I'm sure by now everyone's seen or heard something about the rocket scientist offensive shirt outrage explosion. I won't even bother linking to a story; I'd feel like I'm just participating in the link-bait frenzy our media perpetually creates. My basic summary: guy who landed probe on comet wore shirt portraying scantily clad women, feminists screamed like banshees, guy tearfully apologized. And so, here we are in the aftermath.
The resulting Right vs Left issue is the same as usual. Left says the incident is indicative of a cultural prejudice against women in the workplace, Right says no, it's just a shirt, stop being so sensitive. There's much that could be said about modern feminism, but I'm leaving that specific topic alone for now. I want to address something slightly larger that I think pervades our culture as a whole.
We need to stop thinking we're so dang important.
That probably sounds weird coming from a conservative, but I'm not talking about individual rights and associated philosophical concepts. I'm talking about our strange proclivity toward making everything we, individually, don't like into National Issues that Need Addressing.
This isn't just a liberal thing, though I would contend that many liberal cultural strains thrive on outrage and overreaction. Conservatives can do the same thing with some issues, particularly in popular media. If, say, a TV show has content that some conservatives (particularly Christian conservatives) object to, these people can fall prey to the same "this shouldn't be on the air at all!" mentality they decry in liberals, rather than just watching something else. It's either a cultural thing or an innate human thing (I suspect a mixture of both).
On both sides of the aisle, people who say they just want to be left alone and allowed to do what they want often don't offer the same courtesy to others. I think a good example of this is the notion of boycotts. I find organized boycotts to be fundamentally strange. If I, an individual person, don't like a business's practices enough that I wish to avoid any of my money supporting them, I will stop purchasing the business's products. I might even inform other people of the questionable practices so that they might better suit their own consciences. Yet, for many, this is not enough. They are not satisfied until a large number of other people take the exact same action they do. Everyone has to stop giving money to this business, not just me.
It's this kind of conspicuous group affirmation that perplexes and concerns me. I'm not sure if it comes from insecurity, arrogance, or some other flawed motive, but so many Americans, the minute they dislike something, start handing out the torches and pitchforks. We can't just be upset, we need lots and lots of other people to be just as upset, if not more.
I'm not saying we shouldn't try to change aspects of culture we think are harmful. I am saying that before we start screaming, we should step back, take a deep breath, and think, "is this really that important in the bigger picture?" Too often, I think we confuse things we're mad about with things that matter. We think our subjective reaction to something is the objective truth about it and shout down anyone who doesn't see what we see. In doing so, we ruin any chance of actually changing things for the better in lieu of endless, breathless screaming matches.
Going back to the #shirtgate incident, I would ask those angry feminists (who will probably never read this): is that shirt really that important? Even assuming that feminist premises are true (scientific workplaces are unfriendly to women, working environments are patriarchal in general, etc.), does one guy's dumb shirt really warrant a reaction so furious that it brought a man to tears?
I suspect the answer, if they were honest with themselves, would be no. When we're angry and offended, however, we don't stop to think about the reasonableness of our response. Let's start exercising more restraint and control over our anger. Let's pause and weigh the importance of issues before letting slip the dogs of outrage. And let's stop inflating our egos to the size of an entire country.
Monday, November 17, 2014
Monday, November 10, 2014
Christian, Conservative, Capitalist... Correct?
Something I've been wrestling with lately is the relationship between religion and politics. Particularly, my own background is both Christian and conservative, and there are certainly many people in the same category. Many of the same people espousing principles of liberty also publicly declare their faith in God.
Are the two notions, conservatism and Christianity, truly connected? Is there an inherent bias toward certain political dogmas among traditional Christians? Even more specifically, is the economic system of free-market capitalism truly the most moral of secular options the religious man might support?
I see two major points of contention within this question: the principles of each concept and the desired results of those principles put into action. First, the ideas behind capitalism and Christianity lead to some intellectual difficulties, as I understand them. Capitalism (in the general free-market vein of understanding) hinges on and champions the individual's ability and right to choose what goods he desires and what he will give up to acquire them. Rational actors are the driving force behind the economic theory, and the best society, it is argued, is the one that lets them, generally, make up their own minds.
