It's All The Same To Me
Sermon
Life Injections II
Further Connections Of Scripture To The Human Experience
... Peter entered the house of Cornelius ...
An examination of the types of prejudice of which we're often guilty.
A Chinese and a Jewish individual were eating lunch together when, without warning, the Jewish man got up and slapped the Chinese gentleman across the face. The Chinese gent was stunned! Rubbing his jaw, he said: "What in the world did you do that for?" And the answer came back: "Pearl Harbor." "I didn't have anything to do with Pearl Harbor. It was the Japanese who bombed Pearl Harbor." The Jewish man replied: "Chinese, Japanese, Taiwanese -- they're all the same to me."
They each returned to eating their lunch and before long the Chinese gent walks over to the Jewish man and slaps him across the face. The Jewish man yelled out: "What did you do that for?" And the answer came back: "The Titanic." "The Titanic! I didn't have anything to do with the Titanic. An iceberg brought it down." Whereupon the Chinese man replied: "Iceberg, Goldberg, Ginsberg -- they're all the same to me."
I begin with that bit of humor because I'd like to talk with you today about prejudice and I see the joke as revelatory of a mindset responsible for prejudice. Many people, I'm afraid, are much like the two men I just described. They wouldn't hit anybody because of race or nationality or religion, but they do have on their mind this notion that one representative of a race or nation or religion is typical of every representative of a race or nation or religion. The bad of one person becomes the bad of every person; what's true of one is true of all. Although we may claim that we're above reaching similar conclusions, we're not above applying a similar logic. Our prejudice may not involve a race or nationality or religion but it does involve the bad of one person and what we'll do is put that person's entire life under the umbrella of the bad.
Consider the story of Fred Snodgrass, star baseball player for the 1912 New York Giants. In the seventh and deciding game of the World Series that year, he missed a pop fly. His error allowed the winning run to score, costing the Giants the World Series. In 1974 Fred Snodgrass died. The New York Times headline read: "Fred Snodgrass, 85, Died -- Baseball Player Muffed Fly in 1912." What was remembered about him at the end of his life was the error that cost his team the World Series. After leaving baseball, Fred Snodgrass became a successful rancher and banker. He was so respected in his community that they asked him to run for mayor, a position he was elected to and held for many years. He was a wonderful father who had a beautiful family yet, sadly, what was remembered about him was his mistake.
How often has it happened that a friend or acquaintance makes a mistake or commits a sin and all we ever think about, from that day forward, is that mistake or that sin. The person may repent, may repair the damage of that one sin or that one mistake, and may go and do an unbelievable number of wonderful things. All of that, however, gets left out of the equation when we see that person. We'll always hold a prejudice for that one sin or that one mistake.
There are people, for example, who have filed bankruptcy, who are recovering alcoholics, who have left the priesthood or the religious life, who committed a crime, who are HIV positive, and unfortunately they'll forever be victims of prejudice because people will always mention them in regards to their bankruptcy, their alcoholism, their crime, or their former state in life.
Then you have as a provider of prejudice, the mindset that takes everything at face value, that sees something and automatically registers a subsequent and final opinion. I'm reminded of the time when Nikita Khrushchev came to the United States and, at the start of one of his speeches, clasped his hands above his head and jumped up and down. Americans were furious. Not long beforehand, he boasted that Russia will bury us and here he was jumping up and down like a cocky prizefighter who had just triumphed in a boxing match.
Some years later a man familiar with the culture was asked about that incident. He related the fact that the gestures of Khrushchev were not those of a cocky prizefighter. Those gestures, he said, were a Russian sign of friendship and of peace. In Russia, clasping hands above one's head and jumping up and down are meant to symbolize hands clasped in friendship across the sea.
It makes us stop and think of times we've jumped to conclusions about people based on something unique to their culture. Many a prejudice stems from our misinterpretation of some habit or gesture that means something totally opposite of what it appears to be. Along similar lines, there is the mindset where the misinterpretation doesn't involve something unique to a culture or race but does involve something that isn't what it seems.
Gessen was a Buddhist monk who was an exceptionally talented artist. Before he would start painting, he required payment in advance and what he normally charged was exorbitant. He became known as the greedy monk. Typical among his customers was a fairly wealthy woman who, upon paying him, said to someone: "This man is supposed to be a monk, but all he thinks about is money. His talent is exceptional but he has a filthy money-loving mind."
