This sermon was preached by Rev. Dan Harper at First Unitarian Church in New Bedford. As usual, the sermon below is a reading text. The actual sermon as preached contained more than the usual amount of extemporaneous remarks and improvisation. Sermon copyright (c) 2008 Daniel Harper.
Readings
The first reading comes from the Election Day sermon of an early minister of this church. In May, 1776, Samuel West, then minister of our congregation, was invited to preach the Election Day sermon before the Massachusetts colonial legislature. West preached a carefully balanced and beautifully written justification for rebelling against King George. Before I read a fairly long extract from this sermon, I will only say that Samuel West uses the term “magistrate” in much the same way that we would use the term “elected official.”
“If magistrates are no farther ministers of God than they promote the good of the community, then obedience to them neither is nor can be unlimited; for it would imply a gross absurdity to assert that, when magistrates are ordained by the people solely for the purpose of being beneficial to the state, they must be obeyed when they are seeking to ruin and destroy it. This would imply that men were bound to act against the great law of self-preservation, and to contribute their assistance to their own ruin and destruction, in order that they may please and gratify the greatest monsters in nature, who are violating the laws of God and destroying the rights of mankind. Unlimited submission and obedience is due to none but God alone. He has an absolute right to command; he alone has an uncontrollable sovereignty over us, because he alone is unchangeably good; he never will nor can require of us, consistent with his nature and attributes, anything that is not fit and reasonable; his commands are all just and good; and to suppose that he has given to any particular set of men a power to require obedience to that which is unreasonable, cruel, and unjust, is robbing the Deity of his justice and goodness, in which consists the peculiar glory of the divine character, and it is representing him under the horrid character of a tyrant.
“If magistrates are ministers of God only because the law of God and reason points out the necessity of such an institution for the good of mankind, it follows, that whenever they pursue measures directly destructive of the public good they cease being God’s ministers, they forfeit their right to obedience from the subject, they become the pests of society, and the community is under the strongest obligation of duty, both to God and to its own members, to resist and oppose them, which will be so far from resisting the ordinance of God that it will be strictly obeying his commands. To suppose otherwise will imply that the Deity requires of us an obedience that is self-contradictory and absurd, and that one part of his law is directly contrary to the other; i.e., while he commands us to pursue virtue and the general good, he does at the same time require us to persecute virtue, and betray the general good, by enjoining us obedience to the wicked commands of tyrannical oppressors. Can any one not lost to the principles of humanity undertake to defend such absurd sentiments as these? As the public safety is the first and grand law of society, so no community can have a right to invest the magistrate with any power or authority that will enable him to act against the welfare of the state and the good of the whole. If men have at any time wickedly and foolishly given up their just rights into the hands of the magistrate, such acts are null and void, of course; to suppose otherwise will imply that we have a right to invest the magistrate with a power to act contrary to the law of God, — which is as much as to say that we are not the subjects of divine law and government.”
The second reading is very brief, and it comes from Section C-2.1 of the bylaws of the Unitarian Universalist Association, of which we are a member congregation.
“We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote:…
“The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large….”
Sermon
It’s election day on Tuesday, a day when registered voters will be selecting national, state, and local candidates, and deciding on a number of ballot questions, and I want to talk with you this morning about the election. No, I’m not going to endorse any specific candidate because I don’t think that’s something a minister should do. No, I’m not going to talk much about the presidential election, because even though the presidential campaign has dominated the news, it is only a small part of this coming election.
And since I’m a big supporter of the separation of church and state, I want to begin by telling you why I think it is appropriate for me to preach about election day. One of the peculiarities of Unitarian Universalism is that we, as a matter of religious principle, assert the value of the democratic process, and we have religious reasons for doing so. We are religious supporters of democracy. You may ask why this is so.
To begin with, we value democratic process because we have found that the best form of church governance for us is centered in a democratic local congregation — this is known as congregational polity. We believe strongly in the use of reason and the importance of personal conscience, and so instead of giving primary importance to distant, faceless hierarchies, we have chosen to make the local church the center of religious authority. Of course we also make sure that we have strong connections to other Unitarian Universalist congregations, but those are connections between equals rather than hierarchical relationships.
Then within the local congregation, we value democratic process because we think no one person has complete access to the truth. Over the last few centuries, we have discovered that it makes sense to listen to all people, not just the rich and powerful people; — no one person has all the answers, and just because someone is in a position of authority does not mean that their answers are better than ours. We have found that a good democratic process is the best way to take advantage of the insights of a wide range of people, so that we can gradually get closer to the truth.
