Have been taking a lot of time off from the blog for personal reasons. In the meantime, what started so seemingly innocent with the passage of the Patriot Act has become a global problem: the quest for more power by those with power. George Monbiot recently wrote an article about this for ZNet (click here for the article). Monbiot specifically focused on the growing fascism that exists in India, Brazil, the Philippines, the UK, and the US. But those aren't the only ones he mentioned. The sign of authoritarianism which he is focusing on is the growing disregard for law by national leaders.
And just as it is with wealth among many who are wealthy, one of the reasons for obtaining more power is to keep up with the Joneses--as they use to say when I was young.
For the US, what enables favored leaders to grab for more power is the holdover authoritarian culture left by America's Christian influences. Religiously conservative Christianity naturally tends toward authoritarianism with followers embracing a passive authoritarianism. Such an embrace enables our leader(s) to seek more power provided they promote the agenda of my fellow religiously conservative Christians. Part of that agenda is a legitimate pro-life concern for the unborn. But as our President has instituted policies that favor the wealthy which put social safety nets in harms way, that pro-life of my fellow Christians concern shows significant cracks from compromise.
Another part of the agenda of many of us religiously conservative Christians is that our religious liberties, in our case our right to discriminate against the LGBT community in the public square, be protected. This shows the self-centeredness that many of us religiously conservative Christians have obliviously but passionately embraced.
What is destroying America, and the World too, is unbridled arrogance and greed not just by some, but by many of its leaders. And that is exhibited by a continual grabbing for power. All of this has been stated in a number of ways for a while and yet no one listens. And that greed and pride is not just for the wealthy, it is for people of the lower classes who support their preferred authoritarian leaders because those leaders throw them enough bones to make them feel significant and protected. Here we should note that some Churches from other nations practice similar sins. For the Church in Egypt and Syria have latched on to tyrannical leaders because those leaders protect those Christians.
Thus, religiously conservative American Christians are putting their own nation at a threatening crossroads. For America to break with the world's penchant for authoritarianism, it will have to divorce itself from conservative Christianity or America's religiously conservative Christians must do an about-face. With the latter seemingly unlikely, religiously conservative Christians are asking for a persecution that they have been crying wolf over for the past few years. And why is that? It is because of arrogance and greed.
www.flamingfundamentalist.blogspot.com
(Only one person pictured is a Christian Fundamentalist. And so which one pictured is not like the others)
Showing posts with label Greed. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Greed. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
Friday, February 22, 2019
Sometimes Home Sweet Home Blinds Us To What Is Unbiblical
One of the troubles with growing up in America back when Christianity was the dominant religion is that things that are considered to be American were also considered to be Christian. And that kind of thinking was not invented by Baby Boomers like myself or by our parents, it existed back during America's founding. Even the, before America became a nation, many Christian European settlers viewed themselves collectively as the New Israel and Native Americans as the Canaanites. But perhaps what those early settlers were really demonstrating, as is demonstrated by all of us some of the time, is that religion sometimes becomes the conduit to self-worship rather than the worship of some heavenly god.
And so we come to a short article written by Michael J. Kruger (click here for a short bio) from Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC. The article serves as a review of a book that defends capitalism from charges that it is based on greed. Of course, no Christian should want to encourage greed in any way, shape, or form. And so no American Christian could freely participate in an economic system that is based on greed.
Kruger's article is a short review of a book by Jay W. Richards called Money, Greed, And God: Why Capitalism Is The Solution And Not The Problem (click here for the book's website). Kruger's article provides a brief review of why capitalism is to be considered a remedy from God for the world (click here for the article). I am not sure how well the article summarizes the arguments made in the book, but those summaries are shallow and unconvincing.
The following claims from the book are briefly explained in the article:
Kruger's first claim is true. The existence of greedy people in a capitalistic society does not imply that capitalism is based on greed. At the same time, what should we say when greed is growing? Today's American capitalism is not the same as the capitalism I grew up with. Back then, we were under the Bretton-Woods system where the government was more in control over parts of the economy than it is today. The Bretton-Woods system took effect shortly after WW II and lasted through most of the 1970s. During most of that time period, growth in prosperity was generally egalitarian across all economic classes.
The form of capitalism being practiced today is neoliberalism. Its focus is to free up business from government controls on the market and trade. Here we should note that since the latter part of the 1970s, wealth disparity has grown between a number of groups. That disparity has continued through today so that the top 1% of those with wealth have, comparatively speaking, as much wealth as the 1% did just prior to the Great Depression (click here).
That growth in wealth disparity has also produced a growth in a political power disparity. Some have reclassified America from being a democracy to being an oligarchy (click here for an example). An oligarchy is the rule of a small group of the wealthy. And the study cited in the article just linked to based its assessment on the high percentage of governmental policies that were based on serving the interests of those with wealth vs those policies that were based on serving the interests of the general public. For the growth in wealth disparity have given those who earn the more disposable funds to buy influence over government.
Still, what is happening in the USA doesn't prove that capitalism fosters greed. But consider that the maximization of profit ethic, which is an ethic used to fuel economic growth, is such a basic part of American capitalism because it serves major investors. And we should also note that a major part of our economy consists of investing though the stock market. Thus, it seems safe to conclude that at least American capitalism is based on greed. Here we should note that just because American capitalism is based on greed doesn't imply that every participant in American capitalism is greedy.
Next, Kruger states that there is a difference between selfishness and self-interest. But he doesn't adequately explain that statement. Rather, he makes it seem as if there is no connection between selfishness and self-interest.
He goes on to say that we all make decisions based on self-interest and he is right. Does that mean we are all selfish? To answer that question, it might be important to see the relationship between selfishness and self-interest. After all, isn't self-interest involved when making selfish decisions?
We might want to consider the following to explain the relationship between selfishness and self-interest. The more dominant a role that self-interest plays in our decision making, the more selfish our decisions become. Thus, we might define selfishness by the degree in which our decisions are based on self-interest over the interest of others. If self-interest is the one factor in making decisions, then aren't our decisions selfish ones? But the more we consider the interests of others, the more balanced our decisions become so that they become less and less selfish. And when the interests of others outweigh self-interest in our decisions, then we are starting to talk about being sacrificial.
Kruger's third claim is that the purchase of goods in a capitalist system is mutually beneficial. But is that always the case? Aren't consumers and even vendors ever cheated on a significant scale? In addition, this view of capitalism where we focus on the buyers and sellers of goods reduces the stakeholders of capitalist ventures to just 2 parties. And such violates the traditional business definition of the term 'stakeholder.' That traditional definition states that a stakeholder is anyone who is impacted by the business. Thus, the current focus on just the buyers and sellers leaves out the community in which a business operates, its employees, its own vendors, the communities in which the employees live, the government since the government receives taxes and provides infrastructure and services, and the environment. That certainly is not an exhaustive list of the stakeholders that most, if not all business operations have, but it gives us an idea of who is all involved in a simple business transaction between buyer and a seller.
Kruger's fourth claim undoes his first two. Why? Because his fourth claim acknowledges the prevalence of selfishness in the capitalist system. It also acts as a siren song for those who embrace capitalism. For it says that capitalism is able to practice judo on the selfishness that exists. It does that through the free market. And what aficionados of capitalism want to believe is that one does not have be responsible for the interest of others because the free market will make positive use of one's own selfishness. Unfortunately, such has not been the case during for decades during neoliberalism since wealth disparity has continually grown and produced a growing power disparity. And that growing wealth disparity has put many non-wealthy people from both the middle and lower economic classes on financially volatile situations.
Finally Kruger claims that capitalism encourages generosity. The grounds for that claim are as follows: 1) America is the most generous nation in the world; and 2) there is an 'inverse relationship' that exists in charitable giving and the amount of taxes one must pay. What is sad here, besides the baseless implication between that inverse relationship and the claim that capitalism encourages generosity, is that Kruger uses the financial bottom line to judge generosity. Kruger who is the president of a conservative Christian seminary uses the financial bottom line to judge generosity.
If Kruger had remembered how Jesus described the poor widow who only contributed two small copper coins (click here), he would have used a different standard to judge generosity. That is because Jesus described that poor widow as giving more than anyone else because of the percentage of what she gave was in relation to what she had. It is easy to look generous when giving millions of dollars when one has billions of dollars. And that gift of millions of dollars often makes us look the other way as to how those billions of dollars were gained. Perhaps a real measure of generosity for one who would be rich would be not to become a millionaire or billionaire so that many of those who work for the companies one owns could pay higher wages to all of their workers.
