First Unitarian Universalist Society of Albany

“In Defense of Political Diversity”

Rev. Samuel A. TrumboreOctober 24, 2004

SERMON

Before I talk about politics, I feel the need for self-disclosure.I’m a lifelong Democrat.My father’s mother was a socialist leaning fan of Eleanor Roosevelt.My father was a Democratic committeeman.My mother ran on the Democratic ticket with George McGovern in 1972 for state representative (and lost).I’ve voted Democratic in just about every election.
The Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Newark, Delaware, the congregation I attended as a child, was predominantly populated with Democrats as is true here in Albany.When I entered my first settlement in Port Charlotte, Florida, I assumed this would also be the case. One Sunday I railed against Republicans in my sermon and was surprised to get a cool response.One of the members took me aside and informed me that probably half the congregation were (gasp!) Republicans and didn’t like youngsters like me criticizing their party affiliation.Southwestern Florida is one of the most conservative areas of the state, populated by Midwesterners from those red states.That conservatism spills over even to the kind of Unitarian Universalist who lives there.

That was my first wake-up call that being a religious liberal was not the same thing as being a political liberal.If you’re a Republican in our congregation, you already know this.But if you’re a Democrat or a Green or a Working Families Party member, this may not be transparent.Let me explain.

Unitarianism and Universalism are divisions of a much larger European religious movement called “theological liberalism.”Theological liberalism is a form of religious thought that rejects the authority of tradition as the sole basis for religious inquiry[ST1].The alternative source to scriptural revelation that gradually grew out of the Enlightenment was science and reason. It affected Protestant Christianity from the time of Descartes on. 

The defining trait of this liberalism was a questioning of external authority and a valuing of internal motivation. 

Descartes built the groundwork of liberalism on these four presuppositions:

(1)confidence in human reason

(2)primacy of the person

(3)immanence of God, and

(4)meliorism (the belief that human nature is improvable and is improving)

Unitarianism was born in America in the midst of the second stage of theological liberalism called Romanticism.The increasing importance of the individual and the valuing of individual experience were brought to new heights of religious significance by Transcendentalists like Margaret Fuller, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau.Individual experience and creativity expressed through the personality ranked high as a source of meaning and value.Following Rousseau and Kant, individualism and independence are unique trademarks of the liberal democracy the founders of this nation sought to enshrine in our constitution and bill of rights.

Religious liberalism moved further away from orthodoxy with the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species and advances in science and engineering.We chose to bring our religious thinking into alignment with these innovations and discoveries rather than to deny them.When the Bible conflicts with science, scripture must yield its truth claim.Rather than rely on tradition to guide moral decision making, the gospel must stand up to scientific trial before it is acceptable. The study of Christian doctrine was transformed into three areas of intellectual inquiry:

1.the psychological study of religious experience

2.the sociological study of religious institutions and

3.the philosophical inquiry into religious knowledge and values[ST2].

So the hallmarks of religious liberalism are the primacy of a worldview grounded in reason and experience rather than scriptural revelation.To look for God or guidance, the liberal may go to scripture.But then the liberal looks for confirmation of the message in human thought and human experience.Revelation alone is not enough for us.

For a century, liberalism has dominated in academics and civil government much to the consternation of traditional religionists.Whether Democrat or Republican, the values of empiricism, reason and scientific inquiry guide the decisions of our elected officials. It is only when we compare our major political parties with the political parties in the rest of the world do we see just how similar they are.Neither party is arguing for establishing a theocracy.Neither party is arguing for the overthrow of capitalism.Sadly, neither party is green enough to put the concerns of our planet first.

The similarities between Democratic and Republican values jump out of their platform statements.Both are for national security.Both are for private property and private enterprise.Both are for economic growth.Both believe in families as the fundamental social unit of society.Both believe in educating our children.Both believe in equality for women.Both believe ethnic and religious minorities should have equal opportunity for success and happiness.Both believe in health care for everyone.Both are optimistic about the future.

When we just focus on differences, it is hard to remember there are many similarities between both parties.This is particularly true in Albany where many Republicans here would be Democrats in Texas and many Democrats here might be Republicans in New York City.

The parties are not only similar, they often change horses in midstream.Remember when Republicans were the defenders of balancing the budget and the Democrats were the free spenders?It was Bill Clinton who successfully balanced the budget I remind you.Recently it was Dick Cheney who said, “Deficits don’t matter.”

Democrats used to be protectionists defending unions against foreign competition.Again following the lead of President Clinton, now they are free traders.Republicans strongly opposed civil unions but now that they must face the possibility of same-sex marriage, all of a sudden they seem to think civil unions are a fine alternative.Both parties do seem to move with the times.

Of course they still have many, many significant differences.The programs and methodology to support those common values vary significantly between the parties.These differences are what we get so intensely wrapped up in during an election year.

The media is in a frenzy about the polarization this year between Democrats and Republicans.I wonder.I, for one, don’t see anything unusual in it.I know I’m just as polarized as I normally am this close to the election.Each side is caught up in the hysteria of trying to get that last undecided voter gathered in before Election Day.You can expect each side to do whatever they can legally and, unfortunately, even illegally to tip the election in their favor.

