RESISTANCE AND TRANSFORMATION
A Tapestry of Faith Program for Adults
WORKSHOP 10: TAKING POLITICS PUBLIC
BY BY REV. COLIN BOSSEN AND REV. JULIA HAMILTON
© Copyright 2011 Unitarian Universalist Association.
Published to the Web on 9/29/2014 11:21:09 PM PST.
This program and additional resources are available on the UUA.org web site at
www.uua.org/religiouseducation/curricula/tapestryfaith.
WORKSHOP OVERVIEW
INTRODUCTION
Our religious teachers, ministers and lay-men alike—from Thomas Jefferson to William Ellery Channing to Adlai Stevenson—have urged us to honor always the primacy of conscience over any external authority which we believe to be immoral... Thus it is natural that some of our young men must regard military duty as a violation of their deepest commitment. And if for some reason their draft boards do not recognize them as having legal C.O. status, they are answerable primarily to their own conscience still. The Unitarian Universalist Association must support them in their moral stand and religious conviction. — Dana McLean Greeley, President of the Unitarian Universalist Association, 1961-1969
On October 16, 1967, Arlington Street Church held a public, interfaith worship service, during which over 300 draft cards were collected, in direct violation of federal law. Some young men chose to burn their cards during the service. Michael Ferber, a lifelong Unitarian and a graduate student at Harvard at the time, was subsequently indicted along with four others for conspiracy to resist the draft. Ferber was tried along with pediatrician Benjamin Spock and William Sloane Coffin, Jr. in one of the notable events of the draft resistance movement during the Vietnam War. All were convicted, although the conviction was overturned on appeal a year later.
The Vietnam War was divisive for many Unitarian Universalist congregations. While some congregations actively supported draft resistance, provided sanctuary for draft resistors, and worked to help young men establish conscientious objector status, many Unitarian Universalists did not support overtly political actions like the one at Arlington Street Church. This workshop explores the questions that faced Unitarian Universalist congregations and the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) during the time of the Vietnam War, highlighting dilemmas that recur for Unitarian Universalists: How do we handle political dissent or witness in the context of congregational life? Are we able to live with a plurality of political and social opinions within our congregations? What is the appropriate way to "honor always the primacy of conscience over any external authority which we believe to be immoral," as Greeley says in the quote that opens this workshop?
To ensure you can help adults of all ages, stages, and learning styles participate fully in this workshop, review these sections of the program Introduction: "Accessibility Guidelines for Workshop Presenters" in the Integrating All Participants section, and "Strategies for Effective Group Facilitation" and "Strategies for Brainstorming" in the Leader Guidelines section.
GOALS
This workshop will:
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Participants will:
WORKSHOP-AT-A-GLANCE
Activity | Minutes |
Welcoming and Entering | 0 |
Opening | 10 |
Activity 1: Turn-in and Burn-in | 25 |
Activity 2: Supporting Draft Resistance | 25 |
Activity 3: Dissenting Voices | 20 |
Faith in Action: Public Witness | |
Closing | 10 |
Alternate Activity 1: Turn-in and Burn-in — Sermon | 30 |
Alternate Activity 2: Conscientious Objectors | 20 |
SPIRITUAL PREPARATION
The Vietnam War era was a dynamic, emotional, and contentious time in our nation's history. If you participated in events during this time, take a moment to revisit your involvement.
Whether or not you were politically active at the time, you probably have opinions about the United States' involvement in Vietnam. If you were not subject to the draft, perhaps because of your age, gender, or an exemption, consider what your response might have been had you been drafted to serve in Vietnam. Take a moment to reflect, using the questions you will pose in this workshop. Discus your reflections with your co-facilitator.
Before you lead the workshop, take time to complete this sentence: "At the end of this workshop, I hope the participants leave feeling..."
WORKSHOP PLAN
WELCOMING AND ENTERING
Materials for Activity
Preparation for Activity
Description of Activity
As participants enter, invite them to sign in, put on name tags, and pick up handouts. Direct their attention to the agenda for this workshop.
OPENING (10 MINUTES)
Materials for Activity
Preparation for Activity
Description of Activity
Invite a participant to light the chalice while you lead a unison reading of Reading 449 from Singing the Living Tradition, "We hallow this time together by kindling the lamp of our heritage."
Lead the group in singing the hymn you have chosen.
After the song, explain that this workshop looks at the Unitarian Universalist response to the Vietnam War, focusing on the issue of the military draft. Note that the war in Vietnam ended in 1972, during some of our lifetimes; many have knowledge of the issues we will focus on today. Tell participants you will make a series of statements and they may raise their hand if a statement applies to them:
I have seen photos or film footage of the Vietnam War.
I have seen at least one movie set during the Vietnam War.
I am from Vietnam.
I was drafted to fight in the Vietnam War.
I served in the Vietnam War.
I made every effort to avoid serving in the Vietnam War.
I resisted the draft and refused to comply with my draft orders.
I left the United States to evade the draft.
I have friends who served in the Vietnam War.
I actively protested against the Vietnam War or the draft.
I have immediate family who served in Vietnam.
I studied the Vietnam War in school.
Point out that the workshop will be enriched by the variety of perspectives and experiences participants bring.
