Water - God's gift

Water is arguably the world’s most valuable resource; life requires water. Of approximately seven billion people who today inhabit the earth, approximately 8% are chronically short of water. That percentage seems likely to rise to 45% by 2050 when the earth may have 9 billion people. Already one billion people – 1 in 7 – go to bed hungry at night, many because they lack the water to grow sufficient food.

Agriculture accounts for about 67% of all water consumption. However, that number varies greatly by region: 3% in Great Britain, 41% in the United Sates, 70% in China, and 90% in India. Producing a pound of beef requires four times as much water as does producing a pound of chicken. Industry consumes approximately 21% of the world’s fresh water consumption; domestic activities use roughly 8%. (John Grimond, “A special report on water: For want of a drink,” The Economist, May 20, 2010)

Water is an important biblical symbol of God's grace. Not only is water the outward and visible sign of God's grace in Holy Baptism, but Genesis depicts the Holy Spirit moving over water during creation, Isaiah likens water to God's grace, and Jesus describes himself as the living water that permanently satisfies.

Carelessly wasting or polluting water abuses the creation God entrusted to human stewardship. To become a better steward of water, learn to view each drop of water as a gift from God for which you are responsible. Treat water as the priceless source of life, refreshment, cleansing, food, or an improved quality of life. And pray for those who are working to end the oil spewing into the Gulf of Mexico in the wake of the BP deep water drilling disaster. Apparently, nobody really knows how to staunch the flow or to ameliorate damage already done.

Wages and illegal immigrants

A recent report by the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston revealed that the nation’s poorest (incomes less than $12,499) experienced 31% unemployment compared to 3.2% for those earning $150,000 and 4% for those with incomes between $100,000 and $149,000. (Yale Divinity School, Reflections, Spring 2010, p.19)

People earning less than $12,499 annually compete directly with illegal immigrants for jobs. While the staggering differences in unemployment rates speaks to a basic economic inequality in the United States, the different rates also make we wonder why companies risk hiring illegal immigrants given the national emphasis on hiring only legal workers. Do illegal immigrants work harder than legal workers? Do low paying employers frequently place illegal demands on their workers, demands that illegal workers are in no position to refuse? Do legal workers (resident aliens and citizens alike) have an entitlement mentality that causes them to disdain low-paying jobs?

Earning minimum wage necessitates a bare-minimum lifestyle. I know. For my three years of seminary, my wife and I lived at 50% or less of the then national poverty level. We lived in a very small apartment. Meals featured inexpensive starches and canned vegetables, e.g., a pound of meat usually provided the “basis” of four or five meals. We walked or took public transit, not owning a car. We did not have telephone service or own a television. Our entertainment mostly consisted of attending free events and long walks. I would not relish returning to that lifestyle. But I know I could and that I and my marriage would survive.

A forty-hour week at the minimum wage for fifty weeks a year pays $15,500. A part-time job would further increase one’s income. Alternatively, two or three part-time jobs might yield a similar level of income. Janitorial work, farm labor, retail clerk, and a host of other jobs require few skills beyond a commitment to the assigned task, persistent diligence, honesty, and minimal intelligence.

Why do employers hire illegal workers?

Addressing those reasons in no way justifies discriminating against illegal workers or failing to address basic economic injustices in the American system. Ignoring those reasons, however, leaves one with an incomplete picture of the economic and social challenges the nation faces. Individual responsibility and a social safety net comprise integral elements of a sustainable, humane society.

Religion and public discourse

Should religion play a role in debates that form part of public discourse?

For the well-integrated religious person, religion inherently informs all aspects of life. Telling such a person to divorce her or his religious views and values from any opinion voiced in the public square, including voting, is ludicrously impossible. Furthermore, religion appropriately informs an adherent’s worldview and behavior.

However, the price of entry into public discourse, the price of participating in life in a secular nation, is to affirm the right of people from other religious traditions, or from no religious tradition, to participate on an equal basis. In other words, secularism connotes pluralism that potentially includes diverse religious perspectives rather than a rigid intolerance of religious views.

Should organized religion play a role in debates that form part of public discourse?

