One disturbing trend would be an understatement when referring to the United States these days. Yet if there is 'one disturbing trend' that I have noticed, it is the inability of the general citizenry to think clearly, to discern, to reason, to order ,order, and systematize and to compare and contrast in planning, decision-making and other acts of reason. The etiology of the problem, in my opinion, lies partly with the changes in Education, ('holistic' education has not helped); partly with changes in family structure and roles, and partly with the media, and the constant grab for non-stop entertainment as opposed to other pursuits.
A perfect example of the problem, albeit a minor one arose in a story on a local news channel not too long ago. A demolition company had just demolished the wrong house, and the owner, an aging man came to check on his childhood home, where he still kept his mother's china cabinet and other memorabilia, to find it in rubble. In tears he called the demolition company, and asked why in the world they had razed his house to the ground. They said, 'Well, we had the address'. He replied, 'it was the wrong address'. They stressed, that their fault was minor because 'they had the address'.
That little vignette is a perfect example of the logical retardation that seems to have beset the country over the past several years. The idea of doing wrong, of causing suffering, of having to pay damages, was of lesser concern than whether something can be 'said' to make the errors all go away. More and more I hear that type of reasoning. Once a number of years ago, I sat on an ethics committee for a Children's Hospital research review. Whenever someone wanted to do research in the hospital, they came before the committee, presented the study, the risks, the safeguards, the consent process and so on to the multi-discipline group. Once a fellow described a study regarding treatment of children with Cystic Fibrosis, and one possible side effect of a treatment was that it could get worse. This concerned me (then a College Professor at a Medical School), and a Rabbi who also sat on the board, although it seemed to bother no one else. At least I thought, they would offer treatment, if the new procedure did not work, but that was not the case. After some debate about the ethics of the study, the head of the committee turned to speak with the hospital attorney, asking , 'Will we get in any trouble for this?' The bottom line was not whether it was ethical or not, but what it would cost the hospital monetarily if something went wrong. Again, no 'rights and wrongs', no concern for other people, only the bottom dollar and not getting in trouble.
We're all fine with that kind of reasoning as long as it is not our child when the treatment goes wrong, or the wrong house gets demolished.
The problem though extends further than that: it extends to Congress, the national debt and mortgage crisis, to issues regarding Church and State, to Medicare, to Wall Street, to Psychology, Law, and Medicine and just about every other area in life which requires in-depth thinking. 'Pork barrel' spending in Congress isn't just a result of special interests, it is a result of failure to reason down the line: and so is the mortgage crisis , social security crisis, health crisis and national debt. There is a new non-chalance regarding actions at the highest level of the land: e.g. giving the Queen of England an I-pod for a gift, or giving a Russian dignitary, a prank gift with a misspelling. People at the highest level of decision making, are thinking in the moment, for the moment and carnally, contrary to higher level discernment of times past.
The Vatican, no matter which side of it one stands on, has a telling saying:
"We think in centuries here."
They certainly do, as do any millennia-old institutions or groups: they consider every major decision for its wisdom, short-term consequences and long term consequences, and whether there are safeguards against failure, and how the decision and its possible outcome will impact not just the current situation but the next generation, and the generations to follow. They also learn from past mistakes, noting what works and what does not, and detailing at the highest levels of the world a better descriptive psychology than anyone teaches in a classroom. Monarchies which have survived centuries and great families have learned a few lessons: never to turn in on themselves, never in in bitter quarrels to make the negative known, and how to deal with every situation. Further, they teach it to their children and grandchildren, who will someday follow suit. In America, we just don't do that much anymore: we give a little advice here and there, make sure kids are clothed and off to school and count on them to impart reasoning, thinking, and problem solving skills, but almost all our education today at home and in school is focused on 'in-the-moment' gratification with the highest ideal being some myth of 'self-esteem'. Wisdom and reasoning, ordered thinking and thinking in systems is disappearing from the American way of life. Families and institutions who grow great and survive, continue in seeing themselves as whole and vital units, and pass not just knowledge, but acumen onto their sons and daughters.
