Gandhi’s Sixth Social Sin: Worship Without Sacrifice

30 May 2013 40 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I find it surprising that I am writing about Gandhi and his ideas.  Surprising in that while growing up I was as far from a non-violent philosophy as anyone could be.  Sometimes it seemed like my whole life was violence, anger and fighting.  I joined the military out of high school and hoped to kill as many “commies” as I could.  I continued my violent ways for many years and to be honest I am still no pacifist.  I would not turn the other cheek once if you hit me, never mind 40 times. I am still on the border line about capital punishment.  One day I think Capital Punishment is terribly useless institution made even worse by its ineffectiveness at deterring crime. The next day I read of some horrendous crime that I feel can only be rectified by punishments that go well beyond the heinousness of legal murder.  If Gandhi were my father, he would surely disown me. 

Gandhi is one of those heroic icons who cannot be ignored.  Whether you believe in his ideas or not, you cannot deny that he tried to live according to his beliefs.  More important was that he lived to help others have a better life.  Everything Gandhi did paid evidence to his ideology that humans could be better than they were.  I know many people who think that educators, psychologists, social workers and other “human service” workers are just a waste of taxpayer money.  These same people are continually on the front line for more prisons and more military hardware.  It is evident to such people that humans can not improve and thus the only betterment of humanity lies in more weapons, more police, more military and more guns.  Gandhi would have professed the exact opposite and worked to create a world that was non-violent and where disputes could be resolved by civil discourse.

Years ago, I dropped my belief in God and in religions.  I came to the conclusion that the first did not exist and the second was evil. It seemed to me that much of the misery on the earth came from one or the other of the major religions.  The crusades, the inquisition, the Protestant Catholic wars, the wars against “Pagans” all showed me conclusively that religions did more harm than good. When I joined the military, I would not speak to any clergy and when they came around; I always avoided them.  I was even rude to them at times as I regarded them as hypocrites.  My first wife and I did not practice any religion together but I did bring my daughter around to several different religious venues as I wanted to at least expose her to them.  My second marriage was to a more deeply religious woman who practices her faith regularly by participating in church affairs and helping out at many church functions.  I often kid her about some of these events but I have come to a different point in my life regarding their benefit to the world.  I am somewhat less judgmental about religions and people then I was in my younger days. 

What does this mean for me about religions and how I regard them today?  I can say with sincerity that I still see much evil that comes out of religion, not to mention its ongoing hypocrisy (for instance where were all the churches and ministers when we invaded Iraq both the first and second times?).  However, I also see many good things that they now do, from supporting health care for poor people to championing efforts to feed people both domestically and abroad.  There are many other examples of good things that are done by churches and religious leaders.  So what does Gandhi mean by “Worship without Sacrifice?”  Is Gandhi against organized religion?  Here is the description from the Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence that summarizes Gandhi’s ideas in respect to his Sixth Social Sin: 

“Worship without Sacrifice: One person’s faith is another person’s fantasy because religion has been reduced to meaningless rituals practiced mindlessly. Temples, churches, synagogues, mosques and those entrusted with the duty of interpreting religion to lay people seek to control through fear of hell, damnation, and purgatory. In the name of God they have spawned more hate and violence than any government. True religion is based on spirituality, love, compassion, understanding, and appreciation of each other whatever our beliefs may be — Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics or whatever. Gandhi believed whatever labels we put on our faith; ultimately all of us worship Truth because Truth is God. Superficially we may be very devout believers and make a tremendous public show of our worship, but if that belief, understanding, compassion, love and appreciation is not translated into our lives, prayers will have no meaning. True worship demands sacrifice not just in terms of the number of times a day we say our prayers but in how sincere we are in translating those prayers into life styles. In the 1930’s many Christian and Muslim clergy flocked into India to convert the millions who were oppressed as untouchables. The Christian clergy stood on street corners loudly denouncing Hinduism and proclaiming the virtues of Christianity. Months went by without a single convert accepting the offer. Frustrated, one priest asked Grandfather: After all the oppression and discrimination that the ‘untouchables’ suffer under Hinduism, why is it they do not accept our offer of a better life under Christianity? Grandfather replied: When you stop telling them how good Christianity is and start living it, you will find more converts than you can cope with. These words of wisdom apply to all religions of the world. We want to shout from roof-tops the virtues of our beliefs and not translate them into our lives.”

Gandhi’s words remind me of a comment by Sitting Bull. When asked what he thought of Christianity he replied:   “From what I have read it is an admirable religion, however I do not see any white people practicing it.”  From a Native American perspective, the only thing the conquerors religions offered was a destruction of their habitats and lifestyles.  Witness the coming of the Spanish to the “New World” and the systematic destruction of the culture and religions that already existed by the Spanish military and their allied missionaries.  The genocidal destruction of indigenous peoples throughout the world is full of pompous and pretentious efforts to “convert” and save them from their evil ways.  In reality, religion only provided an expedient excuse to separate them from their lands and gold.  We have in much of the history of organized religion a clear example of what Gandhi meant by Worship without Sacrifice.

Perhaps surprising to some though, true Christianity is firm that Worship without Sacrifice is worthless: 

“What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food.  If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and be well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it?  In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

 

But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.  

 

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

 

You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?  Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?  You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.  And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness, and he was called God’s friend.  You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.”

