I Really Can't Understand It ...

If you have gone virtually anywhere in public lately you know that we are already being pushed over the precipiece into the "Christmas Season."   We haven't even finished our first helping of turkey (not to mention all of the leftovers to come), and it's carols in the air, bell ringers outside of grocery stores, and in a completely incomprehensible move people are being encouraged to buy their trees.  And along with the usual holiday hoopla come the cries of a "war on Christmas" and the adament assertion that we need to "put the Christ back in Christmas."

At the same time, many of the same folks who want to assure Christ's place in Christmas are turning their backs on a humanitarian crisis of an overwhelming proportion.  More than half of the governors in the U.S. have declared that they would close their boarders to the resettling of Syrian refugees within their states.  This is not something they actually have the authority to do, of course, and it is most certainly not "what Jesus would do."  Perhaps they've misplaced their WWJD bracelets.

I find it important to remind myself -- and I do need reminding ... a lot -- that people with whom I disagree are, for the most part at least, no doubt good people who see the world differently than I do.  The conservative and liberal worldview are fundamentally different, and the beliefs and actions that flow from these worldviews are of necessity different as well.  Just because I disagree with someone, just because I cannot understand their position, does not mean that they are stupid, or misguided, or evil.  They may be stupid, misguided and evil, of course, but if I look at what they say and do through my lens I am in no position to judge.  I have to try to remind myself to try my best to look through their lens to see if what they're saying and doing makes sense within the context of their own worldview.  Hence, the need to remind myself of the need to at least try to comprehend before I condemn.

When I look at the reactions to recent terrorist attacks in Bomako, Paris, Sharm el Sheikh, and elsewhere around the world, I see inconsistencies.  For instance:

It's been said that these extremist Muslims hate the United States because they hate our freedoms and our way of life.  And yet the responses -- closing our boarders, refusing to give refuge to people in need, increasing surveilance of our citizenry, closing mosques and putting people on watch lists -- all seem to have the effect of limiting our freedoms and contradicting the fundamental principles of "our way of life."  It is, of course, conceivable that such actions will make a miniscule difference in our safety -- and I don't see how it could with any seriousness be argued that any of these, or even all of these, measures would make much of a difference at all -- yet if they cause us to effectively reject the very thing the terrorists are accused of denouncing, haven't we essentiall declared their victory?  "The terrorists want to destroy our way of life," it's said, and yet our response is to do it for them.  An inconsistency.

These Mulsim terrorists hates us because we're Christian, is another assertion.  Let us set aside for a moment that the United States is not now nor has it ever been a Christian nation.  (No less than George Washington explicitly said so!)  Still, let's let that stand.  What are Chrisian values?  Love, even to loving those who hate us.  Serving the needs of "the least of these," those who are most in need of care and comfort.  If Islam is, as is declared, a religion that teaches intolerance and hate, while Christianity teaches acceptance and love, why is it that the response of so-called Christians -- the same ones who want to ensure that Christ stays in Christmas -- is more like the marginal and extremist expressions of Islam than mainstream Christianity?  Again ... if they hate us because of our Christianity, why don't we respond as Christians?

And then there are just facts.  Stephen Colbert coined the term "truthiness" for that brand of thinking that prefers things that sound like truth, that confirm our own beliefs, to actual verifiable facts, but here are some nonetheless.  (And I thank a member of the congregation I serve for this comparison of fact to fiction)

1) "The attackers in Paris were refugees from Syria."

The attackers were French and Belgian nationals, none of them were born in Syria or Iraq or any Daesh (The Arabic abbreviate name for ISIS, which they reportedly hate being called) occupied countries. One of the attackers was found with a Syrian passport which authorities have determined to be a fake, according to a report by the BBC.

2) "The vetting process for refugees is too easy."

The process for vetting refugees is quite thorough, and takes around 18-24 months to complete. For Syrians, the application process can take longer due to security concerns. A terrorist would have a much easier time applying for a tourist or business Visa. Even still, Visa requirements are waived for up to a 90 day stay in the U.S., if originating from a country such as France or Belgium, from where the attackers had passports.

Before a refugee even faces U.S. vetting, he or she must first clear an eligibility hurdle. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees — or occasionally a U.S. embassy or another NGO (non-governmental organization) — determines which refugees (about 1 percent) should be resettled through its own process, which can take four to 10 months.

Once a case is referred from the UNHCR to the United States, a refugee undergoes a security clearance check that could take several rounds, an in-person interview, approval by the Department of Homeland Security, medical screening, a match with a sponsor agency, "cultural orientation" classes, and one final security clearance. This all happens before a refugee ever steps foot onto American soil.

