A Sermon by the Rev. Daniel Charles Davis

on Martin Luther King Jr. Sunday

January 15, 2006

Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Winston-Salem

We live in an age of fanaticism, a fanaticism that goes beyond fundamentalism. A fundamentalist is guided by a set of principles that are unchangeable. A fanatic is guided by a set of principles that are unchangeable, plus feeling the need to eliminate all dissent from those beliefs.

A fundamentalist might say: “I am going to heaven, I am sorry you are going to hell.” A fanatic will say, “Since I am going to heaven and you are going to hell, I have the right to speed up the process. I can make your life a living hell and kill you if you disagree.”

This country has been doubly victimized by fanatics. On September 11, 2001, fanatics flew airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. We had a choice to make. Our nation could have responded by overwhelming evil with good. We could have negotiated with our allies in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Israel and encouraged them to treat the impoverished portions of their population with justice. We could have taken the high road and showed the positive side of our culture. We could promote freedom by giving trade benefits to emerging democracies. We could show that war is not the solution.

But instead we returned fanaticism with fanaticism. In response to 3,000 dead of our own, we have killed at least 30,000 civilians. [1] Even this conservative estimate has us killing ten times the number of people than we had killed. And the Iraqi people never attacked us and never helped those who did attack us.

Indeed we are the number one terrorist state.

This is how the FBI defines international terrorism: “International terrorism involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state. These acts appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping and occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” [2]

Technically, the bombings and invasion were not against our law, since some believe we are a law unto ourselves. But our acts certainly could be described as “intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.”

When Harry Belafonte says we are a terrorist nation, he is not far from the truth. There is no doubt that we have engaged in the mass destruction of Iraq. After three years, we have not been able to rebuild. We have held many prisoners without bringing legal charges. That is similar to kidnapping.

Forty years ago, Dr, Martin Luther King Jr. and 300 people were in a Birmingham jail and could not make bail, but getting out on bail was theoretically possible because we lived in a country that still had the due process of law. Belafonte was able to raise $50,000 in bail and set the captives free.

We do not know how many are held with out the opportunity to see a lawyer or how many have been sent to secret prisons overseas.

There was no doubt that Martin Luther King Jr. had broken the law. He intentionally broke Jim Crow laws in the South, using civil disobedience to highlight the injustice of such laws.

But our government now holds people and refuses to say why. They use the blanket excuse of fighting terrorism but offer no specific charges to the public.

Fanatics say that whoever does not support us is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

If the press or a politician timidly mentions the Constitution, they are shouted down as traitors.

The Constitution is being violated. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Yet our government argues that no warrants are necessary because of the war on terror.

Fanatical correctness says the president is right because the president says so. I might not be fanatically correct in saying this, but I think violating the Fourth Amendment is a high crime – or at least a misdemeanor.

But liberals seem too polite to mention it. They do not want to be seen as unpleasant. They do not want to be the bearers of bad news, afraid that the voters might kill the messenger if the message is unpleasant.

There is a hesitancy to call tyranny tyranny. There is a reluctance to call injustice injustice.

Martin Luther King Jr. had trouble with lukewarm liberals who were unable to find their voice:

             “A second area in which there is a need for strong leadership is from the white northern liberals. There is a dire need today for a liberalism which is truly liberal. What we are witnessing today in so many northern communities is a sort of quasi liberalism which is based on the principle of looking sympathetically at all sides. It is a liberalism that so bent on seeing all sides that it fails to become committed to either side. It is a liberalism that is so objectively analytical that it is not subjectively committed. It is a liberalism that is neither hot nor cold, but lukewarm.

            We call for a liberalism from the North which will be thoroughly committed to the ideal of racial justice and will not be deterred by the propaganda and subtle words of those who say, “Slow up for a while; you are pushing too fast.” [3]

In this passage King refers to a passage from the Book of Revelation (3:15-17 NIV):

“I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.”

I wonder if King would look at us and call us lukewarm liberals.

A Supreme Court justice is about to be confirmed. On criminal search, trial and sentencing cases he sided with the government 29 times and with the defendant only 3 times, a rate of 91% . All other appellate judges had a rate of 54%. Even other Republican-appointed judges had a rate of only 65%. [4]

Beneath the quiet moderate exterior is a judge who shows little sympathy with the Bill of Rights.

The Fourth Amendment is being torn to shreds. Fanatics say only criminals and people who have something to hide should worry about illegal wiretapping. Well, I may not be fanatically correct, but I think the Bill of Rights is worth defending. We are way past time for worrying and should be mobilizing for action.

Why do liberals have trouble finding their voice? Our willingness to explore both sides of a question makes us less decisive.

A religious fanatic will ask, Is God real? and demands a yes or no answer. A liberal will respond: What is reality? How is God defined? It depends on what the meaning of the word is is.

We have reacted to dogma with moral relativism. We have been adept at finding the exception to every rule. This has helped us fight the tyranny of dogma. It allows us to see the complexity of issues. We are less likely to be swayed by propaganda. We even distrust our own proclamations. We are so afraid of fanaticism that we forget who we are.

When we said that people should not be called by derogatory names, we were accused of being politically correct. So we laughed at ourselves and stopped correcting people.

