Another Viewpoint on Glenn Beck–Theologian?

9 04 2010

My good friend JN took issue with my article entitled Glenn Beck–Theologian?  The following are his comments and thoughts concerning the article and also the blog in general.  I thought they were important enough to give them article status. 

I have been frustrated for a long time with the deterioration of the ethical basis upon which we, as a society, are suppose to operate.  Anything to win seems to be the philosophy of many lawyers.  What’s in it for me or my company seems to be the pathway of many businessmen.  What is the least I can do and get by with is the operating agenda for many employees.  We as Americans need to do what we can to change this accelerating pattern of behavior which is present in many different settings.  I viewed Ethical Houston as a vehicle to address this issue in a non political, non threatening medium where folks with a common aim of improving a deteriorating situation could work together through “ethical and responsible thoughts, words and actions.”

Your article on Glenn Beck seemed to deviate from my understanding of our joint goal. I think my difficulty stems from the fact that you tend to be on a political path which is substantially different from the one I choose.  For the same reason that I was unable to participate in your TMO project, I perceive by your writing slant that you intend to take Ethical Houston on the same path.  I don’t want to be on that path.

Let me tell you first off that I am not a particular Glenn Beck fan.  I have only infrequently watched his program on TV or listened to snippets of his radio show.  But while he tries to make his presentation “entertaining” he is by no means a comedian.  Your categorizing him as such in your first sentence sets the tone which may not measure up to “responsible words”.   It might be similar if I chose to call our President a communist or socialist which is probably more accurate than Beck being a comedian.  Unfortunately what Beck has to say about the direction which the country is being led is anything but funny. 

I believe in social justice.  It just doesn’t happen to be the kind that I think you and Wallis are espousing. There are many definitions of “social justice”.  In that connection, you might find the following cite interesting: ­ http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-social-justice.htm.

What I believe is that you want to impose your definition of social justice on all of us.  I found an article that paints Wallis in a much different light than your Beck article seems to imply.  It also addresses some of your “evidence” that Christ wanted the Wallis (and Olson) type of social justice.

http://www.northstarnational.com/2010/03/15/glenn-beck-defend-himself-jim-wallis-wrong-social-justice-christian-doctrine/

 

Yes, there are a lot of references in the New and Old Testament to justice and no one can dispute that.  But I submit that you cannot ignore the time frame and the political institutions in place during those time frames. It was in fact a tough time.  There was no minimum wage.  There was no venue to challenge the masters.  And the masters themselves were subject to strict control by the government in charge at the moment.  And Jesus told the folks of that day to serve your master…not to overthrow them.  He told them to render unto Caesar what was Caesar’s.  We have a duty to help the poor and we are reminded of that throughout the Bible.  But what is the best way to help them to furnish them with everything from cradle to the grave.  Does it mean that it is evil to have more wealth than any other person?  Does helping the poor mean giving up every thing?  If, like the rich young ruler, one’s wealth is the focus of one’s life and is loved more than anything, then like him you will not be able to keep the first commandment of having “no other gods before me.”  To me that was what that story was about.  Accumulation of wealth cannot be your god.

Jesus dealt with rich people and did not condemn them.  Some were his active followers and supporters.  One even gave the tomb in which he was buried.  No where did he condemn them.


Comments : 3 Comments »
Tags: , ,
Categories : 1

A Day of New Beginnings

6 04 2010

 

Yesterday, Easter was a great day.  Even though it was a bit on the dreary side, I felt a real presence.  The church service was uplifting and challenging.  At lunch the Olson’s all gathered and ate ourselves silly and afterwards the silliness really began with the women and kids all sitting around the table laughing and telling stories while we men went to the darkness of the den, turned on golf and promptly went to sleep. 

