The Pledge: A Response

Someone commented on one of my previous posts, which I had titled "The Pledge," saying:

"So aren't these philanthropists incidentally preaching the benefits of a life of single-minded wealth accumulation?"

I think this is a very good comment, and I apologize if I wasn't clearer in the first place. So, as I was typing my response to the comment, I realized that it would probably be best to set this one off as a separate discussion. 

My answer to your question: not really. 

I think the article's purpose wasn't to applaud what these people have done to accumulate the great amounts that they have. It's main intent was to focus on how these people have used their wealth to benefit the world. This is not to say that the single-minded accumulation of wealth is a good thing, but rather the opposite, that these people are being distinguished above other multi-millionaires simply because they are using their wealth for something other than personal benefit. While some of them might have accumulated the wealth they now have in a single-minded manner, purely for personal benefit (which, incidentally, the Bible wholeheartedly denounces - see Luke 16:19-31 or Luke 12:16-21 for examples, although there are many others), what is important is that they are sharing now.

Additionally, the article isn't saying that we should all go out and just spend our lives earning money so we can give it to the poor. In fact, my previous post talks about others ways that people can work to give to those in need. I just wanted to highlight a particular method of giving to others, and I think that the article isn't saying that the only way to accomplish this is through money. It's just commenting on how, in this particular instance, these people are giving money to the poor. I think that using one's means to help the world is a laudable thing, and if one's means includes money, then all the better. But, I would emphasize again, that is by no means the only way to help others, and not only would the single-minded accumulation of wealth be treacherous in itself (for even though one's intentions may be initially good, it is a narrow path and is easy to fall off of without even realizing it), but it is not necessarily the best way in which to help others. A good example of this is cited in the article, how some millionaires' donations (perhaps intentionally) have been used by nonprofit organizations to influence elections. So, just giving money might not even ensure that one is helping others. Personally, I think that giving one's time and skills, maybe in addition to money (since we can't seem to get away from needing it in some fashion), is the best way to give to those in need.

I hope this clears things up, and hopefully also answers your question. :)

Giving Time

With the holiday season, the season of giving, upon us, I have giving on my mind. And perhaps so do the newspapers. While reading a November 24th article in the Dallas Morning News over Thanksgiving break, I was reminded about how giving one’s time can be more effective than giving money:

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007979&docId=l:1309953954&start=5

This article reports on how one marketing business donates one out of every six weekends to helping market nonprofit organizations. Services that would cost these organizations almost half a million dollars in funds are being given away. Over half of the company’s employees, this article reports, have donated their time for at least one weekend to help out. It’s incredible that these people are donating their time and services to help nonprofit organizations, and what’s more, what they are doing is the equivalent of giving half a million dollars to these organizations, and probably much more if you take into consideration how many funds are being attracted by the organizations’ new marketing strategies, which the employees might have a hard time coming up with if they were just trying to donate hard cash.

Giving one’s time and talents might not always be as helpful as that of these marketing gurus, but it provides inspiration on how we can each use our talents to help those in need. If you have a talent for sewing, you can make quilts for the battered women’s shelter. If you like cooking, soup kitchens and Meals on Wheels can also use some more help. If you like building things, any number of organizations can use your talent. If all you can give is your time, nursing homes and assisted living centers always appreciate it when people come to play games or just help out with the residents. Even just making Thanksgiving or Christmas cards in your spare time can really brighten the day of someone in a nursing home or in the hospital. Now, all we have to do is keep it up during the part of the year that isn’t the holidays. :)

The Pledge

In a special section of the NYT published on November 11, Stephanie Strom reports on something in the philanthropic world that has come to be known simply as “the pledge.” 40 multimillionaires and billionaires have committed to giving at least half of their wealth away:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/giving/11PLEDGE.html?pagewanted=all

There have been many critics of the effort, which is headed by the Gates’ and Warren Buffet, especially in light of the recent public scrutiny of how some wealthy used their donations to influence politics in recent elections, and some have noted the several of the pledges are to multigenerational trusts (whateverthat means) instead of immediate philanthropic work. However, the important thing, I think, is that they are giving. Politics aside, the Bible teaches us that all Christians, and in particular those who have an abundance of wealth, have a duty to give to those in need.

