Book Review: Moral Man and Immoral Society by Reinhold Niebuhr

To see my used books for sale, click here. 

I'm reading a couple things in order to add an extra angle to my previous Foucault/financial-meltdown paper. Robert Benne's The Ethics of Democratic Capitalism provides an interesting framework from which to analyze business/economics from a Christian standpoint. His framework uses Niebuhr and John Rawls as the two primary thinkers. Niebuhr's primary work on the relation of the Christian to society is find in Moral man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics.

In some ways, this work is similar to a movie whose trailer tells you the whole story. The title itself basically lays out the thesis -- individuals are much more likely to behave morally than groups. Even though groups are made of a individuals, something happens within that interaction that enables groups to do things the individual members would never approve of. The larger the group, the bigger the difference in morals as well. Niebuhr links this to an innate will-to-power related to his vision of Original Sin. The theological background for much of his ethical concepts can be found in The Nature and Destiny of Man which I have sitting on my bookshelf waiting to be read. Suffice it to say that Niebuhr views pride as a sin of idolatry. It is difficult if not impossible to shed this as an individual, but impossible to shed as a society.

Those interested in this book but shy away from it's length (277 pages) would not miss much if they skip some of the chapters in the middle. In my opinion, chapters 5-8 can be skipped without missing much. These chapters offer somewhat dated analyses of class struggle and a very-much-dated capitalist/socialist dichotomy which can become a bit burdensome. This isn't to blame Niebuhr -- at the time it was written, these issues were front page news. I wouldn't expect him to predict the fall of communism and the rise of oligarchic capitalism which has in many ways replaced socialism as the "second in line" to traditional capitalism. The question no longer is capitalist or socialist as much as it is unfettered capitalist or regulated capitalist. I think Niebuhr would laugh at some of the common sense regulations which get labeled capitalist these days.

While Niebuhr's work is definitely located in its time period, I'll close by pointing out one amazingly prescient paragraph. Niebuhr was obviously an influence on Martin Luther King, Jr., but Niebuhr's almost uncanny prediction of the civil rights movement is startling:

The technique of non-violence will not eliminate all these perils [discrimination]. But it will reduce them. It will, if persisted in with the same patience and discipline attained by Mr. Gandhi and his followers, achieve a degree of justice which neither pure moral suasion nor violence could gain. Boycotts against banks which discriminate against Negroes in granting credit, against stores which refuse to employ Negroes while serving Negro trade, and against public service corporations which practice racial discrimination, would undoubtedly be crowned with some measure of success.

There's No Such Thing as "Judeo-Christian"

It's a pet peeve of mine. The use of "Judeo-Christian" as if a Jewish ethos and a Christian ethos could be combined. As if any Jewish or Christian ethos were monolithic to begin with. Besides, usually when people say "Judeo-Christian," what they mean is "Christian." The "Judeo" part is usually added for political purposes.

The best counter to the Judeo-Christian myth that I've seen is by Steven Katz in his very hard to find book Jewish Ideas and Concepts: The Building Blocks of the Jewish Intellectual Tradition (and here). This is an excellent book and provides a concise chance for a Christian to get accurate info on the Jewish rabbinical tradition without the danger of Christian Zionists' poisoning the well.

Katz makes it clear when he says "the 'Judeo-Christian tradition' is . . . a 'myth,' and realistically speaking, from the Jewish side at least, there is little on which such a tradition could be built" (ix). Katz first refutes the myth by pointing out that viewing each religion as monotheistic is itself problematic -- particularly to Jews. While Christians view themselves as monotheists, any Jewish attempt to explain the Trinity as monotheism would require some theological gymnastics. Therefore, "it seems accurate to note that Jews and Christians cannot both be correct" (ix). So any Judeo-Christian tradition which attempts to be built on the monotheism of both religions runs into problems off the bat.

He goes on to point out that, while Jews and Christians share the Hebrew bible as canon, Christians read these books specifically through the lens of Christ's salvific power. The story of Creation is read with Jesus being present. Adam is a prototype for Christ, etc. The fallenness of humanity is also a requirement of Christianity if Christ's suffering is going to be needed to redeem us. There is nothing of this sort in Judaism. There may be the need for repairing the world, but humanity itself is not condemned to original sin in the same way as in Christianity. This anthropological difference also makes any attempt at a Judeo-Christian tradition difficult.