Again, the answer is a resounding affirmative, but with two caveats. First, religious organizations participating in public discourse, like their individual counterparts, must affirm their acceptance of a secular society and its inherent pluralism. Second, to the extent that a religious organization accepts favorable government treatment (e.g., exemption from property tax, tax exemption for donations, etc.), that religious organization must also accept reasonable limits imposed on its political activities (e.g., speaking to policies rather than endorsing particular candidates).

Not everybody accepts that view. For example, John Locke drew what I believe is a false dichotomy between religious and public discourse in his 1689 essay, “A Letter Concerning Toleration,” the “care of men’s souls” is the responsibility of the church while to the civil magistrate belongs the care of “outward things such as money, land, houses, furniture and the like.” Conversely, the duties of the civil authorities do not preclude people of faith or religious organizations from voicing opinions about what constitutes the just distribution of resources or fair treatment of people. After all, religious concerns include the totality of life.

What of the organized religion (or even individual) that refuses to affirm the desirability of living in a secular culture?

Most expressions of Christianity, like most expressions of the world’s other major religions, emphasize the dignity and worth of all humans, regardless of whether those humans are Christians. Living in a secular society is the form of social organization most congruent with that affirmation, affirming the right of people to hold widely divergent beliefs and commitments.

Religious traditions that cannot make the same affirmation about the dignity and worth of all humans regardless of religious affiliation, with its extension to the desirability of living in a secular society, pose a conundrum. How can one affirm the right of such religions to believe as they choose while protecting the rights of others? The traditional Islamic solution of allowing other religious groups the opportunity to form independent, self-governing communities that pay tribute to the Muslim community, reflects a hubris that values Islam more than other faiths.

If the vast majority of people within a specific geographic area wish to live in a religious society, then perhaps they should have the freedom to do so, purchasing on the market (not through eminent domain) the property of any people who do not wish to live in such a society at fair market value. The United States has many examples of people who have established such communities based on their common religious beliefs within the confines of the United States, e.g., the Shakers, the Oneida community, Ocean Park (ME), Pacific Grove (CA). Occasionally, those communities exercised political power; most often, the communities have attempted to exist apart from political power. The growing number of Muslims in the United States suggests that Muslims may seek to form similar communities in future years.

Entire nations in which a majority of the people wants to live under religious rule represent more of a problem. In some respects, the Vatican state is the least problematic of these because of its small geographic size and an apparently homogeneous population that at least nominally wants to live in a Roman Catholic state. Some Muslim countries probably also represent little problem, especially countries in which the vast preponderance of residents are Muslim and which honors the traditional Islamic tenet that each person must decide what submission to God requires in terms of personal behavior.

Two categories of nations pose more significant moral problems with respect to allowing appropriate individual freedom. First, nations that seek to impose religious conformity. Second, nations that seek to impose secularism on everybody. Neither ensures appropriate respect for human dignity and worth that translates into freedom of belief and expression. (For a lucid, recent defense of the importance of religious views cf. Stanley Fish, “Are There Secular Reasons?” New York Times, February 22, 2010.)

In other words, the real clash between religion and the state occurs when either seeks to impose itself on the other. Clashes in the United States most frequently happen when this occurs on several specific issues, most notably abortion (cf. Ethical Musings, “Uncivil discourse,” March 30, 2009). Another important, ongoing cultural clash occurs over teaching evolution in the science curriculum in the public schools (cf. Ethical Musings, “A new species?” May 30, 2009). The sporadic (some would contend frequent) efforts of conservative evangelicals in the military to foist their narrow version of Christianity on others is yet another example of egregiously inappropriate religious expression. Such clashes, it seems to me, are an inevitable consequence of living in a pluralistic, secular state and therefore an indicator of a democracy’s health. The way forward is to unceasingly affirm a secular pluralism that includes the right of the religious and non-religious to participate in public discourse.

Conflict and growth

A provocative report about children who have an enemy who torments the child raises an interesting question about the value of conflict. Can a tormentor help the child to grow into a stronger, healthier person? (Benedict Carey, “Enemies Can Be Good for a Child’s Growth,” New York Times, May 17, 2010). Obviously, the answer to that question depends upon a number of factors including the degree of abuse. Severe bullying, for example, can so overwhelm that it can push a child to suicide. But are milder forms of torment always bad?

