Unitarian Universalist Church of Chattanooga » Letters from the Minister

Jeff — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:33:27 +0000

Sent to the Times-Free Press, July 20, 2010.

In response to a recent letter accusing Clay Bennett of anti–Christian sentiments, I remind everyone that Christians don’t have the market cornered for false piety. Hypocrisy abounds in all faiths. But Christians do seem to holler the loudest about it, especially at election time. It’s a rare person who looks in the mirror and doesn’t flinch.

In the Clay Bennet cartoons I have seen, I note that he doesn’t suffer fools gladly and he doesn’t pull his punches. In my opinion, he only blew it once, and that was today’s cartoon, which shows a witch riding a broom to write a message in the sky. It reads, “Surrender, Fleischman.”

It occurs to me that the reference to the Wicked Witch of the West in the Wizard of Oz will be lost on many people. But what concerns me, and I assume, many women, is that the idea for this cartoon would not have occurred to Bennett if Fleischman were running against Robert Smith.

I am no supporter of Robin Smith, nor her regressive positions, and I hope she doesn’t prevail. She’s a forceful woman, to be sure, but Bennett’s cartoon reinforces a negative allusion to a strong woman’s personality. We’re better than that.

–

Jeff Briere

Arrogance & Cultural Voices

Jeff — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:47:37 +0000

I was annoyed at the Lakeview-Fort O cheerleader brouhaha, but I could not articulate my annoyance until this morning at the breakfast table. Then I realized what annoyed me. I sent the letter below to the editor of the T-FP on October 2 and it appeared October 3.

–

Jeff

I have a neat solution for the cheerleaders who want to display Bible verses on the football field at Lakeview-Fort Oglethorpe: Re-cast the verse into their own words and omit the citation of chapter & verse. This retains the “inspirational” nature of the verse and does not bring religion onto the high school gridiron.

I suspect they won’t do it, though, because holding aloft Bible verses in a secular setting is not about inspiring your friends. It’s all about triumphalism, and what good is waving the flag if no one knows you are waving the flag? When you can’t rub everyone’s nose in it, the exercise is not nearly as much fun.

This episode is evidence of a cultural change. Southeastern Tennessee and northern Georgia is not the isolated sleepy backwater place it once was. People with new ideas, different habits and broader visions are comin’ to town.

Public Piety

Jeff — Sat, 09 May 2009 13:33:20 +0000

This was sent to the editor of the Chattanooga Times-Free Press on May 9, 2009:

A letter in today’s (May 9) Times-Free Press, complains that President Obama “ignored” the National Day of Prayer.

At the National Prayer Breakfast, he alluded to the Golden Rule—something found in all religions. He pointedly warned against using religion to divide people. He said, “In a world that grows smaller by the day, perhaps we can begin to crowd out the destructive forces of zealotry and make room for the healing power of understanding. This is my hope. This is my prayer.”

He issued a proclamation in which he echoed his remarks at the Prayer Breakfast. It can be read at .

What the President did not do is make a big show of his religious sensitivities; he did not indulge in public piety. He followed the advice of Jesus found in Matthew, 6:5-6 ”And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”

What’s Wrong With That?

Jeff — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:35:47 +0000

Below is my letter to the editor sent on March 11, 2009. BTW, I sent a similar letter yester day to a reporter, Herman Wang, calling him out for publishing the same false information.

The Free Press editor combines with a sympathetic reader in today’s (March 11) edition to foster the incorrect idea that the Employee Free Choice Act eliminates secret ballots in union organizing decisions. The words, “free choice” in the title refer to a choice between a secret ballot and a card check system to determine the union’s future. In other words, workers could choose to have secret ballot or not. What’s wrong with that?

In the editorial, comparing organizing efforts to the election of officials when both use a secret ballot is a false comparison, similar to comparing hay wagons to station wagons because they both have wheels. Both Mr. Divine and the editor use absolute words, such as “deny” and “loss” to make the reader believe that secret ballots are forbidden by this bill. They’re not. The bill merely gives workers another system to make a decision. What’s wrong with that?

The bill might even make it more difficult to organize a union because it demands 50% of workers sign a card to acknowledge a collective bargaining unit. However, only 30% of workers are needed to petition to have a secret ballot.

What’s wrong with that?

Pulse Interview

Jeff — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 21:59:00 +0000

This is what I sent the Pulse on January 7, 2008. They are preparing an article in response to the article on the front page of the Time-Free Press of December 28, 2008, which detailed the experience of a man who was “cured” of homosexuallity through religion. Gary Poole is the reporter.