Many years later, quite by chance, someone found out why Gessen was so eager for money. It was discovered that he came from a part of the province where famine was a regular part of life. His heart ached for its victims so he built barns and filled them with grain and when a famine struck he made arrangements for the grain to be taken to families that were hurting. This was all done in secret. The families did not know from whence came the grain. Gessen was also "eager for money" because the main road leading to the city was in such bad condition that ox carts would constantly tip and fall. This presented untold hardships for the aged and the infirm who needed to get to the city for the health care it provided. Gessen had the road repaired. The final reason he was "eager for money" was so that he might build a meditation temple which his teacher wanted desperately for the province but could never secure the funds. When all those important needs were secured, Gessen stopped painting and went back to being a Buddhist monk.
How often have we drawn conclusions about people based on outward activity, based on what they're doing, having not a clue as to what might happen to lie behind their behavior. Many a prejudice is a product of a mind that fails to ask questions, that fails to make inquiries, that automatically passes judgment without ever considering the possibility that there's something causing the victim of their prejudice to behave in the way they're behaving.
Another provider of prejudice is the mindset that denies the existence of any truth other than its own. I'm reminded here of that scene from Alice in Wonderland where there's a trial just beginning and the king calls for the rabbit to read the accusation that prompted the trial. After the accusation is read, the king quickly turns to the jury and inquires as to their verdict. At that point, the horrified rabbit jumps to its feet and says: "Not yet, your majesty! There's a great deal that needs to happen before that."
There are many people today who are like that king -- quick to rush to a verdict before evidence is heard. They are the people who would say: "I've made up my mind. Don't confuse me with the facts!"
When Galileo was summoned to court for the heresy of claiming the earth revolved around the sun, he brought his telescope with him and set it up in the courtroom. When the judge read the charge against him, Galileo invited the judge and the others on the inquisition panel to look through the telescope. He had set it so that they could see the Moons of Jupiter, something that would prove him right. The judge and the inquisition panel refused to look through the telescope. They were convinced that the Earth did not revolve around the sun and no evidence would convince them otherwise.
Too many of us have a prejudice when it comes to proponents of new theories, new ideas, new ways of looking at things. Like that judge and that inquisition panel, we dismiss all of them without giving them so much as a hearing. We're convinced that there can't possibly be any truth other than the ones we happen to hold.
Then there's the prejudice born in a previous generation. I'm reminded of a song from the popular play South Pacific. It's sung by a nurse who happens to be a victim of racial prejudice. She tells in the song how children are taught to hate, how they're born color blind and unprejudiced only to be tainted by adults who put into their heads animosities and resentments they couldn't possibly attain on their own. Many a prejudice stems from something of long ago that should have been forgotten but gets passed down from one generation to the next.
An incident took place several years ago involving the Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic. He's standing on a patch of ground telling a huge crowd of young Serbs how on the very ground on which they're standing a massacre took place. The Bosnians brutalized a thousand Serbs. He told the story with vengeance in his eyes and hatred in his heart. It so riled the young crowd that they left that patch of ground with animosity toward every Bosnian. The brutalization, the massacre to which he referred, took place in the thirteenth century. Many a prejudice is a product of an old incident that's unfortunately been kept alive for far too many years and has gotten passed on to far too many generations.
I've been talking about prejudice today because we find Peter in our first reading taking a huge step in dismantling a prejudice that he and most Jews had held for many generations. Peter, all of his life, had never called on a Gentile. He was to stay away from them for they were unclean. So he had been taught. So he had been told. When he called on Cornelius, he crossed a racial barrier and he found, to his astonishment, a friend on the other side. He says to Cornelius: "And to me God hath shone that I should never call any man common or unclean."
We are called today to take a long and deep look at our practice of prejudice so we might dismantle ours as Peter dismantled his. That means we need look beyond people's sins or mistakes. We need to recognize that Fred Snodgrass may have dropped a fly ball but that was one blemish on an otherwise beautiful and successful life. We need, as well, to do some reading, some research, some exploring so we won't stupidly pass judgment, so we won't call a monk like Gessen greedy or a Russian like Khrushchev cocky when the facts say otherwise. If we hope to dismantle our prejudice as Peter dismantled his, we need to keep from providing a verdict without looking at the evidence; we need at least to look through the telescope. We need not to let history dictate our vision. We need to return to the mind of our infant days, a mind that was colorless and unprejudiced, a mind where "Chinese, Japanese, Taiwanese, Iceberg, Ginsberg, Goldberg are not the same to me."
