Q. What do you think of the American humanist association's new "godless holiday" campaign? The ads, displayed on transit systems in five major U.S cities, will say: "no god? . . . No problem! Be good for goodness'
sake. Humanism is the idea that you can be good without a belief in god." Another front in the so-called secular "war on Christmas"? Another example of the pluralistic strength of america? And would you agree with the premise, "no god, no problem"?
A. “He sees you when you’re sleeping, he knows when you’re awake. He knows if you’ve been bad or good so be good for goodness sake”.
This carol has been used for years to help motivate small children to good behavior during the holiday season so that they can win Santa’s favor. The point isn’t really to be “good for goodness sake” but rather to be good so that Santa will bring you the presents that you requested for Christmas. Bluntly put, it is an admonition to be good so that you can get what you want. Apparently goodness as its own reward is insufficient, particularly at this time of year when we’ve come to believe that the entire U.S. economy depends on the retail sales that we rack up between Black Friday and the start of the New Year.
That being said, it is hard to argue with anyone putting up signs in public places that remind humans to show more humanity to each other. The opportunities for people to be good are endless and universal – they aren’t confined to one particular time of year or people with one particular set of beliefs. I don’t believe that you have to believe in God in order to be good. I’m not even sure that it always makes it any easier to be good.
But I am 100% sure that believing in God is about more than just being good. And Christmas is about more than being good so that you can get more stuff. It is a birthday celebration for the one who came to bring the world good news so that we might have everlasting life if we believe – arguably the best present anyone could ever offer you.
Ironically this good news comes with a cost however. First you have to believe. But that’s only part of it. You have to actually follow the rules of the faith and act on those beliefs. The two most important rules are to love God with all your heart and to love your neighbor as yourself. Certainly being good is one way of demonstrating your faith and your love, of God and neighbor, but it’s only a start. In addition to being good Christians are called to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, provide shelter for the homeless and affordable healthcare for the sick – and perhaps the hardest one, love your enemies.
Simply “being good” would certainly be a lot easier. But not nearly as rewarding.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Religion isn't above the law
U.S. Catholic bishops are defending their direct involvement in congressional deliberations over health-care reform, saying that church leaders have a duty to raise moral concerns on any issue, including abortion rights and health care for the poor. Do you agree? What role should religious leaders have -- or not have -- in government policymaking?
When issues of morality come up, religious leaders are often looked to as the experts. We somehow sense that they have a better grasp on right vs. wrong than the common man or woman, perhaps because they’ve spent more time studying the rules (in the Bible, Torah or Koran).
We often turn to them on questions of individual ethics so it makes sense that as a country we also look for their guidance on questions of national policy. And as leaders I would agree that they have a duty to raise moral concerns even when they aren’t asked if they feel that it is a major issue that could impact a significant number of people.
However their moral authority doesn’t give them carte blanche in terms of how they raise these issues. It’s one thing to exercise their freedom of speech on their home turf – in their churches, among their community of parishioners, at town hall meetings as concerned community leaders. But if they cross the line between clergy and lobbyist, new rules will – and should – apply.
The laws governing behavior, taxing and reporting for lobbyists are different from those governing non-profit religious organizations because presumably the primary objectives of each are different. It would appear that the rules regarding lobbyists were intended to give transparency to the process and safeguard the broader interests of the American public. If the Bishops want to follow their moral argument all the way to the floor of Congress that’s great, but at some point they then need to stop hiding behind the veil of the church (and the tax breaks that come with being a church) and join the other lobbyists in following the rules.
Christian religious leaders, including the Catholic bishops, are called to engage and provide thought leadership on the critical moral issues of their time. Jesus set this example with his teachings which profoundly challenged the political status quo 2000 years ago. From the synagogues and the streets he preached a message that inspired the people to question their political system and ethics. In the end his message was so effective that it led to charges of treason from the government. All this without ever going to Rome and speaking on the senate floor!
The Catholic Bishops, and all other religious leaders are certainly called to raise the moral and ethical questions that we should be attending to as a nation. The question is not “should they” but “how should they”.
