Guest Author: Rev. Meredith Garmon
Senior Minister
Community Unitarian Church at White Plains, NY
Delivered October 12, 2014
Except from Sermon:
To
say that every being has inherent worth and dignity wouldn’t require us to care
as much about Tommy as we do about the humans in our prisons and warehouse
nursing homes, nor would it say all beings warranted the same level of concern
and respect, nor would it require us to become vegans. It would function to
open our spirits to a kinder regard – at whatever level each of us deems
appropriate.
Our
principles are not like laws. All our principles do is point the direction in
which they encourage us to explore how far we individually are ready to go.
Expand
the circle of concern and respect. There are human groups who need that circle
more securely expanded: prisoners, elderly, African Americans, Hispanics,
indigenous peoples, women, LGBT folk, persons with disabilities.
Expand
the circle of concern and respect. And there are nonhuman animals to include
within the compass of our hearts. Caring about your neighbor never curtails
your love for your own family. Caring about the other, the outcast, doesn’t
hinder your belongingness in or support of your own community.
Expanding
the circle in a new way actually helps strengthen other circles that we have
incompletely expanded because all beings really does mean all of us. Inclusion strengthens, rather than weakens. Love is a
model for more love.
The
sacred hoop of our people is one of many hoops that make one circle. Let us
stretch it wide – wide as daylight and starlight.
Whole Sermon with Reading: (you can get a copy of the recording here)
Reflection on
the “Appeal to Nature” Fallacy
“Appeal
to nature” is a fallacy, for even if there were consensus on how to draw the
line between “natural” and “unnatural,” (and there isn’t) that would tell us
nothing about acceptable or unacceptable behavior.
We
used to hear that same-sex romantic relationships were unnatural. Since the
Supreme Court, on Mon Oct 6, declined to review lower-court decisions in favor
of same-sex marriage, we very quickly saw 10 new states begin to issue same-sex
marriage licenses. It's clearer than ever that the idea that same-sex romantic
relationships are "unnatural" will not stand.
We
still hear appeals to nature when it comes to eating meat. We have the
equipment for eating meat. We have incisors for biting into meat and a
digestive tract that can process and use nutrients from the flesh of other
animals. It’s natural.
Yes,
we did evolve to eat meat. But we didn't evolve for there to be seven billion
of us. More precisely, evolution equipped us fairly well for survival in the
world of a million years ago, and less well for living sustainably in a world
headed toward nine billion humans by 2055 consuming resources at the rate we
do. If we're all going to be sustainably fed, we'll have to forgo the resource
waste, greenhouse-gas emissions, and pollution of meat production.
So
let us look more carefully at what nature really teaches. Appropriating a
structure that served one purpose and putting it to a very different purpose is
a common maneuver in evolution's playbook. Mammalian forelimbs get turned into
bat wings – or dolphin fins. Antennae get turned into mandibles. A jaw bone in
dinosaurs, fish, and reptiles got appropriated and made into an auditory bone
in mammals. An ancestor of wasps and bees had an ovipositor that got
appropriated and made into a stinger. Certain fish developed a swim bladder,
which they could fill with air, allowing the fish to stay at a given depth.The
swim bladder evolved into the lung of the earliest lungfish – and from there
into the lungs of land animals. A device for staying at a given depth in water
turned into the essential step for moving onto land! Structures that served one
purpose get put to very different purposes. Happens all the time.
“Nature”
gave us a lot of “equipment.” It’s up to us how, and whether, to use it.
Our
reproductive organs evolved to serve the purpose of reproduction, yet we use
them, with less and less guilt and shame these days, for intimacy and
connection in ways that do not lead to reproduction. We can intentionally
choose to do what nature itself also does: appropriate what is given and put it
to completely different purposes. Our reproductive system can reproduce -- but
it's just fine if it doesn't. Our digestive system can handle meat -- but it's
just fine if it doesn't.
With
the “appeal to nature” fallacy out of the way, we are free to use our moral
capacity to reflect on the level of suffering, and the level of environmental
damage, our dietary choices may inflict.
Inclusion Strengthens,
Rather than Weakens
“For I was
seeing in the sacred manner the shape of all things of the spirit, and the
shapes as they must live together like one being. And I saw that the sacred
hoop of my people was one of many hoops that make one circle, wide as daylight
and starlight, and in the center grew one mighty flowering tree to shelter all
the children of one mother and one father.” (Black Elk)”
Many
hoops that make one circle. Our moral progress as a people can be measured by
how far we have expanded the circle of our concern and respect. All the many
hoops of our care -- hoops of family, tribe, locality, state, nation, and
favorite sports team – make one big circle. Is our circle as wide as daylight
and starlight?