Gary Poole wrote:

First of all, give us some background on yourself – how long have you been at UUC and how do you see your place in the community.

I will soon complete six years as the minister of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Chattanooga. (That is the correct spelling and the exact name–no hyphen.) This church is undoubtedly the most liberal religious society in this area. The people who come to this church are liberal in their approach to religion, liberal in the development of their culture and liberal (in most cases) in the practice of their politics. That is the place of the church in the community.

My place in the community? I haven’t tried to draw attention to myself; I’m not a firebrand. I will work for what I believe demands justice, but I’m not an agitator. I am acutely aware that my beliefs about justice are not the prevailing beliefs in this area. I am sure that most people around here would disagree with my theology or my beliefs. I suppose my place in the community (a self-selected place) is to express an alternative perspective and to promote a diversity of opinion.

The issue of whether or not homosexuality is something that can be “cured” through religion has been a hot debate for years. As a minister, how do you feel about this issue?

I answer first as an amateur logician. To argue that homosexuality can be cured through religion assumes several beliefs:

the belief that homosexuality is a disease
the belief that a cure exists
the belief that the cure is efficacious
the belief that the patient needs (or wants) to be cured
the belief that there is a patient
and the belief that a verifiable result can be observed.

And everyone must agree on these terms and conditions before any argument could commence.

In my opinion, to assume all interested parties accept those beliefs is to make a logical mistake. Therefore, announcing that a “cure” is available through religion, which itself is a system of beliefs, is also bogus.

Not to mention that everyone would have to accept all the doctrine of the “religious cure.” More beliefs.

And finally, let us remember that belief is “knowledge without evidence.” One can not–must not–assume that one’s beliefs are shared by others, because what we accept without evidence varies by our culture, language, spirituality and experience.

I now answer as a minister. I believe my calling is to apply my talents in ways that make the world a better place. I get to define “better.” Not someone else. I believe the world is not made a better place by using religion as a cudgel to control behavior.

Methodists and others will recall that we turn to four sources of wisdom when encountering something new. We consult scripture, recall tradition, compare our experience and use our reason. Most Unitarian Universalists (myself included) rely more on reason and experience to guide us in forming beliefs about things that don’t fit readily in to established categories. And so my relations with gay men and women are based in my experience and in what is reasonable.

I am not gay, yet I want to emphasize that being gay and trying to hide it can be the most excruciating type of self-denial. I cannot imagine anyone “choosing” to be excluded from civic participation and the cultural life of one’s community. It is my belief that we interact with more gay men and women than we know and our interactions will only increase in the future.

I have noticed that people with limited exposure to other cultures, people who are provincial or people who are fearful are often more afraid of the questions inherent in modern life. Conversely, I notice that people who have traveled, people who are educated and familiar with the world are not so quick to condemn behavior in others. These people I notice are also more hopeful than fearful.

The question of admitting to the life of the church people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered was answered more than 30 years ago in Unitarian Universalist churches. For a time line of UU involvement in the progress of gay inclusion, please visit this web site: <www.uua.org/members/justicediversity/bisexualgay/20962.shtml>.

On a related note, Universalists were the first to ordain a woman (1853) and the Unitarians weren’t far behind.

Many fundamentalist Christians view homosexuality as a sin. What is your personal opinion on this oft-heated debate?

It’s not for me to criticize another’s beliefs, or “views,” as you put it. Nor should others presume to criticize mine. Our church has no doctrine, no dogma. We believe that everyone (of a certain maturity) can make the determination for himself or herself as to what is a sin. It seems to me to be a personal matter.

At the end of the day, I believe you can believe what makes sense to you. But if you believe in an exclusive, domineering or hurtful philosophy, you probably won’t be happy in my church. And I would intervene if you acted on those beliefs, either in the church or in the community.

This question leads me to say that religions are not engaged in a football game, nor any kind of combat or struggle. We are not playing a video game in which we score points by converting anyone to our beliefs or conquering them so that they won’t believe what they used to believe. I understand this attitude is not shared by some in the Christian community.

Many homosexuals say that they feel unwelcome and unwanted at many churches. What would you say to these individuals?

It’s easy to say, “Come on over to my church.”

But that flippant rejoinder misses the pastoral concern here. People quite often come to church with open hearts and vulnerable feelings. They are often wounded by their experience in churches and religious societies that are exclusive; that is, churches which practice a theology that puts some people in and others out. In recent years, I have noticed that some churches are striving to practice an inclusive religious life, and that’s good, because I believe that we are all in and no one is out. It’s like a big lifeboat, this world. We’re all in this together.

