Solving the World's Problems

Those who have read over other postings know that I am a religious person. I believe in God. While I have tried to not make religion or my specific religious cosmology the focus of my posts, neither have I tried to hide what I believe. For this post, I will be up front and say that I cannot address this subject from a purely secular view.

Anybody who watches the news knows that there are problems in the world. Individuals and nations are in conflict. The helpless are being abused and neglected. The environment is under pressure. Resources are being abused and are no longer as abundant. Pain and suffering, fear and hate, distrust and selfishness abound. While beauty also exists, the world is often a scary and depressing place.

So, what is to be done? Governments and social organizations theorize over the causes and solutions, implementing interventions in the lives of individuals, communities, even nations. While the more successful programs seem to alleviate some symptoms, the root problems roll merrily on, either becoming worse or changing their character to resurface as newer, and often more troubling, conditions. As a society we seem fixated on attempting to address root causes with external applications. Can I suggest that it isn’t working?

A wise man once expressed, “The world would take the man out of the slum. God would take the slum out of the man, who then removes himself from the slum. The world would change man by changing his environment. God would change man by changing his character.” Herein lies the fault, in my opinion, in how we try and change social conditions. We focus on changing the environment without concentrating on the character—assuming that when the man or woman is out of the slum, they will naturally act different. And I speak not just of a run down neighborhood.

How we attempt to change or accept our environment is greatly affected by our beliefs and our attitudes. Our feelings, too, are governed by what we choose to focus on and how we choose to interpret what we experience. Don’t believe it? Try this example. A spouse is late coming home. How should the spouse waiting feel? Well, if they imagine that the spouse is working late they may not feel much at all. If, on the other hand, they image the spouse bleeding on the freeway after a car accident, then they will feel anxious and worried. Or, they may imagine the spouse in the arms of an elicit lover, in which case they might feel angry or depressed. Finally, they could image that the spouse is out shopping for a special gift to give them, in which case they might feel happy and expectant. Notice that the only thing they really know is that the spouse is late. All the things they might feel are based not on fact or circumstance, but on their interpretation of the circumstance. Such is the basis of most of our feelings and attitudes. Even when the circumstance is more specific, we still make a choice about how we feel by how we choose to interpret it. Say the spouse is working late, we might choose to feel happy because he or she is providing for the family and working to maintain their job, or we may justify negative feelings by deciding that their working late is a sign that they don’t care about the family or being at home. Again, how we end up feeling about it is almost always a choice in how we perceive the situation.

What I would suggest is that to really change the world, we have to change the beliefs, attitudes, and feelings of individuals. As those change, they, the individuals, will in turn change their environment. I wasn’t a big Michael Jackson fan, but I have to admit that his song entitled “The Man in the Mirror” was a classic and addresses what I’m talking about. If we would change the world, we should focus on changing ourselves. Now, here is the rub. I propose that there isn’t much a government or community organizations can do to change attitudes and beliefs. It can legislate against excesses and enforce such laws. It can offer assistance to those who are choosing to change their environment. It can create an environment conducive to change, thereby offering some hope. But, it can’t force people to change their character, which is the sum total of their attitudes, beliefs, thoughts, and actions. And, the sad fact is that the majority of people won’t spontaneously change. There is inertia in feeling a victim, in feeling self justified in hate, prejudice, or self righteousness. That inertia is not easily cast off.

It is here that my religious cosmology comes into effect. There needs to be some force that can change the human heart, that when applied can remove the slums of ignorance, hate, and fear from the person. I believe that force to be God, and more specifically, the healing and saving force of Christ’s atonement. As man accepts the will of God in his/her life, he becomes free of the inertial negative forces and free to choose the love and courage that will ultimately solve the world’s problems. While we, without God, may do good in the world and serve others, we will mostly fail in the goal of really changing the world, and indeed, of changing ourselves.

I would plead with all who read this to seek the peace and love that comes from sincere religious belief and expression. All the great religions of the world, when stripped of fundamentalist radicalism, have as a basis of their teachings the philosophy of love, brotherhood, and mercy. Most also presuppose a life style that avoids the hurting of others and acts in the best interest of the community. It is only through these principles that we can heal our societies and begin to solve the world’s problems. For those wishing to know my own belief of how accepting Christ can change our hearts and character, go to www.mormon.org and look over the teachings of Christ as we understand them. May heaven bless you in your efforts and searching.

