Truth and Meaning: Religious Freedom?

Truth and Meaning: Religious Freedom?

The news abounds with proposed legislation purporting to defend religious freedom. This raises two important questions: What exactly do we mean when we talk about “religious freedom?” and is religious freedom actually being threatened? I want to draw an important distinction in this debate — the freedom from interference with religious belief and the freedom to act upon one’s religious beliefs.


The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees us that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This provision was later expanded to state and local governments, through the incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The “Establishment Clause” deals with separation of church and state issues, since the presence of any particular religion in public offices or functions, for example, gives the impression of the sanctioning of a state religion. In this case, religious freedom means that people are free from the imposition of religion by the state. The people are not free, however, to act upon their beliefs in a way that imposes those beliefs on the public. The “Free Exercise” clause has been refined many times over the centuries to clarify that the laws are made for the government of actions. Therefore, while the people are free from government interference with religious belief and opinions, government may restrict the ability of people to act on those beliefs if the actions are held to be against the public interest.

For instance, Supreme Court cases have discussed specific religious practices, and ruled such actions legal or illegal. Other times, laws have been passed (such as nondiscrimination clauses in hiring and business practices) that make it illegal to hire or fire someone based on their religious beliefs. In Michigan (according to the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act of 1976), employers may not discriminate on the basis of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, or marital status.  More than 30 municipalities have since added sexual orientation and gender identity to the list, as well.

But, if you live in Midland, or any other municipality yet to pass such an addendum, you may legally discriminate against LGBT individuals. If the law were to change, however, how would that affect religious freedom? If you believe that homosexuality is an abomination, you remain free to hold that belief. You are also free to believe that racial minorities are inferior, women are incomplete souls, diseased and disabled people are being punished by God, and that divorced people who remarry are living in sin. Nothing changes your religious freedom to believe such things.

You will not be free, necessarily, to act upon that belief in a way that is against the public interest. As a business owner, you are not free to refuse to serve a customer because you don’t believe they are living in a way in which you approve. As a service provider, you do not get to pick and choose clients who meet your judgment of worth and dignity based on your religious beliefs. If you serve the public, you are free from government interference with your beliefs. But the interests of the public override your ability to act based upon your religious beliefs.

If you believe that homosexuality is a sin, then you will always be free to oppose same-sex marriage; to advocate for restricting services to LGBT people; to boycott gay-friendly establishments; and to vote for homophobic candidates for office. When sexual orientation and gender identity become protected classes universally (which they will), you will not be free to act in a way that is injurious to the public interest, and that will include the well-being of LGBT individuals. You will not be free to withhold services from them, fire them or evict them on the basis of their being gay.

And even if you reject these arguments, here is one that cannot be refuted. As a Unitarian Universalist, the first principle of my religious belief is respect for the inherent worth and dignity of every person. I believe that love between consenting adults is Love, whether that love is heterosexual or homosexual. I believe in our principle that every person deserves justice, equity and compassion regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. So if you were to fire me because I am gay or straight, bisexual or transgender, then you are also firing me because I am a Unitarian Universalist. You are firing me for believing the core tenets of my religious faith — and that is a violation of my religious freedom.

You will always be free to disagree with me, boycott my church, even to hate me. But religious freedom in America does not protect your ability to discriminate against me.

Truth and Meaning: Rationalizing Hate and Discrimination

Truth and Meaning: Rationalizing Hate and Discrimination

“I don’t hate anyone.” I must have heard that sentence at least six times last Tuesday night as opponents to a proposed nondiscrimination ordinance addressed Bay County commissioners. The proposed ordinance would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity for all direct employment and services provided by Bay County, including services provided by any county contractors.

“But …” and then would follow the flood of uninformed and irrelevant venom directed at gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender folk. “I don’t believe in discriminating against anyone ...” would immediately precede reasons why Bay County should not protect LGBT people from discrimination.
Well, I have news for you. LGBT people face discrimination every day. They can be fired from their jobs because they are gay. They can be evicted from their homes because they are gay. They can be denied contracts and services because they are gay. And they didn’t choose to be gay anymore than you chose to be straight.