So because of this, and perhaps some other reasons, we value democratic process as a matter of religious principle. I trust you have noticed that, although we assert the value of the democratic process as a religious principle, that is not the same thing as asserting the value of democracy as it is practiced in local, state, and national levels here in the United States. We can support any democratic process that matches our religious standards for democracy; and so it is that Canadian Unitarian Universalists can be just as supportive of their parliamentary form of democracy as we are of democracy in the United States; and any Unitarian Universalist can be supportive of democracy as practiced by the United Nations. I say all this because I want to be clear that we Unitarian Universalists are not tied to any specific instance of democratic government;– indeed, we may find that our religious values require us to be critical of some democratic governments. Nor are we tied to any specific political party;– indeed, we often find that our religious values require us to be very critical of both major political parties here in the United States, and critical of all the minor political parties as well. Our ideal of democratic process is just that — an ideal, and we often find that reality does not measure up to our ideal.
Given that we support democratic processes, I have three things I’d like to talk with you about in this election day sermon. I’d like to talk about whether it is your duty to vote; I’d like to talk about what role religion should play in politics; and I’d like to talk about several specific issues that confront us in the coming election.
…
Let’s start with the easiest bit first, whether or not it is your duty to vote. Of course we must remember that a fair number of our members and friends are not eligible to vote, whether due to their nationality or age or whatever. With those exceptions in mind, it is my firm conviction that Unitarian Universalism does NOT require us to vote in any election.
I’ll bet you thought I was going to say that everyone had to vote. But remember the second reading this morning:– we affirm and promote “the right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large….” Thus, if voting violates your deeply-held principles such that is against your conscience to do vote, then as a religious principle, you should not vote. This is what we might call “principled non-voting.”
Principled non-voting can mean that you refuse to vote at all, or it can mean that you refuse to choose between candidates whom you feel are unacceptable as a matter of principle. There have been times when I have refused to vote for a candidate for a particular office because I felt none of the candidates was morally acceptable.
You might also engage in principled non-voting when you get into the voting booth and discover to your surprise that you have no idea how to choose between two candidates. My favorite example of are the elections for governor’s council here in Massachusetts — it’s almost impossible to find out what the candidates stand for, and more than once I have chosen to not vote for anyone for governor’s council as a matter of principled non-voting.
There’s another possibility for principled non-voting, a possibility which I don’t think applies to anyone in this church. If someone gets into the voting booth and realize that they can’t vote for a particular candidate because of skin color, or gender, or anything else, then I suggest that it is best for them not to vote at all. We’ve been hearing about this in the current presidential campaign — there are people who will refuse to vote for Barack Obama because he’s black; and there were people who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries because she’s a woman, or who will refuse to vote for Sarah Palin because she’s a woman. Here in our congressional district, no doubt there are people who will refuse to vote for Barney Frank because he’s gay. It should be obvious that if there’s someone who refuses to vote for a particular candidate because of skin color, gender, sexual orientation, or what-have-you — then that someone should engage in principled non-voting, and simply not vote for or against either candidate.
None of this is news to anyone here, I’m sure. Out of religious conviction, we should take advantage of the right to vote, unless voting violates our conscience, in which case principled non-voting is perfectly acceptable.
…
Now let’s talk about what role religion should play in politics.
In the first reading this morning, we heard from the 1776 Election Day sermon by Rev. Samuel West, the minister of our church back in the late 18th century. This is a fairly typical Revolutionary sermon that tries to justify rebellion against the British government, while acknowledging the necessity for maintaining civil order. It is a fairly typical 18th century sermon because West obviously believes that the universe runs according to rational and reasonable laws and principles; that God is a rational being; that human beings are generally rational beings but that we also need a government to keep us from acting wickedly towards one another; and that government is a necessary institution to promotes the general good of humankind. All this is pretty standard stuff out of your high school American history class.
But I get something more out of what West has to say. He tells us that as long as magistrates “promote the good of the community,” then they are doing God’s work; but when magistrates do not promote the good of the community, they are no longer doing God’s work but instead are “pests of society.” Over the past few years, we have seen a number of American politicians claiming that God is on their side, but Samuel West puts the lie to such claims;– God isn’t on any politician’s side, God is on the side of goodness and justice. King George claimed that God was on his side, but Samuel West said that King George was wrong. Politicians can bring government into alignment with the law of God and the law of reason, says West — but politicians can not bring God into alignment with their political views.
Whether or not we believe in God, I think Samuel West is onto something here. He is telling us that what’s most important about a politician is the results they achieve. Conversely, he tells us quite directly (and I quote), “whenever [magistrates] pursue measures directly destructive of the public good they cease being God’s ministers.” I interpret this to mean that we should pay very little attention to what politicians say about their religion — but we should pay a great deal of attention to what politicians do to make this world a better place. The proof is in the pudding.
