I feel pretty confident that if you had asked the members of this church at their centennial celebration whether the children’s lesson one Sunday a hundred years hence would involve casting a circle in celebration of the Spring Equinox they would have looked at you like you had lobsters crawling out of your ears. A lot has changed in just one generation.
In our tradition, Paganism traces its roots back to the feminist movement. A growing feminist awareness illuminated the fact that the imagery of Woman in our denomination was actually rather conservative, that our history and tradition were full of “unexamined patriarchal norms”. Back in 1977, the UUA General Assembly responded by passing the “Women and Religion” Resolution. calling “all individual UUs and UU organizations to examine and put aside sexist assumptions, attitudes, and language and to explore and eliminate religious roots of sexism in myths, traditions and beliefs.”
After the passage of the Women and Religion resolution, the Continental Women and Religion Committee was formed, and sponsored a Feminist Theology Convocation, for UUs from across the country in 1980. It was at this convocation that UUs celebrated their first Water communion, now a standard ingathering service in many UU churches. It also at this event was the earliest known organized UU Pagan worship, along with much discussion about the Goddess traditions and Wicca.
An Adult Religions Education curriculum called “Cakes for the Queen of Heaven” (whose title comes from a reference to the Goddess in Hebrew scriptures) was introduced in 1986, which deconstructed the role of patriarchy in western religion, and sought out female images of God both in the Judeo Christian tradition and in ancient religions from around the world. UUs around the country, including me, were transformed by the realization that God did not have to be male. Finding our own tradition stingy when it came to images of women in sacred text and story, we turned to ancient stories in which the feminine played a more dynamic role.
UUs drawn to the Neo Pagan tradition began organizing. What would later be the “Coven of UU Pagans” or “CUUPS” began organizing at the 1985 GA. Two years later in 1987 Margot Adler (a Beacon Press Author) gave a keynote speech called "A Pagan Spiritual View" at the General Assembly, bringing the dialogue into the mainstream consciousness of our movement. The following year (1988) at the GA in Palm Springs CUUPs received UUA independent affiliate status.
During the same time, there was a movement to manifest more fully our 7th principle, “respect for the interconnected web of life of which we are all a part.” In 1989 the “7th principle project” was formed, and in 1991 they created a “Green Sanctuary Handbook” which laid out a process by which congregations could incorporate environmental sustainability into the life of their community. [The 7th principle project changed it's name in recent years to "UU Ministry for the Earth."]
In 1993, when the silver hymnal “Sing the Living Tradition” was published, the changing face of our UU theology was represented. If you look in the index you will find both hymns and readings under the topics, under "Earth, “God, Goddess and Spirit” and Pagan."
In 1995 A Sixth Source became adopted by the General Assembly in Spokane, Washington after 6 years of work by proponents. It reads: "Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature." I was at the GA that year, and the debate was lively. Proponents wanted to bring earth-centered religion to the same institutional level as the other religious roots of Unitarian Universalism. The general argument against seemed to be fear that the addition of this source would change our identity too radically. I remember several speakers offered the argument that “isn’t this covered by the 7th principle already?” I was not sure how I felt about it at the time. But now I see that it is really quite powerful to say that along with our Judeo Christian tradition, along with humanism and science, along with the major world religions, we affirm as sources of our faith those traditions that are based not on the written word, but on the rhythms and cycles of nature. This includes the wisdom of the Iroquois who lived on this land long before the Europeans arrived, the wisdom of the Japanese Shinto tradition, or the contemporary American Neo-Pagan tradition. Most communities around the world historically have had local religions traditions based in their local ecosystems and these indigenous, populist religions were often marginalized by government sanctioned and centralized traditions. Not only are these traditions more earth-centered than the major world’s religions, but they also tend to be more inclusive of women and female imagery.
That summer the Youth Caucus of the GA stood in those long lines waiting for a turn at the microphone to come out in favor of the amendment to our sources. In fact, the youth were already using several pagan chants in worship, and if you stayed up until 10:00 at night to see the youth worship at GA, you would witness a style called “circle worship” where there is de-centralized leadership, and no sermons. It probably looks a lot more like Pagan ritual than like a UU Sunday morning service. UUA president John Burehns said later that “whatever the Youth Caucus officially supports always seems to pass.” And pass it did, in the only major amendment to our principles and purposes in the last 25 years.
My own acquaintance with neo-paganism followed a similar path as that of our UU tradition. After studying a feminist hermeneutic of the Hebrew scriptures in College, and signing up for Cakes for the Queen of Heaven at a local UU church, I began to free myself from those cartoon images of a male god with a long white beard, a God which had never reached me in a deep way. I too grew up in the UU Youth movement, accustomed to circle worship and ritual. I also tend to be a kinesthetic learner, so I was drawn to a ritual tradition which allows one to interact with objects and motion instead of just words on a page. I also was feeling a call to live in greater harmony with the earth, and a spirituality that would support more sustainable living, and so was attracted to the work of Starhawk who co-founded the reclaiming tradition of Wicca.
Starhawk was a professor at “Holy Names” College, which had open enrollment with my seminary Starr King School. She was living and teaching in the Bay Area while I was there, and has an understanding of the world that resonates well with a UU sensibility. She believes that paganism calls her to action on behalf of the earth, and in fact her career has turned more and more towards teaching permaculture and earth activism. She writes a blog about her activism, which is full of stories about using grounding techniques (like the one we did in our ritual this morning) at a protest of international farm policy or doing ritual on the front lines of a protest the treatment of Palestinians as an occupied people. This is my kind of witch. She co-wrote a beautiful and handy book called “Circle Round” which gives practical advice on doing ritual with children. The first time I sat down to use it to create a ritual with the kids at my church, encountered a description of a winter solstice ritual in which the children could bring all their favorite stuffed animals and action figures to the altar and set them around an image of the sun “in joy and amazement at the birth of the year.” (p. 97). Plastic dinosaurs on a solstice altar? This spoke to me in a deep way. It resonated with my growing sense that everyday things were sacred, and that I wanted worship and spiritual practices to reflected the sacred in the every day, and that was ritual was not something that could only be done by certified professionals using approved gear on Sunday mornings.
As we started our Paganism 101 class here a the church, I was a little nervous. Sure I’d been reading everything StarHawk had written for years, had made altars in my home and office had created rituals in celebration of the 8 Wiccan Sabbaths, but I felt I lacked the authority of an established tradition. Also, I lacked gear. I didn’t have an athame or a pentacle. As I prepared each moth for our class, I urgently set out to find altar cloths in the right colors, the right objects to use in worship. Finally I confessed at one class that I usually use objects from my own life which are special to me when I do ritual. Mary, who has done a lot more reading about these things then me, and has followed traditional proscriptions more closely, said “oh, you’re a kitchen witch.” And I felt much better. It turns out there are about as many kinds of Pagans and Witches as there are Christians. Some folks like High ritual, and follow tradition closely, and some folks use eclectic ritual. Some traditions have intense periods of training and initiation. Other traditions are more open and democratic.
As our little Pagan group here at the church began to meet, we learned about the broader context of Neo-Paganism. We learned about the archeological ambiguity of goddess worship through history, and read articles which suggested that there is very little proof that today’s pagans are in a direct lineage from pre-Christian pagans. We were challenged to ask ourselves- do these traditions and rituals mean less to us if we cannot prove through archeology and scholarship their direct link to ancient times? Can rituals that were created in the last generation or 2 have real power?
When I read articles and rituals of various pagan traditions, sometimes it feels very foreign to me. But when I was reading Starhawk’s most recent book “Earth Spirit” I wonder “what is the difference between what she is saying and Unitarian Universalism?” her belief system was so like mine. Then I realized- it is the practice that is different. The practice and goals of worship are different from our usual Sunday morning worship. Almost all pagan worship shares some elements with our ritual this morning. There is centering and grounding- preparing your mind to be fully present. Then the circle is cast, which is a way of defining the space for the ritual, a way of setting aside the time as special. We usually worship in this room, and so each time we come in the door we know we are here in a time and a place set aside for worship. But pagan rituals are often outside, and can be in a great variety of locations, so by drawing a circle, it helps keep focus and attention on what is happening inside that sacred space.
The 4 directions are called, each direction representing one of the 4 elements common in western ritual. Earth, Air, Fire and Water represent body, emotion, intellect and the ego. The reason the 4 elements are invoked, and present on these 4 altars in a very concrete way, is to represent the different aspects of our lives, of our psyches, of our world. Having all 4 elements present in ritual encourages us to notice which elements are missing or challenging in our lives, and invites us to create a harmonious balance of all the elements. Then the goddess and or gods of the season are invited into worship. Because this is a UU worship, we light a chalice today instead of making those invocations. Some Neo-Pagan traditions are explicitly feminist, like those of Z. Budapest or StarHawk. They focus explicitly on the female aspect of the divine because western religion has been focused on male images of the divine for so long. As Starhawk says “you can’t change the balance on a teeter-totter by standing in the middle.” Those pagans who call both goddess and god are wanting to embody that balance, believing with the Juingians that all people have aspects of male and female in themselves, and we want to encourage balance and harmony between them.
Then, after some good energy has been raised, magic can be done. Now what do I mean by magic? Dion Fortune defines it as "the art of changing consciousness at will." In Spiral Dance Starhawk writes “ A spell in a symbolic act done … in order to cause a desired change. To cast a spell is to project energy through a symbol. But the symbols are too often mistake for the spell. ‘Burn a green candle to attract money,’ we are told. The candle itself, however, does nothing. It is merely a lens, an object of focus, a mnemonic devise, the ‘thing’ that embodies our idea. Props may be useful but it is the mind that works magic.” or as Louise Bunn, the author of our Paganism 101 curriculum says “Magic is the art of manipulating symbols in order to affect a change in consciousness – to achieve results that are substantially psychological in nature.” We did that with our bulbs this morning, using them as a concrete reminder of change we want to see in our lives. Now not every time a pagan casts a circle are they planning to do magic. Some Pagans only do ritual to celebrate Pagans also celebrate the cycles and seasons. They celebrate the cycles of the moon, the cycles of life and the changing of the seasons marked by the 8 Sabbaths.
The pagan calendar focuses on the cycles of the sun. The winter and summer solstice, the fall and spring equinox, and the 4 holidays that celebrate the halfway points between solstice and equinox called the “cross-quarters” Halloween is one such cross-quarter holiday. When I wanted to explore paganism more deeply, the first thing I did was to put all the Sabbaths on my calendar, and make an attempt to have a seasonal altar for each of the 8 holidays, and to observe each even if at was only in a minor way. StarHawk, in her newest book “The Earth Path” recommends a practice I love- just carefully noticing the change of the seasons, and noticing how the seasons vary year to year. So, for example, each of us could take a moment today outside to look, listen, smell, feel all the changes spring equinox has brought this year. This is a wonderful way to celebrate the Sabbath. As a person who comes to paganism through a desire to feel closer to the earth, this has been a powerful practice to me. Each year as the cycle comes round again, I feel like I learn something new about the seasons. We celebrated Spring Equinox with crocuses and bulbs, because this is the reality of this place, this season; there are crocuses splashing color all over our dismal landscape right at this very moment. And now is the time of first planting, so we will plant these Gladiola bulbs which can go into the ground while it is still cold and not be destroyed by a late frost and which we hope will bring color to our church as the seasons change.
After the central celebration of the ritual is finished, pagans ground the extra energy they have raised back into the earth. You can do this by touching the ground to send it back, or some do it by eating and drinking together. Then very carefully you say a respectful goodbye to all those you have invited into your circle, so there is a lovely symmetry to the ritual.
Now it warns on the CUUPS website, that UU pagans are not quite like other pagans. We are, at the heart, Unitarian Universalists. And within this movement, Pagans are a minority tradition. Some UU churches are open to paganism, and some UUs are afraid that Paganism seems superstitious. We are a movement that is so based in reason, so grounded in science and logic, that some have trouble imaging how paganism could harmonize with our tradition. But all our UU congregations have as a source of our living tradition the "Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature." There are many sources of wisdom that we can call upon in our search for truth and meaning, that we call on to help us lead lives of justice equity and compassion, and we are “grateful for the religious pluralism which enriches and ennobles our faith, we are inspired to deepen our understating and expand our vision.” May we be open to all the earth centered traditions that offer some new insight or balance in our own lives, or some new inspiration for living in right relationship with our world.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Monday, March 8, 2010
The Precautionary Principle (March 7, 2010)
In 1945 the first studies came out about the danger of cigarettes. By 1954 we had epidemiological information linking smoking to cancer, we knew that the more you smoke, the more your chance of getting cancer increases, but we didn’t know how it was that smoking caused cancer. It wasn’t until the 1990s when science figured out that mechanism by which smoking causes cancer, that we had enough science necessary to effect law. 45 years passed there between when we had our first evidence that cigarettes probably were dangerous and when science could prove it for sure. In that time 2 generations of Americans got hooked on cigarettes, and too many died.
The precautionary principle is the radical idea that if you have some early warning signs something might be dangerous, you should act with caution. It sounds like something your grandmother might say, doesn’t it? “Better Safe than sorry” or “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” And, in fact, it comes from an old German word “Vorsorgeprinzip” or “Forecaring” It was first used in environmental law in Germany in the 1970s when the Black Forest was dying, and folks were concerned it might be connected to acid rain caused by power plant emissions. Germany developed environmental law and policy which could help prevent further sickening of the forests, and which encouraged development of new alternatives which would be safer. This principle of forecaring (or as it came to be known in English, “The Precautionary Principle”) was part of the dialogue in the "Earth Summit" of 1992, and is one of the principles of the Rio Declaration. It came to be used in the legal code of many countries, including the European Union.
The Wingspread conference of 1998 was convened by the Science and Environmental Health Network (SEHN) specifically to formalize the precautionary principle, and imagine how it could be applied. Their statement of the principle is as follows:
"When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.
"In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof.
"The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action."
That all sounds kind of like common sense, doesn’t it? So what is the context in which a principle like “better safe than sorry” is cutting edge environmental thinking? Because current environmental laws are set up with a “risk assessment” premise, which became standard practice in the United States in the mid-1980s and was institutionalized in the global trade agreements of the 1990s. When the San Francisco City and county was researching the Precautionary Principle, they wrote a white paper which summed up Risk assessment in this way:
“Risk assessments present numbers that purport to show how much harm might occur. In a second step, policy makers attempt to decide how much harm is acceptable… however, risk assessment…does not prompt decision makers to ask whether alternatives exist that would substantially reduce risk.”
“For example, a risk assessment may attempt to define how many children will suffer developmental disorders or cancer after playing with a plastic toy that leaches chemicals of poorly understood toxicity. With this risk assessment in hand, policy makers may then attempt to define how many diseased children (one in 10,000? 100,000?) would be acceptable. This process provides no opportunity to examine an alternative option, in which toys are only made from materials known to be safe for children.”
So the precautionary principle creates a different paradigm for handling materials or processes that might be risky. It can be boiled down to 3 elements: uncertainty, harm, and precautionary action Whenever there is a threat of harm, but there is still scientific uncertainty, we can act with precaution. The principle also has something to say about the nature of that action- and this is an important change as well. It’s not the public who should bear the burden of proof, it’s the “proponent of the activity,” say the company which produces the plastic toy or the chemicals in question, to prove that the products really are safe.
Opponents of the Precautionary principle say that it will bring progress to a standstill. But the principle itself doesn’t tell us that we can’t act, only that caution is advised. The Envrinomental Research Foundation recommends a few steps for applying precaution that is, infact, action oriented. IT starts with setting goals, then look at all the reasonable ways of achieving those goals. They say “ Assume that all projects or activities will be harmful, and therefore seek the least-harmful alternative”...and further that we should “Expect reasonable assurances of safety for products before they can be marketed -- just as the Food and Drug Administration expects reasonable assurances of safety before new pharmaceutical products can be marketed.” And during this process, we need to make sure that all of us who are effected will be part of the process. So if you are building a power plant or a sewage treatment plant in my neighborhood, we would make sure you are using the safest processes, and that my neighbors and I get to be involved in an open democratic process.
As UUs, we like a good open, informed, democratic process, it’s right there in our 5th principle “use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large.” We like to protect our world, that’s in our principles too “Respect for the interdependent web of all existence, of which we are a part.” The Precautionary Principle also sounds like part of a “Free and responsible search for truth and meaning.” It is a principle that would seem to resonate with our own values. I think the part that might be hard for UUs is the idea that we can act (or choose not to act) before the science is conclusive. After all, the 5th sources of our living tradition is “the guidance of reason and the results of science” and here I am saying that “I’ve got a bad feeling about this” should have legal precedence over conclusive scientific data?
Well, one thing about science is that new things are learned and proven and dis-proven every day. Theologically speaking, science is part of our Unitarian Universalist belief that revelation is ongoing. We believe new truth is constantly coming into our awareness, and that it will go on being revealed forever. We don’t want to act as if we know everything now, because we believe we will know more later.
A 2001 report written by the European Environment Agency recalled some of the worst examples of misplaced certainty about the safety of certain risks, a certainty which caused us to overlook early warning signs. They include such examples as radiation, ozone depletion, asbestos, and Mad Cow disease, concluding that: “Misplaced ‘certainty’ about the absence of harm played a key role in delaying preventive actions.”
So why can’t we be more certain about the effects of such tings? Because “serious, evident effects such as endocrine disruption, climate change, cancer, and the disappearance of species can seldom be linked decisively to a single cause. Scientific standards of certainty may be impossible to attain when causes and outcomes are multiple; latent periods are long; timing of exposure is crucial; unexposed, “control” populations do not exist; or confounding factors are unidentified.” So the precautionary principle doesn’t ask us to reject science, just acknowledges that the scientific process is time consuming and that as in the case of the dangers caused by cigarettes, complete proof may not be ready in time to prevent harm. So let’s take grandma’s advice and be “better safe than sorry.”
Right now our community and our neighbor’s communities are embarking on a great adventure- that of horizontal drilling in the Marcellus Shale. How could we use the precautionary principle in these last few moments before we leap? In Colorado, the City of Grand Junction and the nearby town of Palisade “were concerned about risks to surface water from construction of roads, well pads and pipelines, as well as storm water runoff and spills of drilling fluids, fracking chemicals and brine. They were also concerned about the potential for groundwater contamination.” After 2 years of talks, the towns were able to negotiation a watershed protection plan with Genesis Gas and Oil. “Not only does their watershed plan include baseline studies of sources water, it also requires closed-loop drilling, emergency response plans and a commitment to using “green” hydraulic fracturing procedures, processes and materials. This means that any chemicals used in the watershed area will be ‘biodegradable, nontoxic, neutral pH, residual free, non-corrosive, non-polluting and non-hazardous in the forms and concentrations being used.’”
I found this really heartening, to learn that less toxic alternatives are available – since some of the chemicals used in the hydro-fracking fluids, and in the flowback water from drilling are known carcinogens or endocrine disruptors, and more than 40,000 gallons of fracking fluids can be used in a single well. Companies like Frac Tech are using orange citrus to replace some solvents, and palm oil in place of a slicking agent that is prohibited in Europe but still allowed in the US. Beginning in 2003, many companies have replaced Diesel as a common ingredient in fracking fluid with mineral oil in response to pressure from the EPA. Apparently less toxic alternatives not only exist, but are required for the fracturing fluids used in offshore drilling. “Both European law and the regulations of the U.S. Minerals and Management Services dictate that chemicals used in the North Sea and the Gulf of Mexico must be safe enough that they won't kill fish and other organisms if they are dumped overboard. 'You can always do it,' said BJ Services' Dunlap, whose company has been a leader in innovating sustainable materials. But, Dunlap said, the chemistry costs more, and is justifiable to his shareholders only because the regulations for offshore drilling left no choice." (Pro Publica)
Let’s get back to the precautionary principle- if we had really taken a good look at the hydro-fracking process - if we had looked before we lept, and if finding the least harmful solution had been a goal, I wonder if some of the horror stories we hear from towns like Dimmick PA could have been prevented. If we had used the precautionary principle and sat down with all involved parties in an open democratic fashion and found the examined the full range of alternatives, I have to imagine that Dimmick residents would not be in litigation today, trying to prove that the chemicals now in there drinking water are there as a result of hydro fracking.
What if folks in our communities became as pro-active as those towns in Colorado? What if we sat down with neighbors and gas companies and discussed the alternatives? Currently Hydro-fracking is exempt from both clean air and clean water acts, so there is nothing in the law to require gas companies to use the least harmful methods. But what if now, at the start of the drilling in our region, we negotiated the least harmful way to do this drilling here in our eco-system, in our watershed, in our human community? Said Michael Freeman, an attorney for Earth Justice: “there is no escaping some damage from drilling. But if the best available precautions were routinely followed, environmental harm could be minimized and the industry may face less resistance from the public as it taps the vast new gas deposits that have been discovered in recent years”
Hydro-fracking is a complex process that will have many different impacts on the eco-systems and communities it inhabits. I have focused here only on fracking fluid, but there is also the flow back fluid, and the emissions that will effect our air. And while we have some information about each of these chemicals taken on their own, the Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) on the drilling says there is not good information about long term non-lethal and interlocking effects. Current environmental law says that if science can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that hydro-fracking can be document to have caused harm, they can use these processes until it is proven conclusively. 50 years it took the cigarette industry. We can’t afford to wait that long to slow down a process that might be harmful, and that certainly involves chemicals that have been proven harmful in other situations. And of course there are effects beyond the toxins- How will the fracking impact the geology and seismic activity? How do new industries impact local economies, effect things like housing and municipal infrastructure? Our Shale Network group had 4 pages full of impacts we thought bore further exploration before we finally had to bring our list to a close when we ran out of paper and time.
Natural Gas drilling is a reality in Bradford County, but we are just at the beginning of what will current estimates project to be a 25-50 year process. Now is the time for the Precautionary Principle, for a little forecaring. Now is the time for an ounce of prevention. If we think there could be a risk of harm to the eco-system, to our drinking water, to our land, let’s slow down, bring together all the involved parties, and seek out the alternatives that will do the least harm. Like mom always said, “better safe than sorry.”
Resources:
WHITE PAPER: The Precautionary Principle and the City and County of San Francisco March 2003.
“Science & Environmental Health: Carolyn Raffensperger”
THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE IN THE REAL WORLD By Peter Montague
Tompkins weekly, v. 4 No. 15 “Proposed Well Draws Concern” by Sue Smith-Heavenrich
"Underused Drilling Practices Could Avoid Pollution" by Abrahm Lustgarten, ProPublica - December 14, 2009 12:00 am EST
Rachel’s Environment & Health News #770 “Environmental Justice and Precaution” by Peter Montague
The precautionary principle is the radical idea that if you have some early warning signs something might be dangerous, you should act with caution. It sounds like something your grandmother might say, doesn’t it? “Better Safe than sorry” or “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” And, in fact, it comes from an old German word “Vorsorgeprinzip” or “Forecaring” It was first used in environmental law in Germany in the 1970s when the Black Forest was dying, and folks were concerned it might be connected to acid rain caused by power plant emissions. Germany developed environmental law and policy which could help prevent further sickening of the forests, and which encouraged development of new alternatives which would be safer. This principle of forecaring (or as it came to be known in English, “The Precautionary Principle”) was part of the dialogue in the "Earth Summit" of 1992, and is one of the principles of the Rio Declaration. It came to be used in the legal code of many countries, including the European Union.
The Wingspread conference of 1998 was convened by the Science and Environmental Health Network (SEHN) specifically to formalize the precautionary principle, and imagine how it could be applied. Their statement of the principle is as follows:
"When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.
"In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof.
"The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action."
That all sounds kind of like common sense, doesn’t it? So what is the context in which a principle like “better safe than sorry” is cutting edge environmental thinking? Because current environmental laws are set up with a “risk assessment” premise, which became standard practice in the United States in the mid-1980s and was institutionalized in the global trade agreements of the 1990s. When the San Francisco City and county was researching the Precautionary Principle, they wrote a white paper which summed up Risk assessment in this way:
“Risk assessments present numbers that purport to show how much harm might occur. In a second step, policy makers attempt to decide how much harm is acceptable… however, risk assessment…does not prompt decision makers to ask whether alternatives exist that would substantially reduce risk.”
“For example, a risk assessment may attempt to define how many children will suffer developmental disorders or cancer after playing with a plastic toy that leaches chemicals of poorly understood toxicity. With this risk assessment in hand, policy makers may then attempt to define how many diseased children (one in 10,000? 100,000?) would be acceptable. This process provides no opportunity to examine an alternative option, in which toys are only made from materials known to be safe for children.”
So the precautionary principle creates a different paradigm for handling materials or processes that might be risky. It can be boiled down to 3 elements: uncertainty, harm, and precautionary action Whenever there is a threat of harm, but there is still scientific uncertainty, we can act with precaution. The principle also has something to say about the nature of that action- and this is an important change as well. It’s not the public who should bear the burden of proof, it’s the “proponent of the activity,” say the company which produces the plastic toy or the chemicals in question, to prove that the products really are safe.
Opponents of the Precautionary principle say that it will bring progress to a standstill. But the principle itself doesn’t tell us that we can’t act, only that caution is advised. The Envrinomental Research Foundation recommends a few steps for applying precaution that is, infact, action oriented. IT starts with setting goals, then look at all the reasonable ways of achieving those goals. They say “ Assume that all projects or activities will be harmful, and therefore seek the least-harmful alternative”...and further that we should “Expect reasonable assurances of safety for products before they can be marketed -- just as the Food and Drug Administration expects reasonable assurances of safety before new pharmaceutical products can be marketed.” And during this process, we need to make sure that all of us who are effected will be part of the process. So if you are building a power plant or a sewage treatment plant in my neighborhood, we would make sure you are using the safest processes, and that my neighbors and I get to be involved in an open democratic process.
As UUs, we like a good open, informed, democratic process, it’s right there in our 5th principle “use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large.” We like to protect our world, that’s in our principles too “Respect for the interdependent web of all existence, of which we are a part.” The Precautionary Principle also sounds like part of a “Free and responsible search for truth and meaning.” It is a principle that would seem to resonate with our own values. I think the part that might be hard for UUs is the idea that we can act (or choose not to act) before the science is conclusive. After all, the 5th sources of our living tradition is “the guidance of reason and the results of science” and here I am saying that “I’ve got a bad feeling about this” should have legal precedence over conclusive scientific data?
Well, one thing about science is that new things are learned and proven and dis-proven every day. Theologically speaking, science is part of our Unitarian Universalist belief that revelation is ongoing. We believe new truth is constantly coming into our awareness, and that it will go on being revealed forever. We don’t want to act as if we know everything now, because we believe we will know more later.
A 2001 report written by the European Environment Agency recalled some of the worst examples of misplaced certainty about the safety of certain risks, a certainty which caused us to overlook early warning signs. They include such examples as radiation, ozone depletion, asbestos, and Mad Cow disease, concluding that: “Misplaced ‘certainty’ about the absence of harm played a key role in delaying preventive actions.”
So why can’t we be more certain about the effects of such tings? Because “serious, evident effects such as endocrine disruption, climate change, cancer, and the disappearance of species can seldom be linked decisively to a single cause. Scientific standards of certainty may be impossible to attain when causes and outcomes are multiple; latent periods are long; timing of exposure is crucial; unexposed, “control” populations do not exist; or confounding factors are unidentified.” So the precautionary principle doesn’t ask us to reject science, just acknowledges that the scientific process is time consuming and that as in the case of the dangers caused by cigarettes, complete proof may not be ready in time to prevent harm. So let’s take grandma’s advice and be “better safe than sorry.”
Right now our community and our neighbor’s communities are embarking on a great adventure- that of horizontal drilling in the Marcellus Shale. How could we use the precautionary principle in these last few moments before we leap? In Colorado, the City of Grand Junction and the nearby town of Palisade “were concerned about risks to surface water from construction of roads, well pads and pipelines, as well as storm water runoff and spills of drilling fluids, fracking chemicals and brine. They were also concerned about the potential for groundwater contamination.” After 2 years of talks, the towns were able to negotiation a watershed protection plan with Genesis Gas and Oil. “Not only does their watershed plan include baseline studies of sources water, it also requires closed-loop drilling, emergency response plans and a commitment to using “green” hydraulic fracturing procedures, processes and materials. This means that any chemicals used in the watershed area will be ‘biodegradable, nontoxic, neutral pH, residual free, non-corrosive, non-polluting and non-hazardous in the forms and concentrations being used.’”
I found this really heartening, to learn that less toxic alternatives are available – since some of the chemicals used in the hydro-fracking fluids, and in the flowback water from drilling are known carcinogens or endocrine disruptors, and more than 40,000 gallons of fracking fluids can be used in a single well. Companies like Frac Tech are using orange citrus to replace some solvents, and palm oil in place of a slicking agent that is prohibited in Europe but still allowed in the US. Beginning in 2003, many companies have replaced Diesel as a common ingredient in fracking fluid with mineral oil in response to pressure from the EPA. Apparently less toxic alternatives not only exist, but are required for the fracturing fluids used in offshore drilling. “Both European law and the regulations of the U.S. Minerals and Management Services dictate that chemicals used in the North Sea and the Gulf of Mexico must be safe enough that they won't kill fish and other organisms if they are dumped overboard. 'You can always do it,' said BJ Services' Dunlap, whose company has been a leader in innovating sustainable materials. But, Dunlap said, the chemistry costs more, and is justifiable to his shareholders only because the regulations for offshore drilling left no choice." (Pro Publica)
Let’s get back to the precautionary principle- if we had really taken a good look at the hydro-fracking process - if we had looked before we lept, and if finding the least harmful solution had been a goal, I wonder if some of the horror stories we hear from towns like Dimmick PA could have been prevented. If we had used the precautionary principle and sat down with all involved parties in an open democratic fashion and found the examined the full range of alternatives, I have to imagine that Dimmick residents would not be in litigation today, trying to prove that the chemicals now in there drinking water are there as a result of hydro fracking.
What if folks in our communities became as pro-active as those towns in Colorado? What if we sat down with neighbors and gas companies and discussed the alternatives? Currently Hydro-fracking is exempt from both clean air and clean water acts, so there is nothing in the law to require gas companies to use the least harmful methods. But what if now, at the start of the drilling in our region, we negotiated the least harmful way to do this drilling here in our eco-system, in our watershed, in our human community? Said Michael Freeman, an attorney for Earth Justice: “there is no escaping some damage from drilling. But if the best available precautions were routinely followed, environmental harm could be minimized and the industry may face less resistance from the public as it taps the vast new gas deposits that have been discovered in recent years”
Hydro-fracking is a complex process that will have many different impacts on the eco-systems and communities it inhabits. I have focused here only on fracking fluid, but there is also the flow back fluid, and the emissions that will effect our air. And while we have some information about each of these chemicals taken on their own, the Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) on the drilling says there is not good information about long term non-lethal and interlocking effects. Current environmental law says that if science can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that hydro-fracking can be document to have caused harm, they can use these processes until it is proven conclusively. 50 years it took the cigarette industry. We can’t afford to wait that long to slow down a process that might be harmful, and that certainly involves chemicals that have been proven harmful in other situations. And of course there are effects beyond the toxins- How will the fracking impact the geology and seismic activity? How do new industries impact local economies, effect things like housing and municipal infrastructure? Our Shale Network group had 4 pages full of impacts we thought bore further exploration before we finally had to bring our list to a close when we ran out of paper and time.
Natural Gas drilling is a reality in Bradford County, but we are just at the beginning of what will current estimates project to be a 25-50 year process. Now is the time for the Precautionary Principle, for a little forecaring. Now is the time for an ounce of prevention. If we think there could be a risk of harm to the eco-system, to our drinking water, to our land, let’s slow down, bring together all the involved parties, and seek out the alternatives that will do the least harm. Like mom always said, “better safe than sorry.”
Resources:
WHITE PAPER: The Precautionary Principle and the City and County of San Francisco March 2003.
“Science & Environmental Health: Carolyn Raffensperger”
THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE IN THE REAL WORLD By Peter Montague
Tompkins weekly, v. 4 No. 15 “Proposed Well Draws Concern” by Sue Smith-Heavenrich
"Underused Drilling Practices Could Avoid Pollution" by Abrahm Lustgarten, ProPublica - December 14, 2009 12:00 am EST
Rachel’s Environment & Health News #770 “Environmental Justice and Precaution” by Peter Montague
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
James Luther Adams (February 21, 2010)
When you live in hard times, in times of war or strife, people begin to question their beliefs. During World War 1 (1914 to 1918) and World War 2 (1939 and 1945 ) the old optimistic liberalism was hard to maintain; how could we believe that all people were at heart truly good in light of all the horrible things happening in the world? Suddenly James Freeman Clarke’s articulation of “The Progress of mankind onward and upward forever” which had been so popular among Unitarians at the end of the 19th century seemed out of touch with the realities of the 20th century.
It was during these times that James Luther Adams helped find a new way for Unitarianism. Adams grew up as so many Unitarians did, in a fundamentalist household. His father was a traveling Baptist preacher, and often took his son “young Luther” along with him when he preached and James played violin for the hymns. Like so many other Unitarians, Adams followed a new road when he went to college (at the University of Minnesota). He became an atheist and a humanist, and eventually found himself at the Unitarian church. There he heard the preaching of John Dietrich, who preached a humanism that was both scientific and religious. A Unitarian professor, Frank Rarig, saw that deep below Adam’s outrage at religion persisted a religious impulse. In an autobiographical essay, Adams recalled that Rarig once told his student that Adam’s problem was that he had never come across a "self-critical religion." That being the case, it is not surprising that Adams found a home in Unitarianism. It was also Rarig who told Adams, much to the young man’s surprise, that he was bound for the ministry. Adam’s friends were shocked when their “raving humanist” friend headed off for Harvard Divinity School in 1924 to be come a Unitarian minister.
Adams’ fist settlement was at the Unitarian church in Salem Massachusetts (1927-34). While he was there, he continued to study, earning a master’s degree in comparative literature from Harvard, and then teaching in the English department at Boston University (1929-32). During this time there was a labor strike at the local textile mill. Workers, managers and the mill’s owners attended his church. The press was not covering the strike, so Adams used his pulpit to call for a public airing of grievances, which lead to press coverage and eventually a settlement between labor and management. Adams put to action his belief that if the liberal church did not stand up for the oppressed, if they were too bogged down in individualism to work for social justice, they were passively acting to maintain the status quo.
In 1935, Adams was invited to join the faculty at the UU seminary the Meadville/Lombard theological school. He accepted, but asked for a year to study in Europe before he began. Arriving in Europe in 1935, Adams witnessed the Nazi government in action. He was part of the Underground church movement, and was on one occasion questioned by the Gestapo, at risk of imprisonment for his actions. While in German Adams used his home movie camera to film great leaders like Karl Barth and Albert Schweitzer who worked with the church-related resistance groups, and also the pro-Nazi leaders of the Christian Church. By the time he came back to the US, he was more convinced than ever that any church which could stand by and passively let such oppression happen, was irrelevant and impotent.
Adams was at Meadville/Lombard from 1936-1943 where he trained a generation of students for the ministry He then taught at University of Chicago from 1943-1956. While there he was a founding member and leader of the Independent Voters of Illinois whose mission is to increase voter registration and voter education in Illinois, and to be activists toward creating a more open and honest government. The organization is still working to create savvy voters and honest government today.