                    James 2:14-26- New International Version

Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son for his religious beliefs. This is Worship with Sacrifice.  Going to church on Sunday or simply reading the Bible is Worship without Sacrifice.  When Jesus said that the two most important Commandments were Love God and Love Everyone, he meant you had to practice your faith by helping others who were less fortunate.  This has made it very difficult for most of humankind to be his followers in deed as well as in professed belief.  It is far easier to say “I am a Christian, then to “Sell your belongings and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”  It is much easier to pray, worship, and read the Bible than to actually practice what Jesus was saying.  Think for a minute what it would mean if all would be Christians really practiced the “Love Everyone Commandment?  A short list of the consequences of this would mean:

  • No religious wars
  • No Jihads
  • No terrorism
  • No murders
  • No rapes
  • No assaults
  • NO WARS PERIOD

Can you imagine a world without these problems?  This is the world we would have if everyone practiced their religions by deeds and not just words.  However, this would require sacrifice and too many people are not really willing to sacrifice for their religion, for Jesus or for God.  Sacrifice means giving up something to help others, not giving up something to gain something for you.  Those who blow up their bodies to attain paradise with 40 vestal virgins are not sacrificing for others; they are simply trying to take a shortcut to attain what other greedy people already have.  Any religion that terrorizes others in the name of “whoever” or “whatever” is evil regardless of what it calls itself.  This raises the question that might be phased as “What is the purpose of religion.”  Searching the web it is easy to find that many have condemned organized religion because of the atrocities associated with it. Great thinkers from Plato to Thomas Jefferson to Bertrand Russell have had little good to say about religions.  However, I like the following comment from WaheguruNet regarding what positive role religion could and indeed should play in society:

“Religion has and continues to impact almost every aspect of human civilization in both positive and negative ways. The great spiritual masters from all traditions have taught that we need to adopt and develop higher qualities of love, mercy, generosity, kindness and so on. These higher qualities are a natural byproduct of developing a deeper connection with our spiritual nature and so in this respect religion can be thought of as a vehicle to support our spiritual development and our re-connection with divinity.  In this way, human beings will be better at working together to create a better and more harmonious world.”

You will notice that in this purpose there is nothing mentioned about doom and destruction  or about going to hell and suffering for the rest of your life or about your neighbor who is a hypocrite and unlike you is destined for fire and brimstone.  The purpose of religion is to help us become better people. To help us find our connection to our inner spirit and to help guide us in living a more just and moral life.  This purpose must be followed by actions and deeds as well as pious readings and professed beliefs. There is no room Gandhi’s religion or Jesus’s religion for bigotry, discrimination, prejudice, hatred, intolerance and destruction of others or their belief systems.   

Time for Questions:

What can we do to practice good deeds as well as good thoughts? What sacrifices are you willing to make to help others?  Are we making a true sacrifice by telling others how hard we worked and that they can be what we are if they only try?  Should we simply tell others to pull themselves up by their boot straps?  Are all people really created equal in the sense that everyone has an equal chance at health and happiness?  Can we help make it so by sharing what we have with others?  

Life is just beginning.

 

 

Gandhi’s Fifth Social Sin: Science without Humanity

20 May 2013 51 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized

According to some theories, humans first interpreted the world in terms of magic and superstition.  It was believed that gods and sorcery determined and predicted whatever happened in the world. The Bible of course, states that a single God created the world but in many other cultures multiple gods were deemed responsible for creating, organizing and virtually running the world.  After many centuries, humans started explaining the world and why things ran based on a new concept called Religion.  Religious beliefs supplanted magic as an explanation for why things happened.  If you were good, good things happened to you and if you were bad, bad things happened to you.  Priests had the power of life and death over their constituents.  Witness the crucifixion of Jesus Christ wherein the Pharisees basically took the matter out of Pilate’s hands and had Jesus condemned to death.   Religion ruled for many centuries until what we call the “Enlightenment” Age when philosophy started to replace religion as a new way to  explain why things happened.  According to Wikipedia:

Originating about 1650 to 1700, the Enlightenment was sparked by philosophers Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677), John Locke (1632–1704), Pierre Bayle (1647–1706), physicist Isaac Newton (1643–1727),[2] and philosopher Voltaire (1694–1778). Ruling princes often endorsed and fostered figures and even attempted to apply their ideas of government in what was known as enlightened absolutism. The Scientific Revolution is closely tied to the Enlightenment, as its discoveries overturned many traditional concepts and introduced new perspectives on nature and man’s place within it.

Philosophers attempted to use reason and logic to explain the world and why things happened. Superstition, magic and religion were now deemed as “unreasonable” since their explanations of the world were not based on sound principles of logic and thought.  Philosophers began to supplant priests as having the explanations for what made the world work as it did.  Many of the theories during the Enlightenment drew upon the ideas of Plato and Aristotle who proceeded this era by nearly 2000 years.  It should not be thought that magic and religion were totally discounted as explanations of the world.  It is more accurate to say that they were “dethroned” as being the best way to explain the world. People today still rely on magic and religious beliefs as explanations for why and how the world works. 