It is inspiring, and very noble, of these people to give away so much of what they have worked hard their whole lives to earn. I cannot imagine working myself to the bone around the clock, as many do to succeed in the business world, and then just give away what I have earned the hard way, to people whom I am not even sure work as hard as I do. Giving is hard, and I think that everyone should learn from these people’s example. Not that I would recommend everyone give half of what they have away (after all, only having half of my savings account would make it harder than it already is to pay for school), but after all, God has promised that he will provide. If we trust in Him, I think we will find that we can do without a lot more than we think, and that there are many other people out there who can use what we might not need.

There's the poor, and then there's the Roma

In class a few weeks back, we learned about the injunction in the Bible for Christians to help the poor. This isn’t a commandment, but it certainly isn’t an option. Throughout the Old and New Testaments (In particular, Proverbs, Leviticus, and the Gospels come to mind), Christians are reminded of their duty to help those in need. In Leviticus, farmers are told to leave some of their crop for the poor and the alien, a process called gleaning. In Proverbs, this call is so important that God promises to make comfortable the lives of those who give to the poor – He will provide for the righteous, and especially for those who give to those in need.

This brings me to a subject that seems far away from my dorm room in Texas, but is still very important: the Roma. In an article published in the NYT this past September 17, Suzanne Daley reports on the current movements of the Roma throughout Europe. With the advent of the European Union and the “lessening” of borders between countries, the Roma have begun migrating from places they have traditionally lived – Eastern Europe and Romania – to the more affluent Western Europe. Unfortunately, the majority of the Roma live below poverty level, and have been known to beg and steal in whichever country they are living in. So, Western Europe has not taken kindly to them becoming their neighbors. Of particular note is the situation in France, where they are being singled out for deportation, some critics claim.

My question is, what should the Christian response be? The Roma have for centuries been living at the poverty level, and have a reputation for living in slums, not getting a good education, and in general not being of much benefit to where they are living. But what sort of help are they getting? Everyone foists the problem off on Romania, their homeland, which provides little if no help in providing proper education, or ways of rising above the poverty level. Shouldn’t it be everyone’s duty, though, to help them, regardless of where they are from? But what if they have been given help (admittedly, I don’t know much of their history, but I assume they have been given help before) for centuries and nothing has been getting better, is it the givers’ problem, or the receivers’? Should Christians not help the deservedly poor? Is anyone deservedly poor? Lots of questions…

Wal-Mart

Sorry, it's been a while. This semester has seemed to run away with all of my free time, and I'm just now getting to the "interesting articles" pile beside my bed. The first one I'd like to talk about is more of a tangent off of another article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/business/11shipping.html?_r=1&scp=4&sq=wal-mart&st=cse

On November 11, the New York Times featured an article about Wal-Mart initiating an aggressive move: offering free shipping on all online purchases. This might be fine for such a huge corporation, but this may mean hard times for smaller companies who rely on shipping costs to help them stay in the black. Being forced to lower or cut out shipping costs can mean failure for many online companies.

Regardless of the implications this move has on fair business practices (but I'm not a business major, so it might be fair to force other businesses into the ground, I don't know), I'd like to talk about Wal-Mart's business practices in general. I honestly can't think of how what Wal-Mart does is ethical. They buy goods at lower-than-market price overseas, which might sound like it would be good for foreign economies, but once the supplier they buy goods from starts raising the prices on them, Wal-Mart turns to another competitor that needs their business so badly that they are willing to sell for exorbitantly low prices:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/

Closer to home, we all know how the introduction of a Wal-Mart to a community spells death for other small businesses in the area. While shoppers might like to shop at a store they know is local, tight budgets and low bank accounts force buyers to go to where they can get the best prices: Wal-Mart.

I'm not saying that people who can't afford to buy their items elsewhere are under the obligation to avoid Wal-Mart, and I'm not saying that I haven't bought from them myself, being a low-income college student. But I think that maybe we should try more to go to other stores. For example, while H-E-B isn't that small of a store, it at least guarantees that it's goods are more local, and their prices are fairly competitive with those of Wal-Mart's.

Textbooks

I know, by now this should be old hat. What is it with textbooks now? I thought the "culture wars" over the Texas textbooks had subsided, until I noticed an article in The Baylor Lariat this last Thursday bringing the textbooks up once again. This time, the article explained, the State Board of Education (SBOE) is planning to vote next week about refusing to buy textbooks they view as expressing pro-Islamic, anti-Christian viewpoints.

