Ethically Speaking was held 9/12 and was a great success! Plans are underway for future events and the details will be posted here on EthicalHouston and our our facebook: EthicalHouston page.
Speaker’s notes and hand-outs are available here.
If you would like to become involved in EthicalHouston and help plan its future events – please contact Franklin Olson. We welcome your support.
The Successful Life
What makes a successful life? Strong family…Close friends…Financial success…Spiritual resonance…Recognition by peers?
In this post-modern relativistic world of the 21st century, many quite well educated and knowledgeable people struggle with these, and similar questions, of what is right and what is wrong. Many are influenced by the dominant culture that often seems to imply that anything goes as long as you’re not caught.
Or, that dominant culture sets out criteria for success and happiness that often seems empty and can’t deliver the goods. Feasting on emptiness can lead to a hunger for more meaning. Many of these same people feel alienated from this kind of life, wanting to engage in meaningful relationships, work and community service. But they are only one person, they think.
Ethical Houston seeks to provide an ongoing forum where the young professional can share ideas, hopes and dreams, and develop relationships that provide the virtues of trust and loyalty through ethical and responsible thoughts, words and actions.
Join Ethical Houston for face to face seminars and virtual relationships promoting ethical business, professional and personal dealings among Houston young professionals.
Ethical Houston on Facebook
June 3, 2009
Ethical Tipping Points
Early in my business career my brother and I were commercial real estate developers. As in all phases of life, there were lessons that we learned. When you build a project such as an apartment project you go through a procedure to get it up and running. You have the plans drawn, you find financing, make a cost estimate and then buy out the project. In the years that we were building, Houston was in a tremendous building boom that often created a shortage of both materials and labor. This latter shortage was the one that was most problematic. The number of sub contractors available to bid on projects was limited even as we worked to bring the project in at the projected cost. And therein lay the problem. We often had to employ subs that we had never worked with and knew little about. In many cases, subs were somewhat itinerate in nature so we couldn’t do much of a check on them. At any rate, we would contract with them on an agreed price and proceed with the construction. But then the next shoe would drop. A few days into the subs work he would come back in and state that he was losing his “ass” on the job and needed to have more money. Our position was that he had made a deal and that we were going to stick with the agreement. After grumbling some, he would go off with us thinking that was the end of the issue. However, within a few days he and his crew would not show up. This created a problem with everyone else who depended on him to be at a certain point in the project. This made them angry and the whole project would slow, sometimes to a snails pace. Because we were financing the construction, it meant that every extra day that it took to complete the job cost us interest, not to mention pushing back the opening date of the project. Then we would send out compliance letters stating that if the sub did not staff the job adequately, that we would cancel the contract and withhold his retainage. After all, we had our ten page contract with him that gave us all sorts of power. We generally did not have to do this, in as much as that would delay the project more, while we went to court and looked for a replacement sub. So, we muddled through until completion. Unfortunately this scenario was not that uncommon, not just with us but with other contractors.
One day, I was having lunch with a friend of mine who was one of the largest and most successful apartment builders in Houston. He had built and owned over 5000 units in the Houston area. He was noted for being able to begin moving tenants into one of his large new projects within ninety days. This was almost unheard of and I asked him how he was able to get that kind of production. He allowed that he had good subs. So, how do you get and keep good subs I asked? His answer was simple. He said that he did a lot of work, but more importantly he paid them well and expected them to be on the job and to do good work. He stated that the time saved by being able to start moving tenants in quickly and being able to start getting cash flow and stopping the interest clock more than made up for the extra cost of labor.
As I reflect on this now, I realize that in addition to paying more, he also had a long standing relationship with these subs. He had worked with them for a number of years and not only did they work well with him but they also had a relationship with one another. There was a mutual trust between them. I’m sure they had a written contract and did the paper work required by the lenders and the legal statutes. But having iron clad contracts doesn’t always get the job done. My friend and his subs had made a covenant that went beyond the written documents.
It’s also about ethics and trust. In my case the ethical questions were two sided. From my side, the ethics question was, is it ethical to squeeze the sub to where he couldn’t make a profit? And from his standpoint, was it ethical for him to come back and try and play the “poor me” game. Looking back on those incidents, I’m not sure what I would do today. But I do know that sometimes ethics are two sided and that parties play destructive games that impede the resolution of problems. Additionally, there are tipping points to ethical situations. There are degrees of ethics and we don’t always know the boundaries associated with decisions. Even if one party has the power to dictate to another party is it ethical and does it make sense? I’ve been on both sides of these kinds of contractual issues and I know that at times it’s important to change the rules a bit in order to move forward.
