An Unpublished Editorial

Shortly after the shootings at Virginia Tech, I wrote an editorial. It was perhaps the most personally significant piece I've ever written and I worked long and hard to make my point in 400 words or less.

But I never submitted it for publication.

I got to the door of the newspaper office with editorial in hand and suddenly stopped. For some inexplicable reason, I turned around, got in my truck and drove away. Perhaps I just felt it would be wrong to editorialize such a tragedy. Perhaps I was afraid of taking flak for it. For whatever reason, it remains unpublished. I post it here for the interest of whomever browses by.

--------------------------

In 1960, psychologist and president of the American Psychological Association, Dr. Hobart Mowrer, published an article in American Psychologist entitled, "Sin, the Lesser of Two Evils". He wrote,

"[We] psychologists have looked upon ... sin and moral accountability as a great incubus, and have acclaimed our liberation from it as epic-making. But at length we have discovered that to be free [is] to have the excuse of being sick rather than being sinful ... In becoming amoral, ethically neutral, and free, we have cut the very roots of our being ... and with neurotics themselves, we find ourselves asking, "Who am I?", "What is my deepest destiny?" and, "What does living really mean?"

Strangely, the many articles regarding the Virginia Tech shootings protray the killer, Cho Seung-Hui, as a man who was "an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness." Yet rarely, if ever, is Cho described as "evil". To the point, one AP article made mention of "the horror of [Cho's] ... unspeakable acts", but was most concerned with Cho's mental health, as if he couldn't help but do what he did. I'm not saying Cho was not mentally ill. But, as one psychologist put it, he "is not a person who fell through the cracks. He's a person who crawled into the cracks."

I cannot presume to know the mind of Cho Seung-Hui, but this I do know: Good men do not commit evil deeds. We cannot consider Cho's deeds evil without considering Cho evil for committing them - whether he could have helped it or not. I do not say this to garner hatred for Cho, but to recognize the legitimacy of the lost lives and the grief bore by their family and friends. To fail to recognize the evil that lived within Cho is to devalue the lives that were taken that day.

In Dr. Mowrer's own words, to deny the evil bent of human nature is to "cut the very roots of our being." For, we find life's meaning not in its pleasure, but in its pain; and no greater pain can be inflicted upon the soul than the pain suffered from the loss of a relationship. If we cannot see the evil in that, where, then, shall we see it?

Ethics and Morality pt II

The question posed by the moderator (see previous post) was:

"How do we enforce a uniform moral code without appealing to theism?"

His question assumes two things:

1. We have a need for a uniform moral code.
2. In order to enforce such a cod, a universal authority is required.

This echoes what we see taking place in the book of Judges. In Judges 17:6 we find:

"In those days, there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes."

In ancient cultures, the king was the law. To the point, our nomenclature for our measurement system testifies to this. The "foot" is an English standard unit that is approximately the length of a foot. But the foot was at one time the length of one particular foot: the foot of the ruling monarch. In cultures of antiquity, the king was, by virtue of his authority, the law.

Even in contemporary American culture, we recognize the need for a uniform moral code. Everyone, after all, knows the difference between right and wrong - and most everyone will concede that there is a difference. The Bible echoes this very idea in Romans 2:14,15:

"(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.

Thus we are left in pluralistic American society with the following dilemma: We recognize the need for a uniform moral code, but we have many options for an authority with which to enforce the code. Some options may include:

Religious beliefs
Social values
Individual values
Environmental concerns
Political preferences

We can use one or all of these as a basis for our own moral preferences, but someone who determines right and worng strictly by what is harmful to the environment will have a vastly different moral code than one who determines right and wrong according to their favorite party line.

So how can we judge between these moral authorities in an effort to choose the one that's best for us?

Stay tuned for my next post...

Ethics and Moral Authority

I had a most interesting experience a couple weeks ago...

As a state employee, under the direction of our most ethical governor, Rod Blagojevich, I was required to attend the 2nd Annual Illinois State Government Ethics Seminar at the Thompson Center in downtown Chicago. It proved to be the expected litany of case studies and "What-do-I-do-if-this-happens?" scenarios. Nothing particularly relevant to most state employees.

However, the afternoon session opened with a panel of ethics "experts" (read: lawyers who deal with ethical/legal issues), one of which included Scott Turow, a well-know author of severl best-selling law / thriller novels, as well as a member of the Illinois Ethics Commission.

Anyway, the moderator opened by first asking the question: "What is ethics?"

Illinois' Chief Ethics Officer began by giving her blaise response:

"Ethics is about doing what's right and being fair to people."