Getting to the point
Now, after that diatribe, one probably thinks that this blog is about better education and the training of thinking and reasoning (which there should be, but that is for another time); but the issue at hand particularly is the need in our society to not 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' and stop repeating tried and true phrases and axioms, stop following 'handbooks' of correct behavior, and stop refusing to consider some ideas when they are related to other distasteful ideas, and /or distasteful people.
Liberal and Conservative Handbooks
One of the first issues that needs to be dismissed is the following of hardcore rules for how liberals vs conservatives 'have' to think. The news channels are down the line on one side or another save for a few that most consider 'boring' but carefully weigh the facts. BBC and the PBS news programs are examples of the latter. Does anyone doubt though, on a nightly basis on TV which side of an issue Keith Olbermann, or Rachel Maddow will end up on? Or Pat Buchanan, O'Reilly, or some others? This is no smear of those folks: they are all very bright and capable, clear-spoken, and can be really compassionate about other people even though they are on opposite continents of thought. Yet that is how we divide issues and reasoning and why we never move ahead. Liberals would have to hide in a closet if they opposed Proposition 8, or abortion. And a Conservative who opposed military spending, or some other hot conservative issue, would have to do likewise. The world and nation have become so complex, beset by so many threats and for the first time since the Civil war, even the possibility of overthrow, that polarized thinking and carnal reasoning will only contribute to the fracturing.
Mixed Issues
An example of a mixed issue that polarizes people, without clear thought, is the separation of Church and State. We hear about the Deutsche Christen, the nazified Church in the Shoah which changed doctrine, practice, training , theology and liturgy to satisfy the Nazis, and we cry 'how could they: why would anyone do that" and we use it as an ensign of danger and revulsion. We fill out 5013c organization forms though, for non-profit status of Churches so that we can give tax deductions for contributions, and do not realize at all that it is the same issue: the registration of churches with the State, so that the state has the 'last word'. That is headship of the State. That is what Bonhoeffer, Niemoller, and Barth fought against. We proclaim Bonhoeffer as a hero of the war for taking down the Nazi flag from the altar, but we consider it a nutcase thing to do here.
One of the reasons for our unwillingness some will argue is that the US is not a despotic and deadly place to live, but we are certainly there or headed there. Secondly, we equate such beliefs with White Aryanism, the 'Ruby Ridge' crowd, or the 'wackos from Waco', and we surely do not want to be one of those. We are afraid to stand up for what we know is right, e.g. the 'headship of Christ' vs. the headship of the state, the very center of the Barmen Declaration which even 'High' and liberal churches hold dear, and yet we give the Federal Government the right to oversee our membership lists, finances, pulpit speech, etc, even to the point of disbanding a church which will not comply. We are afraid of being typecast as a nutcase, reactionary or a bigot or 'nazi', although the Nazis would have been very happy with our 5013c laws, because it would have given them the direct 'in' to state control of the Churches. So do faith based initiatives. Back to the issue of clear and in depth reasoning, the issues need to be separated from those who commonly hold them. I believe the 5013c is contrary to the Constitution, but I am not an Anti-Semite: indeed, I believe the Synagogue should be free of the requirement as well. The Federal government was never meant to have control of the House of God.
Davy Crockett (yes, really) most do not know was a Senator, and very well thought of because of his clear thinking and reasoning. A fine Christian man, devoted to the Lord, and compassionate beyond measure, he opposed government spending on welfare issues. He did not lack concern for the poor, ill and disenfranchised, quite the contrary, he was more concerned than most, he just believed it should be families and the Church who cared for them, not the Federal Government. We stay where we are growing deeper and deeper in debt because many Senators and Representatives feel that to oppose social programs will bring them bad press and fewer votes. The difficulty though, is that no one want to think outside of the box for real and long term solutions. Our lack of concern for thinking about tomorrow is leaving us very possibly , very soon with a bankrupt social security system.