In 1957 Adams went to teach at Harvard Divinity School, and after retiring from Harvard in 1968 due to their mandatory retirement policy, continued teaching at Andover Newton (an ecumenical seminary where many UU ministers are trained). Adams was a brilliant teacher, attracting students from diverse faith traditions. He loved interdisciplinary conversations, even holding seminars on religion and law, and religion and business.
Adams also was a force for change in our denomination, serving on many committees at the UUA, including the first ever Commission on Appraisal 1934-36. The commission was called into being during the bleak period in Unitarian history which followed the great depression, and the wars in Europe. It was a time when many questioned the relevancy of Unitarianism. The commission posed the question: “Have we sufficient faith in our own future to warrant us in undertaking the arduous task of making ourselves fit to survive?” The commission’s work resulted in an important reorganization of the AUA. Adams’ call for change often rankled the UU establishment, but by the time of his retirement, he was widely respected.
JLA (as he was often affectionately called) helped our UU faith through a difficult transition. He helped articulate a contemporary liberal theology that is still at the core of who have become as a movement. He was a prolific writer, and articulated many important ideas, but I want to focus today one that is crucial to who we are today. Adams was grounded in a “pragmatic theory of meaning.” As British Psychologist Alexander Bain has said, “a belief is that upon which a person is prepared to act” (p. 117). Now remember Adams was a theology professor, so that means that he likes to trace every idea back to his roots. So if you read Adams pretty dense writings, he will introduce you to all kinds of important thinkers you may or may not have met before. In drawing out this pragmatic theory, he brings to our attention William James, who wrote that “a pragmatic theory of meaning would enable us to come into better working touch with reality” (p. 118. I really love this.) Theology can be so confusing. How can you really know the nature of God, what happens after you die, or how to be a good person? Do you just accept the statements of faith handed down by the church fathers? Do you look for an internal logic to a theological system? Do you apply scientific methodology? To William James, the pragmatic theory of meaning was a “method of settling metaphysical disputes which might otherwise be endless” So how do we decide whether a certain theological theory is better than another one? We see if there is any difference in the actions inspired by that theory. Said Charles Sanders Pierce “Different beliefs are distinguished by the different habits of action they involve.” So despite all the arguing over the centuries about, for example, whether Jesus was created by God or was around since the dawn of time just like God the Father, the pragmatists ask, “does either theory make any difference in how you act day to day?” James wrote that “an evening at a symphony concert has been wasted on a young man if on returning home he is not kinder to his grandmother”
I want to explore this point with a story from my own life. I went to seminary as an atheist-leaning agnostic. I was constantly looking for scientific proof for the existence of God, and finding none, thought it would be foolish to believe that God existed. Over the course of my years of seminary, I began to assemble a picture of “what kind of god I could believe in, if I believed in god”. But I had no proof about the ontological nature of God. So I was stuck. While studying systematic theology I followed the reasoned arguments of Paul Tillich as far as I could, but there was a point where reason left off. I burst into tears one day in my theology seminar. Professor Kimball responded “At some point it looks like the path ends and you have to leap. I can assure you that there is something beyond that point, but only you can make that leap.” Still I struggled and wrestled with these ideas that continued beyond the edge of reason and science. And when I finally leapt I took this rope with me as a safety line: “Will I be a better, more ethical, happier person if I believe than I am right now?” And clutching that line, I leapt. To this day I believe that what humans call God is a human construct, that a divine essence which pervades all life will never be replicated in a laboratory, can never be argued definitively with reason, but I notice that I am a happier, more generous person since I opened myself to certain ideas than I was before. It turns out the “pragmatic theory of meaning” helped me in just the way James described, “to help settle metaphysical disputes which might otherwise be endless.”
Adams editor, Max Stackhouse, wrote in a preface to one of his essays “More than one religious scholar, spotting Adams in the audience, has departed from the prepared text to say that ‘of course’ what he is presenting needs to be spelled out in concrete terms, but “for the moment” and “for the sake of precision” attention will focus on theory. But for Adams, precision is not gained by narrow focus on one level of meaning, but by integrating levels of meaning in a way that relates to practice.” To Adams, the point where theology meets our real lives, meets this time and this place is not a part of the conversation that can be put off for later. It is always at the center.
For Adams, the pragmatic theory is already there in traditional Christian thought. He finds it in the New Testament saying “By their fruits shall you know them.” [Matthew 7:16] Here in the sermon on the mount, Jesus is answering the question how we can know the difference between real prophets and false prophets. Jesus advises “Beware of false prophets who come in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves” When I think back to Adam’s experience in Nazi Germany, I can see how he came to embrace this kind of theory- because he saw with his own eyes those leaders of the church who sided with the Nazis, those who passively let atrocities happen without speaking out, and those courageous folks who risked their lives and freedom to save lives and fight the spread of fascism. “You will know them by their fruits.”
This relationship between belief and action is crucial to our UU identity today. We have never had a Unitarian or Univeralist creed in our 400 year history, but have often gotten into theological arguments about where the limits of our faith are. Today the beliefs of Unitarian Universalists are more diverse than ever before. And so this litmus test is crucial for our contemporary identity- you know a good UU by his or her fruits.
This winter our congregation has heard a lot about social justice on these cold Sunday mornings. Lest you had been wondering “what does this have to do with being UU?” Adam’s theology helps us see how ethical living became so central to our movement. And Adams believed it wasn’t just the personal “fruits” by which we shall be known. He also believed strongly that the same standard should be applied to institutions. He said “No one can properly put faith in merely individual virtue, even though that is a prerequisite for societal virtues. The faith of the liberal must express itself in societal forms” (p. 18) Adams was referring to the social institutions of education, economy and politics. Because without these societal forms, you cannot create a free and just community.
Says Adams “The faith of a church or of a nation is an adequate faith only when it inspires and enables people to give of their time and energy to shape the various institutions – social, economic and political—of the common life. ... Any other faith is thoroughly undependable; it is also, in the end impotent.” (p. 18)
Again, I have to imagine that witnessing so many churches passively give their power to shape history over to the Nazi regime must have had a deep impact on the formation of Adams’ theology. A faith that encourages piety, even one that encourages an ethical life, yet who would stand by and do nothing as atrocities unfolded around them is, in Adam’s words. “… a faith that enables history to crush humanity.” (p. 18) Adams draws on his Judeo Christian roots by seeing in the Hebrew Prophets the early exemplars of this -- those ethical prophets like Micah and Hosea who challenged the standing order of things in ancient Israel, who challenged the waste and privilege of the kings and those in power. He sees today’s liberals as contemporary prophets, responsible for calling to account the institutions of our time.
In 1961, when the Unitarians and Universalists merged, we accepted 7 principles which we covenant to affirm and promote. The 4th of these is “A free and responsible search for Truth and Meaning.” And how can we, a people without a creed, a people who don’t have a unifying holy book to guide our way, how can we know what is truth? How can we find meaning? Our own Unitarian Theologian helped shine a light in a dark time for our world, a time when our faith was languishing, by offering an answer. We will know truth, we will find meaning, because it “helps us come into better working touch with reality (James p. 118). Adams encourages us to ask of any idea we encounter - Does it lead to ethical action? Does it lead us to act in history to make a more just world? Does it inspire in each of us to make a commitment to action on the part of justice? James Luther Adams offers to us the same advice we read in the gospel of Matthew “by their fruits they will be k nown.”
Resources
http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/adams.html “JAMES LUTHER ADAMS: THEOLOGIAN OF POWER 1901-1994” by George Kimmich Beach, Faculty of Divinity Memorial Minute, Harvard University
http://www.iviipo.org/index.htm
http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/jameslutheradams.html
James Luther Adams On Being Human Religiously (Max L. Stackhouse ed.) UUA 1996.
It was during these times that James Luther Adams helped find a new way for Unitarianism. Adams grew up as so many Unitarians did, in a fundamentalist household. His father was a traveling Baptist preacher, and often took his son “young Luther” along with him when he preached and James played violin for the hymns. Like so many other Unitarians, Adams followed a new road when he went to college (at the University of Minnesota). He became an atheist and a humanist, and eventually found himself at the Unitarian church. There he heard the preaching of John Dietrich, who preached a humanism that was both scientific and religious. A Unitarian professor, Frank Rarig, saw that deep below Adam’s outrage at religion persisted a religious impulse. In an autobiographical essay, Adams recalled that Rarig once told his student that Adam’s problem was that he had never come across a "self-critical religion." That being the case, it is not surprising that Adams found a home in Unitarianism. It was also Rarig who told Adams, much to the young man’s surprise, that he was bound for the ministry. Adam’s friends were shocked when their “raving humanist” friend headed off for Harvard Divinity School in 1924 to be come a Unitarian minister.
Adams’ fist settlement was at the Unitarian church in Salem Massachusetts (1927-34). While he was there, he continued to study, earning a master’s degree in comparative literature from Harvard, and then teaching in the English department at Boston University (1929-32). During this time there was a labor strike at the local textile mill. Workers, managers and the mill’s owners attended his church. The press was not covering the strike, so Adams used his pulpit to call for a public airing of grievances, which lead to press coverage and eventually a settlement between labor and management. Adams put to action his belief that if the liberal church did not stand up for the oppressed, if they were too bogged down in individualism to work for social justice, they were passively acting to maintain the status quo.
In 1935, Adams was invited to join the faculty at the UU seminary the Meadville/Lombard theological school. He accepted, but asked for a year to study in Europe before he began. Arriving in Europe in 1935, Adams witnessed the Nazi government in action. He was part of the Underground church movement, and was on one occasion questioned by the Gestapo, at risk of imprisonment for his actions. While in German Adams used his home movie camera to film great leaders like Karl Barth and Albert Schweitzer who worked with the church-related resistance groups, and also the pro-Nazi leaders of the Christian Church. By the time he came back to the US, he was more convinced than ever that any church which could stand by and passively let such oppression happen, was irrelevant and impotent.
Adams was at Meadville/Lombard from 1936-1943 where he trained a generation of students for the ministry He then taught at University of Chicago from 1943-1956. While there he was a founding member and leader of the Independent Voters of Illinois whose mission is to increase voter registration and voter education in Illinois, and to be activists toward creating a more open and honest government. The organization is still working to create savvy voters and honest government today.
In 1957 Adams went to teach at Harvard Divinity School, and after retiring from Harvard in 1968 due to their mandatory retirement policy, continued teaching at Andover Newton (an ecumenical seminary where many UU ministers are trained). Adams was a brilliant teacher, attracting students from diverse faith traditions. He loved interdisciplinary conversations, even holding seminars on religion and law, and religion and business.
Adams also was a force for change in our denomination, serving on many committees at the UUA, including the first ever Commission on Appraisal 1934-36. The commission was called into being during the bleak period in Unitarian history which followed the great depression, and the wars in Europe. It was a time when many questioned the relevancy of Unitarianism. The commission posed the question: “Have we sufficient faith in our own future to warrant us in undertaking the arduous task of making ourselves fit to survive?” The commission’s work resulted in an important reorganization of the AUA. Adams’ call for change often rankled the UU establishment, but by the time of his retirement, he was widely respected.
JLA (as he was often affectionately called) helped our UU faith through a difficult transition. He helped articulate a contemporary liberal theology that is still at the core of who have become as a movement. He was a prolific writer, and articulated many important ideas, but I want to focus today one that is crucial to who we are today. Adams was grounded in a “pragmatic theory of meaning.” As British Psychologist Alexander Bain has said, “a belief is that upon which a person is prepared to act” (p. 117). Now remember Adams was a theology professor, so that means that he likes to trace every idea back to his roots. So if you read Adams pretty dense writings, he will introduce you to all kinds of important thinkers you may or may not have met before. In drawing out this pragmatic theory, he brings to our attention William James, who wrote that “a pragmatic theory of meaning would enable us to come into better working touch with reality” (p. 118. I really love this.) Theology can be so confusing. How can you really know the nature of God, what happens after you die, or how to be a good person? Do you just accept the statements of faith handed down by the church fathers? Do you look for an internal logic to a theological system? Do you apply scientific methodology? To William James, the pragmatic theory of meaning was a “method of settling metaphysical disputes which might otherwise be endless” So how do we decide whether a certain theological theory is better than another one? We see if there is any difference in the actions inspired by that theory. Said Charles Sanders Pierce “Different beliefs are distinguished by the different habits of action they involve.” So despite all the arguing over the centuries about, for example, whether Jesus was created by God or was around since the dawn of time just like God the Father, the pragmatists ask, “does either theory make any difference in how you act day to day?” James wrote that “an evening at a symphony concert has been wasted on a young man if on returning home he is not kinder to his grandmother”
I want to explore this point with a story from my own life. I went to seminary as an atheist-leaning agnostic. I was constantly looking for scientific proof for the existence of God, and finding none, thought it would be foolish to believe that God existed. Over the course of my years of seminary, I began to assemble a picture of “what kind of god I could believe in, if I believed in god”. But I had no proof about the ontological nature of God. So I was stuck. While studying systematic theology I followed the reasoned arguments of Paul Tillich as far as I could, but there was a point where reason left off. I burst into tears one day in my theology seminar. Professor Kimball responded “At some point it looks like the path ends and you have to leap. I can assure you that there is something beyond that point, but only you can make that leap.” Still I struggled and wrestled with these ideas that continued beyond the edge of reason and science. And when I finally leapt I took this rope with me as a safety line: “Will I be a better, more ethical, happier person if I believe than I am right now?” And clutching that line, I leapt. To this day I believe that what humans call God is a human construct, that a divine essence which pervades all life will never be replicated in a laboratory, can never be argued definitively with reason, but I notice that I am a happier, more generous person since I opened myself to certain ideas than I was before. It turns out the “pragmatic theory of meaning” helped me in just the way James described, “to help settle metaphysical disputes which might otherwise be endless.”
Adams editor, Max Stackhouse, wrote in a preface to one of his essays “More than one religious scholar, spotting Adams in the audience, has departed from the prepared text to say that ‘of course’ what he is presenting needs to be spelled out in concrete terms, but “for the moment” and “for the sake of precision” attention will focus on theory. But for Adams, precision is not gained by narrow focus on one level of meaning, but by integrating levels of meaning in a way that relates to practice.” To Adams, the point where theology meets our real lives, meets this time and this place is not a part of the conversation that can be put off for later. It is always at the center.
For Adams, the pragmatic theory is already there in traditional Christian thought. He finds it in the New Testament saying “By their fruits shall you know them.” [Matthew 7:16] Here in the sermon on the mount, Jesus is answering the question how we can know the difference between real prophets and false prophets. Jesus advises “Beware of false prophets who come in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves” When I think back to Adam’s experience in Nazi Germany, I can see how he came to embrace this kind of theory- because he saw with his own eyes those leaders of the church who sided with the Nazis, those who passively let atrocities happen without speaking out, and those courageous folks who risked their lives and freedom to save lives and fight the spread of fascism. “You will know them by their fruits.”
This relationship between belief and action is crucial to our UU identity today. We have never had a Unitarian or Univeralist creed in our 400 year history, but have often gotten into theological arguments about where the limits of our faith are. Today the beliefs of Unitarian Universalists are more diverse than ever before. And so this litmus test is crucial for our contemporary identity- you know a good UU by his or her fruits.
This winter our congregation has heard a lot about social justice on these cold Sunday mornings. Lest you had been wondering “what does this have to do with being UU?” Adam’s theology helps us see how ethical living became so central to our movement. And Adams believed it wasn’t just the personal “fruits” by which we shall be known. He also believed strongly that the same standard should be applied to institutions. He said “No one can properly put faith in merely individual virtue, even though that is a prerequisite for societal virtues. The faith of the liberal must express itself in societal forms” (p. 18) Adams was referring to the social institutions of education, economy and politics. Because without these societal forms, you cannot create a free and just community.
Says Adams “The faith of a church or of a nation is an adequate faith only when it inspires and enables people to give of their time and energy to shape the various institutions – social, economic and political—of the common life. ... Any other faith is thoroughly undependable; it is also, in the end impotent.” (p. 18)
Again, I have to imagine that witnessing so many churches passively give their power to shape history over to the Nazi regime must have had a deep impact on the formation of Adams’ theology. A faith that encourages piety, even one that encourages an ethical life, yet who would stand by and do nothing as atrocities unfolded around them is, in Adam’s words. “… a faith that enables history to crush humanity.” (p. 18) Adams draws on his Judeo Christian roots by seeing in the Hebrew Prophets the early exemplars of this -- those ethical prophets like Micah and Hosea who challenged the standing order of things in ancient Israel, who challenged the waste and privilege of the kings and those in power. He sees today’s liberals as contemporary prophets, responsible for calling to account the institutions of our time.
In 1961, when the Unitarians and Universalists merged, we accepted 7 principles which we covenant to affirm and promote. The 4th of these is “A free and responsible search for Truth and Meaning.” And how can we, a people without a creed, a people who don’t have a unifying holy book to guide our way, how can we know what is truth? How can we find meaning? Our own Unitarian Theologian helped shine a light in a dark time for our world, a time when our faith was languishing, by offering an answer. We will know truth, we will find meaning, because it “helps us come into better working touch with reality (James p. 118). Adams encourages us to ask of any idea we encounter - Does it lead to ethical action? Does it lead us to act in history to make a more just world? Does it inspire in each of us to make a commitment to action on the part of justice? James Luther Adams offers to us the same advice we read in the gospel of Matthew “by their fruits they will be k nown.”
