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

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

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

Is My Bonus too Big?

2 03 2010

Over the past year we’ve all been inundated with articles about large executive compensation packages and in particular about compensation packages to executives in companies that received bail out money from the government.  And this at a time when those same companies were laying off thousands of lower level employees to cut expenses.  Of the eight banks bailed out, Citigroup, Inc.  seems to be the most beleaguered and along with Goldman Sachs and AIG has received the most criticism for their high executive compensation packages.  One of the major arguments in favor of these high salaries and bonuses is that in order to keep good talent you have to pay high salaries.  Some might say and have said that if these are the best minds to run the business, that American business and in particular banking is in big trouble.  The disparity between the top and lower level Citi employees is huge and the anger among the rank and file is well documented.  A blog run by Indeed, Inc., an executive employment website documents numerous postings about Citigroup’s wage levels.  Here’s just one:

 “A Citigroup recruiter called me for a  SENIOR Accountant position @ Citigroup. I was told that the position maxed out @ $35k. For a SENIOR level position. I would hate to see what they pay their entry level people.”   

 From Zacks investment research           “Citigroup Inc.  may cap cash bonuses for 2009 at below $100,000. The 2009 bonus pool at the company is expected to be similar to the 2008 level, which was low compared to the other years. Citi may pay a large part of the bankers’ and traders’ bonuses in stock that cannot be sold for a number of years.

Citi may pay up to 40% of bonuses in the form of deferred cash and stock and the balance in the form of non-deferred cash and IOUs, which will turn to common stock in April.

Currently, Citi is working out the details of its bonus plan. Recently, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo asked Citi and 7 other of the largest banks in the nation that received significant federal aid under the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to provide information on the amount of 2009 bonus packages and their structure. Cuomo also asked the banks to explain the effect the bonus pools would have had if the banks had not received the TARP funds.

 According to Cuomo, the full disclosure and transparency of the bonus information are essential as recent government actions have given rise to public accountability issues, and TARP banks are struggling with these actions.

Citi received $45 billion in bailout money from the TARP at the height of the credit crisis. Later, around $25 billion of that was converted into common stock, representing nearly 34% of its stake held by taxpayers. The company repaid the remaining $20 billion in bailout money in December 2009, freeing the obligatory pay restrictions on its key executives.

  Citi’s plan to cap cash bonuses is to save the bank from people’s fury over the TARP banks’ 2009 bonus plans. However, the bank says may still find it difficult to keep its top employees.”

 From Reuters      “Regulators, lawmakers, and others are trying to determine how changing compensation packages might reduce the chances of future financial meltdowns. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp is considering charging lower rates for deposit insurance to banks with pay practices that it deems superior.

According to a July report from New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, Citigroup as a whole paid $5.3 billion of bonuses for 2008.

 Officials at rival companies told Reuters that Citigroup employees will essentially receive at least 60 percent of their bonuses in cash or stock that can quickly be sold. That level is high compared to some rivals, which could help the bank retain employees.  But some Citigroup employees groused at the relatively low portion of the bonus that will come in cash.

 Loren Steffy in the February 26 Houston Chronicle reports on executive pay for the General Motors Ceo, Ed Whitacre and past interim CEO Fritz Henderson.  Whitacre’s package includes $1.7million a year plus $7million in stock.  Fritz Henderson who for all practical purposes was fired is being given a $60,000. per month consulting agreement plus an expense account.  He is required to work at least 20 hours a month on the job.  Steffy suggests that Whitacre take the job for $1. per year since he received $158million from AT&T when he retired.  The interest on the $158million is about four times the $1.7million he’s receiving now.  By contrast Ford CEO Alan Mulally agreed to accept a $1. salary if Ford needed a federal bailout.  That was not necessary and Ford has gained market share and is expected to soon be in the black.  Mulally’s salary is slightly more than Whitacre’s at $2 million.  Last year GM received about $50 billion in bailout.  And as a result of that bailout you and I are now Whitacre’s employer. 

The media, the public, government regulators and congress are going through their hand wringing dance asking what should we be doing with all the bad guys.  Much of what has happened in the past few years was a long time in coming.  Questions of whether employment contracts should be honored in companies that are either bankrupt or being kept afloat to keep from going bankrupt are being used as a defense of big severance packages.  Arguments about high paid executives going elsewhere if they aren’t paid huge pay packages seems a bit contrived.  Where will they go?  Hedge funds which have shut down over 200 shops in the last two years?  Or, Europe which hasn’t had the bottom fall out yet?  Probably the best place for many of them to get employment would be with lobbyists who deal with the Washington bureaucrats, regulators and politicians who will probably not make any substantive punitive changes except as it may affect those companies and executives who played the game ethically and by the rules. 