Given that principle, I believe that politicians should keep their religion out of their politics, and let the rest of us be the judge of whether or not they are acting in a moral and ethical manner. Of the four major-party presidential and vice-presidential candidates, I feel John McCain and Joe Biden have been pretty good at not talking about their personal religious beliefs. However, I have at times been uncomfortable with Sarah Palin and Barack Obama, both of whom at times have seemed to me to inject a little too much of their religion into their politics. Obama has been making a point of the fact that he’s a Christian, which is perhaps understandable considering the racial and religious slurs that have been thrown at him; but sometimes I feel he has talked too much about his Christian faith. Palin, for her part, has been a little too forthcoming about her Christian faith, and about her support for creationism. At the same time, I have also noticed that it’s the woman and the black man who feel they have to talk a lot about their religions, and it may be that both John McCain and Joe Biden have the luxury of being able to dodge questions about their religious faiths because they are white men.
Maybe the real problem is that American voters push their politicians into talking about religion. It should not matter to us whether a politician is a Pentecostal, a Congregationalist, an Episcopalian, or a Roman Catholic — nor should it matter to the politician. Colin Powell was on the television program “Meet the Press” last week, and he said the following: “Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer’s, No, that’s not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim kid believing that he or she could be president?” We will answer that there’s nothing wrong with a Muslim kid believing that he or she could be president someday. We also know that too many people in America today would only accept a Christian as president. This is wrong — it should not matter what religion a politician adheres to, as long as they are moral and ethical in their actions. I don’t know what to do about this problem, except to point out that it exists — and to reaffirm that we don’t care what religion a politicians holds, as long as they try to keep their religion out of their politics.
…
I’d like to end this sermon by alerting you to five issues that I think we Unitarian Universalists should pay close attention to as we evaluate the various candidates for state and national offices.
First, as Unitarian Universalists, we trace our religious heritage back to the great teaching of Jesus of Nazareth. If what was written about him is even a little bit accurate, Jesus was deeply concerned with the fate of poor and disadvantaged people. He taught that the first should be last, and the last should be first — which I take to mean that we should take care of the poor before we take care of the rich. Thus, when evaluating any political candidate, I suggest we ask ourselves how this candidate will care for poor and disadvantaged people.
The second issue is also drawn from the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus was quite firm that we should work for peace; indeed, he is reported to have said, “Blessed are the peacemakers.” There are many different ideas of how to achieve peace, and I have talked with people in the military and people who are peace activists whom I would call peacemakers. Also, peace goes beyond international affairs and includes peace in our local communities as well. While we might disagree about how to achieve peace, I suggest that when evaluating any political candidate we ask ourselves if this candidate is committed to peace.
The third issue also comes from the teachings of Jesus. You may remember that Jesus told us to love our neighbors. And Jesus was quite clear that every human being is our neighbor, that human love must cross race, ethnic group, class, and gender. Based on this principle, we Unitarian Universalists fight racism and sexism and all forms of prejudice. Therefore, I suggest that when evaluating any political candidate, we should ask ourselves whether this candidate sees all persons as their neighbor, and ask ourselves whether this candidate will fight racism, sexism, and all forms of discrimination.
The fourth issue I’d like to mention is the principle of ecojustice. As Unitarian Universalists, we are affirm the importance of the web of all existence of which we are a part, and we are committed to maintaining human and non-human communities in a sustainable fashion. The word “ecojustice” implies that economic justice and ecological justice cannot be separated and are of equal importance. With this in mind, I suggest that when we evaluate any political candidate, we will want to consider whether this candidate is committed to ecojustice and to sustainability.
Finally, as Unitarian Universalists we are committed to the use of reason. We are in favor of extending human knowledge through science, and we believe it is good to be an intellectual. Thus I would suggest that when we evaluate a political candidate, we spend some time considering whether the candidate supports science and scientific research, supports the use of reason in making decisions, and supports being an intellectual.
…
We Unitarian Universalists cherish freedom of thought. We don’t hold with religious dogma, and I’d like to believe that we don’t hold with political dogma either. What I have tried to outline in this election day sermon is (I hope) not dogma, but rather matters of principle:–
As a matter of principle, we should either vote on Tuesday; either that, or we may choose to engage in principled non-voting. Forgetting to vote, however, or being to lazy to vote, are not valid options for us.
As a further matter of principle, we should resist the temptation to mix religion and politics. We should pretty much ignore what politicians say about their religion — but we should pay a great deal of attention to what politicians do to make this world a better place. We don’t care if a presidential candidate is Muslim or Christian or atheist; what matters to us is whether that politician will provide principled and ethical leadership.
Finally, there are five issues that, as a matter of principle, I feel should be of concern to every Unitarian Universalist:– caring for the poor people in the world; peacemaking; opposing discrimination in all its forms; sustainability or ecojustice; and the importance of reason, science, and the intellect.
I will close by reminding you that these are only suggestions. I expect that you are a reasonable, thoughtful human being; I expect that you will listen to your conscience; and I expect that you will participate in democracy based on your own deeply-held principles.
May we each live out our highest principles, according to conscience, on election day.