And here is some more news for you. Being gay is not a choice; it is not a “lifestyle.” No one “decides to become a woman one morning” (at least two people trotted that one out in their testimony). Gay people are not pedophiles lurking in public restrooms to molest your grandchildren — the fear mongering about bathrooms came up many times from opponents, despite the fact that the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexuals.

You don’t get to decide whether you hate LGBT people. If you believe that government should not protect these vulnerable citizens from discrimination — protections you take for granted because of your straight privilege — then you are showing hatred toward the LGBT community. When you trivialize gays, and make stereotyped inferences about their character and morality, then you are showing hatred. When you dismiss the bullying and beating, the harassment and hurt experienced by LGBT folk every day because you don’t choose to see it happening, then you are showing hatred toward them.

And here is some more news. You do not get to twist the life and words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to support your hate. In his convoluted and mostly irrelevant testimony, Gary Glenn painted King as opposing nondiscrimination against LGBT people based on one article taken out of context and the opinion of one of King’s children. In fact, King would have been a champion of gay rights today because of his long-time and close friendship with a gay activist and because of his view of Christianity, says Michael Long, author of, “I Must Resist: Bayard Rustin’s Life in Letters.” “Dr. King never publicly welcomed gays at the front gate of his beloved community. But he did leave behind a key for them — his belief that each person is sacred, free and equal,” says Long, also author of the upcoming “Keeping It Straight? Martin Luther King Jr., Homosexuality, and Gay Rights.” And despite the views of his daughter, her mother Coretta Scott King, was a vocal supporter of gay rights. One of her closest aides was gay. She also invoked her husband’s dream.

So, to Gary Glenn and the rest of the homophobes who opposed this ordinance, here is some last news. Though King was a Christian minister, he didn’t embrace a literal reading of the Bible that some use to condemn homosexuality. King’s vision of the Beloved Community — his biblical-rooted vision of humanity transcending its racial and religious differences — did not restrict people’s rights, but expanded them. Jesus preached a new covenant — one that rejected the old legacies of division and hated. He preached of a world of love and acceptance, a world that protected the weak and oppressed. Jesus never, ever taught you to hate anyone or to judge them because they are different. Jesus never, ever limited the definition of committed loving relationships to only heterosexuals.

So stop rationalizing your hate because you deny the overwhelming scientific evidence. Stop justifying your discrimination because you need to defend your straight privilege. And stop putting your words of hate and discrimination into the mouths of our greatest champions of love and justice.

The Beloved Community: Justice

As Jody and I drove the 750 miles from Midland, Michigan to Raleigh, North Carolina last Friday, we knew that we were engaged in a pilgrimage.  Just as those called to Selma in 1965, we were called to the South again to march for the moral rights of all people, of our society.

So, as we passed into each new state (and went from -7 degrees to 50 degrees!), we stopped to record a sermon for my congregation back home to watch on Sunday morning.  This is part of an ongoing sermon series I have been delivering this year on King's idea of the Beloved Community -- what are the attributes of the Beloved Community, and how can we get there.

Truth and Meaning: The Call for Moral Dissent

As you read this, my wife and I are driving back to Midland from Raleigh, N.C.. Why did I preach my sermon via Internet video and not from my pulpit this morning? I preached from the road this morning because my predecessors did. Because I can. And because I must.

For centuries, Unitarian Universalist ministers stood at the forefront of change movements: abolishing slavery; developing public education and public health systems; securing civil rights for racial and ethnic minorities, women, LGBT folk and other marginalized people; defending our religious liberties; promoting peace and disarmament; and protecting our representative democracy. I stand on the shoulders of great men and women who have struggled, sacrificed and even died defending our belief in the inherent worth and dignity of every person. And I have the tremendous good fortune to serve a congregation in Midland that supports my work. It is my duty to carry on our legacy of activism.

As a financially secure, straight, white male in a society that privileges all of these things, I can march and be noticed, speak and be heard, protest and be acknowledged. I went to Raleigh because of the injustices taking place in North Carolina affecting our most vulnerable citizens. I went to Raleigh because of the young black man in prison serving time that a white man does not; because of the woman living in a domestic violence shelter with no car, no time off from work and inadequate child care; because of the students in school with no voice and no political influence regarding their future. I went to Raleigh because I can be in Raleigh and they cannot. It is my duty to march, to speak and to protest on their behalf.

