Moral Health

I fly a lot.  And I have a very simple principle: I want the plane to go up voluntarily and I want the plane to come down voluntarily.  Everything else in between has become pretty much inconsequent to me.  Accordingly, I like the approach to flying taken by the Israeli airline El AL.  The #1 aim of that company is to insure that the principle I have just enunciated is realized.   The company knows for instance that little old ladies with blue-dyed hair are targets for people claiming that they would like to give a small gift to their nephew or niece or grandchild over seas.  “Would you give take it to the mother.  She will be waiting for you at the airport.”  So I have seen El AL security make these little old ladies unroll every item in their suitcase.  Ageism?  I think not.  It is utterly irrelevant that these little old ladies don’t see it this way.  All that needs to be true as the El AL has damn good reason to know that this is what happens.

Oh my God!  I have just done the unthinkable.  I have just allowed that profiling can be justified.  How can profiling be justified, since according to some, it is racist by definition?  Well, that is just the point.  Profiling is not racist by definition.  Indeed, the overwhelming majority of these little old ladies white.

Now, El AL also thinks that between an Arabic and a non-Arabic person, the former is much more likely to want to blow up the plane than the latter.  Now what one earth might incline the company to think that?  People are quick to point out that it is possible that a non-Arabic person might also be committed to blowing up the plane?  Recall the case of Richard Reid. And there is also the case of John Walker Lindh.

But these are the exceptions that prove the rule precisely because these two individuals are whites showed an affinity towards Islam under very problematic circumstances.

I cannot imagine that El AL isn’t aware of these two cases.  And I know that if they thought for a moment that a potential white passenger showed special affinities towards Islam, then they would interrogate him to no end.  But that still leaves them thinking that between an Arabic Muslim and a non-Arabic person who is not Muslim, there is a reason to keep a special eye out on the former.  This so even if the former are traveling with children, since it is a simple truth (as revealed by their own behavior) that the former will often use children as means of getting people let down their guard.  So El AL security is not at all being cold when it ignores the fact that Arabic Muslim family is traveling with children.

Now this policy has kept EL AL planes safe for decades.  I have flown EL AL on numerous occasions.  It is my company of choice when flying to Israel.  For after all these years of flying, I still love it when the plane comes down voluntarily.

Can profiling be racist?  Absolutely.  But there is nothing about the logic of profiling that entails that it is racist, as the case of profiling little old ladies with blue-dyed air makes absolutely clear.  Further,, I think it would be wrong for such a woman to be offended that she is put through more rigorous screening by security.  Likewise, I think that an Arab who intends no harm has no business being offended either.

In the case of profiling is racist precisely when the mere fact that one is of a certain ethnicity adds nothing whatsoever to the probability that one is likely to inflict serious harm to the plane.  Thus profiling blacks can be racist, but not profiling Arabs of the Muslim of faith.  And profiling is compatible with recognizing that particularities can change the probability that a given person might cause harm.

Flying back from Paris yesterday, I watched an Air France company put an Arabic family with a child through an absolutely grueling interview.  The family was traveling from Lebanon to the United States via Paris.  I observed passenger after passenger in the waiting room.  Insofar as people are capable of conveying through their behavior alone a sense of relief, there was relief in that room like you would not believe.  And as one flight attended remarked to me, “Had they not put the family through a more rigorous security check, I was prepared to become to ill to make the flight”.  Racism on this flight attendant’s part?  Perhaps.  But surely a very subtle form of racism, since he is an Arabic Muslim himself.  I have known this flight attendant for years.  He loves his job; he loves life.  But he did not think for a moment that unless security put everyone through an equally grueling racism, then it was racist to do so to this Arabic Muslim family traveling with child from Lebanon to the United States via Paris.

The problem with the word “racist” is that it is now used merely as a rhetorical weapon.  If I don’t like what you are doing, then by calling it racist and I thereby shift the burden of poof upon you to justify the continuation of what you are doing.  Of course, there can be utterly unwarranted views by this or that group or this or that sex.  But the following alternative is surely absurd:  When it comes to wrongdoing (or inflicting harm) it is racist to think that one group is more likely than any other group to commit the wrong in question.  When it comes to suicide bombings for example, I invite anyone, drawing upon the actual facts of the matter, to give me reason to think that every member of every racial or ethnic or religious group is just as likely to be a suicide bomber as any other member of a racial or ethnic or religious group.

To anyone who can give me facts to support the view just articulated, I shall concede that I am a racist.  On the other hand, if this cannot be established, then let me be very clear:  I regard those who, using the rhetorical force of the word “racism”, refuse to acknowledge that suicide bombers are much more likely be from a given ethnic and religious group as having a complicit role in the evil that we are now witnessing.  If I were a suicide bomber of the ethnic and religious group in question, there is nothing I would love more than bunch of people running around saying it is racist to think that any of us is more likely to be suicide bombers than others.

