The Church of Oprah

This video has received as of this date over 6 million hits. I was recently asked to comment on Oprah’s views of multiple paths to god and what does Unitarian Universalism say about this by WAPT Channel 16 News reporter Megan West. Here is the link to this story: http://www.wapt.com/video/index.html
Once the page is opened go to the video entitled “CHurch of Oprah”. I do not know how long this link will be there. I will try to find a way to post it here.

There is no church of Oprah. She has been maligned simply for stating she believes that there are multiple paths to god. Our understanding of god is limited. The Buddha tells the story of the 4 blind men and the elephant. The blind men are describing the elephant through their senses. The first blind man says the elephant is like a wall, tall and wide as he touches the elephants side. No says the second man, the elephant is like a tree firmly planted into the ground as he touches the elephants legs. NO shouts the third man, the elephant is like a whip as he attempts to touch the elephants tail, The fourth man shouts, no no, the elephant is like a snake as he touches the elephants trunk.

All four are describing parts of the elephant. They all have a piece of the puzzle that is the elephant. So it is with truth, we each have a piece but not the whole piece. That is why we need community to help us expand on the truth we have. It is also why we need the diversity of reflection, of ideas, so that we can sift through and find how the pieces fit together.

There is no Church of Oprah but in my mind’s view, she is asking the right questions. The answers she has been coming up with seem to be leading her to increase her philanthropy, increase her tolerance of the different, and increase her desire to leave this world a better place because of her life. All wonderful fruits of her life, I would say. Blessings, Rev. Fred L Hammond

William L. Moore’s letter to Governor to be finally delivered

“William Moore” by Phil Ochs
What price the glory of one man?
What price the glory of one man?
What price the hopes,
What price the dreams,
And what price the glory of one man?

And they shot him on the Alabama road
Forgot about what the Bible told
They shot him with that letter in his hand
As though he were a dog and not a man
And they shot him on the Alabama road

“I was made to wish for more—more than the mere possible or even the probable. I must pursue the impossible . . . Whether I go forward as Don Quixote chasing his windmill or as the pilgrim progressing must be left for you to decide . . . I can only give my life.” —The Mind in Chains: The Autobiography of a Schizophrenic, William L. Moore

William Moore was a mail carrier who chose to walk from Chattenooga, TN to Jackson, MS to  hand deliver a letter to Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett asking for an end to segregation. He wore a sandwich board placard which read:  “End Segregation in America: Equal Rights for All Men” and on the other side read “Eat at Joes–Black and White.”   He had spoken with a Floyd Simpson in the morning of  April 23, 1963 and found dead later that day.  The gun used was owned by Floyd Simpson but he was never convicted for the murder.   Other freedom walkers in the weeks that followed after Mr. Moore’s death tried to complete his freedom walk.  They were all thwarted in Alabama or in Mississippi. 

In the letter he hoped to deliver included the following: “The white man cannot be truly free himself until all men have their rights. Each is dependent upon the other. ”   These words are still true today, and a group of men and women are walking this week from Highway 11 in Gadsden, Etowah County, AL, where Moore was murdered to Jackson, MS to finish his postal route and will deliver the original letter to Governor Haley Barbour. 

William Moore was also an atheist.  Those marching with the letter are members of the American Atheists.     So they are marching not only in memory of William Moore and to complete his task of delivering this letter, albeit 45 years later, so that history will not be able to record that his mission was forever unrealized.   But also with the message of honoring the freedom of conscience.  It was never clear if Moore was killed for his equal rights stance or his atheist beliefs.  He proudly proclaimed them both to all who would listen.   

Freedom of conscience is as radical an idea for 21st century America as it was for our American founders who ensured that this country would have religious freedom of thought.  Even the right to not believe.

He was made to wish for more.  This week his legacy is remembered and we all will wish for more– more equality for all people in this land, more honor and respect for the freedom of conscience in this land.  Blessings, Rev. Fred L Hammond 

Part of the Problem

Staying at a hotel for MSD district annual assembly, I was awoken at 2:45 AM to loud screaming at the pool. There was a group of people in the pool area and they were having quite the discussion. In my half stupor, I opened the door and began yelling for them to quiet down. They did not hear me. I yelled again… they still did not hear me… it slowly dawned on me as I was waking up that I was now part of the problem rather than the solution. I shut the door and called the front desk who had just received several calls regarding the situation and no doubt my cacophony was included in the complaint.

I have been reflecting on whether there were other times in my life when my actions were part of the problem?   Were there times that I with the sleepiness of unawareness acted in ways that contributed to racism through white privilege; or global warming  through abandoned consumerism; or injustice through self-centered attitudes. 

