Most white people I know do not consider themselves to be racist.  That's an ugly word that brings up images of people yelling the n-word at little black girls trying to desegregate Southern schools, or hooded Ku Klux Klan members burning crosses on lawns. 

But there is something else which divides people more subtly, someting of which most of us middle-class white people are not so aware--and that is privilege.  What do I mean by privilege?  I mean that we take for granted advantages that others do not have and in fact may be far removed from their experience.  We may even assume that we all start out on some kind of equal footing, and that we, in fact, have been successful because of our  splendid judgment and hard work. 

This reminds me of a New Yorker cartoon that I saw years ago.  Two men are talking in a fancy corp office, and the one says to the other, "And what do you owe your success to?"  And the other says, "I'd say being at the right place at the right time--and being born to the right parents and going to the right schools and having plenty of money."

We assume certain things, don't we, most of us?  And those assumptions have to do with class, mainly.  We assume that we will never go hungry.  We assume that we will wear shoes that fit--indeed, shoes that are fashionable.  We assume that if we get in a fix financially, someone will be there to help us out. We assume that we will go to college and get some kind of professional job or other at some point. We assume that if we are not served properly in a place of business, it is our right to speak with the manager and ask for redress.  And on and on.  What we may not be aware of is that huge numbers of people--at least 20-25 percent of the population--never make such assumptions.  Would not, could not.

One summer I went to breakfast with my son Madison in our home state of Kentucky--we went to "Cracker Barrel," where he had waited tables during the summers of his college years.  The waitress asked me, "Would you like orange juice?" and I asked, "Is it fresh squeezed?" She answered, "No," and I said I would pass.  When she left our table, Madison chided me: "You're so elitist!" he said.  "Don't you know what kind of restaurant this is?  This is the people's restaurant--of course they don't have fresh squeezed orange juice!  Look at the prices.  All kinds of people come here to eat, but a lot of the food is cheap enough for poor people.  Fresh squeezed orange juice--I'm so embarrassed!"  Well, leave it to your children to keep you humble.

It's not that privileged people need to feel guilty that we're privileged--guilt rarely is healthful or productive.  But we do need to be aware.  Everyone does not see the world through our eyes.  Everyone does not go through the world with the assumption that their needs will be met, and that they in fact deserve to have their needs met.  And what I think I need as a middle-class person may be very different from the needs of someone who wonders how she's going to put food on the table for her children that very evening. 

With increased awareness, we become kinder, more generous, less judgmental: spiritual gifts which come as we open our eyes to the experience of others, and awaken to differences that divide.

The three national television networks have dedicated 181 minutes to weekday coverage of the Iraq war so far this year.  (Source: NY Times 6/23)  The total coverage for 2007 was 1,157 minutes.  What's the problem? 

Terry McCarthy, a news correspondent from ABC, said that journalists are being frustrated about getting war stories onto newscasts.  The decrease in the relative level of violence "is taking the urgency out" of the coverage, he added.  Lara Logan, chief foreign correspondent for CBS, said on the Daily Show recently that the war seems to hold little interest for many Americans.  Paul Friedman, a senior vice president at CBS, said that coverage of Iraq is extremely expensive, chiefly because of security risks.  Journalists at all three networks expressed fear that their news organizations will withdraw from the Iraq capital after the November election.

The fact is that there is plenty of violence in Iraq, plenty of drama, plenty of interesting footage for cameras (a number of independent films on the war have shown us that)--and I might add, plenty of serious questions for American citizens to consider, including (1) why are we there? (2) when and how should we leave? (3) what's happening to the billions of U.S.tax dollars flowing in Iraq, and who is being enriched by this wealth? (4) how are the Iraqi people faring, both the ones who are still in the country and the 2,000,000 refugees who have fled? (5) why are we building permanent military bases in Iraq, and how many? (6) how are our Iraq veterans faring, especially those with terrible wounds of body and spirit? (7) how are the bodies of our dead soldiers handled, and why have we not been able to see the caskets and their coming and going? (8) how is the U.S. viewed by the rest of the world, because of our unilateral and illegal attack on Iraq? (9) what infrastructure, both physical and social, in our country has been sadly neglected because of money spent in Iraq? (10) since we're borrowing heavily in order to finance this war, who is ultimately going to pay for it?  This is not a definitive list, but it'll do for starters. 

