Regime Change Begins at Home
a sermon preached by the Rev. Dr. Tim W. Jensen
at the Second Congregational Meeting House on Nantucket Island,
Sunday November 3, 2002
***
I thought I would start out today by talking a little bit about the notion of “occasional preaching.” I’m not certain when I first heard the term “occasional sermon,” but I do recall how disappointed I was when I realized that it didn’t refer to the luxury of only preaching occasionally, from time to time, but rather to sermons that are delivered on special, ceremonial occasions: occasions like ordinations and funerals, Thanksgiving Day sermons, Artillery Day sermons (which in times gone by were preached on the occasion of the annual muster of the militia), and of course, Election sermons. In our era of a strict “wall of separation between church and state,” the idea that Election Day might be an occasion for public religious celebration might seem a little unusual, but it has never been as easy to distinguish between our religious and our political sentiments and convictions as it is to differentiate between the activities of government and those of our ecclesiastical institutions.
In its essence, Religion is centered around issues of value and morality, about matters of “ultimate meaning and concern” -- the word itself comes from the Latin root religare: something which ties or binds again (as in the related words “ligament” and “obligation”) -- the power which “reconnects” us to one another and to the creative spirit of the universe, to truth and justice and compassion and mercy. Politics, on the other hand, is about the challenge of living in a polis -- a community. Politics are sometimes described as “the art of the possible,” and, of course, we’ve all heard the maxim “all politics are local.” Politics are often about compromise, about the pragmatic realities of seeking consensus, identifying “constituencies” and building coalitions -- and yet it seems ridiculous to suggest that somehow our political opinions should be completely divorced from our religious values and principles, just as it would be absurd to assume that religious belief is simply a personal and private experience, and that we should never attempt to actually live our lives in accordance with our deepest and most cherished convictions.
Of course, nowadays neither religion nor politics seem quite what they used to be, and the old-fashioned Election sermon has kinda gone out of style. And this strikes me as both unfortunate, and also a little sad. Americans didn’t invent democracy, but we have certainly put our stamp on it over the years, beginning with the signing of the Mayflower Compact nearly four centuries ago, just over the water and up the road a bit at Plymouth. Democratic principles not only provide the foundation for our political institutions, they are also a central component of our free church tradition. The so-called “fifth principle” of the Unitarian Universalist Association affirms and promotes “the right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large.”
One might even say (as a good many historians already have) that the Congregational Church was the cradle in which American Constitutional democracy was born. The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights not only prohibits the establishment of religion, but also protects its free exersize...as well as guaranteeing freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” There’s a reason that freedom of religion is enumerated right up front alongside these other three fundamental freedoms, while all that nonsense about “a well-regulated militia...” is relegated to the Second Amendment.
Religious liberty is not only one of the rights protected by our Constitution, it is one of the practices which make our Constitutional democracy possible. Our freedom to speak and publish and assemble publicly to express our grievances is essentially religious in nature, and in many ways derives its power and authority from that equally basic right to believe and worship as we choose, according to the dictates of our own conscience.
Before moving on from this topic, I want to say just a word or two about the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, and the current influence of the so-called “Religious Right” upon our national political discourse. As a religious liberal, I have to confess that I pretty much disagree with just about everything they stand for, and I particularly resent the insinuation that their religious viewpoint is the only “legitimate” religious viewpoint, and thus should be given the force of law. But I also have to admit that “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander;” and therefore believe that the only meaningful way of responding to their often mean-spirited view of Christian faith is by effectively confronting it with a more enlightened religious perspective. The Truth is ultimately its own best apologist; and given time and faithful witness, it will eventually triumph over falsehoods and half-truths. Yet in order for it to do so, it requires our willingness to “speak the truth to power,” and to stand up faithfully and courageously in support of our beliefs and religious values within the so-called “marketplace of ideas.”
