"Activist Judges"
"Ownership Society"
"Christian Nation"
"Abstinence Only"
"Traditional Family Values"
"Homosexual Agenda"
"Tax Relief"
"Intelligent Design"
"Charitable Choice"
"Faith-Based Initiatives"
"Tree-Huggers"

Over the past decade, these and similar phrases have become familiar in American public conversation. We see them in newspapers and hear them in radio and television interviews and commentaries. They abound on the internet - just try a Google search on any one of them. We encounter them in letters to the editor and in conversation. Maybe you have your own personal un-favorites - ones that instantly raise your ire. Maybe you meet them with an inward groan, "Oh, no, not again. Can't they get off of this?"

The work of George Lakoff and others suggests that more important than the fact that such phrases seem wearying and off-base to us, the simple frequency of their use gives them significance. The idea is that hearing something often enough, finding it become familiar, transforms the phrase into 'common knowledge,' even 'common sense.' And if the repeated phrase is well chosen, and coupled with certain inflections of the voice, it brings a whole context along with it. Lakoff calls that a 'frame.' It's your way of understanding the topic or issue. And it leads to a conclusion about what position to support on that issue.

I call these 'Dangerous Voices.' I think they aim to influence people by setting up frames that carry emotional overtones and implications, with intent to somehow blur the issues, to make the emotional response primary. They take advantage of the language's evocative power. Let's talk about the role of the courts, for instance. "Activist judges" somehow sound like a bad thing. The phrasing and tone bring up images of protesters in the streets waving signs and shouting slogans at passers-by. It's not a dignified picture. And after all, courts are supposed to involve sober consideration of the points of law. But imagine for a moment what the opposite of an activist judge might be - a passive judge? a go-with-the-flow judge? a whatever-you-say judge? a doesn't-really-matter judge? Those don't sound too good to me! Just what is it that we want our judges to do?

In other cases, these voices claim to speak rationally, even scientifically. Intelligent design is an example of this tactic - 'It could be like this,' they say. 'Here's how it could work.' But instead of considering the evidence and drawing a conclusion from it, they start with a position and put together supporting evidence. They defend a possibility, even if it's remote. Rather than evaluating all the available evidence and looking at patterns, they look for exceptions. That's just not the way science works. And claiming the authority of science where it doesn't exist is more than mistaken - it's dangerous.

But my claim that these voices are dangerous is based on more than tactics. In fact, I think it's time for us to become a lot more savvy about tactics. I'll come back to that later. I have much deeper reasons to think that the prominence of these voices is dangerous. In fact, my reasons have moral and religious roots. I am committed to the principle that every person is worthwhile. But the voices I commonly hear clearly hold that only some of us are deserving of equal regard and rights. The "real" people have the right religious tradition, are economically successful, heterosexual and, unless it's time to get your vote, usually white and English-speaking. The rest of us - well, we range from the overlooked to the despised. I say that attitude is dangerous to an awful lot of us.

It also jeopardizes the democratic process. If a good proportion of us just don't quite measure up, why should our opinions, positions or votes have any weight? If we object or disagree, who cares? When the right way to do things is apparent, dissent is, at best, pesky. Now, I don't think that anyone is immune from thinking that they (that is, we or I) know what's right and the rest of us (or you) are, at best, misguided. Or wrong, or maybe you're even evil. We're all prone to that. It seems to be part of human nature. But I hope that I can - that we can - hold on to the possibility that we could be wrong. It is a real possibility, though a distasteful one. And it means that we'd better listen to everyone's ideas and evaluate them. We may never agree. But we need to consider other points of view. For Unitarian Universalists, this is a religious principle. We are committed to the reality that no one person or source has a lock on truth. We say that we must look in many places, take a wide view of possibility. We say the minds and voices of many have the best chance at making good decisions - as long as there's a free flow of ideas and positions.

One of the more discouraging aspects of our public conversation these days is the tendency to shut down dissenting voices. We seem to have difficulty distinguishing between disagreement and disloyalty, difference in values and difference in moral character. Our habit of name-calling doesn't help a bit. Labeling someone a redneck is just about as likely to foster an exchange of ideas as ranting about tree-huggers. As long as we meet and interact as groups who would rather that the other didn't even exist, we succeed only in polarizing ourselves and each other. I, for one, am really tired of letters in the Bee that say, in essence, 'You're wrong, so shut up.' I don't mind the 'You're wrong' part. But disagreement doesn't license silencing anyone.

Another of our Principles comes into play with the assumption that it's fine for us - us 'real' people, that is - to choose policies and actions that benefit us, without much concern for anything else. If we are committed to "affirm and promote respect for the interdependent web..." we've got to take a wider view. All of us - all us people, us critters, us plants, waters, winds, the very earth itself - are affected by our actions. We have blithely ignored this for generations, and now are seeing the consequences. It's well past time for us to be more responsible in our actions, especially since there are so many of us these days. To continue to act as if we're free to do anything we please presents dangers to our kind and to many of the planet's other life forms.

