Moral Dissonance

What is human nature?  It’s a loaded question, so I think I can only describe what I see as an important part of human nature (though not the totality of it).

In my subjective experience I feel a dissonance between my ideals and reality.  And I see this in everyone else too, though many don’t see it in themselves.  It’s easy to deceive oneself into thinking that one’s ideal is reality, thus becoming blind to reality.  The most extreme examples are the monsters of human history.

The ideal consists of higher principles, always for the benefit of others.  And when selflessness is too unbelievable there’s the superficial admission of selfish motivation (usually not the real motivation, though) framed as something that also benefits others (the classic win-win situation).

Reality is that I’m selfish and usually not concerned about others except when our selfishness is allied, or when I need someone to get what I want.  Emotions are frequently not expressed and more often are muted; but inside my emotions are intense, irrational, and insatiable.

I want to think I’m the ideal, but then I’ll do something or say something I’m not proud of, and sometimes they’re whoppers.  Some things really bring this out, like alcohol, so I really think I should quit drinking.  This gap, this dissonance between what I am and what I want to be is distressing.

And what happens with this dissonance?  My first reaction is to project it on to others.  But blame can become targeting, and God forbid that this targeting should ever become persecution.  The companion of projection is moral arrogance, contrasting myself with the target by holding myself up as an example of the ideals.  We see this in politics and religion all the time.  This arrogance is a means of justifying my actions to diminish the dissonance, but it only leads to more actions that fail to conform to the ideal, and the vicious cycle begins again.

So, what should I do about it?  I think it takes effort to remind myself of reality, and that my ideal is not reality.  Still, ideals are useful to orient myself toward what is less destructive, much like a compass won’t get me to true north but can get me started in the general direction.

I need to learn to acknowledge my emotions when they happen, and try to observe them without reacting immediately.

I have to learn to recognize projection as it’s happening to stop myself from blaming others.  Or, when I see myself blaming others (especially in a general way, or when the blame is directed toward a group rather than an individual), and holding myself up as an example of the ideal, I need to remind myself that I’m full of shit.

I have to be honest with myself about what my true selfish motivations are (not the superficial selfish reasons that serve as a convenient lie), and be willing to step back if it will harm others.  Or, if there really is a win-win solution then pursue that without pretending I’m doing it only for the benefit of others.

Agnostic Christianity

Though I blog as an agnostic Buddhist, I was raised Catholic.  And I wonder what Agnostic Christianity would look like.

I should repeat that agnosticism is about what you know, but belief is a separate issue.  We all believe things we can’t know for a fact.  Even atheists – you believe your wife loves you, but you can’t prove it scientifically.

A huge problem I have with Christianity is its absolute certainty.  The Catholic Church is infallible and the Bible is inerrant – and you can’t be mostly inerrant or probably infallible.  Yet, I know many people (some Christians included) who admit they don’t know if God exists, but they believe.

Is that really so bad?  Frankly, I think they’re more honest than most folks.

As I mentioned in previous blogs, there are a lot of unanswerable questions: What is existence?  Why is existence?  Why is there suffering?  Why would God create a world knowing the pain we would all endure?  And so on.  But it’s about exploring the questions rather than insisting that we have all the answers.

If such a thing as Agnostic Christianity exists, I’d envision it as something that:

• Values doubt as complementary to faith, and which engages instead of suppressing doubt.  Faith and doubt are not antagonistic, as many think, but are complimentary.  They coexist in tension, but without one there would not be the other, and so there is much to be learned from engaging this tension.
• May not have a concrete answer to the problem of evil and suffering, but puts the problem in the context of faith – believing good will win in the end, and that we all have a role to play in this.
• Leaves specific beliefs open to the individual, such as whether the resurrection was literal or metaphorical, or whether Jesus is God (Trinitarian) or simply a reflection of God (Unitarian).
• Is open to understanding the crucifixion not as a death demanded by an angry God, but rather as a sacrifice in terms of the risk Christ was willing to take knowing that prophets are often put to death.
• Believes that the moral life of a Christian is best expressed by living the Beatitudes, the Golden Rule, and love of God and neighbor.
• Is open to those who don’t believe the Bible is inerrant or dictated by God, but rather is a collection of books written over a 1,000-year timeframe that represents a conversation with and about God. The focus is on the dynamics of the conversations happening within the Bible.  But the people who wrote the Bible were working within the cultures and worldviews of their day, and human culture has advanced over the past 2,000 years.
• Worries less about the afterlife (let the dead bury the dead), instead focusing on the Kingdom of God being within us (Luke 17:21).