Currently, our country is faced with the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Homeowners are defaulting and giving back their homes by the hundreds of thousands. And our politicians and pundits play the blame game. Congress is at fault, the lenders are at fault, or the homebuyer is at fault. But, some loans are being renegotiated in order to help the home buyer but to me even more importantly to keep someone in the home to keep it from deteriorating and losing more value and effecting the surrounding neighborhood. That’s a pay off for the lender. The point being in these two scenarios is that ethics are not always black and white. Situations change and rigid ethics don’t get the job done. Ethics are also about the self interest of the parties. Just because one party has the power over the other does it make it right to wield that power or does it make more sense to find an answer that creates a win-win situation?
2 comments February 7, 2010
Ethics of the Expedient
A friend and I were discussing ethics and he told me a story of when he was in high school. He was on the track team and one day after practice the boys on the track team found that the Coke machine was broken and that they were able to get Cokes out of the machine without paying. My friend along with a lot of the other track team members took Cokes. The next day the track coach found out about the incident and questioned all the boys as to whether they had taken Cokes. My friend was the only one to admit to taking a Coke. As a result of his confession he was kicked off the team for the rest of the year. As far as he remembers, he was the only one that was disciplined. Was this just? Should he have kept his mouth shut? Was there another way for the coach to handle the issue?
In game theory, there is a classic game called the Prisoners Dilemma. The scenario is as follows:
Two thieves are believed to have robbed. They are split up into separate rooms and given the chance to confess. The specified consequences are as follows. If one confesses and the other doesn’t the one that confesses gets off for his testimony while the other gets ten years. If both confess they each get a five year sentence. If neither confesses they get a one year sentence for possession of fire arms. It would seem that confessing would be the desired outcome except that he doesn’t know whether the other thief is confessing or not confessing.
In this scenario, it would be in both thieves self interest not to confess, even though they neither one know what the other will do. If they both do not confess, they will only receive a one year sentence. What my friend experienced is a variation of the Prisoners Dilemma. Unfortunately for him, he didn’t know what the consequences of a confession meant and he did not tell on others that he knew had also taken Cokes. He bore the whole consequence. What do you think would have happened to him and the track team if he had not confessed and no one else had confessed? My guess is that it would have resulted in a much lesser consequence for the whole team. Would the track coach have suspended the whole team for the season? I doubt it. Maybe harder workouts and some form of group consequences, but not as severe as what my friend experienced. In a sense he became the scapegoat. He did what he thought was right. I imagine that’s what he was taught.
In the last few years we’ve seen business persons, professionals, clergy and politicians go to jail for breaking laws or acting unethically. This is as it should be. But as a result of the actions of a few, those who are innocent are also implicated by association. New laws and regulations get passed or implemented to ensure that future infractions will be avoided. Intuitively though we know that those who will be unethical and unlawful will find ways to circumvent the law and go on doing whatever they deem to be in their interest.
The Prisoners Dilemma and other game theory games are based upon rational and mathematical constructs rather than what’s ethical or moral. Ethics and morals sometimes come into play in game theory but the games tend to be independently determined only by logic, reason, and mathematics. It brings to mind the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. He could have probably avoided crucifixion by “going over the hill”, so to speak which was a theme in the book and movie, The Last Temptation of Christ. Not only could he have avoided death, but he might have even been able to continue his ministry in some minor way. No matter what your belief is concerning the atonement, most Christians would agree that what happened on Calvary and at the tomb is a cornerstone of what we believe. The Romans and the Pharisees probably believed that by killing Jesus, this new radical movement would end. After all, all his disciples had deserted. Jesus bore the burden of death and defeat but showed us the power of God in the resurrection. And for centuries we have embraced this God of new beginnings and hope. We believe that the Kingdom exists both now and in the future.
In this hope and belief, we also realize that we are sometimes called to pick up our cross too, not just because we want to be martyrs but because that’s a price of God’s freedom. I don’t know the deeper motivation of my friend and the Coke machine incident. Whether it made an impact on his team mates, we’ll never know. But even if they thought he was a chump is not important. What is important is that he did what was right and suffered the consequences for the whole team, even when they abandoned him. As Christians, we’re called to risk doing what is right in spite of the consequences. That’s not always an easy thing to do, when we don’t know whether following ethical principles will make any difference.