So let me say this to the networks: do you exist only to make money for your stockholders, or do you in fact, because you own the airwaves, have a responsibility to the citizens of this country?  Yes, it's easy for people to look away.  Who is going to make us see this war and consider its implications, if not you?  Are you willing to do business as usual while our nation loses its integrity and any hope of leadership on the world stage?  Are you comfortable letting the working class families of this country pay the price of failed national policy?

One reason that the Vietnam war was finally brought to a close is that the ugliness of that war was dumped right into our living rooms.  We citizens needs to know the real costs of the Iraq war, because in a democracy, we are ultimately responsible the wars our country wages.  Your part, network companies, is to have the courage to tell it like it is--whether or not everyone likes the story--and that would include your stockholders.

I saw the film "Lord, Save Us From Your Followers" at the Hollywood Theater this past Monday evening and was surprised to see such a hefty crowd on a week-day night--and all paying the hefty price of $10 to get in.  Judging from conversations I overheard, I concluded that most of the viewers were Christians who were there to learn how to become more effective witnesses to their faith.  I think the film accomplished that goal fairly well.  The problem I have is with the faith itself--that is, the social and theological assumptions of the filmmakers and of the Christian subjects in the film.

Problem #1 is that nowhere do the Christians ever suggest that they do not have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  There is a lot of talk about gays and lesbians--even a confessional booth in which Merchant apologizes for being insensitive to homosexuals--but never does any Christian say that homosexual love is every bit as holy as heterosexual love.  No, what we are given is the old, tired, and santimonious position of "love the sin and hate the sinner."  Near the end of the film, for example, revivalist Tony Campanelo says, "You don't have to agree with someone's lifestyle in order to love them."

This kind of exclusionary thinking, which in fact does condemn homosexuals as "wrong" and "other," creates the kind of social context which allowed Matthew Shepherd to be hung on a fence and left to die in Laramie, Wyoming.  Anytime you say to someone, "I love you, but you are a sinner, and I hope you change your ways," you are placing yourself in judgment of another, and finding the other "less than" yourself.  This is manifestly not an act of love.

Problem #2 was illustrated most vividly by the ministry of Christians to the homeless people living under the bridge.  The Christians washed the feet of the homeless people, gave them food, learned their names, and related to them as human beings.  All well and good.  But consider that these same fundamentalist Christians most likely supported George Bush in the last two Presidential elections, and therefore are responsible for more people than ever before living under bridges and on the street and in shelters, all over this country.  I heard the Christians speak of charity, but no one spoke of justice.  Again, the Christians were"one up" on the people they were helping, reaching down to those in need--perhaps failing to see their own part in the ravaging of social services of all kinds in this country.

When will Christians understand that Jesus is a way, not the way?  When will they show some understanding of the other religious traditions of the world?  When will they "get it" that the Bible is not literally true, but a book of spiritual principles written a long, long time ago by people who were limited by time and place, as we all are, in every age?  When will they have the humility to understand that they do not have all the answers and that revelation is constantly unfolding?  When will they show genuine love by first showing genuine respect for others, though those others may believe differently or love differently?

Gas is now over $4 a gallon, and we are promised it will not go lower for a very long time--if ever.  And it may go higher.  For those of us who have good incomes, live close to the heart of the city, are near light rail--well, high gas prices are not going to affect our lives all that much.  So it cost me $48 to fill my car--but I hardly ever have to drive, so I probably won't have to fill the tank again for a month. 

But if I'm a farm worker driving my old truck to the fields every day, I'm not able to make it--it costs me so much to drive to work that it doesn't pay me to work.  If I'm a single mom working at a minimum wage job (or two of them) and driving a big old Fairlane Ford to work from my tiny apartment in the suburbs, I know I'm going to have to choose between gas and food, or food and rent.  Nevermind taking the baby to the doctor--can't afford to drive there, can't afford to pay the fee, can't afford the meds.

At the same time, what's happening to the cost of food?  Pervasive food shortages threaten many parts of the world, and crops this year are getting off to a bad start. Corn and soybeans are drowning in rain in this country, and in Australia drought is devastating the wheat crop.  Farmers are struggling to meet the demand, and millions of acres of land both here and abroad are being brought back into production.  Some of the harvest, of course, will go to power industrial countries, as oil becomes more expensive.  Already there have been food riots in two dozen countries.