The Christian and Jewish concepts of "messiah" are also greatly different. As Katz says, "it is important to state that Judaism and Christianity can never reach any theological rapprochement over this crucial issue because the concepts of 'Messiah' and 'messianism' mean something different in the two religions" (xi). Later he states that "the clearest and most important example of this difference is found in the fact that the personal soteriological function which is at the very center of Christian messianism, i.e., 'Jesus died for our sins,' is totally absent from Jewish messianism, which accords the Messiah no role in the drama of personal salvation and judgement. This is a central refutation to the Christian Zionism so loudly proclaimed by preachers such as John Hagee.

Simply put, Judaism and Christianity share no tradition. Historically, the two have been at odds since Acts. There is no shared historical tradition. There is no shared liturgical tradition. There is a nominal shared tradition in secular philosophy and the arts. There is also a similar moral standard between the two. This gives rise to the "Judeo-Christian values" variant. While slightly more accurate, its reflection of the "Judeo-Christian tradition" myth still makes it fall a bit flat. The only thing truly shared between Judaism and Christianity is the Hebrew bible/Old Testament. But as mentioned above, both traditions read these books from a different perspective.

More important than anything else, this myth of a shared tradition -- especially a shared theological tradition -- can be extremely dangerous when found in the violence prone variant of Christianity manifest in Christian Zionism. As mentioned earlier, Hagee and his ilk being at the center of that apostasy. Simply put, there is not one single shred of Scriptural theology in Hagee's work. I don't care how many verses he puts up on the multi-thousand dollar LED screen behind him.

Is the Tea Party Racist? (Reprise)

There's no use rehashing old topics -- unless of course new information comes to light. I've previously addressed whether I think the Tea Party has a racist bent. A question I answered in the affirmative.


Now some new articles about Ron Paul's newsletter offer a bit more "evidence" for my assertion. The most recent story references how RP walked off the set after being asked about statements made in a newsletter that bore his name. 


This story links back to a previous one with more information: The Story Behind Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters. In this story, newletters bearing RP's name contained statements such as: this one concerning the LA riots "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks" and that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a " world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours" and who "seduced underage girls and boys." 


Paul's defense is that he used a ghostwriter and that those inflammatory statements came from him/her (although he isn't able to identify who it was). This is, unfortunately, no excuse in a publication that bears your name and which publishes articles written (supposedly) by you. Hence "ghostwriter." No one is supposed to know the identity of the other writer and the named author bears all responsibility for it. 


Anyways, in a bit of comic relief, RP in a Youtube video here actually compares himself to MLK! I wonder if that comparison includes the accusations made in his newsletter . . . 

10 Best Books

I have officially graduated. M5 approved and grades posted. I started in Jan '09 and finished just shy of 3 years later. Looking back on everything I've read, here are the 10 best books I've encountered. Some of them were direct results of research for papers. Some were "for fun."

The Complete Maus by Art Spiegelman -- This is a surprisingly brilliant work. A graphic novel where Jews are depicted as mice, Germans as cats, and Polish as pigs? Seriously? But somehow Spiegelman pulls it off. It's an incredibly moving and creative work.

Just and Unjust Wars by Michael Walzer -- A phenomenally complete review of just war thinking along with case studies. And it's not 800 pages long! Walzer is a great social analyst and casuist. I liked this book a lot. It really turned me from a pacifist to a just war adherent. With that said, even just war criteria pronounce "no" the overwhelming majority of the time!

Embodiment by James Nelson -- Nelson is central to Christian sexual ethics and this is one of his primary works. He does a great job establishing a liberal (i.e. not status-quo) Christianity that doesn't simply jettison Scripture.

In Memory of Her by Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza -- Piggy-backing on my last comment above, Schussler Fiorenza really surprised and impressed me with her ability to reconstruct early Christianity while relying on Scripture. I figured she would ignore Paul as a misogynist, yet she embraces him and brings out a feminist (i.e. not anthrocentric) reading of Scripture.

Suffering by Dorothee Soelle -- I simply love Soelle. She's probably my favorite theologian. Perhaps Niebuhr is a close second for his pragmatism, but Soelle's emotionally poignant theology with its focus on "the least of these" is great.

The Death and Life of the Great American Public School System by Dianne Ravitch -- This is where my degree and occupation line up. A Religious Studies degree with an emphasis on Christian ethics along with 10 years of public school teaching made me a big fan of Ravitch's book. For any teachers or parents with kids in public school it's a must read.

What Was Asked of Us compiled by Trish Wood -- I believe in the primacy of experience when it comes to making sense of the world. Since we simply can't experience everything, vicarious experience is necessary. Narratives, especially first person, are extremely important to me. This compilation of interviews with soldiers recently returned from Iraq merely supports the importance of saying "no" to war when it is not just.

Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy by Joseph Schumpeter -- I was pleasantly surprised that I enjoyed a book by an Austrian economist this much. Schumpeter not only takes Marx seriously, he unbiasedly conisders Marxism/Socialism as a possibility to capitalism. In the end, he decides on capitalism, but it is refreshing to see a conservative economist for whom "Marx" isn't a bad world. The two paragraphs where Schumpeter lays out Creative Destruction simply blew me away.

I and Thou by Martin Buber -- This is a short book. It could probably be even shorter. While some of the esoteric stuff I didn't get too well, the central premise of relating to others as a "thou" as opposed to an "it" is important for anyone other than anchorites. It proved important to establishing "mutuality" for my thesis.

Love and Justice by Reinhold Niebuhr -- This book is a collection of short essays and letters by Niebuhr. Because of that, it is much more accessible than some of his larger works. Since some of them are "letters to the editor" type compositions, the sense of history if preserved more than in his larger works. Yet the same themes that come up in Moral Man . . ., etc. are still present here.

The Goal in Libya

Much has been made lately about what our "goal" is concerning the military action in Libya. Obama has stated that Gadhafi has got to go. But he's also stated that this is a humanitarian intervention and not a regime change action. I guess we'll get the details on Monday during his speech. As far as pragmatism goes here's my take on it.

Our goal is apparently to simply negate Gadhafi's significant advantages in the realms of (1) air power, (2) armor, and (3) command and control. Calling this a no-fly zone makes point 1 obvious -- since Gadhafi can attack via helicopters and planes with impunity, we are there to negate that advantage. When we consider the targets that have been reported by the press, we can see that this is more than just a no-fly zone. Tanks and other armor have been targeted as well. Those don't fly. Obviously we aren't just worried about a no-fly zone. The resistance does not have many (if any) armored assets. We've also targeted his own compound and other infrastructural buildings. The resistance themselves have commented on their difficulties in organizing especially between cities.

I agree on the importance of having a clear goal in a mission. I also realize that this is a difficult thing to articulate in situations of extreme dynamics with the risk of massive civilian deaths. So in some cases I can let the clear goal slide. I don't think, however, that our job should be simply to level the playing field. If our goal was humanitarian intervention, our targets would be limited to ones that threatened humanity. But now that things are becoming clearer, it is also becoming more apparent that this intervention is not justified.

Just War and Libya

This is a tough one. First, there's some considerable differences between Libya and both Iraq and Afghanistan. Concerning a legitimate authority, Libya is the only one of the three to show that there is a resistance force capable of self-governing at least parts of the country. If it weren't for this, the resistance itself would not be legitimate. The second side of the legitimacy issue is who authorized the "no fly zone." In this case, it went through the UN with a vote of 10-0 with China and Russia abstaining. That is pretty substantial. This is the sort of multilateral effort that was lacking certainly in Iraq and to a degree in Afghanistan.

Considering just cause, the waters get a little more murky. Sure, defending unarmed civilians is a great cause, I'm just not sure if it merits millions of dollars worth of aircraft, logistics, and cruise missiles. The word "genocide" has been tossed around as well. I admit not knowing a lot about the population of Libya, but can it really be considered a genocide? Are the resistance fighters of a specific race or ethnicity? Not sure. "Massacre" or "bloodbath" would seem more accurate. Do we have a responsibility to prevent massacres and bloodbaths? I suppose so. But this no-fly zone seems to have been pushed more by European nations than by the US. France especially appeared the most hawkish. Which begs the question. While a blog isn't an academic publication, I do like to cite when I'm able. This next tidbit I can't though. Probably some NPR show -- Europe is more dependent on Libyan oil than the US because Libyan oil is chemically better for diesel (Europe uses a much higher % of diesel than the US). This might be a small cause and would definitely be unjust, but I think there's a bigger issue at hand -- refugees and immigrants. Continental Europe already has huge problems with Muslim immigrants. France and Italy especially. Given these two countries' geographic location compared to Libya, I could see this being a greater cause than any aversion to massacres. Just cause, in my opinion, is not met.

Last resort is a toughy. In a situation that is so rapidly developing and amorphous, it's very hard to tell what other options might have been pursued. It definitely felt like Gadhafi was on his last leg about a week ago. Could the world's leaders have either persuaded or coerced him to step down when his position seemed bleakest? Possibly. I suppose we'll know in 15 years when "True Hollywood Stories" takes up the issue. Last resort is going to have to be a push for me. Not enough information on hand right now (unfortunately I don't have to time to research it any more).