ACTIVITY 1: TURN-IN AND BURN-IN (25 MINUTES)
Materials for Activity
Preparation for Activity
Description of Activity
Read aloud:
On October 16, 1967, Arlington Street Church held a public, interfaith worship service, during which over 300 draft cards were collected, in direct violation of federal law. Some young men chose to burn their cards during the service, but most of the cards were bundled and dropped off in Washington, D.C., as part of a nationwide draft resistance movement. Michael Ferber, a lifelong Unitarian and a graduate student at Harvard at the time, was indicted for conspiracy to resist the draft along with four others. The subsequent trial of Ferber, along with pediatrician Benjamin Spock and William Sloane Coffin, Jr., was one of the notable events in Vietnam War draft resistance. All were convicted, but the conviction was overturned on appeal a year later.
Introduce the story:
The Rev. Dr. Jack Mendelsohn, minister at Arlington Street Church at that time, preached a sermon the following week addressing what had happened at the October 16 interfaith worship service. This is an abridged version of the sermon.
Read the story.
Engage a discussion of the Mendelsohn sermon. Some questions to consider include:
Distribute Handout 1, The Church and the Draft Resisters — Full Text for participants to take home.
Including All Participants
Be aware of personal experiences participants may have revealed during the opening activity. If any participants were subject to the draft or fought in the war, or their parents, siblings, or other family members were directly involved, they may voice very strong opinions. Others, perhaps those who are too young to have first-hand knowledge of the Vietnam era, may hesitate to speak up. Be intentional about inviting all to join the conversation. Also, be sure to respect the boundaries of any participants who may have first-hand experience they do not wish to share.
ACTIVITY 2: SUPPORTING DRAFT RESISTANCE (25 MINUTES)
Materials for Activity
Preparation for Activity
Description of Activity
Distribute Handout 2, UUA Resolutions on the Draft. Have volunteers read aloud the 1967 and 1968 resolutions having to do with the Vietnam War and the military draft.
Invite the group to identify concrete actions supported by the resolutions, and write those actions on the newsprint. Lead a conversation, asking:
Introduce the next portion of the activity using these or similar words:
The process of adopting resolutions has changed a bit over the years. We are going to take a look at the current model for adopting resolutions at General Assembly. Many people invest significant time in crafting General Assembly resolutions to respond to important social justice issues. However, after a resolution passes at General Assembly, congregational responses to it vary. Some view such public statements by the Association as a critical part of our ability to be effective agents for change in the world. Others take little notice of social justice resolutions from General Assembly, preferring to set their own social justice priorities.
Distribute Handout 3, Social Witness and the UUA. Read aloud the explanation for each category. Ask if anyone has participated in a recent General Assembly and been a part of the social witness process, and invite them to share their experience. Look again at the summary of the 1967 and 1968 statements and compare them with the current process. Ask:
ACTIVITY 3: DISSENTING VOICES (20 MINUTES)
Materials for Activity
Preparation for Activity
Description of Activity
Opposition to the Vietnam War was by no means universal in Unitarian Universalist congregations. Many people believed that supporting and upholding the law was more important than supporting an individual's right to resist the draft. There were some who, regardless of their personal feelings about the war, believed the church had no business getting involved in what they considered to be a political decision. For many, the long Unitarian tradition of supporting the separation of church and state meant the church should stay out of politics, just as the government should stay out of the church.
Distribute Handout 4, This Letter is to Express our Personal Disapproval. Explain that the handout includes letters between Rev. Mendelsohn and two parishioners (whose names are not included). The parishioners sent copies of these letters to the Prudential Committee (Arlington Street Church's governing board) as well as to Dana Greeley, president of the UUA, so they are part of the UUA archives.
Invite the volunteers to read the letters, in dialogue with each other. After the letters are read, invite the group's response with these questions:
CLOSING (10 MINUTES)
Materials for Activity
Preparation for Activity
Description of Activity
Invite participants to respond, in writing:
Is there a way for a congregation to take a stand and yet make a place for those who believe a religious organization should remain apolitical?
Allow five minutes for writing in journals.
Invite participants to briefly share any closing thoughts about the workshop or their journal entries.
Invite a participant to come forward and extinguish the chalice as you say these words: "As we extinguish this chalice, may we let the light of our tradition kindle our hope for a better world."
Distribute Taking It Home and invite participants to continue to write in their journals between workshops.
FAITH IN ACTION: PUBLIC WITNESS
Preparation for Activity
Description of Activity
Most Unitarian Universalist communities have at least one issue, large or small, that brings into question the role of the congregation in public witness. Attaching the name of your congregation to a public display of political influence, whether it be through hosting a voter registration event, carrying a banner in a gay pride parade, or raising money for a local homeless shelter, requires thoughtful action. Lead the group to consider: How does our congregation decide when to take a public stand? Do we take action through a congregational vote, a board decision, the autonomous work of a social action committee, or a combination of measures? What criteria do we have for supporting a cause? Talk about any recent actions of public witness in your community. If your congregation does not currently have a policy around public witness, what would you like to see in place? How could this group work toward implementing it?
LEADER REFLECTION AND PLANNING
Take a few moments right after the workshop to ask each other:
Review the next workshop. Are there any questions to research or logistics to arrange between workshops? Make a list of who is responsible for which preparations and materials.
