Looking Up Stream
A sermon for Justice Sunday
by The Rev. Kathy Schmitz on March 30, 2008
Pathways Church, A Unitarian Universalist Community in Southlake, Texas
Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both.
Eleanor Roosevelt
Story before the Sermon: Enemies from A Bucketful of Dreams by Christopher Buice
Sermon Description
Each year, the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee (UUSC) suggests a topic for congregations to address on Justice Sunday. This year we mark the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. as we join with other UU congregations in reflection on King's assertion that "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." (more info on the UUSC and the Justice Sunday can be found at www.uusc.org)
Sermon
In 2003, just days after the US invasion of Iraq, a USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll found that most Americans predicted that 500 US lives would be lost in the war with Iraq.
Last week that count reached 4000.
In the same poll, a majority of Americans believed that the war would last only 6 months. Only 14% of those asked thought that it would last over a year.
Last week we passed the 5 year mark.
In this room, there are, I suspect, people who still support the war, people who never supported the war, and people whose minds have changed over time.
Among those who still support that war, I suspect there are a number of different ways that they would articulate that support.
Among those who favor a US withdrawal, I suspect there are a number of opinions on how that should be accomplished.
Many opinions in this room.
So why on earth would I undertake this morning, to stand up here and talk about this topic, about which we have so many diverse opinions.
Because 500 deaths have become 4000.
Because 6 months have become 5 years.
Because things have not gone as expected, and whatever your opinion was or is, it is important for us to ask questions, to re-evaluate, and most importantly to be in dialog. If our religious homes are not a place where we can be in dialog on issues as important as war and peace, then of what use are they? If our spiritual values are not invoked in our consideration of matters of life and death, then what are they for?
Being human, I come with opinions on this topic, with a point of view. For several reasons, not the least of which is honesty about my perspective, I start here.
I am in the group of people that was against the US invasion of Iraq before it began.
In the months before the invasion, as a private citizen, I expressed my opinion. In February of 2003, my partner, Charlie & I took a bus to New York City, and rallied for hours in sub-freezing temperatures with 100,000 (BBC estimate) others. As a minister, I did a lot of soul searching to know how to address this challenging and divisive topic with members of the congregation I served.
At the time, we lived in a nice residential neighborhood in a suburban town outside of Boston… in allegedly liberal Massachusetts. Our corner lot had a perfect place for political signs, many of which had taken their place there. We put out a sign, a red, white, and blue sign, that announced our opinion. It said “No Iraq War.” It had been there for weeks but in the days leading up to the invasion it disappeared. Charlie replaced it with a duplicate. But because the ground was frozen he had to construct a special base to get it into the ground.
The invasion took place mid-week and I went to an anti-war rally on Saturday. When I returned the new sign, too, was gone. Given the heat of the war rhetoric those days, I decided that I would not put up the 3rd identical sign that we had. Charlie was out of town at the time.
The next evening, our teenage daughter and I were sitting on the living room couch in front of the picture window in the living room. We were working on her physics homework, when we were interrupted by a loud sound like gunfire (bam, bam, bam bam). We both hit the floor. When we worked up the nerve to look outside we discovered that the front of the house had been sprayed with paintballs. The police officer who came to our home, declined to take the incident seriously. The damage was limited. And after all, there was a teenager in the house. Surely it was someone she knew. My gut told me he was wrong, but I couldn’t prove it.
About a week later, Charlie and I were in the back of the house, when once again noise drew me to the front. Again, I would discover that our house had been sprayed by paintballs. This time the shooters left their calling card. Charlie’s special sign post had been returned sporting a new sign, facing our front door.
The slide shows the sign. You will see that I have blotted out the words I am neither willing to say from the pulpit nor willing to show in the sanctuary. I am happy to show the unedited picture to people who wish to see it at another time.
What we have left reads as follows.
Go blank Yourself
You Stupid Ignorant
Blank blanking Mother
Blank
Blank Blank Lover
un-AMERICAN
Blank Go Home
You Blank
Blank !!!!!!
This time the police took us seriously. But there was nothing they could do, really, unless something else happened.
A friend who knows about such things said that the ethnic slur included on the sign (which I had never heard before) made it a hate crime.
We chose not to give the shooters attention by going to the press, though a selectman in town did make a statement about the right of all to their opinion and the need for civilized debate.
For weeks, I waited for something else to happen. I jumped at every sound. I laugh when I talk about it sometimes, but the truth is, it was scary. People were pretty wound up at that time, and we really didn’t know if things would escalate. Fortunately, they did not.
I take several learnings from this experience:
First, I learned how chilling threats of violence can be to free speech.
Second, I have a deeper appreciation about what it must feel like when you live in danger of attack every day. If I wanted, I could become silent and blend back into the landscape. This is not true for people whose race or ethnicity or sexual orientation or some other feature of who they are is not as easily hidden as a political opinion.
Third, I developed a tremendous longing to close, or at least bridge, the growing divide in our country that causes people to treat those with whom they disagree with hostility.
Much has changed since March of 2003.
500 deaths have become 4000.
6 months have become 5 years.
People feel no more safe and we are still, too often, yelling across a widening chasm.
And we approach another anniversary.
Another anniversary which highlights the risk we take in the exercise of free speech, the exercise of free speech in the pursuit of justice and freedom.
