The Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Salem, Oregon

FINDING BALANCE IN AN UNBALANCED WORLD

The Reverend Richard R. Davis

October 4, 2009

            Modern technology is a mixed blessing.  Consider the rogue software program computer security experts have named “conficker.”  No one knows where it came from, but some highly sophisticated hackers somewhere – perhaps unscrupulous entrepreneurs who want to “spam” us, or organized criminals who want to steal our identities or a hostile foreign power that wants to power to crash our computers - someone who is so clever that they continue to outwit the best computer experts in the world –  introduced this computer virus last November, and it has spread to millions of computers in 200 countries - and it continues to spread.   Conficker turns infected computers into what at called “botnets” – that is, computers that can be made to do whatever the creator of the malicious software desires.   Who knows what will come of this?   It’s unsettling to think of the dire possibilities.

            Lately, especially as the debate over health care has raged on, I’ve been thinking that computers are not the only entities infected by malicious programming.  It almost seems that many fellow citizens have had some false or highly questionable notions planted in their brains and they are no longer thinking or acting for themselves but rather for some unseen, behind the scenes entities.  They’re acting like human “botnets.”

            Consider the so called “birthers’ – the ones who claim that our president was born on foreign soil and is therefore constitutionally disqualified from holding that high office.   Somehow, a vast number of credulous people have been infected by a false idea that is stubbornly resistant to actual facts.  No matter how much evidence that President Obama was born in Hawaii is validated they remain convinced that he was born in Indonesia .  It’s both sad and alarming.  Or check out the Islamophobic website “Conservapedia” which says that Obama is “most likely our first Moslem president.”   There’s no evidence for that, but that’s what some folks are determined to believe.”  (Question: is there something in the U. S. Constitution that all presidents must be Christians?)   

Then there are our fellow citizens who have shown up so full of rage at town hall meetings called by elected officials to discuss health care reform. Why?  Because some false notions have been implanted in their minds that say that the government is aiming to “take over” the health care system, institute “death panels” which will “pull the plug on grandma” and “ration” our health care in some dreadful “socialist” system where you have to wait years to receive inferior care.  (Never mind that we already ration health care economically according to our ability to pay). 

            Witnessing this spectacle is so frustrating – just when our government begins to address one of our greatest social inequities here comes a group of deluded, irate citizens who seem hell bent on sabotaging the entire process. 

            Wouldn’t you say that these folks have been brainwashed? 

            The term “brainwashed” was first coined by U.S. intelligence officials to describe what had happened to American prisoners during the Korean War who came to espouse the communist ideology of their captors – U.S. intelligence officials reasoned that no right thinking person could possibly be a communist, so these prisoners must have been brainwashed.  Certainly, these prisoners may have been coerced or deluded into believing that communism was a viable political ideology, but the whole notion of “brainwashing” is slippery notion – so slippery, in fact, that the American Psychological Association doesn’t sign off on this concept.   The human mind is infinitely complex and there are complex theories as to account for why people believe what they do. 

            Even as I’m tempted to paste the label “brainwashed” or “human botnets” on the “birthers,” the town hall ragers and other fringe groups that hold views that don’t square with the reality I know, I don’t doubt that there are many who would paste that some similarly disparaging label on me – and where does such name calling get us except further ensconced in polarized political camps? 

            What’s going on here?  

Well, consider what used to go on in America .   There was once a Federal Communications Commission regulation known as the “Fairness Doctrine” – The government reasoned – wisely, I think – that since the airwaves are limited by a finite number of available frequencies that great care should be taken to insure that a variety of views was heard on the airwaves, not just the views of those who held were granted the broadcasting licenses.  Radio and TV stations were given wide latitude as to how they would abide by this.  The good thing about the fairness doctrine was that people were exposed to a variety of perspectives.  The downside was – well, I don’t think there was a downside, but President Reagan and the corporate media lobby didn’t like it, so it was abolished in 1987. 

There have been some calls for a return of the Fairness Doctrine by those who feel that media monopolies do not serve the common good since they tend to espouse conservative views that favor corporate interests (e.g. 90% of talk radio is right wing or conservative in tone).  But even if the fairness doctrine was re-enforced it would not have the same effect as in former days since cable TV and radio, the infrastructure of which is privately owned, would not be regulated.   Still, fairness doctrine sounds pretty good to me.

