Benediction for 11/04/10

A post-election version taken from Ecclesiasticus 28:14-26...

A backbiting tongue hath disquieted many, and driven them from nation to nation: strong cities hath it pulled down, and overthrown the houses of great men. A backbiting tongue hath cast out virtuous women, and deprived them of their labours. Whoso hearkeneth unto it shall never find rest, and never dwell quietly. The stroke of the whip maketh marks in the flesh: but the stroke of the tongue breaketh the bones. Many have fallen by the edge of the sword: but not so many as have fallen by the tongue. Well is he that is defended through the venom thereof; who hath not drawn the yoke thereof, nor hath been bound in her bands. For the yoke thereof is a yoke of iron, and the bands thereof are bands of brass. The death thereof is an evil death, the grave were better than it. It shall not have rule over them that fear God, neither shall they be burned with the flame thereof. Such as forsake the Lord shall fall into it; and it shall burn in them, and not be quenched; it shall be sent upon them as a lion, and devour them as a leopard. Look that thou hedge thy possession about with thorns, and bind up thy silver and gold, And weigh thy words in a balance, and make a door and bar for thy mouth. Beware thou slide not by it, lest thou fall before him that lieth in wait.

Book Recommendation: "Half the Sky" by Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl Wudunn

I only recently ran across this book and I quickly took it all in.  If you have ever wanted to get an honest assessment of some of the major problems facing our world and an accompanying set of solutions that should appeal to people of virtually all political backgrounds, this book is a great place to start.  The authors do not shy away from hard questions nor do they settle for easy answers.  Half the Sky focuses on the plight of women in peripheral (i.e. "third world") countries and attempts to make the case why improving the health, education and the influence of women is both a moral issue and is also vital to improving the welfare of the societies that make such investments as well.  In particular they emphasize that both in presentation and in practice such efforts should not be labeled "women's issues", both because of open and hidden misogynistic tendencies to dismiss women and because it doesn't fully capture the impact these issues have on all areas of life (they ask, for example, whether the Atlantic slave trade should have been considered a "black" issue).   It is now out in paperback and is available in electronic format (Kindle, Nook, etc) and might have made its way into your local library system, so check it out.

Standing for and standing with -- solidarity with those on the margins

What is the best way to help those who are on the margins -- in terms of social or economic status, power, or in some other fashion?  How you do envision a solution, partial or whole, to the neglect or abuse of those who fall into such a category?

This is a perennial question for those working to improve living conditions for those on the outside -- those excluded based on some quality deemed inferior, insufficient, impure, inconvenient or otherwise undesirable.  A major model employed with particular vigor in the US has been the human/civil model, which has its critics such as Andrew Sullivan (writing below about discrimination involving homosexuals):

Liberalism properly restricts itself to law - not culture - in addressing social problems; and by describing all homosexuals as a monolithic minority, it is able to avoid the complexities of the gay world as a whole, just as blanket civil rights legislation draws a veil over the varieties of black America by casting the question entirely in terms of non-black attitudes.

Is change coming to the relationship of morality and politics?

What do you think?

I recently saw part of a program where someone was claiming that abortion was a moral evil requiring resolute action, which amounted solely to banning the procedure, but fighting poverty and providing affordable health care to pregnant women was not as urgent. Those things were a matter of private conscience, and you could be a "good Christian" even if you had various opinions and attitudes about those issues. Even though poverty and health concerns drive many women to consider abortion whether it is legal or not.

So extreme and debilitating material and psychological poverty then aren't major moral evils to be fought will all due concern and effort, but the consequences, including higher rates of violent crime, drug use, abortion, etc - they are, of course, and we must step up the fight. That's why I think Obama's position, for example, of trying to reduce or eliminate the factors that tend lead to abortions should be a priority. I don't see why everyone can't support that whether or not they want abortions to be legal or illegal.

As an additional note, this highlights the problem with focusing ethical and moral considerations either solely or even heavily primarily to either the social or to the individual. We do not exist in a vacuum and we are responsible for the atmosphere we create and the influences we exert, either intentionally or apathetically. Yet even so each of us has a personal choice in how to respond to these conditions. To over-emphasize either of these is a cop out and ignores the reality in which moral choices are made.

The same is also true for any system, religious, social, political, etc, in which moral choices are not made available or accessible - when people are essentially required to choose among immoral options. This is every bit as destructive as a narcissistic hedonist who always chooses their own pain and pleasure as their motivator above the welfare of anyone else. Some just want to deal with the system actively facilitating or promoting the "sin", others just with the would-be "sinner". I can't see how to separate the two - they are both reflections of each other, different expressions of the same flaw.