Sermons by Reverend Don Beaudreault
Dear President Bush (Part One): “Theocracy”
Rev. Don Beaudreault
Unitarian Universalist Church of Sarasota, FL
January 22, 2006
OPENING READING: “But the greatest of all reformers…”
But the greatest of all reformers of the depraved religion of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its luster from the dross of his biographers, and as separable from that as the diamond from the dunghill, we have the outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man…The establishment of the innocent and genuine character of this benevolent morality, and the rescuing it from the imputation of imposture, which has resulted from artificial systems, invented by ultra Christian sects…is a most desirable object.
Thomas Jefferson
MEDITATIVE READING: “Our reliance is in the love of liberty…”
Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in us. Our defense is in the spirit which primed liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands everywhere. Destroy this spirit and you have planted the seeds of despotism at your door. Familiarize yourselves with the chains of bondage and you prepare your own limbs to wear them.
Accustomed to trample on the rights of others, you have lost the genius of your own independence and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises among you.
Abraham Lincoln
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish - where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source -- no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials -- and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
John F. Kennedy
SERMON: “Dear President Bush, Part One: Theocracy”
President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
January 29, 2006
Dear President Bush,
I wish you well, sir. I indeed hope that you are finding some inner peace amidst all your many arduous duties.
And I am sorry if what I am going to say to you will add to your many woes –but say it I must. Still, I hope you will take my thoughts for what they are: an analysis based upon history and present reality – including your place in this perspective.
The subject at hand: America and God: Are We Becoming a Theocracy?
I want you to know that I have been on this planet since Franklin Delano Roosevelt was your predecessor, but never have felt the need to write a letter to a President – until now.
I have written other things when I have not agreed with our government – or even when I have: letters to various newspaper editors, letters to members in Congress, and sermons (one of which, coincidentally enough, was hand delivered to your father when he was President by the then head of an Arab American organization). In that sermon I expressed my negative opinions about his leading us into the Persian Gulf War).
Your father never responded to my sermon, even if, by some chance, he might have read it.
I don’t know if you will respond even if you read this letter.
At any rate, you see, I am a minister, and like you, consider myself a religious, ethical person.
And like you, I am a citizen of the United States.
Being religious and a citizen are not a contradiction for me. In fact, one informs the other, creating in me a sense of purpose and meaning beyond myself. Such can be determined by my love of that word “patriot” – one that you use quite frequently, too.
“Patriot” – “one who loves his/her country.”
But, sir, I must say frankly and with all good intention, that I do not love how I am feeling right now given the increasing acrimony – far beyond civil debate – that is occurring within the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of our government concerning religion and our country – and how this anger is affecting the very fabric of our social construct: our churches, schools, workplaces, family relationships, media, civic groups, businesses, philanthropic organizations, and entertainment industry.
Furthermore, this sense of “meanness” within our country is being witnessed on the world stage with fear, and in some cases, derision.
But let me get to my analysis.
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads in part as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…
What this says to me is that we have a godless Constitution. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution left reference to a deity off the parchment. The constitutionalists also succeeded at not defining “religion” within their document. The operative phrase is “freedom” - to define is to limit. The Constitution is neither hostile nor friendly to any religion – it is silent. And here, in my estimation, is its majesty and genius.
However, throughout our nation’s history – including during our time – some have attempted to put God and religion into the Constitution. A group called the National Reform Association reached its peak during our Civil War, when thousands of Americans believed that God was punishing the nation because “He” was omitted from the Constitution.
When it comes to those who are elected into political office, we must affirm that the Constitution declares:
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the authority of the United States.
Yes, our Constitution forbids any test for public office, but as church historian Martin Marty puts it in relationship to religion:
In America’s heart there seems to be some of that.
In fact, there seems to be more than just “some of that” today – with about 70% of Americans saying they would not vote for a presidential candidate who did not believe in God – presumably a Christian-type God.
Your father, sir, made this statement clear when he was President and said in a speech to the National Religious Broadcasters:
I believe one can’t be President in America without a belief in God and in prayer.