We do the same for 'Homeland Security' and 'Patriot Act' issues. We remove boundaries of Civil Liberties, all glad that terrorists can be caught but we sacrifice freedom and may if not careful substitute a free society for one as oppressive as the one terrorists would bring in. Hurricane Katrina had evacuation routes well established but no way to care for tens of thousands of homeless persons long term. The scrambling for solutions was done at the end. The FBI profiling of Vicki Weaver led to two innocent deaths, because the Feds did not understand the admixture of fundamental faith, with the incursion of hate doctrines. Think tanks are often sophisticated opinion tanks but not solution 'tanks'. Repetitive sayings have over-ridden reasoning and the truth.
I have encountered this kind of reasoning lately in my own work. I put over 20,000 hours of work into one of my main websites over 12 years, and now that it is nearing completion, there are these moronic folk who think they can override copyright law, web law, registrations and so on and 'represent' the work for me, without my permission. They think because they have a better weight, age, appearance, dress style, etc that they can replace an author. And though that sounds so moronic that no one would take it seriously: it is a line of thinking that is becoming rampant in business and academics, and now in ministry related work. Segments of society think they can bluff anything. Question them about right and wrong and they will repeat phrases: 'Well I am sure, kind sir we can address that issue when we come to it." "Well, so and so may be the author, but I will represent the work, quite adequately". It's a stunning defense: pretty people will replace Shakespeare, Cyrano De Bergerac, and modern authors who look, I don't know, look just kind of....". Others have tried to put their children who were 0 to 5 when my work started as an issue of humiliation and degradation like the men and women who look at a painting by Pollock or Picasso and say, "O my kid could have done that". The ability to reason and think systematically is gone, in favor of repetitive encantations, and outright violence and bullying.
The Recent Shooting at USHMM
It was the recent shooting at USHMM which started my thinking down this line. The man was at least from appearances, a raw, straight out fascist bigot. There is no reasoning to shooting the security guard, but none of us really know what happened or what the interchange was. We race for the easiest scenario, bad guy, good guy, bad guy kills good guy. We stamp it a hate crime, before hearing any facts. It probably was, but we ASSUME without facts. A fellow at a church we once attended spread a rumor he had heard about us all over town. We thought it was too ridiculous to be true and no one would even remotely believe it, so we laughed. Twelve years later, it is no laughing matter, because it profoundly went from one ministry to another causing devastating ruin. No one even bothered to confront or reason through the rumor.
The fellow, von Brunn who shot at USHMM, though, did understand amidst his vile hatred and prejudice, other aspects of society which are serious and need attention. He tried to citizen-arrest members of the Federal Reserve years ago, and landed in jail. That was not wise, however symbolic. But it does not mean that others of us cannot consider what he thought was wrong with the Federal Reserve, and quite technically, they were doing some very suspect things. If one brings it up publicly are they a 'von Brunn lookalike'? We need to slow down and stop repeating our unquestioned positions. Iran currently has two factions fighting over a fair(?) election: one faction wants an oppressive Islamic fundamental worldview, but their view is a society with little crime which is safe and comfortable for them. The other faction wants a liberal contemporary, progressive leader (that would be a moderate there), with Western openness, to live freely. Both have plusses and minuses. We don't want to live in a fundamental Islamic regime, but we all want safe streets, peace and law and order. We want to be free, and forward thinking but we do not want drugs, violence, etc. So what shall it be? A society where women can be killed in honor killings, but there is no adultery, or a society which is liberal but incites violence on every street corner. Reason says 'neither: there has to be another solution"---and then seeks to find it.
Unless this society starts in all levels of government and the Church to think carefully and with complexity about issues confronting us, and returns to standard boundaries of right and wrong, whatever one's politics, we are gone in a couple of generations. Systematic reasoning can be taught. Tolerance does not begin with telling zealous Anti-Semites that 'all races are equal': they will laugh. It begins with extracting and even exhuming the vestiges of the reasoning process and ordered thinking in all of us, when confronting even hate crimes. We need to keep the baby, and not throw it out with the bathwater, because the two were in such close contact. As simplistic as this sounds, educating ordered thinking and reasoning, and using it in everything from neighborhood spats to Congressional hearings, may mean the difference between a nation surviving or being overthrown.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment