“Laws are not equivalent to ethics. They do not effectively answer questions of whether we should or shouldn’t do things. Laws address whether we can do things…” (Shadow World, Kevin Guilfoile, p. 179)
This quote brings up for me images of the battles fought between the different sides of the Culture Wars – of the argument that we can’t “legislate morality.” Of course, all law is an attempt to “legislate morality,” or at least the end result is that our laws point to a system of ethics. Of course we legislate morality, but does the legislation change the heart of man to the point that the law is made moot? No. What are the ethical arguments for the laws?
Where should the first focus be – legislation or persuasion that results in a change of heart? I believe the latter is a better first focus. Those who cannot effectively make their case in the court of public concern/opinion and who cannot persuade the majority of the correctness of their ethic to the point of personal change-of-heart and behavior often turn to the attempt to force their moral/ethical point-of-view through legislation. They may win the battle, but in they end I think the lose the war.
The problem I think the above quote gets at is that to pass a law doesn’t not mean that we have dealt with the ethical questions of “should or shouldn’t.” To pass a law doesn’t declare us moral or ethical if we haven’t identified and worked through the “why” of it all.

You know, I think she simply can’t help herself. It’s like an addiction to a drug. There needs to be an intervention before she completely destroys her reputation. Her insistence that she will remain in the race even when it seems most people “in the know” have concluded that she will not win the nomination points to the fact that this really is not about what is best for the country or what is best for the Democratic Party, but about her inability to accept that she will not be the first woman to have a real chance at the White House. I feel for her (and that is saying a lot). She can’t let go, but if she doesn’t even her role as a Senator will be irreparably compromised.

I am going home to northern Ohio, tomorrow. I have a new nephew. I also have a meeting on Monday with my bishop on the way back to New York. I haven’t had a substantive talk with him in, what?, 4 years. Even then, he inherited me so when I use the word “substantive” it is by degree. I look forward to talking to him.
In the mean time, I’ve been looking at data from the Diocese just for the heck of it. One element of this endeavor is to check the websites of the parishes within the diocese (if they have a website). How can a church not have a website in this-day-in-age? I just don’t get it. It’s like not having a telephone. But, some don’t and I can only hope that their websites are in process!? Frankly, most of them are badly designed and executed, too (doesn’t have to be elaborate, but…). Ugh. What image is presented to the generations that find a church because of websites! What impression does this give of the parish? Anyway… another soapbox.
There are two economies and mentalities in the northern half of Ohio – the dying, heavy-industry, rust-belt economy/mentality and the prospering, high-tech, research economy/mentality. One is growing, one is continuing to decline. How one perceives the “reality” of Northern Ohio depends on within which sub-set one imbibes. The psycho-social and socio-economic “feel” that generally leads people in what they think and how they act can be very different. The way this leads organizations, like the Church, to perceive and conduct themselves is important to consider.
I don’t quite know how to say this, but I don’t really get the sense that there is much understanding (is that the right word? – perhaps “cognizance” perhaps “knowing”) of the distinctions of these two sub-sets of people or the socio-economic mentalities that are associated with the “worlds” of these two groups in Ohio. I don’t get a vibe for forward-looking, prosperous thinking in many communities or the diocese (and I don’t mean the change-change-change and reject the past at all costs way of thinking) This may be very unfair of me and may only prove my own naiveté or ignorance!
Two examples: First, a very large portion of the heavy industry in the northern half of Ohio is gone. A lot of other cooperate entities have gone south. This has been a terrible blow to the economy, the livelihoods of citizens, and their sense of self. The mentality of people has certainly changed. Probably about ten years ago or so, the university system was attempting to put forth a plan to leverage the research and high-tech segments of the economy and to increase access to higher-education (understanding that retraining and an educated workforce are essential to the “new economy”). A state legislator was absolutely opposed to putting any more money into higher-education because what the state needed to do was get jobs for the unemployed. He was convinced that the industries would come streaming back into Ohio because Ohio has an abundance of water, while the Southern or Western states don’t – that’s what the money should go towards. (There is some truth to this, of course, but if industries are going to move anywhere else at this point, the place will be oversees, not back to Ohio.) The mind-set of this individual did not see the growing, prosperous future that was already present in the economy or the importance of nurturing it. There are plenty of people with the same “declining” mind-set, and there are organizations that can be shown to have a very similar “collective mind-set.”
The second example can be found in Akron, OH. Akron up to about 12 yeas ago was the center of the tire and rubber industry. Most all the major rubber companies and their research centers were based in Akron, despite that most of the manufacturing had gone south. Within a span of around 5 years, all the major tire-rubber corporations save one left Akron (most were bought by foreign companies). All the white-collar and blue-collar jobs were gone. The corporate sponsors of the arts and social organizations were gone. A major part of the tax base, gone. This was a city in decline, obviously. When I left Akron almost six years ago, there were 2,000 high-tech start-up companies within the city-limits alone and all revolving around polymer (rubber) research. The young, motivated, educated individuals were streaming into the city to take up the new jobs. This city was prosperous and forward-looking, obviously. What do we see?
I think that too many people still see Northern Ohio from the perspective of decline, loss of jobs and industry, loss of the glory of what we once were (a mighty industrial center of the world with good paying blue-collar jobs, security, purpose). I think too much of government and too many organizations play to it. Too many people don’t perceive the reality of the other side.
As the Church, are we able to recognize and understand both “realities,” and then rightly discern how to minister properly to both? From which well will we imbibe? If we aren’t careful, we can find ourselves so narrowly focused that we lose true perspective.
Two mentalities and two realities. How easy is it not to see or understand the reality of the other side – to not want to?
This really isn’t about economics or social policy, but about perception and how that perception influences the way we conduct ourselves. It is about understanding of the “mind-set” of groups of people and being able to translate what we are and what we do so that those with that “mind-set” will be able to understand. I wonder if this might explain why the Church has such a difficult time attracting the generally younger people who are “prosperously” minded – the present Church and the way it “thinks” and “feels” just doesn’t resonate with them.
A telling picture of this can be seen in the websites of parishes, I think. The churches that do attract a lot of more “prosperously” minded (and younger) people are “well done” and “look the part.” Too many websites of parishes look as if they were created 10 years ago – a lifetime for website design and utilization (the iPhone to the Western Electric rotary-dial phone). Look at The Landing Place in Columbus, OH; hOME Oxford, England; Ecclesia Church in Houston; Xalt Church, Calgary, CA; Revolution Church , NYC; Jacob’s Well Church, Kansas City; Church of the Apostles, Seattle; St. Clement’s, Philadelphia. There are so many other good websites, but we all know the old-style, poorly done website. My own parishe’s website is not yet there, but we’re working on it.
The primary medium of information and searching these days is the Web. What impression does this primary source give of the place, of the parish? I have to honestly say that if I moved to another city and started looking for a parish to attend, my first impression of most of the websites for the parishes in the Diocese, well, I don’t think I would show up on a Sunday. They simply give the impression that the place isn’t going anywhere or doing anything that I might be interested it. It is judging a book-by-the-cover, I know. Frankly, if a place is hoppin’ it doesn’t matter what the website or building or anything looks like. People go because they perceive something worthwhile is going on, but the first impression is very important. This may not be fair or right, but it is the reality. It is becoming an increasing reality with more and more people.
What can be done? I don’t know. Something as simple as understanding the importance of perception and websites and the psyche of younger people or “prospering” people (which is different than the “wealthy”) might be a good place to start.