America’s Growing Secularism

Washington Post opinion writer Michael Gerson recently began a series on America’s growing secularism.  He notes that in the 1950s two percent of Americans identified as non-religious, but today it’s closer to twenty percent.  But only a third of the “nones” say they’re atheist or agnostic.  The rest believe in some higher power, so much of this is about a loss of faith in religious institutions rather than a loss of faith in God.  There’s a corresponding loss of trust in institutions such as government and corporations. 

Gerson notes that this “has major social and political implications,” and then asks, “Since the nones are disproportionately liberal and Democratic, what does their rise mean for American politics?”  In his next column, Gerson states that Americans are still overwhelmingly religious – slightly more so than Iran, in fact – but the now significant block of non-religious voters, especially “militant skeptics,” could cause a rift between the Democratic party’s secularists and black Christians, thus leading to a religious party (Republicans) and an anti-religious party (Democrats).

As an aside, I take issue with describing skeptics and atheists as militant.  Can you name one American atheist or skeptic who has committed violence against a religious person for anti-religious reasons?  Didn’t think so.  Unless you consider boring people to death with lectures about logic to be violent, but that’s a stretch.

Neither am I afraid of political polarization based on religion.  If two-thirds of the nones hold religious beliefs then they’re not likely to find conflict with the Democratic party’s black Christians unless these Christians push a theocratic agenda – but historically they have not (white evangelical Republicans are a separate issue).

But Gerson’s second concern is that “individualism can easily become atomization.”  He worries that that growing individualism underlying this rejection of religious, corporate, and governmental authority could lead to a serious decline in community.  For example, the non-religious volunteer less and donate less to charity.

Here, both the Democratic and the Republican parties play a role.  Liberals don’t trust religious and corporate institutions, and conservatives don’t trust government.  Libertarians don’t trust any of them.

While I don’t see the American government becoming authoritarian any time soon (despite the rhetoric), I am concerned about the symbiosis of government and corporations (that is, corporatism or crony capitalism).  And, I don’t trust religions with a hierarchical structure or which demand strict adherence (which often leads to fundamentalism).  Maybe that’s why as an agnostic I choose to follow Buddhism since it is not hierarchical and easily accommodates a more relaxed practice.

But Gerson’s concern of atomization remains.  I don’t want to live in a society where everyone is disconnected, and I do believe that the shocking stats on teenage suicide reflect a misery in our young people caused to a large extent by this disconnection.

How to Talk to an Anti-Semite

My latest read is Dr. Marshall Rosenberg’s Nonviolent Communication, which is very helpful to me as a social worker. Specifically, I enjoy his focus on observing one’s feelings and taking responsibility for them (the stereotypical “I” statements), and then stating one’s needs as a request rather than a demand.

But certain aspects feel passive-aggressive. Rosenberg describes a situation where someone spoke about “kikes” who “get up early in the morning so they can screw everybody out of their money” (p. 144). Rosenberg’s response was, “are you feeling frustrated? …It appears you might have had some bad experiences with Jewish people.”

 
While it’s important to empathize with people to discover their unmet needs and then find a resolution, I have to wonder if some people would feel patronized.

 

Part of this could be due to my rural New England roots. Now living in urban New England, I’m struck by the difference between the traditional working class and the new urban hipsters.

 

I like to go to a neighborhood tavern with a blue collar clientele. Describing the commute to work during a recent snow storm, I heard one patron say, “It was white knuckle driving. I was scared shitless.” But at the bars in trendy downtown you’re more likely to hear hipsters say, “I was all like, outta my way, bitches!”
Blue collar honesty shows that there’s a frankness many of us lose after the university sets us loose. My Irish Catholic grandfather was an American GI in World War II, and his unit liberated a concentration camp. He was a quiet, mild mannered guy; and despite the Irish stereotype, he was slow to anger. But holocaust deniers really pissed him off. Once, when watching a TV program that featured a holocaust denier, my grandfather became so enraged that he yelled, “I wish that guy was here, cuz I’d punch him in the face!”

 

And that’s what he would have done, had he been in Rosenberg’s shoes.
Maybe there’s a happy medium. Violence only leads to more violence. But contrived attempts to empathize feel passive-aggressive, and in my view can increase someone’s anger because they know they’re being patronized.
Perhaps this happy medium is saying honestly, “I mean you no harm. But when I hear you say that, I feel so hurt and angry that I want to tell you off. Then I think, no, maybe you’ve had experiences I’m not aware of.” I think a more direct response like this will garner more respect.