My observation is that most relational issues such as this begin as ethical issues and because a minority acts unethically, new laws and regulations are passed in order to close loopholes or deal with unintended consequences.  But the sad truth is that those that want to circumvent the law will find ways to do so, and in so doing will effect the ability of the rest of us to carry on ethical business dealings.


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

Texas Has the Best Textbooks in the Country. Or do we?

27 02 2010

My good friend Nancy W from Little Rock Ark wrote me the other day with a concern she has with State Board of Education of Texas.  You might ask why does someone in Arkansas care about the SBOE?  The reason is that the SBOE of Texas is the state that about 46 or 47 states in the US follow when it comes to deciding on school books for their schools.  So, don’t we make good book choices?  Not according to many citizens and school officials.  Texas has become the battlefield for issues revolving around science and creationism and more recently over what is being included in history and government books as it pertains to references to the founding fathers creating a Christian nation.  According to many, this is first of all not true and trying create the impression that that this misrepresentation is a clear breach of the “wall of separation between Church and state” that Thomas Jefferson spoke about.  The current issue is whether the United States was conceived as a Christian nation.  Conservatives argue that it was.   Others would say that the founding fathers even though religious espoused the idea that God was not necessarily a Christian God.  Consider the words of the Declaration of Independence that states, “When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation…..that all men are endowed by their Creator….  This asserts that God has a hand in the affairs of men but that is more a deist conception of God, rather than a Trinitarian God.

 A good book to give a balanced assessment of religion in the creation of the United States is Jon Mecham’s book American Gospel.  Here are several quotes attributed to the founders. (2006)

 “Writing to a Hebrew Congregation in Newport, R.I., in 1790, President Washington assured his Jewish countrymen that America “gives…bigotry no sanction.”  In a treaty with the Muslim nation of Tripoli initiated by Washington, completed by John Adams, and ratified by the senate in 1797, the Founders declared that, “ the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion…” p. 19

 Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1790:“ I believe in one God, creator of the universe.  That he governs it by his Providence.  That he ought to be worshiped.  That the most acceptable service we can render to him is doing good to his other children.  That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this.  These I take to be the fundamental principles of all sound religion, and I regard them as you do, in whatever sect I meet with them.

 As to Jesus of Nazareth…I think the system of morals and his religion as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, an I have…some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble.” P.2

 “On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles,” he [Jefferson] said, “ all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning, and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind.”  P. 29

 “I never told my religion nor scrutinized that of another,” Jefferson wrote. “I never attempted to make a convert, nor wish to changer another’s creed.  I have ever judged of the religion of others by their lives…” “ For it is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read,” Jefferson said.  “By the same test the world must judge me.” P.35

 The most controversial appointee running for re-election Don McLeroy and his opponent Thomas Ratliff are so far down the Republican primary ballot they’re lost in the myriad of judges, representative and straw votes that it’ll be difficult to find them, much less know the issues involved.

 I’m sorry Nancy, but anyway, here’s your comment it its entirety.

 I believe it is unethical to use one’s narrow religious beliefs to determine laws and regulations that apply to public schools. Of course, a public servant makes decisions based on his/her belief and faith, but not when it goes against scientific data and affects the common good. The enrollment of children in public education is very diverse and different from a private academy which may teach values that reflect their faith.  For instance, I would not vote for something that proposed a prayer which could not be accepted by all children in the school classroom (ie, Jewish, Muslim, Catholics, etc) and I would not propose teaching a particular view of the universe that opposed the best knowledge of science. Even though I had retired from teaching when I served on the State Board of Education in my state, I learned that curriculum issues should be driven by the professional staff.  I believe it is unethical to use one’s narrow religious beliefs to determine laws and regulations that apply to public schools. Of course, a public servant makes decisions based on his/her belief and faith, but not when it goes against scientific data and affects the common good. The enrollment of children in public education is very diverse and different from a private academy which may teach values that reflect their faith.  For instance, I would not vote for something that proposed a prayer which could not be accepted by all children in the school classroom (ie, Jewish, Muslim, Catholics, etc) and I would not propose teaching a particular view of the universe that opposed the best knowledge of science. Even though I had retired from teaching when I served on the State Board of Education in my state, I learned that curriculum issues should be driven by the professional staff.