As the global food crisis became clear, commodity prices have doubled or tripled.  Speculators are buying up land, fertilizer plants, granaries--continuing to drive up prices for food. 

What we are seeing in these two phenomena is the proverbial tip of the iceberg: too few resources for too many people.  The people who are going to suffer the most and the soonest--as always-- are poor people.  The middle class may lose that vacation trip or the pleasure of eating out once a week--poor people will go hungry, will lose their living space, will not get medical care.  And the poorest of the poor abroad will die--they will not have clean water, they will be malnournished and not able to fight off disease, and some will simply starve to death.

Yes, such things have always happened in third-world countries--but more and more countries will become failed states, as they become unable to meet the basic needs of their citizens.  Many more in the U.S. will fall below the poverty line.  The only way to address such massive human suffering, such devastating economic conditions, is through policy change. 

But first we who are at the top of the food chain need to ask ourselves a serious question, "Do we really care?"  If the answer is no, then how do we live with ourselves and what do we tell our children about living an ethical life?  If the answer is yes, then the next question is, "How can we leverage our power to make a difference?"

A Senate committee report that was released yesterday concluded that President Bush and his aides systematically built the case for an invasion in Iraq by exaggerating Iraq's war-making capability and by purposely conflating the Al Qaeda with Iraq. The administration set out to frighten the American people--and indeed to intimidate Congress--by shouting 9/11 every time someone brought up an alternative to their pre-conceived decision to attack Iraq.

This report has taken 5 years to carry out--way longer than many of us needed to come to the same conclusions.  Where was the Democratic party when the shameful decision was made to unilaterally attack a country that had not attacked us, thus violating international law?  But that is the way of politics.  Perhaps it is surprising that the report came out at all, and was endorsed by all the Democrats on the committee and some of the Republicans, as well.

The NY Times put the article on the report on the front page--the article is continued on p. A11, and ironically enough, it is right next to the Department of Defense announcement of the "Names of the Dead."  The Department has identified 4,083 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war.  The article also confirmed the deaths of Specialist Quincy Green, 26, of El Paso and Pfc. Joshua E. Waltenbaugh, 19, of Ford City, Pa.

Perhaps President Bush and Vice-President Cheney should be required, as a kind of penance, to go to the homes of each of the fallen, and look the parents in the eye and tell them why their precious child is dead.  And then beg their forgiveness.

 

 

Barack Obama has been nominated for President by the Democratic party, and with that nomination has come a clear message by the American people--we are healing the racial divisions of the past, which have haunted and too often horrified us. 

Fewer than 150 years ago, blacks were being bought and sold like farm animals in this country.  Fewer than 60 years ago, blacks were being lynched for daring to "get out of their place."  The progressive Northwest did not escape racism, either: in the 19th century black servants assisted their white families in making the arduous trip from Boston to the Northwest, only to find whites passing laws forbidding blacks to own land.  And still we know there remain a multitude of other discriminatory practices, including policy brutality, which has reared its all-too-ordinary ugly head here in Portland in recent years.

And yet . . . now we have the very real possibility of a black man becoming President of the United States.  That very fact changes everything.  Kwahena Sam-Brew, a 38-year-old immigrant from Ghana, took his American-born daughter Nana to the rally last Tuesday in which Obama was declared the winner of the nomination.  Sam-Brew says he hopes she will remember this moment, but says he will describe it to her: "I will tell her, 'Tonight is the night that all Americans became one.'"

We cannot overestimate the symbolism to African Americans that one of theirs has risen to become a Presidential candidate.  This means that there is no limit for any black man, woman, youth, or child simply because of color.  All racism is thus challenged, including the internalized racism of the oppressed that encourages them to believe the message of the oppressor.

Is the work of justice-making all done now?  No, of course not.  But note the press photos: we have in the throngs of young people surrounding the smiling Barack Obama the greatest measure of hope that we yet have seen for a nation to live up to the radical principles of equality on which it was founded.

I have not read Scott McClellan's new memoir about his role as President Bush's former press secretary.  And so perhaps that puts me in a precarious position to be commenting on it.  Nevertheless, here goes.

From the reviews I have read, McClellan apparently confesses that he joined the "culture of deception" that characterized and still characterizes the Bush administration.  During his tenure of office, he was a big player in creating the communications strategy of the White House.  Moreover, he looked the American people in the face over and over again and told us what he knew to be bald-faced lies.  And now he's telling us how he himself was deceived?  Pity. 

