Today’s sermon topic was supposed to be about globalization – the increasing smaller world in which we live, and the economic influences which are making us live closer and closer together.  Globalization is the ever frequent meeting of the world’s cultures, languages, and people, so that we are really one world, one people, on the planet Earth.  The sermon was also supposed to look at globalization from the perspective of our second Unitarian Universalist principle – our affirmation and promotion of justice, equity and compassion in human relations.

Globalization is a topic that I have wanted to address for some time, not the least of which because I have been struck by the intensity of the demonstrations against globalization which have followed the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and other such global organizational meetings around the world over the last year or two.  The fact that the UUA has a study resolution addressing the topic also helped push me towards it.

This is an area in which I am no expert.  I have only read one book on the subject, The Lexus and the Olive Tree, written by Thomas L. Friedman, along with several papers off of the internet.  Yet, it does seem important – as one area in which we as Unitarian Universalists can express ourselves ethically.  The issues are complex.  I am certain that there will be more than one viewpoint on the subject, and such diverse views are to be cultivated.  I would suggest that our perspective might change, depending upon which aspect or issue within globalization we are looking.

This topic, however, was selected before September 11th.  The terrorist attack on the World Trade Center had not yet happened, the Pentagon was still whole, and anthrax was only occasionally discussed as a potential danger, in the abstract.  Since then, there has been a shaking of the foundations.  I know that I have gone through some deep questioning and changes in my opinions, beliefs and values, and I suspect that I am not alone in such questioning and rethinking.

We as an American people have been injured, grievously so.  Many of us are still in the process of healing, of trying to understand what has happened, why it has happened, and what we can do about it.  And now we face the fear of disease.  A man made, refined, and distributed disease, no less, faces us.  Our leaders have encouraged us to go about our lives as if everything is normal, but were we to have done so, we would have ignored our inner needs for healing, for grief work, for anger and outrage, for time alone, for reflection and contemplation, for crying, and for time to be together in community.

Our congregation is a spiritual community, not a political one.  I am almost certain if we were to take a survey of viewpoints of what America should be doing, we would have a range of possibilities represented, especially if we were to be honest with one another.  That is how it should be.  We affirm the inherent worth and dignity of every person.  We do not mandate agreement of ideas to be a member here.  We respect each other, while perhaps respectfully questioning each other’s thoughts and opinions.  We hopefully accept the offering of what we may perceive to be politically incorrect ideas.  We attempt to embody Emerson’s ideal of living the examined life – of holding up the events of the day for consideration and reflection – of trying to make sense and meaning out of them.  Such is done in community, here, among friends and colleagues.

There may not be agreement, and that is all right.  We do indeed value diversity – for in such diversity, the truth may eventually be found and highlighted.

As a spiritual, religious community, we are also guided by our principles, along with the interplay between them.  I know for myself, nearly 40 years of absolute pacifism came tumbling down in the weeks after September 11th.  While I may still be an individual pacifist in my not being able to take a human life, no longer do I view such as the moral high road as I had once done.  I view such a stand now as arrogant.  I now believe that force, military force, is needed to stop terrorism.  Others may just as validly disagree with my viewpoint.  To me, the important factor is that we may still be guided by our UU principles.

Yes, there is the interdependent web of existence of which we are apart.  We do affirm compassion and equity in human relations, but we also affirm justice in such relationships.  Each of us needs to consider the roles of compassion, equity, and justice in the present situation and what route is the best to follow.  Our individual decisions may not be implemented, but such will help us in directing our energies and thoughts in the weeks and months ahead.

One of the factors which I believe undergirds each of us here is our hope for the present and for the future.  We believe that we can make a difference in the world, that our actions do count, and that our future can be positive and is something to which we can look forward.  As a community, even in the darkest hour, we must guard and strengthen these beliefs.  No matter how terrible the events, the possibility of a better tomorrow remains existent among us.

Viktor Frankel, a concentration camp survivor, wrote a small book entitled Man’s Search for Meaning.  I read it back in the late 1960’s, and I reread it in seminary in the 1990’s.  I believe it may have been one of the most influential books in my life.  Frankel believed that what allowed him to survive the horrors of the concentration camp, as opposed to many others who succumbed to its despair, was his ability to find and create meaning for life, even in such desolate circumstances.  I read it at the time I was undergoing an existentialist angst over what I perceived to be the lack of innate meaning and purpose in life.  He opened my eyes to my responsibility to find my own meaning.  Such is what many of us may now have to do once again – to find or redefine our meaning and purpose in life, a life radically transformed by terrorism.  To find the humanness in our colleagues and companions – to see once again the beauty of life and creation – in the face of despair.   These shall be my goal, and I hope the goal of others too.

So how does all of this relate to globalization, if it does at all?  I’m not 100% certain, not yet.  Economic globalization is supposed to result in an increased standard of living for everyone throughout the world.  Competition in the marketplace is supposed to result in cost savings along with a higher GNP.  Yet, numerous studies have demonstrated that the rich keep getting richer, while the poor continue becoming poorer throughout the world.