There is a concern for how much background information can be collected on an applicant, since it is very difficult to get background records from war torn Syria. This could potentially create a security concern, however as noted, there are much easier and quicker ways for a terrorist to enter the country and do harm.

3) "The Syrian refugees are mostly military age males."

The Syrian refugees, according to the UNHCR, are 50.5% female. Children 11 years and younger account for 38.5%. Conservative sites have been quoting misleading numbers about the percentage of males, putting them usually around 72%. However this accounts for refugees from 9 other countries as well, and only for Mediterranean Sea crossings, half of which are Syrian. "Single men of combat age" represent only 2% of those admitted to the U.S.

4) "The Tsarnaev brothers who bombed the Boston Marathon were refugees"

The Tsarnaevs were children of asylees whose parents did not go through the refugee processing system. Asylees and Refugees have similar but separate legal distinctions according to the U.S. government. A Washington Post headline did once say that they were refugees, which according to the legal definition is incorrect and misleading. Refugees are selected by the UN, an embassy, or by an NGO, while asylees are people who have already arrived in the U.S. and want to apply for asylum status.

The Tsarnaevs came here as young men and were radicalized in the U.S.A., as opposed to being terrorists who came to the country disguised as refugees.

5) "We are taking in too many of them already"

There are 4 million refugees displaced from the Syrian conflict that are registered by the UNHCR. The president has vowed to take in 10,000 of them this year.

6) "Muslim countries don't even take in any refugees, why should we? They should help their own people."

Turkey (1.9 million), Lebanon (1.1 million), Jordan (629k), Saudi Arabia (100-500k), Iraq (247k), and the United Arab Emirates (242k) are the top countries with hosted Syrian refugee populations. The next closest Western country is Germany, with around 200,000 registered refugees. The U.S. has so far taken in 2,200.

The Gulf States such as Saudi Arabia are not perfect in their treatment however, since they have limited to no means of obtaining citizenship, permanent re-settlement, or work visas for refugees. Many seek refuge in Europe and the US as a result.

7) "Most terrorist attacks on U.S. soil have been committed by Muslims"

Since Sept. 11, 2001, nearly twice as many people have been killed by white supremacists, anti-government fanatics and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims.

Sources:

• Jeb Bush: 'It takes almost a year for a refugee to be processed in the United States'  (PolitiFact)

• Amid Syrian Refugee Crisis, Asylum Seekers In US Face Much Different Process Than In Europe  (International Business Times)

• Tsarnaev brothers’ homeland was war-torn Chechnya  (The Washington Post)

• How do Syrian refugees get into the U.S.? Explaining the process  (CNN)

• Stretching Facts on Syrian Refugees  (FactCheck.org)

• Paris Attacks:  Who Were The Attackers?  (BBC)

• Refugees of the Syrian Civil War  (Wikipedia)

• Visa Waiver Program (US State Department)

• Homegrown Extremists Tied to Deadlier Toll Than Jihadists in U.S. Since 9/11  (NY Times)

• Gulf States Fend Off Criticism About Doing Little For Syrian Refugees  (NPR)

Even when I try to understand the thinking of those who are saying such things, even when I try to look at the world through the lens they do, I still can't fathom who their responses make sense.  Perhaps I'm missing something, but I feel certain that they are.

Pax tecum,

RevWik

When Faced With Evil: a religious response

I've been listening to the news about the terrorist attacks in Paris, and Bamako, and Sharm el-Sheikh. And I've been listening to the responses -- from the declaration of one of the Presidential candidates that he would "bomb the s--t out of ISIS," to the ever-growing Greek chorus demanding that we refuse to allow refugees into our country, and that we should put more people on more lists.  Does anyone really believe that this reactionary hysteria is the right thing to do?  Or that it will have any effect on our safety

Tonight on NPR I heard an Evangelical Christian Pastor, a Rabbi, and an Imam each asked what it meant to them to "pray for Paris."  And that's something we need more of in times like this -- a religious response.  The airwaves are saturated with knee-jerk, fear-and-retribution based reactions.  But what does faith say?  And, in particular, I ask myself what my Unitarian Universalist faith has to say when faced with actions so heinous that they can really only be called "evil."

On September 16, 2001, I was serving the First Universalist Church of Yarmouth, Maine.  Five days earlier hijacked planes flew into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.  It was the most devastating terrorist attack on American soil in our history.  As I entered the pulpit that following Sunday I knew that I needed to speak to the religious response, the Unitarian Universalist faith's response.  The words I spoke that day still strike me as true.  I offer them again in response to these current tragedies. 

"Love, Peace, Faith, Hope" by David Pacey, copyrighted (2014) under Creative Commons License.