When issues of morality come up, religious leaders are often looked to as the experts. We somehow sense that they have a better grasp on right vs. wrong than the common man or woman, perhaps because they’ve spent more time studying the rules (in the Bible, Torah or Koran).
We often turn to them on questions of individual ethics so it makes sense that as a country we also look for their guidance on questions of national policy. And as leaders I would agree that they have a duty to raise moral concerns even when they aren’t asked if they feel that it is a major issue that could impact a significant number of people.
However their moral authority doesn’t give them carte blanche in terms of how they raise these issues. It’s one thing to exercise their freedom of speech on their home turf – in their churches, among their community of parishioners, at town hall meetings as concerned community leaders. But if they cross the line between clergy and lobbyist, new rules will – and should – apply.
The laws governing behavior, taxing and reporting for lobbyists are different from those governing non-profit religious organizations because presumably the primary objectives of each are different. It would appear that the rules regarding lobbyists were intended to give transparency to the process and safeguard the broader interests of the American public. If the Bishops want to follow their moral argument all the way to the floor of Congress that’s great, but at some point they then need to stop hiding behind the veil of the church (and the tax breaks that come with being a church) and join the other lobbyists in following the rules.
Christian religious leaders, including the Catholic bishops, are called to engage and provide thought leadership on the critical moral issues of their time. Jesus set this example with his teachings which profoundly challenged the political status quo 2000 years ago. From the synagogues and the streets he preached a message that inspired the people to question their political system and ethics. In the end his message was so effective that it led to charges of treason from the government. All this without ever going to Rome and speaking on the senate floor!
The Catholic Bishops, and all other religious leaders are certainly called to raise the moral and ethical questions that we should be attending to as a nation. The question is not “should they” but “how should they”.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
A New Type of National Security Concern
For most of us Thanksgiving is a holiday that is as much focused on eating as it is giving thanks. Because it isn't a religious holiday there's no devotional books or pagents to get ready for. Nor candy and costumes to buy, presents to wrap, or frankly parties to go to. It is really all centered on the big meal - what to serve, where to eat, who to invite to dinner. And boy do we eat! In many cases limiting our calories on the days leading up to it so that we can feel free to eat with abandon and no guilt.
But according to the USDA there are at least 17 million households in the US who are suffering from "food insecurity" who probably are thinking about Thanksgiving this year in a very different light. This number represents a 31% increase vs. just last year, caused by a combination of soaring food prices and global recession that has left many unemployed or underemployed. The recent survey suggests that almost 15% of U.S. households had trouble putting enough food on their table which means about 49 million people, including 17 million children, worried about getting enough to eat last year. Thanks goodness many were able to access federal nutrition programs, like food stamps, free-lunch programs in schools, and local food pantries. But at least one-third are estimated to have experienced real hunger - their insecurity about ability to get food was realized and they didn't get enough.
Amazing that in this country where we have so much, and in fact, are using more than our fair share of the entire world's resources, we still have so many people who don't know exactly where their next meal will come from, or even when it will come. They go to sleep at night not worrying about border control or foreign terrorists but rather asking, when will my neighbor care for me as they care for themselves?
What if we took food insecurity as serious as we take other forms of national security? What would that mean for the way we allocate our tax dollars and the standards to which we'd hold our local and national politicians? Donating to food pantries is certainly an important form of aid but its far from a solution to such a systemic problem. We have to continue to support, fund and as appropriate, expand the federal and state programs that provide food to those living in this country that need it.
So as we sit down to our Thanksgiving feasts this Thursday let us pause to give thanks that we live in a country that has such abundance that we can peacefully enjoy our annual food extravaganza with family and friends, and that while we have neighbors that are not always so fortunate we are thankful that we have the power to change that - through how we vote, how we contribute our money and how we volunteer our time. And then let's do it!
