Religious Wars

A sermon from

The Unitarian Universalist Church

Rockford, Illinois

Dave Weissbard

10/03/04

This sermon began in July when I was, as I do in the summer, sitting on my porch, reading the New York Times. I immediately clipped Nicholas Kristof’s article on “Jesus and Jihad” [7/17/04], which I shared as our reading. After addressing the theme of the “Left Behind” novels, Kristof maintained:

People have a right to believe in a racist God, or a God who throws millions of nonevangelicals into hell. I don’t think we should ban books that say that. But we should be embarrassed when our best-selling books gleefully celebrate religious intolerance and violence against infidels. That’s not what America stands for, and I doubt that it’s what God stands for.

“There’s a sermon there,” I said to myself. Being tuned in to the issue, I subsequently encountered and saved several internet articles which addressed the contemporary “religious wars.” And then a few weeks ago, Steve Lewis loaned me a new book, What’s the Matter With Kansas, which is subtitled “How Conservatives Won the Heart of America,” which added new dimensions to the issue. Finally, all of this sent me to a book which I had purchased some time ago, but had not yet read: Karen Armstrong’s The Battle for God, which brilliantly puts the issue into context by tracing the history of fundamentalisms in the Muslim, Jewish, and Christian contexts.

Let me warn you in advance, this is not a sermon that comes to a neat resolution at the end. I am convinced that we are in the midst of a serious religious struggle in which our fundamental religious principles are threatened, and from which we may not emerge victorious. I believe it is important for us to get some perspective on it, which may help us to better understand, and thereby more effectively defend our position.

Before we look at the issue as it touches us most directly, it seems as if it would be helpful to look at the same phenomenon outside our immediate situation. The religioustolerance.org website lists 24 contemporary “hot spots which have as their base a significant component of religious intolerance.” That phrase “significant component” is important because there are always other components in any struggle between peoples – economics is always there to some degree, and politics often play a significant role, but many times religion at least appears to be dominant. We are most likely to notice the wars which are between different religions, but there are also significant tensions within religions which are worthy of notice.

It is useful to go back a millennium to the Crusades which began when Pope Urban II, concerned with how the testosterone poison running through the veins of knights was causing them to fight with each other and cause chaos within Christendom. He decided it would be better for them to have a common enemy on which to discharge their energy, and therefore called for the first Crusade. Incidentally, of course, a war against the Muslim infidels could extend the power of the Church. The Muslim culture was, arguably, more sophisticated than that of the Christian nations, at the time, but the challenge of reclaiming the “Holy Lands” for Christ served to invigorate the Crusaders. The result was a lot of rape, pillage, and plunder. Another result was antagonism between Muslims and Christians which is still very alive among Muslims who remember the humiliation as if it were yesterday.

One of the relatively contemporary examples of a situation in which religion has played a major role is Iran. While Persia, as it was formerly known, had a long and distinguished history, in this century it has had to struggle to maintain its independence. Both Russia and England had interests there, particularly in the oil. In 1907, there was an Anglo-Russian agreement that divided Iran into spheres of influence. Following World War I, the British formally affirmed Iran’s independence, but actually tried to make it a protectorate, which is to say, an informal part of the empire. In 1921, Reva Khan, an army officer, led a coup which established the Pahlevi dynasty. During the second world war, the then old shah, who had been sympathetic to Germany, was forced to resign and was replaced by his son, Muhammed Reza Shah Pahlevi. While Iran was ostensibly an independent nation, it was clear that it was subservient to the West. There were rich oil resources that were generating a lot of money, but the profits were being enjoyed by the British and Americans, not the Iranians. In 1951, a nationalist movement was headed by prime minister, Mussadegh. He nationalized the oil industry and declared that the profits were to go to the Iranian people. The Shah, who opposed him, was forced to leave the country. Britain and the United States found it intolerable that the Iranians should claim the right to control their own resources. The CIA and British intelligence organized a coup in which we drove Mussadegh out and brought the Shah back.

During the Shah’s reign, we used to hear a lot about how wonderful the progress was in Iran and what a modern nation it was becoming. That was, of course, from our perspective. In fact, the Iranian people were living in increasing poverty and there was deep resentment of the cultural imperialism that was going on, with Western values supplanting Muslim ones. The population is largely Muslim, and there was a sense that the Crusades were continuing as their land was being plundered. It became increasingly difficult for the Shah to remain in power. The CIA and Israel’s Mossad offered training for his secret police, the SAVAK, which engaged in the arrest and commonly the torture and murder of those who darted oppose the Shah’s regime.

Most of the opposition came from Muslim leaders, like Ayatollah Khomeini, who, because of his prominence, could not simply be murdered and was therefore expelled from the country in 1964. Living in Iraq, he was freer than he had been to attack the Shah.

