Truth and Meaning: Newspeak

Truth and Meaning: Newspeak

Some of my favorite books are dystopian novels — stories of future worlds that see themselves as utopian, but are in fact nightmarish perversions of society. Dystopias are often characterized by dehumanization, totalitarian government and fundamentalist religious dogma.


Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell, presented the concept of Newspeak — a controlled language created by the state as a tool to limit freedom of thought. Newspeak made obsolete concepts that posed a threat to the regime such as freedom, self-expression, individuality and peace. Any form of thought altering from this narrative construct was classified as "thoughtcrime."
Students of dystopian fiction see all too frequently the creeping influence of Newspeak in our language today, represented by euphemisms that hide a sinister agenda. We hear these phrases everyday in our media, but rarely see them called out for their real meanings.

Traditional Values — “Traditional” or “family” values are touted by people seeking to impose their definition of values on everyone by claiming that those values are somehow inherent or natural. It does not matter that facts do not support their claims. They simply shout louder and make up new facts that do seem to support their position. The most important value to many advocates of “traditional values” is privilege — the unearned right to deny freedoms to others that they take for granted and use to their own advantage.

Pro-Life — A “pro-life” advocate opposes reproductive freedom, from sex education to birth control to family planning to abortion, even when medically necessary to save the life of the woman. A “pro-life” advocate often cares only about bringing every fetus to term, regardless of the circumstances into which a baby is being brought, and without regard to the future health and well-being of the child, the mother, or the family.  “Pro-Life” is synonymous with “pro-birth” and “anti-choice.” The agenda of the pro-life movement is not to improve the welfare of children, but to control the reproductive lives of women.

Small Government — An advocate for small government is often really a classist who opposes public support of the poor and middle class while favoring government welfare for the wealthy. The small government advocate opposes civil rights for the underprivileged, but supports unabridged freedom for the privileged classes in society. They oppose any attempt to regulate guns, conservative speech, lobbying and campaign finances, but support the complete regulation of voting by the poor and minorities, access to reproductive health care by women and the ability to discriminate on the basis of one’s personal religious belief.

When the purveyors of Newspeak proclaim their beliefs as immutable truth, it is up to us to challenge their assumptions and to let them know that they do not speak for all Americans.

Truth and Meaning: Finding Hope

Truth and Meaning: Finding Hope

This seemingly endless winter has made me sensitive to the despair many of us are struggling with. This week, I faced my own sense of despair when I attended the first Truth and Justice Tuesday event in Lansing, sponsored by the Prophetic Voices interfaith collaborative. I support their work, but find their approach lacking a sense of urgency. As an impatient activist who appreciates the need for agitators to rattle the cages of status quo, I find their approach too passive.

I left the event feeling…despair. I drove home troubled, struggling to find a reason to ever expect change for a more compassionate society; for a way to a higher ground where no one faces poverty, discrimination, violence and oppression. My colleagues seek hope through prayer. They look for our lost hope by appealing to God for guidance and assistance. And while I recognize the value of prayer, particularly when providing pastoral care, I could not bring myself to pray with legislators who willfully choose power above people, money above morality and regressive thinking above reason.

Like many people, I don’t believe in a higher power that answers prayers or cares about our daily challenges. There may well be a god of some kind, but I believe that we must build Beloved Community here and now with our hands and feet and hearts and minds. A creator would not have endowed us with these gifts with no expectation to use them for the common good. The mountains of snow and ice result not from fate or divine intervention, but simply from an unusual winter. And my sense of lost hope cannot be resolved by prayer, but through working harder to find it and enlisting the help of others to aid in the search.

So, for those who believe in a god, I welcome prayers and the encouragement they provide. But for the rest of us, let me say that I believe hope may be temporarily misplaced, but it is not lost. We may not know where hope hides in our snow-covered landscape, but we can find it. In time, the snow will melt, we will chip away the ice, and we will uncover our lost hope.

When that wave of despair floods over you, ride it out. It is hard — I know — but believe that the fear and pain will pass. We will find hope again and a new spring will dawn.

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.)