This brings me to the second issue I want to explore with you today, which has to do with the ways in which the ever-increasing amounts of money spent on political campaigns has distorted the quality of our political discourse. I won’t bother you with all sorts of statistics; we all know it’s a problem, and many of us have responded simply by trying to tune it all out. At times it seems as though meaningful political debate has been displaced, at best, by propaganda and public relations...or worse, by political slander and character assassination. Mud-slinging is a time-honored tradition in American politics; it’s part of who we are. The rich and the privileged have always taken advantage of their wealth and positions of influence in order to consolidate their hold on power and add to their fortunes; there’s nothing new about this as well -- freedom of the press belongs to those who can afford to own the press. But what is truly discouraging about this current trend of negative campaigning and relentless attack ads is the manner in which they are being used, not just to win over voters who may already be sympathetic to a candidate’s views, but also to discourage other potential voters from voting at all.
In his recent book *The Vanishing Voter* Harvard-based researcher Thomas Patterson describes some of the ways in which our nation’s increasingly negative, increasingly expensive, increasingly lengthy political campaigns have worked to convince many potential voters that their votes simply don’t matter, leaving them feeling “helplessly disconnected” and resulting in historically low levels of voter turnout, thus magnifying the influence of the more politically-extreme elements of our society. In striking contrast to most other industrialized nations, in the United States typically fewer than half of the potentially eligible voters actually bother to show up at their polling places on election day. Those most likely to turn up their noses at the entire political process are individuals of moderate political views; the phenomenon is even more dramatic among the young: only about 30% of Americans under the age of thirty typically cast a ballot. On the other hand, individuals whose incomes fall within the top 20% of American households are more than twice as likely to vote as those whose incomes are in the bottom 20%.
Of course, there are some who would argue that this is exactly as it should be. Although the historical trend in our nation has been to expand the electoral franchise, there are still many who believe that too much democracy is a dangerous thing, and that our leaders should properly be selected by the oldest, most affluent, most politically opinionated members of our society. These modern-day oligarchs are suspicious of young, poor individuals of moderate political views; God knows what kind of policies they might come up with if they were actually allowed effective access to real political power. Yet at the end of the day, the fact remains that we all have to live under the authority of those politicians who know how to work the system and defeat their “worthy opponents,” whether we actually voted for them or not. And there are generally very real consequences to the outcomes of elections which influence both our basic well-being and the overall quality of our society, consequences which are often impossible to ignore no matter how hard we may try.
It frightens me a little to think that I live in a nation now ruled by a man who failed to receive even a plurality of the votes cast by the tiny fraction of potentially eligable voters who managed to have their votes counted in the last Presidential election. A man who now controls the largest documented arsenal of “weapons of mass destruction” on the planet, not to mention the best trained, best equipped, most powerful conventional military force in the history of the world, and who has already demonstrated his desire and willingness to use that power against foreign governments in order to further his own policy goals. It frightens me more than you can possibly imagine to see how he has exploited our nation’s anxieties about global terrorism in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks against the Pentagon and the World Trade Center in order to undermine our Constitutional civil liberties and rights to due process, while at the same time appealing to patriotism and the need for “homeland security” in order to consolidate his hold on political power and defeat his political opponents here at home.
I am especially concerned about the ways in which the so-called “war on terrorism” has been politicized into a campaign against those who might actually insist on trying to hold the President accountable to the constitutional limits on his authority; we were all attacked on September 11th, we all want to bring the perpetrators to justice, and to protect ourselves from further attacks, yet reasonable men and women can legitimately disagree about the best means of pursuing those goals. But when I look at what this administration has done, or failed to do, for the economy, for the environment, for health care, for education, for just about every other issue I can think of that really matters to me, I am disappointed on all counts; what reason do I have to believe that they are managing the war on terrorism any better?
On September 12th, 2001 our nation enjoyed more sympathy and good will in the world than it had at any other moment in my lifetime; 13 months later, that good will has virtually all been squandered, and what do we have to show for it? Osama bin Ladin is still at large; we are seriously contemplating unilateral military action against the nation of Iraq (with an anticipated cost, I might add, of billions of dollars, not to mention the lives of who knows how many American soldiers); the overall situation in the Middle East has deteriorated dramatically; even our closest allies are distancing themselves from us. I know that not everyone in this country, or on this island, or even here in this room, will agree with my assessment and criticism of the failings of the Bush administration, and that’s OK -- as I said before, reasonable men and women can disagree on these things, and still work together to define some common ground, identify points of agreement and consensus.