“Islam,” he said, “is the religion of militant individuals who are committed to faith and justice. It is the religion of those who desire freedom and independence. It is the school of those who struggle against imperialism.”

The resistance against the Shah increased, and the United States continued to actively support him. Jimmy Carter flew to Tehran to personally endorse the man whom the Iranians saw as a tyrant.

The issue was not only economic and political. The west was applauding the Shah for moving his country further and further into secularism, which is to say, further and further from its Islamic roots.

You remember what happened. The pressure increased until 1979 when the Shah was forced to leave the country and Ayatollah Khomeini returned to establish a Muslim government. We were, of course, appalled. We, from our secular perspective, saw this as a giant step backward. The people of Iran, however, saw the same move as a giant step forward toward having a government which understood and was responsive to their needs and their culture. It got even worse when Jimmy Carter agreed to have the Shah come to the United States for cancer treatments. The result of that insult was the taking of hostages in the American embassy who were held for more than a year until the day of the Inauguration of Ronald Reagan.

There is a lot of speculation about the role that the hostage situation played in the defeat of Jimmy Carter, and there are allegations of a trip by George Bush to assure that the hostages were not released prior to the election. Given the personal endorsements that Jimmy Carter had given to the Shah, it is clear that the American election was very much in Khomeini’s mind.

We have continued to be appalled at what the revolution brought to Iran. From our perspective, it is hard to see it as an advance, because we have values that differ from those of the Iranians. They, however, were suffering from the imposition of a foreign culture which dismissed their needs as irrelevant. There were freedoms that were lost in the Revolution, but, from the perspective of the common people, the vast majority, much more was gained. No longer was a foreign way of life being forced upon them. Their most sacred values were again at the center of their government.

This is more than of passing importance today. For one thing, we were so threatened by our fear that Muslim fundamentalism would spread to the rest of the Middle East, that we encouraged and armed Saddam Hussein, the leader of Iraq, to take on a war with Iran – a war in which, incidentally, both sides used chemical agents. The Iranian history also plays a role in our inability to understand what is happening in Iraq today. We have removed a vicious dictator, who no longer met our needs, but everyone knows that we are not about to permit the installation of an Islamic government that will not be “respectful” of American interests in Iraq. No election will be held which could turn out contrary to our best interests. It did not go unnoticed when President Bush first labeled the war in Iraq as a “crusade.” That is, in fact, how it is perceived by the vast majority of the Iraqi people, and, in truth, by some Americans. It is the Christians against the Muslims, all over again. We are determined that they should view the world through our glasses, and they want no part of our culture. From their perspective, the positive products of our way of life don’t even come close to balancing for the negatives, and some Americans agree, to which we are about to move.

This is one of the examples to which Karen Armstrong points in her exploration of the growth of fundamentalism in contemporary religion.

Another, which is much closer to home, and which is really what this sermon is about, is the growth of Fundamentalism in the United States. Since the earliest days of our nation, there has been conflict between those who were religiously liberal and those who identified themselves as true believers. In Colonial days, there were the evangelistic movements of the First and Second Great Awakenings as the result of the concern of many pious conservatives that their neighbors were losing their way religiously, falling away from the eternal truths.

The American Revolution, of course, was led largely by people who were religiously liberal – people like John Adams, Sam Adams, Paul Revere, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, George Washington, and others who were Deists if not outright Unitarians. When it came to writing a Constitution, and then the Bill of Rights which were demanded for its approval, there was a confrontation between those who wanted to view this as a Christian nation and those who insisted that religion be kept at least an arm’s length away. The majority knew what religious tyranny had done in Europe, and they wanted no part of it, hence the first amendment. The first treaty into which we entered, which passed the Senate unanimously, was one with the Muslim nation of Tripoli that stated explicitly that the United States was in no way a Christian nation.

That is fact, a matter of historical record. There are, of course, many who choose not to acknowledge that part of our history, who insist that ours is and must be a Christian nation. Because of the non-interference of government in religion, those who have continued to view it as a Christian nation were left to their view for a long time, which, of course, reinforced it.

Our own history is important here. It was in 1805 that there was a major conflict over the direction in which the Harvard Divinity School would go religiously. The liberals and the conservatives both wanted to choose the next Bible professor. The Unitarians won, and the religious conservatives went off and started Yale University. They did not evaporate.

Our own congregation experienced some of this tension in its history when Dr. Thomas Kerr, minister of the First Baptist Church in Rockford, began preaching Darwinism in his pulpit. Most of the Baptists saw this as heresy – Darwin’s version of creation was in conflict with the biblical story – so Dr. Kerr and his supporters, left the Baptist church to unite with the Unitarians, who were sympathetic to his theology.