Growth without conflict or overcoming obstacles is impossible. Hatchlings need the strength they derive from breaking through an eggshell. Physical growth demands energy, cells consuming (“burning”) carbohydrates and other nutrients, a form of conflict that transforms one set of molecular structures into another. Emotional growth demands that a child differentiate self from mother and then self from the world, processes that inevitably entail struggle to overcome attachments. That process continues through adolescence and sometimes into adulthood. The failure of a child to launch successfully into his or her own life is a source of humor but also of a life that never achieves its full potential.

How many individuals and how many organizations are conflict averse or even conflict avoidant?

Conversely, some people and organizations continually seek conflict. Genghis Khan by all accounts was one such person, unable to live at peace and only happy in war. In my service as a military chaplain, I met many individuals who thrived only when their life was full of drama; mental health professionals sometimes refer to such people as “drama queens” and “drama kings.”

One does not have to read very much of any of the four gospels to recognize a pattern of constant conflict in Jesus’ life. However, Jesus avoided conflict at the wrong time or when it seemed pointless, e.g., declining to go to Jerusalem before his time and apparently not explicitly teaching that the second-class status of women was wrong (although his actions clearly communicated that message).

The challenge in following Jesus, it seems to me, is to enter into conflicts that seem likely to offer an opportunity for growth, personally (for self or another) or organizationally. Conflicts that offer no realistic hope for becoming an occasion of growth seem pointless, adding turmoil (emotional or otherwise) with no payoff.

American deaths in Afghanistan

American deaths in Afghanistan have passed 1000 (James Dao and Andrew W. Lehren, “American Deaths in Afghanistan Passes 1,000,” New York Times, May 18, 2010). Nobody knows for sure how many Afghans have died, but surely well over ten thousand. When will this pointless bloodletting end?

Overworked healthcare providers

A recent New York Times article described the typical daily routine of a primary healthcare provider in the United States:

There are on average 17 e-mail messages to write, 14 consultation reports to review, 24 phone calls to field, 11 X-ray and imaging reports to read, 12 prescriptions to refill (not including those done during a visit or phone call) and 20 laboratory reports to be checked, all on top of the work involved in seeing a daily quota of at least 18 patients. (Pauline W. Chen, MD, “Doctor and Patient - Delivering Better Primary Care,” May 13, 2010)

A healthcare system that expects a provider to perform that many tasks in an 8-10 hour workday establishes unrealistic expectations for most providers and creates conditions for overwork, errors, lack of attention to patients, or all of the above. Routinely expecting healthcare providers to work more than 8-10 hours per day both diminishes the provider’s quality of life and puts patients at risk from over-extended providers.

Dr. Chen identifies one driver behind this pattern of systemic overwork: fee based healthcare, i.e., the more services provided the more income the provider generates.

Another driver partially responsible for this pattern of systemic overwork, ironically, is medical malpractice law that punishes providers, through punitive damage awards, when they fail to explore all options, ordering every possible test no matter how remote the likelihood that it will provide useful information.

The time to improve this broken system is long gone. Limiting medical malpractice lawsuits is one part of the answer. Another part of the answer is to move away from a fee-based healthcare system. Increased reliance on a wider variety of providers (i.e., supplementing physicians with nurse practitioners, physician assistants, etc.) is another part of the answer. Jesus’ followers who seek to walk in the footsteps of the great healer must demand that all people have access to quality, affordable healthcare.

Worshiping at the "Idol" church

A recent New York Times headline caught my eye, “Worshiping at the ‘Idol’ Church” (May 14, 2010). The author of the column, Michael Slezak, writes about his experience as the EW.com reporter covering the ABC reality hit, “American Idol.” Not being one of the twenty-five million Americans who tune in weekly to worship at that altar, I found the audience’s devotion and size eye opening.

What attracts people to “Idol”? The hope that they too might claim a few moments of fame? The hope that someone can bypass the hold of big business on the entertainment industry and achieve stardom directly? The hope that the show might bring a few moments of pleasure – for any of a wide variety of reasons – into an otherwise drab, mundane existence? Another reason?

Those reflections stimulated some musings about worship attendance in more conventional churches. My ideas about why people attend Christian worship have certainly changed over the years. In the beginning, I naively hoped that adults attended because of having made a genuine commitment to following Jesus, wanting to learn more about such a commitment, seeking to discover a deeper truth or reality, or accompanying a person to whom one of those motives applied.

Then I quickly realized that many people attended out of habit, seeking to create an impression (whether with children, friends, or others), for the fellowship, for the music, and for several other reasons somewhat removed from an explicit cognitive Christian commitment or search for spiritual truth.

I now understand that human behavior is more complex and seldom attributable to any single factor. Evolutionary biology suggests that over the millennia religious involvement must have conveyed some evolutionary advantage or the habit would not have persisted for so long. Some people find the opportunity to spend a relatively quiet hour an important chance for private reflections that an otherwise busy, noisy life does not permit. Some people seek moral reassurance that the virtues and standards by which they attempt to live do have value. Still other people come searching for hope, hope that their life has meaning, hope that justice presently denied shall one day be theirs. Yet other people attend longing to connect with a power or reality greater than themselves, that which Christians call God. And yet still others come seeking guidance on how to live a better life.

When I consider the list of possible reasons why a person may attend worship (and I’m sure I’ve missed some!), I can easily feel depressed. How many of those reasons really relate to why I became a priest? Depending upon the day, my answer to that question varies from a few to all of them. How can I, in a brief sermon, hope to meet such an incredible range of needs?

But always, I’m thankful that people attend worship. No matter how prosaic or inadequate the service, I’m willing to bet it provides a better meal than does “American Idol”!

Boycott in support of Israel-Palestinian peace process

The Episcopal Peace Fellowship (EPF) has called for a boycott in support of moving the Israeli-Palestinian peace process forward:

The National Executive Council of the Episcopal Peace Fellowship voted to endorse the enclosed statement with a vote of 8 yes, 2 no and 1 abstention.

"In response to the ongoing cycle of violence - including Palestinian terrorist bombings and the well documented military and economic violence of the government of Israel against Palestinians - that undermines negotiations and hope for an enduring peace- The NEC of the Episcopal Peace Fellowship, in support of the principles of the Kairos Palestinian Document 4.2.6. endorses the application of divestment and an economic and commercial boycott of products linked to oppression of Palestinian people and occupation of their land. As peacemakers committed to nonviolent resolution of deep-seated conflicts, the National Executive Council joins a growing number of international and religious partners, including Jewish, Muslim, and Christian voices, who believe that economic sanctions can inspire a more useful dialog and negotiation towards a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Respect for the dignity of every human being, alongside a vision to put aside the violence of terrorism, oppression and military force is key to moving negotiations forward for a lasting peace for all involved.

The National Executive Council asks the Episcopal Peace Fellowship's Israel/Palestine Action Group to offer resources to our membership and the wider church on effective strategies for boycott, divestment, and sanction, including links to partner groups and educational resources on the history of the cycle of violence and obstacles to peace in Israel/Palestine. We are all the children of Abraham, let us no longer profit at the expense of the safety and security of one another. Instead let us end the violent cycle and build a circle of peace."

The Kairos document to which the EPF statement refers is a comprehensive statement about the stalled progress of the peace process, condemning both Israeli injustices and Palestinian terrorism. The EPF Chair, Linda Gaither, has written an excellent explanation of the rationale behind the EPF endorsement of divestment and a boycott.

What can you or I do to help to restart the peace process?

• Pray for regularly for peace in Palestine. I don’t pretend to understand how prayer works, but prayer connects me with God and others in mysterious, powerful ways.
• Voice an opinion in support of Palestinian rights and against both Israeli injustices and Palestinian terrorism whenever the opportunity arises. Do not allow the conversation to be a one-sided condemnation of Palestinian terrorism. That evil in no way excuses the evils of Israeli injustices perpetrated against Palestinians.
• If traveling to Palestine, ensure opportunities to hear both the Palestinian and Israeli perspective.
• Become informed about the situation by reading Jimmy Carter’s excellent book, Peace not Apartheid or Mark Braverman’s Fatal Embrace: Christians, Jews and the Search for Peace in the Holy Land.