Resources
http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/adams.html “JAMES LUTHER ADAMS: THEOLOGIAN OF POWER 1901-1994” by George Kimmich Beach, Faculty of Divinity Memorial Minute, Harvard University
http://www.iviipo.org/index.htm
http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/jameslutheradams.html
James Luther Adams On Being Human Religiously (Max L. Stackhouse ed.) UUA 1996.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Ethical Eating: After Lunch (February 7, 2010)
Ethical Eating- After Lunch
A few months back I preached a sermon called “The Ethics of Lunch” in which I challenged each of us to think carefully about the food we chose to bring to the lunch table. Just last month we gathered here for an Ethical Eating Potluck, and the kitchen was overflowing with delicious food prepared with organic veggies, local bread and eggs and lots of creativity and love. Many of us have chosen this year to acknowledge our power as consumers to influence the marketplace and to make choices with mindfulness. But what if we didn’t have a choice? After we watched “Food Inc.” here together last month I started to realize that we can’t take our power to choose for granted. I believe that in order to eat ethically, we need to protect the truly free marketplace, with a genuine diversity of growers, of crops and of growing methods in our own community and in local communities all over the world. To protect these rights, there is work that must happen after lunch- in court rooms and in capitols to preserve our access to ethically grown and harvested food.
There is an amazingly complex web of issues that emerges as we start to pay attention to food politics, so I want to focus on just 3 areas today: The right to know what is in our food, our need for small scale alternatives to industrial agriculture, and the right of all people and communities around the world to food security and sovereignty.
Let’s start with the right to know. We can’t make informed choices if we don’t know how our food was made or where it comes from. On the one hand we’ve made some progress in this area- there is a common standard for “organic” now, and the nutritional information on packaged food is something I use every day as I decide what to eat. But still manufacturers are not required to include information about whether your food includes genetically modified materials. “Neither the FDA, the Department of Agriculture (USDA), nor the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has done any long-term human health or environmental impact studies of GE foods or crops” In 2000 the FDA said labeling would be voluntary, and so far not a single company hasd stepped forward so far to label genetically modified food. How can I make a choice about the genetically modified food already on my grocery store shelves without the kind of labeling laws in all 15 European countries, Russia, China, Japan and in fact most of the developed countries of the world? We aren’t really free to choose, if we don’t know what is in our food.
The next example is right out of science fiction – cloning animals for meat. Did you know that although cloned animals are tracked, there is no mechanism for tracking meat that comes from cloned animals? And the offspring of cloned animals are not tracked at all. The National Academy of Sciences has called for post-market tracking of the meat of cloned animals and their offspring, but because such tracking is not required, it is possible that offspring of cloned cows are in the food stream right now. There is no way of knowing for sure. Even though a majority of Americans have expressed a desire for labeling of food from cloned animals, the FDA said they will not requires such labeling.
In January of 2008 the FDA issued a report concluding that “meat and milk from cow, pig, and goat clones and the offspring of any animal clones are as safe as food we eat every day” and approved food from cloned animals.
Margaret Mellon, Director of the Food and Environment Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists offered a different opinion saying: “Animal cloning is a controversial technology with few, if any, benefits to consumers. Most cloned animals have severe defects and are more likely to die at an early age than ordinary farm animals. Although successful clones may appear normal, the possibility remains that some may harbor subtle genetic defects that could impair their health or make them unsafe for consumption. The FDA should have required that cloned products be labeled as such and kept them off the market at least until it established a mandatory tracking system to allow retailers to avoid purchasing the products.”
Other countries have already asked that cloned meat be restricted while we have the time to research more subtle and long term health effects and ethical issues. So what’s our rush? We have learned from the flood of genetically engineered plants into our ecology that once the genie is out of the bottle, it’s impossible to control. Now, before any cloned meat goes to market, is the time to create a tracking system for cloned animals, and the offspring of cloned animals, and to call for the labeling of the meat of cloned animals. How can we make a wise and ethical decision if we don’t have the right to know?
This leads us right to my next area of concern: how can we chose if there is no longer any choice in the marketplace? If we don’t protect diversity of farming methods, and the diversity of our seed stock, there could be no choice to make. Take, for example, genetic engineering. For such a young industry, I was amazed to find that through licensing agreements with seed companies, Monsanto genes are in about 96 percent of U.S. soybean crops and 80 percent of all corn crops. That’s a lot of power for one company to have over this country’s food supply. The power is shored up because Biotech companies like Monsanto require growers who use the patented seeds to sign a “technology use agreement” which says the farmer can not save the seeds produced from their harvest. Since time immemorial, farmers have saved seeds from one year to make sure they can plant again the following year. The 3rd century Rabbi ‘Ahai ben Josiah wrote “He who purchases grain in the market place, to what may he be likened? To an infant whose mother died; although he is taken from door to door to other wet nurses, he is not satisfied... He who eats of his own is like an infant raised at its mother’s breast” By growing patented seeds, by giving up their right to save seeds, the farmers are giving up the source of their sustainable nourishment- their seed stock. In so doing, they are also giving up a lot of independence, and adding to the power of Monsanto and other corporations. It sounds like these companies are becoming “too big to fail.” because their failure would take the whole food system with them.
But even farmers and consumers who do not choose the patented crops are effected by the Monsanto products, because these genes don’t stay where you put them. In 2001, two researchers at the University of California, Berkeley published a paper in Nature magazine, which claimed that native maize in Mexico had been contaminated, across the miles, by GM pollen. That is to say that even the corn in the birthplace of corn now includes DNA material from the GE corn, because corm is an airborne fertilizer.
Says the Center for Food Safety: “Farmers' fundamental right to sow the crop of their choice is eliminated when it is contaminated with transgenes, and so is the public's ability to support meaningful organic food and feed production.” These “Genes on the loose” lead to an amazing lawsuit in Canada in which Monsanto sued Percy Schmeiser, a farmer who had been growing canola for 40 years. Schmeiser plants his crops most years from seeds saved from the previous year. He claims that he has never bought seeds from Monsanto, but that “more than 320 hectares of his land is now ‘contaminated’ by Monsanto's herbicide-resistant Roundup Ready canola” For this Monsanto sued Schmeiser for planting the patented seeds without paying royalties on it. Hundreds of such lawsuits have been filed by Monsanto against farmers in both Canada and the US. Most reach out-of-court settlements. But Schmeiser fought back. “He claims Monsanto investigators trespassed on his land -- and that company seed could easily have blown on to his soil from passing canola-laden trucks. "I never put those plants on my land," says Schmeiser." Well, the courts found for Monsanto both at the trial and the appeal, and Schmeiser was ordered to pay nearly $20,000 in damages and $150,000 for Monsanto’s legal fees. They argued that he knew there was cross contamination in the seeds he saved from his harvest, and planted them despite the contamination without paying royalties. The Supreme Court ultimately said Schmeiser did not have to pay damages to Monsanto, because he did not gain from the actions- that is to say, having the Monsanto patented genes in his seeds did not improve his crop productivity. Schmeiser counter-sued in small claims court, refused to sign a gag order, and won $660, the cost of cleaning up the contaminated seed off his land. A protracted legal fight against such a litigious corporation with a team of its own attorneys has ruined many farmers. It took 8 years for Schmeiser to win that battle, and most farmers choose not to fight.
Another David v Goliath is the story of Bev Eggleston who wanted to create a small, local meat processing plant. Those of you who watched Food Inc. last month remember Polyface Farm, which feed its cattle on grass and provides a sustainable alternative to the High Density Feed lots that produce most of America’s meat. We observed the stark contrast of the open air processing of chickens at Polyface farms with the huge industrial slaughterhouses we saw. Well Bev wanted to help Joel be able to process his grass fed beef locally, and mortgaged himself to the hilt to build a processing plant for the state’s grass farmers. Patiently Bev took his new plant through the tedious and exacting process by which the USDA was approved his plant, then after he’d been open for business just a short time, the USDA pulled their inspector, saying that Bev wasn’t processing enough animals to justify their time. That is to say- only large scale processing is effectively legal. These stories about Bev Eggleston and Percy Schmeiser illustrate my point that in order to retain our right to choose small scale local agriculture, we must make sure that corporations like Monsanto and Government offices like the USDA are not putting obstacles in the way of farmers who opt out of the industrial agriculture system. If we appreciate corn without GMOs, and locally grown grass-fed beef, we have to watch the backs of the farmers that feed us, or we will be left with no choice at all.
The final issue I’d like to address this morning is food security. We need to make sure that the policies of our own government and the international banking system do not undermine the food security of local communities around the world. We’ve all had the people of Haiti on our minds lately, so I thought I would try to learn more about their history. In order to receive international aid and development loans from the International Monetary Fund, beginning in the 1980s Haiti was required to open its doors to more imports and reduced tariffs. Since that time total rice consumption has roughly doubled, but imports from the US are 30 times what they imported in 1985, while local production has been reduced by almost 40% since the 1980s . But Haiti and the US are not competing on an even playing field- US rice production is subsidized, while Haitian farmers receive no subsidies or government support. Global Exchange says that the deal with the IMF actually prohibited Haiti from subsidizing its own farmers
Over 2/3 of the Haitian population grows rice or is employed by related industries like trading and milling. When Haitian farms had to close down, many people lost their means to support their families. Farmers went to the city to provide cheap labor in factories, but there were not enough factory jobs to go around. And so the average income per person dropped by almost half. (Dobbs) There was plenty of cheap rice, but with family incomes falling, hunger swept the country.
This story is repeated in countries around the world. When our subsidized surplus is exported as aide to struggling nations, the short term fix leads to longer term poverty as the artificially lowered food prices destabilize local economies resulting in increased poverty and hunger. Under the guise of food security, our subsidized crops have flooded the world markets and our own markets. We need to change our picture of “food security” from a big brother who can produce huge amounts of corn and soy and rice with great consistency and sameness, to a picture of the safety that food diversity provides. When field after field is planted with plants which are genetically almost identical, if they encounter a disease they are not resistant to, it can destroy all of those crops in a single blow, whereas in a polyculture, some portion of the crop will usually survive due to the resistance provided by their diversity. Any financial adviser will tell you to “diversify your portfolio” well, we have invested all our food security in just 3 crops (Corn, soy and wheat), have bread them to be standardized, intentionally reducing diversity, and have spread these crops all over the world, even to countries like Kenya where the imported plants struggle, especially in times of drought.
Today in Kenya, drought is threatening the food security for around 31.5 million people, and more than one million face imminent starvation. The western food crops grown there are not sustainable in their arid climate, and are depleting the soil. In order to create more sustainable food security, folks like Professor Mary Abukutsa-Onyango, a horticultural scientist, are trying to re-introduce native plants to farmers, to markets, and to local dinner tables. Says Abukutsa-Onyango: “Today, spider plant, African nightshade and vegetable amaranth can be found in Nairobi supermarkets and restaurants, after years of being spurned by the well-fed as food only for the poor, and by the poor themselves as alternatives only in times of extreme hunger,”
Efforts like this to shore up local subsistence-scale farms and local eco-systems, provide not only support for local economies, and food security for local communities, but they diversity the infra-structure to provide a needed safety net for that time when a system too big to fail, finally does fail.
Right now our policies treat agriculture as just one more industry in the marketplace, but agriculture is different from other industries- because you can’t eat iPods or running shoes. Food is necessary for life. Our policies should create food security for every person on this planet rather than adding barriers to people’s production of their own food. For too long we have assumed that it was fine for countries to rely heavily on food imports from around the globe, but as we come to a time of peak oil, relying on fossil fuel intensive transport of the very stuff of life is dangerous to all who rely on those imports at the expense of local agriculture. It is irresponsible for US policy and World Bank policy to undermine, through so called “free trade” the development and survival of local subsistence agriculture in favor of international imports of food. We must support and promote Food security and Food Sovereignty in which communities are able to define their own means of production of food, because food is a basic human right.”
In an age when most of the food in our supermarkets is produced by a handful of companies using only a few strains of corn and soy patented by a couple of larger corporations, our ability to choose food that is truly good for ourselves, our neighbors and our planet is in real jeopardy. If we want to live out our Unitarian Universalist principles through ethical eating, our work continues after lunch is over. Let us work together to protect our right to know how our food is produced, let us protect alternative methods of production by supporting farmers and businesses who opt out of the industrial system, and let us work to ensure the food sovereignty of local communities all over the world, that each community may produce their own food in a way that supports their local economies and sustains the land they tend. After the meal is over, our work as advocates has just begun.
End Notes
1. http://truefoodnow.org/campaigns/genetically-engineered-foods/ge-crops/myths-realities-of-ge-crops/
2. “Cloned Animals on the Dinner Plate?” from Food and Water Watch http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/foodsafety/food-technologies/cloning/cloned-animals-dinner and http://www.citizen.org/documents/clonefactsheet.pdf
3. http://www.fda.gov/animalveterinary/safetyhealth/animalcloning/default.htm
4. Organic Consumers Association “Take Action: FDA Approves Food from Clones” http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/oca/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=6433
5. http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/fda-oks-cloned-meat-0096.html
6. “Monsanto Focus of Antitrust Investigation” CBS News St. Louis Oct 8 2009 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/08/business/main5372772.shtml
7. quoted in Ellen F. Davis. Scripture, Culture, and Agriculture: An Agrarian Reading of the Bible. p. 21
8. George Monbiotm “The Fake Persuaders” in guardian.co.uk. This story bumps against our other theme about our right to know- since Biotech companies lobbied the journal to retract the article, the first time Nature has ever bowed to such pressure. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/may14/greenpolitics.digitalmedia
10. http://ga3.org/campaign/alfalfaEIS
11. Mark Nichols. “Monsanto vs Schmeiser”, Excerpt from Macleans Magazine. May 17, 1999.
12. Doug Pibel. “A Farmer Rounds Up Monsanto.” Yes Magazine. posted Mar 03, 2009 http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/food-for-everyone/3360
13. Michael Polan. Omnivore’s Dilemma p. 246
14. “Trade and the Disappearance of Haitian Rice” TED Case Studies Number 725 Hune 2004 by Hosine Georges. http://www1.american.edu/TED/haitirice.htm
15. Dobbs, Michael. "Free Market Left Haiti's Rice Growers Behind." Washington Post: Thursday, April 12, 2003, page A1. http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43a/217.html
16. http://usfoodcrisisgroup.org/files/food_crisis_backgrounder_111208.pdf “Backgrounder on the Global Food Crisis” by the US Working Group on the Food Crisis.
17. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_security
18. Wendell Berry. The Pleasures of Eating
19. Dobbs, Michael. "Free Market Left Haiti's Rice Growers Behind." Washington Post: Thursday, April 12, 2003, page A1. http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43a/217.html
20. The 2007 study "Down to Earth" by World Bank economists Luc Christiaensen and Lionel Demery found economic growth of the agriculture sector is at least twice as effective at reducing poverty as any other sector. cited in http://www.greenchange.org/article.php?id=2754 “Food crisis forces new look at farming” by Joel Millman and Roger Thurow. Wall Street Journal. 06-10-2008.
A few months back I preached a sermon called “The Ethics of Lunch” in which I challenged each of us to think carefully about the food we chose to bring to the lunch table. Just last month we gathered here for an Ethical Eating Potluck, and the kitchen was overflowing with delicious food prepared with organic veggies, local bread and eggs and lots of creativity and love. Many of us have chosen this year to acknowledge our power as consumers to influence the marketplace and to make choices with mindfulness. But what if we didn’t have a choice? After we watched “Food Inc.” here together last month I started to realize that we can’t take our power to choose for granted. I believe that in order to eat ethically, we need to protect the truly free marketplace, with a genuine diversity of growers, of crops and of growing methods in our own community and in local communities all over the world. To protect these rights, there is work that must happen after lunch- in court rooms and in capitols to preserve our access to ethically grown and harvested food.
There is an amazingly complex web of issues that emerges as we start to pay attention to food politics, so I want to focus on just 3 areas today: The right to know what is in our food, our need for small scale alternatives to industrial agriculture, and the right of all people and communities around the world to food security and sovereignty.
Let’s start with the right to know. We can’t make informed choices if we don’t know how our food was made or where it comes from. On the one hand we’ve made some progress in this area- there is a common standard for “organic” now, and the nutritional information on packaged food is something I use every day as I decide what to eat. But still manufacturers are not required to include information about whether your food includes genetically modified materials. “Neither the FDA, the Department of Agriculture (USDA), nor the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has done any long-term human health or environmental impact studies of GE foods or crops” In 2000 the FDA said labeling would be voluntary, and so far not a single company hasd stepped forward so far to label genetically modified food. How can I make a choice about the genetically modified food already on my grocery store shelves without the kind of labeling laws in all 15 European countries, Russia, China, Japan and in fact most of the developed countries of the world? We aren’t really free to choose, if we don’t know what is in our food.
The next example is right out of science fiction – cloning animals for meat. Did you know that although cloned animals are tracked, there is no mechanism for tracking meat that comes from cloned animals? And the offspring of cloned animals are not tracked at all. The National Academy of Sciences has called for post-market tracking of the meat of cloned animals and their offspring, but because such tracking is not required, it is possible that offspring of cloned cows are in the food stream right now. There is no way of knowing for sure. Even though a majority of Americans have expressed a desire for labeling of food from cloned animals, the FDA said they will not requires such labeling.
In January of 2008 the FDA issued a report concluding that “meat and milk from cow, pig, and goat clones and the offspring of any animal clones are as safe as food we eat every day” and approved food from cloned animals.
Margaret Mellon, Director of the Food and Environment Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists offered a different opinion saying: “Animal cloning is a controversial technology with few, if any, benefits to consumers. Most cloned animals have severe defects and are more likely to die at an early age than ordinary farm animals. Although successful clones may appear normal, the possibility remains that some may harbor subtle genetic defects that could impair their health or make them unsafe for consumption. The FDA should have required that cloned products be labeled as such and kept them off the market at least until it established a mandatory tracking system to allow retailers to avoid purchasing the products.”
Other countries have already asked that cloned meat be restricted while we have the time to research more subtle and long term health effects and ethical issues. So what’s our rush? We have learned from the flood of genetically engineered plants into our ecology that once the genie is out of the bottle, it’s impossible to control. Now, before any cloned meat goes to market, is the time to create a tracking system for cloned animals, and the offspring of cloned animals, and to call for the labeling of the meat of cloned animals. How can we make a wise and ethical decision if we don’t have the right to know?
