Unitarian Universalist Association Symbol and Link

* WUU Home
* Minister
* Welcome Visitors!
* Membership
* Religious Education

*
Newsletter 
* Calendar 
*
Contacts   
* Sermon Library
* WUU Choir  
* Bed and Breakfast 
* WUU History 

* Photo Gallery
* WUU Discussion List
* WALT
* Links to other UU Sites
* Live Off Five! Concert Series
* Members Only 

* Ministerial Search

 


WUU Church Address:

3051 Ironbound Road 
Williamsburg, VA 23185
Phone: (757)220-6830 
Need a Map?

 


The Dream and the Lie
Shirley Ann Ranck
January 15, 2006

I begin with a reading about another famous African American.  It’s from a book by Scott Ehrlich.  He writes:  “On the morning of June 12, 1956, a panel of grim-faced government officials in Washington, DC, assembled to review information about a hearing that was about to begin.  The House Un-American Activities Committee had been established by Congress in 1939 to look into the affairs of American citizens who were suspected by the government of acting against the interests of their country.
            “On this spring day, the House Un-American Activities Committee panel was going to be questioning Paul Robeson, the renowned singer and actor.  During his long career on the stages of Europe
and the United States, the 58-year-old Robeson had become one of the world’s best-known and most beloved black Americans—especially abroad.  Yet he had not been content to be only an entertainer.  For more than 20 years, he had been using his unforgettable bass voice to speak out about the needs and aspirations of the poor and oppressed people in the United States and around the world.
            Robeson’s ardent support for human rights causes had gained him many enemies.  His statements that racism was still rampant within the United States were viewed by some Americans as being unpatriotic.  His concerts in support of international peace, workers’ rights, and racial tolerance had been picketed by his opponents, and violence had broken out at some of the events.  In 1950, the State Department had revoked his passport…He had been blacklisted in the entertainment industry…By the time of his meeting with the House Un-American Activities Committee, Robeson’s spectacular voice had been virtually silenced because he was believed to be dangerous.”
            Like others who were called before the Committee, Robeson invoked the Fifth Amendment when asked if he was a member of the Communist Party and again when asked to name others who were members of the Communist Party.  But Robeson went further.  He challenged the Committee at every step.  At one point he said “You want to shut up every Negro who has the courage to stand up and fight for the rights of his people, for the rights of workers.”  Asked why he did not stay in Russia, he replied, “Because my father was a slave, and my people died to build this country and I am going to stay here and have a part of it just like you.  And no fascist-minded people will drive me from it.  Is that clear?”  At the end of the hearing he said to the Committee, “You are the non-patriots, and you are the un-Americans and you ought to be ashamed of yourselves.”
            During the days of the House Un-American Activities Committee, playwright Arthur Miller asked himself the question “What’s going on here?”  In response he wrote a play called The Crucible.  It was about the Salem witch trials.  Innocent women were called before the authorities and accused of being witches who intended to undermine good Christian society.  Then they were asked to name others who were witches.  The play was a stunning analogy to the hearings of the infamous Committee in Washington.  Of course the accused witches had no Fifth Amendment to invoke so they were put to death, and that is exactly where unrestrained witch-hunting eventually leads.  That’s frightening.
            Today it is not communism but rather terrorism which seems to threaten our national security and so tempts our government to engage in the age-old practice of witch-hunting.  And once again it is done in the name of religion, morality and democracy.  It isn’t just ironic.  It’s crazy-making.  What frightens me is the huge unspoken lie that undergirds it all and is uncritically believed by almost everyone.  It goes something like this.|
          (turn around)
I did not turn around.  You say you saw me turn around?  You’re wrong.  I didn’t.  If I repeat this enough and I don’t waiver you will actually begin to doubt what you saw with your own eyes.  Take the following statements:  Because I’m against gay marriage, I’m religious.  Because I oppose affirmative action, I’m moral.  Because I support my government in spying on its citizens and in condoning torture, I’m democratic.  This is not religion nor morality nor democracy.  It is blatant injustice masquerading as religion, morality and democracy.
            But if I keep on defining religion and morality this way and no one challenges that definition, it begins to be accepted as true.  People who see the injustice begin to reject religion and morality.  Will they in time reject democracy as well?
            We need to ask what is causing such a huge gap between what is clearly just and humane and what is labeled religious and moral and democratic.  History tells of even wider chasms—crusades, inquisitions, persecutions and holocausts, all in the name of religion and morality.  We have good reason to be concerned and frightened.
