Further thoughts on civility

A week ago, I wrote Community demands civility. Yesterday (September 29, 2009), the New York Times published an op-ed piece by columnist Thomas Friedman entitled, “Where Did ‘We’ Go?” Friedman identifies a catalogue of factors that he believes are responsible for the demise of civility in American politics: “the wild excess of money in politics; the gerrymandering of political districts, making them permanently Republican or Democratic and erasing the political middle; a 24/7 cable news cycle that makes all politics a daily battle of tactics that overwhelm strategic thinking; and a blogosphere that at its best enriches our debates, adding new checks on the establishment, and at its worst coarsens our debates to a whole new level, giving a new power to anonymous slanderers to send lies around the world. Finally, on top of it all, we now have a permanent presidential campaign that encourages all partisanship, all the time among our leading politicians.” In sum, Friedman contends that these factors have diminished if not destroyed a widespread for the national interest that transcends individual interest.

I agree with his assessment of the national condition. What is the Church doing about this problem? What should the Church do about this problem?

Answering the first question is relatively easy. The Church, as a whole, does little to reverse the general direction of political debate and sentiment in this country. Too often, religious groups are stridently apolitical or stridently subscribe to a particular partisan view. The former tacitly condones the demise of civility while the latter actively contributes to that demise.

The second question, what should the Church do, demands more careful reflection. The answer begins with the cultivation of genuine community that transcends political differences. Applied ethics often leads one into taking political stances. However, the genuine humility demanded of those on the Christian journey requires acknowledging that no matter how strongly one may hold a particular position, the possibility of error exists. Consequently, the community should always have room for active dissent. Furthermore, God calls those on the Christian journey to respect the dignity and worth of every human being. This means giving equal and ungrudging respect to those with whom one agrees and those with whom one disagrees. Common bonds of respect, and hopefully love, unite the community we build, not an insistence upon uniformity of belief, whether that belief is theological, ethical, or political. Intolerance, quite simply, has no place within Christian community.

Overall, the Church has performed abysmally at this task. Bill Clinton routinely suffered vilification by Christian communities for his personal behavior; few Christians stood or voiced support for him as a person of faith. George W. Bush routinely suffered vilification by other Christian communities for his domestic and foreign policies; few Christians stood or voiced support for him as a person of faith. I strongly disagreed with most of Bush’s policies. I am always highly suspect of decision making premised upon hearing God speak, e.g., the type of decision-making that led to the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. However, George W. Bush – however wrong he may have been – was not an evil person bent on destroying the United States. I truly believe that he did what he thought was right. Respect for his dignity and worth as a person demands nothing less. My disagreements do not cause me to pass judgment on him as a person.

This week I saw a bumper sticker on a vehicle in the John Locke Foundation parking lot in Raleigh: “Don’t blame me. You voted for Obama.” I wanted to change the bumper sticker, but refrained out of civility, so that it would read: “Please accept my thanks. You voted for Obama.”

Dissent is essential for healthy community. Dissent without civility destroys community. Civilization without community is impossible. Therefore, the Church, in addition to advocating other elements of its theological and ethical agenda, must consistently, actively, and assertively advocate for community.

An Afghanistan troop surge

The Times of London, not usually given to hyperbole, forecasts a looming showdown between President Obama and his generals over the size of the American military force needed in Afghanistan. (“Afghanistan troops surge: stakes for Obama could not be higher,” Times Online, September 28, 2009)

The upsurge in violence in Afghanistan certainly underscores the lack of effective governance in that country. Criteria in the U.S. Army’s counterinsurgency manual suggest that at least 500,000 troops are necessary to quell the Afghanistan violence. The total of NATO and effective Afghan military forces falls far below half that number. From this perspective, the general are right: more troops are needed.

Furthermore, the generals are correct in their assessment that a withdrawal by the U.S. and its allies from Afghanistan will give the Taliban and al Qaeda a huge and potent public relations victory. A 1983 suicide truck bomber killed 241 U.S. military personnel, mostly Marines, at a barracks adjacent to the Beirut International Airport. The U.S. personnel were in Lebanon as part of an international peacekeeping force. President Reagan promptly withdrew U.S. forces from Lebanon following that attack, stating that the U.S. could not afford another such loss. Osama bin Laden often points to the U.S. withdrawal as an example of U.S. cowardice and a victory for his brand of Islam. If the peacekeeping force in Lebanon had an important, achievable mission, the U.S. force lacked a good defense and the nation lacked perseverance. Otherwise, establishing the peacekeeping force was a mistake, a policy without a defensible, realistic goal and President Reagan should have blunted bin Laden’s criticism by openly acknowledging and accepting responsibility for that mistake.