I am not sure how deep Richards' book, which is the subject of Kruger's article, is. But one thing is for sure, Kruger's review of the book is almost disingenuously shallow. And it is that shallowness that strongly indicates that Kruger's view of capitalism is more guided by having grown up in America than by using the Scriptures and reason.
And so we come to a short article written by Michael J. Kruger (click here for a short bio) from Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC. The article serves as a review of a book that defends capitalism from charges that it is based on greed. Of course, no Christian should want to encourage greed in any way, shape, or form. And so no American Christian could freely participate in an economic system that is based on greed.
Kruger's article is a short review of a book by Jay W. Richards called Money, Greed, And God: Why Capitalism Is The Solution And Not The Problem (click here for the book's website). Kruger's article provides a brief review of why capitalism is to be considered a remedy from God for the world (click here for the article). I am not sure how well the article summarizes the arguments made in the book, but those summaries are shallow and unconvincing.
The following claims from the book are briefly explained in the article:
- The fact that individuals in a capitalistic society happen to be greedy, does not mean capitalism is actually based on greed
- There is a difference between selfishness and self-interest
- Thus economic exchanges in a capitalistic system are mutually beneficial
- Capitalism does the best job of channeling selfishness for good ends
- Capitalism actually encourages generosity
Kruger's first claim is true. The existence of greedy people in a capitalistic society does not imply that capitalism is based on greed. At the same time, what should we say when greed is growing? Today's American capitalism is not the same as the capitalism I grew up with. Back then, we were under the Bretton-Woods system where the government was more in control over parts of the economy than it is today. The Bretton-Woods system took effect shortly after WW II and lasted through most of the 1970s. During most of that time period, growth in prosperity was generally egalitarian across all economic classes.
The form of capitalism being practiced today is neoliberalism. Its focus is to free up business from government controls on the market and trade. Here we should note that since the latter part of the 1970s, wealth disparity has grown between a number of groups. That disparity has continued through today so that the top 1% of those with wealth have, comparatively speaking, as much wealth as the 1% did just prior to the Great Depression (click here).
That growth in wealth disparity has also produced a growth in a political power disparity. Some have reclassified America from being a democracy to being an oligarchy (click here for an example). An oligarchy is the rule of a small group of the wealthy. And the study cited in the article just linked to based its assessment on the high percentage of governmental policies that were based on serving the interests of those with wealth vs those policies that were based on serving the interests of the general public. For the growth in wealth disparity have given those who earn the more disposable funds to buy influence over government.
Still, what is happening in the USA doesn't prove that capitalism fosters greed. But consider that the maximization of profit ethic, which is an ethic used to fuel economic growth, is such a basic part of American capitalism because it serves major investors. And we should also note that a major part of our economy consists of investing though the stock market. Thus, it seems safe to conclude that at least American capitalism is based on greed. Here we should note that just because American capitalism is based on greed doesn't imply that every participant in American capitalism is greedy.
Next, Kruger states that there is a difference between selfishness and self-interest. But he doesn't adequately explain that statement. Rather, he makes it seem as if there is no connection between selfishness and self-interest.
He goes on to say that we all make decisions based on self-interest and he is right. Does that mean we are all selfish? To answer that question, it might be important to see the relationship between selfishness and self-interest. After all, isn't self-interest involved when making selfish decisions?
We might want to consider the following to explain the relationship between selfishness and self-interest. The more dominant a role that self-interest plays in our decision making, the more selfish our decisions become. Thus, we might define selfishness by the degree in which our decisions are based on self-interest over the interest of others. If self-interest is the one factor in making decisions, then aren't our decisions selfish ones? But the more we consider the interests of others, the more balanced our decisions become so that they become less and less selfish. And when the interests of others outweigh self-interest in our decisions, then we are starting to talk about being sacrificial.
Kruger's third claim is that the purchase of goods in a capitalist system is mutually beneficial. But is that always the case? Aren't consumers and even vendors ever cheated on a significant scale? In addition, this view of capitalism where we focus on the buyers and sellers of goods reduces the stakeholders of capitalist ventures to just 2 parties. And such violates the traditional business definition of the term 'stakeholder.' That traditional definition states that a stakeholder is anyone who is impacted by the business. Thus, the current focus on just the buyers and sellers leaves out the community in which a business operates, its employees, its own vendors, the communities in which the employees live, the government since the government receives taxes and provides infrastructure and services, and the environment. That certainly is not an exhaustive list of the stakeholders that most, if not all business operations have, but it gives us an idea of who is all involved in a simple business transaction between buyer and a seller.
Kruger's fourth claim undoes his first two. Why? Because his fourth claim acknowledges the prevalence of selfishness in the capitalist system. It also acts as a siren song for those who embrace capitalism. For it says that capitalism is able to practice judo on the selfishness that exists. It does that through the free market. And what aficionados of capitalism want to believe is that one does not have be responsible for the interest of others because the free market will make positive use of one's own selfishness. Unfortunately, such has not been the case during for decades during neoliberalism since wealth disparity has continually grown and produced a growing power disparity. And that growing wealth disparity has put many non-wealthy people from both the middle and lower economic classes on financially volatile situations.
Finally Kruger claims that capitalism encourages generosity. The grounds for that claim are as follows: 1) America is the most generous nation in the world; and 2) there is an 'inverse relationship' that exists in charitable giving and the amount of taxes one must pay. What is sad here, besides the baseless implication between that inverse relationship and the claim that capitalism encourages generosity, is that Kruger uses the financial bottom line to judge generosity. Kruger who is the president of a conservative Christian seminary uses the financial bottom line to judge generosity.
If Kruger had remembered how Jesus described the poor widow who only contributed two small copper coins (click here), he would have used a different standard to judge generosity. That is because Jesus described that poor widow as giving more than anyone else because of the percentage of what she gave was in relation to what she had. It is easy to look generous when giving millions of dollars when one has billions of dollars. And that gift of millions of dollars often makes us look the other way as to how those billions of dollars were gained. Perhaps a real measure of generosity for one who would be rich would be not to become a millionaire or billionaire so that many of those who work for the companies one owns could pay higher wages to all of their workers.
I am not sure how deep Richards' book, which is the subject of Kruger's article, is. But one thing is for sure, Kruger's review of the book is almost disingenuously shallow. And it is that shallowness that strongly indicates that Kruger's view of capitalism is more guided by having grown up in America than by using the Scriptures and reason.
Tuesday, September 5, 2017
The Ism Whose Name Cannot Be Said
Certainly racism has grabbed the headlines and rightfully so. There were the protests and counterprotests in Charlottesville that turned violent where the violence produced one death. There is still the disproportionate exercise of police violence on and incarceration of minorities. In fact, there are some white people who never questioned the consistent abuse of power exercised by police until a white women was shot by a non-white police officer.
But racism is not only exhibited in flagrant examples, Blacks have been telling us for years that racism has been alive and well despite the progress made by the Civil Rights Movement and many of us have been ignoring them. In addition, inner city schools where the student population consists of a higher percentage of minorities have been suffering from never ending budget cuts. And finally, what many whites won't consider is that school performance can be linked to the economic hopelessness and the home instability such hopelessness causes, of the neighborhoods in which schools are located.
Leaders in the Civil Rights Movement knew that if there was no economic progress accompanying progress in the obtaining of legal rights, then minorities would become disillusioned. And yet, news about income and wealth disparities between races shows nothing but increases (click here, and there). But income and wealth disparities are also growing between the economic classes (click here, and there, and there again).
With the growth in income and wealth disparities comes a shifting of political power that also feeds the continued growth in income and wealth disparities. Those with wealth have access to more resources to ensure that the government pays more attention to their concerns than the concerns of others (click here and there).
Now what we should note is that the growing income and wealth disparities result in political influence based on wealth is part of what could be called economic classism. And the growing income and wealth disparity between the races sees the combination of racism with economic classism.
We were promised by the Republican presidential candidate that he would employ the best people and work to represent the concerns of working Americans. But this same candidate who has become the President has shown nothing but an overeagerness to cut regulations that protect workers and the environment in order to please his economic peers.