            I think it’s important for us to articulate an alternative definition  of religion and morality.  It is partly our own confusion that allows extreme fundamentalist attitudes to be equated with religion.  It is a wider societal confusion that causes people to look for security in TV evangelists or politicians who encourage self-righteous bigotry.
            I think we can reclaim today a basic tenet of our own religious past and that is universalism.  It started out in response to very similar kinds of self-righteousness, doctrines of the saved and the unsaved.  Universalism meant belief in a god who loved everyone, not just a chosen few.  Or as Shakespeare noted, the rain falls on the just and the unjust, on fundamentalists as well as liberals.  Who is right?  All of us.  Who is wrong?  All of us.  Today if we are humanists we may redefine universalism as the oneness of humanity, all of us earthlings on this space-ship together.  But what makes it possible for us to act on that belief?  How do we avoid the bigoted we-they mentality when we are faced with it in others?
            One of the developmental tasks of adult life is joining the human race.  At some point we come face to face with our own complicity in evil.  There is no way to go through life without hurting someone.  When I was 29 I felt strongly that my own growth and fulfillment would be best served by leaving my marriage.  It was an agonizing decision because I knew that whether I left or stayed the people around me would suffer and I would suffer.
In the years before I made that decision I was very self-righteous.  It was the process of looking inward, of acknowledging my own anger and admitting my own dreams that made me aware of the dreams and frustrations of other people.  Encountering my own demons, I began to feel compassion for others as they struggled with theirs, and even for those who refused to take on that encounter.  Deciding to leave the marriage, to live with the guilt and the disapproval, I learned that the line between evil and good runs right through each of us.  I do think the percentages vary—some of us are more virtuous than others!
            To take such an inner journey means that we look to no authority but that of our own experience.  Ours is in man y ways a “mystic” type religion in the sense that theologian Ernst Troelstch used the term.  Each person is forced back upon her own personal experience as the final authority for what is loving or just.  The divine is usually experienced as within oneself and the natural world.  Enlightenment is usually felt as being in harmony with the processes of nature.  Troelstch assumed that such religion was too individual and personal, too indifferent to society, to have any impact upon the world or to attract large numbers of people.  He concluded, however, that “mystic” type religion was the only kind possible for modern people in a pluralistic society.
            What is missing from Troelstch’s description of “mystic” religion is the way in which harmony within oneself and in relation to the natural world often puts one in direct conflict with the social order.  Paul Robeson was true to himself and his view of social justice so he was considered dangerous.
            It is no accident that the arch mystic and nature lover, Henry David Thoreau, wrote a tract on civil disobedience and went to jail for refusing to pay his taxes because they would be used to support a war.  It is no accident that his essay influenced another arch mystic in India, Ghandi, whose non-violent expression of his convictions caused momentous political changes.  He in turn influenced Martin Luther King Jr.
            Perhaps mystic today has come to mean being fully aware of one’s life situation and taking responsibility for altering it if it is not in line with the values one derives from that very personal experience of harmony within the self.  It is this definition that I have in mind when I say that ours is a “mystic” type religion.
            It is my belief that the journey inward is the way to forgiveness of oneself and compassion for others.  It is a path to authentic social action.  On that journey we give up blaming others, we discover our own longings, we meet within ourselves the power to look with clear eyes at our life situation in this society and to choose the path of our highest ideals.
            That is the spiritual path, the mystic religion of our time, the sense of self that brings compassion and power.  It takes courage.  It is much easier to live out the conventional roles of society without ever turning the spotlight on ourselves.  It is more comfortable to follow the rules laid out by the TV evangelist.  But if we drift along without embarking on that inner journey we will never know who we really are, what resentments drive us, what great dreams we squelch.  And we will never know compassion.  Failing to know our own depths, we can never know the depths of others.  We can continue to be self-righteous.  We can avoid seeing the gap between real justice and a morality which is at best self-serving.  We can even come to equate religion with the most inhuman of causes.
            Where is our religion of justice and compassion being seen and heard?  We have chosen the difficult path, the one that makes us responsible for justice, and once we have seen with new eyes there is no turning back.

******

Opening quote excerpted from Ehrlich, Scott, Paul Robeson, Chelsea House Publishers, New York, 1988, pp. 11-19. 





If you have a question about this page, contact webmaster Patsy Wells
To contact the WUUs, send email to our office


© 2005 Williamsburg Unitarian Universalists

Page Modified 01/17/2006