Here's where the problem starts. Christian orthodoxy states that mankind is fallen and prone to sin and selfishness. While men are redeemed in this world through Christ, sin does not fully disappear until all things are remade, and thus, even a group of people made entirely of Christians would suffer from sinful acts. Sin often incorporates selfishness and passion, overcoming man's rational capabilities. As Paul writes in Romans 7:15, "I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do." It is possible for even the Christian man to succumb to desires that, morally and rationally, do not serve his or his fellow man's best interest.
Knowing, then, the depravity (total or otherwise) of man, should the Christian support a system that most freely allows humans to act on whatever desires they might have? Of course, economics do not dictate what all laws and social structures should look like, so there would still be some form of limitation on what men can do (murder would probably still be illegal/punishable in even the most libertarian utopia). Yet, it seems concerning to say that man is evil and in need of redemption and that he should be afforded as much liberty as possible in the same breath.
Second, the goals of capitalism and Christianity are potentially at odds. Capitalism's end is, through the workings of the market, innovation, and competition, the increase of wealth for all individuals (inasmuch as each individual is able to reap benefits from their work, products, etc.); everyone desires and should be able to acquire "capital." Christianity, on the other hand, exhorts its faithful to become more Christ-like; as with capitalism, it's right there in the name. This involves the casting aside of worldly desires and following God's will above all else.
You can see where I'm going with this. If the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil (1 Timothy 6:10), why would the Christian want everyone to have more money? At the very least, it would seem to invite temptation toward greed and jealousy. So, then, how can these worldviews be reconciled?
The best I can come up with so far in answering these questions: nothing's perfect. More than that, we shouldn't expect anything besides God to be. Regarding the first question, my belief has long been that there is no infallible system of government or economics or anything involving human beings. Men will always do awful, illogical things, no matter how much freedom or constriction they are under. That said, it could be argued that a philosophy of liberty minimizes harm. When various forces (individuals, government and its branches, and so on) are pitted against each other in as even a playing field as possible, they may hold each other in check. Theoretically, if government cannot wield tyrannical power over people without significant risk of losing its power altogether, then that tyranny is limited. If people cannot harm each other without significant risk of being harmed right back, then that harm is limited. But the word remains "limited," not "eliminated." All attempts by mankind to eliminate mankind's problems fail and often create even worse scenarios. Support free markets through right reason, but never expect them to be a panacea for society's ills.
As for the second question, I think we have to be careful how we define "wealth." In capitalism, the goal is not merely the increase of available currency that individuals possess, but the general upgrade of their standard of living through the encouragement of innovation. Christians are called to be charitable, and this includes easing people's physical burdens as well as spiritual. So, a system purporting to make physical life easier for everyone would seem right in line with Christian principles. However, the Christian must be very, very careful not to let that notion be an excuse for sinfulness. The Christian might justify his greed by saying, to himself or others, that he prioritizes money so that he can make life more comfortable for his family and have a larger amount of potential charitable donations. Again, depravity abounds, and we humans can effortlessly perform the mental gymnastics to rationalize almost anything. After all, it was the poor woman with two coins that Jesus praised, not the rich men who wanted everyone to know how much they were giving (Luke 21:1-4). Just having wealth to give or even actually giving that wealth is not necessarily true charity.
Going back to the temptation idea, I think any situation is rife with potential for sin. Greed and jealousy afflict the poor and rich alike. Even if everyone were poor or everyone were rich, evil would find a way in. The Christian's duty is not to encourage people to seek more or less wealth, but to challenge everyone to be thankful and charitable no matter their situation. In this way, I think the Christian can be a capitalist, assuming, as with anything, the right motivations are behind it.
Of course, all the mental exercise in the world won't resolve eternal dilemmas. Not I nor anyone else can uncover the perfect combination of political beliefs and spiritual attitudes. The only thing I would ask any reader is this: be wary of getting so wrapped up in an idea that you forget your own frailty. You don't have to be a Christian to realize people are influenced by both reason and passion, and both can be used for good or ill. Assuming only the good will come out in specific circumstances is very dangerous. Let's do our best, but never stray too far from the fact that we are only human.
Are the two notions, conservatism and Christianity, truly connected? Is there an inherent bias toward certain political dogmas among traditional Christians? Even more specifically, is the economic system of free-market capitalism truly the most moral of secular options the religious man might support?