Being part of the problem is never the role a person wants to be in when trying to solve a dilemma. We want to make things better, we want to create justice, we want to heal the wounds that have been inflicted; not make things worse by increasing injustice with layers of bureaucracy, or re-wound the inflicted. Yet, sometimes we have approached problems the same way for so long we think that must be the right way to solve this new problem or old problem that has once again surfaced to our awareness.  

The bumper sticker that reads “if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem” never seemed very helpful to me.  I wanted a bit more awareness about this problem. What was the problem, how was I contributing to it, how could I stop contributing it? 

Somewhere in my sleepy stupor of wanting to return to sleep and no longer hear the yelling and screaming, I realized that I had become part of the problem and not the solution.  I owned my participation in exacerbating the problem and saw a means to stop contributing to the problem and perhaps found another way to solve the problem. It was a matter of becoming fully alert and present to what was happening. 

This seems key to me… to be fully alert and present to what is happening. It may be painful to be fully alert and present and so I understand the desire to keep responding from the sleepy numbing stupor but that will not create the solution desired and may actually increase the problem.  yet, it is only when we are fully awake can we respond with our full authentic selves and bring healing and transformation to this world. 

May we all seek to realize the role we play in the problems we face and become awake and alert in order to see our ways to the solutions we seek.  Blessings, Rev. Fred L Hammond

 

Voices of a Liberal Faith–Unitarian Universalists

This is an excellent introduction to Unitarian Universalism. It has been seen elsewhere. But there may be people in Mississippi who have not seen it. Enjoy!

Plus, placing this video here taught me how to do this on this blog…

Blessings, Rev. Fred L Hammond

Alone in the Universe?

Today, the good people at Maryland-based Space Telescope Science Institute is releasing a series of photographs of galaxies colliding taken by the Hubble telescope in celebration of the 18th anniversary of this telescope.   I was hoping to insert some photographs of these amazing galaxy formations but there seems to be a glitch with wordpress’ program since their most recent upgrade.   Stay tuned I will try again. 

Any way, this announcement and these remarkable photographs got me remembering a conversation I had years ago when I was still very much a staunch christian with another staunch christian.  I made the heretical comment of life being on other planets.  [I should have realized then I was on my way out] His comment was that god had his hands full with sinful humanity on earth and therefore would not create life elsewhere.  I thought this was a very arrogant statement to make.  It also questioned god’s omnipotence–another theological doctrine but at the time, that thought did not occur to me. 

I don’t know how many people believe today that we are alone in the universe.  With the proliferation of successful sci-fi television series and movies with themes of inter-planetary interactions, it is hard to know if people are more accepting of the possibility of life elsewhere or not.   While interaction with extraterrestial beings remains within the realms of fiction and hypnotic trances, there is no proof that we are alone or that we have counterparts in the universe.

If first contact with an extraterrrestial did occur, what would that do to the majority of our world religions?  Would it disintegrate the truths they espouse?  Or would it shine a light on the exclusionary facets of many world religions and only those facest would fade away making the world religions more inclusive more universal in thought?    

There was an excellent movie several years ago entitled: Enemy Mine with Dennis Quaid and Lou Gossett, Jr in the leading roles.  The story line was an intergalactical war between two species, Humans and Dracs.  The lead stars in this movie chase each other to a hostile planet and in order to survive have to work together.  In the process, Lou Gossett, Jr.’s character begins to teach Dennis Quiad’s character about the Drac religion which had strikingly similar values to our world religions.  The movie is a fable about tolerance and acceptance of others different than ourselves but for our discussion here it asks the question “if life did exist elsewhere, what truth that we see as truth remains?” 

There is a fear, at least in fundamentalist Christianity, that if one iota of doctrine is found to be untrue or unaccepted that the whole fabric of the faith will unravel.   I have heard this argument regarding the doctrines of creationism, virgin birth, the resurrection of Jesus, homosexuals, original sin and many other revered religious doctrines. 

I think my friend would include life on other planets into this unraveling because he would likely quote me John 3:16.  “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (New International Version).  If there was life on other planets, How would god save them from their sins?  He already sent his only son to us?  He already “so loved [this] world”; how could he so love another?    Again the questioning of god’s omipotence.  I really do have to talk to him about his contradictory theologies. 

If there is life on other planets, and this universe is so vast and wide to deny life on other planets ‘would be illogical’ to quote a wise Vulcan; but what remains of faith?   One of the wisdoms of Unitarian Universalism is that it is not hinged to a specific doctrine or doctrines or even specific events being true in order for Unitarian Universalism to retain its integrity.  We are a non-creedal faith.  If there is a hinge or an anchor to Unitarian Universalism it is to the values that we seek to live in our lives.  