This leads us right to my next area of concern: how can we chose if there is no longer any choice in the marketplace? If we don’t protect diversity of farming methods, and the diversity of our seed stock, there could be no choice to make. Take, for example, genetic engineering. For such a young industry, I was amazed to find that through licensing agreements with seed companies, Monsanto genes are in about 96 percent of U.S. soybean crops and 80 percent of all corn crops. That’s a lot of power for one company to have over this country’s food supply. The power is shored up because Biotech companies like Monsanto require growers who use the patented seeds to sign a “technology use agreement” which says the farmer can not save the seeds produced from their harvest. Since time immemorial, farmers have saved seeds from one year to make sure they can plant again the following year. The 3rd century Rabbi ‘Ahai ben Josiah wrote “He who purchases grain in the market place, to what may he be likened? To an infant whose mother died; although he is taken from door to door to other wet nurses, he is not satisfied... He who eats of his own is like an infant raised at its mother’s breast” By growing patented seeds, by giving up their right to save seeds, the farmers are giving up the source of their sustainable nourishment- their seed stock. In so doing, they are also giving up a lot of independence, and adding to the power of Monsanto and other corporations. It sounds like these companies are becoming “too big to fail.” because their failure would take the whole food system with them.
But even farmers and consumers who do not choose the patented crops are effected by the Monsanto products, because these genes don’t stay where you put them. In 2001, two researchers at the University of California, Berkeley published a paper in Nature magazine, which claimed that native maize in Mexico had been contaminated, across the miles, by GM pollen. That is to say that even the corn in the birthplace of corn now includes DNA material from the GE corn, because corm is an airborne fertilizer.
Says the Center for Food Safety: “Farmers' fundamental right to sow the crop of their choice is eliminated when it is contaminated with transgenes, and so is the public's ability to support meaningful organic food and feed production.” These “Genes on the loose” lead to an amazing lawsuit in Canada in which Monsanto sued Percy Schmeiser, a farmer who had been growing canola for 40 years. Schmeiser plants his crops most years from seeds saved from the previous year. He claims that he has never bought seeds from Monsanto, but that “more than 320 hectares of his land is now ‘contaminated’ by Monsanto's herbicide-resistant Roundup Ready canola” For this Monsanto sued Schmeiser for planting the patented seeds without paying royalties on it. Hundreds of such lawsuits have been filed by Monsanto against farmers in both Canada and the US. Most reach out-of-court settlements. But Schmeiser fought back. “He claims Monsanto investigators trespassed on his land -- and that company seed could easily have blown on to his soil from passing canola-laden trucks. "I never put those plants on my land," says Schmeiser." Well, the courts found for Monsanto both at the trial and the appeal, and Schmeiser was ordered to pay nearly $20,000 in damages and $150,000 for Monsanto’s legal fees. They argued that he knew there was cross contamination in the seeds he saved from his harvest, and planted them despite the contamination without paying royalties. The Supreme Court ultimately said Schmeiser did not have to pay damages to Monsanto, because he did not gain from the actions- that is to say, having the Monsanto patented genes in his seeds did not improve his crop productivity. Schmeiser counter-sued in small claims court, refused to sign a gag order, and won $660, the cost of cleaning up the contaminated seed off his land. A protracted legal fight against such a litigious corporation with a team of its own attorneys has ruined many farmers. It took 8 years for Schmeiser to win that battle, and most farmers choose not to fight.
Another David v Goliath is the story of Bev Eggleston who wanted to create a small, local meat processing plant. Those of you who watched Food Inc. last month remember Polyface Farm, which feed its cattle on grass and provides a sustainable alternative to the High Density Feed lots that produce most of America’s meat. We observed the stark contrast of the open air processing of chickens at Polyface farms with the huge industrial slaughterhouses we saw. Well Bev wanted to help Joel be able to process his grass fed beef locally, and mortgaged himself to the hilt to build a processing plant for the state’s grass farmers. Patiently Bev took his new plant through the tedious and exacting process by which the USDA was approved his plant, then after he’d been open for business just a short time, the USDA pulled their inspector, saying that Bev wasn’t processing enough animals to justify their time. That is to say- only large scale processing is effectively legal. These stories about Bev Eggleston and Percy Schmeiser illustrate my point that in order to retain our right to choose small scale local agriculture, we must make sure that corporations like Monsanto and Government offices like the USDA are not putting obstacles in the way of farmers who opt out of the industrial agriculture system. If we appreciate corn without GMOs, and locally grown grass-fed beef, we have to watch the backs of the farmers that feed us, or we will be left with no choice at all.
The final issue I’d like to address this morning is food security. We need to make sure that the policies of our own government and the international banking system do not undermine the food security of local communities around the world. We’ve all had the people of Haiti on our minds lately, so I thought I would try to learn more about their history. In order to receive international aid and development loans from the International Monetary Fund, beginning in the 1980s Haiti was required to open its doors to more imports and reduced tariffs. Since that time total rice consumption has roughly doubled, but imports from the US are 30 times what they imported in 1985, while local production has been reduced by almost 40% since the 1980s . But Haiti and the US are not competing on an even playing field- US rice production is subsidized, while Haitian farmers receive no subsidies or government support. Global Exchange says that the deal with the IMF actually prohibited Haiti from subsidizing its own farmers
Over 2/3 of the Haitian population grows rice or is employed by related industries like trading and milling. When Haitian farms had to close down, many people lost their means to support their families. Farmers went to the city to provide cheap labor in factories, but there were not enough factory jobs to go around. And so the average income per person dropped by almost half. (Dobbs) There was plenty of cheap rice, but with family incomes falling, hunger swept the country.
This story is repeated in countries around the world. When our subsidized surplus is exported as aide to struggling nations, the short term fix leads to longer term poverty as the artificially lowered food prices destabilize local economies resulting in increased poverty and hunger. Under the guise of food security, our subsidized crops have flooded the world markets and our own markets. We need to change our picture of “food security” from a big brother who can produce huge amounts of corn and soy and rice with great consistency and sameness, to a picture of the safety that food diversity provides. When field after field is planted with plants which are genetically almost identical, if they encounter a disease they are not resistant to, it can destroy all of those crops in a single blow, whereas in a polyculture, some portion of the crop will usually survive due to the resistance provided by their diversity. Any financial adviser will tell you to “diversify your portfolio” well, we have invested all our food security in just 3 crops (Corn, soy and wheat), have bread them to be standardized, intentionally reducing diversity, and have spread these crops all over the world, even to countries like Kenya where the imported plants struggle, especially in times of drought.
Today in Kenya, drought is threatening the food security for around 31.5 million people, and more than one million face imminent starvation. The western food crops grown there are not sustainable in their arid climate, and are depleting the soil. In order to create more sustainable food security, folks like Professor Mary Abukutsa-Onyango, a horticultural scientist, are trying to re-introduce native plants to farmers, to markets, and to local dinner tables. Says Abukutsa-Onyango: “Today, spider plant, African nightshade and vegetable amaranth can be found in Nairobi supermarkets and restaurants, after years of being spurned by the well-fed as food only for the poor, and by the poor themselves as alternatives only in times of extreme hunger,”
Efforts like this to shore up local subsistence-scale farms and local eco-systems, provide not only support for local economies, and food security for local communities, but they diversity the infra-structure to provide a needed safety net for that time when a system too big to fail, finally does fail.
Right now our policies treat agriculture as just one more industry in the marketplace, but agriculture is different from other industries- because you can’t eat iPods or running shoes. Food is necessary for life. Our policies should create food security for every person on this planet rather than adding barriers to people’s production of their own food. For too long we have assumed that it was fine for countries to rely heavily on food imports from around the globe, but as we come to a time of peak oil, relying on fossil fuel intensive transport of the very stuff of life is dangerous to all who rely on those imports at the expense of local agriculture. It is irresponsible for US policy and World Bank policy to undermine, through so called “free trade” the development and survival of local subsistence agriculture in favor of international imports of food. We must support and promote Food security and Food Sovereignty in which communities are able to define their own means of production of food, because food is a basic human right.”
In an age when most of the food in our supermarkets is produced by a handful of companies using only a few strains of corn and soy patented by a couple of larger corporations, our ability to choose food that is truly good for ourselves, our neighbors and our planet is in real jeopardy. If we want to live out our Unitarian Universalist principles through ethical eating, our work continues after lunch is over. Let us work together to protect our right to know how our food is produced, let us protect alternative methods of production by supporting farmers and businesses who opt out of the industrial system, and let us work to ensure the food sovereignty of local communities all over the world, that each community may produce their own food in a way that supports their local economies and sustains the land they tend. After the meal is over, our work as advocates has just begun.
End Notes
1. http://truefoodnow.org/campaigns/genetically-engineered-foods/ge-crops/myths-realities-of-ge-crops/
2. “Cloned Animals on the Dinner Plate?” from Food and Water Watch http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/foodsafety/food-technologies/cloning/cloned-animals-dinner and http://www.citizen.org/documents/clonefactsheet.pdf
3. http://www.fda.gov/animalveterinary/safetyhealth/animalcloning/default.htm
4. Organic Consumers Association “Take Action: FDA Approves Food from Clones” http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/oca/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=6433
5. http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/fda-oks-cloned-meat-0096.html
6. “Monsanto Focus of Antitrust Investigation” CBS News St. Louis Oct 8 2009 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/08/business/main5372772.shtml
7. quoted in Ellen F. Davis. Scripture, Culture, and Agriculture: An Agrarian Reading of the Bible. p. 21
8. George Monbiotm “The Fake Persuaders” in guardian.co.uk. This story bumps against our other theme about our right to know- since Biotech companies lobbied the journal to retract the article, the first time Nature has ever bowed to such pressure. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/may14/greenpolitics.digitalmedia
10. http://ga3.org/campaign/alfalfaEIS
11. Mark Nichols. “Monsanto vs Schmeiser”, Excerpt from Macleans Magazine. May 17, 1999.
12. Doug Pibel. “A Farmer Rounds Up Monsanto.” Yes Magazine. posted Mar 03, 2009 http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/food-for-everyone/3360
13. Michael Polan. Omnivore’s Dilemma p. 246
14. “Trade and the Disappearance of Haitian Rice” TED Case Studies Number 725 Hune 2004 by Hosine Georges. http://www1.american.edu/TED/haitirice.htm
15. Dobbs, Michael. "Free Market Left Haiti's Rice Growers Behind." Washington Post: Thursday, April 12, 2003, page A1. http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43a/217.html
16. http://usfoodcrisisgroup.org/files/food_crisis_backgrounder_111208.pdf “Backgrounder on the Global Food Crisis” by the US Working Group on the Food Crisis.
17. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_security
18. Wendell Berry. The Pleasures of Eating
19. Dobbs, Michael. "Free Market Left Haiti's Rice Growers Behind." Washington Post: Thursday, April 12, 2003, page A1. http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43a/217.html
20. The 2007 study "Down to Earth" by World Bank economists Luc Christiaensen and Lionel Demery found economic growth of the agriculture sector is at least twice as effective at reducing poverty as any other sector. cited in http://www.greenchange.org/article.php?id=2754 “Food crisis forces new look at farming” by Joel Millman and Roger Thurow. Wall Street Journal. 06-10-2008.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Weaving the Fabric of Diversity (January 24, 2009)
I count myself lucky to have been born after the American’s with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibit discrimination based on race, religious, sex, national origin and disability. I’m glad that I grew up in a post-segregation world, grew up with heroes like Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Susan B Anthony. Unfortunately I grew up with the idea that oppression was a historical artifact. I didn’t know that hate crimes still happen, that discrimination still happens. And I sure didn’t understand that these types of overt oppression are just the tip of the iceberg.
It didn’t start to dawn on me until I entered the working world and I had the audacity to question my boss about the fact that the only white candidate for a job was hired she said “It’s not about race, I just think Mary would fit in better.” The light dawned back when I was the receptionist for a manufacturing company and I noticed that women were not even interviewed for the higher paying factory jobs. The head of HR explained “women are not strong enough to work on the factory floor. Women work in the sorting room.” The fact is that the vast majority of discrimination that goes on in the world is not the overt hateful sort that scandalizes us. Most of it is perpetrated by ordinary people and institutions that are just doing things “they way they are used to doing things.” The hiring discrimination I witnessed is illegal[ We still can’t get Pennsylvania to pass HB300 which would prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations and other areas based on sexual orientation and gender identity.], but I don’t think my old co-workers even understood that they were discriminating. So oppression is not a thing of the past. It is still woven into the fabric of our society and its institutions. The UUA has committed itself to become an anti-oppressive institution, and challenges us to do likewise.
Now I know it’s hard to think of UUCAS as an oppressive institution. How can we, who work so hard to be welcoming and warm, be oppressive? But being a congregation that “encourages spiritual growth and ethical living” we wanted to explore how oppression really works, and how we could become an anti-oppressive institution and more supportive of diversity. This past fall and winter we offered an Adult Education class called “Weaving the Fabric of Diversity”. Our curriculum taught us that there are some common elements to all kinds of oppression. First, oppression relies on a “defined norm.” What’s normal in our culture? It’s a white, young, heterosexual, Christian, temporarily able-bodied male who has access to money, education and other resources. Now in terms of numbers, this is not the “majority” of people in America, but it represents those people who have a certain kind of access to institutional power. This group certainly is the norm in congress. In the Senate right now only 17 out of 100 people are women 13 are non-Christian, and only 3 are people of color. In the history of the US there have only been 6 openly gay members of congress, and there has never been a gay member of the senate. What is “normal” to our decision makers in Washington, is not really “normal” to most of the people in America- but the decisions made by those few powerful people are going to define and legislate normal for the whole country.
Think about other kinds of institutions- like schools; the teachers and school boards have the power to teach what they understand to be normal. The way I was taught American history, it started in Europe and told a story of those white men who lead institutions from the founding of the United States of America until today. It wasn’t until I was in seminary that I realized that anther way to teach American History would be as a history of this land and all who have lived here, or learned that the GLBT movement has a history, and that that history is an important part of the story of our country. Now my high school history teachers were good people. I don’t believe there was any intentional plan to exclude certain folks from the American image of itself. Yet the history I was taught was oppressive, and the school that taught it perpetuated that oppression. If I myself was not queer, and had never had friends or family who came out to me, and never sought out books on queer history and culture, I would leave Stonewall out of Contemporary American History textbooks not as a proactive act of oppression, but as a passive one. Either way, the result is the great diversity of Americans are taught an “American Norm” that does not reflect their own experience, or their own history.
So institutional power is one thing necessary for oppression and the maintenance of a defined norm, another is economic power. It is a well known fact that women make less than men. In 2004 the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed women still make only 80.4 percent of men's weekly median earnings . In virtually every occupation listed, men earned a higher median wage than women, regardless of job title. How could this systemically unfair distribution of resources NOT contribute to the oppression of women, and yet I don’t believe in some giant conspiracy theory, just very powerful societal norms backed up by economic power.
Another important characteristic of oppression is that the institutional authority backs up the norm with violence or the threat of violence. The statistics show clearly that people of color are more likely to be brutalized by police than white persons. Violence against Transgender folks is regularly in the news. You don’t have to be yourself the victim of violence to know that it is dangerous to be in certain places if you are a person of color, that it is dangerous to show any ambiguity to your gender. The “defined norm” that “Boys don’t wear pink” is enforced not just by our cultural teachings, but by the knowledge that there are people in this country who believe crossing those normalized gender lines is an excuse for violence. The norm is backed up by the US police forces, the prison system and the army. Think about all the times the army has been called in to break up a labor strike- to support management over and above labor- to enforce that management is “normal” and working folks are “other.”
We support the norm by assuming that those who don’t comply with the norm are “other” and we could only accept them if they conformed or assimilated. Consider the kind of “defined norm” that perpetuates classism. Have you every heard anyone say that folks who don’t have much money are poor, not because they couldn’t afford to get the kind of education that would have led to better paying jobs, but because they are lazy? Yes, even those folks who work 2-3 jobs to make ends meet and feed their family – the rationalization goes that if they had always worked hard and made the right choices they wouldn’t be in that pickle. So the one poster child who works her way up from the housing projects to make it through medical school and become a doctor shows that “becoming normal” is possible, and anyone could do it if they just tried hard enough.
When we hear these ideas often enough we start to believe them. “Maybe it is my fault, maybe I am lazy and not as smart or good.” This is how internal oppression is born. I begin to carry in my way of thinking about myself and the culture the sense of norm that my culture teaches me and backs up with money and power. And because not everyone sees their life experience on TV, in the history books, in church, this leads to isolation.
When we see that oppression works in the same way regardless of the group that is being oppressed, this is called “linked oppressions.” If we are able to analyze and dismantle the mechanisms of oppression, we would have tools and processes for dismantling all oppression. Think about all the women’s suffrage and the abolition movements learned from each other in the 19th century. Think about how the black empowerment movement, the women’s liberation movement and the disability rights movements fed and taught one another back in the 1970s.
So we at this church have long aspired to be as welcoming and inclusive as we can be. But it is not enough to say “everyone is welcome to join us.” In order to be truly welcoming we must analyze our own church system for oppression, search our own hearts, do our own work to remove road blocks which might prevent folks from feeling truly welcome. We must remember that race is not a black issue, homophobia is not a gay issue; each of us has an ethnic history, each of us have a gender, a sexual orientation, a body that with weaknesses and strengths.