We
have expanded the circle in many ways since the voyages 522 years ago that we
are remembering this Columbus Day weekend. Columbus’ expedition expanded the
circle of the European mind to include awareness of a new world. Neither
Columbus nor any of the powers of Europe were prepared then to expand their
circle of concern and respect to the people they encountered in this new world.
That has been the work of later generations: ending slavery, extending suffrage
to women.
This
past week (2014 Oct 6 – 12) was a good week for expanding the circle of concern
and respect. The Seattle City Council and the Portland, Oregon school board
each voted to recognize Indigenous people’s Day on the same day as Columbus
Day. Minneapolis made the same move last April, and the state of South Dakota,
since 1990, has recognized the second Monday of October as Native American Day.
On the day for remembering Columbus, let us also – or maybe, instead – remember
the worth and dignity of those whose worth and dignity Columbus could not see.
Let
our circle grow larger than it has been. It was a remarkable week for expanding
the circle of our concern and respect to same-sex couples asking for the
respect of recognizing their marriages. The 4th, 7th, and
10th circuit courts of appeal had earlier ruled in favor of
expanding the circle of constitutional protection to same-sex marriage, but had
stayed their decisions, pending appeal. When, last Monday, the Supreme Court
declined to review those decisions, that was the end of the appeals process,
meaning those circuit court decisions became law.
The
next day, Tuesday, the 9th circuit court also expanded the circle. Judge
Stephen Reinhardt, writing for a unanimous court, said:
“The lessons of
our constitutional history are clear: Inclusion strengthens, rather than
weakens, our most important institutions. When same-sex couples are married,
just as when opposite-sex couples are married, they serve as models of loving
commitment to all.”
Inclusion
strengthens, rather than weakens. Love is a model for more love.
Of
course, the history of inclusion, of expanding the circle, has not been smooth.
We ended slavery – except that we didn’t. World-wide estimates of the number of
slaves today range from 12 million to 29 million. Some migrant farmworkers in
the U.S., for all practical purposes, work as slaves: they’re watched, it’s
hard to escape, they’re forced to work.
Women
got the vote, but we balked at an ERA, and gender inequality, sexual assault
and harassment, and domestic abuse continue to oppress women.
Résumés
with white sounding names have a 50 percent greater chance of being called in
for an interview than identical resumes with an African-American sounding name.
Black renters are told about 11 percent fewer rental units and black homebuyers
are shown a fifth fewer homes than their white counterparts. Blacks and whites
use illegal drugs at similar rates, but blacks are arrested for it at three
times the rate of whites. Black offenders of any crime receive, on average, 10%
longer sentences than white offenders of the same crime. So the circle of
inclusion – of justice and equality – has not been fully expanded to our
siblings of color.
While
recent progress on marriage equality has been stunning, LGBT folk continue to
face difficulties. Transgender and gender non-conforming people face rampant
discrimination in every area of life: education, employment, family life,
public accommodations, housing, health, police and jails, and ID documents.
Forty-seven states have anti-hate crime laws -- only 24 states include sexual
orientation in their legislation. More than half of the states do not ban
discrimination by employers or public accommodations based on sexual
orientation. Seventy-five percent of US students have no state laws to protect
them from harassment and discrimination in school based on their sexual
orientation. In public high schools, 97 percent of students report regularly
hearing homophobic remarks from their peers. Gay men and lesbians get worse
health care. The circle of inclusion has not been fully expanded to our LGBT
siblings.
But
here’s the thing. We don’t have to fully secure those hoops before pushing on
to expand the circle in completely new ways. If we had waited until equality of
rights and opportunities for former slaves and their descendants had been fully
secured before turning our attention to women’s voting rights, we would still
be waiting. Indeed wherever there is injustice or cruelty, it makes injustice
and cruelty anywhere else a little easier. Anytime we expand the circle
anywhere, it makes more glaring our failure to do have secured inclusion in
other areas – and brings increased attention to correct the deficiency. Love
models more love.
The Moral
Frontier
So
what’s next? Where else shall we consider expanding the circle? What moral
progress might we be on the verge of making?
Princeton
philosophy professor Kwame Anthony Appiah has advanced three criteria for
identifying a practice that is on the verge of being widely condemned as
immoral – practices that we now engage in that our great-grandchildren will
look back at us with something like the moral disdain with which we look back
at, say, witch prosecutors or slaveholders.