The generals, however, have too limited of a focus on immediate mission and an appropriate, although unhelpful, confidence in the ability of the U.S. military to achieve victory. Warfighters need to believe they can win. John Paul Jones’ valiant boast, “I have not yet begun to fight!” in the face of near-certain defeat turned the tide of that battle in his favor. Military leaders lacking unswerving confidence in their troops’ ability to prevail should not hold battlefield command. Political leaders and strategists removed from the battle zone must temper that confidence with informed, prudential judgment about prospects for victory. This tempering of warfighters’ confidence vitally supports warfighters by helping the warfighters to avoid situations in which victory is truly impossible.

Victory in Afghanistan is impossible, as I have previously argued in this blog. The U.S. does not even have a viable definition of victory for the conflict in Afghanistan. Generals who focus on today’s battle, today’s pacification project, without keeping the large challenges in focus will benefit from the strategic focus that political leaders bring to the table. Refusing to face the no-win reality of Afghanistan pushes closer toward a second Vietnam War, a true tragedy for all involved. Comparisons between Afghanistan and Vietnam are increasingly common in the media and blogosphere.

The correct question, given the impossibility of victory, is how the U.S. can make the best of a bad situation. Some negative consequences of the misguided decision to invade Afghanistan are unavoidable. Sooner or later, the U.S. will withdraw, the Taliban will attempt to reassert control, and al Qaeda will claim to have defeated the U.S. Allowing the death toll of Afghanis, Americans, and others to continue growing will only magnify those negative consequences. The enormous sums of U.S. government funds expended in Afghanistan will eventually fuel anger among American taxpayers (this is already growing) and resentment among the Afghanis who want the money but not the strings that inevitably come with it. Afghanis are fiercely proud, independent people who object to any foreign control.

Now is the time for conversation about how the U.S. and its allies can best withdraw and best achieve legitimate foreign policy goals.

Worship in times of contagion

When a contagious disease makes headlines, people sometimes inquire about the safety of attending worship in general and of partaking of Holy Communion in particular. This happened when HIV/AIDS first made headlines, then with SARS, and now is happening with the H1N1 virus (swine flu).

Protecting the health of all begins with commonsense measures. If sick, or if concerned that you may be contagious, stay home. Wash hands thoroughly with warm water and soap frequently; especially wash hands after sneezing. Pass the peace without breathing on the other person. If concerned or in doubt, bump fists or elbows instead of shaking hands. If more comfortable when receiving Holy Communion, intinct (dip the host into the consecrated wine) rather than sip from the chalice. When intincting, be careful to dip only the host (and not fingertips) into the wine. If still uncomfortable, receive only the host. The fullness of Christ is in both the host and wine; communicants are under no obligation to receive in both species.

At the conclusion of distributing Holy Communion, I frequently sip from the chalice(s) expressing my comfort in receiving Holy Communion, both first and last. However, every individual must decide for her or himself what to do with respect to attendance and participation. The Episcopal Church does not require attendance nor require a person to commune. Those not physically present remain part of the community, spiritually united with those who have gathered. Those who choose not to commune miss an experience of grace but suffer no harm or ill-will by doing so, either from God or others.

Community demands civility

Three recent, highly publicized incidents have flagrantly exhibited rude behavior. Rep. Joe Wilson called President Obama a liar during Obama’s recent address to a joint session of Congress, about which I have previously written. Kanye West interrupted Taylor Swift’s acceptance speech at the MTV Video Music Awards Sunday evening, grabbing the microphone to protest Beyonce’s non-selection. (“A tribute to Jackson, a second speech for Swift at VMAs,” USA Today, September 14, 2009) Serena Williams received a $10,000 fine and possible suspension for her tirade at a line judge for a questionable call after losing in the semifinals of the U.S. Open. (David Waldstein, “Serena Williams Is Fined, and Suspension Is Possible,” New York Times, September 13, 2009)

Each incident triggered widespread public rebukes for the culprit’s rudeness. That’s the good news. Why is there so much rude behavior?