Moving along, it did not take many years for philosophy to be replaced by science as an even better way of explaining the world. As with each new way of explaining the world, there was overlap with the previous method.  Philosophy and religion had much in common as did the scientific method and philosophy.  However, there were some major differences. Whereas philosophy relied on logic and thought, the scientific method uses strict empirical evidence for determining truth and links causality to repeatable demonstrations of events that can be witnessed by even an unbiased observer.  In science there is no room for subjectivity, biases or opinions.  The Scientific Method is defined as:

A method of investigation in which a problem is first identified and observations, experiments, or other relevant data are then used to construct or test hypotheses that purport to solve it.

In the 21st Century, the new King to explain how and why the world works the way it does is science.  The majority of the population has shifted from accepting explanations of reality given by priests, philosophers and witch doctors to explanations given by doctors, scientists and “expert” witnesses.  Each of these latter groups base their expertise (Or so they say) on the Scientific Method.  The Scientific Method gives them credibility and is accepted in our courts today as the most credible method for establishing the validity and reliability of evidence from blood tests, to fingerprints to DNA tests.  Of course, good old opinions and biases still show up in our courts but basically, we deem the Justice method to be a method that relies on science to prove the guilt or innocence of any suspects and not voodoo, religion or magic.  So what does Gandhi mean by Science without Humanity?

“This is science used to discover increasingly more gruesome weapons of destruction that threaten to eventually wipe out humanity. The NRA says guns don’t kill people, people kill people. What they do not say is that if people didn’t have guns they wouldn’t have the capacity to kill as quickly or as easily. If hunting can be considered a sport, it is the most insensitive and dehumanizing sport on earth. How can killing animals bring fun and excitement to anyone? This is pleasure without conscience. When we cease to care for any life, we cease to respect all life. No other species on earth has wrought more destruction than man. Materialism has made us possessive. The more we possess the more we need to protect and so the more ruthless we become. As punishment, we will kill if someone steals to buy bread. We feel violated. But we will not bother our heads to find out why, in times of plenty, people have to live in hunger. In order to protect and secure our homes, our neighborhoods, our countries from attacks, we use science to discover frightening weapons of destruction. The debate over the use of the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a question that falls under this category. War is sometimes inevitable only because we are such ardent nationalists that we quickly label ourselves by our country of origin, by gender, by the color of our skin, by the language we speak, by the religion we practice, by the town or the state we come from and so on. The labels dehumanize us, and we become mere objects. Not too long ago even wars were fought according to rules, regulations, ethics and some semblance of morality. Then Hitler changed the rules because of his monumental hate and the rest of us followed suit. Now we can obliterate cities and inhabitants by pressing a button and not be affected by the destruction because we don’t see it.”

One of my favorite quotes has always been the comment by Max Born that the development of space travel was “A triumph of intellect but a tragic failure of reason.”  This same comment has been applied to many scientific triumphs from the atom bomb to the development of Fracking to remove oil and natural gas.  We have become so enamored or perhaps so ensnared by the power of the scientific method that we often suspend our criticism of its developments or products.  We mindlessly accept that science knows better than we do.  Each new development of ever more lethal weapons is uncritically accepted since they will “save” lives and shorten the length of the “new” war we want to wage. We have harnessed the power of science to create machines and products that are almost unlimited in their capacities to destroy.  We accept these in the name of science which cannot be questioned.

On a more personal basis, we allow science and scientists and anyone claiming a link to the scientific method to explain and control our bodies.  We need a new hip replacement, we need this heart surgery, we need this knee replacement, we need this cancer treatment, we need this pill, we need this procedure, and we need this diet.  We are willing to accept anything the “experts” tell us because we have no desire or ability to challenge the scientific method.  We are so blinded by the obfuscations of the new witch doctors that we don’t see the shell game they are playing on us.  It is a game that relies on our complete credibility of their methods and their expertise.  We suspend all thought processes when in the sphere of these marvelous scientists who seem to be able to explain everything from how long it took to create the universe to how long it will take us to recover from our surgery.  We forget a very important factor in this process.

Science never did and never will have a heart.  It has no humanity.  The scientific method does not use any system of ethics or morality to determine its direction and goals.  The pure scientist is an automaton who will work for a Roosevelt or a Hitler.  The doctor that you so thoroughly rely on for your procedures and prescriptions is as motivated by his/her financial interests as by an interest in your health and well-being.  If this latter fact were not enough to give you pause, consider the infatuation that doctors and scientists often have with their own products.  The new knee implant, the new pacemaker, the new hip socket, the new medication are all designed to last forever and to cure whatever you have.  But then again, maybe not!  Are we forgetting the side effects in our rush to take this pill or allow this operation?  Do we really need a new knee or hip or should we really lose a hundred or so pounds?  Do we really need to be on these pills or should we simply change our diets or exercise more?  What does humanity have to do with this? 

Humanity is the moral compass that we need must guide our efforts and work.  What do we mean by humanity?  Here are a set of definitions for humanity:

Humanity

  1. The quality of being human; the peculiar nature of man, by which he is distinguished from other beings.
  2. Mankind collectively; the human race.
  3. The quality of being humane; the kind feelings, dispositions, and sympathies of man; especially, a disposition to relieve persons or animals in distress, and to treat all creatures with kindness and tenderness.
  4. Mental cultivation; liberal education; instruction in classical and polite literature.
  5. The branches of polite or elegant learning; as language, rhetoric, poetry, and the ancient classics; belles-letters.