An examination of the types of prejudice of which we're often guilty.
A Chinese and a Jewish individual were eating lunch together when, without warning, the Jewish man got up and slapped the Chinese gentleman across the face. The Chinese gent was stunned! Rubbing his jaw, he said: "What in the world did you do that for?" And the answer came back: "Pearl Harbor." "I didn't have anything to do with Pearl Harbor. It was the Japanese who bombed Pearl Harbor." The Jewish man replied: "Chinese, Japanese, Taiwanese -- they're all the same to me."
They each returned to eating their lunch and before long the Chinese gent walks over to the Jewish man and slaps him across the face. The Jewish man yelled out: "What did you do that for?" And the answer came back: "The Titanic." "The Titanic! I didn't have anything to do with the Titanic. An iceberg brought it down." Whereupon the Chinese man replied: "Iceberg, Goldberg, Ginsberg -- they're all the same to me."
I begin with that bit of humor because I'd like to talk with you today about prejudice and I see the joke as revelatory of a mindset responsible for prejudice. Many people, I'm afraid, are much like the two men I just described. They wouldn't hit anybody because of race or nationality or religion, but they do have on their mind this notion that one representative of a race or nation or religion is typical of every representative of a race or nation or religion. The bad of one person becomes the bad of every person; what's true of one is true of all. Although we may claim that we're above reaching similar conclusions, we're not above applying a similar logic. Our prejudice may not involve a race or nationality or religion but it does involve the bad of one person and what we'll do is put that person's entire life under the umbrella of the bad.
Consider the story of Fred Snodgrass, star baseball player for the 1912 New York Giants. In the seventh and deciding game of the World Series that year, he missed a pop fly. His error allowed the winning run to score, costing the Giants the World Series. In 1974 Fred Snodgrass died. The New York Times headline read: "Fred Snodgrass, 85, Died -- Baseball Player Muffed Fly in 1912." What was remembered about him at the end of his life was the error that cost his team the World Series. After leaving baseball, Fred Snodgrass became a successful rancher and banker. He was so respected in his community that they asked him to run for mayor, a position he was elected to and held for many years. He was a wonderful father who had a beautiful family yet, sadly, what was remembered about him was his mistake.
How often has it happened that a friend or acquaintance makes a mistake or commits a sin and all we ever think about, from that day forward, is that mistake or that sin. The person may repent, may repair the damage of that one sin or that one mistake, and may go and do an unbelievable number of wonderful things. All of that, however, gets left out of the equation when we see that person. We'll always hold a prejudice for that one sin or that one mistake.
There are people, for example, who have filed bankruptcy, who are recovering alcoholics, who have left the priesthood or the religious life, who committed a crime, who are HIV positive, and unfortunately they'll forever be victims of prejudice because people will always mention them in regards to their bankruptcy, their alcoholism, their crime, or their former state in life.
Then you have as a provider of prejudice, the mindset that takes everything at face value, that sees something and automatically registers a subsequent and final opinion. I'm reminded of the time when Nikita Khrushchev came to the United States and, at the start of one of his speeches, clasped his hands above his head and jumped up and down. Americans were furious. Not long beforehand, he boasted that Russia will bury us and here he was jumping up and down like a cocky prizefighter who had just triumphed in a boxing match.
Some years later a man familiar with the culture was asked about that incident. He related the fact that the gestures of Khrushchev were not those of a cocky prizefighter. Those gestures, he said, were a Russian sign of friendship and of peace. In Russia, clasping hands above one's head and jumping up and down are meant to symbolize hands clasped in friendship across the sea.
It makes us stop and think of times we've jumped to conclusions about people based on something unique to their culture. Many a prejudice stems from our misinterpretation of some habit or gesture that means something totally opposite of what it appears to be. Along similar lines, there is the mindset where the misinterpretation doesn't involve something unique to a culture or race but does involve something that isn't what it seems.
Gessen was a Buddhist monk who was an exceptionally talented artist. Before he would start painting, he required payment in advance and what he normally charged was exorbitant. He became known as the greedy monk. Typical among his customers was a fairly wealthy woman who, upon paying him, said to someone: "This man is supposed to be a monk, but all he thinks about is money. His talent is exceptional but he has a filthy money-loving mind."