Unitarian Universalists covenant to affirm and promote the inherent dignity and worth of EVERY person. So how can you and I challenge oppression? The first step is just noticing and recognizing oppression and its harmful effects. We try to get in the habit of challenging the idea that some people are “normal” and that society’s responsibility is to support and reinforce “normalness” The more we accept this challenge as part of our search for truth and meaning, and the more we support each other in that search, the more the subtleties of oppression will begin to reveal themselves in the fabric of our society. And once we learn to recognize it, then we have a chance to help change it -- whether that means speaking up when you hear a racist or homophobic comment at work, or visiting your legislator to ask equal rights to be protected under the law.
We can also practice that countering oppression here in this beloved community. I don’t believe I’ve ever heard a racist or homophobic remark in this building, so our challenge will be to pay attention to the more subtle ways that some identities are normalized and others are marginalized. Can folks with visual impairment read or our orders of service? If you don’t know how to read, can you still enjoy worship with us? To help us understand the blocks and discouragements that stand between this congregation and greater diversity, we have to be willing to use our imaginations to put ourselves in our brothers and sisters’ shoes.
And how will we know if we have reached our goal? We have to be in relationship with folks who are different from us so that we can be accountable, otherwise our actions will say “we know what’s best for you” and we are still a part of the system of privilege and power. We have to ask and listen. We are quite diverse in our congregation already- so we can ask a family with small children “what roadblocks are in your way to full participation in our community.” We can ask folks whose hearing is challenged if they are missing any parts of worship. We can ask folks who struggle to make ends meet whether our church events and programs create uncomfortable barriers for folks with tight budgets. We have to venture outside our familiar circles, however, to find out what obstacles persons in wheel chairs might find when visiting our church, or how this congregation might be more welcoming and comfortable to African-American or Native-American neighbors.
We challenge ourselves to pro-actively do our own work, because that is the first step toward countering oppression in the world. Even if after 3 years of work our congregation looked no different to the naked eye, we would be changed in our hearts. Says Rev. Tom Owen Tolle, “The quest for diversity [asks us to promise 2 things]: that we will practice diversity within our own walls, not merely preach it in the wider world; and that we will stay on the path forever. Authentic diversity is not an ad hoc project but our way of being and doing religion.” I am glad we are on that path together.
It didn’t start to dawn on me until I entered the working world and I had the audacity to question my boss about the fact that the only white candidate for a job was hired she said “It’s not about race, I just think Mary would fit in better.” The light dawned back when I was the receptionist for a manufacturing company and I noticed that women were not even interviewed for the higher paying factory jobs. The head of HR explained “women are not strong enough to work on the factory floor. Women work in the sorting room.” The fact is that the vast majority of discrimination that goes on in the world is not the overt hateful sort that scandalizes us. Most of it is perpetrated by ordinary people and institutions that are just doing things “they way they are used to doing things.” The hiring discrimination I witnessed is illegal[ We still can’t get Pennsylvania to pass HB300 which would prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations and other areas based on sexual orientation and gender identity.], but I don’t think my old co-workers even understood that they were discriminating. So oppression is not a thing of the past. It is still woven into the fabric of our society and its institutions. The UUA has committed itself to become an anti-oppressive institution, and challenges us to do likewise.
Now I know it’s hard to think of UUCAS as an oppressive institution. How can we, who work so hard to be welcoming and warm, be oppressive? But being a congregation that “encourages spiritual growth and ethical living” we wanted to explore how oppression really works, and how we could become an anti-oppressive institution and more supportive of diversity. This past fall and winter we offered an Adult Education class called “Weaving the Fabric of Diversity”. Our curriculum taught us that there are some common elements to all kinds of oppression. First, oppression relies on a “defined norm.” What’s normal in our culture? It’s a white, young, heterosexual, Christian, temporarily able-bodied male who has access to money, education and other resources. Now in terms of numbers, this is not the “majority” of people in America, but it represents those people who have a certain kind of access to institutional power. This group certainly is the norm in congress. In the Senate right now only 17 out of 100 people are women 13 are non-Christian, and only 3 are people of color. In the history of the US there have only been 6 openly gay members of congress, and there has never been a gay member of the senate. What is “normal” to our decision makers in Washington, is not really “normal” to most of the people in America- but the decisions made by those few powerful people are going to define and legislate normal for the whole country.
Think about other kinds of institutions- like schools; the teachers and school boards have the power to teach what they understand to be normal. The way I was taught American history, it started in Europe and told a story of those white men who lead institutions from the founding of the United States of America until today. It wasn’t until I was in seminary that I realized that anther way to teach American History would be as a history of this land and all who have lived here, or learned that the GLBT movement has a history, and that that history is an important part of the story of our country. Now my high school history teachers were good people. I don’t believe there was any intentional plan to exclude certain folks from the American image of itself. Yet the history I was taught was oppressive, and the school that taught it perpetuated that oppression. If I myself was not queer, and had never had friends or family who came out to me, and never sought out books on queer history and culture, I would leave Stonewall out of Contemporary American History textbooks not as a proactive act of oppression, but as a passive one. Either way, the result is the great diversity of Americans are taught an “American Norm” that does not reflect their own experience, or their own history.
So institutional power is one thing necessary for oppression and the maintenance of a defined norm, another is economic power. It is a well known fact that women make less than men. In 2004 the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed women still make only 80.4 percent of men's weekly median earnings . In virtually every occupation listed, men earned a higher median wage than women, regardless of job title. How could this systemically unfair distribution of resources NOT contribute to the oppression of women, and yet I don’t believe in some giant conspiracy theory, just very powerful societal norms backed up by economic power.
Another important characteristic of oppression is that the institutional authority backs up the norm with violence or the threat of violence. The statistics show clearly that people of color are more likely to be brutalized by police than white persons. Violence against Transgender folks is regularly in the news. You don’t have to be yourself the victim of violence to know that it is dangerous to be in certain places if you are a person of color, that it is dangerous to show any ambiguity to your gender. The “defined norm” that “Boys don’t wear pink” is enforced not just by our cultural teachings, but by the knowledge that there are people in this country who believe crossing those normalized gender lines is an excuse for violence. The norm is backed up by the US police forces, the prison system and the army. Think about all the times the army has been called in to break up a labor strike- to support management over and above labor- to enforce that management is “normal” and working folks are “other.”
We support the norm by assuming that those who don’t comply with the norm are “other” and we could only accept them if they conformed or assimilated. Consider the kind of “defined norm” that perpetuates classism. Have you every heard anyone say that folks who don’t have much money are poor, not because they couldn’t afford to get the kind of education that would have led to better paying jobs, but because they are lazy? Yes, even those folks who work 2-3 jobs to make ends meet and feed their family – the rationalization goes that if they had always worked hard and made the right choices they wouldn’t be in that pickle. So the one poster child who works her way up from the housing projects to make it through medical school and become a doctor shows that “becoming normal” is possible, and anyone could do it if they just tried hard enough.
When we hear these ideas often enough we start to believe them. “Maybe it is my fault, maybe I am lazy and not as smart or good.” This is how internal oppression is born. I begin to carry in my way of thinking about myself and the culture the sense of norm that my culture teaches me and backs up with money and power. And because not everyone sees their life experience on TV, in the history books, in church, this leads to isolation.
When we see that oppression works in the same way regardless of the group that is being oppressed, this is called “linked oppressions.” If we are able to analyze and dismantle the mechanisms of oppression, we would have tools and processes for dismantling all oppression. Think about all the women’s suffrage and the abolition movements learned from each other in the 19th century. Think about how the black empowerment movement, the women’s liberation movement and the disability rights movements fed and taught one another back in the 1970s.
So we at this church have long aspired to be as welcoming and inclusive as we can be. But it is not enough to say “everyone is welcome to join us.” In order to be truly welcoming we must analyze our own church system for oppression, search our own hearts, do our own work to remove road blocks which might prevent folks from feeling truly welcome. We must remember that race is not a black issue, homophobia is not a gay issue; each of us has an ethnic history, each of us have a gender, a sexual orientation, a body that with weaknesses and strengths.
Unitarian Universalists covenant to affirm and promote the inherent dignity and worth of EVERY person. So how can you and I challenge oppression? The first step is just noticing and recognizing oppression and its harmful effects. We try to get in the habit of challenging the idea that some people are “normal” and that society’s responsibility is to support and reinforce “normalness” The more we accept this challenge as part of our search for truth and meaning, and the more we support each other in that search, the more the subtleties of oppression will begin to reveal themselves in the fabric of our society. And once we learn to recognize it, then we have a chance to help change it -- whether that means speaking up when you hear a racist or homophobic comment at work, or visiting your legislator to ask equal rights to be protected under the law.
We can also practice that countering oppression here in this beloved community. I don’t believe I’ve ever heard a racist or homophobic remark in this building, so our challenge will be to pay attention to the more subtle ways that some identities are normalized and others are marginalized. Can folks with visual impairment read or our orders of service? If you don’t know how to read, can you still enjoy worship with us? To help us understand the blocks and discouragements that stand between this congregation and greater diversity, we have to be willing to use our imaginations to put ourselves in our brothers and sisters’ shoes.
And how will we know if we have reached our goal? We have to be in relationship with folks who are different from us so that we can be accountable, otherwise our actions will say “we know what’s best for you” and we are still a part of the system of privilege and power. We have to ask and listen. We are quite diverse in our congregation already- so we can ask a family with small children “what roadblocks are in your way to full participation in our community.” We can ask folks whose hearing is challenged if they are missing any parts of worship. We can ask folks who struggle to make ends meet whether our church events and programs create uncomfortable barriers for folks with tight budgets. We have to venture outside our familiar circles, however, to find out what obstacles persons in wheel chairs might find when visiting our church, or how this congregation might be more welcoming and comfortable to African-American or Native-American neighbors.
We challenge ourselves to pro-actively do our own work, because that is the first step toward countering oppression in the world. Even if after 3 years of work our congregation looked no different to the naked eye, we would be changed in our hearts. Says Rev. Tom Owen Tolle, “The quest for diversity [asks us to promise 2 things]: that we will practice diversity within our own walls, not merely preach it in the wider world; and that we will stay on the path forever. Authentic diversity is not an ad hoc project but our way of being and doing religion.” I am glad we are on that path together.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Beacon Press and the Pentagon Papers (January 17, 2010)
The pop song goes:
“I'm not a coward, I've just never been tested.
I'd like to think that if I was I would pass.
…I've never had to knock on wood, but I know someone who has.
Which makes me wonder if I could.”
Today I want to tell you a story about our Unitarian Universalist Publishing house Beacon Press, about a time they were tested, a story which challenges us all to wonder if we could be brave enough to pass such a test.
Our Beacon Press was born as an in-house publisher for The American Unitarian Association, and in 1900 took it’s name from Beacon Hill on which the offices of the AUA were situated, and where the UUA offices are still located today. The name had metaphoric significance as well; you see on that hill, during the formative years of our nation, a tar bucket was hung on a pole at the peak. If enemies were approaching, the tar was lit, and the bucket would be hoisted to the top of the pole. This Unitarian publisher was to be a press empowered to shine a light on truth in troubled times. Their motto “In luce veritatis or ‘ In the light of truth’” would guide their work.
Said Walter Kring in the Christian Register (Which was the equivalent of today’s UU World) “The Beacon Press has always felt that what is printed is of far more important than whether the balance sheet is in the red or the black. Today the Beacon Press is known by many as one of the most courageous presses in America.” Beacon published such important and challenging works as the Autobiography of Mohandas Gandhi (1957) and Viktor Frankl’s “Man’s Search for Meaning” (1962).
Gobin Stair, who became the third director of Beacon press in 1962, oversaw the publishing of several volumes that questioned the war in Vietnam: Howard Zinn’s “Vietnam: The Logic of Withdrawal” and Tatum and Tuchinsky’s “Guide to the Draft” (1969) which helped young men avoid being drafted. So when Beacon was approached with a request to publish the Pentagon Papers in 1971, the moral imperative was clear. Allison Trzop, a grad student at Emerson College, found the story compelling enough to wrote a history of the episode as her Master’s thesis in 2006. It is her scholarship that brought this story to a new generation of UUs, and her work that I share with you today. Let’s start from the beginning.
In 1967 Defense Secretary Robert McNamara wanted to put together “a full history of U.S. decision making on Vietnam back as far as the 1940s.” He put together a team of 36 people and gave them access to all kinds of Defense department files, along with outside sources- newspapers and books. The task force director, Leslie Gelb, descried it as “a history based solely on documents – checked and rechecked with ant-like diligence.” The final version was 7000 pages long and was meant for internal use only. Most of the people who worked on the project only saw small sections in their area of specialization, but Daniel Ellsberg, a former marine who had worked at both the Pentagon and the Rand Corporation think tank, had access to the whole document. He wrote in his memoirs “It occurred to me that what I had in my safe at Rand was seven thousand pages of documentary evidence of lying, by four presidents and their administrations over twenty-three years, to conceal plans and actions of mass murder. I decided I would stop concealing that myself. I would get it out somehow.”
Ellison, working with a former Rand associate Anthony Russo, photocopied all 7000 pages after-hours at a friend’s Los Angeles office. He leaked the first papers to the New York Times in March of 1971, but the Times sat on them for several months; it wasn’t until June 12 that the first of the papers were printed, and after only 3 days the New York Times was enjoined from publishing any more of the secret papers. It was the first time a U.S. Court had ever silenced a newspaper on grounds of “national Security.” Ellison then gave 2 sets of the documents to the Washington Post. The Post began publishing excerpts right after the Times injunction, but was similarly enjoined. On June 30 in “New York Times Co. v. United States” the Supreme Court heard an appeal, and both injunctions were lifted. The Times took up publishing the excerpts again the next day.
But remember 2 sets of papers were delivered to the Post, to editor Ben Bagdikian. Ellsberg had asked that the second set be given to a member of congress. Ellsberg approached several senators who declined, before Maurice Gravel, the Democratic senator from Alaska agreed to accept the documents. The heavy box of papers was exchanged in the Parking Lot of the Mayflower hotel in Washington DC. Gavel planned to read the papers into the record of the U.S. Senate during a filibuster of a bill that would extend the draft, but the filibuster was blocked because there wasn’t a quorum. Eager to enter the papers into the public record, on June 29 Gravel held an executive session of the Senate Sub-Committee on Buildings and Grounds which he chaired. He read from the papers for three hours and made an impassioned plea for a full disclosure to the public. Then, “with tears streaming down his face”, entered the documents into the public record. [p. 13] This meant that technically the papers were now in the public domain, but Sen. Randolph of West Virginia refused to authorize payment of a stenographer for a public record, blocking publication by the Government Printing office.
The New York times continued to print excerpts of these papers as “The Vietnam Archive” but Senator Gavel wanted to see publication of the full history. He approached publisher after publisher until thirty-some had turned him down. He approached first the larger publishers like Houghton Mifflin and Simon and Schuster, then he approached University and scholarly presses such as Harvard and MIT. Gavel was one of 2 Unitarian Universalists in the Senate at that time, but it was one of his aids who reminded him that his own denomination had a publishing house.
Beacon’s Editor in Chief, Arnold Tovell, and the director, Govin Stair agreed to look at the papers. Stair said in an interview “Our previous order was to publish those good books which are important books which the commercial presses won’t publish…and we were evading it in every way we could! … I had to tell my trustees that this was a principle, and that it was a silly thing to do, but I thought we should do it. But they had to know that it would cost ‘em. I stood up at that damned meeting and said it just as simply as that.”
And so on August 17, Beacon announced that it would print the Pentagon Papers, knowing it was the “biggest venture in the history of the small publishing firm.” Imagine, what they had been presented with was 7000 pages of “photocopied transcripts” with no particular organization. Said Gobin Stair, “It was an endless pile of notes. Nobody had shaped it.”
In addition to the huge editing task, there was the political stress as well. Stair recalls a phone call from Richard Nixon. “’Gobin’, said Nixon, ‘we have been investigating you around Boston, and we know you are apparently a pretty nice and smart guy…I hear you are going to do that set of papers by that guy Gravel’… The result was that as the guy in charge at Beacon,” Stair Recalled “I was in real trouble. Before we had decided yes or no, we were told not to do it. We were publishing books we like and that we think we can sell, and to be told by Nixon… not to do it, convinced me before I had [completely] decided, that it was a book to do.” But stair admitted feeling anxiety as well saying “I very much wish somebody else were publishing this.”
On September 17 two men from the defense Department walked in to Beacon Press and asked to see Gobin Stair. They demanded that the Pentagon Papers be returned. Before leaving they ran paper through all of Beacon Press’s photocopiers to see if the photocopies had been made on Beacon’s machines. Stair remembered the event as “Ominous and intimidating.”
The sense of fear spread. Beacon asked typesetters to give bids without knowing the exact nature of the project. When the project was revealed, the lowest bidder dropped out saying he was afraid of losing government contracts if he typeset the Pentagon Papers. The next lowest bid was $10,000 higher. They were off to a rough start.
Then, just 12 days before the Beacon press version arrived in bookstores, the Government Printing Office released its own set of the Pentagon Papers. (Remember, they had previously refused to do so). Now the government version did not even have page numbers, and was heavily censored. Said Gavel “You’ve got to appreciate that the decision to publish the papers by the Defense Department had to be a Whitehouse decision. It had to be a spiteful decision to punish… [Beacon] personally.”
On October 22 Beacon released a four volume set in cloth and paper. The New York Times Book reviewer proclaimed the Gravel edition “the best version.” At the release party Senator Gravel said in his speech “I was prepared to give up my Senate seat so that the American people could have these papers. Nothing but my family is dearer to me than my Senate seat – I’ve wanted to be a Senator since I was 12 years old. This” he said, holding up a copy of the book, “is my only pay-off…If there’s any question that I’d do it again, I would. I’d do it again and again and again and again.”