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/words/hu/humanity174669.html#4i0OmiXESZB3liZE.99 

We must act and live as human beings and not as animals. To produce something without a moral compass might be legitimate in light of the fact that objects often have multiple and even ambiguous uses. However, to use anything without a moral compass whether it is a gun, bomb or surgical procedure is simply evil.  It is evil because it can result in destruction that has no redeeming value.  When we act without a moral compass, we act out of greed, anger, vengeance, jealousy, or simply mindlessness.  We act as animals and not as human beings.  Actions based on such motives and allied with scientifically designed weapons and procedures can only bring destruction to us and the world. Gandhi had the foresight to see this fact in 1925 long before atom bombs, guided missiles and laser weapons were developed.  Just as commerce without morality is evil, science without humanity is evil.  That is why Gandhi labeled it a social sin. 

Time for Questions:

Do you believe that science is the best method for solving the world’s problems?  How much of the scientific method do you understand?  Do you rely on others to explain science to you?  Do you value the benefits of science?  What would you change about science and how it is often interpreted?  How can we improve our understanding of the world?  Is there any room for magic and religion? 

Life is just beginning.

 

Sin and Evil

17 May 2013 10 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

I hope you will excuse the apparent redundancy in the title of this blog.  I had started it as Sin and the Serial Killer but then decided it would be Sin and the Mass Killer.  I wanted to include spree, serial and mass murderers in this treatise on sin and evil.  The title, Sin, Serial Killers, Spree Killers and Mass Murderers: Why are they Evil?, just seemed too long.  Actually, if you think Sin and Evil are redundant, I can assure you they are not the same. 

When I was a young boy going to a Catholic School called Mount St. Francis, I learned that there were two types of sin:  Venial and Mortal.  A Mortal sin (if un-confessed at death) would earn you a one way ticket straight to hell.  No stops along the way.  A Venial sin would get you into a place called Purgatory.  If I remember correctly, Purgatory was a lot like hell, you did not get to see God and it was awfully hot. However, a ticket to Purgatory could eventually be exchanged for a ticket to heaven.  You merely had to sit in Purgatory for some length of time and then you would be allowed to change your place of residence.

Way back then, and even today, I had a hard time trying to figure out what were Venial Sins and what were Mortal sins.  Perhaps this is why I rejected the catechism of Catholicism and eventually all of organized religion.   The nuances and intricacies of getting to heaven or hell were beyond my cognitive capacities.  For instance, one of my great pleasures “Masturbation” was good for a ticket to hell.  I cannot tell you how many tickets I earned to hell while deriving great pleasure from this pastime.  I still cannot understand why something that hurts no one, including myself and is actually a great deal of fun would be deemed a Mortal sin.  Neither can I give you an example of a Venial sin since I think I never committed any.  Somehow all of my sins at the time were Mortal:  Disobeying my parents, taking the Lord’s name in vain and having sex without marriage.  I was good for at least 50 Hail Marys’ at every confession I went to. 

So since we cannot define sin, can we say that there is no sin?  Assuredly you would answer NO!  Sin is Evil.  If so, then we must define evil.  If we say that evil is committing a sin, then we really are being redundant.   Perhaps looking at some definitions of evil might help us with this problem.  Here are some various definitions of evil:

  • Profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, esp. when regarded as a supernatural force.
  • According to the Bible evil becomes a reality in the very beginning with the first couple. Sin produces evil. Gen 2:9, the tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
  • Although the Bible meaning of evil includes the idea of sinfulness or wickedness in many cases, it also has a broader meaning that is commonly used. In this broader meaning, evil refers to those things that are generally thought of as bad or undesirable; or as the dictionary says, “causing pain or trouble.” This would include things such as wars or disease and this is the kind of evil referred to in Isaiah 45:7.

I think you can easily see that the common definitions of sin and evil are not very helpful on a day to day basis.  It could be argued quite easily that one person’s sin is another person’s good.  Or that sin and evil are simply social conventions defined by majority thought.  Wars and disease are part of the normal fabric of life and when were any political leaders ever consigned to hell because they declared war?  It seems like a rather good idea but I don’t see it happening anytime soon. 

I suppose you are expecting me then to make a case (perhaps already started) that there is no such thing as sin or perhaps even evil?  Actually, I want to argue the opposite.  The older and I hope wiser I have become the more I see that Sin and Evil actually do exist.  Sin and Evil are behaviors that create havoc and devastation in the world. 

My path to this conclusion lay in my thinking about mass murderers.   Much of the general public are fascinated by the subject of serial killers.  It would seem that at least ½ of the novels on the best seller list have serial killers as their theme.  We are intrigued and perplexed by trying to understand why anyone would commit the crimes (a legal term as I use it and not to be confused necessarily with sin or evil) that these individuals do.  If anything could be generally agreed on as evil by most people, it would be these types of murders, including; spree, serial and mass type executions done by individuals and not sanctioned by state or governmental authority.  So we do have at least one area that we can agree on as evil.  Perhaps a definition of evil as applied to such killers would be:  “The taking of random innocent lives by unknown assailants for no apparent purpose.”  But then are these killers also sinners?   Again, you would readily answer yes to this question, but why?  Where in the Bible does it condemn mass killings as sinful?  The Old Testament is full of mass killings perpetrated for gain and convenience.  What sets the mass murderer apart from the murders perpetuated by one society against another society?  Is there any difference? 