When Faced With Evil

a sermon delivered on September 16, 2001 at the First Universalist Church in Yarmouth, Maine

 

“For there to be peace in the world . . . there must be peace in the heart.”

—Lao-Tse

Opening Words:   

Our opening words are taken from the Holy Qu’ran, al-Hujurat 49:13:

“O humankind!  We created you from a single pair of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other not that ye may despise each other.”

Reading:                        

 “My heart is moved by all I cannot save:

So much has been destroyed

I have cast my lot with those who, age after age,

perversely, with no extraordinary

power reconstitute the world.”

—Adrienne Rich

* * *

This past July, during the Question & Answer service, someone asked, “How do you reconcile Universal Salvation with Timothy McVeigh?”  This question came to the fore again this week—how do we reconcile our Unitarian Universalist optimism, our belief in the “inherent worth and dignity of every person,” our theological presumption that “ no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should,” how do we reconcile these things with the events that took place in New York City and Washington DC and rural Pennsylvania last Tuesday?  How do we make sense of the tragedy that’s unfolded and is unfolding still?  Upwards of 5,000 people are missing and presumed dead, countless others are wounded in body and spirit; innocent men, women, and children—whose only crime was being on the wrong plane at the wrong time—were used as weapons.  It has long been a tactic of terrorists to pack their bombs with bits of glass, broken screws, rusty nails in order to increase the devastation; these terrorists packed their bombs with people.  What are we to do when faced with such evil?

To prepare for this morning I looked in the back of our hymnal, where the readings and hymns are organized by theme, but there is no listing for “Tragedy;” there is no listing for “Evil.”  It seems that our hymnal is void of resources to which we can turn for support in a time like this.  Or is it?  The reading we just heard—those beautifully evocative words from Adrienne Rich—is #463.  And that haunting song with which we began our service and the one we’ll sing in a moment are both there too.  I will to come back to these responses, but first I want to dwell a bit longer with the questions.

We Unitarian Universalists don’t talk about evil very much.  Maybe that’s because our Universalist ancestors believed so strongly in the doctrine of Universal Salvation—that all souls would be reunited with an ultimately loving God and that none are destined for an eternity in hell.  If you take away hell, perhaps, the idea of “evil” doesn’t make quite so much sense because there’s nowhere to “put” it.  Or maybe it’s because our Unitarian ancestors were so convinced of humanity’s ability to climb onward and upward, to rise above our basest instincts.  (An old joke has it that Universalists believed God is too loving to damn humanity and that Unitarians believed humanity is too good to be damned.)  Perhaps it’s that our Unitarian Universalist rationalism has been so infused with the psychological mythologies of our day that turn “demons” into “conditions,” that “evil” has become “maladjustment” and “bad choices.”

By whatever route, it seems that our religious tradition has largely lost the language to deal with something like what happened this week: because someone decided that the United States was the Enemy and that there are no innocents here, because someone decided that their own lives—and the lives of all those people on the planes and in and around those buildings—were expendable, the Pentagon lies in rubble, the Twin Towers are no more, and a planeload of heroes lie dead in a Pennsylvania field.

How are we to make sense of that?

One response is to name the act and the persons who committed it “evil” and, so, separate ourselves from them.  Hopefully we won’t take the step of expanding this demonization, you and I are not likely to start saying that all Muslims—or all Afghanis—are at fault and should pay for this.  We’re not likely to generalize in that way—although I’ve already heard some of us speak words which come disturbingly close—but even if we’re specific in our demonization, targeting only the particular people who are, in fact, responsible, we are still, I believe, making a mistake.

For if they are evil and we are not, if that’s how we see things, then we are committing the same kind of error which led to this tragedy.  That’s the problem of evil.  Not so much that it exists—in that it’s really just a fact of life, or a force of nature.  The problem of evil, as I see it, is that we are so readily tempted to imagine that it’s out there, separated from us over here; that it belongs to them and not us.  And that, I believe, is ultimately the root and the design of evil—to make us categorize the world into us and them rather than recognizing our common kinship.

Stay with me here for a moment.  The core of our Unitarian Universalist faith—and the core of all the religious faiths that I know of—points to the truth that we are part of a family that includes all of creation.  You, and I, and caterpillars, and stars, and even anti-American terrorists are, in truth, part of one family, children of one divine reality.  We call it “the interdependent web of existence.”  Martin Luther King, Jr. called it “an inescapable network of mutuality.”  Theists call it “the family of God.”  Whatever we call it, and we do have lots of names, the truth remains that our faith teaches that what is real is our connectedness.

So I believe that a working definition of “evil” could be “whatever distracts us from our essential relatedness.”  In other words, whatever convinces you that I am not your brother; whatever gets me to think of you as anything less than my kin—that thing is evil.  So even this distinction of “good” and “evil” can be seen as one of evil’s most pernicious tools, for it tempts us to think of the evil and the good as separate from one another.