Steven Cobert coined the term “truthiness” when his TV show, The Cobert Report, launched on Comedy Central. “Steven Cobert believed America to be split between two camps whose philosophies could never reconcile – those who ‘think with their head‘ and those who ‘know with their heart,’ he explained, was the quality of a thing feeling true without any evidence suggesting it actually was.” (Click on truthiness above for the wiki that gives some good examples.)

“Thus by the time Cobert took to the airwaves, by the time James Frey landed in trouble, the rift between the actual and the artificial had already become a topic of wide discussion. For many on the left, it was Bush himself who stood as the clear cause of it. A born-again Christian who credits unquestioning faith with saving him from delinquency, Bush is notoriously, even proudly uncurious about the world. Online, many bloggers highlighted this detachment by branding themselves of ‘the reality-based community.’ This was a reference to an infamous and revealing interview that an unnamed Bush aide had once given to the journalist Ron Suskind. According to the aide, opponents of Bush were part of ‘what we call the reality-based community’ – a label not meant to be complimentary, because to the aide, ‘discernible reality’ was a stock of faltering value. The United States was ‘an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality,’ the official told Suskind. ‘And while you’re studying the reality – judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out.’” [True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society, by Farhad Manjoo, pp.191-192]

I remember a while back reading several articles on Neo-Conservatism and about those within our current administration who were neo-conservatives. One aspect of neo-conservatism mentioned in the articles was the notion of the “American Empire” – we are to be (or already are) an empire and should act as one in the world. Our current foreign policy demonstrates the ascendancy of this ideology. We can also see this ideology within the American-Christian Religious Right and their frenzied attitude concerning America – the idea that the United States is a divinely created and prospered country.
I wrote in a blog post a while back (among several) that I do not want Empire! There is no need for this country to be an empire! Why should we be? What do we gain from being such a thing? Certainly not security.
I contend that there are those who have made the United States of America an idol. American has become their god and they worship at the foot of this nation-state. Their sense of self-worth and purpose is embedded in the “success” of this nation-state and comes from imposing their way of thinking – religiously, politically, culturally – on all others. Their hubris blinds them to “reality” and establishes a fantastical idea of the world and their place in it – “feeling” over “discernible reality .” They would rather have goose-bumps than truth.
I am certainly thankful for the freedoms we have in the U.S., for the opportunities available to those who work hard (at least in the past), for our Constitutional form of government, and for the good that we as a people have done in the past (recognizing the harm that we have also caused), but as a Christian I believe that this is only a nation-state that will wax and wane, be virtuous and corrupt, and will ultimately survive as a worthwhile society only when we put aside our self-interest and work against arrogant-pride and the vainglory of empire.