However, one particular individual, whom I remember his first name being Matthew, gave a most intelligent answer. He pointed out that ethics carries both a legal and moral component. Case in point, slavery was considered legal for many years in the United States, but that hardly made it moral. Matthew also went on to point out that American law (especially at the foundation of American government) was based largely on the Bible and the idea that God established these laws; therefore, we are to obey them.

I was surprised. I hadn't anticipated such an advanced argument from a panel of lawyers. The moderator didn't challenge Matthew's arguments, but followed his logic with the question:

"So how do we enforce a moral code without appealing to theism?"

I was astounded. Never could a more relevant or pointed question have been asked in an environment that, by nature, was hardly given to asking such questions. This was, after all, a room full of lawyers and engineers employed by the State of Illinois government.

What's fascinating is that while the moderator asked the question quite clearly, it went unanswered. I'm certain if the moderator had given consideration to his question, he'd never have asked it. But the answers forthcoming amounted to little more than, "Well, we know what's right and we have the law and we just have to make the best ethical decisions we can with what we have."

But the question wasn't "How do we make ethical decisions at all?" but "How do we make ethical decisions without appealing to an authoritative higher power?"

The question was ignored and discussion moved on to the more mundane details of case studies and government employee benefits.

So how do we approach this question? I believe the silence of the panel tells the truth: there is no solvent answer. Yet exploring what lies behind the question, I believe, can prove to be most instructive.

Stay tuned for the next post.

You Are Who You Are

I couldn't help but notice the following argument in a post on The Beginner's Mind which asserts:

Those folks who risked their lives for the good of others practice their religion in such a way as to reflect that compassion for others. Being religious didn't cause them to help end slavery or further the civil rights movement. I'm not religious and I find common cause with the enemies of slavery and champions of civil rights. Religious beliefs reflect the believer not the other way around, in my opinion. Just as an atheist like myself gladly works for civil rights, a Christian wearing the hood of the KKK would likely have little problem with black slavery.
...
That's what we'd like removed from the public sphere; this notion that true morality and social justice flows from religion and nowhere else. And, yes, this is what conservative Christians believe.

The author presents two ideas in this statement: First, that we are who we are and our beliefs and life choices simply express this - they don't change us into something we were not before. Second, if you are a conservative Christian, you believe those who are not Christian are inherently immoral - incapable of knowing right from wrong.

The first point the author makes is not only wrong, in my opinion, but also irresponsible. He states an idea that has been popular for quite a while now - Eddie Vedder sang about it in a rather bland song of his entitled "Who You Are" on Pearl Jam's "No Code" album. The refrain was "You are who you are". a nice little New Age mantra, perhaps, but not worth an awful lot when you're dealing with social issues of the day. Nevermind the fact that the remainder of the lyrics were, in Eddie Vedder's trademark fashion, mumbled incoherently. Not that it would havea mattered, for it seems the remainder of the lyrics were chosen largely because their rhyme and meter, not for any particular meaning. It's interesting to note that when one of alternative rock's premier bands writes a song about the meaning of humanity, it amounts to a song about nothing...

All of this, of course, is also contrary to what Christianity teaches in 2 Corinthians 5:17:

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!"

What the author argues is fatalistic and, in my opinion, unsustainable in the face of documentable human behavior. For example, Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade publicly repudiated the abortion right for which she so ardently strove in that landmark 1973 case, but she only did so after becoming a Christian. Theodore Weld became a Christian under the preaching of Charles Finney (a man whom he hated) and began the American abolition movement in the early-mid 1800's. In both cases, we see people ultimately behaving contrariwise to who they once were. This raises the question, did they really change? If so, then "You are who you are" loses it's definitive, fatalistic edge and becomes a meaningless mantra not quite worthy of Yogi Berra.

The "You are who you are" philosophy does not admit change. It's a popular lie that is told especially loudly in homosexual circles to keep gays who do not wish to be gay from seeking treatment. The philosophy hinders true social change, and while I'm certain the author wouldn't express it in these extreme terms, if we apply that philosophy everyone, then who can fault John Mark Karr for being addicted to kiddie porn? After all, that's just the way he is, right?

Grotesque humanistic New Age philosophy aside, one issue remains: that conservative Christians believe that morality can only be found in Chistianity. As a conservative Christian, I reject that outright - and always have. Most any Christian who knows their faith well enough knows that is false. We need only cite Romans 1 or, better yet, Romans 5:14,15 to point out that everyone knows the difference between right and wrong. After all, why would a non-Christian demand justice for wrongs committed if they had no sense of morality to begin with? While I know some in Christianity may express it in those terms, most would not. From the conservative Christian viewpoint, an atheist civil rights activist who has righted numerous social wrongs in their lifetime has no more claim on heaven than any professing Christian wearing a KKK hood.

Christianity clearly teaches it is not about what you've done or what you know. It's about Who you know and what He's done.

- Graffy