This sermon was given on 3 August, 2014, by Emily P.
First Reading:
When you understand, you cannot help but love. You cannot get
angry. To develop understanding, you have to practice looking at all living
beings with the eyes of compassion. When you understand, you cannot help but
love. And when you love, you naturally act in a way that can relieve the
suffering of people.
-Thich Nhat Hanh: Peace is Every Step
-Thich Nhat Hanh: Peace is Every Step
Second Reading:
by 9 year old Alejandra Gomez Montejo
My wish People are lost. People should not hit or hurt
anyone. Those with power hurt those without power. It happens. I hit you, you
hit me we hit others. That is the circle of violence. Humans need food,
shelter, water, air, space, safety, love, courage, hope, beliefs and to belong.
Without rights we become lost. People are lost. But if we can help then maybe
no one will be lost. People are mean, they treat others bad. People kill also.
But if everyone got together and fought for what they need our world would be
peaceful. But things also happen for a reason. Maybe some people don’t
understand each other, so maybe this is pushing us to find ourselves together.
My wish is for all people to be found.
Sermon: Musings on the Current Central American Refugee
Crisis:
Initially, I thought ok, this
sermon needs to cover all of the roots of migration from Central America to the
United States. Then I’ll have to discuss neoliberalism, military intervention,
free trade agreements, the notion of the right to migrate, or what is a refugee
versus an immigrant. Oh, and then I will need to break down all of the types of
legal relief that people can qualify for. Obviously, I can't talk about all of
that in 20 minutes. I talked with my dad and he helped me focus. He asked,
“Emily, why do you care about the refugee crisis and why do you think other
people react differently? Why is it divisive?” He then suggested this book The
Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion by
Jonathan Haidt. Haidt writes about Moral Psychology, which honestly, I
didn't think would have much to do with a refugee crisis. But then again, I
have had this naive frustration that this issue should be simple--here we have
kids who are vulnerable and need protection. How could the US refuse to care
for them? How can vigilantes talk about coming down to secure the border? What
are you going to do? Point a gun at a child? Granted, there are adults who are
"entering illegally" and that people seem to have less sympathy for
adults, even if they have been traumatized. After seeing a sign from a protest
"Not our kids, not our problem," I began to realize that compassion
only goes so far--- for some people these kids aren't included in
"our" group--that it isn't the US' job to care for kids.
Haidt's book actually does a good
job of explaining why I, as a liberal, would think it is logical to have
empathy for these kids. Haidt, along with other social and cultural
psychologists, has developed a Moral Foundations Theory which breaks down the
different aspects of moralities across cultures. The six main foundations are:
care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion,
sanctity/degradation, and liberty/oppression. Haidt argues that these 6
foundations (and there could be more) are innate and are part of human nature.
When he says "innate" he doesn't mean unchanging, but rather an
initial draft that is organized in advance of experience.
Conservatives tend to draw from
all six in forming their moralities, whereas liberals tend to depend heavily on
Care/harm and liberty/oppression foundations and to a lesser extent
fairness/cheating. Haidt writes that (care/harm & liberty/oppression)
"these two foundations support ideals of social justice, which emphasize
compassion for the poor and a struggle for political equality among the
subgroups that comprise society. Social justice movements emphasize
solidarity--they call for people to come together to fight the oppression of
bullying, domineering elites (Haidt, 181). In regards to the liberty/oppression
foundation, both conservatives and liberals alike hate oppression. Liberals
tend to support so-called powerless groups, victims, etc. while conservatives
are usually more concerned about the groups they belong to instead of all of humanity
(175). Envision for a moment, how a conservative American would apply these two
foundations to the refugee crisis differently than a liberal. I'm in no way
saying that conservatives are heartless, but that people take different
approaches. For a conservative, does taking care of the refugee kids impinge on
personal liberties? Have you heard in the news about people worrying that the
shelters for kids, operated by the Federal government, via the Office of
Refugee Resettlement, will increase crime in their neighborhoods, use their tax
dollars, overwhelm schools, and decrease property values?
Moving on to cheating/fairness,
fairness refers more to proportionality than to equality. It relates to
conceptions of justice, autonomy, and rights. Conservatives, according to
Haidt's research, "think it is self-evident that responses to a crime
should be based on proportionality" but liberals don't like the
retribution aspect because it results in harm (183). An example of this would
be an expectation that an adult who enters the US without proper documentation
should be detained like a criminal, regardless of their reasons. A liberal,
would probably be critical of borders and perhaps nationstates, but mainly
critical of the idea that someone who is likely fleeing persecution should be
detained and deported. Hypothetically, Border Patrol is supposed to ask
Mexicans they apprehend whether they are afraid to return and why. If there are
flags, BP should call USCIS so that the detainee can have an interview with an
asylum office. Unfortunately, that rarely happens and there have been multiple
instances of people being killed right after they are dropped off in Mexico.
(in 2013, 18,754 mexican kids were apprehended, according to the UNHCR Children
on The Run Report, but very few of them made it to ORR shelters).