I believe that globalization results in an imbalance of power, that equity between peoples and groups of people, which may never have existed, may further be disrupted.  The call for compassion within globalization is seemingly never heard.  Globalization refers only to an economic system – religious values such as compassion and justice do not enter into the equation, only the bottom line seemingly counts in decisions made by international corporations.

Prof Wazir Jahan, professor of anthropology at the University of Malaysia, notes [in her column appearing in the New Straits Times, on web at http://www.nstpi.com.my/Current_News/NST/Saturday/Columns/20011027112349/
Article/?] that “America seems to be the favourite target partly because its policies, both economic and political, have a far reaching impact on the rest of the world.”  Her viewpoint aligns with that of mine.  In some ways, I do view the terrorist attacks on the United States as an attack on America’s presence throughout the world….which is a function of globalization.  Let’s face it – our culture pervades nearly everywhere on earth.  Without economic globalization, we would not be in the Middle East; immigrants from the Middle East would not be traveling back and forth so easily to America; transfers of money, international phone calls, etc. would not be made between countries; and so on.  In some ways, globalization helped the attacks to occur.  While the attacks presumably are political and religious in nature – attempting to get us out of Saudi Arabia and all Muslim lands – and were supposedly in support of the Palestinians, they also could be viewed as manifesting a strong stab of the knife against globalization.

The results of the attacks may be to interfere with increased globalization through erecting barriers to easy movement of people and capital.  Are the attacks a frontal assault on increased globalization – or at least on America’s role in it?  Are the attacks a continuing wave of assault on western civilization, much as the Roman empire endured from the Germanic tribes before the advent of the Dark Ages?  I believe that in some aspects, the answer to both questions is yes.

Dr. Jahan further asks “can modern analytical models be applied to a political phenomenon grounded in emotion, spiritualism and divine justice? How do we apply the notion of rationality to a phenomenon that does not subscribe to the text of logic or reason?”

These are profoundly deep questions, to which only tentative answers can be offered.   Her questions capture a true cultural clash – similar to the cultural shock one receives when living in foreign lands.  Normative, cultural expectations can be drastically shattered, sometimes painfully so.  While we as Unitarian Universalists value spirituality, we also believe firmly in the use of reason.  It is in our collective bones, so to speak, coming from the time of our intellectual reaction against the emotional excesses of the Second Great Awakening.

I believe it is too early to tell fully whether rationality can win out in the contest.  I do think we have to formulate the questions in the correct manner internationally.  And it is at this point that I am not sure how well our State Department has been doing….both in spreading our message and in engaging other nations in the world.

On the local level, however, I do believe that our faith community needs to ask similar questions and help us formulate our own individual answers.  It is here that we can explore, evaluate, consider, and discuss.   And from discussion, we can then decide individually and/or collectively if we should take any action, relative to the conflict in Afghanistan, globalization policies, the various world trade organizations, or what have you.  We can – and must – use our principles as our framework for guidance in our responses.

The terrorist attacks clearly violated a number of our principles.  But we do not want to be led by mere vengeance – at least I don’t.  I want to respond from a centered perspective – one which upholds my core values – embodied by our Unitarian Universalist principles.  We can help each other in such a task – of reminding ourselves of what we are about as Unitarian Universalists.  We can do no less for each other.  Let us raise up our hope – our vision of a better tomorrow – of respect and caring for each individual – of our reverence for all of creation.  We all know that nihilism and revenge is not the way we want to go.

In closing, I would like to read from the words of the Rev. Donald Szantho Harrington, Minister Emeritus of Community Church in Manhattan:
 

Islam is, without question, one of the world’s great, monotheistic religions, with very possibly more followers than any other faith.  The Koran is an instrument of peace and righteousness, justice and love:

“Your God is one God….there is no God but He – the Living, the Eternal.

“He who is Lord of the worlds is also the Holy, the Peaceful, the Faithful, the Guardian over His servants, the Shelterer of the orphan, the Guide of the erring, the Deliverer from every affliction, the Friend of the bereaved, the Consoler of the afflicted; in His hand is good, and He is the generous Lord, the Gracious, the Healer, the Near-at-Hand, the Compassionate, the Merciful, the Very-Forgiving, whose love for man is more tender than that of the mother-bird for her young.”  [The Koran – Ameer Ali, trans)

Does this sound like a God who would countenance the suicide of young Muslims in order to wipe out thousands of ordinary people, going about their business of making a living for their children and families, many of them contributing to help support the Palestinians in the refugee camps and, through the United Nations, other Islamic countries needing succor?

Yet Islamic politicians and some Imans, priests and religious leaders have promised young Muslim terrorists eternal life in Paradise for giving their lives for such destruction.  This is not Koranic teaching!

This is not jihad, a holy war, but an unholy attack upon everything Islam stands for and the Koran teaches.  It promises not Paradise but an unholy Hell right here on earth for innocent men, women and children.  The Islamic leaders need to make that clear, in the name of Allah and all good Muslims.  [taken from the community news, newsletter of The Community Church, 40 E. 35th St., New York, NY, Oct. 28, 2001]

May love, beauty, justice, truth, peace and Allah prevail.

Return to the sermon menu.