Add comment February 1, 2010
Ethics and the Games People Play
Game theory is the study of strategic, interactive decision making among rational individuals. (Teaching Company, 2008) So, why do we want to consider games and game theory as it relates to ethics? Answer—because we all play games and most of these games have ethical consequences. Games are not just board games, or sports. They are at the focal point of our life together. And we begin with these games at a very early age. Take for example a child who wants a cookie before a meal. Her mother has told her that the rule is that she can’t have dessert before dinner and then only if she eats her vegetables. And the mother has told the child that if she breaks the rule that she will not be able to have dessert for three days. But the child really wants the cookie. So the small mind begins to weigh the payoff of getting a cookie before dinner thereby receiving the payoff of eating the cookie and either getting caught thereby suffering consequences or not getting caught thereby having it reinforced that sometimes you don’t get caught. The question then becomes, does the risk justify the reward and the possible consequences, if caught.
There are basically only two decisions that the child can make; take the cookie or don’t take the cookie. And the payoff and consequences are pretty clear too. As the child is young there are no moral consequences or a greater payoff or consequences for the action. The child may not want to disappoint mother, but even that may be overridden by the desire to have the cookie. This is probably the simplest example of a life game. Unfortunately, this scenario is not limited to small children. We see many adults, some of whom end up in prison, who don’t think beyond the, I want decision and the “what will be my payoff and possible consequence”. It’s all about “me”.
When I was working as a family therapist, parents would bring their children in with a behavior problem. Simply put, the child wouldn’t follow the family’s rules or would act out. I suggested the tried and true, “time out” consequence which involved sending the child into isolation for a couple of minutes to regain their composure, think about what they had done, and give mother a few minutes of rest. After a week or two of this prescription the parent would often come back and say that “time out” was not working. My reply would be that working didn’t necessarily mean that the child would stop the undesirable behavior. It only meant that if the consequences were consistent, swift, and appropriate that the child would know that the consequence would always happen. In most cases though, the parent could not be consistent thereby reinforcing with the child that sometimes they could get by with inappropriate behavior and thereby receiving their positive payoff. We know that with older children and adults that this type of punitive consequence response has limited results. As the child gets older, there has to be a buy-in to the process of risk, rewards and rules. The child must come to realize that there are broader implications to their actions. This is when the games we play become more complex and have implications in the greater scheme of things.
But this little game still has implications for us adults. How many of us, knowing that we would not always get caught speeding would not bend the rules occasionally. Most of us have sped from time to time or rolled through stop signs and never gotten caught. We rationalize that we’ve hurt no one, so an occasional infraction is justified. Human nature dictates that sometimes we will bend conventional rules. And that’s not always inappropriate. But most of us realize that there are always consequences and rewards to our actions, even if we don’t know the rules of the game.
The example of the child and the cookie shows us that there are innate responses to situations. At the core of those decisions small children don’t take into consideration such things as empathy and the greater good. Those concepts have to be taught and experience tells us that not all persons respond in the same manner to those areas. We know that some people are more empathetic than others and that other people will risk more and are willing to suffer more consequences.
In articles to come, I will explore other ways we play games and how they can be create positive or negative results in society as they relate to the law, ethics, morality and responsibility.
Add comment January 29, 2010
It’s Cuckoo To Me
Literature and films have often been the catalyst for change. One such movie was the 1975 film, One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest. The now classic film about the institutionalization of the mentally ill came at a time when great advances were being made in the treatment of the mentally ill. It was only inevitable that as a result of both of these events that there began a process across the United States to deinstitutionalize treatment. The idea was that persons with mental illness could be treated best with medication and counseling in the communities where they lived. They could be with family members or live in group homes and be treated by community mental health programs.
In many parts of the country this became a reality. But in other parts, including Texas, it became an excuse for cutting services since, at that time, advocacy groups for the mentally ill were not well organized. The result was that many mentally ill persons were just turned loose and if families could not or would not take care of them, they ended up on the streets or in prison. Much of that situation still exists in Harris county today. It seems that often in our culture we only address a portion of a problem rather than looking at it holistically. Consider the situation in Texas and in particular Harris County. Texas is at the bottom of per capita spending of any state in the country and “Harris County is fourth from the bottom in per capita funding of any county in the state” which makes Harris County on a per person basis rank at the bottom of any state. (Schnee, 2006). But this is not just about money, even though money is necessary. Here are some other Harris county statistics to consider:
- About 140,000 adults who experience mental health conditions suffer a severe mental illness, which is severe depression, bipolar disorder, and/or schizophrenia.
- Almost half of adult Harris County residents who suffer from a severe mental illness could not access treatment from the public or private health systems.
- Over 20 percent of inmates of the Harris County jail have had a history of mental illness.
- Almost 20,000 Harris County youth needed services from the public mental health system each year, but the majority (76%) did not receive treatment services.
- More than 62 percent of the 16,000 youth in Harris County Juvenile Probation Department have a diagnosable mental illness.
- In 2009, 5 mentally ill persons in Harris County were killed by the police.