TAKING IT HOME
Our religious teachers, ministers and lay-men alike—from Thomas Jefferson to William Ellery Channing to Adlai Stevenson—have urged us to honor always the primacy of conscience over any external authority which we believe to be immoral... Thus it is natural that some of our young men must regard military duty as a violation of their deepest commitment. And if for some reason their draft boards do not recognize them as having legal C.O. status, they are answerable primarily to their own conscience still. The Unitarian Universalist Association must support them in their moral stand and religious conviction. — Dana McLean Greeley, President of the Unitarian Universalist Association, 1961-1969
If you lived through the Vietnam era, find some time to discuss your experiences with someone of a younger generation. Share the experiences you remember from that time, and, in particular, the political climate as you remember it. If you were a Unitarian Universalist then, this might be a good time to share with youth in your congregation what it was like for you at that time. Ask if they have had any similar experiences today. If you did not experience the Vietnam War era directly, ask your family, friends, or members of your congregation about their memories from that time. Did they participate in a religious community during the late 1960s and early 70s? Do they remember if their congregation took a stand about the war or the military draft, and how they felt about that?
ALTERNATE ACTIVITY 1: TURN-IN AND BURN-IN — SERMON (30 MINUTES)
Materials for Activity
Preparation for Activity
Description of Activity
This version of Activity 1 is designed for a group that has a member interested in publicly presenting the Rev. Dr. Jack Mendelsohn's sermon in full.
Gather the group to hear a sermon. Say:
On October 16, 1967, Arlington Street Church held a public, interfaith worship service, during which over 300 draft cards were collected, in direct violation of federal law. Some young men chose to burn their cards during the service, but most of the cards were bundled and dropped off in Washington, D.C., as part of a nationwide draft resistance movement. Michael Ferber, a lifelong Unitarian and a graduate student at Harvard at the time, was indicted for conspiracy to resist the draft along with four others. The subsequent trial of Ferber, along with pediatrician Benjamin Spock and William Sloane Coffin, Jr., was one of the notable events in Vietnam War draft resistance. All were convicted, but the conviction was overturned on appeal a year later.
The Rev. Dr. Jack Mendelsohn, minister at Arlington Street Church at that time, preached a sermon the following week, addressing what had happened at the October 16 interfaith worship service.
Then, introduce the presenter.
After the presentation, distribute Handout 1, The Church and the Draft Resisters — Full Text so participants can refer to it during a discussion of the Mendelsohn sermon. Consider these questions:
ALTERNATE ACTIVITY 2: CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION (20 MINUTES)
Materials for Activity
Preparation for Activity
Description of Activity
Distribute Handout 5, Conscientious Objection and the Draft. Explain this was a packet the Unitarian Universalist organization Liberal Religious Youth (LRY) assembled for young men considering seeking conscientious objector status during the Vietnam War. Invite participants to turn to a partner and discuss the packet and the posted questions.
Allow ten minutes for paired discussions. Then, re-gather the group and invite volunteers to share some of what they discussed. Ask: Are there comparable movements today? What do you think about the UUA or its affiliated organizations supporting conscientious objectors in this way?
RESISTANCE AND TRANSFORMATION: WORKSHOP 10:
STORY: THE CHURCH AND THE DRAFT RESISTERS
Sermon delivered by Rev. Jack Mendelsohn on October 22, 1967 at Arlington Street Church, Boston. Abridged version; used with permission.
A hue and cry has arisen over the sixty young men who burned their draft cards in the chancel of Arlington Street Church. No matter that 280 young men took the more solemn and perilous step of turning in their draft cards for transmittal to the Justice Department... It may come as surprising news to some that I react very negatively to the burning of draft cards. It is too flamboyant for my taste, too theatrical, too self-indulgent... What happened here on Monday, October 16, was conceived, organized and implemented by a remarkable group of students and seminarians who, in the most serious and open-eyed manner are relinquishing their draft immunity and inviting arrest in order to disavow the American war in Vietnam. The integrity and moral depth of the young leaders of this Resistance are extraordinary. ...One by one, some 280 of them walked up and handed their draft cards to four clergymen and a non-religious philosophy professor in the chancel. The clergymen who accepted the cards—Catholic priest Father Robert Cunnane, Yale Chaplain William Sloane Coffin, Harvard Divinity School professor George Williams, and myself—did so in full knowledge that by this symbolic act of solidarity with the students, we too were assuming the risks of civil disobedience. The cards have since been deposited at the Justice Department so that the names of all who participated are now known to the authorities.
...There is not really much more to be said to those who are enraged, lacerated or confounded by the draft card burning. Time and continuing dialogue will clarify perspectives. Meanwhile, there is an inevitable polarization of feeling, as illustrated by two letters which reached me. They represent remarkably well the contradictory reality with which we are dealing. The writers of these letters have similar cultural backgrounds and enjoy similar economic and social status. The first says: "Dear Dr. Mendelsohn: I have no further interest in supporting the Arlington Street Church when you as the leader have apparently permitted and encouraged the burning of draft cards on the altar. It is unforgivable in my estimation. I think you will find many old friends feel the same way. I am not writing this on the spur of the moment but only after many conversations, trying to prove to myself that I was wrong. Please remove my name from mailings."