Part of the answer is that civility depends upon people willingly complying with communal norms. As American culture has grown more individualistic over the last fifty years, behavior has become more idiosyncratic, freeing itself from externally imposed communal norms. A pendulum effect is no all too apparent. American society has mover from widespread compliance with communal norms that often unnecessarily and even destructively coerced individuals to conform to so little compliance that identifying communal spirit is becoming increasingly difficult. Consideration for the rights of others should limit an individual’s freedom to assert his or her uniqueness, personality, or beliefs. All three incidents violate that standard.

Another factor in American rudeness is the increased level of stress that characterizes contemporary existence. The greater the stress, the greater the likelihood that people will act inappropriately. Societal emphasis on personal expression further compounds the corrosive effect of increased stress on self-control.

Finally, American culture increasingly prizes emotional expression. Grant Woods’ painting, “American Gothic,” that depicts a stoic couple on their farm has no contemporary equivalent. Today, the American culture prizes emotional exhibitionism (hence the attractiveness of many reality TV shows) rather than the stoic indifference to hardship that encouraged prior generations to persevere. Emotional expression can be healthy. Emotional excess and exhibitionism invite unhealthy behaviors analogous to physical excesses and exhibitionism.

Civilization ends without the benefits of community. Community is impossible without civility between community members. America needs to relearn civility before its community dies.

What fidelity requires

Several weeks ago, Jim Naughton posed several questions on the Episcopal Cafe in response to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s idea that the Anglican Communion might become a two-track organization:
a) What difference will it make in practice?
b) Do you care?
c) Will anyone outside the Communion care?
d) Does it feel to you sometimes as though we are writing rules for membership in a tennis club in a city that is on fire?

I spent two of the most personally and professionally rewarding years of my ministry as a Church of England priest. The Anglican Communion is important to me. Most of my ministry was as a military chaplain, a setting in which ministry frequently depends upon ecumenical cooperation and that represents, often out of necessity, the cutting edge of ecumenism. That ministry forcefully taught me that Christian unity is vital, particularly in this increasingly secular age.

In spite of the formative nature of those experiences, I as a Christian have no choice but to value faithfulness to the Gospel above all else. Abandoning the trajectory that I believe leads toward God (i.e., faithfulness to the Gospel) leads away from life abundant. The Church must equally honor and include all people, regardless of sexual orientation, not because doing so will change the world, alter our prestige or privilege within the Anglican Communion, respect human rights, or for any reason other than the theological wisdom that God has given to us demands genuine inclusivity. Inclusion necessitates that the Church provide liturgies for blessing same sex couples, ordain people to its ministry without regard to sexual orientation, advocate that all people enjoy equal civil rights, etc. Those acts translate theology into praxis; the Church as the body of Christ should always begin with theological engagement then proceed, after discerning the mind of Christ, to incarnate that theology in appropriate ways.

Christians live in tension between individual autonomy and communal identity. Describing, let alone living into, the creative tension between individual autonomy and communal identity is a difficult theological challenge. The Presiding Bishop correctly observed in her opening address to General Convention that God saves communities, not individuals, sparking a controversy that says more about American individualism than it says about her theology. Conversely, communal identity that becomes coercive violates God's image within people and pushes toward the demonic. The motto of the U.S. Navy Chaplain Corps aptly describes Christian communal identity that the Anglican Communion has historically modeled: Cooperation without Compromise.

The Episcopal Church should not choose to leave the Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church must also incarnate its discernment of Christ's mind. If the rest of the Communion then decides to “punish,” treat as second-class members, or otherwise negatively respond to our incarnation of Christ, so be it. I shall be sad, but I shall not lose any sleep nor will I compromise my journey. Cooperation without compromise characterizes genuine Christian community.

Defining victory

The Civil War battle of Chickamauga occurred 147 years ago this weekend. For those unfamiliar with this two day long battle that caused 34,000 casualties, all American, the Confederate Army at Chickamauga attempted to block the Union advance toward Atlanta and to recapture the vital transportation hub of Chattanooga. Four railroads, rivers, and mountain passes all combined to make the small city with 2500 people important to both sides. Who won?

The National Park Service identifies the Confederacy as the victor. The Confederate units forced the Union Army to abandon the contested ground. That certainly is one widely held interpretation of victory.