Moral choices and moral autonomy

Magnets can influence moral choices, according to research conducted at MIT. The study reports that a magnetic pulse to the brain’s right temporo-parietal junction (the RTPJ, located behind the right ear) diminishes a person’s ability to judge actions based on intent. Thus, for example, subjects of an experiment bombarded by a magnetic pulse to their RTPJ are less likely to judge the efforts of another person to kill somebody by administering what the would-be murderer believes to be poison that fails to harm the recipient as wrong. (Chris Smyth, “Moral compass influenced by magnets, researchers say,” Times Online, March 30, 2010)

This type of research undercuts efforts to hold every individual strictly accountable for all of their moral choices. Accumulating data suggest that human behavior results from the complex nexus of human physiology, external environmental influences, and some measure of individual choice. If so, then criminal justice systems should emphasize protecting other members of society and altering future behavior by convicted criminals rather than punishment.

Women Bishops in the Church of England

Speculation is that the Church of England is at least four years away from ordaining women bishops. That prognostication may or may not be accurate. Much controversy swirls around making provision for Church of England clergy and parishes who object to the ordination of women bishops.

Two issues seem more problematic. First, what can justify the delay? Women are now ordained priests and deacons in the Church of England. Crossing those thresholds should have paved the way for consecrating female bishops. The tired scriptural arguments cited as prohibiting female bishops parallel the arguments against female deacons and priests. Having already rejected those arguments, at least de facto, by ordaining women as deacons and priests delaying the inevitable consecration of women as bishops lacks logical cogency. Instead, the delay appears to pander to an obstreperous misogynist minority. The time to move ahead with allowing women in the Church of England to answer God's call to the episcopate has long passed. The delay represents an unnecessary and unhelpful embarrassment for a beleaguered national Church in a society that assertively attempts to achieve justice for all regardless of gender.

Second, the consecration of women as bishops in the Church of England seems inevitable, both from what I read and from my contacts in that Church. That step will further fracture the Anglican Communion, deepening the divide between the provinces that support full inclusion for women and those that do not. Opponents often raise another set of tired arguments in these debates, e.g., this will further separate the Anglican Communion from the Roman Catholic Church. Yet these arguments that focus on consequences beyond the Church of England have no more logical cogency than do arguments that focus on internal issues. The truth is that the Anglican Communion has already crossed the Rubicon with respect to future division, as comments at the recent meeting of the Global South primates made clear.

Ideas are important

Investigators looking into the failed attempt to explode a bomb in New York’s Time Square have discovered a “link” between the accused bomber and Anwar al-Awlaki, a Yemeni-American cleric whose militant online lectures have been a catalyst for several recent attacks and plots. The “link” consists of the bombing suspect, Faisal Shahzad, listening to al-Awlaki’s online writings and reading his writings. At this time, no public information about possible personal interaction between Shahzad and al-Awlaki is available. However, al-Awlaki’s influence through his writings and speeches has surfaced in the investigations of more than a dozen terrorist suspects. (Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti, “Times Square Suspect Drew Inspiration From Militant Cleric,” New York Times, May 6, 2010)

That report prompted some musings about reading and listening. Do I read only those materials that I want to have influence my thinking? That influence may be positive or negative. For example, in high school I read Mein Kampf (or at least portions of it) to better understand Adolf Hitler and the power he wielded over so many Germans. His ravings left me bored, but pointed toward personal charisma as the source of his power. Alternatively, I have read the writings of mystics from many religious traditions and found myself stirred as they sought to describe an encounter with an ineffable power or reality that transcended human limitations.

Perhaps the attitude with which one approaches written material will often determine the potential that material has to influence one. Some of the evangelical Christians I’ve known emphatically objected to “polluting” their minds by reading or viewing anything that was not godly. Initially, I was skeptical of that attitude. As I’ve encountered people who spend enormous amounts of time engaged in viewing online pornography, read about terrorism suspects like Shahzad, and met people who read the Bible intensively, literally, and as the source of all answers to life’s questions, I’ve realized that words have a power many of us often underestimate. Hearing words, especially when accompanied by video, can imbue those words with an incredible emotional power.