There were two major points that struck me about this article. Primarily, didn't they already talk about this? My memory was pretty hazy about the turbulence created last March and April by the SBOE, so I looked up a few articles which I think detail last spring's issues pretty well:

Texas Board Adopts Conservative Curriculum

Why the Textbook Debate Matters

Historians Speak Out Against Proposed Textbook Changes

Just a note, I tried to get as wide a range of viewpoints as I could, but most the the articles I found seemed at least a little biased. If you can find better articles, please let me know :) . Anyway, the current issues are that the SBOE is, as the Lariat article states, planning to vote on what to do about textbooks they see as more pro-Islam than pro-Christian, but they have additionally recently voted to slash the funding for English and Science textbooks.

The second point that struck me is that this reminds me of a Times article I read recently in another class, World Cultures V: Is America Islamophobic? The recent actions of the SBOE seem like they're expressing the belief that Christianity is a better religion for Islam, not that children should learn about all religions equally in schools. 

I happen to ascribe to Christianity, but that doesn't mean that I don't want to learn about Islam. The recent SBOE proposals seem to favor a textbook curriculum that tries to demonize Islam even as it praises Christianity. Shouldn't children be given the opportunity to learn about all the major religions without being taught a bias? Solely teaching Christianity in public schools not only fosters ignorance, but it robs children of the ability and freedom to make an educated decision about whether they wish to follow Christianity or not. Is the freedom to choose one's path not one of the basic tenets of Christianity itself? When I was confirmed in the Church, it was because I had looked at the world's religions and, knowing their basic precepts, decided that Christianity was best for me. I'm afraid that with the recent changes in curriculum, my elementary-aged brothers will not be able to make the same informed decision, but have Christianity thrust on them.

Oil spill praise

My sister graduated from the University of Phoenix last weekend. As a graduation present, I bought her a book of phrases and prayers for graduates. Before I put the book in the gift bag, I flipped through a couple of pages. There were inspirational and titillating quotes, passionate prayers, and prayers meant to give comfort in times of need. One kind of prayer seemed missing, though: praises. I have always been told that praises are the best kind of prayers, and I always personally felt they may give God something of a break from all of the complaints and requests offered up around the world.

In response to this realization, I thought it would be appropriate to not just defame situations around the globe that relate to ethics, but to pause for a while on an issue that has been, in my opinion, handled in an ethical manner. Kind of like trying to send praises to God more often than we ask for or complain about something.

When the BP oil spill first happened, everyone was horrified. I was in Nebraska at the time, among Northerners who had never seen the Gulf Coast. It felt like a part of me, of my childhood and the world around me, had been wrenched away, leaving nothing but slick, unctuous residue behind. I watched CNN in the morning during breakfast, listening to the reports of the various attempts at halting the flow of oil and of rescuing the wildlife, and felt at the same time utterly isolated from the event and right there with the citizens living on the coast of Louisiana.

Today, I read another article about the BP spill in the New York Times, which describes how many scientists are coming to the conclusion that the effects of the oil spill have not been as bad as previous ones (e.g. the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska) or as severe as was predicted:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/science/earth/14spill.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=gulf_of_mexico_2010

True, the main motivation for BP to be trying to fix their mistake is probably business-related, but it is still commendable, I think, that humanity is concerned enough about the welfare of the world's ecosystems that we not only try to fix what we have done to hurt wildlife, but to continue to work even when the whistles stop blowing. My grandpa, who ran a stucco company, always said that you had to watch the workers. The minute he left the work site, they would often take a "break" until he came back, sometimes hours after leaving. Although scientists are not sure how the oil spill will affect the local ecosystems in the long term, the media and many scientists seem to be essentially leaving the work site. But BP and other companies are still working.


I recognize that BP is required to administer measures to counteract whatever consequences arise from the oil spill, but I still think that they deserve some recognition for their willingness to own up to their mistakes and go above the required measures to ensure that everything be righted. The world needs more of this, I think. We have heard too much about banks and other businesses that have played the system, cheated taxpayers of the government's money, and refuse to own up to their shortcomings. I'd like to hear more about companies honestly working to make our world better, if only in righting their mistakes.

Raising kids on drugs

In elementary schools across America, children are drilled to "Just Say No" to drugs. Recently, the anti-drug campaign has become much more intense than when I was in elementary school (admittedly, I thought that was impossible), to the extent that a pair of ten-year-old twins I was traveling with last semester whispered, horrified, to their father, "Daddy, why is he smoking? Why would he do that to himself??" upon spotting a college student whom they knew smoking. The war on drugs has taken admirable leaps toward improving the general health of our society through its educational programs.