In terms of loyalty/betrayal,
authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation, liberals are pretty ambivalent
but social conservatives adhere to them. Haidt says that "the left tends
towards universalism and away from nationalism," which can make it hard to
connect with patriotic Americans. I think it is very wise for progressive
protesters in the US to use US flags, because it probably increases the
validity of the protest for some, or it offends…What in terms of loyalty/betrayal
could be applied to the refugee crisis? I've seen a few political cartoons with
Lady Liberty "give me your poor, tired, huddled masses, *some restrictions
may apply" and another with a wave representing "illegals" or a
surge and her swearing. Are we loyal to that symbol or what it depicts America
to be? Is it too simplistic for me to ask that we expand our loyalty to a
bigger group?
The authority/subversion
foundation "was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions.
It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to
legitimate authority and respect for traditions" (moralfoundations.org).
Part of the reason the so-called surge might bother conservatives is that
authority goes hand-in-hand with order and preventing chaos and right now, the
surge is 'overwhelming' resources and political leaders (if we imagine them as
authority figures) aren't doing too good of a job at maintaining their control
of a situation. Gov. Rick Perry and Sean Hannity posed on a boat mounted with
machine guns, on July 10th. Latest news is that Gov. Perry is deploying up to
1000 National Guard troops along the Texas border with Mexico. That will cost
$12 million a month. Courtesy of foxnews ""Gov. Perry has referred
repeatedly to his desire to make a symbolic statement to the people of Central
America that the border is closed," said White House spokesman Josh
Earnest. "And he thinks that the best way to do that is to send 1,000
National Guard troops to the border. It seems to me that a much more powerful
symbol would be the bipartisan passage of legislation that would actually make
a historic investment in border security and send an additional 20,000
personnel to the border." A statement like this is probably comforting to
conservatives because it establishes who is in control and who is subordinate;
the migrants need to respect the laws and the law enforcement.
Sanctity/degradation arises from
fears of contamination and is seen in religion as the body is a temple or that
certain habits are unclean or sinful. Haidt mentioned that "cultures
differ in their attitudes towards immigrants, and there is some evidence that
liberal and welcoming attitudes are more common in times and places where
disease risks are lower" (149). Central American kids have a better
immunization record than Texan kids, but I still see the rhetoric, especially
on foxnews, that refugee kids will bring diseases. Rachel Pearson explained in
the Texas Observer that such threats are overstated. She wrote: "Dr.
Elizabeth Lee Vliet, a Fox News commentator and former director of the
ultra-conservative political group Association of American Physicians and
Surgeons, writes in the McAllen Monitor that measles is among the
“diseases the United States had controlled or virtually eradicated” that are
“carried across the border by this tsunami of illegals.” Fact check: UNICEF
reports that 93 percent of kids in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador are
vaccinated against measles. That’s better than American kids (92
percent)." And that ⅙ Texas kids are uninsured, so their parents be more likely to
have to pay out of pocket for vaccines, whereas vaccines in Guatemala are 100%
government funded.
My mom told my grandma, "oh,
Emily, she's just filled with righteous indignation." I figure, that's
pretty accurate, but I had never thought that morals had that much personal
influence; perhaps I felt the word had been corrupted by religious
conservatives or the so-called moral majority. How does one convince another person
of the hatefulness or utter stupidity of their ideas? The other weekend, if I
had gone up to one of the "Secure our borders" protesters alongside
the interfaith vigil and told her that she was heartless and made me ashamed of
America, I wouldn't have changed her mind. We likely operate with very
different approaches to moral foundations. Haidt states that "if you
really want to change someone's mind on a moral or political matter, you'll
need to see things from that person's angle as well as your own. And if you do
truly see it the other person's way--deeply and intuitively--you might even
find your own mind opening in response. Empathy is an antidote to
righteousness, although it's very difficult to empathize across a moral
divide" (49).
Haidt said that liberals have
difficulty understanding why conservatives think the way they do. "We
supported liberal policies because we saw the world clearly and wanted to help
people, but they supported conservative policies out of pure self-interest
(lower my taxes!) or thinly veiled racism (stop funding welfare programs for
minorities!). We never considered the possibility that there were alternative
moral worlds in which reducing harm (by helping victims) and increasing
fairness (by pursuing group-based equality) were not the main goals. And if we
could not imagine other moralities, then we could not believe that
conservatives were as sincere in their moral beliefs as we were in ours"
(Haidt, 108). If I try to imagine what anti-immigrant protesters are feeling,
I'd guess that there is fear involved. That these refugees will strain US
resources and that even if there is an initial activation of the care/harm
foundation (oh, look at those poor kids, they must have been leaving from
something awful), it is outweighed by the long term costs. I don't blame anyone
for saying it, but I've heard the refrain a few times "my heart just goes
out to those kids, but there are too many, the US can't be expected to care for
them."