I see two major points of contention within this question: the principles of each concept and the desired results of those principles put into action. First, the ideas behind capitalism and Christianity lead to some intellectual difficulties, as I understand them. Capitalism (in the general free-market vein of understanding) hinges on and champions the individual's ability and right to choose what goods he desires and what he will give up to acquire them. Rational actors are the driving force behind the economic theory, and the best society, it is argued, is the one that lets them, generally, make up their own minds.
Here's where the problem starts. Christian orthodoxy states that mankind is fallen and prone to sin and selfishness. While men are redeemed in this world through Christ, sin does not fully disappear until all things are remade, and thus, even a group of people made entirely of Christians would suffer from sinful acts. Sin often incorporates selfishness and passion, overcoming man's rational capabilities. As Paul writes in Romans 7:15, "I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do." It is possible for even the Christian man to succumb to desires that, morally and rationally, do not serve his or his fellow man's best interest.
Knowing, then, the depravity (total or otherwise) of man, should the Christian support a system that most freely allows humans to act on whatever desires they might have? Of course, economics do not dictate what all laws and social structures should look like, so there would still be some form of limitation on what men can do (murder would probably still be illegal/punishable in even the most libertarian utopia). Yet, it seems concerning to say that man is evil and in need of redemption and that he should be afforded as much liberty as possible in the same breath.
Second, the goals of capitalism and Christianity are potentially at odds. Capitalism's end is, through the workings of the market, innovation, and competition, the increase of wealth for all individuals (inasmuch as each individual is able to reap benefits from their work, products, etc.); everyone desires and should be able to acquire "capital." Christianity, on the other hand, exhorts its faithful to become more Christ-like; as with capitalism, it's right there in the name. This involves the casting aside of worldly desires and following God's will above all else.
You can see where I'm going with this. If the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil (1 Timothy 6:10), why would the Christian want everyone to have more money? At the very least, it would seem to invite temptation toward greed and jealousy. So, then, how can these worldviews be reconciled?
The best I can come up with so far in answering these questions: nothing's perfect. More than that, we shouldn't expect anything besides God to be. Regarding the first question, my belief has long been that there is no infallible system of government or economics or anything involving human beings. Men will always do awful, illogical things, no matter how much freedom or constriction they are under. That said, it could be argued that a philosophy of liberty minimizes harm. When various forces (individuals, government and its branches, and so on) are pitted against each other in as even a playing field as possible, they may hold each other in check. Theoretically, if government cannot wield tyrannical power over people without significant risk of losing its power altogether, then that tyranny is limited. If people cannot harm each other without significant risk of being harmed right back, then that harm is limited. But the word remains "limited," not "eliminated." All attempts by mankind to eliminate mankind's problems fail and often create even worse scenarios. Support free markets through right reason, but never expect them to be a panacea for society's ills.
As for the second question, I think we have to be careful how we define "wealth." In capitalism, the goal is not merely the increase of available currency that individuals possess, but the general upgrade of their standard of living through the encouragement of innovation. Christians are called to be charitable, and this includes easing people's physical burdens as well as spiritual. So, a system purporting to make physical life easier for everyone would seem right in line with Christian principles. However, the Christian must be very, very careful not to let that notion be an excuse for sinfulness. The Christian might justify his greed by saying, to himself or others, that he prioritizes money so that he can make life more comfortable for his family and have a larger amount of potential charitable donations. Again, depravity abounds, and we humans can effortlessly perform the mental gymnastics to rationalize almost anything. After all, it was the poor woman with two coins that Jesus praised, not the rich men who wanted everyone to know how much they were giving (Luke 21:1-4). Just having wealth to give or even actually giving that wealth is not necessarily true charity.
Going back to the temptation idea, I think any situation is rife with potential for sin. Greed and jealousy afflict the poor and rich alike. Even if everyone were poor or everyone were rich, evil would find a way in. The Christian's duty is not to encourage people to seek more or less wealth, but to challenge everyone to be thankful and charitable no matter their situation. In this way, I think the Christian can be a capitalist, assuming, as with anything, the right motivations are behind it.
Of course, all the mental exercise in the world won't resolve eternal dilemmas. Not I nor anyone else can uncover the perfect combination of political beliefs and spiritual attitudes. The only thing I would ask any reader is this: be wary of getting so wrapped up in an idea that you forget your own frailty. You don't have to be a Christian to realize people are influenced by both reason and passion, and both can be used for good or ill. Assuming only the good will come out in specific circumstances is very dangerous. Let's do our best, but never stray too far from the fact that we are only human.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)