Comments : 8 Comments »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : 1, ethics

The Ethics of I’ll Never See You Again

21 02 2010

 An alternative to the Prisoner’s Dilemma game is a cooperation game with a set number of rounds with a finite final round that the players know about.   The rule is that you cooperate every round until the last round and then defect.  Therefore the one who defects on the last round is the winner.  The reasoning goes that if both players know when the last round is going to be, then they will both defect prior to the last round, which will change the whole dynamics of the game and the way they cooperate in the earlier rounds.  Basically, cooperation ceases and people revert to more pragmatic strategies.  But is it true that if we know when the last round is that we will take advantage of the situation and be unethical in our behavior.  If we can get away with something, will we do it?  I’ll give you two examples of the I’ll never see you again scenario.

 Several years ago, a friend of mine and I were traveling to Austin when we were caught in a terrible thunder storm.  I turned my windshield wipers up to full capacity.  As they were whipping around, the blade on my side of the car came loss and started flopping around to where I couldn’t see where I was going.  I finally was able to get to a small town off the highway and found a shade tree mechanics shop.  The mechanic looked at the blade, got a small wrench and tightened a small screw that had been holding the blade in place.  I asked how much I owed him and since he wasn’t the boss, he called someone and came back and told me it would be $25.  The whole operation took less than five minutes.  I thought that was terribly exorbitant but since I needed to get back on the road I didn’t argue about the price, paid it and went on my way.  But I wondered to myself and my friend what it would have cost someone who lived in the town, if in fact they would be charged.

 The other example had a completely different outcome.  I was coming back from a boating outing with my two young sons.  I had recently bought a very old boat and trailer and hooked it up to new motor.  At the time I bought the boat I had thought what a great bargain it was.  That was not to be the case.  As I was driving down the highway, I happened to look in my side mirror and noticed that there was a wobble in the tire on the trailer.  I stopped to inspect it and found that the lugs had eaten away the wheel rim and the wheel was dangerously close to allowing the tire to fall off. It was Sunday afternoon and I was out in the middle of no where with my pre-teen sons.  What was I to do?  I was even considering just leaving the boat, trailer, and new motor and hoping I could come back the next day and retrieve something.  As I stood there considering my limited options an old pickup truck pulled behind my boat and an old man got out.  He came up, we had a short conversation and he said that he would go home and bring some very large washers that he had and we could  jerry rig the wheels to where I could limp home.  He left, and after about an hour and I was beginning to think he’d decided not to come back, I saw the old pickup emerging in the distance.  We spent a few minutes putting the washers in place.  I didn’t have much cash on me but I offered him what I had and he said,  “no, cudn’t accept nothin mister. All I got to say is that if you ever see me on the road broke down, just stop and do the same.”  Even today as I think about his act of kindness it brings tears to my eyes. I’ve never seen him again and I’m always too busy or too afraid to help someone broken down on the road, but maybe in some other ways, I can just pass his kindness forward. 

 It makes me reflect that the game that calls us into caring relationships is never over, even when we’ll never see someone again.  Just pass it forward.