The value of inherent worth and dignity of every person.   This value is not dependent on some event in order for it to be true.  The verse I quoted earlier supports this value, “For God so loved the world…”  but it is not contingent on god [or even the existance of god] to make it true, each person has inherent worth and dignity in and of themselves.  This value does not disintegrate if we discover that we are not alone in the universe. 

The question then remains… how committed are you to your values that they will not be shaken by the removal of your doctrines?  Blessings, Rev. Fred L Hammond 

We don’t torture [unless it's in our best interests]

The New York Times today published an article entitled “Letters Give CIA a Legal Rationale.”   It seems that once again, our arrogance as supreme power has given us a method to snub our noses at the Geneva Convention and other international laws that define torture. 

What struck me as veery in-ter-restink as Arte Johnson’s character on the late 1960’s comedy “Laugh In” would say is that John McCain has been arguing on both sides of the street for and against torture.  Glenn Greenwald, former constitutional lawyer and civil rights litigator on his blog in response to the NYTimes announcement today wrote:   ” In September, 2006, McCain made a melodramatic display — with great media fanfare — of insisting that the Military Commissions Act [MCA] require compliance with the Geneva Conventions for all detainees. But while the MCA purports to require that, it also vested sole and unchallenged discretion in the President to determine what does and does not constitute a violation of the Conventions. [bold is Greenwald's]  After parading around as the righteous opponent of torture, McCain nonetheless endorsed and voted for the MCA, almost single-handedly ensuring its passage. That law pretends to compel compliance with the Conventions, while simultaneously vesting the President with the power to violate them — precisely the power that the President is invoking here to proclaim that we have the right to use these methods.” 

If this isn’t enough in the veery in-ter-restink category, Glenn Greenwald claims in his book Great American Hypocrites which he quotes on his blog, John McCain also is the proponent of another act that allows for torture to occur while pretending that it is opposing torture.  Greenwald writes:

In 2005, McCain led the effort in the Senate to pass the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), which made the use of torture illegal. While claiming that he had succeeded in passing a categorical ban on torture, however, McCain meekly accepted two White House maneuvers that diluted his legislation to the point of meaningless: (1) the torture ban expressly applied only to the U.S. military, but not to the intelligence community, which was exempt, thus ensuring that the C.I.A.—the principal torture agent for the United States—could continue to torture legally; and (2) after signing the DTA into law, which passed the Senate by a vote of 90–9, President Bush issued one of his first controversial “signing statements” in which he, in essence, declared that, as President, he had the power to disregard even the limited prohibitions on torture imposed by McCain’s law.”

So what does this all mean?  It means that our nation does not torture unless it is in our national interests to do so.  Which means we use torture because as Supreme Power- we can;   [thumb in ears, waving fingers with tongue stuck out at the rest of the global community].  And it means that John McCain does not deserve to be President because he is a mastermind of melodrama as a ruse to keep our eyes off of what is up his sleeve.  No one can be that naive to present legislation as one thing and then allow concessions of this magnitude and not know it makes the legislation not worth the paper it is printed on.  He knew and he approved.

McCain aside, the topic of what is and isn’t torture has been in the American conversation before.  And we need to look at this a bit deeper than McCain’s protestations and complicity.  Paul Kramer wrote for the New Yorker an article entitled “The Water Cure: Debating Torture and Counterinsurgency–A Century Ago.”  

A different form of water torture was used then with Filipinos who had thought that we were liberating the Philippines from Spain so they could be an independent and sovereign state.  Americans thought that as well, because the rationale used to take American into war with Spain was for “liberation, rescue, and freedom.” [hmmm... I have heard this rationale used recently to go to war withanother country...]  When the Filipinos realized that US intention was to assimilate Filipinos into American citizens, they fought back.  When they fought back, US soldiers used “the water cure” to gain information from their prisoners.   The notion that America used torture brought outrage to the world stage and to Americans.  [We then ruled the Philippines for an additional 40 years.]  Yet, after a few months of debate  Paul Kramer states:

“The public became inured to what had, only months earlier, been alarming revelations.  [T]he New York World [ in 1902] described the “American Public” sitting down to eat its breakfast with a newspaper full of Philippine atrocities: It sips its coffee and reads of its soldiers administering the “water cure” to rebels; of how water with handfuls of salt thrown in to make it more efficacious, is forced down the throats of the patients until their bodies become distended to the point of bursting; of how our soldiers then jump on the distended bodies to force the water out quickly so that the “treatment” can begin all over again. The American Public takes another sip of its coffee and remarks, ‘How very unpleasant!’ “

This seems to be the direction that the American public is going with the current ‘is it torture?’ debate.  I opened with the statement that America’s arrogance is snubbing our noses at International Law.   We have grown arrogant in our location as a Supreme power… I do not use the phrase super power because we are now the only super power in the world and in my mind that makes us Supreme.   There is a real danger in playing the Supreme Power role, aka god.  Arrogance is only the beginning of the selling of our American soul as supreme power.  Such arrogance usually follows with a case of supreme humiliation…  Has our world history of the 20th century taught us nothing? 