Cindy Sheehan may be opposed to the war in Iraq.  However, her opposition to the war does not make her a Rosa Parks.  Nor does anything that she has thus far done.  The comparison strikes me as utterly inappropriate for a plethora of reasons.  I do not retract these claims even if it is true that Sheehan received a call of support from Ms. Rosa Parks herself, as is reported on one blog.

I have no desire to trivialize the loss of her son.  Likewise, I do not wish to trivialize the fact that this has proven to be a catalyst in her life.

Finding a single event horrendously wrong and suffering a lifetime of injustice owing simply to the color of one’s skin in a country that is one’s own, where one has been a dutiful and law-abiding citizen, are not even on the same plane.

It is my view that one trivializes what Ms. Parks actually when we so glibly compare our struggles and bits of disgruntlement to the courage that Ms. Parks displayed on that fateful day in December of 1955.  Ms. Parks had no way of knowing that she would live to tell her story, let along to become an icon of the Civil Rights Movement.  (more…)

I can be a very forgiving person.  In fact, I do not like it when people use the wrong that someone has done to them as a vicious weapon against the individual.  Yet, I do not forgive easily.  Have I just contradicted myself?  I hope not.

As an aside, I do not regarding letting go, as we now say, as forgiving a person.  We cannot always do something about the wrong that has been done to us.  But we need to get on with our lives nonetheless.

When it comes to holding a grudge, or not forgiving, some people are rather like vultures: they have a feast.  No matter what these individuals are doing or no matter where they are, they can find a way to remind the wrongdoer of her or his error.  They are utterly vicious in this regard.  The wrongdoer could have shown a depth of contrition beyond anything imaginable and could have done everything conceivable to make amends.  Still, these vulture-like individuals are fixated with the wrong that the individual did.  Indeed, what they do is often enough worse than the wrong that was done.  This sort of thing has no appeal to me.

If you have wronged me, I can assure you that I will not forget it.  However, the last thing I want to do is have the wrong that you did to me infiltrate my life.  To my mind, this is tantamount to giving the wrong a double victory.   But I will not forgive unless I see that I have reason to do so, which brings me to the idea of a mistake.

Nowadays, the thought seems to be that everyone is entitled to make, at least once, just about any and every mistake.  Alas, it is claimed that making mistakes comes with being human.  Well, yes and no.  There is no way to know everything and to get all the facts right about every situation.  Moreover, I think that we can surely be thrown into unexpected situations that require way more self-control than a person could be expected to have.

Suppose that a woman is married and decides to cheat on her husband, because he travels a lot and she is “feeling lonely,” She takes her wedding wrong off and goes to a bar for singles.  From where I stand, her behavior is unforgivable.  Why?  Because there is way too much intentionality here—way too much deliberateness.  There is no way for persons in full possession of their faculties to take off a wedding ring or to go to a bar for singles unintentionally.  She cannot help feeling lonely.  What I do not think, though, is that her feelings of loneliness excuses her behavior.

I have been just a bit too harsh.  The woman I have just described could earn what I call restorative forgiveness.  What I do not think, though, is that her current husband has any obligation whatsoever to wait around for her to earn it.  For he finds out only because I am his friend and I happen to be in the bar filling in for one of the cooks when this all transpires.  She and I have never met.  But her husband has several pictures of her on his desk.  So I know exactly what she looks like.  Not only do we have way too much intentionality and deliberateness, we also have the further intent to hid the wrong.  The very nature of infidelity that is this deliberate and intentional is that it transforms that which is integral to marriage, namely the sex act.

Now, what concerns me is that we appear to be living in a culture that seems prepared to claim that what she did is excusable because, after all, she was feeling lonely, given that her husband is always on the road.

Feelings are feelings, you know.  And she certainly did not ask to feel lonely.  Besides, had she not felt lonely, then she would not have been unfaithfu.  Indeed, her infidelity is her husband’s fault.

This conclusion gives new meaning to the idea of action at a distant.  And the conclusion would be ludicrous but for the fact that we seem to be in a society that embraces some version of precisely this view.

Anyone who is prepared to forgive a cheating spouse who advances this argument win’s the Darwin award for stupidity.

Now, let us imagine that things proceed somewhat differently.  The wife goes out and has an affair; and the shame and guilt that she experiences has no equal in terms of the pain that she has experienced in her life.  She leaves him a note informing him of what she has done, begging for forgiveness.  She makes it clear that it is perfectly understandable for him to want a divorce, and that she is prepared to sign the papers for it.  Further, she informs him that she has moved back home and that she is seeking spiritual help from the clergy person of their house of worship.  If this isn’t owning the wrong that one did, then I do not know what is.  The husband may or may not be willing to forgive her.  However, I trust that one can see that this approach changes things dramatically.  The difference between these two cases applies across the board to wrongful behavior in general.

