Death Penalty: Execution by Red Tape

Mississippi will be executing Earl Wesley Berry on May 21, 2008 for the murder of Mary Bounds.   This will be the first execution in Mississippi after the US Supreme Court ruled in the Baze lethal injection case.   Earl Wesley Berry is Mentally Retarded.   The US Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that people with mental retardation could not be executed.  And Mississippi’s court ruled that any inmate with an IQ under 75 could receive an evidentiary hearing.  Unfortunately for Mr. Berry, his lawyers did not file the avidavit on time and he was denied such a hearing.   Execution by red tape.

It is commonly believed that an execution for crimes such involved in the death of Ms. Bounds will bring closure and justice to the victim’s family.  There could be no statement further from the truth.   The Bounds’ family has suffered undue grief and pain since the murder of Mary Bounds in 1987.  She was brutally and fatally beatened and there is no doubt that Mr. Berry committed the crime.  Yet, the pain and suffering waiting for the court system to carry out its sentence is excruciating.   In the case of Mary Bounds even more so because the execution was to take place the end of October 2007.   The Bounds family gathered to witness the execution, a horrible soul wrenching process to put anyone through, and then 18 minutes before the event the governor ordered a stay of execution because of the pending US Supreme court case on lethal injections.    In a story to the Clarion-Ledger, daughter Jena Bounds Watson states, “It’s very stressful. More than I ever imagined it would be. It hit us like a brick in October. We didn’t expect it to hit us so hard. It was like she’d died all over again.” 

This is not justice.  This is not closure.  This is not healing.  This is perpetuating a living hell. 

Mr. Berry should never have been released from the institution he was in.  He is also diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic.  He had attempted suicide multiple times.  Our system has failed both Mr. Berry and the Bounds family.  Life imprisonment as a sentence would have allowed the Bounds family to move on in their lives.  Instead they have been waiting, emotively waiting for the sentence of death to be meted out.  They have been waiting to witness the execution to put this finally behind them and have been forced to painfully endure our system’s barbarism. 

I know there are many who believe that Mr. Berry should suffer painfully for his heinous crime. Given his diagnosis of mental retardation and paranoid schizophrenia, I would say his life experience has been one filled with suffering.  Even the Bounds family may have thought revenge would have been sufficient for relieving their loss. It is a natural reaction of our base emotions.  But many victim’s families, once they have had time to reflect, are able to shift to see that an eye for an eye response is not the answer. Taking revenge wounds the spirit of the family far more than the crime.   The death penalty should be repealed if only because to carry such a sentence out places more pain and suffering upon the victim’s families preventing them to begin the healing needed. 

Amnesty International has two blogs on this case in Mississippi.  The page linked also gives a link to sign a petition to commute the sentence of Mr. Berry to life imprisonment. 

There will be an interfaith vigil at Smith Park in Jackson, MS at 5:30 PM on Wednesday, May 21st.  I will be there.  I hope you will join me in prayer for Mr. Berry, for the Bounds family, and for our justice system that allows red tape to execute the mentally challenged.  May healing finally begin!  Blessings,  Rev. Fred L Hammond

  

 

 

When Mississippi– Equal Marriage Rights?

Today, the California Supreme Court ruled in a decision 4 to 3 that California’s same sex marriage ban is unconstitutional.  They wrote: “As past cases establish, the substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own - and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family - constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both the individual and society.”   (The full summary of the ruling can be found here. All quotes in this blog are from this summary. The complete Supreme Court Opinion is found here.)

A rose by any other name–NOT:  Domestic partnership is not the same as marriage. 

“One of the core elements of the right to establish an officially recognized family that is embodied in the California constitutional right to marry is a couple’s right to have their family relationship accorded dignity and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families, and assigning a different designation for the family relationship of same-sex couples while reserving the historic designation of “marriage” exclusively for opposite-sex couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex couples such equal dignity and respect. We therefore conclude that although the provisions of the current domestic partnership legislation afford same-sex couples most of the substantive elements embodied in the constitutional right to marry, the current California statutes nonetheless must be viewed as potentially impinging upon a same-sex couple’s constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution.”