However, determining who won the battle of Chickamauga depends upon the criteria one uses to answer that question. An alternative criterion for determining a battle’s victory is the body count. The U.S. often employed this criterion in Vietnam and the appearance of body counts in media reports of battles in Afghanistan and Iraq suggests that some people, in or out of the military, continue to rely upon this criterion. At Chickamauga, Confederates casualties totaled 18,000, two thousand more than inflicted on the Union forces. Using this criterion, the Confederates lost. The Confederacy’s smaller population adds credibility to utilizing this criterion in the Civil War. Analogously, the total commitment of the Vietnamese and the more limited political will of the U.S. to accept casualties meant that relying on body counts in that conflict resulted in a false sense of who won specific battles. The pronounced tendency to exaggerate body counts as the war progressed further misled decision makers and the public.

Perhaps the most important criterion for determining the victor of a specific battle is the effect that the battle had on the war’s eventual outcome. This criterion generalizes the preceding discussion of body counts. The Confederate forces failed to pursue the fleeing Union forces and failed in their goal of retaking Chattanooga. Two months later, the Union Army drove the Confederate forces from the hills overlooking Chattanooga and launched their drive to capture Atlanta and then to divide the Confederacy by sweeping through Georgia to capture Savannah. From this perspective, the battle of Chickamauga is rightly seen as part of the larger battle to control Chattanooga, a battle that the Union won decisively and that directly contributed to the Union’s ultimate victory in the Civil War.

Applying this analysis of victory to Afghanistan and Iraq suggests that although the United States by some criteria wins the vast majority of encounters, the U.S. may still be losing both wars. The U.S. lacks the political will to accept casualties on the same scale (e.g., proportionally) as Taliban, al Qaeda, or many Iraqi insurgents. The U.S. may hold geographic areas temporarily but in both Iraq and especially in Afghanistan has not succeeded in permanently holding territory. As has become painfully and glaringly obvious in Afghanistan, combat success at the price of noncombatant casualties actually works against ultimately prevailing in the conflict.

The great German strategist Clausewitz long ago advised never embarking on a war without having a clear focus on one’s ultimate objective(s). A nation should intend every action taken in the conflict as a step toward achieving that objective. A nation should avoid actions that do not contribute to progress toward the objective. Actions that appear promising but fail to produce progress in achieving the objective are failures, regardless of body count, territory captured, etc. In other words, the U.S. may win almost every battle and still lose the war.

What, exactly, is the U.S. objective in Iraq? If the objective is to establish a Western style democracy, that goal is unachievable, if for no other reason the majority of Iraqis do not want to live in a Western style democracy. The inability to articulate a clear, achievable objective six years after invading and occupying Iraq underscores the moral error of having invaded.

What, exactly, is the U.S. objective in Afghanistan? A Western style democracy is even less achievable, less desired, than in Iraq. If the objective is to defeat the Taliban, that objective will require substantially annihilating the Taliban and its supporters because of their high level of commitment to their cause. In other words, the political will of the Taliban, as was the case among the North Vietnamese and their South Vietnamese supporters, far exceeds the political will of the U.S. to prevail. This lack of political will proved the downfall of previous Afghan invaders including the Mongols, the British, and the Soviets. If the objective is to defeat al Qaeda, then a great many U.S. actions, and the extensive resources those actions have required, do not directly contribute to achieving that objective. Without a clear objective, victory is impossible.

One basis for hope

People set wedding dates for surprising reasons. In China, where the number nine, “jiu,” has the same pronunciation in Mandarin as the word for perpetual, an amazing 18,979 couples married on 9/09/09. That broke the previous record of 15,646 couples who married on 8/08/08; the Chinese believe that the number eight is lucky and pronounce it the same as the word that means “rich.” (Mark McDonald, “18,979 Beijing Wedding Bells Chime on 9/9/09,” New York Times, September 10, 2009)

I have known couples who chose to marry because one of them, serving in the military, would soon deploy. Other couples set their wedding date based on the anticipated date of birth for their child. Still other couples have chosen a date when family or friends can join them, to share in their celebration.

All of these choices, and other yet even more apparently idiosyncratic choices, reveal something about the expectations attached to marriage. These include that marriage will last until one spouse dies, that marriage will bring happiness and security, and that marriage connects not only the two spouses but also an extended network of family and friends.

The rush of weddings on particular dates in China partially points to cultural differences. The rush also points to even more basic, human similarities in the importance and expectations that most people attach to marriage.

Claims by one group of people – whether identified by ethnicity, nationality, race, or religion – to be unique are true at the level of cultural differences. Our shared human biology ensures that all people have basic commonalities and that those commonalities, as with marriage, are more fundamental than any differences. Identifying, emphasizing, and building upon our common humanity constitutes the world’s best hope for peace, a hope that religious people of all traditions should strive to translate into reality.