But one of my great privileges as a Unitarian Universalist minister is that I am allowed to be outspoken on these matters; in fact, I think it’s even part of my job description. As a professional religious leader, entrusted with this free pulpit, I don’t have to worry about setting military policy for our entire nation; I am allowed to be a zealous advocate for peace, based on my profound religious conviction that we most truly defeat, even destroy, potential enemies both foreign and domestic, when we seek first to understand them, and then succeed in making them our friends.
As I mentioned during the Joys and Concerns last week, the title of today’s sermon is “Regime Change Begins at Home.” This catchy little slogan first occurred to me just about a month ago now; I know I mentioned it to a few people around town at the time, including several of you, and then later I saw where Larry Miller even put it on a sign for our regular monthly vigil in front of the post office.
The next thing I know, this same slogan appears on a sign two weeks later, at a big national rally in Washington DC, where it was noticed by the press and and quoted in the media; now you can even order buttons and bumper stickers, or download window signs on the internet, and the slogan has spread all over the country...I just got an e-mail from a friend of mine in Seattle (another Unitarian minister as it so happens) announcing that her automobile now proudly displays these same five little words, and encouraging the rest of us to do the same.
Now I’m not going to claim (like Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet) that I am the original author of this slogan; it’s an obvious enough turn-of-phrase, and I’m certain it occurred to a lot of people about the same time it occurred to me. But my point is, if it wasn’t me, it was somebody a lot like me, talking to a few friends about how they REALLY felt about what was going on in the country, in the world...and from that small conversation the word began to spread.
Like many of you, I am well aware of that nagging little voice which frequently whispers in my ear this time of year: “Don’t vote; it only encourages them.” But I’m also aware of the source of that voice, and that the alternative of not voting only encourages them as well, and in a different and more sinister way. The only truly effective answer to that nagging little voice, notwithstanding all the half-hearted efforts at increased voter registration and campaign finance reform, are our own little voices, talking with one another about how we really feel, and encouraging one another to perform our most fundamental patriotic obligation. Because Regime Change truly does Begin at Home. And even though it doesn’t seem like much, the first small step is to take the time to cast our ballots, and make our opinions known.
at the Second Congregational Meeting House on Nantucket Island,
Sunday November 3, 2002
***
I thought I would start out today by talking a little bit about the notion of “occasional preaching.” I’m not certain when I first heard the term “occasional sermon,” but I do recall how disappointed I was when I realized that it didn’t refer to the luxury of only preaching occasionally, from time to time, but rather to sermons that are delivered on special, ceremonial occasions: occasions like ordinations and funerals, Thanksgiving Day sermons, Artillery Day sermons (which in times gone by were preached on the occasion of the annual muster of the militia), and of course, Election sermons. In our era of a strict “wall of separation between church and state,” the idea that Election Day might be an occasion for public religious celebration might seem a little unusual, but it has never been as easy to distinguish between our religious and our political sentiments and convictions as it is to differentiate between the activities of government and those of our ecclesiastical institutions.
In its essence, Religion is centered around issues of value and morality, about matters of “ultimate meaning and concern” -- the word itself comes from the Latin root religare: something which ties or binds again (as in the related words “ligament” and “obligation”) -- the power which “reconnects” us to one another and to the creative spirit of the universe, to truth and justice and compassion and mercy. Politics, on the other hand, is about the challenge of living in a polis -- a community. Politics are sometimes described as “the art of the possible,” and, of course, we’ve all heard the maxim “all politics are local.” Politics are often about compromise, about the pragmatic realities of seeking consensus, identifying “constituencies” and building coalitions -- and yet it seems ridiculous to suggest that somehow our political opinions should be completely divorced from our religious values and principles, just as it would be absurd to assume that religious belief is simply a personal and private experience, and that we should never attempt to actually live our lives in accordance with our deepest and most cherished convictions.
Of course, nowadays neither religion nor politics seem quite what they used to be, and the old-fashioned Election sermon has kinda gone out of style. And this strikes me as both unfortunate, and also a little sad. Americans didn’t invent democracy, but we have certainly put our stamp on it over the years, beginning with the signing of the Mayflower Compact nearly four centuries ago, just over the water and up the road a bit at Plymouth. Democratic principles not only provide the foundation for our political institutions, they are also a central component of our free church tradition. The so-called “fifth principle” of the Unitarian Universalist Association affirms and promotes “the right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large.”
