Saving Paradise

Sermon delivered, First Unitarian Church of Harrisburg, 3/6/11

To begin this morning I am going to do something we don’t do much here in our church, I am going to read to you from the Bible. This passage comes from the book of Luke, ^{6 71}chapter 17:

Once Jesus was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, and he answered, ‘The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed; nor will they say, “Look, here it is!” or “There it is!” For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you.

This passage speaks of a magical, mystical, mythical place that is spoken of through all time and amongst all peoples, sometimes shouted from the mountains and in other times spoken in a barely audible a whisper. Falling from the lips of prophets, both ancient and modern.

In Sumeria they called it the cosmic mountain. The Norse people knew it as Valhalla, The book of Genesis speaks to us of Eden, Christians speak of “the kingdom come”.

Paradise, the perfect place where all is well. The sun shines on us through clear blue skies and the weather is always perfect. No one is homeless or hungry or sick or tired. I know, whatever time or place in history I was, upon hearing of this place, I would have set out to find out how to get there. And I probably would have been willing to follow some pretty odd rules to ensure I could get in. Because chances are my life here on earth involved at least some difficulty and might have found me in the midst of any number of catastrophes such as famine, drought, war, epidemic illness or other suffering.

All spiritual paths I am know have as their primary reward the revealing of the secret that leads to an eternal life of blissful happiness. It may be called heaven, paradise, nirvana or peace. The myths and legends of these paths differ, but the end goal remains consistent, an eternity in paradise.

In the mainline Protestant church tradition in which I was raised, there was a clear path to heaven. You had to believe in the three person Godhead: Father, Son and Holy Ghost. You needed to cleave to some basic doctrine: the virgin birth, the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. You had to believe that Jesus died for our sins through a doctrine called substitutionary atonement, in which he redeemed the sins of that first couple, Adam and Eve, who lived in harmony with God until they disobeyed him. All of their descendants—that is, all of us humans—inherited the stain of their horrible sin. God eventually satisfied his need for retribution by sacrificing the life of his only son as atonement for this collective sin. Because of Jesus’sacrifice, God and humanity can live in harmony once again. This unbending doctrine claims Jesus’ suffering as the most important thing, more significant than any of his teachings, more significant even than his resurrection.

A lot of classic Christian thought didn’t make very much sense to me, so I left that church when I was 14. But nine years of Sunday school and my seminary education left me believing that I had a reasonable grasp on the core teachings of Christianity. So as I read the book “Saving Paradise” by Rebecca Parker and Rita Nakashima Brock, I was alternately shocked, annoyed and disbelieving. From this work, I learned that the overwhelming Christian focus on the death of Jesus and the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement, did not take hold until nearly 1000 years after the death of Jesus.

Parker and Brock spent nearly 5 years on the research that culminated in this book, which began as an exploration of the cross and its symbolism through Christian history. Their first book together, “Proverbs of Ashes” had traced and discussed atonement theology, including the damage that had been done in its wake, so in this work they sought to trace the most prominent symbol of that theology, the cross.

The cross is arguably the most powerful symbol in Christianity, in its depiction of suffering and death, it offers redemption from the destruction. If we believe that Jesus died for our sins - then we are saved — not in this life but in the next. It promises us heaven, not in this world but in the next.

Parker and Brock traveled all over Europe, visiting ancient churches and catacombs and delving into early texts. In the churches and other places where worship was held, over and over again, they found the living Jesus, representations of his life rather than his death. They also saw a surprising number of depictions of what appeared to be Eden or paradise. Murals depicted scenic rivers, forests and meadows, trees and flowers, lions lying down with lambs. There were angels and saints helping people. And these scenes did not take place in the clouds or some other ethereal place, they took place here on earth.

While their research took them to the oldest know Christian ruins in Rome and Turkey, they did not find crucifixes there. What they did find in those early Christian sites was images of life and of joy, not death and suffering. Instead of a dying, bleeding Jesus, those early Christians worshipped among depictions of a Jesus here on earth, experiencing the many wonders of the earth, coexisting in love and joy, with both nature and his fellow people.

Jesus, the man they all followed, was himself was a subversive figure, a man who was successful in a different way, not of success and worldly fortunes but of peace and relationships. There isn’t much evidence that they worshipped him in these earliest times, just that they were following his teachings. His teachings were relatively simple and steeped in ethical grace, a concept that carried two elements within it: the grace of the core goodness of life on earth, and humanity’s responsibility for sustaining and sharing it. Jesus’ parable of the loaves and fishes is a perfect example of this concept. It is described six times in the four Gospels.