Affordable healthcare

Health insurance for a healthy, middle-age male and his sixteen-year-old daughter in Massachusetts costs approximately $5500 per year with a $2000 deductible per person. Many middleclass people – for example, those living on four times the federal poverty guideline for a single person ($43,000) or family of four ($88,000) – would find that insurance unaffordable. (Vanessa Fuhrmans, “Mandated Health Insurance Squeezes Those in the Middle,” Wall Street Journal, September 16, 2009)

Claim that health insurance is now available through commercial sources is overly facile. Insurance that is for sale but unaffordable is really not accessible to everybody. Financial affordability is a critical component of meaningful access or availability.

Two physicians, who now work at Duke but who previously worked for many years in the Canadian healthcare system before immigrating to the United States, believe that they see many more needlessly sick people in the U.S. than in Canada. Canadians may have to wait to see a specialist. However, Canadians have better primary care with guaranteed free access. Consequently, Canadians are more proactive, receiving more preventive care and, when problems develop, seeking medical care early before complications develop. (Jesse James Deconto, “Best U.S.-Canada care hybrid may draw from both - Health Care,” News and Observer, September 16, 2009)

The tradeoff between waiting months to see a specialist for something that is not time-critical to obtain coverage for all is a tradeoff that I enthusiastically embrace. Waiting may mean living with pain; waiting may temporarily diminish one’s quality of life. However, no substitute exists for guaranteed access to affordable care for all.

Clergy, and I include myself in this generalization, are not policy experts with respect to healthcare reform. Specific policy formulations appropriately originate with healthcare policy experts. The clergy’s contribution to the public discourse on this issue has rightly emphasized the ethical dimensions of healthcare reform. (Jeff Diamant, “Clergy focus on ethics of health overhaul,” USA Today, September 16, 2009)

The most important ethical imperative in the healthcare reform debate, by far, is to provide meaningful healthcare coverage for everybody. Mandating unaffordable insurance achieves nothing, except perhaps a superficial “feel good” factor for the naïve. Focusing on the shortcomings of other systems, using those shortcomings to justify blocking meaningful reform, is immoral because 46 million Americans lack access, experience poorer health, and cost taxpayers and the insured unconscionable sums. The time for reform is now; that reform must provide meaningful, affordable coverage for all.

Better does not mean more or newer

Amazingly, research conducted in the United Kingdom suggests that teaching assistants for primary school teachers do not improve pedagogical results. The researchers offer no explanation for their results because the study had focused on identifying the contribution that the assistants make. Teachers do like having an assistant, often reporting that the assistant greatly contributes to resolving disciplinary problems and easing the teacher’s workload. (“Teaching assistants: Unintended consequences,” The Economist, September 10, 2009)

Increased spending never guarantees improved results. From the fifth through the seventh grade, I attended school in the building where my grandmother went to four years of high school and my father attended eight years of primary school. In college, I had a seminar in a building constructed in 1796. In both college and seminary many of my courses met in nineteenth century buildings. All the while, I read media stories in which politicians and education leaders contended that newer facilities meant better education. Even as a child I understood that a safe, clean, properly maintained, and well-equipped facility could enhance education but that none of those factors is invariably a function of a building’s age. In other words, new is not always better. More expensive is not always better. The surprising research findings from the UK reinforce my intuitive assessment that too often people wrongly equate new or more with better.

The desire for new beginnings

Finding someone, perhaps even one’s self, who feels as if he or she has a screwed up life is easy. Maybe everybody feels that way at one time or another. The question is, what to do about it? Is a new beginning really possible?

People in Santa Fe, NM, annually burn Zozobra, nicknamed “Old Man Gloom.” The eighty-five year old tradition began when artist Will Shuster invited friends to watch him burn the outside marionette that he had constructed, inspired by Yaqui Indians burning an effigy of Judas that they had pared through the streets.