First
criteria, the arguments against the practice have been around for a while. People
have heard them, and the arguments are simmering in the back of our collective
consciousness. For instance, the case against slavery didn't suddenly pop up in
an instantaneous transformative insight -- a blinding moment of moral clarity. The
moral argument against slavery had been around for centuries. It just took a while
for it to really sink in. Arguments for women’s suffrage were around a long
time even before the 1848 Seneca Falls convention more-or-less officially
kicked off the US suffrage movement – and it took 72 years after that before
women’s suffrage was won.
Second
criteria for a practice beginning to become ripe for moral condemnation: Even
those who defend it don’t offer a moral defense. They don’t say, “this is
right.” Rather, they argue from tradition, or human nature, or necessity. Defenders
of slavery said, “We have to have slaves to get the cotton crop in.” Or “this
is how we’ve always done it.” Or “it’s human nature for some people to give the
orders and others to obey them.”
The
third criterion is that we see a lot of pushing the issue out of our minds. At
some level we do know it’s wrong, but we just put it out of mind. We don’t want
to think about it. But we can ignore something only so long before the inevitable
return of the repressed. Those who ate the sugar or wore the cotton that the
slaves grew simply didn't think about what made those goods possible. It was
the abolitionists’ job to make clear and vivid the slave conditions so that it
couldn’t be ignored.
Appiah
then applies these criteria and discerns four areas most likely to be on the
verge of change – change that will leave our descendants judging us immoral for
allowing certain practices to continue as long as they did.
Our
prison system. There is no good reason for having over 2 million people behind
bars, nor for subjecting them to the horrors and abuse typical of our prisons.
Our
warehoused elderly. Another 2 million of our citizens, the elderly, are
warehoused in nursing homes, out of sight, out of mind, cut off from families,
often treated abysmally.
Arguments
against these atrocities have been around a long time, no one defends them on
moral grounds, and their persistence is enabled only because we push it out of
mind. How did we as a people let that happen?
These
are two areas where we’ve seen the circle of concern and respect contract. We
didn’t used to be so awful about imprisoning so much of our population or
warehousing so many elderly, and for those who did go to prison or a nursing
home, we didn’t use to treat them so badly. We’ve written them off – out of the
circle of concern and respect. The expanding circle will need to take them back
in again.
A
third issue is environmental destruction. Expand the circle to take in our
planet itself.
The
fourth issue that Appiah mentions is the cruelty of meat production. It meets
the criteria for an issue where our moral perspective is getting ready to
shift.
First:
have the arguments been around a long time and had a chance to sink in? Yes. It
has been 230 years since Jeremy Bentham wrote:
“The question is
not, ‘Can they reason?’ Nor, ‘Can they talk?’ But, ‘Can they suffer?’…The time
will come when humanity will extend its mantle over everything which breathes.”
Second:
do even the defenders not offer a moral defense? In fact, they do not. People
who eat factory-farmed bacon, or hamburgers, or chicken rarely offer a moral
justification for what they're doing. Those who do it, do it from habit. We
choose foods for comfort, I believe, and habits are comforting. We put out of
our minds the stomach-turning stories about what the animals went through to
give their flesh to our comfort habits at the lowest possible price.
And
that’s the third criterion: is the issue generally just pushed out of mind? Yes,
it is.
“Ten billion
animals are slaughtered for human consumption each year. And, unlike the farms
of yesteryear where animals roamed freely, today most animals are factory
farmed -- crammed into cages where they can barely move and fed a diet tainted
with pesticides and antibiotics. These animals spend their entire lives in
crates or stalls so small that they can’t even turn around. Farmed animals are
not protected from cruelty under the law -- in fact, the majority of state
anticruelty laws specifically exempt farm animals from basic humane protection.”
(Appiah)
It’s
not the killing of them that I think will earn our great-grandchildren’s
greatest condemnation. We all have to die. It’s the unconscionable suffering we
make them endure while they live.
“At least 10
million [cattle] at any time are packed into feedlots, saved from the
inevitable diseases of overcrowding only by regular doses of antibiotics,
surrounded by piles of their own feces, their nostrils filled with the smell of
their own urine. Picture it -- and then imagine your grandchildren seeing that
picture.”
We
will be at an embarrassing loss, for there is no good explanation for why we do
that to our fellow creatures. So miserable do we make their lives that killing
them is the kindest thing we do.