But according to the USDA there are at least 17 million households in the US who are suffering from "food insecurity" who probably are thinking about Thanksgiving this year in a very different light. This number represents a 31% increase vs. just last year, caused by a combination of soaring food prices and global recession that has left many unemployed or underemployed. The recent survey suggests that almost 15% of U.S. households had trouble putting enough food on their table which means about 49 million people, including 17 million children, worried about getting enough to eat last year. Thanks goodness many were able to access federal nutrition programs, like food stamps, free-lunch programs in schools, and local food pantries. But at least one-third are estimated to have experienced real hunger - their insecurity about ability to get food was realized and they didn't get enough.
Amazing that in this country where we have so much, and in fact, are using more than our fair share of the entire world's resources, we still have so many people who don't know exactly where their next meal will come from, or even when it will come. They go to sleep at night not worrying about border control or foreign terrorists but rather asking, when will my neighbor care for me as they care for themselves?
What if we took food insecurity as serious as we take other forms of national security? What would that mean for the way we allocate our tax dollars and the standards to which we'd hold our local and national politicians? Donating to food pantries is certainly an important form of aid but its far from a solution to such a systemic problem. We have to continue to support, fund and as appropriate, expand the federal and state programs that provide food to those living in this country that need it.
So as we sit down to our Thanksgiving feasts this Thursday let us pause to give thanks that we live in a country that has such abundance that we can peacefully enjoy our annual food extravaganza with family and friends, and that while we have neighbors that are not always so fortunate we are thankful that we have the power to change that - through how we vote, how we contribute our money and how we volunteer our time. And then let's do it!
Community trust trumps individual faith
Q. The Fort Hood shootings have raised questions again about how the military should handle the personal religious beliefs of its soldiers, whether they are evangelical Christians, Muslims, Wiccans, and so on. What is the proper role of religion -- and personal religious belief -- in the U.S. armed forces? Should a particular religious affiliation disqualify someone from active military service? How far should the military go to accommodate personal religious beliefs and practices?
A. Religion has a role wherever matters of life and death are present, and that certainly describes military service. All members of the armed services, both those that expect to see active duty and those that serve in staff roles that are far from the front lines, have to realize that the possibility of death is their constant companion. For those of faith, their religious doctrine and spiritual disciplines provide wingman-like support as they head into daily battle.
Accommodating the religious beliefs and practices of those in the military within reason is a sound management practice because it can provide a coping mechanism that helps make sense of the insanity of war. Priests, pastors, clerics and rabbis play a unique role in times of crisis by helping to put the violence, loss and anger into a larger framework with a purpose that is more enduring than the immediate pain. They are some of the resources that can facilitate a “normal” life on base after a day of fighting in the field. The benefits they provide have the potential to enhance life for the whole community simply by tending to the spiritual needs of the individual.
But what defines “within reason”? I would argue that it is anything that aligns with the objectives above, i.e. providing the resources and accommodations required to address the spiritual needs of the individuals in order to make a positive impact on the military community as a whole. That would include the presence of religious leadership, conduct of regular worship activities, celebration of key religious holidays, and accommodations for special dietary practices that are motivated by religious beliefs. However accommodations that privilege one religious sect over another or feed historic tensions between the religions are not “within reason” because in this type of life or death context, the building up of the community must take priority over the building up of the individual. To be effective against the enemy, the enemy must be external – not within. The ability to have faith in and trust ones fellow soldiers is a critical enabler in an effective military; perhaps even more important for some than faith in a higher power.
As long as a soldier can demonstrate that his/her religious beliefs align with and support the goals of the larger military community they should be allowed to serve in active duty. However if there is any evidence that the impact of their religious beliefs will prevent them from full participation in achieving the collective mission of the community then they should be excluded for the safety of all involved. In this case the needs of the whole have to take priority over the desires of the individual as a sign of respect for the willingness of those in the military to make the ultimate sacrifice for their fellow countrymen and women.
A. Religion has a role wherever matters of life and death are present, and that certainly describes military service. All members of the armed services, both those that expect to see active duty and those that serve in staff roles that are far from the front lines, have to realize that the possibility of death is their constant companion. For those of faith, their religious doctrine and spiritual disciplines provide wingman-like support as they head into daily battle.