We have an economic classism problem in our nation that is, at best, being ignored by politicians of both major political parties. And this classism problem is not totally separate from our problem with racism.
From a Christian perspective, we should note that the most influential branch of the Church, Conservative Protestantism, is not addressing economic classism. Instead, it has done all it can to get us to focus our attention inwardly on personal sins while either defending or saying nothing to challenge the current economic system that is feeding the growing wealth disparity. Such a position shows that the Church, at least the conservative branches of it, is content with repeating history where the dominant branch of the Church supported those with the greatest wealth just before the French, Russian, and Spanish Revolutions. And because of that, revolutionaries had an easier time with portraying the Church as an enemy of the people. As a result, not only did many people suffer, but so did the reputation of the Gospel.
But racism is not only exhibited in flagrant examples, Blacks have been telling us for years that racism has been alive and well despite the progress made by the Civil Rights Movement and many of us have been ignoring them. In addition, inner city schools where the student population consists of a higher percentage of minorities have been suffering from never ending budget cuts. And finally, what many whites won't consider is that school performance can be linked to the economic hopelessness and the home instability such hopelessness causes, of the neighborhoods in which schools are located.
Leaders in the Civil Rights Movement knew that if there was no economic progress accompanying progress in the obtaining of legal rights, then minorities would become disillusioned. And yet, news about income and wealth disparities between races shows nothing but increases (click here, and there). But income and wealth disparities are also growing between the economic classes (click here, and there, and there again).
With the growth in income and wealth disparities comes a shifting of political power that also feeds the continued growth in income and wealth disparities. Those with wealth have access to more resources to ensure that the government pays more attention to their concerns than the concerns of others (click here and there).
Now what we should note is that the growing income and wealth disparities result in political influence based on wealth is part of what could be called economic classism. And the growing income and wealth disparity between the races sees the combination of racism with economic classism.
We were promised by the Republican presidential candidate that he would employ the best people and work to represent the concerns of working Americans. But this same candidate who has become the President has shown nothing but an overeagerness to cut regulations that protect workers and the environment in order to please his economic peers.
We have an economic classism problem in our nation that is, at best, being ignored by politicians of both major political parties. And this classism problem is not totally separate from our problem with racism.
From a Christian perspective, we should note that the most influential branch of the Church, Conservative Protestantism, is not addressing economic classism. Instead, it has done all it can to get us to focus our attention inwardly on personal sins while either defending or saying nothing to challenge the current economic system that is feeding the growing wealth disparity. Such a position shows that the Church, at least the conservative branches of it, is content with repeating history where the dominant branch of the Church supported those with the greatest wealth just before the French, Russian, and Spanish Revolutions. And because of that, revolutionaries had an easier time with portraying the Church as an enemy of the people. As a result, not only did many people suffer, but so did the reputation of the Gospel.
Monday, February 13, 2017
ONIM For February 13, 2017
Christian News
World News
Protest News
Standing Rock Sioux - DAPL News
Pick(s) Of The Litter
- Church's Gay Marriage Stance Challenged By Retired Bishops -- Christian Today (UK)
- Thousands Urged To Vote Muslim Against Christian In Jakarta -- Christian Today (UK)
- Most Americans Support Gay Marriage--Most White Evangelicals Oppose It -- Christian Today (UK)
- The Bible's Clarity Should Be Evident In Our Lives -- Christianity Today
- Meet The Pastor Who Challenged Africa's Oldest Dictator With Surprising Success -- Christianity Today
- Southern Baptists Back Away From Backing Mosques -- Christianity Today
- Sex Is Not Sexual Intimacy -- Reformed African American Network
- On Black History: From Platitudes To Participation -- Reformed African American Network
- Martin Luther King Jr. And Convictional Compassion -- Reformed African American Network
- Most Syrian Christians Aren't Backing Assad (Or The Rebels) -- Chatham House
- One Of The Most Haunting Paragraphs I Have Read -- Gospel Coalition
- Black History Month: John Chavis (1763-1838) -- Gospel Coalition
- A Christian Vision For The 21st Century -- Gospel Coalition
- How To Protest Better -- First Things
- 100 Evangelical Leaders Sign Ad Denouncing Trump's Refugee Ban -- CNN
- Is Love Of Money Really The Root Of All Evils -- Desiring God
World News
- A Concerned Citizen's Plea To America's Business Leaders -- New York Times
- US-Led Coalition Destroys Drinking Water Lines In Raqqa -- Jamila Eyes
- Solicitor Caught On Camera In Racist Train Rant -- Yahoo News
- Here's A Copy Of The Executive Order Trump Signed On Americans' Retirement Money -- Yahoo News
- Ballot Access And Voting Rights At Risk -- Yahoo News
- ODU Professor Wants Trump To Stop Citing, Misquoting His Research -- News 3
- Trump And Climate Catastrophe -- ZNet
- 'Torture Memos' Author John Yoo Thinks Trump Has Gone Too Far -- Yahoo News
- Starbucks Has Become A Target of Trump-Loving Conservatives--And That's Great News For The Brand -- Yahoo News
- The United States Is Innocent And Has Never Killed Anyone -- Counterpunch
- Israel Passes Law Legalizing Thousands Of Settlement Homes -- Yahoo News
- After I Lived In Norway, America Felt Backward -- The Nation
- Trump Claims Media Not Reporting Terrorist Attacks -- Yahoo News
- 'Calexit' Would Be A Disaster For Progressive Values -- Los Angeles Times
- Martellus Bennett Says He Won't Visit White House For Super Bowl Honor -- Huffington Post
- Beyond The Parachute: Newsrooms Rethink Centralized Model -- Columbia Journalism Review
- Kremlin Says It Wants Apology From Fox News Over Putin Comments -- Reuters
- Young Jews And Arabs From Israel Join Forces To Help Syrian Refugees -- Haaretz
- California And President Trump Are Going To War With Each Other -- Washington Post
- Trump On Immigration Power: I Can Do Whatever I Want -- Bloomberg
- Trump Quips He'd 'Destroy' Texas Lawmaker Who Irked Sheriff -- Bloomberg
- Open Internet Advocates Prepare For New Battle Over Net Neutrality -- Waging Nonviolence
- Love In Action--The Life, Work And Death Of Sister Maura Clarke -- Waging Nonviolence
- White House List Of Supposedly Underreported Terror Attacks Includes Orlando, San Bernardino And Paris -- Yahoo News
- Flying Home From Abroad, A Border Agent Stopped And Questioned Me ... About My Work For The ACLU -- ACLU
- Jeff Merkley Defies Senate Republican Leader By Reading Coretta Scott King's Words On The Floor Of Congress -- Williamette Week
- The Future Of NOAA, The World's Largest Repository Of Climate Data, Was Put In The Hands Of A Climate-Change Denier -- Quartz
- Republican Congressman Says White Terrorists Are Different -- Think Progress
- Trump Rips Appeals Court And Says Even 'A Bad Student In High School' Would Support His Travel Ban -- Yahoo News
- Canada Tackles "Systemic Overuse" Of Solitary Confinement -- Truthout
- Trump Makes False Statement About U.S. Murder Rate To Sheriff's Group -- Washington Post
- Baltimore Offers Drug Users, Prostitutes Treatment Rather Than Jail Time -- RT
- In Trump's World Where Money Talks, Saudi Arabia Gets A Free Pass -- ZNet
- Yemen Removes Blanket Approval After Trump's Botched Raid -- ZNet
- Donald Trump's Arbitrary, Cruel Ban On Refugees From Muslim Countries Sets A Chilling Precedent -- ZNet
- Bernie Sanders Reads Coretta Scott King's Letter On The Senate Floor, Calls GOP Silencing Elizabeth Warren 'Incomprehensible' -- Yahoo News
- Gorsuch Calls Trump's Comments On Judiciary 'Disheartening' -- Yahoo News
- 'Buh-Bye' Wells Fargo: Seattle Pulls Funds Over DAPL -- Indian Country Media Network
- Canadian Woman Denied Entry To U.S. After Muslim Prayers Found On Her Phone -- CBC Radio
- Which Countries Have Nuclear Weapons And How Big Their Arsenals Are -- New York Times
- Steve Bannon Believes The Apocalypse Is Coming And War Is Inevitable -- Huffington Post
- OutCry After Elizabeth Warren Is Silenced For Criticizing Jeff Sessions -- Yahoo News
- Kellyanne Conway Boosts Ivanka Trump's Products On TV -- Time
- House Oversight Committee Asks For Review Of Conway's Endorsement Of Ivanka Trump Brand -- Yahoo News