The eminent Swiss psychologist Carl Jung once wrote,

 “Those who wish to have an answer to the problem of evil have need, first and foremost, of self-knowledge, that is, in the utmost possible knowledge of their own wholeness.  They must know relentlessly how much good they can do, and what crimes they are capable of, and must beware of regarding the one as real and the other as illusion.  Both are elements within their nature, and both are bound to come to light in them, should they wish—as they ought—to live without self-deception or self-delusion."  [adapted to remove gender-specific language]

In his book Peace Is Every Step, the Venerable Thich Nhat Hanh, Buddhist monk and poet, writes about receiving a letter about a twelve-year-old girl, a refugee, whose boat was attacked by sea pirates.  The pirates raped the girl, and she threw herself into the ocean and drowned.  He writes, “When you first learn of something like that, you get angry at the pirate.  You naturally take the side of the girl.  . . . [And if] you take the side of the little girl, then it is easy.  You only have to take a gun and shoot the pirate.  But we cannot do that.”  From out of his deep meditation, Nhat Hanh wrote a poem, “Call Me By My True Names”

“. . . I am the mayfly metamorphosing on the surface of the river, and I am the bird which, when spring comes, arrives in time to eat the mayfly.

I am the frog swimming happily in the clear pond, and I am also the grass-snake who, approaching in silence, feeds itself on the frog.

I am the child in Uganda, all skin and bones, my legs as thin as bamboo sticks, and I am the arms merchant, selling deadly weapons to Uganda.

I am the twelve-year-old girl, refugee on a small boat, who throws herself into the ocean after being raped by a sea pirate, and I am the pirate, my heart not yet capable of seeing and loving.

. . .

My joy is like spring, so warm it makes flowers bloom in all walks of life.  My pain is like a river of tears, so full it fills the four oceans.

Please call me by my true names, so I can hear all my cries and laughs at once, so I can see that my joy and pain are one.

Please call me by my true names, so I can wake up, and so the door of my heart can be left open, the door of compassion.”

This is the religious response to evil, not setting it apart and intensifying the illusion of separation but recognizing, as Jung said, both how much good we, ourselves, can do and what crimes we, ourselves, are capable of; recognizing that both are part of each of us, that both are found in me.  As Jesus said, “Let the one without sin cast the first stone.”

Oh, it is easy to get angry at them, whether them is those who are responsible for the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, or those who are responsible for the bloodshed and the anguish in Israel and Palestine, in Northern Ireland, in Serbia.  They do such horrible, such horrendous things and we want retribution, we want revenge, we want someone to pay.  Which is just what they said before the stones were hurled, and the bombs set off, and the planes hijacked.  This cannot be our response to evil, because this is just what evil wants.

Today I say to you, with all the conviction in my soul, that we must take the harder route—opening our hearts rather than closing them, looking with compassion not only on those who are suffering because of the carnage of Tuesday but also on those who caused the suffering.  This is how “Universal Salvation” and “Timothy McVeigh” are reconciled because, in truth, such reconciliation is our only hope.  It is not easy, but unless we respond to violence with peace, to hatred with love, to fear with faith, the cycle will only continue.  Gandhi is remembered as having said, “‘an eye for an eye’ will leave the whole world blind.”  “An eye for an eye” will leave the whole world blind.

Far from having nothing to say about evil, our Unitarian Universalist faith tells us that the face of evil is the face of alienation, of separation, of us and them.  And our Unitarian Universalist faith tells us that the only response to a tragedy such as this is to look through the eyes of what is best within ourselves, opening the door of compassion and remembering our place in our common family. 

In the days, weeks, months and years ahead, our resolve will be tested.    As much as I wish I were wrong, Tuesday’s tragedies will not be the last blows struck against us.  We will be tempted to enter into a battle we cannot win, for the battle itself is the enemy.  But there is another choice.  We can say “no” to death, and “yes” to life over and over and over again, no matter how hard it becomes.  We can refuse to let go of our faith in the essential goodness of humanity, even in the light of how horrendously evil our acts can be; we can refuse to settle for the simplistic solution of “an eye for an eye,” even when it’s our own eye that has been shattered; we can refuse to replace the love in our hearts with hate, even when we ourselves suffer indescribable anguish.  As I wrote in my column in yesterday’s paper, when faced with evil the only response we can make is that we will continue to Live and will continue to Love.  Let this be what our children hear.  Let this be what our neighbors hear.  Let this be what our world hears.

Amen.

Closing Words:  “If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them.  But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.  And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”           —Aleksander Solzhenitsyn

Pax tecum,

RevWik