I heard him say in an interview this morning on NPR that President Bush and his compatriots didn't actually know that they were deceiving the American people--they were just caught up in a system "that works that way."  (Or something to that effect.)  I guess nobody is really responsible, then, for the war in Iraq.  Gee, too bad about all those dead soldiers and those tens of thousands left with horrific physical and emotional wounds from the conflict.  Too bad about the devastation wrought upon the country of Iraq itself and too bad about all the dead Iraqi civilians.  This deception business was just . . . good people getting caught in a bad system, I guess.  We wouldn't want to lay blame now, would we?

Let me guess how this pseudo-confessional memoir came to be.  McClellan had two needs: (1) to disavow himself of his relationship with the Bush administration, regaining in the process some semblance of personal integrity and respect; and (2) to make a chunk of money.  His publisher probably said something like this to him: "Scott, there's only one way to make this book fly--tell the truth.  Yes, rat on your friends.  I know that will be hard for you--but I've got to tell you, it's the only thing that will sell."

And so now we have yet another memoir from yet another past Bush staff member or hanger-on who is telling us that the present administration is dishonest and/or corrupt.  I have just two comments, and then I want to go wash my hands, because suddenly they feel grimy: (1) how long does it take the American public to catch on to the level of abuse they have been subjected to by the Bush administration?  How many more such books will have to be written? and (2) how thoroughly did member of Congress bother to inform themselves about the probable consequences of our unilateral attack on Iraq?  And where have they been hiding out for the years since that first ignominous attack? 

The ignorance of the American public, aided and abetted by the cowardness and ineptitude of the media, and the formidable lack of both knowledge and courage of our elected officials is astounding indeed.  And yes, blame should be laid.  The theological term for this is "sin."

Such a political, and I might add spiritual, void leaves a vast, open space that cries out for change.  Let us hope and pray that with our desperate need, leaders of vision and integrity and strength will step forward.

They are the lucky ones, Wang Jhijun and his wife Li--they survived China's earthquake after 28 hours of being buried together in the rubble.  Breathing had become harder as the hours dragged past.  Their bodies had gone numb.  Wang wanted to give up at one point and tried to kill himself by twisting his neck against the sharp edges of the debris.  Cold rain soaked them to the bone, as they lay there, their arms around each other.

Li sensed that her husband was giving up.  "We're still alive.  We must be fated to live," she told him.  They whispered to each other, speaking of their 14-year-old daughter--if they died, who would care for her?  They remembered moments of their life together.  They thought about the changes they would make if they made it out alive.

They lay there recovering in the hospital, in separate beds, Wang covered with bloody, pus-filled cuts, but no serious injuries.  Li had tears in her eyes--she had lost her left arm, after pleading with the doctor not to amputate it.  But gangrene had set in, and there was no recourse.  Still, they both were thankful.

Wang and Li did not have a "good marriage" by any standard.  He had just returned home two days before the quake, after having traveled around the country for 6 months trying his hand at various small businesses.  He had lost a lot of money.  He and his wife hardly ever spoke.  Ms. Li was raising the daughter pretty much on her own, while working in a chemical factory.  "My husband doesn't have a stable life," she said.

The quake changed everything for the couple, though.  Their daughter was unhurt and refuses to leave their side at the hospital.  Wang and Li have rekindled their love.  "The only thing we had was each other," Wang said.  "We encouraged each other to live on . . . we said once we got out, we'd live a good life and care for each other.  Now we have a new start."

How is it that we take for granted what is most precious to us?  How is it that we give ourselves to the peripheral and ignore the center, the heart of it all?  Sometimes it takes an earthquake of some sort--something that shakes us to the core--before we wake up.  It needn't be that way.  If we had a mind to, we could learn from Wang and Li. 

According to today's NY Times, Juneau, Alaska, is quickly becoming the greenest ever city, and the change happened almost overnight.  And how, may you ask, did the residents of this little far-North city come to come clean and green so quickly?  Well, it was the avalanche.

Electricity rates apparently increased about 400 percent after an avalanche on April 16 knocked out several large transmission towers which delivered more than 80 percent of the community's power.  "People are suddenly interested in talking about their water heaters," said Maria Gladziszewski, who is in charge of special projects for the city manager.  "As they say, it's a teachable moment."