The institution of marriage is not undermined by same sex marriage.

“A number of factors lead us to this conclusion. First, [bold italics mine]  the exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples. Second, retaining the traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples. Third, because of the widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex couples. Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise - now emphatically rejected by this state - that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest. Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.”

Unitarian Universalists across this country will perform religious ceremonies celebrating the marriage of same sex couples even though the state will not recognize its civil legality.  Yet, heterosexual religious marriages, even those performed by Unitarian Universalists, are recognized for its civil legality.  I believe to not have these religious ceremonies recognized by the civil government is a violation of our religious freedoms. To deny recognition is a restriction and impingement of our religious principles that seeks compassion, justice, and equity in all human relations.  It amounts to an unequal religious authority to the majority in a country that claims separation of church and state. 

Mississippi equal marriage rights are coming to this state just as inter-racial marriage rights came to this state.  It is no nolonger a matter of if, it is only a matter of when.  May justice and equality be truly for all in this land.  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 

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,       

PFLAG

I received two emails today. Both looking for support to begin a PFLAG Chapter.  PFLAG is the Parents and Friends of Lesbian and Gays organization that provides support to parents and friends of sexual minorities.   It is broader than Lesbian and Gays, this organization includes bisexuals and transgender supports as well.  There are currently two PFLAG chapters in Mississippi.  One in Oxford and the other in Waveland, MS.   These are both on opposite sides of the states, north and south. 

These are life giving resources for parents of sexual minorities and for sexual minorities themselves.  I say life giving because we live in a society that is hostile to sexual minorities.  It is more so in conservative regions of the country such as Mississippi.

I came out of the closet as a gay man in CT; a state that has multiple resources for sexual minorities.  A state that also has legislated protections for people like me.   I was protected in my employment.  I was protected in my housing.  I was protected in parental rights and in adoption.  And CT is one of a few states that have civil unions ensuring partnership rights on a state level.  Mississippi does not have these rights secured for sexual minorities.  In this state it is still legal to discriminate housing and employment based on sexual identity.  Ironically, single gays and lesbians can adopt but same sex couples cannot adopt in this state.  In this state, gay fathers who divorce their wives in order to live their life with integrity can be court mandated to hide their sexuality, hide their partners from their children so as to not influence their children’s sexuality or lose visitation rights.   

In this state, homophobia is the norm.  I remember reading a news article shortly after arriving here about the KKK’s current activities in Mississippi.  The journalist writing the story made a passing remark in the story about the KKK no longer being the vile racist organization because their targets were now gays and immigrants.   The assumption was that it was understandable how the KKK could be angered about the presence of gays and immigrants.  The implied was aren’t we all? 

None of the six Unitarian Universalist congregations in Mississippi have been certified as Welcoming Congregations. This is a certification program that the UUA offers congregations desiring to learn more about homophobia and how it operates in society.   I serve two congregations in the state and have visited two additional congregations, and fortunately I have not felt any homophobia in these congregations.  All of the congregations I am personally aware of have sexual minority members.   However, having the designation would be a public sign to sexual minorities that our congregations are a save place to come and worship openly for who they are.  It is an excellent program and one I recommend for UU congregations.  Especially here in the conservative bible belt where sexual minorities are shunned because they love differently.  It is quite likely that some people coming out of conservative religious communities and into our faith communities are living with an internalized homophobia that has been taught to them.  This program is a good one to go through every so many years in a congregation to re-affirm their welcoming congregation status so that the congregation as a whole continues to grow towards justice for all.

Forming these two new PFLAG chapters is important vital work.  It is important that resources be made available so that parents, especially conservative religious parents have a place to go where they can talk about their situation in a supportive non-judgmental arena.  A place where their questions can be heard and answered, rather than judged and condemned  because something sinful happened to cause this event.  A place where they can learn the skills to help their children to live healthful and productive lives. 

I look forward to these chapters forming in Mississippi.  I know the work that PFLAG has done in other communities and the lives they have saved.  Blessings, Rev. Fred L Hammond 

 

Euthanasia

in my post on the Death Penalty and Universalism I wrote: “To me, that seems a bit arrogant on our part to think we have the ability to judge the worthiness of a life to continue or to be halted; regardless if the method is done in what the supreme court deems to be a humane methodology.”