This correspondent, as you now know, is right in assuming that I permitted the draft card burning, but is wrong in assuming that I encouraged it. Among the many conversations which he refers to, there was not one with me. I hope there will be, however, and I will seek it. The second letter goes as follows: "Dear Reverend Mendelsohn: I attended the service in your church on Monday, October 16. I am one of the people who hasn't been in church in years. I don't know whether I can express the feeling that I have that at that time, in that place something happened that was sacred in any sense of the word. The hymns, the prayers, the responsive readings, the speakers and most of all, the restrained courage of the young men resisting the draft contributed to an event that I shall never forget. Thank you for so much."
I appreciate but take no personal pride in the gratitude of this correspondent. It is the policy of our church to place in my hands final decisions about public assemblies to take place here. Of course I consult with lay leadership and staff. Of course we strive to inform, as this congregation was informed last Sunday both of the Resistance service to be held here, and of the outlook of those sponsoring it. But in the end I am responsible for the decision... One does not lightly commit an institution to lend the prestige of its facilities and senior clergyman to the launching of a premeditated, long-range program of civil disobedience.
First I had to determine whether or not I could commit myself to such a program. I decided I could. Then, after consultation, I had to judge whether or not this church could constructively incorporate into its ongoing life the tension, controversy and stress inevitably to come. No other church was available. It was this one or none... For me, it came down to this. I had to decide that either this church could bear the pressure and grow stronger because of it, or that it could not, in which case it would have been necessary, in light of my own convictions, to support the students but resign my post here...
Harvard graduate student, Michael Ferber...said what many a clergyman or layman might wish to have said: "There is a great tradition within the church and synagogue which has always struggled against the conservative and worldly forces that have always been in control. It is a radical tradition, a tradition of urgent impulse to go to the root of the religious dimension of human life. This tradition in modern times has tried to recall us to the best ways of living our lives: the way of love and compassion, the way of justice and respect, the way of facing other people as human beings and not as abstract representatives of something alien and evil. It tries to recall us to the reality behind religious ceremony and symbolism, and it will change the ceremony and symbolism when the reality changes..."
The radical tradition is still alive: it is present here in this church...
Last Monday, this church, as a living, vital organism, said yes to the radical religious tradition Michael Ferber so eloquently evoked; it said yes to religious dimensions of human life so urgent that they include for some the passionate compulsion to burn draft cards. Let us make no bones about it: moral passions are not, never will be, subject to complete rational control. If it is unassailable rationality we require in our morally aroused young, it would be better, believe me, to be perfectly honest about it and write the church off once and for all as a significant force in their lives...
Civil disobedience is a harsh, ghastly, contaminating business. It is morally credible only when there is irredeemable disillusionment with the lawful processes of protest and dissent... Sadly, it seems to matter little that some of those who are now most outraged by this present group of civil disobeyers would not be here at all except for the civil disobedience of their ancestors. Or that this nation would not exist but for the civil disobedience of its founding fathers. Or that the abolition of our vile system of slavery was spurred by civil disobedience. Or that the voting franchise for women was fueled by civil disobedience.
...Will civil disobedience make the kind of impact needed? Will it so shock the nation that a drastic shift in our policy will occur? Frankly, I don't know. I rather doubt it.
Why then undertake it? Because, as Robert McAfee Brown testifies in his article in a current issue of LOOK, "there comes a time when the issues are so clear and so crucial that a man does not have the choice of waiting until all the possible consequences can be charted. There comes a time when a man must simply say, "Here I stand, I can do no other, God help me."...When an issue of this magnitude is joined, when there are those who, having exhausted without effect every lawful means of opposing the monstrous crimes being committed in their name by their government, who cannot accept silence or inaction, and choose instead the Gethsemane of civil disobedience, how is the church to respond?
That was the question posed to this church. You know how it was answered last Monday. But the continuing answer, the one that really counts, is yours.
RESISTANCE AND TRANSFORMATION: WORKSHOP 10:
HANDOUT 1: THE CHURCH AND THE DRAFT RESISTERS — FULL TEXT
A sermon by Rev. Jack Mendelsohn, delivered October 22, 1967 at Arlington Street Church, Boston, full text. Used with permission.
A hue and cry has arisen over the sixty young men who burned their draft cards in the chancel of Arlington Street Church. No matter that 280 young men took the more solemn and perilous step of turning in their draft cards for transmittal to the Justice Department. No matter that much of the hubbub was irrational and uninformed. The love and honesty human beings owe to one another require that the question be dealt with lovingly and honestly.
It may come as surprising news to some that I react very negatively to the burning of draft cards. It is too flamboyant for my taste, too theatrical, too self-indulgent. Anyone who thinks I encouraged it is wrong. But that is beside the point. I did not forbid it, and under similar circumstances I would not again. What happened here on Monday, October 16, was conceived, organized and implemented by a remarkable group of students and seminarians who, in the most serious and open-eyed manner are relinquishing their draft immunity and inviting arrest in order to disavow the American war in Vietnam. The integrity and moral depth of the young leaders of this Resistance are extraordinary. I told them how I felt about draft card burning, and they listened. But in the end they listened more to their responsibilities as democratic leaders, which is as it should be. The overwhelming majority of the Resisters neither burned their draft cards nor encouraged others to do so, but they recognized that the moral outrage felt by a minority of their fellows drove that minority to the extreme gesture of card burning, and they made orderly, respectful provision for it. Indeed the relatively few who burned their draft cards did so with such dignity and solemnity, I was almost converted. But not quite. The action of the others, the great majority, was truly awe-inspiring. One by one, some 280 of them walked up and handed their draft cards to four clergymen and a non-religious philosophy professor in the chancel. The clergymen who accepted the cards—Catholic priest Father Robert Cunnane, Yale Chaplain William Sloane Coffin, Harvard Divinity School professor George Williams, and myself—did so in full knowledge that by this symbolic act of solidarity with the students, we too were assuming the risks of civil disobedience. The cards have since been deposited at the Justice Department so that the names of all who participated are now known to the authorities.