And here are the core teachings: Humanity’s task was to be the earthly manifestations of God. When we did this, we created Paradise.

The early Christian communities would today be called socialist, possibly communist. They shared wealth rather than accumulated individual fortunes. They cared for the sick, the abandoned and the orphaned. They were more concerned with cultivating compassion than privilege. They defied the social norms of the Roman Empire, often refusing to serve in the army. An interesting note: when Karl Marx wrote, “to each according to need,” he was quoting the book of Acts, which describes life in a Christian community in the early church.

Their travels and research convinced Parker and Brock that Christianity, for its first thousand years, considered Paradise to be in the here and now, right here on Earth, and it was later Christianity that shifted the focus to crucifixion and empire. For the early church, paradise was this world, permeated and blessed by the Spirit of God. They saw a world that was "lit by a power from within,"[1] a world that was “luminous, good and delightful”.[2]

As Christianity grew more popular and became the official religion of the Roman Empire, it began to develop more structures of hierarchical power and struggled with its role as a criticizer of the power structures it now belonged to. Literature about Paradise proliferated. Although this earthly Paradise had many facets, individuals could experience it fully only in community worship. Life in Paradise was a shared experience that provided sustaining life for all members together. A society of “ethical grace” measured itself by the well being of its most vulnerable members, by its enhancements of human sociability and love, and by the creation of sustainable and decent life for all. [3]

Around the time of Charlemagne, a ninth-century European king, things began to change. As Charlemagne, a Christian, waged war against the pagan Saxons, his armies destroyed Saxon towns and villages, demolished their sacred shrines and forced them to convert to Christianity. His armies marched with the Cross at the front, marking a change in the use of the symbol of the cross, once a symbol of love, community and resistance to oppression, it now was back to being a symbol of oppression.

Charlemagne wanted to unite Europe under his rule and he needed Christian soldiers to do his bidding, but he had a problem. Good Christians were pacifists — you don’t kill someone in God’s paradise. He needed a different kind of Christianity, so he began to support a few marginal theologians who said that Jesus’ death through crucifixion was proof that God thought death and suffering could be a good thing. So therefore, killing non –Christians was acceptable and if God didn’t want us to kill them, he’d stop us. And these same theologians posited that if we were really living in paradise, there would be none of these non-believing evil folks in it, so this can’t be the real paradise. The real heaven must come in the afterlife, if we live according to God’s law we will get there.

The first known image of the murdered Jesus on the cross appeared at the cathedral in Cologne, somewhere around 965. In the centuries that followed, crucifixes became ever more gruesome and bloody. During the same time period, the communion ritual began to reflect the theology of the Atonement: eating Jesus’ crucified flesh and blood became a way to vicariously experience his sacrifice. Depictions of the living Jesus began to disappear, as well as literature about and depictions of an earthly paradise.

Armed with this new theology of violence and redemptive suffering, Kings and Popes were free to use good Christian troops in their armies. As the centuries marched on, Europe was washed in blood as various wars, the Crusades and the Inquisition developed and the idea of “holy violence” as a way to gain entry to paradise took hold. By the late Middle Ages, Christianity no longer sought to create paradise in the here and now, but was focused on getting to paradise somewhere else, the gift of Jesus’ violent death. Suffering became the preferred spiritual path. Brock and Parker write this:

“Christians lost their footing in paradise and began a precipitous slide into a pit of hell of their own making.” “The church in western Europe had once been in love with the risen Christ, who joined his bride in the earthly garden of delight and helped her tend it. Beginning in the ninth century, [the church] began to doubt her lover and took a violent Lord into her bed, lay with him, blessed him, and finally, took him into the Christian family by marrying him.”[4]

As the middle ages gave way to the Renaissance and the Protestant Reformation the religious literature was again filled with thoughts of Paradise. There was a longing for the original pristine innocence of Eden. Twenty thousand Puritans crossed the Atlantic from 1620 to 1640, partly on a mission to establish a new Eden in the North American wilderness. And it is out of that migration that our spiritual ancestors, the Unitarians and Universalist came.

So, here’s the most astonishing thing: Unitarian Universalism focuses more on this world, the present and how we live here and now. Not like the Christians, who believe that paradise is a place we may go when we leave this world.