- 2 Cities To Pull More Than $3 Billion From Wells Fargo Over Dakota Access Pipeline -- NPR
- Republican State Lawmakers Push For Restrictions On Voting -- Yahoo News
- After 'Night Of Sheer Terror,' Mom Turned To McDonald's Worker For Help -- USA Today
- Putin And Trump Could Be On The Same Side In This Troubling New World Order -- Guardian
- Syria's Assad Rejects Trump's Call For 'Safe-Zones' -- Yahoo News
- We Need To Trust Refugees: USS Cole Commander -- USA Today
- Saudi Arabia: Beheadings Reach Highest Level In Two Decades -- Guardian
- Have The Syrian Kurds Committed War Crimes? -- The Nation
- In Call With Putin, Trump Denounces Obama-Era Nuclear Arms Treaty---Sources -- Reuters
- House Republicans Just Voted To Eliminate The Only Federal Agency That Makes Sure Voting Machines Can't Be Hacked -- The Nation
- Ape Depictions Continue Long Legacy Of Whites Denying Blacks People's Humanity To White Supremacy -- Atlanta Black Star
- Trump's Deportation Squads Just Arrested Hundreds In Six States -- Occupy Democrats
- Most Donald Trump Supporters Think The 'Bowling Green Massacre' Is Real -- Independent
- What Are U.S. Forces Doing In Yemen In The First Place -- The Atlantic
- China Widens Wind Power Lead Over U.S., World With Another 23 GW -- Bloomberg
- Election Commissioner To Trump: Show Evidence Of Voter Fraud -- The Hill
Protest News
- Event Featuring Jordan Peterson, Ezra Levant Shut Down Following Protests -- The Varsity
- About 20 Rabbis Arrested During Protest Over Trump's Travel Ban -- New York Times
Standing Rock Sioux - DAPL News
- Army Veterans Return To Standing Rock To Form Human Shield Against Police -- Guardian
- Veterans Unite For Second 'Deployment' Against Dakota Access Pipeline -- CNN
- DAPL Opponents Vow 'Fierce Resistance' As Army Corps Grants Last Easement -- Common Dreams
- Standing Rock Sioux Chairman: 'I Was Slighted. I Was Disrespected' -- Washington Post
- A Violation Of Tribal And Human Rights: Standing Rock Chair Slams Approval Of Dakota Access Pipeline -- Democracy Now
- From Immigration To The Dakota Access Pipeline, Seattle Takes The Lead In Resisting The Trump Agenda -- Yahoo News
- Tribe Files Legal Challenge To Stall Dakota Access Pipeline -- Yahoo News
- FBI Terrorism Taskforce Investigating Standing Rock Activists -- Guardian
Pick(s) Of The Litter
- The Phenomenon Of Right-Wing Populism -- ZCommentaries
- Afghanistan Civilian Casualties Reaches Record High -- Aljazeera
- Thousands Of Jews And Arabs March Together Against Racism And House Demolitions In Tel Aviv -- Haaretz
- Gaza's Cancer Patients: 'We Are Dying Slowly' -- Aljazeera
- Fukushima Nuclear Reactor Radiation At Highest Level Since 2011 Meltdown -- Gaurdian
- Amnesty: Up To 13,000 Hanged In Syria's 'Slaughterhouse' -- AP News
- How Corporate Dark Money Is Taking Power On Both Sides Of The Atlantic -- Guardian
- Stephen Hawking: Greed And Stupidity Are What Will End The Human Race -- The Intellectualist
- Dangerous Idiots: How The Liberal Media Elite Failed Working-Class Americans -- Guardian
- Ministers Refused To Stop Bomb Sales To Saudi Arabia Despite Being Told To Do So By Own Export Control Chief -- Independent
- Ordinary Americans Carried Out Inhumane Acts For Trump -- Baltimore Sun
- CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam As He Gassed Iran -- Foreign Policy
- Coretta Scott King's 1986 Statement To The Senate About Jeff Sessions -- New York Times
- Rights Groups Ask Court To Ban Israel From Taking Palestinian Land For Settlements -- Washington Post
- Exposing Myths Of Neoliberal Capitalism: And Interview With Ha-Joon Chang -- Truthout
- Republican Senators Vote To Formally Silence Elizabeth Warren -- New York Times
- Flooding Is The New Normal In Miami -- Yale Climate Connections
- N. Korea's Child Slavery Problem Is Even Worse Than Imagined -- New York Post
- Donald Trump Signs Executive Order Giving Police More Powers -- Independent
- Federal Appeals Court Rules 3 To 0 On Travel Ban -- Washington Post
- Germany Unveils Zero-Emissions Train That Only Emits Steam -- Independent
- Israel Bans Delivery Of Anaesthesia Gas To Gaza -- Middle East Monitor
- Refugees Are Already Vigorously Vetted. I Know Because I Vetted Them -- Washington Post
Friday, September 30, 2016
What A Difference A Lack Of Faith Makes
After the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, more than a few religiously conservative Christian leaders were making the case that our changing sexually mores were signalling the end of our society and culture. In fact, some actually said that a society and its culture could be judged primarily by what sexual behaviors it allowed and prohibited. Such an assessment was a nothing more than reductionism. It implied, against the wishes of those making the assessment, that they preferred a time when we were at war or when racism freely reigned as it did during our tragic Jim Crow era.
Pointing out the implications of their reductionism brought out strident denials. But those denials were based on a blindness, perhaps a deliberate one, to the logical connection between judging society and its culture almost exclusively by its sexual mores and those times when society's and culture's sexual mores were more restrained by Christian values.
Compare that thinking with Stephen Hawking's (no bio is needed) assessment of our society. It isn't sex that is destroying us according to Hawking. It is greed and stupidity. We could even call the Bible in as a witness in favor of Hawking's view. What causes conflicts? According to James 4:1-2, it is envy and greed (click here). Hawking's views are reported in a USA Today article (click here) that referenced a past interview between him and Larry King six years ago (click here).
Thus, according to Hawking, greed is driving us to pursue activities that are self-destructive from man-driven climate change to the creation of artificially intelligent machines that have the potential to turn on us. In the USA Today article, Hawking pointed out that not much has changed in our favor in the six years since his interview with King. Pollution is worse and an already overpopulated world has half a billion more people.
Thus, we have this interesting contrast between many religiously conservative Christian leaders and an atheistic intellectual on what is mankind's biggest threat. In one corner, there are those who say that our changing sexual mores will be our downfall. And they say that to the extent that they, however unintended, imply that times dominated by other problems are tolerable if not preferred. On the other hand, we have an atheist who claims that it is our greed and stupidity that is either driving our self-destructive tendencies or prevents us from effectively addressing serious problems like climate change and overpopulation. We should note that not many religiously conservative Christians accept that climate change and overpopulation are problems let alone threaten our existence.
The question have to ask is this: Why are the views between these two parties different? Why are our changing sexual mores so significant to these religious leaders that they would all but ignore greed as a grave threat to our future?
The leftist answer to those questions revolve around the notion that one purpose for our religious institutions is to provide indoctrination so that people fit into society and maintain the status quo as they are suppose to. At least, that is what one reads from the The Crisis Of Democracy, which was a report written for the Trilateral Commission. Thus, by focusing on changing sexual mores to the extent of excluding all other dangerous characteristics from consideration, these religious leaders are simply doing what they are suppose to do. For in so focusing on sexual issues, these leaders virtually give a free pass to all of us, but especially to those who manage and thus benefit the most from the status quo, to pursue our own prosperity regardless of what it costs others. And their lack of concern for scientifically well-documented problems like climate change and overpopulation eliminates reasons for them to upset the status quo.
Regardless of the reasons, we religiously conservative Christians are not forced to pick exclusive threats to our society's and the world's future. We've already seen how changing sexual mores have led to the spread of diseases and heartbreaks. In addition, they have contributed to the demise of many a family. At the same time, we see how greed, as well as ambition and arrogance, drives societies and states into pursuing unjust policies that cause much destruction and many to suffer greatly. We are not obligated into an exclusive-or choice between seeing changing sexual mores or greed as being great threats. Rather, we have life experiences and history to teach us that both can lead to our demise. In other words, if we are smart, we will learn from both our religiously conservative Christian leaders as well as atheists, such as Hawking, about what is not only hurting ourselves, but hurting others to the point of destroying much of what we have. For refusal to learn from either party mentioned here would be stupid.