It is my view that restorative forgiveness has to be earned.  And that one cannot begin that journey by denying or discounting the wrong that one has done.  I tend to be a very forgiving person when I can see that there has been a profound transformation in a person’s life, where the wrong committed serves as a bellwether against future wrongs of that type being committed.

This, too, is a judgment call; and one can be mistaken about that.  But the present trend of supposing that all wrongs coming with a ready made excuse, namely our humanity, makes a mockery out of the moral excellence of which we human beings are so very capable.

So back to me: I have had far fewer occasions to forgive than I would like to have had in my life.  If this claim makes sense, then this entry has been worthwhile.

There is the biblical saying that “Love hides a multitude of faults”.  Of course, of the author of this saying did not think for a moment that if we love someone, then we are indifferent to the person wallowing in her or his faults.  Indeed, that cannot possibly be love.  The point rather is that when we love someone we do not allow the person’s shortcomings to overshadow our assessment of the individual.  Some shortcomings can be so egregious that they overshadow a person’s love or perhaps call into question that the view that the person actually loves us.

I believe that gratitude is rather like love in this regard: we are indifferent to a person’s faults; and we certainly do not want the individual to wallow in them.  Still, these faults are not an impediment to our appreciation the good that the person has done for us.  As with love some faults can overshadow whatever good that a person might have done.  Thus, if a person were systematically abused sexually by his father, then we would naturally expect this wrong to overshadow the reality that the father was a superb provider.

So gratitude and love are alike in that if the only time either one were warranted is one the object of that gratitude or love is perfect, then no mortal would ever be deserving of either gratitude or love.  In particular, parents could never be deserving of the gratitude of their children.  For every loving set of parents I know of would confess to having made some not so trivial mistakes with respect to their children.  Yet, in every case the children, looking at the overall picture, are enormously grateful to their parents.  This is as it should be.  After all, imagine a child say, “My problem you, mom and dad, is this:  You were not perfect.  Indeed, you made a few major mistakes.  True you were there for me by and large.  And true you made enormous sacrifices for me, as a result of which I am able to enjoy the successes that I now enjoy.  Still, the reality is that you were not perfect”.  Short of making false accusations or in other ways harming them out right, this is about as mean as a child could towards her or his parents.

It is my considered view that the systematic talk of rights in modern societies has effectively snuffed out the importance of gratitude in society.

Every society can be criticized; and the United States is certainly no exception.  But there is something wrong when American citizens are so busy being critical of the United States, if not downright hostile, that there is no longer any room for gratitude in their lives towards the United States.  And at the risk being blasphemous, I hold that same regarding various Canadians with respect to the United States.

Imagine a Canadian receiving her or his doctorate thanks to monies from American graduate schools and enjoying a visit abroad thanks to an American serving as the person’s tour guide.  In fact, the American made it possible for the person to have an affordable hotel.  One might think that such a person would not feel the need to find a small version of the Canadian flag and pin it to the shoulder bag that she or he is using to walk around with, especially while sightseeing with the American who is serving as her or his guide.

For myself, I know that if I were benefiting directly from both the gifts of another country and the goodwill of a citizen from that country, I could manage to live with the possibility of being mistaken for a citizen of that country, especially if a member of that country was making it possible for me to enjoy that country.  Why?  Precisely because I would be so grateful to that country and the citizen in question.

All my friends in France expect me to say that I was born and raised in the United States.  None, however, expect me to be offended if someone should think that I was born and raised in France, instead.  And among my friends, not one of them thinks that either France or the United States is perfect.

In his autobiography, Frederic Douglass spoke about the base ingratitude of the slave owners.  Why?  Because ingratitude is more of a denial of humanity than the absence of whips and chains.  The absence of whips and chains can be owing to utter indifference.  Ingratitude, on the other hand, has at is source a commitment to denying the good that the other has done.

One of the important contributions of my forthcoming book The Family and the Political Self is, I believe, the observation that patriotism anchored in gratitude is no more about superiority than is family loyalty anchored in gratitude.  In the United States, there is so very much to criticize.  But, alas, there is so very much for which to be grateful.  I would expect the French to say that about their country (France’s faults notwithstanding) and the English to say that about their country (England’s faults notwithstanding).  It is meanness—not ignorance—that motivates so many citizens of the United States (and so many citizens of Canada who directly benefit from the U.S.) to think that the United States is the exception here.

I want you to judge me morally by what I say and do.  If you see me being kind and considerate or, by contrast, mean and exploitive, then I want you to judge me accordingly.  For that is how I shall judge you.  Again, if my words and deeds are racist or sexist or antisemitic, then I want you to judge me accordingly.  For surely that is how I shall judge you.  But I have gotten ahead of myself.