Before the burning, people stuff the wood and chicken wire, fifty foot tall Zozobra full of the detritus of failures and false starts: bankruptcy and divorce papers; a wedding dress, hospital gowns from cancer wards, mammograms, etc. Sometimes the individual messed up her or his own life; other times the responsibility clearly lies elsewhere, as with a person diagnosed as having cancer or the victim of a crime. (Stephanie Simon, “Up in Smoke: Forgetting Your Troubles the Santa Fe Way,” Wall Street Journal, September 12, 2009)

Stuffing visible emblems of that mess into Zozobra and then relishing the public conflagration can provide a powerful emotional release, freeing a person to make a new beginning. The new beginning may take the form of starting over, as after a failed relationship. The new beginning may celebrate a victory over a life-threatening disease. Or the new beginning may mark a fresh resolve to battle the chaos that threatens to destroy one’s life.

Many Christians do not realize that Christianity offers multiple ways in which to mark a new beginning. Private confession with a priest can powerfully define a turning point in a person’s journey, freeing the person from emotional bondage to past mistakes and opening the door for a new future. Confirmation or reaffirmation of faith (for the already confirmed) can similarly mark a turning point in the life of one who was wandered in the wilderness or who has felt overwhelmed by a flood of evils and misfortune. Committing to partake of Holy Communion on a regular basis can also signify a new beginning. A good priest can help identify other ways in which the Christian tradition can suitably and appropriately aid individuals in making new beginnings.

Zozobra’s sustained popularity in Santa Fe underscores both the timelessness of spiritual dynamics as well as the need for constant reinterpretation of a tradition if that tradition is to remain vital in a changing cultural milieu. Christianity is not about saving souls. Christianity is about helping people become more fully human, becoming the person God created them to be through liberation from brokenness and journeying into the open future of God's love.

Rep Wilson to President Obama: You lie!

When President Obama spoke to a joint session of Congress and the nation about healthcare, South Carolina Republican Representative Joe Wilson yelled out during the speech, “You lie!” The incident has attracted considerable media attention. Rep. Wilson apologized for his loss of control; President Obama has accepted the apology.

Rep. Wilson’s lack of self-control indicates a diminishing of civility. Perhaps my years in the military, an organization that stresses self-control and politeness, skews my assessment. Or perhaps my assessment reflects my Christian bias that people should always treat one another with respect, regardless of their disagreements. In any case, following the speech Rep. Wilson received an unsolicited $200,000 in campaign contributions, $50,000 of which came in the hours immediately following the speech. Rep. Wilson’s rude action clearly resonated with a sizable number of people who underscored their affirmation of his act by making a campaign contribution. This sharply partisan behavior that brushes aside even the pretence of civility does not bode well for Congress being able to enact meaningful healthcare reform.

Two aspects of the incident, largely ignored by the media, trouble me even more. First, Rep. Wilson’s comment exemplifies the distrust that many Americans have for government officials and politicians. President Obama emphatically stated that under his plan federal money would not pay for healthcare for illegal immigrants. Perhaps Rep. Wilson had carefully studied an advance copy of Obama’s plan and identified ways in which illegal immigrants might receive federally funded healthcare. If so, and it seems unlikely, he was unwilling to give the President the benefit of the doubt that such incidents were unanticipated and unintended. Perhaps Rep. Wilson had other reasons for believing that President Obama was intentionally trying to deceive the Congress and American public. More likely than any of the above, Rep. Wilson simply did not believe the President and expects deceit from the President. If so, that reflects the pervasive cynicism about government and politicians that since Vietnam and Watergate has characterized the American political scene. The time is long past for integrity to return. Americans should expect nothing less than integrity for their politicians and government.

Second, illegal immigrants are people. I know. Some of my forebears, for example, those who were among the Pilgrims aboard the Mayflower, were illegal immigrants, taking land from the Native Americans who already possessed it. Healthcare is a basic human right, not limited by citizenship. An illegal immigrant child who is sick and taken to an Emergency Room will, and should, receive care. Refusing to care for the child is immoral. In that moment, the child’s legal status is immaterial; what matters is that the child is human. Similarly, even convicted felons imprisoned without hope of parole receive necessary medical care. Who then will pay to provide essential care for illegal immigrants? Medical care delivered in an emergency room is the most expensive source of healthcare. Simple preventative measures (vaccinations, monitoring of diabetes, etc.) dramatically reduces the cost of healthcare for many. Refusing to provide healthcare for illegal immigrants treats them as less than human and thereby diminishes our humanity. Debating whether the cost of their healthcare is paid for with federal, state, or private money is a pointless debate because, in the end, people with healthcare pay for the healthcare of people without coverage.