Today, in a post Fair Doctrine America, much of the airwaves are so dominated by conservative radio and TV stations (there are a few, rare exceptions) that many folks marinate in bitter stew of conservative vitriol, never being exposed to other perspectives. 

This isn’t good.  Many years ago (1927), in the very earliest days of broadcasting, a Texas congressman (Rep. Luther Johnson) prophetically anticipated the great peril here:   “American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations, for publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a republic. And when such a weapon is placed in the hands of one person, or a single selfish group is permitted to either tacitly or otherwise acquire ownership or dominate these broadcasting stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people.
            These conservatively biased TV and radio stations feed the minds of so many a steady diet of the red meat of conservative outrage – and it is outrage that so often rests on false premises and is misdirected.     

To be fair, conservatives are not the only ones who receive their information from biased sources.  Due to the explosion of sources of information and the slow demise of traditional formats (like newspapers) more and more Americans gain their perspective on the world from those who have an ideological agenda – conservative, liberal or whatever.   The right wing does play the most hardball here and have the most advantage.  This bodes ill for America – to sustain a democracy you need an informed citizenry, not a misinformed one. 

It’s gotten so far out of hand that there is talk of the coming political segregation in America, an ideological ghetto-ization wherein people only listen to and interact with those of like mind.  It’s even gotten to the point where certain coffee shops, or even entire communities, are seen as the domain of one particular group. 

So what, you may wonder?   Isn’t it a lot more comfortable to associate with those like you?  Well, yes, it is easier and understandable up to a point, but taken too an extreme, that kind of comfort is purchased at great expense.  Without a cross pollination of experiences, perspectives and ideas we don’t grow, evolve, change – we just exist in enclaves where we re-enforce our current assumptions and prejudices. 

In communities of like minded people, like mindedness can become the norm and the pressures to conform can stifle honest expressions of differences.  More insidiously,   there is a spiritual cost here – when we pin labels upon one another (aka “name calling”) we dehumanize people, reducing them to mere political positions – “They’re just rednecks”, “right wingnuts” “latte liberals,”   This bodes ill – for when we dehumanize one another with our labeling, inhumane thoughts, feelings and in some cases hateful actions can follow.  Mere disdain can grow into full fledged hatred.

In fact, it does grow into hatred.  Remember last summer (’08) when a fifty nine year old man, Jim Adkisson, steeped in right wing, liberal bashing ideas and literature (books by conservative pundits Bill O’Reilly, Michael Savage and Sean Hannity were found in his apartment) came completely unhinged and went into the Unitarian Universalist Congregation in Knoxville, Tennessee with a twelve gauge shotgun – he shot and killed two members and wounded six others before other brave members subdued him.  In a “manifesto” he had written:  “Do something for your country.. Go kill liberals.”

How tragic.  My heart goes out to all concerned, including Mr. Adkisson who became so twisted by hate that he took other’s lives and will now sit in a jail cell for the rest of his life.

In his manifesto Adkisson also wrote “if they (Unitarian Universalists) find out you’re a conservative, they absolutely hate you.  I know.  I experienced it.” 

Our call is clear – to prove those words false.  First of all, let’s not forget that although Unitarian Universalists are religious liberals that does not necessarily mean we’re  political liberals.  This is our heritage - being a religious liberal means that within a common framework of life affirming values, we respect freedom of conscience and impose no creed – theological, political or otherwise.  Indeed, some of us here are political conservatives, some are moderates, some are liberals, some are radicals and some eschew political labeling altogether.   Perhaps most here are political liberals, but we need to jealously guard against making political liberalism a litmus test for membership.    Our aim is “not to think alike, but to love alike” – to create a community wherein each member feels free to call to embrace the highest life affirming truth each one of us can envision, without fear of censure, a place where the doctrine we embrace is a fairness doctrine

There is too much unfairness, censure, condemnation, hatred, vitriol, polarization in our country.  Frankly, it’s very easy to get swept up into this maelstrom – I’ve had my moments there.   But deep down inside, I know better. 

There are so many who personally profit from the polarization, who are willing to spin and distort and stir up dangerous feelings of intolerance, and there are many more who have had so much political venom poured into their minds that they have ceased to function like free people.  

Our challenge – and it is a daunting challenge – is to win this battle by rising above it – by insisting on fairness, on the free and open exchange of ideas in calm and rational ways.   The stakes are high – will be move toward political civil war or toward political civility?   Our religious tradition bids us do the latter.