And I must make the point again. The cards of the burners were not carried to Washington for the obvious reason that they could not be. In terms of putting a life on the line, it was not the burners who made the more passionate gesture; it was the others.
There is not really much more to be said to those who are enraged, lacerated or confounded by the draft card burning. Time and continuing dialogue will clarify perspectives. Meanwhile, there is an inevitable polarization of feeling, as illustrated by two letters which reached me. They represent remarkably well the contradictory reality with which we are dealing. The writers of these letters have similar cultural backgrounds and enjoy similar economic and social status. The first says: "Dear Dr. Mendelsohn: I have no further interest in supporting the Arlington Street Church when you as the leader have, apparently permitted and encouraged the burning of draft cards on the altar. It is unforgiveable in my estimation. I think you will find many old friends feel the same way. I am not writing this on the spur of the moment but only after many conversations, trying to prove to myself that I was wrong. Please remove my name from mailings."
This correspondent, as you now know, is right in assuming that I permitted the draft card burning, but is wrong in assuming that I encouraged it. Among the many conversations which he refers to, there was not one with me. I hope there will be, however, and I will seek it. The second letter goes as follows: "Dear Reverend Mendelsohn: I attended the service in your church On Monday, October 16. I am one of the people who hasn't been in church in years. I don't know whether I can express the feeling that I have that at that time, in that place something happened that .was sacred in any sense of the word. The hymns, the prayers, the responsive readings, the speakers and most of all, the restrained courage of the young men resisting the draft contributed to an event that I shall never forget. Thank you for so much. "
I appreciate but take no personal pride in the gratitude of this correspondent. It is the policy of our church to place in my hands final decisions about public assemblies to take place here. Of course I consult with lay leadership and staff. Of course we strive to inform, as this congregation was informed last Sunday both of the Resistance service to be held here, and of the outlook of those sponsoring it. But in the end I am responsible for the decision. I consult and listen, but I am charged with the final judgment. Most such decisions require little soul-searching, and no real sweat. In one sense this one didn't either. I knew that the overwhelming majority of the congregation would support it, even though some would disagree with the basic premises of the students, and others, like myself, would deplore the card burning, no matter how reverently done. I knew too that the institution as such would not be penalized: that for every one who opted out on a wave of exasperation there would be two or more who opted in on a wave of exultation.
But in another sense this was a very tough decision because I was so keenly and personally aware of what was involved. I am not talking now about the momentary furor over the emotional gesture of draft card burning. As the furor was easy to anticipate, so was it easy to foresee its rapid dissipation, to be replaced by the really crucial issue, that of civil disobedience against the Vietnam and Selective Service policies of our government. One does not lightly commit an institution to lend the prestige of its facilities and senior clergyman to the launching of a premeditated, long-range program of civil disobedience.
First I had to determine whether or not I could commit myself to such a program. I decided I could. Then, after consultation, I had to judge whether or not this church could constructively incorporate into its ongoing life the tension, controversy and stress inevitably to come. No other church was available. It was this one or none. There were many sympathetic Clergymen. At least a hundred participated in the service here. But none had an established milieu capable of sustaining such use of their premises.
For me, it came down to this. I had to decide that either this church could bear the pressure and grow stronger because of it, or that it could not, in which case it would have been necessary, in light of my own convictions, to support the students but resign my post here.
I made the decision I did because I was persuaded of its rightness.
But I have been wrong many, many times, and I may have been wrong again. I have no reason as yet for believing that, but time, in its inexorable fashion, will tell.
There is a tremendous amount at stake for organized religion. The second letter I read to you, described the correspondent as "one of the people who 'hasn't been in church for years.''' Only those who were fortunate enough to attend the Service of Conscience and Acceptance can fully grasp the significance of that phrase.
What was by far the service's most impressive statement was made by Harvard graduate student, Michael Ferber, who said, " ... here we all are in a church, and yet for some of us it is the first time we've been inside one for years. Here we are receiving the help of many clergymen, and yet some of us feel nothing but contempt for the organized religions that they represent. Some of us, therefore, feel a certain hypocrisy in being part of this service."
Michael confessed that it would not surprise him if many of the clergymen felt "some of the same contempt for organized religion." These clergymen, he said, "know better than we do the long and bloody history of evils committed in the name of religion, the long history of compromise and ... subservience to political power, the long history of theological hair-splitting and the burning of heretics, and they fee! more deeply than we do the hypocrisy of Sunday (or Saturday) morning.
"Perhaps," Ferber continued, "the things that made some of us leave the church are the very things that made some of them become ministers, priests, and rabbis, the very things that bring them here today. Many of them will anger their superiors or their congregations by being here but they are here anyway."