A week later, FBI agents walked into the New England Merchants National Bank of Boston, and asked to look at all UUA records for the past 6 months. The Bank refused, asking to see a subpoena. Two days later they FBI came back with a Subpoena for documents from all 12 of the UUA accounts. The president of the UUA, Dr. Robert West issued a statement that “Serious questions of church-state separation and freedom of the press are raised, in addition to the general issues of government intimidation and repression of dissent.” [p. 30] Senator Gavel and the UUA legal council requested an injunction based on Senator Gavel’s senatorial immunity, and the US court of appeals stopped the investigation while awaiting the ruling about Gravel’s immunity.
The respite was not long lived. On January 7 of 1972, the federal court of Appeals in Boston ruled that Gravel’s immunity would not protect Beacon press. UUA attorneys appealed to the Supreme Court, and asked for an injunction based on a violation of religious liberty. The FBI withdrew it’s subpoena, but Beacon learned that the government planned to file criminal charges for (1) “receiving concealing, retaining and conveying stolen government property (2) receiving, retaining, communication and failure to deliver documents relating to the national defense and (3) interstate transport of stolen property of a value in excess of $5,000.” [p.32]
Said Edwin Lane (chair of the Beacon Board of directors at the time, who later found that his office phone had been tapped) “My greatest concern has always been that we could be completely exonerated by the courts and still be bankrupted if the Government chose to pit it’s fast financial resources against our small denominational publishing house… We could win every court battle and still be destroyed in the process.” [35] They were right to worry about the fiscal impact of the fight- Gravel’s attorney fees were more than $75,000 and the senate declined any funds towards his defense. The UUA paid more than $60,000 for Beacon Press legal fees.
Then on January 11, a subpoena was issued for Stair. UUA president Dr. Robert West sent a letter to religious leaders across the country warning that the FBI had compelled the disclosure of the names of their members and contributors. In that letter he argued that “An individual citizen’s decision to join and support a religious organization should not be subject to government investigation.” West’s ongoing outreach lead to the support by many faith groups, including the US Catholic Conference who offered legal assistance, and the Conference of American Rabbis which issued a statement against the government’s unconstitutional search saying “the end of religious freedom as we have know it could be near at hand.” [p. 37]
Letters of support came in from UUs around the country, some with donations from individuals or offerings taken up by congregations. I was touched to note that Dan Lion, founding minister of the congregation I served in Palo Alto sent a letter reading “I gave a 5 minute pulpit editorial on the UUA and the Pentagon Papers. Result: a request that a second offering be taken up. Hence the enclosed check.” West toured the country keeping the story in the public eye, and sought the support of news media and book publishers. The ALA issued a resolution of support for Beacon Press. Said West “The librarians were the most intensely concerned people I encountered in this who weren’t Unitarian Universalists”
But at the same time the UUA received hate mail from Unitarian Universalists condemning their actions- they felt being in possession of stolen goods was not solid moral ground to stand on. Members were concerned that the UUA stood on shaky financial ground as well. The initial investment in the publishing was $200,000, and by June of 1972 less than 1/3 had been recouped. Fortunately the Veach program made a loan of $100,000 to cover the costs, and later another loan for $300,000 for operating capitol. The press continued to flounder financially, cutting staff, new editions and publicity.
Then in June the Supreme court turned down the final UUA appeal- they would not be covered under Gravel’s immunity. The Association of American Publishers called an emergency meeting, and called for a $100,000 Beacon press legal defense fund. But in that very month the attention of the justice department turned to focus on the break in at DNC headquarters at the Watergate Hotel.
As the Watergate investigation dominated the press, Ellsberg and Beacon Press waited to exhale. Finally by 1973 it seemed the Pentagon Papers were old news. Charges against Ellsberg and Russo were dismissed in Los Angeles. All hoped the case would not be pursued back east. The battle everyone had been bracing for never materialized. Said Stair in an interview later that year “If the Pentagon Papers came to us now, I’m not sure we could publish them.” [p. 46] But reflecting back in 2001 he called it “a high point in Beacon’s fulfilling its role as a public pulpit for proclaiming Unitarian Universalist Principles.”
What is the moral of this story? Beacon Press needn’t have gotten involved; 30some other publishers had turned down the opportunity for this small but noble role in the story of the Vietnam war. But Beacon’s sense of mission and principle was clear- if ever there was a time when this country needed the light of truth it was surely needed to guide their way out of the quagmire of war. But more importantly, Senators, publishers, typesetters, universities, were all afraid of retribution if they participated in the publishing of these documents. Says Edwin Lane, whose office phone was tapped while he was Chair of the Beacon Board of Directors “It’s tragic when a nation, dedicated and committed to the principle of freedom, reaches such a point that the greatest fear we have is from the government itself.” Sometimes you just have to stand up to bullies.
In the midst of conflict and drama, when tensions are high and things are happening fast, our body is hard wired not to act on principle, but to act for our own survival. Our sense of clarity of purpose must be so clear, so sure, that even with our heart racing we ground our actions and choices in our principles. Now that 38 years have passed, it’s easy to be proud of Beacon Press for making the “right choice.” But what must it have felt like to serve on that Board of Trustees, watching the Press your were charged with teeter on the edge of financial ruin, facing off with the Department of Defense. Would any of us have the courage of our convictions to make that kind of choice, for ourselves, for our congregation?
I think that song by the Mighty Might Bosstones hits the nail right on the head:
I'm not a coward, I've just never been tested.
I'd like to think that if I was I would pass…
I've never had to knock on wood, but I know someone who has.
Which makes me wonder if I could.
makes me wonder if I could.
May this story work in our hearts and give us courage whenever we are tested to stand up on behalf of truth.
“I'm not a coward, I've just never been tested.
I'd like to think that if I was I would pass.
…I've never had to knock on wood, but I know someone who has.
Which makes me wonder if I could.”
Today I want to tell you a story about our Unitarian Universalist Publishing house Beacon Press, about a time they were tested, a story which challenges us all to wonder if we could be brave enough to pass such a test.
Our Beacon Press was born as an in-house publisher for The American Unitarian Association, and in 1900 took it’s name from Beacon Hill on which the offices of the AUA were situated, and where the UUA offices are still located today. The name had metaphoric significance as well; you see on that hill, during the formative years of our nation, a tar bucket was hung on a pole at the peak. If enemies were approaching, the tar was lit, and the bucket would be hoisted to the top of the pole. This Unitarian publisher was to be a press empowered to shine a light on truth in troubled times. Their motto “In luce veritatis or ‘ In the light of truth’” would guide their work.
Said Walter Kring in the Christian Register (Which was the equivalent of today’s UU World) “The Beacon Press has always felt that what is printed is of far more important than whether the balance sheet is in the red or the black. Today the Beacon Press is known by many as one of the most courageous presses in America.” Beacon published such important and challenging works as the Autobiography of Mohandas Gandhi (1957) and Viktor Frankl’s “Man’s Search for Meaning” (1962).
Gobin Stair, who became the third director of Beacon press in 1962, oversaw the publishing of several volumes that questioned the war in Vietnam: Howard Zinn’s “Vietnam: The Logic of Withdrawal” and Tatum and Tuchinsky’s “Guide to the Draft” (1969) which helped young men avoid being drafted. So when Beacon was approached with a request to publish the Pentagon Papers in 1971, the moral imperative was clear. Allison Trzop, a grad student at Emerson College, found the story compelling enough to wrote a history of the episode as her Master’s thesis in 2006. It is her scholarship that brought this story to a new generation of UUs, and her work that I share with you today. Let’s start from the beginning.
In 1967 Defense Secretary Robert McNamara wanted to put together “a full history of U.S. decision making on Vietnam back as far as the 1940s.” He put together a team of 36 people and gave them access to all kinds of Defense department files, along with outside sources- newspapers and books. The task force director, Leslie Gelb, descried it as “a history based solely on documents – checked and rechecked with ant-like diligence.” The final version was 7000 pages long and was meant for internal use only. Most of the people who worked on the project only saw small sections in their area of specialization, but Daniel Ellsberg, a former marine who had worked at both the Pentagon and the Rand Corporation think tank, had access to the whole document. He wrote in his memoirs “It occurred to me that what I had in my safe at Rand was seven thousand pages of documentary evidence of lying, by four presidents and their administrations over twenty-three years, to conceal plans and actions of mass murder. I decided I would stop concealing that myself. I would get it out somehow.”
Ellison, working with a former Rand associate Anthony Russo, photocopied all 7000 pages after-hours at a friend’s Los Angeles office. He leaked the first papers to the New York Times in March of 1971, but the Times sat on them for several months; it wasn’t until June 12 that the first of the papers were printed, and after only 3 days the New York Times was enjoined from publishing any more of the secret papers. It was the first time a U.S. Court had ever silenced a newspaper on grounds of “national Security.” Ellison then gave 2 sets of the documents to the Washington Post. The Post began publishing excerpts right after the Times injunction, but was similarly enjoined. On June 30 in “New York Times Co. v. United States” the Supreme Court heard an appeal, and both injunctions were lifted. The Times took up publishing the excerpts again the next day.
But remember 2 sets of papers were delivered to the Post, to editor Ben Bagdikian. Ellsberg had asked that the second set be given to a member of congress. Ellsberg approached several senators who declined, before Maurice Gravel, the Democratic senator from Alaska agreed to accept the documents. The heavy box of papers was exchanged in the Parking Lot of the Mayflower hotel in Washington DC. Gavel planned to read the papers into the record of the U.S. Senate during a filibuster of a bill that would extend the draft, but the filibuster was blocked because there wasn’t a quorum. Eager to enter the papers into the public record, on June 29 Gravel held an executive session of the Senate Sub-Committee on Buildings and Grounds which he chaired. He read from the papers for three hours and made an impassioned plea for a full disclosure to the public. Then, “with tears streaming down his face”, entered the documents into the public record. [p. 13] This meant that technically the papers were now in the public domain, but Sen. Randolph of West Virginia refused to authorize payment of a stenographer for a public record, blocking publication by the Government Printing office.
The New York times continued to print excerpts of these papers as “The Vietnam Archive” but Senator Gavel wanted to see publication of the full history. He approached publisher after publisher until thirty-some had turned him down. He approached first the larger publishers like Houghton Mifflin and Simon and Schuster, then he approached University and scholarly presses such as Harvard and MIT. Gavel was one of 2 Unitarian Universalists in the Senate at that time, but it was one of his aids who reminded him that his own denomination had a publishing house.
Beacon’s Editor in Chief, Arnold Tovell, and the director, Govin Stair agreed to look at the papers. Stair said in an interview “Our previous order was to publish those good books which are important books which the commercial presses won’t publish…and we were evading it in every way we could! … I had to tell my trustees that this was a principle, and that it was a silly thing to do, but I thought we should do it. But they had to know that it would cost ‘em. I stood up at that damned meeting and said it just as simply as that.”
And so on August 17, Beacon announced that it would print the Pentagon Papers, knowing it was the “biggest venture in the history of the small publishing firm.” Imagine, what they had been presented with was 7000 pages of “photocopied transcripts” with no particular organization. Said Gobin Stair, “It was an endless pile of notes. Nobody had shaped it.”
In addition to the huge editing task, there was the political stress as well. Stair recalls a phone call from Richard Nixon. “’Gobin’, said Nixon, ‘we have been investigating you around Boston, and we know you are apparently a pretty nice and smart guy…I hear you are going to do that set of papers by that guy Gravel’… The result was that as the guy in charge at Beacon,” Stair Recalled “I was in real trouble. Before we had decided yes or no, we were told not to do it. We were publishing books we like and that we think we can sell, and to be told by Nixon… not to do it, convinced me before I had [completely] decided, that it was a book to do.” But stair admitted feeling anxiety as well saying “I very much wish somebody else were publishing this.”
On September 17 two men from the defense Department walked in to Beacon Press and asked to see Gobin Stair. They demanded that the Pentagon Papers be returned. Before leaving they ran paper through all of Beacon Press’s photocopiers to see if the photocopies had been made on Beacon’s machines. Stair remembered the event as “Ominous and intimidating.”
The sense of fear spread. Beacon asked typesetters to give bids without knowing the exact nature of the project. When the project was revealed, the lowest bidder dropped out saying he was afraid of losing government contracts if he typeset the Pentagon Papers. The next lowest bid was $10,000 higher. They were off to a rough start.
Then, just 12 days before the Beacon press version arrived in bookstores, the Government Printing Office released its own set of the Pentagon Papers. (Remember, they had previously refused to do so). Now the government version did not even have page numbers, and was heavily censored. Said Gavel “You’ve got to appreciate that the decision to publish the papers by the Defense Department had to be a Whitehouse decision. It had to be a spiteful decision to punish… [Beacon] personally.”
On October 22 Beacon released a four volume set in cloth and paper. The New York Times Book reviewer proclaimed the Gravel edition “the best version.” At the release party Senator Gravel said in his speech “I was prepared to give up my Senate seat so that the American people could have these papers. Nothing but my family is dearer to me than my Senate seat – I’ve wanted to be a Senator since I was 12 years old. This” he said, holding up a copy of the book, “is my only pay-off…If there’s any question that I’d do it again, I would. I’d do it again and again and again and again.”
A week later, FBI agents walked into the New England Merchants National Bank of Boston, and asked to look at all UUA records for the past 6 months. The Bank refused, asking to see a subpoena. Two days later they FBI came back with a Subpoena for documents from all 12 of the UUA accounts. The president of the UUA, Dr. Robert West issued a statement that “Serious questions of church-state separation and freedom of the press are raised, in addition to the general issues of government intimidation and repression of dissent.” [p. 30] Senator Gavel and the UUA legal council requested an injunction based on Senator Gavel’s senatorial immunity, and the US court of appeals stopped the investigation while awaiting the ruling about Gravel’s immunity.
The respite was not long lived. On January 7 of 1972, the federal court of Appeals in Boston ruled that Gravel’s immunity would not protect Beacon press. UUA attorneys appealed to the Supreme Court, and asked for an injunction based on a violation of religious liberty. The FBI withdrew it’s subpoena, but Beacon learned that the government planned to file criminal charges for (1) “receiving concealing, retaining and conveying stolen government property (2) receiving, retaining, communication and failure to deliver documents relating to the national defense and (3) interstate transport of stolen property of a value in excess of $5,000.” [p.32]
Said Edwin Lane (chair of the Beacon Board of directors at the time, who later found that his office phone had been tapped) “My greatest concern has always been that we could be completely exonerated by the courts and still be bankrupted if the Government chose to pit it’s fast financial resources against our small denominational publishing house… We could win every court battle and still be destroyed in the process.” [35] They were right to worry about the fiscal impact of the fight- Gravel’s attorney fees were more than $75,000 and the senate declined any funds towards his defense. The UUA paid more than $60,000 for Beacon Press legal fees.
Then on January 11, a subpoena was issued for Stair. UUA president Dr. Robert West sent a letter to religious leaders across the country warning that the FBI had compelled the disclosure of the names of their members and contributors. In that letter he argued that “An individual citizen’s decision to join and support a religious organization should not be subject to government investigation.” West’s ongoing outreach lead to the support by many faith groups, including the US Catholic Conference who offered legal assistance, and the Conference of American Rabbis which issued a statement against the government’s unconstitutional search saying “the end of religious freedom as we have know it could be near at hand.” [p. 37]
Letters of support came in from UUs around the country, some with donations from individuals or offerings taken up by congregations. I was touched to note that Dan Lion, founding minister of the congregation I served in Palo Alto sent a letter reading “I gave a 5 minute pulpit editorial on the UUA and the Pentagon Papers. Result: a request that a second offering be taken up. Hence the enclosed check.” West toured the country keeping the story in the public eye, and sought the support of news media and book publishers. The ALA issued a resolution of support for Beacon Press. Said West “The librarians were the most intensely concerned people I encountered in this who weren’t Unitarian Universalists”
But at the same time the UUA received hate mail from Unitarian Universalists condemning their actions- they felt being in possession of stolen goods was not solid moral ground to stand on. Members were concerned that the UUA stood on shaky financial ground as well. The initial investment in the publishing was $200,000, and by June of 1972 less than 1/3 had been recouped. Fortunately the Veach program made a loan of $100,000 to cover the costs, and later another loan for $300,000 for operating capitol. The press continued to flounder financially, cutting staff, new editions and publicity.
Then in June the Supreme court turned down the final UUA appeal- they would not be covered under Gravel’s immunity. The Association of American Publishers called an emergency meeting, and called for a $100,000 Beacon press legal defense fund. But in that very month the attention of the justice department turned to focus on the break in at DNC headquarters at the Watergate Hotel.
As the Watergate investigation dominated the press, Ellsberg and Beacon Press waited to exhale. Finally by 1973 it seemed the Pentagon Papers were old news. Charges against Ellsberg and Russo were dismissed in Los Angeles. All hoped the case would not be pursued back east. The battle everyone had been bracing for never materialized. Said Stair in an interview later that year “If the Pentagon Papers came to us now, I’m not sure we could publish them.” [p. 46] But reflecting back in 2001 he called it “a high point in Beacon’s fulfilling its role as a public pulpit for proclaiming Unitarian Universalist Principles.”
What is the moral of this story? Beacon Press needn’t have gotten involved; 30some other publishers had turned down the opportunity for this small but noble role in the story of the Vietnam war. But Beacon’s sense of mission and principle was clear- if ever there was a time when this country needed the light of truth it was surely needed to guide their way out of the quagmire of war. But more importantly, Senators, publishers, typesetters, universities, were all afraid of retribution if they participated in the publishing of these documents. Says Edwin Lane, whose office phone was tapped while he was Chair of the Beacon Board of Directors “It’s tragic when a nation, dedicated and committed to the principle of freedom, reaches such a point that the greatest fear we have is from the government itself.” Sometimes you just have to stand up to bullies.