However, it's not the children's view of drugs that I am so worried about. It's their parents'. In particular, how parents are viewing the kind of drugs that are more and more being prescribed to chemically modify a child's behavior. A New York Times article last week highlighted the story of one child in particular to illustrate this modern dilemma:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/02/business/02kids.html

This feels particularly relevant in light of the most recent reading for Biblical Heritage, in which John Wesley gives detailed guidelines on how best to raise one's children (a text of this sermon can be found here). Wesley's point implies that one must raise and discipline one's children, and goes further to dictate how accomplish the feat of raising one's children well. This is also expounded on several times in the Bible, especially in Paul's teachings.

With doctors more and more prescribing behavior- and mood-altering drugs, not only are they potentially ruining a child's good health, which was one of the major points of the NYT article, but they are also shirking their moral responsibility to both nurture and discipline their children. 

For example, I know of rambunctious boys and girls who got put on ADD medication at young ages because they were "hard to handle," and their parents had a hard time disciplining them. However, it seems that the bar for "hard to handle" has been significantly lowered in recent years, and many of the people I know who were put on ADD medication simply stated that they were bored most of the time and just got into trouble more because of it. This is probably by no means true as a whole, but most of the people I know who are or were on medications like the ones prescribed for ADD also happen to be some of the smartest people I know. It makes sense that they just maybe needed to be challenged more in school. However, not knowing the full story in every case, it may be that prescribing behavior-altering medications is necessary for a child's health. And I'm sure there are many cases pointing to this; why else would it be so acceptable for doctors to be continuing to do this? However, in cases where the medication is replacing proper upbringing, this seems to be both contrary to both the Bible and secular moral reasoning.

Isreali captain acquitted of charges

In 2004, an Israeli officer emptied his rifle into a 13-year-old Palestinian girl. He was later charged on several accounts, including the "illegal use of his weapon, conduct unbecoming an officer and perverting the course of justice by asking soldiers under his command to alter their accounts of the incident" (see link below). In late 2005, the officer, codenamed Capt. R, was acquitted of all charges. He has since, in addition to being reinstated to the military and receiving a promotion (to compensate for the loss of pay during the hearings and other factors such as defamation of his name), won a libel lawsuit against an Israeli investigative journalist.

Here's the article where I first heard about the acquittal:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/nov/16/israel2?CMP=twt_gu

Yes, I realize that this happened several years ago, but I just found out about it, and since I spent the last couple of hours looking into the case and trying to find all the different sides of the story, it seems to be a dilemma worth discussing.

The main points of contention, it seems lie not in the killing of a 13-year-old girl. (Which sounds like it would be the main point in contention to me, but apparently it has been fairly common for Palestinian militant organizations to recruit children. A good source of links of examples of this can be found here. Feel free to ignore the Wikipedia article, but there are several links to reputable news sources at the bottom of the page.) According to an article in Haaretz (one of the major Israeli media sources), it is against IDF policies to "confirm a kill," which Capt. R is quoted to have said. Further viewpoints and details of the situation can be found at www.israelmilitary.net/, news.bbc.co.uk, and www.guardian.co.uk. In particular, I found the thread (note that there are two pages of it) at israelmilitary.net interesting to read. 

Based on the situation as described by witnesses, it seems very unethical, even if one believes that a scared-looking child who is running away from a militarized zone is a potential threat (which is possible, since according to the above articles, it has happened before, although several of the soldiers stated that they didn't agree with the Captain that the girl was in a threatening position). Additionally, the backpack she had been carrying, which was the original cause for firing on her as the soldiers thought it could contain a bomb, had been dropped and fired on, proving that it contained no explosives, before the soldier went to where the girl was hiding, shot her in the head twice, then emptied the rest of his shots into the girl's body. Doctors at the hospital where the girl was taken reported that there were at least 17 bullet wounds in the girl's body.

Although one may argue that the initial warning shots at the girl were necessary, once the girl fled, it seems unlikely to me that one can justify exiting the base, walking more than 100 yards, and putting two bullets into this girl's head, while she lies cowering behind an embankment. It is even harder for me to justify to myself that it is necessary to not only put the gun to the side of the girl's head and pull the trigger again, but also to empty the rest of the clip throughout the girl's body. Regardless of the ethics of the rest of what Capt. R did, that action alone seems unethical enough to indict him.