- No new public mental health beds have been built in Harris County in the last 30 years. In fact, there are fewer beds available.
(Local plan of MHRA of Harris County 2006-07)
It is only with the advocacy of such organizations such as NAMI (National Alliance for Mental Illness) and DBSA (Depression, Bipolar Support Organization) and The Mental Health Association of Houston have citizens been able to make changes in the system as it now stands. And the MHMRA of Harris County does a good job with the funds that they have. But to me it’s a bit Cuckoo to move from one antiquated and medieval form of treatment to a system that is woefully inadequate and where families have to fight so hard for services for their children and loved ones and where the mental hospital of last resort is our jails and prisons.
When government is considering funding for programs, whether mental health or criminal justice, healthcare, or education they leave out massive amounts of needed services in the name of being fiscally responsible. The statistics above show the severe lack of services for the mentally ill. And the figures I’ve cited don’t even address the housing issue, which is critical.
What are the ethics of a society that will not take care of the least of these among us? Having worked with families who have family members with mental illness, I know that the problem goes far beyond the issue of mental illness. Mental illness creates other problems for society including criminality, drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence, child abuse, and the break up of families. These problems are not just the fault of not having an adequate mental health system. They’re all interrelated and have a bearing on the health and well being of the society as a whole.
As a society, we have to recognize our interconnectedness and see the ethical and moral implications of these issues. We can’t hide the mentally ill, the homeless, the criminal offender, the addict and the unemployed or underemployed away from the rest of us who consider ourselves “normal”. And more importantly, we can’t hide ourselves from these realities. Hard as we try, the world will break through our gated communities and security systems and even with guns and special patrols will make us prisoners in our own homes. Some would say that world already exists.
Some would say that I’m advocating socialism. It only becomes socialism when we decide that it is the government’s job to take care of the poor and the sick and the impoverished. Some believe it is either the responsibility of the impoverished individual to get themselves out of their predicament or for the Church or charities to provide for the needs of the poor. But it requires a commitment and a covenant on all our parts to change things. But there’s a personal price to pay. Who of us is willing to take the homeless into our own home, to give the ex-offender a job or invite him/her into our churches and to pay for the man on the side of the road who was accosted, robbed and beaten? And who among us is willing to take in an aged person with no resources and give them a home in their old age or adopt a child with special needs? I’m not talking about just giving the homeless man on the corner a dollar and thinking that we’ve done our duty. Society pays a price for the acts of the irresponsible and the impoverished. But who among us is not impoverished in our love of neighbor. In most main line church denominations, over 50% of members do not give at all. So, what is the price of having 30% of the Texas population living in poverty?
What is your ministry and how much of your time do you devote to it? How much do you give to your church or local charities? How does one decide where they can do the most good? And how will we prioritize our time and resources to fulfill that ministry?
The line “one flew over the cuckoos nest” is a bit of a misnomer. Cuckoos don’t have nests of their own. They’re parasites, laying their eggs in the nests of other smaller birds and pushing one egg out of the nest to make room for their own egg. They fit into nature’s scheme. And it’s been that way since the first cuckoo laid the first egg in her neighbor’s nest.
How do we fit into the greater scheme of things? Do we have to bend to the way things are, or can we bend towards the way things should be? Last week, a good friend of mine said, “but the gospel is so hard. Did Jesus really mean that in order to obtain eternal life that we had to give everything away and then come and follow him?” I hope that we will all struggle with that question and set our eyes on bending towards the way things should be. With God’s help, in time, the way things should be, will be a reality.
Add comment January 24, 2010
Thoughts of an Old Debater
In high school I was not a very good student. I wasn’t a “sweat hog”; just not that inspired. However, there was one course I took that has probably helped me more than any other course I took in school. That was debate. Let me hasten to say that I was not a very good debater. But debate taught me to think, do research, and to look at both sides of a question. And considering both sides of the question was often difficult, particularly if I already had my mind made up. What I learned though, was that in almost any argument there is a little truth. It may be difficult to get to the core because of inaccuracies, distortions, and prejudices but none the less, it’s there. All arguments lean in one direction or another and it’s difficult to see the nuanced differences. But debate helped me recognize the nuances and to better understand the faulty logic that occur in many arguments. This has a bearing on ethics as persons reasoning for a position may be rationalized and distorted to justify their actions.
Recently, I’ve been following the activities of State Board of Education for standards for public school social studies curriculum. The debate over school books is a perennial issue that many people take very seriously. Issues of diversity, civil rights, the presentation of Texas history and the role of religion and government in the US get full exposure in these hearing sessions. This is important and many of us should be more concerned about what our children are exposed to in school. I might be cynical and say that this concern over minutia is not important, but it is.