Differing moralities aside, why is
it that the "facts" aren't persuasive? If laws and structure is so
important to some conservatives (or respecting authority, as long as it isn't
the federal government), why don't statistics regarding a child's qualification
for legal relief sway people? A couple weeks ago, RAICES (Refugee and ImmigrantCenter for Education and Legal Services) wrote to President Obama and House and
Senate Leaders stating that "We have carefully peer-reviewed the intakes
of 925 children so far, and our assessment is that 63 percent of these 925
children are likely to be found eligible for relief by a U.S. Immigration
Judge. In RAICES’ twenty years of experiences, the cases that our staff screens
and determines to be eligible for relief ultimately have a success rate of 98
percent in proceedings before immigration judges."
Haidt argues that humans are intuitive, and not rational. We come up with
explanations justifying our intuitions afterwards--reasoning is self-serving.
That letter by RAICES was sent in the moment Congress
was trying to figure out whether to modify a section of TVPRA (William
Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act). Currently,
"Under the TVPRA, DHS screens Mexican children within 48 hours of
apprehension to determine if the child is a victim of trafficking or has a
claim to asylum based on fear of persecution. If the child does not meet that
criteria, they are eligible to agree to a voluntary return and speedy
repatriation to Mexico. On the other hand, UAC from non-contiguous countries
must be transferred to ORR within 72 hours of apprehension and are guaranteed
an immigration court hearing." (bipartison policy center). Recently, some
members of congress have wanted all UACs to be treated as if they were from
contiguous countries, including Texas' own Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) and
Representative Henry Cuellar (D-TX) –they've been promoting it as the Humane
Act, most ironically in my view. According to the NYtimes, the House was able
to "One measure, which passed the House on Friday night in a 223-to-189 vote, would provide $694 million in
emergency funds to address the border crisis, expedite the deportation of
Central American children and bolster the National Guard’s presence at the
Mexican border." (The Republican bill also engendered harsh criticism from
Hispanic members of Congress who called it cruel to migrant children. That is a
sentiment Democrats will try to stoke in the midterm elections, though few
Republicans considered vulnerable come from districts with sizable Hispanic
populations. The issue could be more potent in the 2016 presidential
campaign.“Unfortunately, the way they speak about our community, it’s almost as
though the children — we are a vile, repugnant community to them that they
vilify and demonize in every one of their statements,” said Representative Luis
V. Gutiérrez, Democrat of Illinois.")
Why does it matter to us/why
relevant? Bishop Eusebio Elizondo wrote in the Washington Post Friday that
"we cannot allow vulnerable children and families, many of whom are facing
horrors that most Americans cannot imagine, to be the victims of forces far
beyond their control. When Congress returns in September, let us hope that it
agrees and adopts a humane approach to addressing this crisis. The world is
watching and will take note of what we do. Our moral authority is at stake. If
we sacrifice these children for political expediency, we may end up sacrificing
our soul." *Smart, because Bishop Elizondo appealed to how Americans are
perceived; Haidt thinks that people are incredibly concerned about our
reputations-how people perceive us, even more so than actual reality and that a
lot of this concern is unconscious (74, 91). The US has had a bad rep for, oh,
its entire history as a nation, for how it treats outsiders, so I'm not
entirely convinced that this statement will convince everyone. I do appreciate
his appeal to the care/harm foundation and liberty/oppression--"victims of
forces far beyond their control." I bet liberals would be persuaded or
shamed by this statement, but I'm not convinced all conservatives would be,
though the connection with religion, or at least souls might have an impact.
Relevant to us because we have our
reputations to protect; we want to be standing on the side of love and justice
in history. I have the impression that it is easier for religious orgs, perhaps
than individuals, to be persuaded that deportations are not the answer. Humans,
as I understand it from Haight, are incredibly groupish. With exceptions, if
our group believes something, then we will too. It also helps for conservatives
if their religious authority figure believes a certain way. And if UUs use the
7 principles as a guide for how to behave, or appear to behave, then the
refugee crisis, or really, any humanitarian crisis would pull at our
heartstrings and influence us to act.
1.
1st Principle: The inherent worth and dignity of
every person; (care/harm)
2.
2nd Principle: Justice, equity and compassion in
human relations; (care/harm, cheating/fairness, liberty/oppression)
3.
3rd Principle: Acceptance of one another and encouragement
to spiritual growth in our congregations;
4.
4th Principle: A free and responsible search for
truth and meaning; (liberty/oppression)
5.
5th Principle: The right of conscience and the
use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
(liberty/oppression)
6.
6th Principle: The goal of world community with
peace, liberty, and justice for all; (liberty/oppression, care/harm)
7.
7th Principle: Respect for the interdependent web
of all existence of which we are a part. (care/harm, possibly
sanctity/degradation)
"We humans have an extraordinary ability to care
about things beyond ourselves, to circle around those things with other people,
and in the process to bind ourselves into teams that can pursue larger
projects" (273). After listening to this, I hope to hear your ideas on how
you could utilize the 6 foundations to appeal to the moralities of
conservatives in terms of the refugees so that this isn't such a divisive
issue.
Emily provided this list of references:
No comments:
Post a Comment