I think I hit a contradiction in my theology that will need to somehow be reconciled.  I happen to believe that there may be end of life choices that are humane to be made… such as euthanasia when there is no possible hope of a person to recover from a terminal illness or in an alzheimer’s coma or only being maintained by extraordinary life supports.  But my comment above regarding the death penalty seems to fly in the face of this other issue that many families are facing in our age of medical miracles that can sustain the human body long after the brain ceases to interact with its world.   Are we not judging the worthiness of life by pulling the plug on a loved one who nolonger is able to have the quality of life that we have determined as worthy of living? 

Unitarian Universalists uphold the principle of “a free and responsible search for truth and meaning.”  This means that we are each responsible to wrestle with these issues for ourselves.  In the process, we may come to differing conclusions to the challenges that living in the 21st century offers.  It would be easier to have a pontiff like the Pope to decree what we are to believe on this or that issue.  And if the answers contradict other 21st challenges, sobeit, someone with more responsibility for my soul has given the answer.

That is not how Unitarian Univesalism works however.  We are each responsible to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.    In doing so, we come to differing positions and these differing positions allow us to have a richness in our discerning our journey in community with each other.  

I wrote a sermon entitled:  When Death is the Only Choice” which delves a bit into this issue.  Here is an excerpt from that sermon:
“End of life questions are unique to our time because for the first time in human history we have the ability to prolong life. We are now able to postpone death by decades. Events that would have been fatal at the beginning of the 20th century, now in the beginning of the 21st century are only temporary set backs. Neither Karen Ann [Quinlan] nor Terry [Shiavo] would have made international attention in 1907. They both would have died shortly after their initial medical traumas.

“The debate regarding Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, now at a fevered pitch, is a consequence of enhanced power to extend life. Euthanasia is defined as “the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit.” Assisted suicide is defined as “someone providing an individual with the information, guidance, and means to take his or her own life with the intention that they will be used for this purpose. When it is a doctor who helps another person to kill themselves it is called ‘physician assisted suicide.’” [http://www.euthanasia.com/definitions.html]

“Opponents to assisted suicide and euthanasia have a few arguments that do cry out for our consideration. Disability advocates like the national disability civil rights organization TASH see assisted suicide as a means for profit driven Health Maintenance Organizations to cut costs in medical treatment. Assisted suicide is only a true choice for those who financially can pay to receive medical care or receive assisted suicide. Those who do not have the financial ability may be left to the mercy of the Health Maintenance Organizations or HMO’s. Already, stories are being told of managed care companies overruling physician’s treatment decisions because of cost factors, with sometimes the overruling hastening the person’s death. There may be some truth in the disability advocates argument if legal assisted suicide were to be made available.

“It has been argued that cost savings to Health Maintenance Organizations do not figure into assisted suicide decisions. However, the studies that state cost savings as being minimal only look at the last month of life. Yet, in Oregon where assisted suicide law exists, the definition of terminal illnesses is having 6 months to live. Suddenly the half a billion dollars saved in the final month becomes several billion saved over six months. Would several billion dollars be an incentive for HMO’s to encourage assisted suicide options?

“Numerous studies have shown the inequitable medical treatment given to blacks versus whites. “African-American women die from treatable illnesses (e.g. diabetes, hypertension, etc.) at twice the rate of white women and African-American men die at a rate almost three times greater than white men. [Sunday Oregonian 6/7/98]”

“Bio-ethicists have expressed concerns that permitting assisted suicide presents new opportunities to victimize minorities. One African American bio-ethicist said, “People know they don’t get the health care they need while they’re living.  So what makes them think anything’s going to be more sensitive when they’re dying.” [Detroit Free Press 2/26/97].

“In the first year of Oregon’s assisted suicide law, all but one of the requests for assisted suicide were requested “for fear of losing functional ability, autonomy, or control of bodily functions [Oregon Health Division, 1999]” In the Netherlands, where voluntary euthanasia exists, physicians report that more than half of requests are because of the fear of loss of dignity.