The internet has become the center of education and information to most of the world. Unfortunately, it is seen by many as being the truth, even though there is great diversity on the web. How many of us use Wikipedia, “ the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit”, as our starting point for research. If a statement is said enough and sent to enough people, it can become the truth. Blogs are rampant and if they have the readership can become very influential, often without having to prove up arguments. WordPress.com alone has nearly 275,000 blogs. Since anyone can have a forum on the internet at no cost, print media is moving away from paper production to the internet, just to survive. And because there is little or no censorship on the internet, except maybe in China and Iran, anything can be said or shown.
Exaggeration, deception and unethical behavior is not new. It’s just more apparent and available through these media outlets. This is particularly true in election cycles. Last night I watched the Republican gubernatorial debate. Listening to them, it could be assumed that neither the senator nor the governor had done anything right in all the time they were in office. This resulted in gross inaccuracies by them both and the candidate who had not held office had a free ride to challenge them both and to advocate certain positions that, to some, might sound plausible but in the reality of our current situation would be impossible to implement. I’m sure that when we get to the general election the candidates from both parties will paint themselves in the best light, hope they can deliver on their promises and voters will either buy into their exaggerations and unattainable promises or decide that there should be a pox on both their houses and opt out of voting.
This brings us to the question of whether this kind of behavior is ethical. Ethical behavior as we have discussed is covenantal, requires monitoring of our personal inner assumptions and prejudices, requires personal truth telling, and a discernment of differing ethical standards. What politician really tells it like it is and tells voters that everyone may have to sacrifice and that there will be interest groups that won’t be willing to compromise. No politician will say things like that because they want to be elected and so they won’t be forthcoming. Being consistent and recognizing the possibility of other viewpoints is important. This is required in all situations whether, business, political or personal. Using these criteria, I would suggest that much of what we hear from politician and some media is not ethical.
So how can we discern arguments that don’t meet the smell test? The following are few of the ways that persuasion is used to color and distort the facts or to knowingly be downright untruthful.
Argument from statistics- statistics don’t lie, but statisticians do.; our engineers say that there is a +-3% fudge factor on our reserves. Since the price of oil is down this quarter, let’s use the +3% so that it doesn’t seem we have less reserves than we did last quarter.
- Argument from circumstantial detail—an array of facts not intimately related that are drawn together to look as if they are. The murder weapon was found in the back yard of the defendant. The defendant knew to person murdered. The defendant had been seen arguing with the murder victim. Therefore the defendant by circumstances, murdered the victim.
- Argument from comparison—Rome fell because of corruption and a deterioration of values. The US is also suffering from corruption and a deterioration of values. Therefore the US is in its last days as a super power.
- Argument from analogy— in the story of the ant and the grasshopper, the ant put up food for the winter while the grasshopper played. Therefore people who do not save for a wintry day will have to go begging as the grasshopper did.
- Argument by generalization—everyone is getting on board, so you should too.
- Argument by authority—4 out 5 doctors smoke Camels; our attorney’s say that we’re okay on this and can go ahead.
- Argument of alteration—(if, then) Two alternatives. Either we allow people to carry guns on their person thereby protecting citizens from criminals or we deny citizens from carrying guns and suffer from increased crimes to our citizens.
- Expansive argument—all (fill in the nationality) are con artists and therefore should be sent back to (their country of origin).
In each of these forms of argumentation there may be a modicum of truth or in fact the argument may be completely analogous and true. For the listener, it’s important to internally challenge the argument and seek to determine its validity. We also need to challenge our own prejudices as we listen to arguments and hear of persons’ actions. These actions have a quality of ethical bearing and the voracity in whole or in part to the argument.
Laws have been passed to help consumers of products and securities to get enough accurate facts to make good decisions. However, unethical persons/organizations continue to give faulty and information to either puff the features of a product or to downplay or completely avoid negative features of products. Whether it is downsizing of a box of cereal, the misrepresentation of a security, or the statement of someone running for office, citizens need to be able to discern fact from fiction and the nuances of human nature. One of the issues before the Texas State Board of Education is whether Henry Cisneros should be put into a Texas junior high social studies book. This may or may not be important. But what is important is for a student to be able to know both sides of the Henry Cisneros story; what he did for Texas and what makes some people want to keep him out of the textbook, and then help students and the public make informed judgments about a persons ethical behavior and make their own decision as to his value as public servant and as a human being. Or, we can just continue to edit Wikipedia and see it as our source of truth. (see Henry Cisneros—Wikipedia)
Add comment January 17, 2010
Immigration—A Disconnect Between the Clergy and Laity
On January 11 along with about four hundred clergy and laity from major denominations and Jewish congregations, I attended the Interfaith Immigration Convocation at St. Paul’s UMC in Houston. The purpose of the meeting was to develop a constituency among denominations to make public the Principles of Humane Immigration Reform that we collectively support. The convocation further stated that “we hope to provide a moral framework for our city that will allow people of faith to reflect on these important issues as Congress begins to discuss them in the New Year”.
