Upcoming Sunday Worship Services
“It Matters What We Believe”
“The Inherent Worth and Dignity
Of All Peoples”
There are certain topics which we return to every fall as the cooler weather draws our congregation back upstairs from the Parish Hall. Last week we explored the importance of tending to our spiritual lives and how we benefit from being spiritual community – both part of the larger question of why we come to church at all. It is important to know why we come – our participation here or in any house of worship should not be on autopilot.
This morning takes us to the question of what Unitarian Universalists believe. During the fall and winter, starting today, we will engage a sermon on each of the seven principles. Right now I’ll start with some background.
Our responsive reading this morning, although it dealt with belief, is typically UU in that it did not render specific beliefs for our affirmation as, for example, the Nicene Creed does for some Christian denominations. We UU’s stand apart in that ours is a creedless religion and, as such, we require no specific profession of faith of our membership. Over the past two centuries our congregational body has developed and put forth various renderings of what we believed at any given point in time.
Our current statement, called Our Principles and Purposes was developed in 1984. I’d like to invite you to take a look it – you’ll find it in the opening pages in the larger hymnal. Please be mindful that because this is not a creed, not static, the content or specific wording it is likely to change a bit over the years.
Let 7 people stand, come forward and read the Principles and Purposes…….
To those who are new to Unitarian Universalism these principles may not sound like religious statements you are used to, inherent worth, justice, use of the democratic process – respect for the interdependent web of existence – What do they tell us of God? How do they comfort someone who is alone or afraid of dying? There’s no explanation of an afterlife…?
It does matter what we believe – but it matters more to a Unitarian Universalist how those beliefs are used. No Unitarian Universalist body will raise one view of God or concept of the afterlife as superior to all others because the truth in those arenas can’t be known –as the responsive reading says – the name of God matters less than whether that belief is used to create bonds or divisions…whether our beliefs challenge us to grow in fear of or in openness to the world.
It is challenging for a congregation to house a variety of theologies under one steeple. This unusual aspect of Unitarian Universalism stretches individuals within our sanctuaries to become, if not comfortable with difference, at least respectful of it. And toward that end we work hard to develop an ability to listen to one another and to strangers beyond our doors with respect.
Former US Senator Sam Ervin said, "Religion is not a storm cellar to which men and women can flee from the storms of life. It provides, instead, an inner spiritual strength which enables us to face those storms with hope and serenity." Our principles won't shield us from life's storms. What they do for us is to identify the points of battle. Each principle describes an area of human endeavor in which we fall short of perfection, yet where we are likely to be in agreement, at least about the ideal.
Today we’ll look at the first which calls for us to affirm and promote "the inherent worth and dignity of every person”. At first blush that might sound like a no-brainer. Of course we’re supposed to treat each other with respect. I think it’s safe for me to say that, in the main, Unitarian Universalists believe in the ideal that we should affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of every person – think for a moment - do you believe in the first principle? But even if you do, there are still questions about how to interpret what that means - belief in this principle causes many, perhaps most UU’s to support gay and lesbian right. Belief in this principle causes many, perhaps most UU’s to be against the death penalty. Belief in this principle causes some to be pacifist. To say we agree to affirm the inherent worth and dignity of the individual is a start – it is the place where a respectful conversation begins. It’s important to understand what you believe.
But in fact there are enormous differences around this issue in the world at large. Some individuals and cultures in the world that act as though they don’t subscribe to this principle at all. I get a magazine entitled Best Friends. Its mission is to relay all the good news about animals, wildlife, and the earth. In the latest edition there is a section where they give good animals news. In it there was a brief blurb about some animal rights “progress” in China which I thought you’d find interesting… It’s just one sentence: “In a sign of progress, China has banned the use of tiger parts in traditional medicine and is making some offenses, such as displaying or wearing tiger parts, punishable by death." Now that’s progress for you! Animal rights are coming right along! Human rights – (shrug)
I want to say again that none of our Unitarian Universalist seven principles are meant to be controversial – “the inherent worth and dignity of every person” is intended to be the opposite – a point of agreement, minimal standards upon which everyone can agree -that will allow people with very real differences to hold on to each other and have a conversation.