Indeed, in our nation’s history there has always been this discussion of religion and politics – of how one was expected to believe in an orthodox way concerning a Christian godhead. A Calvinist preacher some 150 years ago said of the Universalist Church (now joined with the Unitarian Universalist movement – the faith movement I serve) – that:
Universalists constituted the very nest of wickedness…and their congregations were made up of excommunicated members of Christian societies, atheists, drunkards, whoremongers, adulterers, and Sabbath breakers.
This has been the kind of ammunition used against us by those who are not in our liberal religious camp. Because we do not agree with their absolutist ways they consider us the damned who should never hold office. The attacks upon Thomas Jefferson both before, during and after holding the presidential position were legion.
And one could make the argument that Adlai Stevenson lost his bid to be President because he was one of us Unitarian Universalists; and perhaps even Walter Mondale lost his chance to be in the Oval Office because his brother Lester was a Unitarian Universalist minister.
Still, I ask you, Mr. President, to consider what another one of your predecessors said about those in political office and the creation of our government. Said John Adams (a Unitarian):
It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
I am not saying, President Bush, that you are not entitled to your opinions about whether or not a god personally speaks to you – but must you judge those of us (those in governmental positions or otherwise) who do not have such a conversation?
I do not understand this, other than you have undertaken the task to not just fine-tune our system of government, but also re-create it along the lines of your impassioned faith.
In other words, are you attempting to change us from a democracy to a theocracy?
I fear that you and those who think the way you do, are doing just that. And sir, that is frightening to me and others who desire freedom to practice our particular religious beliefs – or to be non-religious (by strict definitions of that word).
Another one of your predecessors, Jimmy Carter makes this point when he was quoted in 1998:
Last year I was on Pat Robertson's show, and we discussed our basic Christian faith - for instance, separation of church and state. It's contrary to my beliefs to try to exalt Christianity as having some sort of preferential status in the United States. That violates the Constitution. I'm not in favor of mandatory prayer in school or of using public funds to finance religious education. (‘Christianity Today,” March 2, 1998)
We can only imagine Millard Fillmore (another Unitarian President) on the Pat Robertson show and uttering the following words (which he actually did say, but in a different context:
If any sect suffered itself to be used for political objects I would meet it by political opposition. In my view church and state should be separate, not only in form, but fact. Religion in politics should not be mingled.
Or how about President James K. Polk on the show, stating:
Thank God, under our Constitution there was no connection between Church and State, and that in my action as President of the United States I recognized no distinction of creeds in my appointments office.
I could go on, Mr. President, with various statements from those men who sat in the Chief Executive’s chair before you did. Most professed some kind of religion – but not with your fervency – or agenda.
Clearly, there are millions in this country and around the world who believe that you are attempting to make the United States a “theocracy” – a government in which a religion or faith plays the dominant role. The term means “rule by God.”
In the most common usage of the term theocracy, some civil rulers are similar with some leaders of the dominant religion…governmental policies are either identical with, or strongly influenced by, the principles of a religion (often the majority religion), and typically, the government claims to rule on behalf of God or a higher power, as specified by the local religion. However, unlike other forms of government, a theocracy can be unique, in that the administrative hierarchy of the government is often identical with the administrative hierarchy of the religion. This distinguishes a theocracy from forms of government which have a state religion, or from traditional monarchies, in which the head of state claims that his or her authority comes from God.
A more literal term for what is commonly meant by "theocracy" is "ecclesiocracy,” which denotes the rule of a religious leader or body in the name of God, as opposed to the literal rule of God. This is distinct from governments that are influenced by religious concepts. An ecclesiocracy is rule by the hierarchy of a specific church or sect, not simply a government influenced by religious concepts. (from Wikipedia)
Well, Mr. Bush, it is a thin line, I believe, between this concept of “theocracy” as applied to what your agenda seems to be about – where “a religion or faith plays the dominant role” in a government, and an “ecclesiocracy” – where the hierarchy of a specific church rules. Who is really deciding this agenda?
For instance, consider the words of U.S. Representative Christopher Shays, R-CT who announces:
This Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy.