The presentations and positions of the leaders of these faith communities was generally well received by the group in attendance. However, there was an underlying anxiety expressed by many pastors, particularly from primarily Anglo congregations that these positions were not compatible with those positions expressed and held by laity in the pews. Immigration is probably the biggest issue that divides along the lines of clergy and laity. But our faith traditions call us to love neighbor particularly the alien, the widow and the orphan. Over and over in the bible we see this theme emerge as what we are called to live into and witness too.
This idea of loving God and loving Neighbor including the immigrant seems to be lost on a large and vocal lay contingency. Most often, as a last resort when confronted by biblical imperatives, the objection to immigrants is leveled at the illegality of these persons entry into the United States. And most often the solution offered is that we should send them back to where they came from. But the problem is much more complex than people swimming across the Rio Grande or walking into the US through the Arizona desert. It is also about reunifying families. The waiting list for getting family members brought to this country where they have a parent or spouse takes anywhere from three to eight years. It’s about children who were not born in the US but have gone to school here, have graduated from high school or college and cannot legally get a job that they may be qualified for. And it is about our country’s need for unskilled labor but the US only having 5000 visas annually allotted for unskilled laborers.
One purpose of this convocation was to give people the courage and the resolve to get the facts about immigration and then to tell their neighbors and representatives in Washington that we want Comprehensive Immigration Reform. The inaccurate information about immigration is rampant. It’s important to get the facts. There are many in the business community that would also like to get comprehensive immigration reform. Many of them are unknowingly breaking the law and must now e-verify all new hires. We heard one story at the meeting about a man who had worked for a construction company for fifteen years . He had been paying taxes, raised a family and had been a model citizen. Someone in Arizona with the same SS number filed for unemployment which flagged the Houston worker. As a result, the employer had to fire the employee. From a purely economic standpoint, look at The Cato Institute, a conservative liberation think tank at
http://www.cato.org/immigration They clearly believe that it is in the best interest to have immigration and in fact not having immigration reform costs the US billions of dollars a year.
So, what of the issue of legality? Jesus said, “I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it.” To me this means that there are two sets of laws that govern our lives. Man’s laws and God’s laws. Jesus in this statement is saying that man’s laws are not always just and that we need to seek to discern and fulfill God’s laws. History is replete with examples of man’s laws being contrary to what we now accept as being just and that resonate with God’s will. In our own country we can start with slavery, child labor, women’s rights and most recently Jim Crowe laws that prohibited blacks from even getting a drink of water from a “Whites only” water fountain. Over and over in these cases those who want to maintain the status quo have argued that “it’s the law” and to ask for change of an unjust law is not acceptable.
We recognize that immigration is a difficult and complex issue and that there are no easy answers. But the debate will 
continue and we in the Church, whether clergy or laity will need to have the courage to first of all, talk about immigration in our congregations and secondly to use our leadership and conviction to discuss the issue in a respectful way and third to put a face on the issue by having conversation with persons different form us. If we do not begin to talk about the issue in a rational and biblically based manner we will continue to allow those who shout the loudest to dominate the conversations and to hold forth with nothing being accomplished. We all can agree that our current immigration system is broken. To me the question is, what will be the landscape around this issue of immigration be in ten years? Immigration reform is an ethical and moral issue that goes to the heart of our faith tradition. Pastors will have to have the courage to speak from their pulpits on welcoming the stranger, but more importantly we lay persons who believe that our current law on immigration is not just, must ally ourselves with our pastors to say, “we need and want comprehensive immigration reform and we want the debate to be civil and rational and the results should mirror our faith traditions of welcoming the stranger and Loving God and Loving Neighbor.
1 comment January 14, 2010
Who Will You Trust
In a recent PBS program entitled “The Emotional Self—Family, Friends and Lovers” several studies were sited concerning children’s bonding to caregivers being crucial for future relationships with others. In particular several studies of children raised in Russian orphanages where the children received little adult holding and love, showed that the children had great difficulty in developing a trust in others as well as a disassociation with the world in general. In other words, there was little interaction and trust. One of the themes in previous articles is that there is a mutual relationship and understanding of what ethical standards will be followed by each party or the society will be bound. Morality is just that—a moral compass, whereas ethics is more systemic and may not always reflect the morality of groups within the culture. The program went on to say that humans are hard wired to connect. Ethics is one way a society in general defines the standards by which we will connect. Ethics is one way that we define our roles in these trust relationships. If trust does not exist, it is difficult to relate.