 After everyone left, I reflected on the blog and what has been accomplished and what we might want to do with it in the future.  Looking over the articles from the last month, I realized that I have been getting pretty negative about the human condition and the general state of ethics.  Even though we are facing some real challenges in the economy, politics and personal behavior I know that the world is a different place when it comes to lifting up ethical behavior.  In the field of business and professions there are new ethical standards that are required in order to practice those professions and they’re not all mandated by government.  There is a self policing mechanism that most professions now have to adhere too. In many businesses there is a sense that ethics are important, if only because there are legal mandates making it important.  In government, even though we have a long way to go, there is a new sense of accountability and transparency that we have not had in the past.  In the area of religion there’s a new sense of personal responsibility towards looking outward in our faith, that God is ever present and that religion and faith are not just something personal and internal.  Faith is to be lived out and runs deeper than superficiality. 

 And with the Easter experience we know that we worship a God of new beginnings.  We are neither total free agents without being held accountable but we’re also not depraved creatures without hope of salvation.  But before we think that we are evolving towards some state of perfection, let us also remember the reason for the Easter experience.  We are all imperfect and we all need the redemptive power of God in our lives.  And the Easter experience keeps us aware of our humanity, both the good and the part that needs to confess, be forgiven and begin the new day knowing that we are still loved and lovable.  

 Prayer of Confession:  “Almighty God:  New life stirs and springs up all around us, but we are earthbound still—disabled, held down by doubts, kept back by fears, ashamed of what we fail to do, appalled by what we’ve done.  Forgive us Lord.  Renew in us the resurrection light as once it shone for Peter, John, and Mary Magdalene.  Transform our weakness by your strength that we may be alive to Christ and to the lives of those you’ve given us to serve.”

 The prayer of confession, which was a part of our Easter Sunday worship makes us aware that we all have our weaknesses and blind spots.  Whether it is in the business arena, government, or personal life we can never reach a point of perfection.  To some, that is either a sign of weakness or we live in denial.  To keep from holding ourselves accountable, we often surround ourselves with people that do not hold us liable for our actions.  But we need to have people who are willing to risk losing our relationship who will say, that’s not right or you crossed the line.  Instead, when we have the opportunity to hold one another accountable, we back off in fear or we assume that it just doesn’t matter. 

 Covenant calls us to be in a relationship where accountability and transparency are meted out in a loving way and that helps to at least lift up our perceived or real imperfections.   We may not agree with those perceptions, but at least they’re out there for us to reflect on and talk about.  It can be painful to look at one’s imperfections, but the empty cross and he empty tomb show us that we can survive those imperfections and move into the light of a day of new beginnings.


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : 1

Tea Party Angst

1 04 2010

 

In earlier posts I talked extensively about Cultural Isolation in society.  In particular I discussed the issues of Language,  The Tyranny of the Expert, and feelings of entitlement.  In the responses of people who are being engaged by the Tea Party movement, we see all of these factors of influence. 

 If you listen to the followers, you hear much of the same mantra—“Washington is not listening to us”, “throw all the politicians out and start all over again”.  Their analysis of the problem comes from very personal experiences that come out as frustration and anger.  They believe that the course our country is on is only leading to disaster.  Whether it is the healthcare bill, cap and trade, immigration or taxation they believe the country is on the wrong track. 

 It would be too simplistic to assert that all their stories are the same, but I would like to hear some of the individual stories of the people involved.  I would have to assume that those who have become a part of the caravan that is now crossing America and going to Washington, have the ability to move around independently, whether they are retired or unemployed, or self-employed.  Their mantra seems to be along the same lines that Republicans have asserted—cut taxes and cut spending.  However, Tea Partiers have also tended to hearken back to some mythical past when life seemed better.  From my observation many of them were a bit past middle-aged but there was also a fair number of younger people represented.  They’ve taken on Sarah Palin as their hero even though she seems short on solutions and long on platitudes.  If you are a Tea Partier or have heard personal stories about why people are interested in the movement, please share those stories here.  I want to know how the current political system has personally affected them.  I know that they are concerned about the future for their children and grand children as most of us are, but I want to know the stories of how our system has personally affected them. 

 As I analyze what is happening around issues  like healthcare and reform of the banking system, I wonder if their anger is misplaced.  Who or what groups have the power over these issues.  Take the healthcare bill.  Who stands to benefit the most from the bill.  Well certainly the 25 million people who don’t currently have healthcare, but the real beneficiaries are the insurance companies that had 25 million new customer laid in their laps without any marketing on their part.  Also, the drug companies will benefit since the donut hole in Medicare part D will directly benefit the drug companies. 