We have an opportunity for repentance.  A word that simply means to change directions and head a better way.   There is an organization that is seeking to stop torture in the US not just by the US military but also by the CIA called  The National Religious Campaign Against Torture or NRCAT.   In June they are hoping congregations in every state will display a banner stating “Torture is a Moral Issue” or “Torture is Wrong.”   They are seeking to bring this discussion to the national arena to end once and for all this administration’s use of torture and to ensure that torture by any other name is never used again in the name of democracy, freedom, and liberation.  

As a people of faith, we must speak to our legislators that euphemistic terms for torture is still torture.  That allowing the CIA to torture still means we use torture.  We must insist the Executive branch of our government to adhere to International laws regarding international interpretation of defining torture.  The Executive branch of our government needs to be held accountable to the constitution and to the laws of the land.  The Executive branch must be curtailed in its abuse of power of “signing statements” which have been used to state the law is to be enforced unless the President says otherwise.  

We don’t torture unless it’s in our best interests is not an acceptable answer. The ideals of this nation are founded on higher principles than the ole “because I said so” of the Presidents.   It is time we begin living up to our calling as a nation dedicated to liberty, and justice for all.  We must live up to our calling that Lincoln calls us to as written on his memorial … “We here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”   So may it be…  Blessings, Rev. Fred L Hammond

 

Truth Commission part deux

I spent the day listening and participating in the continued exploration of developing a Truth Commission in Mississippi.   There were about 40 of us from across the state to continue the discussion and next steps in this quest to own our past and to help shape our future.  This morning we heard from the Greensboro Truth Commission speak about their experiences.  The panel consisted of Jill Williams, former executive director of the Greensboro Truth Commision, Rev. Nelson Johnson, survivor of the November 3rd 1979 shooting, and retired Mississippi Episcopal Bishop ‘Chip’ Marble, who retired to Greensboro.  They were a powerful panel sharing their personal struggles and victories of the spirit.  

In the telling of their story, they tell of Archbishop Desmond Tutu’s visit where he told them, “You will always be a crippled community, whether you like it or not… as long as you refuse to face up to your past.”

Rev. Johnson tells us that everything that we are today is a product of our past.  We can’t simply leapfrog over our past to suddenly make a better community, we must instead ”work through our DNA of our yesterday– push beyond the acceptability [levels] of justice” because what we are dealing with “sinks beneath the surface and gets into the drinking water” of how we live our daily lives.  This is how insidious the acts of the past are on our present. 

Desmond Tutu told the Greensboro folk, that there is no such thing as a Truth Commission that is authentic that isn’t strongly opposed.  So expect this to be a moral and spiritual issue. 

By lunch time we were asked if we were ready to take the next steps to develop a declaration of intention.  With a few exceptions, the entire room stood up in unison to proclaim we were ready to begin this work.   We were reminded of the previous meetings where we discussed a possible time period in Mississippi history of 1945-1975.  1945 because this was the end of a World War where black men were coming home after fighting for democracy and not having its power at home.  1975 because this is the time of the rise of white private academies to ensure that segregation would remain in Mississippi.  This time line is still under discussion.  We are aware that there were events before 1945 and we are painfully aware of events after 1975 that could be explored to tell the story.  We broke into three groups where we were asked to consider these three questions that would assist us in developing our declaration of intent.  

1) What are the injustices that need to be examined that would tell the story of Mississippi?

2) What is it we want to achieve with this Truth Commission?

3) How do we link this work [of the Truth Commission] to the continuing work of Equity and Justice?

The afternoon sessions were equally powerful.   I am personally grateful to assist in this work in whatever small measure I can.   May the truth of what happened in Mississippi and how our past shapes our present, set us free to enable us to be able to consciously shape the future where all receive equitable justice and treatment.  Blessings,

How desperate the cut off line of poverty

My friend Rev. Ricky talks on his blog about a woman in his congregation who was denied services from an agency she needed because she did not meet the eligibility requirements.  She felt anger towards the non-profit and wanted to get beyond it.