God, we Christians believe, is no respecter of a person’s nationality. The better question is how most effectively and efficiently to provide healthcare for not only illegal immigrants but everybody. Rep. Wilson’s outburst, “You lie!” unhelpfully diverts attention from that vital issue.

Moonshiners, Pilgrims, and rebels

I learned recently, somewhat to my mother’s embarrassment, that prior generations of her family included North Carolina moonshiners. On my father’s side, were renegades against established authority who rebelled against the English Crown, fighting in the American Revolution.

Most families, if they know their stories for enough generations, can probably find similar examples of people who disregarded the law. Moonshiners often want to enjoy life, object to federal taxation/control, and profit from their labors. Are those objectives really that much different, from a moral perspective, than the objections of people who object to paying taxes to a government that ignores some of their political rights?

One difference is that American society considers certain activities “personal” and others “public.” For example, personal includes consumption of alcohol and public includes politics. Too often, people judge personal misbehavior with more severity than they judge public misbehavior. Thus, President Clinton’s sexual peccadilloes outraged moralists more than did President George W. Bush’s post 9/11 flouting the Constitutional rights of suspected terrorists. Yet from a Christian perspective, the opposite should hold true: public misbehavior carries more importance because of its broader ramifications.

Another difference between the moonshiners in my family history, on the one hand, and the political rebels, on the other hand, is that the rebels prevailed while the moonshiners have not. Winners write history. Winning also counts for much in American culture, in a way similar to might allegedly making right. From a Christian perspective, citizens should obey the law of the land unless that law contravenes love for God or neighbor. Moonshiners and political rebels both act out of concern for personal welfare. Alcoholic beverages, used responsibly, may enhance one’s life. The right to own private property may also enhance life. However, neither alcoholic beverages nor taxation only with representation are requisite to loving God or neighbor. In other words, moonshiners and political dissenters from the Christian moral perspective of one’s responsibility to uphold the law commit similar infractions; the approbation we assign to the latter thus arguably has more to do with the outcome of the American Revolution than with the merits of the underlying moral issues. However, winning, no more than might, makes right.

Yet another difference between moonshiners and political rebels is that the issue of private alcohol production represents a less complex issue than does the issue of political rights. Many people, for a variety of reasons, focus on small rather than large issues, to the detriment of both themselves and society. This routinely happens in the classroom, business meetings, and political life. Ironically, the importance of an issue often varies in direct proportion to its level of complexity, i.e., the more complex an issue the more important the issue. Therefore, important issues, because of their complexity, deserve more time and analysis yet almost always receive less.

In sum, moral analysis frequently represents a demanding, complex task in which the search for answers may contravene conventional wisdom. Purportedly, my family lineage also includes Pilgrims who crossed the Atlantic on the Mayflower. In part, the Pilgrims objected to funding and attending an established Church that they believed was apostate. (Ironically, hundreds of years later I served as a priest in that Church for two years.) In part, the Pilgrims fled because they sought the right to control their own political and economic destinies. The former rationale represents moral high ground from a Christian perspective, high ground identified by the dual principles of love for God and neighbor. The latter rationale departs that Christian moral high ground for the more prosaic and often far less Christian perspective of self-interest.

Regardless, the Pilgrims’ choice to flee England first for Holland then for the American colonies entailed fleeing from community rather than persisting in attempts to reform the community. The penalty for failed resistance was sometimes death. However, by fleeing the Pilgrims reinforced and accelerated a trend toward individualism that began with the Protestant Reformation and that led to the widespread dissolution of community in post-modern cultures.

Individual freedom is valuable. Each person is unique, needs metaphorical and physical space in which to express that uniqueness, and has certain inalienable rights intrinsic to having been created in God’s image. However, communal bonds are also valuable. No person exists, nor can exist, as an island unto him or herself. God intends people to live in community.

The root problem with both moonshiners and political rebels is their disregard for the law. Law, for better or worse, is the “glue” that holds a community together, the way in which civilized societies decide the boundaries between where one person’s rights end and another person’s begin. In the case of immoral laws, i.e., laws that conflict with love for God or neighbor, people have a moral responsibility to disobey the law, a practice known as civil disobedience and popularized by Emerson, Gandhi, and King.

Civil disobedience requires that a person stand accountable for his/her actions. Civil disobedience works most effectively in communities in which the rule of law prevails. Civil disobedience, not flight nor flagrantly breaking the law, represents the best and most powerful way in which a person can work to make the law conform to a higher moral standard.