***** ****** ********
There have been other important assertions of the inherent worth and dignity of every person. For example, here’s part of the preamble of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Right::
“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world…and
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in their charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, and the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom…and
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is one of the greatest importance…
Therefore, the General Assembly of the United Nations proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations… that charter was accepted and signed by most countries of the world, including the US in 1948.
******* ****** *******
More recently, in the 1990’s, the Parliament of World Religions approved and published a “Declaration Toward a Global Ethic.” The clerics from the world’s great religions did not intend for their declaration to be controversial, rather, like the UN document, and like our principles, they wanted to develop a minimal ethic - something upon which absolutely everyone could agree. This is from the opening of their declaration:
I. We all have a responsibility for a better global order. Our involvement for the sake of human rights, freedom, justice, peace, and the preservation of earth is absolutely necessary. Our different religious and cultural traditions must not prevent our common involvement in opposing all forms of inhumanity and working for greater humaneness. The principles expressed in this global ethic can be affirmed by all persons with ethical convictions, whether religiously grounded or not…
II. [There is] a fundamental demand: that every human being must be treated humanely. Every human being without distinction of age, sex, race, skin color, physical or mental ability, language, religion or political view, or national or social origin possesses an inalienable and untouchable dignity. And everyone, the individual as well as the state, is therefore obliged to honor this dignity and protect it.”
What I have hoped to show here is that the idea of the inherent worth and dignity of every person is a widely accepted minimal standard that is agreed upon, at least in theory, not only by Unitarian Universalists but by other peoples and societies around the world – it is a starting point – language we can all agree upon.
Not so fast…. It turns out that the Geneva Conventions have been the lead story in the news for most of this week. A section, article 3, which contains very similar language to that of our first principle and these other documents and which has long stood as a point of law among nations, is suddenly being challenged by the US government as unworkable, too obscure to have meaning.
The Geneva Conventions are international rules which govern the conduct of war that were first written in 1868. Subsequent Geneva conventions were held in 1906, 1929 and 1949 to update and broaden these rules of war. Today most nations of the world, including the United States, have long been officially committed to honoring the Geneva conventions.
Article 3 establishes basic protections that must be offered to all combatants — whether they are terrorists, warring tribes, insurgents or any other kind of irregular fighter.
I want to make it clear that, as newsworthy as the topic the inherent worth and dignity of all people is at this moment, my decision to preach this sermon on this day was made a long time ago, not due to any headlines in the news. I had no idea that this language would be a political football. It just goes to show two things – that yes, it matters what we believe – and we bear a burden of responsibility on this issue.
Here is some of the language in question from Article 3 of the Geneva Convention:
In the case of armed conflict…..each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1….Members of armed forces who have laid down their arms shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
b) taking hostages, and (this last phrase is the one being most questioned)
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
The Bush administration is arguing that this ban against outrages upon personal dignity is too vague for CIA interrogators to follow. President Bush is pushing congress to pass legislation that would cause that the US to become the first signatory government in history to step out of the agreements with regard to humane treatment of prisoners. If he doesn’t get his way he says the CIA interrogation program will have to shut down. This is possibly a pivotal moment for world order and it is our watch. It matters what we believe. As Americans, the outcome of this discussion – whatever it is, will be done in our name. This is not a partisan issue – it is a moral issues, and, as such, belongs in America’s houses of worship.
Retired General Colin Powell has written to Senator John McCain saying the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. He says redefining article 3 would add to those doubts and would put our troops at risk. Certainly, what plays out as a theoretical conversation to us becomes very real to prisoners of war – who may, lawfully, in our name, be stacked up naked or subjected to other indignities or water boarding. Senator McCain, who has been a prisoner of war, agrees.
As people of faith I feel it is incumbent for us to push back for the moral high ground. I encourage you to search your conscience for your understanding of our first principle. – what does the inherent worth and dignity of all people mean to you? We are a small church and small denomination – and yet - we stand for something – let us stand, with conviction, on the side of love on this issue. I know that the Social Action Committee will be meeting after church today – you will likely hear more from them in the future as we move ahead.