Accommodating the religious beliefs and practices of those in the military within reason is a sound management practice because it can provide a coping mechanism that helps make sense of the insanity of war. Priests, pastors, clerics and rabbis play a unique role in times of crisis by helping to put the violence, loss and anger into a larger framework with a purpose that is more enduring than the immediate pain. They are some of the resources that can facilitate a “normal” life on base after a day of fighting in the field. The benefits they provide have the potential to enhance life for the whole community simply by tending to the spiritual needs of the individual.
But what defines “within reason”? I would argue that it is anything that aligns with the objectives above, i.e. providing the resources and accommodations required to address the spiritual needs of the individuals in order to make a positive impact on the military community as a whole. That would include the presence of religious leadership, conduct of regular worship activities, celebration of key religious holidays, and accommodations for special dietary practices that are motivated by religious beliefs. However accommodations that privilege one religious sect over another or feed historic tensions between the religions are not “within reason” because in this type of life or death context, the building up of the community must take priority over the building up of the individual. To be effective against the enemy, the enemy must be external – not within. The ability to have faith in and trust ones fellow soldiers is a critical enabler in an effective military; perhaps even more important for some than faith in a higher power.
As long as a soldier can demonstrate that his/her religious beliefs align with and support the goals of the larger military community they should be allowed to serve in active duty. However if there is any evidence that the impact of their religious beliefs will prevent them from full participation in achieving the collective mission of the community then they should be excluded for the safety of all involved. In this case the needs of the whole have to take priority over the desires of the individual as a sign of respect for the willingness of those in the military to make the ultimate sacrifice for their fellow countrymen and women.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
A "Good Death"
Proposed health-care reform legislation includes a provision that allows Medicare to pay for "end-of-life" counseling for seniors and their families who request it. The provision -- which Sarah Palin erroneously described as "death panels" for seniors -- nearly derailed President Obama's health-care initiative. Some Republicans still argue that the provision would ration health care for the elderly. Does end-of-life care prolong life or does it prolong suffering? Should it be a part of health-care reform?
A “good death” sounds like the ultimate oxymoron but I can say that I’ve personally witnessed a few as a student chaplain in a hospital. Two stand out in particular. In one case the patient was a woman nearly 100 years old but in relatively good health given her age. In fact the only thing really wrong with her was that she was old, but that was enough. The end was around the corner and the patient was ready, although her family was not. As she explained to me, she was tired and wanted to use the last bit of energy she could muster to make sure that her wishes were followed, despite the fact that they might well contradict the wishes of her beloved family. She was ready to go and she wanted end-of-life counseling for her children and grandchildren to help them let her go peacefully. She had lived a good life and now wanted a good death.
The other case was much tougher because it was a trauma patient who had been in a car accident and suffered severe injuries which would likely eventually prove fatal. The patient had not been at all prepared for death and therefore had expressed no wishes, and his wife was at a complete loss as to what do next. Thanks to modern medical technology he did not appear to be suffering but his state of existence could hardly be called living. And his wife was clearly suffering. The doctors quoted medical statistics that gave only infinitesimal chances for him regaining consciousness and no hope of him ever being able to return to any semblance of “a normal life”. End-of-life counseling helped his wife thoughtfully, and prayerfully, discern how he would want to die based on how he had tried to live. She was empowered to help create the type of death that he might have defined as “good”.
Death is a natural phase of life, and therefore should be naturally addressed as a part of healthcare. There are often not many choices in death, but end-of-life counseling and care does offer one way to help take some of the sting out of the experience for all affected, and give them one last choice. The definition of a “good death” is individual and subjective; historically those with money had an advantage in trying to create a good death, much as they had an advantage in creating a good life. Healthcare reform can and should bring that option to more people by provides end-of-life care options for all.
A “good death” sounds like the ultimate oxymoron but I can say that I’ve personally witnessed a few as a student chaplain in a hospital. Two stand out in particular. In one case the patient was a woman nearly 100 years old but in relatively good health given her age. In fact the only thing really wrong with her was that she was old, but that was enough. The end was around the corner and the patient was ready, although her family was not. As she explained to me, she was tired and wanted to use the last bit of energy she could muster to make sure that her wishes were followed, despite the fact that they might well contradict the wishes of her beloved family. She was ready to go and she wanted end-of-life counseling for her children and grandchildren to help them let her go peacefully. She had lived a good life and now wanted a good death.