Many years later, quite by chance, someone found out why Gessen was so eager for money. It was discovered that he came from a part of the province where famine was a regular part of life. His heart ached for its victims so he built barns and filled them with grain and when a famine struck he made arrangements for the grain to be taken to families that were hurting. This was all done in secret. The families did not know from whence came the grain. Gessen was also "eager for money" because the main road leading to the city was in such bad condition that ox carts would constantly tip and fall. This presented untold hardships for the aged and the infirm who needed to get to the city for the health care it provided. Gessen had the road repaired. The final reason he was "eager for money" was so that he might build a meditation temple which his teacher wanted desperately for the province but could never secure the funds. When all those important needs were secured, Gessen stopped painting and went back to being a Buddhist monk.
How often have we drawn conclusions about people based on outward activity, based on what they're doing, having not a clue as to what might happen to lie behind their behavior. Many a prejudice is a product of a mind that fails to ask questions, that fails to make inquiries, that automatically passes judgment without ever considering the possibility that there's something causing the victim of their prejudice to behave in the way they're behaving.
Another provider of prejudice is the mindset that denies the existence of any truth other than its own. I'm reminded here of that scene from Alice in Wonderland where there's a trial just beginning and the king calls for the rabbit to read the accusation that prompted the trial. After the accusation is read, the king quickly turns to the jury and inquires as to their verdict. At that point, the horrified rabbit jumps to its feet and says: "Not yet, your majesty! There's a great deal that needs to happen before that."
There are many people today who are like that king -- quick to rush to a verdict before evidence is heard. They are the people who would say: "I've made up my mind. Don't confuse me with the facts!"
When Galileo was summoned to court for the heresy of claiming the earth revolved around the sun, he brought his telescope with him and set it up in the courtroom. When the judge read the charge against him, Galileo invited the judge and the others on the inquisition panel to look through the telescope. He had set it so that they could see the Moons of Jupiter, something that would prove him right. The judge and the inquisition panel refused to look through the telescope. They were convinced that the Earth did not revolve around the sun and no evidence would convince them otherwise.
Too many of us have a prejudice when it comes to proponents of new theories, new ideas, new ways of looking at things. Like that judge and that inquisition panel, we dismiss all of them without giving them so much as a hearing. We're convinced that there can't possibly be any truth other than the ones we happen to hold.
Then there's the prejudice born in a previous generation. I'm reminded of a song from the popular play South Pacific. It's sung by a nurse who happens to be a victim of racial prejudice. She tells in the song how children are taught to hate, how they're born color blind and unprejudiced only to be tainted by adults who put into their heads animosities and resentments they couldn't possibly attain on their own. Many a prejudice stems from something of long ago that should have been forgotten but gets passed down from one generation to the next.
An incident took place several years ago involving the Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic. He's standing on a patch of ground telling a huge crowd of young Serbs how on the very ground on which they're standing a massacre took place. The Bosnians brutalized a thousand Serbs. He told the story with vengeance in his eyes and hatred in his heart. It so riled the young crowd that they left that patch of ground with animosity toward every Bosnian. The brutalization, the massacre to which he referred, took place in the thirteenth century. Many a prejudice is a product of an old incident that's unfortunately been kept alive for far too many years and has gotten passed on to far too many generations.
I've been talking about prejudice today because we find Peter in our first reading taking a huge step in dismantling a prejudice that he and most Jews had held for many generations. Peter, all of his life, had never called on a Gentile. He was to stay away from them for they were unclean. So he had been taught. So he had been told. When he called on Cornelius, he crossed a racial barrier and he found, to his astonishment, a friend on the other side. He says to Cornelius: "And to me God hath shone that I should never call any man common or unclean."
We are called today to take a long and deep look at our practice of prejudice so we might dismantle ours as Peter dismantled his. That means we need look beyond people's sins or mistakes. We need to recognize that Fred Snodgrass may have dropped a fly ball but that was one blemish on an otherwise beautiful and successful life. We need, as well, to do some reading, some research, some exploring so we won't stupidly pass judgment, so we won't call a monk like Gessen greedy or a Russian like Khrushchev cocky when the facts say otherwise. If we hope to dismantle our prejudice as Peter dismantled his, we need to keep from providing a verdict without looking at the evidence; we need at least to look through the telescope. We need not to let history dictate our vision. We need to return to the mind of our infant days, a mind that was colorless and unprejudiced, a mind where "Chinese, Japanese, Taiwanese, Iceberg, Ginsberg, Goldberg are not the same to me."