I think the answer is yes.  If you look at the motivation of the mass murderers, people like Bundy, Gacy, Dahmer and many others you will find some common purposes.  Wikipedia defines the “motives” of serial killers as: 

The motives of serial killers are generally placed into four categories: visionary, mission-oriented, hedonistic and power or control; however, the motives of any given killer may display considerable overlap among these categories.  Wikipedia

What does not emerge from this typology is the rather obvious fact that in each case, the perpetrator has destroyed something and created nothing.  All mass murderers destroy and leave nothing of any value for the world.  They gain their joy from the act of destruction. Whether they torture their victims or kill them all in mass with a bomb, mass murderers derive their pleasure at the moment of destruction.  Everything else connected with their heinous crimes are prelude and postscript.  Nothing gives the mass killer more pleasure than their ability to destroy and their anticipation of destruction.  The literature is full of examples of impotent murderers who were able to achieve potency only at the point of the actual murder of their victims.  This has been true in mass killings as well as individual killings. 

If Evil is the destruction of life, then Sin is the arrogation of the power to destroy life by an individual.  It has often been claimed that there is a Yin and Yang in the world and that Good is the opposite of Evil.  Or that the Devil represents Sin and Evil and God represents Virtue and Goodness.  I believe this is wrong.  It is a false dichotomy.  The mass killer wants to be like God.  God is the ultimate power.  The Devil cannot stand up to God.  In the madness of the mass killer, they want to experience the power of God.  However, there is a grave difference between the power of God and the power of the Devil.  The Devil only has the power to destroy.  God has the power to both create and destroy.  But the destruction of the Devil and the destruction of God are not the same. The destruction that God creates is a cosmic destruction that is part of the cycle of life.  God’s destruction perpetuates creation by allowing a continuous cycle of birth and rebirth throughout the universe.  The Devil’s destruction creates nothing except evil.  The mass killer destroys but never creates.  On a more limited scale, vandals are evil because they destroy without creating anything. 

To conclude then, I would define Sin as the taking of power to destroy by an individual without the responsibility to create.  Evil is destruction without the creation of value.  Someone who destroys something may be guilty of both being Sinful and Evil.  The mass murderer wants to be like God and to experience the power of God but in the end fails.  Humans can never have the power to create life except where some life did not first exist.  The definition of God is one who can give life and can also take it away.  I know not whether there is a God as defined by organized religion but there is a power in the universe which perpetuates a creative cycle of birth and rebirth or creation and destruction.  There are also those people who have more in common with the Devil since they only destroy.  This is the evil of the mass murderer and any who would be God without the responsibility to create as well as to destroy. 

Time for Questions:

What do you think Evil is?  Do you think the Devil really exists?  What is Goodness?  Can humans be both good and evil?  When does anything become pure evil?  Do we really need a God in the world?  Why or Why not?  What role does God play in your life?  What role does the Devil play? 

Life is just beginning.

 

 

 

Underscore Orkestra

13 May 2013 Leave a comment

Underscore Orkestra

Image by Dr. John Persico Jr.

Bisbee Grand Hotel

13 May 2013 15 Comments

Bisbee Grand Hotel

Image by Dr. John Persico Jr.

St. Patrick’s Roman Catholic Church Stained Glass Window

13 May 2013 Leave a comment

St. Patrick's Roman Catholic Church Stained Glass Window

Image by Dr. John Persico Jr.

St. Patrick’s Roman Catholic Church in Bisbee

13 May 2013 2 Comments

St. Patrick's Roman Catholic Church in Bisbee

Image by Dr. John Persico Jr.

St. Patricks Catholic Church Stained Glass Window

13 May 2013 Leave a comment

St. Patricks Catholic Church Stained Glass Window

Image by Dr. John Persico Jr.

The 4th of Gandhi’s Seven Social Sins: Commerce without Morality.

09 May 2013 1 Comment

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , ,

Several years ago, a movie was made called “The Corporation.”   It is a documentary film written by Joel Bakan, and directed by Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott. The film examines the modern-day corporation.   It considers its legal status as a class of person and evaluates its behavior towards society and the world at large as a psychiatrist might evaluate an ordinary person. The films thesis is explored through numerous examples and interviews.  Bakan wrote the book, “The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power,” during the filming of the documentary.  I highly recommend this film.  I have shown it in many of my classes and used numerous excerpts from the film to illustrate key points about corporate behavior and the history of the corporate concept.  If you are interested in watching the film, you can do so on YouTube at:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y888wVY5hzw

Most people do not realize it but the modern corporation and rules governing its behavior were not developed until the middle of the 19th century.  True, there were charters and rules governing businesses since the middle ages, but corporate law as we know it today is only about 150 or so years old.  The main point of the film is that despite not being human beings, corporations, as far as the law is concerned, have many of the same rights and responsibilities as people do.  Corporations can exercise human rights against individuals and the state,and they can themselves be responsible for human rights violations. 

However, while people have hearts, emotions, feelings and consciences, corporations do not.  While human behavior and codes of conduct have been developing since the Stone Age, the codes of conduct for corporations are practically non-existent.  Witness how Enron subverted their entire ethics process to allow the company to pursue almost unlimited degrees of immoral and unethical behavior.  In most corporations, the ethics statements are followed only when convenient and never if they conflict with the prime directive: “Make Money.”   Business schools may teach one class on ethics but seldom do students come away with any true sense that there must be an underlying morality to commerce.  Most students yawn their way through ethics since experience has already shown them that business ethics are expendable.  Noted economist Milton Friedman is famous for his criticism of business ethics and social responsibility for corporations.  According to Christine Travis, Friedman makes two key points in favor of his theory.  The first is that there is no uncontroversial morality.   Business owners are not ethicists and thus are not equipped to make ethical decisions.  Secondly, Friedman argues that maximizing long term self-interests will actually bring out the greater good.  (See Travis’s paper Philosophy: Summary and Explanation of Milton Friedman’s Stockholder Theory” for more depth on Friedman’s perspective.)