How are people coping?  The public sauna has been closed.  (That would be a tough choice in Juneau, I would guess.)  One elevator is operating in the library instead of two.  The temperature in the convention center is down to 60, from the former 68.  Stores ran out of clothespins, because so many people started hanging their laundry outdoors to dry.  Even schoolchildren are getting into the act, as they voluntarily sacrifice Nintendo time, boasting during show-and-tell time at school. 

Talk about a teachable moment, folks--Juneau R US.  And what can we learn?  Human beings typically do not learn from words or even pictures (an inconvenient truth), and we will not pay attention until we have to pay money.  Please, please, political leaders take note: serious policy change is all that will save us. 

And what else can we learn?  There's just a lot of stuff we could do without, if we wanted to save the planet for our children and grandchildren.  Maybe we should start now, instead of waiting for our own avalanche, in whatever form that will take. 

Growing up in a small town in N. Louisiana, I remember how sweet those sheets used to smell when I pulled them off the clothesline.  I wouldn't mind doing that again.  Really, I wouldn't mind at all.  

 

Having lived in Kentucky for years, I of course follow the Kentucky Derby.  Big Brown won this year, as expected, but the horse which captured the attention of the nation was the big-hearted filly Eight Belles.  Eight Belles was the only horse spirited enough to go after Big Brown in the final stretch, and she finished second after giving the race her all.  Apparently her all was too much, for both front ankles cracked just after she finished the race. 

Eight Belles didn't stumble or trip.  Perhaps the track was too hard--we know other major tracks, including Keeneland in Lexington, KY, have been changed over to a softer surface in recent years.  Perhaps Eight Belles was not mature enough or strong enough to run with "the big boys"--rarely has a filly won the Derby.  Race horses often begin and end their time in the sun before they are fully mature--if they look good in a few races, they are much more valuable for breeding than for racing.  Huge sums of money are involved here.

So what is comes down to is that these magnificent horses, like most everything else in this society, are really first and foremost a commodity.  To see Eight Belles lying helpless on the track and to know that she had to be euthenized there somehow made me indescribably sad.  I kept reading the various accounts in the newspapers, trying to figure out what happened, why this beautiful creature had to die. 

I finally had to conclude that for me Eight Belles had become a symbol for something much larger than herself: a culture which will sacrifice spirit and life and beauty--all of which Eight Belles epitomized--to the pursuit of the dollar. 

What do we value in this world?  What are our lives really about? 

In a recent sermon I quoted a statistic which was incorrect--I thought I had remembered that one out of every thousand adult citizens in this country is incarcerated.  Actually, it is one out of every hundred.  This is one of those figures that is difficult to believe, but it was reported on the front page of NY Times on April 23.

The article went on to say that we are, of course, the world leader in "producing prisoners" (and "producing" is probably the correct term), with China a distant second.  The U.S. has less than 5 percent of the world's population and almost a quarter of the world's prisoners.                 

Last Sunday I preached on the topic "What Do Our Children Require of Us?"  In this sermon, I pointed out that the consensus of professionals in the field of child development is that perhaps the majority of children in this country are not getting the care that they need in order to grow into healthy adults.  These researchers point to a troubling shift in child-rearing patterns since1970's, saying that since then there has been a huge increase in the numbers of babies and young children being cared for in daycare, the great majority of which is unsatisfactory.  This conclusion is overwhelming, if you look at the literature.            On Monday, I received a call from a congregant, a mom who has her child in day care, complaining that my sermon had "made her feel guilty."  I knew this response was a risk I took in preaching this sermon, because women have been guilt-tripped forever about the needs of their children.  If the child has a problem of any kind, look no further than the mother, the "experts" have said, for a very long time.  This has been a heavy burden to bear--it was for me when I was a single mother, and it is for all moms--and I don't wish to add to that burden.  (The current literature, incidentally, is not "mom-centric," but more focused on policy.)

 It seems that the Vatican has been tinkering with the notion of sin.  It's about time.  There was a recent suggestion by a bishop from the Vatican's "office of sin and penance" (I think Unitarian Universalists could use such an office, actually--more on this later), in which sins such as trashing God's green earth (corporate polluters) and robbing the poor (economic inequity) should be recognized along with the usual bread-and-butter individual sins.