In the midst of conflict and drama, when tensions are high and things are happening fast, our body is hard wired not to act on principle, but to act for our own survival. Our sense of clarity of purpose must be so clear, so sure, that even with our heart racing we ground our actions and choices in our principles. Now that 38 years have passed, it’s easy to be proud of Beacon Press for making the “right choice.” But what must it have felt like to serve on that Board of Trustees, watching the Press your were charged with teeter on the edge of financial ruin, facing off with the Department of Defense. Would any of us have the courage of our convictions to make that kind of choice, for ourselves, for our congregation?
I think that song by the Mighty Might Bosstones hits the nail right on the head:
I'm not a coward, I've just never been tested.
I'd like to think that if I was I would pass…
I've never had to knock on wood, but I know someone who has.
Which makes me wonder if I could.
makes me wonder if I could.
May this story work in our hearts and give us courage whenever we are tested to stand up on behalf of truth.
Monday, December 14, 2009
The Soul of Friendship (December 6, 2009)
A few weeks ago I had the privilege of hearing Author Thomas Moore address the Convocation of UU Ministers in Canada. He was talking about how we tend and feed the soul, and suggested that the most important way we can sustain our souls is friendship. I was, I have to admit, feeling kind of lonely at that moment, kind of empty. I felt suddenly as if someone had mentioned water to a thirsty person. I mean, sure I was surrounded by 400 amazing colleagues, but as I had been wearing your “I am a professional” shoes for 4 days, and trying to weigh everything I said so it wouldn’t be taken wrong in a professional context, I was starting to long for my pink fleece thermal slippers and an equally comfortable companion. In his book Soul Mates (out in book exchange right now) Moore writes “We may believe that friendship, like so many things of the soul, is tangential to life, an added boon, or an accessory… Friendship makes a major contribution to the process of soul-making, and without it we feel a painful lack and a debilitating weakness of heart. (p. 93)
Think of a close friend from childhood. You could play together for hours and hours and still be disappointed when your parent came to take you home. In his poem called “Childhood friends” the 13th century Persian poet Rumi writes:
“A close childhood friend once came to visit Joseph.
They had shared those secrets children tell each other
when they’re lying on the pillows at night
before they go to sleep.
These two were completely truthful with each other.”
["Rumi and the Celts", by Coleman Barks. Parabola, Winter 2004 p. 28].
As I heard Thomas Moore talk I realized how the soul hungers for such a friendship. Yet somehow as an adult I had kind of gotten the idea that responsible grown ups didn’t crave that kind of friendship, that it wouldn’t have the centrality it did when we were children. It was so affirming to hear Moore talk about the importance of Friendship not just to our “networks” or to our social life, but to our SOUL.
Moore went on to talk about Jesus’ relationship with his disciples, how he called them friend, and how he often ate and cooked and even drank wine with them. Friendship was in the fabric of Jesus’ ministry. Ivone Gebara, Latin American Eco-Feminist Theologian, has written extensively about the importance of “relatedness” in theology- She writes “God is relationship. And it is by means of relationships and of relational behaviors that we speak of God... Long ago Saint John said that those who do not love their brothers and sisters do not love God!” [Ivone Gebara, Longing for Running Water. p. 104-5]
In both theology and friendship, there is a dance between separateness and unity, a dance where two become one. This dance echoes our relationship with God, reflects something of the nature of the universe, and is present in our relationships with one another. This dance has been explored by theologians and poets, school children and mystics for as long as anyone can say.
It should come as no surprise, then, that all the spiritual traditions I know lift up friendship as an important spiritual practice. The Sufi’s say there are 3 ways to relate to mystery: Prayer, meditation, and “Sohbet” (which can be translated as exchange or conversation.) Buddhism in particular lifts up the importance of a “Dharma Buddy”, someone who will be a companion to you on your spiritual path. And when a community of friends comes together with the shared purpose of spiritual growth, this is a “Sangha”
So why is friendship so important, and what makes a good friendship?
What moves me in that Rumi poem about Joseph’s childhood friend is the intimacy there. When someone has heard your secrets and you can trust them, this is very precious. The soul craves a friend who has seen your kitchen messy and still wants to be your friend. How precious is a friend who can see you as a real person, not some ideal, not a front, and who shows you their own true self. And as a related quality, friends are those who forgive one another again and again. A friend is not necessarily someone who likes your weaknesses, but one who does not let those weaknesses come between you. Because we can’t be truly intimate with one another, we can’t get really close unless we are willing to be seen in our whole self, both for our strength and our weaknesses. Says Moore “Without intimacy, soul goes starving, for the closeness provided by intimate relationships fulfills the soul’s very nature.” [p. 93]
We’ve all heard the saying “A sorrow shared is a sorrow divided,” I hope everyone in this room who has ever grieved or been in pain has felt the flood of relief when a friend is able to enter your solitude, and just be present with you in a hard moment. Sometimes we don’t even realize how deep our pain is until the companionship of a friend makes us feel safe enough to bring those emotions to the surface. It continues “a joy shared is a joy multiplied.” During my Clinical Pastoral Education the other minister’s-in-training and I met for lunch every day. As we studied pastoral care in a hospital setting, we had the privilege of being with patients in their most scary moments, and in times of grief . It was a challenge for all of us, and it was such a relief to have companionship on that journey. One day after a powerful morning of work, we had to cut lunch short and so found ourselves at Burger King, where there was a row of cardboard crowns set out for customers. After the kind of morning we had all had, we felt compelled to put them on and in so doing just cracked ourselves up. One of my colleagues said conspiratorially “I think the other customers are looking at us.” Another replied “They are wishing they had friends like this.” It is much less funny to wear a crown when dining alone, but downright hilarious when in the company of 3 friends who have your back no matter how foolish you look.
A good friendship is reciprocal. Each listens and each talks. Each helps and each is helped. There is a balance in the relationship that makes it sustainable. Each brings a gift to the friendship. I have to admit I get a little too carried away with the seriousness of things sometimes, and with my passion for my work. I surely am grateful for a friend who can make me laugh or distract me from my e-mail. What a blessing is a friend who can help you be a better person, a more well-rounded person. I have heard it said that on your spiritual journey it is good to always have a friend who you admire who can teach you something, and a friend whom you, in turn, teach. But I think the best friendships are those where each admires and learns from the other.
Another way that friendship becomes a spiritual practice, is that friends act as a mirror for one another. When we are in relationship we see ourselves better, or in a new way. Says Joseph’s childhood friend as that Rumi Poem continues
“I have brought you a mirror.
Look at yourself and remember me.”
["Rumi and the Celts", by Coleman Barks. Parabola, Winter 2004 p. 28].
The friend reflects back to you your good qualities, but also those parts of yourself that need strengthening. When your friend is driving you nuts, there is probably something you need to work on in yourself. This is when friendship gets hard- when we have to keep looking in that mirror where we see ourselves in our places that need to grow.
The shadow side of friendship is loneliness. I bet everyone in this room has experienced periods of your life when you were lonely. Periods when you were a stranger in a strange land, or had lost a really close friend. Or maybe you were so deeply in grief or depression you just could not reach out to connect with others, or couldn’t participate in the genial social conversation that stays above deep pain. Loneliness is real, and the reality of that pain, that emptiness gives more power to Thomas Moore’s words about how the soul needs connection. But the spiritual traditions speak to this as well. The Sufi tradition holds that the spiritual path of conversation can be practiced without another person. In that lonely time we cry out into the emptiness we feel, perhaps we cry out to God if that is part of our theology. Moore says that the emptying that life brings us unbidden is an important part of our spiritual growth. The emptying makes space for us to know ourselves it may bring us closer to mystery or to the divine. Loneliness brings with it the mandate that we come to know our own darkest selves. It asks us to search for whatever it is in this living universe that is present with us even when we are alone. If you are willing to follow Gebara’s logic, that God is Relationship, or that the fabric of the universe is fundamentally relational, we can never be truly alone, even in our deepest loneliness.
Sometimes that loneliness makes room for new friendships. What a delightful surprise it is when you and this one person of the many people you interact with each day are both free for coffee tomorrow. You both have a friend-sized whole in your lives, and this other interesting, friendly person seems to enjoy your company. Becoming close friends with a new person is a tremendous and delightful gift that does not happen often. It is both ordinary and extraordinary.
But not all friendships have the same depth of intimacy. Each friendship brings with it a different gift. Someone who is very fun to watch football with, might not interested in the issues of hydro-fracking, or the implications of process theology. Not everyone wants to hear the minutia of your yoga practice, or stand in a loud club for 3 hours listening to your favorite band. Looking to that Minister’s convocation in Canada, though I missed the flannel slipper intimacy of my home life, I did certainly have friends there. I mean, who knows better about the strange life of a UU Minster than another UU minister? I re-connected with friends I had known since all the way back in my seminary days, friends from my years serving on the West Coast, and new just-sprouting friendships with the ministers here in my new District. There were folks there I knew I could call on if I had a crisis in ministry, and folks who could make me laugh. Together our friendships weave a web that supports and sustains us as no one person could. But all are a gift, and need to be nurtured and cared for.
There’s a lovely story from the Hasidic tradition, about two Rabbis who were reunited after being apart for over a year and greeted each other with the words ‘Blessed art thou, Oh Lord our God, King of the Universe, who raises the dead. ” One of the younger students asked why the prayer for greeting a friend one hasn’t seen in over a year is a blessing to God for reviving the dead. The teachers explained that each person on earth has a unique light “burning for them in the world above” and when two friends meet their light is united, and out of that light an angel is born. But when the friends are apart for more than a year, the angel weakens and wastes away. So on reuniting they bless the dead to revive the angel. And just as the Rabbi finished speaking all heard the sound of rustling wings, and knew the angel had been reborn. ["The Angel of Friendship." Parabola, Winter 2004 p. 76].
Our friendships need tending or they will languish and waste away. Our friendships are not tangential, they feed us and challenge us and help us grow. This is why we are here together this morning. To cherish and honor our friendships, to eat and laugh and restore our souls.
Think of a close friend from childhood. You could play together for hours and hours and still be disappointed when your parent came to take you home. In his poem called “Childhood friends” the 13th century Persian poet Rumi writes:
“A close childhood friend once came to visit Joseph.
They had shared those secrets children tell each other
when they’re lying on the pillows at night
before they go to sleep.
These two were completely truthful with each other.”
["Rumi and the Celts", by Coleman Barks. Parabola, Winter 2004 p. 28].
As I heard Thomas Moore talk I realized how the soul hungers for such a friendship. Yet somehow as an adult I had kind of gotten the idea that responsible grown ups didn’t crave that kind of friendship, that it wouldn’t have the centrality it did when we were children. It was so affirming to hear Moore talk about the importance of Friendship not just to our “networks” or to our social life, but to our SOUL.
Moore went on to talk about Jesus’ relationship with his disciples, how he called them friend, and how he often ate and cooked and even drank wine with them. Friendship was in the fabric of Jesus’ ministry. Ivone Gebara, Latin American Eco-Feminist Theologian, has written extensively about the importance of “relatedness” in theology- She writes “God is relationship. And it is by means of relationships and of relational behaviors that we speak of God... Long ago Saint John said that those who do not love their brothers and sisters do not love God!” [Ivone Gebara, Longing for Running Water. p. 104-5]
In both theology and friendship, there is a dance between separateness and unity, a dance where two become one. This dance echoes our relationship with God, reflects something of the nature of the universe, and is present in our relationships with one another. This dance has been explored by theologians and poets, school children and mystics for as long as anyone can say.
It should come as no surprise, then, that all the spiritual traditions I know lift up friendship as an important spiritual practice. The Sufi’s say there are 3 ways to relate to mystery: Prayer, meditation, and “Sohbet” (which can be translated as exchange or conversation.) Buddhism in particular lifts up the importance of a “Dharma Buddy”, someone who will be a companion to you on your spiritual path. And when a community of friends comes together with the shared purpose of spiritual growth, this is a “Sangha”
So why is friendship so important, and what makes a good friendship?
What moves me in that Rumi poem about Joseph’s childhood friend is the intimacy there. When someone has heard your secrets and you can trust them, this is very precious. The soul craves a friend who has seen your kitchen messy and still wants to be your friend. How precious is a friend who can see you as a real person, not some ideal, not a front, and who shows you their own true self. And as a related quality, friends are those who forgive one another again and again. A friend is not necessarily someone who likes your weaknesses, but one who does not let those weaknesses come between you. Because we can’t be truly intimate with one another, we can’t get really close unless we are willing to be seen in our whole self, both for our strength and our weaknesses. Says Moore “Without intimacy, soul goes starving, for the closeness provided by intimate relationships fulfills the soul’s very nature.” [p. 93]
We’ve all heard the saying “A sorrow shared is a sorrow divided,” I hope everyone in this room who has ever grieved or been in pain has felt the flood of relief when a friend is able to enter your solitude, and just be present with you in a hard moment. Sometimes we don’t even realize how deep our pain is until the companionship of a friend makes us feel safe enough to bring those emotions to the surface. It continues “a joy shared is a joy multiplied.” During my Clinical Pastoral Education the other minister’s-in-training and I met for lunch every day. As we studied pastoral care in a hospital setting, we had the privilege of being with patients in their most scary moments, and in times of grief . It was a challenge for all of us, and it was such a relief to have companionship on that journey. One day after a powerful morning of work, we had to cut lunch short and so found ourselves at Burger King, where there was a row of cardboard crowns set out for customers. After the kind of morning we had all had, we felt compelled to put them on and in so doing just cracked ourselves up. One of my colleagues said conspiratorially “I think the other customers are looking at us.” Another replied “They are wishing they had friends like this.” It is much less funny to wear a crown when dining alone, but downright hilarious when in the company of 3 friends who have your back no matter how foolish you look.
A good friendship is reciprocal. Each listens and each talks. Each helps and each is helped. There is a balance in the relationship that makes it sustainable. Each brings a gift to the friendship. I have to admit I get a little too carried away with the seriousness of things sometimes, and with my passion for my work. I surely am grateful for a friend who can make me laugh or distract me from my e-mail. What a blessing is a friend who can help you be a better person, a more well-rounded person. I have heard it said that on your spiritual journey it is good to always have a friend who you admire who can teach you something, and a friend whom you, in turn, teach. But I think the best friendships are those where each admires and learns from the other.
Another way that friendship becomes a spiritual practice, is that friends act as a mirror for one another. When we are in relationship we see ourselves better, or in a new way. Says Joseph’s childhood friend as that Rumi Poem continues
“I have brought you a mirror.
Look at yourself and remember me.”
["Rumi and the Celts", by Coleman Barks. Parabola, Winter 2004 p. 28].
The friend reflects back to you your good qualities, but also those parts of yourself that need strengthening. When your friend is driving you nuts, there is probably something you need to work on in yourself. This is when friendship gets hard- when we have to keep looking in that mirror where we see ourselves in our places that need to grow.
The shadow side of friendship is loneliness. I bet everyone in this room has experienced periods of your life when you were lonely. Periods when you were a stranger in a strange land, or had lost a really close friend. Or maybe you were so deeply in grief or depression you just could not reach out to connect with others, or couldn’t participate in the genial social conversation that stays above deep pain. Loneliness is real, and the reality of that pain, that emptiness gives more power to Thomas Moore’s words about how the soul needs connection. But the spiritual traditions speak to this as well. The Sufi tradition holds that the spiritual path of conversation can be practiced without another person. In that lonely time we cry out into the emptiness we feel, perhaps we cry out to God if that is part of our theology. Moore says that the emptying that life brings us unbidden is an important part of our spiritual growth. The emptying makes space for us to know ourselves it may bring us closer to mystery or to the divine. Loneliness brings with it the mandate that we come to know our own darkest selves. It asks us to search for whatever it is in this living universe that is present with us even when we are alone. If you are willing to follow Gebara’s logic, that God is Relationship, or that the fabric of the universe is fundamentally relational, we can never be truly alone, even in our deepest loneliness.
Sometimes that loneliness makes room for new friendships. What a delightful surprise it is when you and this one person of the many people you interact with each day are both free for coffee tomorrow. You both have a friend-sized whole in your lives, and this other interesting, friendly person seems to enjoy your company. Becoming close friends with a new person is a tremendous and delightful gift that does not happen often. It is both ordinary and extraordinary.
But not all friendships have the same depth of intimacy. Each friendship brings with it a different gift. Someone who is very fun to watch football with, might not interested in the issues of hydro-fracking, or the implications of process theology. Not everyone wants to hear the minutia of your yoga practice, or stand in a loud club for 3 hours listening to your favorite band. Looking to that Minister’s convocation in Canada, though I missed the flannel slipper intimacy of my home life, I did certainly have friends there. I mean, who knows better about the strange life of a UU Minster than another UU minister? I re-connected with friends I had known since all the way back in my seminary days, friends from my years serving on the West Coast, and new just-sprouting friendships with the ministers here in my new District. There were folks there I knew I could call on if I had a crisis in ministry, and folks who could make me laugh. Together our friendships weave a web that supports and sustains us as no one person could. But all are a gift, and need to be nurtured and cared for.
There’s a lovely story from the Hasidic tradition, about two Rabbis who were reunited after being apart for over a year and greeted each other with the words ‘Blessed art thou, Oh Lord our God, King of the Universe, who raises the dead. ” One of the younger students asked why the prayer for greeting a friend one hasn’t seen in over a year is a blessing to God for reviving the dead. The teachers explained that each person on earth has a unique light “burning for them in the world above” and when two friends meet their light is united, and out of that light an angel is born. But when the friends are apart for more than a year, the angel weakens and wastes away. So on reuniting they bless the dead to revive the angel. And just as the Rabbi finished speaking all heard the sound of rustling wings, and knew the angel had been reborn. ["The Angel of Friendship." Parabola, Winter 2004 p. 76].
Our friendships need tending or they will languish and waste away. Our friendships are not tangential, they feed us and challenge us and help us grow. This is why we are here together this morning. To cherish and honor our friendships, to eat and laugh and restore our souls.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)