Pointing out the implications of their reductionism brought out strident denials. But those denials were based on a blindness, perhaps a deliberate one, to the logical connection between judging society and its culture almost exclusively by its sexual mores and those times when society's and culture's sexual mores were more restrained by Christian values.
Compare that thinking with Stephen Hawking's (no bio is needed) assessment of our society. It isn't sex that is destroying us according to Hawking. It is greed and stupidity. We could even call the Bible in as a witness in favor of Hawking's view. What causes conflicts? According to James 4:1-2, it is envy and greed (click here). Hawking's views are reported in a USA Today article (click here) that referenced a past interview between him and Larry King six years ago (click here).
Thus, according to Hawking, greed is driving us to pursue activities that are self-destructive from man-driven climate change to the creation of artificially intelligent machines that have the potential to turn on us. In the USA Today article, Hawking pointed out that not much has changed in our favor in the six years since his interview with King. Pollution is worse and an already overpopulated world has half a billion more people.
Thus, we have this interesting contrast between many religiously conservative Christian leaders and an atheistic intellectual on what is mankind's biggest threat. In one corner, there are those who say that our changing sexual mores will be our downfall. And they say that to the extent that they, however unintended, imply that times dominated by other problems are tolerable if not preferred. On the other hand, we have an atheist who claims that it is our greed and stupidity that is either driving our self-destructive tendencies or prevents us from effectively addressing serious problems like climate change and overpopulation. We should note that not many religiously conservative Christians accept that climate change and overpopulation are problems let alone threaten our existence.
The question have to ask is this: Why are the views between these two parties different? Why are our changing sexual mores so significant to these religious leaders that they would all but ignore greed as a grave threat to our future?
The leftist answer to those questions revolve around the notion that one purpose for our religious institutions is to provide indoctrination so that people fit into society and maintain the status quo as they are suppose to. At least, that is what one reads from the The Crisis Of Democracy, which was a report written for the Trilateral Commission. Thus, by focusing on changing sexual mores to the extent of excluding all other dangerous characteristics from consideration, these religious leaders are simply doing what they are suppose to do. For in so focusing on sexual issues, these leaders virtually give a free pass to all of us, but especially to those who manage and thus benefit the most from the status quo, to pursue our own prosperity regardless of what it costs others. And their lack of concern for scientifically well-documented problems like climate change and overpopulation eliminates reasons for them to upset the status quo.
Regardless of the reasons, we religiously conservative Christians are not forced to pick exclusive threats to our society's and the world's future. We've already seen how changing sexual mores have led to the spread of diseases and heartbreaks. In addition, they have contributed to the demise of many a family. At the same time, we see how greed, as well as ambition and arrogance, drives societies and states into pursuing unjust policies that cause much destruction and many to suffer greatly. We are not obligated into an exclusive-or choice between seeing changing sexual mores or greed as being great threats. Rather, we have life experiences and history to teach us that both can lead to our demise. In other words, if we are smart, we will learn from both our religiously conservative Christian leaders as well as atheists, such as Hawking, about what is not only hurting ourselves, but hurting others to the point of destroying much of what we have. For refusal to learn from either party mentioned here would be stupid.
Monday, August 24, 2015
ONIM For August 24, 2015
Christian News
World News
Pick(s) Of The Litter
- What's Actually Happening With LGBT Catholics In Philadelphia -- Christian Today (UK)
- Families To Sue Church Deacon Over Murder During Northern Ireland Troubles -- Christian Today(UK)
- US Baptists At War Over Gay Marriage And Ordination -- Christian Today (UK)
- One In Three Americans Say Divorce Is Still A Sin In Cases Of Abuse -- Christianity Today
- Augustines For The 21st Century -- Christianity Today
- 5 Middle East Churches That Could Cease To Exist If Islamic State Influence Continues To Spread -- The Christian Post
- Thousands Of Americans Protest Against Planned Parenthood At Over 300 Clinics In All 50 States -- The Christian Post
- Why The Pope Matters -- Huffington Post
World News
- Solving Prostitution -- The Washington Post
- PSL Statement On The Sanders Campaign -- Liberation
- Amnesty International: Protecting The 'Human Rights' Of Johns, Pimps And Human Traffickers -- Truthdig
- Trump: Deny Citizenship To Babies Of People Illegally In US -- Yahoo News
- Why Public Transportation Is So Limited In The United States -- Truthout
- Ted Cruz Must Show His Naturalization Papers To Keep His Senate Seat -- Examiner
- U.S. Wages Have Fallen Every Quarter Of The 'Recovery' -- Sprott Money
- Paul Krugman: GOP Candidates Promise Government By The 1 Percent, For The 1 Percent -- Salon
- Forest Service Official Who Let Nestle Drain California Water Now Works For Them -- AntiMedia
- Toll At 112 In Aftermath Of China Blast; Nearly 100 Missing -- NPR
- Fears Of Cyanide Pollution Rise After Tianjin Blasts -- Truthdig
- Black Labor Organizers Urge AFL-CIO To Reexamine Its Ties To The Police -- Truthout
- Oath Keepers To Arm 50 Black Protesters In Ferguson With AR-15's For Epic Rights Flexing March -- Mint Press News
- Man Was Worked To Death On 14-Hour Shift: Pennsylvania Court -- Yahoo News
- Woman Fined For Facebook Pic Of Police Car In Disabled Spot -- Yahoo News
- Republican Party Doesn't Want To Believe Its Voters Agree With Trump. But They Do -- Vox
- Black Lives Matter Releases Video Of Closed-Door Meeting With Hillary Clinton -- Huffington Post
- Greed Dies Hard In A Poisoned Land -- Truthout
- The Town That Decided To Send All Its Kids To College -- The Atlantic
- Video: Israeli Lobby Has Destroyed The Political Careers Of Israel's Critics -- Mint Press News
- The Left Has Lost Its Way -- Truthdig
- Here's Where Every Presidential Candidate Stands On Keystone--Except Hillary Clinton -- Grist
- Pinochet's Right-Hand Man Commits Suicide After Conviction -- Telesur TV
- Chomsky: Israel 'Much Worse' Than SA's Apartheid -- Days Of Palestine
- Donald Trump's Appalling Reaction To A Hate Crime Committed In His Name -- Vox
- Former President Jimmy Carter Says Cancer Has Spread To His Brain -- The Washington Post
- New York Prison Guards Accused Of Brutally Killing Prisoner, Covering Up Death -- Truthout
- Training Officers To Shoot First, And He Will Answer Questions Later -- The New York Times
- Earth In July Was Hottest Month On Record -- Yahoo News
- Picking Apart One Of The Biggest Lies In American Politics: 'Free Trade' -- Alternet
- Why Ben Carson Got It Wrong -- Reformed African American Network
- The Myth Of Chinese Capitalism -- The Greenville Post
- Compton Students Hold Walkout, Protest School Conditions -- ABC7 News
- Assange Reveals That The West Is Behind ISIS And Ukraine Crisis And Israel Behind Hamas -- Anonymous
- Pork Industry Admits Using Muscle Stimulant Ractopamine -- Truthout
- The Economics Of Exploitation: Indigenous Peoples And The Impact Of Resource Extraction -- Counterpunch
- President Obama's Department Of Injustice -- The New York Times
Pick(s) Of The Litter
- John Oliver Calls Out Televangelists Who Exploit Religion To Make Millions -- Mother Jones
- Jimmy Carter: There Is Zero Chance For The Two-State Solution -- Prospect
- Leading Israeli Journalist Says Israel Is An Apartheid State -- Mondoweiss
- 4 Million Muslims Killed In Western Wars: Should We Call It Genocide -- Mint Press News
- How Many San Francisco Cops Does It Take To Subdue A Black Guy With A Prosthetic Leg? -- Common Dreams
- California Is On Fire. This Map Shows Where -- Mother Jones
- War Begets War Refugees: The Moral Bankruptcy of Italy And NATO -- Foreign Policy Journal
- Clinical Psychologist Explains How Ayn Rand Helped Turn The US Into A Greedy And Selfish Nation -- RawStory
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
Democracy's Enemies
This blogpost is an attempt to restate and then go beyond what was said in last Tuesday's, December 9 post (click here). In that post this blog made a distinction between democracy as a state of being for society from democracy being a description of a set of political processes followed by the government. In the former, a democracy is where all of the people in society rule. There is an equality implied in this definition. For if only certain groups rule, then not all of the people can participate in the making of society's rules.