One might even say (as a good many historians already have) that the Congregational Church was the cradle in which American Constitutional democracy was born. The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights not only prohibits the establishment of religion, but also protects its free exersize...as well as guaranteeing freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” There’s a reason that freedom of religion is enumerated right up front alongside these other three fundamental freedoms, while all that nonsense about “a well-regulated militia...” is relegated to the Second Amendment.
Religious liberty is not only one of the rights protected by our Constitution, it is one of the practices which make our Constitutional democracy possible. Our freedom to speak and publish and assemble publicly to express our grievances is essentially religious in nature, and in many ways derives its power and authority from that equally basic right to believe and worship as we choose, according to the dictates of our own conscience.
Before moving on from this topic, I want to say just a word or two about the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, and the current influence of the so-called “Religious Right” upon our national political discourse. As a religious liberal, I have to confess that I pretty much disagree with just about everything they stand for, and I particularly resent the insinuation that their religious viewpoint is the only “legitimate” religious viewpoint, and thus should be given the force of law. But I also have to admit that “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander;” and therefore believe that the only meaningful way of responding to their often mean-spirited view of Christian faith is by effectively confronting it with a more enlightened religious perspective. The Truth is ultimately its own best apologist; and given time and faithful witness, it will eventually triumph over falsehoods and half-truths. Yet in order for it to do so, it requires our willingness to “speak the truth to power,” and to stand up faithfully and courageously in support of our beliefs and religious values within the so-called “marketplace of ideas.”
This brings me to the second issue I want to explore with you today, which has to do with the ways in which the ever-increasing amounts of money spent on political campaigns has distorted the quality of our political discourse. I won’t bother you with all sorts of statistics; we all know it’s a problem, and many of us have responded simply by trying to tune it all out. At times it seems as though meaningful political debate has been displaced, at best, by propaganda and public relations...or worse, by political slander and character assassination. Mud-slinging is a time-honored tradition in American politics; it’s part of who we are. The rich and the privileged have always taken advantage of their wealth and positions of influence in order to consolidate their hold on power and add to their fortunes; there’s nothing new about this as well -- freedom of the press belongs to those who can afford to own the press. But what is truly discouraging about this current trend of negative campaigning and relentless attack ads is the manner in which they are being used, not just to win over voters who may already be sympathetic to a candidate’s views, but also to discourage other potential voters from voting at all.
In his recent book *The Vanishing Voter* Harvard-based researcher Thomas Patterson describes some of the ways in which our nation’s increasingly negative, increasingly expensive, increasingly lengthy political campaigns have worked to convince many potential voters that their votes simply don’t matter, leaving them feeling “helplessly disconnected” and resulting in historically low levels of voter turnout, thus magnifying the influence of the more politically-extreme elements of our society. In striking contrast to most other industrialized nations, in the United States typically fewer than half of the potentially eligible voters actually bother to show up at their polling places on election day. Those most likely to turn up their noses at the entire political process are individuals of moderate political views; the phenomenon is even more dramatic among the young: only about 30% of Americans under the age of thirty typically cast a ballot. On the other hand, individuals whose incomes fall within the top 20% of American households are more than twice as likely to vote as those whose incomes are in the bottom 20%.
Of course, there are some who would argue that this is exactly as it should be. Although the historical trend in our nation has been to expand the electoral franchise, there are still many who believe that too much democracy is a dangerous thing, and that our leaders should properly be selected by the oldest, most affluent, most politically opinionated members of our society. These modern-day oligarchs are suspicious of young, poor individuals of moderate political views; God knows what kind of policies they might come up with if they were actually allowed effective access to real political power. Yet at the end of the day, the fact remains that we all have to live under the authority of those politicians who know how to work the system and defeat their “worthy opponents,” whether we actually voted for them or not. And there are generally very real consequences to the outcomes of elections which influence both our basic well-being and the overall quality of our society, consequences which are often impossible to ignore no matter how hard we may try.
