Justice, Equity And
Compassion Versus Violence
October 6,
2002
The Rev.
Gretchen Woods
READING
From Michael Ruse "The Biology of War: On the Field of
Pain and Passion" in Science and Spirit Magazine, July/August 2000.
Evolutionary biologists have long been interested in war and
aggression. It was something Darwin talked of in his Descent of Man –
hardly a surprise since his mechanism of natural selection is fueled by a
struggle for "existence" – and his followers and critics have
struggled with the issue since. Some, the extreme "Social
Darwinians," have argued that war is a natural and wholesome thing, as the
strongest prevail and the weak get eliminated. Others have not been so sure. "Evolution
and Ethics" is the finest essay of "Darwin’s Bulldog," (by) T.H.
Huxley. He argues that a violent nature is indeed part of our evolutionary
heritage (the Victorians may not have believed in God, but they were always
good on original sin). And it is our moral duty to fight it at every possible
opportunity. As an alternative, the Russian anarchist Prince Pyotr Kropotkin
argued that human nature has a benevolent side, leading to a disposition
towards "mutual aid." The best historical account of this whole topic
is Darwinism and War by Peter Crook. (Cambridge University Press).
The debate continues today. The Nobel Prize-winning
ethologist Konrad Lorenz claimed that all animals are aggressive, but only
humans are beasts without inborn processes of restraint. We truly are the
vilest products of nature, he said. (And he should know: he actively supported
the Nazis.) Others, the sociobiologists particularly, think that matters are
more complex. We humans are certainly aggressive, and often. Probably our
evolutionary nature was forged by living in small groups where our chief
competitors were rival groups of hominids. At the same time however, we are
"altruistic," we cooperate with each other for biological ends. As
Ben Franklin said when he signed the Declaration of Independence:
"Gentlemen, from henceforth we must hang together, or assuredly we shall
all hang separately." One of the latest to write on these subjects is the
distinguished primatologist Alison Jolly, in her well-written Lucy’s Legacy:
Sex and Intelligence in Human Evolution (Harvard University Press). She
covers many topics, but she sees that violence and its counters are an
essential part of human nature.
from the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:
We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied
in a single garment of destiny. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice
everywhere. There are some things in our social system to which all of us ought
to be maladjusted. Hatred and bitterness can never cure the disease of fear,
only love can do that. We must evolve for all human conflict a method which
rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method
is love.
SERMON: Justice,
Equity And Compassion Versus Violence
At the end of July, 1992, I spent four days and nights in
the wilderness above Staircase Falls in Washington, experiencing a traditional
Indian VisionQuest. One of the primary messages that came to me during that
time was that violent religious imagery so prevalent in churches needs to be
changed to something far more nourishing. Certainly Christianity has the perfect
alternative in the bread and chalice of the communion table, yet, the cross is
seen far more. Then, this year, Rita Nakashima Brock and Rebecca Parker
published Proverbs of Ashes: Violence, Redemptive Suffering, and the Search
for What Saves Us, which argues against the theology of the atonement which
is central to Christianity.
Today, as we explore the second affirmation of our Purposes
and Principles, "justice, equity, and compassion in human relations,"
we are awash in the campaign to go to war with Iraq. It is clear that George W.
Bush is going to get his revenge for his father’s humiliation over the
unresolved aspects of the Persian Gulf War, whether we like it or not. It is
also clear that violence is part of human nature in some deep and personal way
that touches more of our being than we care to admit. So let us examine violence
as a human experience, as a source of theology, and what our second principle
tells us about our possibilities for living a better, less violent life.
Michael Ruse, the Lucyle T. Werkheiser Professor of
Philosophy at Florida State University, gives us well-researched insight into
present sociobiological understanding about violence: "Biology has not
made us disinterested, rational, calculating machines. Rather, as the economist
Robert Frank argues in his Passions Within Reason (and as David Hume
argued 250 years earlier), the way we function is as animals spurred to action
by feelings and emotions – feelings and emotions of the moment." (p. 23.)