Think about when you were in elementary school. If a group of you were playing kickball and someone broke a rule, if would often result in either some of the players leaving the game or the ostracizing of one of the players or someone picking up their ball, leaving, thereby breaking up the game. The infraction was a breach of the implied ethics of the game. If you can remember being a part of something like this, you may also remember how you felt. For me, it was a feeling of betrayal by the person who broke the rule. I may not have totally broke off the friendship, but at least I did not allow myself to be put in the same vulnerable situation. I also learned some empathy for others who suffered injustice. Unfortunately, not all children internalize these experiences and generalize them to their relationships with others. Trust is learned from birth. In a healthy human relationship, I learn that when I cry someone would come to feed me, change me or meet my need to be held and comforted. I came to trust that those needs would be met by my mother or father. As I became older I became either trustful or distrustful of other people in my life to be consistent and trustworthy. Hopefully, I also learn that it’s okay not to be the center of the universe and that others rights and feelings are important, not only for them, but for me too.
But along the way, we all have to recognize that we are not the center of the universe and that we don’t make all the rules. I am not entitled to do things only my way. As a result I have to adhere to the standards of others. Some people, throughout their whole life, feel entitled to doing things their way and that ethics, morals, and laws only pertain to other. They have no covenant with others. They may adhere to the rules for a while until they decide for whatever reason that those rules are not in their interest, so they set up their own rules, which most often are about them and them alone. Whether this action is a result of too much permissiveness in childhood or an anomaly in hardwiring or a lack of bonding in early development is not clear, but the way we are raised and nurtured plays a part in the way we respond to the rules and conventions of the culture.
This is why it is so important to both nurture children to trust in the world through the love of parents and caregivers, but to also teach children beginning at an early age, the difference in right and wrong, the reciprocal nature of relationships, and to empathize with others and how to evaluate ethical dichotomies. As we become adults, we have the opportunity to develop deeper and more intense relationships. The same principles will apply as with children. How do I share, how do I get my own needs met, and what role does empathy play in these relationships.
Childhood family relationships are one way that we learn these roles. School is another. And our faith traditions are another. To me our faith traditions are a method that in today’s pluralistic society is of utmost importance; to be able to see that God is both a loving God and that God has laws, that if broken result in consequences. These consequences are not acts of punishment, but that come about as a result of our own actions in a universe of natural laws. These natural laws are not just physical laws. They are also laws of relationships. We don’t always understand these laws but ut none the less, we are bound by them.
But even when we break God’s laws we can live in the assurance that through grace we can start over in our quest for connection. We do not have to be bound by the act; that God is always with us and loves us unconditionally. That’s a difficult concept for us all. Again, remember when you were a small child and you did something that you shouldn’t have. When scolded by your parent you might have said, “mama, you don’t love me anymore.” And if your mother were a wise mother she might have responded, “no honey, I’ll always love you. I just don’t like what you did.” That affirmation has to be repeated over and over so that we see the conceptual dissonance between love and non love.
The reinforcement of unconditional love helps us understand that there are things that are constant. Within the world of the moral and ethical constants are important, even though we may not fully understand them. When, at our core we have these constants it gives us a grounding that makes connecting to one another and to ethical standards easier, even if the constants sometimes seem blurry. Concepts such as empathy, rationality, and justice override and over shadow more mundane acts of purification and outward adherence. Jesus said in Matt. 23: 25-26 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.” Ethics is more than a set of rigid rules. Ethics and morality reside in the core of our being.
Add comment January 10, 2010
Do Not Fold, Bend, Mutilate or Spindle
There were three that passed up the man who had been assaulted and robbed.
Continue Reading Add comment January 4, 2010
There’s a Jinn in the House
Protect our children
Shortly after 9/11 our church embarked on a program to have meetings with Muslims in our community. The purpose was to learn more about Islam and to see our Muslim brothers and sisters as individuals as opposed to being a monolithic group of fanatics. For about a year we met numerous times in small groups and during that time I had the privilege of meeting some very fine people who were saddened and outraged by the acts of the few who had destroyed the Trade Center. One of the men who I came to know and respect was an engineer and a Shiah Muslim. One day we were having lunch and talking about our hopes and dreams for our children and grandchildren and he said, “I am worried that Jinn will invade my home and will take over my children”. (a paraphrase). I inquired about this term and after some struggling with the language he interpreted it as “demons”. Still not understanding, I inquired further and he said that they were everywhere and all around us. It was only then that I realized that his explanation was more than a mythical concept. In fact, these Jinn were real. They come through the television, on the air waves, in our media, in the internet and throughout our culture. As we continued to talk, I realized that he and I both wanted the same things for our children and grandchildren—to be safe and hopefully to embrace our faith tradition.