We
rationalize that their suffering doesn’t count. And why doesn’t it? Yes, it’s
real pain, yes, they are beings capable of rich emotional lives. Their brain’s
mechanisms of wanting – wanting to be to be free, and free of pain – work
pretty much the way your brain or mine would want those things.
The First
Principle Project
We
also know that the meat production industry produces 18% of all greenhouse
gases – more than the entire transportation sector. If climate change is a
concern (and it surely is), the one single most effective step would be to end
meat production. A vegetarian driving a hummer is doing less harm to the planet
than a meat-eater driving a Prius.
Expanding
the circle of care and concern – taking the next step in moral progress, the
next step in growing our capacity for compassion, is expanding the circle to
include all sentient beings – all beings that feel.
It’s
been a good week for expanding the circle of inclusion: cities recognizing
indigenous peoples day, states granting same-sex marriage rights. In the news
this week was also this item:
A
state appellate court in Albany this week heard arguments on whether Tommy,
held in captivity in Gloversville, NY, was entitled to a writ of habeas corpus.
Tommy is a 26-year-old chimpanzee. The court was considering whether he could
be considered a legal person who could – with the same assistance of a lawyer
that we would all have to depend on – sue for his freedom.
Tommy’s
lawyer argued: “He’s detained against his will.” No chimpanzee would want to
live
“in the conditions
in which he’s living. He can understand the past, he can anticipate the future,
and he suffers as much in solitary confinement as a human being.”
The
lawyer expressed hope that Tommy, if deemed a person, might soon be able to
retire, as many New Yorkers do, to Florida. There’s an island preserve there
with hundreds of other chimps.
We
don’t know how the court will rule, but the very idea of chimpanzees with legal
rights represents a sea change. Our attitudes about animals are shifting – the
circle of inclusion is expanding, and inclusion strengthens rather than weakens
the protections for all of us.
I
believe in expanding the circle of inclusion. I want to say all beings matter. Humans
matter more – but all beings matter.
A
number of Unitarian Universalists have begun to suggest that we can do better
than affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of every person. We can,
in fact, affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of every being. It’s
called the “First Principle Project” – a project to revise our first principle
to replace “every person” with “every being.”
As
it happens, this congregation, Communty Unitarian Church at White Plains, had a
ministerial intern some years ago -- some of you might recall him, Nate Walker
-- who, way back in 2005, preached from this pulpit about the inherent worth
and dignity of every being. I'm happy to tell you that consideration of that
idea is, in fact, slowly growing among more and more UUs -- as well it should
-- thanks in part to the leadership of my now-colleague, Rev. Nate Walker. My
colleague and spouse, Rev. LoraKim Joyner has been at the forefront of the
First Principle project.
At
our next General Assembly, if 15 congregations ask for it, there will be a
motion on the agenda to establish a two-year study commission to investigate
pros and cons of changing our first principle from every person to every being.
A year or two after that, the study commission makes its recommendation. If
it’s a recommendation for change, it will then have to be passed by a
two-thirds vote of the delegates at two consecutive annual General Assemblies.
Right
now we say that every person has inherent worth and dignity. This is
aspirational, and it doesn’t mean we can’t punish criminals, nor that we have
to love strangers as much as our family, nor that we should support enforcing
absolute equality of income for everyone. But it does function to open our
spirits to a kinder regard – at whatever level each of us deems appropriate.
To
say that every being has inherent worth and dignity wouldn’t require us to care
as much about Tommy as we do about the humans in our prisons and warehouse
nursing homes, nor would it say all beings warranted the same level of concern
and respect, nor would it require us to become vegans. It would function to
open our spirits to a kinder regard – at whatever level each of us deems
appropriate.
Our
principles are not like laws. All our principles do is point the direction in
which they encourage us to explore how far we individually are ready to go.
Expand
the circle of concern and respect. There are human groups who need that circle
more securely expanded: prisoners, elderly, African Americans, Hispanics,
indigenous peoples, women, LGBT folk, persons with disabilities.
Expand
the circle of concern and respect. And there are nonhuman animals to include
within the compass of our hearts. Caring about your neighbor never curtails
your love for your own family. Caring about the other, the outcast, doesn’t
hinder your belongingness in or support of your own community.
Expanding
the circle in a new way actually helps strengthen other circles that we have
incompletely expanded because all beings really does mean all of us. Inclusion strengthens, rather than weakens. Love is a
model for more love.
The
sacred hoop of our people is one of many hoops that make one circle. Let us
stretch it wide – wide as daylight and starlight.