In the latter definition, democracy is where people vote for or against certain legislation as well as for the candidates of their choice. Here, democracy isn't describing an end result, but a process that is practiced by its members.
Now we should note that we can't have a democracy in terms of the state of being for a society without democratic processes. But the converse is not true. The employment of democratic processes by a political structure does not guarantee that all of the people will have an equal place in society. We only need to look at our own nation, state, city, and so forth for proof.
Thus, if we are seeking a democratic state of being for society, not only will we use democratic processes to press our own demands, we will use them to protect the rights and status of others, especially those who are battling marginalization. And this is where our nation's notion and practice of democracy are most deficient. While too many of us have seen democracy as a set of tools to use to raise our own position, we have forgotten our responsibilities and obligations to others. Why is this the case?
We have 3 personal motivations that work against wanting a democracy where everybody shares society as equals. These motivations are a sense of entitlement, ambition, and greed. We should note that we can work against democracy for more than one reason--there is no quota here.
A sense of entitlement comes into play when a group feels that it has a right to dominate over other groups. This domination has been based on racial differences, economic class differences, ideological differences, and delusions of one's own moral superiority. For Christians, the most recent exhibition of our desire to share society with others as being their superiors is seen in the same-sex marriage debate. After all, not only do we view ourselves as being morally superior to homosexuals, by opposing same-sex marriage, we believe that we are protecting society from sliding down the slippery slope of sexual moral decay. This is why we have opposed the "judicial activism" that has reversed democratically decided legislation banning same-sex marriage. And in many places where we have lost the court battle, we have pushed for Jim Crow type laws that would allow us to stigmatize homosexuals by refusing to provide goods and services to either them or their ceremonies.
This refusal to share society with homosexuals as equals is an indicator that our claims to being spiritually superior are delusional. Romans 3:9 proves our claims to be false.
The above shows an example of entitlement. Many of us Christians believe that we have not only the right definition of marriage, we have the necessary definition for the benefit of the nation. Thus, we feel justified in pushing our agenda at the expense of equality for homosexuals.
And though there are other examples of where other groups feel entitled to push to the margins those to whom they feel superior, the striving of Conservative Christians to maintain a privileged position in society for themselves and pushing of homosexuals to the margins of society provides the epitome of one group feeling entitled to dominate over another group. The attitude of many of us Conservative Christians regarding same-sex marriage is that not only are we are right and they are wrong, we are protecting society from hurting itself. Therefore we have the right, and even responsibility, to prohibit homosexuals from enjoying what we enjoy, being married to the person of their choice. Such an approach does not work for a democratic state of being in society.
Another personal motivation that works against a democratic society is ambition. This ambition could be paired with a sense of entitlement or could consist solely of the desire to conquer. To give an example, I was talking to one group about my experiences at Occupy Wall Street and how we used consensus as a democratic process in reaching decisions. One of the women in the group strongly disagreed with me. Why did she disagree? It was because she lived in poverty and was powerless and thus her goal was to gain as much power as she could so she control society as much as possible. This is an example of ambition. It is the desire to conquer and reign over others. And what was sad in this case was that the implications of this person winning control over others in society did not stir any kind of reaction from the rest of the group.
And when we look at our political landscape, because of the ambitions of the people in the two major political parties, we find that many of the people we vote for look at winning elections as a way to get their way in politics and government. Some do this for the glory--that is for the sense of significance that comes from winning and getting some kind or recognition from others. To them, it is merely a competition, another game to win. Others simply want to rule and dominate over the rest because they felt that it was their turn. In either case, ambition drove their striving to win. And perhaps, the democracy label from our democratic processes eased any misgivings over the new control over others which they obtained. Such is the problem with reducing democracy to the set of political processes that involve elections. For we should note that such people are not easy to work or negotiate with.
The final personal motivation that works against a democratic society is greed. With greed, we are focused on the goods and wealth we can obtain and we start to care less and less about the welfare and equality of others because we look at those others as objects. If these objects can help us get wealthy, we feign respect for them in order to use them. If they cannot help us get rich, we count them as disposable. When companies offshore their work in order to maximize profits for shareholders, the welfare of the employees who lose their jobs is not considered. In fact, these employees have no voice in publicly owned companies because the only ones whose voice is heard there are those who own stock and the executives. All others can be let go at a moment's notice.
And if we think that this only happens in business, we need to look again. Bill after bill, in this country, are written by lobbyists whose chief concern is how much revenue their employers can gain from their work. No one else matters. That is why the chief beneficiaries of Obamacare are Health Insurance companies and corporate medical facilities. Energy companies benefit from relaxed environmental regulations. The big banks and other financial sector companies have benefited from relaxed regulations in the past and from the lack of criminal prosecutions even when some of our financial institutions laundered drug money today. And how many companies benefit from our foreign policies and the use of our military.
Martin Luther King Jr described our society as being a 'thing-oriented' oriented society. What he meant was that gadgets, profits, and property rights were counted as more important than people and taking care of them. And those who are so thing-oriented will be too concerned with the latest technology, making the most money, and using property rights to excuse themselves from responsibilities to care about whether all have an equal place in society. Such an equal place does not imply that everyone would have the same income level. Rather, an equal place in society means that the welfare of all is counted as equally important so that none are either exploited or marginalized.
We could learn what a democratic state of being for society means by studying the decision making processes used at Occupy Wall Street. It isn't that their way of making decisions was without flaw or that it wouldn't have to be modified for society at large. But the basic aim in how Occupy made decisions protected the equal status of those in the group. One block could table a proposal. Such a process prevents a tyranny of the majority. But more importantly, it caused people to listen to others who had different concerns and so proposals and procedures received revision after revision until there were no blocks.
Here, it isn't the exact procedures that we should carry over from Occupy to society that is important. It isn't the methods that we can learn from, it is the intention and the spirit that existed there that we would do well to imitate. For there, there was a sincere desire to craft statements that everyone could agree with. Everyone was listened to. Yes, Occupy Wall Street did not carry out their decision making processes perfectly. But the idea that we legislated through cooperation and listening rather than competing for support made a more democratic state of being for the Occupy encampments.
All of the above points to a dilemma for America. For the values from our economic system which are most highly valued, greed and competitiveness, are two traits that work against creating a democratic state of being for society. Thus, if we want an equality that comes from a true democracy, we have a choice to make.
In the latter definition, democracy is where people vote for or against certain legislation as well as for the candidates of their choice. Here, democracy isn't describing an end result, but a process that is practiced by its members.
Now we should note that we can't have a democracy in terms of the state of being for a society without democratic processes. But the converse is not true. The employment of democratic processes by a political structure does not guarantee that all of the people will have an equal place in society. We only need to look at our own nation, state, city, and so forth for proof.
Thus, if we are seeking a democratic state of being for society, not only will we use democratic processes to press our own demands, we will use them to protect the rights and status of others, especially those who are battling marginalization. And this is where our nation's notion and practice of democracy are most deficient. While too many of us have seen democracy as a set of tools to use to raise our own position, we have forgotten our responsibilities and obligations to others. Why is this the case?
We have 3 personal motivations that work against wanting a democracy where everybody shares society as equals. These motivations are a sense of entitlement, ambition, and greed. We should note that we can work against democracy for more than one reason--there is no quota here.
A sense of entitlement comes into play when a group feels that it has a right to dominate over other groups. This domination has been based on racial differences, economic class differences, ideological differences, and delusions of one's own moral superiority. For Christians, the most recent exhibition of our desire to share society with others as being their superiors is seen in the same-sex marriage debate. After all, not only do we view ourselves as being morally superior to homosexuals, by opposing same-sex marriage, we believe that we are protecting society from sliding down the slippery slope of sexual moral decay. This is why we have opposed the "judicial activism" that has reversed democratically decided legislation banning same-sex marriage. And in many places where we have lost the court battle, we have pushed for Jim Crow type laws that would allow us to stigmatize homosexuals by refusing to provide goods and services to either them or their ceremonies.