When the call from the North Carolina NAACP went out for clergy to come to Raleigh, I remembered a similar call that was answered by the Rev. James Reeb and 100 other Unitarian Universalist ministers 40 years ago when the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. called for us to stand with him in Selma. Reeb was later killed by racist cowards on the streets of Selma. The circumstances have changed, but the issues very certainly remain the same. I went to Raleigh because I must do whatever I can to stand with my brothers and sisters in justice, equity and compassion, and in defense of the democratic process we hold sacred.

The situation in Michigan today is no less serious. Our legislature continues its war against women by cutting their access to medical treatment and ignoring their voices in Lansing. Our government continues attacking LGBT folk by sanctioning discrimination and limiting the civil rights of loving gay couples. People with inordinate wealth are funding efforts to destroy organized labor and maintain a permanent and growing underclass by suppressing wages and cutting necessary benefits. Gerrymandering and emergency managers have stripped voting power away from half of our state’s African Americans.

Michigan is better than this. We are better than those who would turn our state into a feudal theocracy. We are better than this because true people of faith love their neighbors without regard to their race, creed, identity or gender. True people of faith care about the poor, the sick, the prisoner, the helpless and the hopeless. True people of faith will unite to overcome greed and power lust. We will unite fearlessly, hand in hand, to live in peace because the truth will set us free. And, until that time, those of us who can will rise in moral dissent against injustice wherever it arises. We will march because moral dissent is our calling.

Truth and Meaning: Pete Seeger Matters

Truth and Meaning: Pete Seeger Matters

Folk singer Pete Seeger died this week at the age of 94. He was a lifelong advocate for peace and justice, a tireless defender of the oppressed and a Unitarian Universalist. Responsible for so many great songs, including “If I Had a Hammer,” “Where Have All the Flowers Gone?” and “Turn, Turn, Turn,” Seeger also helped popularize “We Shall Overcome” as a theme song for the Civil Rights movement. Most of all, he was a musical and social revolutionary who envisioned a better world for everyone.

Here are 20 reasons why Pete Seeger matters.

1. Because the wealthiest nation in the world cuts food stamps.
2. Because the most violent nation in the world uses war to impose peace.
3. Because of voter restriction and campaign finance laws.
4. Because of minimum wages and women’s wages.
5. Because music changes lives.
6. Because of "right-to-work" laws.
7. Because of the National Rifle Association.
8. Because of Freedom Industries.
9. Because no human being is illegal.
10. Because “this machine surrounds hate and forces it to surrender.”
11. Because our government monitors what books we read.
12. Because education is not job training (watch “What Did You Learn in School Today?”).
13. Because we are still fighting for reproductive justice.
14. Because corporations are not people.
15. Because freedom marches to its own beat.
16. Because of violence against women, people of color, GLBT folk and the poor.
17. Because one child in America is homeless, hungry, ill and hopeless.
18. Because religion should be about Truth, Understanding and Love.
19. Because we need to keep overcoming.
20. Because this land was made for you and me.

(Adapted with gratitude from an article posted by Adam Weinstein on Gawker this week.)

Truth and Meaning: Memes

Truth and Meaning: Memes

Richard Dawkins first coined the word “meme” in his 1976 book The Selfish Gene. Dawkins wrote that just as evolution depends on self-replicating genes as the biological unit of transmission in species, the meme represents the cultural evolutionary vehicle humans use to transmit ideas. Memes can include a clip of music, a fashion trend, or an image. Facebook users recognize memes as images and words that spread through the Internet, sometimes like a brush fire. The more poignant and memorable the idea, the stronger the meme.

I probably see hundreds of memes each week online. Often memes will employ cute imagery, such as kittens, or stark drawings of dinosaurs.  Memes sometimes seek to be pithy and philosophical, such as “Whatever doesn’t kill you only makes you stronger…except bears. Bears will just kill you.” And some memes are noteworthy because of their irony, like this one — a young woman sitting in bed holding her head, saying “I just had a terrible nightmare. It was 1912 and I had to listen to a bunch of old men debate the morality of women accessing birth control.”