It is easy to see that Friedman’s theory has nuances which are valid but that there are gaps in his reasoning that allow too wide latitude of behavior.   If we argue that entrepreneurs, managers and business owners are not ethicists, we may as well allow that most people are not ethicists.  True, there is wide interpretation of what is moral and what is immoral but the same can be said for any system of morality and standards. Nevertheless, we would not want our children to grow up believing that because they were not ethicists they could discard any standards of behavior.  The proof of any theory may be in the pudding.  In this case, we can see the results of 100 years of corporate behavior and I suspect that the results do not portray business people in a very favorable light.  In fact, in terms of most admired and least admired professions, business people usually find themselves ranked among the “sleaziest professions.

20 Sleaziest Ways To Make a Living (http://scientificmarketingandadvertising.com/marketing-articles-least-admired-professions.html)

  1. Drug Dealer (0.61)
  2. Crime Boss (0.99)
  3. TV Evangelist (1.19)
  4. Prostitute (1.24)
  5. Street Peddler (1.45)
  6. Local Politician (1.52)
  7. Congressman (1.58)
  8. Car Salesman (1.59)
  9. Rock Star (1.72)
  10. Insurance Salesman (1.76)
  11. Union Leader (1.89)
  12. Wall Street Executive (1.92)
  13. Real Estate Agent (1.92)
  14. TV Executive (1.94)
  15. Oil Company Executive (1.94)
  16. Lawyer (1.97)
  17. Soap Opera Star (2.00)
  18. Movie Star (2.00)
  19. Broker (2.00)
  20. Prison Guard (2.02)

Real Estate Agent, Wall Street Executive, TV Executive and Oil Company Executive all rank in the list of twenty least admired professions.   If you go to the link above you can also find the 20 most admired professions. There is not one business occupation in the list of 20 most admired.  The article that this list is drawn from explores the question of “What can we learn from this list?”  The answers seems to support the thesis developed by Bakan that businesses do not have an incentive for morality and thus giving them “rights” as human beings poses a threat to our society. 

Let’s take a second to see what the Gandhi Institute says about Commerce without Morality: 

As in wealth without work we indulge in commerce without morality to make more money by any means possible. Price gouging, palming off inferior products, cheating and making false claims are a few of the obvious ways in which we indulge in commerce without morality. There are also thousands of other ways in which we do immoral or unethical business. When profit-making becomes the most important aspect of business, morals and ethics usually go overboard. We cut benefits and even salaries of employees. If possible we employ “slave” labor, like the sweat shops and migrant farm workers in New York and California where workers are thoroughly exploited. Profit supersedes the needs of people. When business is unable to deal with labor it begins to mechanize. Mechanization, it is claimed, increases efficiency, but in reality it is instituted simply to make more money. Alternate jobs may be created for a few. Others will fall by the wayside and languish. Who cares? People don’t matter, profits do. In more sophisticated language what we are really saying is that those who cannot keep up with the technological changes and exigencies of the times do not deserve to live–a concept on which Hitler built the Nazi Party. If society does not care for such people, can we blame them if they become criminals?

One of the key points that I glean from the Gandhi Institute is that Gandhi was against “Profit superseding the needs of people.”  Friedman would argue from the enlightened self-interest perspective that they are the same.  If the corporation takes care of profit, it takes care of people by creating jobs and value for the society.  The proof of value creation is evidenced by the fact that only corporations that make a profit survive.  People are free to choose where and what they spend their money on.  Thus if they support Corporation X over Corporation Y, it is because they perceive more value for their money in doing so.  This argument would have more merit if people had access to perfect information and were perfectly rationale.  However, since people are often deceived and given erroneous information and since Madison Avenue has built up numerous ways to convince people to spend money against their best interests, Friedman’s argument is perpetually, inevitable and indubitably doomed to failure. 

The primary force that protects human existence and all of humankind has been and always will be moral behavior. No amount of police, regulations, lawyers, prisons or inspectors will ever be enough to replace the moral force of human conscience and caring for other human beings.  Corporations have no incentives or mechanism to be kind to anyone unless it somehow provides a path to increased profits.  On the numerous occasions when this is not possible, profit trumps concern for employees, concern for the country, concern for the environment and concern the future of humanity.  The proof of what I am saying has been demonstrated time and time again.  You have only to pick up the morning paper to see yet another example of short-term corporate thinking and focus on greed above the well-being of any other factor.

Just to test my own hypothesis, I turned to CNN Money.  What did the headlines show today?  A list of The Top Twenty Most Profitable corporations in the world!  Would it surprise anyone to find that out of the top ten, there were four oil companies?   The price of gas keeps going up, but our dependency on the gasoline engine driven by the greed of the oil companies insures that there is still a steady stream of profits to the largest oil companies.  Whose well-being is being served by the outlandish incentives that continue to drive the oil industry?  Is the oil industry an example of “corporate morality?”  I doubt few would say yes to this question. 