But if Parker and Brock are right, we UU’s may be more in sympathy with the most ancient, orthodox Christianity than those modern day Christians! Now the ancients spoke of Christ as a living presence in the here and now, and that may not work for us, but what his presence meant for them — kindness, generosity, service and justice, are things we value as well.

There may be more harmony between true orthodox Christianity and us than we ever would have imagined.

Peter Morales says this: “If we look at our own movement through from this perspective on religion, I think we see ourselves in a slightly different light. Both halves of our movement, the Unitarian half and the Universalist half, were created as reactions against what Christianity had become. In a religious world dominated by the rigidity of a Catholic hierarchy and a dour Calvinism that saw humanity as utterly depraved, the Unitarians and the Universalists rebelled.

We owe a particular debt to our Universalist forebears in this regard. They, even more than the Unitarians, rejected the very premises of orthodoxy. They argued, in the theological language of their day, that God is not an angry judge. The Universalists said that God was a loving father and that no loving God would create humanity for the purpose of condemning most of them to eternal punishment his example of a life ruled by love. Ballou taught that we can create a heaven or hell right here on earth.”[5]

Very few of us current Unitarian Universalists claim a Christian identity—and yet we are far closer to the teachings of the early Christians than are the vast majority of churches that claim to be Christian. Our emphasis on love, on community, on justice, and our focus on this life rather than some future heaven is actually closer in spirit to the early Christian congregations than are churches that teach people that Jesus died so that they can go to heaven after they die.

If you look closely you can see that our principles reflect those very same tenets found in the early church, couched in our non-theistic language, but nonetheless virtually the same.

We too seek to build a society of “ethical grace” which measures itself by the well being of its most vulnerable members, by its enhancements of human sociability and love, and by the creation of sustainable and decent life for all. When we do this, we create beloved community, our version of Paradise.

We here and in our wider denomination struggle to create beloved community, a community of individuals striving to respect and love one another; to search into our lives and our spirits with honesty, curiosity and compassion; and to serve others in what ways we can in whatever ways they need. We are searching for Paradise, one that is here on earth, one that can be brought about through the transforming power of Love.

Brock and Parker remind us that paradise matters, that there are consequences to what we give our faithfulness, and that paradise should not just be a mystery, but a mission.

Held in the firm and loving embrace of our community, we can love and mourn and open our heart to the joyous, arduous and incredibly messy task of working together to find paradise.

May it be So

Sources and Inspirations

Rita Nakashima Brock & Rebecca Ann Parker, Saving Paradise: How Christianity Traded Love of This World for Crucifixion and Empire. Beacon Press; Boston: 2008.

Rebecca Ann Parker, We Are Already in Paradise. UU World, Summer 2010: May 15, 2010.

Rev. Daniel Budd, Saving Paradise, a sermon. First Unitarian Church of Cleveland: November 8, 2009.

Peter Morales, Paradise: Lost or Stolen?, a sermon. Jefferson Unitarian Church: August 17, 2008

---

[1] Parker and Brock

[2] Ibid

[3] Budd

[4] Brock and Parker

[5] Morales

You Might as Well Face It, You’re Addicted to Technology

Sermon delivered at the First Church of Harrisburg on December 5, 2010

In the scheme of all the things that can happen in child rearing, my son Stephen was pretty easy to raise. We did not have any of the serious problems with him that parents worry about and pray they will never have to face. But we did encounter something that we had no idea how to deal with………… computer gaming. When he was in about 7^th grade I loosened the reins on his use of the computer and he very quickly became an obsessive gamer, playing a game by the name “Call of Duty”. He played this game online with other folks from all over the world, which I thought was cool, until he began spending all his spare time at home on the computer even refusing to come to the table for dinner. And when we insisted he come to the table or go to bed, he became an angry young man who I did not recognize.

One of my greatest fears as a parent was that my child would become addicted to alcohol or drugs, instead he was addicted to gaming. I believe that if it were not for his serious commitment to music and performing, we might have had a much more difficult time with him, but his love of music kept him from descending fully into that world.

This was something I had no experience with and no tools to deal with, and we, his parents, were the ones who had provided him with the very resources that threatened to consume him. I would never have given my child alcohol or drugs, but in rapid succession I got him a cell phone and then unlimited text messages. Then he needed an IPOD, oh and a portable DVD player. Then an I-phone. Oh and a laptop to take to school. And I’m sure there is something else I am forgetting.