 Then there’s the banking system.  It’s too early to make a call on this but as things are progressing it appears that not much is going to happen to “too big to fail” , the derivative situation and huge salaries and bonuses.  My guess is that it will be business as usual and that the only ones that will be adversely effected will be the public and community banks that may end up being gobbled up by the “too big to fail” banks.

 What about fixes on the spending and income side of government.  With 80% of the federal budget going for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, payment on the national debt and the military, where will we cut?  It’s easy to say, cut taxes and spend less, but as I see it those kind of Draconian changes will affect the poor and the middle class the most.  Which brings us to another interesting situation.  My guess is that most of the people who attend the Tea Party participants would consider themselves middle class, middle America and from the crowds, they’re also predominately white.  So why do they seem to align themselves with those people who have the most to gain from maintaining the status quo—the very wealthy.  Washington is representative in name only with lobbyists throwing money at both sides of the aisle.  The great debate is on as to how we’re going to pay for all this.  People making under $50,000 a year, depending on the state you live in, have   an effective tax rate of about 40%,  This includes federal and state income taxes, excise taxes on gasoline, tobacco, etc.,  sales taxes, and property taxes whether paid as homeowner or as a renter.  And if the federal government lowers taxes on an item, it tends to shift the same tax to the local and state governments.  And who pays for this?  Well, we all do.  But there’s something called regressive taxation that tends to hit lower-income earners.  Sales taxes are regressive, taxes on gasoline and tobacco are regressive and many of the tax fixes in the healthcare bill are regressive and all flow down to the middle class.  The primary taxes that are progressive are progressive income taxes and inheritance taxes.  Could it be that the majority of the Tea Partiers are the ones most effected by regressive taxes and feeling the pain associated with over taxation.  So, I’m a bit confused that in those rallies I don’t hear much about raising taxes on the rich and lower taxes on the middle class.  President Obama stated that taxes have been lowered for 95% of all Americans.  If that is true, then the question is, “is that enough?” and if not, how much is enough and how then do we balance the budget and where will the cuts come from?  My sense is that the Tea Partiers need to appraise who the enemy is and come up with realistic solutions for a change.   The question about ethics comes in trying to  identify the culprits in this mess.  We can blame Obama and his minions or we can blame the Republicans or the bankers or the drug companies, but my guess is that we all share in the creation of the problem.  If we identify the culprits, then what do we do?  In this case it seems that we are confronted with a Medusa creature that has many heads.  Perseus was only able to kill the Medusa by looking into her mirror rather than looking at her directly.  Maybe part of our answer is in looking beyond the obvious and answer for ourselves, “who stands to benefit the most from our current situation?”

 I’m like everyone else.  I don’t want my taxes raised but at the same time I don’t want to give up my Medicare or my Social Security.  And I want to be able to leave my children and grand children a major portion of the benefits of my lifetime financial success.  So, how will we solve the problem?  Time is running out to solve the problems we face in a pro-active way.  The longer we wait, the more Draconian our choices will be.


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories : 1

Is there an answer to gridlock in Washington?

18 03 2010

The Ethics of Compromise and Conflict

 We Americans have become accustomed to instant results. We want conflicts resolved and tied in a neat bow within a maximum of 57 minutes, less commercials.  We also tend to only focus on the immediate problem rather than looking at the long term results of our actions.  Such is the case with the situation in Washington concerning everything from healthcare, restructuring the financial industry, to immigration reform.

