 |
|
| Return to Sermon 2003 Menu | |
|
|
Unitarian Universalist Society of Fairhaven "Inner Peace in a Time of War" Rev. Ann C. Fox Note: A reading follows the sermon. Please read it first. |
|
It has been a difficult week for our entire nation. Regardless of our individual position on war or a peaceful solution in Iraq, only in the annals of history will we know the true impact of the folly or rightness of our nation's course. As we watched the war unfold and the demonstrations against it in the United States (and for it) and against it across the world on the television, we can surely not deny that life's meaning is in the stories we create with one another and with other nations. When conflict breaks out in a nation over whether we should be at war or not, we will, or should, cast around for an appropriate guideline we can use to support our opinion. You might remember perhaps from a high school ethics or debating class the idea of Just War Theory, which was first written about by St. Augustine in the fourth century days of the waning of the Roman Empire. He espoused that war was acceptable and morally necessary to protect the innocent and to avert a greater catastrophe. As a student of ethics, you might have been required to consider two aspects of this theory: 1) Are the reasons for going to war just, and 2) Are the actions taken while fighting morally necessary? We cannot answer #2 until the war is over and examined. The disagreement in our nation is with the first aspect: Are the reasons for going to war just-that is, to protect the innocent and to avert a greater catastrophe. As a Unitarian Universalist, I looked at our Principles to discover a guide for a just war. The Sixth Principle, promoting the goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all can be read as an argument for peace. However, it is general enough that it does not rule out war in the cause of liberty and justice. The demonstrations on the television show that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, consider the war with Iraq unjust. But millions more in our nation do consider it just. Last week, I listened to the Diane Ream show on NPR radio. Some of her guests supported the war eloquently and articulately. So who is right? On the Opinion page of Saturday's (03/22/03) Standard Times, a reader, Jane Zimmerman wrote an article entitled "Activist strives for dialogue with proponents of war." She wrote about how frustrating it was to stand with an anti-war sign on a corner at a traffic light in Dartmouth last week. Some motorists honked and gave a thumbs-up; others gave a thumbs-down; yet others gave her "the finger." One man stopped and yelled, "We gotta kill all them towel-heads over there. . ." She asked him about the ones here and he said, "We'll kill all of them too." She tried to talk to him and others. Mostly they yelled at her. It made her sad that they could not sit down and talk and listen fully to one another. Last week, I heard that a member of one of our congregations (not this one) resigned her membership because the congregation was not against the war 100%. If there is a UU congregation that is 100% in agreement on any issue, I would be very surprised. We should expect that a diversity of opinion would exist in our congregations on every issue as it does amongst ministers. Instead of avoiding our diversity, we could embrace it and listen to one another's views; we could dialogue together and practice listening unconditionally, without judgment, while hearing one another's views. When our Men's Fellowship held a forum on the then possible war with Iraq, one of the three speakers was a supporter of the war. This promoted fact-finding and dialogue. If we listen to one another's diverse views respectfully and without debate, we would actually be promoting our personal and spiritual growth! So, to give us the opportunity, I have set up the Discussion Table for people to gather to hear one another's views. If we cannot do this unconditional listening, how do we expect the rest of the world to do so. Besides, listening to opposing views is a prerequisite to creating inner peace. It is doing peace. I hope you will take your coffee and snacks to the Discussion Table after the service and practice part of the Third Principle, which is acceptance of one another and I hope that especially people who support the war will go to the table as well. The Standard Times respondent, Jane Zimmerman, has the first requirement of a spiritual warrior: the desire to listen unconditionally to another person of opposing views and to dialogue with that person. We can create inner peace as a spiritual warrior and still have a difference of opinion and we can create inner peace at any time, anywhere. We can achieve a measure of inner peace by talking about it but it is best to do something to bring it about. Last week, I suggested that some of us do it by encountering Nature. A way for me to regain inner peace almost instantly is to watch the birds at the three seed-feeders in our garden. (We can also say and contemplate the words of a prayer, as we discussed last week.)
Creating Inner Peace
A peaceful inner state is really our natural state when we are in touch with our inner spirit, soul, essence, center of being, or whatever else we call it or understand it to be. We can very likely get out of touch with our natural inner peace when we feel angry or stressed by things going on around us. This visualization is a good and easy way to regain inner peace. If one is not a visual person, it can be done in thought. Will you join me?
Reading from The Essential Spiral
The goal of the terrorist is to get inside our head and seize our mind, taking away hope and faith, filling our heart and soul with fear. In his poignant…speech [following the 9/11 attacks] Bill Moyers [said]:
These words from the Buddha are expressed variously in all spiritual traditions:
Monaghan, Patrica and Viereck, Eleanor G. Meditation, the Complete Guide, Novato, California: New World Library, 1999. |
| Return to the beginning of the sermon. |