It frightens me a little to think that I live in a nation now ruled by a man who failed to receive even a plurality of the votes cast by the tiny fraction of potentially eligable voters who managed to have their votes counted in the last Presidential election. A man who now controls the largest documented arsenal of “weapons of mass destruction” on the planet, not to mention the best trained, best equipped, most powerful conventional military force in the history of the world, and who has already demonstrated his desire and willingness to use that power against foreign governments in order to further his own policy goals. It frightens me more than you can possibly imagine to see how he has exploited our nation’s anxieties about global terrorism in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks against the Pentagon and the World Trade Center in order to undermine our Constitutional civil liberties and rights to due process, while at the same time appealing to patriotism and the need for “homeland security” in order to consolidate his hold on political power and defeat his political opponents here at home.
I am especially concerned about the ways in which the so-called “war on terrorism” has been politicized into a campaign against those who might actually insist on trying to hold the President accountable to the constitutional limits on his authority; we were all attacked on September 11th, we all want to bring the perpetrators to justice, and to protect ourselves from further attacks, yet reasonable men and women can legitimately disagree about the best means of pursuing those goals. But when I look at what this administration has done, or failed to do, for the economy, for the environment, for health care, for education, for just about every other issue I can think of that really matters to me, I am disappointed on all counts; what reason do I have to believe that they are managing the war on terrorism any better?
On September 12th, 2001 our nation enjoyed more sympathy and good will in the world than it had at any other moment in my lifetime; 13 months later, that good will has virtually all been squandered, and what do we have to show for it? Osama bin Ladin is still at large; we are seriously contemplating unilateral military action against the nation of Iraq (with an anticipated cost, I might add, of billions of dollars, not to mention the lives of who knows how many American soldiers); the overall situation in the Middle East has deteriorated dramatically; even our closest allies are distancing themselves from us. I know that not everyone in this country, or on this island, or even here in this room, will agree with my assessment and criticism of the failings of the Bush administration, and that’s OK -- as I said before, reasonable men and women can disagree on these things, and still work together to define some common ground, identify points of agreement and consensus.
But one of my great privileges as a Unitarian Universalist minister is that I am allowed to be outspoken on these matters; in fact, I think it’s even part of my job description. As a professional religious leader, entrusted with this free pulpit, I don’t have to worry about setting military policy for our entire nation; I am allowed to be a zealous advocate for peace, based on my profound religious conviction that we most truly defeat, even destroy, potential enemies both foreign and domestic, when we seek first to understand them, and then succeed in making them our friends.
As I mentioned during the Joys and Concerns last week, the title of today’s sermon is “Regime Change Begins at Home.” This catchy little slogan first occurred to me just about a month ago now; I know I mentioned it to a few people around town at the time, including several of you, and then later I saw where Larry Miller even put it on a sign for our regular monthly vigil in front of the post office.
The next thing I know, this same slogan appears on a sign two weeks later, at a big national rally in Washington DC, where it was noticed by the press and and quoted in the media; now you can even order buttons and bumper stickers, or download window signs on the internet, and the slogan has spread all over the country...I just got an e-mail from a friend of mine in Seattle (another Unitarian minister as it so happens) announcing that her automobile now proudly displays these same five little words, and encouraging the rest of us to do the same.
Now I’m not going to claim (like Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet) that I am the original author of this slogan; it’s an obvious enough turn-of-phrase, and I’m certain it occurred to a lot of people about the same time it occurred to me. But my point is, if it wasn’t me, it was somebody a lot like me, talking to a few friends about how they REALLY felt about what was going on in the country, in the world...and from that small conversation the word began to spread.
Like many of you, I am well aware of that nagging little voice which frequently whispers in my ear this time of year: “Don’t vote; it only encourages them.” But I’m also aware of the source of that voice, and that the alternative of not voting only encourages them as well, and in a different and more sinister way. The only truly effective answer to that nagging little voice, notwithstanding all the half-hearted efforts at increased voter registration and campaign finance reform, are our own little voices, talking with one another about how we really feel, and encouraging one another to perform our most fundamental patriotic obligation. Because Regime Change truly does Begin at Home. And even though it doesn’t seem like much, the first small step is to take the time to cast our ballots, and make our opinions known.
posted by The Eclectic Cleric at 2:35 PM