To conclude, Gandhi believes that Commerce without Morality is a sin or social blunder.  I think it has shown itself to be an unmitigated social evil.  Our present laws do not provide an adequate solution to this problem.  A corporation is not a human being and should not be treated as a human being.  It is time we rethink the laws developed in the 19th century to govern corporate behavior.  It is time to put human well-being as the primary directive for all corporations and not the making of profit.  We cannot be blamed for putting the cart before the horse because we have never really attached the horse to the cart.  There is no mandate for a corporation to be either moral or ethical.  Any statements to the contrary are simply straws in the wind. When the accountants look at the ledgers, profit trumps every other card in the corporation.   Can you imagine if we simply judged people by the same standard?  Those people who made the most money were rated as the most well-adjusted and socially responsible people.  Is this what we want our culture and society to be remembered for?  Simply how much money we made!  I think our Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves at the thought. 

Ok, time for questions:

Do you think the Oil Industry is guided by a set of moral or ethical codes? Should it be?  Do you think corporations have an incentive for ethical behavior?  If so, I would love to hear your comments on this question either way.  Do you think we can change our corporate law to make them more responsible? Should we?  Why or why not?  Would you want the caption on your grave stone “I made a lot of money?”

Life is just beginning.

 

Jesus Starts a Facebook Page

02 May 2013 5 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , ,

Hi, I need to apologize.  I should be doing Gandhi’s third Social Sin but I got sidetracked by two recent news reports which have taken me down a different path for this blog.  I decided to do this blog on the subject of Jesus and Facebook.  I wonder what Jesus would do with Facebook if he were alive today?  I want to speculate a bit on what the current emphasis on social media would or could possibly do to enhance Jesus’s message and mission.  I will return to Gandhi next week. 

A few years ago, I remember seeing a science fiction movie wherein the value of a person in the future was directly related to how popular they were.  I cannot remember the name of the movie, so if you are familiar with it, I would appreciate your sending me a comment or email. I vaguely remember it being a Stallone movie but the only sci-fi movies I remember him in were Demolition Man and Judge Dredd and I do not think that either of these were the right movies.   In this future time, each citizen was given some sort of a number or code that showed how popular they were. The more popular they were the more successful and wealthy they were. Your value as a human being rested in your popularity regardless of how you may have achieved this popularity.  I have thought about this issue many times since then.  What once seemed like science-fiction now seems like daily reality.

Today we actually do value the worth of a person or their endeavors by how popular they are. Their popularity rating is based on a variety of measures.  How many followers do they have on Facebook?  How many hits do they get on their Blog?  How many calls do they get to be on game shows or other Hollywood Media?  How many books have they sold?  How many downloads did they get?  How many people did they kill?  Popularity sells newspapers, movie rights, stories, advertisements and TV space.  We have an entire set of people who are called celebrities who owe their lifestyles to some bizarre excuse for fame that the public has latched on.  Donald Trump, Lady Gaga, Psi, Kate Middleton, and dozens others routinely grace our newsstands and command maximum space in the media.  Wikipedia defines celebrity as:

A celebrity is a person who has a prominent profile and commands some degree of public fascination and influence in day-to-day media. The term is often synonymous with wealth (commonly denoted as a person with fame and fortune), implied with great popular appeal, prominence in a particular field, and is easily recognized by the general public.

Celebrities are the superstars of today’s world. Celebrities ban together at parties, galas, shindigs and anywhere the rich, successful or famous go to hang out. I noticed that during President Obama’s most recent White House Correspondents Dinner on April 27th that the audience was filled with not only news reporters but many of the rich and famous referred to as Hollywood’s A-List.  This A-List also included many of the politicians in this country since they were well represented at this dinner. It did not matter whether or not they supported Obama.  Right Wing, Left Wing, Conservative, Republican, Democrat, Liberal were all conspicuous at this dinner.  One can see Conan O’Brien, at the podium sharing some jokes at Bill O’Reilly’s expense on some of the videos posted on You-Tube.  For one brief night, Obama and O’Reilly had more in common than any of the common people (Are we B or C list?) on the face of the earth.  Regardless if the event is a Superbowl, Wimbledon Championship. PGA Major Event, or a funeral of some important dignitary, the “Celebrities” will all be invited.  Popularity is the coin of the realm today and the holy graile that we all seek. Today, it is more important to be famous and well known that it is to be kind, decent or good at least if you want to be a celebrity.

I noticed a Facebook posting on my web site from George Takei (AKA Sulu) of Star Trek fame.  He is now being hailed as a social media expert since his Facebook site has over four million followers and is one of the most popular sites on the Internet.  I had to admit to some curiosity so I went to check out his site to see what is behind his popularity. It seems his new found recognition is now translating into a renewed interest in his career and endeavors.  I will say that I was a big Star Trek fan and read most if not all of the bios of the lead actors from the series. I even went to the very first Star Trek convention in New York City.  I declined an invitation though to attend the second one.  I can only take nostalgia so far. I was most struck by the reported animosity between Takei and Captain Kirk.  It seems they did not get along too well off set although several other characters also found Shatner overbearing and egotistical. But then this seems to go with stardom.  Takei stuck to his guns though and was well liked by all members of the cast. 