“Thousands of people with disabilities rely on personal assistance and feel that needing help is not undignified but has enabled them to live. TASH and other disability advocates state the current “public image of severe disability as a fate worse than death …” [Coleman, Diane, J.D. 2002. "Not Dead Yet," in The Case Against Assisted Suicide - For the Right to End-of-Life Care.] Their argument is that people with severe disabilities would be pushed into assisted suicide because of this public image of relying on personal assistance as an indignity.”

This is a complicated issue and one that I will continue to struggle with in terms of my theology and in terms of my own desires for end of life care.  There seems to be no easy answer.  May we each find our own reconciliation to this 21st century moral dilemma.  Blessings, Rev. Fred L Hammond    

 

Death Penalty and Universalism

The Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 that capital punishment via lethal injection is not unusual or cruel punishment.  All of the justices left the door open for more litigation to prove that capital punishment is unconstitutional.  So this was not a case regarding the death penalty per se but only regarding this method of implementation.  

Can a person who has a Universalist theology be a proponent of the death penalty?  Does Universalism contradict such a stance? 

The orthodox view of universalism states all experience salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus.  There are no exceptions.  All will be reconciled with their creator, God through the redemptive actions of Jesus on the cross.  All are saved. All are going to Heaven.  Period.  

This orthodox stance is as controversial today as it was in John Murray’s day.  The notion of an elect who are saved is therefore disputed and rejected.  Bishop Carlton Pearson, a pentecostal minister, had a conversion experience where he embraced this universal stance.  He was expelled from his church as a heretic for preaching that God would embrace and redeem everyone including ‘murderers and fornicators.’  He calls it the gospel of inclusion but it is identical as far as I can tell to John Murray’s notion of universalism.   His opponents have built up a wide array of arguments stating how he has erred from the one true path.   He certainly is no longer advocating what is considered to be orthodox Christianity of the Nicene Creed. 

So given the fact that this notion of universal salvation remains a controversial one even today.  The question remains for me.  Can someone be a universalist and support the death penalty?  What does this say about us if the answer is yes.   Does it say, we have the right to judge a person’s worthiness of living life based on their actions against the current laws of society and we then let God to sort it out after we put the person to death?  To me, that seems a bit arrogant on our part to think we have the ability to judge the worthiness of a life to continue or to be halted; regardless if the method is done in what the supreme court deems to be a humane methodology.  

Orthodox Christianity or at least those proposing a Christianity that requires a confession of the mouth and of the heart to proclaim Jesus as personal savior, maintains the possibility of what I remember being called deathbed salvation.  The notion goes like this, a person who has committed the most heinous of sins [I will let your imagination come up with what those might be.] can at the moment of death ask Jesus for forgiveness for those sins, and salvation and entry into heaven is then assured.  All their sins are at that moment are wiped clean.  I think this is the reason [I could be wrong]  why a minister / chaplain is present to the person on their last walk to the execution chamber in prison for the hope of a last minute repentance. Of course, we rarely hear of death row conversions as that would be against the hope that this person is now burning in hell.  [Another notion that Universalists and Unitarian Universalists do not believe in.]   But this notion of deathbed salvation seems equally crazy to me as the arrogance of judging a person no longer worthy of having life, believing in universal salvation and sending them on to Heaven by killing them.

Now many, but not all,  Unitarian Universalists with a Universalist theology no longer believe in the doctrine of a here after in heaven but still believe that all of humanity has the potential for reconciliation.  They still believe that all of life has a worth to have life that goes beyond the actions that life may have committed. There is still the belief that redemption is available to all even if they humanly find it hard to grasp it. 

I’d like to hear some comments on this as I find it a curious position to take: To believe in universalism and to believe that the death penalty is an appropriate judgment for a crime. 

In case you have not surmised… I am opposed to the death penalty.  I believe that if someone is convicted of a crime that is heinous [again, I leave the definition of heinous to your imaginations] that the best punishment is life imprisonment perhaps with solitary confinement.

Blessings, Rev. Fred L Hammond