December 30th, 2008

Jerry — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 23:07:27 +0000

This letter was sent to the editor of the NY Times on December 30th, 2008.

In his column of December 29th, John Tierney asks, “If I’m serious about keeping my New Year’s resolutions in 2009, should I add another one? Should the to-do list include, “Start going to church”?

Much as I would like Mr. Tierney to visit my church, I more prefer that he include mosques, temples and synagogues in his conceptions of religious architecture. Reading his words, one might conclude that Muslims, Jews, Sikhs and other non-Christians are unable to benefit from the support of one’s colleagues, friends and co-religionists.

Supporting another’s efforts to keep resolutions is not a Christian phenomenon. It’s a human thing.

December 16, 2008

Jerry — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:32:12 +0000

Sent to the editor of the Chattanooga Times-Free Press.

I agree with the Free Press editor’s contention that states ought not be in the business of producing special license plates. However, his argument for the inclusion of a pointedly Christian plate fails to persuade.

The special plates expressing “environmental, philosophical or other viewpoints” are not religious in nature. They are secular. Therefore, arguing that because they are permitted, a Christian plate ought to be permitted as well puts Christianity (or any other religion) in the same category with “environmental, philosophical or other viewpoints.” And I’m sure the editor did not mean to imply that.

Our Constitution does not preclude states from promoting “environmental, philosophical or other viewpoints.” It proscribes the endorsement or promotion of religion, and that is what a license plate with a cross and the words, “I believe.” would do. The Constitution is silent on bumper stickers.

The editor also smears the Secular Humanists of the Low Country by characterizing them as “opposing religion (especially Christianity).” I looked at their website, as did the editor, but I found nothing in opposition to any religion. They are forthright in their beliefs, as would be any devout Christian.

Promoting one’s beliefs is perfectly acceptable. Demonizing others is not.

October 16, 2008

Jerry — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:33:26 +0000

Sent to the editor of the Chattanooga Times-Free Press.

Regarding today’s letters, I have two comments. To Charlotte Turner, who is incensed at the disrespect she believes Barack Obama showed to the American flag: Ms. Turner, you saw two flags. Obama was standing in front of an array of flags, some of which were American flags; others were Ohio state flags. Neither Obama, nor the people who decorated the stage, nor the Democrats intended any disrespect for any flag. At this time, jumping to conclusions will not serve our national interests.

To the letters editor: On the same letters page, you went out of your way to substantiate that the Weather Underground planted and exploded bombs. I spent less than a minute uncovering the reason for Ms. Turner’s confusion. Why could you not have done the same? It would have made the letters page appear more balanced.

July 26, 2008

Jerry — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 17:34:59 +0000

To the editor of the Chattanooga Times-Free Press:

The Free Press editorial, “Troubling Speech in Berlin” is misleading in that Sen. Obama’s words are taken out of context in an attempt to paint him as a bugbear of conservatives. In reading the entire speech, it is clear that the “walls” Sen. Obama mentions are metaphorical. His real message is in the paragraph just before the one the editor tears apart to find “troubling” words.

Here are Sen. Obama’s unedited words: “Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity. That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.”

The Free Press editor does his readers a disservice by not including the context of remarks made by candidates he opposes. Thus, we should always “check with the source.”

May 6, 2008

Jerry — Tue, 06 May 2008 17:35:44 +0000

To the editor of the Chattanooga Times-Free Press:

The Free Press editor believes the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is “a distant, dark, uninhabited and rarely visited part of Alaska.” Distant from Chattanooga, perhaps. Dark only at night and in the winter. It is inhabited.

I believe the editor uses such language to describe ANWR so as to suggest that environmental damage caused by oil drilling is less consequential in such a place than if it occurred in, say, Chattanooga. Using his logic, one could establish a polluting facility on Mt. McKinley.

Environmental damage is damage to the planet wherever it occurs. The editor would like his readers to believe that one’s responsibility to the earth diminishes with distance. The editor brings new meaning to the cliche, “Out of sight, out of mind.”

At our present rate of consumption, ANWR could provide between 12 and 32 years of oil. And it would not reach the gas pump for about 15 years. The real reason to resist oil drilling in ANWR is because it is a band-aid at best and an environmental catastrophe at worst.

The editor would serve his readers better were he to put his language skills to work in promoting alternate fuel sources and conservation measures.