Looking at Takei’s website, I was struck by the randomness of his site. Humor, short human interest stories, lots of pictures alluding to Star Trek and many liberal causes which Takei supports. I found it a fun and interesting site, but still left amazed that 4,000,000 people a week go to this site. To give you some perspective, when I started my www.timeparables.blogspot.com website it took me almost three years to go from 50 hits per month to nearly 3000 hits per month.  I confess, I routinely scrutinized the figures and sometimes felt obsessed with my “numbers.”  I did not want to fall into the trap of equating the value of what I had to say with the numbers of people who hit my site, but I found it hard not to feel bad on those days when I would publish what I thought was a very thought provoking blog and hardly anyone would logon.  Many times I felt disillusioned at the interest in my writings and was on the verge of stopping. Almost every time I got to this point, I would receive a comment or email indicating how much my blog meant to someone and how it had really made a difference in their life. I determined to keep writing as long as I had even one reader out there. I did not and still do not want to measure my value by my popularity but it’s not an easy task. 

One day a good friend of mine and I were in a coffee shop in Stillwater, Minnesota. We had both set down with our coffees and suddenly a man about our age appeared at the counter.  I could not help but think I knew him but I could not place where I knew him from.  I decided to go up to ask him.  I inquired whether we had met in the motorcycle club I belonged to and he said “No.”  I started to return to my seat but out of curiosity I persisted.  I said “Dam, you look very familiar, have we met someplace before?”  He again replied “No.”  I tried again.  “Are you in the movies or papers?”  “Yes”, he replied.  May I ask your name?  He answered “Sam Shepard.”   Suddenly, I was rather embarrassed and tongue tied. I admired many of his movies, writings and plays but did not know what to say.  I did not want him to think I was a celebrity seeker or one of the people who hound celebrities just to get their autograph or a piece of them.  I quickly ended the one-sided conversation with “Well, I like your movies, have a great day.”  That was the end of it. No further reply and Sam just walked off.

I realize there are many celebrity hunters out there. In fact, what would a celebrity be without a celebrity hunter? I also realize that many people who have achieved fame and recognition would rather not be celebrities. I suspect Sam was one of them.  An extremely accomplished actor, playwright and film director, he could stand on his own without “fame” or fortune.  However, fortune and fame does follow people who are very successful.  This is one of the payments for being able to do things that other people envy, admire or want to associate with.  Probably that is part of the reason we associate celebrity status with something desirable.  To become a celebrity means to become rich, famous and liked by millions.  We average people seldom see the downsides of celebrity status.  Thus, I am left to reflect on the curious juxtaposition of Jesus and Facebook.

If we can fast forward to Jesus of Nazareth to the 21st Century and imagine him having a Facebook site, how many followers would Jesus have today?  Let us assume for the sake of this hypothesis that Jesus was just starting out his ministry and was relatively unknown except for 12 rather flighty and fickle followers (AKA Disciples).  So Jesus puts up his Facebook site and starts posting parables and stories.  One story Jesus tells is as follows:  Matthew 18:23-34 — Unmerciful Servant

Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt. “The servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me, he begged, and I will pay back everything.’  The servant’s master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.”

“But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. ‘Pay back what you owe me!’ he demanded.  His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.’  But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.  Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.” 

What is the moral of this story?  There are many that could be derived from this parable.  Love others as you are loved?  Do unto others as you would have done unto you?  What goes around comes around?  Share kindness not unkindness.  Jesus taught with the use of such parables and today he is the most famous person in history with more followers than even Donald Trump.  However, if Jesus were alive today would he get hits on his website by posting such parables?  Or would Jesus have to “get” with the times and become more contemporary?   Would he get himself executed again by the civil authorities for preaching discontent and unrest?  Would Jesus be a Republican or a Democrat?  Would he be a Liberal or a Conservative?  My mind reels with all the questions that this fantasy of a 21st Century Jesus holds for me.

I suppose I am losing you at this point.  My good friend Carrie Classon keeps her postings to 600 words and I am almost at 2000.  I am not sure I have made my point yet.  The moral I have been trying to explore here is “When does celebrity become hollow and mindless?”  There is fame that comes from accomplishing something of worth and value to the human race. There is also fame that comes from trivial meaningless endeavors or worse destroying lives and ideas that hold value for others.  One type of fame should be admired but the other type should be denigrated. Unfortunately, it looks like the media and too many people today do not distinguish between the two types of fame.  I see many news pundits who make their living preaching hate and intolerance and not love and kindness.  I see talk shows, radio and TV with mindless sycophants talking much but saying little.  I see a vast wasteland of entertainment with putdowns and innuendos making fun of other people.  I see millions of watchers who feel they must live their lives vicariously through others because they don’t have the ability or opportunity to do otherwise. Is this the value of Fame?

I conclude with a poem by Emily Dickenson: 

Fame is a Fickle Food

Fame is a fickle food

Upon a shifting plate

Whose table once a

Guest but not

The second time is set.

Whose crumbs the crows inspect

And with ironic caw

Flap past it to the Farmer’s Corn –

Men eat of it and die.

Ok, time for questions:

Are we too concerned with being popular?  Do you think more people should look inward or worry more about what others think?  Do you worry too much about what others think?  What if you cared less?  What would your life be like?  Can someone be too popular?  Should popularity be a goal for anyone?  Why or Why not?

 Life is just beginning.