When we said that the victim of poverty is not to blame, we were called politically correct.

So we ended welfare and have not raised the minimum wage for ten years.

Once we supported the Geneva Conventions against torture. A White House lawyer described them as quaint. He became attorney general. Were we afraid to be called politically correct?

When we say that Islam is no more violent than Judaism or Christianity.

We were called naive. We said all people should be searched. We remember that Timothy McVeigh did not fit the racial profile of a terrorist. We were told to stop being politically correct.

Fear of being called politically correct has gutted our sense of prophesy.

Dr. King lamented: “All too often I have seen religious leaders stand amid the social injustices that pervade our society, mouthing pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. All too often the religious community has been a taillight instead of a headlight.” [5]

How can we as UUs be a headlight rather than a taillight? We should not follow any political party. We should be out in front of all parties, shining a light on the injustices that are hidden in the darkness.

Guided by principle, Dr. King was free to preach to both his friends and his enemies.

If we truly affirm and promote the goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all, we must include even those we consider enemies.

King wrote about the Greek word for love.

Agape is understanding, creative, redemptive goodwill towards all . . . This is what Jesus meant when he said ‘Love your enemies.’ And I am happy he didn’t say, ‘Like your enemies,’ because there are people I find it pretty difficult to like. Liking is an affectionate emotion, and I can’t like anybody who would bomb my home. I can’t like anybody who would exploit me . . . I can’t like anybody who threatens to kill me day in and day out . . . I’ve seen too much hate to want to hate . . . I see it, and I say to myself . . . Somehow we must be able to stand before our most bitter opponents and say . . . Do to us what you will and we will still love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws and abide by an unjust system, because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good, and so throw us in jail and we will still love you. Bomb our homes and threaten our children, and, as difficult as it is, we will still love you. Send your hooded perpetrators of violence into out communities at the midnight hour and drag us out on some wayside road and leave us half-dead as you beat us, and we will still love you. Send your propaganda experts around the country, and make it appear that we are not fit, culturally and otherwise, for integration, and we’ll still love you. But be assured that we’ll wear you down by our capacity to suffer, and one day we will so appeal to your heart and conscience that we will win you in the process, and our victory will be a double victory. [6]

That was Dr. Martin Luther King’s extreme position. But he was not a fanatic, because he sought to include people rather than eliminate them. If we lived our UU principles, we would be just as extreme. But sometimes we stall when it comes to our free and responsible search for truth and meaning. Sometimes we feel we cannot act until all the facts are in. And there are always new facts, so we always have an excuse to wait. If we wait till all the facts are in, then we know for certain what we should have done when our country needed us. But by then it will be too late. We will have been made irrelevant by our relativism.

But that need not be. Even though we refuse to be fanatics and claim to have absolute truth, we should not be afraid to speak the truth as we know it. Freely speak your truth. Act on it, and you may learn how to refine your truth. As long as you are listening and open to change, your search for truth is responsible. As long as you don’t hate those who have a different truth, you are being responsible. As long as you do not physically attack those who question you, you are being responsible.

UUs tend to believe that truth is provisional. Truth is relative depending on the facts of a given situation, but an approximate truth is superior to an absolute lie. We can proclaim that some things are relatively better than others. Without being fanatics, we can declare that some ideas are more likely to be truer than others.

We can stop worrying about being labeled as politically correct and start refuting fanatical correctness.

It might not be fanatically correct, but I believe that religious freedom is relatively better than the government telling us what to believe.

It might not be fanatically correct, but it think that torturing enemies is relatively worse than treating them humanely.

It may not be fanatically correct, but I think search warrants are relatively better than police having the freedom to imprison everybody they suspect.

It may not be fanatically correct, but I think gun crime may somehow be related to the availability of guns.

It may not be fanatically correct, but I think the statements by polluting industries about

global warming are relatively untrue. They say it does not exist, but Oklahoma is having summer wildfires in January. And just last Friday, the 13th of January, we had a summer thunderstorm complete with a tornado warning.

It may not be fanatically correct, but I think it is relatively silly to be afraid of gays and lesbians.

It may not be fanatically correct, but I think it is relatively oppressive for government to force women to carry all fetuses to birth.

It may not be fanatically correct, but I think killing over 30,000 Iraqis is a relatively bad way to make them our friends.

Today, after service, we will be holding a workshop on social action. We will be trying to find a way to raise our voice in a world deluded by the din of destruction. May we find our voice and speak to the community. But let us now speak to each other about how to live by our principles.

**********

1. "`I would say 30,000 more or less have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis,’ the president said. `We've lost about 2,140 of our own troops in Iraq.’" Dec. 11, 2005. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/12/politics/main1117045.shtml

2. http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror2000_2001.htm

3. King Jr., Martin Luther, “Give Us the Ballot – We Will Transform the South” 1957, in A Testament of Hope, edited by James M. Washington, 1986.

4. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/custom/2005/12/30/CU2005123001137.html

5. King Jr, Martin Luther, “Conversation With Martin Luther King, March 25, 1968,” in A Testament of Hope, edited by James M. Washington, 1986.

6. King Jr, Martin Luther, “A Christmas Sermon on Peace 1967" in A Testament of Hope, edited by James M. Washington, 1986.