Those feelings and emotions of the moment are driving us to
serious violence, not only in war, but especially toward our children:
Of the people murdered each day in the United States, 78
percent are under five years old at the time of their death. Each day in the
United States, 10 children are murdered, 16 die from guns, and 8,042 are
reported abused or neglected. . . By the time American children turn sixteen
they have witnessed sixteen thousand simulated murders and two hundred thousand
acts of violence on television. (Heather Cunningham, "Everything I Need To
Outgrow I Learned in Childhood." Science and Spirit, July?August,
2002, p. 39
We are not thinking creatures who feel, but feeling
creatures who think, and we are being bombarded by violence by our society. One
wonders how much our national leaders are actually thinking, and how much they
are reacting to the emotional stew around them. Having lived in the D.C. area,
I can attest to the isolated and inflamed character of life within the Beltway.
The violence of the drivers there is testament enough.
Rebecca Parker examines how the theology of atonement works
to create violence in our society:
My
objection to every theology of the cross was that it mystified violence and
offered dangerously false comfort. The restless concern, the fire in my bones,
was to face violence in the world more squarely. Theology cloaked violence and
taught people to endure it. Christianity’s denial of violence appalled me.
¼All
the ways of seeing Jesus on the cross ended up sanctifying violence against
women and children, valorizing suffering and pain, or denying loss. You couldn’t
look on the man of sorrows and give thanks to God without ending up a partner
in a thousand crimes.¼
Maybe our national leaders are hoping will be totally
mystified as they continually invoke, "God bless America!" Maybe they
hope we shall lose sight of the state violence in war.
My own experience through eighteen years of ministry is that
this theology also justifies violence against men. I listen to as many men as
women who have been beaten or humiliated or sexually violated under the rubric
of a church. I know men who have seen their religious leaders beat a child in
front of a class of children. I know men who have been sexually molested or
worse by their religious leaders. These are examples of how twisted thinking
can become when intimacy is sexualized and/or violence is condoned through
religious imagery.
And how often is war justified through some sort of
"Social Darwinism" which says, "Our group is better than your
group!" – and thus should have more of whatever they feel lacking. The
arts are used to back up this propaganda of groups. As Michael Ruse points out,
"Rupert Brooke’s famous sentimental sonnet ["Flander’s
Fields"](written in 1914) has little touch with the reality of war, but
much with the blind identification with the group – my group, with no
argument about the virtue of its cause." (Ruse, p. 23.) This
"groupness" allowed U.S. troops to bulldoze surrendering Iraqi troops
into the sand during the Gulf War and Afghan Allies to suffocate hundreds of
surrendering Taliban prisoners in sealed cargo containers.
Counter to this awful view of human beings comes the more
ennobling vision of the second Unitarian Universalist affirmation: we
"affirm and promote . . . justice, equity, and compassion in human
relations." What a ringing alternative! When we affirm justice, we claim
that human beings can transcend "Might makes right!" We can assert
that there is a larger consciousness of right that needs to be taken into
account. When we affirm equity, we recognize people are not created equal per
se, but that being born human may include a birth right of fair
distribution of resources. When we affirm compassion, we assert that feelings
may respond to consciousness beyond our biological limitations and know we are
connected with life in a far more meaningful way than "I got mine, now try
to get yours!" We move beyond zero-sum thinking into a recognition of a
web of mutuality woven by love.
This second affirmation says that we not only affirm, but
are also willing to work for a world where not war, but fair distribution of
resources and loving kindness in relationships are the heart of human
interaction. It says that we believe that human beings are not only emotional,
but that we can also think. We don’t expect our members to leave their brains
at the door of our building. We do not deny that chance is a major factor in
our world. We simply assert that our intentions and our choices are very
important – and we are called to be responsible.
This goes to my own theology which is one, not of original
sin, nor of original blessing, but of original potential. I genuinely believe
that we can use our minds beyond the passions of the moment, think of creative
and less violent alternative actions, and still be passionate about life and
our values, using mind and spirit in harmony.