And, according to acclaimed journalist and television host Bill Meyers:
True, people of faith have always tried to bring their interpretation of the Bible to bear on American laws and morals ... it's the American way, encouraged and protected by the First Amendment. But what is unique today is that the radical religious right has succeeded in taking over one of America's great political parties. The country is not yet a theocracy but the Republican Party is, and they are driving American politics, using God as a battering ram on almost every issue: crime and punishment, foreign policy, health care, taxation, energy, regulation, social services and so on.
Truly, Mr. Bush, there is the Religious Right’s Legislative Agenda that is all too apparent:
In 2004, forty-eight out of fifty-one Republican Senators voted with the Christian Coalition 100% of the time. One Democrat also received a 100% scorecard -- Zell Miller who has since retired.
One way we Americans can understand the Religious Right is to view what legislation lawmakers are sponsoring.
Proposed bills are:
anti-women, anti-labor, and anti-civil rights. Their legislation opposes finance campaign reform; environmental protection; gun control; social justice for the poor; public education; teaching evolution; human sexuality; and a separation of church and state. Their bills show a disregard for the U.S. Constitution, and finally, Democracy itself. Bills coming from the Religious Right favor the wealthy and large corporations. The ultimate political goal is to make this country a Christian nation.
Just hear the words of one of these from the Religious Right :
Granted, President Bush, Terry’s words were spoken long before you ran for presidential office – but he is in the same ideological category as others who have influenced your decision making process concerning the “Christian agenda” – as you all see it.I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good . . . . Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty; we are called by God, to conquer this county. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism. (Randall Terry, “The News Sentinel” (Ft Wayne, Indiana) August 16, 1993.
Here is one appraisal of your presidency in relationship to your concept of “theocracy.” This from Deborah Caldwell, Senior Religion Editor for “Beliefnet.com”:
In the spring of 1999, as George W. Bush was about to announce his run for President, he agreed to be interviewed about his religious faith--grudgingly. "I want people to judge me on my deeds, not how I try to define myself as a religious person of words."
It's hard to believe that's the same George W. Bush. Since taking office…Bush's personal faith has turned highly public, arguably more so than any modern President. What's important is not that Bush is talking about God more, but that he's talking about him differently. We are witnessing a shift in Bush's theology--from talking mostly about a Wesleyan theology of "personal transformation" to describing a Calvinist "divine plan" laid out by a sovereign God for the country and himself. This shift has the potential to affect Bush's approach to terrorism, Iraq and his presidency. (“An Evolving Faith”)
Well, Mr. President, you are entitled to your own beliefs and practices, but sir, you are the leader of our nation, and as such you must consider that we are people of great diversity; that what you say and do publicly, affects us all.
Yes, you have become the President at a very difficult time in human history. Wars and rumors of war abound. We as a people suffered and are still suffering the horrors of 9-11 and the Iraqi War. But sir, our response should not be against the Islamic faith, as you seem to be doing. Those whose “god” is different from yours, or those who have no “god” are not the enemy.
Who is the enemy?
Anyone – so-called a “religious” person or not – who perpetrates hate in the name of love, fear in the name of protection, abuse in the name of justice – is the true “enemy.”
I beg to differ with you when it comes to religion – it should not be relegated to a narrow confine, but should call us to a wider inclusion of all people, people of differing beliefs – so that we might embrace each other, not separate from each other.
What comes to mind are the words of one of our Unitarian greats of the 19th century, the Reverend William Ellery Channing, a man who lived out his liberating religious beliefs and who was on occasion cast off by those who thought less expansively than he. Said Channing:
I call that mind free which jealously guards its intellectual rights and powers, which does not content itself with a passive or hereditary faith:
Which opens itself to light whencesoever it may come; which receives new truth as an angel from heaven…
I call that mind free…
Which recognizes in all human beings the image of God and the rights of God’s children, and offers itself up a willing sacrifice to the cause of humankind.
Dear President Bush, may you heed these words of Rev. Channing, a man, who, like you, called himself “spiritual.”
Again, I wish you well,
Rev. Don Beaudreault
Unitarian Universalist Church of Sarasota, FL
CLOSING WORDS:
When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for hope of the civil power, ‘tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.
Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.
Benjamin Franklin