Chilean miners

Three weeks ago, 33 miners became trapped in a mine cave-in in Chile. They've been found, but unfortunately, they currently don't have any way of escaping their subterranean dungeon. Recently, rescuers have estimated that boring a rescue shaft will take until Christmas. They told the trapped miners, who seemed to take the news well, but there are still concerns for their long-term well-being in the meantime. Here's an article further detailing the situation:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/26/trapped-chilean-miners-wait-rescue

At first, when this event was brought to my attention, my mind didn't even skip a beat. Of course, the miners should be told how long it would take to get them out. Who wouldn't want to be told? After hearing a few of my friends' opinions on the matter, though, I was surprised that a few of them said that they would go crazy, knowingly trapped inside a cramped tomb with over two and a half-dozen other people. Reading the above article, which states that the health minister was issuing antidepressants with the hope that the miners don't break down under the psychological pressure, makes me re-think my original position. Would it have been better if the rescuers hadn't told the trapped miners how long it would take to get them out? 

Would not knowing the date of their eventual rescue be more beneficial than knowing it? Our main source of support in ethical dilemmas in this course, the Bible, is very clear on the importance of truthfulness, that  

"The Lord detests lying lips, but he delights in men who are truthful."  

- Pro. 12:22 (NIV)

 However, reading farther up in that same chapter, one finds:

"Reckless words pierce like a sword, but the tongue of the wise brings healing."

- Pro. 12:18 (NIV)

Would it have been more wise to wait until rescuers had a bigger head start on boring the rescue hole, and thereby gaining a more accurate estimate of when the rescue shaft would be completed? Telling the trapped miners of a later rescue date, while it may have truthfully been the estimated rescue date at the beginning of the rescue, may cause more despair than if the rescuers had waited a little longer and delayed telling the trapped miners what they knew until they were more sure of the rescue date. The article above suggests that the rescuers now expect the miners to be out of the collapsed mine before Christmas. Or, would waiting to tell the trapped workers be considered as not telling the truth, lying by omission?

Personally, although I recognize that it is too late to wait to tell the miners a more accurate rescue date. In the future, however, after looking at the situation (and with my very limited knowledge of ethics, psychology, and mine-rescue techniques :)  ), I would wait to tell the workers until I was fairly sure, disregarding pitfalls in the rescuing process, of the date when the miners would be able to be with their families again. In my experience, hasty time estimates are not always the best way to handle a situation. (Recall the BP oil spill, which BP originally said would only take three weeks to plug. It eventually took several months to plug, and the cleanup of the Gulf of Mexico is going to take months more. If they had originally said that they had to examine the issue more instead of appeasing the media and trying methods that everyone, including all of the petroleum engineers I knew, was fairly certain would not work, they might have received worse media attention, but wasted less time trying fast and easy methods rather than ones they were sure would work. However, this is merely my opinion and is only as accurate as my knowledge of the situation, which is admittedly limited to what I have been told by the media.) 

Well, sorry about that rant, but going back to the miner story, I am honestly on the edge about which path I think would be the best. Would it be be still telling the truth to wait until the rescuers were more sure about a rescue date? Is it harmful to tell the miners a later date than the one they will probably be rescued by? Is there even a dilemma here? The more I think about it, the more I would encourage waiting to tell the miners. 

Introduction

I believe introductions are in order. 

Je m'excuse, I would wait for you, but I'm afraid I can't really hear you. So I'll start, and maybe you can introduce yourself, if you would like, in the comments section :) . I am a student, both in fact and as a way of life. If I could stay in school, learning until the day I die, I would gladly do so. But life catches up to you, and I realize it is impossible to sit in a classroom every year for fifty years, so I'm trying to make the switch from learning in school to finding more knowledge outside of the classroom. I hope this blog, which I plan to gear towards discussing the ethical implications of controversial news items, will assist in these efforts.

For more background information, the title to this blog has rather significant meaning to me. It is an excerpt from a quote by Hans Christian Anderson:

"Just living is not enough. One must have sunshine, freedom, and a little flower."

I feel this reflects a common theme seen throughout both the Baylor Interdisciplinary Core (BIC) curriculum and aspects of Christian life. Christians, to quote a well-known book and lecture series, are called to live a purpose-driven life. In Examined Life, well, the application of this quote should be evident from the title of the course, to not only live, but to inspect every aspect of one's life to ensure that one is leading the life one would like to live. This, I feel, will also be a major theme in Biblical Heritage: to be aware of one's everyday life decisions and how they correspond to what the Bible and common sense dictates as ethical. As I have learned about life, I have realized that it is not enough to merely live, but that life must be lived well. I hope that you will travel with me on this path of living the examined life, and that the experience will be instructive and enjoyable to everyone involved. :)