And lest I point a finger at my son, in this same time frame I became increasingly connected to my work life, available virtually 24 hours a day for the wants and needs of my bosses, my co-workers and my clients. I acquired a laptop, IPODS, DVD player and I was also really good at finding things on the internet. I was known as the google queen. I was modeling the very behavior that I was concerned about when he displayed it.

About now, you may be thinking, so what? What’s wrong with using all the available technology to our advantage? I am not anti technology by any stretch of the imagination, but I am afraid of who we are becoming. We live in the same houses, but we don’t need each other to talk to or listen to, to ask about what a word means or what the news is or when Dad will be home. We can use dictionary.com, consult CNN and check Dad’s Facebook status. We can each listen to our own music choices, no negotiation or compromise needed, and we have multiple televisions and movie delivery devices in the house, so we can each watch exactly what we want to….. alone. We can be entirely selfish, insular units of self amusing entertainment and information systems. That sounds like a scary science fiction movie to me.

I recently read a piece in the NY Times called “Hooked and Gadgets and Paying a Mental Price”. This article explores the idea that our relentless juggling of things like e-mail, phone calls and other information is changing how we think and behave. Some scientists believe that the way we use technology today is actually rewiring our brains.

The article also addressed what it called “the myth of multitasking,” looking at the popular wisdom that tells us that multitasking makes us more efficient and effective. According to researchers, the opposite is actually true, not only did self identified multi taskers perform worse on a series of simple tasks, but they were much worse at filtering out irrelevant information, less efficient at juggling problems and even took longer to switch from one task to another.

Some studies have found that this constant barrage of information puts stress on the lower centers of our brain, causing us, among other things, to become almost Pavlovian in our response to the visual or audible signals that indicate that we have mail, a text or an incoming call, leading us to be compelled to answer, often ignoring more important or meaningful activities.

There was much in this article that gave me pause, including the fact that studies show that people, on average, consume 12 hours of media a day, but the studies about the effect on children were the most troubling to me. Study results are increasingly supporting the theory that constant digital stimulation is creating children who have very short attention spans and cannot focus on quieter pursuits like reading, set priorities or resist impulses as well as children could just a generation ago.

Research out of Stanford suggests that the heavy use of technology, especially by children, diminishes their capacity for empathy. Clifford Nass, a researcher there says this: “The way we become more human is by paying attention to each other”. (repeat)

Now I am not suggesting that we unplug ourselves from all of our gadgets and live off the grid or that we throw away our i-phones and blackberries and ban our children from texting and the internet. What I am suggesting is that we each consider how much time we are spending engaging with our electronics, that might be better spent interacting with the actual humans who occupy the same space as we do. Just for a minute, stop and consider what sort of life we are modeling for our children.

We all want the best for our kids. I know that I was glad to be able to provide all this stuff for my son. But we also need to give the best of ourselves to our children. So sometimes, we can turn off the phones (all of them), the blackberries, the TV, the internet and any other information delivery device I have forgotten. And yes, we can require our kids to do the same, despite the fact that they may tell you that you are ruining their lives. Take the time to breathe deeply, to sit peacefully in meditation, to read, to take a walk with your loved ones, to eat dinner while no one is texting or watching television or listening to their IPOD. While it is true that many of us are required to be “plugged in” by our employers, I would like to suggest that there are things that we give up by being endlessly connected to technology, that are simply not worth it.

One of the things my family did was to take family vacations with another family that were deliberately low tech. We did not go to theme parks or resorts but to state and national parks. We stayed in cabins or tents, with campfires and wildlife, no internet or DVD players. The kids don’t necessarily remember the majestic beauty of the Tetons or the geological anamolies of Yellowstone, but they remember the stories by the campfire, the silly made up songs to pass the long drive, the thunderstorm in the desert that we watched roll in for several hours. Precious moments that involve nothing more advanced than a match put to firewood.

Each of these electronic devices has a purpose and some very positive aspects. Cell phones allow us to keep track of our loved ones, Kindles allow us to carry thousands of books around, Facebook allows us to keep up with the lives of friends all across the country, online photo albums allow grandparents and aunties and uncles all over the world a little glimpse into the lives of far away family.

