• Home
• Visitor center
  • Frequent questions
  • Social opportunities
• Sunday mornings
  • Upcoming Services
  • Announcements
  • Contact archive
  • Sermon archive
  • Music program
• Our church
  • UUCS Columnists
  • Church Calendar
  • Directions
  • Our Art Gallery
  • History of our
        Architecture
  • Brief History of our
        Congregation
  • Board Matters
  • Church Documents
• Our people
  • Minister and staff
  • Our current congregation
  • Board of trustees
  • Photo gallery
• Our groups
  • Chalice Groups
  • Committees
  • Social activities
  • Social justice
• Learning
  • Lifespan Education
  • Religious Education
  • Adult programs
  • Freethinkers
• About UU
  • Our principles
  • UU history
  • Famous Unitarians
• Contact us

Sermons by Reverend Don Beaudreault

WHAT WE MUST SAY TO THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT
Rev. Don Beaudreault
Unitarian Universalist Church of Sarasota, FL
June 5, 2005

OPENING WORDS: "Freedom of Conscience and Social Activism: Are There Common Threads?"

We covenant to grow in truth and justice together. To do so requires that we listen and learn from many minds, voices, and actions. We must be willing to hear the truth in unfamiliar words, to seek justice in radical ways. We know that reform springs from dissent and we must always be willing to embrace each other in dissent. Respecting our differences, we can affirm the areas of common ground, concern, and principles that we share.

Our claim to respect individual conscience is hollow if we cannot engage each other in creative debate that is not coercive or adversarial. Respect for individual conscience does not mean bland tolerance of each other's pet political peeves. Rather, it is forged and deepened in our search together for adequate responses to the dangers that threaten human beings and the living world. So much is at stake. We must expect that our search will be passionate and sometimes painful. In the struggle, however, is the hope. And in that search we strive for, and at times achieve, a model of human community that is both religious and liberal, universal and empowering. The community we become under pressure may be our greatest contribution to the world.

Kathleen Skerrett and Loretta J. Williams

MEDITATION READING: "Church Meets State," The New York Times Book Review, May 15, 2005

The leading thinkers of the British and American Enlightenments hoped that life in a modern democratic order would shift the focus of Christianity from a faith-based reality to a reality-based faith. American religion is moving in the opposite direction today, back toward the ecstatic, literalist and credulous spirit of the great Awakenings. Its most disturbing manifestations are not political, at least not yet. They are cultural. The fascination with the "end times," the belief in personal (and self-serving) miracles, the ignorance of basic science and history, the demonization of popular culture, the censoring of textbooks, the separatist instincts of the home-schooling movement - all these developments are far more worrying in the long term than the loss of a few Congressional seats.

No one can know how long this dumbing-down of American religion will persist. But so long as it does, citizens should probably be more vigilant about policing the public square, not less so. If there is anything David Hume and John Adams understood, it is that you cannot sustain liberal democracy without cultivating liberal habits of mind among religious believers. That remains true today, both in Baghdad and in Baton Rouge.

Mark Lilla

SERMON: "What We Must Say to the Religious Right"

Let us begin by defining terms.

Christian Evangelical: As a broad movement within our country, Evangelicalism is composed of Christians who, among other things, say that the Bible is the only authority for them and that salvation occurs when an individual has a personal conversion to Jesus as Savior and Lord.

Christian Fundamentalist: This is one type of Evangelical Christian whose major characteristic is the belief that every word in the Bible is literally true. This is called the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy. The movement got its start at the turn of the century and was a reaction to the concept of evolution.

Christian Pentecostal: Unlike Christian Fundamentalism, Pentecostalism believes that the born-again Christian is filled with the Spirit and even now can gain marvelous powers - prophecy, faith healing, and speaking in tongues. Fundamentalism believes that such powers of the spirit ended with the New Testament church.

The Religious Right: These are religious-political extremists who seek to mobilize their followers to "take back America from the secular humanists." These Christian activists call for "Christian foot-soldiers" to be prepared to "fight with blood, sweat, and tears" in the "battle for the heart and soul of America."

Now, in considering these four definitions, let us note that there are degrees of differences not just between the four, but also within each of the four movements.