This refusal to share society with homosexuals as equals is an indicator that our claims to being spiritually superior are delusional. Romans 3:9 proves our claims to be false.
The above shows an example of entitlement. Many of us Christians believe that we have not only the right definition of marriage, we have the necessary definition for the benefit of the nation. Thus, we feel justified in pushing our agenda at the expense of equality for homosexuals.
And though there are other examples of where other groups feel entitled to push to the margins those to whom they feel superior, the striving of Conservative Christians to maintain a privileged position in society for themselves and pushing of homosexuals to the margins of society provides the epitome of one group feeling entitled to dominate over another group. The attitude of many of us Conservative Christians regarding same-sex marriage is that not only are we are right and they are wrong, we are protecting society from hurting itself. Therefore we have the right, and even responsibility, to prohibit homosexuals from enjoying what we enjoy, being married to the person of their choice. Such an approach does not work for a democratic state of being in society.
Another personal motivation that works against a democratic society is ambition. This ambition could be paired with a sense of entitlement or could consist solely of the desire to conquer. To give an example, I was talking to one group about my experiences at Occupy Wall Street and how we used consensus as a democratic process in reaching decisions. One of the women in the group strongly disagreed with me. Why did she disagree? It was because she lived in poverty and was powerless and thus her goal was to gain as much power as she could so she control society as much as possible. This is an example of ambition. It is the desire to conquer and reign over others. And what was sad in this case was that the implications of this person winning control over others in society did not stir any kind of reaction from the rest of the group.
And when we look at our political landscape, because of the ambitions of the people in the two major political parties, we find that many of the people we vote for look at winning elections as a way to get their way in politics and government. Some do this for the glory--that is for the sense of significance that comes from winning and getting some kind or recognition from others. To them, it is merely a competition, another game to win. Others simply want to rule and dominate over the rest because they felt that it was their turn. In either case, ambition drove their striving to win. And perhaps, the democracy label from our democratic processes eased any misgivings over the new control over others which they obtained. Such is the problem with reducing democracy to the set of political processes that involve elections. For we should note that such people are not easy to work or negotiate with.
The final personal motivation that works against a democratic society is greed. With greed, we are focused on the goods and wealth we can obtain and we start to care less and less about the welfare and equality of others because we look at those others as objects. If these objects can help us get wealthy, we feign respect for them in order to use them. If they cannot help us get rich, we count them as disposable. When companies offshore their work in order to maximize profits for shareholders, the welfare of the employees who lose their jobs is not considered. In fact, these employees have no voice in publicly owned companies because the only ones whose voice is heard there are those who own stock and the executives. All others can be let go at a moment's notice.
And if we think that this only happens in business, we need to look again. Bill after bill, in this country, are written by lobbyists whose chief concern is how much revenue their employers can gain from their work. No one else matters. That is why the chief beneficiaries of Obamacare are Health Insurance companies and corporate medical facilities. Energy companies benefit from relaxed environmental regulations. The big banks and other financial sector companies have benefited from relaxed regulations in the past and from the lack of criminal prosecutions even when some of our financial institutions laundered drug money today. And how many companies benefit from our foreign policies and the use of our military.
Martin Luther King Jr described our society as being a 'thing-oriented' oriented society. What he meant was that gadgets, profits, and property rights were counted as more important than people and taking care of them. And those who are so thing-oriented will be too concerned with the latest technology, making the most money, and using property rights to excuse themselves from responsibilities to care about whether all have an equal place in society. Such an equal place does not imply that everyone would have the same income level. Rather, an equal place in society means that the welfare of all is counted as equally important so that none are either exploited or marginalized.
We could learn what a democratic state of being for society means by studying the decision making processes used at Occupy Wall Street. It isn't that their way of making decisions was without flaw or that it wouldn't have to be modified for society at large. But the basic aim in how Occupy made decisions protected the equal status of those in the group. One block could table a proposal. Such a process prevents a tyranny of the majority. But more importantly, it caused people to listen to others who had different concerns and so proposals and procedures received revision after revision until there were no blocks.
Here, it isn't the exact procedures that we should carry over from Occupy to society that is important. It isn't the methods that we can learn from, it is the intention and the spirit that existed there that we would do well to imitate. For there, there was a sincere desire to craft statements that everyone could agree with. Everyone was listened to. Yes, Occupy Wall Street did not carry out their decision making processes perfectly. But the idea that we legislated through cooperation and listening rather than competing for support made a more democratic state of being for the Occupy encampments.
All of the above points to a dilemma for America. For the values from our economic system which are most highly valued, greed and competitiveness, are two traits that work against creating a democratic state of being for society. Thus, if we want an equality that comes from a true democracy, we have a choice to make.
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
What Drives Our Denial
Perhaps the best way to summarize Western Civilization with its multiple imperialisms is to read Bartolomé De La Casas as he described the behavior of many Spaniards on the island of Hispaniola after Columbus discovered the land. He stated that the reason for the murderous behavior of the Christians on the island was to, as quickly as possible, garner for themselves as much of an unmerited amount of wealth as possible.1
This description is not only a shoe that fits the feet of the Spaniards who took possession of the islands in the Caribbean, and it not only fits the feet of all Europeans who engaged in imperial behavior by conquering land and people for their king or themselves, it fits the behavior of today's Western nations.
For example, think about one of the most often used defenses for American Capitalism. We are told that it has brought about the greatest wealth in the history of the world. And what is implied by such a declaration is that the argument is over and there is no need to consider any other factors. Thus, we are not to ask at whose expense did our riches come. We are not told about the interventions that installed proxy governments nor are we told about the trade agreements that have caused farmers from other countries to go out of business while trying to compete with our subsidized agribusinesses. And though we hear about the sweatshop labor that manufactures many of the trinkets which we find so captivating, we become personally disconnected from their plight.
Or we could look at how Americans generally regard the Global Warming debate. For if we took the global warming warnings seriously, then we would have to significantly change our lifestyles. We could no longer let profit and consumption reign as king and queen of our economy. Those with wealth, and this would include many from the Middle Class, would have to scale back their lifestyle and, to prevent those who already live in poverty from doing the same, would have to share with others. In fact, our whole country would have to cut back on consumption and even some production in order to give people from poorer countries a chance to improve their lives.
But such is not the American Dream. For the American Dream consists of accumulating as much wealth for oneself as one can so that one can build their own "fantasy island." On that island, luxuries isolate one from the outside world. For the American Dream is about individual success living for oneself. So accepting the warnings about Global Warming will involve giving up on a significant part of the American Dream. Thus, accepting the Global Warming warnings will result in recognizing the welfare of others and making sacrifices for them rather than living just for ourselves. For it means that we buy less for ourselves and try to ensure that others will have more.
Life is simpler when one only has to worry about oneself. And that same life can seem more inviting when it is about accumulating experiences and riches. So when ugly truths about the exploitation of others and environmental problems start to force their way into our field of vision, we see them as a threat to our own status quo and peace of mind. We view these truths as telling us that the party is over and it is now time to get serious. But the party beckons us to stay. We have many more pleasures to experience, the party tells us. And so what we decide to do comes down whether we are willing to say to ourselves, "enough is enough." We have to choose between getting more and settling for less so others can have more. Thus, this choice of ours determines what we will be willing to believe.
References
This description is not only a shoe that fits the feet of the Spaniards who took possession of the islands in the Caribbean, and it not only fits the feet of all Europeans who engaged in imperial behavior by conquering land and people for their king or themselves, it fits the behavior of today's Western nations.
For example, think about one of the most often used defenses for American Capitalism. We are told that it has brought about the greatest wealth in the history of the world. And what is implied by such a declaration is that the argument is over and there is no need to consider any other factors. Thus, we are not to ask at whose expense did our riches come. We are not told about the interventions that installed proxy governments nor are we told about the trade agreements that have caused farmers from other countries to go out of business while trying to compete with our subsidized agribusinesses. And though we hear about the sweatshop labor that manufactures many of the trinkets which we find so captivating, we become personally disconnected from their plight.