The label “Fundamentalist” came about as a result of the publication of twelve paperbacks between 1910 and 1915 in which leading conservative Christians spelled out what they saw as “The Fundamentals” of Christian belief, from their perspective. They were concerned that so many churches were falling short of preaching what they knew for a certainty was “the Truth.”

The tensions between liberals and conservatives came to a head in 1925 in the trial of John Scopes for teaching evolution in Dayton, Tennessee. That trial saw the confrontation between Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan. Because Bryan was a Fundamentalist, we may forget that he was in many ways one of the great liberals of his time; but not religiously. Bryan saw himself as:

. . . the spokesman for a numerically large segment of the people who are for the most part inarticulate. . . . They are part of the body politic and by no means negligible or to be regarded solely with derision as “lunatic fringe.”

While Scopes was convicted – he was indeed guilty of violating the law – it was clear that Darwin and the liberals had won the case in the public mind. Science had triumphed over conservative religion. The fundamentalists were defeated, but again, they did not vanish.

In essence, what they did was withdraw to their own churches where they knew they were right and no one would tell them otherwise. Repeatedly, in the struggles between religious liberals and fundamentalists in every culture, the fundamentalists, when they lose, feel embittered and get more intensely conservative. Karen Armstrong asserts, “Fundamentalism exists in a symbiotic relationship with aggressive liberalism or secularism, and, under attack, invariably becomes more extreme, bitter, and excessive.”

There were parts of this nation in which the schools commonly began with Christian prayers and Bible readings, and because the majority in those communities agreed, no one objected. Children were taught, in those schools, both by precept and example, that the United States is a Christian nation. To millions of Americans, that is a fundamental reality - beyond question.

Fundamentalists created their own reality. They started their own colleges, like Bob Jones University, where they could be sure their children would not be led astray by secularism and its false teachings. In reality, there were two nations that had very different perspectives, but for a long time, the conservatives kept to themselves. One of the things they knew for sure was that they wanted to have nothing to do with government. Many didn’t even bother to vote.

Karen Armstrong suggests three reasons why things changed. First is the development of the South, which was the center of fundamentalist thinking, although it was never limited to that region. As Northerners moved into “the New South,” they encountered religious systems that they never imagined still existed, and the Southerners, for their part, encountered ideas they found heretical and reprehensible.

The second reason things changed, according to Armstrong, was the increased involvement of the government in areas it had previously left alone – particularly the courts. The Supreme Court ruled against religious observances in public schools, which had been a part of many communities for generations. How could it suddenly be wrong? They felt like they were being invaded by outsiders who had been deceived by Satan. As Armstrong put it:

They felt “colonized” by the world of Manhattan, Washington and Harvard. Their experience was not entirely dissimilar to that of the Middle Eastern countries who had so bitterly resented being taken over by an alien power.

Suddenly abortion was made legal, racial integration became the law of the land, the death penalty was put on hold, women were declared to have equal rights, people talked about legalizing marijuana, and homosexuality was becoming acceptable.

The enemy, of course, was “secular humanism.” According to a pamphlet from the Pro-Family Forum, secular humanism:

• Denies the deity of God, the inspiration of the Bible and the divinity of Jesus Christ

• Denies the existence of the soul, life after death, salvation and heaven, damnation and hell.

• Believes there are no absolutes, no right, no wrong – that moral values are self-determined and situational. Do your own thing “as long as it does not harm anyone else.”

• Believes in sexual freedom between consenting individuals, regardless of age, including premarital sex, homosexuality, lesbianism, and incest.

• Believes in the equal distribution of America’s wealth to reduce poverty and bring about equality.

• Believes in control of the environment, control of energy, and its limitation.

• Believes in the removal of American patriotism, and the free enterprise system, disarmament, and the creation of a one-world, socialistic government.

And their point is . . . ? The only thing I would absolutely challenge is approval of incest, and then we would need to talk about what patriotism means. But, for the most part, they had our platform down right, and it scared the living bejesus out of them. They saw us as a threat to their continued existence as a religious faith. The third cause of change, on Armstrong’s list, is the fact that by the late ‘70's, fundamentalists were no longer just farmers and backwoodsmen. Some of them had become prosperous, and more importantly, some of their spokesmen had discovered television. They could talk to one another, and they knew they were no longer an insignificant force. They came out of isolation.

Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Tammy Faye and Jim Bakker came to the fore. The so-called Moral Majority decided to exercise political power. They believed that they knew how America was supposed to be, and it surely wasn’t the way America was. Jerry Falwell was asked if there was still hope for

I think so. I believe as we trust in God and pray, as we Christians lead the battle to outlaw abortion, which is murder on demand, as we take our stand against pornography, against the drug traffic, as we take our stand against the breakdown of the traditional family in America, the promotion of homosexual marriages, as we stand up for strong national defense so that this country can survive and our children will know the America we’ve known . . . I think there is hope that God may one more time bless America.

Now, the “Moral Majority” fell apart to some degree after the scandals with the Bakkers and Jimmy Swaggart and the attacks of one fundamentalist leader upon another, and there were articles in the media about the death of the movement, but they were, indeed, premature. In truth, as one looks at the White House, the administration, and the Congress today, it is clear that the evangelicals and fundamentalists have a clear sense of their power. The Attorney General of the United States holds daily prayer meetings in his office, and if you want to get ahead, you’d better be there.

What happened was that the Republican party, which has never been known as the party of the people, sensed a deep dissatisfaction in this nation to which Democrats were blind and deaf. There are people who feel betrayed by their nation, or that it has been captured by evil forces.

In his book on Kansas, Thomas Frank, a native of that state, explores what happened to make one of the most liberal states in the nation become so conservative. What he found is right in line with what Armstrong told us about fundamentalism. Frank is amazed at how so many poor and lower middle class people are consistently voting against their own economic interests, raising their taxes, and depriving themselves of services, to put more money in the pockets of the already wealthy. The reality is that economics is less important to many people than are the fundamental issues of the kind of world we are living in. The Republican party in Kansas was taken over by a coalition of the very wealthy and the very poor and lower middle class, who had a common enemy: the liberals between them. The motivations of the two groups, the rich and poor, were very different, but they both want to end the domination of liberal intellectuals whom they believe were taking America down the wrong path.

In the present campaign, John Edwards has been talking about two Americas, but he has meant it in an economic context. The Republican party has had the insight to realize that there are two Americas in the religious realm, and it has done a superb job of appealing to the religious right, speaking its language, and giving voice to its concerns.

I said at the outset that this sermon does not have a neat resolution at the end. I have the sense that most liberals still do not understand what is happening, and you cannot stand up to an adversary you cannot comprehend. If the conservatives continue to be rooted in fear, continue to be focused, and continue to play it smart, we could experience the loss of the freedoms we cherish which to them are only traps for the unwary.

The mistake we liberals have made has been to ignore the presence, the humanity, the feelings, the sincerity, the fear that evangelicals and fundamentalists have experienced. Too often, we have dismissed them as dinosaurs, as irrelevant to the world in which we live. Our dismissal and disrespect have made them angrier, and therefore more powerful. It is, of course, a violation of our own principles to suggest that we respect the inherent worth and dignity of every liberal person but not those who see the world in a very different way from us.

Have you seen the commercials where someone says or does something very offensive to another person and, caught in the dilemma, turns to them and says, “Thank You,” and the ice is broken, the anger turns to smiles. It is a non-sequitur, but it works – on the commercials, and sometimes in the real world. When you show someone respect, the possibility emerges that you can find a common humanity that makes dialogue possible.

The books in the “Left Behind” series to which Kristof referred in the article with which we began, is a product of the deep anger which the marginalization of the Fundamentalists has produced in them. Stories like these are cherished by people who believe that the present world has abused and dismissed them as worthless. Such experiences produce rage which seeks the suffering of the oppressor, and sometimes turns inward, further crippling the one who was a victim. This rage becomes a violation of the very principles of Christianity which the fundamentalists cherish.

Secularists and fundamentalists sometimes seem trapped in an escalating spiral of hostility and recrimination. If fundamentalism must evolve a more compassionate assessment of their enemies in order to be true to their religious traditions, secularists must also be more faithful to the benevolence, tolerance and respect for humanity which characterizes modern culture at its best, and address themselves more empathetically to the fears, anxieties, and needs which so many of their fundamentalist neighbors experience but which no society can safely ignore.

I believe it is clear. If we increase our hostility to those who see the world differently, there is a real danger that the United States, like Iran, will see an emergence of a Fundamentalist society in response to the insecurity of our times. Many of what we see as the advances in human rights for which we have struggled could be reversed almost in the blink of an eye. Change is not a one way street. We cannot say “stop!” and expect the world to hear us.

We are living in a divided nation and there is no certainty as to which side of the division will dominate in the long run. As in any struggle between people, the best hope, perhaps the only hope, lies in mutual respect and dialogue. May we seek the wisdom and the compassion that will enable us to become builders of bridges that are wide enough for us all, liberals and conservatives, to walk together into the future.

Kristof, Nicholas, “Jesus and Jihad,” The New York Times, 7/17/04. [Available on the internet from NYTimes.com for a charge, but well worth it!]