 
Enlightenment – being fully awake – which is a matter of degree rather than either/or, means awareness and acknowledgement of both one’s own feelings and other’s feelings. While Rosenberg advocates stating one’s feelings – which means identifying one’s emotional state instead of indicating what one is thinking – l think cutting through the chase and stating one’s feeling upfront rather than cautiously probing the other person’s feelings is more like real life.

Gimme a Blow Job

Books about men’s psychology often miss the mark, frequently being too whiny, superficial, or somehow just not getting to the heart of it.  Though I must say that Fire in the Belly by Sam Keen stands out as a great one.  Another great one is The Men on my Couch by Dr. Brandy Engler.  A psychotherapist, her main observation is that when men seek therapy for sexual problems the issue really comes down to love.

One example: “Hank” had marital problems, and threatened to leave his wife if she wouldn’t give him blow jobs.  As is Dr. Engler’s style, she doesn’t judge this (though plenty of judgments can be made) but instead gets to the heart of the matter.  Hank felt entitled to blow jobs because he was always the one to initiate sex, and would go down on his wife without her having to ask.  But the real issue, as it turns out, was Hank’s feeling of rejection.  His marriage felt one sided due to his wife’s failure to reciprocate.  Although Dr. Engler doesn’t address this, I’d bet anything that Hank’s wife doesn’t reciprocate much even outside the bedroom.

A point Dr. Engler makes throughout the book is that men treat women like sex objects, and often lack the psychological maturity to see more deeply into both their and women’s emotions.  But the flip side of the coin is women treating men like love objects.

Case in point: Valentine’s Day was earlier this month, and this year like every year witnessed the same phenomenon at my office.  The flower delivery guy constantly showed up with flowers for women at the office, but only one man in the office received something (his wife sent him a pizza).  Too often women complain that men aren’t romantic enough.  But most women leave the romancing entirely up to men, failing to realize how hard it is to be romantic all the time when it’s a one way street.  If romance were viewed as a mutual endeavor then women would have more romance in their lives.

The Buddha talked about right thought, right speech, right action, etc. (the Eightfold Path), but the word “right” is an English translation that conjures up the Christian notion of sin.  For many of us there’s a lot of baggage there.  The folks at the meditation center I frequent have taken to describing it as skillful and unskillful rather than right and wrong.

In this context we can note how unskillful Hank is.  The blow job is symbolic of a larger pattern in his marriage, and the real issue is that he feels unloved.  But Hank hasn’t acquired the psychological skills to see this or to know how to address it in an emotionally positive way.  Hank’s wife isn’t any more skillful, however, and she too was unable to see that the blow job wasn’t the real issue.

I think we all (if we’re honest) can identify times when we’ve been in a similar situation.  It might not be focused on sex.  It could have to do with the dishes.  Or at work, wanting to tell ‘em to fuck off because you’re always the one to empty the shredder and refill the photocopier.

But seeing this as unskillful rather than bad takes the emotional edge off, reduces defensiveness, and goes a long way to looking deeper into things to identify the real issue.  Then, taking some time to meditate on it, one can find a more mindful way to respond.

Buddhism, Veganism, & Abortion

I went to vegetarian restaurant recently with a vegan meetup.com group.  Vegans don’t eat or wear any animal products – no milk, no cheese, no wool sweaters.  The two main reasons are ethics and health.  Despite the myth that we need meat to be healthy, meat, eggs and dairy are the primary drivers of high cholesterol, and a plant based diet is far more healthy (but don’t forget your vitamin B-12 supplement).

Ethics is an even larger issue.  The horribly abusive conditions chickens, cows, and other animals must endure is unacceptable. {1}  And “free range” is a misnomer.  Veganism fits well with Buddhism and its reverence for all sentient beings.

At the restaurant, a woman commented that one reason she won’t eat eggs is that they’re embryos.  I pointed out that they’re not fertilized, so they’re not really embryos, but her response was that eggs remind her too much of embryos.

Now, I personally have no issue with the occasional egg if the chickens are treated ethically.  It’s just that with factory farming, even so called “free range” chickens are abused.  But my sister has three chickens, which I know are treated quite well, so I’m fine with eating a cake she baked.

The question I really wanted to ask, though (but didn’t because I didn’t want to cause a ruckus), is:  If you won’t eat an egg that isn’t a chicken embryo but looks too much like one, then how do you feel about human embryos?   That is, do you oppose abortion?

Personally, I feel torn.  An embryo is a life, and a human life at that.  But I could never imagine telling a woman what she must do.  It’s a moral decision she must make for herself, not one the government should force on her.  Though if I were a doctor I would choose not to perform abortions, except in extreme cases such as rape, incest, or a severe medical problem.