Conversely, as someone who spends much of his life working with words, I wonder if I give my words sufficient thought before putting them online, publishing them on paper, or speaking them in a public forum. Does volume of output replace substance as the real measure of effectiveness? How can I achieve the same degree of resonance with my hearers and readers as al-Awlaki does? (Let me hastily underscore that I want my words to give life, not death.) Why do words of hate and destruction (Hitler, al-Awlaki, etc.) often evoke a much greater favorable response than do words of love and life?

Saturday pot pourri

SCIENCE AND RELIGION: Richard Dawkins recently interviewed the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev. Rowan Williams. To watch an excerpt of the interview at the Episcopal Café, follow this link. Archbishop Williams emphasizes how he is able to believe in God without adopting views contrary to the insights of modern science.

ISRAEL: Both the Times Online (Lindsay McIntosh, “The British public are demonising Israel, ambassador says,” May 5, 2010) and the New York Times (Paul Vitello, “On Israel, Jews and Leaders Often Disagree,” May 6, 2010) have featured stories about Jews in the UK and the US disagreeing with their political leaders about Israeli government policies. The hyper-sensitivity of Israel to criticism (cf. Ethical Musings, “Resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict) is evident in the Times Online piece when the Israeli ambassador to the United Kingdom alleges that the British public “demonizes” Israel with respect to its policies toward Palestinians. If President Obama and other world leaders successfully tap into widespread, if silent, public opinion opposed to racist Israeli policies, perhaps this will help to end Israeli intransigence with respect to a viable Palestinian state and facilitate progress toward establishing a meaningful peace in that strife torn region.

TERRORISM AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS: South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham made some amazing, oxymoronic statements at a recent hearing of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. On the one hand, he staunchly defended the second amendment rights of putative terrorists to own firearms. On the other hand, he vigorously denounced reading terrorism suspects their Miranda rights, rights at least equally established in the Constitution (e.g., the right against self-incrimination and the right to an attorney). (Gail Collins, “Congress, Up in Arms,” New York Times, May 5, 2010)

Graham provided no explanation of why suspected terrorists deserve one and not all constitutional rights. The political explanation seems obvious and highly likely: politically potent special groups like the National Rifle Association support Graham with campaign contributions and endorsements. In exchange, he toes the party line: citizens have an unbridgeable right to own and bear arms. Defenders of the right against self-incrimination, to a competent attorney, etc., neither endorse nor contribute to Graham’s campaigns.

Arguably, the Miranda rights are more basic and more important to preserving this nation’s democratic government in the twenty-first century. Ordinary citizens loosely organized into volunteer militias and armed with then state of the art weapons represented a worthy foe for eighteenth century militaries, as evidenced by the success of militias in the American Revolution. Too often, those militias receive more credit than they deserve. The colonies would never have won their revolution without both a national army (the Continentals) and foreign military aid. In the twenty-first century, loosely organized militias can fight effectively against modern military prowess only by relying on terrorist strategy and tactics (e.g., the Hutaree in Michigan), hoping to development sufficient momentum and international support to wage guerilla war with the support of foreign military assistance (e.g., as the mujahidin did against the Soviets in Afghanistan).

Rights that protect against self-incrimination, ensure adequate legal counsel, enforce due process, etc., safeguard the rule of law that is basic to democratic governance on a daily basis. Graham’s comments alarm me because they signal the extent to which at least some of this nation’s leaders place self-interest ahead of democratic fundamentals.

FAMILY VALUES: “Family values” (preaching abstinence, advocating couples never divorce, etc.) apparently weaken families. Recent research reveals that the states with the highest divorce and teen pregnancy rates vote republican, the party most closely aligned with family values. The converse is true as well; states that tend to vote democratic have lower divorce and teen pregnancy rates. To read the research, report in the National Journal magazine this month, follow this link.

