| Page 164

Should Christians Boycott Glen Beck?

Posted on March 13, 2010 by Mike Bock

It turns out that some conservatives not only think that government shouldn’t seek to advance social or economic justice, they think that religion should not work for social justice either. Conservative spokesperson Glen Beck is urging Christians to refuse to attend any church preaching social justice.

“I beg you, look for the words ‘social justice’ or ‘economic justice’ on your church web site,” Beck urged his audience. “If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes!”

The idea that a Fox commentator would push people to leave their churches as a principled conservative stand, predictably, is a little controversial. Maybe that is the point for Mr. Beck — to get attention — but now it looks like his quest for attention may have backfired. There seems to be a movement forming to boycott Mr. Beck.

I’m reading that Jim Wallis, president of Sojourners, a network of progressive Christians, is urging Christians to stop watching Mr. Beck’s TV program — unless Beck apologizes.

Wallis writes, “You asked people to leave their churches, a serious thing, so until we have a public dialogue about this, or until you apologize, I will keep asking people to stop watching your show.”

Wallis addresses Mr. Beck: “You first urged Christians to leave churches that preached social justice. Today, you went further, saying that social justice “is a perversion of the gospel.” Well, that says it all. Perhaps you don’t realize that most Christians believe social, economic, and racial justice are at the heart of the gospel, not a perversion of it..”

In this clip of Mr. Beck’s radio show, in which Beck responds to a Catholic listener who complains that his daughter is being taught about “social justice,” Beck says “social justice” as taught today is a perversion of the gospel taught by Jesus.

How Christians should behave is a great question. The scripture teaches we should overcome evil with good. Should Christians boycott Glen Beck until he apologizes? Or maybe put him on the rack until he relents?

Christians must have faith in the notion that truth itself is a great force. Mr. Beck is a self-anointed jester. Sometimes only a jester can provoke needed and important discussions. Maybe Mr. Beck’s comments about Christianity will provoke some Christians, who prior to this agreed with his every word, to question their unqualified allegience to his point of view, and maybe his comments will cause in-depth independent thinking.

Christians should thank Mr. Beck for helping to raise an important issue, an important question about the purpose and aim of churches and the message of Christian teaching.

Posted in M Bock, Opinion | 26 Comments

Robert Reich Urges New $$ For Schools — Says Human Capital Is More Important Than Financial Capital

Posted on March 10, 2010 by Mike Bock

Robert Reich in his article, “Bail Out Our Schools,” makes the case for making a big infusion of tax money into our system of public education. He compares financial capital to human capital.

Reich says that the reasons that justified the $700 billion bail out to “save the engines of America’s financial capital” are the same reasons that should justify a big infusion of money into public schools — “the engines of our human capital.” Reich stresses that human capital is more important than financial capital and warns, “If we don’t bail out public education we face a bigger economic Armageddon years from now.”

Reich’s argument poses a couple of questions:

What is the human capital we must develop in today’s students that is so essential that, if we fail in its development, we face economic disaster of Biblical proportions?
To what degree is the development of this human capital a priority in our current system of public education?

The point is, any thoughtful answer to question #1, most probably, will be shown in the answer to question #2 to have a low priority in the current authoritarian, test driven system of public education.

Pouring more money into the system, as Reich urges, at best, will help the system to show success according to criteria that we currently use. The problem is, our current criteria of educational quality has little correlation to the criteria of the human capital needed for our future. The human capital needed for our future far transcends what can be measured in GPAs or SATs.

Reich is making a false promise that beefing up the current system with more money is the answer to avoiding future economic calamity. He is implying that in our system of public education, we have a wonderful machine for producing the human capital needed for our future, and we just need to keep pumping in more fuel. But this notion ignores the fact that, even when working to its maximum capacity, this machine is simply not good enough. Reich’s well meaning comments in his post, to me, simply underlines the fact that we need to transform our current system of public education.

Posted in Special Reports | 4 Comments

What Divides “Liberals” And “Conservatives” Is The Central Question Of System Purpose

Posted on March 8, 2010 by Mike Bock

The framework I’m hanging my hat on, so to speak, is “systems’ thinking.” A systems’ thinking problem solving framework is neither Conservative, nor Liberal. It is scientific. What divides individuals who consider themselves “Conservatives” from those who consider themselves “Liberals,” more than anything, is how they answer the central question of how system purpose should be defined.

The United States itself can be seen as a system, and the general question, both Liberals and Conservatives need to answer, is, How can this system, known as America, be made to work? But, made to work at what? The first question to guide any system analysis is: What is the aim and purpose of the system? I gave my answer to the question, about aim, over a year ago, when I wrote: “How Can The System Known As The United States Be Made To Work To Provide “Liberty and Justice For All”?

My assertion that system aim should be “liberty and justice for all,” I imagine, might label me as “Liberal.” Someone who considers him or herself “Conservative” might define the aim of the system in other terms — maybe, instead of fulfilling the vision of “liberty and justice for all,” for example, rather, fulfilling the vision, as they understand that vision to be, of the founding fathers for individual liberty — as expressed in property rights or shown in freedom from governmental interference, etc.

Liberals and Conservatives simply have different views of what the purpose of the system should be.

A discussion, for example, on abolishing the progressive income tax system, conducted by Liberals, would center on whether or how or to what degree, such a change would add or subtract from the overall liberty and justice of individuals in the system. A discussion on whether tax rates on the rich should be increased would be based on the same criteria.

A Conservative might object and heap scorn on the notion that the founding fathers would have approved of “the power of the majority to steal from the minority.” But, the question as to whether the founding fathers would have approved of a progressive income tax is a useless distraction. It’s useless to argue about things that can’t be changed. And the 16th amendment is not going anywhere. So-called Conservative views often seem an expression of a wishful thought that the last 200 years of American history somehow never happened, and that the aim of the system should be the same as that of the founding fathers.

This is 2010, not 1810, and 18 yr. olds, and the unpropertied and women and blacks can vote, and, I believe, the proper way to frame the question that should determine our political discussion is: Can our system be made to work for the common person, be made to work for the common good? Can we make the system work to produce a government for the people?

The idea of a government by the people, for the people, is opposed to the reality of a government by special interests, for special interests. A government chosen via an authentic and robust democracy would be quite different from the government we have, one chosen via antidemocratic and corrupt processes.

There needs to be consensus about the purpose of the system, if there is ever to be any coherent dialogue as to how the system can be made to work. If the purpose of the system is not “liberty and justice for all,” then what should it be?