Ferber then said what many a clergyman or layman might wish to have said: "There is a great tradition within the church and synagogue which has always struggled against the conservative and worldly forces that have always been in control. It is a radical tradition, a tradition of urgent impulse to go to the root of the religious dimension of human life. This tradition in modern times has tried to recall us to the best ways of living our lives: the way of love and compassion, the way of justice and respect, the way of facing other people as human beings and not as abstract representatives of something alien and evil. It tries to recall us to the reality behind religious ceremony and symbolism, and it will change the ceremony and symbolism when the reality changes...
"The radical tradition is still alive: it is present here in this church. Those of us who disregard organized religion ...are making a mistake if they also disregard this tradition and its presence today. This tradition is something to which we can say Yes."
Last Monday, this church, as a living, vital organism, said yes to the radical religious tradition Michael Ferber so eloquently evoked; it said yes to religious dimensions of human life so urgent that they include for some the passionate compulsion to burn draft cards. Let us make no bones about it: moral passions are not, never will be, subject to complete rational control. If it is unassailable rationality we require in our morally aroused young, it would be better, believe me, to be perfectly honest about it and write the church off once and for all as a significant force in their lives. What matters in a world as close as this one to Armageddon is not a shallow distinction between the pure and the impure, but the truly searching distinction between the person whose moral feeling drives him to self-transcending political action and the person whose moral feeling leads only to a self-buttressing sense of "sinlessness." Or, as Ernest Hocking once put it, it is the distinction between those who are willing to take on the costly contaminations of genuine political involvement and those who yearn to remain stainless and chaste.
As it is for individuals, so it is for the church.
Civil disobedience is a harsh, ghastly, contaminating business. It is morally credible only when there is irredeemable disillusionment with the lawful processes of protest and dissent. Because I hover so tremblingly close to this point, I can appreciate what it means to the young to be prepared to accept the ruination of their careers, ridicule, harassment, imprisonment, death. Sadly, it seems to matter little that some of those who are now most outraged by this present group of civil disobeyers would not be here at all except for the civil disobedience of their ancestors. Or that this nation would not exist but for the civil disobedience of its founding fathers. Or that the abolition of our vile system of slavery was spurred by civil disobedience. Or that the voting franchise for women was fueled by civil disobedience.
In truth, no example of civil disobedience past, no matter how inspiring, can sanctify the awesome extremity of undertaking it anew.
Yet, given the total spectrum of possibility within which this nation might end its Vietnamese escalation and slaughter short of nuclear holocaust, given the stark reality that none of the protests, none of the appeals to conscience, none of the thousands of editorials, none of the dozens of Senate speeches, none of the petitions or NEW YORK TIMES advertisements, none of the expositions of the credibility gap, none of the documented incidents of our deliberate sabotaging of peace initiatives, none of the voluminous testimony to our folly of scholars and experts on Asian affairs—given the sickening realization that none of these, and I have hardly begun to call the roll, has reversed the escalation, or the slaughter, or the vaulting toward worldwide nuclear war, how can any sober person wonder that there are those whose moral revulsion has come at last to civil disobedience?
Has anything short of it worked? The answer is an agonized no.
Will anything short of it work? Again the agonized answer has to be that there is a moral vacuum within both of our political parties portending the bleakest of prospects.
Will civil disobedience make the kind of impact needed? Will it so shock the nation that a drastic shift in our policy will occur? Frankly, I don't know. I rather doubt it.
Why then undertake it? Because, as Robert McAfee Brown testifies in his article in a current issue of LOOK, "...there comes a time when the issues are so clear and so crucial that a man does not have the choice of waiting until all the possible consequences can be charted. There comes a time when a man must simply say, 'Here I stand, I can do no other, God help me.' There comes a time when it is important... (to) be recorded that in an era of great folly, there were at least some ... who recognized the folly for what it was and were willing, at personal cost, to stand against it. There comes a time when... one has to oppose evil even if one cannot prevent it, when one has to choose to be a victim rather than an accomplice."
When an issue of this magnitude is joined, when there are those who, having exhausted without effect every lawful means of opposing the monstrous crimes being committed in their name by their government, who cannot accept silence or inaction, and choose instead the Gethsemane of civil disobedience, how is the church to respond?
That was the question posed to this church. You know how it was answered last Monday. But the continuing answer, the one that really counts, is yours.
RESISTANCE AND TRANSFORMATION: WORKSHOP 10:
HANDOUT 2: UUA RESOLUTIONS ON THE DRAFT
Resolutions adopted at the 1967 and 1968 UUA General Assemblies.
Draft Reform and Conscientious Objection
Resolution passed at the Unitarian Universalist Association General Assembly, May 5, 1967. Adopted by greater than a two-thirds majority vote.