The other case was much tougher because it was a trauma patient who had been in a car accident and suffered severe injuries which would likely eventually prove fatal. The patient had not been at all prepared for death and therefore had expressed no wishes, and his wife was at a complete loss as to what do next. Thanks to modern medical technology he did not appear to be suffering but his state of existence could hardly be called living. And his wife was clearly suffering. The doctors quoted medical statistics that gave only infinitesimal chances for him regaining consciousness and no hope of him ever being able to return to any semblance of “a normal life”. End-of-life counseling helped his wife thoughtfully, and prayerfully, discern how he would want to die based on how he had tried to live. She was empowered to help create the type of death that he might have defined as “good”.
Death is a natural phase of life, and therefore should be naturally addressed as a part of healthcare. There are often not many choices in death, but end-of-life counseling and care does offer one way to help take some of the sting out of the experience for all affected, and give them one last choice. The definition of a “good death” is individual and subjective; historically those with money had an advantage in trying to create a good death, much as they had an advantage in creating a good life. Healthcare reform can and should bring that option to more people by provides end-of-life care options for all.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
why bother to be good?
Most of us like to think that we do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do. But how do we know what is right? Last week's Washington Post question hypothesized that our sense of right and wrong comes from our understanding of God. As I've been thinking about it more this week, I have decided I disagree. I think our sense of right and wrong is more connected to our beliefs about what we can get away with than they are our desire to do what is right in the sight of God.
As Christians we're at least somewhat familiar with the 10 Commandments, the Greatest Commandment (love God with all your heart, mind and soul and your neighbor as yourself), and the stories of how God disciplined/destroyed those who did evil (i.e. wrong) in His sight. And as citizens we're at least somewhat familiar with civil law and the penalties that go with breaking the law. Yet as I've been observing human behavior this past week I've become pretty convinced that our knowledge of these commandments and laws isn't really the primary driver of our day-to-day behavior. We know it is wrong to lie, yet we tell "little white lies" because it just makes life easier sometimes. We know we're supposed to love our neighbor but we don't give the panhandler money because we're not sure he's going to really use it for food instead of liquor. And we know that we're not supposed to drive over the speed limit/when tired/while talking on our cell phone/after having two beers but we do because "everyone does it". And frankly, we don't think we'll get caught.
Our sense of right and wrong may come from God but our good behavior pushes the limits of bad - because sometimes being good is inconvenient, costly, more work, etc. When the advantages to us are clear, when it takes no extra effort, and when we're afraid that we'll be punished for being bad, then we are good. The advantages to being good can take many forms - praise from parents/teachers, popularity with peers, external admiration, internal satisfaction of making someone else happy etc. Somewhere on that list is hopefully an understanding that being good is pleasing to God but I suspect it isn't top of mind.
Therefore my observations this week affirmed my post last week. An understanding of God and religion is not a prerequisite for goodness. It doesn't hurt - but it also provides no guarantee.
As Christians we're at least somewhat familiar with the 10 Commandments, the Greatest Commandment (love God with all your heart, mind and soul and your neighbor as yourself), and the stories of how God disciplined/destroyed those who did evil (i.e. wrong) in His sight. And as citizens we're at least somewhat familiar with civil law and the penalties that go with breaking the law. Yet as I've been observing human behavior this past week I've become pretty convinced that our knowledge of these commandments and laws isn't really the primary driver of our day-to-day behavior. We know it is wrong to lie, yet we tell "little white lies" because it just makes life easier sometimes. We know we're supposed to love our neighbor but we don't give the panhandler money because we're not sure he's going to really use it for food instead of liquor. And we know that we're not supposed to drive over the speed limit/when tired/while talking on our cell phone/after having two beers but we do because "everyone does it". And frankly, we don't think we'll get caught.