 On one level we citizens know that there are structural problems in our economy,  that if not fixed will have possible catastrophic results.  We have a debt that is growing out of control and a budget that is comprised of  Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the national debt and the military and homeland security,  making up 80% of expenditures.  In addition to those items we’re in the process of passing a healthcare bill that will add an additional trillion dollars to the deficit over the next ten years.  These are areas that in the past we have been reluctant to even seriously talk about and there’s very little indication that we’re willing to address these areas holistically now.  So, we chip away at the edges talking about earmarks and pork to individual spending cuts without being willing to step up and say, “In order to get this thing under control we’re going to have prioritize what is most important to us and then decide what sacrifices we’re going to have to endure in order to bring about desired changes”.  Congress is quick to condemn the $2000. toilet seat by the military but not willing to confront the challenges of such things as Social Security and Medicare. 

 Fundamentally, there is the philosophical schism between the concept of individual freedom and responsibility and what is the greatest good for the most people.  If we assume that both concepts have a place in a 21st century society, how do we ensure that both are heard and that in some way they can accommodate the others presence.  Currently, that seems like an insurmountable obstacle.  In a NBC news/Wall Street Journal poll taken between March 11-14, only 17% of voters believed that congress was doing a good job.  On the issue of health care voters are pretty well split right down the middle.  Specifically on the report card for congress 38% of those polled believed that congress only wants to stay in office and not solve problems; 28% believed that congress was too close to special interest groups, 19% said that congress was too partisan, and 16% said that congress supports pork.  Not in my memory has congress been held in such low regard and whoever is elected in the fall will not have an easier go of it even if one party has more than 50% of the seats in congress.  If some sort of healthcare bill is passed I anticipate that things will settle down for a while but the day of reckoning is at hand sooner or later.  Everyone seems to know it but no one seems to have an answer.  But lets look at some scenarios.

 In order to change our current situation we will have to change our priorities and adopt painful austerity measures.  Currently, people make statements such as “we need to cut spending and lower taxes”.  Yes, we’ll have to cut spending but where.  Not the $2000. military toilet seat.  That’s a drop in the bucket.  With about 80% of the budget being used for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the national debt, and the military and homeland security amounting to nearly $3 trillion and a current debt of about $13 trillion.  If you sent all the government home and assuming you had enough revenue to pay down the debt after you did all these draconian measures, it would still take about 20 years to pay off the national debt and you’d still have the problem of  funding Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. 

 Jeb Henserling (R.) from Texas has another answer—limit the national debt to 20% of annual GDP.  The only way it could be increased is by a 2/3rd vote in both houses or a declaration of war.  The current GDP was about $14.4t in 2008 which would limit the national debt to about $2.9t.   Let’s see, with a current debt of about $13t and growing, we would have to immediately pay off about $10t.   Humm, so how do we do that Jeb?   Details, details… 

 On another front we have to decide what our priorities are as a nation.  Do we want to continue to be a consumer oriented country that doesn’t save, doesn’t take care of the poor or provide a good education for all our children.  What would seem in order is an educational Marshal Plan that would teach children all the way from pre-k through college or trade school to be a productive member of society.  But presidents since Jimmy Carter have declared a war on ignorance with little results.  We hear a lot of blame being thrown around including union intransigence, ivory tower experts, parents, and lack of funding to name just a few.  We know that the best determinant of future success or failure of a child is the educational level that a child achieves.  It costs about $7000. per year to send a child to school.  It costs anywhere from $25,000. to $35,000. per year to keep a person in prison, not to mention the cost of policing and healthcare, resulting from drugs and violent behavior.  Then there’s the loss of the economic contributions of poorly educated low wage earners.   Until we effectively address the issue of education we will continue to fall behind other countries in technological training and innovation. 

 But here I am suggesting spending more money when we’re already in the red.  Whatever the answer to our current situation, it will take sacrifices by all of us.  And it will require that we move in a different direction with bold strategies for our future economic and political well being.  We’re in a war to save our political and economic system.  In WWII we were willing to work harder, go into the military, tax ourselves, buy war bonds that often were never redeemed and make sacrifices on the home front.  I think we’re there again and it will take more taxation, more saving on our part, foregoing consumer buying of things we don’t need and making hard choices on spending. 

 This sounds like socialism.  And admittedly there are elements of planned economies and national direction.  And that’s risky and my sense is that we’re not ready to embrace the kind of austerity necessary to turn things around.  But the longer we wait the harder it will be. 