Noting that present administration of the Selective Service System has resulted in many iniquities and uncertainties for the young men facing service, and
Noting, also, that the right of conscientious objection to military service has long been recognized as lawful if based upon religious belief and that the Supreme Court has affirmed that an ethical and moral philosophy is parallel to belief in a Supreme Being and thus qualifies under the definition of religious belief,
The Unitarian Universalist Association:
Recommends that Congress, in considering renewal of the Selective Service Act, affirm, as nearly as possible, the principle of equality of sacrifice and should:
1. Reduce the discretionary powers of local draft boards by establishing uniform regulations regarding deferments;
2. Provide that those granted educational deferments, upon termination of those deferments, be subject to the same chance of induction as all others eligible, without regard to age, marriage, or offspring;
3. Provide for educational deferment for part-time students upon their demonstrating that they must work to finance their education;
4. Prohibit use of the draft to punish for unlawful acts punishable by civil authority;
5. Require the selection of draftees by lot from among those presently eligible for military service;
6. Broaden the concept of conscientious objection in the law to include all those opposed to military service on ethical and moral grounds.
7. Require that local draft boards be representative of the ethnic~ social and economic composition of the community.
8. Recognize that objection to participation in a particular war can be central to the belief of an individual, and therefore constitute valid grounds for conscientious objection, as does opposition to all war.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the 1967 General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association:
1. Calls upon the Department of Social Responsibility to cooperate with the LRY and SRL in providing all possible information, encouragement, and assistance to our ministers, churches, and fellowships, to ?insure effective counseling of draft eligible youth and youth approaching draft age;
2. Recognizes the responsibility of Unitarian Universalists to youth who have secured conscientious objector classification and who prefer to fulfill their alternative service requirements under the sponsorship of the Unitarian Universalist Association or its affiliated organizations;
3. Calls upon the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee to increase immediately its alternative service programs in order to help a significant number of applicants;
4. Encourages youth who are conscientious objectors to war to apply for conscientious objector status under the provisions of the Selective Service Act.
5. Extends our support to those persons who in the exercise of their moral choice and through the demands of their individual consciences refuse to register for Selective Service or refuse classifications which are contrary to their consciences.
Right of Dissent
Resolution passed at the Unitarian Universalist Association General Assembly, May 29, 1968. Adopted by greater than a two-thirds majority vote.
Be it resolved: That the 1968 General Assembly of the Unitarian Universalist Association:
1. Reaffirms its call for the abolition of the House Committee on Un-American Activities and all similar inquisitorial committees.
2. Calls upon Congress to resist legislation which could repress the moral and constitutional rights of citizens to petition.
3. Calls upon the Congress and Administration to refrain from equating dissent to war with the lack of patriotism.
4. Encourages its members to act according to their consciences with respect to the draft. We recognize and respect the religious conviction that impels all forms of non-violent resistance whether by destruction or return of draft cards or refusal of induction, or other acts of non-violent resistance to the machinery of war. Inasmuch as some of our churches have recently acted in support of young men of conviction and the UUA Board of Trustees has offered help to Michael Ferber, Unitarian Universalist and member of the Resistance, we, therefore, urge all our congregations to assist in the following ways:
by offering symbolic sanctuary at time of arrest;
by offering church facilities for services of resistance in the tradition of the one held at Arlington Street Church on October 16, 1967;
by establishing a ministry to resisters by men trained in draft and prison counseling;
by assisting in the provision of legal aid to men who in conscience resist the draft;
by encouraging and conducting local efforts in schools, churches, and other community organizations to inform young men who have attained, or who will be attaining draft age, of their rights under the provisions of the Selective Service Act, consequences for disobedience and procedures for foreign residence.
Canadian congregations to offer all possible assistance to programs for members of the Resistance seeking draft evasion in Canada.
5. Recognizes that conscience is the essential ground of dissent and therefore acknowledges that the draft itself is a violation of the conscience of many who find that for them it constitutes involuntary servitude in violation of the Bill of Rights, discriminates against the poor and the Black, or otherwise conflicts with the claim of conscience and consequently calls upon Congress to reform the Selective Service System in accordance with the resolution of the 1967 General Assembly.
RESISTANCE AND TRANSFORMATION: WORKSHOP 10:
HANDOUT 3: SOCIAL WITNESS AND THE UUA
Currently the UUA has two main ways to address issues of social witness:
These are presented each year at General Assembly and are voted up or down by the delegates present at the convention.
Congregational Study/Action Issue (CSAI)
An invitation for congregations and districts to take a topic of concern and confront it, reflect on it, learn about it, respond to it, comment on it, take action—each in their own way. A CSAI is NOT a statement—it is a question. The text is intended to frame the issue. If the General Assembly passes a CSAI, a statement is developed over several years: After three years of study and action, the General Assembly delegates may adopt a Statement of Conscience (SOC) on the subject... Adopted Statements of Conscience serve to focus the efforts of congregations and other UU groups on the topic, shape the meaning of contemporary Unitarian Universalism, and inform the priorities and projects of the Multicultural Growth and Witness Staff Group.
Statements of Conscience passed by the General Assembly from 1999-2007
Actions of Immediate Witness
People come with a wide range of issues, engage one another in conversation, sign petitions, debate the issues, vote, and bring to life the Principles of Unitarian Universalism, all within the span of one General Assembly (GA). Unlike a Statement of Conscience, an AIW does not carry the full authority of the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA); rather, it expresses the conscience of the delegates at the GA at which it is passed... The AIW process allows Unitarian Universalists to respond quickly to social issues deemed urgent. AIWs adopted by a GA are used by congregations in local efforts and empower the Washington Office for Advocacy to take action and recommend action through other departments of the UUA and other UU groups.