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

Undercover Boss

14 02 2010

Undercover Boss After the Super Bowl game last week, I watched the new show, Undercover Boss. The COO of Waste Management was that week’s undercover boss and he spent the week working in the field doing what his line employees did. He picked up trash at the dump, he went on a garbage run, and he sucked out port-a-potties. As a result of this experience he had an epiphany about his company’s operations. The employees did not know that he was the COO of the company. He was just a prospective new hire that the company was trying out. Among the things he learned was that for every minute an employee was late they were docked two minutes. Women drivers had to urinate in a can just like the male truck drivers and employees were reprimanded if they did not finish their runs on time. As a result of this experience he called in his staff and told them of his findings and told them that there were changes that needed to be made. Many of those changes were the result of unilateral policies that he had enacted to get better production. In the TV presentation we didn’t see much interaction between him and his staff. It was pretty much another form of unilateral action. Most of the staff seemed uneasy being in the meeting and I wondered what they were thinking being put on the spot for TV. Work place policies can involve ethics. There’s been a lot of progress on accommodation of persons with disabilities in the work place. But what of the female driver as well as the male drivers who had to urinate in a can? When a person works for a company, they usually are an employee at will. They don’t have much to say about working conditions. That’s pretty well spelled out by the employer. The goal of the COO of Waste Management was to maintain and/or increase productivity. We don’t know how those work rules were developed but we saw from the show that it appeared that it was determined from above without a lot of input from the rank and file. Many companies have found that listening to other voices can improve productivity because employees have a say in what happens. Dr. Edward Deming developed the idea of quality circles that used employees to identify problems in the production cycle and to come up with solutions to those problems. This methodology was first used in 1962 by Nippon Wireless and Telegraph and later became a mainstay of Japanese industry. Deming’s methodology revolutionized industry in Japan. It was much later that American companies began to use the system; however not with some resistance. Many American managers felt that it would not work with American workers because it was believed that American workers did not share the same loyalty to authority and enterprise that Japanese workers exhibited. But over time, many American companies have decided that giving workers the opportunity to buy into changing the system and being able to see financial benefits not only to the company but to them, has had positive results. But is this really about ethics? In many cases it is. Ethical behavior is seldom unilateral. The ethics that we abide by are most often covenantal and are seen by all parties involved as important to the well being and fairness of the system. Over time, ethics tend to seek a level of workability and if not, the system becomes dysfunctional and may even cease to exist. If people don’t believe in the ethical standards that are set out as being the accepted norm and that are important for the viability of the organization, they will find ways to circumvent those standards. And that circumvention can be from top to bottom in the organization. So, the question that I pose to you is what has been your experience of ethical standards in organizations that you have been a part? Have they been unilaterally decreed and if so what was the effect on how well they worked? Was there any effort to create a situation where there was buy in and input from the parties involved? If you were in a position to develop ethical standards for an organization that you were a part, how would you go about doing it? Please make comments below, so others may see your ideas expressed. What you have to say is important to the conversation.


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

Tit for Tat Ethics

11 02 2010

 

In past posts, we have considered factors influencing ethics without much consideration of the structures that effect person’s responses to those behaviors.  This post deals with one way of responding to another person or institutions behavior.  Game theorist Robert Axelrod set up a competition to see what strategy would be most successful in an iterated prisoner’s dilemma game (remember the prisoner’s dilemma).  Solutions were submitted by a large number of competitors with the object being to see who would be most successful.  Two hundred rounds of the game were played with the winning strategy and surprisingly simple solution being Tit for Tat.  The strategy was as follows:

In the first round, one player cooperated and after that did whatever the other player did the previous round.  In other words, if the other player cooperated, player one cooperated.  If player two defected, then player one responded in a like manner.  What’s fascinating is that Tit for Tat never won a round.  The best it ever did was a tie, but over two hundred iterations, it had the best score. 

The features that make the game work is that it is “nice because the player using it never betrays first.  It is provokable in that it quickly and reliably punishes the other player’s betrayal.  It is forgivable because it can quickly return to cooperation even after defection and it is straightforward because it is simple enough that other players see that cooperation is the best choice.”  ( Games People Play, The Teaching Company, 2008)

Whether this system is workable in all situations in real life is debatable but I think there are situations that it applies.  Remember our discussion about putting children in timeout and parents saying that it didn’t work.  The fact was that in most of those situations parents were inconsistent in carrying out of consequences and threats.  In foreign relations we see that with dictators and demagogues it is difficult to deal with them if they see that when they push against other nations and those nations acquiesce to their pushing the belligerent nation pushes even more until either they get what they want or someone places serious sanctions against them.  North Korea and Iran are current examples of this.  And we saw this same response with Hitler in WWII.  On the other hand, we have seen that Israel has taken a very aggressive posture towards aggression towards it and have used the Tit for Tat strategy very effectively.  You attack us and we will immediately retaliate.  On the other hand they have not always done a very good job with their own citizens as it pertains to illegal building of settlements on the West Bank. 

For individual Christians who believe in forgiveness Tit for Tat may seem severe.  We believe that everyone should be given another chance and that is as it should be.  But we also know that in both the old and new testament there was the concept of consequences and even though forgiveness may flow out of a broken relationship, consequences still occur.  So the question that I ask you, the reader, to consider and comment on are:

  1. How do you see Tit for Tat working or not working?
  2. What situations might you use Tit for Tat in your own relationships?
  3. What better ways might you engage persons that you feel have broken ethical covenant?

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

« Previous Entries Next Entries »


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.