Labor Day relfections

One of personal excellence guru Stephen Covey’s principles for highly effective people is that they “Put first things first.” Do you respond to the urgent or to the important? For many of us, the urgent – whether a crying child, a looming deadline at work, a favorite TV show, contacting a friend, or household chores – too often pushes the truly important things in life. On Labor Day, I wonder to what extent we direct our labor to achieve the urgent rather than the important.

My list of important items mercifully sorts into three categories: love God, self, and others. Every day, I intentionally carve out time for each category. Well, at least that is my goal, a goal I successfully achieve most days. Loving God may mean spending some time in nature, reflectively reading the Bible or another book as a form of prayer, participating in worship (both corporate and individual). Loving self includes good self-care (exercise, proper nutrition, adequate rest, any requisite healthcare), self-examination that aids in self-discovery and promotes intentional living, and growing into my vision of the person and lifestyle to which I am called. Loving gives my life direction and purpose, encompassing working toward healthy relationships, a more just society, and enabling others to more fully love God, self, and others.

Those broad directions may seem abstract. I find that I progress as I attach specific metrics to the directions. Many of the metrics are proxies that indirectly indicate the potential for progress, e.g., nobody can measure whether he or she loves God more today than yesterday but one can measure whether he or she devoted time to activities that are often catalysts for spiritual growth. Self-examination – especially timely during the two seasons of the Church year that focus on self-examination and preparation, Advent and Lent – improves accountability, prompts me to revise metrics that no longer measure meaningful activity, and to supplement the numerical indicators with subjective assessments.

Our broken social contract and healthcare reform now

The Declaration of Independence articulated a much-heralded premise that supposedly constitutes the foundation for the United States’ social contract: government of the people, for the people, and by the people. That premise requires citizens regularly and meaningfully participate in the political process.

Voting is one important way in which citizens can participate, although low voter turnout rates indicate that most citizens opt not to exercise their franchise, both a sign and cause of our broken social contract.

Another important avenue to engage the political process is through personal involvement. Wendell Potter, a former executive with Cigna, which is a major provider of healthcare insurance, has dramatically altered his thinking about the need for healthcare reform. He actually retired early because he felt he could no longer continue to work for Cigna with integrity. Now he campaigns for healthcare reform, including emphasizing that a publicly funded option must be a centerpiece of any real reform. Read more in Nicholas D. Kristoff’s New York Times column, “Health Care Fit for Animals,” published August 27, 2009. Leaving this level of involvement primarily to paid lobbyists has distorted our political processes and substantially contributed to the fraying of the social contract.

Yet a third means by which citizens can helpfully exercise their moral and political duty to participate in the nation’s governance is through regular contact (mail, email, or telephone) with elected representatives to express opinions. Too many citizens turn to their elected representatives only as an ombudsman of last resort. The phone number for the Congressional switchboard is 1-888-436-8427. To communicate by email, one can reach the White House at http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/, the Senate at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm, and the House at https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml.

The time for healthcare reform is now. For example, direct costs associated with medical malpractice total approximately 1% of what the United States spends on healthcare. Those costs include attorney fees, insurance, settlements, etc. The far larger set of costs associated with medical malpractice are the indirect costs that result from physicians, often at patient insistence concerned to eliminate any possible misdiagnosis or other misstep in their care, practicing defensive medicine. Indirect costs amount to an estimated 5-9% of U.S. spending on healthcare. (Dionne Searcey and Jacob Goldstein, “Tangible and Unseen Health-Care Costs,” Wall Street Journal, September 3, 2009) Medical malpractice needs to back away from its presumption of the error-less practice of medicine. Healthcare is, given the limited scientific knowledge of disease and medicine, inherently an art in which practitioners make informed judgments about the best course of treatment for any particular individual.

Afghan prognosis

Reports out of Afghanistan indicate the recent presidential election probably included high levels of fraud and substantial geographic areas in which voter turnout was low to non-existent because of the Taliban threatening retaliation against anyone who voted. Concurrently, the new U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General McChrystal, has concluded that the current military strategy has failed. He believes that the U.S., after eight years of occupation, needs to focus less on killing the Taliban and terrorists and to better protect the citizenry.

Together, those two data points confirm assessments previously expressed in this blog: the United States, in spite of a costly, eight-year occupation, has not significantly improved its own security or the quality of life of most Afghans. The time to end that morally wrong, strategically incorrect, and economic/military fiasco has long passed.