RESISTANCE AND TRANSFORMATION: WORKSHOP 10:
HANDOUT 4: THIS LETTER IS TO EXPRESS OUR PERSONAL DISAPPROVAL
The following letters were exchanged among a pair of members of Arlington Street Church (Boston), the board of the congregation (Prudential Committee), and the congregation's minister, the Rev. Jack Mendelsohn.
5 November 1967
Arlington Street Church Prudential Committee
355 Boylston Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02116
Gentlemen:
This letter is to express our personal disapproval of the method of protest that was demonstrated within the sanctuary of Arlington Street Church on October 16.
We do not deny that people have a right to protest against actions of our government of which they disapprove. We, too, disapprove of the war this country is engaged in in Vietnam. However, we strongly believe that the method of protest demonstrated in Arlington Street Church on October 16 and in Washington, D.C. on the following weekend does nothing to hasten the end of that war. Rather, we believe such demonstrations serve only to provide aid, comfort and encouragement to North Vietnam in prolonging the war and refusing to discuss any reasonable basis for ending the conflict.
It seems to us that the only reasonable, proper and effective means of protest that we have in this democracy is direct communication of our views to our duly elected representatives in both houses of congress and in the White House. We believe those people do pay heed to the advice they receive by letter and telegram from their constituents.
We believe that conscientious objection does not give an individual the right to choose in which wars he is willing to be selected for service and in which wars he is not willing to be selected for service. A true conscientious objector should conscientiously object to all violence and warfare. Conscientious objection should, as the words imply, be an individual decision of the conscience. That decision should not be influenced in either direction by mass hysteria.
It would be presumed that a decision to permit such a controversial demonstration to take place within the confines of Arlington Street Church would be made by the Prudential Committee representing the church membership. Perhaps it would have been in order to take a vote of the membership to permit, or not permit, such a demonstration within the church.
Our protest is such that we now notify you of our intention to withdraw our financial support of Arlington Street Church for the balance of the current fiscal year. The money still due on our current pledge will be donated to other worthy causes with which we now have more favorable feelings. When the new fiscal year arises, we shall reassess our position and at that time may, or may not, reestablish our financial support of Arlington Street Church.
Sincerely,
___________ and ___________
cc to: Dr. Jack Mendelsohn, Arlington Street Church
Dr. Dana M. Greeley, 25 Beacon Street, Boston
Response from Rev. Mendelsohn:
November 9, 1967
Dear ___________ and ___________:
I have read your letter to the Prudential Committee with the most profound feelings of disappointment and sadness. It would have never occurred to me that you would write such a letter without troubling to acquaint yourselves with the total context of the October 16th service at the church and without doing me the simple, rudimentary courtesy of a personal chat.
I am acquainted with a quotation often found in church literature which reads as follows: "If one supports the church because he hears what he likes, and withdraws support when he no longer hears what he likes, he is offering the church a bribe. There is only one legitimate reason for supporting a church, and this is commitment to its goals."
You have an unquestionable and unqualified right to express your dissent concerning specific activities of the church, and to do so in the most vigorous fashion. But I don't think anyone has a right to exercise financial coercion on an institution he is voluntarily a part of.
I have no desire to effect a change in your course, but I do feel that you owe it to yourselves to read the enclosed sermon. I am utterly convinced that if you had been at church on Sunday, October 22, and experienced the full service, or if you had taken the trouble to talk with me at any time since October sixteenth, you would not have used a financial sledge hammer to make a point which belongs solely in the realm of conscience and free faith.
Sincerely Yours,
Jack Mendelsohn
cc: Arlington Street Church Prudential Committee
Reply to Rev. Mendelsohn:
November 12, 1967
Dear Jack:
Thank you for your letter of November 9.
We had read your October 22 sermon before. It did not alter my feeling of disappointment and sadness that my church had been so deeply involved in the October 16th demonstration.
I do not wish to enter into a debate on this matter. Let us allow it to remain as it is, a difference of opinion within our religion.
Time has cured some of my shock and revulsion. The form of protest cited in our recent letter was perhaps a hasty decision. We have strong personal ties to Arlington Street Church. We are Unitarians. You are right in reminding us that we have the right to express our dissent, but not necessarily the right to exert financial force to back up that dissent. We shall comply with our current financial pledge.
Sincerely,
____________
cc to: The Prudential Committee
Dr. Dana M. Greeley, 25 Beacon St., Boston
RESISTANCE AND TRANSFORMATION: WORKSHOP 10:
HANDOUT 5: CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION AND THE DRAFT
Published by Liberal Religious Youth and distributed by the Unitarian Universalist Association in April, 1967.
FIND OUT MORE
Learn more about the Unitarian Universalist Association's Study Action Issues and Process (at www.uua.org/socialjustice/issuesprocess/index.shtml) and explore a searchable list of social justice resolutions and statements (at www.uua.org/socialjustice/socialjustice/index.php).
Current information from the UUA about being a conscientious objector:
Conscientious Objectors and the Draft (at www.uua.org/documents/washingtonoffice/conscientiousobjectors_brochure.pdf) brochure (dated Oct 16, 2008)
Read Rev. Jack Mendelsohn's reflections in his book Being Liberal in an Illiberal Age: Why I am a Unitarian Universalist, (at www.uuabookstore.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=551) second edition (Boston, Skinner House, 2006).