 But there’s another alternative to Washington gridlock and economic disaster.  Remember Ross Perot?  During the presidential debates of 1992 the feisty third party candidate Perot was asked what he would do to change the flagging economy.  His answer in retrospect was both on target but also quite chilling.  He stated that among other things he would bring all the leaders from both parties into his office and lay out his plan which included raising the gasoline tax, cutting spending, social security and other programs, and scrap NAFTA.  After discussing the program with them, if they wouldn’t go along with his proposals  HE WOULD SEND THEM ALL HOME.  At one point he led the polls with 39% of voters and even though he dropped out of the race for a brief time, for personal reasons, still garnered over 19% of the popular vote;   And this with an economy and social environment a lot less problematic than today. 

In the January 28, 2010 issue of the New York Times, David Brooks wrote an op ed entitled The Perot Option stating that Ross Perot or his clone is lurking out there in the weeds and concludes that if President Obama doesn’t become more of a leader and take on both sides of the aisle a new Ross Perot will emerge. And that scares the hell out of me.


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : ethics

Okay! I’m a Homer on Natural Gas

13 03 2010

 

I’ve been around long enough to know that pretty much everything has political implications.  But PLEASE, someone explain to me why coal is getting preferential treatment as a fuel over natural gas.  And why all the talk about alternative fuels being the wave of the future when there’s little developmental funding available, in particular for the small inventor.  Only large companies can afford to spend the kind of money necessary to do research and to bring alternative fuels to the market.  And most of them, due to the length of the time horizon to bringing them online would rather invest in areas that will bring energy online quicker. 

 My sons have a small company called www.swellfuel.com that for the last three years has been developing a system to make electricity from ocean waves.  In order to test his units he’s had to go outside the United States because the regulations on obtaining test sites take too long to obtain and cost too much to get.  Investors are reluctant to fund projects where they can’t see results in a short time.

 And then there’s the companies that talk the talk but don’t really walk the walk.  They talk about being Green and what they’re doing for the environment, but when you drill down deeper you see that it’s not much of a commitment, but more of a public relations effort.  That in of itself doesn’t seem ethical.

 Growing up in Houston, we had a gas stove in the kitchen and we used gas heating.  It got the job done without a lot of pollution.  So, to all my good friend out there who are engineers and scientists, please, please explain how it can be ethical not to utilize a source of energy, natural gas, that our country has that could make our country fuel sufficient for a long tome to come.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : ethics

Sex Education Redux

9 03 2010

 

                                                                                              

Deut. 25: 5-10

“If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family.  Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of brother-in-law to her.  The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.”

 The scripture goes on to say that if the brother refuses to marry his sister-in-law, she can go before the council of elders and demand that he marry her.  If he refuses she may take her sandal, spit in his face and the man will be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled.  Strange law, huh.  For Israel sex was more about necessity than pleasure.  Women were considered property and had limited rights.  But this law is referenced again later in the old testament where a man refused to marry his dead brothers wife and even when God told him directly to marry her, he refused and as a result, God killed him.

Today the purpose of sex and its relationship to family, covenant, and responsibility is much more blurred.  For those of us who are older, we mostly learned the facts of life in the locker room or the back of a car on a weekend date. If we had “the talk” with our parents it was generally pretty superficial and stressful for all concerned. And as far as the church giving information, it too was generally pretty superficial, stressful, and the message generally was “don’t” or riddled with messages of guilt.  As the culture began to open up and become more permissive we began to get our information from the media, which was usually unreliable.   Since the fifties and sixties the media and behaviors have gone through a revolution and yet we still live in a world where it’s difficult to talk openly about behaviors that are at the core of the human condition.  The culture on the one hand wants us to be responsible and careful, but gives little good information to help young and old alike.