Technology does not have a soul, it is not evil or bad and we do have significant control on how it impacts our lives. We just need to be a little more aware of its effects on our families, our relationships and our children, to take care that we are not replacing our need for authentic relationship with electronic companionship, that we are not using gadgets to try and fill the hole in us that can only be filled by meaningful relationships, by love and hope, by hugs and authentic conversation. We would do well to heed Emerson’s advice that we be careful what we worship.

There is an oft told story by Unitarian minister Clark Dewey Wells, that goes like this: "Several years ago and shortly after twilight our 3 1/2-year-old tried to gain his parents, attention to a shining star. The parents were busy with time and schedules, the irritabilities of the day and other worthy pre-occupations. 'Yes, yes, we see the star - now I'm busy! Don't bother me.'

"On hearing this the young one launched through the porch door, fixed us with a fiery gaze and said, 'You be glad at that star!'"

You be glad at that star.

While many of us love our gadgets, the truth is that we love other things much more: the sound of our children’s laughter, the crinkle around our partner’s eyes when they smile, the touch of another human being. When we become caught up in the worship of our technology, when our so-called time saving devices consume us, we miss real life. We lose the perfect, messy, wonderful, simple things, that are what make meaning out of our lives, that are the essence of what is good and grounding and holy in our lives.

I hope in the coming weeks we will all find time to pause and “be glad at that star”.

May it be So

Sources and Inspirations

Matt Richtel. Hooked on Gadgets and Paying a Mental Price, The New York Times; June 8, 2010.

Rebecca Traister. No More Vacation: How Technology is Stealing Our Lives., Salon.com, July 15, 2010.

Clark Dewey Wells. The Strangeness of This Business: A Meditation Manual for 1976, UUA, Boston.

Why I think the Rally to Restore Sanity Was a Good Idea

A distant cousin of mine posted a picture of a sign from the Rally to Restore Sanity that was not very nice. He and I could not have any more discordant political and social belief systems, but I enjoy trading opinions and ideas with him on many issues and he never fails to make me think. And guess what – we never call each other names. My exchange with him led me to write this blog entry about why I believe that anything that tries to “Restore Sanity” to our country is something I wholeheartedly support.

I grew up in a family where “winning” and/or “being right” about things was of the highest value. Claim your ground and stand on it even if it turns out that you were horribly wrong. And, since you are right, name calling and behaving in a disrespectful way is OK, because you are, after all, RIGHT. I have spent a great deal of my adult life unlearning that behavior and that process began when I realized that I was acting more like a 9 year old than an adult. That way of moving through the world is immature behavior and it was time for me to grow up!

So when I see this exact behavior taking over as the as the way we conduct ourselves in public, when name calling and disrespect are a regular (and acceptable) part of our political and personal discourse, it makes me very sad. In the past, especially in times of war, we have given other bigots and ideologues a “bully pulpit”, but for the most part, we ignore those on the fringes who engage in name calling and hate speech. And I do not ever remember learning of another time in history where Americans just believed the most outrageous claims and “facts” without doing one single moment of research for themselves. I am no Einstein, but I know that if something seems incredible and unbelievable it is probably not true. I certainly would not accept it as fact just because some news or radio show host said it.

Thirty years ago we had two parties, widespread political disagreement and many social issues on which the two parties vehemently disagreed. But the politicians did not engage in hate speech, the news endeavored to tell us things that we needed to know without political slant (which they succeeded at most of the time). Now, on the television and radio, people feel free to engage in name calling, obfuscation and, well, plain old lying, regardless of its effect on our country. Our leaders used to hold fast to their opinions on what our country needed, and act on them in their political life and yet be friends in their private lives (Ronald Reagan and Ted Kennedy for example). Now, if you are on the left and disagree with me you are a communist or you hate America and if you are on the right and disagree with me you are a fascist or a white supremacist.

Which is why I love the idea of a Rally to Restore Sanity. Ultimately, I believe that there is no “side” that has the monopoly and on the name calling and half truth telling that has taken over the airwaves, and BOTH sides are responsible for allowing them to do so. If we didn’t watch them or listen to them, if we didn’t parrot the misinformation, and yes, outright lies, we heard from them, they would quickly be off the air. The rest of us, the great mass of folks who believe what we believe, sometimes with great conviction, are tired of the hateful way in which our politics are being conducted. We know that we can disagree without being disagreeable, we have done it before.