The reality of the abortion debate is that most Americans don’t belong to either extreme camp – no abortion, ever, even if it means the woman will die; or abortion on demand, for any reason, through the ninth month.

So my political support for abortion rights in the first trimester, and thereafter only in cases of rape, incest, or a significant medical issue (as a medical, not political determination) is an imperfect moral compromise.

And life often requires imperfect moral compromises.  People who say otherwise typically lack self-awareness, are dishonest, or are choosing to be simple-minded because their ideology has blinded their reason.

Having to decide about abortion is difficult, and I get angry at dismissive statements like, “just don’t get pregnant.”  Dismissiveness is a red flag indicating that the arrogant and insensitive speaker hasn’t and doesn’t want to think deeply about the issue.  And unwanted pregnancies often happen to poor women who can’t get access to birth control, or teens who were never educated about birth control.

A larger problem that pro-lifers avoid dealing with is that banning abortion won’t necessarily decrease it.  In fact, banning abortion can result in more death because the abortion rate isn’t any lower in countries that ban it, but more women die from botched abortions.

And pro-lifers often oppose the number one thing that actually can prevent abortion – birth control.  For example, a recent study in St. Louis found a hugely lower abortion rate among young women given IUDs. {2}

As much as conservatives derided Bill Clinton for saying that abortion should be rare but safe, he was exactly right.  If we want to protect the lives of the unborn then we need to do a better job with preventing unwanted pregnancies through improved sex education and expanded access to birth control.  And liberals need to do a better job of promoting adoption as an alternative.  With all the couples going to foreign countries to adopt infants, it’s evident that finding quality adoptive parents won’t be difficult (but, conservatives, this means lesbian and gay couples too).  And instead of stigmatizing welfare moms, we need to focus on what young mothers need to complete school and find jobs.

Notes

{1} See the documentary Forks Over Knives, and the book Diet for a New America by John Robbins.

{2} Obstetrics & Gynecology: February 2012 – Volume 119 – Issue 2, Part 1 – p 212–214.

Are Evangelicals Delusional Sociopaths?

Recently, Fred Clark wrote a blog for Patheos entitled, “Do white evangelicals have a delusional persecution complex? Barna says yes, and provides quantifiable proof.”

Immediately I thought: Wow, that’s a strong statement for the Barna Group to make.

A professional scientific polling group, Barna is like an evangelical version of Pew Research.  But evangelical doesn’t mean biased – Barna is rigorous and has published findings that sometimes anger their fellow evangelicals.  As professionals, Barna usually sticks to the facts and avoids emotive, interpretive language such as “delusional.”

Clark says Barna found “quantifiable proof that a majority of white evangelical Americans are hate-fueled sociopaths making themselves and others miserable with a perverse and delusional persecution complex.”  He then adds, “Barna doesn’t quite put it as strongly as that, but the implication is identical.”

No, Barna doesn’t quite put it like that, nor do they imply this.  Here’s what Barna actually says:

Evangelicals have to be careful of embracing a double standard: to call for religious freedoms, but then desire the dominant religious influence to be Judeo-Christian. They cannot have it both ways. This does not mean putting Judeo-Christian values aside, but it will require a renegotiation of those values in the public square, as America increasingly becomes a multi-faith nation.”

There’s no evidence of a decline in religious freedom in the United States, although most evangelicals think there is.  Instead, Christianity has lost its privileged position as society becomes more equal.  But mistaking the loss of assumed superiority for a decline in religious freedom hardly makes one a sociopath.  Jeffrey Dahmer was a sociopath.  Fred Clark undermines his credibility by chastising evangelicals for making hysterical statements and then turning around and making hysterical statements of his own.

Evangelicals are exhibiting the same whiny behavior as men and white people.  As a white man myself, other white men sometimes make comments to me that they perhaps wouldn’t say to others.  Some think women are taking over, that men are losing their rights, as if somehow women’s equality is zero sum.  That the overwhelming majority of Congress and CEOs are male – and we’ve never had a female president – is usually dismissed as the exception to the rule.

Or, some will suggest that Latinos and African-Americans are taking over.  But even though non-Latino whites won’t be a majority by mid-century, they won’t really be a minority either.  Plurality is more like it.  There will be no majority, but non-Latino whites will still be the largest group.

Christians have it even better – they will continue to be the majority as far as the eye can see.  The only change is that they will have to engage religious and non-religious minorities as equals rather than as subordinates.  As a white male, I don’t think I’m alone in saying that I much prefer equality to inequality.  With women and minorities as my equals I gain too, because it’s hard to have a quality relationship with someone who is not allowed to be your partner (personally or professionally) and instead is unhappy because they’re forced to be a subordinate regardless of their talents.