So, is the action over the weekend in Libya justified under the "rules" of Just War? I'm not really sure. I'd lean towards "no." But I am heartened at the multilateral cooperation and specifically the reliance on the UN. In this respect, I can state confidently that whether or not this action is justified, (and this next part admittedly is irrational -- in a "yes" or "no" question you can't have "less of a no") it is more justifiable than Iraq or Afghanistan.

Is the Tea Party Racist?

Thanks to the brouhaha of NPR executives and speaking off the record, this question is again in public view. I thought it was strange that the exec would be in hot water for speaking the truth. Several people replied to this comment by asking for "evidence." It seemed to something so obvious that it was common knowledge -- just something no one talks about. Like cancer. But I guess some "evidence" needs to be provided. Another key difference is what exactly "racism" is.

For starters, a cursory glance over the evidence is available by typing "is the tea party racist" into a Google search. Many of the articles are several years old now, but they detail how this idea got started. But the great majority of the "evidence" is available only after one considers what "racism" is (please permit me a mini-genealogy of racism).

Slavery in the South made it easy to identify racism. If you were pro-slavery, you were racist. Racism was obvious. Blatant. Concrete. But as the "war against racism" has been fought, racism has given up its obviousness for a more inconspicuous form. If racism were obvious, it would be denounced by (almost) all sides for what it is. So racism moved into the cracks. It became amorphous in order to take the shape of the institutions and power relations that it found itself in. It was no longer concrete, but abstract. This can even be seen immediately following the Civil War. Slavery was blatantly racist. But poll taxes . . . poll taxes on the other hand were a bit more slippery. "What do you mean 'racist'? We charge EVERYONE a poll tax. You couldn't be more equal than that!" This same insidious racism has been alive and well since Jim Crow. It's just become more and more hidden.

This brings us back to "evidence." Because of the slipperiness of racism, there is no "evidence" for it. There are only hints. Only vestiges that remain. There is no "smoking gun" to prove racism. But there are motives and clues that point to it. One of these is to consider who benefits from something. So we look at the Tea Party's platform. Who stands to benefit from it? If the Tea Party were magically able to push through their top 5 legislative wishes, who would be better off because of it? Who would be worse off? Of course we are talking about hypotheticals, but it seems pretty clear to me that cutting taxes and cutting spending would disproportionately benefit whites and disproportionately hurt minorities. Just like the poll tax.

We can also point to another hint. Again, it's no smoking gun, but it points to something fishy. If the Tea Party is a national movement counting some hundreds of thousands of "members," and 90% of those members are white . . . well something's a little bit funny there.

Another hint -- is it a coincidence that the Tea Party movement gained steam at the same time that our chances of electing a black president increased? A little fishy.

Lastly, there was the issue of several racially suspicious signs and statements made in the formative months of the Tea Party. Hurling racial slurs at black lawmakers. Depicting Obama as a monkey. Now maybe these were just the rebellious outliers who ended up being thrown out of the movement. But again, it's a hint. Maybe they just cleaned up their act but maintained the ideology.

So is there "evidence" or "proof" that the Tea Party is racist? No. Are there hints? Definitely. Do I think the Tea Party is racist? You betcha.

Update: John has posted his own take on this over on his blog: What is racism and Why the Tea Party is Not

My Response to Andrew Rotherham

I am all for civil discourse, which is why I was happy to see an article on the Wisconsin issue written in an intelligible and polite way. Here is the original article, which might come in handy as I respond to it: Beyond Unions: 5 New Rules for All Teachers.

I was a teacher union member for 9 years (I'm approaching my tenth anniversary as a public school teacher). I quit my union about 2 months ago over incompetence. But I'm still a big supporter of unions and specifically collective bargaining.

All those disclosures taken care of, here's what I think Rotherham either gets wrong or leaves out. His first point, on evaluation, appears logical. Evaluation of a teacher's performance should be based on how it can materially benefit the students. All fine and dandy. What Rotherham leaves out, however, is that many times, Principal/Teacher relations are less than collegial. I've been lucky that I've never had an issue with a principal. I have heard many horror stories, though, of principals who "have it in" for teachers in general or specific teachers. Limiting evaluations is one way of restricting a principal's power to make a teacher's life a living hell. That said, an evaluation process that nurtures collegiality sounds like a great idea. I still caution those who turn to fresh MBAs looking for input on how to evaluate teachers more like private sector employees -- they simply are not analogous.