This past week, one particular meme caught my attention. It read simply, “If Al Qaeda had poisoned the water supply of 300K people, we’d have already invaded the wrong country. Since it’s a corporation, carry on.” For me, such memes are the most powerful because they point out to us the raw truth of the absurd and incredibly harmful acts we commit as a society, often because of our conflicting goals and ethical dishonesty. This meme carries the tragic weight of truth. If the chemical spill in West Virginia had been perpetrated by a terrorist, our nation would have already sent troops somewhere to kill someone for the act. But, in all likelihood, no charges will ever be filed against anyone responsible; the already dissolving company will pay little or no restitution; and in all likelihood nothing will be done to prevent the circumstances from happening again.

A meme such as this one carries particular strength because it highlights two social flaws in the modern United States. First, our out-of-control militarism has already bankrupted our economy for decades and continually threatens to put the lives of our young people in peril through illegal incursions. Our unjustified invasion of Iraq has left that country crippled and embroiled in civil unrest. And we will eventually leave Afghanistan having no lasting positive impact on that region, but creating another generation of men and women struggling with physical injuries and PTSD with an inadequate veterans’ support system. The war mongers in Washington are now licking their chops at the chance to engage in Syria, North Korea and Iran.

Second, our elevation of corporations to the status of persons has provided these soulless entities with all of the privileges of humanity and none of the responsibility. Our capitalist system can only work if the participants engage with good intention and a commitment to establishing and maintaining a high quality standard of living for all Americans. But corporations and their CEO’s now have no incentive to act as responsible agents for anyone but their wealthy stockholders. As a result, our government has been corrupted by exorbitant campaign finances, our economy has been pillaged by criminals with no fear of indictment or conviction, and our environment continues to be raped by polluters whose sole guiding principle is the fiscal bottom line.

People of faith need to consider the impacts of these trends on the moral fiber of our nation. Unbridled militarism defines us as a violent nation of usurpers and conquerors, not liberators. Unchecked corporatism defines us as worshipers of golden idols and not builders of a spiritual kingdom of love and light. People of faith need to not only bandage those wounded by the twin marauders of militarism and corporatism. People of faith need to stand up to those allied with these destroyers, hold politicians accountable as public servants, and engage in noncooperation with the power hungry, the greedy, and the violent people in our society.

Truth and Meaning: The Legacy of Nonviolence

With today being Martin Luther King Jr. Day, I remember once again the massive work remaining before us to achieve King’s vision of Beloved Community. Last week, I spoke to sophomores at Meridian High School about pacifism and the failure of the institution of war to ever resolve any problem without creating new ones. War in the 20th century was a colossal failure of human interaction with more than 100 million war-related deaths, and even greater misery and destruction. The scale of human conflict may be declining, but our capacity to kill and to cause harm only increases.

How long will it be before someone poisons our water, our air, our food to the point of near extinction of the species? How long will it be before fundamentalists push everyone to the brink because of their intolerance? How long will it be before oppressed peoples rise up out of frustration against modern day imperialists and tear down everything humanity has built?

Were he alive today, Dr. King would advocate for peace; he would advocate for acceptance and understanding; he would advocate for a sharing of the earth’s bounty equally and fairly among all people. But, most of all, Dr. King would remind us that peace begins not at tables of nations, not in legislative halls, not in town meetings, but in our own hearts. Dr. King would tell us that peace begins when we live and love with peace in our own lives every day.

The Beloved Community is a dream, but it is an achievable dream. And the price of admission is really quite small — we simply must adapt and accept new ways of thinking.

• We must accept that any good derived from violence is far offset by the damage. We must, therefore, forsake violence forever.
• We must accept that all roads to enlightenment and salvation are valid. We must, therefore, forsake religious intolerance forever.
• We must accept that we are divine creatures full of the capacity for love. We must, therefore, recognize and embrace love in all of its forms.
• We must accept that money is also violence; greed is a slave owner to which we bind ourselves. We must, therefore, bridge the chasms of economic disparity that create poverty and inequality.
• We must accept that tyrants will take whatever we give them and that they cannot succeed if we take charge of our lives and our communities. We must, therefore, empower ourselves to change the world and to conquer the forces of ignorance and hate.

Dr. King would tell us that if you see an injustice, speak out. If you see an act of oppression, support the oppressed. If you see an act of violence, stand up against it. Live and love with peace in your heart.