For instance, consider the Evangelical movement. Consider the comments by the philosopher John Mark Reynolds in response to the article "Evangelicals Rethink Their Public Face," available on the MSNBC website and first published in U.S. News:

Are millions of white Evangelicals political liberals? Of course. The Evangelical movement is so big that the quarter of the population that Bush lost still amounts to millions of citizens. There is a left-right spectrum in the Evangelical church, but as the last election proves almost all the flock is on the right end of the bell curve. The discovery of the Evangelical left by the press only shows how out of touch they are with one quarter of the American population.

The article goes on to quote R. Scott Rodin, former president of Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Philadelphia:

As evangelical leaders, we need to step up to our responsibilities to be leaders in the fight for clean air and water, to stop the burning of rain forests, cruelty to animals, overuse of pesticides, and the countless other issues that result from our consumer-oriented lifestyles.

Reynolds makes it clear, however, that Rodin is in the minority within his movement:

More Evangelical leaders nobody has heard of who publish books nobody reads. Rodin will not determine how Evangelicals vote since almost nobody has heard of Rodin.

The point I am making is that there is diversity within these four movements - that even some crossover of beliefs and practices occurs. So in using our critical intelligence, it behooves us to eschew stereotyping those whose religious beliefs differ from ours, as we hope they will not stereotype those of us within the liberal religious realm.

Saying all that, let us use our critical intelligence to see where we must address the Religious Right as forthrightly and with as much respect and love as we can muster - as hard as that might be.

*****

So "What Must We Say to the Religious Right"? Here are some of my thoughts.

Sadly, religion - what should be bringing us together as human beings - has sometimes separated us. This has always been true, horribly so at times. Throughout human history and around the world, religious wars have proven to be genocidal affairs.

One reason people came and continue to come to America has been their desire to practice religion the way they see fit - or not to practice any religion - but to be free from the fear of religious persecution.

But in our nation today, religious differences have been the cause of what some, including myself, fear will cause Abraham Lincoln's prediction to come true when, speaking of the effects of slavery in tearing our nation apart, he warned us: "A house divided against itself can not stand."

Rather than having our major national political leaders lead the charge against such division, it is patently clear that some of them, most notably the Chief Executive of our land, are hastening such a war of religious persecution in the name of the Religious Right. Never before in our country's history have our people been so divided in the name of religion.

We are not here this morning to deride the religious beliefs of those who believe differently from us; we are not here to discredit the sincerity of their religious faith. If there is a deity, let such an entity be the judge.

But we are here today to say:

That the attempt to tell our free citizenry what constitutes the true and only way to be "religious" countermands the foundational principles of freedom of and freedom from religion upon which our nation was founded.

And we are here today to say:

That this attempt to foist the beliefs of the Religious Right upon the religious practices of other countries is nothing short of hegemony, of a limited cultural mindset that posits itself as superior. In some cases this is unintentional and it is uninformed in regard to our country's intercultural differences, what some still think of as a melting pot.

But most unethically, are the people in our nation who are quite aware of using "religion" as a smokescreen to hide their political, corporate, and militaristic intentions. These are the unscrupulous who seek power over others rather than working toward mutual empowerment of each and every one of us.

I would not call this a way of being "religious" in the world, not if we posit religion as that sense deeply within ourselves that speaks of the nobility and potentiality of humanity; of our yearning for meaning and purpose beyond ourself; of our wonder at the mystery of creation; of our striving after love, justice, equality, and freedom for each person; and of our profoundest respect and vigilant care of our planet.

These are religious qualities, indeed universal principles no matter how they might be categorized within an organized denomination or personal ethic.

The opposite of these qualities: that which elevates only the "elect" (or "self-selected") of humanity as noble and filled with potential; of only finding meaning and purpose within one's self or one's own like-minded community, thereby negating the concerns of others who are different; of boxing in the mystery of creation with a mono-dimensional perspective and vocabulary, thereby denying the wonder of creation's complexity; of embracing love, justice, equality, and freedom for one's self and one's chosen "tribal" unit, but not for those who are different; and of dominating the planet's resources for individual use and profit, disregarding our fragile, interdependent ecosystem - all these, are the opposite of "religious" values.

Is it not a wonder that "religion" is the name a self-designated "religious" movement would use to label some things profoundly antithetical to "religion"?

Such a misappropriation of the concept of "religion" for personal aggrandizement is nefarious, and given the definition of "evil" as something that is "morally reprehensible," are not these acts "evil"?