On his "Last In, First Out" section, Rotherham is largely indefensible. Let's face it: teachers get paid crap and get treated like crap. We have one thing going for us and that is job security. Once we've "paid our dues" we can relax a bit and feel comfortable knowing that we'll have a job next year. That does NOT mean that we relax in our performance. I'd be interested in seeing any credible study that finds correlation between job security (what some call "tenure" but is non-existent in other districts) and job performance. What Rotherham leaves out of his whole article, and which I'll get to below, could go a long way towards supporting his position -- but he leaves it out.

Rotherham takes on the issue of transfers and "bumping" of less experienced teachers by more experienced ones. Keep in mind, teachers are forced into a situation of serving "two masters" so to speak: they are employees of a district while they work at a school. If you ask a teacher where their loyalties lie, they will tell you it's with the school. I believe it's very important to protect a teacher's position at a school. So in this sense, I agree with Rotherham. Teachers should be given the time to develop a relationship a specific school, not as a cog in a district-wide machine. It can't be denied, however, that demographic shifts across a district may make it necessary to change the amount of teachers at each school. It makes sense that if school X needs to cut 3 teachers and school Y needs to add 3, that those with the most time spent developing relationships at school X be allowed to stay.

"Tenure and Due Process" rules approaches the point that I said Rotherham left out, but doesn't make it explicit. The due process example he gives is definitely an exception. I doubt anyone would argue that a teacher who deserves to lose their job should be allowed to keep it due to a beaureaucratic snafu. Tenure on the other hand, is an important concept as I have already mentioned above.

When it comes to salary schedules, Rotherham seems to be ignorant of the fact that many school districts DO pay harder to find teachers more money. Either that or he chose to ignore it. Either way, it proves his argument to be specious. My first year teaching I got an unexpected check. When I asked what it was for, I was told that music was a "critical shortage area." I didn't complain. The next year, music wasn't critical shortage anymore. That certainly didn't affect whether I taught or not. While addressing teacher's pay schedules, Rotherham attacks pay based on seniority and advanced degrees while espousing pay based on

differentiation based on how challenging teaching assignments are, hard-to-fill subjects like math, science, special education or foreign languages, and how effective teachers are in the classroom

The first point I have already addressed and the second was touched on under evaluation. It deserves a bit more space, however.

The idea of "merit based pay" for teachers has been gathering steam. And, no doubt, teachers unions will need to concede something on this topic. Here is my take on it. Let's not call it "merit based pay" when the data used for determining a teacher's merit comes from the students, not the teacher. That would be "merit based pay by proxy." And therein lies the problem: how do you equitably and accurately measure a teacher's merit? I have yet to find a method that meets those two criteria. Yet I do not think we should postpone merit based pay simply because there isn't a perfect method of implementation. So let's take on the task, through collective bargaining, of introducing merit based pay. What is NOT a good idea, however, is the law that was vetoed once and is being debated a second time in Florida (this time with an butthole of a governor) which would make FIFTY PERCENT of a teacher's salary based on their merit. This is simply unethical. We cannot demonize teachers to the point of expecting them to have no idea what next year's salary will be. It's hard enough to buy a house on a teacher's salary. How are teachers going to apply for a car loan, let alone a mortgage!, when they have to answer "How much do you make a year?" with "Well . . . it could be $45,000 . . . . or $22,500" (by the way, I've been teaching for 10 years and have a masters degree, but I don't make 45k yet).

And now for the big point that Rotherham left out!

Teachers should be easier to fire. Many of the issues he brings up could be allayed, if not solved, by making it easier to fire teachers. I don't disagree with this idea at all. But I think it needs to be reconciled with the idea of job security. If a teacher has been working for 3-5 years and has never had an issue on their evaluations, I think that teacher should feel secure in their job. If this is what is called "tenure," I'm all for it. But inside of those 3-5 years of "paying dues," if a teacher is deficient, and the district has offered support, and the teacher is STILL deficient . . . then by all means show them the door.

Jesus's Party Affiliation

The people that appear to read this mainly do so without leaving any comments. With this post, I'd like people to reply.

If Jesus were around right now, which party affiliation would he choose? Let's limit it to D and R. I, of course, have any answer which isn't surprisingly "D." But I'd like to hear from others that think Jesus would side with Republicans the majority of the time. Is there anything scripturally that makes you believe one way or another? Does scripture and Jesus even enter your mind when making political decisions?

Hopefully blogspot let's you post replies without registering. But I'm honestly interested in hearing opinions from people I might not agree with.

Obviously, those who aren't Christian could probably care less. And I'm fine with that.