Most Americans wish to listen to each other with respect, because in our hearts we all know that we are better and stronger working together than when we are broken into our own factions, using all our energy to scheme against each other. Maybe we can take some advice from our Grandma. Let’s count to 10 before we say something we might regret, let’s not say anything unless we can say something nice, and let’s not lie. And I would like to have a moratorium on calling each other anything that ends with “ist”. We know that we cannot solve our countries many difficult problems by name calling or yelling at each other. We cannot solve them by telling half truths and getting more people to be on our side. We cannot solve them by blocking each other’s legislation, refusing to compromise and then voting each other’s candidates out of office every two years Now, more than any other time in our history, we need to start acting like grownups. We MUST work together, in the words of Dr, King: “We must all learn to live together as brothers or we will all perish together as fools”.

It is my most ardent hope that this rally has started a movement of folks who want a return to civility, which I believe is most people. I want us to be able to talk about important, meaningful, REAL things again. I want us to remember our manners, mind our tongues and behave like adults. Is this too much to ask?

Because, as Jon Stewart said at the Rally: “ This was not a rally to ridicule people of faith or people of activism or to look down our noses at the heartland or passionate argument or to suggest that times are not difficult and that we have nothing to fear. They are and we do. But we live now in hard times, not end times. And we can have animus and not be enemies.

But unfortunately one of our main tools in delineating the two broke. The country’s 24 hour political pundit perpetual panic conflictinator did not cause our problems but its existence makes solving them that much harder. The press can hold its magnifying up to our problems bringing them into focus, illuminating issues heretofore unseen or they can use that magnifying glass to light ants on fire and then perhaps host a week of shows on the sudden, unexpected dangerous flaming ant epidemic.

“If we amplify everything we hear nothing. There are terrorists and racists and Stalinist and theocrats but those are titles that must be earned. You must have the resume. Not being able to distinguish between real racists and Tea Partiers or real bigots and Juan Williams and Rick Sanchez is an insult, not only to those people but to the racists themselves who have put in the exhausting effort it takes to hate. Just as the inability to distinguish terrorists from Muslims makes us less safe not more”

May it Be So.

Suzanne

Sermon: “Civil Disobedience, Pink Underwear and Arizona SB 1070”

Unitarian Church of Harrisburg, September 26, 2010

On July 29^th of this year I was sitting beside idyllic Kezar Lake in Maine. And I was pacing around like a caged animal. Many of my clergy colleagues and UU laypeople from all across the country were in scorchingly hot Phoenix, there to protest on the day that the new Arizona immigration law, SB 1070, was set to take effect. I knew that a number of them planned to engage in civil disobedience and get themselves arrested. I spent the day feeling very unsettled, compulsively checking the various sources on the web that were giving updates on what was happening there. As the day stretched into the night and the 29 UU’s who were arrested, remained in jail, I was worried. I felt very guilty for not being there with them.

Which led me to examine why the UUs and others were there. What exactly were they protesting? Did they think that there should be unrestrained immigration into our country? Were they in favor of blanket amnesty for approximately 12 million undocumented residents that are in our country now? What was in SB 1070 that was so bad? I decided I needed to do some research.

What I found was a great deal of confusing and contradictory information on every aspect of the immigration issue and a long history of controversy, discrimination, incrimination and finger pointing from every side. SB10170 is a bill that was passed in response to the frustration of many of the folks in Phoenix, a city which is, by nearly anyone’s account, awash in undocumented residents. More than 500,000, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

I also found that it was passed in the wake of many publicly stated half truths and blatant appeals to the racism that so often rears its ugly head when economic times turn difficult. I found that the two most cited reasons for its necessity were:

1. The rising crime rate in Phoenix, ostensibly perpetrated by the undocumented. The truth is that the violent crime rate in Phoenix has dropped 23% since 2004.

2. The rise in drug related kidnappings for ransom in recent years. What they don’t tell you is that they are almost exclusively of drug traffickers by others involved in the drug trade. And in 2009 the number was down 11%.

Now I don’t tell you these inconsistencies to get you to agree with me, I tell you because I want you to be wary of what you accept as truth. There is as much incorrect information out there as there is correct, so be careful what you believe!

One of those in Phoenix leading the war on the undocumented is the Sheriff of Maricopa County, "Joe" Arpaio. He is responsible for law enforcement in Maricopa County, as well as running the county jail, among other duties. He calls himself "America's Toughest Sheriff and is known for his outspoken stance against illegal immigrants and for running a jail that routinely sees the mistreatment of prisoners , especially those of color. He is the subject of FBI, Department of Justice and Federal Grand Jury investigations for civil rights violations and abuse of power, and is the defendant in a federal class-action suit for racial profiling. He is also the purveyor of the infamous pink socks and underwear that are required for all inmates in the Phoenix jail.