Last week, my wife and I got our weekly Netflix video, a cable series called Weeds. It’s about a suburban housewife whose husband died from a heart attack early in his forties. In order to maintain their lifestyle she became a drug dealer, selling Marijuana to all her suburban middle class adult friends. In the series, Eight and nine year olds used language that even ten years ago would have been banned on TV and would be given a film an “R” rating. Today, even on network TV the boundaries on language, sexuality and violence have been pushed back to levels that just a few years ago would have been considered unacceptable. My wife only stayed for a few minutes, stating that the program was gross and she refused too see the whole series, but as I watched the program, I thought that if the life depicted in the series was anywhere near real life, then we have truly been invaded by Jinn.
If this program was an isolated incident, it might not be something to be concerned about. But unfortunately it has become the norm. More and more boundaries are being pushed back and we seem helpless to do anything about it. Over the last weekend my wife and I stayed in a La Quinta in San Antonio. We looked to see what was showing on the hotel TV. I was surprised to see that there was a whole section of adult films. Ten years ago that would never have been the case. I was amused that there was a disclaimer that you had to be eighteen to view films on those channels. I wondered who monitored the monitor. Sex, violence and destruction are so prevalent in the media we have become anesthetized to it. Or maybe that shouldn’t be the word. By seeing these depictions in the media our children and we, come to see these behaviors as acceptable and those behaviors are reinforced. They become what is known as a “community standard”. I realize that my concern is one that has been debated and fought for centuries. Can we censure free speech in some of its forms for the sake of preserving other moral and ethical standards? The supreme court has often ruled on issues of free speech from whether someone can yell fire in a crowed theatre to Larry Flint and his magazine Hustler. One of the current standards is “community standards”. In 1973 a supreme court case established the Miller test concerning pornography. It stated that there were three criteria establishing what was considered pornographic. In order for something to be considered pornographic all three criteria had to satisfied. They were, that it appealed to prurient interests, that it was patiently offensives, and lacked serious literary, artistic, and political or scientific value. This according to the court would be based on local standards so that something in Jackson Mississippi would have a different interpretation than what was the community standard in New York City. As you well might guess the ruling did little to clarify the issue. And as we have seen, little by little the media has been chipping away at what is considered as community standards and has done so on a national level. Only periodically do citizens rise up and protest and then at great expense and personal stress.
This article is not just about standards as they apply to pornography. It also is about protecting children and giving other persons protection from offensive material being allowed in their homes. It’s not enough to tell a parent just to monitor what their children watch on TV or at the movies or to install the V chip in their TV. One of my sons does not have cable TV but both of his children go to friends houses that do have cable. Then their’s the influence of the internet and other media. Why should parents have to go to the extent that they have to in order to protect their children against what I have come to believe is home invasion from what my Muslim friend called Jinn. Why should we be assaulted by internet material that is harmful to a person’s health.
It seems inconsistent that we are so concerned about lead paint on toys and protecting children from faulty car seats and seem so cavalier about what they are exposed to on TV or the internet. Using the logic that it is a matter of parental responsibility of what children see or consume in the media, we would have to say that parents should be solely responsible for testing all toys for faulty and harmful construction of products used by children or for dangerous chemical additives in children’s food. These are issues about morality but they’re also about ethics, because the attitude that seems to be prevalent is that anything goes and it’s an infringement on other person’s rights to have both strong moral and ethical community standards. Our culture has long decided that the protection of our children is a primary concern of our society. Whether it’s having laws about child labor or laws against abuse, even by parents or having laws protecting children as end user consumers, or education and healthcare for children, we know that our children need to be protected and are our future. Because of the complexity of society, it is not possible for parents to know every harmful situation or to be in all places that children are exposed.
It’s not enough to put some bogus disclaimer on an internet porn site or say that parents should use the V chip on their TV to block certain programs (the last time I saw anything about the V chip was from Bill Clinton). And it’s not enough to just say that parents are the ones responsible for protecting their children. It’s inconsistent with standards of morality, ethics and law that we have declared are sacred.
It’s time that Christians, Jews, and Muslims and others concerned about children unite around the safety of our children. Don’t let the Jinns around us fragment us in what we all want for our families—a safe place for our children to grow up to be what God has intended them to be.
2 comments December 30, 2009
Questions about QuestionsDec. 8, 2009
Add comment December 24, 2009
ethicalhouston
gowerb
nilknarf1940
gayleanngourwitz