ENERGY RESEARCH:

Technology companies spend 5 percent to 15 percent of revenue on research and development. Energy companies, on the other hand, spend only one-quarter of 1 percent. The federal government spends $30 billion on health research, but only $3 billion on clean energy research. (David Brooks, “American Power Act,” New York Times, April 29, 2010)

BRAIN DEVELOPMENT AND MIDDLE-AGE: Middle-aged brains are still developing, better at inductive reasoning and problem solving than younger brains, and better in social situations than younger brains. These improvements result from the neural pathways and information acquired through decades of living. The best scientifically proven method for enhancing brain function is physical exercise. Social involvement also can make a difference; some data suggests that exercising the brain (e.g., learning a foreign language or working puzzles) can also improve brain functioning. (Tara Parker-Pope, “The Talents of a Middle-Aged Brain - Well Blog,” New York Times, April 30, 2010)

SUNNI AWAKENING MOVEMENT: The Sunni Awakening movement, funded largely by the United States, purchased the “loyalty” of Sunni tribes. Those tribes feel disenfranchised in the aftermath of the recent Iraqi general election, having failed to establish a significant voting presence (Tim Arango, “Iraqi Sunnis Frustrated as Awakening Loses Clout,” New York Times, May 3, 2010). This represents another data point that supports my prediction that the nominal Iraqi democracy will give way to a dictatorship, probably Shiite. Sunnis who violently revolt against the Iraqi government or who align themselves with insurgents groups such as al Qaeda will likely face increasingly repressive government reaction.

Additional thoughts on data collection

The precipitous drop of almost 1000 points in the Dow Jones Industrial average (DJIA) over the course of a few minutes on May 6, 2010 triggered by an inadvertent typo highlights the importance of accurate data. The incorrect analysis of data collected on Iraqi military capabilities prior to the second Gulf War that led then Secretary of State Colin Powell to confidently declare to the United Nations General Assembly that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction similarly highlights the importance of correct analysis. Data is no panacea, as correspondents to this blog have emphasized in their comments. However, neither potential collection issues (including costs, one of which is the time required) nor analysis issues undermine the value of good data rightly analyzed to shed light on life, individual or collective.

Political values

The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, prior to the general election in the United Kingdom, issued a statement identifying the six values on which they encouraged people to base their votes. Those values are equality, stability, global responsibility, law and justice, children’s welfare, and the needs of older people. They contrast voting based on those values with voting based on supporting a celebrity, i.e., substance over form. (Rowan Williams and John Sentamu, “These are the values to vote for,” Church Times, April 30, 2010)

Values to guide Americans going to the polls may well differ from those in Great Britain. For example, unlike the UK, the US has no national healthcare system so providing access for all to healthcare should be a value that guides electoral choice. The US also has a far larger nuclear arsenal and conventional military establishment than does the UK. Peacemaking should therefore be more of a priority in this country, the basic value that should guide the US of armed force. Other important values – equality, stability, and care for the most vulnerable (children and the elderly, as well as those in need of healthcare) –will be the same in both countries.

What might happen if people voted according to Christian values?

More thoughts on collecting data about one's life

Having taught a college statistics course many years ago, I’m well aware that numbers may mislead or tell only a partial story. However, avoiding the use of quantitative metrics allows one to slide into complete subjectivity, perhaps resulting in prejudices blinding or deluding one.

The number of times that one attends worship, per se, does not reflect how faithful or religious one is, as a comment on my column about collecting data on one’s life notes observes:

Interesting post.

Numbers in themselves rarely tell a complete story, and they often can be and are massaged or presented to convey slanted messages or untruths.

Moreover, for some things, measurement is specious in my view. An example: measuring amounts tithed or number of times attending church as a value of how faithful or religious one is.

However, those for whom attending worship is an important spiritual practice can benefit by tracking the number of times per month that he/she attends a worship service. This minimizes the likelihood of a “halo” effect, thinking that one attends more regularly than is actually the case. The data may also establish a baseline trend from which the person might seek to improve his/her attendance. Other potential advantages of tracking attendance include developing an awareness of seasonal trends, the effect of a new cleric or lifestyle change, etc. Of course, the trends must also take into account illness, travel, family emergencies, and other contingencies.

Similar, carefully analyzed data about giving, prayer habits, meditation, etc., can all serve as a means to better understand one’s spirituality.

Too many people shy away from data collection and analysis. Some people are uncomfortable with numbers, some unfamiliar with how to analyze data in an appropriate, statistically sound matter. But I also think that many people are simply afraid of the element of accountability that data can introduce, moving the analysis from the anecdotal and subjective toward a more substantive, objective basis. As the comment reminds us, data analysis never yields the complete story. The converse is true as well: ignoring the data deprives one of important benchmarks.