Somehow, it has come to be held that judging others is one of the most inappropriate things that a person can do—an absolute failure to show another the appropriate respect.  As far as I can tell this is just so much nonsense.  There is, to be sure, talk in the Bible about not judging others.  However, for anyone who reads these passages carefully, two things are clear.  One is that all sorts of judgments are made in the Bible, and rightly so.  The other is that one should not draw conclusions about another if one fails to have adequate information.  This, however, does not apply to anything whatsoever that a person might do.

There are lots and lots of times when people rush to draw conclusions.  And this, needless to say, is wrong.  Unless you know a lot more, if all that one sees is a single instance of me coming out of a woman’s home at 3 a.m. in the morning, what one most certainly does not know is that she and I are having an affair.  On the other hand, if one sees me doing this regularly or if one sees that she and I are in the throes of an extended romantic kiss, then the judgment that she and I are having an affair becomes vastly more plausible, from which it does not follow at all that one should gossip about it. (more…)

Well, there are infidels and there are  infidels. Two gay teenagers in Iran— Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni—count as infidels of the other kind.  Now, when I did a search in the archives of the

New York Times, I easily found a 2300-word story about Zach, the gay teen who was sent to a religious-based camp in order to be morally rehabilitated.  But undoubtedly it is a sign of my incompetence that I could not find in the New York Times anything about the hanging of the two gay teenagers in Iran.

Surely, the New York Times did not miss the story, which caught the attention of folks throughout the world.  So what happened?  My answer is very cynical.  The killing of those two teenagers in the name of Islam is an indication of just how horrendous the belief system is of some of those who invoke the name of Islam.  Two teenagers?  Could there be a clearer sign that these adherents of Islam simply do not respect life?  I am afraid not.  And this is an enormous embarrassment for liberals, for whom the New York Times is surely their most visible voice.  To have run a story about the hanging of these two teenagers would have, in effect, been an admission that George Bush has more of a point than has been allowed.

Liberals want to say “It is all good”.  Hence, there can be no justification for criticizing the ways of others.  And Islam is first among things not to be criticized nowadays.  And there is the rub.  Behead an American journalist or soldier in Iraq: well, its war; and, after all, we invaded them.  So liberals can excuse these instances of barbarism.  And the appeal to Islam in these instances is said to be just rhetoric.

But hanging two teenagers for committing acts of homosexuality when they were around the age of 16 or 17 constitutes a flagrant and inexcusable act of barbarism committed against two Muslim Arabs.  This makes it manifestly clear that talking about doing horrific things in the name of Islam is more than just rhetoric against those infidels in the West, the United States in particular.

You see: All this violence, including the terrorism, has been attributed to the wrongs of America and its allies.  But that explanation cannot possibly be operative in this instance.

We know that when people want to they can, with rare exception, always find away around applying a rule.  For instance, at least one teenager claimed not to have known that the penalty for homosexuality is death.  Perhaps he did; perhaps he did not.  But surely the statement allowed for enough doubt, by way of rationalization, to spare the lives of these two youths.  For the choice Iran, surely, is not between being tolerant of homosexuality or killing teenagers for committing homosexual acts.

It is not just that two teenagers were killed, but two families each lost a son.

All of this constitutes a tremendous embarrassment for liberals.  For what does it mean to respect a religion whose adherents can be so utterly vicious?

Now, of course, Islam is not the only religious tradition that condemns homosexuality.  Catholicism does, numerous other Christian sects do, and Orthodox Judaism certainly does.  However, all of these traditions have found ways not to be utterly vicious at a practical level in their treatment of homosexuals.  It is also true that not all Arabic Muslims in the world would want their children killed in the name of Islam, given that the children had performed acts of homosexuality.  But if Islam is being hijacked by the foolish and the intemperate, this I suggest is because far too many Muslim Arabs around the world are remaining silent.

Perhaps I am mistaken.  But it seems to me that Arabs around the world lifted their voices loudly and clearly to protest.  So we know, first hand, that silent opposition is not the only option.

But the New York Times is perhaps more like those vicious adherents of Islam than most are inclined to suppose.  For the New York Times found it much more politically expedient to remain silent than to publish a significant story about the matter.  The paper could not have drawn attention to the horrible fate of these two teenagers without acknowledging the evil of some who call upon the name of Allah.  Of course, a story that showed the narrow-minded attitude of Christian fundamentalists in America regarding gays was just fine.

I think I have got it.  If I understand the New York Times correctly, then Islamic fundamentalist are, well, just practicing a level of religious commitment that differs mightily from our forms of religious commitment.  By contrast, the New York Times regards Christian fundamentalists in America as the epitome of what it is to be an ass-hole.