Rights and Responsibilities

A few years ago I served a term on a local city council. I quickly learned how varied the interests of even a small town could be. I wasn’t excited about running for the position, but felt compelled to get involved in something I cared about. I also wanted to provide a wordless sermon to my children about making a difference rather than just complaining about how things were. The first two years of service went by without much pain. There wasn’t a lot of controversy, but neither did we get much done. I spent my time trying to learn the processes and policies that governed the running of an incorporated city. By the end of the two years I had been elected council president and had been approached to run for mayor. I didn’t desire the position of mayor and convinced others who I thought would do a good job to run instead. The next two years were a much different experience.

In the second half of my term the city was faced with some very difficult decisions on upgrading infrastructures. We also revised a number of controversial ordinances such as the city junk ordinance and weed abatement. While all but the most radical individualists agreed there was a need to have ordinances that limited what an individual could do on or with his/her property, those limitations soon became flashpoints when applied in particular and not just in principle. In other words, we as a city should make my neighbor clean up this and fix that, but don’t tell me what to do on my property! The debates were extended and often emotional. Every concession given in the wording of an ordinance seemed only to create new concerns from one end of the perceptual spectrum or the other. The feelings got so heated that I was even referred to as a Municipal Natzi in the local press. I also quickly learned that people were quick to quote laws that either didn’t exist or were grossly misinterpreted, including the state and federal constitution. Well, at the end of my term I gladly let others take my place, convincing them to run rather than seek re-election. While at the time I thought I would stay more involved, I haven’t—a matter that carries a certain amount of shame with it and that I’m in the process of fixing.

Where is all this going? The great difficulty in living in a society is balancing the trade offs between individual rights and responsibilities to the community. It has been said that we are living in an age where everybody is quick to point out their rights, and very slow to admit their responsibilities. I am a great believer in rights. Our law-given rights protect us from excesses of the majority and the corrupted use of governmental power. The problem comes in determining what is and is not a right. The U.S. constitution says that the government shall make no law concerning the establishment of a religion. Does that mean that there must be a strict separation between government and all religious beliefs or practices? Some have suggested that we can’t legislate morality, but aren’t all laws based on somebody’s definition of what is right and wrong? The constitution states that the government, in order to maintain a well regulated militia, shall not infringe on the right to bear arms. Does that mean that we shouldn’t require a background check and registration of guns? No place in the constitution does it mention a right of privacy. Privacy rights have been inferred from other constitutional language and the development of judicial interpretation over the years. How much can or should a government know about its citizens in order to protect them and regulate criminal behavior? These questions go on and on, and while we may have our personal opinions, who is it that must draw the line in the sand?

A French philosopher stated that when America ceased to be good, she would cease to be great. Others have suggested that apathy will be our ultimate downfall, meaning that the less people get involved, the greater the possibility that a minority will be able to exercise tyranny. Notice that neither idea suggests that we will be conquered by an army or driven underground by fundamentalist terrorists. Our strength, and our weakness, is in the degree we recognize and act upon our responsibilities as citizens and members of a society.

What are our responsibilities? I feel they fall under the following areas: Knowledge, Involvement, and Vigilance. Let’s start with knowledge. While nobody expects every individual to be a lawyer, we should be familiar with the laws of our land in general and know how to look them up. Every citizen should be familiar with the constitution, including its history and how it has evolved and been judicially interpreted over the years. Beware of making quick assumptions based on your own interpretation of the wording. We should understand how our local, state, and federal governments are organized and work. Who are your representatives? Do you know how to contact them? We should keep abreast of issues and legislation that we care about or that may affect us. And may I suggest that we aren’t too quick to form an opinion. Take the time to learn the different sides of an issue. When you can argue a point either way and understand the ramifications of action not only on yourself but on others, including those you may disagree with, then you are approaching a point you can have an informed opinion. Otherwise, your opinions are nothing more than ignorant babble—regardless of how emotionally you may express them.

Involvement is the key to a successful democracy. I had a political science teacher who taught that if you did nothing more than vote, even if your vote was informed and not just based on party affiliation, then you would be nothing more than a C student in your governmental responsibilities. I’m not suggesting that everybody run for office, although doing so isn’t a bad idea, but get involved in local caucuses and committees. Speak out on issues that you care about. Help somebody you believe in campaign. Outside of elections, write letters to representatives. Attend local council meetings. Write letters to the editor, although I ask you to be civil and reasoned and avoid such terms and Municipal Natzi. J As much as we complain about those we elect to represent us, I firmly believe that our government can never be more than what we allow it to be. If government is corrupt and our representatives not being representative, then we must bear the responsibility for allowing it to happen, which brings us to the final responsibility.