Iraq prognosis

Continuing disputes over the Iraqi presidential election amidst escalating violence suggests that democracy is not yet a reality in Iraq. An Iraqi court has disqualified one victor and eight losers because they were members of the Baath party during Saddam’s rule. All come from Ali Allawi’s coalition that defeated Nouri al Maliki’s coalition by two seats. Because of the way votes are tabulated, disqualifying the losers may further shift seats in favor of al Maliki. Iraq may be months away from declaring a clear victor in the election. Until then, the current government will remain in power.

The escalating violence signifies not only the continuing hatreds and tensions in Iraqi society, problems that the U.S. surge may have “papered” over with currency but did not resolve, but also the efforts of groups like al Qaeda to disrupt Iraqi society.

Several years ago, I predicted that Iraq’s future would take one of two forms:

1. Formalizing the fractures between Arab Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds so that Iraq would be either a very lose federation of three de facto independent states or that three independent states would exist in lieu of Iraq;
2. A new dictator would emerge who through coercion would create the centripetal forces to keep Iraq together.

Nouri al-Maliki’s post-election moves suggests that the second alternative is increasing likely. The longer he remains in power post-election, the greater the probability that he will not surrender power voluntarily or peacefully. For example, al-Miliki objects to the recount process now in place, further delaying and jeopardizing the election's outcome ((Steven Lee Myers, “Iraq Recount Mired in a New Dispute,” New York Times, May 3, 2010).

Meanwhile, President Obama (wisely, in my estimation) seems set on drawing down U.S. forces and allowing Iraq to determine its own future, so long as that future is independent of Iran. The ongoing U.S. commitment in Afghanistan makes reversing the American policy unlikely and difficult. (Peter Baker and Rod Nordland, “Obama Sticks to Deadline in Iraq,” New York Times, April 27, 2010, accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/world/middleeast/28iraq.html.)

Do you collect data about your life?

Do you collect data about your life? A recent New York Times article featured stories about people who make decisions about their personal lifestyle based on data they have collected. For example, one man wanted to wean himself from coffee. So he deliberately tracked drinking 20ml less of coffee per day until his consumption hit zero. Tempted one day to have a cup of coffee in order to improve his concentration on his work, he examined his data about time he spent focused on work before and after quitting coffee. (Yes, he actually tracks how he uses his time, minute by minute, on his computer.) To his surprised dismay, he discovered that his time focused on work after quitting coffee far exceeded what he had done as a coffee drinker. Gary Wolf’s article (“The Data-Driven Life,” April 26, 2010) features several other equally interesting anecdotes.

Many philosophers have long suggested that only the examined life is worth living. Examining one’s life occupies an honored position in Christian spirituality, as well as in many other religious traditions. Theoretically, the examined life produces more intentional living than the unexamined life as a person sets rules to live by and goals to aim for.

Collecting data improves self-examination in two important ways. First, data collection provides a measure of accountability. Am I in fact achieving the goals I have for myself? Am I following the rules (or disciplines) that I established for myself? For example, if one of my goals is good health, how often do I get seven or eight hours of sleep? How many days do I eat at least five portions of fruits and vegetables?

Second, data collection introduces an important element of objectivity. For example, my goal may be to improve my knowledge of a particular subject. How much time per day do I devote to that effort? Can I measure my progress by passing exams, number of books read, or another metric? With data, such assessments move from subjective impressions to an objective standard. Similarly, data collection can help me to assess whether my methodology is in fact effective. If I want to improve my physical fitness, is my heart rate, pulse rate, respiration rate, or other objective data improving as I adhere to my exercise regiment? If my goal is to maintain my physical fitness, does data show that my level of exertion, length of exercise, and frequency of workouts sufficient to sustain my current level of fitness?

Obviously, a person can become compulsive about data collecting. Most of us need not fear that hazard. We suffer from a lack of good data, making too many decisions based on “gut feelings,” anecdotal assessments, uninformed opinions from others, etc. Data collection can help a person who wishes to live the good life move from wishful thinking to actually living his or her conception of the good life.