This coming Friday marks the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.
In recognition of that anniversary, the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee (UUSC) chose a quote from King as the focus from their annual Justice Sunday. There is a handout from the UUSC on the back table with resources related to this initiative. This morning, we join with Unitarian Universalists across the continent in reflection on King's assertion that "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."
This is not a conversation about absolutes.
We do not have to choose between having a military or having social programs.
This is about meaningful dialog on national priorities and the use of finite resources.
It’s about making intentional choices and understanding the effect that they have.
It’s about balancing the interplay of needs in our society.
A parable:
Once there was a happy group of people having a picnic on the beautiful banks of a river. Suddenly, out of the corner of their eye, someone noticed a baby floating down the river and in danger of its life. They jumped in and rescued the child. As the crowd looked on they notice another baby, and then another, and then another. One after another the people jumped into the river to save the children. In the midst of this, someone noticed that two people had suddenly turned and started running away from the group along the river bank. “Hey, where are you going,” yelled the crowd. “We need your help to save these babies.” The pair paused only briefly before continuing on their way. “You save these ones.” they replied, “We’re going up stream to find out who keeps throwing babies in the river.”
Sometimes we need to solve an immediate problem. Sometimes, we need to take a broader look and find the source of the problem so that it can be addressed.
This parable gets at one of the challenges that I see in the debate on national priorities.
I am troubled that our theoretically volunteer military, has, in practice, an economic draft.
Our daughter was graduating from high school in the spring of 2003. And her friend and classmate Andy, who knew my opinions well, came to talk to me about his decision to join the National Guard.
I am not against military service. Though I suspect there are pacifists in this room, I am not one of them. I believe there are people for whom time in the service or even are life long careers are the right choice.
For a number of reasons, Andy did not strike me as one of those people for whom it would be the right decision.
His reasons for considering joining the National Guard were 100% economic. He came from a family that could offer him no support. He described the benefits being offered to him. My heart broke because I could offer him no argument. It was a deal that would be hard to refuse. And Andy did not refuse it.
Some people say that seeing action is a risk that one takes upon accepting the benefits military service.
By this some people mean, stop whining and fight.
By this others mean, you were morally wrong to enlist in the first place.
But I think the problem is with a system that forces a person to make this choice for purely economic reasons. My child, finishing high school at the same time as Andy, did not have to make this choice.
And I do not think any of our children should have to.
Andy became one of the troops in Iraq who we are called on to support – because he was a victim of a system built on an economic draft.
In my opinion, when we look upstream, we find a system that does not provide sufficient programs of social uplift.
Our babies crawl onto the shore of military service because they have been thrown into the river of life without the opportunities that a nation of our resources ought to be able to provide.
But, sooner or later, we need to run upstream, to address the social and economic systems that creates the Andy’s of the world.
The current system creates a privileged class. I don’t find that acceptable.
When I look upstream, I want to find there to be a system that provide sufficient programs of social uplift so that all of children can make life choices that are suited to them.
I want a system where basic education and health care and opportunity for jobs are available to all our children – a system in which all our young people entering adult hood have an even chance to compete, an equal chance for success.
And while I think the use of our troops to deliver humanitarian aid can be a wonderful thing, I do not believe that military service is the proper distribution system for our programs of social uplift.
Will some people choose military service? I hope so. Hopefully for reason that fit them, and benefit our armed services.
And I hope, too, that when they complete their military service, they will not be thrown back in to an un-provisioned river, living with the additional challenges of the physical and emotional effects of war. I want to be part of a nation that cares for all of its people.
For that to happen we need to look upstream.
Upstream to see the effects of the policies that we make – their sometimes unintended consequences.
We need to look upstream and ask:
· Does our presence in Iraq help or hurt the stability of the region?
· Have our actions increased or decreased the threat of global and domestic terrorism?
· Are people more or less fearful than 5 years ago?
We need to look upstream and ask:
· Are we caring adequately for the neediest among us?
· Do we adequately address the natural and human made disasters on our shores, such as the Gulf Coast?
· How are we doing, in the words of our Constitution, in our attempt to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity…?
We don’t, and won’t, all agree on the answers to these questions.
The issues are complex and our perspectives vary.
Yet, we need to be in meaningful dialog…
Because as Unitarian Universalists we affirm the right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large.
And, we need to look at the effects of our national priorities…
Because as Unitarian Universalists we affirm justice, equity and compassion in human relations.
And, we need to look upstream, to ensure that all are properly equipped…
Because as Unitarian Universalists we affirm the inherent worth and dignity of every person;
And, we need to look at the big picture…
Because as Unitarian Universalists we affirm the goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all
We are part of a complex web of existence. What happens in our part of the web sends vibrations far beyond. The US is powerful and influential. The vibrations that it sends matter greatly.
What we do matters.
We need to look up stream, yes, to explain our current situation.
We need to look up stream, yes, but we also need to look downstream.
Because for many ,we are what is upstream.
What we decide – our priorities and our actions – influence life downstream.
What will life be like for those who live downstream from US Policy – both our own citizens and our neighbors around the world?
These are the questions before us.
Will the river that passes by be contaminated and filled with debris?
Or, will our river carry water that is clear and fresh and nourishing, creating a peaceful, just, and sustainable future for all?
May we join our hearts and minds so that it may be so.