Vigilance can have many meetings. In this context I think it has two primary applications. First, we must remain up to date on what is happening in our society and be ready to react and act appropriately. As a recent movie suggested, governments should be afraid of the people, not the other way around. But why should governments care about those who don’t care enough to turn off the latest mindless reality show and read a paper, watch a news program, or browse legitimate informational web sites. To the degree we don’t care to watch, we have little to complain about what happens. Vigilance also means that we take part in maintaining a law abiding society. There will never be enough police organizations to stay on top of all that is happening. While I’m not suggesting that we go peeping in neighbors’ windows, I am suggesting that we stay aware of what goes on around us and not be afraid to report something suspicious. Join neighborhood watches, organize with others in your neighborhood who care to make a difference and not allow destructive elements to spread unchallenged. While you should avoid violence in both word and action, don’t be afraid to stand up for what you care about and believe.

In summary, while our society should not abandon the rights we give to the vulnerable, our ultimate success will depend not on our rights, but how we exercise our responsibilities. In Kennedy’s words, slightly altered, think not what your country can do for you, but what your responsibilities are to your country, your communities, and our society at large. As we learn what we need to learn, act ethically and with compassion, and maintain our vigilance, then the powers of destruction, from within or without, will never gain the power overcome us.

Mortgaging our Future

As we dive deeper into recession, everybody wants to know who is to blame. Financial institutions point to a bursting equity bubble that they couldn’t have foreseen. Others point at individuals who tried to achieve affluence through credit and now aren’t able to repay the loans. And of course, everybody points at the government for excessive spending and the relaxing of credit rules. All of those criticisms have truth to them. None alone can take all the blame.

Let’s start with government. It is true that back in the late 80’s and through the 90’s there was a move towards relaxing credit criteria. It was noted that it was getting harder and harder for low income people to achieve home ownership under the more stringent criteria. Perhaps loosening the criteria would let more people own homes, which would help out other sectors of the economy. It was a risk, but it seemed to be a risk worth taking. While it achieved the goal of getting more people in homes, now many of those homes face foreclosure and banks are being crushed under the weight of defaulted loans without the equity to cover them. So, is it government’s role to fix everything?

The financial market cannot argue that too many loans were made to too many people without adequate credit worthiness and without adequate consideration of the ability to pay after adjustable loan interest rates began to increase. It was assumed that as long as property values continued to rise that bad loans would be covered by equity—encouraging financial institutions to approve loans of more even than the value of the equity. Rather than a system driven by credit worthiness and ability to pay, it was a system fueled by speculation. When the property values stopped rising and the ability to pay didn’t match the rising payments on adjustable loans, the system fell apart. Despite the mistakes of speculation, with both corporate and personal bankruptcies looming, and so many jobs on the line, not to mention the trickle down effect on the economy, shouldn’t somebody rescue the financial industry?

Many borrowers see themselves as victims. That is more often than not a sophistry. Contracts were too often entered into without consideration of any possible reversals and with wishful thinking about wage increases and future equity values rising. Isn’t it dishonest to borrow money that one isn’t sure they can repay or that the repayment thereof can only be accomplished with wage increases or equity appreciation hopes that are far from guaranteed? Like the financial institutions who gambled on the future, so the individuals gambled and lost. Should somebody else’s money now bail them out?

Hundreds of billions of dollars are being offered to financial institutions, individuals, car companies, and other entities who claim that they are bordering on failure and that the failure will hurt employment or spread to the economy as a whole. Government seems almost eager to borrow from our future in order to save our today. Whether it is a mortgage bail out, secured loans to car companies, or a stimulus check to individuals, let’s call it what it is. It is a government loan that has to be paid back with taxpayer money—in most cases by the taxpayers who didn’t over-borrow, or don’t work at the car company, or don’t have stock in failed financial institutions. And it isn’t just the taxpayer of today, but our children and their children who will still be bailing us out after we have retired or passed on to our graves. Do we care so little about the legacy we are leaving them?
Let us be careful and think clearly and honestly before we act. If we are expecting government to react with financial assistance, let us make sure that the money goes directly to the place it will have the most affect, and that those who made the decisions which lead us to today are not rewarded in the process. Maybe it might be better to let economic nature takes it’s course, even if it means a few years of recession to right the ship. We have weathered such storms before. But, if we bankrupt the country and mortgage our future to bail ourselves out and fail, we will be looking at economic damage that may literally take decades to resolve and put our democracy at risk.