And in committing such atrocities upon the human spirit, such people are waging a war of religious persecution, the intensity of which our country has never experienced.

That is the premise of our argument and is the first thing I want us to say to the "Religious Right."

Simply put: "You are not right, but wrong."

*****

You are wrong to believe that you have special privileges, rather than equal rights under our current laws or within the general framework of our free and democratic system. Here are some of the issues that you are fighting against:

. the right to maintain the Senate Filibuster
. the right to have judges who are fair and impartial
. the right for our states to work to pass the Equal Rights Amendment
. the right called "Pro-Choice"
. the right to die a dignified death
. the right of all so-called "minority" groups to have equal protection under the law
. the right to teach sex education in our public schools
. the right for consenting adults to have sexual/affectional relationships the way they so desire
. the right of people living with HIV/AIDS to be thought as lovable, not condemnable
. the right for the news media (notably National Public Radio) to continue to give us truth in journalism
. the right for same-gender couples to marry
. the right to read books, see movies, and listen to music that are not on an "approved list"
. the right or privacy concerning our personal records
. the right not to pray in public
. the right to be called "patriotic" if we are pacifists
. the right to have a different religious viewpoint from yours - or no religious viewpoint
. the right to teach evolution in public schools
. the right not to have public displays of the Ten Commandments or Nativity scenes
. the right to peaceably assemble and protest our government's policies and actions
. the right to have our verbal and written comments published
. the right not to be harassed or fired because of our differing religious perspective
. the right not to be thrown out of church because you vote a different way from how your minister tells you to vote
. the right of fair elections - both local and national
. the right of the homeless to be treated as human beings
. the right of children to be protected and loved

And the list is longer than this. And for us as Unitarian Universalists, this list and the things we would add to it, constitutes our ethical imperatives, indeed, our spiritual values.

*****

What else must we say to the Religious Right? Particularly, what must we say as Unitarian Universalists?

That we believe in the universality of religious belief and practice, and this carries over to other forms of belief and practice, including those within the political realm. In truth, to think of us as the "Religious Left" is to misname us. We attempt to draw a circle that will let everyone in. As the President of the Unitarian Universalist Association, The Rev. Bill Sinkford, said in a recent press release in response to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and the Family Research Council's statement that the Senate filibuster was an attack "against people of faith":

No one religious group or political party can ever hold a monopoly on spiritual conviction. In fact, political opinions vary widely even within particular faith communities. Within my own tradition, Unitarian Universalists experience diversity of opinion as a true blessing. Many different theological viewpoints are able to thrive within our congregations because we have agreed that we need not think alike to love alike.

What else must we say to the Religious Right?

That we believe in the potential goodness and dignity of every human being. We do not see humanity through a black and white lens. Life is complex, is not easily understood, and has few quick-fix solutions. Each of us makes mistakes, needs guidance if not also forgiveness from others, from our self, and, for some, from a higher creative source they might choose to call "God."

What else must we say to the Religious Right?

That we must look for common ground. The fact that our religious language and spiritual practice differ should be a steppingstone for seeking ways to see our connection, rather than our separation. Can we see the "essence" behind our different theological language; the universality of need to be loved and to love in return?

And might we attempt discovery of common efforts around social justice issues and imperatives, even if we cannot find common religious language or spiritual practice? Can we not build homes for the poor together, act as foster parents, feed the hungry, visit the sick, give money to worthy causes that attempt to alleviate suffering? Can we not work to make the planet a safer and cleaner place, a home that will last for the generations of life to come - life in all its manifold forms that are part of that wondrous process of creation itself.

Oh, the task is hard when we do not attempt to honor the differences between us. When we set each other up as the enemy. When we feel attacked. When we attack back.

But might we use our anger - if we do, indeed, have such - as a refiner's fire; as a searing, white heat that has the potential to turn even dross into gold.

No, we do not have to think alike, to love alike. So might we continue to find the common ground, but also to hold our ground and to speak our minds and hearts to those who disagree with us; and to hear what they have to say in turn.

For after all, each of us is merely human, and each of us is being formed on the cutting edge of existence.

CLOSING WORDS: 1 Corinthians 16

Keep alert, stand firm in your faith; be courageous, be strong. Let all that you do be done in love.

Saint Paul