to a strict father model. Religious and political liberals feel drawn to the nurturant parent model.
Lakoff writes: “The strict father model begins with a set of assumptions. The world is a dangerous place, and it always will be, because there is evil out there in the world. The world is also difficult because it is competitive. There will always be winners and losers. There is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. Children are born bad, in the sense that they just want to do what feels good, not what is right. Therefore, they have to be made good.” If this is the world you feel around you, what is it you look for in a religious or political leader? “What is needed in this kind of world is a strong, strict father who can: protect the family in a dangerous world, support the family in the difficult world, and teach his children right from wrong. (Don’t Think Of An Elephant, p. 7) And, in this worldview, what is required of us? “Obedience, because the strict father is a moral authority who knows right from wrong. It is further assumed that the only way to teach obedience—that is, right from wrong—is through punishment.” Using this model to understand our current Administration, the decisions made regarding military force and the use of torture suddenly make much more sense.
This teaching through punishment also helps shed light as conservative morality influences economic policy. Through the father’s punishment, children “develop the internal discipline to keep themselves from doing wrong. Internal discipline . . . is required for success in the difficult, competitive world. If people are disciplined . . .they will become prosperous and self-reliant. Lakoff continues: “Consider what this means for social programs. It is immoral to give people things they have not earned, because then they will not develop discipline and will become both dependent and immoral. This theory says social programs are immoral because they make people dependent. Promoting social programs is immoral.” (8-9)
In contrast, the liberal worldview is that of the nurturant parent. The nurturant parent model also begins with a set of assumptions: the world can be benevolent. Lakoff writes: “The assumption is that children are born good and can be made better. The world can be made a better place, and our job is to work on that. The parents’ job is to nurture children and to raise their children to be nurturers of others.” This demands two things of us: empathy and responsibility. “If you have a child, you have to know what every cry means. You have to know when the child is hungry, when he needs a diaper change, when he is having nightmares. And you have a responsibility—you have to take care of your child.” (12)
The ramifications of this worldview are many. Lakoff writes: “All sorts of values immediately flow from empathy and responsibility. First, if you empathize with your child, you will provide protection. This comes into politics [and religion] in many ways. What do you protect your child from? Crime and drugs, certainly. You also protect your child from cars without seat belts, from smoking, from poisonous additives in food. So progressive politics focuses on environmental protection, worker protection, consumer protection, and protection from disease. Second, if you empathize with your child, you want your child to be fulfilled in life, to be a happy person.” If you are unhappy and unfulfilled, then you can’t teach your child the value of fulfillment and happiness. “Therefore it is your moral responsibility to be a happy, fulfilled person. Further, it is your moral responsibility to teach your child to be a happy, fulfilled person who wants others to be happy and fulfilled. That is part of what nurturing family life is about.” (12-13)
Now, let us be clear, Lakoff is not unbiased in his assessment. He is clearly supportive of the liberal viewpoint. But this doesn’t necessarily mean we should dismiss his moral framework. It helps us understand the humanity—the need, the meaning—behind moral values in a pluralistic society.
And heart-felt understanding is a tool to use as we negotiate our modern moral mosaic. Rabbi Michael Lerner writes, we need “to give up [our] attachment to a core belief: that those who [are religious conservatives] are fundamentally stupid or evil.” “The vast majority . . . are people who are driven by principles and who want what is best for the world” (9) “It’s time [we] got over [our] elitist self-righteousness and [develop] strategies that could affirm [our] common humanity with the [religious and political] right. Teaching [ourselves] to see the good in the rest of the American public would be a critical first step in . . . learning how to teach the rest of American society how to see that same goodness in the rest of the people on this planet.” (“Democrats Need a Religious Left” by Michael Lerner, internet article)
This doesn’t mean we don’t carefully frame and speak aloud our vision and values and morals. This doesn’t mean we don’t need to work endlessly towards a planet transformed by our care. We must claim a clear public voice on the moral issues of our time. We must publicly witness that religion in this country speaks from more than one voice, that there is no monolithic morality in the United States of America.
We Unitarian Univeralists need to join our voice of values with other religious liberals….liberal Catholics, liberal Protestants, liberal Buddhists, liberal Muslims, liberal Wiccans, liberal Pagans, liberal Jains, liberal Sikhs, liberal Taoists, liberal humanists. And we need to reach out to those who do not claim any faith tradition, those who are seeking a life of meaning, those who might find friendship and sanctuary with us if they only heard there was such a thing as Unitarian Universalism.
But, we must also take time to understand the other side, the conservative side. I need to sit down and ask my brother what it is about his fundamentalist seminary that feels so meaningful to him. I need to sit down and listen to my father share with me why Pat Buchanan makes him feel safe. We need to listen to the values that underlie the public stances we recoil from. That takes courage; that takes spiritual fortitude.
And while we listen other worldviews, we also need to build coalitions with the other side on the issues we can agree upon. As someone said to me last week, for every hour we spend in advocacy on liberal moral issues, we need to spend an hour building bridges on issues that bring us together. Unity can be built between strange bedfellows.
Stand up;
speak out;
use language of value and meaning;
be religious;
listen and understand;
build bridges;
see the common humanity in all.
These are ways to bear witness to our moral values in a pluralistic society. These are ways to strengthen our liberal religion. These are ways to shape a stronger, safer, more compassionate America.
In the words of poet Marge Piercy:
We must learn again to speak
Starting with I
Starting with We
Starting from our own true hunger
and pleasure
and rage.
Starting from our own true love.
May it be so. Blessed Be. Amen.
© Copyright 2006 Rev. Tim Kutzmark
Minister