It's also time for us to quit being satisfied with complaint as our basic position. Part of the reason that neo-conservative voices in both religion and politics have become so prominent is that the rest of us have been asleep at the wheel. Maybe we've thought they were too far out, just fringe elements. Whatever the reason, we have failed to take them seriously, failed to take action to be sure that we are respected voices in the public conversation. We haven't been willing to make the commitments, to put in the effort, to spend the money.

I've been thinking about this for some time now, but I had a reminder last week. I had a few unstructured hours - a fairly rare occurrence for me. When I get this chance, I usually use part of the time to try reducing the backlog of paper I've accumulated. I have stacks of books and magazines, notes and handouts from different workshops and meetings, stuff to file, letters, notes to myself ... you get the idea. So I spent some time sorting and discarding. And I came across a list entitled "Ten Things To Do To Combat the Religious Right." I vaguely remember thinking these points were important enough to write out. I think I intended to read them over frequently and start taking action. But they got buried. And right there - in my own writing - it says, "Take them seriously - they won't go away." Wherever the list came from - that author was right! And we need to start making up for lost time.

It would take another sermon to talk about all ten of the items on that list, but I want to mention the very first one. "Identify your allies." I think it's an area where we've really been amiss. We have too often turned away from working with anyone who isn't in nearly complete agreement on a whole range of issues. It keeps our numbers pretty small and makes it difficult to have much influence. Sometime in the past year, I found myself identifying an ally - in a context that I considered unlikely. I'm talking about Jim Wallis, an evangelical Christian minister who is author of several books, including "God's Politics" and who is involved with the Network of Spiritual Progressives. Last fall, I explained to you that I would never have picked up a book with that title if it hadn't been recommended by a colleague. But I was pleasantly surprised to find that, while Jim came at the issues from a somewhat different direction than I do, we agree on a wide range of topics - and that we can work together for change.

One of the phrases Jim likes to use is "Budgets are moral documents." He opposes the war in Iraq for several reasons, one of which is that it diverts both our attention and our dollars from significant problems at home. He says we have a moral duty to address them. He calls out for justice, using the words of the prophets and he reminds us that Jesus echoed their demands that we care for the poor, the sick and the widowed. He argues that our government ought to be more family-friendly - and he uses a broad definition of family. He complains that we court trouble by ignoring global warming and other environmental issues. And he says these things in print, in public statements, on the Internet and in person to our senators and representatives. Now that's the kind of ally I am happy to have!

We need to look more broadly, to avoid making assumptions or requiring 'litmus tests' on issues before we're willing to work with others. Another example is the recently formed Evangelical Climate Initiative - which is sponsoring print and broadcast ads promoting concern and policy change related to global warming. They persist despite opposition from James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention and televangelist James Kennedy, among others. I welcome this new voice for ecological responsibility - and the evidence that we are mistaken if we assume that all evangelicals think alike.

And I want to remind you about that Lakoff idea I mentioned earlier - about framing issues so that a context is evoked with just a few words. It's more than making things sound nice. It's about how we see the world, and what values we want it to see demonstrated in it. So we need to use our own phrases when we talk about the issues - phrases that grow out of the values we hold. If we believe in the democratic process, and the importance of checks and balances, we do well to talk about an 'Independent Judiciary.' It has a much different impact than complaining that talk of 'activist judges' misrepresents our ideas.

If we are committed to respecting the worth and dignity of each person, we'll talk about 'Equality for All.' If we value diversity and if freedom of religion means more than just being allowed to interpret the Bible in different ways, we need to uphold our 'Tradition of Religious Freedom.' If we want our children, teens and adults to be responsible in their sexual behavior, it's only realistic to advocate 'Comprehensive Sexuality Education.' By using language that reflects our values, we become a voice with a grounded, recognizable message. And by sticking to phrasing like the examples I've just given, and using it regularly, our words and contexts become familiar. They begin to seem like common sense.

Maybe you know that our General Assembly - our big denominational meeting - is held in a different city each June. Several years back, it took place in Salt Lake City. No, that's not really an oxymoron. In fact, the First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake was established in 1891. Still, it certainly isn't the context most UUs are accustomed to. While we were there, a sort of panel/dialogue was held between the UUA President, an official from the Latter Day Saints and several others of Utah's prominent religious leaders. You can imagine that it was an enlightening conversation. But the story from that meeting that I've heard again and again is this one. The Mormon official commented that UUs have more visitors than LDS congregations. "But," he claimed, "we keep more of those who come. If that weren't true, you could be dangerous."

Now I am pretty sure that his idea of being dangerous is rather different than mine. And when I imagine what his definition is likely to include - well I think being dangerous sounds pretty good! Maybe it's about time we got our act together and made more of an effort to articulate and live out the values we claim. Maybe we should begin to think of ourselves as dangerous - dangerous to notions that there's only one way to find goodness and truth; to the idea that some of us are better, more worthwhile than others; to disregard of our impact on other people, other life forms and the planet itself. When that happens, it won't be me who's preaching about "Dangerous Voices."

26 March 2006

(Copyright by Rev. Grace Simons. Contact the author for permission to use.)

This is one in a collection of Minister's Sermons. We also have a collection of Guest Sermons, a brief Welcome and Biography from Rev. Simons, and the latest edition of Grace Notes, a column Rev. Grace writes for our newsletter.