HomeGood Morning!
Today I want to celebrate the United Nations, which I see as the evolving government-to-be of humanity. That was, of course, the intent of many of its founders.
While I am not going to focus on these areas today, I do want to mention that the United Nations has achieved great things during its existence. It has housed and fed millions of refugees, it has averted famine, it has ended disease, it has averted wars. Some of these things fall into the category of the unseen. If a famine does not happen because of agricultural aid and development in a nation, no one “sees” this. If people today are not dying from a disease like small pox, who notices? And if war does not occur because nations engaged in conversation instead, who is aware of the fact? So the United Nations has achieved great things and precisely because it has we are unaware of how much it has done.
I do not claim that the United Nations is a perfect institution; it has had its failures. The most glaring at the present moment is the inability to stop the tragedy unfolding in the western part of the Sudan. The United Nations is imperfect as is any humanly created institution, including our nation and including this congregation. We are all imperfect, but in each case I believe the world is better off because these institutions exist.
My focus this morning is on human rights which is one of the primary reasons the United Nations came into being.
Most people say they believe in human rights, including most Americans. There are two problems in making that statement the first being that we do not all agree on just what the phrase “human rights” means and the second being something I will call “tribalism”, though that is the wrong name.
First, what are “human rights”?
Because of disagreements between nations with differing definitions, the United Nations developed two separate documents as part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. One document speaks to political rights, the other to social rights.
Political rights define what government may not do to you or may not stop you from doing. These include freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from cruel and inhuman treatment, the right to vote and others.
Social rights define what government is required to provide to you. So, food clothing shelter, employment, education, health care, these are all in the document on Social Rights.
Most Americans think only of political rights as human rights, and the United States government, which has not signed the declaration of Social Rights, means only political rights these when it speaks to human rights. While I believe this is incorrect, and that social rights are human rights, I am going to focus my attention only on the political rights this morning.
A word before I begin: It may initially sound as if I am engaging in Bush-bashing, that is, in criticism directed at our current President or at his administration. I am not, and you will see that while I begin with President Bush, I am speaking in a more general sense about we Americans and about we human beings.
President Bush has stated many times that human rights are God-given, not government granted, and therefore cannot be taken away or violated by any government. I agree with him, which is to say, that I believe human rights are inherent to the person. No government can rightfully deny them to any person.
However, President Bush defends the practice of denial of rights on the grounds of national security. He defends practices by our government that violate our constitution, that violate the Geneva Conventions, that violate the Universal Declaration of Human rights and which violate human decency. And—and here is the important point—the American people support him in this.
How can this be if he and they believe in human rights? The answer, I believe, is that neither President Bush nor the American people—nor truth be told, everyone in this room nor everyone in the world—actually do hold human rights to be inviolable.
Most of us believe in human rights, but not for all, only for a particular “in-group”. What that in-group is varies from person to person.
This is a doctrine not of “human rights” but really of “tribal” or in-group rights. Members of our tribe—however that is defined—have rights, others do not.
In what I think is the majority American view, human rights only belong to Americans; they only belong to those who are citizens of this country. And so many Americans do not mind if the rights of people in foreign nations are violated, even if that violation is done by the government of the United States, because those people are not included in the circle of concern and therefore of rights.
Not only that, but in this view—the one I am describing, not the one I hold—if someone is trying to or suspected of trying to harm Americans, then it is the positive duty of our government to violate their rights. Really, they have none to be violated. So torture or secret prisons are acceptable. These people are deemed to be outside of the circle of rights. This is not what the phrase “human rights” is intended to mean; it means rights that belong to the person regardless of what they have done or how we feel about them. But it is what tribal rights are.
Many Americans feel we should just round up all illegal immigrants and ship them out of the country, no hearings necessary; and denying these individuals basic health care or other necessities of life is viewed by many as not only acceptable but as mandatory.
Another of the facts of tribal rights is that any person can be put out of the in-group—the tribe or clan—if they violate the precepts of the group. They are then what in the old west were called “outlaws”. Merriam Webster defines an outlaw as 1: a person excluded from the benefit or protection of the law. These are people who once were part of the group but have now been put out. Since they are out, they can now be mistreated or killed with impunity. We still do that today; the administration and the American people are willing to define some American citizens as “enemy combatants” and therefore as beyond the bounds of those entitled to respect for their human rights. But even before September 11 and the war with certain terrorist organizations we were willing to set some people outside the tribe, and those whom we choose to exclude can be subjected to capital punishment, which is the ultimate denial of belonging, of humanity and of human rights.
What does religion say to us about all of this and require of us?
The truth is that the message is, at best, mixed.
The Torah certainly allows for the killing both of foreigners and of members of the group. In fact, read literally, it requires the execution of some people: “Suffer not a witch to live”; and other categories of people face mandatory death.
The Qu’ran allows for killings and describes the execution of the males of a tribe of Jews in Medina, an execution ordered by Muhammad.
The Christian texts of the New Testament do not explicitly call for executions or war, but they were written by and for a people who were not in power. However the Book of Revelations speaks of a future time of killing, even slaughter. And the acceptance of Jewish texts as the sacred word of God, including many not in the Torah, becomes an acceptance of the same willingness to kill both “outsiders” and those within who violate the rules.
I read from the Bhagavad-Gita last week and that, too, on a literal reading, supports killing, as do the various Law Books of Hinduism, such as the laws of Manu.
However, there are also in all of these texts portions that indicate an overall spirit of mercy, compassion and decency towards other human beings. And the sacred texts of almost all religions promise a future time of peace, love and joy.
What does Unitarian Universalism require of us or say to us?
I do not have time this morning to go into Unitarian and Universalist history. A quick statement would be that the Universalists were much more likely to oppose war and capital punishment than were the Unitarians, but many Unitarians also rejected both. Many Unitarians, both clergy and lay, have been members of pacifist groups dating back to the early 1800’s.
But thinking just about Unitarian Universalism today, I want to take a quick look at some of our Principles:
Principles number one: The inherent worth and dignity of every person.
This speaks to “every person”, not just “us”, whoever “us” is in our own minds. It calls upon us to see dignity and worth in people who are not Unitarian Universalist, in people who are not Americans, in people who are not our friends. And buy implication it states that we may not define anyone as being outside the circle which the Principle encompasses.
Principle number two: Justice, equity and compassion in human relations.
Not in some only, but equitable treatment and compassion even
for those whom I do not like.
Principle number three: The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all
This Principle specifies “all” and “world community”, and therefore leaves no doubt about who our intended circle of inclusion encompasses. It applies to all.
As Unitarian Universalists, we are not bound literally to any creed or belief, not even to our own statement of Principles and Purposes. We are free to reject some, most or even all of the language here.
On the other hand, I feel called at least to consider the claims not only of Unitarian Universalism, but of other religious faiths as we engage with the decisions and difficulties of our day. These Principles call us to raise our sights and be better people than we have been, and maybe better than we think we can be.
Who is within my circle of compassion? Who is excluded? Who is deserving of being ejected or shunned? Is there anything I have done in my life worthy of that same treatment, of banishment from the human family?
When my family includes all of human kind, when each person is my sibling, when each child is my child, when every person is irrevocably within my circle of compassion and concern, then the promise of the sacred texts of the world and of the United Nations will begin to be fulfilled.
Return to
Home
Return to Sermons Index