Tom Chulak, our Saint Lawrence District Executive, spoke last Sunday at Silver Bay about the need for tolerance as we approach the election.He told an instructive story about attending a memorial service for an in-law from a conservative family.At the reception afterwards, if my memory serves me, he sat next to a Fundamentalist Christian relative.The subject of their differences in belief came up.Tom explained to us how hard he works to not antagonize these in-laws so he can be in relationship with them.So he said to her, “I respect how important your faith is to you.I want to learn from you about what you think and believe and I’d like to share with you what I think and believe.”

The process of dialogue with our political rivals is quite difficult this time of year because of heated emotions … but that dialogue can also bear good fruit.While campaigning for votes, politicians can be pressed to define themselves and say what they stand for.Partisans on each side must also take stands along with their candidates and define themselves and their political philosophy.In conversation with each other about the issues, if we really listen to each other, our positions can become clarified and refined.

Because I’m wise enough to know I don’t have all the answers, I enjoy dialogue with people who don’t share my political views.I know all political theories break down when translated into action by imperfect human beings.Partisan as I am, I recognize that my political ideals may not always translate into just and effective social policy.And when I talk and listen, I learn and grow.

One of my articles of faith is the harmfulness of concentrating wealth in a small stratum of society.I believe that a robust middle class is the foundation for a strong society.Concentration of wealth decreases social mobility and flow of money to support trade, which, in turn, decreases prosperity for all.Yet in conversation with some of the wealthy people I have known, and watching what they do with their money, I recognize I don’t have the whole picture.

I don’t mind having a few generous, compassionate, and wise wealthy people around because of the good things they will do with their money that the middle class may not choose to do.Andrew Carnegie built many libraries in rural communities that wouldn’t have had them otherwise.Bill Gates’ foundation is funding research into a cure for malaria, a disease that governments and drug companies have ignored lacking economic incentive because most of the millions who get malaria are poor.We would not have the variety of concert halls and art galleries and the diversity of artistic expression in them we do without wealthy patrons.

Another strong belief I have is in public education.I’ve been opposed to charter schools for this reason as they drain public resources from public education.Yet having talked to supporters of Brighter Choice Charter School, around the corner from us on Lake and Central, I’ve learned about the changes they are implementing that I think would improve public schools.They have full days of instruction and recreation from 9 in the morning to 5 at night and they run an eleven-month program.As an experimental school, they can research the value of these changes and provide demonstrations of the results.A most dangerous time of day in the inner city is between the time school lets out and the time parents come home from work.

I firmly believe in the separation of church and state.Yet the secularization of our schools may have had some unintended consequence of weakening the moral fiber of our children.In dialogue with inner-city African American ministers, I’ve been sensitized to their concerns.While I feel strongly the state should not impose any system of religion in public school, I think there can be support of a child’s religious faith within the school.One possibility ministers discussed with the last Superintendent of Schools in Albany was to have pastoral counselors of different faiths available on school grounds to discuss religious concerns.

I’ve been moved and influenced by these conversations, particularly with inner-city, non-white ministers.Because I don’t live on Orange Street or Sheridan Avenue and my friends don’t live on Clinton or Livingston, and my son doesn’t go to Hackett Middle School, I can be out of touch with the effects of my political philosophy here.

David Brooks had a great column in the paper two weeks ago making the connection between political philosophy and geography.He called this election “Not just a personality clash, [but] a conflict of visions.”One’s physical location being an urban office worker or a rural farmer can shape his or her political outlook.Urbanites are packed in and thus feel the world is small.Rural people look at their vast open spaces and feel just the opposite.The urban person is accustomed to dealing with religious and cultural differences and the rural person may not.The urban person is likely to understand the need for international cooperation where as the rural person is more likely to want to go it alone.

So, how do we bridge these differences?We need to realize the limitations of our own point of view and see those who think differently as resources for us to expand our thinking.My movements on these issues I described have come from keeping my mind open and willing to be shaped by what I’ve heard.As Anais Nin put it: “When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow.”

Tom Chulak told us that at the end of a half an hour of conversation, the in-law said to him in amazement, “I’ve never had a conversation with anyone like this before.”The skill we can develop here in our congregation is deep, transformational listening.What we have to offer each other is the rich diversity of our personal experience and our reflection on that experience.What we can learn from each other is our own personal limitations and our need for these encounters to better refine and sharpen our own political philosophy.

This is what liberal religion is all about: revising and refining our ethics and action based on human reason and human experience.The wellspring of our faith is here not the hereafter.We can only be successful in this endeavor when we honor our differences and learn from them.
 

Benediction

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to Heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.

May we feel free to speak the fullness of our political philosophies here and get a respectful hearing.

May we recognize the value to all of us of our political minorities.

AND may we grow through our appreciation of our differences.


Copyright ©2004 by Rev. Samuel A. Trumbore.All rights reserved.

[ST1](Britannica CD, Version 98(c) 1994-1998. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.)

[ST2]most of this from the Britannica with alteration and condensation