SB 1070, which was passed with anywhere from 66-77% of the public supporting it, includes among its provisions a requirement that an “official or agency of the state, county, city, town or political subdivision”:

make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made, if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.

and

transfer an alien unlawfully present in the U.S. who is convicted of a violation of state or local law immediately to the custody of ICE or Customs and Border Protection, on discharge from imprisonment or assessment of any fine that is imposed.

and

Prohibits officials or agencies of the state and political subdivisions from being prevented or restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining an individual’s immigration status information or exchanging that information with any other governmental body

So why has this law become a focus for our Standing on the Side of Love campaign? Why were so many Unitarian Universalists willing to fly all the way to Phoenix and even get arrested protesting it? In reading what those who went wrote on that topic, I found the following reasons:

Because it targets immigrants who are of certain ethnic backgrounds and therefore sanctions or even requires racial profiling.

Because, it unfairly affects folks who have been in the US for years, law abiding in every way other than their immigration status.

Because it breaks up families and destabilizes the homes of children, many who are US citizens.

Because it dehumanizes and terrorizes people and encourages the spread of fear and hate.

Because we want those in Phoenix, no matter who they are or what their status, to know that they are not invisible and alone.

There are many different interpretations and opinions of this bill and immigration in general. There are many who would disagree vehemently with those characterizations of the bill. This is not a topic on which we UU’s are of one mind, I would guess that there are some in this congregation who do not agree with nearly any of what I just said.

But I hope you will at least consider the two reasons that I have for believing this bill is wrong.

Because, in its utter disregard for the basic humanity of those who are undocumented, it violates our first principle.

and

Because we all know that there has to be a better way

Many of you recognized the poem I read earlier. It is engraved on the base of the Statue of Liberty that stands in New York Harbor. I do not believe that those words speak to how most Americans feel today about the many immigrants who seek to come here. I actually don’t think most Americans felt that way when those words were first inscribed on the statue in 1903. A quick review of history tells us that in each generation, certain people from certain countries or ethnic groups have been discriminated against and reviled in this country. Since the first restrictions on immigration were passed in 1875, laws have been passed to keep “them” from coming here legally. The stated reasons have a familiar ring: they take our jobs, they are all on the dole, they commit crime. Chances are these things were said of our ancestors as new immigrants. The xenophobia and racism that cause us to scapegoat and revile one group or another always rises in a deafening chorus during hard economic times. But we do not have to stand by in silence and allow the same pattern to repeated yet again. Ultimately I think that is what many of those in Phoenix were saying.

In my reading I did not even begin to scratch the surface of this two hundred year old, mind bendingly complex issue, but I have reached a few conclusions for myself:

I believe that people should not be deliberately humiliated when they are detained.

I believe that our government bears some responsibility for creating the situation we now find ourselves in.

I believe that no one deserves to be called illegal. A person is not their status.

I believe we need to put criminals in jail, but that being undocumented does not make one a criminal

I believe we need to address our broken immigration policy in this country in a sane way that respects the humanity and dignity of all people,whatever their status. I know we can find a different way to approach this problem, a way that includes sane rational engagement with the actual facts and invites input from all affected parties. I believe we cannot adequately measure the effect of the undocumented immigrants on our employment or crime statistics due to the nature of the underground economy in which they function. I would suggest we stop with our dueling statistics and set about to try something completely different to deal with this problem.

I believe that unjust laws call for radical actions

I still believe that every person has inherent worth and dignity.

I invite you to become more informed on this issue for yourself. I invite you to engage in conversations with each other in a way that is respectful of the wide range of opinions that are held by kind and caring people.

Most of all, I invite you to remember that all of the statistics, be they about undocumented workers or their citizen children, law enforcement officers or protesters, involve and affect living breathing human beings. People who, for the most part, are just trying to feed their families, be they immigrants or law enforcement.

We will never all agree on this topic. And most of us will never go to a protest in Phoenix or anywhere else on this issue. But we can ALL stand and proclaim that the hate mongering and name calling is never acceptable. Never.

May we each, in whatever way we can, seek opportunities to speak for the voiceless and lend our power to the powerless.

May it be so.

Suzanne