Our sense of right and wrong may come from God but our good behavior pushes the limits of bad - because sometimes being good is inconvenient, costly, more work, etc. When the advantages to us are clear, when it takes no extra effort, and when we're afraid that we'll be punished for being bad, then we are good. The advantages to being good can take many forms - praise from parents/teachers, popularity with peers, external admiration, internal satisfaction of making someone else happy etc. Somewhere on that list is hopefully an understanding that being good is pleasing to God but I suspect it isn't top of mind.
Therefore my observations this week affirmed my post last week. An understanding of God and religion is not a prerequisite for goodness. It doesn't hurt - but it also provides no guarantee.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
God doesn't have a monopoly on goodness
--Is there good without God? Can people be good without God? How can people be good, in the moral and ethical sense, without being grounded in some sort of belief in a being which is greater than they are? Where do concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, come from if not from religion? From where do you get your sense of good and evil, right and wrong?
God certainly is good, however all things good don’t necessarily find their roots in God. Our physical existence enables us to experience the world through our senses and to declare at a very visceral level that some things are good simply because they make us feel good. There is a cause and effect to good and evil, right and wrong, that doesn’t require an understanding of God in order to fully appreciate the differences between the two. We’ve rather successfully taught our excitable young dog right from wrong but we’ve made much less progress on developing his concept of the divine!
However beyond the personal definition and experience of good and evil there is the community experience which actually shapes a significant portion of our moral and ethical perspective. Our morals and ethics are grounded in a belief in some “thing” greater than we are, but that “thing” can be the family we grew up in, the neighborhood we live in, the city we vote in, etc. It doesn’t necessarily have to be God.
The community craves good and employs strategies to increase the common good, including punishing those who behave in ways that are harmful to the community. The community to which we belong shapes our sense of right vs. wrong – and they let us know in no uncertain terms where the boundaries are. And just as an individual can physically experience good and evil, so can the community in the form of uncontrollable, unexplainable human or “natural” events. When these uncontrollable events are bad we tend to label them as “evil” and to seek a place to lay the blame. In my experience we are very happy to take all the credit for good but then to look outside the community to identify the source of evil.
And this is where religion and God often enter the picture. In seeking to explain the unexplainable suffering and hardship that will eventually occur in any community we name God as the one with enough power to have caused this tragedy – and then look at each other to figure out what someone among us did to incur God’s wrath. The witch hunt for the agent of evil begins. But that doesn’t make good and evil a religious issue but rather we turn to religion to help make sense of the evil in particular that we observe in the world.
God certainly is good, however all things good don’t necessarily find their roots in God. Our physical existence enables us to experience the world through our senses and to declare at a very visceral level that some things are good simply because they make us feel good. There is a cause and effect to good and evil, right and wrong, that doesn’t require an understanding of God in order to fully appreciate the differences between the two. We’ve rather successfully taught our excitable young dog right from wrong but we’ve made much less progress on developing his concept of the divine!
However beyond the personal definition and experience of good and evil there is the community experience which actually shapes a significant portion of our moral and ethical perspective. Our morals and ethics are grounded in a belief in some “thing” greater than we are, but that “thing” can be the family we grew up in, the neighborhood we live in, the city we vote in, etc. It doesn’t necessarily have to be God.
The community craves good and employs strategies to increase the common good, including punishing those who behave in ways that are harmful to the community. The community to which we belong shapes our sense of right vs. wrong – and they let us know in no uncertain terms where the boundaries are. And just as an individual can physically experience good and evil, so can the community in the form of uncontrollable, unexplainable human or “natural” events. When these uncontrollable events are bad we tend to label them as “evil” and to seek a place to lay the blame. In my experience we are very happy to take all the credit for good but then to look outside the community to identify the source of evil.
And this is where religion and God often enter the picture. In seeking to explain the unexplainable suffering and hardship that will eventually occur in any community we name God as the one with enough power to have caused this tragedy – and then look at each other to figure out what someone among us did to incur God’s wrath. The witch hunt for the agent of evil begins. But that doesn’t make good and evil a religious issue but rather we turn to religion to help make sense of the evil in particular that we observe in the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)