How does this translate into concrete activities in our
world? We may support victims of intimate violence through CARDV, the Center
Against Rape and Domestic Violence, through financial donations and volunteer
time, like Janet Farrell and Mina McDaniel. We can write to our
congresspersons, senators, the President, and anyone else who may have power to
make decisions and use as talking points the suggestions about response to
state violence in our Statement of Conscience. This statement, created by Lee
Lawton, Charlie Miller, and a group of caring UUs who want our values to be
articulated to the world, focuses upon alternative responses to acts of
terrorism, including the powerful statement, "We call upon the people of
our nation to be assertive makers of peace, who will challenge and block
supporters of racial profiling, religious bigotry and violence." There are
copies of both the statement and the addresses of our representatives in the
foyer for the taking. You can call the White House (between 9:00a.m. and 5:00
p.m. East Coast time) to express your opposition to the proposed war against
Iraq. The number is 202-456-1111. A machine detains you for only a moment and
then an operator will ask you if you "oppose" (or "approve")
of the proposed war against Iraq and thank you for your answer. It will only
take minutes! The president says he wants to know what the American people are
thinking. Tell him! I don’t think we need stop, even if war has begun. . We are
called to think of better ways to respond than violence.
Personally, I am in quandary about Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
I know he is a bully who has killed many people, including his own son. I know
he is bent on increasing his own power, with little regard to the impact on his
own people, much less other nations. He has and is capable of using weapons of
mass destruction.
Still, I don’t believe that returning violence for violence
breaks the cycle of violence. The peace workers of Ground Zero, near subbase
Bangor in Washington State, worked hard on personal disarmament, even as they
worked to lessen the threat of nuclear war. John Paul Lederach offers
alternative actions to violent response in his article, "Breaking the
Cycle of Violence (UU World, January/February, 2002). He says we must 1)
". . . energetically pursue a sustainable peace process for the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and do it now. . ., 2) invest financially in
development, education, and a broad social agenda in the countries surrounding
Aghanistan. . . , and 3) pursue diplomatic support for the Arab League to begin
an internal exploration of how to address root causes of discontent in numerous
regions." (UU World, January/February, 2oo2, p. 29.) The whole idea is to
change the circumstances that lead to desperation and a sense that no other
methods than violence provide any effective correction to the injustices and
inequity and lack of compassion in that part of the world. UU Ethicist Bill
Jones suggests that we do too much change and no real correction. This might be
correction.
If we affirm and promote justice, equity, and compassion, we
- each of us, in our own way – need to find our source of grounding and energy
that will hold us firm in the face of the worst and most violent opposition. As
Gandhi says, "We must be the change we wish to see in our world." We
must be able to meet and connect with powerful, raw emotions of rage,
humiliation, and despair without giving in to them and responding in kind.
Then, we will be able to hold the space for true correction.
I think of a Native American tale told many times around the
Sacred Fire:
An old
Grandfather said to his grandson, who came to him with anger at a friend who
had done him an injustice. . . "Let me tell you a story. I, too, at times,
have felt great hate for those who have taken so much, with no sorrow for what
they do. But hate wears you down, and does not hurt your enemy. It’s like
taking poison and wishing your enemy would die.
"I
have struggled with these feelings many times.
"It
is as if there are two wolves inside me; one is good and does no harm, He lives
in harmony with all around him and does not take offense when no offense was
intended. He will only fight when it is right to do so, and in the right way.
But . . . the other wolf. . . ah! The littlest thing will send him into a fit
of temper. He fights everyone, all of the time, for no reason. He cannot think
because his anger and hate are so great. It is helpless anger, for his anger
will change nothing.
"Sometimes
it is hard to live with these two wolves inside me, for both of them try to
dominate my spirit."
The boy
looked intently into his Grandfather’s eyes and asked, "Which one wins,
Grandfather?"
The
Grandfather smiled and quietly said, "The one I feed."
Let us choose wisely the one we feed. Let us provide an alternative
vision to violence and war as we work for justice, equity, and compassion for
all life with respect, responsibility, and relish for the process.
So Be It! Blessed Be!
Gretchen Woods, 10/06/02