Or we could look at how Americans generally regard the Global Warming debate. For if we took the global warming warnings seriously, then we would have to significantly change our lifestyles. We could no longer let profit and consumption reign as king and queen of our economy. Those with wealth, and this would include many from the Middle Class, would have to scale back their lifestyle and, to prevent those who already live in poverty from doing the same, would have to share with others. In fact, our whole country would have to cut back on consumption and even some production in order to give people from poorer countries a chance to improve their lives.
But such is not the American Dream. For the American Dream consists of accumulating as much wealth for oneself as one can so that one can build their own "fantasy island." On that island, luxuries isolate one from the outside world. For the American Dream is about individual success living for oneself. So accepting the warnings about Global Warming will involve giving up on a significant part of the American Dream. Thus, accepting the Global Warming warnings will result in recognizing the welfare of others and making sacrifices for them rather than living just for ourselves. For it means that we buy less for ourselves and try to ensure that others will have more.
Life is simpler when one only has to worry about oneself. And that same life can seem more inviting when it is about accumulating experiences and riches. So when ugly truths about the exploitation of others and environmental problems start to force their way into our field of vision, we see them as a threat to our own status quo and peace of mind. We view these truths as telling us that the party is over and it is now time to get serious. But the party beckons us to stay. We have many more pleasures to experience, the party tells us. And so what we decide to do comes down whether we are willing to say to ourselves, "enough is enough." We have to choose between getting more and settling for less so others can have more. Thus, this choice of ours determines what we will be willing to believe.
References
- The Devastation Of The Indies; A Brief Account (1542) by Bartolomé De La Casas, printed in Voices Of A People's History Of The United States, edited by Howard Zinn and Anthony Arnove, pg 37
or for an exact quote, click this video link
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Jacoby Ellsbury And The Fast Food Workers' Plight
Does Jacoby Ellsbury even have a clue? Does he know that he is a role model? And does he know for whom he is a role model?
Not too long ago, Jacoby Elssbury became an ex-Red Sox by signing on with the evil empire during MLB's third season--the third season is what I call the time of signing free agents. Ellsbury signed a 7 year contract for over $150 million dollars where he will earn just over $21 million per year. In other words, Ellsbury's contract negotiations were intended for him to grab as much as he could.
Ellsbury getting as much as he could is celebrated by the Free Market. But the problem that exists is when everybody tries to do the same. The end result is not just that some will get what they want while others will not, some may not even get what they need. And the deprivation of this last group hardly raises an eyebrow in society. Certainly, that is not the problem with those playing in the Major Leagues, but is the problem in real life.
So Ellsbury has become a role model for those who grab for everything with no regrets. And he is such a role model first for those who are at the top of their game regardless of the occupation. Business executives, especially CEOs, who negotiate for deals where they can get as much as they can out of the company in exchange for the promise of a positive performance follow Ellsbury's example. He becomes a role model for shareholders who demand that, as owners of a business, they should receive as much as they can from their businesses. And this goes so on down the line until what we see are laborers, who actually create the wealth with their work, are rewarded the least because of what is left of the pie. Of course there are those who are worst off than the laborers, these are the unemployed who are most destitute.
The fast-food workers I marched with on December 5th, for example, find that the only slice of the pie that is left for them is minimally mandated by law, it is $7.25/hr. This is regardless of the fact that the demographics of the employees show that we are dealing with much more than teenagers. And there are many conservatives who not only oppose the workers' demands, they oppose the minimum wage in principle and are thus are willing for the workers to get even a smaller piece of the pie than they do now.
We should note that workers's demands for good pay and just conditions have been opposed before. In fact, some conservatives blame the demise of some of America's past industries on unions and their ability to get for their members what they could. Likewise, some conservatives now blame the fast food workers' demand for higher pay on today's 'entitlement culture' and this is despite the fact that the raise these workers are asking for is not a handout for do nothing but a recognition for work being done. So with some, grabbing all one can get for oneself is celebrated while, for others, it is scorned. That means that grabbing whatever one can for oneself is a privilege reserved for those who are closer to the top and a stigma for the rest.
So we see two problems here. First, when those at the top try to grab as much as they can, they tend not to leave enough for everybody else. Second, we see a double standard in play. And the acceptability of grabbing for everything one can is inversely related to one's need.
But Ellsbury is not just a role model for those at the top who embrace greed, he is one of many role models for those who want to be at the top but are currently not there. His example has given them something to shoot for. But this causes a dilemma because until a person is counted as privileged, grabbing as much as one can for oneself brings shame.
The more people there are who grab for everything they can for themselves, the more self-destructive society becomes. And as we become self-destructive, the most vulnerable of us are the first to go. And as more of us are engulfed in this grabbing ethic, we become dead to the suffering of those below us. We might toss a few coins to the most vulnerable for the sake of conscience or self-image, but we won't join them in their struggle. We won't do that because we are too preoccupied to feel their pain. We are too preoccupied with either supporting the status quo or with being too busy doing our own grabbing in a dog-eat-dog world.
The question we have to ask about this ethic of our grabbing for everything we can is this, if it is right for one person to do it, then why isn't it right for everybody? The answer, of course, is if all of us do it, we will destroy others first and then ourselves. So why should we celebrate when even one person practices this ethic?
Not too long ago, Jacoby Elssbury became an ex-Red Sox by signing on with the evil empire during MLB's third season--the third season is what I call the time of signing free agents. Ellsbury signed a 7 year contract for over $150 million dollars where he will earn just over $21 million per year. In other words, Ellsbury's contract negotiations were intended for him to grab as much as he could.
Ellsbury getting as much as he could is celebrated by the Free Market. But the problem that exists is when everybody tries to do the same. The end result is not just that some will get what they want while others will not, some may not even get what they need. And the deprivation of this last group hardly raises an eyebrow in society. Certainly, that is not the problem with those playing in the Major Leagues, but is the problem in real life.
So Ellsbury has become a role model for those who grab for everything with no regrets. And he is such a role model first for those who are at the top of their game regardless of the occupation. Business executives, especially CEOs, who negotiate for deals where they can get as much as they can out of the company in exchange for the promise of a positive performance follow Ellsbury's example. He becomes a role model for shareholders who demand that, as owners of a business, they should receive as much as they can from their businesses. And this goes so on down the line until what we see are laborers, who actually create the wealth with their work, are rewarded the least because of what is left of the pie. Of course there are those who are worst off than the laborers, these are the unemployed who are most destitute.
The fast-food workers I marched with on December 5th, for example, find that the only slice of the pie that is left for them is minimally mandated by law, it is $7.25/hr. This is regardless of the fact that the demographics of the employees show that we are dealing with much more than teenagers. And there are many conservatives who not only oppose the workers' demands, they oppose the minimum wage in principle and are thus are willing for the workers to get even a smaller piece of the pie than they do now.
We should note that workers's demands for good pay and just conditions have been opposed before. In fact, some conservatives blame the demise of some of America's past industries on unions and their ability to get for their members what they could. Likewise, some conservatives now blame the fast food workers' demand for higher pay on today's 'entitlement culture' and this is despite the fact that the raise these workers are asking for is not a handout for do nothing but a recognition for work being done. So with some, grabbing all one can get for oneself is celebrated while, for others, it is scorned. That means that grabbing whatever one can for oneself is a privilege reserved for those who are closer to the top and a stigma for the rest.
So we see two problems here. First, when those at the top try to grab as much as they can, they tend not to leave enough for everybody else. Second, we see a double standard in play. And the acceptability of grabbing for everything one can is inversely related to one's need.
But Ellsbury is not just a role model for those at the top who embrace greed, he is one of many role models for those who want to be at the top but are currently not there. His example has given them something to shoot for. But this causes a dilemma because until a person is counted as privileged, grabbing as much as one can for oneself brings shame.
The more people there are who grab for everything they can for themselves, the more self-destructive society becomes. And as we become self-destructive, the most vulnerable of us are the first to go. And as more of us are engulfed in this grabbing ethic, we become dead to the suffering of those below us. We might toss a few coins to the most vulnerable for the sake of conscience or self-image, but we won't join them in their struggle. We won't do that because we are too preoccupied to feel their pain. We are too preoccupied with either supporting the status quo or with being too busy doing our own grabbing in a dog-eat-dog world.
The question we have to ask about this ethic of our grabbing for everything we can is this, if it is right for one person to do it, then why isn't it right for everybody? The answer, of course, is if all of us do it, we will destroy others first and then ourselves. So why should we celebrate when even one person practices this ethic?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)