In reading this, I was reminded of a surviving spouse of a person we served at Interfaith AIDS Ministry.  She wanted to know how she could continue receiving supports from us.  She had given us the complement that we did what we said we would do and that our services actually made it easier for families struggling.  Our policy was that we continued providing supports to the family one year after the person with HIV/AIDS died as a means to help with the grieving process and to aid in transitioning to other support agencies if needed.  

She was at the cut-off line in eligibility for services from other agencies.  It was clear that she and her family would benefit greatly but that she simply did not qualify because of a number of factors.  She told me that she would infect herself with HIV if it meant that she would be able to live a more quality-filled life with services.  Needless to say I counseled her away from such an action, yet here was the level of desperation we have come to in this country.  Stating that her quality of life would be improved with HIV-a disease that includes treatments that are oft times just as painful and disabling as the disease itself-is a harsh commentary on American life.

At that time, I heard similar stories from my executive director colleagues in the HIV/AIDS arena.  The work they began doing was more and more poverty relief. How do you provide sufficient supports to people living with HIV/AIDS and their families when they are on the cut off line of poverty?  When they are unable to make ends meet on minimum wage? 

It isn’t just HIV/AIDS that places them on this cut-off line… the line is filled with so many more factors…  As the recession that our government denies being in deepens, families that have been floating just above this cut-off line will begin to sink.   It is already happening.   The gap is growing between the rich and the poor.   The middle is waisting away to use an HIV/AIDS metaphor. 

What is the response of the church?  What will it take for us to respond in a manner that doesn’t just provide a safety net for those falling but prevents the fall in the first place.  There is a story that I have heard many versions of and it has been attributed to many people that I do not know its original source. 

The story goes like this…  I was walking along a river when I saw a baby drowning.  I ran in and pulled the baby out.  Just as I pulled this baby out, I saw another baby drowning in the river and another.  I called on the passer-bys and soon there were hundreds of us saving babies drowning the river.  We formed an organization to save drowning babies.  We had services galore for these drowning babies.  Then it dawned on me, and I left the river.  People asked me where was I going when there was so much work to do?  I said, I am going up stream to find out who is throwing babies into the river and stop them. 

Justice is not just the pulling out of the river the drowning babies.  Justice is locating the cause that placed the babies in the river to drown in the first place and stopping that causal condition.   We in America have many causes to the drowning babies problem. 

We can get caught up in the symptom and think that this is the work we must do- to treat the symptom.  Yes, by all means help those suffering and seek to relieve their suffering.  But to truly create justice in America we need to focus on the cause and work there as well. 

I have seen more poverty since moving to Mississippi.  I see more people who are on this cut off line.  They are struggling to make ends meet.  I have listened to their stories, heard their despair, and felt their hopelessness that things will get better.   We need to do better.   We are the richest country in the world and we can do better.  We can create justice that is equitable and compassionate.   Let us begin.  Blessings,

 

 

  

Day of Silence

Today, thousands of students across the country participated in the Day of Silence. I do not know how many or if any students in Mississippi participated.  This has been an annual event sponsored by GLSEN (Gay Lesbian Straight Educators Network) to bring attention to the plight of sexual minorities being harrassed, bullied, and yes, even killed for being gay in schools. 

This year’s Day of Silence is in memory of Larry King, a 14 year old boy who was killed by another student because Larry sent a valentines card to him.  The idea that receiving a valentine card from some one the same gender is so horrific that the only proper recourse is to shoot him goes against all rational human logic.  Yet, in our society, thousands believe that of all the verses in Leviticus that can be set aside as not being applicable to 21st century living, the one verse that must be upheld is the one that refers to men lying with men as with a woman being an abomination and should be killed.  The teenager who shot and killed Larry King thought this was the appropriate way to respond to receiving a card offering admiration and affection.   

There are two victims of this death; Larry and Brandon, the boy who killed him.  GLSEN is seeking to end homophobia so that no one, not another Larry, not another Brandon, will have to be victims of fear.   If there is a GLSEN chapter near you, invite them to speak in your congregations about homophobia and the work they are doing to end it in schools.  Find out how you can support their work.  I have linked their website to this post.  Blessings,       

Success

I thought this quote was correctly attributed to Ralph Waldo Emerson but alas, it may not be.  There are two other poems with very similar language, some things added, some things substracted.  A poem by Bessie Anderson Stanley which won a prize in 1904 and a poem by Robert Louis Stevenson.  I sought to find another source for the the Stevenson poem and could not.   Perhaps one of our dear readers may know the correct source of this quote.  Regardless of who said it first or best, these are good words to heed.  Blessings,