 During the nineties, Bill Clinton’s Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders was making a speech before the United Nations on the world Aids pandemic.  Someone asked her in a Q and A what she thought about teaching people alternate ways of dealing with their sexuality, and in particular masturbation.  Her answer was, “I think that masturbation is a part of human sexuality and perhaps it should be taught.”  For that statement and a public outcry for her to resign, President Clinton asked and received her resignation saying that he did not agree with her on the subject– and this coming from Clinton.  Hardly a month passes without us seeing somewhere on the back pages of our newspapers where a person in some authority like a school administrator has made statements about sex and sexuality and has been asked to resign.  Much of the time the argument is made that sex is not to be taught in school unless it’s about total abstinence.   Those who protest, state that it is either for the parents to teach their children about sexuality or for the church to do so.   Unfortunately, most often neither happens. Today our children have new sources for learning about sex.  They can just turn on the TV, or go to the internet or for many who are latch key kids, learn about it while mom is away at work. 

 Sex and sexuality is more than learning about the nuts and bolts of the act itself.  It’s about learning about responsibility and self worth.  It’s about a young girl learning that she doesn’t need to “put out” and get pregnant to have self worth.  It’s about a young man learning that he doesn’t get his manhood from “scoring” and that if he fathers a child he will be expected to help take care of that child.  Sex has become more of a sport than about relationship.  Sex is depicted as momentary and lacking in intimacy.  There are no consequences.  Even STD’s hold little concern for many. 

 Many young people engage in serial relationships, sometimes ending in marriage and often not.  And what becomes of those multiple relationships.  Among middle class women we know that in breakups women are more likely to seek help from friends, therapy, etc.  while men tend to internalize their feelings and move on.  Even serial relationships and one nighters are often depicted as having little effect on the parties who engage in them. These multiple breakups can have a negative emotional cumulative effect.  In the movie “High Fidelity” with John Cusack and Iben Hjejle, Cusack is in the process of breaking up with Hjejle and tells her that this breakup doesn’t even make the top five of his life long breakups.  It becomes obvious that all of his multiple breakups have taken a toll on his ability to trust and to be intimate.   

 So, what of morality and ethics.  In this situation I equate morality with those taboos of behavior that our religion or family teaching gives us.  Ethics is about the way we treat one another and the covenantal relationships we establish with one another.  For young people the concept of ethical implications of a relationship may be too sophisticated.  Hormones are raging and they’re blinded by their new found power.  Friends and media depict this behavior as normal.  And they can’t see beyond the moment.  That’s why it’s important to give correct and sound information.  Since they’re not mature enough to understand the implications of relationships, it’s important to give them adequate information.  Even though the law of relationships given in Deuteronomy seems quite bizarre to our modern mind, it’s about ethics and not morality.  It was believed by Israel that a man had an obligation to help his brothers’ line continue if he died and not to do so, was an abomination to God.  Women had few rights but this was a right that she had to ensure that her children and her husband line be continued.  It was an ethical issue because it dealt with the realities of the time. 

So, what are the ethics of relationships and sexuality for us today?  To me, it’s that we’re all blessed children of God, worthy of respect and concern.  Sexuality is not just about an act. It’s that even in a moment of passion we consider the full humanity of the other as well as our own selfhood.  Children who are born into loving families where both parents are involved in raising children are more likely to stay in school, stay out of poverty and prison and live a productive life.

 As parents and teachers,  we can’t just see the world as either being like Father Knows Best or a world of internet porn— neither is reality.  Reality is that today 40% of all children are born out of wedlock with 70% of African American babies born out of wedlock to women who often have no network to help them cope and will soon find that the quickest way to find ones self in poverty in America is to start out poor, have a child with no father around and little education.  Reality is that over 60% of college grads in their thirties live in co-habitation relationship. Reality is that 50% of all first marriages end in divorce.  Reality is that there are different sexual expectations between upper middle class persons of all races and those who are poor. 

 When Jocelyn Elders made her statement about masturbation, no one asked her what she meant and how she might suggest teaching.  But we know that living in a masturbatory fantasy world is also not the answer.  I mean, what do we think men and women who frequent porn sites do, just read the articles?    Maybe if we had waited to let her explain herself we might have a clearer understanding about what she meant.  But we closed her off and we’ll never be able to engage her in a more open conversation about what it means to be fully human.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories : ethics

« Previous Entries Next Entries »


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.